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

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for taking the time to accept and participate in this debate with me, thanks! I shall start the debate by saying it's important to understand both sides are not necessarily arguing from their individual point of view, but instead arguing from the Model PC Morality/Perspective (which may, or may not reflect their true thoughts) In the first round I stipulated the Model Politically Correct Morality which both myself, Pro and my opponent, Con, should adhere their individual cases to, as these are the concrete agreed terms and the fundamental basis of this debate.. The criteria of this debate states arguments need to be put forth in the Model Politically Correct Person's perspective (from this point on referred to as PCP) The question both me and Con need to ask is not do we think incestuous marriage is right personally, but would the PCP think it's right based on their proposed perspective? Well here's what we know.. We can definitively conclude the PCP is completely tolerable of those who differ from themselves, with the only exception being those who not only differ, but incur damage/hurt to society directly with their difference, but not because of a differing moral compass. So logically, if incestuous marriage doesn't damage/hurt society directly, regardless of the potential negative moral impact on those who are not PCP's, Politically correct Morality dictates incestuous individuals should be embraced as gays have been and therefore incestuous couples should have the right to marry like gays. Time for my Rebuttals,My opponent stated:"I contend that it is the people who discriminate, which is important to the context because it proves that political correctness is indeed not the new zeitgeist."The point I was making is that Political Correctness is seen as the new way the modern World conducts itself, but in actuality there are conflicts/contradictions. So the Zeitgeist is conforming to a partial sense of the term. But as you pointed out, this part "is irrelevant to the discussion since it matters not whether such an attitude is prevalent" Next I will address my opponent's argument of psychological harm, Con had this to say: [1] As University of Miami psychologists Debra Lieberman and Adam Smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. With very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. The primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. Even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. The psychologist Jonathan Haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancyand then went on to assume the psychological ramifications presumably deduced from the extract highlighted in the above source, indicate harm. When in actuality the above extract only points out the obvious fact, which is, most people are not incestuous because of normal Biology. In the same way most people are not gay. As with an Incestuous person, being gay is a combination of Biology and Environmental Factors. this does not therefore indicate harm, but instead a difference to the norm. Completely different. The American Academy of Paediatrics stated in Paediatrics the following:"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts." I move on to counter my opponents next bone of contention, Inbred Children and the risk of retardationI agree with you, Inbred Children do have a greater risk of being retarded. But marriage and having children are two different things. Take a particular couple for example, who are not related or mentally handicapped in any way, the woman of the pair has been told by a doctor that due to her genetic make up and her partners genetic make up, together, they are at a considerably high risk of having a child that is retarded/handicapped. This couple is one of millions. One of millions who have had to come to terms with the fact, they can never morally risk having children due to this horrible reality. Do you mean to tell me, in a Politically Correct Society, all these couples, who through no fault of their own, can't conceive safely, therefore cannot even get married, even if they morally accept the implications of their circumstance and choose not to have children because of the health risks? Your logic is as follows If couple A choose to have a child, there's a high probability it will be retarded, and cause harm to societytherefore they shouldn't be allowed by law to marrybecause they could choose to have a child, which may be retarded and cause harm to society.For this logically to make sense, marriage must be a vital part of the equation, it isn't. Furthermore, your reasoning not only excludes incestuous couples from marriage, but also couples who can't conceive without risk, which is irrefutably, The complete opposite of the views of a PCP.Politically Correct Morality allowing Incestuous couples to have children is another debate and non sequitur to this debate, therefore void. Con must put forth an argument that shows Incestuous Marriage alone is directly damaging/harmful to society. He/she has failed to do so this with contention. Con, who may I remind you, is supposed to be arguing from the perspective of a PCP went onto say: "if the opponent expects the state to impose restrictions on a married couple- to permanently avoid procreation through the use of contraceptives, such a marriage is indeed worthless" (Pro Highlighted)Does Con mean to tell me marriage is worthless if a couple chooses not to have children/use contraceptives in order to avoid having children? What about couples who physically cannot have children, is their marriage to "Indeed Worthless"? This seems very narrow minded to me and indefinitely anti-PC. Con's final argument was as follows: "a constant use of contraceptives is detrimental to ones health." he used the following quote:[3] The most commonly reported side effect with continuous or extended regimen OCP dosing is breakthrough vaginal bleeding. Studies evaluating this side effect have reported its presence to varying degrees. In a large trial of continuous oral contraceptives, 396 patients (18.5%) withdrew due to bothersome uterine bleeding, making this the most common reason to withdraw from the study.A quote which in-fact reports a side effect with the Oral Contraceptive Pill. My response? What if the couple don't use the Oral Contraceptive Pill, but instead use one of the other 13 contraceptives that are commonly available? What if the couple morally abstain from sex due to religious/moral reasons, similar to some couples with high risk of having children with problems? Is there still harm? I shall keep my contention brief, as I've touched upon them whilst countering Con's contentions. There is no proven definitive link between incest and any mental disorders. "It is true that children of all ages engage in some degree of sexual interaction between themselves, as well as self – exploration. In fact, it is considered that such behavior is by Text-Enhance" href="http://www.pandys.org/articles/siblingsexualabuse.html">healthy and necessary for normal sexual and social development. As siblings are generally close in age and locational proximity, it stands to reason that the opportunity for sexual exploration between siblings is fairly high - and that, if appropriate and based on mutual curiosity, then these activities are not deemed to be harmful or distressing, either in childhood or later in adulthood (Borgis, 2002)." Sourceshttp://www.pandys.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...