A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
From a logical standpoint I have no problem with such a relationship however sick it may feel, they are not by definition harming anyone and they are each consenting to it and there is no risk of damage to offspring, from the no-harm principle I can't think of a strong reason to prevent such unions. You are trying to make a case against gay marriage by conflating one form of banned or frowned upon relationship (incest) with homosexuality and gay marriage.
Your case seems to rest upon the relationship itself and not it's sanction, it is saying that homosexuality at it's core is wrong and therefore it follows gay marriage should be banned. But what makes homosexuality wrong? it is merely people engaging in sexual activity with other people. Gays pay their taxes same as the rest, why shouldn't the same rights be extended to them as free citizens?
Gays are no threat to domestic peace in and of themselves or their relationships, we have more or less stripped away sodomy laws in the free world, why should relationships that are treated as equally legal be given such division when it comes to marriage.
Your case seems to rest upon the relationship itself and not it's sanction, it is saying that homosexuality at it's core is wrong and therefore it follows gay marriage should be banned. But what makes homosexuality wrong? it is merely people engaging in sexual activity with other people. Gays pay their taxes same as the rest, why shouldn't the same rights be extended to them as free citizens?
Gays are no threat to domestic peace in and of themselves or their relationships, we have more or less stripped away sodomy laws in the free world, why should relationships that are treated as equally legal be given such division when it comes to marriage.