I suppose if you think of marriage as a contract it makes sense.

Sure, good thing animals don't do things like raping or eating each other's babies.

Now, I agree with the whole two consenting adults thing, but even if both are adults, the power dynamic can be pretty screwed when it comes to things like father on daugther. In such cases maybe you should have to get consent from a psychiatrist or something lol.

I can see why adultery would be illegal.  You signed a contract to be faithful to your wife.  Now I wouldn't give adultery any penalty outside of divorce court but I can see the use for it having an "illegal" status.

Yeah but so what?  It's still going to happen.  It's not like people will say "well, we'll just have a couple of generations of incest then stop'.  The risk will be there.  Also, a lot of evolution theory indicates that changes can be pretty quick.  Certainly if we're talking people with genetic diseases you're going to see very quick effects, as you say.

Note I'm not talking about sex that's protected but reproduction.  You're basically increasing the odds per generation of weaker, more disease prone children.  I know I wouldn't feel too happy if I was a tenth generation incest child with a lot of physical issues.

It's just not a good idea from any genetic perspective.

Why not, if your extended family or whatever has *good* genes, lacking any particular recessive traits, though that veers dangerously close to the old arguments for eugenics (which then bound into racism, state racism, holocaust, etc etc)

If Freud were Swisstzerlandian he would be proud... as he says every problem you have in life is because of mom sexual issues (something as everybody want to bang his mother ¬¬)

Cousin is no family =] not direct sucession.

Does it veer anymore near eugentics then banning incest because of fear of inferior genes? 

Plus it's a lopsided law since it ignores the fact that there are a lot of people with negative recessive genes who marry each other that doesn't qualify as incest.

The real "logical" version of a law that prevents incest on genetic means would be...

"Before reporoducing (or I guess having sex in general) you must be tested for genetic diseases, and if you have these you can not have sex with anyone else who has one of those recessive genes."

Would such a law be benefical to the human race?  I could see it being so, but it's awfully damn restrictive.

You see it happen all the time with non-related families, people who keep having kids they know are gentically likely to have mental disorders.  You can't just tell them to NOT have kids.  Then again, you may be for such a thing, what with the afore mentioned authortarian liberal stance and in such a thing does cost the state. (Much like the healthcare arguement for the personal mandate.)

This. :/ 

In Romania you have civil marriage and religious/whatever marriage. Civil marriage is the only type of marriage that matters, and the contract is standard, with no sexual fidelity clause.

Also, adultery is irrelevant in the case of divorce also, as in Romania when 2 people divorce they get what they had when they went into the marriage. Only goods that were brought together are shared, and you have to prove that you contributed financially to their purchase.

A wife/husband can ask for alimony only if she/he suffers from a condition that does not enable them to get a job (and in some cases they can only recive alimony for just 1 year after the divorce is final).

We don't even have prenuptial agreements here, because we don't need them.

Seems odd to me, but whatever floats your boat. I just hope they use protection.