Second, I don't think it's a double-standard to distinguish between a broad attraction to a gender (i.e., not sick and not a big deal) and specific attraction to a sibling (i.e., sick and a very big deal).

Third, some states allow cousins to marry upon proof of infertility. I have no problem with such provisions, and if you are arguing that such options should be available to potential sibling couples, then be my guest. I've got bigger fish to fry.

There's _no privacy interest_ in conceiving a child that may have (not will have, may have) reinforced bad genes? And that justifies prohibiting consensual adult incest whether or not the test has been done to decide whether reinforced bad genes will even appear?

Well… um… I hate to sound pro-breeder, here, but what about the rest of the breeders? Where will children come from? Labs? All human conception carries with it some risk of reinforcing a lethal (or worse, a badly damaging but _not_ lethal) gene, thereby expressing it. Are the rest of us not allowed to have kids without the State's say-so?

I think I know why you wrote what you did, but in my view you need to ground it on something with a bit of a firmer basis in biology or in logic. Your reasoning is _way_ overbroad.