Thank you!

this question carefully specified that both were adults, consenting, and practicing safe sex. without any single one of these conditions, my answer would have been different

I agree, and I think everyone would agree that is obviously immoral. The word immoral doesn't do it justice, and I can't imagine a word that would adequately describe how horrible that crime is, and that's precisely why I phrased it the way I did. I would never have wasted your time or mine asking the question, is rapping your daughter moral or immoral? The question itself is utterly terrifying. The question, is about consensual sex between two consenting people who happen to be a bother and sister, is that immoral or moral?

paul1967, 'consensual sex between two consenting people who happen to be a bother and sister, is that immoral or moral?' in this case, again, it's not a question of morality to me, but of choice.

My thanks also..I learn so much here...

That's more of a rape than incestuous relationship. Of course it's a sexual activity between related people. So, as you said proper definition should be given for the word in this poll.

awesome answer tackling an element of the subject I had not considered.

Great answer Maya, I am starting to enjoy reading such good common sense.

I don't know if and when religion took hold of incest, but between adults it just is. We mostly don't do it because it's bad for the gene pool. Island people got away with it in time past because they had great genes. But even then, a group has to eventually go outside of an insulated group to keep from weakening the pool. I think any culture has a right to develop its own system of who has sex as long as children are protected and valued.

yes, @Maya405, & we do make our choices based on our moral codes, don't we?

you didn't read the question, which specifically was about SAFE (non-procreating) SEX between SIBLINGS. & that would be a matter of your personal choice, based on an ethical or moral code.

@VirginCotton Parents, no, period. Regarding an aunt or an uncle, there are cultures where this education is respected and revered, and also tightly bound by tradition and ceremony. Under those circumstances, in those cultures, I would not call it incest. Outside of those cultures it is incest, and even in those cultures, outside the formalities and traditions of that education it is still incest and taboo.

@VirginCotton I've checked the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and the Oxford Living English dictionary regarding the definition of the word taboo. Merriam-Webster doesn't mention religion at all in its primary definition, and the Oxford dictionary I searched said "social or religious" in each definition. The word comes from the Tongan word "tabu" which means set apart, forbidden and makes no mention of religion. I also looked up "incest" and it refers to definition by law, not religion although of course in some times and places the two are just about interchangeable. Anyway,I checked the definitions to be sure I understood the words I was using, and now can confidently stand by them: I do not believe I am leaning into religious dogma; my references are social and subjective to the particular society as I mentioned in my answer. I do not know what I can help you with; I do not understand your reference to new territory. Is it because people are taking this discussion far beyond the original, very specific question? For me, it is incest without question, but the morality/immorality of it I cannot decide; it is a matter of choice for the two individuals involved assuming they believe they are,treat each other as, equals.

@Maya405, consensus, or agreement if you will, is the choice here.

@madmac, you just missed reading &/or understanding the original post.

@Rugglesby, nothing was answered in this comment. every single element from the original post was twisted into something else entirely. the question was about consenting siblings having safe sex. Maya405 turned this into a rape scenery between father & daughter, thereby hijacking the post.

@walklightly true, I caught the comment and applied it to the heading, kinda missed the other bit. Reading in full, I guess it's not really immoral to me as an atheist, just icky.

yeah, @Rugglesby, that'll be about it

@VirginCotton A 7-year-old boy is prepubescent and even a 12-year-old girl should not be in any kind of sexual situation with him. An adult male having an affair with a first cousin depends on whether the cousin is at least at the age of consent, generally 15 or so in most states. If she's at the age of consent but below 18, it's still incest and I think he could still go to jail for it. If she's below the age of consent, I think that's the legal version of not through puberty yet, and not only is it incest but also pedophilia, and he WILL go to jail and probably be killed by the other inmates, hopefully by being sodomized until his rectum ruptures and poisons him with fecal bacteria. (Gee, can you guess who was a victim of incestuous pedophilia? At the age of 6, no less.)
If the man having the affair is the grown boy of the scenario with his 12-year-old aunt, he is no less culpable: being an adult means taking responsibility for your actions, even if you are emotionally tainted with a history of incest/rape.

Maya just about nailed it.

Well said, however the original question harks back to the Christian claim that only they have morality...

@Maya405 Yes as you say a brother and sister consent to have sex I can't see the problem. In fact if anyone is having incest that is fine with me. At least they love each other.

So by your reasoning it should be perfectly OK for a homosexual relationship between siblings.

And by the same reasoning, adults who know they carry defective genes that they will pass on the their offspring causing disabilities should be prevented from marrying or breeding?

@Uncorrugated Some actually are that caring , about their potential children . As difficult as it may be , informed , caring adults , who are aware that a specific relationship, will increase the potential of generically deformed offspring , will choose to behave in a mature manner , and seek alternatives .

@Cast1es I agree that some are. But there are many genetic disorders that have the potential to cause disabilities, but may not - in the same way that siblings may produce children with disabilities, but equally may not.

The argument was "No one human should decide it's okay to risk giving a child severe deformities" Hence my question, 'should couples who know that there is a chance that their offspring might have a disability be prevented from breeding?'

@Uncorrugated

Please don't twist other's words, it's the hallmark of a bad argument. No, I don't think homosexual relationships between siblings are okay. They screw up the family psychologically.

I would hope all couples would make the decision not to pass on genetic aberrations of their own accord. Alas, there are thousands which do not. This is mostly due to selfishness.

Ex. I know a prominent banker in Charlotte who married someone who carried the same genetic defect as he. Both were carriers but neither suffered the the genetic consequence. Knowing the odds were 50/50 for passing on a severe deformity and shortened lifespan, he talked the wife into having 3 children. ALL had the genetic defect...so he divorced her, abandoned the children, and married someone else so he could have his perfect heir. I would wager this happens most often in these cases, rather than the couple being "careful and thoughtful."

Now, should that couple have been banned by law from procreating? While I would be okay with such a law, because a 50/50 chance of a debilitating, life-threatening defect is not a decision I would make or endorse, it makes me uncomfortable because it is a slippery slope from there to eugenics. Eugenics is bad, see? In the third Reich, Hitler tried to eliminate the genetic factors for homosexuality. I happen to love my homosexual friends and don't want them thrown out of the gene pool. I'm sure others feel it is their right to charge society with taking care of children they discard. Unfortunately, American society does a particularly shitty job in this area.

We would need a caring humanist society here with universal health care and comprehensive child care to accomplish it. I don't see that happening in the near future. There is current example of a country endorsing the elimination of Down's syndrome. In Iceland, prenatal screening has led to a nearly 100% abortion rate of zygotes testing positive. The rate of Down's syndrome babies is also declining in the United States, but not as fast due to religious objections to abortion.

In my opinion, Icelandic women have chosen the more humanistic option. When it comes to custom-ordering your child a la "Gattaca," however, that is eugenics gone wild and I find it creepy.

@hemingwaykitten
"They screw up the family psychologically."
You do realize this is based on an atomic family model that may not be the end all.

@hemingwaykitten With respect, I didn't twist your words. I merely followed the reasoning behind your argument. the main thrust of which was potential genetic defects of any offspring - the likelihood of which is lower than many of known risks from other relationships which are not legislated against and which you have now also said, should not be legislated against. Whilst I agree that childhood incest can have a detrimental effect on the psychological growth of a child, once siblings have reached adulthood and their 'love map' is formed, the psychological impact is mostly impacted by society's treatment of their relationship.
And in the UK. we do have universal healthcare and mothers are also given the option to abort pregnancies where serious deformities have been identified.

You are not in favour of legislating against the choices some adults make with regard to their offspring, but it would appear that you are if they are siblings. Just because some societies find something taboo, doesn't necessarily make it immoral.

@Uncorrugated
The HUMAN Race pretty much finds sibling sex taboo.

@Uncorrugated, @GregGasiorowski
If she's your sister, there's no way sex doesn't mess with your family dynamic. I don't care if you're parents are trans, poly, or aliens!

@hemingwaykitten
Yes, but among adults this really isn't a hell of a lot different than dating a best friends ex, this too messes with a social dynamic but is generally accepted allbeit a hair frowned upon.
Personally I'm very trad atomic hetero, but this is for the sake of argument.

@hemingwaykitten
"The HUMAN Race pretty much finds sibling sex taboo."
Human taboos remain to be a very primitive form of morality.

@GregGasiorowski
Humans remain primitive. Just a thin veneer of civilization slapped on makes us think we've changed. Nope.

@hemingwaykitten
Having behavior dictated by taboos doesn't help this.

@GregGasiorowski @Uncorrugated I think you guys are making this issue too complicated and intellectual. If there are two consenting adults, have at it. But, incest is rarely about two consenting adults.

@hemingwaykitten If homosexual people didn't marry and have children with straight folks , there'd be no concern about them passing on that gene , if there even is such a thing . A problem has been more along the line that homosexuals have been afraid to , "Come out ," so married and had children with straight , even though it wasn't what they truly wanted . I am pleased that , in this day and age , same sex couples can both marry and also adopt a family . Although I can't speak for all , the ones I do know , seem to be doing a great job of parenting !

@crazycurlz Then if there is a lack of consent or involves children it is child abuse and rape and therefore immoral in my opinion.

I see consenting sexual relationships between adult siblings of any gender as being nobody's business but theirs.

@Uncorrugated actually I agree with you although I think 'consent' can mean one thing to one person and coercion to somebody else so it might be a slippery slope in many circumstances. And, yes, thanks for differentiating between kids and adults.

@GregGasiorowski The human race has its head up it's ass when it comes to defining morality and declaring taboos. Besides taboos are dying off for the same reasons religion is dying off. And this, what's so great about "primitive morality"?.

@Casey07
Ask hemingwaykitten.

@Casey07

For starters, the incest taboo lets humanity keep moving forward instead of dying off from inbreeding. That's a good thing.

My concern is the medical/genetic point of view. Incest can and does cause genetic concerns. Granted it may not cause it in every case, but the potential is always there. One scenerio poised above was separated at birth, found each other , fell in love, and etc,etc,etc. children in such a case could and probably would gave some genetic abberrations pop up. Genetic counciling and testing would be wise. The moral aspect? I don't see a problem there, but from a legal point of view, there is a problem. In mist states relatives closer than second cousins are forbidden from marriage because of the potential for genetic changes, often times harming th children. I have seen the genetic aberrations from close family marriages. Most suffer mental retardation and physical challenges. Living in the south I have seen dozens of families that had children that had major health problems from incestious relationships. Look at the Middle East. In mist underdeveloped countries many marry family members due to the fact that they seldom move more than a few miles from their homes. In Islamic countries they state that 25% of the population has mental illness due to having children with close family relations. It's not uncommon to seefirst cousins marry. Not just in Islamic countries but in many Asian countries and India. The birth defects in close familial marriages are well documented.

@TheMiddleWay ...probably what happened with Adam & Eve & Caine... imagine.

@TheMiddleWay According to this study there's a 42% chance of abnormailty in 50% relations, which is pretty high. I'd always thought it was less. I wonder what it is for the general population. [psychologytoday.com]

@girlwithsmiles I don't know! I must have the luckiest family in history. Lots and lots of child molestation going on, but few problems. Maybe my recent ancestors had amazing genes! ?

@WilliamLee another scenario is if 2 (half) siblings, conceived from the same sperm donor, meet, fall in love, and have children before finding out they are siblings: [slate.com]

Yes if the sex is consented to why not? At least there is love there, If my sister and I want to have sex that is up to us and nobody else.

@girlwithsmiles That is about correct. Middleways understanding of modern genetics seems to be a little faulty, in several small ways. I have heard that the risk is small but real. It may be an urban myth, but I have also heard that the risks of problems for the child, is about the same as that for the children of older fathers over fifty.

Well the hypothetical says that they are practicing safe sex and I suspect that even if pregnancy was impossible you might still find it immoral. The question is to figure out why it's immoral. Is it cultural bias or is it truly immoral. I don't see it as a moral question I think it's just wise not to for emotional reasons

@paul1967 I know I would find it too uncomfortable myself but I suppose I could not say it was immoral as that would be placing restrictions on others. I am pretty much of the viewpoint that any consensual acts between two adults is okay.

@mooredolezal Agreed, I'm 100% behind your statement.

Rarely if any : CF is autosomal dominatant , that a problem

@paul1967 no in that case I would not.

@paul1967, @Millerski25 I've heard both sides and I am of the opinion that if there is an unreasonable risk of deformity then no, otherwise yes. Safe sex would negate this issue. However, I would never deny people the right to make their own decisions as long as they were consenting adults. To me it is a health issue, not one of morality.

@paul1967 good logic and debate... return to the question at hand... nicely done. Red herring syndrome

@Millerski25 thanks

Seems roughly as likely as winning a state lottery, but okay, in that sort of peer-to-peer scenario I see nothing wrong. You want to give me a Jaime Lannister - Cercei Lannister story? Cool story, bro.

That's not most real-life incest situations. Most real-life incest is what we'd "child rape" were the parties unrelated. Whether it comes from arbitrary cultural markers or something inherent in the human condition doesn't much matter to me at that point -- it causes TREMENDOUS and lasting psychological harm because we do live in this culture.

@ErikGunderson Are you familiar with the term, "A hard dick has no conscious?" It provides insight into a need to procreate. A priapic episode can make a man a rapist. ijs. In many instances morality doesn't come into play.

I've had many a boner I haven't acted upon.

@ErikGunderson Discipline is a great trait to have but it's like common sense, those of us who have it wish that everyone else had it.

@ErikGunderson Now that is a waste of a good erection. God gave them to us not to put them to waste

@Maestro God? You're joking, right?

I agree. I find it unappealing myself but I also find gay sex unappealing but I don't judge anyone for it and I know if they're happy and it makes sense to them I'm all for it.

How about if its between consenting adults, and the younger adult was raised to believe that it was ok and that was his or her role in that relationship from childhood? Is it ok then?

@rafferty that wouldn't be between consenting adults. you answered your own question.

No i didnt. I was describing a particularly awful form of sex slavery, and the very opposite of free thought. Monstrous. Ive seen the results such criminality.

@rafferty grooming a child into adulthood to be your sex slave is not a consensual relationship. obviously.

@basher But I believe that without some sort of investigation into it, they would seem perfectly consenting.

What about 2 siblings that were adopted by different couples raised not know each other. Meet fell in love got married then found out they were siblings. Is that still wrong if why

CCcatlover, that's kind of a stretch, but I have heard at least anecdotally of that or similar situations occurring. It's impossible to judge anyone in that situation as immoral. If they decide to stay married and especially if they have children, it becomes wrong. It's been pointed out that perfectly normal children have resulted from incest, but the chance of deformities is greater and becomes more likely if incest occurs over succeeding generations. If allowed where should we draw the line? I mean if a brother and sister have children why can't their children and grandchildren?

@JimG There were a couple of documented cases over the last thirty years or so. One quite tragic as the couple had children (healthy) but were legally obliged to divorce.
Back to the OP, the question ruled out offspring as a consideration.

@CCcatlover, @JimG, @RobAnybody: I posted this in a reply above: A man and woman meet in college, fall in love, marry, and have children before they find out they are half-siblings, conceived by the same sperm donor (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2013/02/dear_prudence_my_wife_and_i_came_from_the_same_sperm_donor.html)

Ok, so habitual inbreeding sucks for the species. I'm with you there.

What about selective inbreeding for desired traits? Un-natural selection at it's finest! I'm pretty sure the genetic errors could be identified and sterilized before being introduced to the larger gene pool.

At which point does this strategy become morally unconscionable? Who ever thought non-reproductive sister-fucking would become the safe argument?

@xylophonix Are you talking about Eugenics by any chance?
Mankind has tried that over 100 years with canines in particular and now the sickening results, sickening when viewed in the various forms of defects, etc, that are common-place in various dog breeds btw,.
It is not religion that first said NO to in-breeding, it was nature itself, religion only, as it has done with everything else, grabbed the idea and ran with it for its own ' benefit.'

@Triphid I was totally talking about Eugenics. Mind you, not advocating it. Well, Devil's Advocating, I suppose.

I would contend that man has been selectively breeding dogs for a lot longer than 100 years. More like 10,000. I've heard it theorized that the first "dogs" were wolves that followed hunter-gatherer humans and lived off their scraps much like urban raccoons. The more docile of these wolves were tolerated by said humans, and they became "successful" in an evolutionary context by ultimately forming a symbiotic relationship (you give them food, they tell you if a threat is near). Over time, these animals would grow more and more docile as all of the aggressive ones would have been killed or driven off, and these non-desireable traits would not become part of the "dog" gene pool. The results are hard to dispute. We've got a whole race of subservient creatures.

Now, targeted inbreeding for physical traits tends to yield undesirable results due to the fact that our genetic markers do not serve a single purpose... they express themselves in various disparate ways. It could be that within a limited gene pool a double-recessive target trait is only expressed when coupled with other non-desireable traits, but when introduced into a larger gene pool, some of these undesirable traits can be bred out while leaving the desirable one.

I feel like I sound like a Nazi. All of this is just trying to justify sister-fucking. FYI- I have no sisters, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. I do have an agressive, non-domesticated wolf in it, though.

@xylophonix Yes, I agree that humans have been selectively breeding dogs, in particular, for over 10,000 years however it has been since the arrival of the Pedigreed " Show" Dogs and breeding of such in the last hundred+ years that the genetic damage has become far more obvious, e.g. the British Bulldog which now has such a shortened nose that it finds it almost impossible to breathe and thus cannot cool its blood and lower its body temperature normally as do other dog breeds, it cannot mate without human intervention now since its hind quarters are far to weakened by specific breeding that the male cannot mount the female and the female cannot support the weight of the male anyway during mating.
That is just 2 example of the damage wrought by humans on the various ' breeds' of dogs, there are innumerable more examples that I could list but I'll leave those examples for others who may be concerned enough to research them for themselves.
If this is what we have done and are still doing to ' man's best friend,' then what are doing to man himself with, for example, the massive upward rise of things such as Invitro -fertilization using virtually anonymous Sperm Donors and laws supposedly protecting their identities from the children they produce?
How, I ask, can for example male child A ( born by such intervention or adoption know that female child A is NOT a blood and genetic close relative when they decide to wed and start a family?
The American idea of ' blood tests' before marriage appears to be a ' good' one BUT that only goes just so far and, in my opinion, smacks a bit of the Eugenics Ideology as well.
Are we not simply 'paving the road' to the eventual 'dumbing down' of our own species by so rapidly embracing things such as Invitro-fertilization without pausing to consider the future outcomes?

The goats I raise were feral for a couple hundred years, so essentially wild animals, until the 1980s & I assure you, they have absolutely NO qualms about incest. The dominant male goat will drive out only his male kids & happily mate with his daughters & the daughters he has by them.

@Carin Yes that does happen in numerous species but eventually the genetic pool becomes so polluted that all kinds of deformities, etc, begin to show up.

I'd still like to make sure they're of a legal age myself. Parents that allow this to happen underage seriously change the ability of the kids to have successful future relationships. Plus the instigator is often the elder and therefore it is still a control situation rather than loving. No/limited insight from children into the potential damage they are inflicting on their younger sibling.

@DuchessNyx Oh, I didn't know that, and so what's the legal situation with 2 minors? She didn't give ages.

@DuchessNyx because she didn't clarify age it is relevant. Thank you.

i just noticed, reading through the other comments, how many actually argue against via the genetics factor - when the original question clearly stated that it is not about incestuous breeding, but simply sex. for an agnostic community those responses are pretty biblical

@walklightly I love you lol. I honestly appreciate your recognition of my question. I was shocked and a little disappointed at some of the responses. The response that got the most likes accused me of supporting child rape, and I found that to be incredibly insulting. Again I appreciate your comment and support.

any time, @paul1967 - the support, i mean. you posed a brave question, & i'm taking my (non-existent) hat off to you, in other words, you've got my highest respect.

@walklightly You are my type of people. You understand the simple and the complex and you have my respect and friendship.

thank you, @paul1967, likewise with deep gratitude.

@MsAnneThrope No, i'm a intelligent human being who likes to make a considered response to questions but i'm not above calling you an ignorant vile judgemental twat and informing you that there is more brains in a bucket of shite than there is in your tiny cranium. Does that fit the bill for you, or would you like to shout some more? ?

@SimonCyrene look who's calling who vile. Bahaha!!

@MsAnneThrope another 'intelligent' response, ho hum ...

@SimonCyrene another "equally" intelligent response, so dum.

p.s. i do wonder what you mean by christian influence. the taboo dates back WELL before christianity!

@genessa Exactly, it goes back to the earliest times even before the evolution of mankind.

@Triphid earliest times, definitely. before the evolution of mankind... no such thing as "before" because evolution is a continuous process. perhaps you mean prehistorical times?

g

@genessa Hominids/Humans eventually evolved from a very early mammalian species that was around during the final decades or so of the Age of the Dinosaurs, that in turn slowly evolved into numerous other forms, one of which was the earliest primate type species and over more ages of time it too evolved and various "off-shoot" species evolved from there, one being the earliest hominids such Australopithecus and onwards until man ( Homo Sapiens) arrived upon the scene. Ergo, " before the Evolution of Mankind" is NOT incorrect.
Prehistoric is simply a broad terminology used to describe events etc, that occurred BEFORE written Historical Records were kept.
Yes, evolution is a continual process but it has a starting point for every living thing and for some it also has a finishing point whether by natural terrestrial, extra-terrestrial or, in the case of human actions and interventions, slow extinction events such as humans are bringing upon the life of animals etc, ( including our own future generations) on this planet.
Why then, since Incestuous mating, according to your comment only seems to have occurred in humans, out the thousands and thousands of fossils of earlier animal species, etc, have there not been the malformations/deformities found that are directly attributable to incestuous behavior amongst them?

@Triphid i didn't say incest started only with human beings, or that it is unique to human beings! gosh, why would i say that? my cat tries to hump his daughters all the time (good thing he's fixed). i didn't, and i wouldn't, say that. and i know what prehistoric means, thanks. i said incest taboos in humans predates written history. i don't know why or how, but think you thought i said the opposite of what i said! i might also note that there is no clear date when suddenly homo sapiens popped into being. it was a slow process like so much else, and mankind as we know it involves a little cross-breeding with neanderthals, who, i suspect, may have had the same taboos against incest. i believe there are other animals (not my kitties) that have such taboos, but they don't write them down lol

g

Really? Only breeding? I think you missed a meeting.

Why are you on this site? Please leave so answers which are just tripe no longer are interspersed with the answers that have meaning. Thanks.

You are within your right to be critical of the question. I don't judge you for your response, but I don't agree with it. I don't have sex for reproduction; I have sex for the enjoyment of having that bond with my partner. I hope that statement was you being hyperbolic. Otherwise, I feel as if you are missing an extraordinary aspect of life.

Wow, I’d completely forgotten of this site. I see this response struck some cords. Let me put this out there I was likely quite drunk at the time and even I have a hard time dismantling what I said now. Maybe I’ll check in here more frequently in the future. It does help me laugh like the Sacasimist society cya all around mayhap.

Thank you!

As long as those conditions are met, I would vote 'moral' in that individual case. But that doesn't let incest off the hook in general.

Take murder, rape (of an adult) and child sexual abuse. Each one considered more morally outrageous than the last, in modern Western society. While rape and child sexual abuse at least leave the victims with lives to rebuild, we literally treat them as worse than murder. Why?

I believe it's a deterrent. We big these things up into being the most atrocious of atrocities precisely because there are people out there right now who are facing the temptation to do these things, and we need them to know that doing them makes them bad, bad, bad, BAD people.

Sadly (for those rare cases of consenting incestuous adults with no history of grooming) incest needs to remain immoral and illegal precisely to stop these behaviours. You really can't have a question on the morality of incest without raising the genetic or child grooming issues.

No sorry, @BenMonk he doesn't actually state that the parties are adults, hence much of the conversation is clarifying this. But given that you assume they are adult I assume you are not against it? Me neither if that's the case, their choice.

@Benmonk

True with a caveat. There is no such thing as safe sex, even sterilizations fail. The question as phrased only says "safe sex" and there are plenty of supposed safe sex babies around. I believe some of us have an issue with such a cut and dried question to what is a very messy situation no matter how you cut it. Incest is not as simplistic as this question.

This isn't a judgement, but why is it revolting if it's between two consenting adults practicing safe sex?

@paul1967 I just used the fucking my mother filter but i sort of take your point but incest isn't usually about consent it's about exploitation

@ipdg77 oh and when it's that (exploitative) the answer is a no brainier. It's beyond discussing, it's vile and intensely damaging. Honestly I find it repulsive myself but I'm trying to determine if I've been indoctrinated into that feeling or if it has an evolutionary component to it. This question itself isn't designed to make that determination but I think it's a question worth considering.

@paul1967

I believe strongly there is a evolutionary reason why humans are biased against incest. Incest has been around millions of years before religion. If we had not evolved away from incest, humans could has easily died out long ago.

Well, having sex with animals and sacrificing children is just sick.

@ArthurPhillips Reading the bible or following it is just plain sick.

@NormCastle did you know that the Bible is the most read and printed book in the world.

Actually , the air was much , much more polluted , just a few years ago . Adding air cleaners to the automotive system AND having them routinely tested , has made dramatically cleaner air . While I think contraceptives would lesson the concern about genetically damaged children , there will be , "mistakes ," made , and there will be those who challenge the concept , and decide to have children anyhow . Even being careful , there are likely to be problems , because some children don't know who their sperm donars are , whether it was a matter of artificial insemination or whether it was a matter of adoption or even mistaken identification of the true father .

If you keep talking sense your gonna piss people off.

@Casey07 I know , My boss once told me , I shouldn't be a Federal employee , because I'm too logical . Keep wondering if that was as much of a comment about me . as it was about the government .

Yeah, the bible condones incest: Genesis 19:31-38:

30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.

@AtheistInNC
Well the bible has a high regard for women & other valuable livestock.

Many responses here intend to show a degree of irrationality that could possibly be traced back to religious roots. I think that many people what to be seen as righteous even within the group.

On the other hand, due to IVF, you might find that siblings engage in intercourse/interbreed without even knowing that they are siblings.

Or St. Helena

The issue on Pitcairn was not just incest, but paedophilia. It was mostly the young girls that were "broken in" by the elders. The girls were raped as had no way to provide informed consent. Whether they were related to their abusers, in my opinion, is not relevant to the morality of incest.

@Uncorrugated but this was not part of the question. The is about incest. The issue of pedophilia depends largely on the definition of a child.

@PontifexMarximus In many societies the "coming of age" for a young girl was around 12 yrs old when she was given to or married off to a much older man for bearing children and other things.

Being overly safe doesn't always work. Accidents happen in relationships such as pregnancy. King Tut was an offspring of his mother and father being brother and sister. The physical disability he endured from them. Need I say more...

@TweedleDee I get your point but I don't believe their relationship was an accident, nor was the pregnancy...

@TweedleDee That doesn't make it immoral. That makes it more discouraging. There are more disabled babies due to the alcholic and smoking behavior of mother. And with genetic engineering, it's possible in future to have healthy babies in incest relationships. So, even though it should be discouraged, if they truly want to be together, society should not bar anyone.

@AnandaKhan I do understand what you are trying to say. and like anything else in todays society, people would condemn it. Thank you for enlightening me on this subject. I can not be open to other peoples ideas if I am narrow minded.

This is far more serious as abuse and possibly rape,

@NormCastle yes norm...it was. It also lead to sex with my other brother whom I was very close with. We came from a fractured family in the late 60s. My mother cared more for her happiness than ours. Our father was distant at the time. But long story short...all is forgiven.
Good has come from it.
I'm very much a child advocate to this day and have a decent relationship with my brother.

@cheepsie I am pleased you have made that progress...your answer upset me to a point and then it was very well recovered. Sad there had to be something to forgive, but forgiving did dump the whole thing back on them...Love you for it.......<3

@NormCastle it did take a while....but by the time I was in my mid twenties...I felt ok about it.

One of the scariest almost rapes happened to me at an outdoor week long concert. A man followed me into a port o John but I used self defense methods I learned in a karate class and was able to get the hell out of there. Now that was awful ...it made me wonder how would I have dealt with an actual rape. Having to think about this and talk to daughters and young women, to teach them how to protect themselves just plain sucks. A woman always has to be on the look out for sexual violence whether it is verbal or otherwise. I don't understand it..iit's like being hunted. Those thoughts are always in my mind and it's really hard to be friendly to men. I still am afraid to look men in the eye when out in public. At my age, that's sad.

I guess I will always carry the above as scars...I don't think of it as baggage...just scars.

Wait, Lanister Pennsylvania? Is this an Amish joke, or what?

@Paul4747 Game of Thrones joke.

@Squirrel
Oh. Okay, I don't follow that.

That was classic!

god (fictional character of course) was just fine with lot's daughters getting him drunk and raping him in order to repopulate the world, as they saw it. then, this god was a funny character all around.

g

@genessa "God a funny character all round, " I'd say this Imaginary, Invisible Sky Daddy was more of a cross between a Narcissist, Psychopath, Socio-path, Ego-maniacal Egotistical Misogynist with attributes that the likes of Nero, Caligula, Hitler and the Nazis and even Pol-Pot lacked and would be jealous of.
Is it any wonder that Atheists are the most caring and humane of the human race with such a role model as this Judeo- Xtian-Islamic Supreme Being.

@Triphid again, i gently disagree only in part, because there are different gods even in the same bibles. they're all supposed to be the same guy but they can't be. some of them are dreadful and some are not. it doesn't matter because they're ALL fictional.

g

@genessa Earlier mankind literally INVENTED Gods/Goddesses, etc, in attempts to explain how things happened etc, and then these " supreme beings" developed the traits, both good and bad, of the purveyors of those beliefs.
As a Philosopher once said, " When creating a Deity, first one MUST it Invisible, Intangible, Unimpeachable then add the best and worst traits of those who both invent it and will worship it."
Hence, the Abrahamic God was invented as per the Old Testament one filled with Ire, Dictatorial behaviour and actions, Blood-lust, etc, etc, then altered somewhat to suit the times as the New Testament was created and written, i.e. a few new P.R. writers and voila, we have the deity that is worshipped these days, same deity, slightly mellowed down to suit the tastes, etc, of the more enlightened worshippers, nothing more, nothing less, just the same wolf, the same sheep's clothing just a small change of overall colour.

LOL well, I'm not sure I would call them creepy. Let me pose a scenario to see if you change your mind. You fall in love late in life say, 50ish and you marry this person, and you're now 60ish, and you discover the person you loved was your sibling that you had never met. Do you end it now because you know?

IDK.... This is a really weird conversation. I gave a quick answer to this poll because I have brothers and 1 little sister and this shit is too weird to think about. Paul1967 Im gonna guess you don't have close siblings or you do but you have exercised your mind in this way of thinking to where it doesnt disturb you. I can't do it. This is too weird LOL. But hey I tell everybody it don't matter what I think, do whateva dafuk you wanna do, I just like to put my opinions out there cause I can, haha.

I'm not trying to be combative but did you respond only to the title of the question or was this your response to the whole issue below the title?

You're not being combative, and yes I'm guilty of not fully reading the post. It's just that I know many good people whose lives were ruined due to incest, so it tends to put me in the red zone. I guess if you use protection, and want to have relations w/a relative, it's a person's individual choice, but you know, sometimes contraception fails.

I need to add, there ARE those people (and there seems to be quite a few) who are predisposed to incestuousness. Freud, Klein, Fairbairn, Winnicott, would say those people were "arrested" in their development and did not get past the pre-oedipal or the oedipal stage of childhood. ("The Primer of Object Relations" by David and Jill Scharff)