An argument that compares homosexuality to incest

This is really ridiculous. Why isn't the comparison about a heterosexual couple? How are they different from homosexuals?

“There is no difference” This is an incorrect claim, as there are two fundamental differences:

1. In brother and sister, the latter is the case, since a man who is attracted to women and specifically loves his sister can still marry another woman. In contrast, with gays, there is no way to realize the inclination without prohibition.

2. In brother and sister, the prohibition exists for reasons that there is an opening for exploitation, since if members of the same family become potential partners, then the relationships in the family will easily deteriorate into exploitation (older brothers who exploit their sisters by force and fathers who manipulate their daughters because of the power balance, etc.).

There is no difference.
1. Why does it matter? The brother loves his sister. What is the problem with that? Who does it hurt? You didn't explain what is wrong with it, only that there is a Darka Akhirina. There is also a Darka Akhirina for chewing gum, so it should be prohibited?
2. When both are adults and decide on it together, there is no reason to prevent them from doing so. There is room for exploitation even between strangers. Maybe we should ban marriage between a rich and a poor woman or vice versa, because it is possible that there will be exploitation here?
And finally, even if for some reason you do think that there is a real difference in these differences, I will certainly admit that this is not the reason why it is prohibited. Therefore, these are weak excuses in retrospect.
But as stated, in my opinion, there is no difference at all. Wasserlauf's argument is excellent. It does not show that gay marriage should be prohibited, but the argument against those who want to ban it that it is immoral does not hold water. There is a debate about whether it is a proper act or not, and it should be left that way.

There is certainly some truth in these divisions.

Regarding the first division, the fact that it is the last resort that justifies many shocking things, such as cutting off a limb from a living person (if this is the only way to save his life...). There is certainly room to argue that homosexuals should make a moral compromise because it is the last resort that justifies. The division is significant and important, even if not decisive in your opinion.

In essence, my opinion is that the second division is the source and heart of all incest prohibitions. The moment relationships within the family become potentially sexual, we have brought upon ourselves the horrors of horrific exploitation, fights between brothers over their sisters, daughters who crave protection from those close to them and there is no protector, distorted sexual education, and the like.

Do you even bother to read my words? I asked what's wrong with it so that I can discuss the question of whether there is a Darqa Akhirina or not? There is also a Darqa Akhirina in eating gum.
Your explanation is completely disconnected from people's minds and from logic. And again, of course, you didn't bother to address my arguments on this.
Okay, let's leave it at that. I see no point in this discussion.

Your opinion on allowing a brother and sister to marry has been clarified and was not what I was referring to. My reference was to your absolute statement “there is no difference” on which you have sat several times even though there are clearly at least two differences.

My explanation regarding the taboo on incest (perhaps combined with the physiological explanation of hereditary diseases that is less related to morality) is the most common and fundamental explanation prevalent among professionals for the social danger of incest. There is nothing in it that is disconnected from logic and in any case it certainly constitutes a relevant and important difference with respect to homosexuality, contrary to your above statement.

There is another difference. Brother and sister are written in the same alphabet and they also have the same parents. I wrote that there is no difference regarding the prohibition, and indeed there is no difference. And your explanation regarding the taboo itself shows that this is not the explanation. Professionals can rationalize people's feelings and put them in danger of exploitation, etc. But this is not an explanation of why the people themselves are so reluctant. To hang one on the other is completely futile. The danger of exploitation does not cause such a reluctance. And as I wrote, there are dangers of exploitation in other situations and no one thinks of banning them. Therefore, even in the case where we verify that there is no fear of exploitation, the reluctance will be the same. In short, these are empty words.

See also here: https://mikyab.net/%d7%9b%d7%aa%d7%91%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%aa%d7%92%d7%95%d7%91%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%91%d7%a2%d7%99%d7%aa%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%aa/%d7%92%d7%99%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%99-%d7%a2%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%95%d7%aa/

Moshe Rat wrote about the existence of such a thing as "moral aesthetics." There are things we understand to be wrong even without the need to explain. Just as a person with a basic aesthetic sense will understand that you don't build a toilet in the middle of a living room (even if they find something that will neutralize the smell..), and will say that it is more convenient to go there immediately after eating, etc. He brings up Jonathan Haidt's argument that morality is not measured only by "did I do something bad to someone," but that there are several other types of morality that relate to fixing the world and its orderly conduct (based on the belief that it was created for a specific purpose) that have been eroded by the extreme liberalism that is sweeping the world.

The rabbi asked about your position
You believe that these actions are evil.
If so, why are you in favor of giving them rights?

I wrote about Haidt and aesthetic values, and you can search the site.

I don't think they're bad. Not at all. They're against Halacha, and a democratic and secular state shouldn't interfere in matters of Halacha or beliefs at all. It should only intervene when someone is hurt.

Rabbi, wouldn't it be better if the state didn't enter the bedroom and that's it?
Why is there a need for the state to recognize any couple as married?
That they should be allowed to enter into financial agreements of all kinds, species and amounts, and everyone else should do as they wish.

And in case you do see a need for the state to monitor who is married and who is not, why shouldn't the state be allowed to determine for itself what is considered a “legal couple for the purposes of benefits” and what will not be considered such?

Certainly better. But every legal system in the world regulates matters of personal status. It is difficult to live without such a legal regulation. Indeed, it is supposed to determine a partnership on the legal level regardless of halakhic or other marriages.
But the fact that the state regulates our personal status does not mean that it is allowed and that it should do whatever it wants. If it is not fair not to recognize certain couples, then it is not fair for the state to do so. And does the fact that it regulates the personal status of people allow it to act unfairly? What does that have to do with anything? The state also regulates financial relations between people. Is that why it can arbitrarily decide that in any lawsuit between two people, the one whose name begins with the earlier letter A will win?

Of course, the risk of exploitation causes reluctance. Think about what the relationship between parents and children would look like if every touch, such as a good morning hug or a good night kiss, could end in a situation where a parent has a relationship with their child, and how a 12-year-old brother and sister can grow up together during an intense sexual maturation.

Human society has developed strong and deep defense mechanisms against such destructive situations, primarily the psychological reluctance to have relationships within the family, similar to the reluctance to murder and the sight of human suffering, which stems from the principle that we should avoid taking life and causing suffering as much as possible.

There is no reason to insist on not understanding this essential point or to call it derogatory epithets such as "empty warts." I have shown you that there is a fundamental difference between homosexual relations and incest, and your assertion that "there is no difference" is completely wrong. It is fundamentally wrong and an honest person would retract it.

I agree with the ‘criticism’. A world where there is endless hacking will break down the institution of the family into its components and lead to chaos and complete confusion in marital relationships, social status, and everything. It may be that one single act is not perceived as a problem, but the more they occur, the more it will shake the world order to its foundations. This is not a fear of a slippery slope, it is part of the slope. Like the first drop on the rock.