Religion PDF: Testing the argument on same-sex communities

Timothy Martinez6 said:I have two questions for those in charge who might actually give me an answer.

On the thread "Questions regarding homosexuality from social and religious perspectives" (over on Religion), there’s a recurring argument used to support legalizing same-sex unions that goes something like this: "The fact that people live together and love one another should be enough reason to allow them to enter into civil marriage." To test the logic of that specific argument, I brought up the case of incest and asked if we should also allow such unions since those individuals can also live together and love one another. My goal was simply to see if we are being consistent with this reasoning or if we are applying double standards. My response was that I am forbidden from using an "incest parallel" for same-sex unions—which earned me a ban—yet I am supposedly allowed to use a "polyamory parallel."

Since I haven't received a clear or logical explanation as to why an incest comparison is off-limits while polyamory is acceptable—especially when both serve to test the validity of the same argument supporting same-sex legalization—I would like a more precise clarification...

Furthermore, since I was directed to try this line of questioning over on Politics, I want to know if I am permitted to test arguments there using similar parallels (if they arise)? Or am I just going to get banned there too?

It’s actually quite simple, even if it isn't for this PDF.

Modern social progress in shaping legal norms is based on the ethics of individualism. Essentially, everything is acceptable as long as it doesn't offend or harm anyone else (though, in practice, things aren't always that clean, and tribalistic social mechanisms with irrational taboos haven't been entirely wiped out).

In this sense, incest has specific rational arguments for being banned, specifically regarding the harm to a third party—namely, the higher probability of genetic disorders in offspring. Since a same-sex couple doesn't have that inherent risk (there's a whole other debate about adoption, but regardless, we're talking about two consenting, mature, working adults with full rights to decide how to live their sexual lives), it just doesn't compare.

You might be able to draw a comparison with polyamory, because that also falls within the realm of social taboos and value systems, and it lacks the direct, unambiguous harm found in incest.

Maybe you could compare it to an incestuous relationship involving someone who, for biological reasons, cannot conceive.

I can't believe I'm actually doing this—just dropping a line here! Honestly, life’s been a total whirlwind lately, kind of a beautiful mess, you know? Anyway, just wanted to pop in, say hi to everyone, and see what's shaking in the world. It feels like there's always something happening, whether it's some wild news story or just the usual daily grind, but hey—that's what keeps things interesting, right? Sending good vibes to everyone out there! kaže:
Wait, I think I've got a huge issue here! Seriously—what’s the deal with homosexual relationships and...So, I was just thinking about those weirdly complex situations—you know, like when people talk about incestuous relationships that can't actually lead to kids? It’s one of those super heavy, controversial topics that honestly makes your head spin a little! Even though it's such a taboo subject, there's always that weird philosophical or biological debate floating around about the actual consequences versus the social stigma. It's definitely one of those things that gets people talking in circles, haha!...and that's right alongside incest. 🤣

Yeah, so here we go—drawing those parallels again. It basically boils down to asking why one thing is okay while the other isn't. Look, if you actually have a take on this, try to walk me through it—like, give me a real, logical explanation for why you're against those kinds of incestuous relationships (unless, of course, you aren't, in which case, just totally ignore my question!).

coppersailor28 said:

Elizabeth Price2 Asks:
When I compare homosexuality to incest, I always focus on the incestuous relationship that cannot result in offspring.

Jesus !!!! Same old story with homosexual unions and...An incestuous relationship that can't result in offspring.... which draws a direct parallel to incest. 🤣
You’re out here trying to fix infertile heterosexual couples with...An incestuous relationship that cannot result in offspring."?

So they won't even let them donate regular blood, yet they're perfectly fine with marriage. Unbelievable.

Wikipedia; gay male blood donor controversy blood.co.uk

blood.co.uk; Who Can't Give Blood:
You should. Never. The debate over who can donate blood is getting ridiculous. If you want to talk about the gay male blood donor controversy blood.co.uk, let’s just get to the point. The current guidelines regarding Men Who have Had anal or Oral Sex with another man are unnecessarily restrictive. It’s illogical. We need donors. Period.:
A history of syphilis, HTLV, HIV, or hepatitis C.
You've ever worked as a commercial sex worker.
Ever injected drugs? Even just once.

You should. not Blood donation requirements. Specifically regarding the controversy surrounding men who have had anal or oral sex with another man. It’s a mess. Twelve months. After sex with...:
If you're a man, take note. Men who have had anal or oral sex with another man—regardless of whether a condom was used—are deferred from donating blood for 12 months.
A man who has had anal or oral sex with another man (assuming you're asking from a female perspective).
A sex worker.
Anyone with a history of intravenous drug use.
Anyone dealing with hemophilia or any similar blood clotting issues who has been treated with clotting factor concentrates.
Anyone of any race who has been sexually active in regions where HIV/AIDS is prevalent. This includes countries in Africa.

Nah, why would I even bother comparing them? I only brought up that specific incest case on purpose—just so you guys wouldn't hit me with that whole "defective kids" argument and stuff like that!

coppersailor28 said:

Elizabeth Price2 Asks:
When I compare homosexuality to incest, I always focus on the incestuous relationship that cannot result in offspring.

Jesus !!!! Same old story with homosexual unions and...An incestuous relationship that can't result in offspring.... which draws a direct parallel to incest. 🤣
You’re out here trying to fix infertile heterosexual couples with...An incestuous relationship that cannot result in offspring."?

So they won't even let them donate regular blood, yet they're perfectly fine with marriage. Unbelievable.

Wikipedia; gay male blood donor controversy blood.co.uk

blood.co.uk; Who Can't Give Blood:
You should. Never. The debate over who can donate blood is getting ridiculous. If you want to talk about the gay male blood donor controversy blood.co.uk, let’s just get to the point. The current guidelines regarding Men Who have Had anal or Oral Sex with another man are unnecessarily restrictive. It’s illogical. We need donors. Period.:
A history of syphilis, HTLV, HIV, or hepatitis C.
You've ever worked as a commercial sex worker.
Ever injected drugs? Even just once.

You should. not Blood donation requirements. Specifically regarding the controversy surrounding men who have had anal or oral sex with another man. It’s a mess. Twelve months. After sex with...:
If you're a man, take note. Men who have had anal or oral sex with another man—regardless of whether a condom was used—are deferred from donating blood for 12 months.
A man who has had anal or oral sex with another man (assuming you're asking from a female perspective).
A sex worker.
Anyone with a history of intravenous drug use.
Anyone dealing with hemophilia or any similar blood clotting issues who has been treated with clotting factor concentrates.
Anyone of any race who has been sexually active in regions where HIV/AIDS is prevalent. This includes countries in Africa.

🤷

Laura Harris8 said:So, you’re telling me I’m the one in the wrong here? Really? It’s funny how that works. You always hear the same old tired argument from the other side, claiming marriage should be strictly reserved for a man and a woman simply because they’re the ones who can technically carry on the species. But honestly, if we’re playing by those rules, where does it stop? I mean, incestuous couples could technically contribute to the continuation of the species too, and wouldn't polygamous communities be incredibly productive in that regard? So, why is there such a massive double standard? Why does that logic only seem to apply when it's convenient? ti So, what's your take on incest or polygamy? Are you really against them? Because if you look at it from my perspective—if a man and a woman are the only ones capable of continuing the species—then I don't see why someone wouldn't also be on board with incestuous relationships or polygamy. It just follows the logic, doesn't it? 🤷

That’s just such a massive fail of an argument. Honestly, it’s nothing more than trolling designed to derail the entire conversation and kill whatever focus was left. And if we're being real, you can see how easy it is to troll people from either side of the aisle. It's all just noise, isn't it?

Look, I hear what you're saying, and your point is totally fair—but just to clear the air, I never actually claimed that the sole reason for marriage has to be about passing on genes! That’s just one of those religious "spikes" people throw around, and honestly, I don't have anything to do with that line of reasoning at all.

Elizabeth Price2 said:

I can't believe I'm actually doing this—just dropping a line here! Honestly, life’s been a total whirlwind lately, kind of a beautiful mess, you know? Anyway, just wanted to pop in, say hi to everyone, and see what's shaking in the world. It feels like there's always something happening, whether it's some wild news story or just the usual daily grind, but hey—that's what keeps things interesting, right? Sending good vibes to everyone out there! kaže:
Wait, I think I've got a huge issue here! Seriously—what’s the deal with homosexual relationships and...So, I was just thinking about those weirdly complex situations—you know, like when people talk about incestuous relationships that can't actually lead to kids? It’s one of those super heavy, controversial topics that honestly makes your head spin a little! Even though it's such a taboo subject, there's always that weird philosophical or biological debate floating around about the actual consequences versus the social stigma. It's definitely one of those things that gets people talking in circles, haha!...and that's right alongside incest. 🤣

Yeah, so here we go—drawing those parallels again. It basically boils down to asking why one thing is okay while the other isn't. Look, if you actually have a take on this, try to walk me through it—like, give me a real, logical explanation for why you're against those kinds of incestuous relationships (unless, of course, you aren't, in which case, just totally ignore my question!).

Nah, why would I even bother comparing them? I only brought up that specific incest case on purpose—just so you guys wouldn't hit me with that whole "defective kids" argument and stuff like that!

🤷

Look, I hear what you're saying, and your point is totally fair—but just to clear the air, I never actually claimed that the sole reason for marriage has to be about passing on genes! That’s just one of those religious "spikes" people throw around, and honestly, I don't have anything to do with that line of reasoning at all.

Fine, whatever. The point is that anyone can twist a single imprecise statement to suit their own agenda.

My whole goal here is just to highlight the hypocrisy of those pushing for gay marriage; though, if we're being fair, the exact same inconsistency could be thrown back at the other side by asking the very question you just admitted was valid.

At the end of the day, once a debate veers down that path, you're basically hitting a dead end. It leads nowhere. It's really just a way to troll the discussion and shift the focus onto things that don't actually matter.

This whole discussion is actually quite fascinating—though I have to wonder, why on earth is it being hosted over at the FBI? 😁

Elizabeth Price2 said:

I can't believe I'm actually doing this—just dropping a line here! Honestly, life’s been a total whirlwind lately, kind of a beautiful mess, you know? Anyway, just wanted to pop in, say hi to everyone, and see what's shaking in the world. It feels like there's always something happening, whether it's some wild news story or just the usual daily grind, but hey—that's what keeps things interesting, right? Sending good vibes to everyone out there! kaže:
Wait, I think I've got a huge issue here! Seriously—what’s the deal with homosexual relationships and...So, I was just thinking about those weirdly complex situations—you know, like when people talk about incestuous relationships that can't actually lead to kids? It’s one of those super heavy, controversial topics that honestly makes your head spin a little! Even though it's such a taboo subject, there's always that weird philosophical or biological debate floating around about the actual consequences versus the social stigma. It's definitely one of those things that gets people talking in circles, haha!...and that's right alongside incest. 🤣

Yeah, so here we go—drawing those parallels again. It basically boils down to asking why one thing is okay while the other isn't. Look, if you actually have a take on this, try to walk me through it—like, give me a real, logical explanation for why you're against those kinds of incestuous relationships (unless, of course, you aren't, in which case, just totally ignore my question!).

Nah, why would I even bother comparing them? I only brought up that specific incest case on purpose—just so you guys wouldn't hit me with that whole "defective kids" argument and stuff like that!

🤷

Look, I hear what you're saying, and your point is totally fair—but just to clear the air, I never actually claimed that the sole reason for marriage has to be about passing on genes! That’s just one of those religious "spikes" people throw around, and honestly, I don't have anything to do with that line of reasoning at all.

Yeah, except you're forgetting there are absolutely zero practical reasons to ever legalize a relationship like that. Zero.

graniteridge6 said:This whole discussion is actually quite fascinating—though I have to wonder, why on earth is it being hosted over at the FBI? 😁

Basically, everyone's just sitting around waiting for someone to explain the "why" and see if the arguments actually hold water🍿.

Brandon Lopez6 said:Basically, everyone's just sitting around waiting for someone to explain the "why" and see if the arguments actually hold water🍿.

I have to admit—this whole debate has actually given me plenty to chew on. 😁

First off, I don't see where the thread starter is equating incest with homosexuality; they were merely drawing a parallel.

Secondly—and this is a big one—I honestly cannot wrap my head around a single valid reason to prohibit a potential marriage between blood relatives who are incapable of having children. At least, as of today, I haven't been able to conjure one up. 😁

Besides, even non-relatives who are aware of a hereditary condition still have the option of using donor-assisted reproduction through IVF (and, mind you, their marriages aren't banned either), so by that very logic, blood relatives should technically have that same path available to them.

Now, obviously, this isn't exactly the kind of topic for the FBI, but I fail to see why it shouldn't be allowed here. 🤔

graniteridge6 said:I have to admit—this whole debate has actually given me plenty to chew on. 😁

First off, I don't see where the thread starter is equating incest with homosexuality; they were merely drawing a parallel.

Secondly—and this is a big one—I honestly cannot wrap my head around a single valid reason to prohibit a potential marriage between blood relatives who are incapable of having children. At least, as of today, I haven't been able to conjure one up. 😁

Besides, even non-relatives who are aware of a hereditary condition still have the option of using donor-assisted reproduction through IVF (and, mind you, their marriages aren't banned either), so by that very logic, blood relatives should technically have that same path available to them.

Now, obviously, this isn't exactly the kind of topic for the FBI, but I fail to see why it shouldn't be allowed here. 🤔

In my opinion, you shouldn't lump incest and gay marriage together or use incest as a way to argue against gay rights. They're apples and oranges. It's like someone saying, "If you know English, why haven't you learned Swahili? It's basically the same thing." Incest is mostly hetero, so drawing parallels to gay marriage doesn't really make sense to me. But hey, whatever keeps people entertained, I guess.

Honestly, it's the people who try to be "polite" about it that get on my nerves—the ones implying that if you support gay marriage, you have to support everything else or you're just a hypocrite. Just because some random user wrote something here... ☕

And yeah, this isn't really a discussion for the FBI, but it feels like there are two parallel debates happening: one centered on religion and one right here. I don't see the point in separating them.

graniteridge6 said:I have to admit—this whole debate has actually given me plenty to chew on. 😁

First off, I don't see where the thread starter is equating incest with homosexuality; they were merely drawing a parallel.

Secondly—and this is a big one—I honestly cannot wrap my head around a single valid reason to prohibit a potential marriage between blood relatives who are incapable of having children. At least, as of today, I haven't been able to conjure one up. 😁

Besides, even non-relatives who are aware of a hereditary condition still have the option of using donor-assisted reproduction through IVF (and, mind you, their marriages aren't banned either), so by that very logic, blood relatives should technically have that same path available to them.

Now, obviously, this isn't exactly the kind of topic for the FBI, but I fail to see why it shouldn't be allowed here. 🤔

On Nut forums, we regularly scrub mental gymnastics—stuff like incest vs. gay marriage, shaved privates = liking girls, or adopting kids from gay couples = pedophilia. We clear it out because there’s never been a single instance where the conversation stays logical, instead it just devolves into straight-up insults.

Brandon Lopez6 said:In my opinion, you shouldn't lump incest and gay marriage together or use incest as a way to argue against gay rights. They're apples and oranges. It's like someone saying, "If you know English, why haven't you learned Swahili? It's basically the same thing." Incest is mostly hetero, so drawing parallels to gay marriage doesn't really make sense to me. But hey, whatever keeps people entertained, I guess.

Honestly, it's the people who try to be "polite" about it that get on my nerves—the ones implying that if you support gay marriage, you have to support everything else or you're just a hypocrite. Just because some random user wrote something here... ☕

And yeah, this isn't really a discussion for the FBI, but it feels like there are two parallel debates happening: one centered on religion and one right here. I don't see the point in separating them.

But honestly, that is a perfectly valid question to ask. I truly understand where people are coming from. To be perfectly clear—I will be voting against it, and I absolutely support same-sex marriage.

However, looking at it from another angle—and I say this knowing full well that these matters don't impact my life or anyone else's specifically—these are consenting adults. I believe they should have the right to choose who they marry and, by extension, enjoy the legal rights that come with it. This leads me to what I consider a justifiable line of inquiry: if we accept this, then how should one view incestuous marriages where childbearing isn't possible, or perhaps polyamorous relationships? I am not suggesting we equate them, mind you, but rather that such arrangements meet all the same criteria that lead me to support same-sex marriage in the first place.

@Sophia Thomas7—Nut is certainly a unique forum when it comes to discussing sexuality, and I think it's wonderful how you manage it, but I do feel that other forums ought to allow for a bit more freedom of discussion—even if that means the moderators have to step in and get a little more involved occasionally.

graniteridge6 said:But honestly, that is a perfectly valid question to ask. I truly understand where people are coming from. To be perfectly clear—I will be voting against it, and I absolutely support same-sex marriage.

However, looking at it from another angle—and I say this knowing full well that these matters don't impact my life or anyone else's specifically—these are consenting adults. I believe they should have the right to choose who they marry and, by extension, enjoy the legal rights that come with it. This leads me to what I consider a justifiable line of inquiry: if we accept this, then how should one view incestuous marriages where childbearing isn't possible, or perhaps polyamorous relationships? I am not suggesting we equate them, mind you, but rather that such arrangements meet all the same criteria that lead me to support same-sex marriage in the first place.

@Sophia Thomas7—Nut is certainly a unique forum when it comes to discussing sexuality, and I think it's wonderful how you manage it, but I do feel that other forums ought to allow for a bit more freedom of discussion—even if that means the moderators have to step in and get a little more involved occasionally.

As far as I'm concerned, who loves who doesn't matter, as long as we're talking about consenting adults. For example, I'm definitely not on board with lowering the marriage age from 18 to 16 (I've actually chatted with a few people about this). And incest? Man, that's just weird. I really don't see how using a "brother and sister in a relationship" scenario works as an argument against two guys wanting to get hitched.

Brandon Lopez6 said:In my opinion, you shouldn't lump incest and gay marriage together or use incest as a way to argue against gay rights. They're apples and oranges. It's like someone saying, "If you know English, why haven't you learned Swahili? It's basically the same thing." Incest is mostly hetero, so drawing parallels to gay marriage doesn't really make sense to me. But hey, whatever keeps people entertained, I guess.

Honestly, it's the people who try to be "polite" about it that get on my nerves—the ones implying that if you support gay marriage, you have to support everything else or you're just a hypocrite. Just because some random user wrote something here... ☕

And yeah, this isn't really a discussion for the FBI, but it feels like there are two parallel debates happening: one centered on religion and one right here. I don't see the point in separating them.

From what I’ve gathered, this entire line of reasoning stems from the specific definition that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman." Someone eventually realized that the wording should actually be "marriage is a union between a man and a woman who are not related," and that's when the back-and-forth regarding incest began—for instance, arguing that a brother and sister could technically fit the criteria of "that man and woman" provided by the definition.

EDIT: To put it another way, by defining marriage strictly as "a union between a man and a woman," all alternative forms of marriage are effectively barred, yet a massive loophole remains in the legal framework: what happens if that man and woman happen to be blood relatives?

Brandon Lopez6 said:As far as I'm concerned, who loves who doesn't matter, as long as we're talking about consenting adults. For example, I'm definitely not on board with lowering the marriage age from 18 to 16 (I've actually chatted with a few people about this). And incest? Man, that's just weird. I really don't see how using a "brother and sister in a relationship" scenario works as an argument against two guys wanting to get hitched.

But look, some people find same-sex couples just as unsettling.
That shouldn't be their reason for opposing it, though. For instance, I find it incredibly strange when two people with a forty-year age gap decide to tie the knot—but am I standing there protesting it? Of course not.

From what I can gather, the point isn't even that they're using it as a counter-argument; rather, the author was trying to test the consistency of their own logic. To me, his posts make perfect sense, even if we happen to be on "opposite" sides of the fence.

I really can't stand people who lack the capacity to wrap their heads around something that falls outside their own narrow perception—regardless of which "side" they claim to be on.

If there’s already a thread specifically for "Incest," let's just move the discussion over there. Whether it's hetero, homo, or anything else...
But please, don't bring it here to the FBI, and don't assume one way is the only way: homo doesn't always equal incest.

The mods really need to step in here with a key...

Kate Harris50 said:From what I’ve gathered, this entire line of reasoning stems from the specific definition that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman." Someone eventually realized that the wording should actually be "marriage is a union between a man and a woman who are not related," and that's when the back-and-forth regarding incest began—for instance, arguing that a brother and sister could technically fit the criteria of "that man and woman" provided by the definition.

EDIT: To put it another way, by defining marriage strictly as "a union between a man and a woman," all alternative forms of marriage are effectively barred, yet a massive loophole remains in the legal framework: what happens if that man and woman happen to be blood relatives?

That’s exactly why I don't get why people link incest to same-sex marriage. If they actually go through with putting this stuff into the Constitution, it basically "approves" it—or at least leaves a massive loophole—when it comes to heterosexual marriage.

Look, I’m not stupid, and I’m definitely not trolling here, but man... I just don't get it. It makes zero sense to me. I've been reading through all of this, and honestly? I'm still lost. 😕

graniteridge6 said:But look, some people find same-sex couples just as unsettling.
That shouldn't be their reason for opposing it, though. For instance, I find it incredibly strange when two people with a forty-year age gap decide to tie the knot—but am I standing there protesting it? Of course not.

From what I can gather, the point isn't even that they're using it as a counter-argument; rather, the author was trying to test the consistency of their own logic. To me, his posts make perfect sense, even if we happen to be on "opposite" sides of the fence.

I really can't stand people who lack the capacity to wrap their heads around something that falls outside their own narrow perception—regardless of which "side" they claim to be on.

I ended up deleting a chunk of my post, so now it reads kind of clunky. What I was actually trying to get at is that out of everything—gay couples, polygamy, and incest—this last thing is easily the weirdest. Like, if you're picking from that trio, this takes the cake.

graniteridge6 said:I have to admit—this whole debate has actually given me plenty to chew on. 😁

First off, I don't see where the thread starter is equating incest with homosexuality; they were merely drawing a parallel.

Secondly—and this is a big one—I honestly cannot wrap my head around a single valid reason to prohibit a potential marriage between blood relatives who are incapable of having children. At least, as of today, I haven't been able to conjure one up. 😁

Besides, even non-relatives who are aware of a hereditary condition still have the option of using donor-assisted reproduction through IVF (and, mind you, their marriages aren't banned either), so by that very logic, blood relatives should technically have that same path available to them.

Now, obviously, this isn't exactly the kind of topic for the FBI, but I fail to see why it shouldn't be allowed here. 🤔

Catch-22: there aren't even any practical reasons why two siblings or whatever would want to marry—they already get all the legal perks that same-sex marriage doesn't have. Inheritance, hospital visits, stuff like that. Plus, I searched Google and couldn't find a single case like this in the USA.

I honestly don't get why people are so terrified of actual debate—this sudden urge to just ban certain topics altogether. If I hold a position, and more importantly, if I have the data to back it up, I don't feel threatened just because someone introduces a fresh perspective into the conversation.

Look, I am against it—strongly against it—but what really gets under my skin is the attempt to force these rigid conversational frameworks on this forum. It’s all this reliance on "common sense" arguments as a way to shut down anything that doesn't align with personal biases. If you disagree with my point, hit me with a counter-argument; don't just try to censor the discussion.

@Christian Torres3—just speaking from experience here, I know a few incestuous couples who aren't actually looking to marry, but we are talking about the theoretical possibility. And fine, setting aside the legal rights they might have (which, granted, I'm not intimately familiar with, but I suspect they aren't quite EQUAL to those of a standard spouse or a sibling, especially when it comes to inheritance laws in the US), what is the actual reason to deny marriage to such individuals if they aren't planning on having children?

@graniteridge6: major props! 🙏 🙂 You’re probably the only one "from overseas" who actually gets my point when I’m drawing those comparisons between homosexuality and incest.

@Christian Torres3: Man, I have no clue how many legal perks there are. For instance—just speaking from my own experience with legal stuff—I once wanted my brother to just sign over his car to me. We were told we'd have to shell out a 5% tax, you know? So, we totally bailed on that idea. Apparently, married couples don't have to deal with that 5% thing at all 🤷 (if I remember correctly).

@moderators: Okay, what's the deal with banning stuff in a debate like this? Why did you try to shut this down before, only to turn around and allow it now on the FBI forums? 😕

graniteridge6 said:I honestly don't get why people are so terrified of actual debate—this sudden urge to just ban certain topics altogether. If I hold a position, and more importantly, if I have the data to back it up, I don't feel threatened just because someone introduces a fresh perspective into the conversation.

Look, I am against it—strongly against it—but what really gets under my skin is the attempt to force these rigid conversational frameworks on this forum. It’s all this reliance on "common sense" arguments as a way to shut down anything that doesn't align with personal biases. If you disagree with my point, hit me with a counter-argument; don't just try to censor the discussion.

@Christian Torres3—just speaking from experience here, I know a few incestuous couples who aren't actually looking to marry, but we are talking about the theoretical possibility. And fine, setting aside the legal rights they might have (which, granted, I'm not intimately familiar with, but I suspect they aren't quite EQUAL to those of a standard spouse or a sibling, especially when it comes to inheritance laws in the US), what is the actual reason to deny marriage to such individuals if they aren't planning on having children?

Nobody's scared, and nobody is banning anything here.

We are talking about incest.
Just lay it all out there if someone doesn't get it yet. Back up your views and move on.

By the way, quick question.
How many times have you actually posted on the "incest" thread?
Or is everyone only reacting to it when it involves gay relationships?

Sam Alvarez4 said:Nobody's scared, and nobody is banning anything here.

We are talking about incest.
Just lay it all out there if someone doesn't get it yet. Back up your views and move on.

By the way, quick question.
How many times have you actually posted on the "incest" thread?
Or is everyone only reacting to it when it involves gay relationships?

Why does that even matter?
I don't bother posting in threads about man-woman dynamics or any of those specific forums—honestly, I just can't stand the way those discussions go—but I do read them regularly.

And what does having a separate thread for incest have to do with this? We are talking about incest within the context of our current debate.
I fail to see how a discussion like this—which, let's face it, is currently in the completely wrong place—could possibly ruin the conversation in the place where it actually started.