"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.
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...
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.
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.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...