If gay marriage is right based on the Model PC Morality, so is incestuous marriage

Even though the credibility of a website called omgfacts.com should itself be a matter of debate, I accept my opponent's proposition to let the current round be the concluding one as well.In a not very subtle manner, one may have noticed my opponent quoting me out of context- even phrases that seem to make no sense but for the perfidious contrivances that my opponent has seemingly perfected, which perhaps, in themselves constitute a fearful talent I must steer clear of.For instance, these are my opponents words in the opening paragraph of R1: For example, Gay Marriage has been legalised in both America and the United Kingdom now. But by the same logic, shouldn't incestuous couples be granted the same right to marry?Moving on to R4, my opponent agrees (at least for the sake of argument) :A. Marriage is a legal constitution with procreation regarded as the primary purpose by law.Then he goes on to say that since-B. Political Correctness is embracing of those with differing beliefs, and therefore, if someone is of the belief "I want to marry to symbolise my love and not for the primary purpose proposed by law I should have the right to" It makes sense (according to him) that:A. therefore makes no difference to the Politically Correct outlook, therefore whether the primary purpose of marriage according to law is procreation or not holds no relevance to this debate. In short, my opponent wants incestuous marriage to be legal and legitimate without paying any heed to the law. He argues that if you debate from the perspective of a PC person, law becomes irrelevant. I'm sure my opponent devised such an argument for the sake of the occasional humor.In my opponent's own words:Hence why I said marriage itself would be a deterrent as it's making an announcement of an incestuous couple. If a child follows from this, it's likely to inbred therefore making the couple eligible for legal ramifications. If an incestuous couple wanted to have a child and keep the biological father a secret where the laws concerned, they wouldn't marry as marriage makes it harder to conceal such an event.My opponent therefore wants marriage to be a tool- the purpose of which is to control breeding in incestuous couples. I hope my opponent understands that humans cannot be treated like animals (not that animals deserve it either). I also believe that my opponent here- all by himself by the way, has created a scenario which curtails the human right to have children- out of curiosity, I ask him if he is a pro-communist from China. Furthermore, my opponent concedes that an incestuous couple that wants a child wouldn't marry after all, so it isn't like marriage would solve that particular problem of inbred children. Earlier my opponent talked of things like "I want to marry to symbolise my love" (perhaps as an appeal to audience emotion), and ironically exactly such a phrase is used to describe a child! So, essentially, he wants marriage to symbolize love that can never be consummated. Quite an axe to his foot, he would agree.He gleefully flourishes the controversial theory of Evolution (on his own volition) and asserts that- "procreation is priority in Evolutionary terms" to justify his stand on incest causing no harm- by the logic through which it can be argued that rape is the path towards an evolutionary niche. However, after being pointed out that it is actually selective procreation which this theory postulates, my opponent seems to be struck dumb and thoroughly avoids the subject in his flimsy rebuttal. Another stubbed toe, I believe.Similarly, my opponent seems to ignore the huge psychological harm a child would suffer after his mother marries his elder brother creating situations such as "a son who is his own father", or perhaps "a mother who is her son's grandmother", and other such exotic relationships. In fact, my opponent refuses to acknowledge this gaping flaw in this familial utopia. Strike three? Four? I think I have lost count.Another mistake my opponent makes:On top of this, in a gay marriage procreation is an impossibility, Con therefore must contend on the same basis it to is wrong.Through my opponent's cherished theory of Evolution (which I think he quoted to make things very simple for me), it can be shown that homosexuals due to their inability to procreate would cause a lot less harm than incestuous couples who would flood innumerable genetically weak specimens (fancy apathetic term for babies) in the gene pool- and therefore such an incestuous union is extremely harmful (Here, I assume, that marriage as an institution to prevent procreation is undeniably absurd).Another nitwit point my opponent made:Despite Con outlining a so called primary purpose, he failed to propose a sole purpose, therefore accepting differing purposes of marriage, even in a law context. Well of course it isn't the sole purpose! Otherwise, marriage in infertile couples, couples that do not want children, and homosexuals could not be justified. However, couples that can bear children but do not want them still have the potential to have children. Homosexuals and infertile couples have the potential to adopt children.You might wonder how incestuous couples are any different, and the answer to it is very simple:In the case of incestuous couples, the state would actually have had legalized inbreeding. Procreation isn't the sole purpose yes, but it is the primary purpose. It would be absurd if the state now prevented these married incestuous couples from bearing children- which was the purpose of marriage in the first place.Yet another illogical point which my opponent seems never to run short of:It would be deliberate if someone is aware of their condition from a young age as it is in their genes and runs in their family (i.e.) intrinsic (...) No, there are millions of people who are aware that their genes, when met with a male/female with the same underlying condition does increase the odds of deformity/retardation.I'm sure this is true but I hope my opponent understands that it would be absurd for the couple to inquire about such conditions on their first date- or even the twentieth. It is a very personal information- unintentional, uncalculated and contingent. It is also due to superior modern technology that such a phenomenon is diagnosed. If my opponent suggests that the government invade the privacy of every individual to create a database of compatible persons, I digress. However, incestuous couples are necessarily and intrinsically incompatible and they know it. Marriage is a union built upon responsibility, which such a couple clearly lacks.Even so, arguing about it is irrelevant. The matter of debate is:If gay marriage is right based on the Model PC Morality, so is incestuous marriage.Whether or not the marriage of such couples should be legal is beyond the scope of this argument. Even if it should not be legal (which I do not believe), the debate is about the justification of gay marriage being legal. Which brings us to a rather peculiar observation I made in R1. I said that:Having established the precedent that incestuous marriage hurts the society, I assert that whether or not gay marriage is politically correct is but an obstacle put forth as a trivial justification- rationalization. The argument is whether or not incestuous marriage happens to be politically correct, and even if the opponent manages to prove (which I find very doubtful) that gay marriage is non-PC as well, it does in no way change anything.It seems to me that opponent does not care about whether or not incestuous marriage is PC. He hinges his entire debate on the thread of gay marriage being legalized, like a stubborn child who says- "How come he gets the lollipop, and I do not!"He has tried to slander homosexual marriage by comparing it with the perversion of incest which ignores strong family bonds for the sake of what my opponent terms as- "I want to marry to symbolise my love". I wonder what kind of love it is.Thank you.