[dp0622]

the definition of marriage—currently narrowly defined///

this article isn’t biased :)

what’s narrow about a man and a woman? it’s like saying the seasons are narrowly defined. let’s make some up.

[CharlesOConnell]

How delicate. This is what I noticed about leftists during the Clinton sex scandals — it was the leftists who were more scandalized by Bubba, revealing a crypto-puritanism completely unexpected from the party of abortion and homosexuality.

[kiryandil]

Saarland’s minister-president stirred anger on Wednesday...

[Telepathic Intruder]

He left out bestiality.

[Unam Sanctam]

If it doesn’t matter who you love, as we keep being told, then why doesn’t that apply to incest, or polygamy, or bestiality...?

[tumblindice]

Wilkommen to FR, Annagret.

[dbehsman]

I've said this many times before on Facebook. There's only one secular reason to legally forbid incest. And the reason is that offspring produced from such a union have a greater likelihood of being deformed. (The actual numbers of deformities from babies produced from an incestuous relationship as opposed to non-incestuous relationship are only slightly elevated.)

With same sex marriage, procreation is taken off the table. That's not my opinion, that's biology 101.

So, what would be a secular reason to prevent two adult sisters from getting married? Or how about two adult brothers? Or how about if we dig further into the sewer of leftist Utopianism and ponder why a father/adult son couple would be denied?

Think about how weird this would be. You would have a situation where a father/son couple could get married, but not two first cousins of the opposite sex. A brother and sister could not get married, but two brothers or two sisters could. It would be too farcical to have incest legal for homosexuals and illegal for heterosexuals, so the courts would legalize it for both.