Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

Tigger

Dades wrote: »

Firstly what they do in France is irrelevant. We're talking about Irish legislation.

Secondly, being over the age of consent does not by default make you an adult in eyes of the law. It makes you over the age of consent. What most people here seem to be be saying, is that adults should be allowed to practice in private what they consent to do.

man yer passionate about all this

can you not see that incest is wrong

i'm amazed

Flamed Diving

Tigger wrote: »

man yer passionate about all this

can you not see that incest is wrong

i'm amazed

Wrong is only a human construct.

Dades

Tigger wrote: »

man yer passionate about all this

Incest is for life, not just for Christmas.

Tigger

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Wrong is only a human construct.

i'm a human

Flamed Diving

Tigger wrote: »

i'm a human

Well done. So anything that you say is wrong, is universally wrong? Is there just one universal right/wrong for everything in life?

Dinner

Tigger wrote: »

can you not see that incest is wrong

Why?

Have you a better reason then "Eeeeeeeew it's icky!"?

As has been already mentioned if the state is going to take away people's liberty then it would need a pretty damn good reason to do it. "It's disgusting" and "Those people are mentally ill" are not reasons, they are knee jerk reactions.

You are deliberatly bringing up the age of consent in France as an example because you know that no one here will say it's right for a father to have sex with his 15 year old daughter. That is sensationalism as you casually overlook the fact that people are not mentioning the age of consent but rather 2 consenting adults.

I don't care what somebody does in their bedroom so long as I'm not subjected to it, as I would be with the auld lad **** in a library and for you to rather hire someone with a fetish for whacking one out in public than someone in a loving (albeit highly unusual) relationship is unusual and worrying to say the least.

Dave!

Tigger wrote: »

1 i will not employ practicesers of incest

Well that's your own perogative, but the reason you gave (it would look bad and damage your business), whilst probably being fair, really has no relevance to the discussion to be honest. So let's leave that aside.

Tigger wrote: »

2 i dissaprove of parent child incest

Everybody disapproves of this when the child is underage.

Some people disapprove of this even when the child is adult.

Other people (like perhaps me) are unsure about this.

It's a more complicated situation than with siblings.

Tigger wrote: »

i then asked for clarification of consent

in the absence of clarification of concent i found that in france the age of concent for sexual acts is 15

Why would you choose France as an example? If (as you allege) France's age of consent is 15, then I suspect that most people here would disapprove of that age irregardless of whether it's incest or not.

Just deal with clear-cut situations with adults before you muddy the water with other ones mate.

*See next point*

Tigger wrote: »

this is not a strawman this is a question i have asked whether anyone here can tell me they approve of parent child sexual congress and if so at what age

Here I will refer you to this part of my post:

Everybody disapproves of this when the child is underage.

Some people disapprove of this even when the child is adult.

Other people (like perhaps me) are unsure about this.

It's a more complicated situation than with siblings.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Tigger wrote: »

can you not see that incest is wrong

Regardless of what you think, it's unfortunately none of your business what two adults do with each other, so that's why it should not be illegal. I myself don't particularly like thinking about the concept, but the whole point here is about people liberties. We cannot take them away just because we find what they do gross.

Now how the heck did this thread drift into the age of consent? Surely that, like bestiality is another topic altogether...

anti-venom

Dades wrote: »

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?

No I wouldn't want to see any attempt to legislate against unrelated people reproducing. That is getting into the murky world of eugenics. People do run a certain amount of risk with reproduction. For instance, if an unrelated couple both carry a defective gene for a particular disorder then there is a much heightened risk of their offspring being born with that disorder. This is simply something we have to live with. It's unavoidable, in the main, and it is part and parcel of the human experience. Obviously no state or legislature should have the right to regulate who breeds and who doesn't in this instance.

This is an acceptable risk and this is how it should remain. However, as we know the risks to the offspring of incestious couples increase manifold. Is it acceptable to permit people to take such risks with the health of potential offspring? By keeping incest as a taboo society greatly reduces instances of this avoidable danger. Because it is avoidable and contrary to natural selection are we not responsible as a society to see that it remains so? Would you offer the same rights and freedom to consenting cannibals?

It is a highly moral question. If our morals are only a sophisticated veneer that we plaster over our primal instincts, then does it not stand to reason, in this context, that our repugnance to incest is firmly rooted in our instincts?

Burial

I hate when I leave boards for awhile, theres usually huge replies to be had. Anyway, Tigger can you please make an argument against incest. At the moment your making no points to support your arguments, your just making claims.

Tigger wrote: »

are we talking parent/age of consented child incest here

as in a father and his 18 year old daughter?

Yes, so long as the father DIDN'T train his daughter to have sex with him when she turned 18. It started off at brother and sister, which you said you had no problem with, now it can be father daughter, however you must now provide evidence and an argument to which base your opinion on this subject. Notice how I'm saying evidence. It generally helps the claims your going to make.

Tigger wrote:

not based on who they are married to based on the fact that they are doing the insest. logic : i would be seen as approving and would loose business

Please tell me how will it effect your business? If people say but he practices incest, just say, oh I didn't know and continue on. However, looking at the other angle, you'll also be seen as judging people on who they sleep with. I believe that too will have an effect on your business as hiring these people as you claim.

wrote:

incest is against evolution and surviaal of the fittest

What??? You reproduce, they reproduce. Not against evolution. In fact it may suprise you to learn that marrying your cousin was standard practise in Pride+Prejudice England. Anyway, if it's against evolution then as survival of the fittest, they'd lose out. Makes no difference to you.

wrote:

why are poeople not allowed mastrubate in the library?
because its gross it stops others from being able to relax
what if they are quiet? see its soo offputting that it wouldn't matter they however are not harming anyone and if you don't like it don't look

Do you honestly believe in what you are saying? All forms of sex in public are banned. This has nothing to do with the topic as isn't supporting your arguments, in fact it's making them worse. If you want another reason as to why they are absurd claims, look back at my other post for my response. I'm not wasting my time writing that stuff again.

wrote:

some things are beyond the pale

What does this mean in English?

wrote:

why is murder illegal?

Because you kill someone without their consent and plan it before hand to solely go out and kill that person. Once again, not supporting your argument.

wrote:

i caught someone stealing from me on wednesdaybut instead of being true to nature nd beating his face in i just fired him and that was that why?
because i am civillicsed i eat with a knife and fork, let people in at t junctions and don't shag my sister

Very nice of you. I would've of called the police and fired him. In fact, are you implying all incestuous people don't eat with knives and forks or aren't civilized? Many people who don't do incest are also uncivilized and don't let people in at t-junctions. Please make arguments that support your position.

wrote:

explainto me why really why mastrubation in public is not allowed
why i cant shag my wife over the bonnet of my car when i'm down and bored at a picnic is it not bnecause civillised behaviour is tangable

Your serious saying doing something in private is the same as public indecency?

wrote:

this crap that comes out about in privatethis and in private that is nonsense once i know they are doing it then its not in private so i would not hire them
iu'd rather hire the old blolke that likes to jack off in the library

Well, I'm sure hiring that guy who jack'd off in the library who also "hurt" your business as you say. If you never knew, hired an incest, and then found out, would you fire them? And I have to ask why? Please give a better reason then I think because incest is wrong. They'll sue you in a minute and win and be thankful you did just that.

Ok-Cancel-Apply wrote:

But bestiality can never be legalised because there's no clear cut consent. Animals cannot communicate unambiguously with humans, so what's to stop a human raping a goat? Let's say a guy of 6'7", 25st decides to hold down a goat and have his way, despite obvious protest from the animal. Any witness who reports an act of cruelty has no leg to stand on, because the perpetrator can always just claim the animal gave consent. Animals can't sit down in court and say otherwise. And where do we draw the line? What animals can and can't we have sex with? Should we decide by species? By weight? Size? It would be unspeakably cruel to have sex with a chicken.

However, an adult human can both report a crime and gave unambiguous consent. So on what grounds can we take away the human liberty for two people two choose to have sex?

Agree with everything you just said.

pwd wrote:

Incest provokes a gut reaction of repulsion. Not the moral outrage of the civilized mind, but the gut-twisting yank of something more fundamentally wrong. There shouldn't be a need to explain it is wrong when it is fundamentally, instinctively wrong. Not getting that suggests a detachment from reality. Someone who actually commits incest is not right in the head. It's as wrong as the sky is blue. Ask someone to tell you how they know the sky is blue and they'll have the same sort of difficulty as in telling you incest is wrong.

Incest transgrsses natural boundaries. Committing incest suggests someone who is unaware of these boundaries or able to ignore them - a sociopath.

The species most genetically similar to humans is the pygmy chimp. Pygmy chimps have sex constantly and indiscriminately. With them the only coupling that seems taboo is between mother and adult offspring. But we're not pygmy chimps.

Problem is, we CAN explain why the sky is blue. You can't explain why incest is wrong.

pwd wrote:

wow
mind boggles - I've just been told it's ridiculous not to think incest is an okey dokey thing to do.
You're a motherfucker.
Technically you shouldn't perceive that as an insult.

You still haven't provided an argument, and quite frankly you shouldn't have to resort to name calling in a debate. It makes any point your trying to make seem very much worse. If I did your mother and you didn't like it, because it went against your gut-feeling, should I be banned from having relations with your mother?

pwd wrote:

I was actually trying to distinguish it from morals altogether and put it in the context of instinct.
By gut-feeling I am referring to instinctive feelings. I don't think people have instinctive feelings about the existence of a god.

Are you trying to claim instinct is what we should follow? I feel, no sorry, it's my instinct that I should kill everyone who disagrees with me. Do you accept this as fact and should be followed as it is instinct, or do you disagree and agree not everything goes by instinct?

Tigger wrote:

my argument is that i have two issues

1 i will not employ practicesers of incest
2 i dissaprove of parent child incest

i then asked for clarification of consent

in the absence of clarification of concent i found that in france the age of concent for sexual acts is 15

this is not a strawman this is a question i have asked whether anyone here can tell me they approve of parent child sexual congress and if so at what age

france was an example

Stop complaining people aren't responding, even though they are. Anyway, you owe me one logical explanation as to why incest is wrong. If we're talking about brother and sister, you've said it's ok. Just father daughter isn't. Anyway, I had the decency to respond logically to your argument and you ignored it. You owe me an explanation as to why incest is wrong.

Dades

anti-venom wrote: »

However, as we know the risks to the offspring of incestious couples increase manifold. Is it acceptable to permit people to take such risks with the health of potential offspring? By keeping incest as a taboo society greatly reduces instances of this avoidable danger.

That a curious way of dealing with a rights situation though.

By keeping something taboo - which is simply feeding people's prejudice - we can deter people from doing something which we ought really to have no say in. I was of the same mind as you as the start of this thread and now I'm partial to the view that we really need a reason other than personal revulsion to tell people how to live/love/reproduce.

What we really need at this point is some clarification on the actual risks involved for offspring of related couples, as this seems to be the only real point that can be offered in support of continued illegality.

anti-venom

Fair enough. However, I don't see that the law can do much to prevent incest anyway. In the unlikely event that the incest laws were repealed you would most probably not see any marked increase in cases of incest. The tiny minority of consenting incestous couples that probably exist would hardly make their affairs known to all. And why not? It's not the law of the land that prevents people from commiting incest - it's something more fundamental and integral to our genetic makeup which stops us from coupling with our closest relatives. Other factors may, in some people, over-ride these inherent repulsive feelings about incest but, by and large, people are guided by their instincts and not the law in these matters. Even the least educated and primitive of populations avoided close incestous relationships like the plague.

Perhaps the word Taboo was a poor choice in this case. It has connotations of ignorance, superstition and religious blinkering. But most people nowadays would have some rudimentary knowledge of genetics and what is safe and what isn't. If one is equipped with this knowledge and still persists in an incestious relationship then they have to face the consequences.

Dudess

Beruthiel wrote: »

Flowers in the Attic

To be fair, that book didn't exactly paint a flattering picture of incest... Well the children weren't deformed but it was all very dark and murky and sinister.

These "cuz it's WRONG and SICK!!!" "reasonings" are making me LOL.

I'm of the view that the taboo surrounding incest is socially/culturally constructed.

Tigger

this thread has shown me why god was invented

its too hard to explain stiff to logical people using logic so throw the logic out the window and say; god said thats why

(waits to be told god approves of incest)

Dave!

What's with the quote in your signature Tigger?

Galvasean

Dave! wrote: »

What's with the quote in your signature Tigger?

Clearly a case of showing off the quote out of context in an attempt to make people see Dudess as a weirdo.

Galvasean

Tigger wrote: »

(waits to be told god approves of incest)

Adam&Eve LOL

MissHoneyBun

Perhaps when all those championing the notion of incest here go home and make love to their parents then their ramblings might actually gain credibility.

Hivemind187

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

Perhaps when all those championing the notion of incest here go home and make love to their parents then their ramblings might actually gain credibility.

Disjointed. Senseless. Agressive.

Are we posting from the heart rather than the head?

MissHoneyBun

Galvasean wrote: »

Clearly a case of showing off the quote out of context in an attempt to make people see Dudess as a weirdo.

Boards users quote other users all the time. Tigger is entitled to do the same surely? He quoted another individual word for word, where's the problem? Are you suggesting he quote the entire thread in his signature?

MissHoneyBun

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Disjointed. Senseless. Agressive.

Are we posting from the heart rather than the head?

Not at all
Just wondering, given that incest is so wonderful and all, why it's supporters here aren't partaking in it's pleasures? Anyone know why?

Galvasean

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

Not at all
Just wondering, given that incest is so wonderful and all, why it's supporters here aren't partaking in it's pleasures? Anyone know why?

I think it's the notion of the posters here may not be into it themselves but don't see why others should be forced not to.
Of course if you read the thread...

Tar.Aldarion

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

Not at all
Just wondering, given that incest is so wonderful and all, why it's supporters here aren't partaking in it's pleasures? Anyone know why?

Women having sex with women isn't wrong, why isn't everybody doing it?
Eating tomatoes isn't wrong why isn't everybody doing it?
Playing rugby isn't wrong, why isn't everybody doing it?

c0rk3r

Because what people say on the internet and what they say (and do) in real life are two entirely separate things. Imagine sitting around a pub with a group of people, which is what boards has been described as numerous times and admitting that you thought Incest was ok...

What do you think would happen in the real world ?

MissHoneyBun

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

Women having sex with women isn't wrong, why isn't everybody doing it?
Eating tomatoes isn't wrong why isn't everybody doing it?
Playing rugby isn't wrong, why isn't everybody doing it?

Thank you Tara Le d'Arion, I really enjoyed your post.
Now if I may revert to the actual topic, how many fans of incest here actually engage in what they are supporting? Because those are the kinds of people I have time for, those who practice what they preach. So out of curiosity, who here has had incestuous relations? (No pun intended ) Or do you all just talk the talk? Until then, I'll say no more.

Galvasean

c0rk3r wrote: »

Because what people say on the internet and what they say (and do) in real life are two entirely separate things. Imagine spitting around a pub with a group of people, which is what boards has been described as numerous times and admitting that you thought Incest was ok...

What do you think would happen in the real world ?

Well for starters if they're just spitting in a public place their moral fibre is dubious to begin with....
Cheek aside, if I were to say 'If some people wanna do incest stuff that's none of my business' in real life I don't think anyone would call me on it.

Dades

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

So out of curiosity, who here has had incestuous relations? (No pun intended ) Or do you all just talk the talk? Until then, I'll say no more.

Unless you cop on, you will say no more.

Quit your trolling.

Galvasean

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

Thank you Tara Le d'Arion, I really enjoyed your post.
Now if I may revert to the actual topic, how many fans of incest here actually engage in what they are supporting? Because those are the kinds of people I have time for, those who practice what they preach.

I don't think anyone has professed to being a 'fan' here. To reiterate Tara Le d'Arion's point if people want to eat tomatoes its up to them. I personally cringe at the taught.

c0rk3r

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't think anyone would call me on it.

lulz. Really? Im pretty sure whatever reputation you had would be tarnished in an instant.

Galvasean

c0rk3r wrote: »

lulz. Really? Im pretty sure whatever reputation you had would be tarnished in an instant.

Perhaps the people I hang out with are less judgmental than your piers?