Graham

No, I do not.

I've just read through this entire thread and I'm astonished at the level of blind prejudice being demonstrated by some people who I thought were beyond such things.

For the record, whatever other views of Jerrek's I may disagree with, on this subject I entirely agree with his points.

Yes, breeding children from incestuous relationships is genetically unwise at present because we cannot predict the results and risk the reinforcement of recessive genetic characteristics (although, curiously, we're quite happy to interbreed "pure" strains of animals to get desired characteristics, but that's another matter).

But we are not *talking* about children, either them being involved or them being the result of such relationship, despite the repeated attempts by some in this thread to claim that is what is under discussion.

These two people were *adults* according to the law and nobody was forced or coerced into acts they didn't want to do.

I have said before and I will say again that the majority *cannot* and *should not* be allowed to dictate what is "acceptable" for others to do when there are no "victims". We have seen too much of this in the past: "Homosexuality is wrong, prostitution is wrong, women being able to vote is wrong, inter-racial marriages are wrong, reading this is wrong, looking at that is wrong, thinking the other is most definitely wrong!"

Why should non-procreative sex between two consenting adults be classified as "abuse" or "wrong" just because they are related? "Because it's incest!" comes the reply. Well, yes, but that doesn't exactly answer the question, does it? It's wrong because it's incest and because it's incest, it's wrong. But that's just a circular argument that goes nowhere.

So can anyone who is against this come up with a logical and reasonable argument?