Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

Tigger

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

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?

the word quote is a link to the context

this thread is crazy ye are all saying tat incest should be ok

i btw didn't and don't agree with siblings shagging i simply conceeded the point

Tigger

Galvasean wrote: »

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

what ?

am i in a parallel dimension

Dinner

Tigger wrote: »

what ?

am i in a parallel dimension

If it's one where you believe that the government should control what happens in people's bedrooms then yes, yes you are.


So tell us, what are the reasons against incest that are so bad that the government has to step in? Take note: It's icky is not an argument.

Tigger

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?

this thread started off well but soon lost impitous

women having sex with each other is fine (as long as they aren't realated) so is men having sex with each other is healty fun sexual appatite being played out for enjoyment

tomatoes when cooked help provide excelled anti cancer properties to ones gut and prostate

this is import and and also make very nice salads

rugby is a grand game although my own personal tastes would have a less homoerotic slant

people shagging their parents is wrong

now pwd (banned) pointed out that one would have to be a sociopath to not see this an i have to agree here is one for ye
is the killing of animals and then having sex with their carcasses wrong

i don't wish to do it but if they arre killed in a humane manner is it ok well yes unless you are a hipo or a vegtablarian you will have to conceed the point that the killing of animals in a humane way is fine
and using tham at home as a mastrabuatory device would therefore be fine

oh heres one necrophillia sure when i'm dead i'm dead people ask me what i'd like played at my funeral and i say" what ever you like i'll be dead"

so if someone wanted to warm up my corpse and rogger it in the privacy of their own bedroom that'd be cool banannas

its all the same either their is a human fundamental that is or should be programmed into you or there isnt

i personaly prefer a heartbeat in my conquests but i'd (and you can quote me on this ) rather shag a dead horse than my brother

c0rk3r

Arabel wrote: »

If it's one where you believe that the government should control what happens in people's bedrooms then yes, yes you are.

Government policy is dictated by the will (current climate, number of things really,maybe "will" isnt the correct word) of the people thus its society itself that consider it wrong.

Tigger

c0rk3r wrote: »

Government policy is dictated by the will (current climate, number of things really,maybe "will" isnt the correct word) of the people thus its society itself that consider it wrong.

well put

of course soceity believes in god or seems to

i applaude these radical champions of the incestuious

anti-venom

Arabel wrote: »

If it's one where you believe that the government should control what happens in people's bedrooms then yes, yes you are.


So tell us, what are the reasons against incest that are so bad that the government has to step in? Take note: It's icky is not an argument.

Not wanting to come across as too much of a Maude Flanders but 'won't someone please think of the children?' If being fathered by your uncle or having your mother and grandmother as one person is acceptable then, I guess, incest is ok. Remember, those kids born of an incestuous relationship did not ask to be born into such a dire situation. If the psychological wellbeing of kids isn't enough to convince people, then I don't know what is. If something like this is avoidable then it should be avioded.

Regrettably it's only after the damage has been done that the government gets to step in.

OK-Cancel-Apply

There are a few people here who just don't get what this is really about. This is NOT about promoting the idea of incest. This is about people's liberties. We're going to have to accept that OTHER PEOPLE do things that we may not like. Incest may rub us the wrong way, as may homosexuality, but for the 1,000,000th time, this issue is about what other people (people who's lives have nothing to do with ours), two consenting adults, do with each other, mostly in private. You may not like incest, but nobody is forcing YOU to do it.

If an incestuous relationship is taking place down the road from me, it does not affect me. It's none of my business. Nobody is suffering. As much as the concept rubs me the wrong way, I just get on with my life, and leave other people to get on with theirs. Everyone has a right to pursue happiness, and as long as they are not hurting anybody, or stepping on other people's rights or liberties, we should not stop them. We cannot throw people in jail for having a relationship we disapprove of. That should not be written into law.

Tigger

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

There are a few people here who just don't get what this is really about. This is NOT about promoting the idea of incest. This is about people's liberties.

absolute tosh

rationalisation and logic are not the be all and end all
love and hate are real emotions are real we are more than logical apes

Tar.Aldarion

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. 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.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/logic/
http://books.google.ie/books?hl=en&id=3WwdwPvNb2wC&dq=logic&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=E0wKCEA_fz&sig=6iB-OWo7J6sMgTQg0BV0gMm6iDM&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA1,M1

Tigger wrote: »

this thread started off well but soon lost impitous

women having sex with each other is fine (as long as they aren't realated) so is men having sex with each other is healty fun sexual appatite being played out for enjoyment

tomatoes when cooked help provide excelled anti cancer properties to ones gut and prostate

this is import and and also make very nice salads

rugby is a grand game although my own personal tastes would have a less homoerotic slant

people shagging their parents is wrong

thanks for the information? My post was about nothing of what you suggest, the point was clear. I was referring to MissHoneyBun's erroneous 'reasoning'.
If we argue that two men may have sex and it is perfectly ok, clearly that is wrong if we do not practice homosexuality?

now pwd (banned) pointed out that one would have to be a sociopath to not see this an i have to agree here is one for ye
is the killing of animals and then having sex with their carcasses wrong

i don't wish to do it but if they arre killed in a humane manner is it ok well yes unless you are a hipo or a vegtablarian you will have to conceed the point that the killing of animals in a humane way is fine
and using tham at home as a mastrabuatory device would therefore be fine

Hmm, is one of the moderators of the vegetarian forum vegetarian, hmmmm?
But other people's barbaric practices relating to animals is for another thread. ;-)

oh heres one necrophillia sure when i'm dead i'm dead people ask me what i'd like played at my funeral and i say" what ever you like i'll be dead"
so if someone wanted to warm up my corpse and rogger it in the privacy of their own bedroom that'd be cool banannas

I don't know about others but I couldn't care less about what happens to my body when I die. Why would I?

its all the same either their is a human fundamental that is or should be programmed into you or there isnt

I think this needs more verbs. I don't follow.

i personaly prefer a heartbeat in my conquests but i'd (and you can quote me on this ) rather shag a dead horse than my brother

That's nice. I'd rather not give them the pleasure of my acquintance.

anti-venom wrote:

Not wanting to come across as too much of a Maude Flanders but 'won't someone please think of the children?' If being fathered by your uncle or having your mother and grandmother as one person is acceptable then, I guess, incest is ok. Remember, those kids born of an incestuous relationship did not ask to be born into such a dire situation. If the psychological wellbeing of kids isn't enough to convince people, then I don't know what is. If something like this is avoidable then it should be avioded.

Regrettably it's only after the damage has been done that the government gets to step in.

So kids born to fat, ginger, single parents etc should not be allowed, clearly their mental wellbeing will be affected by bullying in school? Ginger people shouldn't be allowed procreate? This is much easier to enforce btw, not much help needed. ;-)

Triumph des Willens eh.

Tigger

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

Hmm, is one of the moderators of the vegetarian forum vegetarian, hmmmm?
But other people's barbaric practices relating to animals is for another thread. ;-)

sorry didn't realise nothing personal ment

Dudess

If two people who are related fall in love and embark on a relationship, why should they go to prison for it? That's all people here are saying.

Tigger

because its wrong

they aren't two people if they are father and son they are father and son

i have to believe ye are winding me up

OK-Cancel-Apply

Tigger, you've made it clear that you'd rather live in a world where we decide what's right and wrong based on our feelings, not logic, reason or justice. I think that's a jaw-dropping position to take. What more can be said??

Just one thing - your signature of one of Dudess' posts, taken completely out of context doesn't sit well with me. It looks like a cheap attempt at intimidation TBH.

Galvasean

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Everyone has a right to pursue happiness, and as long as they are not hurting anybody, or stepping on other people's rights or liberties, we should not stop them. We cannot throw people in jail for having a relationship we disapprove of. That should not be written into law.

Those are exactly my thoughts. While I don't like it myself, some people do. They arent hurting anyone so leave them alone.

Zillah

Tigger wrote: »

of course animals can give consent i dare you to try to pet my dog on the head you'd lose an arm this is because he dosent give consent

Yes and a child can sit there and let an adult have sex with them, we don't consider that consent.

i however do not accept that there is any sense in incest and as a lifelong athiest i believe there is a line and this is so far past it its unbelievable

I do not accept that there is any sense in religion but I'm not stupid enough to think that justifies making it illegal.

Zillah

Tigger wrote: »

because its wrong

Define "wrong" for the purposes of the post please. I'm going to define wrong as "harming other human beings" for the my purposes.

Therefore, incest isn't wrong. Now, if you're going to come back with some bullshit argument that is just based on your own irrational feelings then I feel I should be allowed come over to your house and punch you in the face because thats how we're deciding whats legal or illegal now, right?

c0rk3r

Im pretty sure under law emotional and psychological distress constitutes harm to another human being. No doubt when the parents find out about this funny business their lives will be in shatters. The other brothers or sisters in the family would also be damaged. Family name tarnished and family unit destroyed. Theres no recovery from this kind of upset.

Dudess

c0rk3r wrote: »

Im pretty sure under law emotional and psychological distress constitutes harm to another human being. No doubt when the parents find out about this funny business their lives will be in shatters. The other brothers or sisters in the family would also be damaged. Family name tarnished and family unit destroyed. Theres no recovery from this kind of upset.

You could say that about lots of relationships which don't break the law, e.g. a man/woman going out with someone whom their family perceives as a gold-digger, a 17-year-old going out with someone twice their age... actually that recent case in England of a 16-year-old girl moving in with her 50-year-old teacher (16 is the age of consent in Britain) - her family are so destroyed, they're selling their house as it's too upsetting for them to live near the couple. And it's understandable, but should it be illegal?

c0rk3r

lol that comparison is rubbish.

How about the pro incest group band together and sign a petition/letter and fire some of to their local TD's, justice office etc with their real names and addresses. Interesting to see what kind of response you may get. Think this discussion is coming to an end. Your either pro-incest and hiding behind a closed door bs spiel or your someone who takes a moral stand against it.

Actually why stop at just the letters. The public need to be informed and made aware of this issue. Maybe some people here could set up "information points" outside their local tescos / shopping centres. Could even have them sign a petition. With enough support a lobby group may be formed. I mean if you want change you'll need to lobby the policy makers. You'll need funds to fuel the fight. Have something similar to charity fun runs / cycles whereby your collegues and friends could sponsor you. Theres infinite possibilites really.

You guys could really turn the wheel of change.

Dades

c0rk3r, contrary to what you suggest, there is no pro-incest agenda. The purpose of this thread is to have a hypothetical discussion as to whether something should be illegal in the eyes of the law. It is a discussion about the circumstances when it is or isn't justified for a government to dictate what people do behind closed doors. You don't have to engage in, or even approve of an act to hold the opinion that it should not be illegal.

Perhaps you already know this and are just here to drag the thread down to your level, in which case I suggest you tread carefully.

OK-Cancel-Apply

c0rk3r wrote: »

lol that comparison is rubbish.

How about the pro incest group band together and sign a petition/letter and fire some of to their local TD's, justice office etc with their real names and addresses. Interesting to see what kind of response you may get. Think this discussion is coming to an end. Your either pro-incest and hiding behind a closed door bs spiel or your someone who takes a moral stand against it.

Actually why stop at just the letters. The public need to be informed and made aware of this issue. Maybe some people here could set up "information points" outside their local tescos / shopping centres. Could even have them sign a petition. With enough support a lobby group may be formed. I mean if you want change you'll need to lobby the policy makers. You'll need funds to fuel the fight. Have something similar to charity fun runs / cycles whereby your collegues and friends could sponsor you. Theres infinite possibilites really.

You guys could really turn the wheel of change.

Not pro-incest. Pro-liberty and anti-authoritarian.

Why can't people get this into their heads? The whole concept of liberty has to apply to everybody or nobody. That's the only moral position one can take. If you are going to take away someone's liberty, there has to be a good reason, not just, "I don't like what they are doing because it disgusts me". Don't you understand?? If you don't stand up for the liberty of OTHER PEOPLE, on what grounds can you demand it for yourself? If the government has no reasonable, moral or intellectual basis for denying ONE group of people their freedom, why would they need a basis for denying ANOTHER group their freedom? Like, say... homosexuals, or....atheists.

c0rk3r

Not to worry Dades im just posting some hypothetical suggestions.

Galvasean

c0rk3r wrote: »

lol that comparison is rubbish.

Actually I think you'll find the comparison is spot on. Both cases are considered disturbing by society at large. And in both the case that Dudess posted and the idea you posted, families are left with emotional distress.

Dudess

c0rk3r wrote: »

lol that comparison is rubbish.

How?

How about the pro incest group band together and sign a petition/letter and fire some of to their local TD's, justice office etc with their real names and addresses. Interesting to see what kind of response you may get. Think this discussion is coming to an end. Your either pro-incest and hiding behind a closed door bs spiel or your someone who takes a moral stand against it.

Actually why stop at just the letters. The public need to be informed and made aware of this issue. Maybe some people here could set up "information points" outside their local tescos / shopping centres. Could even have them sign a petition. With enough support a lobby group may be formed. I mean if you want change you'll need to lobby the policy makers. You'll need funds to fuel the fight. Have something similar to charity fun runs / cycles whereby your collegues and friends could sponsor you. Theres infinite possibilites really.

You guys could really turn the wheel of change.

Wow, such rage. Any reason why you're taking these differing views to your own so personally? So after all these years and thousands of discussions on Boards about particular issues, suddenly it's hypocritical and inconsistent for Boards posters to be limiting their defence of a particular cause to their keyboards?

Zillah

c0rk3r wrote: »

Im pretty sure under law emotional and psychological distress constitutes harm to another human being.

I'm pretty sure that you haven't the faintest idea about the law or the principles behind its operation.

Your either pro-incest and hiding behind a closed door bs spiel or your someone who takes a moral stand against it.

You have an utterly warped morality if you think that what two adult human beings do in the privacy of their own home warrants sending them to prison.

seamus

c0rk3r wrote: »

Your either pro-incest and hiding behind a closed door bs spiel or your someone who takes a moral stand against it.

"If you're not with us, you're against us"?

Moral absolutism is it now?

I have no particular will to crusade for people's right to commit incest, because whether it's legal or not will have effect on me whatsoever. But if it became a major issue, I know which camp I would support and which way I would vote. And not because it's incest, but because I know what my feelings are on the actions of consenting adults in their private lives. You can replace the word, "incest" with any other form of sexual activity (and a whole host of other things) and I'll still be on that side.

Basically I would allow incest, not because I want to partake, or agree with people who partake, because I understand that I or the state have no right to decide what two people do consentingly in private.

Burial

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. 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.

So, are you a practising homosexual? No? So you don't approve? Are you straight? No? So you don't approve of straight people?

Granted, people who are argueing for it, WON'T do incest, but I'd argue for homosexuality and I won't do that either. It seems to be a common theme for people against incest. Never make an arguement why it's not ok, just say it's eky or you don't do it... Seriously, some arguements that support your point, please.

wrote:

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

It's this sort of stuff that annoys me. I may get a slagging over it (If I imply I want relations with a family member), however if I say, "oh, well I had a discussion on boards and I really couldn't find a reason to stop it except for it increases deformaties in children". I'll happily make my case for incest, but will not practise it. I personally don't like people doing it and I cringe at the thought of it, but it's not my business. As long as people understand that, then I very much doubt my "reputation" would be hurt in anyway.

Dades wrote:

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.

This thread has also reversed my opinion. I was of the opinion, no way that's just wrong. I thought, and nothing against it came to my mind, at all...

Tigger wrote:

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)

I'm sorry, the thought of posting in an atheism forum, and argueing a case that something is disapproved by "God" is just funny. Anyway, is this all to what God disapproves of? Is it a part of the ten commandments? In fact, it's quite easy to explain to logical people if you give a good arguement and good facts. Logical people are strange in that they resort to proving their points they make. Anyway, your still ignoring every arguement against without providing an arguement for, therefore anymore posts from you are now being ignored by me in this thread. (Except for any reply to this post)

Dudess wrote:

If two people who are related fall in love and embark on a relationship, why should they go to prison for it? That's all people here are saying.

I think even related can be scrapped. Part of the immediate family. Thats what incest should be. Unless of course, everyone wants to argue the fact that up until the 1900's people WERE marrying first cousins. It was "Acceptable Practise". Why? Because it kept the family's wealth in the family. Seriously. Anybody read Pride + Prejudice? So, your against brother and sister relations. (Not the person I'm quoting just people who are against incest) However, there is still risks associated with cousins as with brother and sister (Less but there) So everyone who is argueing against incest, please make that one distinction that makes brother and sister so much more wrong than cousins. Once you have that, I'd say you have the reason for stopping brother and sister relations. (See Main Point of post at end of this post)

Tigger wrote:

because its wrong

they aren't two people if they are father and son they are father and son

i have to believe ye are winding me up

So, what's more worse? Someone who rapes and abuses their child or someone who actually goes and has a consentual relationship with their child?

c0rker wrote:

Im pretty sure under law emotional and psychological distress constitutes harm to another human being. No doubt when the parents find out about this funny business their lives will be in shatters. The other brothers or sisters in the family would also be damaged. Family name tarnished and family unit destroyed. Theres no recovery from this kind of upset.

Answer my point above and my other points about "incest" in history. Why didn't it effect anyone emotionally or psychologically back then? Were they all stronger people? To me you've described nothing that causes emotional harm. You've actually just posted saying social taboo of the subject. Your arguement is also flawed. Say it's not incest but homosexuality. You now have your post against it. Are you against homosexuality? No of course your not, however your against incest because it makes you feel icky if you practised it? You don't practise it so why does it effect you so?

Ok-Cancel-Apply wrote:

Just one thing - your signature of one of Dudess' posts, taken completely out of context doesn't sit well with me. It looks like a cheap attempt at intimidation TBH.

I'm also offended by Tiggers signature. I personnally feel we should ban you, because I feel it's socially wrong to post that sig. (Does anyone notice a similarity to this thread?) *NOTE* Sarcasm, in case people didn't get that */NOTE*

C0rker wrote:

lol that comparison is rubbish.

How about the pro incest group band together and sign a petition/letter and fire some of to their local TD's, justice office etc with their real names and addresses. Interesting to see what kind of response you may get. Think this discussion is coming to an end. Your either pro-incest and hiding behind a closed door bs spiel or your someone who takes a moral stand against it.

Actually why stop at just the letters. The public need to be informed and made aware of this issue. Maybe some people here could set up "information points" outside their local tescos / shopping centres. Could even have them sign a petition. With enough support a lobby group may be formed. I mean if you want change you'll need to lobby the policy makers. You'll need funds to fuel the fight. Have something similar to charity fun runs / cycles whereby your collegues and friends could sponsor you. Theres infinite possibilites really.

You guys could really turn the wheel of change.

So your arguement against a valid point made against you is that it's BS and we should go forth to make incest ok? I note the sarcasm, but that's one weak post. This thread isn't over, you just can't provide a reason for against and are afraid that you'd be labelled as someone who practises incest. Can you at least not accept, that at least in this thread, even if you don't agree with it, that the arguement for incest has been put out better then the one against incest?


And now my last quote:

Dudess wrote:

You could say that about lots of relationships which don't break the law, e.g. a man/woman going out with someone whom their family perceives as a gold-digger, a 17-year-old going out with someone twice their age... actually that recent case in England of a 16-year-old girl moving in with her 50-year-old teacher (16 is the age of consent in Britain) - her family are so destroyed, they're selling their house as it's too upsetting for them to live near the couple. And it's understandable, but should it be illegal?

You are spot on in this post. The people against can't ignore this as it presents a huge flaw in their arguement. (Even though they have :rolleyes: )

*MAIN POINT OF POST*

It was more common and accepted for a man to marry with his mother around medival times, if the father died/murdered(some were for this purpose alone.) Anyway, it's just social taboo at the moment. Ignoring social taboo, I don't believe anybody against incest really has a case.


*EDIT*

If you don't believe me about the Medival thing, princes of kings did it to get the throne and since you need a Queen to get throne... (Sometimes the mother would convince the son to do this)

From Tigger:
"as a lifelong athiest" -- So why in one of your posts does Gods plan come in?

Tigger

Burial wrote: »

So why in one of your posts does Gods plan come in?

it says not i see why god was invented

as an athiest in believe god was invented how is that confusing

Tigger

Zillah wrote: »

some bullshit argument

emotion is not irrelavant to discussion

emotion is real if a person ignores his emotional life it will not be fulfilling