[Aramike]

Why not? It may seem trite, but your arguments against still seem to be excuses for a greater agenda.

What gives you the prerogative to apply greater agendas to my most simple of arguments?

I have no greater agenda - I'm merely trying to apply equal rights while acknowledging DIFFERENT rights. In case you haven't noticed, a gay man has the SAME rights as a straight man. (That is, unless you define a gay man as something other than a man, which would require the term "gay" before it, hence the different term in the first place, logically invalidating your argument.)

The taboo on siblings has nothing to do with the ability to have children. It has to do with the propensity of said children to have extreme problems.

Really? That's your answer? That having children has nothing to do with it but the children had could be "defective"? REALLY?

Again it seems like you're trying to muddy the immediate question by dragging in "what ifs" and "why nots". On the other hand that is a valid question, but not for this particular argument, and you seem to have a very invalid reason for bringing it up.

An odd argument to make when bearing children have nothing to do with it whilst the "quality" of children being beared is clearly in question due to your own reasoning.

Ultimately, if you're going to make the idea that the potential to have natural biological children is NOT a factor, I find it odd that you would dismiss the survivabilty of said children as an argument - I mean, really? Because doing so only lends plausibility to the argument that procreation is a factor in marriage. Or are you merely interested in invalidating any argument that is not your own on the merits that you don't agree with it (something you accused me of)?

So - are you for siblings being able to marry or are you not?

The ironic thing is that we're not far off on this argument, but you refuse to accept that gay marriage is something different than traditional marriage, but yet we still both term is as "gay marriage". But still, how do you reconcile the child-bearing aspect, now that we've introduced incest? Is that a traditional fallacy? Is the procreational deficits an issue at all? If not, why not allow siblins to marry? If so, why dismiss procreation as a reason to disallow any benefits of homosexual unions?

You're suppose to be the open-minded one here, Steve - why are these logical questions too shallow for you to reason with? These are simple.

I propose the middle ground - marriage indicates, conceptually, something DIFFERENT. Yet that's unreasonable to you. You want it to mean the same thing. Then why can't siblings marry?