Two people don't have to have sexual intercourse to be in a romantic relation, That is the opinion most people show towards gay/lesbian relationships, Since male/male & female/female cannot have actual sexual interactions yet they can fall in love and maintain a romantic relationship, So why not for male & female relatives?
I'm against any romantic relationships with one's immediate family, But first cousins and everything past that is fine in my eyes, As long as its a purely romantic relationship.
The reason most people are against incest because it can create children that are not properly developed or diseased. But if two people biologically related were in a romantic relationship and didn't have sex would there be anything wrong with it? When you think about it, People's attitude towards it is how people felt towards gay people in the past, That it "shouldn't be allowed because it's wrong" or it's "not natural".
Dude this is just total crepp factor ew ew ew ew do what you want but do it on a desert island i don't want your webbed feet spwan clooging up the welfare lines, Romantic relations always end up in bed, So yuk, Move to tennessee or something, They allow that sort of abomination there
This is just against everything I believe in. Even if the individuals aren't sexual active now in there relationship who says they won't be in the future. Blood-related individuals even when they didn't know they were related but then found out they should end it right then and there. No questions asked.
The key difference between a friendship and a romance is the sexual aspect. You can be the closest of friends with someone of your sexual preference without being or wanted to be sexually involved with them. A romance, On the other hand, Has some sort of sexual interaction either taking place or as the goal of at least one of the participants. Sure, This can be one sided and never lead to the act it'self but that just means the other side is using the attraction for an advantage like for other favors or financial support.