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

Thanks to Con to again for his continuing participation. I'd like to propose that both me and Con make this the final round, as it was a bit of an amateurish oversight on my behalf to make it 5. debates on here are generally 4 and it makes sense to engage the potential voters and not make the debate drag on to long, so if it's okay with my opponent I'd like to make this my last post and propose round 4 is Con's last too. Con argues marriage is a legal constitution, of which procreation is the primary purpose. Despite disagreeing with this interpretation of the law, for arguments sake I will momentarily agree with Con's definition and outline the irrelevance it holds to the argument even if true. so for arguments let's say both me and Con agree the following: A. Marriage is a legal constitution with procreation regarded as the primary purpose by law. Based on the criteria of the debate we also agree: 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" 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. On top of this, in a gay marriage procreation is an impossibility, Con therefore must contend on the same basis it to is wrong. This is contradictory of Cons criteria-stringent perspective and therefore nullifies this argument. Irrefutably void Even so, I'll make one last point.. 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. So despite a married incestuous couple being unable to fulfill the primary purpose of marriage in the context of law (for arguments sake), they are able to fulfill the other purposes, which based on their individual beliefs, may be their primary purpose of marriage and the PC Morality would accept this based on the outlined PCP. "When a couple- through a highly improbable turn of events- happens to possess a pair of egg and sperm that would produce a handicapped child- and through none of their fault and yet take prudent measures to avoid such a child do so consensually. Let it be understood that it is only due to highly random factors that such an event occurs- it is not deliberate (i.e.) intrinsic."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. Con seemingly argues as if I've made this scenario up and posed it as a hypothetical.. 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. Despite being anecdotal, I personally know people with this condition but cannot remember the name of the said condition. So for arguments sake I will present another variable which heightens the risk of child retardation/problems maternal age for example: A woman's risk of having a baby with chromomal abnormalities increases with her age. Down syndrome is the most common chromosomal birth defect, and a woman's risk of having a baby with Down syndrome is: At age 25, 1 in 1,250 At age 30, 1 in 1,000 At age 35, 1 in 400 At age 40, 1 in 100 At age 45, 1 in 30 At age 49, 1 in 10But based on what Con has said, these women should be allowed to marry, despite the similar child-bearing risks as incestuous couples. His argument about the risks associated with procreation is hereby conceded.Con presented the case that, naturally people have psychological mechanisms that make us go "eww" to incest, but argued that naturally people don't have psychological mechanism that make us go "eww" to the gay tendencies (which is wrong), but not to digress, his point was, the fact that most of us have these mechanisms therefore implies going against them would cause psychological harm. I explained that humans consciously ignore these psychological mechanisms all the time and don't cause harm. I gave an example which he disputed "was not intrinsic" missing my point, here's an example which is intrinsic: If a sky diver jumps from a plane, he is going against his intrinsic fear fall of falling. Despite the psychological mechanism telling him not to he still does it. Is this therefore causing harm? Should the PCP classify sky-diving wrong because of this? Does sky diving directly harm society? No, no and no. "When you are first born your only fears were of falling and of loud noises. They are built into your DNA and have been passed down from generation to generation as a survival mechanism Their sole purpose is to keep you alive, and create emotion that will motivate you to avoid danger. Every other fear you face you have learned throughout your life.""Let it be noted that my opponent has conceded that incestuous procreation causes harm. The opponent, however, fails to realize that not every case of pregnancy is intentional and it would be quite (?) difficult to make sure that each and every such couple does not produce even one child in the period of their relationship. Far fetched, is it not?"Yes, very far fetched. 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, therefore marriage is actually cutting down the risk and harm of incestuous procreation. Which kills your contention. "This is clearly nonsense. The entire point was to emphasize that at least one of the contraceptives is harmful."To argue this when there is an abundance of other alternatives is the only part of this which is non-sensical. With this logic you could argue the everything in life is harmful if you pick the most harmful way to go about things. In front of me is a staircase.. I could walk down it or I could leap head first and potentially break my neck. When presented with the 13 Contraceptive alternatives, a couple would be seeking harm if they chose the most potentially harmful choice.. so therefore it is Con's contention that is the basis of an unsound argument. Incestuous Marriage itself is not directly harmful to society, therefore based on the Model PC Perspective, it is without a doubt Incestuous marriage is right Sources: http://www.marchofdimes.com... http://www.omg-facts.com...