Quote:
Originally Posted by WCW Nitro
The other part is like I have mentioned that in my view if you are for same-sex marriage, you should have no moral qualms about 2 sisters/brothers or whatever getting married. So, it's this combination that forms my opposition,
|
I don't understand this point of view. The US was perfectly able to draw an arbitrary line in the sand right after male/female marriage. That lasted for decades in some states even though it was illegal. If you would have your way, that line would still be there. Why can't the line exist now as it did before except just a little further down the road? Let the incest groups raise millions of dollars, invest countless hours and lobby for their own change. The slippery slope isn't a real thing. It's an imaginary prop.
However, at the point where the incest people get their case heard in court, they will run into the one logical dilemma that blows the whole argument up. The "incest lobby" is not being denied a right. They are free to marry according to their sexual orientation and are not limited by any fundamental human condition. There is no compelling evidence that attraction to siblings is genetic in nature. Rights obviously have limits. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre claiming free speech just as you can't marry a relative, an animal or more than one person.
Actually I think relatives should be allowed to get married. The genetic risk is really pretty low, higher with closer relations, but very low with cousins for example. And the number of incestuous couples will always be incredibly low compared to the general population. So there's not much risk for the population in general. But if it came down to it, all good. Marry your cousin. I get it. I've got wicked hot cousins.