Interesting thread.
I voted no, as it was my first impulse, but than I read the arguments, and they got me thinking and into a not so sure place. This time, I do agree that Speedo raises good points and defends a position that has valid ground.
Well, first things first, so, before anything else, lets drop the pedophilia line of argument, shall we? Equating incest to pedophilia and child abuse is exactly the same fallacy as equating homosexualism to pedophilia and child abuse they can co-exist, but are in no way derived one from the other.
We can discuss about those, as well as any other form of not consented (or invalidly consented) sex, but that is subject for another thread. In here, lets not qualify the definition of incest with an ugly factor to detract its concept even more, and keep in mind just consenting able adults, ok?
In that case, the argument that incest should be outlawed because it can generate a genetically defective offspring is invalid. First, because this would demand that the prohibition would lie not in the marriage itself, but in the act of having children, so, a law just prohibiting pregnancy in the union between too close relatives would suffice. Also, as people pointed out, genetic surely is against them, but this does not mean a 100% certainty of a defective baby. If they have a chance, does the society have the right to forbid them from trying? In what grounds?
Also, what about people who does have the same genetic problem, which meet, and fall in love of with each other, without being relatives? Say, two people who are genetically deaf, or two people with congenital diabetics. These have as high a chance, perhaps even higher, of coming up with a children that is handicapped in some way
still, they are not forbidden to marry and have kids. Keep in mind that, as their diseases are known, they are as aware of the high probability of a congenital disease as in the case of the incestuous couple. So, how exactly do these cases differ, except for the fact that in one they have blood ties and in the other they do not? Is this a valid qualifier to treat them differently?
And while I am all for a little parenting responsibility and that people that have legitimate reasons for fearing a defect child should decide for not having them, its not a decision that I can take from their hands. Wouldnt it be a little of eugenics, to make society decide who can have children with who for the purpose of genetically perfect babies?
Finally, saying that what is forbidden is not the incestuous relationship, just the incestuous marriage, is, again, to repeat the same fallacy as saying that what is forbidden is not homosexual relationship, but just homosexual marriage. All refutations of the later also work as refutation of the first.
In the end, it gets down to this: Incest was probably deemed wrong by ancients as they noticed, though experience, that it would lead to a higher percentage of defective children. The reason for why it happened has not changed it still can generate that but the approach from our society to this problem has. Today, individual rights have achieved prevalence over social command in private matters such as the sexual drive, and nothing but a deeply rooted tradition supports the forbiddance of such acts.
Traditions, however, are no excuse to block social advances that come from the evolution of society. So, although I dont agree with incest on emotional grounds, I cant validly counter it on logical grounds, hence it should be made legal. This is exactly the same position I take in the issue of abortion: dont like it, wouldnt do it, but I am not the moral paradigm of the mankind, and cant force my standards over other people.
I change my vote to yes, just hoping that someone can come up with some good reason for me being wrong in this issue.
Regards
.
