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.
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.
