This question brings up an interesting realization that I had recently about theists. They determine their morality and actions based on a bunch of rules loosely (very loosely) derived from a bronze age storybook, not from an understanding of right and wrong. If Atheists don't use their rules, they don't think we can have morals, which is why they keep asking us for our set of rules. They just don't understand that morality relates to right and wrong, not to a set of rules, and they don't really have a definition of right and wrong beyond their rules.

I had fun in a xtian forum by asking theists for their definition of good and evil, and NOBODY could come up with one. Some people would say "god is good", to which I responded "and god nearly exterminated humanity, so should we measure our goodness by how many people we have killed?". They just can't conceive of actual morality.

Morality is societal relative. Morality exists before religion, and religion justifies it. Not the other way around. As the social mores changes as does morality and religious reason behind it.

It's so clear it's wrong, can't think of anything decent about it. We cannot do just anything we want. Sad if anyone thinks it's okay.

If you question whether or not incest his moral or immoral, imagine having intercourse with your parent and you tell me. Children are born into this world with absolutely zero social networks and rely exclusively on their parents to provide safety. to betray that and use them as breeding stock is simply disgusting.I don't give a s*** what your culture says.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Not something that I support.

Because no age parameters or relationships were given, I am going with immoral under the assumption that there is a significant age gap, disparate levels of education/power/wealth, or other inequalities that would put one party at a disadvantage. For example, a girl and her Father vs two 35 year old first cousins are vastly different scenarios.

Well...if you are looking at it from the biological perspective of reproduction, there is that risk of passing on genetically inherited flaws and afflictions (weak chins, poor vision, disabilities) so it may not be wise. On the other hand, if you don't have any genetic markers for health concerns you would strengthen your bloodline and could lead to a better, faster, stronger (depending on strengths) specimen. Kinda hard to get past the 'eww ick' factor. When you are your own aunt, things get weird. But you probably will get something better than socks and an autoharp cd for your birthday. I don't think that immoral or moral are really the best choices because morality generally is passed down through religious dogma. Better to say gross or not gross. Not easy to get out of the gross camp. If it were a social norm with which I had grown up I would likely feel differently.

If it is safe sex, as stated, and the two people are adults I see no problem. The issue of incest has been mostly due to religious restrictions and due to the fact that if children are born from the union of the two people certain genetic abnormalities are very possible. As long as there are no children from the union then who am I, and why would society, have anything to say about two people enjoying each other sexually. Interestingly, due to my upbringing, my emotions are telling me to take away what I have just written above, but my mind over rules and says that if two consenting adults choose to enjoy a sexual union without children, why not?

thats why there is health issues.We found a work around called contraception so its all good to sleep with mummy,hell why stop there we have the whole animal kingdom lets start doing them aswell.No contraception gives a 100% guarantee so its wrong.Just because we can does not mean we should.Muslims practice incest first cousins but it has been proven many of them ignore the rules and have to hide away or evan kill the end product..I don't think wild animals practice incest its probably just a human thing.we need to live by some standards i think,first comment so go easy on me guys and gals and all the other sexes out there

Stepping away from religion is easy for me but I am not an atheist. Please remember that my comment is strictly opinion based. On the subject of incest, I consider it immoral, there are so many people out there in the world for someone to find a mate. The fact that a family has a bond that we all respect and understand is something to take into account. Say a brother and sister commence in the sexual act together and become pregnant. should the abort the child because society will judge them, are they taking into account the possible problems that the child is going to grow up with? ie: my daddy uncle is sick and my aunty momma is mad cause family won't help them.

I love my family but to lay with them in the act of love is something that pulls into question one's sanity and the clarity of the situation when presented to them. personally, I could not do it because I am not attracted to my sisters that way.

Honestly,. I don't think morality is the issue here. Birth defects are. Personally I could care less if a brother bonks his sister, but if they breed it's going ot lead to some very serious problems...ones they probably can't afford that my taxes will have to take care of. I'm very much on the side of parents with disabled kids or children with birth defects except when those birth defects were knowingly done. I don't stand with parents who birthed a fetal alcohol baby, I don't stand with parents that brought crack babies into the world and I don't stand with iincestual couples who breed kids with birth defects. If you're family and want to f*ck, get fixed. Then you can do whatever you want.

I wasn't sure just how to answer this question, but after serious consideration, I can find no scientific reason why 2 consenting adults should not have safe sex.

I find this gross because i was raised to believe it is gross. People are taught from birth what is moral or immoral . There is no answer to this question because morals are derived from cultural and society upbringing. Incest occurs in the animal kingdom

Neither. Incest takes place in many societies and over 400 animal species. Is first cousin sex/married incest? Hundreds of societies do it. Best to avoid it in the immediate family for emotional reasons.

I have to say my brother sister and I were abused sexually by our much older uncle; so knowing that that is the most common occurrence of incest it is IMMORAL.

Having said that our DNA and genetic make up passes along our genes, and humans are susceptible to damaging genetic combinations which cannot be weeded out by stronger genetics when there is incest resulting in pregnancy. Wild animals display almost no signs of incestuous relations ships, unlike homosexuality.

If you were in an adult consensual sexual relationship with your sibling, would you be able to tell your best friend? Your parents? Talk about it with the girls over cocktails? Laugh about the queef you let loose after getting pounded all night by your BROTHER?! Man, I don't know about morals but I do know if you hide or lie about things, it's usually because you know it's not right.
I don't have brothers but have thought "if I had a brother and he was a hottie, would I ever find myself sexualizing him?" I can be a bit of a floozy! But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to introduce him as my new boyfriend at the office party. "Oh, tell us all how you met!"
"Mom brought him home from the hospital when I was 2."

I caught a friend of mine in Texas in the shower with his sister (both adults). He later just smiled and said "Incest is Best", all I could do was laugh and forget it. They were certainly enjoying themselves, I'll say that.

From a biological and evolutionary point of view, sex among close relatives is not advantageous because of the possibility of decreasing genetic diversity and increasing the chances of offspring having genetic disabilities (being homozygous for bad genes.) Boys and men normally have an instinct not to be sexually attracted to sisters if they were raised together.

More men will vote for moral than women. This question was probably brought to you by a male, which is why people are on here trying to hook up.

In this exact circumstance I'm going to have to go with moral. The only reason why is because it is a scenario pertaining to two consenting adults practicing safe sex. There's no real health issue, no taking advantage of one party or another and no exploitation that I see. And my personal view on sex in general is that if it's between two consenting adults then it's not really any of my business.

An alternative thought exercise would be if two siblings were in love and wanted to be with each other. They decide to take permanent precautions and get both sets of tubes tied and decide that if they want kids they would opt for adoption. Societal norms aside, would this be a morally acceptable situation?