It is not absurd. What part is it that incest laws have to do with procreation do you not understand? Incest laws are put into place to prevent inbreeding. There is no procreation with gay sex.Actually, it is absurd. legally recognized gay marriage does not change laws regarding incest or the age of consent. You can have the government recognize gay marriages all over the US and never ever touch any other laws. Like I said, gay marriage does not make criminal sex acts legal. If you want to go the slippery slope argument you should have been there when they were discussing anti-sodomy laws as those involved illegal sex acts. Just like it was technically illegal in some states for married couples to give each other hummers it would also be illegal for a couple with a legal marriage to fornicate if other laws already prohibited it. Marriage in a legal sense does not apply at all to sexual activities. It does not make them legal or illegal. It is only about a contract. You are confusing religious marriage and sex law with legal marriage contracts.
Projection noted. All of your responses are emotional arguments. Not rational arguments.You have to pretend like you have an argument because if you don't then you would see what everyone else does, that this is all a load of prejudiced hot air because you don't even understand the issue has nothing to do with sexual relations.
Why do you open every response with a strawman. There has been no damage to marriage as an institution. Individual marriages fail for a variety of reasons, mainly because of human nature. You're also lying and making stuff up. Marriage has always been about children. There was never anything political about it until Liberals got their filthy hands on it and are now trying to trivialize it by changing the definition as it has been known since the beginning of human existence. Sisters marrying sisters and brothers marrying brothers is the exact same concept as gay marriage. Both wouldn't be real marriage. They are a sham. Pretend marriages.Actually, since gay people have not been recognized as legitimately married all the damage to the reputation of marriage has been done mainly by straights. Of courtse, conside3ring the institution was originally a financial and political union which was pretty much slavery for the woman I am not terribly surprised. However, to get back to the real point, sisters and brothers sharing a legal contract and taking responsibility for each other in finances, health care, and survival is not terribly rare at all. Since that is all the marriage contract governs then sisters and brothers partnering for the survival of the family is not a terrible idea and is often done after things like tragedies involving the parents, and people think it is heroic and good how siblings stick together and care for each other after tragedy. What you are talking about is incest and sexual activity which the marriage contract neither would make legal or even encourage. Religios marriage beliefs would encourage fornication of married couples, but it is not in the laws as any sort of requirement.
Really. You try and setup every response with a laughable strawman. When you can't refute facts you call people bigots. It's comical and embarrassing.Not really, but you are good at being wrong so don't let me stop you.
Again, you are reduced to trivializing marriage because you don't have a logical argument why we need to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?. Every example you cite can be made for any conceivable combination consenting adults wish to make and call "Marriage".Do you have a problem with two people forming a business partnership because they are the same gender, or siblings, or whatever? No, of course you don't, but business partnersghips are pretty similar to the marriage contract. They declare things like responsibility, decision making in case of injury, legal status, involve tax incentives and changes, allow for the establishment of inheritance or ownership transfer upon death, and can convey any number of legal contingencies. They are in place to secure and litigate civil matters regarding assets and legal responsibilities by civil courts. That is exactly what a marriage contract does as per the government. It does not tell you when to have sex, that you have to have children, or even that hummers are illegal. It doesn't even carry any criminal penalties in it. What you are referring to is the punishment for having sexual activity for dangerous or non-consenting sexual activity. That is the part of this that the bible speaks out against, and religion has a problem with. It is not bad in god's eyes to be attracted to another person of your own gender, it is bad to act on it with sexual activity so even god is fine with gays as long as they don't bugger each other according to christians.
Nonsensical gibberish and dodge noted. The definition of marriage has always been man + woman. It has never been man + ? or woman + ?.Wow, history is not one of your strong suits is it? Not to mention the reality of sex and reproduction. believe me, lots of people know that marriage is not how you reproduce. You really should update yourself on your mid 50's childlike information on where babies come from. I will give you a hint, the stork does not deliver babies to married couples.