Athiesm and sex

[Will]

This is becoming a problem.

Messenger, making a statement that atheists would have no problem with an incestuous relationship with a parent is intentionally insulting. You're flame baiting. It's time to shape up. This is an official warning.

Kyuuketsuki,

I said in ancient times you disingenuous #&%$!

This is not appropriate. Please refer to the rules.

[McQ]

Thank you, Will. You are on top of things, as always.

Messenger is probably nothing more than a troll, based on this and his other posts. I agree that he needs to shape up immediately. While you're at it, Messenger, how about responding directly to Kyu's excellent points? He took the time to respond properly to you and you ignored him to continue your little Flame Baiting exercise.

[curiosityandthecat]

Please see the Trolling 101 thread. Methinks it's relevant.

[karadan]

Thank you, Will. You are on top of things, as always.

Messenger is probably nothing more than a troll, based on this and his other posts. I agree that he needs to shape up immediately. While you're at it, Messenger, how about responding directly to Kyu's excellent points? He took the time to respond properly to you and you ignored him to continue your little Flame Baiting exercise.

The funny thing is, if someone went to a christian forum and started being as obtuse as messenger, they'd be banned after their second post.

Goes to show how tolerant we all are.

[Will]

Maybe we should turn this into a discussion about a pragmatic view of incest in general (to get some conversation out of it).

I know there are a lot of misconceptions about incest, one of which is the likelihood of an offspring from an incestuous relationship being disabled in some way as a result of the pairing of close relatives. It's my understanding that inbreeding simply increases homozygotes which may or may not lead to defects over time. Generally, one would not see a defect due to first generation inbreeding. It's only after generations that one would start to see defects emerge often. See the royal family.

For most animals, sex has one and only one reason: procreation. It's only in certain higher animals like humans and dolphins, that sex can also happen for pleasure. It's a sign that the innate desire to mate actually exceeds the necessity for procreation via higher brain function and reasoning, which I find fascinating. And it's in this function of sexuality in humans that the real question about incest comes forward: if it's consensual, and if they are using a prophylactic, is there an additional, intrinsic harm done? Certainly it's a taboo in virtually every culture dating back a millenia, but homosexuality has been inconsistently taboo as well and I suspect most people around these parts don't really have an issue with it. What separates incest with homosexuality from a pragmatic viewpoint? I don't mean to make any disparaging remarks about homosexuals, but I'm really not sure where to file consensual, safe incest.

[curiosityandthecat]

Maybe we should turn this into a discussion about a pragmatic view of incest in general (to get some conversation out of it).

I know there are a lot of misconceptions about incest, one of which is the likelihood of an offspring from an incestuous relationship being disabled in some way as a result of the pairing of close relatives. It's my understanding that inbreeding simply increases homozygotes which may or may not lead to defects over time. Generally, one would not see a defect due to first generation inbreeding. It's only after generations that one would start to see defects emerge often. See the royal family.

Bahaha, I was totally going to say that.

Queen Victoria became Empress of India - never even f*****g went there... She was one of our more frumpy Queens... they're all frumpy, aren't they? Because it's a bad idea when cousins marry! Bottom of the gene pool, y'know, just scraping the barrel there - 'Haven't got enough for you Royals there...' First rule of genetics - spread the genes apart, y'know... But the Royals are just obsessed with it; 'Are you a Royal family - are you a Royal member? Well you can marry me, because we're of the same gene pool, and our IQs will just go down the toilet.'

That's why there's no crazy Royals - they're all sort of (adopts a plummy royal voice) 'Hello, what do you do? You're a plumber? What on earth is that?'

Simple natural selection, yep! Species that tend to breed within the family (unless they're royals) have lower survival rates than those who don't. It's taboo because we humans have attached a moralistic attribute to a purely naturalistic aspect of breeding.

[Will]

Apparently Messenger doesn't understand a code of humanity. We don't need your f*cking god in order to be moral human beings.

Just a reminder, there's no need to respond to flame bait harshly.

Please don't forget that you can report a post you feel is violating our rules. If you feel someone is behaving inappropriately, we (the staff) are here to help.

[Will]

Simple natural selection, yep! Species that tend to breed within the family (unless they're royals) have lower survival rates than those who don't. It's taboo because we humans have attached a moralistic attribute to a purely naturalistic aspect of breeding.

That's basically my take, too.

Should we (reasonable people) support incestuous rights?

[curiosityandthecat]

That's basically my take, too.

Should we (reasonable people) support incestuous rights?

I doubt it. We know that voluntary participation will have long-term consequences against someone who did not voluntarily participate (incestuous unions by two consensual adults, given enough time and enough generations, result in a baby with serious complications). The child is the victim, and the risks are well established. Though, I suppose if we don't make it illegal for pregnant women to smoke and drink during pregnancy, there's no legal precedent. It's also not illegal to knowingly partner and get pregnant when both parents know, through testing, that their child will ~100% have some terrible birth defect.

It's interesting, when you put it that way. I hadn't really thought of it before.

[Will]

It's also not illegal to knowingly partner and get pregnant when both parents know, through testing, that their child will ~100% have some terrible birth defect.

That was going to be my next point, oddly enough. Great minds and all that jazz.

I was born with a coarctation of the aorta, which is a heart/circulatory defect. I've subsequently found out, through testing, that I have about a 5% chance of passing on such a defect to my offspring, depending on the mother. Still, I would love to have children some day and, while I'm certainly open to adoption, I'd love to have children that resulted from my genes. I'm not sure the odds of defect might be in an average incestuous relationship, but you're right in that we as a society do not actively prevent parenting of children when a defect is possible.

It's interesting, when you put it that way. I hadn't really thought of it before.

Yes, quite frankly I'm not finding any logical reason to prevent incestuous relationships. It just seems to be a cultural taboo, and that to me isn't enough reason to disallow what amounts to a personal liberty.

[BadPoison]

So, incest is alright if no children result? So just use a condom.  

[curiosityandthecat]

So, incest is alright if no children result? So just use a condom.  :eek: We're conditioned to think it's morally wrong, though, so even admitting that idea as plausible probably leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Bad phrase, sorry.

Think Flowers in the Attic.

[Will]

...so even admitting that idea as plausible probably leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

[BadPoison]

Someone just got super cool in my book.



Can't WAIT for the new Star Trek movie either....


Okay, back on topic.

[BadPoison]

So, incest is alright if no children result? So just use a condom.  :eek: We're conditioned to think it's morally wrong, though, so even admitting that idea as plausible probably leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Bad phrase, sorry.

Think Flowers in the Attic.

No, I really do agree, however there might be certain aspects the psychology of incest could have on those involved. The long term effect on one's mental health probably has not yet been explored. I'm sure we can all agree that a relationship with a 2nd cousin would be different than with an uncle, or even a parent.