It is actually quite common for direct family members who did not grow up together to fall madly in love/lust when they finally meet. I forget the name of the phenomenon/syndrome... But in any case... Eww. This relationship should not be legal! But in the interest of liberty, I think the law should only be enforced when a child is conceived.

you can't legislate marriage on the basis of what kind of potential 'disabilities' the children may have.

I agree with this woman; if we 'let' people with diabilities marry and have children, why can't a brother and sister get married and have children? How is this any different than knowing full well someone with dwarfism (an extreme case) to someone with psychological problems (that are increasingly shown to 'run in the family') is very likely to pass these 'problems' onto their children? I don't think it is, but, again, we 'let' the latter cases do it.

If you don't like the idea of a 16 year old getting pregnant, well that's another story. Wouldn't it be nice if every woman who becomes a mother had met whatever ideal conditions you would like motherhood to exist from, but come on. That's not the way life works.

Read the anthropological literature on kinship and the incest taboo. Our (western) societies aren't structured that way anymore, we don't need the antiquated rules.

What's worse, this or abusive relationships, statutory rape (especially romeo and juliet laws), or disabled or mentally retarded people having children? Ashkenazi Jews with various recessive genes having children?

I think if this is made legal, there's not going to be a big surge in these kinds of relationships.

And the rest of you sick losers do nothing for girls but make it easier for their brothers and fathers to prey on them. They already use religion, force, political power, and any other excuse to dominate children for their sexual gratification. Do you really have to remove the last bulwark?

Shame on you.

I would be very interested in finding out where Ms. Lloyd got some of her information, specifically this:

"Among offspring of siblings, there's a 50 percent chance of disability, and so far the German couple's children have proved the rule: According to Steubing, one son has "epilepsy and learning difficulties" and one daughter has "special needs.""

There would be a 50% chance of offspring developing a genetic disorder if both parents carried the recessive gene. However, among first generation siblings, with one homozygous and one heterozygous parent, there is only a 25% chance of one sibling carrying a recessive gene, less than 25% change that both will.

Not to mention, epilepzy, learning difficulties and "special needs" are not necessarily genetic.

There are many ethical and moral issues to be dealt with in this case. It is not necessary to overstate the medical ramifications of first-generation incest to make an argument against allowing such relationships.

Where to begin?

1, predation of parents upon children. As much as I hate the slippery slope (abortion will lead to legal murder up to age 10!) I will employ it here: if it is legal for siblings to not only engage in incestuous relationships but also produce offspring, you have just removed all parent-child legal blockades as well. I am reminded of an earlier letter in here re: predatory parents. Giving them legal status is highly inadvisable if you still want to enforce laws against pedophelia, etc.

2, eugenics and uber-race bullshit is not remotely a factor. Incest resulting in offspring creates monsters and idiots. No scare factor here, no Bible shit, nothing other than cold hard genetic fact that inbreeding prepetuates and broadens any genecoded faults present. Evidence abounds through history - the Hapsburgs are only one example. Multi-generation inbreeding, which no doubt will result if this were it legal, compounds the problem until you have a dead bloodline that, lacking hybridization outside of the family, will collapse.

3, we have laws in place that prevent people from harming themselves or others. This is where the disabled-parent analogy collapses: two people with Downs who breed are risking that their child will have the syndrome, yes. But such a thing is a possibility regardless of who the Downs victim mates with. Since it is essentially illegal for someone non-handicapped to marry someone handicapped (exploitation parallels, anyone?) the Downs victim has NO CHOICE. For two individuals with no disorders to deliberately breed, knowing full well that there is at least a 50% risk factor, and with the possibility of partnering so as to have a 0% risk factor voluntarily eliminated, incestuous breeders are voluntarily handicapping their offspring.

4, Incest is wrong. I'm a moral relativist on just about everything possible, except for incest and murder. Shit is wack, yo.

So when a brother-sister pair splits up or has a big fight, where do you turn? Who gets to go home? Who can you complain about your crazy in-laws to?

The Genetic risks even between first cousins is pretty low. But when trouble happens it breeds much more trouble. Your uncle is your father in law. The couple has a tumultuous start. She asks her dad to talk to his dad. But they are brothers, which brings a whole new level of complexity to the situation. Then their mutual grandparents find out about the problems and what are they to do? It can destroy family relationships pretty quickly. Nobody gains anything and there is much potential for loss.

A paternal uncle married one of my mother in law's cousins. They have no blood tie. But when that relationship broke up among allegations of abuse, it was extremely awkward with the cousins for a while. 'So, I hear that your Uncle was verbally abusive and neglectful to my sister and their kids..." Yuck indeed.

In another case I know. A woman's cousin went after her husband. Her aunt and Uncle, the hussy's parent's knew about the affair. The wife was the last to know. She no longer speaks to that part of the family. Her kids have no realtionship with any of their cousins on that side. And they live close by. She couldn't get over the betrayal.

So fold your arms at the family reunion, folks. It can be a hornets' nest!