Hi Juniper,
Interesting question. It was eye-opening to read through all the gut responses, as well as noting how many people indeed post to a thread without so much as reading/understanding the original post nor any of the previous replies. "Incest is wrong because it's SICK!" is not a valid answer to your question. It's a gut reaction. While I could just answer your original question, I think it would be more interesting to figure out why you got so few real, logical, well-thought-out answers to it.
Human beings are not completely free from instinctual behavior. In fact, it takes a certain degree of will-power to change any of the instincts we were born with. Thankfully, we do possess this will-power (otherwise we would not be human, right?). But usually with it comes a responsibility of when it's appropriate to use it (i.e. you should override instincts that would/could lead to personal harm or injury). A good example: We are born with the instinct to take a crap wherever and whenever the urge is there. Fecal matter is a harbor for harmful bacteria (e.coli comes to mind), and could therefore be deadly to us if left out in the open (or on our person), so we've overridden that behavior by learning and accepting as normal that it should be flushed away (or otherwise isolated). Furthermore (perhaps as an added protection) we've "changed" the instinct... as we arise out of infancy, we also take on the notion that fecal matter is disgusting... it smells awful, it's not to be touched or even seen... just "nasty" would be the gut reaction. Why is that our gut reaction? It's an added protection to ensure that we don't try to revert to unhealthy behavior of taking a dump wherever we want to (including in our clothing). It basically ensures we'll always want to get it out of us and as far away as possible.
OK, so here we have another phenomenon--sexual intercourse (the sole purpose being procreation) amongst blood relatives. Let's not lose sight of the fact here that sexual intercourse is a mechanism with which to propagate the species. The pleasure aspect of it is just a bonus, designed to make us want to propagate the species. Only beings with free-will would want to/be able to circumvent the procreation aspect of intercourse and make it purely recreation. Anyway, the way DNA is "programmed" is such that it works best when as much variety is introduced as possible. Why do you think that Mutt dogs are usually so much healthier than pure breeds? It's because they contain diverse DNA... it's just a fact. A being created from two other beings in the same gene pool will express genes that could lead to retardation or other undesirable traits. Humans learned early on (or perhaps have always known) the undesirability of offspring that are deformed and/or retarded... thus, aversion to procreation with blood relatives is an instinct present in all of us. Not only do we "know" it is wrong, but we have those extra safeguards... it's "nasty", "disgusting", "sick"... blah blah blah... all the gut responses you've seen in this thread already. There's no effort to overpower this instinct because that has the potential to cause harm. Don't forget the fact that sexual intercourse is a mechanism for bringing more children into this world. Children from incestual relationships are usually deformed and/or retarded. Therefore, we have instincts against incestual relationships... with these extra safe-guards to ensure that our will doesn't overpower said instincts.
Most people will not go beyond their gut-reaction (hence the majority of the replies you received). It would be the same if you asked "why is eating your feces wrong?"--you would receive similar results. For me, I've always sought a complete understanding of everything... in fact I've asked this same question about incest to myself, and I would never be satisfied with "it just is" or "it's sick, disgusting, perverted". Neither of those answers address the reasons WHY we think it's wrong or sick or nasty or whatever. For that, you have to make a concerted effort to set aside your preconceived notions, instincts, gut-reactions (whatever you want to call them), and think about it logically. Most people won't do that.
I would like to say though that I do not agree with the statement that incest is considered wrong because of religious reasons. In fact, I think it's the opposite. Religion decrees that it is wrong because human nature/instinct has told us it's wrong. I don't think that all religious tenets follow this reasoning, but in this case it makes sense due to the harm to any offspring that result.
Oh, and as for your premise of a sexual relationship without the possibility of offspring... that cannot be addressed by an instinctual response. This instinct developed way back when it was not possible to artifically circumvent sperm reaching an egg. Instincts do no have the ability to address loopholes such as these.
Well, I applaud you for asking such a daring yet original question. I'm sorry the results aren't what you expected, but remember that gut-reactions are hard for most people to move past.
l2c
Facebook
Twitter