A very interesting piece on incest by Margaret Somerville:
Some people propose that just as laws criminalizing homosexual acts or limiting marriage to monogamous heterosexual unions have been changed, the law against incest should be repealed. They argue this law is outdated, does not reflect current social mores and is nothing more than imposing one view of morality on others in a context where personal privacy should take priority.
Underlying their approach is the belief that personal preference is the guiding principle regarding one’s sexual activity and that what one does, as long as it is among consenting adults, causes no harm to anyone else.
Their definition of harm is very narrow. Any concern about harm to children who might be conceived as a result of incest or the harm it does to family structure, relations and functioning, and thereby to society and its values, is not on the radar screen. So, if a grandfather wants to have sex with his 18-year-old granddaughter and she consents, it is no one else’s business but their own.
Those making the case for legalization reject the idea that incestuous conduct might be inherently morally wrong. Rather, moral relativism governs – that is, the decisions of the persons involved as to the ethics of their conduct are conclusive. Ethics becomes nothing more than personal preferences.
I used to be a libertarian. I used to think that as long as one didn’t hurt anyone else, one was allowed to do anything one wanted. That what consenting adults got up to was their business and no one else’s. Part of me still believes that. But I also realized, somewhere along the way, that I was probably guilty of having a definition of harm that was too narrow. And that when in doubt, one should always make sure children (who are inherently more vulnerable than adults) are reasonably well-protected from harm. I have never been able properly to explain why gay marriage made me uneasy, especially because homosexuality, and homosexual behaviour, do not have the same effect on me. But part of is certainly has to do with a very strong instinct to reject ethics as “nothing more than personal preferences.”
by 
The surest sign that incest is wrong is that there are no people who voluntarily enter into incestuous relationships who can be considered mentally healthy. They always have some type of messed-up childhood or something along those lines, whereas lots of gay people had normal childhoods with normal families.
Margaret Somerville wrote a brief that she presented to Parliament in 2003, stating her objections to Same Sex Marriage.
You can read it here
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf
It is extremely well written and I found it very informative and helpful in putting my own thoughts into words. I believe that her main reason for opposing same sex marriage is precisely for the protection of children. She states quite convincingly that children deserve their biological mother and father if possible, and thrive best in that situation. Lots more in the article than that, but that is the point that struck me.
Since writing that, Margaret has faced a lot of persecution. She was mocked at Ryerson when the administration was going to give her an honorary degree and then met opposition to that. Not sure if it went through or not. Wherever she speaks on the subject, there has to be security as she is actually in personal danger from those who are so strongly opposed to her views and ready to act violently towards her.
Except that non-hetero marriage does not cause there to be children without their biological mother and father.
If we are to ban non-hetero marriage because it leads to marriages that are not intended to foster children of the couple, by that logic we should bar the marriages of all couples where one is infertile, either by illness, age, or choice. (Despite Somerville’s claims that “inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding”, the many hetero couples without children will show you that it is not inherently procreative.) Despite her attempts to excuse not illegalizing those relationships, it’s clear that her views would make those sham marriages, just not ones she wants to bother barring (and yet ones which marriage as an institution has long survived). Her essay comes across not as a concern for the tradition of marriage but a desperate attempt to create a a definition of marriage that same-sex marriages would violate, so as to have an excuse to deny them, even as she denies similar concern for hetero marriages that would violate her definition.
And despite her defensiveness against the comparison of same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, the truth is that many of her arguments have strong parallels in the arguments used against interracial marriage. There are those who felt that interracial marriage was a harm to the children, that they wouldn’t be on or th’other and would be scorned and excluded, and that it was to society’s benefit that such procreation was discouraged. She may wish to view that solely in terms of discrimination and her own views as not based in discrimination, but there were plenty of supporters of anti-miscegenation laws who would not brand their own views as bigotry.
It seems to me that there is an enormous difference between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing incest. I really can’t think of any way that gay marriage hurts either individuals, society, or children. If two consenting adults want to make a lifelong commitment to each other with all the rights, responsibilities, and recognition that go with marriage, well, more power to them (you could even argue that it’s a pretty conservative goal, this desire to get married).
On the other hand, legalized incest allows children to be raised with the understanding that they could eventually become sexual partners to their parents (or grandparents or uncles/aunts, etc.). Sex should, at the very least, take place between equals and a parent/child relationship is inherently unequal. Even if actual sex did not take place until the children were grown, the context in which they are raised skews to the advantage of the parents.
Brother/sister incest is equally disturbing even if the power relationship is slightly less unbalanced (though depending on the situation it might be very unbalanced indeed). Siblings should be able to grow up together secure in the knowledge that their relationship will never be sexual at any age.
The point made by Somerville is correct. Once “gay marriage” is legalized and institutionalized, there is no longer a reason to outlaw polygamy and incestuous “marriage.” A similar view was recently expressed by Stern of the “Ottawa Citizen.” He acknowledged that he supports “gay marriage” and rejects polygamy and incest, but he admits he sees no reason to maintain the latter two’s illegality. I am happy that very soon after they have reached their goals, the supporters of “gay marriage” have to confess the moral and legal quagmire they have created. And for that reason I hope the Canadian “courts” will go through a hell of pain to finally admit that good old (real, i.e., monogamous, heterosexual) marriage – intended, evidently, to last till death – is the only sexual institution to have a socially and legally recognized status. That has nothing to do with discriminating “gays” since they can get married too, as Conservative MP Jason Kenney rightly pointed out some years ago, when the legalization of “gay marriage” was discussed in Parliament.
“That has nothing to do with discriminating “gays” since they can get married too, as Conservative MP Jason Kenney rightly pointed out some years ago, when the legalization of “gay marriage” was discussed in Parliament.”
By that logic, there is no discrimination against Christians in Muslim countries, as they are just as free as anyone there to worship Allah…