Incestous Marriage Should Be Permitted

I am not sure what to expect from it, but we shall see. C1. Benefits & ImpactMarriage, as defined in the resolution, entails a range of benefits for the couple, including constitutional benefits such as tax protection, tax rebates, inheritance rights (pension & estate), medical rights, spousal privilage and transferrable recognition of relationship. This also constitutes benefits regarding immigration, and housing, to name just a few. A case study would be in the US, there over 1,100 benefits, rights and protections are provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. [1]Further, marriage is known to convey a plethora of health benefits for said couples. [2] Studies have conclusively linked marital status with decreased mortality from cardiovascular diseases, cancer and surgery. Improved mental well health and longer lives. [3] Thus, to permit incestuous marriage would be to grant the same privileges that any other married couple currently enjoys across the globe. The impacts of such are relatively unknown due to the strong legal and social stigma against incestuous relationships. However, the fact that consensual incestuous relationships can and do occur is well-established. Famous case studies include relationships between siblings removed at birth/young age only to later meet (cf. accidental incest). [4-6]C2. No harm principleJohn Mill once argued "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. ", this applies within this context of liberty in this case. Since (consensual) incestuous marriage is only going to be as harmful (i. e. not very/at all) as any other marriage – thus if we value the institute of marriage for the run-of-the-mill couple, then we have no legitimate reason to prevent incestuous couples from doing the same, and preventing such impinges upon the liberty of the parties being oppressed. [7]Incest for those nations that prohibit is it regarded as a “victimless crime”,[8]and hence according to the no harm principle ought not to be prohibited. To prohibit such a marriage would be to prohibit based on immutable characteristics, however people cannot be accountable for their immutable characteristics, only for their choices. If closely related individuals have a romantic attraction to each other, the fact they are closely related is not something that is “correctable” by either individual, it is inherently unfair. This would be equivalent to prohibiting selling something to someone based on their race or ethnicity, or employment based on their sexuality – clearly none of these have anything to do with one’s values or rights as a person. C3. Arbitrarily nature of prohibiting incestuous marriage & relationshipsThe term “incest” is a loosely defined word, as it’s contingent on society’s perception of “closely related”, however all humans are related on some level, thus incest on some level is occurring within every single relationship on some level, since we are at most 16 generations removed from any other person in 99.98% of cases. [9] Moreover, the practical implementation of laws regarding incest attest to the arbitrary nature with those that do prohibit incest do so with varying “closeness of relation”, for example the UK prohibits anything closer than first-cousinship (the 12.5% rule), whereas Brazil prohibits only on the third degree (25%) and some states of the US prohibits anything closer than and including first cousinship (6.25%). [. http://en.wikipedia.org...]Such widespread disagreement follows from non-intrinsic “wrongness” with degree of closeness of relation. If we permit second cousinship for example, then we need a good reason to justify why we permit that and not first cousinship. If we permit first-cousinship, then we need a good reason why we permit that (12.5%) and not those of half-siblings (25%), and so on and so forth. The lack of an intrinsic reason regarding closeness of relationship entails there isn’t an inherent reason to prohibit incestial relationships, and by extension, marriage. C4. DiscriminationGiven the above, prohibiting incestuous marriage is discriminatory in the same manner as prohibiting same-sex marriage, or prohibiting inter-racial marriage. If we value a society in which the majority does not oppress the minority on its own whims, then we also value a society where the option for marriage with “close relations” is available, as we do those of the same gender or different race. References1. . http://www.hrc.org...2. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;3. . http://student.bmj.com...4. . http://www.spiegel.de...5. . https://books.google.co.uk...6. . http://en.wikipedia.org...7. . https://books.google.co.uk...8. . http://books.google.com...9. . http://ideas.4brad.com...;