I want statistics on jurisdictions where there have been movements to repeal incest laws, or on the numbers of incestuous marriages solemnized in jurisdictions where such laws have been repealed.

In short, I want you to provide some evidence that the inability of some number of incestuous couples to have their consortium recognized by the state is anything like the inability suffered by the known large number of same-sex couples in the same situation.

I do this because I believe you are making a dishonest argument, attempting to portray supporters of same-sex marriage as willing to support relationships considered abusive and infamous.

While I agree that the need for the legitimization of same-sex marriages is stronger in as much as it affects a greater proportion of the poulation, I don't see how demonizing one group supports the other. How is incest bewteen two consenting non-manipulated adults abusive?

Oh, so if you are a minority your problems are irrelevant now?

Incest is not necessarily abusive. Besides, I am trying to show that supporters of same-sex marriage are often also pretty biased.

Uh, duh? Isn't that the point of us all being democracies, right?

Tyranny of the majority?

I'm skeptical of "consenting adult" incestuous relationships, but I'm not trying to demonize them. My comments runs to the other member's attempt to set up incest as a straw man for the purpose of knocking down arguments for same-sex marriage.

If more people agree than disagree, they must be right. That's why I only do threesomes, my buddy and I can always overrule the girl's veto.

Some religious beliefs manage perfectly well in disproving themselves. This recent rapture nonsense being a case point.

I'm not saying that all religions are wrong, but that's mostly because I don't have to. While I don't particularly care for jeffreydean1's tone, he's right about where the onus of proof lies.

The price of equal freedom for all is the ability to allow for people to be complete idiots, so long as they don't commit fraud, violence, theft, whatever against another person. So if a brother and sister want to get married fine, if they can find someone to do it for them. The price is either not having any children, or extensive testing to ensure a child wouldn't suffer the deformities that are so extensively problematic in incestuous breeding (for a current trend in this, it's worth looking into the problems some of the Amish are facing here).

There is the bizarre and unfounded assumption that not making a legal punishment for something deemed immoral or wrong will lead to widespread use or embracing of that thing. It's the usual call to arms for the self righteous who want to micromanage the lives of everyone.

I think any two individuals able to give consent should be able to marry. Again, I see marriage as a negative, but if people can consent and want to, they should get the same social benefits and drawbacks as everyone else. Literally the only legal restriction should be the ability to consent by both parties (or maybe all parties in cases of polygamy, polyandry, or bigamy).

Again, though, you're throwing out a red herring.

No, I am not. Stop insinuating nonsense like that.

You're not seriously comparing same-sex marriages to incest, are you?

I am comparing the bias towards same-sex marriage with the bias towards incestous marriages (which appears to be popular even among advocators for the former).