Yup. Your whole “incest” thing is a good example.
My whole incest thing? You're the one who brought that line of argument to the table, my friend. Not me: I merely pointed out how specious it was as a line of reasoning.
However, your post betrays your true intention here: you're preaching, not reasoning. So in terms of this particular discussion, we're two ships passing each other in the night. I think we've covered all the ground there is to cover here---unless you want to trade barbs or flame away at each other. Frankly, you're not worth my time.
"My whole incest thing? You're the one who brought that line of argument to the table"
Nope. That was a straw man you threw up between yourself and the argument I actually posted. Nothing I said implied anything about incest, except when I was pointing out that your introduction of the matter was a straw man.
"you're preaching, not reasoning."
Definitions:
Preaching: making reasoned arguments that incorporate moral concepts.
Reasoning: doing whatever is necessary to arrive at the desired conclusion, which requires excluding moral concepts.
Most of us define those terms differently.
"I think we've covered all the ground there is to cover here"
Actually, you haven't even taken your first baby step toward thinking this issue through. You wasted time on your "incest" straw man, but haven't even acknowledged the major arguments presented against you.
"Frankly, you're not worth my time."
No good deed goes unpunished, I guess. Oh, well, more people are persuaded by experience than by argument, so there's always the chance that you will find yourself 20 years from now trying to explain my position to someone who, like you now, cannot bear to face the reality of the situation.