Argument: Legal gay marriage sets precedent for incest marriage
"Polygamy, Polyamory, Same Sex Incest Are As Legitimate As Gay Marriage". Current. January 2, 2009 - What is privileged about homosexual relationships that make them more worthy of marriage benefits than polygamous or polyamorous couples?
Does this really require explaining? A bisexual is attracted to members of both sexes. So let’s say a male bisexual finds that he’s fallen in love with a man and wants to marry him. That’s how gay marriage helps a bisexual.
We should not assume that to be bisexual means to be in love with one person at a time.
But what if a bisexual loves both a man and a woman? Why should they be forced to choose to marry one but not the other? Why is it legitimate to expand the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships but not polamorous bisexual ones?
When the facts are taken into account, the reasons for favoring gay marriage while excluding, polyamory or polygamy are completely arbitrary and based on personal preference. If you truly believe that gays have a legal right to marry then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same.
This leaves proponents of same-sex marriage with two choices. They either have to accept that polygamy is just as legitimate as gay marriage or they must admit that there is no inherent “right" to expand the definition of marriage. When forced, most will admit that including polygamy/polyamory is a reasonable trade-off.
If you favor gay marriage you simply must favor same sex incest too — does the anti-gay marriage lobby really want to argue that the only problem with incest is that it isn’t traditional marriage?
If two brothers decide to enter into a lifelong commitment, the arguments in favor of gay marriage make it clear that they should have the right to do so. What would be your reasons for excluding them from the benefits of marriage?
"Court Upholds Discrimination Against Incestuous and Polygamous Couples". La Shawn Barber’s Corner. June 3, 2008 - As the minority noted, the bans against incestuous and polygamous marriages are “ancient and deeprooted,” and so is the ban against homosexual marriage. Why did the California Supreme Court overturn this prohibition but uphold the prohibition against incestuous and polygamous marriages? If the court overturned “the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex” with this decision, as the minority contends, it can just as easily and without sound reasoning extend the “right to marry” to incestuous and polygamous couples, can’t it? Of course it can!