[Buckeye Bomber]

1) Polygamy never applies to men and women, only to men. Equal protection under the law pretty much knocks that one down.

2) Society has a vested interest in preventing deformed or genetically weak children as much as possible. Incestual intercourse and marriage must then be stopped.

There is no societal interest in regulating the private bedroom behavior of homosexuals. I once again ask, why is non-procreative sex between heterosexuals less immoral than that between homosexuals? Honestly, if marriage is so fragile that a few gay people shacking up will destroy it, what good is it anyway? Marriage, as a contract, needs to be self-enforcing to survive. I believe that the marriages that survive are the ones that are self-enforcing.

[AveMaria]

1. [.....Polygamy never applies to men and women, only to men. Equal protection under the law pretty much knocks that one down.....]

Actually, in parts of India, they have a marriage practice that is called Polyandry, in which a woman is allowed to marry two or more men. If immigrants from that culture of India were to move here, then that would take care of the equal protecton problem.

2. [.....Society has a vested interest in preventing deformed or genetically weak children as much as possible. Incestual intercourse and marriage must then be stopped....]

A more effective way of preventing deformed children, would be to sterilize adults born with birth defects. The US government carried out such acts until the 1960s. Would you support that?

But you have to remember that, Americans were so horrified at Hitler's eugenics programs after World War Two, that they outlawed the sterilization of people born with disabilities from the 1960s onwards.

The fact that American society today, permits people born with genetic defects to have children, but punishes people for incest, reflects the moral values that Americans hold dear to their hearts. Those moral values are reflected in their laws. Laws cannot be totally independent of the values of the people who pass such laws.

[briant]

If someone wanted to marry their 70 year old sister could they? No genetic defects to worry about, unless...

[the808bass]

There is no societal interest in regulating the private bedroom behavior of homosexuals.

I think that the life-span of the person who engages regularly in homosexual acts is an argument against your statement.

[Dad was my hero]

2) Society has a vested interest in preventing deformed or genetically weak children as much as possible. Incestual intercourse and marriage must then be stopped.

Let me see if I understand your point here. Am I to infer from this post that you are saying that the state has an interest or right to intervene in the pregnancy of a woman who finds herself carrying a genetically defective or weak child in utero when she was impregnated by normal heterosexual non-incest relations?

Second, since abortion and birth control are easily available now, if a brother and sister decide that their love is complete if they marry and they agree that if any of their children are "defective" they will abort, have we removed enough of your concerns to move forward with this type of union?