An animal isn't a person. It can't express its consent and will to marry anyone. Like, the dumbest point ever. Same for the people who go, "well, then I'm marrying my fridge".

I have no issues with blood relatives actually. They can do whatever they want as long as they both agree to it and avoid having unprotected sex if it could cause issues to the baby. I never actually heard of two related people wanting to get married, though.

Polygamy is completely different. For starters, it involves more than two people.

Honestly, I would urge that woman to adopt. It wouldn't be fair to the child to have to live with a disease just because their mother insisted on having a child related by blood.

Also, the chance of a 45-50 year old woman having children is already incredibly low, so I don't think laws should be put in place. I would just suggest anyone who wants to have a child know the potential risks not only them, but their potential child could have, before they go out and have a kid.

Polygamy: definitely. There's really no argument against consensual polygamist marriages that hasn't also been used against gay marriages (e.g. the "traditional" definition of marriage)

Incest: possibly. There are already laws in place preventing people from having children if they're both carriers of certain genetic disorders in some places, so there's already a precedent for potential future laws preventing incestuous couples from having children, which is really the only actual problem with incest.

Zoophilia: No. Animals can't give informed consent.

When is the last time an animal could consent to marriage?

Also, we arent trying to change what marriage actually is we are trying to be included. Incest and polygamy are basically illegal in the entire country.

Polygamy: Maybe, it just needs to be worked out. It'd be complicated to work out the laws but I have no problems with it.
Blood Relatives: Again, I don't have a major issue with this. There'd have to be laws about sex to make sure no disabled children are made.
Animals: No. Animals cannot consent.

You're clearly a homophobe though, I hope you see the light.
As God said in the second edition of the bible, "**** who you want and **** who you like"

Polygamy seems like the only one that could possibly be supported in the future, but I highly doubt it. Animals.... no, it doesn't work that way

They also used to say that white should only marry white and black should stay with black but look what happened....

I agree, high risk to the baby isn't really a good thing. However, how do you measure risk? How do you arbitrarily set the limit? You said "no possibility". That's never possible, there's always a possibility of some birth problem occurring in any pregnancy.

If you are abiding by your last statement, then that contradicts #3

I think that as long as it's SAFE, and between CONSENTING HUMAN ADULTS (the capitalized terms are key), it should be allowed. If a man wants to marry five women and the women are okay with that, then sure. I know there would be lots of legal challenges but I also believe that people will be creative enough to solve them.

I say no to stuff with animals and inanimate objects. But I mean if some guy is attached to some toy in a romantic way I won't mind (though I will be concerned).

Well, you got me there. I was trying to be specific, and it ended up being too specific. I should of said "high-risk" - as for what constitutes high-risk, I guess that's up to opinion. I feel that children born through incest shouldn't be allowed just because there's a better chance at it coming out messed up than not, which is why there should be a law against it. Otherwise, if it's "high-risk", but chances are in the favor of being normal, the parents should research and make an informed decision as to whether they want to adopt or have their own child.

I personally believe if the chance of being born with defects/severe health problems/etc. is much higher than the normal rate, the parents should just adopt because there are so many children in foster homes that could use parents.

No. Those forms of relationships aren't that common to turn into a big legal issue like Gay Marriage was/is. Polygamist marriages,in my opinion,would flop. And beastiality shouldn't even be there - it's not a legit consensual relationship.

Any human should be able to marry any other human... The end.

Polygamy isn't an issue like your other two examples, but it would also be impossible to legally practice.

The amount of laws and restrictions alone that would have to be made to support legalized polygamous relationships is way too much trouble.

This is an ignorant and homophobic viewpoint. So LGBT people are equivalent to animals?

Polygamy is not something that can simply be legalized. It would involve completely rewriting marriage laws and benefits.

This is why I wish people would stop saying things like "You love who you love" in reference to gay couples because it suggests that zoophilia and incest are acceptable. But having love for someome of the same gender =/= having love for an animal or relative.

I don't see the big deal with polygamy though.

Outside of procreation, what exactly is "unacceptable" about incest. And if marriage is not about procreation, what's the issue?

The much publicised "slippery slope" began way before gay marriage. Equality has been on a long journey through gender, class, race, religion, orientation etc. and it will continue. Debate of polygamy and the like doesn't fall on the shoulders of gay marriage advocates any more than it does on interracial marriage advocates and the like.

Independent of all that, I have no issue with polygamous marriage as long as all who enter it give consent. That is the key factor. Animals can't give consent, inanimate objects can't give consent and minors can't give consent.

Incestuous marriage will probably be the final taboo that will end up being legalised when a general law is introduced that any consenting adult may marry another consenting adult. It's the procreation that will be interesting to see debate over. Is it neglectful and damaging parenting to have a baby through incest? Is it over-policing peoples right to procreate to deny incestuous couples? Where do we draw the line on who should and shouldn't have children (i.e. Poor people? People with conditions/disabilities? Ugly people?)