LGBT News I don't agree with this....

Just because you think it's icky doesn't mean it shouldn't be talked about.

 

This isn't paedophilia, IcelandLover.

I'm in favour of letting people do what they want, assuming, of course, that informed consent has been given. And yes, that extends to siblings. I don't care about our 'image'. I care about doing what's right, and not restricting liberties for our own gain.

 

I think that precautions should be taken if two siblings were to do that so as to prevent a child from happening...the genetic problems with that would be enormous and unfair to the baby

If adequate protection was used, then...well I would be lying if I said it didn't make me feel a bit uncomfortable. But it would also be hypocritical of me to deny two consenting parties to do it, regardless of their relation. I have mixed feelings on this though...

 

As much as I personally think incest is gross, I don't see why it should be illegal. People may bring up things like bestiality and pedophilia, but I see the line being drawn at consenting adults. Anything between consenting adults should be allowed, and anything outside of that should be prohibited.

 

The problem is that incestuous couples should not have children. Legalizing incestuous acts might lead to more incestuous children being born, which isn't fair. So for that reason, I think it should stay illegal. Better avoid that whole thing altogether. Obviously if two siblings want to fool around behind closed doors, there's no stopping them, but I think it should still stay illegal, as far as the public sphere goes.

 

We don't sterilise people with genetic diseases, and nor should we. I don't agree with subjecting an unborn child to a genetic disease, but I believe it's the duty of the individual, not the state, to prevent this. When we start legislating on reproductive rights, we wander into some of the most dangerous waters.

 

This is a subject that gets people very hot under the collar, but if you do a basic internet search you will see that laws regarding incest vary considerably around the world. Who is to say that the prevailing attitude in our own country is right or wrong for all?

 

I'm fine with incest.

Obviously, I'd encourage couples who are capable of bearing biological children to practice caution if they have sex, but otherwise? Who the hell are they hurting?

However, I agree with the OP on how it shouldn't be included under the Gay Voices section, as it doesn't relate to being gay at all.

Really. Any consensual relationship is fine with me, as long as no one was coerced or manipulated into giving consent.

There was a topic on this earlier. If any are interested, here it is: http://emptyclosets.com/forum/chit-chat/148862-views-consensual-incest.html

 

If two consenting adults want to do that, then sure go ahead. What two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business.

 

Perhaps it should somehow be illegal for them to have children.

 

In that case, I would have to see if a society that legalizes incest has an increase in children with genetic diseases. If it truly doesn't affect it, then maybe there is no reason to keep incest illegal. However, that in itself is playing dangerous waters, experimenting with legalizing incest to see if there are more genetically diseased children.

I don't see why not allowing people to reproduce because of their genetic closeness is a problem. We don't let people reproduce if one of them is under the age of consent--I think this its just as valid of a reason.

 

We don't let people under age reproduce because we judge that they are not on average developed enough a) physically and b) mentally, as in sensible enough to consent.

We're not legalising it to test it. We're legalising it because we dont have a right to tell them not to if they are both consenting adults.

 

So consent is the only factor that should play into restricting reproduction? Why? Why can there not be another factor? (i.e. how closely related the two consenting adults are)?

 

I would not encourage incestuous couples to reproduce for the sake of the child(ren)*, but I have no moral objection if people want to be intimate with relatives. It harms no one as long as you don't count the people who get melodramatically grossed out at the thought.

*I would never go so far as to say inbreeding should be illegal though. We have enough suffering and stupidity in the world, but to suppress it in this manner is overbearing. I agree that it's the potential parents' responsibility to make that call.

 

Not every incestuous couple is going to have kids. I imagine legalizing incest would just allow them to have a peaceful relationship without worrying about punishment by law.

I may agree with a law that makes it illegal to have children in incestuous relationships, as it would discourage people from trying. Obviously, there are some who will still do it anyway and some who will get pregnant accidentally, but that's steering off topic.

---

This is true, and maybe making it illegal would be overbearing, but it would discourage it, at least.

---

However, an incestuous relationship by itself should not be illegal. It's not hurting anyone, that's what I believe.

There are also incestuous couples who are unable to bear children because they are of the same sex or are infertile, and probably other factors I'm unaware of.

 

Yes, it is the only factor. I've already said that I don't think it's right to voluntarily reproduce if you think there is a high risk of passing on a genetic disease, be this because of an incestuous relationship or an inherited disease, but I think the distinction between personal and public morality must be made here. Reproductive rights simply cannot, morally speaking, be under state control.