Why do people still use references to bestiality and plural marriage in regard to LGBT marriages?

Some people lump everything they don't do or they don't like into one big category called "other." Some people want to force everyone into a narrow, hetero-monogamous slot. I say, how about instead of trying to come up with convoluted schemes for which adults get their rights and which don't, why not support the rights of ALL adults? The same-gender freedom to marry will be a reality in most of the world soon. Most people who engage in consensual incest and polygamy are heterosexual. Let's not forget that part. BUT, I do know of some triads and quads and brother couples who would marry if they could. Consensual adult incest is legal in a few US states and many modern countries, and there hasn't been a problem. I'm only referring to CONSENTING ADULTS. Last I checked, children and other species were not able to legally consent through our broad legal structure. Minor changes in the law should be made so that an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Some people only care about monogamist gay rights, not the rights of anybody else. There were African-American civil rights supporters who didn't care about Latino-Americans, and vice-versa. This is nothing new. There are polygamists who support gay rights and polygamists who don't. People typically try to pin pedophilia on gays, polygamists, and those involved in incest, but I'm addressing CONSENTING ADULTS only.

I support FULL marriage equality. That includes 30-year-olds marrying 60-year-olds. That includes African-Americans marrying Anglo-Americans.That includes two men marrying, even if they are brothers. That includes one women marrying two men. It is ridiculous that in most of the US, it is perfectly legal for a woman to love, have sex with, and have children with two men at the same time, but she isn't free to legally marry both at the same time even though they all agree.

Equality just for some is not equality. Don't like it? Don't do it. As with interracial, adult intergenerational, or gay sex/marriage, there is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against polyamorous or consanguineous sex or marriage. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in polyamory or consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it.

Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. As I noted, some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. For example, it is legal for someone with Huntington's Disease to marry and have children. Look that one up.

Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have morethan one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.

Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either.

Yes, there are patriarchal societies that have gender inequality and allow religion-based polygyny only, and people cite problems in those societies, but the problems are not caused by polygamy. They are caused by sexism and gender inequality under the law. All the paperwork issues can be resolved. And if paperwork issues could be an excuse to deny fundamental rights, we wouldn't have the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Victims of abuse and coercion would be MORE likely to work with law enforcement if we had relationship rights for all adults. Let consenting adults love each other!

i just googled what bestiality is and i definitely don't support it because a lot of animals don't have the ability to reason, and because that, some animals won't even know the difference between ugly and pretty, gay or straight, because most animals go by instinct....so you know they don't have morals.

and i think that's what makes a human a human is because we have morals, and beliefs, and values, while other animals don't. Some animals only have instinct, so that's the only thing they go by. I wouldn't mind if the animal was like a humanoid though.....

however, I don't even know if this answers your question....

talk approximately happening a tangent. don't be daffy who stated you won't be able to vote or get a speedy trial. Its human beings such as you that tick others off , so who of their precise innovations could trust you. stick to the difficulty and not lie approximately issues that no person even has pointed out.

Scare tactics. It is a long-standing tactic to demonise something you are against, in the hopes of scaring people into your way of thinking. The Church has done so for centuries.

its fairly simple. many people feel that if one " perversion" is promulgated then the rest will eventually march in the streets, demand " rights" to their particular kink.