Not something that I support.

just will not have sex with my daughter

Ironically, in the Biblical worldview, incest is not only acceptable but is the very way in which our species has survived - twice. Adam and Eve, then Noah and his happy little family. Disregard the fact that such a situation is biologically impossible. Anyway, back to the real world.

Incest itself is neither moral nor immoral. It would be immoral for children to come from such a relationship, because inbred children have a very high chance of being born with a genetic disorder. However, incest itself is no more moral nor immoral than gay, lesbian, anal, oral sex or all the other kinky categories one can find on Pornhub.

Taboo & Both.

It's commonly not consensual and, therefore, immoral.

It's also common that separated siblings find each other. If you don't honestly know, how could anyone claim it to be immoral.

Unless the couple are twins; one will be older than the other, there are issues with consent, age (being a minor), and perhaps specific circumstances could make it acceptable, but not "moral".

Immoral if there's a kid because then he/she is screwed for life. Moral if they are consenting adults with no consequence.

As long as both are consenting adults then it isn't the business of anyone else. It might be distasteful, but not immoral.

I believe that if both parties are consenting and their intention isn't to have children, it is moral. Like other commenters are mentioning, incest can lead to birth defects and gentic mutations that would lower the quality of life for the offspring. If contraceptives or other methods are used, I see no reason why two relatives couldn't have a prosperous relationship.

It is immoral, because it messes up the best family dynamics. Imagine a wife or sibling think they did not get treated properly in a family setting.

An adult engaging in sex with his/her offspring is wrong, we all know the psychological effect of pedophilia and the high risk of genetic mutation.

It is immoral if it is in the context of pedophilia and or rape. If adults choose such a thing, the risk of genetic mutation from an offspring is too high. It is selfish and highly immoral to risk bringing a defective human being into a world that is difficult enough to navigate. If related adults want children there are plenty to choose from via adoption.

Well, sometimes safe sex is not safe, nothing is 100 percent

Game of Thrones is pure fantasy but it's rife with incest. I lean towards thinking religion swayed everyone towards believing what they chose you to believe. Aside from that apparently incest is relatively common throughout history. The deformity debate is moot because two unrelated people can create deformity as well but not necessarily with a higher degree of chance. Takeaway the religious aspect and the deformity aspect add in consensual agreement and you have two people willingly having sex. There is nothing immoral about it.

The act of "safe sex" between siblings can be problematic because there might me power relationships between them - but if they're in a relationship as equals, and if they're both old enough to give consent, I wouldn't see it as immoral/unethical.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Evolution has answered this question for you. End of.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.