Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

JCB

For the poll: I define incest to be between consenting adults over say 18, not involving children.

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?

Example:
Meet Patrick and Susan
They are brother and sister separated from birth who are in love with each other and have 4 children together. Since incest is illegal in Germany, Patrick has been sent to 2 1/2 years in prision.

Should the government have any right to interfere with their sexual rights?

An Fear Aniar

Interesting question. In the interest of eugenics, it would be outlawed of course. Not a morality thing but a health thing.


.

JCB

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Interesting question. In the interest of eugenics, it would be outlawed of course. Not a morality thing but a health thing.


.

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

Besides, couldn't they just use contraception. And since so many here are pro-choice, couldn't the female exercise her right to choice whether to keep the child or abort the child if it didn't meet eugenical standards?

Memnoch

According to the Bible there is nothing wrong with incest, because if we all came from Adam and Eve, it would be impossible for us to exist without it.

From my point of view, two consenting adults, etc etc. I seriously doubt enough people would participate in it to make a serious dent in the gene pool.

Tar.Aldarion

Nothing wrong with it. Wouldn't be in to it but in cases like the couple who recently got married, found out they were brother and sister seperated at birth and subsequently had the marraige annulled on them it is unfair.
Also two consenting adults should be allowed do each other.

JCB

Memnoch wrote: »

According to the Bible there is nothing wrong with incest, because if we all came from Adam and Eve, it would be impossible for us to exist without it.

From my point of view, two consenting adults, etc etc. I seriously doubt enough people would participate in it to make a serious dent in the gene pool.

Atheists consulting the bible for advice. :eek:

Interestingly according to wiki Incest was rampant in the "Graeco-Roman period of Egyptian history"

Schuhart

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

In the interest of eugenics, it would be outlawed of course.

Is this actually a problem in every case? I mean, presumably we're all ultimately the product of incest as the whole human species must be descended from some mating pair.

That's not to say that it should not be prohibited - but I'd expect the arguments for prohibition would be on grounds of mental health rather than physical health.

Is there any ban on folk having children if there is a risk of defects? I'm not aware of any, but open to correction. I mean, the issue of inherited defects presumably impacts on far more than incestuous relationships.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

How about gay insestous couples, where there's no chance of procreation?

JCB

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

How about gay insestous couples, where there's no chance of procreation?

I've an option for that in the poll!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JCB wrote: »

I've an option for that in the poll!

didn't even see the poll.. bve interesting to see if anyone says "yes, but only hetero"!

Dinner

It's wierd, definitly wierd but there's not really any good reason to ban it.

Galvasean

"Incest? That's only for straight people." [Shameless]

JCB

Arabel wrote: »

It's wierd, definitly wierd but there's not really any good reason to ban it.

That's the point i'm wondering about. I mean lots of people here have no problems with homosexuality, abortion and so on, and yet at the moment twice the amount people here think incest should still be outlawed and not made legal.

But I am just wondering about the inconsistancy with some atheists here?

Galvasean

Where's the option that says "If you really want to, but only as there is no chance of producing offspring?"

edit: So OP, is the sister popping round for a visit?

JCB

Galvasean wrote: »

Where's the option that says "If you really want to, but only as there is no chance of producing offspring?"

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

Galvasean wrote:

edit: So OP, is the sister popping round for a visit?

Nah, she hasn't finished with YORE MA yet :rolleyes:

Dinner

JCB wrote: »

That's the point i'm wondering about. I mean lots of people here have no problems with homosexuality, abortion and so on, and yet at the moment twice the amount people here think incest should still be outlawed and not made legal.

But I am just wondering about the inconsistancy with some atheists here?

I'd guess it may have something to do with a lot of people seeing the word incest and automatically think of their sister/brother and think "That's sick", reacting from an emotional rather than objective position.

I'm an only child, so I don't have a sister to relate that sort of thing to, so I'm not disgusted by it and so have no moral reason to object to it. But I can imagine that if I did have a sister, my opinion would probably be differant.

drunkmonkey

Jesus H Christ JCB......What has being an Atheist got to do with ****ing your sister?

Nay!

JCB

Arabel wrote: »

I'd guess it may have something to do with a lot of people seeing the word incest and automatically think of their sister/brother and think "That's sick", reacting from an emotional rather than objective position.

I could say exactly the same thing about my best friend since i'm not gay. I think there has to be a more valid reason than that.

arabel wrote:

I'm an only child, so I don't have a sister to relate that sort of thing to, so I'm not disgusted by it and so have no moral reason to object to it. But I can imagine that if I did have a sister, my opinion would probably be differant.

Don't you have parents, cousins, aunts, uncles to relate "that sort of thing" to?

You say "that sort of thing" as if it were evil, or something?

Sure if you were a bisexual bicestist you'd have your choice of everyone on earth?!:D

Dinner

JCB wrote: »

Don't you have parents, cousins, aunts, uncles to relate "that sort of thing" to?

Have to say, I never even thought about all the other cases. Must be getting tired. But hey, I suppose if someone wants to throw it up their aunt then I'm not gonna stand in the way. Certainly not my sort of thing though.

JCB wrote: »

You say "that sort of thing" as if it were evil, or something?

Hah! Nah not at all just didn't think saying sister f*cker was very tactful.

JCB

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Jesus H Christ JCB......What has being an Atheist got to do with ****ing your sister?

Nay!

Apparantly lots to do with it, as I learned from the Lisbon treaty thread.....

Dades will fill you in, it's all to do with the 'debate'

Dave!

I can't think of any legitimate reason to begrudge siblings having a sexual relationship if there is no question of reproduction.

However it becomes difficult when you bring in the question of children, because of the increased risk of deformities. But then you have to ask, should people with hereditary medical conditions not be allowed to have kids? People with mutations of their own (not sure if these are hereditary)?

Should haemophiliacs or sickle-cell anaemics not be permitted to have kids? I can't imagine most people think so; so why should relatives not be allowed to?

JCB

Dave! wrote: »

I can't think of any legitimate reason to begrudge siblings having a sexual relationship if there is no question of reproduction.

However it becomes difficult when you bring in the question of children, because of the increased risk of deformities. But then you have to ask, should people with hereditary medical conditions not be allowed to have kids? People with mutations of their own (not sure if these are hereditary)?

Should haemophiliacs or sickle-cell anaemics not be permitted to have kids? I can't imagine most people think so; so why should relatives not be allowed to?

Exactly dave, there should be no need to resort to castrating people to allow incest

And if it's legal, why not give marital rights to them too?

The new civil partnership bill will allow alternative forms of love to be recognised and financially rewarded by law and yet most atheists here are stuck in the dark ages and won't even permit incest to be made legal, never mind give financial benefit to.

What's with that??!?

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

Fol20

Even though it is sick,i think it shouldn't be banned as people should be aloud love who ever they want.On a side note in the Patrick and Susan case is it just me or is Patrick being treated differently to Susan?He is sent to jail for 2.5yrs while shes sent to some facility...a bit unfair in my opinion.Secondly,Susan seems like shes a bit of a slut because shes already having a fifth child with someone else when patrick is in prison.

JCB

Fol20 wrote: »

Even though it is sick,i think it shouldn't be banned as people should be aloud love who ever they want.On a side note in the Patrick and Susan case is it just me or is Patrick being treated differently to Susan?He is sent to jail for 2.5yrs while shes sent to some facility...a bit unfair in my opinion.Secondly,Susan seems like shes a bit of a slut because shes already having a fifth child with someone else when patrick is in prison.

But would you campaign for their rights?

If you think it should be legalised, then aren't Patrick and Susan victims which need to be free?

If I forwarded you e-mails of prominant politicians, would you send e-mails condemning this injustice?

All i'm getting is a sense of lethergy with no sense of moral outrage for the injustice being shown to those people.

Dades

JCB wrote: »

But I am just wondering about the inconsistancy with some atheists here?

You do realise that atheists just don't believe in gods, right? If there are inconsistencies in the moral stance of posters it is on an individual level.

The comparison between two couples having children - siblings - and an unrelated couple one of whom carries a hereditary condition, is a very interesting one. Personally I'd require proper knowledge of the risks of inbreeding before really forming an opinion, though I'd have to say my initial knee jerk reaction would be to be against it.

Beruthiel

Flowers in the Attic.
I have no problem with people doing what they want. I don't think having kids is a good idea though. The genes would be too close and would cause huge problems.

Zombrex

JCB wrote: »

That's the point i'm wondering about. I mean lots of people here have no problems with homosexuality, abortion and so on, and yet at the moment twice the amount people here think incest should still be outlawed and not made legal.

But I am just wondering about the inconsistancy with some atheists here?

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.

Akrasia

No harm, no foul IMO

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)

That said, I have a few hot cousins I wouldn't mind a go on :P

all the stars

Heck no...

i have 3 brothers... love them and all but heck no!
As said already it can lead to all sorts of bad things if kids are being created.. deformaties i mean.


Also, how many people are in the world? why shop local?

PDN

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:

seamus

all the stars wrote: »

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.

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

PDN

My favourite bumper sticker

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...

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.

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?"

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

toiletduck

Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

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

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?

Dave!

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

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".


.

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.

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

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

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

Hivemind187 wrote: »

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.