It's not a derailment because it's all about questioning what a person considers the "essence" of marriage and if they actually believe in that essence (by investigating if they are being consistent).

If polygamy and incest seem to fit into a given person's criteria for marriage, then it's very much on-topic to ask if they accept the legitimacy of those things. If they do, good, drop them or discuss their legitimacy in a new thread. If they don't, then this has a direct relevance to their particular defense of homosexual marriage and they need to explain the apparent inconsistency.

This is not true and shows just how effective the slippery-slope strategy can be. There is no logical argument as to why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry. To accept most of the arguments one would have to believe that homosexuality is immoral/evil. The “definition” and “tradition” arguments are the best attempts at logical counter arguments that the anti-same-sex marriage groups can muster. The pro groups take the bait and attempt to dispel these arguments, with some success I may add. Yet these arguments are actually rather irrelevant to the issue. Traditions and definitions while important can and will be changed or dispelled, they are not a good enough reason to deny some one a constitutional right.

The main argument for gay marriage is that gays should have equal rights. They are alienated from a social aspect of society that has been proven to be constitutionally applicable to them. Yet the government, despite seeing nothing wrong with civil union, withholds the right of certain churches to practice same-sex marriage.

A hypothetical example,

- The government states that divorce is constitutionally acceptable.
- The Catholic Church states that divorce is impossible.
- The Protestant and other Churches accept divorce.
- The government sides with the Catholic Church and states that no church may accept divorce and thus re-marry a person.
- Once a person a married, they may get a civil separation and are eligible for a civil union but may never marry in any church.

The above, in my eyes, is the equivalent of the government’s currents stance on same-sex marriage.

So once again, if same-sex marriage doesn’t harm society and if the refusal to allow same-sex marriage harms and alienates a social group, why should churches not be allowed to perform the ceremony of legal marriage?

Once again this is a slippery-slope argument. It is possible, to be pro same-sex marriage yet against polygamy and incest. If you validate one, it would not validate the others, they share a common theme but they also have very different circumstances.

It’s like comparing borrowing, swindling and stealing, all involve money coming out of some one’s pocket but that doesn’t mean all actions are on the same level. While each action may seem black and white they are actually rather complex issues that have overlapping nuances.

And it's completely reasonable, not a sidetrack in the least, to ask what those nuances are and why they are relevant. Especially when one's argument for gay marriage would appear to validate polygamy and incest as well.

I get the idea that some people would just rather not listen.

I know how you feel.

once again, couldn't agree more. my point is that the arguments in this thread, by virtue of of the logic employed, do not select criteria from hetero marriage that distinguish homosexuality from incest and polygamy. of course the 4 circumstances aren't identical... but you cannot discern that from the criteria being discussed.

If millions and millions of people wanted to marry their pet dogs - why should they be prohibitted from doing so?

The Gay Marriage = Beastiality/Incest equation is ridiculous. The very reason gay marriage should not be illegal is that millions of people want it and it negatively impacts no one.

If the perception of immorality shared by millions of people is enough to limit the rights of millions of other people, why don't we illegalize pornography?

Is Homosexuality Moral? Seems a loaded question, and the answer is relevant only to the one who gives it. Any moral judgement is based on individual perception, and is therefor unlikely to be popular to all.
Perhaps rephrasing the question to:

Is homosexuality socially accepted in the United States?
or
Do you find homosexuality morally exceptable?

No matter what you will get no difinative answer, and will gain little from the answers short of a poll to the openmindedness of our member base.

That said, I see no issue with sexual preference, exexpt maybe interspecies. Then again, I find Christianity as a whole to be immoral.

In following your logic, would it be appropriate for me to ask you whether you support the notion of inter-racial marriage? Do you think it is okay that black people be treated as humans? Essentially, your rush to adhere to tradition means that to be consistent you would hypothetically support the continuation of slavery and a constitutional amendment banning inter-racial marriage because ending slavery and ending the prohibition on inter-racial marriage we broke with tradition. Am i right? Nope. Why not?

I've heard a lot of people decry platypus's claim that the same criteria used to support homosexual marriage could be used to support incestuous marriages, polygamy, or bestial marriages, but I've heard few marriages. The introduction of interracial marriage is merely a red herring -- irateplatypus is making a valid point. Of course, I disagree with him.

Bestiality is the easy one. We condemn bestiality because it is not a consensual relationship. But homosexual relationships are consensual.

Polygamy is only slightly more difficulty. Part of the main reason the state does and should support marriage as a civil, and not 'merely' a religious, institution, is to promote a stable family life. Stable families help keep society stable. But I doubt that polygamy would tend to produce stable families. I doubt that it ever does; I certainly doubt that it would in our society, with that persistent myth of the ideal mate. And the same argument goes for incestuous relationships. Father/daughter or mother/son (or father/son or mother/daughter) sexual relationships would be inherently exploitative. Brother/sister (or brother/brother or sister/sister) relationships would probably also often be exploititative, though not to the same extent. But even if they're not, it seems that this is a breach of the stable family, that the existence of these relationships would tend, at the very least, to render familial relationships more unstable, and the government hardly has an obligation to support relationships that make society unstable.

But homosexual marriages do not seem to be inherently unstable in the same way; rather, they would seem to fulfill the same stabilizing role as heterosexual marriages.

FootThemAll,

- Polygamy has the issue of weak relationship bonds as well as legal complications shrouding inheritance, divorce and custody.

- Incest has the problem of causing genetic disorders in offspring and thus future generation’s health.

Same-sex marriage does not share these complications. The argument that “sex does not matter” does not apply to polygamy or incest because it does not touch the primary arguments against these practices. For example, incest already qualifies for the current definition of marriage (union between a man and a woman), the reason it is considered illegal has nothing to do with this definition and will not be effected if the definition is changed to include same-sex marriage. The argument that “if same-sex marriage is allowed then polygamy and incest must be allowed” is not valid.

Polygamy, incest, underage marriage, mentally handicapped couples, and bestiality should not be questioned based on people opinions (definitions, viewpoints, traditions); they should be questioned because all of them pose actual problems to society, health, child welfare and/or law.

The big question seems to be: if we change the legal definition of marriage, how far will we go? - As far as reasonably possible. This is certainly not the first time or the last time that the legal definition of marriage will change. As long as the change hold benefits for individuals and doest harm society or state then we should move ahead and make the change.


~ That took me forever to write (and re-write) hope it clears up that issue.

It does clear it up. Thanks.

Just want to drop in 2 quick points - I don't believe I am repeating anything already discussed.

First, in regards to family pets, siblings, and old school mormons, because that argument seems to really be the major talking point on tv, radio, etc - please understand that it could be considered quite offensive without bringing much in the way of debate to the table. The issue of marriage is about two people wanting to solidify there love in front of God (sometimes) and man. If someone with a more traditional background told you that they were getting married to a great lady, would you immediately say to him "Hey! I didn't know you were into chicks - I bet you like little girls too, Huh?" Trying to lump a committed, monogomous relationship into something deviant is embarassing.

Second - I haven't seen anyone address the moral obligation (this was about morality) of each of us to protect individual rights given to us per the Constitution. "All men are created equal" and all that. At least as people who have the incredible fortune of personal rights and liberty, don't we owe it to stay on the lookout for someone being discriminated against - if not for them than for ourselves? Today they go after the easy targets, but I promise that in some way shape or form we are all part of a vunerable minority - what is yours?

Thanks for the space - I really enjoy reading your well thought out ideas.

As I mentioned in a previous post, this is clearly not a valid argument.
Incest does not cause genetic disorders. Members of the same family are likely to share the same predisposition to particular medical conditions.

So for example, Alice and Bob are siblings and both carriers of cystic fibrosis (CF), passed on from a parent. There is a 25% chance of any offspring of this union developing CF and a 50% chance that it would carry the gene but show no symptoms, like Alice and Bob.
If Alice had instead decided that incest was not her thing, and met Chris who is not a CF carrier, their children would have a 0% chance of developing CF and a 50% chance of being a carrier.

It would appear that incest is more likely to result in offspring with genetic disorders. However, if Alice meets Dave who is another CF carrier, the chances are exactly the same as with her brother.
Does that mean that it should be illegal for Alice to have relations with anyone who tests positive for the CF gene?

There is also the issue of contraception, which seems to make this argument against incest a little pointless.

Inbred children show an astronomically higher rate of genetic disorders than other children. This includes not only medical disorders, but mental disorders. It was easy to observe throughout history and almost every culture has a stigma around incest. We all know about Oedipus and Electra because their fates are the worst of the tragic fates due to the incestual nature of their relationships.

To say that incest isn't a cause is missing the point that there is a high <b>association</b> between incest and a propensity genetic disorders. Nearly every person has recessive genes that could result in genetic disorders if paired with another who has those same recessive genes, it isn't as though there is just one or two problems that could be caused by incest - there are literally thousands of bad possibilities which greatly increases the probability that incest will result in <i>some</i> disorder.

Personally, I think this is a completely unrelated point to gay marriage, however. Gay parents don't have children without help from others. There is no risk with gay marriage, compared to high risk with incest.

I'm pretty sure that 'astronomical' is a slight exaggeration. If you have any kind of reference material I'd be interested to see it.

Maybe we could stick to real people. Having said that, when I heard how Pinocchio turned into an ass I changed my deviant ways for good.

This argument still ignores two things.
1) Breeding within families preserves desirable traits as well as undesirable ones. Thoroughbred race horses for example.

2) It seems you forgot to comment on the contraception part. You know the bit where the incestuous couple don't have children at all, making this argument null and void.

There's a relatively new and interesting film about this called Code 46, which partially deals with the near-future where cloning is relatively common and the associated affects of breeding with someone who shares similar degrees of genetic 'defects'.

Ok:

"[T]hree much smaller studies showed serious birth defects in up
to one-fourth of all children that were a product of bloodline incest, an
incidence that is about fifteen times the expected normal frequency."
Mary Meehan. "Facing the Hard Cases." Human Life Review , Summer
1983, pages 19 to 36.

There aren't many large studies out there to prove this, because the documentation of incestually-derived children is very low. People typically aren't proud of their incestuous relationships, and aren't willing to have tests and studies done to see how many defects they've created. Regardless, many antropologists, historians, and other social scientists have noted that the taboo against incest is the only universally recognized taboo across all cultures.

Issue #1:

The only examples in history that I know of intentionally creating incestuous family lines were bismal failures. Many royal families in Europe, in order to maintain power, continually married within family lines to keep power concentrated within the family. It did not turn out well, and you can do some research if you'd like to see the hideous messes that were left behind. I have yet to see inbreding used effectly and intentionally with humans. Do you have a single example? Also, many inbred dogs have common defects such as blindness, back problems, etc.

Issue #2:

Ok, lets get all incestuous couples to sign an affidavit before getting married that claims that under no circumstances will they have unprotected sex, and in any case that the protected sex yields an accidental pregnancy the state will sponser manditory abortions. Furthermore, the state should simply put manditory sterilization requirements upon incestuous couples and then we have 100% certainty that nothing bad will ensue. I'm sure that human rights advocates will have no problem with that.

Adysav demonstrates how effective the Slippery Slope argument can be at derailing a debate.

The argument against incest has nothing to do with the argument against same-sex marriage. Still, the new debate is all in good fun.

Arguments were made in defence of homosexuality. These arguments are also valid as a defence of incest, which is also apparently not a 'natural' state of companionship in the eyes of the law. If the argument turns out to be invalid for incest then it should also be invalid for homosexuality.
It determines whether the people who are pro homosexual relationships are actually in favour of greater rights to all consenting couples.

For the benefit of those who couldn't be bothered looking, the above quote in context reads as follows:

Swedish psychiatrist Dr. Carl Olstrom has heavy experience in the
study of fetal deformities resulting from incest, and says that "There is
no evidence to support the assumption that children resulting from
incestuous relationships [with a father or mother] run a greater risk of
being malformed than other children."
Carl Henry Olstrom, M.D. Medical World News , February 4, 1967.

However, three much smaller studies showed serious birth defects in up
to one-fourth of all children that were a product of bloodline incest, an
incidence that is about fifteen times the expected normal frequency.
Mary Meehan. "Facing the Hard Cases." Human Life Review , Summer
1983, pages 19 to 36.

From the standpoint of pure eugenics, we must ask ourselves two questions; (1)
"Are handicapped people as valuable as those who are not handicapped?," and, if the
answer to the first question is "No," we must ask ourselves the second question:
"Are we willing to kill a minimum of three perfectly healthy children for every one that
may have a handicap?"

The fact is, nature doesn't actually know the difference between good and bad traits. Suggesting that nature 'selects' just bad traits to pass on is ridiculous.
Maybe you should become a counsellor at your local hospital. Every time a couple arrives with a chance of their child carrying a birth defect you can tell them that the only option is to have it terminated.

Like I said, there hasn't been many in depth studies... if you would bother responding to what I posted. There was a testimonial, and then a citation about 3 studies. That article indicated that there hasn't been enough research on a large scale, and I said why there wouldn't be.

Nature may be indifferent to Down Syndrome, CF, and the thousands of other possibilities of what we call genetic deformities - but I'm not, and most others aren't. If society can agree that these are bad traits, then what is wrong with calling them bad traits?

You obviously missed the point that your second issue is absurd because the way of handling it via birth control is a Constitutional nightmare. My response showed how it was a nightmare, can you suggest a way around my scenario to address your second issue?

Adysav,

I don’t believe that the argument of homosexual immorality is valid in this debate.

The claim is made, that homosexuality is immoral and thus if we accept homosexuality then that would allow other immoral practices to be accepted as well and this perpetuate until America is the new incarnation of Sodom and Gomorrah.

This argument is very powerful and often used in homophobic circles. Yet one would notice that it is never used at face value in debates against same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general. This is because the argument holds no logical value what so ever. It is an argument that is derived from the Old Testament, which is a questionable source for anything.

The government cannot base its laws on religious morals. This is because churches are often not the bastions of morality they claim to be. The Catholic Church condoned many un-constitutional law in the past, including slavery and the ban on interracial marriage. Further more when it comes to dispensing morality the Catholic Church is not the sole provider. There are many religions out there many of which have morals that are based on nothing greater then “because it’s written in our scriptures”. Therefore the government cannot use religious scriptures, personal opinions or traditions to determine the legality of homosexuality and same-sex marriage or any other issue, it must use logic.

Thus the above statement is false. The logical arguments questioning the validity of laws against incest and homosexuality are completely different (this must be apparent by now). Making one legal would not make the other legal because that is not how laws are not made nor unmade.

It should please you that that same holds true for morals and traditions. The past and enduring conflicts concerning race, homosexuality, abortion, contraception, and divorce should show you that people hold on tightly to the past and many of them do not let it go even if laws are changed. The scaffolding of morality and tradition is very strong and this (as everything else) has an upside and a downside. Our strong inclination towards morals and traditions insures that we live in a cohesive society. As society changes and evolves (becomes multi-cultural/religious and educated) morals and traditions can become harmful to individuals. This is where our strong grasp on morality and tradition causes unnecessary and prolonged grief when simple logic would have resolved the problem right away.

I'm pointing out that your suggestion of making it illegal for incestuous couples to have children is ridiculous. An incestuous couple are not forced into conception by marrying. No one would suggest that any normal couple who have obviously high chances of bearing 'defective' children should be outlawed from having any, so why do it to anyone?

Let me see if i can underail this discussion:
"Marriage should be for loving consenting adults who aren't related and aren't animals." The whole "not being related" thing is now explicit rather than implicit. Let there be no more discussion of incest, because now you know that that isn't what is being advocated. If you want to argue the merits of incest you should start a new thread.

I believe it is ok for people to be homosexual. Nothing wrong with it, doesn't hurt anyone!!

Wow by the time I got through the variation in views I forgot what the original question was!

Ok..where to begin?

1. Where do I stand on gay marriage?
-Ok I just typed out this big long response to the question and then realized that my answer is pretty simple...so erased it and here is the short version.

If two people are in love and want to give marriage a try who cares let them do it....it happens everyday. Who cares what combination it is... opposite sexes or of the same sex. It is true that the original foundation of marriage was based upon the idea to reproduce or establish power and protect bloodlines. But those rules don't apply in this day and age.... there for sure isn't any shortage of people in our country so I don't think allowing gay marriages is going to create a deficit in American numbers. If anything we are running out of room...and should focus a little on a little population control (but that is a totally seperate topic).

Just to expand a little...
Being gay is not a lack of maturity or an illness or as simple as saying it's a sin...to some it is something they have chosen to experiment with, to some it is what they have always been. Being gay does not make you weak, if anything you have to be a pretty strong person to make a stand and be openly gay.
How you get your groove on...who you choose to love...and maybe want to marry...hey thats your own business...and I wish you the best of luck and there shouldn't be any bias laws that say any different.
Not that it matters but just for the record and any narrow-minded people.....I am not gay....but if I was I would be the Monty Python of homesexuals. "Later All"

Are you a retard?
I don't remember you being elected to decide what should and shouldn't constitute a valid state of marriage.
Since you brought up that point however, you might like to note that you just ended this discussion. The actual definition of marriage, as it was for thousands of years is "a union of a man and a woman". So we should just accept that then.
But wait, that was a the whole point of this thread, a discussion on whether we should accept the status quo of society's objection to homosexuality as immoral. Should homosexual couples be given the same status as everyone else and be allowed to marry.
The reason for bringing incest to the table was to see if the arguments put forward for legalising gay marriage actually hold water under all circumstances.

Kind of like saying
"Blacks can get married, but latinos can't because they're not white"

Discounting incestuous marriage based on personal prejudice is not the best approach to take when we're discussing homosexual marriage.

Years and years ago, the Greeks and Romans (who had similarly civilised lives to our own) had no qualms engaging in open homosexual relations, in addition to taking wives for the purposes of reproduction (and love of course - i.e. Helen of Troy etc, they weren't all gay, it was just accepted if you were)

I still wonder what the purpose is of marriage - not from an objective point of view, but a subjective one. I mean no-one gets married for the reasons highlighted in red, underlined and in bold. People get married for personal reasons - and it's those reasons that make people in single sex relationships want to get married too.

So what are those reasons, and are they as valid in a same-sex relationship as they are in a cross-sex relationship? If so, then let it be.

Are these feelings valid for incestuous couples? Maybe, but I'd say they are probably just as valid as they are for many other low-grade relationships out there (people who really shouldn't be with one another, but who remain together out of desparation, abuse and a combination of addiction or other personal problems) for which no-one has voiced any objection. Surely there is a case for stopping unsuitable couples (of any kind) from having children who, in all likelyhood, will grow-up impoverished, unhappy and unloved in an environment that teaches crime and violence. I am *not* going to make that case, I'm just pointing out the fact that it's there.

If there is a test, it should be whether both people understand the commitment they are making to one another and agree to solemnly abide by it.

The logical flow of your ideas is really hard to follow. You're creating all of these rules about what can and can't be looked at and I can't understand what you use to make determinations.

Incest and homosexuality are different issues, they have been universally identified as different issues. Racism between one race and then another is easy to identify as two different instances of racism. Claiming that homosexuality is wrong for a moral reason (the Bible doesn't like it, etc.) is different than the moral reason that people say that incest is wrong (it increases the chances of deformities which is bad for the community of humankind). Whether or not incest actually increases the probability of deformities can be discussed and argued about, but that should be done in another thread. The reality is, however, that many believe that incest causes genetic problems so to decompact "discrimination" against incest requires significant proof that there is no increased chance of offspring having deformities.

No one is arguing whether homosexuality causes deformities, so it seems to me that the argument that these are both moral issues misses the point that they are different moral issues.

Not really.
The argument goes like this:

"Marriage should not be exclusive to straight couples. It should be available to all consenting adults of whatever sexuality."
That's ok, fine by me. Next...
"However, related couples should be excluded."

This is often qualified with:
"Related couples are more likely to produce defective offspring."
All making sense so far? This implies that a couple should not be allowed to marry/procreate etc, if there is an increased chance of deformity.

"By this reasoning, it should be illegal for non-related couples who are more likely to produce defective offspring to marry."
So if deformed children can be used against incestuous couples, it should be used against everyone to assure equality. That's what this debate is all about right, the same rights for everyone?

By this logic, anything that anyone believes is automatically considered the truth until someone can prove otherwise. Excuse me if I thought the burden of proof should lie with the person making the claim.

We should scrap the related couple clause alltogether - people get married (in the main) because they are in love, not because they want to produce genetically superior offspring.

A relationship between relatives is frowned upon not necessarily due to the fact that it might bear fruit, but because we imagine that incestuous relationships must be borne from a failure to integrate with the world external to the family. It's this insular sociological symptom that we find troubling, not the potential for mutant babies.

It was a question, not a statement.

I mostly agree with zen_tom, but wanted to clarify a couple things. It's not really true that Greeks "accepted you if you were gay." First of all, homosexual activity was only supposed to be between a mentor and his students. Adult homosexual relationships were frowned upon (Cf. The Symposium), since it was assumed one person had to take a subservient role, and so would be feminized. Moreover, it seems that generally the Greeks didn't have the category of 'gay' as such. They believed that one was attracted to beauty, and that more often than not, beauty was instantiated in the figure of a young boy.

I was trying to make this discussion about homosexuality and not incest. If you want to make a passionate plea for the acceptance of incest within the framework of an argument for homosexual marriage, by all means. Unfortunately, advocating for gay marriage using terms that could also be used to advocate for incestuous marriage does not mean that one is advocating for incestuous marriage.

For the record, if you're going to give me a written thrashing for attempting to define the word marriage(what this discussion is really all about), at the very least make sure your definition of marriage is accurate. Marriage has not been "for thousands of years 'a union of a man and a woman'". Polygamy has been around for quite a while too. It is a good thing that you weren't elected to define marriage, because your definition seems to be a little ignorant of reality.

As for finding arguments that hold water under all circumstances, perhaps you should stick to mathematics. In the actual world there are exceptions to every rule. You don't hear a lot of pro-2nd amendment people advocating for the right to bear nuclear arms, even though they probably should to be consistent. You don't hear a lot of abortion opponents advocating for the complete criminalization of all abortions under all circumstances, even though that would be the most idealogically consistent thing to do. Welcome to reality. Newtonian physics doesn't even hold water under all circumstances. Are we going to hear your passionate argument as to why the kinematics is a farce?

It has gotten to the point where i am unable to determine what the your point even is. Earlier, you claim that you could care less about the issue, and that your perspective on marriage is

The problem is that you don't have a position on the issue beyond this statement. You keep digging, and right now all you have is your own inablility to understand a nuanced argument. People make conditional statements all of the time concerning issues of politics and philosophy. Pointing them out often does little to take away from the power of a particular argument, especially when the particular inconsistency has little to do with the actual issue at hand.

An example:

Guy: I think people should have the right to bear arms just like it says in the second amendment because people are the last line of defense against government tyranny.

Adysav: So you think everybody should be able to buy nuclear armaments?

Guy: No, that would be stupid, are you crazy?

Adysav: Your entire perspective is inconsistent and invalid.

Chewbacca is a wookie, ladies and gentlemen.


The reason i made a qualifying statement based on the relationship of those involved was simply to claim that the fight for incest should be examined on its own merits and not as an extension of the argument for homosexual marriage. Clearly, you are unable to make that distinction so you say things like, "Are you a retard".

Here's a summary of your position:

Me: Gays should be allowed to marry, there isn't any logically consistent reason why they shouldn't.

You: So your saying that a brother and sister should be able to get married?

Me: No, you don't understand. You're interpreting my statements in a way that is convenient for your purposes, which are to skirt the discussion of whether there are any logically consistent reasons to oppose gay marriage, and instead turn the discussion into one that is completely irrelevant to the issue.

You: Are you a retard?

Me: You just said more about yourself right there than i would have ever tried to get away with saying about you on the tfp. You don't actually have any logically consistent arguments against gay marriage, all you have is: which is about as much thought as you seem to be willing to put into the actual issue of homosexual marriage.

I'll take the bait though. I retract my statement that marriage is about two people who actually care about eachother, related or not. I concede, for the purpose of exposing your complete lack of anything else to talk about in this thread(aside from the passionate argument for incest), that the requirements of marriage should be based solely on the genitalia of those involved. Now, enlighten me as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Tell me why the institution of marriage should be solely limited to one man and one woman.

Indeed, I would like to add to what Filtherton said by asking you again to look closer at the nuance of what I had written. I wrote that <i><u><b>most people</i></b></u> believe that incest generates a much higher chance of genetically caused birth defects. You're claiming that I'm telling you something other than the realistic truth. Do you really think that most people don't think that incest contributes to the possibility of there being birth defects? I don't.

Simply put: I think that you'll have a lot of convincing to do to establish that incest doesn't contribute to the chances of genetic birth defects considering: a) logically, it makes a lot of sense that incest would cause birth defects, b) history has examples of incestuous family lines that have many genetic deformities in them, and c) nearly all cultures in the world have have anti-incest taboos.

So, to summarize: You are making a claim that most people disagree with - it is upon you to prove that what you are saying (which goes against common wisdom and observations) has validity.

If you don't understand what I'm getting at you could just say so instead of getting all defensive
Noone is advocating incestuous marriage.

I'm not even american and I know that the 2nd amendment states that civilians should have the right to bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia. Noone would expect a civilian militia to have nuclear weapons.

Newtonian mechanics were designed to work under the circumstances Newton could experiment within. ie everyday objects on a macroscopic scale. I imagine you're referring to quantum mechanics, but since on a macroscopic level there is so little quantum effect as to be unmeasurable in most circumstances, Newtonian mechanics still holds for the purposes which is was designed.

I was using your statements to determine whether they are logically consistent under all situations that are possible within your definition of marriage.

Is the section in bold what you actually meant to put, or is it a typo. Either way could you clarify it? Thanks :cool:

A hundred years ago most people believed masturbation was the cause of insanity. You can't make a claim based on what most people think. It's true that the children of consanguineous couples are more likely to inherit defects.
Stating it as fact because 'most people believe it to be the case' is intellectually dishonest.

So if most people believed homosexuality gave you brain tumours, you wouldn't be arguing for it, because it would require some effort to dispell people's assumptions?

I challenge you to quote me saying that incestuous unions do not bear children that are more prone to defects than 'normal' couples. I haven't said that, and that is definitely not my point, you have the wrong end of the stick.
I'm saying that the increased risk of defects is not an issue. It should not dictate whether a couple can marry or not.
You would not bar a regular couple who were equally at risk, and as someone already said, having children is not an essential component of getting married, and as such should not be taken into account.

Thanks for proving my point. :icare::suave: :thumbsup:

I bolded the important parts.