I still haven't read any post that explains the connection between same sex marriage, and polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Some posters seem to be assuming an inherent connection between all three, but it isn't enough just to make a personal assumption. If you want to include it in an argument against ssm then you need to explain what the connection is.

Thanks to everyone who's offered me advice on how to broaden my mind. But I'd still like you to explain these connections.

Perhaps one day in the future, when inter-galactic travel is a way of life and humans meet creatures from other planets - issues like sexual orientation won't really matter. But hopefully love will always still be around. Perhaps we will one day see that the survival of our planet depends on the dominance of peace and love. In order for this to happen however we have to recognise the fact that the only thing we can be responsible for is our own minds. We can't go on thinking that "other people are the problem." That only our way is the right way and that the people who disagree with us are bad. If you're against same-sex marriage - fair enough. That's your right. But your right does not extend to imposing your beliefs onto other people. FRankly I think that this issue should be raised in Parliament and put to a conscience vote.

What a lot of rubbish.
She actually brings up that ridiculous canard of blacks and whites. This has nothing to do with with racism, it has to do with institutions that reflect biological reality.

Marriage is based on the physical reality of male and female. All this stuff about 'orientation' is rubbish. Who cares what one feels, all that matters is what one is. A penis is not a vagina. Wilson simply makes a mess of understanding the issue.

It is not about what individuals do when they marry, it is about what defines the institution.
1. One of each sex.
2. Not closely related.
3. Both old enough.

Jennifer rails against the first one (in part), but fails to see that her line of thinking can equally be used for multiple partners, incest or child marriage, never mind even marriage with, say, a man and a horse.

Everybody can marry today so long as they meet the requirements. And those requirements are based on biological facts. Obviously that's too much for the fantasy world of Jennifer Wilson. Her 'argument' is null and void. Equality exists today - every man or woman can marry.

btw, her overall framework that such a thing as a heterosexual or homosexual as identity is false. In the real world of humans, there are males and females, end of story. Obviously Wilson’s qualifications are worthless and only have value in the echo chamber of like-minded extremist social engineers. The scary bit is that they want you to be forced to celebrate this perversion of marriage.

I note she doesn't ever explain to us how anal sex is healthy, in fact - the very thing that defines homosexuality she avoids mentioning. In contrast, I'm not aware of a real marriage being unable to avoid unhealthy sexual practices, nor it being 100% infertile. It's surely not in the interests of society to condone risky behaviour. Take your distorted and perverse agenda elsewhere, Jennifer. It's be fun to see you debate Bill sometime - now that would be a one-sided affair.

<<Gays and lesbians are part of "our" culture.
They play football, work in hospitals, teach, join the police force, become judges, drive racing cars, win swimming medals, produce tv shows, run businesses - have you been living under a rock?>>

Incestuous and polyamorous people are part of "our" culture.
They play football, work in hospitals, teach, join the police force, become judges, drive racing cars, win swimming medals, produce tv shows, run businesses - have you been living under a rock?

<<I still haven't read any post that explains the connection between same sex marriage, and polygamous and incestuous marriage.
Some posters seem to be assuming an inherent connection between all three, but it isn't enough just to make a personal assumption. If you want to include it in an argument against ssm then you need to explain what the connection is>>

The point is that any argument homosexual activists make can be equally applied to incestuous couples and polyamorous groups.

<<Marriage ought to be available to ANYONE who wants it>>
<<EVERYONE should have the fundamental human right to marry>>

When blanket statements such as these are made it is logically encumbent upon the person making the claim to demonstrate why others should be excluded, especially when the claims, as made, can equally be applied to people of all sexual perversions.

ie If marriage can be changed from a man and a woman to a man and a man
then why cannot it be similarly changed to a man and his brother or a woman and two men.

You have absolutely no right to exclude anyone from marrying
when you are demanding the "right" for anyone to marry.

The problem I have with same sex marriages is the repercussions such as the newly legislated birth certificates in Spain enacted by the new Socialist government which legalised same sex marriages.

Instead of "Mother" and "Father" (you know, the REAL parents)you have "Progenitor 1" and Progenitor 2" that is now stated on birth certificates, for the sake of equality.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/cover031506.htm

No more MAMA and PAPA but your parents are now from something sounding like they are from outer space. Meet the Progs.

Hasn't this taken away the natural given rights of heterosexuals and children allover? When it's a minority within a minority that has enforced this.

Is the world going mad? Oh the luxuries of so called human rights.

Reason and Proxy, we've reached the point in the debate where mature and civilised people agree to differ.
Thank you for your interest in my article.
Jennifer.