There aren't really any reliable statistics or data, or many cases that come into contact through social services or law enforcement.

The laws regarding incest, with consent probably could do with an overhaul, as they seem unduly harsh where no actual harm has occurred.

The difference here probably can be drawn from a) the commonality of homosexuality and b) the harm presented by evidence of homosexuality. Notably homosexuality was only illegal between men under UK law.

There is a specific risk involving future children in relation to genetic disorders, specifically those carried on recessive genes, as well as increased risks related to congenital disorders (notably blood disorders).

I'd say the laws regarding incest require some review, but I can't see a grounds for marriage being permitted, but you are right, its mostly a yuck thing.

Is a good point. The risk is only higher with siblings.

Of course homosexuality is unavoidable, people are gay. Where as incest isn't definable as a sexuality or group identity, it occurs specifically between two people. We've all been in love with someone, split up and found love agains and again. Few people really change their sexual orientation in the same way.

So consentual incest is really a kind of choice, rather than an orientation. I'm kind of swayed towards the idea that where incest isn't abusive in origin, that it maybe needs to treated as acceptable in society (notable cases where unknowing siblings have come to form relationships).

Also in reading up a bit on incest there is a factor referred to as Genetic Sexual Attraction.

So my view has shifted somewhat, that in some cases incest should not be considered a crime.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I didn't realise I was replying to Jamie.....I would have probably have been a bit more tactful.

However, it doesn't change the thrust of the argument and I agree......A case by case basis seems like the fair logical outcome.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

There is no reliable evidence to suggest that murderers or rapists are born that way. Pedophiles may be, but the key element here is that of defined consent.

Being gay doesn't result in deaths, rapes or child sexual abuse.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Nor is there any such evidence to suggest that homosexuals are born that way either. Shock.. Horror.

Being gay could result in any of those things, doesn't mean it definitely will but it could. Who knows.
For many though homosexuality does have a certain "yuk" thing.

[Link]

I repeat: the Ashers Bakery people were not sued under Contract Law, they were sued under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, the plaintiff claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The 'judgement' was wrong and vindictive.

You should read the judges review and the transcripts, you'd love the fact that the plantiff's lawyer used one of tactics commonly ascribed on here to demonstrate that it was a gay issue (albeit in reverse). Mr Allen QC is quite brilliant in his presentation of evidence.

Also Mr Allen QC indeed bases his case around the fact that it was a breach of contract. He even produces a good argument that the assumption that the message of the cake could not be assumed to be that of Ashers bakery, but of the person ordering it (and that no one seeing it could presume it was theirs).

Basically, he undermined every aspect of their defence. Firstly by demonstrating they'd willingly surrendered those rights, under contract law and then going onto prove that it was about the fact the fact it was a gay message.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I have read the judgement and as I say, yet again, Gareth Lee did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. It is a red herring that Contract law was brought into the argument. The Equality Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. This is specifically what the Ashers Bakery people were charged with. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. The were obviously not guilty of the charge made against them.

Well done the Republic of Ireland.
Northern Ireland, which is dominated by hard-line and evangelical Protestants, is now the only country in western Europe which does not allow gay marriage. Impressive that Protestant country can show itself as more bigoted than a Catholic one.

The right place at the right time

Haha, gotta love some off you bell. Ends. On here. The "yuk" term was originally used by not one, but two other posters, to describe something else.
I new if I used it, in reference to homos I'd get grief.
You seem to be forgetting the fact, that, no matter how ridiculous or frowned upon it may be, everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
Or is it only gays who can have an opinion.
Is it only gays that have rights.
Is it only gays that can be offended.
Is it only gays who can question the views of others, without causing offence.
Is it only gays who are allowed to think something is "yuk".