|So why not siblings? Parent & offspring? Multiples? Or adult & child?|
The millennial institution of marriage will be undermined and further wrecked by this, and a damn site more people are married and will see the sanctity and history of the lifelong commitment they have undertaken wrecked by a millionaire playing silly politics with society.
Meanwhile socialists and liberals say the 'War on Drugs' (NB: there is no war, drugs are all but legal in many circumstances) should be solved by making drugs more freely available. They also say (with nary a glimmer of contradiction) that the gun problem in America (and here) should be solved by restricting guns.
Of course with the vast majority of gun crime in America, as with much of the gun crime in our own cities, the lefties/liberals overlook certain, shall we say, cultural influences and backgrounds. With guns we must blame the guns, with drugs we must not blame the drugs.
And so we have a society wherein tiny, degenerate minorities hold sway over the many. If it is a case of, as they say, "as long as they love each other" and "who can deny people who wish to show commitment" etc. - then why not brother and sister, father and son or indeed husband and wives (e.g. it could be "racist" to deny Hindoos) or a 20 year old man and a 12 year old boy (or 9 year old as Peter Tatchell publicly said he was in favour of)?
After all, who are you (bigot!) to deny people who love each other and wish to show lifelong commitment to each other (even though liberals have wrecked even that notion with easy divorce).
Equally we have a society in which the true nature of street, knife and gun crime is overlooked (so politicians can drone on about how immigration has "enriched" us - in reality it has enriched big business who use it to undercut our wages), but drug crime is encouraged via liberal laws. Presumably burglary is so commonplace and rarely solved, that the solution is to legalise that?
Nuts? Well not so long ago it would have been nuts to talk about legalising drugs or "gay marriage."
P.S. When the homosexuals won the right to 'civil partnership' they and the politicians told us that was all they wanted - they would not demand 'gay marriage.' We were lied to. Let this be a lesson for all: the more you give, the more they demand. If they get "gay marriage" it will not only further destroy marriage, it will mean worse to come in the years ahead (perhaps as outlined in homosexual leader Peter Tatchell's pro-paedophile letter to The Guardian in 1997).