>Today incest is illegal, but it was common in ancient times (all kings and queens of Egypt married their siblings or mothers): why is it illegal for two siblings to get married and why does incest disqualify a couple from adopting children? Again, i am not advocating anything, just stating contradictions in our moral and legal code.
>And, if we expand the definition of marriage to all of these categories, what rights do we give them? For example, to me it looks much more natural for a group of two men and three women to raise children (as it was in most ancestral societies) than for a same-sex couple to do so (something for which i find no precedents in ancestral societies).
>Prostitution is still illegal in most countries of the world, even though today it is normal for a woman to have sex with many men: why is it illegal to do it for money but legal to do it for fun? A secretary can sleep with her or his boss and a college student can sleep with her or his professor, but a prostitute cannot sleep with a customer for money: why? Paying dinner on a date is ok, and marrying someone for his income is not only ok but frequently advised by your parents. A former prostitute is disqualified from ever adopting children, whereas a woman or man who has had many sexual partners is considered perfectly fit to adopt children: why?
Circumcision (which is, ultimately, a form of genital mutilation) is not only legal in the USA, but routinely performed in all hospitals. Why?
(Note: these are questions, not answers. I am not advocating this or that. I am just pointing out inconsistencies in current "morality" and laws).
>Bottom line: there are many more "unnatural" and unreasonable laws today than the laws against homosexual marriage: why focus only on homosexual marriage and leave all the other restrictions on sex and marriage in place?