I'll be going with "yes" on this one.
Anybody opposes this?

no.

Two people with similar genetics mating doesn't usually turn out good. And... It's just wrong. You're not supposed to love anyone in your family 'that way'.

I love the replies so far, especially the last

Legal, yes, recommended, no.

dylsupreme1 procreation and sexual activity are interlinked, but separate. The former is like drinking and smoking during pregnancy, the latter is like choking your self whilst (other censored stuff).

What people get up to in their own time is their call. When you bring kids in it gets messy. I would not want any organisation (governmental or otherwise) prescribing accepted behaviour for myself or others when there are no apparent victims. That is a slippery slope. Typically you start with something abhorrent to most and start circling in, until the sphere of acceptable behaviour is smaller and smaller.

No same same sex relations, no age gaps, no interracial relations, no ugly people with more attractive people....I don't like where it starts let alone where it ends.

Child rearing and sexual enterprise are separate and should be treated as such. Smoking and drinking whilst pregnant are far more prevalent in terms of birth defects, yet whilst these are faux pas they remain more acceptable than incestuous pregnancy.

Before I go on I just realised that a ridiculous topic title has caused me to inadvertently defend incest.

So mom and dad decide to be kinky one night and invite 19 year old son in to have sexual intercourse with mom while sister cleans up the mess, and thats okay?

Dude, the south would look like an excerpt from the hills have eyes if this was legal.

No no no no

Yes, what happens between two consenting adults is nobody's business. But incest... I don't see why anyone would want to do that to a relative. Sex should be between a guy and a girl, a guy and a guy, a girl and a girl etc. As long as they AREN'T related.

Quite frankly, do you think anyone would be able to handle incest being legalized, when they don't even want gays to have rights? Society isn't ready, so it's pointless.

I never said you have to like it. I just said that banning things you don't like doesn't end well. To be honest banning wouldn't stop it, just punish people who may otherwise be up[right citizens.


Your first sentence is perfectly true, the rest just doesn't follow.



I don't see why either...but if no one is harmed, and no deformed offspring occur then it is not for me to judge anymore than it is for me to judge any other relationship
Well that massively depends upon which particular society. For the most part, no, but I figured we were speaking hypothetically here. In a moral sense I don't see why not, in a practical sense I see your concerns, but I do not necessarily see their relevance.

Yes. You don't ban things you don't like. But this isn't like Marijuana or Alcohol, which pretty much everyone use. I don't think a lot of people see Incest in the way they see a nice glass of red wine, or a cold foamy bud light.


Gay sex and regular sex, between two non-related, consenting people, that are clean, has literally NO chance of causing any type of harm to anyone. Well, the fetus might be harmed, but as previously mentioned that's if the mother drinks or smokes during pregnancy, or does reckless things, it's not a result of the sex itself.

Not so much. There has been prohibition in the west, and there still is in parts of the world. Pot is illegal most places, even if it is tolerated such as in Holland... Also you wouldn't not have to go far to find people actively seeking to find both no matter where you live.



No, but nor do they see homosexuality in this light. Or heterosexuality for that matter. Some people would say it is as likely to cause eternal damnation...Plus we are not talking about a lot of people here, this was a hypothetical situation posed to the individual.


If it is consensual and protected, then yes, but the same applies elsewhere.

Perhaps not, but just there you have planted a rather large amount of responsibility on the mother, and none on the father
With protection however, drinking smoking and/or genetic incompatibility are moot issues. I never tried to defend incestuous procreation. That is a whole other issue. Assuming it does not result in child rearing what is the specific issue?