As long as they avoid having genetically-incestuous children First of all, we must eliminate child abuse and rape from the picture. Kids can't consent, and rape is rape. We are talking here about consensual incest where both parties are legally adults. Incest love is no picnic. Everybody hates it and condemns anybody who falls in love with a relative, especially a first-order relative (father-daughter, mother-son, brother-sister, etc.) Cousins, genetic half-siblings, step-siblings, etc. Are another category and should be completely legal. The original legal objection was because the book of Leviticus forbade it in the Bible, but of course the incest taboo goes back before written history. The justification for the laws (beyond hellfire and damnation) is the likelihood of genetic anomalies in children who are the product of incest. It is a very real risk, and absolutely must be avoided. The answer is vasectomy. IF the brother will undergo vasectomy and provide proof to the authorities that he is indeed sterile, then the couple should be permitted to conduct their affair or to marry just like anybody else. They could still even have children, with artificial insemination and non-genetically related sperm.



Heterosexuals often find homosexual sex to have a significant "ick" factor too, and especially when it involves teenage boys or young men, but yet homosexuality has been decriminalized. One cannot help who one falls in love with. I say that the laws against incest should be repealed. There are only about 2.3% of the population who ever participate in incest of any kind anyway. That's about 7 million people in the U.S., more or less. Report Post

Yes, it should. As long as their is no reproduction involved, there is nothing wrong with consensual sex between family. They are not hurting anybody. I find it funny how homosexuality is legal yet incest is not. Incest is easy sex because you don't have to go out and find someone, it's convenient. Plus people who are single don't have to miss out on sex. Report Post

Lawrence v. Texas Ruled that Adults Have a Right to Consensual Sex in Their Private Home. In Lawrence v. Texas, the US Supreme Court overturned a previous ruling, and they deemed laws against homosexual sex (sodomy laws) as unconstitutional. While not all incest is homosexual, the same principle that affected that decision is at play here... If two adults who are related by blood or marriage decide to consent to a sexual act, it should be permitted so long as they do so within a private environment, and keep to otherwise legal activity.



Even previous senator Rick Santorum agrees with this logic, while he expressed distaste at the outcome of this case: "We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose.... And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.... It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution"



But that privacy DOES exist. And the supreme court ruled that adults have the right to privacy in their bedroom. Report Post

Consenting adults = victimless crime While I have no interest in having sex with any of my own family members, I don't see the harm in other adults engaging in what is otherwise legal sexual activity. I do find the idea of parents having sex with their adult children a bit borderline, as they have a certain level of power and domination over them, but cousins and siblings generally do not.



For this reason I don't see a problem with, for example, a brother and sister (or brother/brother, sister/sister) having sex for the physical enjoyment of it and expression of intimacy. We hug our siblings and kiss each other on the cheek all the time and no-one cares. Why shouldn't adult-age siblings who are very close be able to take that one (large) step further and express their sibling love for each other with sexual intimacy. Posted by: bjacobson83 Report Post

It's a victimless crime If both parties are consenting adults, and appropriate measures are taken to avoid pregnancy, l don't see the harm. The only caveat would be relationships where one person holds some authority over the other, such as a parent/child relationship. In the case of siblings or cousins, I feel that they are on the same level and therefore their relationship would not be inappropriate. Report Post

Sex does not equal children Basically - The people opposed all say "What about the children?" - Let's make it easy then. Don't confuse sex with procreation. Let people have consensual (Over 18) sex, with whomever they choose - and for incestuous relationships don't have children. Regardless of relationship, this would be the first step in lessening the fear mongers on the other side. Report Post

No to child abuse but yes to adult behavior As long as the parties are of consensual age, YES! If there is a child involved, NO! It's that simple. Many families are estranged throughout their lives because they cannot express themselves. This is another beautiful form of expression and as long as it's not forced; Live on and love on! Report Post

Legalize incest now! Why shouldn't two consenting adults be able to have sex with each other. It doesn't make sense that someone would be for same sex sex, but won't go for it if two people of the opposite gender want to have sex. It's up to the people having sex, If they want to and are mentally stable enough to have sex them who cares. It doesn't involve you so you shouldn't care. Report Post

Yes, yes, and yes. Consensual GSA couples should be able to pursue romantic and sexual relationships as they see fit. I am appalled at the number of people who demonize these couples and make it so difficult for them to live normally. The most common arguments against consensual incest is usually procreation and the fact that the relationship can be turbulent due to its secretive nature.



1. While incestuous couples who birth children are at a slightly higher risk than non-incestuous couples, the actual chance of a "birth-defect" happening are still very low. I do not have the source on my person at the moment, but I remember reading that a "defect" would have a higher chance appearing in a woman giving birth who is over 45. Not to mention those individuals who carry traits for various disorders and illnesses.



2. The secretive nature of consensual GSA couples is due to the fact that people unfairly...Nay, cruelly harass these individuals and put so much pressure on them (instead of minding their own business) that eventually, something has to give. People try every underhanded tactic they can to push their views own the said coupling, calling them a colorful variety of insults, bringing religion to the mix, playing on their sense of guilt and giving them skewed views on GSA reproduction.



In the end, people claim to know what's best for a complete stranger and that is just mind boggling to me. I cannot and WILL not EVER understand people who have their minds closed and think an individual in a GSA relationship should break it up...Or worse, IMPRISONED, for a love that is not only consensual, but beautiful. Love comes in all forms. We are not here to judge the lives of others and if we find ourselves doing such a thing, then that simply means we must pay more attention to our own lives. Report Post