Every mother and son should have the right to pursue the pleasure of incestuous love without fearing social exclusion or legal persecution. Incest, like any other sexual act, ought to be performed between consenting adults otherwise it is capable of negatively affecting the child.

Mother-son incest today in seen everywhere in the world as a law-breaking act with devastating consequences for the son-lover. Critics of incest tend to focus on the risks of producing handicapped descendants and the potential traumatising effects on minor children. In short incest is portrayed as something inherently wrong with no good coming out of it.

Mother-son incest is, however, in itself a good thing. It has been widely reported as a frequent practice in many cultures around the world and is also extensively present in the western world. From ancient Greece and Egypt to Aboriginal societies, to modern India and Japan, mother-son incest is associated with notions such as affection, love and sexual gratification. Indeed, nothing can be more satisfying for a son than the passionate breath of his own mother during sex. Nothing can be offer a mother greater happiness than opening herself to the lovemaking of her own son.

Mother-son incest, moreover, involves more than just physical pleasure. Sharing a sexual passion for a close person can be a wonderful thing, especially if that person is one that you trust and care about more than anyone in the world. Mother-son incest means making love to someone with whom you have shared much of your life and for whom you endorse many feelings.

A mother is the most caring and loving person in a child's life. The mother patiently raises a kid and endures all types of situations to ensure its upbringing. For the greater part of her son's life, the mother gets to see and touch his body but abstains from the pleasures that this body holds for her. It is, therefore, natural to expect that one day she will demand her undeniable right over her son and sleep with him.

For a son, the mother is the closest adult woman in his life and the only one he will ever truly love. The son has the chance to observe her, he sees her naked around the house but can only imagine what her skin would feel like next to his. The son will eventually find other female companions during his adolescence while it is in fact his mother that he desires most. One day the son will realise that only in his mother's body will he ever find true happiness.

In all, mother-son incest is a right to pure love, as valid as any other right that previous generations fought for. The normal course of nature dictates that mother and son eventually will find each other and become one as they always wanted. 'Incest' must be seen for what it is: a beautiful word, encapsulating the highest form of love.

Incest, however, comes with risks. Medical reports show that children products of incest stand a slightly higher chance of suffering from handicaps and poor health. Although, this chance remains very low, for the above reason incestuous love should not produce children. Modern methods of contraception today are available to ensure today that a mother and her son can enjoy their love without negative consequences.

Another plausible risk of incest is the child's under-age abuse and the confusion of maternal role. It is often suggested by psychiatrists that under-aged children, if used for sex by an adult, can become traumatised. Moreover, if the abuser is the mother this can lead to confusion as to the mother's role and have a negative effect on the child's upbringing. For this reason incest should be performed only between consenting adults, who have the mental capacity to give consent and when the child's education is complete. There is no reason why incest should be different to any other type of relationship.

Incest, if the mother is still married, may also involve cheating the father. In this case, cheating your husband with your child is just as blameworthy as cheating on him with any other person. A mother should be single to have sex with her son. In many cases the father is absent because of divorce or death. Otherwise a mother should seek the separation from the father so she can maintain a permanent relationship with the child, until one of the two ends the relationship when she may return to the father.

Finally, a question relating mother son incest is whether participants should be able to get married. If a mother-son relation fulfils all the above conditions, namely, does not produce children, is performed between adults and does not involve cheating, then there is nothing stopping the legal union mother marrying her son. Every mother and every son should be able to seal their love by marriage.

If we are talking about medical reasons to not allow incest, I point out that generally people within the same family will carry the same recessive genes that cause deformities, illnesses, and in some cases sterility. Other than that, Just because something is accepted more doesn't mean that it is right. It is unreasonable to apply the word enlightened to these views. Incest is not a social construction, but religious. It pertained to sister/brother, mother/son, father/daughter, and interaction between some in-law relations.

Those who seek to dismiss the right of those who practise incest often use the argument that it is unnatural or against human nature. In this regard, refraining from sex or using contraception could be regarded in a similar way, yet very few liberal-minded people would wish to ban contraception or to make abstinence illegal. To show the absurdity of such an argument, one could also regard the wearing of clothes or the use of cars 'unnatural' and 'against human nature'. It is not enough to say that incest is against nature. At the very least, the idea of human 'nature' should be properly defined so that we can all make sure we are arguing the same subject. Nature is not a person, it is personified by people, and that does not give them the right to impose upon it their personal prejudices so that they can claim them as innate human traits.

In small populations, as long as children born with heritable birth defects die before they reproduce, the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population; over time the gene pool will be healthier. Now, the part about the death of defective offspring is a little too ruthless for our modern society, but it should be pointed out that the term "ruthless" could easily be replaced with the terms of "nature". In fact, interbreeding is not only completely "natural" but even necessary for the growth of populations.

It could be argued that homosexuality is more "unnatural" than incest. Thus, if you feel homosexuality should be lawful, than you cannot think otherwise of incest on this component of the debate.

It is more natural not to procreate at all than to procreate and produce a child that is unhealthy, so it is NOT just as unnatural to be abstinent or to practice safe sex.

Surely the fact that a child would be deformed as a result of an incestuous relationship is indicative that it is inherently unnatural.

To what extent are we trying to redefine what is inherently abnormal in order to label ourselves a 'progressive' species? Cultural allowances should reflect cultural attitudes and prevailing moral codes. To permit something on the presumption that it is someone's 'right', regardless of the social and physical consequences, is inherently shallow.

You seem to be using the word natural in a sense that would only be relevent to all animal spicies as a whole.i.e. a dog would not naturally refrain from sex, a camel would not naturally wear a condom, and anteater would not naturally wear chainmail. However, we are different from other species in that we know how procreation works and what we can do to strengthen our species. That is why we are instictively (or naturally) disinterested in our siblings. Sociology is the study of human nature, but I doubt that you will find any definitive answer on human behaviour.

At no point do these arguments condone or accept adult-child incest or non-consensual interfamilial sexual relationships. These arguments exclusively regard consenting adults, therefore should NOT be confused with any other type of incestuous relationship.

Actual abuse or rape as a result of not having consent from both people should always be punished. Abuse would never be legalised, whether it occurred between two adults or an older adult and a teenager. Incest would only be legal if the sexual relationship were consensual.

Arguing that legalizing consensual incest could/would lead to abuses is like arguing against knife ownership because it could/would lead to abuses. Undoubtedly, freedoms can always result in abuses, but you cannot take away these rights from people on that basis alone. And the suffering that a victim of incest may potentially suffer in legal years has its counterpart in the prohibition of incest, including mature adults that are stripped of their freedom by imprisonment for such acts and shunned by society. Parents home school children. It is the time for sexual education courses. Parents explain to their children what deseases can accur with unprotected sex. The children are afraid to trust anyone else outside the family and consent the parent for activities and learnings of sex. The parent explains the sexual part of the learning and agrees to performing activities with the child so they get the experience. The child likes the safe relationship and trusts no other person, yet still wants sexual encounters with the parent. Can this be confused as abuse with the child when the child has no trust of safe sex with any other person?

If it were legalised at the same age as other sexual acts (i.e., in Britain, 16 or 18) then it still could lead to abuse as adults in a family could abuse a teenager and call it 'legal'. Also, in the case of the Fritzl family in Austria, the father abused his daughter since childhood, and raped her multiple times. Yet she was, for most of her time in imprisonment, she was over the age of consent. Legalising incest would lead to more tragic and horrific cases like Elisabeth Fritzl, who has missed out on living her life. Her father, if incest were legal, could claim that the sex was consensual, and also, she may have developed Stockholm syndrome, in which the captive 'prisoner' becomes attached to the captor.

If incestuous marriage was legalised, you could marry a sick relative for the purpose of sharing health benefits that would normally go to your spouse.

The legalisation of adult incest does not mean that marriage between close relatives would also become legal. Such a move would totally undermine the values of the traditional family, even more than merely protecting incestuous couples from prosecution.

Even if this step were to be taken, exploiting the institution of marriage is still wrong. There have been cases where UK citizens have agreed to marry immigrants, sometimes in return for payment, so that they can stay in the country. This undermines the value of marriage as a union between two loving partners and turns it into a cynical business transaction. Government immigration officers investigate such marriages in order to prevent this kind of fraud. Surely marrying a relative in order to exploit your health insurance is just as deceitful, and a negative rather than positive result of the legalisation of incest?

Adult incest is usually between first cousins, something that isn't even considered to be 'incest' in most cultures. and not even the bible is against cousins mating.

The problem with using your experience as a case against legalizing adult incest is that what you experienced was not just incest but also abuse. We have case studies of incestuous relationships that were entirely consensual and involved no abuse. For example, there is a couple from Germany, formed between a brother and sister that was quite public and clearly consensual. That relationship was clearly not about lust, tyranny, or violence and no consensual relationship is. Only abusive relationships are. It doesn't matter so much whether relationship is incestuous or not, just that both people respect each other. Clearly your father didn't respect you, and I'm sorry you had to experience that.

Further, the current laws against incest don't seem to have prevented you from experiencing abuse. You are claiming things would be so much worse if the laws weren't in place. However, given how traumatic your case was, I think it is clear that the laws against incest didn't do much to protect you.

Because of that, I think that we should have better systems to prevent abuse. It should have been easier for you to report what was happening to you and have things change for you. You were in a coercive sexual relationship. It doesn't matter if it is happening with your father, cousin, neighbor, boyfriend, or friend. You should have better channels for having that abuse eliminated from your life.

Abuse should always be wrong. It doesn't matter if abuse is incest or not. Clearly the current laws against incest weren't enough to protect you. What is really needed to prevent your situation are better systems for eliminating *abuse* and *coercive relationships* of any kind, not just incestuous ones.

I was a victim of paternal incest from before 5 years old until the age of 33. My father used threats of violence toward my mother and siblings to assure my secrecy and compliance. My earliest memory of sexual molestation at 5 years old was confimed by my mother many years later. She was present but helpless. I fantasized suicide daily from the age of twelve. The only reason I didn't follow through was because I couldn't bear to leave my siblings at his mercy. I was their only protector.

What would have happened to me if incest between adults had been legal? Could he have forced me into marriage as well? The thought is too traumatic to contemplate.

If you haven't experienced incest you may not understand the way the resulting trauma entangles itself in a childs brain, her developmental process, and her identity with destructive ramifications.

If our legal system ever condones incest, at any age, many more victims of incest will die from suicide, post-traumatic-stress related injuries, and violence at the hands of perpetrators who have gained total and absolute power over them without even the thin veil of required secrecy to alleviate their access to their victims.

I urge you, don't take this issue lightly. It is all about power, lust, tryanny, and violence. Incest is NEVER the choice of its victim--pretense of choice may be the last dying effort of a soul to escape the inevitable shame that has already shattered the heart of a child.

------

Love and sex should only be criminalised when one of the two participants is deemed, in a rational sense, unready for it - ie paedophilia, mental disabilities, physical disabilities, rape - as well as unwilling.

Incestuous couples pose no threat to society by what they do. Religious arguments on morality need have no place in this aspect of justice - there are no victims.

By legalising adult incest, the USA would also make a huge leap in their commitment to cutting crime rates - a plummet is likely to occur, resulting from the fact that 8/10 are actually reading this, and agreeing, whilst in the conjugal bed with a sibling.

One should not legalise a act with the aim of reducing the crime rates. If that is the primary aim of the government, why not legalise every act?

Most religions/cultures that practice arranged marriages will often set the marriages between first cousins, which is incest. And yet, this is a cultural practice - and one that should not be discriminated against because it is against the majority's cultural norms.

The majority's cultural norm should certainly not be trampled for the benefit of minorities. If in a culture it is deemed wrong to promote incest, it is that culture's right to protect that state by law, and anyone who wants to take part in that culture's life should be expected to live by its rules.

Is incest always going to be frowned upon? Yes. Is sex in general always going to be frowned upon? Yes. There are people out there who have their domestic animals pleasure them, beat the crap out of each other with torture devices, and dress up as babies durng sex. The list goes on and no one is out forming alliances against those demographics. But normal missionary sex between two consenting family members? Whoa hold the phone!!! That mother and son should be with other people dressed in leather burning each other with hot wax or pretending to be raped, you know something "normal". Any hint of incest relations should never be mentioned before the legal age of consent, after that it then becomes an issue between two adults, and who is anybody to tell sexaully active family members that they LEGALLY can't have sex. You don't know their past, you don't know how close they have bonded and what experinces they have shared with each other. If having sex with each other is the way they want to express their feelings with each other, then that is their choice, if you dont like it, too bad, it's not your life or family.

You opposite sound very sick and perverse. And NO, sex is not frowned upon,only abnormal sex.

Assuming the sex is between two consenting adults (as any other would be infringing on other laws) what is the necessity of punishing those who practice it? How will this solve anything? Incest is not a crime against anyone and only involves consenting parties. Why should we or anyone have a say over other peoples' lives and choices in a matter that does not affect us or anyone who is not taking part freely? Punishing people for this crime is based on an imagined objective idea that incest is 'just wrong' and so if anyone does it they are bad. All its legalisation would do is mean that less people are going to jail for something that has had no effect on anyone.

Just No. There are many about to make wonderful natural love to instead of screwing your dad or daughter or dog.

If your single or your partner is away from you. Having sex with an adult member of your family means that you can still enjoy having sex with someone. Until you find someone special or your parnter comes home. As long as the male uses a condom to reduce the chances of getting his mother,sister or daugther pregnant if they are of child bearing age.

Consider senior siblings who are divorced or widowed. They may not care to embark on a new relationship but still have normal needs which they are no longer able to fulfill. They may often choose to share accommodation for security, companionship and economic purposes. If they agree to satisfy each others needs, and do so discreetly, even if they do not live together, why should they be liable legal penalty. They are old enough and mature enough to understand the implications of such a relationship, are able to take precautions if they are still of child bearing age, and there is no pressure or coersion involved. They have known each other all their lives, and have a love for, and trust in each other.

If your partner is away, you're cheating on your partner. Are you going to have sex with prostitutes or random people on the street just because you are single? Statistics show that the 'majority' is NOT attracted to family members.^[1] 'like' is the key-word here.

1. ^ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1815-women-attracted-to-men-who-smell-like-dad.html

Humanity started off incestuously. Adam and eve had some 22 children and no other earthly living beings to mate with so they either mated with each other or died off. We're all here today so obviously they inbred. People have deformed and mentally challenged children everyday. It just depends on genes, how you take care of yourself and other earthly variables that cause health problems. It can happen to people who dont participate in incest also. If humanity started out in such a way then why would he make it a a sin? thats just retard and very hypocratic. And technically there is nothing in the bible that states that incest is a true sin. It states that it is a "man made sin" because the romans later created a law against it. It does say in the bible that homosexuality is a sin. So why is something so unnatural legal? and something very natural that can happen to anyone at anytime illegal. This is love... Why does anyone have the right to impose their religious views of love on anyone but themselves and their children and at some point their children might or might not even agree with their veiws either.

Thank you Lord for making me a straight red blooded male with lots of children loved in the correct way.

It is America and people should be allowed that freedom, as long as abuse is not involved

why do people call this action whatever it is incest? where did that word come from? everything about it goes right back to sex! why? what if a brother never had sex with his sister, but fell in love with her, would you call that incest? what if a older guy fell in love with his older stepdaughter, would you call that incest? or what if kids end up getting split apart from each other for 10 years or more and then the brother finds the sisters after all those years and something happens, and he ends up falling in love with one of them? is that incest? Our society punishes people for things they have no control over, why should people think they have the right to punish some people for what they do and other people get to walk scott fuckin free? abuse are you kidding me, abuse happens about 85% of the time to young woman just entering into adult hood, when they dont know whats going on just trying to live day by day and these men treat the woman like....... my point is if your in love your love shouldnt have a label on it!!

Freedom is not the same as 'USA Freedom', nor is this debate confined to the states. One fear is that there would be more abuse as a result of legalization, due to up same-household sexual activity that would otherwise be illegal.

I'm not a lawyer, so I may be on the wrong track - but surely the outcome sought by the YES side is simply to remove from the statute books the criminality of incest - for consenting adults. The statutes at present, I presume, cover incest in a blanket manner, sweeping up all ages, all forms of relationships, and abusive and non-abusive activities, etc in a "one size fits all" law on incest.

It seems to me that asking for incest, between consenting adults, to be legalised, implies not simply social acceptance of the practice, but rather positive social legitimacy. It is one thing to ask society to simply turn and look away when two related adults engage in incest, but quite another to ask that the act be somehow applauded - which is what the gay community have demanded, and have, to a large extent, achieved.

Looking the other way and accepting that adult-to-adult incest as something that just happens, and is of no consequence, is what has evolved in the way we view adultery. Laws against adultery are concerned, it would seem, not with the immorality of adultery, but rather the legal fine points in the marriage contract.

Morality issues in adultery relate to the emotional agreement to remain faithful "until death do us part". It is not, for the jilted spouse at least, a happy experience to learn that the partner has been unfaithful. But the rest of us give a big yawn and say "so what - it happens every day." We even joke about it. Still, there is no lobby to legalise adultery, is there? It stays a crime, but we don't view it that way - and neither do the police. When was the last time you heard of someone being arrested for adultery?

And the "age of consent" has become a joke. There are so many statistics now showing that there are incredibly high percentages of girls two, three or more years under the age of consent who are agressively sexually active.

So let's just clarify the laws relating to incest to define some limits relating to age and ability to make decisions, and thus make the laws serve those who should be protected, not all of us.

You on the left I feel wants to say NO. And this debate is not showing the correct amount of normal healthy red blooded humans no's.

It can lead to the whole family be really close to each other, be there for each other without the normal teen not spending time with family.

It can also lead to affairs with other siblings due to mixed emotions, a mother loves their son/daughter too much, daddys little girl etc. imagine coming home finding your wife in bed with your son! you say it will bring the whole family together i say it will do the opposite. when a husband and wife have children, what room is there for another sexual relationship unless one cheats or leaves one for the other sibling unless you have an open relationship which in this case is a different argument all together. if you favour in the positive you really are sick!

Sex among adult consenting family members is a natural activity which should be encouraged. While physical pleasure is certainly an important aspect of sexual relations, there is also an aspect of emotional, loving feelings being reinforced by having sex with a loved one.In modern times, the aspect of taboo in incest is misplaced. Denying natural urges and desires has a negative effect on a person mentally and emotionally. It is natural for mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters, grandparaents and other family members, as well as cousins along with aunts and uncles, to share their natural desire to be jjoined phisically with each other as an expression of pure love. There is no sexual pleasure that provides more intense feelings than that of family members sharing intimate sexual moments. Society's condemnation of incest is long outdated and laws should be amended accordingly.

No! it is NOT natural activity.

to make the first time with their partner more enjoyable and to give them more self confidence! Love making is not just organs act, its more about the heartfull touch and the feelings and expressions. It comes perfectly with the mother who knows her child very well. This is similar in case of fathers and elder brothers also.

Are you serious? what about the opposite with fathers teaching their little girls etc? this argument has no basis, men and women have been finding out how to make love themselves and the last person i would want is any advice from my parents.

What we obtain form the nature is natural. It could be resources or the characteristics we inherit. We are sexually attracted to person of another sex, and its natural. So, if a person is finding a person closely related sexually attractive , it is also natural as this feeling is given to the person by nature. A son havind desires for his mother is natural. If it was unnatural, the person would never feel that way. For example, would never have a feeling to eat hair. As this is unnatural. So we never do it. We always like to do what is natural.

Secondly, sex is a relationship between to person of the opposite sex. A man has penis and a women has vagina. This is enough of to person to perform this beautiful act of lovemaking. So for example a mother and a son, of father and daughter can have sex as they have what is given to them by nature.

Thirdly, Considering the child birth defect, there are children born handicapped to parents who are not closely related. So is their sexual relationship forbidden? A child being born handicapped is not an appropriate excuse to forbid the incestuous relationship.

Fourthly, if two person are ready to make love with each deriving mutual pleasures, then no one should have the right to interfere into their matters.People should be given freedom to do what they like. Interference may be reasonable if such act causes harm to someone.

People even now are active into such form of incestuous relationships but do not reveal it and keep it lantern. They are guilty sometimes as they feel they have committed something unacceptable. If incest is socially accepted, they could be contended rather than having a sense of guiltiness.

Sexual relationships consolidates the love between two person. It intends that the person living are happy and satisfied with their life in every aspect. So incest lovers could have a high degree of satisfaction as they can have their sexual desires fulfilled with the person whom they care the most and possesses true love. The two persons can become long term or maybe lifelong lovers.

Sometimes a mother may lose their husband due to death, and she may be reluctant to remarry as she will still have her love of her late husband. A women may not feel any person could be as close. In such cases, a son is the right person to provide her mother the pleasures she desires in her heart. She will never feel lonely. This is the best thing a son could ever do to his mother if he has true love for her.

People do eat hair. There are diseases people have related to eating hair (trichophagia) or obsessively pulling it out (trichotillomania). I am a sufferer of a combination of the two, in which I bite the hairs off my arms almost everyday, I obsessively tweeze my eyebrows, legs, pubic area and tummy, and I used to rip the hair out of the back of my neck with my fingers. This feels natural to me, though I am aware that its not, so if this disease was given to me by nature as you say, should I continue on that basis alone, ignoring the fact that I can suffer from deadly trichobezoars, not to mention to esthetic hair loss? What I'm trying to say is, doing something that FEELS natural doesn't mean it IS natural, whatever natural really is.

But thats beside the point, I'm just pointing out some major flaws in the first paragraph of your argument alone. The terms "natural" or "human nature" are rather arbitrary, and can't be used to condone an incestuous relationship, because whether or not there will one day be empirical evidence that shows us that to be attracted to and desire our family as partners on a deeply sexual/emotional level is indeed natural and encouraged, we can't ignore the social constraints that have lasted through THOUSANDS of years that frown upon this.

Lets say an extremely lonely woman decides she is willing to have a sexual relationship with a dog. Because of the dog's obvious willingness to engage in this sex act, going by your argument this is acceptable. The mutual pleasures and sexual desires being fulfilled between the woman and dog having intercourse is okay because people should be free to do what they want?! No. I do not agree with that.

I do not deny the curiosities a person feels towards relatives in a sexual light, but I could never act upon these, simply because I know in my soul that this isn't right to me. And just because children are born handicapped with parents that aren't related at all, doesn't mean that engaging in a sexual relationship with a relative and not taking cautions to prevent an increased likelihood of yet another handicapped child struggling to survive and find their place in a world where handicaps are often misunderstood and disrespected is acceptable, and is an appallingly ignorant argument. Going back to your nature/natural argument, I'd say if the process of evolution/natural selection tells us that having sex with a relative increases the chance of a deformed child, thats a pretty strong indicator that this isn't what we're meant to do. Humans most basic purpose on this planet is to procreate, and to do that in a way that ensures the survival of our bloodlines.

And thats all I can really say at this point. :)

I can't believe it's illegal to be in love.. Especially homosexual incest... What is the problem? Everytime I ask someone what's wrong with it they never can think of a wrong point... except ''it's just sick''.

xxxxx

Incest means loving another human being, that too the person whoom we know very well than any other. So its not Sick.

Really? lets say i really really love my dog, i mean love is love and i cant help it.... according to your argument i should be able to argue the same.

For a moment, Let us beleive that our world started with Adam and Eve. As they are not related, their relationship is not incest. But what about the next generation? What about their children? Unless god created another woman and man, the children must have had sex among themselves to create more life. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Look up the islamic version, Yes Adam and eve where the first but others where created afterwards. Allowing for marriage outside of the immediate family realm.

First of all..we have to understand.what is sex..? Sex is a holy thing..both for a atheist and theist.. for theist is a god given treasure for human r procreation...and for atheist its a human boon where a human can give and bring another life to this world.Even though Sex between Husband and wife is legal..if wife not int in sex with her husi ..he cant force her...its become illegal...Sex between Dad and Daughter is illegal..if they had sex with mutual consent its legal...But making an incest as legal thing may bring up many problems definitely..there is no doubt abt that..at the same time don make it as a illegal thing...Its all in the human nature.Whatever we do..if incest is not affecting us and our dependents and sorrounders..its not wrong...Go on and enjoy ur life..

Sex is holy but to love your mother and father does not mean sex.

Single brother & sister can involve to enjoy each steps of being adult. safe from sexual transmitted disease.

No you mean practicing on someone weaker rather than find your own. Love means just that,love,and to refrain is showing love. I love my dog.

I honestly don't understand how there is anything wrong with incest. If two people love each other and want to be together then they should be together. It's not that hard!

If the people involved in incest are underage then fair enough, it should be treated in the same manner as any underage sexual involvement. But nowadays teenagers and even children are off in the bushes having sex all the time, and no-one around them thinks anything of it, but when incest is involved, the children are bullied hugely. I know this from experience as I used to know 2 teenagers who are part of an incestuous relationship, and they had a really hard time. Even the adults who knew were disgusted and treated them like freaks, rather than focusing on the fact that they were having underage sex, which is completely unfair.

If it's adults who are in an incestuous relationship, then that's fine, isn't it? I just simply cannot see anything wrong with it. If who you fall in love with, or want to be with, is male, female, foreign, older than you, younger than you, a member or your family or your best friend or someone you've known for a day, it doesn't matter. If you feel something for someone, and they feel the same way about you, then you should just be together, and that's it? I don't understand why people have a problem with it.

Learn self restraint and find someone instead of a weaker sibling or family member. Too lazy ?

If the child wasn't raised by the parent than there you have two consenting adults that just met and happen to have a natural bond and attraction to eachother. I find nothing wrong with that. Especially if the child is (A.) A consenting adult and (B) Just met the relative after 15+ years. Love is natural embrace it. Infact I know a Father and Daughter who are madly in love after meeting eachother thirty years later and she is getting hell for it. So please let love naturally happen.

Inbred and natural love for a family member does not mean sex. You are deluded, or incapable of meeting a partner or weak. Love is wonderful and to love a family member also means helping them, but not taking advantage of their sex,that is pure weakness and family members learn from strenghts not giving into weaknesses. People also LOVE their animals.

sex is the only thing that two bodies can enjoy in human life...let it be anyhow..since they are not making intercourse with other animals,,,they are human beings...Allow them to enjoy their sexual life too..it reduces prostitution and sexual transmitted diseases and big now a days is HIV..still there are so many benefits and one thing is just culture...please neglect it ,if the human beings are not here means where to put our culture...So born is once,,..let them enjoy like other aspects of life...

No no no you are so wrong. Why put your lust onto a member of YOUR family ???? cannot you find a love to make love to ??? Too lazy ??? Warped ???

The growing up child always confuses with sex and the social ethics and about their body changes.Soa free environment of the incest in home will guide thm properly to become the perfect human beings. If incest is not treated as crime and sin, then people in incest will grow as the perfect human beings and more social responsible.

No the growing child does not confuse about sex and social ethics, do not interpret learning and growing up as confusing its not when it comes to sex, its the easiest and naturalist thing for a child to learn at his or her own pace. Nobody has problems learning the way its been forever.

if we are free an have a choice why shoudn't you. it's all in your morals wrong or right? if didn't let you u wouldn't

Its obvious by your lack of education you would screw anything. Grow a pair and find a partner.

First of all, the misconception that children born from incest almost always have deformities or irregularities is not true. Compared to a normal couples child, there is a higher chance of defects showing up. However, smoking, alcohol. and a family history of any hereditary disease increases the chances of defects even more than incest, so why are smokers, alcoholics, and people with the said kind of family history allowed to have children, when blood-related couples who have a lesser chance of having a child with defects are not allowed by law to have children?

Comparing incest with homosexuality is obscene! One of the problems, if not the biggest problem is the fact that children born from incestuous parents almost always have deformities, are retarded or have other serious problems. This is a proven fact. Homosexual partners don't create children therefore the comparison shouldn't even be discussed. It is the offspring of the incestuous partners that should be thought about. Surely knowing that a child has a huge chance of being born with congenital deformities or disabilities should put people off! Incest shouldn't be allowed on these grounds.

On the contrary, incest was common in Ancient Egypt and, most likely, a lot further back. This would imply that it is somewhat natural, as it has obviously been something people have enjoyed for centuries.

The argument that incest is wrong "because the Bible says so" doesn't hold any weight in a situation that takes place outside of church. Many people believe in different gods, different spiritual paths or have no spiritual beliefs. One religious view should not dictate the actions of the human race as a whole.

Finally, humans very rarely have sex for the purpose of procreation. Most often, humans have sex for the purpose of mutual pleasure.

This is exactly what legalizing consenting adult incest is about: allowing people who desire each other to fulfill their mutual desires.

God created humans for procreation, and incest is against human nature.

I dont necessarily agree that its against human nature. point of fact: in the begining, all there was was incestuous relationships, from pure (no bio. problems, no mental issues) humans. We are in fact all products of incest from the begining, but God called it Sin in the book of Deut. Probably because of the imergence of genes withen the people that would only become more prevelent through incestuous relationships.(purely speculation) I believe the desire for this type of relationship is created from an unfulfilled need in other area's. ie: a need to belong, to feel accepted, to feel loved. Which all stem from a failing on the part of one or both parents to see the issue in its infancy, and to take action to correct it. Like our other animal instincts this is one that we should work to curb rather than imbrace. Granted the only ones hurt by it are the ones involved in it. But it does open the door as others have noted, for abuse, and the molding of children who don't know enough to choose otherwise. Like homosexuality, the legalization of incest could and would narrow the human race's chances for survival. One cannot procreate! and the other procreates and increases any negatives withen that gene pool. From a selfish, self-centered point of view, why not? But if you look beyond yourself, at society as a whole.....

You say that as if there are no perverted incestuous grandfathers or fathers existing presently. And since you keep referring to the incredible pressure from these people acting as a huge deterrent to fighting them off, how can say the law is good protection??

The topic clearly states that this discussion is not about CHILD ABUSE or RAPE , it is about two 'consenting' adults and their rights.

If everyone thinks it is ok to be incestuous, then what is to stop everyone from sleeping with their siblings? It would lead to abuse and many family problems.

My message to those fathers who are lusting after your own daughter, please think thrice because you're destroying their life. Unless your daughter loves you so much so that she seduces you, then i got nothing to say. I rather my daughter being grateful to me for bring her up and respect me for my teachings. I will let her be proud of me and proud of our family. We should never betray their trust upon us. Self respect is the word.

I shall be a role model or even an idol to them :-)

PS: immoral sex like incest weakens the mind and body, this negative cycle feeds upon itself. They are so many flashers, molesters and rapists around, legalizing incest will surely be subject to abuse and this group of sex predators will have a good excuse to legitimize their pervert thoughts. Even if the age of consent is 18,the perverted father will tell his 13 year old daughter:" look, age is just a number, most important is you consent ".Countries that legalize incest should review the law.

PSS: Once a good and caring father, due to the change of law, he may think "Wow, i can now fuck my daughter". This good father may initially seek her consent. But after being rejected, he will apply tremendous pressure on her. Due to him being the main authority or sole bread winner, the daughter will be in a very vulnerable position and will give in to his demands eventually in return for "better treatment". This good father of the past will turn into a perverted monster.

Eventually, all fathers and grandfathers will turn into perverts.

Conclusion: Therefore i strongly condemn any countries legalizing incest. This violates human rights and is immoral. However, i support the maximum penalty for consensual incest to be half that of non consensual (eg.6 years versus 12 years).Hence, the evidence given by both parties will determine whether its consensual or not. If its consensual, the daughter will be punished according to the law too. This will make both parties responsible for their deeds. Otherwise, just deny it or better still, keep it a secret!

The good thing about this is fathers can ask their daughter:” do you agree to have sex with me? If you agree, just keep it a secret between us and deny anyone who accuse you of incest, otherwise we will both end up in jail.” At the same time, daughters are still well protected by the law.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

This point is not only contradictory, but utterly irrelevant given the previous points which have already refuted its central claims. Simply because ‘free thinking’ societies have seen incest as wrong and an ‘oddity’ for so long does not mean that it is morally right to outlaw it. Please see previous points for elaboration on this fallacy. The fact that it is ‘a crime nonetheless’ is also irrelevant. The law does not hold innate moral values – it is society which dictates which are to be upheld and which aren’t. There are still so-called laws that make no sense to us ‘free thinking societies today and so although totally lawful, are chosen not to be upheld (the internet has many sites dedicated to such bizarre laws). Thirdly, to say that the etymology of the word incest renders the action it describes as unlawful or immoral is not only inaccurate, but as flawed a reason as the previously described law fallacy. Words do not have innate meanings, but are imbued with meanings by society. To use a famous example, ‘a rose by any other name would smell as sweet’ – if one called a rose a stinkweed, it would not lose any of its inherent properties, nor should it. Whether incest is called ‘devil’s-romping’ or ‘humanist love’ it would make no difference to the values of the act itself.

It is a fair and just point for the ‘for’ argument of this debate that incestuous relations occurred in the higher echelons of ancient societies: the Romans, Egyptians and, I believe, Inuits were or are accepting and in acknowledgement of this fact. The point can also be made that one cannot control who one has an attraction, physical or otherwise, to. However it is clear that most free thinking societies for any number of years have seen incest as ‘wrong’, as an oddity. Agreeably, it may be a victimless crime, but a crime it is nonetheless, dating back to the original etymology of the word around half a millennium ago.

"deliberately creating a relationship with a child who does not understand it fully which would later lead to a sexual relationship. All healthy relationshios must be based on a power balance: no one party should have undue influence or control over the other."

This same argument could be used to argue that parents and older siblings should not have the right to influence a child's religious and political beliefs, because they will have too much power over what the child believes.

The reality is, anyone a child interacts with is going to have an imbalanced amount of control over what the child believes, whether they are parents, older siblings, or teachers.

The solution to this is not to try to negate every possible overpowering influence that an individual might encounter as a child. Rather the solution is to empower the child themselves at a young age with critical thinking skills. This way, when they grow older, the individual themself can decide whether or not they want to later enter into a sexual relationship with a relative, based on the merits that the individual sees in it based on their own individual situation.

"Incestual relationships with siblings would threaten to undermine the role played by the family in this aspect, drive wedges between families and lead to family break-up which has a whole host of associated problems."

When speaking of "roles" that a person must "play" in a family, the entire nuclear structure of the family was destroyed long ago when divorce rates became prevalent. A large precentage of children are already in situations where a grand-father is more like a father, a cousin is more like a sibling, or a step-parent is more like a friend. The reality is, no harm is done to a family at all if the preconceived ideas of typical "roles" are not played out in an orthodox and predetermined fashion.

The reality is, as long as all family members' social, mental, sexual, and physical needs are met in a way that makes them live happy and productive lives within society, no harm is done. No preconceived "roles" required.

Even if an age of consent applied to legalised incest, the unique nature of the family would mean that relationships could not be easily limited to this time frame. This does not mean the potentiality of minors having sexual relationships, but rather the ability of an older sibling to "groom" the child, ie. deliberately creating a relationship with a child who does not understand it fully which would later lead to a sexual relationship. All healthy relationshios must be based on a power balance: no one party should have undue influence or control over the other. This kind of relationship clearly violates any balance of power.

The family should also maintain its unique position as a support network for the individual, within which relationships should be distinct from the others formed in society. Incestual relationships with siblings would threaten to undermine the role played by the family in this aspect, drive wedges between families and lead to family break-up which has a whole host of associated problems.

You and your father would molest your daughter(living with you, therefore most likely NOT an adult), if there was a law permitting the marriage, rather sexual union of ADULT relatives with each other? That says more about your lack of character/decency than anything else. Secondly,Nobody is calling to legalize sex or molestation, with/of teenagers/children.And all the crimes you have mentioned Rape, molestation etc ARE illegal. You have merely proven that laws do not matter to; nor deter perverts.

Thirdly the issue here is really of cousins (mostly in the American south) who get married, perhaps unknowingly of the fact that they are cousins and then have to serve jail time. Even though no religion really says that cousins should not marry. It is not immoral. Children of first cousins reportedly live longer. Even though chances of diseases prevalent in the family increase. Then again, that would be the case even if two unrelated people with a similar family medical history marry.

Then lastly, there is the 'Jerry Springer' populace, people who are so attached to their siblings that they want to marry them.Weird. taboo: Yes. But if you are talking about mutually consenting adults, who are we to question, their life choices? It's their life. That arrangement would make them happy,. It shouldn't be a crime, since it doesn't affect,disgust,'adversely effect',harm,hurt, and/or damage others, more than if they do not marry/mate and still express their intense want to.

Also, who's to say there won't be mothers and grandmothers turning into perverts?

My message to those fathers who are lusting after your own daughter, please think thrice because you're destroying their life. Unless your daughter loves you so much so that she seduces you, then i got nothing to say. I rather my daughter being grateful to me for bring her up and respect me for my teachings. I will let her be proud of me and proud of our family. We should never betray their trust upon us. Self respect is the word.

I shall be a role model or even an idol to them :-)

PS: immoral sex like incest weakens the mind and body, this negative cycle feeds upon itself. They are so many flashers, molesters and rapists around, legalizing incest will surely be subject to abuse and this group of sex predators will have a good excuse to legitimize their pervert thoughts. Even if the age of consent is 18,the perverted father will tell his 13 year old daughter:" look, age is just a number, most important is you consent ".Countries that legalize incest should review the law.

PSS: Once a good and caring father, due to the change of law, he may think "Wow, i can now fuck my daughter". This good father may initially seek her consent. But after being rejected, he will apply tremendous pressure on her. Due to him being the main authority or sole bread winner, the daughter will be in a very vulnerable position and will give in to his demands eventually in return for "better treatment". This good father of the past will turn into a perverted monster.

Eventually, all fathers and grandfathers will turn into perverts.

Conclusion: Therefore i strongly condemn any countries legalizing incest. This violates human rights and is immoral. However, i support the maximum penalty for consensual incest to be half that of non consensual (eg.6 years versus 12 years).Hence, the evidence given by both parties will determine whether its consensual or not. If its consensual, the daughter will be punished according to the law too. This will make both parties responsible for their deeds.

As fathers, we can only disciple our children successfully by setting a good example. If we were to engage in indecent acts with our "flesh and blood", we will soon lost their respect.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

"Normal Happy Families" Normal- for one family is not normal for another family..there are as many definiitions of normal, as there are families. Happy- See above. Families- Child abuse is rife,causes broken hearts,psychological scarring,wounds that never heal..because the consent is not both ways as with Incest between adults. The doubter doubts themselves in other words. It is family business not to be interfered with by Governments,authoritites or Police or anyone else for that matter.

I doubt that the average family ever gives incest a thought. II couldn't beleive the statements from some of you. You can't really think that a mom should be the one to teach her son about sex by example. Never mind watching the parents by special invitation.

There really is nothing like it. I started having sex with my sister when I was 13 and my mom at 15. We have enjoyed a steady sex life for 30 years now. She had her tube cut and tied so childern was never an issue.she's 63 now and just as good in bed as ever. It is a special thing when we climate at the same time. It's not dirty or sick, it is a beautiful loving, natural way to say how much we love together

I'm so happy to read this! I'm a divorced mother of 4 with 3 already married. I got my youngest when I was 40 and I have sex with him since he was 17. He is now 25 and tells me that I'm better than his girlfriend! He comes to my bedroom at least 3-4 times a week even after he was with his girlfriend. We got very experienced, knowing each other so well and enjoying sex in many ways. I'm really happy to have found this site now knowing that I'm not alone and that's not entirely wrong. You are so SAD.

The Law has no business here,they intefere with too much of others lives as it is. Whether it legal or not,it goes on...Incest was around in the days of the Romans..Long before our recognised law was invented.. Wrong or right is not the debate here. It is not up to this commenter to portray his views about if family members would be devastated or not by their relationships being changed to sexual...more joy & happiness would prevail or it would be the same..he cannot pocess the ability to know the answer to this . We are all so fudermentally sick of what we can & cant do..we are all still being treated ike naughty children by a nanny state.Tell someone they cannot do something & the child in us all takes over dominance of the mind so the forbidden becomes taboo & gains a mystique to be even more eagerly carried out as an action than before. To legalise Incest is to say it has to be consentual to both parites involved, so I fail to see where the devastaton comes from...it wouldnt be broardcast mother has son three times a week...somethings are private..not through shame but through the need for privacy. What exactly is wrong with physical pleasure then? Is this poster a Quaker ? The bond between two people is always physical & mental..nothing would be encouraged but LOVE. The world is full of hate,let their be time for love...this is just a typical reaction of a stick in the mud moody who,s a traditionalist...does not want to move with the times or embrace new idea,s for a better future,as long as their are folk like this around the human race is doomed to fail... its a sad state of affairs. The relationship would not be blurred it would be alot clearer...teenagers anger towards their mother is attraction anyway.

Humans are not fundamentally good. We abide by legal boundries as well as being taught to take responsability for the consequences of our actions. It's all very well putting forward arguments about people's civil liberties, but I'm sure many people would feel devastated if a member of their family wanted to change the dinamics of a relationship so that it was sexual. The floodgates of damaged individuals would be thrown open if incest was legalised. Culture will not automatically bend with with it or not straight away. The relationship between friend, mother, father, grandparent is different, yet people want these to be blurred into one for the sake of physical pleasure. Without incest, we are already living in a society which places increasing emphasis on relationships between couples being based on the physical rathe rthna the emotional ties, a law like this would only encourage it.

see below...

It is abnormal and abhorant and perverse. We were born male and female,not mother and daughter or Adam and Adam jr,or any combination that detracts from healthy normal living.

Is religion really a good argument either way? Why should we take the views of people who lived in totally different times and circumstances rather than allowing a free and open debate to decide our own rules?

Since you mention religion how can you also say "We were all derived from incest ? so where did the first eggs come from and why are we all different shapes sizes and colours ? how stupid." as presumably in the christian tradition we are as we come from just two people.

"Gays are accepted ? only by the minority." what is the relevance of this to a debate on incest? Most gay relationships are not incestious. Presumably it would also matter much less even if they were as there cannot be all the genetic worries about inbreading.

You seem to be against the free discussion of ideas on issues like this which is what debatewise stands for. We should be able to question the prescriptions or our predecessors and decide if they stand up to scrutiny by deciding for ourselves if they are good or bad not based upon nebulous traditions and declarations of what has always been. Take your hating bile someplace else please!

Clutching at perverse straws are the yes's. No religion says incest is acceptable apart from the so called man made religions to suit themselves and to which we hear too much of in this killing for religion society, how stupid. We were all derived from incest ? so where did the first eggs come from and why are we all different shapes sizes and colours ? how stupid. Gays are accepted ? only by the minority. We were born beautifully natural and lovely as we were created to be, man and woman penis and vagina and to create more love with our children and not poking our own or places that were not created to be poked. How stupid and perverse.