Should Incest be legal between consenting adults?

You say this but the chances of gaining a genetic defect from many of these disabilities is guaranteed. Defects from incest "may" happen or may not in fact positive results through the loss of recessive genes can also happen through incest. Humanitarian reasons would dictate that you ban those with the disabilities from breeding before you ban incest. I dont see how you can approve of one without approving of the other unless you think incest is morally wrong. Which then begs the question why are we legislating morals?

 

I don't care how many there is. As long as everyone can and are consenting, it's none of your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing beeswax.

 

Libertarians are certainly taking Thomas Jefferson's words to heart. There's a thing called "going too far." I'm certain he wasn't thinking of homosexuality, hallucinogenic drugs, prostitution or incest when he uttered the words that Libertarians prescribe to. The quote escapes me now, but it has to do with "whatever someone wants to do, he should be free to do it, so long as it doesn't harm anyone."

Hell, take a look at his own Bill from 1778 for the Commonwealth of Virginia: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html

Especially those on Sodomy or Polygimy.

 

Banning incest is hardly legislating morals. It has practical use that goes beyond simple notions of right and wrong.

 

Victims according to who, btw? "Victim" is just a word created through morals to suggest something is right/wrong, civil/uncivil, legal/illegal, right? If rape hasn't been taught in a society to be immoral, who's to say the "victims" would react in the same way that "victims" would in another society that engages in the moral belief that rape is wrong and taboo?

According to liberals and libertarians, morals shouldn't guide laws... So let's take morals out of it then. Morals tell us that rape, murder, bestiality and pedophilia is wrong and taboo. Without morals, there are no victims.

 

To preclude anarchy, anything that much fun must be kept illegal. To maintain law and order and the preservation and stability of all mankind, it is absolutely necessary to declare incest a crime and a sin.

 

No more then banning the others from breeding. I have yet to see any other benefit to society other then the chance of defect which already is far exceeded by people with known disorders breeding. What tangible benefit does society gain from banning incestuous procreation that is not exceeded by banning those with known defect from breeding? I do not think that anyone can name one other then subjective morality or it being taboo.

 

This is slippery slope argumentation.

 

A victim is some one who has had their life, liberty, or property violated without there consent. Rape and murder do that incest does not. Nor does prostitution, drug use, or homosexuality unless those things are forced upon the person.

 

Violated according to who and what? Morals determine what/who have been violated. This country was founded on morals/principles. That is why the Declaration states what it does. However, again... Liberals and Libertarians want to take morals out of the picture. So, who's to say rape and murder are violations, unless you're going to recognize morality?

 

Please explain I do not understand what you mean by that? I thought a slippery slope was when you do one thing that leads to another and another? So I will state it differently why should we not ban procreation by those that have known genetic defects that WILL be passed on to their children? Given your reasoning for protecting our future generations from harm.

 

Kinda sick ,but if a brother and sister wanna go at it what business is it of mine...

 

OK so I see you think it is OK. Then is it OK with you if 50 people marry each other in one giant group marriage?