Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

OK-Cancel-Apply

Like abortion, I do think this issue has a LOT to do with religion. Those with faith tend to see things (e.g. humans) very differently from those without. I suspect that most atheists here see human beings as biochemical machines, with no 'magic' involved. I suspect that most of us here see humans simply as another species of animal on planet earth.

I would have assumed that the issue of incestuous relationships would be a no-brainer for most atheists, but it seems that the majority, so far would still deny that human right to people in that circumstance. I'm really puzzled. Is it the 'mutant kids' thing? Because I think the issue of who should and shouldn't be having kids is an issue for another thread TBH. Maybe that comes under the heading of 'screening embryos for defects'.

JCB

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a bit of a jump JCB.

Incest doesn't have a whole lot to do with homosexuality or abortion, themselves not connected either. It is perfectly possible to have a position on one that doesn't force a position on the other. Most people seem to object to incest on the grounds that children produced by such a couple have a higher risk of genetic problems. That doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality or abortion.

There seems to be more to children for the atheists here to forbid people their rights after all.

That's why I put in the Homosexual incest option. After all, why should they be deprived of their rights just because of mating hetero's?

And as I already noted, contraception and abortion could be used to prevent children and Seamus has already pointed out that the gene issue mightn't be such a big issue after all.

You are correct that there isn't a major link between abortion and incest, only that
(i) you would expect the moral relativist view to be consistant for both
(ii) the major objection to incest doesn't seem to be an issue for many athiests here anyway since so many here are pro-choice.

wicknight wrote:

Simply because they are issues that the Christian church lumped together under the universal banner of "sins" doesn't mean they actually are that connected out here in the real world.

Why are you draging christians into this? Perhaps you as an atheist should justify your own positions for a change instead of attempting to offset them against those of Christians?
After all, once the Christians don't make the rules atheists may want to have some alternative for themselves!

Zombrex

JCB wrote: »

Atheism as a belief-system (or whatever you call it) seems to provide in general a relativist approach to morals.

Atheism isn't a belief system. Most atheists on this forum would be humanists

Some humanists take the position of relativism in relation to morals. Others don't.

I take more of absolute moral stance, which is why I don't accept the argument that something like killing children is wrong unless God does it (even if one assumes God exists)

Tar.Aldarion

Dades wrote: »

I wish to declare that the Internet has changed my mind.
Now I would vote to decriminalise (easier to sell than legalise) incest between consenting adults.

That is all. For now.

Watch out Dades' siblings!

Zombrex

JCB wrote: »

You are correct that there isn't a major link between abortion and incest, only that
(i) you would expect the moral relativist view to be consistant for both

I'm not sure what you mean. What would be consistent for both?

The reasons someone objects to incest might be very different to the reasons someone objects to homosexuality or abortion.

What do you think people should be consistent with?

JCB wrote: »

(ii) the major objection to incest doesn't seem to be an issue for many athiests here anyway since so many here are pro-choice.

Again I'm not sure how you are connecting the two.

Are you saying that it is inconsistent for pro-choice people to object to incest on the grounds of increased risk of genetic faults, because the incestuous couple can abort their baby?

JCB wrote: »

Perhaps you as an atheist should justify your own positions for a change instead of attempting to offset them against those of Christians?
After all, once the Christians don't make the rules atheists may want to have some alternative for themselves!

Well that is the point. You seem to be having difficulty following how atheists make "the rules", and one assumes that is because you are viewing this in the framework of a religious belief system, like Christianity.

JCB

Re: Link between views on homosexuality and incest:

akrasia wrote:

I would be in favour of decriminalising it rather than providing a legal basis supporting it.

There should still be a stigma against it and it should still be socially unacceptable in most cases (except for the rare separated at birth events)

The same could be said for homosexuality

allthestars wrote:

em, its yawky

The same could be said for homosexuality

Wreck wrote:

I've seen it argued that the 'social distastefulness' of incest is a product of our genes - i.e. it an advantage in an evolutionary sense to be disgusted by incest, which seems to make sense

The same could be said for homosexuality

The problem is that i've yet to encounter a plausable argument to give preferential treatment to homosexuality in the form of marriage yet keep incest illegal. They're both sexual minorities, and the children argument is not really valid. So why are some of the atheists here wanting to keep incest illegal? Do they secretly want homosexuality to be illegal or not have gay marriage?

Galvesian wrote:

For that matter why is this question only directed at atheists, are they known for inter-sibling relationships?

Because other belief systems have perscribed opinions on this. Since atheism will be the new world force, i'd like to get an idea of ye'er opinions on this topic.

seamus

The problem is that i've yet to encounter a plausable argument to give preferential treatment to homosexuality in the form of marriage yet keep incest illegal. They're both sexual minorities, and the children argument is not really valid. So why are some of the atheists here wanting to keep incest illegal? Do they secretly want homosexuality to be illegal or not have gay marriage?

Not all minorities are equal though. Homosexuality is a defined sexuality with a significant (and statistically solid) population. Incest, well it's not a sexuality - people in an incestuous relationship can be hetero or homo or bi sexual. People in incestuous relationships are also not disinterested in people outside of their family. At best, it's a fetish, but that's at a push.

At most, it's simply an attraction to someone you shouldn't be attracted to. The closest thing I think it could be compared to is beastiality - to the best of my knowledge beastiality doesn't depend/say anything about a person's sexuality, it's simply an attraction.

JCB

Wicknight wrote: »

Atheism isn't a belief system. Most atheists on this forum would be humanists

Then explain to me what atheism is? I take belief system to mean 'opinion on God' or 'life system' - it's not an opt out position. I think you may be narrowing the definition somewhat.

You may be an absolutist, that certainly doesn't appear to be the majority here. I can only go on public opinion here since in the absence of a consistant absolutist stance from all atheists here then i'll take it that majority rules.

biko

No, because of the gene pool.

seamus

biko wrote: »

No, because of the gene pool.

Can these people not swim?

JCB

thank you Seamus, now we may be getting somewhere.

seamus wrote: »

Not all minorities are equal though

We'll need an absolute position here as to what is right or wrong though as practiced by those minorities.

Homosexuality is a defined sexuality with a significant (and statistically solid) population.

Having a statistically solid population doesn't make it right. We may have 2 million child perverts, that doesn't prove anything.

Incest, well it's not a sexuality - people in an incestuous relationship can be hetero or homo or bi sexual. People in incestuous relationships are also not disinterested in people outside of their family. At best, it's a fetish, but that's at a push.

Can we be certain that they are interested in those outside their family though? If not, then it comes down to a sexual preference.

At most, it's simply an attraction to someone you shouldn't be attracted to.

Who's to say shouldn't? You could say, men shouldn't be attracted to men either.

The closest thing I think it could be compared to is beastiality - to the best of my knowledge beastiality doesn't depend/say anything about a person's sexuality, it's simply an attraction.

But there is the issue with consent. Otherwise you could compare it to child pedophilary. Does the animal really consent, are they capable of it?

Zombrex

JCB wrote: »

Then explain to me what atheism is?

A rejection of assertion, as being untrue, that the human concepts of gods are real.

Atheism is barely classified as a belief let alone a belief system

JCB wrote: »

I take belief system to mean 'opinion on God' or 'life system' - it's not an opt out position. I think you may be narrowing the definition somewhat.

I take belief system to be a system of connected beliefs, one belief leading to another.

JCB wrote: »

You may be an absolutist, that certainly doesn't appear to be the majority here.

That is why it is silly to speak of atheism as a belief system. I am an atheist. Most people here are atheists. Yet we can have differences in even the most fundamental of beliefs or meta-beliefs. There is no atheist beliefs. Atheism is simply a rejection of theist assertions.

Its like classifying all people who don't think Star Wars is the best movie ever as some kind of uniform group.

JCB wrote: »

I can only go on public opinion here since in the absence of a consistant absolutist stance from all atheists here then i'll take it that majority rules.

You shouldn't. That is why I mentioned Christianity. Atheism isn't a religion.

OK-Cancel-Apply

biko wrote: »

No, because of the gene pool.

Sometimes, when I see a gang of 'little miracles' hanging around Grafton Street on a pickpocketing spree, or at the back of a double decker bus smoking and knifing the seats, I wonder if some people should be allowed to reproduce. Perhaps there should at least be some type of written test, eh? :pac:

JCB

Wicknight wrote: »

A rejection of assertion, as being untrue, that the human concepts of gods are real.

Atheism is barely classified as a belief let alone a belief system

Belief = stance = opinion held to be true. Atheism = opinion on God.

I take belief system to be a system of connected beliefs, one belief leading to another.

Am I asking for too much for anyone with a moral opinion to be consistant?

That is why it is silly to speak of atheism as a belief system. I am an atheist. Most people here are atheists. Yet we can have differences in even the most fundamental of beliefs or meta-beliefs. There is no atheist beliefs. Atheism is simply a rejection of theist assertions.

See above.

You shouldn't. That is why I mentioned Christianity. Atheism isn't a religion.

You make atheism out to be a free-for-all, while for some reason many many here have consistant opinions on lots of things. Is it all humanism, or something else? that's what i'm trying to find out.

seamus

JCB wrote: »

Having a statistically solid population doesn't make it right. We may have 2 million child perverts, that doesn't prove anything.

When comparing homsexuality to incest though, it does prove that there's more to homosexuality than just some fleeting or abnormal attraction. If homosexuality was the result of upbringing or diet or some other external factor, there would be statisical differences between populations. But there isn't. Can we say the same for incest? (Actual question)

Can we be certain that they are interested in those outside their family though? If not, then it comes down to a sexual preference.

Can we be certain that heterosexuals exclusively prefer the opposite sex? My view is that if someone is attracted to their sister, then be definition they are heterosexual, which implies that they find women in general attractive - like all heterosexual men.
Now, if there were compelling evidence to show that people who engage in incest were exclusively attracted to their family, you may have a point. But the fact that we label such cases as twins separated at birth as "incest", makes me think that this assertion doesn't hold true - that incest is not defined as a sexuality.

Who's to say shouldn't? You could say, men shouldn't be attracted to men either.

I say "shouldn't" in relative terms, I probably didn't express it properly.

But there is the issue with consent. Otherwise you could compare it to child pedophilary. Does the animal really consent, are they capable of it?

Total other can of worms. There are arguments that paedophilia is a sexuality, a state of being. I don't think those same argument exist for beastiality, though I may be wrong.

Zombrex

JCB wrote: »

Belief = stance = opinion held to be true. Atheism = opinion on God.

Atheism = opinion on the human assertion of the existence of gods.

I have plenty of different opinions on gods, including the Christian "God". Atheism is an opinion connected to the specific assertion made by some humans that gods are real rather than imaginary.

Not only is atheism not a belief system,but it doesn't describe a persons beliefs beyond their opinion on the human assertion of the existence of gods. That is quite a narrow context to have an opinion, certainly not wide enough to group people's beliefs together in any meaningful way.

Again it is like asking what do all the people who don't think Star Wars is the best film ever, believe.

JCB wrote: »

Am I asking for too much for anyone with a moral opinion to be consistant?

Yes, if the two different areas you are attempting to apply the moral are different, or the reasons behind the moral assertion are different.

What is your opinion on letting drunk country people drive home from the pub - Well, I'm against that because ...

What is your opinion on young children having mobile phones - Well, I'm for that because ...

Hypocrite!!!

Just because homosexuality, incest and abortion involve sex (or actions condemned by Christianity) doesn't imply the justifications for each or the banning of each, are connected.

JCB wrote: »

You make atheism out to be a free-for-all, while for some reason many many here have consistant opinions on lots of things. Is it all humanism, or something else?

What ever it is is, it isn't atheism.

It might be humanism, humanism is a bit of a broad scope. My personal opinion is that there are two many people with two different opinions to classify everyone, or the majority of people here, into a group of common beliefs. Even if the majority of people here agree about incest they might disagree about almost anything else.

JCB wrote: »

that's what i'm trying to find out.

You don't seem to be trying too hard ....

JCB

seamus wrote: »

When comparing homsexuality to incest though, it does prove that there's more to homosexuality than just some fleeting or abnormal attraction.
If homosexuality was the result of upbringing or diet or some other external factor, there would be statisical differences between populations. But there isn't. Can we say the same for incest? (Actual question)

I don't know the answer to that, but it is forbidden by the major religions which all had very different origins - why would they bother if it wasn't existant in their cultures? Also mentioned was the Greek and Roman times too. So it appears on the face of it to be cross-cultural, like homosexuality.

Can we be certain that heterosexuals exclusively prefer the opposite sex? My view is that if someone is attracted to their sister, then be definition they are heterosexual, which implies that they find women in general attractive - like all heterosexual men.

I assume *most* people don't change sexualities, not an expert in this area.
Does the sister to overall female link hold up?
Well it doesn't hold the other way, a lot of the posters here come across hetero but don't like their female relatives in that way.

Except of course Akrasia and his hot cousins

Now, if there were compelling evidence to show that people who engage in incest were exclusively attracted to their family, you may have a point. But the fact that we label such cases as twins separated at birth as "incest", makes me think that this assertion doesn't hold true - that incest is not defined as a sexuality.

But it isn't always separated twins, it certainly may be the most reported and potentially the most socially acceptable form but that doesn't really account for the actual secretive behaviour.

Total other can of worms. There are arguments that paedophilia is a sexuality, a state of being. I don't think those same argument exist for beastiality, though I may be wrong.

It may well be the case the paedophilia is a sexuality, but the issue of consent doesn't make it comparable to homosexaulity, like beastiality.

Daemonic

Yes - Between consenting adults.

Who am I to say yay or nay to who a person fancies. As for the gene pool, it's big enough and diverse enough for the small number of offspring from incestuous relationships not to make even the tiniest ripple.

seamus

JCB wrote: »

Well it doesn't hold the other way, a lot of the posters here come across hetero but don't like their female relatives in that way.

Except of course Akrasia and his hot cousins

Everyone has hot cousins

I think the problem here is the gender barrier. What we have at the moment is a very clear line in how we define sexual preference. There is a single, one-dimensional line defined by gender. You either prefer men or you prefer women, or you prefer both. And everybody falls into one of these three categories and doesn't deviate (obviously in the latter case you can't deviate).

That's the existing thinking.

When you attempt to shoehorn such things as beastiality, incest, or peadophilia into the current model, it doesn't work. The current model doesn't have the extra dimensions necessary.

And I don't think that changing the model to make these things acceptable is something we can expect to see in the near future. Acceptance of homosexuality didn't require a rethink of the model because it fit nicely into the model. The model was previously defined along gender barriers, and homosexuality slotted in nicely because it is expressly gender-dependent.

But when ideas such as incest are dropped in and claimed to be gender-independent, where do they fit? Do we add another dimension so that we differentiate on family lines, or do we say that they are still gender-dependent and that incest between different sexes is hetero and so forth?

Obviously I believe that the latter case is true, just the same as fancying your friend's geriatric mother is still heterosexual, even if it is societally unacceptable.

JCB

Wicknight wrote: »

Atheism = opinion on the human assertion of the existence of gods.

I have plenty of different opinions on gods, including the Christian "God". Atheism is an opinion connected to the specific assertion made by some humans that gods are real rather than imaginary.

Not only is atheism not a belief system...

ASAIC, if Lisbon/abortion etc.. is allowed here then so can this thread. If any conclusions from this thread are pointless in terms of overall atheism, grand, but it remains valid for those who frequent this forum and who call themselves 'atheists/agnostics'.

Just wondering, does 'atheism' in your opinion apply to any of the following: life stance, worldview, philosophy or ideology?

Again it is like asking what do all the people who don't think Star Wars is the best film ever, believe.

If you're asking them who do they believe put the figs in the fig roles, then yes it appears pointless. It does become interesting to correlate the difference between the two groups on what say their favorite star-wars merchandise or other aspect of star wars. It mightn't prove cause, but it still interesting.

Yes, if the two different areas you are attempting to apply the moral are different, or the reasons behind the moral assertion are different.

Isn't that what we're trying to estabilsh?

You don't seem to be trying too hard ....

I've yet to hear you make a constructive post on the content of this thread
without trying to sidetrack it, criticise me or belittle christians in general.

JCB

seamus wrote: »

When you attempt to shoehorn such things as beastiality, incest, or peadophilia into the current model, it doesn't work. The current model doesn't have the extra dimensions necessary.

The first form model about sex was simply that people fancied the opposite sex. Men -> Women, Women->Men

But the second form (homosexuality) did change the first form and provided two new aspects: Same sex and both. This created 3 new forms to this 'model' of thinking:

Men -> Men
Women -> Women
Both

With incest, the model doesn't change. It slots into all of the existing forms. Where incest can stand apart from paedophilary/beastiality is that consent is involved.

The model was previously defined along gender barriers, and homosexuality slotted in nicely because it is expressly gender-dependent.
But when ideas such as incest are dropped in and claimed to be gender-independent, where do they fit?

Incest isn't necessary gender-independent. Homosexuality could be called gender independent those grounds in that it comes in two forms - male and female. Besides, We could have legislated to make homosexuality gender-dependent and e.g. outlaw lesbianism.

Do we add another dimension so that we differentiate on family lines, or do we say that they are still gender-dependent and that incest between different sexes is hetero and so forth?

Isn't differntiating on family lines exactly what we do with permissable sex at the moment. By allowing incest you would remove this barrier.

robindch

JCB wrote: »

Following on from abortion thread, I'm just wondering what are the views of the atheists on this board to incest? Should it be legalised? Should incestuous couples have the same rights akin to Gay Marriage?

Well, at the moment, the laws contra incest are enacted, but unenforced since nobody's running around checking whether or not the occupants of the nations' beds are siblings. So, in practice, if not in theory, this lack of enforcement means that the state has decided that it tolerates incest. Neither does the state have any business running around checking who's sleeping with whom anyway.

Ignoring homosexual incest as entirely a matter for the, er, players concerned, if the rationale for the legislation is to help lower the incidence of genetic disease, rather than from a general sense of moral ikkiness, then the state would be much better employed if it mandated genetic counselling for prospective parents.

Somebody mentioned to me a while back that the Greek orthodox church in Cyprus requires some kind of GC certificate before it will do a church wedding -- this is aimed at lowering the incidence of sickle-cell anaemia, a rather horrible homozygous genetic disease which is common in Cyprus and other Mediterranean countries.

Likewise, given Ireland's high rate of Cystic Fibrosis, a similar mandate from the Dail will achieve far more public good than unenforced and largely unenforceable legislation against the peculiar, and very few, siblings who fancy each other more than anybody else.

seamus

JCB wrote: »

But the second form (homosexuality) did change the first form and provided two new aspects: Same sex and both. This created 3 new forms to this 'model' of thinking:

Men -> Men
Women -> Women
Both

But the model didn't have to change. Sexuality was still based along gender lines. Though perhaps that's telling of my years - the idea of a sexual "model" was probably not even a concept in the 40's and 50's.

With incest, the model doesn't change. It slots into all of the existing forms. Where incest can stand apart from paedophilary/beastiality is that consent is involved.

Well, not necessarily. If you are to consider it a sexuality, then we need a second dimension on the model - family - which instantly creates three new sexualities - hetero incestuous, homo incestuous and bi incestuous - and *another* three sexualities for those in the grey areas. Which gives us nine in total. There's enough debate still raging about the third one being added all those years ago.

robindch

JCB wrote: »

We could have legislated to make homosexuality gender-dependent and e.g. outlaw lesbianism.

Can't imagine this happening -- the pr0n industry would be go bust overnight.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Can't imagine this happening -- the pr0n industry would be go bust overnight.

Finally, something worth protesting against. :pac:

Zombrex

JCB wrote: »

ASAIC, if Lisbon/abortion etc.. is allowed here then so can this thread. If any conclusions from this thread are pointless in terms of overall atheism, grand, but it remains valid for those who frequent this forum and who call themselves 'atheists/agnostics'.

fair enough. so long as you appreciate the problem with starting the question "as an atheist.."

JCB wrote: »

Just wondering, does 'atheism' in your opinion apply to any of the following: life stance, worldview, philosophy or ideology?

well depends on what you mean by apply.

if you are asking is atheism can be considered to be one of them then - no, no, no and no

JCB wrote: »

I've yet to hear you make a constructive post on the content of this thread
without trying to sidetrack it, criticise me or belittle christians in general.

if you understand the problems with trying to associate atheists as one ideological group, as one may try with Christians or Jews or socialists etc, and the problem with starting questions with "As an atheist ..." then I consider that a constructive post

My mild frustration comes from vague memories of all ready trying to explain this to you, and a few other posters, already

MrVestek

Hrmm...

I dunno a strange one this. I don't think it should outlawed, people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want sexually as long as it's between two consenting adults. Personally the idea sickens me as alot of other ideas sicken me but I try to keep an open mind... nothing to do with me if johnny's shagging his mother or his sister or whatever, that's between himself and his sister.

Voted yes for it to be legalised based on the fact that it's consensual between two adults.

JCB

seamus wrote: »

But the model didn't have to change. Sexuality was still based along gender lines. Though perhaps that's telling of my years - the idea of a sexual "model" was probably not even a concept in the 40's and 50's.

Well, not necessarily. If you are to consider it a sexuality, then we need a second dimension on the model - family - which instantly creates three new sexualities - hetero incestuous, homo incestuous and bi incestuous - and *another* three sexualities for those in the grey areas. Which gives us nine in total. There's enough debate still raging about the third one being added all those years ago.

I understand your points - but really, this complication doesn't merit the guy and his sister going to jail for 2,5 years/mental home.

It would be easier to make the whole issue revolve around consent. no 9 sexualities required.

JCB

Wicknight wrote: »

fair enough. so long as you appreciate the problem with starting the question "as an atheist.."

if you understand the problems with trying to associate atheists as one ideological group, as one may try with Christians or Jews or socialists etc, and the problem with starting questions with "As an atheist ..." then I consider that a constructive post

My mild frustration comes from vague memories of all ready trying to explain this to you, and a few other posters, already

Mild frustration?!? I thought you were the fountain of endless patience :P

Thinking about it more the reason I say 'as an atheist' is really meaning to say 'one not bound by dogma' in that when one does not perscribe to a faith, what are their opinions then.

seamus

JCB wrote: »

It would be easier to make the whole issue revolve around consent. no 9 sexualities required.

Agreed. And I've totally forgotten what point (if any) I was trying to make
I tend to go off on tangents, forgetting there's an actual discussion taking place.

Consent is in fact where I think we should draw the line, but many people still have a problem with that - particularly when you get into the grittier aspects of sexual conduct - torture or even suicide. The argument could be made that if you're allowing serious torture or even suicide to take place in a sexual context, then the person being tortured or dying is not in the frame of mind to give proper consent.

Probably going a bit far, but I'm sure plenty of people would argue that those engaging (knowingly) in incest are not in the right frame of mind to be considered capable of giving consent.

Complete crap of course. I find scat to be more "offensive" than incest, yet if two adults want to crap on eachother for kicks, I see no reason to stop them.

ChocolateSauce

Morally, I see nothing wrong with consenting adults, but when children become involved it becomes far greyer. They risk genetic defects, and they face social stigma.

Adopting would be a viable alternative.

I do not think government has any right to even know about it, let alone act on it.

raah!

St Thomas Aquinas has a very humerous argument against incest (using secular reasoning of course). Here he is refering to brother-sister incest in particular: "If the love of husband and wife were combined with that of brother and sister, mutual attraction would be so strong as to cause unduly frequent intercourse".

So you see, if we legalise incest, thousands or even millions of people will waste away in bed due to constant sexual intercourse. Society as we know it will break down.

That aside, apart from the eugenics argument (which it has already been stated can be quite dangerous) I don't think there is any form of secular reasoning to condemn incest. (apart from that funny passage up there). I'll vote yes for these reasons (even though I'm not an athiest, but I'd be excluded from nearly every debate out there if my outlook was based on things like revelation or any of that).

Brackets.

Standman

In my opinion incest laws are another example of the law sticking it's nose where it has absolutely no business i.e. peoples private lives.

Flamed Diving

I voted yes. Not because I am an atheist, but because I am a libertarian. Why anyone would vote for anything in the name of atheism is beyond me.









BTW, incest? Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

bogwalrus

maybe the law is necessary.

We have people getting pregnant in this day and age enexpectedly. Accidental births and the like. Who is'nt to say that these "brothers and sisters" might accidently get pregnant.

Sexual intercourse between two family members should probably not be allowed as there is still a percentage that the girl might get pregnant. And maybe the only way to prevent this is to make a law that is understood by all social classes.

Dave!

Well then you have to address the issue of other people with hereditary diseases having children. Should this not be permitted either?

And what's the % chance of mutation/deformity between siblings anyway?

Anyone know? Maybe we've been mislead...

bogwalrus

well if i had a serious disease that i knew was hereditary i would make sure i could never have kids. As in i get a snippy snippy. That would be the right decision i think and that is where i think incest differs. Or the approach to it anyway.

Dades

bogwalrus wrote: »

well if i had a serious disease that i knew was hereditary i would make sure i could never have kids. As in i get a snippy snippy.

You might think differently if someone told you that you couldn't have kids, and to ensure you didn't gave you snippy snippy to be safe.

jtsuited

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a bit of a jump JCB.

Incest doesn't have a whole lot to do with homosexuality or abortion, themselves not connected either. It is perfectly possible to have a position on one that doesn't force a position on the other. Most people seem to object to incest on the grounds that children produced by such a couple have a higher risk of genetic problems. That doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality or abortion.

Simply because they are issues that the Christian church lumped together under the universal banner of "sins" doesn't mean they actually are that connected out here in the real world.

that's the sound of the nail hitting the head.

i think this thread is really more of an exhibition of a serious error in the OP's thought process.

Dades

I think the original comparison to gay couples was simply that it involved two consenting adults barred by law from getting married.

i.e., now people are rethinking gay marriage laws, should we also look at the laws surrounding incest? Of course gay 'relations' had to be decriminalised first, before marriage was even mentioned. Something that would likely have to happen with incest too, if it were to ever happen.

So there are corollaries there, imo.

Cactus Col

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424937.stm

This is a follow up article to the one linked in the original post. It gives a bigger over view about the couple's relationship.

Looking at the two articles we learn that Patrick, presumably made contact with his mother and sister in 2000.
"He did not meet his mother and biological family until he was 23. He travelled to Leipzig with a friend in 2000, determined to make contact with his other relatives."

So his sister would have been 15 at that stage (she was 22 in march 2007 when the article was published).

Their Mother passed away about 6 months later.

After which Patrick moved in with his sister. Their first child was born in 2001, when the sister was 16 years old. (maybe 17).


In theory, I agree what two consenting adults get up to in their own bedroom is their own business.

However, in this case at least, where you have a chap in his 20's messing about with his sister in her mid teens after her mother passed away ... well it's a bit on the creepy side.

Tigger

its not a bit anything its sick

ah common this is rediculious there are comparisons to homosexuality here which is crazy

sure what about beastiallity

athiesim is not about burning morals , its about being moral an good for humanities sake

im sure the nihilsim fourm is around somewhere

Dades

Tigger wrote: »

sure what about beastiallity

Animals can't give consent. Adult siblings can.

The question is should it be banned as a detriment to society, not because people find it unpalatable.

eddyc

It would be very hard to ban it, but people should be cautioned strongly that they are at risk of procreating people with severe genetic defects that will make their lives very difficult.

Dave!

Tigger wrote: »

its not a bit anything its sick

ah common this is rediculious there are comparisons to homosexuality here which is crazy

sure what about beastiallity

athiesim is not about burning morals , its about being moral an good for humanities sake

im sure the nihilsim fourm is around somewhere

Emotion overriding rationality by any chance?

Conar

I instantly voted no as I had that ewwww feeling when I first read it.
Now after reading though I would say maybe it should be decriminalised.
It is an awkward one though there are so many factors different to that of a "normal" couple.
Lets say for example in the situation of casual sex. I wouldn't like to think that it would ever get to the point where peoples sisters would be their fcuk buddies and an accidental pregnancy was the outcome.
At the same time I see no problem with 2 adults sharing their life together and minding their own business in their own relationship and bed in their own house. Who are we to impose our morals on something that causes no harm to others.
I'd also be interested in seeing some true stats as to the dangers of incestuous offspring.

JCB as mentioned by others we as atheists don't all follow the same moral code and I find it very annoying that people won't accept this.
Yes a much higher proportion of atheists may be pro gay marriage or pro-choice than Christians but no more so than more Democrats in the USofA are as opposed to Republicans.
We don't meet up every Sunday and agree on a combined stance on issues.
The only true common belief is a lack of belief in a supernatural Deity.

Zillah

Tigger wrote: »

athiesim is not about burning morals , its about being moral an good for humanities sake

What the hell does morality have to do with two consenting adults having sex? You're not objecting on moral grounds, you're being childishly squeemish, nothing more.

And atheism is about not believing in God, nothing more. Perhaps you're getting confused with secular humanism?

anti-venom

It's got to be wrong on so many levels. What about those defective genes that all of us carry? A child born from an incestious relationship would have a greatly increased risk of being born with mental or physical deformities. The parent's chromosomes have to be different to cancel out the defective genes.

It must be grossly immoral to take this risk knowing that your offspring could be severely deformed?

You don't need a detailed knowledge of genetics to know the risks. Socities such as the Australian Aboriginies have traditionally gone to elaborate lengths to avoid this danger. They were aware of the risks.

Dades

anti-venom wrote: »

It must be grossly immoral to take this risk knowing that your offspring could be severely deformed?

You appear to have glossed over the other posts in this thread that alluded to unrelated couples, one or more of whom carry a genetic defect.

Would you legislate against them reproducing also? Or is it okay for them as their relationship is not distasteful?

Rev Hellfire

anti-venom wrote: »

It must be grossly immoral to take this risk knowing that your offspring could be severely deformed?

I totally agree, perhaps we should also sterilise people who are handicapped through genetic conditions, poor eyesight is often inherited lets bar couples who are both require glasses, and fat people cos that's genetic now.

People take risks when it comes to breeding very day of the week, the risks from what I recall for isolated incest are nowhere as great as you make out, its rife in the animal kingdom.