Is incest between two consenting adults really that immoral?

>>25744435
Only if a child is born between the two of them.

>>25744435
Morality is for cucks.

>>25744474
So then is it immoral if a child is born between two cystic fibrosis carriers? Or between a woman past 35 (where the risk of birth defects is about the same as a first generation incestuous couple)? Or mentally retarded people? Or depressed people? Or bipolar people?

>>25744474
There's a much higher risk of a tard baby if the Mother is over 35 than if you're related.

>>25745298
Yes, it is.
Carrots are good for your eyesight.

>>25745298
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes


not an original commento

File: 1450141835987.png (37KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 184x184px

>>25744435
No, if they really want to fuck and have kids they should be able too.

File: 1445725253389.jpg (58KB, 425x353px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 425x353px

>>25744435
Yes, it is a crime against the tribe because precious sexual energy is directed away from healthy reproduction in a responsible unit.

A tribe of "erryone do what they want!!!" will lose to breeder tribes.

>>25745298
Procreation is ALWAYS immoral anon :^]

>>25744474
I don't get why people are so like this, the chance of mental defects is increased by incest, but not abnormally higher. You're more likely to have defective births if you work around radiation or lived near chernobyl.

>>25744435

Yes, the Bible says not to do it closer than cousins.

I'm drawing a blank when it comes to secular morality though, at least without going full eugenics to remain consistent, and even then, I can't see why sex for non-procreation would be banned from a secular persective.

>>25744435
It's not so much that it's terribly immoral, but rather that it can't be made to be a general rule or it would be harmful for society.

Procreating within your own family tree is conducive to certain defects. And although, as it's been pointed out, it's still a small chance and not really THAT big a deal in an individual case basis, it's a non-negligible chance nonetheless, specially if you then extrapolate that chance to large populations. So while it's true that you have a significantly larger chance of giving your kids deformities if you work with, say, radiation than if you simply inbreed, few people have access to or find themselves forced to do work around radiation, whereas everyone has immediate family they can impregnate (everyone has a mother, for starters, and then whatever number of people also have sisters, cousins, aunts, etc.)

So, as a tribe/society, you *have* to prohibit it, or you risk introducing a significant number of birth defects into your population.

And even if you're not increasing manifest "birth defects" per se (say, deformities or straight up handicaps), you at the very least risk replicating the kind of behaviors that lead to inbreeding in the first place, since people with a tendency to inbreed are now inbreeding and therefore passing down that tendency to inbreed at twice the rate it would otherwise have. Furthermore, "dark triad" and other personality traits associated with sociopathy are often found in individuals whose families had a higher tendency to or were more at risk of inbreeding, so there's a chance that there's a correlation between the behaviors and genes that lead to inbreeding and the behaviors and genes that lead to dark triad personalities.

In short, it's not so much that it's immoral between consenting, informed adults, but rather that allowing it to be widespread carries too much risk, since most who would commit incest are at high risk of being neither.

File: 6XlGO3j.jpg (134KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 894x894px

>>25744435
It's still weird as fuck but If they don't plan on reproducing then nah, its not immoral.

>>25744435
If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity.
Leviticus 20:17

>>25745298
yes, yes, yes, possibly, possibly