SSM. Seeking middle ground

[Pop23]

It seems to me that there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The traditionalists which are mostly conservatives who want the institution left as an institution between one man and one woman.

2. The non traditionalists, mostly the progressives that believe traditional marriage denies gays the rights and benefits automatically afforded to opposite gender when they marry.

After years of this debate I see good and bad on both sides.

A proposal that I will simply bring forward for debate that seems to meet everybody's need and wants might be:

Marriage remains an institution between a man and a woman BUT has no automatic rights and benefits afforded the opposite sex couples upon entering into the contract. Marriage remains only between one man, one woman. There ARE NO BENEFITS. Marriage is simply an institution that celebrates the union of opposite genders, free to enter into the union, of appropriate age and not too closely related. It remains "traditional"

Next: the creation of civil unions, with all the rights and benefits contained within the current "marriage" laws made up of two partners of appropriate age and not too closely related. Married couples would be eligible to create a civil union but not required to. By not creating a civil union, a married couple would not receive civil union benefits.

What am I missing?

I am ready to take a beating from both sides. Have at it!

The way I see it there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The people who have decided to side with Authoritarians who hate anyone and everyone that does not walk like them, talk like them, have the same skin color, go to the same church and wear the same types of clothes. In particular, in this case, the Authoritarian militant "so called" religious folk who have decided to the draw line against gay marriage as the last stand for "proper" morals in the USA. Proper as defined by them of course.

2. The people who have decided to side with liberty. In particular, in this case, the folks who have decided to defend the gay folk from attack from group (1) above.

There must be a reason why you have taken the side of justice in this matter. It's so out of character.

I side with liberty in all cases. Justice, when served cold by nazis such as yourself.. that's not justice, that's tyranny.

Oooooh! He called me a nazi! He's rugged! But...he didn't answer the question.

Don't be so surprised, the Internet tough guy brought my parents into this.

Pathetic

 

[RKMBrown]

It seems to me that there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The traditionalists which are mostly conservatives who want the institution left as an institution between one man and one woman.

2. The non traditionalists, mostly the progressives that believe traditional marriage denies gays the rights and benefits automatically afforded to opposite gender when they marry.

After years of this debate I see good and bad on both sides.

A proposal that I will simply bring forward for debate that seems to meet everybody's need and wants might be:

Marriage remains an institution between a man and a woman BUT has no automatic rights and benefits afforded the opposite sex couples upon entering into the contract. Marriage remains only between one man, one woman. There ARE NO BENEFITS. Marriage is simply an institution that celebrates the union of opposite genders, free to enter into the union, of appropriate age and not too closely related. It remains "traditional"

Next: the creation of civil unions, with all the rights and benefits contained within the current "marriage" laws made up of two partners of appropriate age and not too closely related. Married couples would be eligible to create a civil union but not required to. By not creating a civil union, a married couple would not receive civil union benefits.

What am I missing?

I am ready to take a beating from both sides. Have at it!

The way I see it there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The people who have decided to side with Authoritarians who hate anyone and everyone that does not walk like them, talk like them, have the same skin color, go to the same church and wear the same types of clothes. In particular, in this case, the Authoritarian militant "so called" religious folk who have decided to the draw line against gay marriage as the last stand for "proper" morals in the USA. Proper as defined by them of course.

2. The people who have decided to side with liberty. In particular, in this case, the folks who have decided to defend the gay folk from attack from group (1) above.

There must be a reason why you have taken the side of justice in this matter. It's so out of character.

I side with liberty in all cases. Justice, when served cold by nazis such as yourself.. that's not justice, that's tyranny.

Oooooh! He called me a nazi! He's rugged! But...he didn't answer the question.

Don't be so surprised, the Internet tough guy brought my parents into this.

Pathetic

Says the piece of shit that compares gays to incest.

 

[Pop23]

The way I see it there are two sides of the same sex marriage debate.

1. The people who have decided to side with Authoritarians who hate anyone and everyone that does not walk like them, talk like them, have the same skin color, go to the same church and wear the same types of clothes. In particular, in this case, the Authoritarian militant "so called" religious folk who have decided to the draw line against gay marriage as the last stand for "proper" morals in the USA. Proper as defined by them of course.

2. The people who have decided to side with liberty. In particular, in this case, the folks who have decided to defend the gay folk from attack from group (1) above.

There must be a reason why you have taken the side of justice in this matter. It's so out of character.

I side with liberty in all cases. Justice, when served cold by nazis such as yourself.. that's not justice, that's tyranny.

Oooooh! He called me a nazi! He's rugged! But...he didn't answer the question.

Don't be so surprised, the Internet tough guy brought my parents into this.

Pathetic

Says the piece of shit that compares gays to incest.

I have never compared gays to incest.

My concern was that same sex marriage could lead to same sex sibling marriage, a traditional form of incest.

Move on Rambo, oh, DO NOT BRING MY FAMILY INTO THIS AGAIN.

DIG?

 

[RKMBrown]

There must be a reason why you have taken the side of justice in this matter. It's so out of character.

I side with liberty in all cases. Justice, when served cold by nazis such as yourself.. that's not justice, that's tyranny.

Oooooh! He called me a nazi! He's rugged! But...he didn't answer the question.

Don't be so surprised, the Internet tough guy brought my parents into this.

Pathetic

Says the piece of shit that compares gays to incest.

I have never compared gays to incest.

My concern was that same sex marriage could lead to same sex sibling marriage, a traditional form of incest.

Move on Rambo, oh, DO NOT BRING MY FAMILY INTO THIS AGAIN.

DIG?

How could same sex marriage lead to incest if they are not "comparable?" FYI when you attack my relatives, I attack yours. Dig?

 

[Pop23]

I side with liberty in all cases. Justice, when served cold by nazis such as yourself.. that's not justice, that's tyranny.

Oooooh! He called me a nazi! He's rugged! But...he didn't answer the question.

Don't be so surprised, the Internet tough guy brought my parents into this.

Pathetic

Says the piece of shit that compares gays to incest.

I have never compared gays to incest.

My concern was that same sex marriage could lead to same sex sibling marriage, a traditional form of incest.

Move on Rambo, oh, DO NOT BRING MY FAMILY INTO THIS AGAIN.

DIG?

How could same sex marriage lead to incest if they are not "comparable?" FYI when you attack my relatives, I attack yours. Dig?

Specifically, please point out my personal attack on your family?

If you have a gay member of your family, discussing same sex marriage is not an attack.

And no, discussing a door opening, by the end of "traditional" norms is not comparing gays to incest.

 

[PratchettFan]

I know we don't always agree exactly on what liberty is, but I certainly respect that sentiment.

Seeking consensus as to what constitutes liberty would make for an interesting discussion – unfortunately, such a discussion could never take place.

I don't look for consensus.

Illustrating why such a discussion could never take place.

Pity, because absent consensus, the people abdicate their role in determining what constitutes liberty, leaving it to the politicians – and ultimately the courts to decide.

No. I decide.

Which is fine, provided you understand there will be those who disagree with your 'decision,' and seek to compel you to accept theirs, such as the OP.

Indeed, that's why the Six Circuit's ruling is being reviewed by the Court.

The only way to make sure you always get your way is to live alone in the wilderness. I've been married for 40 years... I get compromise.

 

[Defiant1]

I think Pop's plan has a lot of merit. It would get govt. completely out of the love/relationship business. Liberals and fags should love it.

I don't think the traditional marriage, one man one woman, will be enforceable. There will be organizations, churches that will perform any wedding ceremony if asked. But that's okay, since most of society knows what traditional marriage is. Gays will say they are married but it will be like the person that buys a Rolex for $10 in Times Square.

I offer some amendments:
1. No grandfather clause. Once the bill is passed everyone has to apply for the new civil union card. Everyone gets a card, like a drivers license.
2. No limit to who or the amount of adults entering into a single union.
3. If anyone no longer wants to be in a union they turn in their card. Individuals will be responsible for hiring lawyers and private arbitrators to negotiate the split. No more divorce courts. Once the split is negotiated it is filed and if an ex reneges the offended party or parties can file a civil suit.
4. People can choose not to apply for a union card and only be married, but their union will not be recognized by any govt. agency.

 

[Pop23]

I think Pop's plan has a lot of merit. It would get govt. completely out of the love/relationship business. Liberals and fags should love it.

I don't think the traditional marriage, one man one woman, will be enforceable. There will be organizations, churches that will perform any wedding ceremony if asked. But that's okay, since most of society knows what traditional marriage is. Gays will say they are married but it will be like the person that buys a Rolex for $10 in Times Square.

I offer some amendments:
1. No grandfather clause. Once the bill is passed everyone has to apply for the new civil union card. Everyone gets a card, like a drivers license.
2. No limit to who or the amount of adults entering into a single union.
3. If anyone no longer wants to be in a union they turn in their card. Individuals will be responsible for hiring lawyers and private arbitrators to negotiate the split. No more divorce courts. Once the split is negotiated it is filed and if an ex reneges the offended party or parties can file a civil suit.
4. People can choose not to apply for a union card and only be married, but their union will not be recognized by any govt. agency.

I can't find anything completely objectionable to your amendments.

 

[Pop23]

Seeking consensus as to what constitutes liberty would make for an interesting discussion – unfortunately, such a discussion could never take place.

I don't look for consensus.

Illustrating why such a discussion could never take place.

Pity, because absent consensus, the people abdicate their role in determining what constitutes liberty, leaving it to the politicians – and ultimately the courts to decide.

No. I decide.

Which is fine, provided you understand there will be those who disagree with your 'decision,' and seek to compel you to accept theirs, such as the OP.

Indeed, that's why the Six Circuit's ruling is being reviewed by the Court.

The only way to make sure you always get your way is to live alone in the wilderness. I've been married for 40 years... I get compromise.

If there is not room to compromise then I guess we should start looking at how we assign dorm rooms.

Currently the only groups that are randomly assigned to dorm rooms with folks they are sexually attracted to are members of the LGBT.

Hardly fair to heterosexuals.

 

[RKMBrown]

Oooooh! He called me a nazi! He's rugged! But...he didn't answer the question.

Don't be so surprised, the Internet tough guy brought my parents into this.

Pathetic

Says the piece of shit that compares gays to incest.

I have never compared gays to incest.

My concern was that same sex marriage could lead to same sex sibling marriage, a traditional form of incest.

Move on Rambo, oh, DO NOT BRING MY FAMILY INTO THIS AGAIN.

DIG?

How could same sex marriage lead to incest if they are not "comparable?" FYI when you attack my relatives, I attack yours. Dig?

Specifically, please point out my personal attack on your family?

If you have a gay member of your family, discussing same sex marriage is not an attack.

And no, discussing a door opening, by the end of "traditional" norms is not comparing gays to incest.

Your accusation is that if my "brother in law" is allowed to marry then all hell will break loose and brothers and sisters will be getting married. It is, pure and simple, an attack on all gay people in this country. An attack on my brother in law is an attack on my family. Discussing is not an attack... comparing gay marriage to incest is. They are not the same. One does not lead to another. Marriage between close family members is not the same as marriage outside of close family members. Incest is a distinctly different issue. As is hang nails, toe fungus, termites and other such issues that have nothing to do with whether or not a state should be allowed to take away the rights of gay people. The states compelling interest in regulating incest is not the same as the states compelling interest in regulating gay couples.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think Pop's plan has a lot of merit. It would get govt. completely out of the love/relationship business. Liberals and fags should love it.

I don't think the traditional marriage, one man one woman, will be enforceable. There will be organizations, churches that will perform any wedding ceremony if asked. But that's okay, since most of society knows what traditional marriage is. Gays will say they are married but it will be like the person that buys a Rolex for $10 in Times Square.

I offer some amendments:
1. No grandfather clause. Once the bill is passed everyone has to apply for the new civil union card. Everyone gets a card, like a drivers license.
2. No limit to who or the amount of adults entering into a single union.
3. If anyone no longer wants to be in a union they turn in their card. Individuals will be responsible for hiring lawyers and private arbitrators to negotiate the split. No more divorce courts. Once the split is negotiated it is filed and if an ex reneges the offended party or parties can file a civil suit.
4. People can choose not to apply for a union card and only be married, but their union will not be recognized by any govt. agency.

It's too late. Should have been done 20years ago... now you'll have to live with the consequences. Which will be gay marriages, and heterosexual marriages, and possibly even plural marriages down the road.

 

[Pop23]

Don't be so surprised, the Internet tough guy brought my parents into this.

Pathetic

Says the piece of shit that compares gays to incest.

I have never compared gays to incest.

My concern was that same sex marriage could lead to same sex sibling marriage, a traditional form of incest.

Move on Rambo, oh, DO NOT BRING MY FAMILY INTO THIS AGAIN.

DIG?

How could same sex marriage lead to incest if they are not "comparable?" FYI when you attack my relatives, I attack yours. Dig?

Specifically, please point out my personal attack on your family?

If you have a gay member of your family, discussing same sex marriage is not an attack.

And no, discussing a door opening, by the end of "traditional" norms is not comparing gays to incest.

Your accusation is that if my "brother in law" is allowed to marry then all hell will break loose and brothers and sisters will be getting married. It is, pure and simple, an attack on all gay people in this country. An attack on my brother in law is an attack on my family. Discussing is not an attack... comparing gay marriage to incest is. They are not the same. One does not lead to another. Marriage between close family members is not the same as marriage outside of close family members. Incest is a distinctly different issue. As is hang nails, toe fungus, termites and other such issues that have nothing to do with whether or not a state should be allowed to take away the rights of gay people. The states compelling interest in regulating incest is not the same as the states compelling interest in regulating gay couples.

I get it, if you have a family member that's a member of ISIS (not implying you do), I'm attacking you and your family by discussing my hatred of ISIS.

Discussing the issue is different then specifying the individual.

Compelling interests do not have to match to be valid.

 

[RKMBrown]

Says the piece of shit that compares gays to incest.

I have never compared gays to incest.

My concern was that same sex marriage could lead to same sex sibling marriage, a traditional form of incest.

Move on Rambo, oh, DO NOT BRING MY FAMILY INTO THIS AGAIN.

DIG?

How could same sex marriage lead to incest if they are not "comparable?" FYI when you attack my relatives, I attack yours. Dig?

Specifically, please point out my personal attack on your family?

If you have a gay member of your family, discussing same sex marriage is not an attack.

And no, discussing a door opening, by the end of "traditional" norms is not comparing gays to incest.

Your accusation is that if my "brother in law" is allowed to marry then all hell will break loose and brothers and sisters will be getting married. It is, pure and simple, an attack on all gay people in this country. An attack on my brother in law is an attack on my family. Discussing is not an attack... comparing gay marriage to incest is. They are not the same. One does not lead to another. Marriage between close family members is not the same as marriage outside of close family members. Incest is a distinctly different issue. As is hang nails, toe fungus, termites and other such issues that have nothing to do with whether or not a state should be allowed to take away the rights of gay people. The states compelling interest in regulating incest is not the same as the states compelling interest in regulating gay couples.

I get it, if you have a family member that's a member of ISIS (not implying you do), I'm attacking you and your family by discussing my hatred of ISIS.

Discussing the issue is different then specifying the individual.

Compelling interests do not have to match to be valid.

Incorrect. It's like saying everyone from texas is slow. Oh your from texas?

WRT your example... It's like saying if we let jews get married in this country then that will open the door for incest. It's a way to insult all jews. Insulting all jews includes insults on jewish men and women that are family members. It's like saying if we let inter-racial marriages next they'll want incestual marriages. It's an insult on inter-racial couples that implies there's something wrong with inter-racial coupling, and if we're gonna let bad marriages happen like inter-racial marriages then next you'll want your incest too. It's an insult on the entire group, of which some people have family members.

 

[Pop23]

I have never compared gays to incest.

My concern was that same sex marriage could lead to same sex sibling marriage, a traditional form of incest.

Move on Rambo, oh, DO NOT BRING MY FAMILY INTO THIS AGAIN.

DIG?

How could same sex marriage lead to incest if they are not "comparable?" FYI when you attack my relatives, I attack yours. Dig?

Specifically, please point out my personal attack on your family?

If you have a gay member of your family, discussing same sex marriage is not an attack.

And no, discussing a door opening, by the end of "traditional" norms is not comparing gays to incest.

Your accusation is that if my "brother in law" is allowed to marry then all hell will break loose and brothers and sisters will be getting married. It is, pure and simple, an attack on all gay people in this country. An attack on my brother in law is an attack on my family. Discussing is not an attack... comparing gay marriage to incest is. They are not the same. One does not lead to another. Marriage between close family members is not the same as marriage outside of close family members. Incest is a distinctly different issue. As is hang nails, toe fungus, termites and other such issues that have nothing to do with whether or not a state should be allowed to take away the rights of gay people. The states compelling interest in regulating incest is not the same as the states compelling interest in regulating gay couples.

I get it, if you have a family member that's a member of ISIS (not implying you do), I'm attacking you and your family by discussing my hatred of ISIS.

Discussing the issue is different then specifying the individual.

Compelling interests do not have to match to be valid.

Incorrect. It's like saying everyone from texas is slow. Oh your from texas?

WRT your example... It's like saying if we let jews get married in this country then that will open the door for incest. It's a way to insult all jews. Insulting all jews includes insults on jewish men and women that are family members. It's like saying if we let inter-racial marriages next they'll want incestual marriages. It's an insult on inter-racial couples that implies there's something wrong with inter-racial coupling, and if we're gonna let bad marriages happen like inter-racial marriages then next you'll want your incest too. It's an insult on the entire group, of which some people have family members.

FYI all I did in the other thread was imply you might want your parents to be married. Why do you see marriage as an insult?

It may insult Jews, but I cannot control what insults THEM. If discussing what may happen is off limits because someone MIGHT be insulted we better shut this site down.

And by the way, it seems several on your side of the isle don't have a problem with my argument.

I've drilled it down, and the arguments seem to be:

Incestuous marriage is currently illegal. I would remind you that only a few years ago same sex marriage was illegal. The state had no compelling government interest to deny it.

It goes againt tradition that siblings can marry. Until same sexes could marry, then that tradition does not hold water when applied to those heterosexual siblings that only want the benefits of a marriage (legal, financial). The argument to keep it illegal with same sex gay siblings has some merit, but then we have the paradox of denial of rights based on sexuality.

That is THE PARADOX and I have still not seen a cure for it that would meet the compelling state interest to deny argument.

Remember, the basis of the argument is not one my side came up with, it is the argument your side is SUCCESSFULLY using to allow SSM.

So again, what am I missing.

 

[RKMBrown]

How could same sex marriage lead to incest if they are not "comparable?" FYI when you attack my relatives, I attack yours. Dig?

Specifically, please point out my personal attack on your family?

If you have a gay member of your family, discussing same sex marriage is not an attack.

And no, discussing a door opening, by the end of "traditional" norms is not comparing gays to incest.

Your accusation is that if my "brother in law" is allowed to marry then all hell will break loose and brothers and sisters will be getting married. It is, pure and simple, an attack on all gay people in this country. An attack on my brother in law is an attack on my family. Discussing is not an attack... comparing gay marriage to incest is. They are not the same. One does not lead to another. Marriage between close family members is not the same as marriage outside of close family members. Incest is a distinctly different issue. As is hang nails, toe fungus, termites and other such issues that have nothing to do with whether or not a state should be allowed to take away the rights of gay people. The states compelling interest in regulating incest is not the same as the states compelling interest in regulating gay couples.

I get it, if you have a family member that's a member of ISIS (not implying you do), I'm attacking you and your family by discussing my hatred of ISIS.

Discussing the issue is different then specifying the individual.

Compelling interests do not have to match to be valid.

Incorrect. It's like saying everyone from texas is slow. Oh your from texas?

WRT your example... It's like saying if we let jews get married in this country then that will open the door for incest. It's a way to insult all jews. Insulting all jews includes insults on jewish men and women that are family members. It's like saying if we let inter-racial marriages next they'll want incestual marriages. It's an insult on inter-racial couples that implies there's something wrong with inter-racial coupling, and if we're gonna let bad marriages happen like inter-racial marriages then next you'll want your incest too. It's an insult on the entire group, of which some people have family members.

FYI all I did in the other thread was imply you might want your parents to be married. Why do you see marriage as an insult?

It may insult Jews, but I cannot control what insults THEM. If discussing what may happen is off limits because someone MIGHT be insulted we better shut this site down.

And by the way, it seems several on your side of the isle don't have a problem with my argument.

I've drilled it down, and the arguments seem to be:

Incestuous marriage is currently illegal. I would remind you that only a few years ago same sex marriage was illegal. The state had no compelling government interest to deny it.

It goes againt tradition that siblings can marry. Until same sexes could marry, then that tradition does not hold water when applied to those heterosexual siblings that only want the benefits of a marriage (legal, financial). The argument to keep it illegal with same sex gay siblings has some merit, but then we have the paradox of denial of rights based on sexuality.

That is THE PARADOX and I have still not seen a cure for it that would meet the compelling state interest to deny argument.

Remember, the basis of the argument is not one my side came up with, it is the argument your side is SUCCESSFULLY using to allow SSM.

So again, what am I missing.

The argument against incest is not solely based on religious tradition. The argument against incest goes beyond religious tradition.

The argument against gay marriage is soley based on "judeo-christian religious tradition."

The argument against incest is harm to the possible babies that would result, and also harm to the family members who are married under the duress and pressure of family bonds. Dad marrying his daughter or son? Cmon... Using family bonds to force a marriage with a child... that's just plain wrong. Same with an older Brother using his family bond with his younger siblings to acquire a marriage.

 

[Ravi]

Incest ITSELF is illegal.

 

[Pop23]

Incest ITSELF is illegal.

Only in the classic sense. Two heterosexual brothers would not marry for sexual reasons.

It's a paradox.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incest ITSELF is illegal.

Only in the classic sense. Two heterosexual brothers would not marry for sexual reasons.

It's a paradox.

Not true. Incest is illegal in the "legal" sense. Not just in the traditional sense. Now, if you were to make incest legal... then you would have an argument that the arguments made by gays could now be used to allow marriages between siblings. However, incest is ILLEGAL. Thus, the argument does not apply.

Being gay used to be illegal. Then it was made legal... thus opening up the argument for gay marriage.

Marriage between consenting adults is not a paradox. Authoritarians claiming the liberty to harm the liberties of others... yeah that's a paradox.

 

[Pop23]

Specifically, please point out my personal attack on your family?

If you have a gay member of your family, discussing same sex marriage is not an attack.

And no, discussing a door opening, by the end of "traditional" norms is not comparing gays to incest.

Your accusation is that if my "brother in law" is allowed to marry then all hell will break loose and brothers and sisters will be getting married. It is, pure and simple, an attack on all gay people in this country. An attack on my brother in law is an attack on my family. Discussing is not an attack... comparing gay marriage to incest is. They are not the same. One does not lead to another. Marriage between close family members is not the same as marriage outside of close family members. Incest is a distinctly different issue. As is hang nails, toe fungus, termites and other such issues that have nothing to do with whether or not a state should be allowed to take away the rights of gay people. The states compelling interest in regulating incest is not the same as the states compelling interest in regulating gay couples.

I get it, if you have a family member that's a member of ISIS (not implying you do), I'm attacking you and your family by discussing my hatred of ISIS.

Discussing the issue is different then specifying the individual.

Compelling interests do not have to match to be valid.

Incorrect. It's like saying everyone from texas is slow. Oh your from texas?

WRT your example... It's like saying if we let jews get married in this country then that will open the door for incest. It's a way to insult all jews. Insulting all jews includes insults on jewish men and women that are family members. It's like saying if we let inter-racial marriages next they'll want incestual marriages. It's an insult on inter-racial couples that implies there's something wrong with inter-racial coupling, and if we're gonna let bad marriages happen like inter-racial marriages then next you'll want your incest too. It's an insult on the entire group, of which some people have family members.

FYI all I did in the other thread was imply you might want your parents to be married. Why do you see marriage as an insult?

It may insult Jews, but I cannot control what insults THEM. If discussing what may happen is off limits because someone MIGHT be insulted we better shut this site down.

And by the way, it seems several on your side of the isle don't have a problem with my argument.

I've drilled it down, and the arguments seem to be:

Incestuous marriage is currently illegal. I would remind you that only a few years ago same sex marriage was illegal. The state had no compelling government interest to deny it.

It goes againt tradition that siblings can marry. Until same sexes could marry, then that tradition does not hold water when applied to those heterosexual siblings that only want the benefits of a marriage (legal, financial). The argument to keep it illegal with same sex gay siblings has some merit, but then we have the paradox of denial of rights based on sexuality.

That is THE PARADOX and I have still not seen a cure for it that would meet the compelling state interest to deny argument.

Remember, the basis of the argument is not one my side came up with, it is the argument your side is SUCCESSFULLY using to allow SSM.

So again, what am I missing.

The argument against incest is not solely based on religious tradition. The argument against incest goes beyond religious tradition.

The argument against gay marriage is soley based on "judeo-christian religious tradition."

The argument against incest is harm to the possible babies that would result, and also harm to the family members who are married under the duress and pressure of family bonds. Dad marrying his daughter or son? Cmon... Using family bonds to force a marriage with a child... that's just plain wrong. Same with an older Brother using his family bond with his younger siblings to acquire a marriage.

All those are classical explanations for incest laws, none of those apply to two brothers marrying for financial benefit.

Asking me to open my mind to new concepts.......

Opens minds to new concepts. One of those being that marriage can be for financial benefit only.

 

[EverCurious]

If I'm not mistaken the actual reason incest is illegal is because it, or well inbreeding, causes a number of medial issues for any children conceived. I'm not in the mood to hunt down a study atm, but one can find evidence of inbreeding problems within a number of dog breeds.