Absent Religious Moral Framework, (The Proposition On Offer)

The sex of the two individuals is immaterial unless you have some basis for a moral argument against non-male-female recreational sex or marriage. There simply is no moral argument against either in a non-religious framework. Furthermore, I'd like to nip this line of reasoning in the bud... an argument from slippery slope is a fallacy unless you prove each step from beginning to end. This is about adoptive siblings, not blood-related siblings. >> "Certainly, I for one, would not object to graphic spy shots of the lovely couple frolicking naked on their honeymoon being published in the newspapers and I don't suppose my opponent would either!" Only if they grow out their hair first. But then again, they are not adoptive siblings. >> "But what if Scottish pop star twins, The Proclaimers, suddenly turned gay and decided to get married?" That's their prerogative, but I'm not sure they aren't already. >> "So, if a brother and a sister could get married, why not mother and son, or father and daughter, and since we shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals, why not father and son or mother and daughter?" Again - immaterial... invalid slippery slope argument, and also a red herring - we're not talking about any of that. >> "However, these religious texts were often written in before formal codes of laws were developed and formed a quasi-legal framework around which people were expected to live their lives." Foolish methods of jurisprudence are not my problem. >> "With regard to family issues, procreation and the welfare of children were of paramount importance which is why homosexuality and incest were prohibited." Homosexuals cannot procreate, and there is nothing at all to suggest that a man-man or woman-woman pair will care more or less for a child than a man-woman pair. Actual incest is not pertinent to this debate since we're talking about ADOPTIVE siblings. >> "to extend the same social acceptance to marriage between close members of the same family would inevitably lead to a decline in moral values as well as an increase in deformed babies.' Again - a slippery slope to an irrelevant part of debate... come now Brian. ********************************************* My opponent has not addressed the issue at hand whatsoever. He merely asserts without evidence that allowing two unrelated people that have been raised in the same house to have sex or get married will lead to a "decline in moral values as well as an increase in deformed babies." This is simply false. By this logic, any two unrelated people raised in the same house would be unfit for marriage or recreational sex. This would include all children in orphanages and foster homes as well. What possible moral argument could there be against some of these scenarios: Jeff and Clara are unrelated and have been living in a foster home together for 10 years. They begin having recreational sex in their late teens and eventually become happily married with 4 children and a gerbil. Susan and Todd are unrelated and grew up together in an orphanage. In their late teens, they began having recreational sex and are to this day still gleefully copulating at the ripe old age of 74. Bill has been living with his parents in Chicago. At age 10, they adopted Anita (also 10). In their late teens, they began having recreational sex and are now happily married with 2 kids, another in the oven, three dogs, and a ferret. Is there anything MORALLY WRONG with these situations outside of a religious framework??? The answer is quite simply, no. AFFIRMED.