Have I sufficiently addressed reasons against gay marriages?

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Skace:
ware is the update for my first post?

What does denying the moral and social foundations on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law actually deny?

The right of our common moral foundations to be expressed in our law. We can encompass the values of others in a way that doesn?t overtly attack the definition of those foundations.

Your argument is based on nothing but the premise that being gay is evil and your opinion as to the correctness of that comes from nowhere but your religious brainwashing.

no, and I don?t really know what God thinks of others that proclaim the Lord?s name but have homosexual sex:
That?s between them and God.

But for my own I know it?d be wrong.

I believe my point of view is the general consensus amongst heterosexuals.

If anyone is being discriminated against it?s the population who wants to quietly live there private lives and let others live there private lives, but are being forced to not only acknowledge but accept what many of us feel is a lack of a key sexual-morality value.

you have a right to, but why do you want to? Do you want to?

We already have expressed our common value system in the form of legal marriage as it is now.

Value?s are guard rails that we live with not because it?s legally required, but because it seems to us to be the most reasonable way to live our lives. We don?t want to force others not to make mistakes in life, or even to agree with the values we have, but we don?t want to be forced to pretend like those that lack some of our key values should be able to change our social definition of our own values.

?I don?t like XYZ, they?re welcome to do what they want in the privacy of there own homes, but when they try to force it on you in the public square it becomes repugnant?

Is that statement bigoted? If it is then we?re all bigots when it comes to passively tolerating those with whom we deeply disagree with.

Homosexual marriage does legitimize polygamy and incest when the argument is about discrimination.

very true. If adults have a right to have there legal sexual activity recognized as marriage in law then you should be able to marry both your aunt and your brother.

Then, it order to preserve the "covenant of marriage", we must outlaw divorce too.

no, not necessarily. Though no-fault divorce is a problem in society.

Do you want to?

personally? I?d like to see marriage taken away from the government and anyone with no regard to sexual activity able to create a communal property contract.

Where do you think this is going to get you? A place in heaven?

allowing those that want to preserve the legal expression of the covenant of marriage in its original form is necessary not establishing a dangerous precedent in regards to both ?discrimination? and the right of the people not the judges to establish what laws they want to live under.

I hold that I am a moral person with values. They don't agree in all places with Christian teachings, however that makes mine no better or worse than any other.

And we can disagree on what values we?ll live by, but if your values come in direct conflict with the majority, the majority wins. Even if it?s on wealth-redistribution, what sexual activity we as a society condone, what substances are to be freely available, or what weaponry should be available to the populous.

Still laboring under the absurd notion that there is no Constitution interpreted by the courts I see. Your bigotry will I hope be ruled unconstitutional. Our Constitutional government was established to make sure the majority doesn't win because they are very often, like you, ruled by irrational passion. You are a bigot and your bigotry has no place in our law. Gay marriage is not inflicting immorality on you. It is other people exercising their own personal rights that because of your bigotry you find offensive. Your morality is false and sick and you project that out on others where in fact it does not exist at all. You are just like an Iranian Mullah who beats a woman because she shows her face. You are deeply inculcated with a mental illness.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Still laboring under the absurd notion that there is no Constitution interpreted by the courts I see.

just that judges have no right to invent new "rights" for people and that legislating from the bench is wrong.

your bigotry will I hope be ruled unconstitutional.

hopefully your intellectual dishonesty in this issue is clear for all to see and they will see that you want nothing less than to demand that our laws pay no attention to values that are disagreed with even 4% of the electorate.

You support judicial tyranny and the only way to defend it is to call those who oppose that tyranny bigots.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: assemblage
The pro-homosexual marriage argument that I usualy hear is that it's discrimination to strictly define marriage as between a man and a woman. Homosexuals that want marriage say, that's not fair. You're discriminating against me because I'm not marrying the opposite sex. I don't think so, but say it's so.

Say it is discrimination to strictly define marriage as between a man and a woman. So if marriage isn't just between a man and a woman than who is it between. If homosexual coples are included and only them and heterosexual couples then it's male/female, male/male and female/female. That's defined just as strictly as saying marriage is only male/female and also discriminatory. Does it have to just be couples then. If so then it's just as discriminatory as male/female marriages. That means that group marriages have to be allowed to avoid discrimination. But does sex have to be involved. To say that sex has to be involved also strictly defines marriage which is discriminatory. I should then be able to marry my fraternity brother. I should be able to marry my brother or aunt too because saying that I can't marry family members would also be discrimination. That's not even talking about sex though. But why not? As a man, if it's ok to have sex with another man, then why is it wrong to sex with my brother or aunt? To say it's wrong is discrimination.

If people want incest and non-sex marriages, then they have to fight for that. I do not see people knocking the doors down for it. There isn't any public demand. There isn't any reason. You've created generic cases to justify destroying a valid case.

And, probably the biggest flaw in your post is that you believe that allowing homosexuals to marry somehow destroys discrimination. It simply makes _homosexuals_ more equal. 8 year olds still won't be able to marry, family members still won't be able to marry, you still won't be able to marry your dog or otherwise, because these are other issues that must be discussed wholey seperate.

Your argument would be similar to saying "If we let blacks vote simply to remove discrimination against blacks, then whats stopping us from letting everyone vote, children, dogs, foreign civilians". Removing discrimination for one group with logical reasons does not blindly remove all discriminiation.

 

[skace]

Lord MagnusKain, I just added your response but I still don't understand it. Can you dumb it down for me. So that I can hopefully understand your point of view as well as you do?

I stated: What does denying the moral and social foundations on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law actually deny?

You stated: The right of our common moral foundations to be expressed in our law. We can encompass the values of others in a way that doesn?t overtly attack the definition of those foundations.

Isn't your moral foundation expressed in law by allowing you to marry? Don't gays also have the right to express their moral foundation? Can the moral foundations not co-exist without one overwriting the other? It would seem, from your response that you feel gay marriages would remove the existence of heterosexual marriages instead of co-exist.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

You cannot reason with some people. Plain and simple. If you don't need evidence to believe what you believe, than no amount of evidence is is going to change your beliefs. Because you have no sound logical belief structure. Shake that structure as much as you want, it doesn't have to stay within the bounds of reality, so chances are, it will not fall. It has to come as a realization. A combination of things that shouldn't be happening within their belief structure. Things that aren't supposed to happen, but do.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
You cannot reason with some people. Plain and simple. If you don't need evidence to believe what you believe, than no amount of evidence is is going to change your beliefs. Because you have no sound logical belief structure. Shake that structure as much as you want, it doesn't have to stay within the bounds of reality, so chances are, it will not fall. It has to come as a realization. A combination of things that shouldn't be happening within their belief structure. Things that aren't supposed to happen, but do.

Is it possible for me to speed up realization? There is always a reason people believe what they believe. If I can simply question it, then I think I might have done something. Regardless, I think this thread has worked out better than I had planned before I posted it. It has stayed relatively on track at least 🙂.

 

[TravisT]

Guess what? Get over it. The majority of the country feels gay marriage is not justified.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TravisT
Guess what? Get over it. The majority of the country feels gay marriage is not justified.

Yep it seems that butting into others affairs, whether at home or abroad, seems to be popular these days.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
You cannot reason with some people. Plain and simple. If you don't need evidence to believe what you believe, than no amount of evidence is is going to change your beliefs. Because you have no sound logical belief structure. Shake that structure as much as you want, it doesn't have to stay within the bounds of reality, so chances are, it will not fall. It has to come as a realization. A combination of things that shouldn't be happening within their belief structure. Things that aren't supposed to happen, but do.

Is it possible for me to speed up realization? There is always a reason people believe what they believe. If I can simply question it, then I think I might have done something. Regardless, I think this thread has worked out better than I had planned before I posted it. It has stayed relatively on track at least 🙂.

We just have to remember, even with all our differences, we are all human. One race, many faces.
I guess it's in our nature to fight. To be aggressive and stubborn. But we've come a long way.
Look at all the things humans have believed throughout history. And look how silly they seem now.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

If anyone is being discriminated against it?s the population who wants to quietly live there private lives and let others live there private lives, but are being forced to not only acknowledge but accept what many of us feel is a lack of a key sexual-morality value.

What? Are you serious? Have you deluded yourself into thinking this is true? The people that just won a huge political victory and passed gay marriage bans are the ones being discriminated against?

I'm being discriminated against because I'm being forced to accept your religious viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong and not worthy of recognition by the government.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Still laboring under the absurd notion that there is no Constitution interpreted by the courts I see.

just that judges have no right to invent new "rights" for people and that legislating from the bench is wrong.

So, based on this statement, I can only assume that you don't think blacks or women should have any rights either. After all, those "rights" were invented AFTER the Constitution was written. Never mind the bit about it being self-evident that all men are created equal and having rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
If you aren't supposed to legislate from the bench, what exactly is the purpose of the Supreme Court?

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
We just have to remember, even with all our differences, we are all human. One race, many faces.
I guess it's in our nature to fight. To be aggressive and stubborn. But we've come a long way.
Look at all the things humans have believed throughout history. And look how silly they seem now.

We've deffinitely come along way, but people still fight the inevitable every step of the way. Everything is always tooth and nail.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: skace
"Gay marriages open the door to polygamy and incest"
These 2 must be discussed somewhat seperately. The problem with relating gay marriages to polygamy is that polygamy is an entirely different beast. You are significantly modifying the marriage process and how it affects things. You now have to have special divorce scenarios and laws to create an atmosphere that works for polygamy. I do not think gay marriage leads to polygamy though the opposite might have been true (bisexual polygamy most likely would have lead to homosexual marriages). All things considered, dealing with homosexual marriages is nothing like dealing with polygamy and any problems that may or may not result from it. Homosexual marriages fits into the current system with no changes.

Incest is a whole nother problem. Well, incest itself isn't the problem really, inbreeding is. By and large they are seperate, but there is no real way to seperate them without spying on your neighbor. Sure brother and sister could enter some sort of incestial marriage, but who moderates whether they have unprotected sex and produce a genetically defficient child. Again, in this scenario if you added an additional issue that is possibly bigger than this entire thread.

Does gay marriage get people talking about these other issues? Sure. Does it somehow automatically legitimize these other issues? Not even close. I think the major understanding to come out of this is that, unlike the other 2 scenarios you brought up, homosexual marriages does not change anything in the current system. If it were to go into affect tomorrow, it would not require any further thought or reworking. And it does not have any massive impact on society that homosexuals are not already causing. You have to understand, unlike incest and polygamy, homosexually is currently existing, they simply want the right to comit to 1 partner like any other consenting adults.

The better question is, did I answer the this in any way acceptable to you?

Not quite yet.

You are confusing sex and marriage. Marriage can occur independent of sex. Ignore demand for a moment, because it is irrelevent as to what is "right" and "wrong". What's wrong with an of age daughter from marrying her father (with no sex involved)? What's wrong with a man marrying several women (with no sex involved)?

Most people are going to find something wrong with these two things even without the sex involved. There is some instinct inside a person that says a daughter should not marry her father even if they don't have sex.

You need to make a separation between what is right and wrong in your argument and what is actually implementable. Something may be right but impossible to implement, such as the institution of polygamy in our society (if you believe there's nothing wrong with it).

The arguments you give are all about the actual implementation of homosexual marriage. What we need is arguments of why it is "the right thing to do". The reason why people cite the Bible so much is that for many people that is where they draw their sense of morality from. For others, morality is more rooted in their experiences than in their religion.

The reason why this is such a contentious argument is that we as people and philosophers do not know how to define what is right and wrong exactly. And thus, you will be hard pressed to show why gay marriage is right. This is the reason why until homosexuality marriage is accepted as socially normal it will go nowhere, and is the reason why "activist" judges are needed to change what is socially normal.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TravisT
Guess what? Get over it. The majority of the country feels gay marriage is not justified.

Yep it seems that butting into others affairs, whether at home or abroad, seems to be popular these days.

It also seems that deviant behavior is on the rise. Perhaps the two go hand in hand.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

If you aren't supposed to legislate from the bench, what exactly is the purpose of the Supreme Court?

enforcement of the constitution as it pertains to laws that contradict it.

The people that just won a huge political victory and passed gay marriage bans are the ones being discriminated against?

bush won because of the feeling of oppression that the right feels because of it?s religious beliefs.

?you believe in God, your point of view is inherently wrong?

It?s part of the argument you just made, and why we?re fighting to move God back to the center of public discourse, as even the most secular of the founding fathers wanted.

So, based on this statement, I can only assume that you don't think blacks or women should have any rights either.

we have constitutional amendments giving them equal protection, and rightfully so. Giving people who choose sexual deviant behavior special protection because of it is simply absurd.

The basic values used to make marriage part of the law are denied if homosexual unions are added to that law.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
we have constitutional amendments giving them equal protection, and rightfully so. Giving people who choose sexual deviant behavior special protection because of it is simply absurd.

The basic values used to make marriage part of the law are denied if homosexual unions are added to that law.

Part of the fault in your post here is the assumption that they choose sexual deviant behavior as if it were a choice such as whether to wear a green or red shirt tomorrow. We, as humans, do not know the exact formula of what attracts one human being to another or why 2 humans of the same sex would be attracted to each other. Therefor, we cannot label it a choice.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
It also seems that deviant behavior is on the rise. Perhaps the two go hand in hand.

The acceptance and visibility is what is on the rise. It would be extremely impossible for you to gauge homosexuality before it was somewhat accepted.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Part of the fault in your post here is the assumption that they choose sexual deviant behavior as if it were a choice such as whether to wear a green or red shirt tomorrow. We, as humans, do not know the exact formula of what attracts one human being to another or why 2 humans of the same sex would be attracted to each other. Therefore, we cannot label it a choice.

having sex, in this context, is a choice.

you are welcome to "love" anyone you want, hell, you're welcome to have sex with anyone you want, but you are not welcome to try to use judicial activism to change the founding values of our society because you want to flaunt your choice before those who disagree with your value judgments in this regard.

Make no mistake, using the term "mirage" for homosexual unions has only one real reason: to attack the values on which mirage was originally based.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
You are confusing sex and marriage. Marriage can occur independent of sex. Ignore demand for a moment, because it is irrelevent as to what is "right" and "wrong". What's wrong with an of age daughter from marrying her father (with no sex involved)? What's wrong with a man marrying several women (with no sex involved)?

Most people are going to find something wrong with these two things even without the sex involved. There is some instinct inside a person that says a daughter should not marry her father even if they don't have sex.

You need to make a separation between what is right and wrong in your argument and what is actually implementable. Something may be right but impossible to implement, such as the institution of polygamy in our society (if you believe there's nothing wrong with it).

The arguments you give are all about the actual implementation of homosexual marriage. What we need is arguments of why it is "the right thing to do". The reason why people cite the Bible so much is that for many people that is where they draw their sense of morality from. For others, morality is more rooted in their experiences than in their religion.

The reason why this is such a contentious argument is that we as people and philosophers do not know how to define what is right and wrong exactly. And thus, you will be hard pressed to show why gay marriage is right. This is the reason why until homosexuality marriage is accepted as socially normal it will go nowhere, and is the reason why "activist" judges are needed to change what is socially normal.

Daughter and father is a possible case of pedophilia. Pedophilia is protected against because we believe we are protecting children from choices that will affect their life that they may not be old enough or responsible enough to make.

Incest without sex is not a problem. Regardless of whether you think it is wrong or not, there isn't a single problem. But the fact is, you cannot manage incest without sex. How would you? Incest is taboo because it naturally leads to inbreeding which is a factual detriment to society. If inbreeding was not an issue and incest existed on a large scale, you wouldn't even know if a sister and brother were married unless they told you or looked identical.

And I havn't a clue why we are discussing incest and pedophilia, they are so far from homosexual marriages. You have to understand, homosexuals are currently living together and adopting, marriages simply makes their household more stable.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: totalcommand
You are confusing sex and marriage. Marriage can occur independent of sex. Ignore demand for a moment, because it is irrelevent as to what is "right" and "wrong". What's wrong with an of age daughter from marrying her father (with no sex involved)? What's wrong with a man marrying several women (with no sex involved)?

Most people are going to find something wrong with these two things even without the sex involved. There is some instinct inside a person that says a daughter should not marry her father even if they don't have sex.

You need to make a separation between what is right and wrong in your argument and what is actually implementable. Something may be right but impossible to implement, such as the institution of polygamy in our society (if you believe there's nothing wrong with it).

The arguments you give are all about the actual implementation of homosexual marriage. What we need is arguments of why it is "the right thing to do". The reason why people cite the Bible so much is that for many people that is where they draw their sense of morality from. For others, morality is more rooted in their experiences than in their religion.

The reason why this is such a contentious argument is that we as people and philosophers do not know how to define what is right and wrong exactly. And thus, you will be hard pressed to show why gay marriage is right. This is the reason why until homosexuality marriage is accepted as socially normal it will go nowhere, and is the reason why "activist" judges are needed to change what is socially normal.

Daughter and father is a possible case of pedophilia. Pedophilia is protected against because we believe we are protecting children from choices that will affect their life that they may not be old enough or responsible enough to make.

Incest without sex is not a problem. Regardless of whether you think it is wrong or not, there isn't a single problem. But the fact is, you cannot manage incest without sex. How would you? Incest is taboo because it naturally leads to inbreeding which is a factual detriment to society. If inbreeding was not an issue and incest existed on a large scale, you wouldn't even know if a sister and brother were married unless they told you or looked identical.

And I havn't a clue why we are discussing incest and pedophilia, they are so far from homosexual marriages. You have to understand, homosexuals are currently living together and adopting, marriages simply makes their household more stable.

Should people with genetic defects also be prevented from marrying/breeding? ie hemophiliacs?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Pedophilia is protected against because we believe we are protecting children from choices that will affect their life that they may not be old enough or responsible enough to make...And I havn't a clue why we are discussing incest

by equal protection provided in the constitution if sexual behavior of non-traditional kind is required to be allowed for as marriage then we must also allow an 18 year old daughter and her 38 year old father to marry.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: totalcommand
You are confusing sex and marriage. Marriage can occur independent of sex. Ignore demand for a moment, because it is irrelevent as to what is "right" and "wrong". What's wrong with an of age daughter from marrying her father (with no sex involved)? What's wrong with a man marrying several women (with no sex involved)?

Most people are going to find something wrong with these two things even without the sex involved. There is some instinct inside a person that says a daughter should not marry her father even if they don't have sex.

You need to make a separation between what is right and wrong in your argument and what is actually implementable. Something may be right but impossible to implement, such as the institution of polygamy in our society (if you believe there's nothing wrong with it).

The arguments you give are all about the actual implementation of homosexual marriage. What we need is arguments of why it is "the right thing to do". The reason why people cite the Bible so much is that for many people that is where they draw their sense of morality from. For others, morality is more rooted in their experiences than in their religion.

The reason why this is such a contentious argument is that we as people and philosophers do not know how to define what is right and wrong exactly. And thus, you will be hard pressed to show why gay marriage is right. This is the reason why until homosexuality marriage is accepted as socially normal it will go nowhere, and is the reason why "activist" judges are needed to change what is socially normal.

Daughter and father is a possible case of pedophilia. Pedophilia is protected against because we believe we are protecting children from choices that will affect their life that they may not be old enough or responsible enough to make.

Please read my post fully. I said the daughter is of age = above age 18 = no pedophilia.

Incest without sex is not a problem. Regardless of whether you think it is wrong or not, there isn't a single problem. But the fact is, you cannot manage incest without sex. How would you? Incest is taboo because it naturally leads to inbreeding which is a factual detriment to society. If inbreeding was not an issue and incest existed on a large scale, you wouldn't even know if a sister and brother were married unless they told you or looked identical.

You're talking in terms of what is feasible. Tell me what is right, what is wrong, and why it is right and wrong. What I proposed was a thought experiment, in which a daughter marries her father, but there is no sex involved. Would you call this morally acceptable?

And I havn't a clue why we are discussing incest and pedophilia, they are so far from homosexual marriages. You have to understand, homosexuals are currently living together and adopting, marriages simply makes their household more stable.

The fact that homosexuals are currently living together does not make it right or wrong. But, by the government giving legal recognition to the joining of two homosexuals, they would also in essence be giving recognition that this behavior is morally acceptable.

 

[Moonbeam]

LMK:you are welcome to "love" anyone you want, hell, you're welcome to have sex with anyone you want, but you are not welcome to try to use judicial activism to change the founding values of our society because you want to flaunt your choice before those who disagree with your value judgments in this regard.

M: Of course you are. The law doesn't give two sh!ts about your value judgments. Your value judgments on the one hand are sick and therefore actually imoral judgments on the other. Far from gays inflicting their real right to equality on you, you are trying to inflict on them a denial of their freedom to protect you from recognizing you are mentally ill. Judicial activism is actually protecting society from moral activists like you who wish to inflict your mental illness on the rest of us. The activism comes from you and will be rebuffed by the court whose job it is to see that the law conforms to the principles of equal justice as propounded in the Constitution. It only looks like activism because it actively protects our constitution form of government from loons like you.

LMK: Make no mistake, using the term "mirage" for homosexual unions has only one real reason: to attack the values on which mirage was originally based.

Here you show us your real paranoia and mental illness. You fancy that you are the center of the universe and that you are under attack by an evil world. You are an insignificant nobody about which gay lovers couldn't care less. They want to same right to love as anybody else and are unaware that you even exist. It is nothing more than our lack of self love that causes us to elevate our self importance to the level that we feel as we were in the center of the road. You have these gigantic sore toes you keep sticking out in the aisle and every time one gets stepped on it validates your life. You suffer from a profound insecurity to think you have to control the world such that you never see what offends your corrupt morality. You are sick and there are mirrors everywhere in which you will see your disgusting self. You will only find peace in mental health. Seek help.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

The law doesn't give two sh!ts about your value judgments.

it does when people who agree with my value judgments are the ones making the law. Or have bigots like me just been in charge sense the foundation of this country and we are just now finding judges that realize how bigoted and mentally ill all of us that hold true to our values are?

They want to same right to love as anybody else

in no way does not changing the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual relationships deny them the ?right to love?

?the institution of monogamy is one of the most psychologicly detrimental parts of our society, after we gain the right to be married, monogamy is the next thing that has to go?- Leader of the Gay and Lesbian alliance, SanFrancisco rally, 2003.

again, i thank people like you and conjur, your lack of reasonability and insults directed towards those of us with faith are so unreasonable that those that might be willing to meet you half way are turned to my side by them.

a mental illness is a psychological condition that leads you to be incapable of having friends and holding a job. Interestingly enough, many who are truly psychologically ill are cured of there problems simply by having faith in God.

 

[luv2chill]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
by equal protection provided in the constitution if sexual behavior of non-traditional kind is required to be allowed for as marriage then we must also allow an 18 year old daughter and her 38 year old father to marry.

Um, no. That's totally non-sequitur. The "one man, one woman" definition of marriage says nothing about the relation of those two people. Our laws against incest stem directly from natural law in that organisms seek genetic diversity for a multitude of reasons (chiefly to strengthen the genome of said species). I don't deny that our society considers this a moral "taboo" but I argue that is in place mainly because of the disastrous consequences of incest on our species' genome. Not to mention the emotional harm that consistently results when lines between familial love and romantic love are blurred

Article
Study (PDF)

Originally posted by: totalcommand
You're talking in terms of what is feasible. Tell me what is right, what is wrong, and why it is right and wrong. What I proposed was a thought experiment, in which a daughter marries her father, but there is no sex involved. Would you call this morally acceptable?

Isn't consumation required to validate a marriage? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that lack of consumation is grounds for divorce/annulment in most (if not all) states.

These slippery slope arguments just don't have much of a leg to stand on.

l2c

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
You're talking in terms of what is feasible. Tell me what is right, what is wrong, and why it is right and wrong. What I proposed was a thought experiment, in which a daughter marries her father, but there is no sex involved. Would you call this morally acceptable?

Yup, that would be morally acceptable to me. As long as neither was forced into the marriage or anything.

The fact that homosexuals are currently living together does not make it right or wrong. But, by the government giving legal recognition to the joining of two homosexuals, they would also in essence be giving recognition that this behavior is morally acceptable.

The fact that the behaviour is allowed within our society already means that it is morally acceptable.