For years, gay activists have had no answer for a simple question: If marriage is not the union of a man and a woman, why does it require two people? Why not just one? Or why not three or more?

If a gay activist says, "But marriage is the loving, long-term commitment of two people," the answer is simple: "Says who? That's just your new definition. Where did you get the idea it was two people if not from its historic, natural meaning?"

And so, if I'm "bigoted" because I don't recognize same-sex "marriage," then gay activists (and their allies) are just as "bigoted" if they don't recognize three men (or women) "marrying."

G.K. Chesterton once said, "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."

That saying can readily be applied to marriage: There's a reason that foundational societal structures exist, and we tamper with those structures at our own risk.

The debate was posted on Dec. 16, and out of the 5 participants in the debate, I was the only one who stated that consensual adult incest should never be legal. All the other participants, including a professor and a psychoanalyst, advocated for removing the laws against consensual adult incest.

Are you surprised?

But what's the problem? Love is love, right? As long it's consensual, who can say no to love?

When I did the interview on incest, I used the same Chesterton quote, explaining there was a reason that incestuous relationships, even consensual ones, were wrong.

It's the same with marriage.

Those who have taken down the fence of marriage as God intended it have opened up a Pandora's Box of possibilities, none of them good.

Interestingly, this is in harmony with the goals of many pioneer gay activists who despised marriage and wanted to overthrow it as an antiquated, patriarchal, abusive institution.