Jesus did not condemn incest. Nor did he condemn homosexuality.
That's correct, through mere omission Jesus endorsed incestuous marriage. Surely
incest was practiced in Jesus' time, yet he didn't address it once in any of his
sermons. It never made the holy to-do list. Instead, he was concerned with feeding
the poor and recycling. He stayed out of people's sex lives.
The separation of church and state forbids us to use religious arguments in political
and legal debates. Therefore the Bible should never be used as a political or legal
argument against cases of incest either.
But whenever this separation is broken by well intentioned preachers or holy roller
do-gooders, does this not give explicit permission to the defender of incest to use
the Biblical defense?
With gay brothers, the biological argument against incest due to potential birth
defective baby's becomes moot. Since gay men can marry legally, why stand in the
way of gay brothers getting married?
I cannot think of any argument against gay brother incest, can you?