Originally posted by Eladar
If homosexual marriage is ok, then I see nothing wrong with incest. I can't argue that one is wrong if the other is ok. Why is it that they can't have kids? It isn't a guarantee there will be problems. If there is, just abort it.
I am curious now. You "see nothing wrong" because you have a way to judge right from wrong which, presumably, applies to both incest and gay marriage and asserts that both are wrong, possibly for the same reason or possibly for two related reasons. Once gay marriage is allowed, it seems to you that your way of judging right from wrong is rendered defunct and defective. For that reason you are unable to determine that incest is wrong. You can see nothing wrong with incest it seems.
Now I accept that your method of determining what is wrong is very likely defective, because it leads you to believe that gay marriage is wrong. I am not at all upset, then, that your defective criterion has been demolished.
I would suggest that what you require now is a new way to make such judgements, one which is capable of accommodating the social change in allowing gay marriage without suggesting that incest is tolerable.
There are many objective considerations that might lead you to believe that incest ought to be wrong. They include the risk of oppressive and abusive behaviour by adults towards children within their family and the prospect of promoting genetic defects. Obviously, if there were no grounds for concern, then your post would fail to excite interest.
As you work on this interesting conundrum, you will be replicating the path taken for example by the renowned Anglican bishop Holloway, who demonstrated that it is not reasonable to base moral and ethical choices on religious criteria, especially not sectarian religious criteria (which are only going to be relevant to members of the same sect). For a multi faith society, to which the alternative is tyranny since it would lack freedom of belief, the best and indeed necessary (i.e. only) way to proceed is to base ethics and morality on secular grounds that have sufficiently wide acceptance. As far as possible one would look for criteria that are coherent and test the results by considering what types of judgement arise.
For example, an argument favouring gay marriage is that gay and lesbian couples already live as life partners and require the various legal and social protections that arise through marriage, such as rights to live in the shared home when one partner dies. One would seek to prevent the many types of painful hardship arising from the lack of such protection. In any event, one would have to ask why it is not desirable to endorse a profession of love and a long term, stable relationship between consenting adults who are, as a result, causing neither harm nor reasonable, justified offence to anyone other than bigots and socially backward hill billies like yourself. After all, in the name of religion you are promoting hatred and intolerance, which seems irrational and socially harmful.