I think it's fine if it's between two CONSENTING ADULTS and no children are conceived from it.
Some people may find it gross but they're not the ones participating.
I bet the people who have the biggest problem with this are also against homosexuality and same sex marriage.

Morals should be based off of rational thinking of facts, as well as the aim to see the least amount of suffering when, unfortunately, in a turn of events cannot be avoided. Based on this, if there is consent between siblings and they are of mature age, there really is no reasoning with the immorality of incest. It seems that many atheists are afraid to admit this. But it is what it is. I'd assume the reason why I don't practice incest myself is because I have seen my siblings grow since they were small. My relation with them has never been sexual to begin with, and there hasn't been a reason as I slowly see them grow as part of my immediate family.

I picked moral because no matter what my personal view is, which we are all entitled to, it is none of my business.

I would say it's immoral for the same reason eating feces is immoral.
You just don't do it. Sure some people are into it, but fuck it's gross.
So I suppose my reasoning is that it is ingrained in us.

As atheists, we understand that society at large - the community as it were - dictate morality. Individuals do not. And as a society, we've deemed it "wrong"... and that is not arbitrary. In fact it's actually illegal in most states.

can i vote for weird

If we believe that incest is a normal behaviour, where is the difference between human an animals, we don't need religion for this, it's common sense.

The health avenue could still be in play because even when safer sex practices are used there is still the possibility of conception- slight as it may be- because there is a failure rate for every contraceptive method. I question the idea of consensual incest in general, since many instances of incest are in truth cases of abuse. In the hypothetical consensual scenario I don't know if immoral is the exact appropriate term, but I still find the concept of incest to be abhorrent. Regardless of the alleged consent it strikes me as an abnormal and potentially harmful act. What would drive two individuals to engage in incest? Though consensual, is it a maladaptive behavior resulting from isolation, prior abuse, or illness? I think practically it would be hard to find many instances of a healthy incestuous relationship.

Although sex between any two consenting adult is legal in Canada, I believe it is immoral for more then the obvious biological wrongness but, also because when it occurs it often involve elements of mental manipulation and control of one of the participants.

Definitely immoral. Many times the younger child doesn't understand what is happening and then they feel guilty if/when they feel pleasure. They may also may have been threatened so they will not tell.

If they are consenting adults then society still condemns it for health reasons for any progeny produced as a result of their actions. Inbreeding is generally frowned upon for just that reason.

There are isolated situations where you are dealing with blended families, not being related other than thru marriage, they start to like each other.. a lot and fall for one another. That is one thing. But siblings that are biologically related, I don't feel or believe this is good. Other than the well known long term health risks with mentally deformities being passed thru the genes. I have heard of 1st cousins get married and have no issues but then again, it all depends on the people involved.

I guess I find incest icky because I can't imagine being attracted to my sister, if I had one. Now I am atheist but this has nothing to do with religion it has to do with science and history. The royal families of Europe were all about inbreeding and look how they turned out.

Apart from finding it personally distasteful from an objective perspective the psychological issues and in-breeding biological problems are non nonsensical.

So far 7 people are super creepy.

Very often it is not consensual, which is why I find it very offensive.....along with the fact when does it become ok? Brother, sister, mother, son, father, daughter? Inbreeding being part of the problem along with I just can not understand it.

WOW, it's a hard question because every cell in my body says YUCK! but is it immoral, well blah, I just threw up in my mouth, yeah, can't say it's immoral but it's wrong and you definitely shouldn't do it. It would cross the line to immoral for teens and younger and if the siblings intended to have kids. My definition of immoral is an act with the intent to do harm without just cause and it doesn't fit that definition.

Your family is a place of safety where all emotions can be explored but the boundary to sex shouldn't. Physically, genetic mutations make it rightly taboo and emotionally it should be taboo as you can go out into the world and literally fuck up your life, but you shouldn't fuck up your family and place of refuge.

I gave an answer only in order to comment here. I was not given the proper option of being able to say it is neither.

Sex is a physical and emotional experience that can run the full spectrum from incredibly wonderful to mind crushingly horrible. Fortunately, it is at least good for most or the species would have been extinct long ago.

As I see it, there is no moral or immoral element to be dealt with here, in spite of what we have done with it since the beginning of proscriptions. Early clans of an emerging species (us) were made up mainly of family members, but occasionally new genetic material would present itself and saved us from becoming -- well, you know. So, interfamilial relations have been with us all along the chain of evolution. The first time a distinction was made was when someone noticed the mortality/deformity/mental deficiency rate seemed to be connected to such behavior. Whoever they may have been who noticed this, we will never know, but it was never seen as a moral issue -- not even in the 'holy writings' of all the early religions is there an unambiguous set of rules. There are some proscriptions laid out in Leviticus, but even that leaves room for various forms of relations between relatives and is silent on the issue when it comes to parents and their offspring.

I think the 'immoral' aspect came to force based on the physical problems of such unions when children were a result. It took a long while for someone to realize the physical problems and the relations were somehow connected (they knew nothing of genetics) and a taboo began -- from which sprang the morality/legality issue.

Now that we understand the genetic elements and how they work -- and we have ways of avoiding having children -- I question the efficacy of the moral/immoral issue. If two people, regardless of familial ties, wish to experience sex between them and they take the right precautions, where is the problem?

This is an interesting article:

[theconversation.com]

I cannot vote yes or no because I have to object to the use of the terms "moral" and "immoral," since both are ground in religious presumptions of a sort of natural law. To say something must be avoided BECAUSE it is wrong is, to a secular thinker, ass-backward. We are, rather, taught certain things are immoral in order to scare us away from doing things that our society or culture believes would be destructive in some way. So...the question should be "Do we think incest is harmful or not?" To me, the answer cannot be absolute, because there are exceptions, but in general I think it could be harmful, not just because of potential for genetically compromised offspring, but also because it might mess with the other social aspects of family relations, either with the specific persons committing incest or with their relations with other family members, or both. I do believe, though, like any self-respecting situational ethicist, that there are valid exceptions sometimes. Others on this thread have already pointed to some, and historically our definitions/parameters for which relatives involved would constitute incest or not. What about identical gay twin brothers who felt closer to each other than to anyone else? Personally, I think the main difficilty in that situation would be how the two handle reactions from other family members who would be upset with them.

Evolution has answered this question for you. End of.

objectively speaking it's completely neutral. most people find it gross because they're biologically programmed to, but that doesn't mean it actually harms anyone. consenting adults can do as they please, love is love.

I would more accurately say neither as I do not believe it to be a question of morality. It is in most if not all cases only made to be immoral due to religious teachings

Immoral because of the psychological effect, often there is one individual leading a stronger figure.

The idea that we end up with people like our parents and are like our parents should clearly demonstrate how much of our attraction to others and everything is caught up in our early relationships. I think that those relationships are important because they help us learn and understand power differentials and security. If your father put his arms around you and that where you felt safest and you want big, strong, manly arms around you, I think that 40 years later, if it is still important to you, there is still a power differential in that relationship and it’s an abuse of that power, inherently coercive, to engage in a relationship. By that same notion, siblings who are close in age are like their parents, but age at different rates, so the power dynamic in the relationship can change which may even enhance those feelings.

we find it gross not because of christian values, but evolutionary protection. We mated long before there was religion, and family is more readily available than not, so if we didn't find it gross.. our genes would be corrupted and wouldn't propagate. I selected moral, because.. with the safe sex aspect there is no moral element to it. the immoral aspect would be to bringing children from the union, as they have a very high chance of genetic disorders.