Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

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.