Not really an opinion thing in this case, more a reminder to people that phrases like "I can say whatever I want to" are totally acceptable in casual conversation but are, of course, absolutely not true, e.g. threats, slander, libel, inciting to riot, perjury, state secrets, causing panics, etc. and when you're engaging in legal conversation those 'finer points' are pretty important, like various people's erroneous thoughts on self-defense laws. If someone wants to say you should never throw the first punch, that's fine, if they are going to say 'legally, whoever throws the first punch is in the wrong and you can do whatever you want, it's all self-defense' then they need to get called on that.



It is a rather tricky affair, partially because the state does have an apparent vested interest in encouraging people to marry and have kids. It's an easy conundrum for me, since I'm libertarian on the issue of marriage and don't think the government should give incentives to marriage in the first place, while it certainly is handy to raise kids and co-habitate with someone you're having sex with, plenty of single parents have roomed with family or friends who also a have kids, I tend to think they should receive the same handy privileges where logically applicable, I also have problems putting all the happy stickers on marriage when people regularly tie the knot for reasons not particularly involved with love. So the 'two loving partners' bit, while icing on the cake, is not to me strictly part of a wedding cake.



It's always hard to get reliable data on something that is banned or horribly against current social norms. End of the day I'm not sure if it matters how true the various assumptions are anyway, I don't approve of casinos, I don't want them outlawed either. Polygamy doesn't actually have to be ethical to be legal, S&M isn't particular ethical, nor is adultery, lying, etc. but they are legal. I would guess though, that polygamy can be functional, but usually won't be, I could say the same about the average pair of 18 year olds tying the knot.



Pretty much, and people need to remember that it is a balancing act and rarely black and white, once you acknowledge the state has the power to regulate something your are almost always going to start running into grey zones. We just tend to be a little lop-sided on queers, IMO, and distaste or homophobia really shouldn't be a factor one way or another, damn few of us approve of 80 year olds marrying 18 year olds, should we ban that, can we ban that, etc.



A risk tends to get carried with everything, a 'reasonable certainty' the people involved won't breed should seem sufficient, but regardless the main point is that a ban for that reason sticks procreation in as a default aspect of marriage, as opposed other forms of legal and business contracts. If banning incest is strictly about preventing f'd up offspring, then that ban shouldn't really exist for those able to show that reasonable precautions have been taken to prevent that. Once you get around to defining marriage, you can almost always find exceptions that still seem legit. More or less why I don't think the government should be in the habit of defining it and thus shouldn't give unique fiscal and legal advantages to it, saves a lot of trouble, IMHO.