I think you bring up a good argument yourself. Detriment to the gene pool and the problems suffered by the children of those relationships seems pretty convincing to me.
It seems to me that the scientific evidence at the very least strongly suggests that there is a biological/genetic component to homosexuality. Sexual orientation seemingly doesn't fall into two strict opposite groups of "gay and straight" and more likely exists along a continuum of various orientations. I think it's quite likely that there is a social and societal element to where people end up on that spectrum (nothing wrong with that), but that there's a biological/genetic component (imo very significant) that contributes I thought was almost undeniable from a scientific standpoint at this point.
That was all I meant. That there is a genetic component does not mean it is a genetically determined fact such as sex or skin colour, areas in which discrimination is a clear-cut issue.
Upbringing and immediate social influences will have an undeniably larger effect on 'gender'/homosexuality than they ever could on these characteristics. Whether its roots are primarily biological or social, I think the acceptability of homosexuality is similar to that of drug abuse - it depends who you are and at what time (the accepted opium dens of the rich whites in America vs Californian Chinese opium dens which sparked its prohibition across the US in order to ostracise a Chinese immigrant population taking white Americans' jobs; or in the present bankers snorting coke vs unemployed crack smokers) - and thus the manifestation of any genetic influences in a society are going to mitigated largely by the conditions of that society. Pretty sure it was commonplace in several previous societies (such as in Rome), for powerful men to have a wife but to also have a male (often a young boy) for further physical pleasure.
Regarding the detriment to society of incest vs homosexuality - in Europe there is no need for a high birth rate, what we lose in a birth rate of less than 2 we gain in immigration. But supposing we were in need of a high birth rate and could not attract immigrants, surely then it would be to the direct detriment of society to be homosexual, reducing the reproductive power of society? In such a case you could make a socio-economic argument for the prohibition of homosexuality. It might even make incest acceptable - what is lost in genetic degradation could be gained in economic productivity, alleviating poverty and allowing these inbred kids a better upbringing to outweigh their potential biological deficiencies.
I think generations of inbreeding would cause significant detriment to the gene pool, but I was not operating on the assumption that incest would take up some cult-like status where it is repeated continually down a family line (at least not en masse), more that a family member would become the equivalent to the other 7bn people in the world who are not family members and one could have sex with them if they so desired. An even one occasional generation of incestuous reproduction would probably do little to affect the gene pool negatively.
Anyway, people are born with genetic defects even when two unrelated individuals conceive them, we endeavour to incorporate them into society and do not prevent them from reproducing even though they are a clear risk to the optimal health of the gene pool (although Sweden and the US only gave up sterilisation of the mentally disabled about 40 years ago...). Why should we stop individuals from pursuing their desires based on genetic grounds when these genetic defects are an accepted part of society that we are (mostly) happy to support through taxes and health insurance schemes? Tied into the liberal ideas upon which we base our stance on homosexuality are a respect for the power of human cognition and rationality (whether correct or not). In relation to incest, it could be argued that humans deserve to be vested with the responsibility to make rational decisions about using protection and contraception during sex with their own direct relatives, rather than prohibiting it in the first place.
Also, think about an island such as the UK, or in a smaller context, an Amish village. These communities undoubtedly would experience a weaker version of incest, with a small and (until recently) largely non-transient population that would end up having sex with fairly close relatives over generations, maintaining any genetic deficiencies already present in the population in the same way that direct incest does. It seems bizarre that although we are all related somehow, there is this certain cut-off point (I assume) where intercourse becomes illegal.
I realise the length of this post must make me seem like some deviant motherf*cker (quite literally) but I re-iterate, from my upbringing in this society, there is something within me that makes me wince at the the thought of incest just as pretty much everyone on this board does. But people winced at miscegenation (inter-racial sex) 50 years ago and that was totally irrational, so maybe our disgust at incest is just as irrational as a disgust of homosexuality? Or maybe we are right to be disgusted by both of them..? Logically there is not a great deal separating them, so in this sense I kind of agree with Aksolotl's all or nothing approach to legalisation.
But again, I am a human, my rational thoughts on this issue are also greatly muddied by the society I come from and thus I also find the idea of persecuting gays to be abhorrent.
Apologies if this counts as leading the thread way off topic, I did not intend to go on such a ramble. Incidentally I see this whole rainbow laces thing as a bit of a token gesture. A joint coming out of some of the gay major role models/ massive superstars is the only way to propel this issue into the centre of football discussion. But then again, I would hate to be a black player traveling to play in Eastern Europe - imagine being black AND an outed gay! Anonymity is probably easier...
) Stating that something is perverted and thus wrong is no more rational than stating that something is immoral and thus wrong.
