NAMBLA has it's fingers crossed.

This kind of ignorance pisses me off. While I may not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, I resent when people compare it to incest, beastiality, etc. Homosexuality occurs between 2 CONSENTING adults. These other sexual practices DO NOT. Big difference there people. It's the same as the difference between consentual sex between a couple and rape. Would YOU want your relationship with your partner (wife, husband, boyfriend, girlfriend)referred to as rape? I'm guessing no. Then perhaps these same people shouldn't compare homosexuality to pedophilia or incest.

While i don't have a major problem with homosexuals, and i am smart enough to realize that homosexuality isn't a choice. And even though i am a somewhat liberal democrat. Civil unions yes, but as a lol somewhat practicing Catholic, i just don't think homosexuals should be married period. But the notion that incest, bestiality, and Pedophilia are no different from homosexuality is really sickening. There is a difference between having sex with the same gender and having sex with family members, animals, or children.

Now, I don't consider DickDIrk a slippery sloper, but he's raising a flag (with Lance's help) that looks valid. If (and that's a big word) deviants like pedophiles follow the blueprint used by gays to get their deviant behavior legitimized, and mainstreamed by society, how will you stop NAMBLA? How will you stop pedophiles from legitimizing their behavior with kids who are willing to go along? The outrage in response to this argument is silly. If there is no legitimacy in the point, why can no pro-gay-agenda people articulate a thoughtful response without insulting those they're arguing with. Is the suggestion so offensive to your sensibilities that you can't offer a cogent reason?

Why is it then, that we can stop at gay marriages but we can't stop at incestual marriages? If anything is going to lead to incest being legal it's definitely NOT gay marriages, it would be the incestual ones.

This is the greatest problem liberals have with understanding this discussion. The ethical paradigm they defend gay marriage within proclaims a right to marriage under the auspice that other individuals can equally claim a right to marry consenting individuals. Individuals are therefore equal under the law to attain access to a contract that any other is so long as the other consents. The key to the discussion is that these are consenting adults engaging in a contract that is not harmful to others. To those who argue against gay marriage the institution itself represents a positve reflection of a natural process that cannot be redefined. However the liberal- or libertarian- argument is problematic because the logical causation inherent in their defense of gay marriage can be applied to incestual marriages or polygamous relationships- like in the case of mormons and muslims. What the liberals do is then switch ethical defenses and make discernments prior to the application of the logical position that undercuts their original defense. Case in point- Liberal argues: gay man should be allowed to marry gay man because they aren't hurting anyone, they both consent (and to deny them is discrimination). Conservative argues: you are redefining the natural institution of marriage to include those who can not engage in the natural process in fosters- it's simply not marriage. Liberal argues: you are discriminating against gay Americans because you are religiously biased toward behavior you find repugnant and sinful- who are you to judge homosexuals and deny them equal rights to marry whomever they want? Conservative argues: what are you going to do when some father wants to marry their son or three or four women want to marry one guy? Liberal argues: well that's different you redefining marriage to include other repugnant things- those are not the same thing. Conservative argues: no the defense you originally made was that it doesn't matter what the behavior is so long as they are consenting adults engaging in behavior that harms no one else. The liberal in this discussion flips back to a tacitly understood logic eshewing the original logic they attempted to defend their original premise upon. The liberal position is false and logically untenable. Update**** Apprently some of you never took logic 101. The causative statement that defends the original argument for gay marriage is done prior to any discernments on the basis of consent. Adults should be free to marry anyone so long as they aren't hurting anyone else and consent to the marriage contract willfully. Specifically there should be no post-argumentative objections based on discernments that that still fit within the discussed context. For instance, yes father daughter relationships do not fit within the context discussed because there are ancillary effects- abnormal children and such. However brother-brother marriages or polygamous marriages where all adults consent do fit within the context of both not harming anyone and adults consenting to a contract so therefore these would have to be included in the redefinement of marriage.

UPDATE: Ahh, but homosexual insest does not cause abnormalities. How do you justify that being unethical. Also, I need to see some proof of the self-esteem argument before I give it any merit. How can you quantify self-esteem? This is the enherent problem with trying to create ethics that specifically avoid moral boundries. You end up having to arbitrate boundries and you loose the reason for having them in a specific place. This is not to say that all ethics should follow moral boundries, but to specifically avoid them is foolish. UPDATE to Metal666: I have never heard someone who used this argument propose that there is a connection between these behaviors as far as homosexuals becoming insestuous or anything like that. There is only a connection between the arguments for the legalization of each behavior which I listed in my original argument. We are only saying that it shows poor forsight to allow something on the basis of an argument that could be used in the same way to adovace things like insest and polygamy. ORIGINAL COMMENT: First of all, not all crimes are an abuse of someone else's rights. If you smoke crack locked up in your house not harming anyone but yourself, it is still illegal is it not? Here we see the government making a decision about what somebody does with their body and few people complain because it is easy to see the inherent harm in drug abuse. This is why people argue for the legalization of marijuana, because it becomes more difficult with a weaker drug to see the harm caused to the user. Magellan, I agree with you. Comparing homosexuals to pedophiles and those who molest animals is insulting as well as logically flawed. But the incest argument does not suffer the same problems. Here you have two consenting adults that happened to be born into the same family (however close) who love each other. They cant control the way they were born and neither should they be told to control the way they fell. Sound familiar? The only difference between these two situations is that one is far less practiced and therefore has retained the original disgust that surrounds it better than the other. For most of us, having sex with a sibling would be unthinkable and disgusting, but where did this feeling come from. If it was not imposed at a young age by society, did it come from nature or for those of faith, God? And if so, why do most of us have similar feelings about having same-sex relations? If indeed the stigmas are imposed by society, (and I dont really think they are), are these things we teach our children about incest just as wrong as raising them in a world heterosexuality is considered the norm?

Bestiality is abuse of animals. Child molestation is abuse of kids. The ethical reasons for giving no legal recognition to incestuous and polygamous relationships are nearly as obvious. (For starters, inbreeding causes genetic abnormalities, and those who would keep multiple spouses often take unfair advantage over people with limited self-esteem.) Ethicists have a much harder making a case why same sex unions typically cause harm to any of the involved parties. The conservative case for harm boils down to these arguments: (1) Too much societal acceptance of same sex partnerships would cause a significant percent of young individuals to choose to be homosexual. (2) Such choosers substantially harm themselves (with procreation challenges and other difficulties in life) and/or they infringe on well being of their own community. These points are worthy enough of debate. What is less worthy of debate is the red herring, slippery slope argument of this list topic. Acceptance of same sex unions in no way implies any kind of acceptance of the legal recognition of bestiality, child molestation, incest or polygamy. These are fully distinct issues that have no logical basis for being tagged on the debate.

These items have no relationship to each other whatsoever. Irrelevant. Turn off the computer now and seek professional help if you think they are related.

There is a clear line between gay marriage and whatever other social ills conservative fearmongers would have us believe it will lead to. Marriage is an act between consenting adults. On the other hand: beastiality is cruelty to animals, pedophilia is abusive and damaging to children, and incest results in children with birth defects and genetic diseases and is therefore unfair to them. With the exception of gay marriage, all share a lack of consent and are hurtful or predatory to someone. Gay marriage is not at the same level as these, no matter how wrong you feel it may be. Furthermore, there are clear reasons, supported by secular legal doctrine, why these other behaviors will never be legalized.

I can understand some of this argument. I think there the concern about when and how something is allowed for fear of what will follow is a genuine one. In this case, concerning the other things listed, I think the difference is same sex marriage would be between two consenting adults. Incest, pedophilia, etc., involves unwilling participants. Comparing same sex marriage to pedophilia is like comparing making love to your wife to raping a stranger.

i agree with the people that said it is completely unrelated and just takes attention away from the issue.**pbeavr How can you say that gays grow into being gay with such certainty, how are you at all qualified to make such a statement as if its fact?

Im sure the same questions were raised when discussing the women's rights controversy as well as equal rights for blacks. Pure nonsense that focuses the attention away from the real issue.

Sadly, this argument was also used for another group: those who wanted to marry the ones they loved of a different race. Interracial marriage is (arguably; there are always going to be a few people who throw a hissy-fit over it) now generally widely accepted in the United States, but the idea was still being fought as late as the 1960's (look up the case of Loving vs. Virginia; in 1967, there were 16 states which had prohibited interracial marriage, using the same arguments against homosexual marriage today; interracial marriage was not so long ago considered deviant behavior). This argument offends me more than any other argument on this list, because frankly I would be furious and highly insulted if anyone compared the relationship between my husband and myself to child and animal rape, and as genetically harmful as incestual relationships (for those who arent familiar with me, Im of Chinese descent, my husband is White). The (general) acceptance of interracial marriage has not lead to an increase nor acceptance of child rape, animal rape, or incest. Gay marriage does not promote rape, and it would certainly not cause any problems with genetics (as incest eventually would), so I dont see how this argument could be used as a reason against the legalization of gay marriage.

This is another argument that really pisses me off. I find a comparison of a relationship between two consensual adults to a a physical act between an animal and a beast to be pretty offensive. To lump together any behavior that isn't the behavior of the majority as deviant and on par with child molestation and bestiality is a terrifying concept to me. I'm taller than the average human - does that make me a deviant? I like to dip my hamburgers in catsup as opposed to putting the catsup on top - clearly this is deviant behavior and must be erradicated - who cares if it doesn't harm anyone else. If you are unwilling / unable to differentiate between those that rape children and those that find themselves attracted to the same sex, there's probably not much point in even debating - I'm certainly not going to change your mind.

Oh, and don't forget robbery, arson and murder too! It's all part of the liberal agenda.