That statement, the fact that you feel if it doesn't harm anyone that it should be legal, is one based off your OWN morality. Just as you can feel something that's immoral to someone is a "good time" to you, someone could see your belief that things are okay if they "don't hurt anyone" as wrong because they think its fine to hurt someone else as long as it helps them.
YOU are making a moral determination based on your own views of what is right and wrong regarding laws...IE "If it doesn't hurt anyone its okay"...doing so in no different of a fashion than Digsbe. The only real different is he is upfront about the fact he's wanting the law based on his personal views.
All laws, to a point are based on morality. They are all based on what individuals think or feel is right or not right. And as with all things, what one person thinks is fine or not fine another person could have a completely different opinion on.
That's why people going "it offends my morals" doesn't tend to sway me to my side but also why I roll my eyes at those who try and argue against such points simply by stating morals don't matter regarding the law.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
To take a step back for a moment, the problem with incest comes not from the sex itself, but from the genetic problems associated with inbreeding. Because of that, a lot of us, myself included, think it's really icky and gross and don't want to do it. But I can't help but see consensual sex between two adults, for whatever reason, to be none of my business and certainly none of the government's.
There's a big difference between disliking something and making it a crime. If some other people want freaky inbred children, or to keep their relations in their weird inbred family, it's not really any concern of mine. In fact, keeping them all together somewhere might be beneficial to the rest of us. They'll die out from genetic problems at some point, and so the gene pool will be cleansed. It's natural selection in action.
So yeah, any consensual sex between adults should be legal. But it's completely fine not to want to partake in whichever options you don't want. Making something like this a crime does more harm than good.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
Two consenting adults of legal age should be allowed to do whatever they want behind closed doors (or open doors if it’s a room in a private house, and the front door to the house is closed).
I prefer sexual slavery.