No, it isn't a straw man argument at all.

The comment, 'consenting incest is really f**king rare' is pointless and also appears to be plucked out of your own prejudices...I mean how on earth would you know?

Besides it doesn't have any relation to the argument as obviously those cases where abuse is proven can simply not be allowed.....It isn't an argument against the legalising of incest marriage.

Until the 1967 homosexaulity was banned in Britain....The argument against it, outside of religion, was mainly the public's 'yuk' factor as what goes on between consenting adults isn't their business....'individual rights' won and even Thatcher voted to legalise. It was, I'm sure most of agree a good thing.

To my mind the main arguments against incest is that it obviously can cause internal family conflict...But it isn't for the state to tell people how to conduct their family life outside of sex with minors so in cases where people are beyond the age of consent the argument becomes a very old fashioned one.

Secondly As we have seen, getting married and producing children with higher risks of deformaties is allowed for couples with conditions so that argument can't be rationally used to stop incest marriage either.

No, it's just the 'yuk' factor and distaste and considering that this was the argument against homosexuality until reformers campaigned and won against it I can't see what valid argument exists against incest marriage.

The law exists for everyone and if we are going to have different strokes for different strokes then we should be consistent.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2015 11.10am)

I do think that Stirlings right jamie.

I really think you misunderstood my point when I brought in the case of homosexual incestuous couples. I used the example not because I think there is any link between homosexuality and incest but to illustrate that marriage has nothing to do with childbearing in law.

Your comment:
'the affect of homosexuality outside of the consenting adults is negligible to non-existant' seemed to come out of nowhere.
I was insinuating no such thing.

I personally can only think of the argument against incestuous marriage being that it is in such a small minority that there is no need for it.
I can't think of any well-founded adverse psychological or biological reasons to deny marriage to incestuous couples. Each can be conducted on a case by case basis after all.

There is nothing wrong with being gay.

It is probably better on the whole if children are brought up by a man and a woman, although there are no doubt some gay couples who would do a better job than some straight couples.

There is nothing wrong with gay people going through a form of marriage ceremony although a lot of people do not regard it as a true marriage as that term defines the union of a man and a woman, but I guess it is only a word so it does not really matter.

What is wrong and does matter is when the likes of the Northern Ireland bakers are persecuted for declining to assist in supporting same sex marriage. People should have the right to disapprove of same sex marriage and indeed gayness itself if they want. Businesses should have the right to decline to become involved in political issues.

Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.01pm)

They broke a contract on the basis of their beliefs - And their ensuing defence led to their being identified as violating equal rights law.

You keep going on about Contract Law. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. Clearly the bakers would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. Obviously not guilty, victims of a biased new establishment kangaroo court.

Nor is there any such evidence to suggest that homosexuals are born that way either. Shock.. Horror.

Being gay could result in any of those things, doesn't mean it definitely will but it could. Who knows.
For many though homosexuality does have a certain "yuk" thing.