Simple - contract law is designed for two parties. Of course, theoretically, two cousins should be allowed to marry, however this becomes a problem as it's impossible to regulate whether or not they will have children and the high incidence of inbreeding actually begins.That would imply that there is no problem in the mind of advocates that any two consenting adults should be free to marry anyone they choose. Except for reasons that the state finds would be in their interest to prohibit.
How does the state decide what is prohibitive?
Why limit it to two?
How much medical risk is there in inbreeding? May I suggest you try google?How much medical risk is too much?
That's just the first page of "risks of inbreeding"
Inbreeding Tied to Alzheimer's Risk
Muslim outrage as professor Steve Jones warns of 'inbreeding' risks | Mail Online
Effects of Inbreeding, Endogamy, Genetic Admixture, and Outbreeding on Human Health: A
Problems with Inbreeding Dogs
Genetic Problems With Inbred Boxers - Pets
Dating a relative: medical consequences, health issues
Conclusion: Inbreeding has been found to have negative effects on not just human populations but also - animal ones.
No. You're more than allowed to keep those beliefs. You, however, have no right to make your beliefs into law. The law remains neutral when it does not discriminate.Is it a government responsibility or is it a violation if first amendment to direct moral thoughts by "destigmatizing", ie opposing some religious teachings?
Only it applies uneven to homosexuals who are not interested in the opposite sex. The rest of your post is nonsense.to your points:
Legal consistency: This isn't the issue at all. If marriage is defined as "one man and one women", that can apply to all equally.
This has been proven over and over to be false by psychologists, teachers, psychiatrists, medical studies etc:New family nuclei: The best situation for kids that need to be adopted is to be adopted into a traditional family,
Same-sex Parents and Their Children
Further compounding how wrong you are - how do you propose we enforce the "traditional families" view with 50% divorce rates? Oh, that's right. We can't because divorce is not illegal.Most research studies show that children with two moms or two dads fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents. In fact, one comprehensive study of children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers concluded that children raised by same-sex parents did not differ from other children in terms of emotional functioning, sexual orientation, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, learning and grade point averages.
It has been a valid government interest for some time. For a well working harmonious society the government has an interest in ensuring minorities of all races, creeds and abilities are not seen as pariahs. This creates social anomie. The government doesn't have to teach that it's right/wrong but simply that it will not discriminate against them.Socially destigmatizing: I disagree that this is a valid governmental interest.
YOU brought it back into discussion by ironically putting cousin marriages, which have been found to be medically risky to the table. If you wanted to discuss cousin marriages, which your state had no problem with since it came into existence, you shouldn't have tried to paint it as the same as homosexuals unions.Your attempt to accuse my state of being backward is based on your own straw man, incest isn't even in discussion here.