It has come to my attention this election cycle that a large number of people who consider themselves advocates of gay rights, often stop their support of civil liberties right there. The blogger Andrew Sullivan (a homosexual catholic) is of this mind, calling polygamy for example a “slippery slope” (And it should go without saying that demagogues like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, consider gay rights to be on a par with bestiality). The disconnect arises when other kinds of relationships that can be defended using the same logic as gay marriage are included as being on a par with gay marriage, such as: Polygamy, polyamory, even incest. These types of relationships are still taboo and while they should be protected under the same reasoning that gay marriage should be protected under, most people do not want to be associated with such things. So all sorts of random reasons are concocted that have nothing to do with ones civil rights, a knee jerk reflex Sullivan’s readers have in spades (the second commenter is particularly eye opening. Their reasoning being, if a majority deems something harmful that others do not, they are still in the right to legally restrict it regardless of whether there can be an example of such a relationship being perfectly healthy. It’s utterly totalitarian.)
Gay marriage hinges on every American having the freedom to love whatever other consenting adult they wish, and the government having no business outlawing any form of consenting adult relationship. What follows from this perfectly correct reasoning is also a decriminalization of polygamy, polyamory and yes, incest. As icky as we find the idea of incest, “ick” is not a legal justification. And to paraphrase Ron Paul regarding heroin, “If incest was legalized how many of you would engage in it?” The silence answers itself.
As for the normalcy of unorthodox relationships I offer up this Dan Savage article as evidence that human beings are far more complicated than the simplistic 1950’s paradigm we’ve been sold on and I would encourage everyone to follow their principles to their logical conclusions. Not just to where their cultural and social attachments lie.