It could be argued that such a union shouldn’t be allowed as it might produce children with disabilities, but then the prevalence of having children later to accommodate one’s career also makes that a bigger possibility among other couples who are allowed to wed!
But let’s assume that the government has the wisdom to disallow brother-sister marriage on the grounds of potential gene pool issues. Then the question becomes
“Well can a man marry his biological brother?” If SSM is legalised, and obviously there is no possibility of brothers creating a child together, what logical argument is there against it?
If it is not wrong in the eyes of the people involved, and there is no harm done to anyone else, then surely it becomes a hate crime to speak out against such a union. So, it must be allowed – it is their right to enjoy the happiness that their love demands! And if that is allowed, on what grounds do we then continue to disallow brother-sister, father-daughter or mother-son relationships? Wouldn’t that be discrimination?
Taking it a step further, what about a man or woman and their pet? It might be for companionship purposes, or to protect the animal’s financial well-being in the event of the human partner’s untimely death. Now, the logical argument might be that for even a redefined marriage to take place, all parties must consent to the marriage (in order to save children from predators!). However, while a dog may not speak, it can surely show its devoted love for its owner, and many pets are demonstrably traumatised when separated from their loved ones.
Surely, then, it could be construed that it would not withhold its consent to marry if it could speak? If there is no negative response, then it must be a positive one by process of elimination, which equates to consent! And if “love” is the only qualification required for marriage, then it must be allowed too.
If you think that is preposterous, the US Nonhuman Rights Project is already arguing that chimpanzees are legal persons, and Australia’s bio-ethicist, Peter Singer, has campaigned for years to allow apes to have “human” rights. If they become legal persons with rights, then they must be allowed to marry under the new definition of marriage.
So, if marriage has no absolute value to society, then all of these things and others would logically have to be allowed over time. Is that really what the majority of the “equality” supporters want to see happen? I hope not, but then the citizens of Rome did not foresee the end of their empire as they allowed great political and cultural changes, and the people of Germany, in the 1930s, did not foresee the catastrophic consequences of allowing Hitler’s rhetoric and bullying tactics to grow.
Australians are now being bullied into accepting the rhetoric in support of SSM. If you dare to speak out against it, you are vilified for being intolerant. Yet the intolerance of those in favour of SSM is such that if the Labor Party chooses to bind all members to the party policy on marriage, then any member who dissents in a parliamentary vote will automatically be expelled from the party!
Please do not let this happen!