Why don't we see what happens when this is taken to its logical extreme?
I am personally opposed to homosexuality bestiality in any form. That being said, homosexuality bestiality does exist and I do not believe that homosexual Beastial partners should be legally excluded from certain financial and civil benefits that married couples enjoy.
I am personally opposed to homosexuality inscest in any form. That being said, homosexuality incest does exist and I do not believe that homosexual incestual partners should be legally excluded from certain financial and civil benefits that married couples enjoy.
I am personally opposed to homosexuality polygamy in any form. That being said, homosexuality ploygamy does exist and I do not believe that homosexual polygamous partners should be legally excluded from certain financial and civil benefits that married couples enjoy.
There is a sound reason to promote marriage between one man and one woman. The stability of the family unit is imperative to the health and welfare of our society. The marriage institution should be preserved and promoted. Promoting alternative lifestyles will negatively alter the framework of our republic.
As it is right now homosexuals are free to marry. But they must marry someone of the opposite sex, they are free to marry only one person of the opposite sex, and they are not free to marry someone from their immediate family or a dog or a dead person.
I agree with your extremes, and you are right that some might try to argue those positions; however, I am not one of them. I am not an advocate of homosexual marriage, nor will I ever be. Still, I am interested, what civil/financial rights do you think homosexual couples should be entitled to (if any)?