Uhg, I get so irritated when people bring up Beastiality, Pedophilia, etc nonsense to a civil debate about gay rights. There are key differences between a same sex relationship, and one of the ones you described. The most important thing to remember is that the laws are protecting our civil liberties, right to happiness, and in general making sure everyone is treated fairly. Consent is a key factor in these things. Beastiality, an animal cannot consent to doing anything with a human. If animals could somehow speak with human tongue and understand fully what is going on around them like we can.....sure why not......but they can't. Pedophilia is the same thing, a underage(subjective) child's mind has not fully developed yet. Children are more prone to persuasion and influence due to unformed parts of the brain. This hinders their ability to think things through fully, and also consent to something as big as marraige. Now different places have different standards on how old a person has to be before that part of the brain can be trusted to make that important of a discision. Similar to why we don't give toddlers alcohol.  US basically deems you are smart enough to make that choice at 17.5yo. If you are emancipated, which they do a psyche eval on you, I believe you can do what you want then as well. I don't truly believe telling someone they can't get married at 12 is discrimination either. Age, is constantly progressing forward. Its not barring them from ever doing it, eventually they will be "of age". If you are so called going to spend the rest of your life together, what is another couple of years anyway? Plus any of the benefits that would befall a married couple under the Gov't would be useless to children so it really wouldn't matter.

Polygamy, the honest truth about it is there is nothing inherently wrong with it. The reality of it is it makes some people insecure and uncomfortable. That feeling of constantly having to compare to another person is the main reason people want to settle down with a "one and only". Humans don't like that feeling, so the selfish ideal that a person should only have them and no one else comes to play. I guess it just depends on the person. Maybe it should become legal.

And Now for the Equal Marraige Argument as a Whole-

Firstly, the only thing standing in it's way is the Religious Conservatives who are trying to claim they have rights over how marraige is defined due to it's history with the religion and the Bible's stance on Homosexuality.

I would like them to realize that there is a seperation of church and state for a reason. Marraige under Church is entirely different than what it means to the government. As far as Gov't is concerned, the unions between two ppl means that they have a better chance of becoming productive members of society, boosting the economy and keeping the cycle going. THATS ALL!!! There are 100s of religions with slightly varying views about what is required to constitute a marraige, but that is seperate from being legally married. A Pastor can deny someone from getting married in their church(which is their right, I don't fault that) but to be able to hinder someone from marrying at all? Ridonkulous. If a Muslim couple were to walk into a COGIC Church and asked to be married they would be turned away for not being apart of the congregation, but they could still go to the court house and get it done.

Also, the gov't recognizes a Same-Sex couple is equal to a Hetero-Coupling, so if that is true it makes no sense to impede one from doing what the other can do. I am starting to believe if Gay's just called themselves a Religion maybe this could be solved, because seemingly the rules are made by religious orders of what is possible. :/

Lastly, Christianity, or any othe religion did not create marriage. Marraige has been around in varrying cultures since forever. Early Egypt actually had a Trans-Pharoh Queen who had several wives. Early marraige practices were also built as a business transaction, and less about personal feelings. That is where the dowry, white dress, etc all come from. Thats how the Gov't sees it, a business transaction. I wish they would just admit that there is nothing that defines these sorts of terms other than the culture we live in. And all that is happening right now is one group of people are holding on to the rights of another group trying to tell them they can't have it because they don't like them.

I would have thought you better than arguments such as this.

yes

We legalized it in California except that Utah was able to get overturned somehow, actually I know how, they through millions of dollars at it.

While animals are eaten for food and controlled as pets animal cruelty with the sole purpose of human enjoyment is still not allowed.  It's why dog fighting is illegal even if you can put the dog to sleep, because forcing them to fight and die for your amusement is inhumane.  Having sex with an animal is similarly inhumane and is therefore different.

The rest is all about consent.  Consenting adults should be allowed to marry in any combination they like.  Marrying a minor or an animal forces an innocent into a situation they cannot consent to by definition.  Yes the choice of 18 is somewhat arbitrary, and if reasonable research comes out suggesting that children are mature before that the issue can be revisited, but you still need to choose an age as a society when you think children become adults and that's what we've chosen as of yet.   

Basically there's no reason that someone fighting for marriage equality has to support all the things you mentioned because they are fighting for marriage equality between consenting adults.  The fact that some wants to marry a non-consenting party doesn't affect that in the same way that gay marriage proponents don't have to fight for forced marriages to fight for full marriage equality, because equality swings both ways.  That animal has a right not to get fucked by you or mistreated for your amusement in any other way, but you should have the right to marry any consenting party you so desire.  

I'd wager a guess that all of those so-called progressives out there only support marriage equality for monogamous homosexuals. If you were to take a poll of how many of those same progressives support the rights of others to practice plural marriage, then the support for marriage equality would drop off a cliff. My point being... people are trumpeting marriage equality, but that only seems to include their narrow definition of it. Seems a little hypocritical...

thank you for trying to debate the beasyilaty point. i respect that. and as i said beastiality was the least of my argument. i respect your opinion on the matter. 

i dont know if you support polygammy and or incest marriage, but i just wish for proponents of consenting homosexual couple marriage would be consistant and support other forms of consenting adult marriage.

and like i have said i wish for the government to get out of the marriage business

I think Polygammy to any extent should be allowed if people want it.  I see no reason not to since I don't think the government should be viewing marriage as two people loving each other, but just people who agree to share their lives for a long time.  

Incest is more questionable only because it has obvious biological consequences for any child born out of such a relationship, but if you allow two jews who carry Tay-Sachs to marry knowing the risks then I think incest should be treated the same way.  Just test the two and let them know the chances of disease for their child as best you can and let them make the decision.    

Lastly I'd have to agree, it'd be best if marriage wasn't something the government was into at all, but something people define on their own terms, but I don't see that happening any time soon, and I think there probably are benefits to the government promoting marriage even if procreation isn't the goal.  

" I support Domestic Partnerships, but not Marriage Rights for same sex couples. "

My vote, but the whole system needs an overhaul as marriage means far too much in terms of what you can and can not do in areas that have nothing to do with it.

I don't care how people decide to group into a family unit and treat each other and live like a family. I think any civil rights offered to one preference of family unit should extend to all on governmental/legal level. I think various societal cultures and religions are and should remain 100% free to define what they consider to be a family unit per their traditions and values and they should have 0% rights to impose those views on anybody else in disagreement.

A family unit is not necessary to survive through life but it is certainly beneficial in almost everyway for both the individuals involved and the society within which people live like family. I find it odd that people waste time trying to limit definition of family.

The only requirement of family should be that it is a healthy happy union of individuals. I mean it should not be some kind of abusive setup infringing on the human rights of individuals within the family. Aside from that rest of society doesn't need to be involved in how a family is structured or operates as long as it is healthy for all individuals involved.

The main reason anybody opposes broadening definition of family is because it does extends into community which extends into society and into culture and then it becomes a non-issue to vast majority of people. It's a great thing and should not be denied to anybody. Overtime society and cultures always change while Religions can either adjust, become better at tolerance, become radical and oppressive, split off into more compatible congregations, or go extinct.