Incest is sexual activity between close relatives, illegal in many countries and socially taboo. For this debate I will be referring to consensual incest, not people who sexual assault their relatives. Regardless, this is still criminalised in most countries, although some argue it is a victimless crime. There is also the disputation on how close relatives would be for incest to be deemed wrong.

The primary argument against incest is that if for example, a brother and sister conceive, there is a higher chance of genetic disorder. It is argued that the children of incestuous parents are likely to be castigated and cast out by society, and are much more likely, given the example in the home, to be incestuous themselves. Second-generation incest is even more likely to involve medical and genetic problems.

On the other hand, it is still love, whether or not the individuals are related. It could be argued that we shouldn't deny two people their love for each other and they shouldn't be forced to hide their feelings. Contraception can be used to prevent pregnancy and in the case of homosexual incest, this is not a problem at all. Tests can also be carried out to find out whether people carry recessive genes that could cause genetic disorders.

What are your opinions on incest? Should it be legal? Is it immoral? My opinion is that as long as it is consenual, I have no problem with it.

My opinion on it is that it's immoral, and that while homosexuals have no choice about their feelings, rendering any homophobic arguments about them willfully "sinning" invalid, incest-minded people do (it really isn't feasible to say that your feelings prevent you from ever loving someone besides a family member). Someone who wants to have sex with their sibling (or aunt, like in One Hundred Years of Solitude) is the victim of a personality disorder or messed-up hormones. When there is any alternative, incest is an unnecessary, sometimes dangerous violation of decency.

IMO, the greatest problem with modern liberal Western society is the notion that an action that harms no one cannot be wrong. There's such a thing as inherent wrong, but because it can't be sounded out by modern philosophical theory, such a thing is often deemed "mythical," even intolerant in concept. But it's not intolerant... it's basic humanity.

Incest with immediate family is so repulsing if you think about it. I still think it should be legal though, especially for cousins, except I don't know if that counts as incest or not.

Depends on the closeness of your cousin (son of your parent's brothers, or son of your parent's cousins?).
It still does bring a heavy risk of disease for the kid.

I believe that if between consenting adults, then it's their buisness, though I'm not sure what my thoughts on incest couples having children.

The risk of incest is significantly less for cousins than for siblings (or parents and children or aunts/uncles and nephews/nieces). I'm not sure what my feelings are on sex between first cousins, but second cousins are distant enough that I feel they should be fully legal. And I believe they are, but I'm far from sure.

My opinion on Incest? - I disagree with it wholeheartedly, be that as a result of how society and it's common social norms have shaped my morals to see it that way, or by how i was raised, It's simply an unexplainable feeling of disagreement from within myself that finds it disgusting and sick, but then again, it's been happening long since before i was born so who am i to judge at the end of the day. From a more realistic an personal approach,I'm fine with people being incestuous, as long as they don't bring it under my roof, or into my childrens playground or place of nurturing, they can do what and with themselves as they please.

Should it be legal? - my stance on the legalization of incest is a obvious, plain and simple no, so instead of posting unnecessary junk to further why i say this (which will no doubt give you a headache), I'll put these question to you instead;
For the non-incestuous, but agree with it's legalization - What values do you want for your children?
For the incestuous Pro-conception - What kind of life do you want for your child?
For the incestuous and non conceiving - What kind of life do you want for yourself?

Is it Immoral? - Personally yes i find it Immoral, as for the science behind my Judgment? why should i bother my answer is as you see it and no amount of jargon or scientifically detailed waffle will change that. But in reality it all depends on the individuals involved, both directly and indirectly - their individual values and beliefs, their individual levels of acceptance between what is right and wrong, and their individual feelings in the given situation, just as I could never have these "taboo" sorts of feelings for my siblings someone inclined otherwise could have the complete opposite, so who am i to pass Judgment for them? i can only pass Judgment on my behalf.

At the end of the day Incest in itself, in the eyes of common sense and between two consenting adults is more than okay be it genuine feelings or not, there's no scientific reason to see it as "sick" or "unnatural" , it's oddity amongst common moral and social norms is purely opinionated, nothing more and nothing less. However, if a child is conceived whether it be genetically ill or otherwise fine, under a public eye, will be literally cursed from birth due to being brow beaten, shunned, broken down for reasons beyond it's control, and inevitably doomed to live out it's days as a living scar for the rest of it's life, this is where the illegality of it comes in, to protect the children, not to stroke anyone's ego, but to protect the children from having anything less of the life that we all deserve.

I'm pretty sure it's legal where I live, and if it's legal in Utah it's probably legal in most other parts of the country.

Incest, the game the whole family can play!

I don't have anything against incest. I think it's bizzare and I'd never sleep with anyone in my family, but if you wanna love your brother or your cousin, more power to ya. The only problem is retarded children, but if someone wants to raise a retarded child, they can feel free to do that. When a guy gets his sister pregnant, he probably knows what the child might be like.

By the way, ever taken a look at Ferdinand and Isabella's descendants? Yeeeeahhh...

I'm sure people would still find it weird to know that your parents are related (even if it's just second cousins).

According to Greek mythology, incest was part of the creation of the gods.

People believe it to be taboo, (E.G:) if a brother and sister wish to do so, then I wouldn't stand in between and yell. If that's what they choose then have fun.

To most people it is "taboo", it doesn't mean it's not right it just means that not normal to most others.

Weren't their descendants the gang that called themselves "The Roman Vandals" and sacked the city of Toronto in 1492 with grenades and Frisbees?



Second cousins don't share grandparents, but they do share great-grandparents. It might not even be immediately obvious to people who looked at your family tree that your parents were related (depending on how the tree is constructed).



Technically, Cronus never died, he lived on in torment in Tartarus. And really, the Greek gods aren't exactly good examples for us... killing people or turning them into monsters out of sheer jealousy is barbaric, and not something we ought to value.

I guess@Emanick. Personally, if I figured out that my parents were second cousins, I'd be disgusted.

I personally think it's a bad idea.

And that it should be illegal.

It should only be legal if you show the capability to be able to cope with whatever the child is going to have.

As

Incest has the possibility to produce children with mental retardation, as such I am firmly against it.

Incest increases the possibility of a child being born with a mental or physical disability and the child will be mocked upon by society. Thus I'm firmly against it. As for it being non consensual, that's just rape so I'm all for it I'm also against it.

I don't mind to be honest. I never would really, because I hate most of my family, but if you wanted to then whatever.

I'm against it if the couple wants to have kids of their own. The risks are just too high. I'm fine with it if they just wanna live together (and have safe sex if they wish to) and adopt a kid or use sperm cells from a different male or genitically modified sperm cells to assure the kid is not gonna have a mental disability.

I do not find it 'immoral' if two people from the same family would fall in love. It's not something you have control of.


It's not the kid's fault it's gonna be mocked by society.


Opinions, opinions, opinions. Your definition of 'inherent wrong' is shaped by the way you were raised and should not in any way be generalized.

When I clicked this the first time I thought it said incense and I was like "wtf is up with nice smelling burning thingies?"

Kwinten, I agree with your point.

It doesn't have to be the kid's fault, he's still going to get picked on and mocked upon.

So the couple shouldn't have a kid because it's going to be mocked by our closed-minded society?

They couple shouldn't have a kid because it will have more chances of Mental Retardation and/or a Physical Disability. That's just added on to my opinion.

I'm talking about the couple adopting a kid or using modified sperm cells.

Should mothers over 40 not be allowed to have children?

I read through the post, and this was the one that really stood out as being wrong.

What you described above, that is not love, that is lust. Love is when you love someone but have no desire (not just "some", or "little" desire, but absolutely no desire) to have sex with that person. If you want to have sex with that person, what you are feeling is lust.

I am 100% against Incest. To me it is wrong.

Keep in mind, I am not a homosexual, yet I am not against it. Yet I am one who is not lusting after my family members, yet I think it is wrong.



Love is what most family members feel between eachother. Lust is what very sick (minded) family members feel between eachother (sibling to sibling, or daughter to father, or daughter to mother, or son to father, or son to mother).

There is a very clear line between lust and love. What you described above is not love, it is lust.

Lust is something you do have control over.

The above was assumeing it was very close family. Second cousins or beyond, while I still think of it as, well, not something I would do. They are removed, DNA wise, far enough from eachother that I do not consider it wrong (that said, as before stated, it is not something I would do).

As Jack' said,

~John

I'm not quite getting WHY you think it is 'sick' or 'wrong'. Lust is a desire for love or sex (satisfaction) that you do not have control over. How can you say a natural nerve stimulus (I hope I translated that right) is 'wrong' or 'immoral'. And what makes you think that in all cases of incest it is solely a matter of lust, without love?

John, look closely

Jack mentions reproduction. Nobody says incest has to result in the couple having kids the natural way.

So you're saying if you want to have sex with someone then it isn't love? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Purely wanting to have sex with someone - alone this is lust, but you can still love someone and want to have sex with them. For example, I love my boyfriend and I also want to have sex with him. Just because there is lust involved doesn't mean I'm not in love with him. The same principles should apply when someone falls in love with their relative, although saying that, there is always the possibility of confusion of different types of love.

If being gay is okay (and one of the valid arguments for gay rights is "because there is love" or "because it doesnt hurt anyone") then incest should be okay.

Incest is alright, as long as there's drugs involved.

Incest is wrong, I find it selfish that two people would decide to piss up the gene pool of a child. However incest isn't against love, theres thousands of ways of protecting against pregnancy so love between brother and sister shouldn't be illegal. However what if two people know they are both carries of a genetic disorder with resesive genes, knowning that their child has a 1/4 chance of the disorder should that be illegal to have a child?

Society has to draw the line somewhere as to what they consider wrong. If you pursue any opinion, fact-based to its logical origin, you will discover that there is no adequate reason for holding it, because everything, assuming a universe with no inherent right or wrong, is essentially meaningless. "Love" and "making people happy" are things that most people hold to be inherently right. Un-"justified" "hate" and "making people miserable" are things that most people consider inherently wrong. Yet they are based upon the patterns of our brain neurons. Who is to say that makes them worthwhile?

You must at times declare some things inherently "right" or "wrong" based on the way you either are raised, are influenced, or think out for yourself - ideally all three. Every opinion you have comes from society; it's pointless to say somebody told you something, so you're prejudiced in favor of it, because everybody is to some extent. I consider incest wrong, against nature, because that's the way I feel the universe works. And my religion, which I have many extensive, reasoned, completely irrelevant to this discussion reasons for believing to be accurate, supports this opinion. This is why I think incest is inherently wrong, and why I think inherent wrongs do and must exist.



Homosexuality is a way of life many people have, based on their genetics. Someone cannot be born incestual (although on rare occasions I suppose a chemical imbalance might result in a predisposition to be sexually attracted to their siblings, which seems illogical but possible), but they can be born gay. When it comes to genetics and the way people's brains work, incest has more in common with necrophilia than homosexuality.

I want everyone to take a minuet to think about this: If you had children (E.G) Son and Daughter and they liked each other would you think that's okay? I would be shocked, it would be unreal. Think about it that way.

I'm not against it, but think about it that way. I'm okay with my daughter/son to be gay I wouldn't care but incest is something different. I'd probably say yes if they didn't have sex until they were 18 or older.

Being gay is against the 10 commandments. Correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT: I'm not trying to be rude.

You're wrong.

There is only one mention of sex in the Ten Commandments--"You shall not commit adultery".

That argument is only valid if you're debating in a Christian church.

The one and only reason I could think to oppose incest is the aforementioned increase in likelyhood to be born with, and predisposition to develop, mental and physical impairment.
Obviously there are all kinds of factors which are generally agreed upon to cause these kinds of disabilities that apply to a myriad of people/couples and these other relationships are nowhere near as apparently repuslive to our relative social values as incest is.
The question is whether the level at which the genetic disadvantages occur is substantial enough to mean incest is a totally different consideration to the other types of relationship that can result in a high probability of impaired offspring, or whether incest is just looked at independently because it has such a history of being extremely socially deviant. Personally I think it may be a combination of both and as such I thin kevery case should be judged on its own merit.
Incest is not inherently right or wrong, acceptable or not acceptable. It is simply deviant.

I personally don't see myself doing it, but I don't judge those who are attracted to people in their family. Being constantly around each other with mutual feelings like that would be hard to suppress. Who you love is not a choice you get to make.


Every conception has that chance. Perhaps there is an elevated likelihood with incest, but that doesn't mean it is impossible without.

I don't know the figures, nor am I really interested.

Not really. I don't have a religion and it was said at Emanick.

I'm pretty sure a mod even had it as a signature for sometime but toke it off because it offended someone.

personally i think its wrong...
i guess maybe the second cousin is okay
but not the first

Why do you believe it is wrong?

cause like think about it
thats like doing it with someone who has the the same mom as you
thats just gross to think about
i guess i think its wrong cause i dont think i can handle it myself
and cant you have like a weird kid or something?
or was that just from harold and kumar...

So that means? Your against it?

No one has answered my question yet.

I do not understand why you think that it is "okay".



On the point of lust, you are entirely incorrect. You do have control over it. People decide to take the cowardly way out and say "no, we have no control over it."

Without sex, the human race would die off. That is a fact. To that end, I define sex as being natural (in short, its purpose, is to continue the species).

One loves ones' family (generally). One loves ones' friends. However, one does not (generally) lust after either. Loving ones' family is natural. Having the desire to... have sex with them (ones' family)... is not natural.



Please show me, where exactly I said that (a) Jack said anything other then he quoted, or (b) where I said incest has to result in the couple having kids "the natural way".

I have stated that I agree with what Jack has said, and also, that I am against Incest as being unnatural.



No, what I said was what was written, in english, in my above post.

No where did I state that one can only love, or lust, after another person. What I stated was that it either is, or it is not lust.

The desire to want to have sex with someone, that is lust pure and simple. You may, or may not, love this person, but it is a fact that it is lust if you wish to have sex with that person.

There are no "different types" of love. There is love. There is lust. It is that simple.



As I am firmly against incest, I would be appauled.



I am okay with my family members being gay. I would say no, not now, not ever. There is something mentally wrong with a person who lusts after a family member.



Last time I checked, bringing in religious beliefs is not being rude.



Yet this topic is not about love, it is about lust.

~John

Why is it not natural?

Other animals do it all the time.


Says who?

You know, it wasn't taboo to have sex with your cousins until the last century. When two cousins reproduce, the child is usually perfectly healthy. While it's never really been acceptable by society to have sex with a sibling, marrying cousins was very visible in the bible, as well as European monarchs. I'd never marry or have sex with a cousin and I'm sure most people wouldn't, but there's a very good chance that the child wouldn't have any disorders.

So, could anyone give a good reason to want incest to be illegal if we took away the retarded child factor?

It sounds like the only reason you have to think it's wrong is because you've been taught it's wrong.




I don't know about Kwinten, but I take it from a standpoint of assumed acceptability.
So until something is deemed wrong then it is okay by default.




Even if it's not natural (I do believe it is natural) then that's still not a reaon for it to be wrong.
Many things that aren't natural are considered good by consensus are many things that are natural can be considered wrong.
Something being natural does not indicate it's ethical value inherently in any way.

Nope.

If a person truly loves a sibling, then why should it be made illegal for them to be incest? It's not definite that if siblings reproduce they will get a retard.

Why is there a higher chance of genetic disorder? Is that just something someone came up with?

Other animals do alot of things all the time-

Praying Mantis females eat their mate.
Lions will kill their own children to have sex with its mate.
Ants take slaves.
Chimps eat their own babies.

But what if this list went-
Human females eat thier husbands
Humans mutilate their children to have sex with their wife.
Humans take slaves.
Human eat their own babies.
Would that make it right?

Just because animals do these thing all the time doesn't make any of them right.
Also, I am against incest.