You're the one who made the analogy in the first place and now you're running away from it when I showed you how stupid it was.
God damn it slim, the point of the analogy was not to dispute the fact "that Consumer choices are not analogous to human sexual relationships", do you not understand that?
No, YOU put words in my mouth by comparing a government's regulation of aesthetic preference to the government regulating interpersonal relationships with a retarded analogy, and then pretended like that was my argument all along.
How did I put words in your mouth?
Well, when it comes to sexual attraction they are the same. Its a deviant attraction between consenting adults (besides the pedos, obviously). There is 0 justification for opposing incestual marriages while supporting homosexual marriage, provided that the man is sterilized or they can't otherwise have children together.
Your response:
Except this argument is retarded for two reasons.
1) Incest" is not a sexual orientation. If the law bans gay sex, gay people can't have sex lives. AT ALL. If the law says you can't bang your sister, you literally have millions of other options. All you need to do is leave the house.
Is your first reason not implying that due to the availibility of sexual options for incestuous couples, compared to homosexuals, banning incest is ok?
Yes, other options are available.
And do you know why other options are available? BECAUSE INCEST IS NOT AN ORIENTATION. THAT'S MY POINT. An incestuous man who has sex with his daughter is not incestosexual. You can't narrow your sexual preference for women to 1, 2, or 3 people on the whole planet (your daughters, mothers, etc) and say "these two people are my orientation."
Incest is a fantasy, not a sexual identity. Wanting to fukk your specific sister is not an identity like male homosexuality which says, "I want to fukk men."
Hence the Kardashian metaphor, which you're too dense to understand.
It doesnt matter if incest is a sexual orientation or not, regardless of what incest is, it shouldn't be banned simply because incestuous couples "have other options", the avalibility of options alone is not a just reason to ban anything.
As far your asinine "Kardashian" analogy is concerned, i found it both stupid and funny, the fact that you automatically assumed that an incestuous couple must be heterosexual made me chuckle too.
Congratulations, you've just made my point for me. In fact, I couldn't have said it better.
If homosexual marriage were an option, husbands would not have to "come out of the closet" or lie to people and enter so-called lavender marriages at all. Get it, chief? THEY WOULDN'T BE MARRIED TO WOMEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. Go read my post again with your big-boy glasses. I said that homosexuality is immutable. Hence, these people aren't going to be in healthy family units. The only option for them is to marry a member of the opposite sex.
Beyond that, the family hierarchy of mom/dad duties and disciplining children is entirely unchanged. Entirely. Not so with incest. Imagine a dad trying to discipline his daugther, who is also his jilted lover. Imagine parents trying to raise preteen siblings who are also boyfriend and girlfriend. In gay marriage, you change genders within the respective family roles, but the role is still there. In incestuous relationships, you blow up the role completely.
Let me try and simplify this for you because either your trying to deflect the argument, or you're genuinely lost.
The fact that homosexuals may have no other choice in gender is irrelevant here, you labeled two
separate reasons as of why incest should be banned, one of those reasons being that it may destroy ones family structure, therefore you were implying that the posibility of causing family fission should be a bannable offence.
I gave an example of how homosexuality may inadvertently cause a disruption in family structure as well, and suggested that because you implied that something with such potential is bannable you should also be for banning homosexuality too.
Now, I do not agree with that line of thinking at all, in fact, unlike you, I'm suggested that its stupid to ban something just because it may or may not have a negetive effect on ones family structure, remember?
Alcohol is doesn't apply to any of this because it's substance abuse. It doesn't blow up families at all. Chemically dependency and overuse does.
Again, both alchol and incest can have an indirectly adverse effect on ones families structure, as i've explained already, the diffrence in matter between the two is irrelevant in this case.
If you're fine with banning incest due to the the potential distabililsation effect it may have on families, you should be Ok with banning alchol as well, period.
Here's a thought: maybe, instead of calling people who disagree with you "pretentious" you should take a listen. Maybe you'd learn something.
You're not in a position to teach at all, you can barely follow your own argument
demonic
bout to google this phenomenon
about wanting to fukk some of my cousins, im not only one in the fam tho
I was just pointing out how you anti-gay posters are all of a sudden championing incest even when ignoring the sarcastic posts like yours. Didnt know yall was about that
I hope they go at the gay community the way the gay community and the proponents went at the black community. I mean, "how can gays enforce discrimination against another group when not that long ago they were discriminated because of their sexuality." "Pedo rights are the same as gay rights. They can't help the way they were born" 
