The whole "argument" was based on a derail over an opinion I had that I think is well supported by facts. It wasn't about the OP. And I think it's more than obvious that no matter how many examples of women who are defy the norm... males are by far the people who are the most likely to be "driven" by incestuous feelings than women.
Nope, not supported by "fact" as I previously noted.
That's merely your assertion, which you have not presented evidence to support.
For whatever reasons, assorted states have laws that forbid incest. I don't think most people have a problem with these laws and I doubt there are a huge mass of incest couples seeking legal marriage. There are, apparently, a lot of gay couples seeking legal marriage and their laws don't forbid it in the way it does forbid close relative marriage.
In the early part of the previous century, there weren't many people who had a problem with anti-miscegenation laws. It took a lot of effort by a small group of people to get that changed.
"It's the law" is a bad justification for any assertion or worldview. The law changes constantly to reflect changing social standards. And it's very different in different parts of the world. What makes your part of the world superior to all other parts?
In answer to the question in the OP, you can justify gay marriage, because most states don't have laws that deny it in their marriage laws... most states don't (or didn't) state that marriage needs to be between two people of the opposite sex.
So, by this logic, you'd opposed gay marriage if the majority of states had laws banning it?
Incidentally, you're wrong. Here's a bit of news for you: as of May 16, 2008, 41 states have statutes prohibiting gay marriage. 27 of those have constitutional amendments defining marriage as "between a man and a woman". So by your logic, you should opposed gay marriage, since "most" states do.
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=310206
After Massachusetts issued the first marriage licenses to same-sex couples, voters in 13 states in 2004 rushed to rewrite their constitutions to limit marriage to heterosexuals. Two more states passed constitutional bans on gay marriage in 2005 and eight more in 2006. Arizona in 2006 became the first and only state so far to reject a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage.
Since 1973, 42 states, including California, passed so-called Defense of Marriage statutes, which define marriage as solely a heterosexual union. Most of these laws are modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton. It bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to ignore gay marriages performed elsewhere.
California is the only state to have ruled such statutes unconstitutional and thrown them out. Due to the Federal DOMA, no other states are required by Full Faith and Credit to recognize same-sex marriage performed in other states.
Such an initiative passed in my state. So far, attempts to re-write the constitution haven't made it to the state Congress; but they're still being made.
But wait, it gets worse:
Michigan and Ohio are among 17 states whose constitutional gay-marriage bans are written broadly and go beyond defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman to potentially prohibiting other rights of same-sex partners.
Incidentally, all of the current crop of presidential candidates have gone on the record opposing the legalization of gay marriage, although a few on the left have made weaselly allowances for a "civil union with equivalent legal privileges".
On the other hand, most states do have laws regarding the degrees of relatedness in regards to marriage. Hence, legally, incest is already illegal for whatever reasons... while gay marriage is not... it often requires a state to violate the equal protection clause, in fact-- the one that was invoked when states did not allow couples of mixed races to marry.
Nope, sorry. Nearly all the states in the Union have laws prohibiting gay marriage; and over half of the states have constitutional amendments limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex; which trumps any "equal protection" clauses.
If this doesn't make sense or goes over someone's head or you are hearing something that isn't there or want to talk about which gender is more likely to have incestuous leanings or whether marriage is an incentive or what my secret motives are...
I would suggest you aquaint yourself more closely with the facts before daring to castigate other people for correcting your errors or making spurious "straw man" accusations.
I answered the OP because I have legal knowledge on the subject.
Incorrect and insufficient knowledge, apparently. Improve your knowledge to come in line with current reality, and you might find the rest of this thread a lot more comprehensible.
