This assertion is made by David Swanton,the author:
” Respecting equality requires that if heterosexuals can marry whomever they want, then everyone should have that right. Most religious leaders (but not all religious people) reject this notion. Another relevant principle might be a utilitarian approach to the betterment of humankind. More people will be happier if they are permitted to marry whomever they want.”
This is complete nonsense.
A heterosexual may, with certain limitations, marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no such thing as “marriage” to a person of the same sex. Such a relationship is not a marriage, and being, until recently, a relationship involving criminal acts, has not been named.
There is no question about equality, a pervert can marry someone of the opposite sex, but there is no such thing as marriage to someone of the same sex.
The term “same sex marriage” is invalid, dishonest and misleading.
A pervert's same sex relationship should be referred to as such, unless there is an honest name for it.
The baseless lie of “marriage equality”, should be abandoned by those, like the author, who dishonestly assert it

//Dear Toni Lavis,

I am tempted to get a "This Guy Rocks"
t-shirt for you.//

Foxy, I wish I knew the art of screen-printing so I could make you a 'Librarians Do It With Books' t-shir.... no, wait, that sounds a bit wrong.

How about 'Librarians Do It in Silence'? Or maybe 'Librarians Do It in Stacks'?

Toni Lavis. Should it matter to me what you think of me? You who show yourself has hating Christianity, does not think I'm a good Christian. That does not bother me a bit. You who try to get a rise out of me from insults and red herring crap (which also derails the topic of the conversation). I see no reason to be concerned by your opinion. Nor do I see a benifit of acknowledging your points unless they actually deal with the the origional topic of the thread. (Again since you're prone to derail topics).

You say the author used those verses you quoted. Look again. If He had then I would not have used the critism I had. No he changed them to suit his point. That is the issue
I had which I gave my critism from. He also used a changed bit from the quran. Which as I pointed out also is not good.

Your points on the bible could have been included in the article if they were just done with an honest approach. As of now since most of them in their context don't show a discrimination against homosexuals, your arguments of the bible being imoral are of no value to the conversation of homosexuals and marriage. Why should I try to defend what in essence if your action to yet again derail the topic.

Keep these things in mind, and know that your opinion is worthless to me. Change and do better and my opinion of you might change. Otherwise aside from being a troll to Christianity, you're gaining a collection of other attributes I've noted. I highly doubt you want to hear those though, nor do those insults have anything to do with this topic.

The critism I said earlier still stands and holds merrit for this article.

Big Nana - you wrote - Australia is actually one of the few countries that already has one form of legal incestuous marriage and that is avunculate marriage, where you can marry your aunt or uncle. That is the same degree of DNA match as a half sibling yet I've not heard anyone suggesting we remove that right. So I can't see why full siblings can't marry, if they are cults and the relationship did not start in childhood.
As I said, if we are going to destroy the original concept marriage then it may as well be available to all adults. That is what is actually meant by marriage equality.
Polygamy, adult incest and polyamory already exist as defacto relationships, just as homosexual ones do, so I cannot see why, if you open the door to one, it's not open to all.

Thank you for your informed post - will look into this further.