Incest has a valid scientific reason against it, but what about polygamy?
Polygamy does not pose scientific problems, but marital polygamy imposes logistical difficulties. Many medical and property issues award decision/ownership power by default to one's spouse, but there is no such unambiguous singular individual in a polygamous relationship. For example, if a husband with multiple wives gets sick, which wife gets the decision-making power over care? It is possible to structure a legal document with some resemblance to marriage that clarifies these details (which all husbands and/or wives have to agree to at once), but this sort of generalization is nontrivial. Same-sex pairings do not present the same difficulty, because you basically just have to change the "Husband" and "Wife" to "Person" and "Person." Aside from that, if someone wants to develop a legal contract to cover a 3+ person group of people who love each other, more power to them (although organizations are permitted to adjust their rules to reflect the unique nature of the arrangement).
It is understood through nature that living creatures generally mate/bond with the opposite gender.
There are species of two sexes for which a sizable minority (or more) of sexual behavior is same-sex. That said, it doesn't matter if one pairing is more common than another within humanity, much less the totality of species which reproduce sexually (rather than asexually). It simply concerns a tendency, just as people tend to have Rh+ blood and be right-handed.
The one thing I heavily criticize of homosexuals are the image they're giving the rest of society of themselves.... I've seen pictures of various gay pride parades, and it is my firm opinion that if they just dressed in their casual clothes they'd achieve so much more.
In essence, this sort of gets back to separating gay/etc people from the choices certain gay/etc people make. Some of the people most irritated by exaggerated displays are straight-laced gay/etc people who resent such presentations (since it leads to gay/etc people like themselves being stereotyped as different from heterosexual people). A more extreme analogy would be run-of-the-mill US Muslims who suffer because of "Islamic" terrorists. Granted, dressing in sexualized fashion is nowhere near terrorism, but it serves as a visceral example of what stereotypes can do.
If the gay gene was normal, our population should be decreasing, not increasing.
The proportion of same-sex attraction is only one factor that impacts population. The bottom line is whether people collectively spawn enough children who in turn survive to reproduce. Besides the fact gay people still reproduce, the population can still grow if adults on average produce more than two children who survive to reproduce themselves. Even if one subgroup (like wealthy people) is "underperforming," it is possible for the total of society to compensate.
I hold my stance simply because studies regarding the gay gene have been inconclusive.
The issue is that the stance is not easily taken as "neutral." Presumed existence of a "gay gene" aside, you have already indicated a preference for separating mixed-sex couples from same-sex couples without proving (just citing your personal preference) that they need to be separated -- and as argued before, "separate but equal" is inherently unequal (generally against the traditionally discriminated group). Law is not the realm of what is convenient but rather what is fair and just (and that means removing unnecessary discrimination under the law). Furthermore, you have also regarded same-sex attraction as something that "deviates" from normal, which again focuses on difference. Whether you intend it or not, it is a tone that can reasonably be interpreted as disrespectful -- if you were in a gay person's shoes, would you like to be treated that way?
From my observations, anything trans related gets downplayed or ignored.
This point is especially true, and given some of the reasons, it is hardly a surprise. Imbedded in that single "T" are lots of different groups, including people who are transsexual (male and female; post-op, pre-op, and non-op), intersex, androgyne, third gender, and arguably people who simply do not conform to gender norms (which can either be a tiny or massive tent depending on how strictly you take the phrase "conform to gender norms"). The transgender family has also received a lot less discussion in relatively "serious" media, yet adult content (and low-brow "comedy") freely distorts their identity and sexuality, which not only leads to the T getting misrepresented, but it leads to them being represented primarily in sexual terms, which is the sort of thing that held gay/lesbian/bisexual/etc people back for so long. Also, within that T family, people for the most part don't get to "see" the successful transsexuals, because they pass (fit in) as their self-identified gender -- the "unsuccessful" examples are generally who stand out.
A weird outcome of that relative ignorance is that, yes, the political wings will not be as far apart on issues concerning gender identity. Yet even when it comes to attitudes towards sexual orientation, voters' beliefs do not fall in lockstep with their nearest political party. People are much more complicated than that, and trans issues are merely one category that may illustrate this point better than most. It reinforces the need for us to keep our "allies" honest and to keep reaching out to those with whom we often butt heads.
Supertails touches on the "but not too far" philosophy* (which is closely tied to the "slippery slope" fallacy). These sort of issues are often debated too often in terms of their specifics without visiting the underlying principles that guide them. It's all well and good to say "we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of [X]," but one must also consider the principles by which we may and/or should discriminate. If we require that a positive informed affirmation be made in order for a relationship to take place, then same-sex couples are possible, but sufficiently-underage couplings can be prevented (on the basis that an underage person cannot provide informed consent and may be coerced into the relationship against their will). If some of the corollaries emotionally bother us, we should seek to resolve them by revisiting the underlying principles and/or adjusting the meaning of the corollaries -- polygamy by itself does not present an intrinsic harm, but as I discussed in my first paragraph, the existing marriage contract is simply unworkable for them (never mind insurance policies, apartment leases, and various other contracts that rely on legal marriage), so a legal contract facilitating polygamy *must* be different (and generally not as strong). It is not in our culture to think in this way, but I believe our thinking and policy will be at its sharpest if we challenge ourselves and others to think in broader terms. We can't all speak out to the masses as a whole on this point, but we can try to do this with individuals as matters come up in our daily lives.
* "But not too far" has its place -- in terms of power sharing and wealth distribution, a balancing act is a necessary part of what goes on.
< Message edited by Kaelin -- 8/13/2012 22:09:10 >