Poll: I know I'm probably going to hell for this, but...

[GUYWITHAGUN]

I'm sorry but I'm against this. *Waves gene-diversity flag*

It sounds like you are just against siblings reproducing rather than just forking.

well, I'm more against relationships with siblings and parents/children. (and yes re-reading that makes it sound pretty stupid) I mean sexual relationships. I can imagine it being very difficult to remain in a "Friends with benefits" situation with a family member. (I don't count cousins) in theory simple bonking should be just fine, but sooner or later someone's feelings are gonna get involved. the participants are already emotionally connected due to being brother/sister etc. It's a very fine line to walk.

and the people who keep saying, "It's alright as long as you don't reproduce". you have NO idea of the anguish a person feels, being with the love of their lives and not being able to have a child with them. It's rather unfair, It's like having a delicious chocolate cake, but someone took away to cake itself, leaving only the icing. Icing is good, but ultimately unfulfilling.

remember the first 10-20 minutes of "UP"? well that was when she COULDN'T have children, imagine how much worse it is when you CAN technically, but aren't allowed or are too afraid of the consequences.

 

[BanthaFodder]

first off, DAMN! nearly 50/50!

OT: I personally think it should be illegal... but to be fair, how would one moniter that? I just think it's pretty nasty...
then again, as we've seen with child molesters, conscent does not mean everything's utterly fine. people can be mentally conditioned (brainwashed, for a more juvenile term). it's just like how cyber-predators work. if you raise a child to think that way, they'll think that way. they may SAY that they have no problem with it, but that's only because they were conditioned to believe that it was right (think Stockholm Syndrome)

 

[robincb]

because incest is impossible unless something is wrong with you. its called hormonal desensitivity , and it occurs when they spend a lot of time together in their youth. look it up

 

[crudus]

I'm sorry but I'm against this. *Waves gene-diversity flag*

It sounds like you are just against siblings reproducing rather than just forking.

well, I'm more against relationships with siblings and parents/children. (and yes re-reading that makes it sound pretty stupid) I mean sexual relationships. I can imagine it being very difficult to remain in a "Friends with benefits" situation with a family member. (I don't count cousins) in theory simple bonking should be just fine, but sooner or later someone's feelings are gonna get involved. the participants are already emotionally connected due to being brother/sister etc. It's a very fine line to walk.

and the people who keep saying, "It's alright as long as you don't reproduce". you have NO idea of the anguish a person feels, being with the love of their lives and not being able to have a child with them. It's rather unfair, It's like having a delicious chocolate cake, but someone took away to cake itself, leaving only the icing. Icing is good, but ultimately unfulfilling.

remember the first 10-20 minutes of "UP"? well that was when she COULDN'T have children, imagine how much worse it is when you CAN technically, but aren't allowed or are too afraid of the consequences.

Vasectomies happen all the time. It is a pretty standard procedure for people (specifically men) who don't want children. I don't think there is much emotional anguish (aside from a stranger mutilating your manhood) involved in that process. The same would be true for people who just flat-out don't want kids.

Remember the first 11-21 minutes of "UP"? Carl and Ellie lived quite happily for many years after they learned she couldn't have kids. Sure there was some emotional anguish a first (and probably periodically throughout life, just not to the same degree), but they still lived very happily. Now, if incest were legal people would be going into it knowing they couldn't breed. This argument seems more of a "this is why I wouldn't do it" rather than "this is why people can't do it".

because incest is impossible unless something is wrong with you. its called hormonal desensitivity , and it occurs when they spend a lot of time together in their youth. look it up

Yes, that is true, but we all know it is impossible to have a mutation in that gene and not be affected by that desensitization.

 

[Trivun]

I don't like the idea of incest, and it's for a reason that I guarantee you've never heard before.

Siblings are nice and all but I see enough of them as it is. I kind of got over the whole "sharing my life" thing with them when I was growing up, I wouldn't want to be emotionally tied to them in adulthood as well. Seems to defeat the entire purpose of becoming an adult, which is to break away from the family unit and forge your own path. That, to me, is the real damage that incest does - it keeps people emotionally stunted. It's against growth and change, but in an ever-growing, ever-changing world it's good to learn to adapt to those things and not live in a bubble.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts then on people who are related, but haven't been in contact for years, and may not even have known of each other. Would incest be acceptable then, when the two relatives are virtual strangers?

I ask because of a situation that arose for me a few years back. I'm pretty standard as people go when it comes to relationships, and I've certainly never been involved in or interested in incest with any of my relatives. However, two things have happened to me in recent years on this subject. The first was when I was around 16 (I'm 20 now). My family backstory is a little complicated, but suffice to say that we don't speak to my dad's side of the family at all (aside from my dad himself, of course - he and my mum are happily married, and my dad's been virtually disowned by his control-freak mother and criminal brother). When I was 16, we got back in touch with my former aunt and her daughter, my cousin. They were my dad's brother's family, but he left them (abandoned them basically) when my cousin was a toddler - I was just a baby at the time. She's about two or three years older than me. We hadn't been in contact for a very long time, and so I was effectively meeting her for the first time when we regained contact. Nothing happened, of course, but for a while after meeting her I can't really deny, I did have some degree of attraction to my cousin, though this has since faded away over the past few years. Even so, I doubt I'd have done anything about that attraction anyway...

The second instance was at a family funeral last year. It was my great-uncle's funeral on my mother's side of the family. Now, we do get on well with my maternal family, but it's such a large family (my grandmother had a lot of brothers and sisters, including the man whose funeral this was) that I don't really know anyone in it as well. Over-saturated with people, effectively. Anyway, at the funeral, I met, for the first time, my great-uncle's granddaughter (my second cousin), who is around the same age as me. Again, I felt some degree of attraction to her, both physically and on a more emotional level. Again, nothing happened, and I've not really seen her since then, but nevertheless that attraction was there, on my part at least.

So I'm intrigued to hear what people think of that. Is it simply that I'm a sick twisted bastard, considering that I've never had such thoughts or feelings about any other relatives of mine, who I've known for years? Or is it simply a psychological thing, or is it natural, or what? Especially considering the first case was a proper cousin, the second case was more distant, with a second cousin instead.

Now back to the topic at hand. My personal thoughts are that incest is fine. It's part of some 'primitive' cultures, for example, and there are cases where situations like mine have happened, both people have felt that, and relationships have formed. It's not that rare among long-lost brothers and sisters, after all. If there is an emotional connection between two relatives that is identical to the connection between a standard couple (love, effectively, beyond that of normal family members), then why should we deny them the right to be together purely because of events beyond their control? That is to say, their existing relationship?

I also want to take this opportunity to address a couple of points people have made throughout this thread. One person has summed up a fair few of them, which is why I'll be quoting her now:

Incest should be illegal all around. I'm not liberal on this at all.

Few reasons:

1.Abusive parents/older siblings could manipulate their family members into sex. If you raise your daughter up drumming the concept into her, by the time she turns 16(or whatever the age of consent is in your country) it wouldn't be too hard to forge an abusive relationship. It would technically be "consensual" and it would be hard to prove otherwise. I think it would lead to some pretty bad stuff. You could argue that it happens anyway, but at least with incest being illegal there is no place for them to hide and justify what they are doing. How would you prove it is consensual sex? Merely making some guy's 18 year old daughter say "yeah, it's consensual" isn't enough. I'd be wanting thorough psychological profiling on all of the family. Why? See point number 3. Having the power of familial influence in a sexual relationship is dangerous. Whether someone thinks it is consensual or not.

2.I personally think it is wrong to be sexually attracted to a close family member. Incredibly sick.

3.It isn't a healthy mindset. I'd encourage anyone to find someone who wants to fuck their sister or their mum that isn't a total crackpot. I think those that do seem to invariably suffer from a mental illness or a personality disorder to begin with.

4.The obvious health risks of reproduction. How would you police this? Make only same-sex incest legal? What about heterosexual couples who are infertile - are they allowed to have intercourse then? Whatever the decision it - it's going to be lots of fun trying to police it.

I have no problem with taking the conservative side here, even if it is technically the minority. I think many members of this forum are way too socially left-wing anyway - the forum is filled with idealists. I think we can all agree on that.

Feel free to go mental and passive aggressively try to imply I'm an idiot. I don't really care. I don't expect more than 50% agreement on anything, nor do I seek it.

1. That gets covered under abuse laws anyway. If someone is being coerced into doing something, and abuse is involved, then it doesn't matter if sex or incest are involved or not, it's already illegal. So that point isn't a major concern, though I do agree to some extent on the overall idea of it.

2. That's a mere opinion so not worth me refuting or supporting either way. People have the right to an opinion, after all.

3. Again, a mere opinion. However, also one that I disagree with completely, because of the cases I've seen and the cases I discussed above in relation to me personally. I have a perfectly normal mindset, and have no personality disorders or mental illnesses whatsoever. And yet I still experienced feelings of physical and emotional attraction to members of my family after first meeting them. Unless I'm simply the 'exception that proves the rule', that point is unfounded. Or at least, not valid in every case.

4. Fun fact - the health problems are only realistically applicable in cases where a family has multiple carriers of a genetic disease - which is certainly not the case with most families. After looking up facts on the subject, it seems that the only problem that applies (unless inbreeding goes on for multiple generations, which won't be the case in most circumstances) is that two people who are both carriers of genetic disease-causing genes have a chance of passing on those genes - and the thing is, they are recessive genes, which lowers the chances to just a quarter in each case of reproduction that the offspring will have the disease, regardless of whether the couple are blood related or not. True, the chances are more that two people are carriers if they're related than two random people in a relationship, but nevertheless, the risk is nowhere near as high as people think. So I'll accept that this point may be valid in some cases, but isn't as big an issue as anti-incest people make it out to be.

 

[Serenityrade]

...I think we've already hashed out the entire issue about ten times. As with all of these. People don't read beyond the first post usually, it seems.

The positives of incest speak for itself.

There's a lot of people saying that reproduction incestuously causes damage.

I wonder if they've ever actually read into it. I study genetics. Yes, that genetics. You know, the one you're talking learnedly about whilst giving contradictory information. Incest causes no detriment whatsoever unless you keep doing it over and over or you were already a carrier of some horrible disease in the first place. You might as well say people with controlled leprosy shouldn't have children because they'll give their child Hansen's disease too.

In terms of detrimental impacts, any two people with a disease should not reproduce if they do not want their children to inherit it if it is inheritable. All incest does is bring people who are similar genetically nearby. It works against natural selection not to reproduce with people who have at least a margin of genetic similarity because you BREED OUT SUCCESSFUL TRAITS.

Incest causes a higher rate of shift. That's seriously it. You're not going to be born with nine limbs, the worst you can get is congenital problems like your heart not growing properly- things that won't let your child survive anyway. It boosts the rate of anything happening. You get a fairly high chance after several generations; brother-sister is alright, father-daughter/mother-son is not because fifty percent of data inherited meosistically is identical.

The thing is, it resets after just one. Children from an incestuous parent and an unrelated other parent can easily inbreed at the same rate of random shift with their cousin as any other person with differentiated genetic data.

It's actually, again, beneficial to date within your own gene pool. Three to four removes is good. When there were 200 humans, do you really think they picked and chose from only the finest males that were not related to their grandfather's cousin? Reallyyyy.

You guys are silli in short...?

Many silli.

MANY SILLI. >:R

 

[Death God]

I don't mind it myself but I'd never do it in a million years. If you want to "screw your brother over" then be my guest.

 

[Kortney]

...actually a very good point.

It might conversely be argued that the threat of legal sanction, their abuser/love one going to jail, and the whole thing seeing the light of day at all, is often a major part of what abusers use to keep their victims silent. So having it outlawed can also be used to put pressure on the victim. But as we're only talking adults here, they should be less suspicable to such pressure, and I can certainly see the "grooming" angle you put forth as being a potentially far greater and enduring behavioural reinforcer.

Since it needn't inherently be so, and we generally respect that sane adults make decisions out of their own free will, it won't fully sway me from my conviction that it should be legal, but it's the best argument against it I've seen so far.

You still need to make the distinction that these are "sane" people. I don't believe they are. I fully believe that people who are seriously sexually attracted to a direct, close family member invariably suffer emotionally. Some more serious than others.

If it's not all of them who aren't fully healthy - it's most of them. I think we can all agree on that.

So why do you want to make something legal that is usually done by abused, neglected and unstable people in the first place? That's incredible to me, that you want to justify and legalise what these people do.

The personal disgust of individuals should hold no sway in regard to what harmless things other individuals are allowed to privately do.

Key word "harmless". Incest isn't harmless. You know as well as I do, that cases where incest occurs and everyone is 100% totally fine and mentally healthy are extremely rare. Most of the time it involves abuse. Most of the time it involves a manipulation in power. If you make it legal, these people have a huge chance of hiding and saying "It's all consented here officer!" when it isn't. How do you prove consent?

Like I said earlier, I want psychological assessments first.

It's usually really only a symptom of underlying social problems and lack of structure and stability in a family. Focusing on solving those - rather than maintaining some unenforceable ban - would eliminate it far more efficiently; without hurting those extremely few for whom it might actually be a fully conscious mutual choice (they're bound to exist, everything else does when it comes to human sexuality).

No, I think it is much deeper than that. And those couples that are brother and sister and are totally mutual and consensual - I'd put a lot of money on their being abuse or emotional neglect somewhere in their family.

How would you police what people are up to in the privacy of their own bedroom in the first place?

If there isn't a fetus/kid to take a DNA sample from, then you'll never be able to prove what two adult siblings were up to; even when you can prove that they were sleeping in the same bed (which plenty of adult siblings probably do without anything strange happening).

It's a moral responsibility I hold Imperator. You can't make laws that would allow and encourage two people to give birth to a child that has the chance of being incredibly damaged both physically and mentally. And yes, I feel this way about people who breed with serious genetic illnesses. It's just a view point I hold and I realise not everyone does. I think it's cruel on everyone.

---

Ultimately, I'd be fine with legalising incest is the proper steps were took. If we had the resources to do background checks on families and to screen them for psychological harm or abuse. If we did that, I'd be fine with it.

Just calling it legal and letting people go for it will hurt innocent people. I can guarantee you. Children who have been brainwashed and abused for twenty years will now be abused legally. "If you tell the officer that this isn't consensual, I'll kill you and your sister". It's a classic sign of abuse. I come from an abusive household and this is exactly how things work. For people looking in, no one even notices that there is ill harm there.

When incest is illegal, we can arrest these people straight away. If a neighbour sees something suspicious, they can report them and call the police and they save lives like this. Making it legal would make the whole process take so much time. For fellow Escapists who have been abused, you know first hand how hard it is to prove abuse. Especially emotional abuse. Especially when emotional abuse leads to the victim believing that they deserve it. It's a vicious circle.

I'm not happy with making that circle even bigger.

what abouttwins - same age, with neither one older to attempt to influence the younger?

That's a very simple way to look at it though. I'd want their parents checked. I'd want their uncles and aunties checked. For twins to be sexually attracted to one another, there most likely is abuse in their history - or some loose wiring. There is no reason why twins should be sexually attracted to each other. I'm an identical twin, and I'd rather have sex with a homeless man than my sister, haha.

Secondly, just because two people are the same age and the same size does not mean one can not manipulate and abuse the other and it certainly doesn't mean one can't influence the other one. I don't know how you believe that - but maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

The rest of these are just personal bias. You think it's sick - sure, so do I. You think it isn't healthy? Yup, neither do I. Is there a health risk? Sure. How does any of that differ from, say, suffocation play? I think that's sick, dangerous, and strange - but I don't think it should be illegal. I just have no interest in it.

People have a tendency to make these arguments a lot. What people do together does have far reaching effects on their psyche and to the community in general. 90% of the time, you're right - it doesn't matter what people do.

But taking the "consent" of unstable people and allowing them to molest and abuse each other is bad. I don't care if it is being closed doors or not.

--

So, yeah, if we were to psychologically assess the whole immediate family when incest occurs - I'd be fine with it. And it would have to be the whole family. Just because two siblings are having sex together and they are consenting doesn't mean they weren't abused by their Dad or their Mum for fifteen years prior.

Incest is such a tricky issue that is commonly linked directly to emotional abuse and forms of sick indoctrination and manipulation. Because of this, we need to be extremely careful and thoughtful when bringing in new legislation that deals with it. We can't just make it legal and say "if there are any problems, call the police! Have fun!" because this is a sure fire way to create serious problems.

I just don't want to see innocent people be hurt - and they will be if this law went through carelessly. If society wants to implement it, society needs to be able to make sure it's thorough and safe.

I don't believe society is able to do that right now.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

So, yeah, if we were to psychologically assess the whole immediate family when incest occurs - I'd be fine with it. And it would have to be the whole family. Just because two siblings are having sex together and they are consenting doesn't mean they weren't abused by their Dad or their Mum for fifteen years prior.

Very true. And I totally agree that abuse of a child by an adult is an awful, criminal thing.

However, in your example, the two siblings might be the only two people who understand one another. If they, because of their previous trauma, choose to be together, then that's fine with me. It's how they are coping with the previous abuse.

I don't think incest is ever a good thing, but I don't think that consensual incest should be illegal. Just because something is awful doesn't mean there should be a law against it. Should we do everything in our power to prevent it? Yes.

Oh, and should people who manipulate their relatives through abuse be arrested? Hell yes. My point is, punish the manipulators and abusers, but not the (honestly theoretical at best) consensual scenario.

I noted in a previous post that most incest is abusive, and that I generally think incest is a terrible idea. I just don't think there should be a law against it - there are enough laws against the various bad parts of it (abuse, rape of a minor, etc) already in place.

 

[Ensiferum]

Yes I have problems with it and think it should be illegal; it causes degenerate family life and it's morally wrong.

 

[cthulhumythos]

And, many people could argue people who want to have sex with their close relatives are insane, they aren't hurting anyone else, so why do we hate it so much? Is it simply prejudice? What does The Escapist think?

because it's groooooss.

it offends my senses. and it's weird. and creepy. and grooooss.

bleh.

the whole "they're not hurting anyone else" is wrong. they're hurting my brain as we speak.

assholes.

 

[Gigano]

...
You still need to make the distinction that these are "sane" people. I don't believe they are. I fully believe that people who are seriously sexually attracted to a direct, close family member invariably suffer emotionally. Some more serious than others.

If it's not all of them who aren't fully healthy - it's most of them. I think we can all agree on that.

So why do you want to make something legal that is usually done by abused, neglected and unstable people in the first place? That's incredible to me, that you want to justify and legalise what these people do.

Because those - however few - for whom it is a conscious choice made out of pure desire, should not have their freedom to do it constrained without good and specific reasons pertaining to their individual situation.

As a point of departure, we consider people of legal age and mental maturity able to make their own decisions freely, regardless of their previous history. And I for one do not favour some nanny state that second guess every potentially harmless choice its citizens make, having them prove that there isn't some trauma behind it before graciously allowing them to make it. Conversely, it must be up to the state to prove that the "ability of consent" we allow adults is somehow invalidated in a specific situation by their mentally impaired state.

That might very well often be the case with incest, but it shall fall to the state to prove this in each case; not on the individual to prove that it can be allowed a freedom which can be harmless. Just like the state must prove what harm is done by a product to reasonably outlaw it.

So while it might offend my sensibilities to some degree, I'll never support a blanket ban on incest between consenting adults. Not even when it's the result of problems suffered by a majority, for civil rights apply equally to a minority, however small it might be.

Key word "harmless". Incest isn't harmless. You know as well as I do, that cases where incest occurs and everyone is 100% totally fine and mentally healthy are extremely rare. Most of the time it involves abuse. Most of the time it involves a manipulation in power. If you make it legal, these people have a huge chance of hiding and saying "It's all consented here officer!" when it isn't. How do you prove consent?

Like I said earlier, I want psychological assessments first.

It is not inherently harmful though. If a sterilized couple of related consenting adults have sex out of pure voluntary desire, that fits the bill, but doesn't harm anyone; not even themselves. Thus that particular situation should never be outlawed.

Adults without any diagnosed mental deficiencies should not have to "prove" their ability to consent; it is the state which must prove their inability.

...Same thing as the burka ban really. The primary argument for that one is also that (some of) the women who wear these things have been forced to do so by a patriarchal culture and domestic abuse, and that even if they say that they like wearing it, then you can't trust them because of the environment they come from; Outlawing it is the only way to fully ensure that such hideous oppression does not take place. Which is all equally unfounded, since these clothing items are not inherently forced upon them (i.e. harmful), and since they're adults capable of - and conversely responsible for - any given choice until proven otherwise.

As for incestuous rapists hiding behind a façade of consent, that's hardly different than what an ordinary rapist will claim in regard to an ordinary rape; that the victim consented.

No, I think it is much deeper than that. And those couples that are brother and sister and are totally mutual and consensual - I'd put a lot of money on their being abuse or emotional neglect somewhere in their family.

Very often yes, but that shouldn't affect the rights of those for whom it might be an entirely voluntarily chosen pleasure.

It's a moral responsibility I hold Imperator. You can't make laws that would allow and encourage two people to give birth to a child that has the chance of being incredibly damaged both physically and mentally. And yes, I feel this way about people who breed with serious genetic illnesses. It's just a view point I hold and I realise not everyone does. I think it's cruel on everyone.

I never argued that incestuous breeding should be legal; But sex and procreation aren't the same thing (any more).

To me, the moral responsibility would instead be to ensure that freedom is upheld, that people can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

...though your argument is good enough that I'll recognize a need for some form of regulation of the matter, given the prevalence of problems with it. Much like guns and heroin can reasonably be regulated very strictly.

Ultimately, I'd be fine with legalising incest is the proper steps were taken. If we had the resources to do background checks on families and to screen them for psychological harm or abuse. If we did that, I'd be fine with it.

Well, I suppose you could make those screenings a mandatory part of the investigation of the (very few) cases of adult incest which come to the attention of the police. And make a conviction and sanctioning dependant on there being such psychological findings as to prove that the incestuous relationship was a result of prior manipulation and/or abuse, invalidating the weaker party's consent.

I could live with that, even if it is sort of a modification to the presumption of innocence. So that would be my proposed solution.

Just calling it legal and letting people go for it will hurt innocent people. I can guarantee you. Children who have been brainwashed and abused for twenty years will now be abused legally. "If you tell the officer that this isn't consensual, I'll kill you and your sister". It's a classic sign of abuse. I come from an abusive household and this is exactly how things work. For people looking in, no one even notices that there is ill harm there.

When incest is illegal, we can arrest these people straight away. If a neighbour sees something suspicious, they can report them and call the police and they save lives like this. Making it legal would make the whole process take so much time. For fellow Escapists who have been abused, you know first hand how hard it is to prove abuse. Especially emotional abuse. Especially when emotional abuse leads to the victim believing that they deserve it. It's a vicious circle.

I'm not happy with making that circle even bigger.

Not sure it's a circle criminal law can do much about, given that death threats, physical/psychological abuse, and in the case groomed adult incest even de facto rape would already be hidden within such families; I don't think a mother is going to rape her adult son in plain sight - groomed into submission as he may be - so I very much doubt there will be anything for the neighbours to report on (if they even want to get involved in the first place).

I have no doubt it is as you say when children are being beaten, threatened, and emotionally neglected at home, but an extensive social system is what should primarily counter these things, not criminal law infringing upon the rights of other adults as well as these families in need.

Though the solution I speculated on above, where the police could investigate these matters as they can now, but should also prove that the adult consent is invalid due to manipulative and abusive grooming, will presumably allow them the same - if not better - possibilities to look into the family as a required part of the investigation; and then find out the abusive problems and crimes it harbours, and convict the perpetrator(s) for those as well.

 

[Sir Prize]

I'm saying yes here, mainly to do with the problems of abuse and manipulation. Really, it's not by business to say what two consenting adults do in their bedroom, no matter how gross I think it is.

The post above has quotes from Kortney that pretty much state everything. Maybe an outright ban isn't the way, but at the very least it needs to be treated with care.

 

[Wolfwind]

Whatever two consenting adults want to do in the bedroom is none of my concern, so I've got no problem with it. I've got one of those "as long as you're not hurting anyone, knock yourself out" mentalities. Hell, I was good friends with a girl who married her cousin.

However, that brings up the topic of reproduction, and I dunno how I feel about that. I'm aware that it's not like every child born out of these situations produces defects, but the chances are significantly higher from what I hear. So you're not actually hurting anyone, but you are putting someone at risk. Ideally, it'd be nice to just be like "Hey, you guys know the risks, right? Maybe you shouldn't have kids." but how realistic is that? Especially considering that half of us probably aren't planned births to begin with.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

The idea of incest makes me sick to my stomach, not just the idea of me doing it either, I know that if I met someone incestuous I would be really very creeped out, and probably wouldn't want to know them.
I honestly couldn't explain why I'm so against it, in theory (provided they don't have children) there is little difference between it and homosexuality - which I have no problem with - after all, you're just talking about two consenting adults doing something that really shouldn't be anyone else's business but their own.

I voted no, it shouldn't be illegal, based on my principals, but I honestly would have liked to vote yes, it should be illegal.