The Instigator
Da-Bait
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
prunesquallor
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 790 times Debate No: 35157
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Da-Bait

Pro

Political Correctness has introduced a new so called 'open minded, all embracing landscape to society' but with this new zeitgeist, there are conflicts.

For example, Gay Marriage has been legalised in both America and the United Kingdom now. But by the same logic, shouldn't incestuous couples be granted the same right to marry?

In today's society there is a general consensus of accepting peoples life choices as long as they don't hurt other people directly.

Yet this outlook seems discriminative in itself, as only particular lifestyle choices are picked to be embraced by the media, and therefore the people.

I pose this question, the logical parameters of which should be based on:


Political Correctness,
the modern western world zeitgeist,

Morality based on the general consensus (not in a subjective sense)

For further clarification, this is not an argument about differing moralities, or getting caught up on semantics, so for this reason, we shall assume a base-line moral perspective based on the Model PC Person, which for this argument will be defined as:

Model PC Person:


Open Minded and embracing of those differing in
religion, race, politics, sexuality and is completely tolerant of those who differ, with the exception of reckless beliefs that incur damage/hurt to society, in a direct sense, as apposed to just a differing moral compass.


I then pose this question based on the moral outlook presented above:

If it is considered okay for consenting gay adults to marry,

then by the same logic, isn't it okay for consenting incestuous adults to marry?


You must argue that while it's right for gay adults to marry, based on the morality of the Model PC Person highlighted above, it is however, in fact wrong for consenting incestuous adults to marry based on the same moral stance of the Model PC Person.

In this debate, there will be no Burden of Proof, instead both sides will argue logically and present their cases. If you 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.


Round 1: Pro introducing the parameters and posing the question
Round 2: Con presenting their case based on above criteria
Round 3: Pro's rebuttals and their case based on above criteria
Round 4: Con's final rebuttals and summary
Round 5: Pro's final rebuttals and summary

prunesquallor

Con

First, I would like to thank the host for putting forward such an interesting subject, however, without further ado I would like to jump into the metaphoric fray.

Miscellaneous definitions to establish a baseline for nuances.

zeitgeist: the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era.
consensus: agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.
outlook: a habitual or characteristic mental attitude that determines how you will interpret and respond to situations.

After perusing my opposition's argument, I encountered contradictions that seemed to blunt the edge of the appeal he has attempted to insinuate. I do not like to approach an idea in a roundabout manner, however a couple of points in the presentation stand out like chips in wood.

[Y]et this outlook seems discriminative in itself, as only particular lifestyle choices are picked to be embraced by the media, and therefore the people.

Here, for instance, the opposition has observed that this so-called zeitgeist outlook appears to be discriminative, however, I disagree. I believe that since the outlook in itself is but a label for a specific mental attitude, in this case the attitude being, as the opponent put- 'open minded, all embracing landscape to society', it isn't the outlook that discriminates, rather the people- who do not possess said outlook.

Therefore, I contend that it is the people who discriminate, which is important to the context because it proves that political correctness is indeed not the new zeitgeist.

This, however, is irrelevant to the discussion since it matters not whether such an attitude is prevalent. Albeit, it is important to note that "incest" is yet considered to be a taboo in most of the human sects , cultures, religions, etcetera and not without cause, either.

[1] As University of Miami psychologists Debra Lieberman and Adam Smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. With very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. The primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. Even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. The psychologist Jonathan Haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy

This, I encountered in the first hit on Google. As a matter of fact, it isn't just the psychological ramifications of incest that indicate harm- it is known to be directly responsible for retardation in children born through such a relationship. Which brings us to the next bone of contention-

[O]pen Minded and embracing of those differing in religion, race, politics, sexuality and is completely tolerant of those who differ, with the exception of reckless beliefs that incur damage/hurt to society...

[2] The justification often given for the incest taboo is the impact of inbreeding on the children of incestuous sex. Children whose biological parents have a close genetic relationship have a greatly increased risk of congenital disorders, death and disability at least in part due to genetic diseases caused by the inbreeding.

If studies are to be believed, incest clearly harms the society through the introduction of a poisoned cocktail of its potential candidates. Now, if the opponent expects the state to impose restrictions on a married couple- to permanently avoid procreation through the use of contraceptives, such a marriage is indeed worthless, and harmful as well- since a constant use of contraceptives is detrimental to ones health.

[3] The most commonly reported side effect with continuous or extended regimen OCP dosing is breakthrough vaginal bleeding. Studies evaluating this side effect have reported its presence to varying degrees. In a large trial of continuous oral contraceptives, 396 patients (18.5%) withdrew due to bothersome uterine bleeding, making this the most common reason to withdraw from the study.

You must argue that while it's right for gay adults to marry, based on the morality of the Model PC Person highlighted above, it is however, in fact wrong for consenting incestuous adults to marry based on the same moral stance of the Model PC Person.

Having established the precedent that incestuous marriage hurts the society, I assert that whether or not gay marriage is politically correct is but an obstacle put forth as a trivial justification- rationalization. The argument is whether or not incestuous marriage happens to be politically correct, and even if the opponent manages to prove (which I find very doubtful) that gay marriage is non-PC as well, it does in no way change anything. Even so, I agree to abide by the restrictions, although they seem to be unnecessary.


I assert that gay marriage does not hurt the society in any manner as opposed to incestuous marriage.


[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
[2] http://books.google.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
Da-Bait

Pro

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for taking the time to accept and participate in this debate with me, thanks!


I shall start the debate by saying it's important to understand both sides are not necessarily arguing from their individual point of view, but instead arguing from the Model PC Morality/Perspective

(which may, or may not reflect their true thoughts)

In the first round I stipulated the Model Politically Correct Morality which both myself, Pro and my opponent, Con, should adhere their individual cases to, as these are the concrete agreed terms and the fundamental basis of this debate..

The criteria of this debate states arguments need to be put forth in the Model Politically Correct Person's perspective (from this point on referred to as PCP)


The question both me and Con need to ask is
not do we think incestuous marriage is right personally, but would the PCP think it's right based on their proposed perspective?


Well here's what we know..

We can definitively conclude the PCP is completely tolerable of those who differ from themselves, with the only exception being those who not only differ, but incur damage/hurt to society directly with their difference, but not because of a differing moral compass.

So logically, if incestuous marriage doesn't damage/hurt society directly, regardless of the potential negative moral impact on those who are not PCP's, Politically correct Morality dictates incestuous individuals should be embraced as gays have been and therefore incestuous couples should have the right to marry like gays.

Time for my Rebuttals,

My opponent stated:

"I contend that it is the people who discriminate, which is important to the context because it proves that political correctness is indeed not the new zeitgeist."

The point I was making is that Political Correctness is seen as the new way the modern World conducts itself, but in actuality there are conflicts/contradictions. So the Zeitgeist is conforming to a partial sense of the term. But as you pointed out, this part "is irrelevant to the discussion since it matters not whether such an attitude is prevalent"

Next I will address my opponent's argument of psychological harm, Con had this to say:

[1] As University of Miami psychologists Debra Lieberman and Adam Smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. With very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. The primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. Even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. The psychologist Jonathan Haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy

and then went on to assume the psychological ramifications presumably deduced from the extract highlighted in the above source, indicate harm. When in actuality the above extract only points out the obvious fact, which is, most people are not incestuous because of normal Biology. In the same way most people are not gay. As with an Incestuous person, being gay is a combination of Biology and Environmental Factors. this does not therefore indicate harm, but instead a difference to the norm. Completely different.

The American Academy of Paediatrics stated in Paediatrics the following:

"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts."

I move on to counter my opponents next bone of contention, Inbred Children and the risk of retardation

I agree with you, Inbred Children do have a greater risk of being retarded. But marriage and having children are two different things.

Take 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?

Your logic is as follows

If couple A choose to have a child, there's a high probability it will be retarded, and cause harm to society
therefore they shouldn't be allowed by law to marry
because they could choose to have a child, which may be retarded and cause harm to society.

For this logically to make sense, marriage must be a vital part of the equation, it isn't. Furthermore, your reasoning not only excludes incestuous couples from marriage, but also couples who can't conceive without risk, which is irrefutably, The complete opposite of the views of a PCP.

Politically Correct Morality allowing Incestuous couples to have children is another debate and non sequitur to this debate, therefore void.

Con must put forth an argument that shows Incestuous Marriage alone is directly damaging/harmful to society. He/she has failed to do so this with contention.

Con, who may I remind you, is supposed to be arguing from the perspective of a PCP went onto say:

"if the opponent expects the state to impose restrictions on a married couple- to permanently avoid procreation through the use of contraceptives, such a marriage is indeed worthless" (Pro Highlighted)

Does 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"?

This seems very narrow minded to me and indefinitely anti-PC.

Con's final argument was as follows:

"a constant use of contraceptives is detrimental to ones health."

he used the following quote:

[3] The most commonly reported side effect with continuous or extended regimen OCP dosing is breakthrough vaginal bleeding. Studies evaluating this side effect have reported its presence to varying degrees. In a large trial of continuous oral contraceptives, 396 patients (18.5%) withdrew due to bothersome uterine bleeding, making this the most common reason to withdraw from the study.

A quote which in-fact reports a side effect with the Oral Contraceptive Pill.
My 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?

I shall keep my contention brief, as I've touched upon them whilst countering Con's contentions.

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)."



Sources

http://www.pandys.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

prunesquallor

Con

I thank my opponent for the quick response.

[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 society
therefore they shouldn't be allowed by law to marry
because 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.

Debate Round No. 2
Da-Bait

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for his continuing participation in this debate, I'm finding it enjoyable.

I shall now respond to my opponents retaliations.


I shall move on from Con's first point regarding the current Zeitgeist, as arguing otherwise makes no difference to the actual debate. Discussing the Zeitgeist was already labeled by Con to be: "irrelevant to the discussion since it matters not whether such an attitude is prevalent" which I agree with. Therefore continuation of this redundant point is nothing other than counter-productive. Which both sides agree.

Con touched upon this:

"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."

His claim is that while there are psychological mechanisms to deter incest, there are not psychological mechanisms to deter same-sex intercourse.

"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."


Con claims homosexuality can be described as unnatural, but definitely not pre-programmed like incestuous tendencies.

pre-programmed:

(of a living creature) genetically biased towards a particular behaviour

Con is claiming humankind has no evolutionary/natural mechanism which is genetically biased towards avoiding mating partners of the same sex and instead seeking a partner of the opposite sex to procreate with. He is refuting the pre-programming of Evolution, by claiming "it is not intrinsically required to avoid sexual intercourse with the same sex"
When it is intrinsically required to avoid sexual intercourse with the same sex in normal people, as procreation is priority in Evolutionary terms, to not have a psychological mechanism to prevent the potential extinction of the human race is both unfathomable and factually not true.

Present in most people there are psychological mechanisms which act as a deterrent for both gay and incestuous tendencies. We are simply arguing about a psychological abnormality.. even if a psychological mechanism did only exist for incest and not for gay tendencies, which it doesn't, that does not make it harmful.

Take this for an example,

Meet Tom,

Tom is an average human, he has psychological mechanisms which make him feel fear like most of us. But 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 mechanism which is telling him "not to do it", but because he loves music, he does it and has a great time. Does this therefore indicate psychological harm? No, clearly not.

Humans constantly ignore their intrinsic mechanisms, it's what separates us from other animals.

Abnormal psychology is not necessarily indicative of harm, it's just a Deviation from what is normal or usual. There is no factual evidence that points to psychological harm being caused to consenting incestuous lovers as there isn't with same sex couples.

Therefore Con's argument about psychological damage being caused due to consenting incestuous adult relations going against/having abnormal psychological mechanisms is irrefutably void.



Con then goes on to void his next contention after being presented with my rebuttal,

This particular contention I'm referring to is the contention that, Incestuous couples should not be allowed to marry as they have a higher risk of producing a child with defects.

To continue to use this as a contention, despite it's irrelevance, Con must also accept, based on the same contention, no couple, incestuous or otherwise can marry if they have a higher likelihood of producing a child with defects. But here, he disagrees with that:


"Of course, such a couple is allowed to marry, however it stands to reason that they will abstain from procreation after said advice."

Here Con's referring to my proposed scenario of an otherwise normal couple who share the wrong combination of genes and like incestuous couples, have a higher risk of child retardation.

Con claims they should be allowed to marry, but it stands to reason that they will abstain from procreation after said advice..

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.



"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."

Con believes that a couple which is actively prevented from reproduction in marriage, makes that marriage worthless.

May I reiterate, the PCP is accepting of those with differing beliefs, so Con's individual belief that the said marriage is worthless is not relevant to this debate. As Con's arguing as a PCP, Con must accept that a childless marriage he considers worthless, may not be the view point of an incestuous couple who wish to spend their life with one another in a childless marriage, which they consider to be the most valuable thing of all.

Incestuous couples wishing to marry will be advised like normal couples who have clashing genes and therefore will be more informed than ever about the probable risks of procreation. So incestuous marriage, and the consequent acceptance will actually promote positive change and not endorse immoral procreation.

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. It stands to reason if this couple did want to have children, they would do it secretively and therefore not marry.



Con went onto argue that prolonged use of Contraceptives was harmful, but only highlighted a potential side effect with the Oral Contraceptive Pill, one of 14 other commonly used contraceptives.
For arguments sake, I accepted OCP could be harmful, but then asked why use that one out of the 13 other mainstream alternatives if that's the case?

Con's reply: "This is irrelevant. What ifs are not the bases of sound arguments."

Based on the same logic Con would argue:

if you cross the road with your eyes shut you have a high probability of getting hit by a vehicle.

Then 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."

But this example is actually less ludicrous than what took place, because Con was not presented with only one sound alternative/solution to the irrelevant problem he proposed, but asked "what about the 13 other sound alternatives/solutions?" a rhetorical question highlighting the flaw in his vague attempt at dis-crediting prolonged use of contraception. Con knew his point had been countered.


Incestuous marriage is right based on the PC Morality. Con has failed numerous times to show a direct link between incestuous marriage and non-moral damage and hurt to society.








prunesquallor

Con

I thank my opponent for his reply.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
Da-Bait

Pro

Thanks to Con to again for his continuing participation. I'd like to propose that both me and Con make this the final round, as it was a bit of an amateurish oversight on my behalf to make it 5. debates on here are generally 4 and it makes sense to engage the potential voters and not make the debate drag on to long, so if it's okay with my opponent I'd like to make this my last post and propose round 4 is Con's last too.


Con argues marriage is a legal constitution, of which procreation is the primary purpose. Despite disagreeing with this interpretation of the law, for arguments sake I will momentarily agree with Con's definition and outline the irrelevance it holds to the argument even if true.

so for arguments let's say both me and Con agree the following:

A. Marriage is a legal constitution with procreation regarded as the primary purpose by law.

Based on the criteria of the debate we also agree:

B. Political Correctness is embracing of those with differing beliefs, and therefore, if someone is of the belief "I want to marry to symbolise my love and not for the primary purpose proposed by law I should have the right to"

A. therefore makes no difference to the Politically Correct outlook, therefore whether the primary purpose of marriage according to law is procreation or not holds no relevance to this debate.


On top of this, in a gay marriage procreation is an impossibility, Con therefore must contend on the same basis it to is wrong. This is contradictory of Cons criteria-stringent perspective and therefore nullifies this argument. Irrefutably void

Even so, I'll make one last point..


Despite Con outlining a so called primary purpose, he failed to propose a sole purpose, therefore accepting differing purposes of marriage, even in a law context. So despite a married incestuous couple being unable to fulfill the primary purpose of marriage in the context of law (for arguments sake), they are able to fulfill the other purposes, which based on their individual beliefs, may be their primary purpose of marriage and the PC Morality would accept this based on the outlined PCP.


"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."

It would be deliberate if someone is aware of their condition from a young age as it is in their genes and runs in their family (i.e.) intrinsic. Con seemingly argues as if I've made this scenario up and posed it as a hypothetical.. No, there are millions of people who are aware that their genes, when met with a male/female with the same underlying condition does increase the odds of deformity/retardation. Despite being anecdotal, I personally know people with this condition but cannot remember the name of the said condition. So for arguments sake I will present another variable which heightens the risk of child retardation/problems maternal age for example:


A woman's risk of having a baby with chromomal abnormalities increases with her age. Down syndrome is the most common chromosomal birth defect, and a woman's risk of having a baby with Down syndrome is:

  • At age 25, 1 in 1,250
  • At age 30, 1 in 1,000
  • At age 35, 1 in 400
  • At age 40, 1 in 100
  • At age 45, 1 in 30
  • At age 49, 1 in 10

    But based on what Con has said, these women should be allowed to marry, despite the similar child-bearing risks as incestuous couples. His argument about the risks associated with procreation is hereby conceded.


    Con presented the case that, naturally people have psychological mechanisms that make us go "eww" to incest, but argued that naturally people don't have psychological mechanism that make us go "eww" to the gay tendencies (which is wrong), but not to digress, his point was, the fact that most of us have these mechanisms therefore implies going against them would cause psychological harm. I explained that humans consciously ignore these psychological mechanisms all the time and don't cause harm. I gave an example which he disputed "was not intrinsic" missing my point, here's an example which is intrinsic:

    If a sky diver jumps from a plane, he is going against his intrinsic fear fall of falling. Despite the psychological mechanism telling him not to he still does it. Is this therefore causing harm? Should the PCP classify sky-diving wrong because of this? Does sky diving directly harm society? No, no and no.


    "When you are first born your only fears were of falling and of loud noises. They are built into your DNA and have been passed down from generation to generation as a survival mechanism

    Their sole purpose is to keep you alive, and create emotion that will motivate you to avoid danger.

    Every other fear you face you have learned throughout your life."



    "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?
    "



    Yes, very far fetched. Hence why I said marriage itself would be a deterrent as it's making an announcement of an incestuous couple. If a child follows from this, it's likely to inbred therefore making the couple eligible for legal ramifications. If an incestuous couple wanted to have a child and keep the biological father a secret where the laws concerned, they wouldn't marry as marriage makes it harder to conceal such an event, therefore marriage is actually cutting down the risk and harm of incestuous procreation. Which kills your contention.



    "This is clearly nonsense. The entire point was to emphasize that at least one of the contraceptives is harmful."

    To argue this when there is an abundance of other alternatives is the only part of this which is non-sensical. With this logic you could argue the everything in life is harmful if you pick the most harmful way to go about things.

    In front of me is a staircase.. I could walk down it or I could leap head first and potentially break my neck.

    When presented with the 13 Contraceptive alternatives, a couple would be seeking harm if they chose the most potentially harmful choice.. so therefore it is Con's contention that is the basis of an unsound argument.

    Incestuous Marriage itself is not directly harmful to society, therefore based on the Model PC Perspective, it is without a doubt Incestuous marriage is right

Sources:

http://www.marchofdimes.com...






prunesquallor

Con

Even though the credibility of a website called omgfacts.com should itself be a matter of debate, I accept my opponent's proposition to let the current round be the concluding one as well.

In a not very subtle manner, one may have noticed my opponent quoting me out of context- even phrases that seem to make no sense but for the perfidious contrivances that my opponent has seemingly perfected, which perhaps, in themselves constitute a fearful talent I must steer clear of.

For instance, these are my opponents words in the opening paragraph of R1:

For example, Gay Marriage has been legalised in both America and the United Kingdom now. But by the same logic, shouldn't incestuous couples be granted the same right to marry?

Moving on to R4, my opponent agrees (at least for the sake of argument) :


A. Marriage is a legal constitution with procreation regarded as the primary purpose by law.

Then he goes on to say that since-


B. Political Correctness is embracing of those with differing beliefs, and therefore, if someone is of the belief "I want to marry to symbolise my love and not for the primary purpose proposed by law I should have the right to"

It makes sense (according to him) that:


A. therefore makes no difference to the Politically Correct outlook, therefore whether the primary purpose of marriage according to law is procreation or not holds no relevance to this debate.

In short, my opponent wants incestuous marriage to be legal and legitimate without paying any heed to the law. He argues that if you debate from the perspective of a PC person, law becomes irrelevant. I'm sure my opponent devised such an argument for the sake of the occasional humor.


In my opponent's own words:

Hence why I said marriage itself would be a deterrent as it's making an announcement of an incestuous couple. If a child follows from this, it's likely to inbred therefore making the couple eligible for legal ramifications. If an incestuous couple wanted to have a child and keep the biological father a secret where the laws concerned, they wouldn't marry as marriage makes it harder to conceal such an event.

My opponent therefore wants marriage to be a tool- the purpose of which is to control breeding in incestuous couples. I hope my opponent understands that humans cannot be treated like animals (not that animals deserve it either). I also believe that my opponent here- all by himself by the way, has created a scenario which curtails the human right to have children- out of curiosity, I ask him if he is a pro-communist from China. Furthermore, my opponent concedes that an incestuous couple that wants a child wouldn't marry after all, so it isn't like marriage would solve that particular problem of inbred children. Earlier my opponent talked of things like "I want to marry to symbolise my love" (perhaps as an appeal to audience emotion), and ironically exactly such a phrase is used to describe a child! So, essentially, he wants marriage to symbolize love that can never be consummated. Quite an axe to his foot, he would agree.


He gleefully flourishes the controversial theory of Evolution (on his own volition) and asserts that- "procreation is priority in Evolutionary terms" to justify his stand on incest causing no harm- by the logic through which it can be argued that rape is the path towards an evolutionary niche. However, after being pointed out that it is actually selective procreation which this theory postulates, my opponent seems to be struck dumb and thoroughly avoids the subject in his flimsy rebuttal. Another stubbed toe, I believe.

Similarly, my opponent seems to ignore the huge psychological harm a child would suffer after his mother marries his elder brother creating situations such as "a son who is his own father", or perhaps "a mother who is her son's grandmother", and other such exotic relationships. In fact, my opponent refuses to acknowledge this gaping flaw in this familial utopia. Strike three? Four? I think I have lost count.

Another mistake my opponent makes:

On top of this, in a gay marriage procreation is an impossibility, Con therefore must contend on the same basis it to is wrong.

Through my opponent's cherished theory of Evolution (which I think he quoted to make things very simple for me), it can be shown that homosexuals due to their inability to procreate would cause a lot less harm than incestuous couples who would flood innumerable genetically weak specimens (fancy apathetic term for babies) in the gene pool- and therefore such an incestuous union is extremely harmful (Here, I assume, that marriage as an institution to prevent procreation is undeniably absurd).


Another nitwit point my opponent made:

Despite Con outlining a so called primary purpose, he failed to propose a sole purpose, therefore accepting differing purposes of marriage, even in a law context.

Well of course it isn't the sole purpose! Otherwise, marriage in infertile couples, couples that do not want children, and homosexuals could not be justified. However, couples that can bear children but do not want them still have the potential to have children. Homosexuals and infertile couples have the potential to adopt children.


You might wonder how incestuous couples are any different, and the answer to it is very simple:

In the case of incestuous couples, the state would actually have had legalized inbreeding. Procreation isn't the sole purpose yes, but it is the primary purpose. It would be absurd if the state now prevented these married incestuous couples from bearing children- which was the purpose of marriage in the first place.

Yet another illogical point which my opponent seems never to run short of:

It would be deliberate if someone is aware of their condition from a young age as it is in their genes and runs in their family (i.e.) intrinsic (...) No, there are millions of people who are aware that their genes, when met with a male/female with the same underlying condition does increase the odds of deformity/retardation.

I'm sure this is true but I hope my opponent understands that it would be absurd for the couple to inquire about such conditions on their first date- or even the twentieth. It is a very personal information- unintentional, uncalculated and contingent. It is also due to superior modern technology that such a phenomenon is diagnosed. If my opponent suggests that the government invade the privacy of every individual to create a database of compatible persons, I digress. However, incestuous couples are necessarily and intrinsically incompatible and they know it. Marriage is a union built upon responsibility, which such a couple clearly lacks.


Even so, arguing about it is irrelevant. The matter of debate is:

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

Whether or not the marriage of such couples should be legal is beyond the scope of this argument. Even if it should not be legal (which I do not believe), the debate is about the justification of gay marriage being legal. Which brings us to a rather peculiar observation I made in R1. I said that:


Having established the precedent that incestuous marriage hurts the society, I assert that whether or not gay marriage is politically correct is but an obstacle put forth as a trivial justification- rationalization. The argument is whether or not incestuous marriage happens to be politically correct, and even if the opponent manages to prove (which I find very doubtful) that gay marriage is non-PC as well, it does in no way change anything.

It seems to me that opponent does not care about whether or not incestuous marriage is PC. He hinges his entire debate on the thread of gay marriage being legalized, like a stubborn child who says- "How come he gets the lollipop, and I do not!"

He has tried to slander homosexual marriage by comparing it with the perversion of incest which ignores strong family bonds for the sake of what my opponent terms as- "I want to marry to symbolise my love". I wonder what kind of love it is.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
Da-Bait

Pro

Both me and Con have decided to void this round. But for the record, despite Con's disapproval with the quirky name of a website I used as a source, the substance itself I quoted is fact as I'm sure Con will concur.

I'm sure my opponent would have approved of something with bigger words as the URL like perhaps
ohmyhigherentity-factualities.com, But as Ernest Hemingway once said,

"Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?"

Thanks mate.
prunesquallor

Con

I presume my opening words must have some truth in them after all, that my opponent was forced to quote Hemingway to justify his reference to omgfacts.com. Mind you, he quoted Hemingway- not Bob Unremarkable. I guess even he needs to reference a big shot to make a point, after all.

Anyhow, moving on, I drop this last round as previously agreed upon.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.