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

I shall now respond to my opponents retaliations. I shall move on from Con's first point regarding the current Zeitgeist, as arguing otherwise makes no difference to the actual debate. Discussing the Zeitgeist was already labeled by Con to be: "irrelevant to the discussion since it matters not whether such an attitude is prevalent" which I agree with. Therefore continuation of this redundant point is nothing other than counter-productive. Which both sides agree. Con touched upon this: "It was meant to shed light towards "psychological mechanisms to deter incest" and the fact that these deterrents are present for a very good reason. "His claim is that while there are psychological mechanisms to deter incest, there are not psychological mechanisms to deter same-sex intercourse. "The opponent may note that the same cannot be said about homosexuality since it is not intrinsically required to avoid sexual intercourse with the same sex- it might be strange and even unnatural but definitely not pre-programmed. "Con claims homosexuality can be described as unnatural, but definitely not pre-programmed like incestuous tendencies. pre-programmed:(of a living creature) genetically biased towards a particular behaviourCon is claiming humankind has no evolutionary/natural mechanism which is genetically biased towards avoiding mating partners of the same sex and instead seeking a partner of the opposite sex to procreate with. He is refuting the pre-programming of Evolution, by claiming "it is not intrinsically required to avoid sexual intercourse with the same sex" When it is intrinsically required to avoid sexual intercourse with the same sex in normal people, as procreation is priority in Evolutionary terms, to not have a psychological mechanism to prevent the potential extinction of the human race is both unfathomable and factually not true. Present in most people there are psychological mechanisms which act as a deterrent for both gay and incestuous tendencies. We are simply arguing about a psychological abnormality. . even if a psychological mechanism did only exist for incest and not for gay tendencies, which it doesn't, that does not make it harmful. Take this for an example,Meet Tom, Tom is an average human, he has psychological mechanisms which make him feel fear like most of us. But Tom's in a band and often has to fight this fear to go on stage and perform. Tom is therefore ignoring his intrinsic psychological mechanism which is telling him "not to do it", but because he loves music, he does it and has a great time. Does this therefore indicate psychological harm? No, clearly not. Humans constantly ignore their intrinsic mechanisms, it's what separates us from other animals. Abnormal psychology is not necessarily indicative of harm, it's just a Deviation from what is normal or usual. There is no factual evidence that points to psychological harm being caused to consenting incestuous lovers as there isn't with same sex couples. Therefore Con's argument about psychological damage being caused due to consenting incestuous adult relations going against/having abnormal psychological mechanisms is irrefutably void. Con then goes on to void his next contention after being presented with my rebuttal, This particular contention I'm referring to is the contention that, Incestuous couples should not be allowed to marry as they have a higher risk of producing a child with defects. To continue to use this as a contention, despite it's irrelevance, Con must also accept, based on the same contention, no couple, incestuous or otherwise can marry if they have a higher likelihood of producing a child with defects. But here, he disagrees with that: "Of course, such a couple is allowed to marry, however it stands to reason that they will abstain from procreation after said advice. " Here Con's referring to my proposed scenario of an otherwise normal couple who share the wrong combination of genes and like incestuous couples, have a higher risk of child retardation. Con claims they should be allowed to marry, but it stands to reason that they will abstain from procreation after said advice. . So therefore, based on Con's reasoning, an incestuous couple with the wrong combination of genes, should also be able to marry, as they can also abstain from procreation after said advice? Con concedes his own contention here. "The entire point was that a marriage in which a couple is actively prevented from reproduction (even if said couple wants to have a baby), is indeed, worthless. Since we have established that incestuous couples have a very high probability of producing mentally retarded children they should be prevented from undertaking such an enterprise. "Con believes that a couple which is actively prevented from reproduction in marriage, makes that marriage worthless. May I reiterate, the PCP is accepting of those with differing beliefs, so Con's individual belief that the said marriage is worthless is not relevant to this debate. As Con's arguing as a PCP, Con must accept that a childless marriage he considers worthless, may not be the view point of an incestuous couple who wish to spend their life with one another in a childless marriage, which they consider to be the most valuable thing of all. Incestuous couples wishing to marry will be advised like normal couples who have clashing genes and therefore will be more informed than ever about the probable risks of procreation. So incestuous marriage, and the consequent acceptance will actually promote positive change and not endorse immoral procreation. Con has to remember incestuous procreation is commonly secretive, which therefore makes it hard to govern and stop. Those wishing to marry are putting the spotlight on their relationship, and in all probability not going to have children because of the legal ramifications. It stands to reason if this couple did want to have children, they would do it secretively and therefore not marry. Con went onto argue that prolonged use of Contraceptives was harmful, but only highlighted a potential side effect with the Oral Contraceptive Pill, one of 14 other commonly used contraceptives. For arguments sake, I accepted OCP could be harmful, but then asked why use that one out of the 13 other mainstream alternatives if that's the case? Con's reply: "This is irrelevant. What ifs are not the bases of sound arguments. "Based on the same logic Con would argue: if you cross the road with your eyes shut you have a high probability of getting hit by a vehicle. Then when presented with the resolution, "what if you kept your eyes open whilst crossing the road. ." he would reply: "This is irrelevant. What ifs are not the bases of sound arguments. "But this example is actually less ludicrous than what took place, because Con was not presented with only one sound alternative/solution to the irrelevant problem he proposed, but asked "what about the 13 other sound alternatives/solutions? " a rhetorical question highlighting the flaw in his vague attempt at dis-crediting prolonged use of contraception. Con knew his point had been countered. Incestuous marriage is right based on the PC Morality. Con has failed numerous times to show a direct link between incestuous marriage and non-moral damage and hurt to society.