If you're for gay rights surely you should be for incest?

In cases where they didn't know they were related (rare) then I wouldn't punish them as they wouldn't have possessed the requisite mens rea.

But it's still wrong as in the case where they have no other family, they are destroying the only family relationship they do have. When their relationship ends, they will be alone in the world again. No family member who will always be there for them. That is destructive.

The same argument is made if you have a nuclear family; Mum, Dad, son and daughter. The father and daughter have a tempestuous affair, and then an acrimonious break up. The Mum then divorces the Dad for obvious reasons, and the father and the daughter don't ever want to see each other again. Family destroyed.

I didn't say they're identical, the relevant factors are similar. They both pertain to the rights of consensual adults.

Again, I have not referred to any case where they "have no other family". I'm referring to cases in which, although the couple are genetically related, they did not have an actual family relationship with each other in the first place

Yes, but this is just an example of how a family could be destroyed by incest. It is not demonstrative that family relationships are necessarily destroyed by incest.

What agreement? You abandoned it because me claiming pragmatism and expedience as my principles doesn't allow you to claim any inconsistency.

Oh dear, you're reaching now. Apart from the fact that few people with a good command of the English language would consider expedience a "higher principle" (higher implying something loftier)

But I'm happy to let you stretch the English language because it leaves me original argument wholly intact and creates no inconsistency between the treatment of gay people and the treatment of incest practitioners if expedience and pragmatism is the sole consideration

Its not really stretching. A 'higher principle' being that which is above others. Pragmatism and expedience can in fact qualify as higher principles. You seem to have assumed there are objective higher principles but at the same time suggest that they are subjective. As I said previously any justification for a position is a 'higher principle' as it is seen as above the matter at hand.

I abandoned it? You should get your memory checked.

Being unaware that they are your sibling doesn't mean they're not your sibling.

That's how things generally would go down, and I feel perfectly happy to legislate on the basis of how they would proceed 9 times out of 10.

How do you know how many times out of 10 the situation would end up as you describe? It's not like there's a vast array of statistics on how incestuous relationships have turned out, in order to evidence this?

You'll have to show me the bit where we "reached agreement" according to you.

And yes, you abandoned it. The thrust of your original argument (though it was all really shadow boxing and we didn't get down to it explicitly) was that if one accepts the "higher principle" in homosexuality (your presumption being that this higher principle is that consenting adults can do what they like) then one would be forced to accept it with incest.

Of course, that argument fell because my higher principle, and that in most laws as I demonstrated, is not "consenting adults can do what they like" but "expediency and pragmatism rule the day", and evolutionary change in discrete categories rather than grand plans being applied across society.

But I'm happy to let you stretch the English language because it leaves me original argument wholly intact and creates no inconsistency between the treatment of gay people and the treatment of incest practitioners if expedience and pragmatism is the sole consideration

And this argument goes the other way as well. Unlike with gay marriage, there is no serious constituency (except for right on university students who presume to speak for those who have actually experienced incest) calling for a change in the law.

Incest, on the other hand, has no benefits for the formation of healthy family units. And a critical point here is that if you tell a guy he can't **** his brother, then there are still many other partners our there (incest is not a sexual orientation, there are still other potential partners). If you tell gay people they cannot be with someone of the same sex, there are no other potential partners.

didn't think of that- thats true

homosexual relationships have the potential to harm families

Being unaware that they are your sibling doesn't mean they're not your sibling.

I mean you pretty much exposed all the prejudice and double standards you hold in the above quote.

I'm starting to think you're obsessed with me.

And you seem to be confused about the meaning of prejudice or double standard.

Of course I am bb you're so loveable

Last time you flounced off and said you were going to ignore me, you promised that this time, you really would.

It's almost as if you're butthurt over something I said? If you don't have the strength to ignore me, I'm happy to help you by ignoring you?

How do homosexual relationships have a potential that is inherent in their homosexuality, rather than inherent in any relationship, gay or straight?

Also, to underline the above point (in case you didn't read my page 2 explanation of why banning homosexuality is wrong and banning incest is acceptable); given the harm inherent in incest, one should give considerably more weight to the fact that it is not really that oppressive to ban an incestuous relationship, certainly not in the way it is to ban a gay relationship.

If you ban gay relationships, then gay people cannot have a serious, satisfying sexual/romantic relationship. If you ban incestuous relationships, the practitioner still has billions of other potential partners