The term "nightmare scenario" is what I am using to characterize what various folks in this thread have repeatedly used as examples to express both their hostility toward gays and their absolute refusal to consider doing anything whatsoever to change current marriage laws.
You ask: "Why is it an extreme example?"
The answer is because we have no evidence from our own country or anywhere else that siblings seek to marry one another. So proposing that example as deserving our immediate attention in order to resolve the larger issue is phony argumentation.
You ask: "To whom is this nightmare scenario a threat?"
I presume you have some ulterior motive for this question. Obviously, all of the folks in this thread who constantly use these extreme hypothetical examples see them as "a threat" to their monopoly on marriage. Otherwise, why would we even be having this discussion?
Now, I then tried to specify how such concerns as these could be addressed in any proposed changes to our law. But you are still unalterably opposed---correct? So why do you even bring this stuff up since it is NOT your real concern about this matter.
Obviously we do, as you have consistently misrepresented my position as if you're ignoring everything I've said. Also, you've consistently and quite incorrectly presumed my position, and you use words like hate and revulsion.
Now you define a nightmare scenario as one without any evidence. That's an interesting term to describe the situation.
If you're arguing for same-sex marriage, why would you want to pass laws to prevent brothers from marrying each other?
I presume you have some ulterior motive for this question.
It's merely a question based on the title of your thread here. Did you have an ulterior motive when you posted this thread?
To whom is this nightmare scenario a threat?