Here's what I believe:
1. People have the right to pursuit of happiness. That includes choosing the adult they would marry. I do not think the government has a legitimate role in restricting polygamy unless the populations severely drops because of it. You can't marry animals or inanimate objects because they cannot give consent or engage in contracts.
I don't know enough about the harmful effects of incest upon children to judge whether or not it should be outlawed. Relatives that have sex with each other will do so whether or not they can marry. It may be necessary to reduce the harmful impact. The news I saw was that incest is not a very widespread occurrence.
Gays marrying may lead to less promiscuity and better health in the population. If gays want to marry and pledge to each other, I think that's a positive thing.
People who think that this is the end of civilization as we know it either are extremely paranoid or don't remember the other significant "end of the world" predictions when other freedoms were recognized; women voting, end of slavery and so on.
Our country is much more moral today than any I have read about. We abolished slavery, recognized women equal rights, helped defend freedom around the world for over 90 years, and we provide food, and other aide all over the world. So, it will not bother me one twit or harm my marriage in any way if two guys decide to be married.
I will not sign the petition in Cal and I will not vote to restrict someone's freedom in their pursuit of happiness. If ytou chose to do that, let it be on your conscience.
Out, in pursuit of my own happiness here at the beach.
Well, I'll address this one point and leave it at that. The right to pursuit of happiness does not contain within it a right to redefine the institution of marriage. Marriage involves the bonding of people of the opposite sex. It's why the institution of marriage was established in the first place. Marriage wasn't created so that totally autonomous individuals could "bond" with someone regardless of gender for their personal sexual fulfillment.
The marriage institution was created because people noticed (in the absence of PC ideologies, people tend to notice obvious things) that there are two sexes and that they are different. That, in fact, they are opposites and therefore can mate. Not only that, but it's a good thing they do this because it perpetuates the species. It gives the children who are subsequently born a mother and a father. This enables little boys to learn to be men and to relate to women in a proper manner. It enables little girls to learn to be women and to expect men to use their strength to protect them.
It doesn't always work perfectly. There are some bad people. Fathers die. Mothers die. But it's the ideal for raising children and the only way to create them.
But even if there are no children, marriage between a man and a woman symbolizes the foundations of civilization, the process in which men channel their greater physical strength and aggressiveness into the protection of women and children for the greater good of society. Marriages thus teach children in general what it means to be a man and a woman.
Same-sex "marriage" involves two people of the same sex pretending to be a man and a woman. They cannot mate. They cannot be counterparts to one another. They can only play act. They can never as a couple be a mommy and daddy.
In other words, these are not real marriages. They are just pretend. And it's absurd to treat them as real marriages. Just as it's absurd to treat boys who want to wear female clothes as if they're girls. We're now being told (believe it or not) that if a boy "feels like he's a girl", he should be able to come to school dressed like one and even to use the girls' locker room and restroom.
You might wish to check out some of the writings of Lawrence Auster on the subject of how extreme defense of individual rights can lead to an overall loss of rights for the population as a whole. The process is simple. A few homosexuals demand the "right to marry". People rise to their defense and insist that if it will make them happy and enhance their freedom, we should allow them to do so. But then, a strange thing happens. A photographer gets asked one day to film a same-sex ceremony. She declines, saying she is a Christian and can't in good conscience participate in such a thing. She finds herself ordered to pay a fine for "discrimination". Then someone starts up an adoption agency to help orphans. A state bureaucrat shows up and asks if they're placing any of the kids with gay couples. They say they are not, since they don't approve of that lifestyle. So the state shuts them down.
This is why the likes of Obama, Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, and others are licking their chops at the prospect of "gay liberation". The result won't be more freedom for all. It'll be a loss of freedom for the general public.
I will not sign the petition in Cal and I will not vote to restrict someone’s freedom in their pursuit of happiness. If ytou chose to do that, let it be on your conscience.
_______________________________________________________
I guess that means you’ll vote to compel private businesses, private NPOs, and all government agencies/employees to recognize it too (even if they strongly oppose it). Yikes. Enjoy being self-absorbed at the beach!