THAT WAS WEIRD.

No, I think you're spot on. Incidents like you mention don't simply happen in a vacuum...others are affected as well. Woody Allen and Mia Farrow leaps immediately to mind.

Yes, I agree, SaltyDog. It is a valid argument and perhaps even the main argument. The genetic risk is a serious factor, and I do not mean to downplay it. However, a point needs to be made that certain relationships are inappropriate whether "genetic risk" is involved or not. A modern example is a sexual relationship between a student and his or her teacher. Another example might be an adopted child and a parent. Now, of course, there is no genetic risk, but there is something about them we consider improper. Or I could be wrong.

And it is a very valid argument. If I remember correctly, the birth defects get worse from the second generation onward. And in societies where inbreeding is encouraged, the problems get exponentially worse.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

In these types of cases, the main argument against is usually the state's interest in protecting its populace, isn't it?

"The genetic risk to any children born to the couple was no more than that between first cousins, who are free to marry" LOL Wow, this IS just the beginning. I didn't realize the original law was based on genetic arguments. Also, I didn't realize "genetic risk" is considered as the main argument against incest. I suppose the "old rules" are just another "cultural" legacy, you know, like eating meals with your family, or the belief in working hard to earn a living, or like holding the door for a woman, or deciding whether or not to circumcise a son.

Why not? We seem to be in the age of anything goes.