Do 3rd cousins count?

Well... I voted "moral", as long it is between consenting individuals that are not in relation of legal guardianship/parent-child or other implying position of authority of one participant over the other.

• first - sexual act as such has no moral implications of any kind to me - I see it as a physical activity no different than eating, breathing, drinking, etc;
• second - the choice of a sexual partner is a matter lying purely in the personal domain of the individual. If something is immoral here this is the effort of third parties to meddle this deep in other people's personal affairs.
• third - as long as consent is present and the participants are not in any relationship of authority (parent-child for example) I would ommit the "adult" requirement based on the facts that: most such activities take place between consenting minors, without observable negative consequences (there are easily definable reasons for this); the legal definition of "minor" covers the period of puberty which is normally the most intense part of an individual's life in regard to sexual desires, due to the hormonal storms raging through one's body in this period;
  All of the above based on the strict assumption of a freewill consent - any form of violence, coercion, manipulation or other way to involve a person (regardless of age) in (not only) incestous sexual activity against their free will automatically should render the act utomatically both immoral and illegal.

In my early teens I had a friend who was having intercourse with his younger sister. It was a sex education class put on by her Gril Scout Troop leader that helped her understand what she was doing was not the norm, and she stopped it. So far as I can tell they both grew up to have normal productive lives, both were well educated. Interesting that she knew that I knew and has made it obvious she wants no contact with me, so there has to be some ongoing self concousness about it.

Personally I don't have anythingagainst the act of incest.. Quite frankly I find it to be none of my buisness what consenting adults do.. My only qualm against it is when offspring are produced..There are too many risk involved with the offspring from such a joining.. However as long as no kids get produced then I say fuck all the cousins and sisters n brothers ya want. Might not be my cup of tea and I don't understand it but who am I to judge.

In this country, in this current social climate, I'd say immoral...some other place, another time?...who knows. There sure seemed to be a whole lot of it in the bible...

There is no such thing as morality. It's only all about suicidal ethics and whatever state society happens to be in. Currently, I think, anything beyond a first cousin is allowed to be married in the US, so technically incest is legal between 2nd cousins etc. Back in the heyday of middle ages, you can only imagine what interesting relationship dynamics existed. Morality and immorality suppose the existence of a set of universal rules regarding behavior, and I think we all agree that's basically bullshit.

Morals are made up by people, so technically, it's considered to be immoral by society's standards. If we lived in a society that thought differently, then it would be moral. What I'm saying is that morality is subjective. I voted "moral" but really I'm saying it's neither.

According to the Christian bible, it must be. ADAM and EVE only had two sons, Cane and Able. Able was killed by Cane.
According to logic Eve must have been pretty busy procreating with Cane and Adam. Wish I had an Eve in my life! ?

I think that the general aversion to incest goes back well before Christianity, so it's not just based on a religious taboo. It also seems to be very rare among most higher animals, certainly the primates, although there are exceptions, and sexual curiosity (I.e. exploratory, rather than penetrative sex) often occurs in animal family groups.
When a female animal comes into heat, and emits pheromones, it seems that generally other siblings in the group are not attracted by those pheromones, so there's a biological restriction against it.
One of the main human objections to it is that we generally have a different sort of relationship with close relatives to the sort of relationship that leads to a 'normal' sexual attraction.
That's why the cases where siblings have been raised apart and then happen to meet, not knowing that they are related, and fall in love and have sex, are so interesting, and so hard to condemn. It basically goes back to my point that the relationship you have with the person that you know is your brother or sister, and that you were raised with, is not the sort of relationship; that usually leads to sex.
But, with all the caveats and qualifications that have been mentioned by the poster and others (safe, consensual, adult, etc), then there's no a priori reason why it should be wrong.

If they're consenting. that means they are adults (because minors cannot, by definition, consent to sex). If that's the case and there's no possibility of offspring, I really don't care, personally. None of my business.

In most (virtually all) contexts, it's immoral because it's harmful. One (or sometimes both) parties are too young to give informed consent and/or there's a dysfunctional power balance in place.

I have no issue in theory with, say, two adult siblings shacking up of their own free will. Yes there are genetic risks with any offspring, but not nearly so much as is often supposed and less than some of the genetic risks we generally don't second-guess in more conventional relationships. Yes, I have grave reservations about crossing certain lines even in adulthood, and wonder what younger dysfunction was present to open minds to this sort of relationship. But in that limited circumstance I don't see a clear harm in not prohibiting it.

I cannot see a parent / child coupling ever being harmless, even with an adult child. There, we're back to the psychological power dynamic imbalance again. Clear interpersonal boundaries are essential. Some configurations just aren't defensible or rationalizable, ever.

That guy sucked you in with a bullshit question. The god of Abraham, on more than one occasion created situations where incest was necessary for the human race to survive. I would turn the table and ask him to show anywhere that incest is promoted more than the "inspired word of god".

So, if we're talking about completely consensual sex between adults, such as siblings and even parental and ADULT offspring, it's not immoral at all. I don't have a sister, but I once lost a giirlfriend to her brother and thought that must be the perfect love ... brotherly/sisterly love combined with passionate sexual love. I also knew two boys in high school who allegedly got their first sexual experiences from their sisters. I'm a Cyrenaic hedonist and believe that ANY relationship between ANY two or more consenting adults, for whatever purpose - sex, procreation, companionship ... whether or not an exchange of money or goods is a part of that contract, is their business and not mine, the law's, or anyone else's. Even the most vehemently conservative extremists of every religion are as subject to DNA's draw to pseudo-procreative acts as anyone else. You can't escape it and nobody has ever given me a good reason to want to escape it.

Far be it from me to judge what 2 consenting adults do.

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?

I do not see it as being in the realm of moral choice.
Nature generally makes such unions less favored among a realm of choices.
To the extent that it does not, it is allowed.
Social norms generally amplify natural tendencies.
As I am adopted, I may have already had sex with or declined to have sex with a sibling. Nature does not care and mostly I do not either.

Unwise due to genetic concern s. Immoral because it generally involves a violation of trust or.misuse of power.

I think that it is a religious thing in general, not just a "Christian" thing. But being more of a spiritualist, I still think that somehow a sexual relationship between siblings of any combination is a bit creepy. Just my opinion.

NO if for no other reason than my brother has major cooties!

I don't believe that any relationship between two or more consenting adults is immoral. There is a story in the bible, after the fall of Sodom and Gomorah, Lot's daughters had children by their father and weren't punished by god. As long as nobody gets hurt, It's there business

Morals are subjective. To each their own. It's not my place to judge others, or their actions. I've always said, what two consenting adults do in private, is no business of mine.

Well that's an odd thing to include... I would say no sex is 100% "safe", assuming what's meant is avoiding both disease and pregnancy alike. Protections can fail and often enough do.

To me risking it with family is just not right. Even if it was limited to siblings, it just seems playing around with the possibility is nasty.

I believe we are psychologically preprogrammed not to engage in sex with people we are close to During certain formative years. Generally I think from age 7 to about 14. So really, brother and sister sex is gross but so is all sex (when done properly.) The difference is we have developed a mechanism that grosses us out at the thought of sex with certain people we have bonds with during a particular time period.

I just finished a book “The righteous mind” that discussed the origins of morality and used this example: an adult brother and sister decide to have sex, use double protection and never tell anyone. Is this immoral? Lots of people said yes, but couldn’t explain why. It doesn’t hurt anyone, they are adults, there is practically no chance of reproducing. It’s just yucky. There’s an evolutionary basis for our finding it yucky, that no longer applies, but we still have the same emotional reaction to it. We would prefer to have a rational explanation for why it’s wrong, but many people will go with their gut feeling even if they know it doesn’t make rational sense.

This is really a great question which must be viewed with an open mind. I never had a sister and do wonder sometimes if I, as a youngster could have " crossed the line. ". This is where ones conscience is the guiding force. There are some norms which one follows in order to retain self respect, for yourself and your vulnerable sister, I say don't ever disrespect your siblings.
Practically speaking, the chance of inbreeding defects is natures way of deciding against it.