All different types of families exist not all of which include children.
How does that negate what I just said? For thousands of years, marriage has been an institution that joined a man and a woman who would bind their lives together and bring forth children. Do broken families exist? Sure, but that situation is not something to be coveted.
Hetereosexual men are the ones who pose the greatest threat to children and teens of both sexes when it comes to sexual abuse. And that's what incest is.
Incest often has the component of sexual abuse but adult incest does not always involve abuse. However, my argument is not who is a greater or lesser predator, but that people seeking validation, acceptance, and/or
legal recognition of an IMMORAL and DISORDERED union can more easily do so because the door has been opened.
How homosexuality is equated with this is a really beyond the realm of reality.
See above point.
Things the bible claims are moral/illegal/ immoral & told to a bunch of illiterate sheep herders 3000 ye a rs ago are no longer taken seriously today.
When in doubt, ad hominem.
The Bible, just as a piece of literature, is a very fine work with many authors spanning over centuries, filled with history, poetry, letters, didactics, the Gospels, etc. As a religious work, it is not only a profound book, but the Word of God. Many outstanding, creative, sharp-thinking and amazing statesmen, scientists, artists, poets, writers, teachers, etc. throughout Western civilization have been influenced by the Bible. If I'm not mistaken, it is the most widely printed book, and continues to be read and studied by over a billion people.
But aside from that, marriage being between a man and woman is also discernible through Natural Law. Biologically, male and female have sexual intercourse and sometimes the result is conception. This is how sexual reproduction occurs. When a man and woman enter into a unique relationship, where they pledge to unite themselves, their goods and their lives, and are open to any children resulting from their union, this is recognized as marriage. And this can only be entered into by a man and woman--not two men, not two women, not a man and two women, etc.
Once you dismantle this, and say, "Anyone who wants to marry who they love should be able to do so, because it's their right," then that NEW standard that you've just rooted for now includes other couplings. If marriage can now be two men, why not the (crazy) incest couple? What if the incest couple is two consenting adults? Isn't that the only standard you have nowadays? "As long as it's two consenting adults, it's okay"? If that is the case, then why be morally or legally against incest?
Once you tinker with the definition of marriage, it opens the floodgate. I already provided earlier the story of the three-way marriage in Brazil. Now this insane incest story.
If your argument is "Marriage should no longer be between a man and woman," you've just deconstructed any ground to stand on when you say, "NO, I don't think [ ] couples should legally marry."
Modern society should have laws to protect & care for it's citizens Especially the most vulnerable.
Quite ironic you should say this, since abortion is legal.
You know throughout history the concept of whom could be married has changed.
