>>Marriage between siblings? I think we already know where procreation between siblings leads, so the legal rule should be about procreation, not about marriage.
>>
>>I know the bible says that marriage is strictly for procreation, but in this day and age, I think that's no longer true. As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of marriage is to make sure, as much as possible, that certain legal rights are accorded to the partners.
>>
>>Having said that, I can't really see any point to marriage between a person and his or her pet. I doubt the pet would be able to make use of such legalities.
>
>Somehow this pet argument always seems to work backwards. In every dispute over gay marriage, someone pulls out the "then why not marry a pet turtle". Yet I never heard such arguments over pets inheriting huge amounts, having trusts arranged and what not. Somehow pets are entitled to becoming legal heirs, but are somehow used to exemplify legal absurdity.

Yeah, it's like the annoying issue of people steering their male kids away from gay men, equating them with paedophiles. Most gay men I know would kill a paedo.

>
>>As far as polygamy is concerned, again, if it really is a workable idea (which I kind of doubt), then I say let them have their fun - my life won't be changed by it.
>
>As long as polyandry is legally equal to polygamy, I don't mind either.

You should then be comparing polygyny to polyandry; polygamy is eiter sex :-)