Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

Dades

Nature doesn't agree with sky diving either.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Dades wrote: »

Nature doesn't agree with sky diving either.

Nature doesn't agree with contraception...

Zombrex

Cactus Col wrote: »

On a gut level, I guess it does disgust me. It kind of disgusts me in the same way as a teacher / student relationship does. Where one person, in the carer role, takes advantage of the other's innocence, eagerness to please, emotional instability.

That is a straw man.

You disagree with the teacher/student relationship because it is (possibly) an abuse of power and an act of manipulation because the teacher is in a position of authority over the student, who I assume is under age. If the student is over age then the issue is drawing the academic reputation of the teacher to be impartial into question, its not about protecting the student.

But anyway, how does that in anyway way apply to adult brother and sister incest? Who is the teacher and who is the student in that?

Cactus Col wrote: »

The "okay as long as it's between two consenual adults" argument doesn't really wash with me. It's the possible reasons for consent that are are at the core.

Thats where the consenting adult bit comes in. The State really isn't in the position to tell consenting adults what they actually are thinking when they consent to something. If you consent to something, with the full ability to understand and comprehend what you are consenting to, thats it. It is very difficult for the State to intervene and say that you actually didn't want to consent to something that you did consent to.

Zillah

Cactus Col wrote: »

I know this isn't very well written, and might not get my point (if I even have one) across. But that's it. I just find incest wrong. Put it to a vote, and I'll still vote no.

If I find homosexual sex to be disgusting can we send gay people to prison? Hell, if I'm completely asexual and find the entire concept of physical intimacy disgusting can I have all you weird flesh-perverts sent to prison?

Also, as alluded to, the "nature" argument doesn't mean anything. Nature has tried to kill you a thousand times already, and you're almost certainly still alive because of all sorts of unatural medicines, operations, heating, vehicles etc. Nature is awful.

anti-venom

Zillah wrote: »

If I find homosexual sex to be disgusting can we send gay people to prison? Hell, if I'm completely asexual and find the entire concept of physical intimacy disgusting can I have all you weird flesh-perverts sent to prison?

Also, as alluded to, the "nature" argument doesn't mean anything. Nature has tried to kill you a thousand times already, and you're almost certainly still alive because of all sorts of unatural medicines, operations, heating, vehicles etc. Nature is awful.

Nature is all about balance, Zillah. Nature has done as much to ensure our survival as it has done to make our survival difficult. But let's not fall into the trap of anthroporphising nature and ascribing it with 'intent'.

You have to ask yourself honestly what (if anything) is it inside of you that prevents you fron forming an incestuous relationship with a family member. If you find that it's a naturally occuring feeling of repugnance at the thought, hen you can be sure that it's nature's way of warding you off the idea. It's not your intellect that decides this; it's your instinct. You can also be sure the vast majority of the population, including the ligislature, feel the same. Attempting to turn the tide in favour of a more permissive attitude towards incest and incestuous people is one hell of a Sisyphusian task. It will never get green lighted by any government - well, at least not in our lifetimes, I'd think.

What we need is not a debate about incest per se but one about permissivness and libertarianism and why people feel they have a right to impose their attitudes on other people's private lives. In this respect we are gradually succeeding with homosexuality by educating ourselves on the subject.

This should be the agenda; how do we stop people from wanting to impose their moral strictures on others even if the others are the majority? How do we get the legislature from disentangling their religious convictions from their duties of care to to ALL it's citizens? Some might even ask if we need a legislature at all? These are the real questions that need to be tackled. While we have leaders that believe justice comes from a supernatural source we will make progress in only baby steps; not leaps and bounds.

Zombrex

anti-venom wrote: »

Nature is all about balance, Zillah. Nature has done as much to ensure our survival as it has done to make our survival difficult. But let's not fall into the trap of anthroporphising nature and ascribing it with 'intent'.

That is Zillah's point, saying nature doesn't approve of incest is pointless. Nature doesn't have intent, whether we have evolved to find incest disgusting or not is irrelevant to the morality of incest.

anti-venom wrote: »

This should be the agenda; how do we stop people from wanting to impose their moral strictures on others even if the others are the majority?

There are plenty of times when it is a good idea that people impose their moral structures on the majority, for example if I want to rape your sister.

What people need to look at is why things are moral or immoral. Gut reactions don't suffice any more. Being disgusted by something doesn't suffice any more. We need to logically and rationally look at issues.

Most people here agree that harm is the most important factor in issues of morality. Does something you want to do harm someone else. If an action of two people do not harm others, and they themselves rationally understand what they are doing, then you quickly lose reasons to not allow it.

anti-venom

Wicknight wrote: »

That is Zillah's point, saying nature doesn't approve of incest is pointless. Nature doesn't have intent, whether we have evolved to find incest disgusting or not is irrelevant to the morality of incest.


There are plenty of times when it is a good idea that people impose their moral structures on the majority, for example if I want to rape your sister.

What people need to look at is why things are moral or immoral. Gut reactions don't suffice any more. Being disgusted by something doesn't suffice any more. We need to logically and rationally look at issues.

Most people here agree that harm is the most important factor in issues of morality. Does something you want to do harm someone else. If an action of two people do not harm others, and they themselves rationally understand what they are doing, then you quickly lose reasons to not allow it.

You're right. I should have made it clear that, while we may want more permissivness, certain boundaries still have to respected such as consent, mental health, age, individual atonomy etc. This should ensures the safety of my sister and everybody else.

Again, you're right about gut reactions not sufficing as a basis for important decision making. However, I did make that point too, albeit in a more roundabout manner. This is the thinking of reasonable and rational people but you have to recognise that people STILL are, to a great extent, swayed by their gut reactions and make decisions and laws accordingly. However, as I've already stated, homosexuality is a good example here. A lot of people nowadays, despite their personal aversion to gay sex, see that they have no right to impose their will on homosexuals via the legislature. A more tolerant and reasonable door of understanding has opened. A gay cousin of mine who imigrated from here many years ago because he could no longer stomach the taunts and threats recently returned. He is amazed at the enlightenment which Ireland has undergone towards homosexuality in recent years. He no longer feels quite as intimidated.


It would a bit too much to expect most people to make rational decisions about things like incest, especially when they hand over the decision making to churches and governments who do the thinking for them. I did make this point too in my previous post. A more enlightened atmosphere is called for but the debate should pivot on any one specific issue but rather, and more broadly, on WHY most people feel they have the right to impose their (mainly) religiously grounded ideas on others. The specific taboo subjects should not be tackled in isolation but, rather, in an all encompassing and all inclusive enlightment movement.

Dades

anti-venom wrote: »

A more enlightened atmosphere is called for but the debate should pivot on WHY people feel as they do and WHY they feel they have the right to impose their (mainly) religiously grounded ideas on others. The specific taboo subjects should not be tackled in isolation but, rather, in an all encompassing and all inclusive enlightment movement.

While I agree with the sentiment, I believe these issues can only be dealt with one at a time. Let's face it the public have difficulty focusing on one issue, any more than that and the inevitable reaction is panic.

I'd also like to add that I have no interest in pushing a legalise incest agenda. I may agree that in, principle, the state doesn't have a right to interfere, but I realise that in practice (1) the state doesn't interfere (or I've never heard of it), or (2) there are other issues of actual importance that do require the State's attention.

anti-venom

Dades wrote: »

While I agree with the sentiment, I believe these issues can only be dealt with one at a time. Let's face it the public have difficulty focusing on one issue, any more than that and the inevitable reaction is panic.

I'd also like to add that I have no interest in pushing a legalise incest agenda. I may agree that in, principle, the state doesn't have a right to interfere, but I realise that in practice (1) the state doesn't interfere (or I've never heard of it), or (2) there are other issues of actual importance that do require the State's attention.

The state rarely gets an opportunity to interfere before the fact because incestuous relationships are, by and large, clandestine. Instead, they come bounding in after an incestuous relationship comes to light in order to be seen to avenge the slight on, and uphold the banner of 'moral' decency. I don't believe the state then has the right to publically ridicule and possibly endanger the wellbeing of the parties involved. The utmost discretion and sensitivity is warranted. Imagine the havoc and pain a storming, law-wielding court system could impose on consenting individuals who practise incest.