INCEST

[The Valkyrie]

No.

Because have you seen my brother??

[MTL]

Ugh.

Many times I've wished that procreation could be regulated...but then, you must be careful what you wish for.

With great reluctance, I'm going to say "C",

...and only because this poll is hypothetical...

because,
if you let them get married...then you can have them AGREE to legally not procreate...
whereas if you bar them from marriage,
they're going to have sex anyway,
and potentially procreate, after all.

But this would set a dangerous precedent...dictating who may and may not procreate...

....plus, it's just nasty.

Can't I just do this, instead?    

[Silver]

I can understand the increased rate of birth defects, but to be honest that is proportionate to continual generations of incest.

Therefore, incest is something I am not against, unless one wishes to become the next generation to star in Wrong Turn.

[Anomalocaris]

No.  Because the biology indicates a serious increase in the rate of birth defects.

I realize this position would de-populate large parts of Arkansas and West Virginia.

Which is bad how?

[Bad Wolf]

What two consenting adults do behind closed doors is no ones business but their own.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

What effect would it have on the divorce rate? Would people be more inclined or less inclined to engage in adultery?

If people didn't marry their relatives in the Bible then they were doing it wrong.

[Marsellus Wallace]

NO, because it kinda destroys the whole point of a family(parents, brothers and sisters). That unique irreplaceable relationship is too especial to destroy by sex.

[abaris]

NO, because it kinda destroys the whole point of a family(parents, brothers and sisters). That unique irreplaceable relationship is too especial to destroy by sex.

Egyptians and at least some Roman emperors thought differently. The only real argument against it is the chance of producing Kretins.

[Faith No More]

Has no one read Oedipus?!? Incest makes you scoop your eyeballs out!

[rexbeccarox]

I voted A (Yes, with no restrictions) because I don't believe the government should restrict two consenting adults from doing something which is victimless, or which only harms the two participants themselves.

The act of marriage itself has nothing to do with bearing children, so citing that as a reason for prohibiting it is the exact same line of reasoning that bigots used against gay marriage (and is invalid).

Now, whether there should be separate restrictions on siblings from procreating is an entirely separate issue, and should be treated as such, because it has the potential to harm another person (the child). However, saying that, prohibiting people from procreation because their child may be harmed is a slippery slope; should we for instance prohibit two people with a deadly genetic disorder from procreating, since their child will in all likelihood also inherit the condition? It's a difficult question and one that needs proper thought before answering (a bit like my position on abortion).

The question of marriage however is easier to answer. Yes, absolutely, with no restrictions.

This.