Should we allow incestuous couples to marry and adopt?

So you basically don't care about others opinions or the concept that they may be valid you just want to attack people who have different views to you... Ok then lol continue

That's nonsense frankly. Can you give any examples of incest or polyamory being common in Western European Christian society? They were restricted and condemned in exactly the same way homosexuality was, as perversions.

Biblical stories are a poor example compared to the actual laws of these societies. The fact that forms of homosexuality has been common in some cultures in the past is often used as argument in favour of LGBT. The Ancient Greeks loved to **** young boys for example, which is reminiscent of the early LGBTs affiliation with groups such as NAMBLA and other pedophiles.

If they love each other, and are two consenting adults, then why not? The argument against it is that they produce children with genetic deficiencies - but by that logic, surely we should stop people with inheritable diseases from breeding? Even so, even if we outlawed incestuous breeding, why shouldn't they be able to adopt?
We keep being told that there is "no such thing as the traditional family", so why is it so bad for a child to have a father and mother who are also brother and sister? It's no more unnatural then having two fathers or two mothers. The idea that it's "disgusting" is purely an emotional argument, and indeed, bigotry.
All aboard the progress train
Choo Choo!

Incest is a moral abomination and anybody found to be engaging in such perversion must be arrested.

An obvious example would be the common practices of inbreeding across Europe within the aristocracy and Monarchy. Our own Monarchy has had a long tradition of inbreeding, as this was how they historically sought to keep their bloodline 'clean'. Henry 8th decreed cousin-to-cousin marriages as legal, and the current Sexual Offenses Act doesn't forbid this, despite those genetic risks being there. So... this form of incest has not only historically been practiced, despite condemnation, but it's still legal to this very day. It's a form of endogamy, which is very popular across religious societies.

It depends how close to the family unit you want to get when defining incest. Some forms are legal but greatly discouraged, others are clearly illegal and less common, whilst other forms have very rarely been documented at all.

The point, however, is that it isn't the slippery slope that people make it out to be. The practice has clearly become less common as time has evolved, hence why our Monarchs and (remaining) aristocracy aren't dropping en-masse with haemophilia. Their gene pool has widened.


Biblical stories are always poor examples. However, as documented above, laws historically have been made by monarchs. If the monarchy had a clear self-interest in protecting their bloodline, it's of little surprise this was reflected within their ruling.

Incest is a moral abomination and anybody found to be engaging in such perversion must be arrested.

That response does nothing to refute what was said to you. Your belief and argument is emotional, and when you start using subjective terms like 'abomination', you know your argument has slipped. What you've said is how people used to, and in some cases still do, describe homosexuality. Times change. Why should we care about how others choose to spend their lives if they're not infringing upon our own or others?

It's a bizarre scenario to picture, but I'm not sure I have any rational reason to object. It's not something I would feel very comfortable about approving, but that's my social conditioning talking - and I'm aware of that. Looking beyond social structures, why couldn't two relatives in a sexual relationship take care of a child successfully just like any other two adults?

Limiting the discussion to cousins marrying each other is shifting the bar pretty far, in real and metaphorical terms. I think most people would agree that brother sister or parent children relationships are much more disgusting.
I don't really see the point in your argument though, it's not very relevant. It's obvious that any argument you can apply to LGBQT, you can apply to incest. You even have liberals here that agree with me because it works with the same internal logic. That's the real "slippery slope".

People used to (and still do) say that about gay marriage but now it's acceptable.

No it's not. It's your nature. It's your social conditioning that's telling that you can "rationally" work out sexual morality as if it were some kind of logical puzzle.

On the contrary I don't think sexual morality is a puzzle with an answer or solution. It's far too simplistic to suggest it is. Are you suggesting, though, that I'm wrong to say there's nothing inherently right or wrong ab, out infestuous couples marrying and adopting?

Yes, it's inherently wrong.

How have you reached that apparently objective conclusion?