We already knew homosexuality was pretty much the same thing as alcoholism. But now, top Texas GOP leaders inform us that allowing gay marriage would be akin to allowing polygamy, incest and pedophilia, according to a brief filed by members of the Texas Conservative Coalition in support of Texas' ban on gay marriages.

Included on list of those who signed the document are lieutenant governor candidate Dan Patrick and several other top party names, totaling 63 Texas Republican politicians who think that if gay people marry the world would completely fall apart.

The brief was filed with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering an appeal to the U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia's decision this year against the state's marriage ban. The Texas Conservative Coalition showed its opposition to similar "morally reprehensible" actions:

Another ground cited by supporters of Texas' marriage laws and subsequently dismissed by the district court is that recognition of same-sex marriage "could lead to the recognition of bigamy, incest, pedophilia, and group marriage. As already discussed in this brief, restrictions on marriage relating to these moral considerations remain valid. Thus, the goal of actively trying to prevent those practices from becoming valid is entirely rational public policy.

The brief argues that opening up marriage to choice could allow people to choose younger, more and closely related partners. "If the right to select 'partners of their choosing' is the criterion used to invoke marriage as a fundamental right, then marriage restrictions on age, polygamy and consanguinity are also ripe for challenge," says the brief. Of course by that logic, it's a good thing most parents still arrange their kids' marriages.

Dan Quinn, a spokesperson for Texas Freedom Network, says the same arguments were made in the Loving vs. Virginia case for interracial marriage. "History has not been kind to those who spoke out against interracial marriage. I think history will judge the anti-gay rhetoric just as harshly," says Quinn.

Quinn is hardly the first to note the rehashed language. A number of legal scholars have pointed out the similarity in rhetoric used by opponents of interracial marriage.

"The argument is dominated by activists who insist that gay people should be second class citizens in this country. And they trot out the same vile rhetoric on any issue having to do with LGBT people," says Quinn. "They can repeat it as much as they want but it doesn't make it true."

"You think they'd know better by now," he said. "For the life of me it's hard to imagine why two gay people marrying is such a danger to someone else's marriage."