Should sex between consenting adult siblings be considered immoral?

Why are you even asking this question? Are you planning on having sex with one of your siblings?Probablysushi14

No It just interests me, as it is one of the only religious ideas, that even people who consider themselves completely independent of religion, completely atheist, still have a moral problem with ... I am an athiest and I think I would probably have a problem with it, if I knew someone who was having sex with their sister and that bothers me as there is no rational reason to.

Wait, so this is considered to be a "controversial" subject? People are actually wondering weather this is right or wrong? Everyone should know it's wrong. I thought society knew better.

Trickshot771

[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

yoshi-lnex

So HIV positive people should not be allowed to have sex at all, even using a condom, because their is a risk they may have a child who is born HIV positive? This is sounding incredibly fascistic.

Harsh reality; hiv is an incredibly deadly virus, it's very easily spread via body fluids, and the number infected is rising exponentially, I don't think it could be inforced, but if it could, it should be illegal for the infected to have sex.

HIV infected peoples are rising exponentially?

Umm...in what country do you live?

Please post some statistics.

Because I don't keep up on this (don't really have to, since I haven't had sex in god-knows-when), but last I heard HIV was mostly at least stabilisxed in most countries that aren't complete crapholes.

But in any case, now would be a good opportunity for some statistics. At what rate is HIV infection rising in your country, and what is the risk of contracting HIV from sexual intercourse (with a condom) with an HIV-infected woman?

Controversial topics FTW!

In modern cultures across the world, incest is regarded as unacceptable, even between consenting adults. However, whilst this is a belief held by the majority of people of all cultures, regardless of whether they are religious or not, it is a belief born out of religion. Marriages between siblings in various ancient civilizations were in fact fairly common. In the animal kingdom, animals tend to be not too picky about having sex with siblings! So is there any real argument that it is unnatural other than arguments based on religion? ... From an Athiest point of view, is there any sound rational reason to consider sexual relations between consenting siblings immoral?

Kid-Icarus-

In my country - Sweden - siblings can marry and have sex, but they have to seek medical permission to have kids. I support this.

If there is no signs of abuse or exploitation leading up to it then no. Naturally arising incestuous relationships don't normally occour in the family unit except in extenuating circumstances, and of the 3 I've heard of 2 have been siblings seperated through the adoption process and inadvertantly married and 1 was a knowing marriage between siblings who had been seperated. In all 3 cases the children were seperated from each other.

Of course there's the case of deformity if they choose to inbreed, and that I think has to be dependant on a consultation. It's unfair to produce children which may be deformed, on the other hand it also may be unfair to people with inheritable genetic diseases. I think they should be given an assesment of the odds and perhaps persuaded to surrogate egg/sperm or adoption as alternatives.

Depending on how far advanced molecular medicine progresses, it could be possible at some point to allow them to have children without causing any deformity.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.Infinite-Zr0

You're all saying this. But I'm not seeing much evidence

I don't understand how you can say that is enough reason to forbid it, I am not necessarily talking about pro-creating. I am talking about sexual relations and whether it is 'immoral' ... and also by the same argument you could say all people who are at a higher liklihood of having children with genetic defects should be banned from pro-creating ... rather fascististic no?

People with large genetic defects should be banned from having children.

I guess I want to start off by apologizing for any and all typos I make, I'm just writing on a whim at this point, because I'm mentally exhausted after studying for two finals I have tommorow.

Ok, well you don't need us to show you proof. It's easy to see that incestual births causes physical defects.
The most likley way to find it is through any anotmy books.
The most recent place I've seen something on this subject when in my Humanities 111 ****where we were going over ancient egypt. Just to explain, we (my lecture hall) saw slides of art which portrayed the pharohs. It is common knowledge in Ancient Civilization that royalty often had interfamily marraiges. (If you don't know that then you are too young or too uneducated for this discussion). Well anyway, many of the pieces of art showed male pharohs with breasts and slender figures, basically hermaphrodites. And the leading and most accepted reason for this is because of pharohs having children with their cousins and sometimes sisters. blah blah blah I'm done I guess

[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

Controversial topics FTW!

In modern cultures across the world, incest is regarded as unacceptable, even between consenting adults. However, whilst this is a belief held by the majority of people of all cultures, regardless of whether they are religious or not, it is a belief born out of religion. Marriages between siblings in various ancient civilizations were in fact fairly common. In the animal kingdom, animals tend to be not too picky about having sex with siblings! So is there any real argument that it is unnatural other than arguments based on religion? ... From an Athiest point of view, is there any sound rational reason to consider sexual relations between consenting siblings immoral?

Banestyrelsen

In my country - Sweden - siblings can marry and have sex, but they have to seek medical permission to have kids. I support this.

Thats very interesting! That is very forward thinking indeed. It is hard to get past taboos like this and think about it rationally. But I think that is a rational policy on the issue.

One: Have your or are you planning to have sex with a sibling of yours?

Two: It is immoral because sex between animals is for reproducing offsprings, to have their genetics go on in life after they die. It is not for basic pleasure. That is the reason why animals have sex: to reproduce. Furthermore, with sex, you have a likely chance to reproduce an offspring, which gives you more of a chance to have a child with genetic defects, even being a hermaphrodite, if you have sex with a sibling, cousin, etc.

Three: Someone who has HIV having sex with a person does not go with incest, unless the person with the HIV having sex with the other person is a sibling of theirs, which then goes with the topic of incest; however, since it does not, it has nothing to do with your topic you have created. You asked if it's immoral if there was incest--you never asked whether an HIV infected person having sex was immoral.

ayanami_rei

Two: It is immoral because sex between animals is for reproducing offsprings, to have their genetics go on in life after they die. It is not for basic pleasure.ayanami_rei

So you are saying sex for pleasure is immoral? That is some statement! ... I'll leave you to work out why the issue of HIV was relevant ;) 

ya know what, screw it, i say everyone should just go down on their sister.

hahahahahaha

Are there people out there that actually think incest is ok? 

Are there people out there that actually think incest is ok? 

Infinite-Zr0

the first part of your point 2 would make you against gays.  as long as you understand that i have no problem with your commentCrucifier

Are there people out there that actually think incest is ok?

Infinite-Zr0

From a purely rational perspective, yes, if it is between two consenting adults ... though I admit if I was ever to come across such a relationship, I would probably find it very hard to accept.

[QUOTE="ayanami_rei"]

Two: It is immoral because sex between animals is for reproducing offsprings, to have their genetics go on in life after they die. It is not for basic pleasure.Kid-Icarus-

So you are saying sex for pleasure is immoral? That is some statement! ... I'll leave you to work out why the issue of HIV was relevant ;) 

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]It's wrong becouse it produces children with genetic problems.Kid-Icarus-

Proof? This is something which is still debated

Nobody worth their salt debates that. It's like saying that the Earth being round is debatable, because some people still believe the Earth is flat.

"Genetically, unfavorable recessive mutations are always entering into the
population, every generation.  These are not immediately selected out because,
being recessive, they do not express themselves unless the bearer receives the
same deleterious recessive from each parent.  If the recessive is matched with a
healthy dominant, the individual bearer is fine.  If the recessive is matched
with the same recessive from the other parent, the offspring expresses the
unfavorable trait, and hence may die, or be functionally impaired.  So, whether
a child is injured by being homozygous for a given deleterious recessive is a
function of the probability that both parents have the same recessive gene.

The probability that both parents will have the same rare harmful recessive is
low (e.g., 1 in 1000 x 1 in 1000) unless they are related to each other.  To be
related means they share genes in common from a recent common ancestor.  When
close relatives mate, the probability that the resulting children will get
paired sets of deleterious recessives jumps enormously.  For example, if a
lethal recessive exists in the population with a frequency of 1 in 1000, the
probability an individual who gets this gene from one parent will also get it
from the other is 1 in 1000.  If, on the other hand, a father has the recessive,
there is a 1 in 4 chance that it will pass to both his son and his daughter.  If
the son and daughter then mate and produce a child, the probability that they
will then both pass this gene to the child is again 1 in 4 (or a total
probability of being homozygous for this recessive of 1 in 16)."

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/tooby/****s/anth7/incest.htm

people use arguments against incest couples that they disagree with for gays.. hmm.  come up with a good argument against

1.  a sibling couple that didnt have kids (birth control)

and 2.  cannot be applied to gays

then you have yourself an argument. until then, not so much.

[QUOTE="Infinite-Zr0"]

Are there people out there that actually think incest is ok?

Kid-Icarus-

From a purely rational perspective, yes, if it is between two consenting adults ... though I admit if I was ever to come across such a relationship, I would probably find it very hard to accept.

I'm mainly asking about people who don't participate in interfamily relationships and the occasional person with a fetish.

people use arguments against incest couples that they disagree with for gays.. hmm.  come up with a good argument against

1.  a sibling couple that didnt have kids (birth control)

and 2.  cannot be applied to gays

then you have yourself an argument. until then, not so much.

Crucifier

[QUOTE="Crucifier"]

people use arguments against incest couples that they disagree with for gays.. hmm.  come up with a good argument against

1.  a sibling couple that didnt have kids (birth control)

and 2.  cannot be applied to gays

then you have yourself an argument. until then, not so much.

ayanami_rei

[QUOTE="blooddemon666"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.Kid-Icarus-

And also is that a sound or rational reason to consider it immoral. Do we consider it immoral for people suffering from dwarfism to procreate for example?

Yes but the point is they are at a much higher risk of having children with dwarfism. Not all siblings who procreate have children with genetic defects either.

Yes, but dwarfism is just one genetic mutation. There are many recessive traits, and a child born of incest has an abnormally high chance of genetic mutation, because the genes match too closesly. If one parent has a recessive trait, a normal child will receive that trait 1 out of 1000 times. A child born of incest will receive that trait 1 out of 16 times. And that chance is increased for every single recessive trait that the relatives share.

people use arguments against incest couples that they disagree with for gays.. hmm. come up with a good argument against

1. a sibling couple that didnt have kids (birth control)

and 2. cannot be applied to gays

then you have yourself an argument. until then, not so much.

Crucifier

[QUOTE="Crucifier"]

people use arguments against incest couples that they disagree with for gays.. hmm. come up with a good argument against

1. a sibling couple that didnt have kids (birth control)

and 2. cannot be applied to gays

then you have yourself an argument. until then, not so much.

ayanami_rei

Known often as the catastrophy of the condome break
Most of us(who has an active social life) probably know someone or know of someone who had one.

[QUOTE="Crucifier"]

people use arguments against incest couples that they disagree with for gays.. hmm. come up with a good argument against

1. a sibling couple that didnt have kids (birth control)

and 2. cannot be applied to gays

then you have yourself an argument. until then, not so much.

ayanami_rei

Known often as the catastrophy of the condome break
Most of us(who has an active social life) probably know someone or know of someone who had one.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]It's wrong becouse it produces children with genetic problems.Kid-Icarus-

Proof? This is something which is still debated 

Wow./...... Inbreeding doubles your risk of all genetic defects.....

[QUOTE="ayanami_rei"][QUOTE="Crucifier"]

people use arguments against incest couples that they disagree with for gays.. hmm.  come up with a good argument against

1.  a sibling couple that didnt have kids (birth control)

and 2.  cannot be applied to gays

then you have yourself an argument. until then, not so much.

Crucifier

A lot of work just to have sex with your sister...

[QUOTE="Crucifier"]

people use arguments against incest couples that they disagree with for gays.. hmm. come up with a good argument against

1. a sibling couple that didnt have kids (birth control)

and 2. cannot be applied to gays

then you have yourself an argument. until then, not so much.

blooddemon666

[QUOTE="Crucifier"]

people use arguments against incest couples that they disagree with for gays.. hmm. come up with a good argument against

1. a sibling couple that didnt have kids (birth control)

and 2. cannot be applied to gays

then you have yourself an argument. until then, not so much.

blooddemon666

How can a homosexual couple have a biological child? :|

[QUOTE="Crucifier"][QUOTE="ayanami_rei"][QUOTE="Crucifier"]

people use arguments against incest couples that they disagree with for gays.. hmm.  come up with a good argument against

1.  a sibling couple that didnt have kids (birth control)

and 2.  cannot be applied to gays

then you have yourself an argument. until then, not so much.

reservoir_doggy

A lot of work just to have sex with your sister...

Well, if you won't accept the general idea that in almost all society it is taught as wrong, and that it is against the law, and that nature and evolution teaches us that it's wrong by evidence of deformities, then I really can't think of any other argument that you would agree with.

Go ahead.  Live fast, die young, make some room for the rest of us. 

[QUOTE="blooddemon666"][QUOTE="Crucifier"]

people use arguments against incest couples that they disagree with for gays.. hmm. come up with a good argument against

1. a sibling couple that didnt have kids (birth control)

and 2. cannot be applied to gays

then you have yourself an argument. until then, not so much.

Trickshot771

How can a homosexual couple have a biological child? :|

incest is mostly taboo, but most of the things you hear about it are highly exaggerated.  First off depending on the genes of the two siblings and the gene history of the family having a child out of incest doesn't really have that high of risk of birht defects (I think it's like a 5% increase with direct siblings, and goes down the further apart the genetic tie is but I'll have to look it up).  The problem is when incest becomes a regular tradition from generation to generation then the risks increase with each generation.

Incest is really more of a taboo than a moral issue, like scat, S&M, and probably beastiality it's seen as something sexual devients enjoy.  Not that I'm defending any of these actions

Well, if you won't accept the general idea that in almost all society it is taught as wrong, and that it is against the law, and that nature and evolution teaches us that it's wrong by evidence of deformities, then I really can't think of any other argument that you would agree with.

Go ahead.  Live fast, die young, make some room for the rest of us. 

guynamedbilly

[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.blooddemon666

And also is that a sound or rational reason to consider it immoral. Do we consider it immoral for people suffering from dwarfism to procreate for example?

Yes but the point is they are at a much higher risk of having children with dwarfism. Not all siblings who procreate have children with genetic defects either.

Correct me if I'm wrong. 

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]

Well, if you won't accept the general idea that in almost all society it is taught as wrong, and that it is against the law, and that nature and evolution teaches us that it's wrong by evidence of deformities, then I really can't think of any other argument that you would agree with.

Go ahead. Live fast, die young, make some room for the rest of us.

Crucifier

If it is through marriage, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual, while it would most likely be ackward for the family, I do not see any logical reason why it should be consider to be "immoral." The part about them being family would purely be through means of label, and not that of DNA or physical means and therefore, the risk, is no different.

If it is through means blood, along with being of homosexual act, as long as tradional homosexuality is acceptable, I do not see why it should be. Socially awkward or not, the risk is the same.

On the other hand, if we are talking about heterosexual relations of the incest topic, unless one or both of the partners was willing to be "fixed", I do not see how it could be viewed as being acceptable issue. Birth control, nor condoms, to be simple, are not 100% effective. There is always chance that woman could become pregnant and needless to say, regardless of the debate on the exact statics, the simple matter of the fact is that baby of incest has greater chance of having birth defects than that of a "normal" baby. I mean, honestly, how is that fair to the baby?

[QUOTE="blooddemon666"]I think its wrong because if the two were to have offspring, there would be a very large chance that something would be wrong with the child.BEAN_LARD_MULCH