I would first like to clarify the definition of incest (for the purpose of this thread)

Incest is defined as a relationship between two individuals of blood relations (and for the purpose of this topic) who are of mature age and are consenting in the relationship, whether it be sexual or not. Edit:{I am defining incest (for the purpose of this topic) as a loving relationship that goes beyond the normal bounds of brother-sister love.} (Grammar question: Is it "whether it be sexual" or "whether it is sexual" in that last bit, or are they interchangeable? I felt the "be" gave it a sort of formality and professionalism)

This topic was spawned from a shout-box debate on about March 21, 2010 10:00-11:00 EST.

Personally, I find that incest is something that I do not enjoy the thought of, but I would be accepting of it the same way I would be homosexual relationships (This is to remain about incest, do not stray as to talk about homosexuality, pedophilia, or any other more/less related topic). I feel that it really isn't in the Governments' rights to decide that two individuals can or cannot marry, because, first of all, the title of marriage is arbitrary in that people will go forth and do as they please with whomever they want, but, on the other hand, children produced from incestuous relations have defects more frequently than those who do not and slow down our society as a whole. What I have shown is a comparison of the disadvantages to a society, but the bonuses given to the public (or a small minority of it).

Discuss please.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 22 2010, 3:56 am by TiKels.

As long as they do not produce a child, I use the same stance I use on all relationships:
Love is blind.

Down with the creepies. Societal standards are there for a reason; any relationship like that can eventually lead to a child, even while there's no child, it's wrong, and stop being creepy.

[deleted]

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2018, 5:45 am by DavidJCobb.

In view of this...NO.

If it is not sexual, wouldn't it be just a typical familial relationship?

(write smaller sentences, I copied that whole sentence for one idea and ended up copying half the paragraph ... ;o)
This shouldn't be an issue. Modern medicine as made it possible for people to live and cope with genetic, environmental, or whatever defects... And we're definitely not slowing down ... instead we are going backwards.
More to your point, it has been my understanding that these defects are more apparent after repeated inbreeding, not necessarily after one generation.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 22 2010, 3:54 am by FaRTy1billion.

Hugs/kissing/groping/romantic love all != sex.

Sex =Marriage (Or whatever you want to call it for incest)
I suppose you really can't have marriage without sex, but it's sort of like the whole "You can have multiple wives only if you can love them all equally" which is in itself impossible. Remember, I am defining incest (for the purpose of this topic) as a loving relationship that goes beyond the normal bounds of brother-sister love.

Hugging and kissing is in familial relationships, though not romantic hugging and kissing ... Your list is too big. ;o

@TiKels: Would you say like making out? Not quite sexual, but more than 'brotherly love'.

Read my post.


I think I'm going to put that also on the first post for clarity.

My post was in response to the one before yours , which also in response to my first post. >.>
And yes, that would help clear up the vagueness that is present. ;o


... And for an actual post that states my opinion on it...
I think it's a bit weird.. but if I knew someone who was like "I'm totally dating my sister!", I'd probably make a little joke which would be followed by them saying "No, seriously." I'd then just be like "Oh? That's fun." and probably not care all that much.
I would go as far as to say it is totally acceptable, but I don't have any problems with it.

I have no interest in (attraction to) any people I don't already know. I've noticed that I show greatest attraction to people that I've known the longest, the greatest typically being people I went to elementary school with. >.>

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Mar 22 2010, 4:08 am by FaRTy1billion.

Being infatuated with a brother or sister is socially and logically unacceptable. I don't consider myself a judgmental or conservative individual at all, but that is weeirdd... And unfair to the child if there is one. Please control your emotions.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 22 2010, 4:02 am by Madroc.

Honestly madroc, in a topic such as this, where the topic is over a generally accepted to be disapproved group, saying what you have just said would be seen as the norm, although you provided nothing for the topic at all in terms of reasoning, defeating the purpose of your post other than to bump/show who believes what.

It hadn't been said so simply yet, so I thought I would.

Oh God oh god oh god...
I'm saying no sexual relationship.... love as a cousin or family is orright... or as a really close friend... of course, i can go into all sorts of reasoning.. but generally.. no.

Hehe... good point I suppose. Sometimes, I suppose, that isn't always a bad thing.

Acceptable even with childbirth (I am quite disappointed for being the first the poll this)
There have been cases where they were separated when they were young then later in life found each other.
(But I think it is unacceptable if it was between an adult and children)

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 22 2010, 5:29 am by MasterJohnny.

Quote from TiKels

Sex =Marriage

Damn straight you crossed that out.

I'm actually somewhat unsure as to how I feel about this. As a personal matter, I am not attracted to anyone I have close blood relations to, but I really don't know what the morality in it is.

This is interesting because it relates to an interesting issue I recently studied in a class about moral philosophy. Consider the following situation:

James and Emily are brother and sister and are on a family vacation to Hawaii. They have always been somewhat close, but one night they are out on the beach alone and decide to go a little further. They have sex, and it is something they find mutually enjoyable and agree to. Have they done anything morally wrong? Why or why not?

The notable question in morality is where is the moral judgment founded here? We frequently attempt to claim our morals are based on logic - many philosophers from ancient times to today claim so - so is there a logical explanation?

I'll leave this one out there.

(P.S. On the grammar note, I believe "whether it were sexual" would actually be correct, but the formal use of the subjunctive mood and indirect discourse has fallen out of use, so "whether it is sexual" is also considered correct.)

I agree with Excalibur here.
"more", but not (of course, with the same "it's my understanding" qualifier) "only". It gets into a matter of what one considers to be the threshold of allowable factors of increased risk of problem for offspring/others.