Assuming we're talking about consensual, adult relationships... or consensual people who are under the age of consent but within two years of each other... then how is it depraved, immoral or whatnot? They're just two people. Yeah, so they're related. Big whoop. Unless you knew them somehow, you could see a happy couple walking down the street and not even realize they're related.
And incest doesn't CAUSE medical problems. The problems already have to exist in the gene pool. If two people get tested for genetic problems before they have kids, and their tests come back clean, the likelihood of their children getting a genetic disease is low. Illnesses don't tend to pop up out of nowhere. Besides, women who have kids when they are over the age of 40 have an equal risk of birth defects as two siblings having children together. Should be ban women from having kids if they're over 40?
Not to mention that people who AREN'T related can "contaminate" the gene pool just as much as anyone else. Maybe ALL people should be required by law to get genetic testing before they have kids, and if something bad pops up, they shouldn't be allowed to have sex with people that have incompatible genetic profiles. A perfect world where we're all matched up based on our genetics, and people with crappy genetics are sterilized, left in the dust and... wait, I think I've heard of that sort of logic before. Hmm. Wonder where.
Point being, humans don't breed based on survival of the fittest. People with horrible genetic problems are allowed to have children. We ALL have genetic problems. Any wrong combination can produce children with birth defects. Especially considering a lot of people are on medication, smoke, drink, etc... and those can cause birth defects as well.
The God argument doesn't really work. Not everyone believes in God, and even with those who do, no everyone follows the Bible. Jesus is supposed to be the guy to follow, and I don't remember HIM caring about incest.
Incest occurs in the natural world. If it weren't for incest, there wouldn't be any cheetahs left. They are almost all, if not ALL, inbred. Yes, sometimes there are instinctual things that keep animals from mating with relatives, but it happens with domestic animals frequently, as well as lions, probably wolves, wild horses I believe... fish... birds... I mean, you put a pair of finches in a cage, and pretty soon you have five finches and then you have ten, and the only way for that to happen is inbreeding.
"Weird" isn't a good standard of measure. People in general are weird.
Banning something for subjective reasoning is, to be frank, silly. I don't like Christianity that much. Should we ban that? I hate celery. Does that mean celery needs to go? Not at all, because MY preferences and MY opinions and MY life shouldn't affect the rest of the world in a negative way. Allowing consensual incest between adults doesn't affect the rest of the world in a negative way; banning it does.
... I am also appalled at the comments of "why are we discussing this, most people KNOW it's wrong" as if that statement is proven, objective and absolute. Sorry, but "right" and "wrong" are not carved in stone. They are subjective ideas, and to shrug off a topic as if OBVIOUSLY one opinion is the truth and MOST people should understand that is just deplorable. We cannot, as a society and species, condemn an entire group of people or an entire action as "wrong" just because that is the personal opinion some people hold.
Right and wrong should be seen as the subjective terms there are, and people should strive to place situations within an
ethical framework depending on the circumstances, the people and facts involved. This way, situations are judged not by an overarching, limited and, in my opinion, narrow-minded set of what is or isn't right... but as a case-by-case system based on secular, compassionate and knowledgeable system that keeps the well-being of all in mind. That, to me, is common sense.
