- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 26,526
- Reaction score
- 9,462
- Location
- Alabama
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
And few are doing so. Many people have explained why the two arguments are different, including why there is a difference in the possible harm caused by each. You have to include in the argument what the state's interest is in any discrimination.
In the case of incest, you can bring up the point of the state not wanting to encourage breeding of children who would have an increase in genetic defects and/or encourage relationships that could be psychologically harmful to one or both of those involved in the relationship.
and yet the state does not prohibit marriage between unrelated individuals who have a higher risk of passing on genetic disorders. I have a cousin who's youngest child has williamson syndrome. they knew she was at risk for having a child with this disorder and the govt didn't prevent her from getting married and having kids. what's the difference?
Those who have argued against same sex marriage have yet to provide an argument that shows how the marriage alone could be harmful in some way like those who are arguing against incest. .
incestuous marriage in and of itself is no more harmful than gay marriage. all they need to do is use BC or have one partner sterilzed and the "tarded baby" arguement goes out the window. or, for that matter, how is it going to harm you if I marry my cousin and we have a kid with a genetic disorder?
incestuous marriages may not contribute viable offspring to the genepool...but, then again, neither do gay marriages
Also, another thing to consider is that incest is illegal in most states. We are not just talking about not allowing incest marriages here, but also changing laws on the legality of incest itself.
FWIW....sodomy is still illegal in many states. are you going to tell gays that they can get married but they can't have sex?
Last edited: