Vaccination requirements for marriage are gradually being rolled back and you can get married in most places in the US without a blood test of any kind. No idea how that applies to the argument you’re trying to make.

With respect to “ancestry” (by which I would imagine you really mean “kinship”), are you trying to make the point that gay marriage would necessarily open the door to marriage between siblings? If that were true, why hasn’t it happened in any of the many places where gay marriage is legal?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

For a list of marriage limitations by state, see http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml

Many states have health and vaccination requirements. Ancestry relates to limits on family members marrying.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

To say that “the gay movement is reaching” ignores the fact that marriage equality is the law of the land in five U.S. states and in many countries around the world.

Current score: 1 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

But this isn’t about logic, it’s about love and it’s about equality. I have to say, I’m taken aback at how people are willing to give this much power over the family to the state. Because that’s what you’re arguing for here: the state should have the ability to say who we can and can’t marry. And if they can restrict this, they can restrict *anything*.

If you’re opposed to marriage equality on the basis of “biology” (by which I assume you mean that you think that being gay is wrong because gay people can’t produce children of their own), then are you also in favor of banning marriage for old people as well?

“Religion” doesn’t determine our laws, last time I checked. Unless you were really interested in criminalizing the wearing of clothing made of two different kinds of threads and so forth?

Current score: 2 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)