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

Since enough matter has been collected to understand the nuances of both the sides, I will now attempt to approach the entire scenario in a manner that collects piecemeal what has been said, to highlight the direction of the argument. In this debate, there will be no Burden of Proof, instead both sides will argue logically and present their cases. Ifyou accept this debate, you accept you are arguing from the perspective of the Model PC Person presented and defined above, and therefore cannot present a differing moral stance. This is to objectify the current consensus of Political Correctness. This, I believe, is how all of it started. Now let me reveal to you my understanding of the entire scenario- I am to present a case through the perspective of a PC person, which I did accept. However, the constitution of both America and the United Kingdom is definitely not based upon the predicates of Political Correctness. Therefore, it stands to reason that when I quote legal nuances, such as the definition of marriage, they cannot be in the perspective of PC since the constitution transcends an individual's beliefs. Since the opponent has already conceded to the point that PC is "not really" a zeitgeist, and even if we go as far as to suggest that a constitution- through a government for the people, by the people- reflects the outlook of the majority, it will not reflect the precedents of Political Correctness. Thus, marriage is still defined to be a legal institution with the primary purpose of procreation and child rearing. Now, in the case of a couple that cannot procreate due to biological reasons or because they do not want to- the primary purpose becomes null and void but only on the cost of preserving freedom. The state cannot force a couple into child bearing, yet such a couple still has the potential to procreate or at least adopt and tend to a child. It is important to note that a couple that cannot procreate due to biological reasons chose to be together consensually knowing fully well that they cannot bear the fruit of a child. 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. The state should allow such a couple to marry for the same reasons as above- law should not be annulled due to exceptional circumstances- circumstances that are unintentional, uncalculated and contingent and yet harmless. Clearly, it is the prudence of the couple that led to the discovery of such a genetic incompetence- they could have procreated, but they did not proving their responsibleness and competence. An incestuous couple on the other hand is clearly irresponsible. My opponent through his own narrow-mindedness asserts:There is no factual evidence that points to psychological harm being caused to consenting incestuous lovers as there isn't with same sex couples. Now, I'm sure there will be a lot of factual evidence that points out harm being caused to a "son who is his own father", I will digress. My opponent fails to realize that a family- as a unit- shares certain responsibilities, which is the entire premise of marriage itself. I believe that a mother who marries her elder son is quite irresponsible when she ignores the psychological impact of such a union on her younger child. My opponent iterates that no harm is caused to the lovers, perhaps forgetting the established bonds of a family clashing with this new perversion of a relationship. I wonder if he believes that the social life of the younger son of a mother who marries his brother, thus confusing the child about the entire relationship- I wonder if he believes that it would cause the child no harm. The same obviously does not hold true for homosexuals because no such clashes arise. [B]ut 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. .. I think my opponent is confused by what intrinsic implies- "belonging to a thing by its very nature". I don't believe a fear of performing on stages is intrinsic to humans. [W]hen it is intrinsically required to avoid sexual intercourse with the same sex in normal people, as procreation is priority in Evolutionary terms. .Here, I would like to point out that my opponent is quoting from a controversial and unproven scientific theory- and that too incorrectly. In evolutionary terms, selective procreation is a priority- which is the reason families do not encroach their own pants. Let it be noted that the opponent has conceded, through this, that procreation within family is indeed harmful. The same, of course, cannot be said about homosexuals. In terms of this controversial theory, it can be argued that perhaps this is nature's way to weed out weak genes from the breeding pool (although I do not agree). A homosexual couple can be treated as an infertile couple and the previous argument (about marriage in a couple that cannot procreate) I made applies to such a pair. 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. My opponent fails to realize the essential distinction between the scenario of a couple that accidentally happens to possess the wrong combination of genes and an incestuous couple that necessarily possess the wrong combination of genes. The difference of course is their responsibleness. The former couple could in no way know of such a situation (and if the opponent suggests that they should have tested it on their first date. .. well), however the latter did. Furthermore it does not make sense to first establish an institution that motivates procreation- and then selectively revert on the entire definition for an esoteric group (i. e. ) the same institution now prevents procreation. It would be absurd if the government started monitoring bedrooms of incestuous couples to make sure they were using condoms during sexual intercourse. I hope my opponent agrees. 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. 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? [T]hen 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. "This is clearly nonsense. The entire point was to emphasize that at least one of the contraceptives is harmful. Unless my opponent wishes to complicate furthermore by establishing a separate law about contraceptives for incestuous couples, I believe he fails to see the consequences. Let me argue by taking a leaf from his own book-What if the said person is blind? I am sure that my opponent will be able to point out that such a person should ask for help, but that is the entire point. It raises further complications- further debate on those complications. Hence, my statement about the unsoundness of what ifs. I reiterate my stand on incestuous marriage.