• Sure why not

    I cant find an argument against itbthat i agree with other than them having children being a really bad idea, sibling/ parent-child couples shouldnt have biological children, otherwise sure why not, as long as no one is hurt or abused and theres no kids involved in any way then yeah, i think its ok

  • I take "consenting adults" seriously.

    Of course CONSENSUAL adult incest is should legal everywhere, not just the few US states and many countries where it is (and where it hasn't caused any problems).

    There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consensual incest (consanguinamory) that is consistently applied to other relationships. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to do it, not why it should be illegal for everyone. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY consenting adults.

    Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex/marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. Some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from having sex or marrying based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection
    principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry.

    Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?

    Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. For example, it would be entirely legal for the President of the United States to get married while serving in office. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.

    Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either. Let consenting adults love each other the way they want!

    It is entirely legal in most places for complete strangers to have sex. Why should it suddenly become criminal should those complete strangers discover they both were conceived by the same sperm donor?

    Laws against CONSENSUAL sex hurt REAL PEOPLE who ARE living in these relationships, and also make it harder to prosecute actual abusers. Stop wasting law enforcement resources prosecuting adults for consensual sex.

  • Those were some strong arguments.

    Honestly, I don't know a lot about incest not having studied it. Jennac makes a strong case for loving relationships being acceptable, even if they are a cultural taboo. I am open-minded to the opposition, but assuming that proper consent could be guaranteed (in as much as it can ever be guaranteed) I don't really see a reason why not. However, I still might change my mind if I see strong reasons against it. Evolutionarily speaking it does make sense though.

    Posted by: kbub
  • If they're consenting adults then why not!

    This is for legalizing 2 incestuous consenting adults. (Adults being the legal age of sex relative to the country you live in). Rape and child abuse laws would still be in place and would apply to this law.
    Yes there are chances of deformity BUT what are the actual statistics? I've looked long and hard for a general statistics that says there is (x%) chance of deformity but information is so varied and unclear, so much so that is it arguably subjective and depends on the family history.
    Surely a law against cystic fibrosis carrying parents should be put in place as they have a chance of producing a deformed child. Similar with mothers who smoke, drink and take drugs during pregnancy and also with parents who have history of cancers within the family and similar medical issues.
    Why should incestuous couples not have rights like homosexual couples do?
    If you don't agree with it, why? Is it because you find it 'gross' or 'disgusting', does that mean those who want to take part in it have to suffer?
    It may be idealist to want it legalized but if we don't throw controversial topics like this out in the open how can we ever expect to make a change? If the suffragettes or black people had that opinion they wouldn't be where they are today.
    In history it was fine so why not now!
    It may only be a minority of people arguing for it but why should that mean the law should be in place? Also if it is only a minority does it really matter so much that there should be a law. The argument the NHS or health care system cannot afford to take on the extra amount of deformed children is flawed in this case as it is such a small number. Obesity is more common than deformity by incestuous parents but banning McDonald's isn't an option.
    Incestuous couples don't HAVE to have children, they have other options like donors, adoption and fostering. Legalizing marriage between incestuous people doesn't necessarily result in them having children. Often couples take part in these activities for the sexual side where contraception is used and children aren't even a thought.
    What about those couples that find out they are related when they've been separated at birth? They are together for love and cannot be together anymore even if they've planned a life together.

  • Incest should remain illegal

    The reason why in many society incest remain taboo and a crime because there are higher risk of birth defect especially if you have sexual intercourse with first degree relatives because they share 50 % of your genetics.And other reason against incest,that many children being abuse inside family especially from parent incest.

  • I Do Not Believe So.

    I agree that consensual incest is totally okay, it's just that if it were to be a straight relationship in which the man could get the woman pregnant, there you run into a problem. The genetics would be mutated to the point where it could harm a child so badly that they could not live a conscious or happy life. Children are the world's future and nothing should stand in their way. Why is it fair to be born handicapped for such a careless reason? Now, I have debated for gay rights, I believe gays should have all the rights that straight people do, and I am aware that saying that incest is 'un-natural' or 'just plain wrong' is exactly the point that people make on gay marriage debates. These are totally irrelevant points that relate strictly to an un-provable opinion. I believe that love can come from anyone and anywhere, so in a way, I do agree that incest should be legalized, but I think the bigger concept to focus on is not the love portion, but the children portion. I am not saying that incestial parents could not raise a child, it is just that they would not be able to give birth to a healthy one. I think that if it was to be legalized there would need to be strict rules on childbirth, if the couple was straight. I put forth my idea of the rules:
    1.The couple should become registered as an incestial couple to make sure that if the woman does become pregnant, that could be dealt with by the government with special doctors that pertain to making sure the baby develops safely, especially in these predicaments.
    2. Science should advance further to make it possible for the couple to have children that are not genetically disabled.
    3. The couple understand the dangers of possible becoming pregnant and damaging their child. Perhaps put them through a course about the restrictions of being a parent to a handicapped child.

  • Really bad for genetic makeup.

    Incest produces bad genetic makeup and in some cases, horrible mental diseases and sometimes physical damage.

    It is human instinct to be against Incest ( Listed above ).
    Even I have to say that Incest is immoral, a waste of genetic exchange for badly made children. Don't put them into this world with genetic defects.

  • You need to be more specific

    There are numerous types of incest, and I think there's a huge difference between sibling incest and grandparent/grandchild incest, or even parent/child incest. I've heard reports on the news about men who have sex with their daughters and then with her daughters (making him the child's father and grandfather) and I'm sorry, but that's absolutely sickening and cannot be justified in any way, shape or form. However, I realise that people like that are a minority and very different to say two siblings or two cousins who are attracted to each other. Considering I'm an only child, I can't imagine what it's like to be attracted to a sibling, but all of my friends who have siblings find the thought utterly repulsive. I'd need to find out more about the issue before making an informed decision but from where I stand, legalising incest would be a slippery slope (as it could lead to scenarios such as the one I've described above)

  • Sorry. It's gross!!!

    There is no need to marry someone you are already related to. Also, if the couple end up having children, there will be a confusion on how they are related. For instance, let's say if a person and their parent married and had children. What would they be to them- a mother or a grandmother? It would be all so confusing. Also, incest can lead to the children (if there are any involved) having genetic disorders which could affect them their whole life and even cause early death. Why wish that upon a child. Marry someone who you are not related to- it is better off for you and your children (if you end up having any).

  • Incest is bad because of birth defect

    In middle east country as i have survey there are so many children born with severe birth defect.In pakistan, infant mortality rate is 12.7 percent for married double first cousin,7.9 percent for first cousin.One in ten children of first cousin marriage either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability.I would shame and blame on muslim people for abusing our children which is absolutely abhorrent what they are doing just because stupid religion reason.

  • Incest is immoral and bad

    There are so many negative outcomes from incest. Particularly in middle age 15th century sibling-sibling incest has been strictly prohibit because they recognize that there is a high risk that a child can inflict from birth defect.However i think cousin incest is okay because they do not share much the same gene as first degree relative do.

  • Incest is immoral and bad

    There are so many negative outcomes from incest. Particularly in middle age 15th century sibling-sibling incest has been strictly prohibit because they recognize that there is a high risk that a child can inflict from birth defect.However i think cousin incest is okay because they do not share much the same gene as first degree relative do.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Forthelulz says2015-04-08T20:19:53.440