What makes the case unfortunate is the young lady in question has been attacked and threatened by members of the public. Furthermore, as the arguments above have indicated, it’s not entirely clear what makes incest wrong when we are dealing with consenting adults.
Because of her ‘disgusting’ acts, she has been forced to flee her home. If we agree that consenting adults are allowed to have sex, then what makes these two people different, besides sharing parents?
In an effort to battle bad ideas, we should scrutinise (or at least be willing to scrutinise) every view, belief and idea we have.
Incest In Britain, when a young lady was ‘caught’ having sex with her brother, both siblings blamed the other, citing alcohol, desperation and so, on as motivations. What is of concern is “the pair were convicted of committing incest under section 1(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995”. Now, according to the law, they should be convicted. But here it’s clear that neither rape nor paedophilia are the problem in the recent case, since both siblings are adults and both consented – in the same way any other drunken couple implicitly consent, since neither partner was forced into it. Given the implicit consent and their ages, it’s not clear that this would be any different than other sexual engagements where, after the fact, one or both (or all three) regret the act.
Cancers and earthquakes, by the way, are also natural.
The philosopher Julian Baggini has correctly said that something being natural tells us no more about its moral property than if you said something was red.
It is none of our business what two consenting adults wish to do (as long as no one else is harmed/involved without consent).