INCEST

[Catholic_Lady]

[Regina]

Seems like everyone is avoiding being "the first one" so I'm just gonna say what I think.

I see it as something that doesn't affect me. Personally, I find the thought gross, but that's why I'm not doing it. However, because it doesn't affect me I don't think it should be illegal.

I say "don't think it should be illegal" rather than "it should be legal" because I still think it shouldn't be encouraged.

[abaris]

Seems like everyone is avoiding being "the first one" so I'm just gonna say what I think.

I see it as something that doesn't affect me. Personally, I find the thought gross, but that's why I'm not doing it. However, because it doesn't affect me I don't think it should be illegal.

I say "don't think it should be illegal" rather than "it should be legal" because I still think it shouldn't be encouraged.

Exactly my opinion.

[Minimalist]

No.  Because the biology indicates a serious increase in the rate of birth defects.

I realize this position would de-populate large parts of Arkansas and West Virginia.

[Iroscato]

Sure, let adults do as they wish, as long as it doesn't harm anyone.
If it's good enough for Adam and Eve (not to mention Noah and Co...)

[SteelCurtain]

When the only counter argument is "eww gross," I always say if they are two consenting adults, it's none of my business.

I have the same reaction to poop play. I don't like it, don't want any part of it, disgusts me. But if two grown up people want to do it, they should not be hampered by the law.

[Tiberius]

I voted A (Yes, with no restrictions) because I don't believe the government should restrict two consenting adults from doing something which is victimless, or which only harms the two participants themselves.

The act of marriage itself has nothing to do with bearing children, so citing that as a reason for prohibiting it is the exact same line of reasoning that bigots used against gay marriage (and is invalid).

Now, whether there should be separate restrictions on siblings from procreating is an entirely separate issue, and should be treated as such, because it has the potential to harm another person (the child). However, saying that, prohibiting people from procreation because their child may be harmed is a slippery slope; should we for instance prohibit two people with a deadly genetic disorder from procreating, since their child will in all likelihood also inherit the condition? It's a difficult question and one that needs proper thought before answering (a bit like my position on abortion).

The question of marriage however is easier to answer. Yes, absolutely, with no restrictions.

[Tiberius]

No.  Because the biology indicates a serious increase in the rate of birth defects.

But marriage isn't about procreation Min, and in fact I'm sure you've argued against this type of argument in the past when it comes to gay marriage (though I may be wrong, but most pro gay marriage people on these forums have).

Why does the argument work for gay people but not for siblings?

[FreeTony]

Can't see a problem with two consenting adults doing what they want.

In terms of children, you open up a complete minefield when you start talking about birth defects. If you don't allow siblings to have children because of potential problems, do you allow disabled people or even those with harmful genetic traits that are passed down to have kids? I wouldn't hold a position either way.

[Minimalist]