There is a one word answer to all of your questions - religion.

For a couple of thousand years or so religion has decreed what is and what isn't permitted, long before marriage became a legal entity the religions of the world decided what was and what wasn't a marriage and as with most things religious, they paid no heed to equality.

So, come on then, here's your chance, what is your rational reason that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed?

May I raise a point that was highlighted to me earlier? The subject in question is not gay marriage, it is same-sex marriage. The difference may be subtle but it is there: gay marriage may preclude bisexual or trans marriages, same-sex would not.

On a not entirely unrelated subject: can any of our local religious nuts please explain to me how the Catholic church refuses to marry a divorcee but will happily marry someone whose previous marriage (no matter how long and how many children were produced within that marriage), has been anulled by Papal decree?

You really don't understand how logic works, do you? At no point did he say that the reason for allowing same sex marriage was that same sex couples cannot have children. What he was saying - quite clearly - was that incestuous marriages/relationships are NOT allowed because of the high likelihood of birth defects. As there is a 0% risk of birth defects in same sex marriages, this reason for NOT allowing certain unions would not be relevant. So it's not the reason same sex marriage should be allowed, but it's equally not a reason they should NOT be allowed. It's really not difficult.

I'll try to keep this brief, I thought I'd covered this subject comprehensively on the other threads. However this is a very silly argument which need addressing.

I keep getting told that this is about equality. Equal love. If that is the case, why should a man not be permitted to marry his brother, or a woman marry her sister?

Seriously guys, why not?

Let me tell you why. It's because those of you who accuse people like me of finding homosexuality repulsive have your own standard of what is 'too yucky', and, in your enlightened view, incest is.

There is absolutely no difference between the argument in support of gay marriage and that which would push for marriage between brothers. Absolutely none.

To be fair, one of Britain's brightest and best said it was to do with birth defects. So, perhaps we should move on to bestialty? Man loves his dog and vice-versa - why is that not the basis for marriage? If the dog is male there is no chance of even unviable offspring. As I have said throughout this thread it is all a question of where one draws the "moral" (for want of a better word) line. You Kirkstaller have understood that and hit the nail on the head. The equal rights brigade refuse to because they have no coherent logic.

Being wholly intolerant of anything can result in a person being unreasonable. You are a case in point. You insult people when they disagree with you. You consider them to be bigoted but they may not be. However, in your view they are and so you insult them. That is unreasonable behaviour and therefore in itself is bigotry.

No, really it isn't but it suits your petty argument against same sex marriage.

That would have been the case had I been ranting. However, I was simply asking a series of questions. You are correct to point out paedophiles of course. I hadn't thought about them. If this issue was actually about equality - which really, it isn't - then paedophiles along with the incestuous and indeed anyone with any variety of dedicated relationship should be given equal rights to marry because who is anyone to judge whether anyone else is wrong?

Or is it only gay people who mustn't be judged as wrong?

I'm just positing, not stating a personal viewpoint.

When did I argue against same sex marriage?

As much as I support your argument against those blinkered, hypocritical posters who think marriage should be open to everyone (but not everyone), I think this is quite weak.

The issue of consent raises it's head with the paedophile argument. Same goes for bestiality. However there is no argument for gay marriage which doesn't also apply to incest between same-sex siblings and polygamy.

You see, the thought of two brothers getting married just turns their stomach.

I doubt it would turn their stomachs. Why should it? Incest is only taboo due to the risk of birth defects so there is absolutely no reason why they should or would object to same sex marriage between siblings.

So Rock God X etc please confirm your support for same sex sibling marriage or explain your objection(s).

Have you not noticed the point that has been mentioned previously regarding birth defects in incestuous relationships, now this may not apply a same sex (or one in which one partner was infertile) incestuous relationship however it still applies to other incestuous relationships and explains why incest is illegal as it would be discriminatory to allow one type of incestuous relationship but not others.

The major difference between the two is that homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Somebody who is gay is exclusively attracted to members of the same sex, therefore without being dishonest to themselves and their partner marriage at is not an option at present. As far as I'm aware there is nobody who is exclusive attracted to their own siblings, nobody is being denied equal rights by virtue of not being allowed to marry their sibling. This is why the comparison between same sex marriage and marriage between siblings is such a terrible one.

You are right of course, anyone can marry anything, I could marry a rock in my garden or one of my fish from the pond, its a totally meaningless ceremony invented by various religions in order to give some credence to their teachings and a warm feeling of false security to their followers, a bit like Tesco Club Points for the religious - "If you're good Christians then The God will allow you to marry, and those gays won't be able to get at you any more".

As I said at the top - it's all about grabbing perceived "rights." The whole gay marriage thing is pointless, nonsensical and hypocritical.

The siblings comparison is not terrible it a good one as it highlights what it wrong with the concept of gay marriage.