I'll help you out, jhc.
As I see it, there are two legitimate reasons for banning incestuous relationships/marriages.
One is that they're immoral. Society has a legitimate right to legislate issues of morality. But since you've long ago tossed this out as a legitimate concern, let's move quickly to the other reason.
Government has a serious- overwhelming, even- interest in protecting the family as the fundamental building block of society. What this means is that we must, ultimately, decide upon and enforce a definition of family. It cannot be an ever-shifting, amorphous thing left up to every individual to decide for himself.
What happens when you discount this idea, and the idea that the traditional marriage/family structure must be protected is exactly what we've seen play out in our many conversations about it in here. If you don't define a marriage as a permanent institution between one man and one woman from different families, as we always have done until recently, you open the floodgates to every sort of "marriage" someone can imagine. First it becomes dissolvable, then it's open to homosexual relationships, then you can't consistently prevent polygamy, now you can't present a cogent argument against incest. (Anybody who thinks that bestiality will continue to remain illegal because of animal cruelty laws is delusional, btw.) It won't stop there, either- there will be other alterations that you'll be just as unable to prevent. But my imagination isn't that good.
Now, none of those things in and of themselves will bring down society, for the simple reason that not many people will desire to take part in them. There aren't many homosexuals, and probably far fewer who would seek a polygamous or incestuous marriage. BUT, the damage will be in how allowing these practices affects mainstream attitudes towards marriage, and how much value the majority of people place on the institution. Disastorous.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
As I see it, there are two legitimate reasons for banning incestuous relationships/marriages.
One is that they're immoral. Society has a legitimate right to legislate issues of morality. But since you've long ago tossed this out as a legitimate concern, let's move quickly to the other reason.
Government has a serious- overwhelming, even- interest in protecting the family as the fundamental building block of society. What this means is that we must, ultimately, decide upon and enforce a definition of family. It cannot be an ever-shifting, amorphous thing left up to every individual to decide for himself.
What happens when you discount this idea, and the idea that the traditional marriage/family structure must be protected is exactly what we've seen play out in our many conversations about it in here. If you don't define a marriage as a permanent institution between one man and one woman from different families, as we always have done until recently, you open the floodgates to every sort of "marriage" someone can imagine. First it becomes dissolvable, then it's open to homosexual relationships, then you can't consistently prevent polygamy, now you can't present a cogent argument against incest. (Anybody who thinks that bestiality will continue to remain illegal because of animal cruelty laws is delusional, btw.) It won't stop there, either- there will be other alterations that you'll be just as unable to prevent. But my imagination isn't that good.
Now, none of those things in and of themselves will bring down society, for the simple reason that not many people will desire to take part in them. There aren't many homosexuals, and probably far fewer who would seek a polygamous or incestuous marriage. BUT, the damage will be in how allowing these practices affects mainstream attitudes towards marriage, and how much value the majority of people place on the institution. Disastorous.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."