Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

Options
2456711

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    i have 3 brothers... love them and all but heck no!
    Yes, but does your personal disgust warrant making it illegal. That is, it disgusts you, so you won't do it, but if it doesn't disgust someone else, why should we stop them doing it.

    The genetic argument is very hyped up. The children of siblings have a higher chance of developing hereditary genetic diseases, but it's by no means guaranteed that a brother and sister will develop deformed or sick children. The chances of the children being sick, stupid or deformed are only marginally higher than for non-relating couples. Indeed, a person who already has a genetic disease or deformity has a much higher chance of producing "tainted" offspring (for want of a better word) than healthy siblings have.

    The problems really start to occur when you get into subsequent generations - the 3rd and upwards. The number of abnormalities increase, and the survival rates of the children plummet.

    Of course, the impact of these children on the gene pool is still minimal - they're likely to be too dead, sterile or ugly to interact with the rest of the gene pool.

    I would imagine that most of our laws come from the social distastefulness of incest rather than any genetic argument. Indeed, most of the laws dealing with incestual marraige predate the widespread understanding of genetics.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Not quite sure I see the connection with atheism. West Virginia is pretty religious but the people there are famous for their, er, loving families.

    You can meet a guy there and he says, "Let me introduce you to my sister and my wife" - but there's only one woman standing beside him. :eek:

    LOL :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    99169663.jpg

    My favourite bumper sticker


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,058 ✭✭✭all the stars


    seamus wrote: »
    Yes, but does your personal disgust warrant making it illegal. That is, it disgusts you, so you won't do it, but if it doesn't disgust someone else, why should we stop them doing it.

    The genetic argument is very hyped up. The children of siblings have a higher chance of developing hereditary genetic diseases, but it's by no means guaranteed that a brother and sister will develop deformed or sick children. The chances of the children being sick, stupid or deformed are only marginally higher than for non-relating couples. Indeed, a person who already has a genetic disease or deformity has a much higher chance of producing "tainted" offspring (for want of a better word) than healthy siblings have.

    The problems really start to occur when you get into subsequent generations - the 3rd and upwards. The number of abnormalities increase, and the survival rates of the children plummet.

    Of course, the impact of these children on the gene pool is still minimal - they're likely to be too dead, sterile or ugly to interact with the rest of the gene pool.

    I would imagine that most of our laws come from the social distastefulness of incest rather than any genetic argument. Indeed, most of the laws dealing with incestual marraige predate the widespread understanding of genetics.

    em, its yawky.. and the genetics thing also...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Wreck


    seamus wrote: »
    I would imagine that most of our laws come from the social distastefulness of incest rather than any genetic argument. Indeed, most of the laws dealing with incestual marraige predate the widespread understanding of genetics.

    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. Against that backdrop, making incest illegal would appear to be unnecessary, as the vast majority of people would not engage even without the legal deterrent.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    PDN wrote: »
    Not quite sure I see the connection with atheism.
    I'm inclined to agree, however I'd like to see where this is going, counsel. Overruled! ;)

    Though I wonder what's coming next... "Atheists and Soothers for Infants?"


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    JCB wrote: »
    I didn't see the sterilisation option as being a runner, we are trying to liberate people here I thought?

    Assuming there is a high chance of abnormalities in children generated by incest* I think it should be a runner. Lets be honest, what's the first thing that pops into someone's mind when you mention inbreeding?
    *Although according to posters here said likelihood of abnormalities has been exaggerated. I'd need more data on the matter before I could vote on say a referendum.


    Anyway, who said anything about liberation? We just don't believe in God.
    For that matter why is this question only directed at atheists, are they known for inter-sibling relationships?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Wreck


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

    Not usually, but allegedly* Dawkins really loves his mommy.


    *Obviously I just made this up


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭Mena


    Frankly, If something (in this particular case, incest) is between consenting adults, I don't feel anyone's opinion matters in the slightest. It's between the consenting adults and nobody else's business.

    When an innocent, "unconsenting" party is brought into the mix the dynamics change.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    As much as it makes me feel uneasy, I still can't think of a justification for denying two consenting adults their rights. It's none of my business what other people do, as long as nobody is suffering. We can't put our own personal preferences into law.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    It just seems to be a case of certain groups wanting to homogenize morality and behavior. Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with a consenting incestuous relationship (sexual or otherwise) - it's merely what two people are choosing to do with their own bodies (which makes it none of anyone elses business).

    From what I have heard over the years its not entirely uncommon for twin siblings of the same gender to engage in incest - some will even remain together for life. Hardly a problem for anyone else since it doesnt involve them in any way.

    When the issues of procreation is brought up however, most people tend to (understandably) squirm a little. The truth is that there are plenty of inbred folks around today so the prohibitive reaction most urbanites would have cannot be a universal trait.

    My personal opinion is that no persons should be interfering in what other people are doing where it does not directly infringe on their own lives. The issue of children and the effect it would have on them is simple - the ones doing the deed should be responsible enough to either prevent conception or they should be prepared to deal with the consequences. Since a large number of inbred offspring would have seriously weakened immune systems or internal mutations a short life span is one of those consequences.

    Now what, exactly this question has to do with atheism as a stand point is beyond me since atheism is not a declaration of moral or ethical position but a theological, philosophical and scientific position.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Wreck


    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.

    This has to be a first for the religion sub forums :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

    Someone's been following the Floyd and Heather story on Fair City...


  • Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    A terrible joke from around the time of the divorce referendum:

    A traveller couple, Johnny and Mary are lying in bed one evening.
    Mary turns to Johnny and asks: What's a divorce Johnny?
    Johnny answers: Well it's like this, if we got a divorce we wouldn't be married anymore.
    Mary thinks about this for a bit then asks: Would we still be brother and sister?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    hmmm, is this staying here? Cos if it is I'm probably gonna start a new one in Humanities.... pretty interesting discussion


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,377 ✭✭✭An Fear Aniar


    JCB wrote: »
    Please don't bring eugenics into this!!! We've seen it do enough damage already.

    I'm using the word "eugenic" in its literal sense - "likely to produce good offspring".

    If you're referring to anything else, that was not intended.

    Anyway...

    You know what they say... "if you can't keep it in your trousers, keep it in the family".


    .


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Dave! wrote: »
    hmmm, is this staying here? Cos if it is I'm probably gonna start a new one in Humanities.... pretty interesting discussion
    Dave, I've thought about moving it but you might be better off with a new one. The thread title would be odd there, and I'm curious as to whether JCB has drawn any 'atheist-related' conclusions from the reaction here.

    Humanities is pretty quiet these days too, so I wouldn't expect as much as a response as here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Dades wrote: »
    Humanities is pretty quiet these days too, so I wouldn't expect as much as a response as here.

    true enough, it aint worth the effort :( lol

    cheers


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭JCB


    Dades wrote:
    Dave, I've thought about moving it but you might be better off with a new one. The thread title would be odd there, and I'm curious as to whether JCB has drawn any 'atheist-related' conclusions from the reaction here.

    Humanities is pretty quiet these days too, so I wouldn't expect as much as a response as here.

    Thank you Dades for not moving the thread! I was specifically after the opinion of atheists which I wouldn't get elsewhere - with perhaps the exception of the Christianity forum :D

    If we can justify threads here on Lisbon, then by all means an incest thread should be no harm.

    Now what, exactly this question has to do with atheism as a stand point is beyond me since atheism is not a declaration of moral or ethical position but a theological, philosophical and scientific position.

    This is a commonly raised point. Of course what's funny about hivemind's point is that ethics are a philosophical position, no matter how it's rationalised.

    Atheism as a belief-system (or whatever you call it) seems to provide in general a relativist approach to morals. But I will allow more observation before making a definate conclusion.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭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'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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)


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭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
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    No, because of the gene pool.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    biko wrote: »
    No, because of the gene pool.
    Can these people not swim?


Advertisement