I've explained in my above post in response to Kirkstaller my opinion on incestuous relationships is irrelevant. The only point I am making is that there are very real differences between marriage between two people of the same sex and marriage between siblings.

I've also explained in my original post to Kirkstaller why preventing siblings from marrying does not deny them rights as homosexuality is classified as a sexual orientation whereas the attraction to a persons siblings (or parents/offspring) isn't.

This is ducking the issue. The only reason for the incest taboo in societies is the effect of future generations. With gay incest that is an irrelevance and so we are left with direct discrimination against incestous gays by inter alia non-incestuous gays. Morall unsound in my opinion. If you agree with gay marriage you must agree with incestuous gay marriage or you are hypocritical.

No it isn't it is an argument constructed to get out of any explanation of why same sex couples in a legal relationship shouldn't be allowed o marry.

As I've explained this question is completely irrelevant to what I have said whether my answer was that I was in support of them or against them or that I had no opinion of them then it wouldn't change the fact that the comparison between gay marriage and sibling marriage is completely asinine.

The religious like to keep the institution of marriage clutched firmly to their palpitating chests, the rest of us have civil ceremonies in civil service offices, only the religious can uphold the true sanctity of marriage.

They guard their right to their ceremony and prejudice against those who don't fit with their book very jealously, and the whole thing about the word "marriage" is precisely that, religions trying to guard something that they see as their own brand - truth is that no religion will HAVE to marry anyone that they don't wish to, there is no compulsion for a religion in law to do anything - they just don't like the word "marriage" being used in the same context as their brand of "marriage".

They should have copyrighted the word.

I've already provided two reasons in my original response to Kirkstaller as to why this isn't the case. So far neither yourself nor Kirkstaller have made any attempt to refute either of the two points that I raised in my original post.

Absolutely not. The case for gay marriage seems solely built on anti-discrimination. You therefore need to consider the ramificatiions of building a society on such weak moral principles and where that might lead. Anyway, I am not one of those apparently keen to discriminate against same-sex sibling marriage. Are you? To me if you accept gay marriage you absolutely must accept same-sex sibling marriage.

So you're not ready to take bookings yet then ?

Still that wall of prejudice firmly blocking your minds eh ?

What were those two reasons?

It would be discriminatory to allow same sex marriage between siblings but not opposite sex marriage between siblings, therefore an argument can be made against same sex sibling marriages on the basis of genetic defects in future generations.

Most importantly as I also explained again in one of my responses to yourself preventing same sex marriage effectively bars gay people from marriage. There is (as far as I'm aware) no individual solely attracted to their siblings in the same way that gay people are solely attracted to members of the same sex therefore denying marriage to siblings is not the same thing as denying marriage to same sex couples as the latter prevents an entire group from being married whereas the former does not.

This is nonsense.

1.What argument can be made against same sex sibling marriages on the basis of genetic defects in future generations!?
2. Why should gays not be debarred from marriage? Isn't that what the debate is about?
3. It is ludicrous to say gays or heterosexuals are attraced purely to their own sex, there are many bi-sexual people. Or are you saying bi-sexual people should not be allowed to marry either as heterosexuals or homosexuals?

As I see it, which ever way anyone dresses up this issue simplistic, anti- discrmination is not a justification for allowing gay marriage. Such a decision needs to be founded on higher, clearer principles.