Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban

I wasn't referring to whether it would be legal by the Constitution, simply questioning his reasoning, that it being a "lifestyle choice" (in his opinion) is the crucial issue.

 

There's some difference. Brother and sister is not much of a problem, but if it were parent and child, there's the question of whether the parent influenced their child prior to their majority. Introducing the possibility of a future relationship beyond parent-child can be seen as a conflict of interests; some parents may not do the best thing for the child, prior to adulthood, if they desire something in the vein of romance/sex once the child is adult.

And, of course, there's solid reason why procreation should be disallowed by incestuous couples, since it carries the risk of damage to the child.

But if we ignore concern one and allow marriage without procreation, there really isn't any reason why it should be banned. I suspect the reason that people dislike the association between homosexuality and incest is because incest is a rational taboo...it stems from the dangers of inbreeding. Yes, if you carefully define it as just marriage without procreation, it takes away the danger, but simply saying "incest" includes the sexual aspect. It's a common tactic to taint homosexuality, which harms no one, by associating it with an activity that has harmful connotation.

 

First of all, I'm not a homophobe. The reason I turn to incest is that people who support gay marriage want to change laws to affirm their lifestyle. A lifestyle I have no problem with, just not a lifestyle that I support changing the laws for.

 

Not true.

You supported Prop. 8, which changed the law.

 

Straw man.

 

No, it reverted back to a measure that was passed and the court overturned.