@lapilofu & @RANGIEBABY The science of the topic on incest is quite clear. The concern isn’t so much moral opprobrium when it occurs between consenting adults, as in a brother and sister. It’s the genetic effects of inbreeding. As the European blue-bloods eventually learned, the percentage of birth defects it creates are a problem.
With the long history of polygamy in many cultures, I do not believe it is justified to call it a perversion. The US laws against polygamy adopted when the Church of Jesus Christ of the Later Day Saints (Mormons) adopted the practice in the mid 1800s. Today’s sensitivity against it probably corresponds to Western culture slowly moving away from misogynistic views. While polygamy isn’t “defined” as one man, lots of women, that is how it almost always ends up.
Neither issue can correctly be conflated with the same sex marriage debate. In the case of incest, the state does have a compelling interest in preventing it—that being birth defects and genetic damage to DNA. In the case of polygamy, it isn’t an equal protection issue under the 14th Amendment as same sex marriage is.
@MeinTeil Would it be fine if the 51.3% protestant US population voted that Catholics must renounce the Pope and their faith, and join a Protestant denomination. Don’t you see the problem of ignoring Constitutional protections in favor of majority rule. As has been pointed out, if majority rule had determined our course, the South would have Apartheid still today and in many states interracial marriage would still be a felony. At the time the US Army integrated under orders of President Harry Truman, a large majority of the public felt Blacks and Whites should be segregated. The DOD surveyed the Army and found soldiers overwhelmingly objected to barracks and showers being integrated. That is why we are a Constitutional Democratic Republic and not a direct democracy. The Constitution guarantees us all equal treatment under the law. That isn’t up for a vote.