Interesting article by my former lecturer (Paul Behrens) on the Guardian Commentisfree website (here). He debates the ECHR's decision on whether Germany should have a law on incest. It really is a subjective topic, yes the primary focus of incest law should be to protect children from unwanted harm, but then there are child protection laws for that. Behrens debates whether there is a case for morals within such law. After all morals are an ever-evolving concept.
"The constitutional court also said that the prohibition of incest was rooted in "cultural history". Not quite convincing, and a lot depends on the changing concept of the crime. Bach married his cousin. Field Marshal Moltke married his step-niece. In other cultures and other times, the rules were even more relaxed. Cleopatra married two of her brothers; her parents had probably been siblings too."
Game of Thrones
Once gay relationships were 'morally wrong,' as were mini skirts and fake tan, but things change. (It's called Moral Evolution apparently, see here if you're interested). Take this example, the age of sexual consent in Spain is just 13, yet in England two 13 year olds having sex would be illegal. But does that mean that Spain is wrong and we're right? If two consenting adults have sex and just happen to be related, is that wrong? (The writer of Game of Thrones certainly doesn't seem to think so.)