Its really quite simple.

Ask around.. see how many people who are pro gay marriage are also pro polygamy and sibling marriages.

If anyone is anti polygamy and sibling marriages, they do not want equal marriage opportunity for all.

And if they are pro-polygamy and pro-sibling marriage they're what?

Doesn't your argument tend to suggest that marriage in all forms should be abolished then?

Edit: And lets again overlook the fact that your argument perfectly justifies the exclusion of inter-racial marriages.

And you think that forcing people to suppress their natural inclinations and have sexual relationships with a gender they have no interest in will fix this? That's a little extreme... Especially since IIRC birth rates are falling in Australia too, and probably most western countries, because people are only having one or two children instead of six or eight, and having them much later in life. That's a problem of the way our society has changed, it's got nothing to do with gay people being allowed to marry.

And I completely agree with you that anyone who doesn't support polygamy doesn't support marriage in all its forms, however I've explained my reasons why I don't think heterosexual sibling marriage should be allowed. Thing is, these are two issues that there is even more ignorance and prejudice about than same-sex marriage, so I don't think it's worth arguing about until we at least have same-sex marriage.

Just to mention.

Declining birthrate = GOOD.

The world -is- overpopulated. Not exactly on topic, but something I'd like to mention.

If both people are consenting and have not been led to this consent in any way I do not believe there are any two people who should not be allowed to be married. If they love each other they'll just be together anyway, you might as well accept it, everyone will feel better.

When it comes to sibling marriages, refer to what I said above, I don't have any problem with them. However, in terms of evolution similar genes mixing is not good for the species, evolution loves variety, it's how we adapt and become a stronger race. For this reason I support the laws many countries have about children of parents who are too closely related, I believe the closest you're allowed to have them in most countries is the second cousin or something similar.

Can you summon fae?

Difference between real world, and Lusternia here Amaru.

Haha, wicca is like a real thing? That's hot, I want to be a Celestialist IRL.

Don't be silly Amaru. Wicca in Reality is nothing like Wicca in Lusternia. They just bear the same name.

You mean a 16th Century Catholic?

Here are some good essays on the topic advocating the three viewpoints of the topic:
Beyond Gay Marriage by Stanley Kurtz (two pages) - examines what he believes would come after gay marriage is legalized and how such laws could be abused by heterosexuals.
The Case for Gay Marriage by "The Economist" - argues gay marriage would be a stabalizing benefit to society.
Privatize Marriage by David Boaz - examines the history of marriage law and the idea of deregulating marriage (giving no special legal status to any relationship).

I encourage y'all to read them all in full. I find even the ones I disagree with fascinating. And it's fun to pick apart their rhetoric: there are some places where an argument they use against their opponent applies equally well against their own claims, etc.

Some interesting arguments I've not heard raised much from various sides against the strongest argumenst (IMO) for the various viewpoints...
* In countering the claim that marriage by definition is male/female, the strongest counter-question supporting gay marriage is, "Why not male/male? Give me a reason it can't be." Yet few have have asked the logical step from that, "Why not male/male/female?" Or "Why not male/sheep?" Taking the Kantian subjectivist viewpoint that the definition of marriage is arbitrary leads to those questions, and brushing aside anything that isn't limited to two humans is as valid as anyone brushing aside everything that isn't two humans of opposite sex.
* There is the claim that society has a vested interest in promoting population growth and thus society's government should give sanction to heterosexual couplings for the sake of child-creation, with the proviso that banning sterile couples from marrying would only be possible in a dictatorship due to privacy issues and so doesn't enter the equation. This leads to the question: "Why not ban birth control devices to promote the creation of children as the best interest of society just as narcotics are banned on the grounds that it is in society's interest to be sober?"
* If you privatize marriage, how will couples deal with the paperwork and legal mumbojumbo? Won't this cause the terms of marriages to be determined by who in the relationship has the best attourney? Won't it also lead to excessive hedonism (and thus more crime) by cheapening the meaningfulness of marriage?

Apparantly, in Sweden, when they legalized same-sex marriages, they also legalized sapien/beast marriages. Or so Joakim tells me. Not that I pay a load of attention to him, angry, violent, swede homosexuals generally scare me.

Note that section of BOLDNESS. So it's now immorally wrong for two gay people to want to marry because they won't be necessarily contributing to the economical standards set and yet will possibly gain the benefits of the marriage? That's just crap. If you truly believe this, you are more ignorant than I imagined. There are plenty of straight couples who marry and do NOT contribute to society either because they choose not to or simply can't. Should they not reap the benefits the government waves in their faces because of this? Of course not. So why should gay couples be discriminated this way?

What does morality have to do with economic incentives?

Roark listed some good papers just read those.

How does Jesus taste?

Ooo, good one.

I thought so.

Love is overrated. Sure, some people find it, great for them. Some people lose it, too. Love can concern many things other than wanting to jump into one another's pants/panties. I love my little sister, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to marry her. I love chocolate, but that's something else totally! I love the people I choose to marry in a realm that I play, the people that I adopt and care for in these realms, but it has nothing to do with marriage and procreation RL.

There's a huge push on only marrying for love. There's an even bigger push nowadays to have a career (in some cases, necessity).

Not everyone wants sexual, share the rest of your lives together and have-your-heart-ripped-out-of-your-chest-when-they-die love. No way in this world are all marriages for this kind of love. Marriages happen because someone gets pregnant. Because someone wants a life partner but want their emotions kept intact. Because of familial duty and tradition. Because they want to procreate. Love does NOT have to be the precedent for marriage.

Marriage is, legally and spiritually speaking, sharing every aspect of your lives. Sure, it doesn't always come out that clean, but theoretically, that's it.

I, personally, have no interest in a career. Having cared for or helped care for children since a small age (I was two and a half when my younger brother was born), both as a professional volunteer and privately, I simply have no interest in doing anything else in my life. As it is, I'm presently looking into a job (in the US!) which will allow me to care for other people's children.

I do want to marry, because I want to share my life with someone who cares deeply for me. I'm not going to wait until I'm old, wrinkled and grey searching for that elusive sexual, emotional love, because while I may wistfully hope for it in my coldest, loneliest hours, I'm not going to dictate my life that way. Love is not always that instantaneous, heart-stopping emotion that weighs a burden on you until it is returned. Sometimes, it can be a slow growth formed by time and shared experiences, which forms an unbreakable bond with time.

Unless you happen to believe in reincarnation, you only live once. Why waste that life waiting, when you can have the caring, and if it lasts, love, that a marriage based on, perhaps, procreation and simple caring can bring.

With equality the way it is at present, homosexual couples should legally be allowed to formalise their union (I'm going to steer clear of using any specific terms there). There is such a push for equality, equality, equality that it is truly blind that this is not already the standard, rather than the oddity.

Did you know, that in Australia, there was actually some speculation over offering incentives for those in their teens (18 or 19, I don't believe they meant any younger although sex is legal at 16 for straight couples) to procreate? I don't believe that was ever passed.

Yet I hear so much horror and shock when young people want to marry. If you can do it - good on you, whatever your age.

Even a hundred years ago, people were still marrying to carry on family lines, to make alliances, to better their situations. My grandparents are 81 and 84 - are now approaching their 58th anniversary, if I recall correctly. While I don't doubt that they love one another (even in their sniping at one another and embarrassing me in front of my boyfriend ), I do doubt that it was just for love. If any of you have relatives of an older generation, ask them what marriage meant when they were young, what it's purpose was. I guarantee it will give some of you some interesting food for thought.

Apologies for the length of this post, I had a lot of time to compile my thoughts.

Also, I eagerly await the scathing replies to my opinions of love and marriage.