"Some marriages between consenting adults should be recognized, but not others"

As long as we are referring only to consenting adults, is there any logical argument that could be used in favor of gay marriage that does not apply also to incestuous or polygamous marriage?

  1. “Incestuous or polygamous marriage is disgusting” - isn’t that exactly what people have said about gay marriage?

  2. “Incestuous or polygamous marriage is immoral” - isn’t that exactly what people have said about gay marriage?

  3. “People could fraudulently claim multiple spouses for tax benefits” - what if a law allowed people to claim only 1 spouse for tax deductions, no matter how many spouses they actually had?

  4. “Incestuous marriage would cause inbreeding and genetic problems” - what if they don’t have children? And even if so, is that the government’s business?

  5. “Society isn’t ready for incestuous or polygamous marriage” - isn’t that exactly what people have said about gay marriage?

For clarification, I’m not actually advocating for recognition of incestuous or polygamous marriage. But isn’t it logistically inconsistent for society to support only certain marriages between consenting adults, and not others?

Inconsistency only applies when the argument is actively being made. Silence from an advocate of SSM on the other two subjects is not honestly construed as advocacy against them.

Unless I protest for all causes at the same time, I am being unfair to all causes but the one I am currently espousing?

How silly.

Possibly, but I very much get the impression that many people, if given a vote in the ballot box on the three issues, would vote in favor of gay marriage but vote against incestuous or polygamous marriage.
And I’ve read the opinion of people who claimed that gay marriage and polygamous marriage are “different” and so the recognition extended to the former should not apply to the latter.

Incestuous… well that’s just icky.

I have two issues concerning polygamous marriage. I’m concerned about abuse rates and the underage forced into those relationships (I haven no cites, just the news stories I’ve seen and read). The other issue is distribution of property upon divorce. Would it be 50/50 or percentage based on the number of people in the marriage ? Should each wife get property based on how long she was in the marriage (I use wife since it’s usually one husband and multiple wives). I’m sort of ok with polygamy if these two issue could have satisfactory answers.

Unless those causes share similarity.
This is like saying, “Baseball stadiums should be taxpayer funded but football stadiums should not.”

Isn’t excluding gays from marriage just exactly that? - “support only certain marriages between consenting adults, and not others?”

And the unbalanced situation you’ve described can be avoided by excluding gays from marrying? Huh?

For clarification, I’m not referring to people who argue for SSM but don’t argue for incestuous or polygamous marriage - nobody has infinite energy.
I’m referring to people who support SSM but **oppose **incestuous or polygamous marriage.

No-It’s like saying, “It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if you get spread too thin you’re not going to get too far.”

Oppose whom? Where are the supporters of incestuous marriage?

Oh, I get it, they oppose something that doesn’t exist and isn’t a thing! Got it!

How about people that support man-woman marriage but oppose same-sex marriage? It would seem that the same thing could apply to them.

My question is, why don’t all supporters of gay marriage, logically, support *all *marriages between consenting adults?

I think people pretty much view polygamy as they do SSM. They just don’t see any issue with who or how many someone lives with or sleeps with.

I have no problem with incestuous marriages, though I find the idea personally pretty uncomfortable.

I have a problem with poly marriage because it requires fundamental changes to the default rules we have: either all marriages would have to change or else some rules would be different for poly marriage. I don’t want the former and I think the latter has problems.

Why don’t supporters of opposite sex marriage, logically, support all marriages between consenting adults? Why is opposite sex marriage support exempt from these sorts of slippery slope arguments?

You could ask them that, but this thread question is primarily aimed at supporters of SSM.

Because we are individuals, not a great hive-mind collective.

Whether or not people have children with genetic problems is a societal problem. It is an actual, identifiable, non-judgemental problem with high societal costs.

Re: Polygamy, personally, I feel that the history of polygamy, where a man is the central figure in the marriage and the women are put in a subordinate position, is far more important that the Ick factor.

Polygamy is also far more complex legally than 2 person marriage. 2 person marriage may assign rights to “the spouse”, in polygamy those rights are assigned to multiple people, eliminating the concept of primacy in that right. Not only is the right assigned, we need now to develop a method of how to deal with disagreements when in the past it was a single person’s decision. Every law that assigns marriage rights or deals with marriage in any way would need to be rewritten (or at least closely reviewed) to account for this fundamental change.

Technically, multiple-spouse marriage could also be a woman with multiple husbands.

Should we recognize or not recognize marriages on that basis?

I’m a supporter of SSM. For me to evaluate polygamy, incestuous marriage, and the like, I’d have to hear arguments from multiple supporters (and perhaps practitioners) of them. I didn’t support SSM until I heard arguments from many gay couples, and I can’t make much of a judgment on these other types of possible marriage until I heard from many polygamous or incestuous couples.