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

[T]he point I was making is that Political Correctness is seen as the new way the modern World conducts itself. My opponent does accept that political correctness is "not really" the new way the modern world conducts itself, rather, he says, it appears to be so. I disagree. The entire point I intended to insinuate was that it is quite obvious to see that politically correct isn't how the world conducts itself and therefore it stands to reason that the majority would be able to deduce it as well. I am presuming that the opponent cannot in fact procure enough and relevant data to empirically demonstrate the truth of his assertion. Therefore his argument stands refuted. [W]hen in actuality the above extract only points out the obvious fact, which is, most people are not incestuous because of normal Biology. Again, the opponent has misunderstood the intent of said excerpt. 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. Humans are intrinsically programmed not to be attracted to their immediate family- in a fashion similar to a mother who is intrinsically programmed to care for her child. It is not a matter of choice, or morality- it is natural in the sense that it is required. 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. However, the fact that individuals are known to partake in incest should in no way be taken as an argument against the aforementioned assertion simply because it is perversion- an outlier. Furthermore, my opponent contends that it an "obvious" fact that most people are not incestuous because of normal biology- which implies that people who tend to be incestuous possess an abnormal biology. This is necessarily absurd since being incestuous is a state of mind which has nothing to do with biology, and in fact, indicates an abnormal psychology. [B]ut marriage and having children are two different things. [1] Yes, indeed they are two different things. However, child bearing and child rearing are a significant part of marriage and this, indeed, is the reason that the state is obliged to legalize such an institution. Again, it would be absurd to state that just because a married couple is not obliged to bear a child it implies that they may not bear a child at all. [T]ake 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? Here, my opponent tries to impress the same argument in a different manner. Of course, such a couple is allowed to marry, however it stands to reason that they will abstain from procreation after said advice. However, as the opponent stated that such an eventuality is [O]ne of millions - it is illogical to make an exception for such a small (responsible) population. The couple was prudent enough to take advantage of technology, however, such a discovery is unnatural. The entire point of the argument is that incest is intrinsically detrimental- not the same as a couple that coincidentally happens to have the wrong combination of genes. 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. [F]or this logically to make sense, marriage must be a vital part of the equation, it isn't. This is clearly nonsensical, since marriage is based on the premise that it is beneficial to establish a legal institution that acts as a link to children- which,in this case, is marriage itself. It is very much a part of the equation. [D]oes 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"? Again, the opponent has misrepresented my intentions. The couples who cannot have children are not legally forced to avoid having them. 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. [M]y 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? This is irrelevant. What ifs are not the bases of sound arguments. The opponent goes further to illustrate an irrelevant except to prove that incest does not lead to mentally retarded children (I have to assume this is what he intended to prove, since this is the only context I can find it applies to, unless he is trying to assert that the individuals involved in the activity are not mentally retarded- which I never implied in the first place). 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). " Clearly irrelevant. I stand by my belief that incestuous marriage is not PC. [1] . http://www.debate.org...in which you find: 3. “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. ” – Skinner v. Oklahoma(1942) 316 U. S. 535, 541 4. “[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. ” – Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U. S. 190, 211. 5. “[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation. ” – Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.