For at least a thousand years, western civilization has recognized marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and for over two hundred years the United States has defined marriage as the union of two people of opposite sex who are not close blood relatives.
Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would allow for the definition to expand beyond recognition. If marriage is redefined as the union of consenting adults who profess to love each other, there is no principled reason to exclude others who want legal recognition and social acceptance of their unions.
How could you justify excluding a person from marrying a close blood relative or more than one person when exclusion would mean the denial of that person’s civil rights or sexuality? How could you exclude close blood relatives from marrying each other, or bisexuals who want to marry more than one person?
If two men can marry, why does it matter if they are close blood relatives, or why limit the number to just two? After all, there’s no risk of genetic deformity in the case of homosexual incest.
If homosexual marriage is permitted, why not permit incestuous and polygamous marriages? The only reason not to permit them is that people find them morally repugnant.
Western societies have forbidden incest and polygamy on the grounds of public morality. Homosexuals who want to marry are not being denied their civil rights. They can get married; they just can’t marry someone of the same sex, a close blood relative, or more than one person.
What Same-sex marriage proponents want to do is move the moral line that has been fixed in western culture for over a millennium. They call me a bigot because I am unwilling to move the line, but what they want to do is re-draw the line based their sense of morality and limit marriage to only heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Same-sex marriage proponents claim homosexuals are being denied their civil rights when they are denied the right to marry, but if that’s true, aren’t close blood relatives and bisexuals also being denied their civil rights to marry? So why isn’t it bigotry to deny close blood relatives and bisexuals who profess love for each other their right to get married?
Obviously same-sex marriage proponents don’t recognize the love that close blood relatives and bisexuals profess to have for each other as legitimate, which is why they aren’t demanding that such marriages be sanctioned by the state.
When the only basis for marriage is love or the desire of the parties to get married, it logically follows that close blood relatives and bisexuals will soon demand the right to marry, also.
Same-sex marriage proponents are extraordinarily naïve to believe that redefining marriage will have no serious repercussions or lasting effects on the social fabric. Depravity knows no bounds, and the depraved are waiting in line to prove the point.
This 9:06 youtube video is taken from The Millstone Report web cast at the Resistance Radio Network.
The two-hour show aired Friday, Nov. 8, 2013. TMR was broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am – noon on channel 2.
For more clips from The Millstone Report web cast visit I.M. Kane 2012 on youtube. To see a rebroadcast of the last show, visit the Ought to be Headlines web page
THE MILLSTONE DIARIES 
The studies you cite (which focus on males) do not compare the life of a person who is not attracted to someone of the opposite sex being forced to live unmarried or to someone they can’t love and with whom sex is repulsive compared to same sex unions. So yes, I was wrong in assuming you would have any idea what kind of research is applicable to the question.
LikeLike
Once again you cite nothing, and say even less. Go away; you’re a troll, and a waste of my precious time.
LikeLike
” If marriage is redefined as the union of consenting adults who profess to love each other, there is no principled reason to exclude others who want legal recognition and social acceptance of their unions.”
There are plenty of reasons. We create laws for the good of society, allowing things that either increase overall well-being or are neutral. We disallow things that cause harm. Study after study have found that same sex relationships do not cause harm and in fact increase well-being. You can argue that research is flawed, but we only have research to go on and we do our best with what we have.
“How could you justify excluding a person from marrying a close blood relative or more than one person when exclusion would mean the denial of that person’s civil rights or sexuality?”
Using the same principle above. Relationships between immediate family members have been found to cause a decrease in well-being in most cases. A general policy prohibiting them serves the greater interests of society.
“How could you exclude close blood relatives from marrying each other”
See above. You are presumably speaking of parent child or sibling marriages? First cousin marriages are legal in some states and most of Europe.
“or bisexuals who want to marry more than one person?”
This would need not only to be studied more but numerous laws would have to change. Once you get into marriages to multiple people you are looking at joint consent issues as well as raising new issues for benefit, immigration and inheritance rights. This is a very different issue.
Certainly there may be other changes to marriage in the future. These occur all the time. In just the last few decades the age for consent in marriage has been raised in most states. Did you have a problem with this change? States and countries that once disallowed interracial marriage now allow it. Was this a problem? In some cases, therefore, restrictions were added, in others they were loosened. Many countries now are also moving towards banning marriage between first cousins (already banned here).
Until recently it was almost impossible for a woman in an abusive relationship to divorce. Did this change mean all hell broke loose?
The standards of culture change because realities change. But one small change does not mean anything else will be altered. There is no policy that says “anyone can do whatever they like.”
LikeLike
Having read your vacuous rebuttal, I am forced to conclude that you are either a misinformed dupe or a malicious purveyor of disinformation.
First of all, you make assertions without citing any proof to support them. You seem to think that simply because you say something people should accept it without reservation.
For example, you say studies have found that homosexual relationships “do not cause harm and in fact increase well-being,” and you fail to name even one of the studies or who conducted them.
Anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that the negative consequences of homosexual relationships far outweigh the positive ones for society. Studies (See “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” by John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D. at http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html and “The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality” by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D. at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3105393/posts) show that homosexual couples are more promiscuous than heterosexual couples and that excessive promiscuity increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Especially with advent of ObamaCare, the increase of STDs, specifically HIV/AIDS cases, will have an enormous impact on health care costs.
Next you claim that “relationships between immediate family members have been found to cause a decrease in well-being in most cases,” and although I agree with your claim, once again you offer no attribution.
Even though relationships between immediate family members would have a negative impact on society, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t forthcoming in the West. For example, a story published December 2010 in the UK Telegraph reports that Switzerland is considering repealing its incest laws because they are “obsolete.” (See “Switzerland considers repealing incest laws” at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html.)
The Telegraph also published a story recently about a judge in Australia who says that incest should no longer be a taboo because the only reason it’s criminal has to do with potential birth abnormalities, which he says can be solved by abortion. (see “Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo” at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html.)
You also erect a straw man by saying that changes to marriage occur all the time. Look genius, I’m not discussing the changing marriage laws, I’m talking about changing the definition of marriage, something that hasn’t been done, much less considered, in over a thousand years of western history.
Finally, you equate legal rights for homosexuals with the black struggle against racism. It’s appalling and reprehensible to compare the petty grievances of homosexuals to the fight for black civil rights in this country. Unlike race, homosexuality is not an identity; it’s a sexual behavior. A person can be identified by their race, but they can’t be identified by their sexual preference, unless of course they announce what it is beforehand.
Haven’t you been taught that you need to support your claims—regardless of how political or erroneous they may be—when you engage in public debate? Otherwise, thinking people will dismiss you as a shill for the gaystapo or the member of a bar association.
LikeLike