Many ppl with genetic problems have kids and don't even know about their deformity .... If incest is another way for children to possibly be born deformed, then stop incesetural breeding to prevent more children of being deformed
Try googling "genetic sexual attraction". Especially the forum has many stories similar to the one that you told. Thank you for bringing up a taboo, yet important, topic.
And exactly what do you think is the value of 'your' moral system? By your own admission you are trying to make something that you yourself find morally repugnant, okay! I'm sorry, but you must EXAMINE yourself, your moral compass is terribly askew! We are told to never even give the semblance of wrongdoing!
Though you do not feel any compulsion to commit incest, you do feel a compulsion to be controversial. To shock others. You need to ask yourself why that is! You need to examine yourself. And all your twisting and turning actually only comes back to the same conclusion, therefore making this entire narcissistic indulgence moot.
Incest is mostly pedophilia, as you are well aware. Few brothers and sisters are seperated at birth, or mothrs/sons etc. The vast majority of incest is brought about by an adult with a child.
Aside from the morality, we are well aware that the biological outcomes are well known, which is why it is problematic. In the example you use the couple act in ignorance, so would most likely want children as part of a "happy life".
Of course, it's easy to have hypothetical discussions.
Incest is mostly pedophilia, as you are well aware. Few brothers and sisters are seperated at birth, or mothrs/sons etc. The vast majority of incest is brought about by an adult with a child.
Aside from the morality, we are well aware that the biological outcomes are well known, which is why it is problematic.
I agree about the part that you can't say incest is immoral and without also saying homosexuality is immoral. The "because it's just gross/wrong" argument is not a good enough reason to say something is immoral. However, I don't think an incestuous couple should EVER have kids.
I agree that consensual incest should not be punished criminally (with the exception of cases where the sexual interaction was also criminal - I suspect incest is most frequently found in cases of rape and sexual assault).
However, just because it is not criminally wrong, doesn't make it socially acceptable. I also think it's shitty when old men seduce their secretaries and cheat on their wives. Things can be wrong without being against the law.
@Fleefles if you think pedophelia and hebephilia should be legal (never mind the socially accepted part), you are clearly a pedophile yourself.
Rational people all understand that babies and children and teenagers lack the cognitive capacity to give informed consent for sexual activity... not to mention the fact that children younger than 13 or so lack the physical maturity to enjoy or perceive the full nature of sex... it makes an argument for pedophilia so outrageously insane.
@Fleefles Regarding cheating on your spouse, that is obviously morally wrong because when two people get married they are making a commitment to be sexually exclusive to each other. When a man ignores that and cheats on his wife, he is being unfaithful and dishonest. It is morally wrong.
However if the wife is okay with her husband having extramarital affairs, that's another issue, but most of the time the man lies to his wife while cheating.
Comparing homosexuality to incest is a strawman, because homosexuality is a neurologically based condition where one's brain has a "third sex" in the sense that their neuroanatomy does not fully conform to the norms for their birth sex. Therefore they express a partial or exclusive sexual interest in their own sex, most likely as a result of subtle hormone imbalances prenatally. A homosexual person does not choose to be homosexual.
People who engage in incest have a choice in the matter.
I would also say that even incestuous couples where there are limited power inequalities (such as a brother + sister as opposed to parent + child)... there are still issues in the formation of identity surrounding one's relationship to their brother or sister, which makes a sexual relationship abnormal as well as inherently imbalanced/controlling. In many ways I have dominance over my sisters because they are younger than me, and always have been.
I think incest is immoral on the basis that children by nature have control and power inequalities with their parents; this makes it easier for the dominant party (the parent) to persuade them to do things they might not have otherwise wanted to do, that they may later regret. It is the same problem whenever there are massive control inequalities - a very older partner with a very young partner (pedophilia or hebephilia), a teacher with student, or any similar situation.
Are you from France? I love that country very much and hail to Napoleon Bonaparte for abolishing those superstitious incest laws making it possible for consenting adults to express their love. First cousin, halfsibling, sibling, uncle/niece or father/daughter relationships wont matter. I'm amazed why not any congregation has approved for marriage to these highly consenting couples? In Sweden we have Edsbyn at north and like in any other inbreed communities there a great bond present.
The Bible as multiple cases of incest, it must be moral. :)
Hemophilia is a common affect. I had myself fixed because I have a genetic kidney problem, now with a new kidney. People that have children knowing they have a genetic problem should be shamed.
Incest, outside of religion, is still a common immoral act. Sometimes we don't choose these morals, but are raised with them from birth. I'm a gnostic atheist and still consider it immoral. This is based only on my disgust.
@matthewtaylorbrown See? I like that. You're not trying to manipulate a belief system to your own personal liking. Most people use their belief systems as veils and add personal opinions, disguise them as facts, and live in a permanent state of denial.
@BrothersamDavis You already lost, see with the laws as they are, if your sister wants a tongue lashing and you don't get down and services her needs and thank her for the experience you will go to jail on her request whether you did or not, catch 22, and if her mom is in on the scam your double sunk, especialy if your brother is the 1st choice anyway and your not being around doesn't matter. So don't think for a moment sex laws do any good. So screwU
@BrothersamDavis Oooo scary! Your god can't throw me in your make believe hell cause he isn't real. For you to say homos are sinners is complete bullshit. Your God says do not judge people b/c only he can judge one for their sins, well guess what a-hole you think homos are bad people therefore you sinned yourself. If god hates gays then why did he put the thought in peoples minds? You clam god created earth well then he also created gays, lesbians too. Can't wait for your holy reply.
look up charles darwin please and what he did to his own family, royal family. also christian/catholic faith, Adam and eve were the "first" people ever! we are their children, their for my wife is my sister... lolwot?? get it? you have all ready commited incest, atleast by fucking your "sister" if she gets preggers the baby will prolly come out deformed or die in early child hood of misscarrage
-ps I am also up my self and i dont care about your opinion so dont bother trying to reply.
I hate when people conflate incest and sexual abuse or rape. They say they or someone else is a "victim of incest." No you're not! You're a victim of sexual abuse. The incest part of it doesn't make it immoral; it's the abuse. The only thing that makes it even more immoral is the fact that you placed trust in that person, and they violated it. Of course, this can apply to ANY relationship, familial or otherwise.
Consensual incest should never be a crime. If both parties are mentally capable of making the decision and are comfortable with it, who are we to judge?? Just about all the arguments against consensual incest don't hold water. The only argument that comes close is if 2 family members of the opposite sex have a child. Then it gets a little more complex. But even then, you can demolish the arguments against it.
In fact, I find consensual incest between family members kind of hot.
The only thing that differs between those who commit incest and those who have sex outside the family is their genetic makeup. Otherwise, they're totally different- personality, physiology, etc. Is one characteristic out of thousands suppose to make it somehow "wrong"? I don't think so.
Besides, when you think about it, incest love is perhaps the purest form there is. What's better than siblings or a parent and a teenager/adult 'child' going that extra step and making their love maximal?
Love is blind, people. It shouldn't matter whether or not you're related. I find it laughable how, even in the 21st Century, the "advanced" societies like the U.S. still have so many sexual hangups, like incest, polygamy and homosexuality. And some people think unorthodox sexual practices like certain fetishes are somehow 'immoral', like spanking (which I'm into, btw, to an extent).
gene pool. Just because you are related you can't? Either you outlaw all harm to the gene pool or you let people make their own informed choices. Period. End of story. People who choose to damage their gene pool will suffer the consequences and those who do not won't. Choice is what it is about and you cannot tell people who they can love and/or reproduce with and still be moral. Consenting adults are consenting adults no matter who they are or what genetic predispotitions they have.
Also should we ban people form having children if they have a higher than normal chance of passing on congenital abnormalities? Maybe. But you have to look at the whole picture...not just become reactionary to one phenomenon, like incest. But to be fair you might just happen to be talking about incest in isolation...I dont know your wider opinions.
Any attempt at making incest illegal on the basis of genetic abnormalities is nothing more than convenient situational ethics. Hemophiliacs, diabetics, those who are mentally challenged, physically challenged(dwarfism) and the entire host of genetically damaged people out there should not be allowed to reproduce if incestuous couples are not able to reproduce based solely on genetic safety. People with genetic dispositions who are not blood related can continually reproduce and harm the (more
I happen to think that there should be no 'right' to have children. A 13 year old kid shouldn't be able to have a baby without some questions being asked. For some reason we bestow this right on everyone.
But that doesn't mean that I think those who aren't fit to have children shouldn't be allowed to have relationships that involve sex. Thats entirely different.
Well done on tackling this topic. I heard something similar presented by Peter Singer some time back re incest and bestiality. But he rules one of your premises. The fact that animals are non-linguistic is arbitrary. [cont.]
Great video, I agree completely with your points. I'd often thought the same thing... that just because a couple wants to fuck, does NOT mean they have any intention of having kids. Who is it hurting? The risks for potential offspring are greatly exaggerated anyway, for cousin/cousin especially. But let's say a brother and a sister do want kids, and have been genetically tested and are carrying no recessive diseases or anything - would people still say it's wrong or dangerous?
In terms of incest as stated above no. As while there is no immediate risk of pregnancy, it is still sexual contact and therefore allowing would/could lower the social taboo that is in place for incest.
My entire argument is not that every case of familial sexual contact will lead to offspring but rather that some cases will and for the overall good it should to not allowed.
It's the sexuality equivalent of the limitations on free speech such as shouting fire in a cinema .
but not everyone shares your moral definitions of taboo so how can you enforce your opinion into law?
is who's having oral sex private any of your business? (think logically without emotion/beliefs for a second while bearing in mind we live in a multicultured society)
I think you slightly misunderstand me it is not so much a moral issue as a practical issue. Incest is without a doubt bad for the genetic health of the population and therefore we need to put barriers in place to stop it and due to the way humans work in that a blowjob/eating out tends to lead on to sex we must avoid any incestuous sexual contact.
You could however I view this as impractical having a general rule against is easier and better for society.
As for dendrophilian I saw that video at the time and the best i can say of him is that he is a child and his self identity seems to be wrapped up in having "shocking" ideas.
by the way, i come from a traditional african family (on my moms side) where we marry our cousins and all my family members seem to be fine without any genetic problems.
my entire point has been that we need rules/taboos against incest for the greater good and we should stop anything that erodes them. Therefore gay/straight/oral/anal it has to be not allowed.
you were making very good argument with genetic health etc. earlier but now your giving illogic bullshit with taboos.
are your taboos with incest related to your catholic beliefs (i assume from reading your videos/profiles) ??? if so, everyone has different faiths and doctrines.
how the hell do you think I am Catholic then I have stated above clearly I am an atheist? Just to make it absolutely clear I am utterly non religious and was not raised in a religious manner either. As for the word taboo I am using it in a non religious context not that it comes from Catholicism in the 1st place anyway.
but dont u think taboos in society only makes both adults and children insecure and ashamed about themselves?
look at what taboo has done to saudi arabia etc. taboo has gone out of hand there where its gone beyond religious teachings. even the definition of taboo us subjective on grounds of morality and taste.
morals are different in every country/region. in a multicultural society u should not force your morals on others
it is about keeping social mores against incest in place to protect the gene pool, therefore all incestuous behaviour must be stopped not just that which explicitly leads to procreation.
for the benefit of the species in the long run it has to be kept as outlawed
this is not to mention the fact the it is disastrous for the family structure to be fucking members of your close family.
pointless law really as nobody would ever find out if siblings had sex as its such an exceptional occurance. its probably very common - just taboo so not spoken about
How genes work...is genetics. The reason incest is looked down upon has NOTHING to do with the safety of the 'gene pool'. The idea that we have to take steps to protect the gene pool is the basis of eugenics. Its just you think you have a water tight case because you can declare "genetics" is guiding you.
Yes because sex has nothing to do with producing children. I also think I know what genetics is I have a degree in it. And "I" don't think I know best there is an extremely compelling scientific case to support that incest is bad and should be kept illegal both on the genetic health of the population and for the social aspects it brings as well.
I have to add that I consider myself to be a liberal and an atheist however as a genetics graduate I am fairly aware of the multitude of reasons to avoid incest. Comparing it to existing genetic conditions is utterly irrelevant, incest is simply bad for our species. I do think you are rather falling into the liberal trap of never saying anything is bad to show your level of tolerance and open mindedness.
If you think that not eating fruit and veg is a danger to the human population on the same level as inbreeding then you are either very stupid or more likely being highly disingenuous.
As everyone carries recessive genes and we are very far from being able to screen for then all this is again an irrelevance . Also are you saying incest is only ok for those with access to western medical treatments and easy access to contraceptives?
Your grasp of the genetic consequences is hard to gauge from this video however incest needs to have both l laws and social taboo against it it protect the genetic fitness of the population. You need only look at the UK Pakistani population and the vastly increased rate of genetic disease caused by close family marriages (cousin to cousin). If the siblings want children or not is not the issue accidents happen and as such we have developed rules to avoid this,
This is a fantastic video. In my mind i can't condone it but when it's put to me as an arguement, i cannot think of a rational reason to say it's immoral. As i think about it further i realise that i have been bigoted in my views and narrow minded. It's wrong to stop two consenting adults do this if they so wish, i should have already held this view as a gay person but that's my own issue. Fantastic video and i've subscribed as a result.
A well thought out video. Indeed, it is one of the hazards of being a rational person, having to sacrifice the irrational parts of your beliefs. Incest and polyamory are both subjects which fall under this heading and a terribly difficult to resolve within a rational worldview.
So it's not necessarily u'r feelings that drive u but instead u'r beliefs! This isn't a religious argument, although I am in a way "religious". i am simply stating that what u accept as truth is the ultimate force that drives u'r argument!
Before, making an argument based morality, you must find a common ground. Without a common set of rules, or a guideline there can be no absolute morality. No true, or false, right or wrong! This is why, finding a moral code, liberally, hasn't, doesn't, and will never work.
If u allow one thing for one group, in order for it to be fair u must allow something for the others!
I myself do not believe in the gov. ruling the lives of there people, but there are certain aspects we, as a nation, have agreed to, for the gov. to reside over.
according to your reasoning I see no reason why you only accept explicit consent and not implicit as well? If a woman lays down and allows an animal to do what he pleases with her, is that not a consent? and as far as children, the same argument could be used or the child could even give explicit consent, with brainwashing them into believing that it's right... who's to fault that relationship?...why does someone have to be a certain age?shouldn't it be based on maturity? who are you to impose?
Only autonomous people can give consent. An autonomous person is rational and informed. Animals are questionably rational as are children (the latter as they are not informed enough, physical maturity brings its own information as well as verbal education). It should indeed be based on maturity, however, lines need to be drawn for any society to function.
What do you need to be "informed enough"? Is it gonna be based on IQ.... then what about consenting adaults with a lower IQ than what you propose? Is it gonna be based on maturity... who's gonna judge what exactly is the standard for being "mature"? There are lots of different routes this conversation could go, ... but yes, I totally agree the lines need to be drawn for society to function, but not everyone will be pleased where those lines are drawn, that's just the nature of things.
So if two mentally retarded people were to consent to sexual intercourse, would that not, therefor condemn them, due to there obvious mental deficiency, and lack of the ability to make rational, and/or informed decisions?
Animals cannot consent to being eaten, penned/caged, experimented on, castrated, leashed, slaughtered, etc. How come when it comes to sex, they suddenly have the same rights as children? Do you honestly believe a dog who bones its owner is going to be "psychologically damaged" anymore than a dog that humps people's legs? Not playing with your dog is probably more psychological harmful to them. Should that be illegal too?
As for sex, you're making the claims. I have no idea how you could make such categorical claims about how and when people are having sense based entirely on your romantic view of the past. Where could you possible get statistics to back up how often people had extra-marital sex? You even say people frowned on it, which would make that data even less reliable!
You also apparently want to imply that if you go to a nightclub on a friday night everyone there is an atheism liberal??
-In the case of alcohol there is a big connection with labor and productivity, industrialisation and efficiency of work forces, and primarily prices and government legislation of pricing and production. Gin was cheap. Then it wasn't.
-*Specific* alcohol types where used as a political scapegoat for many social ills because of their association with particular classes...nothing even remotely to do with health. There was a time when Gin was illegal and whiskey was legal because of class.
I'm saying none of those things are recent and none are linked to liberalism or secularism.
-Binge drinking is as old as alcohol and can't be discounted based on water purification. Its rise and fall isn't linked to religiosity.
-drug use isnt modern either. And it isnt more pandemic now. Public perception and legality of drugs and alcohol have nothing to do with religiosity and everything to do with class status.
Also stop going on about ale being used to clean water. Gin/Whiskey/Vodka wasn't made to give people clean things to drink. Gin is distilled specifically to get you drunk. I can't see how you can argue that it was designed to stop dehydration.
Something else that would be nice is for you to explain how your indicators are actually indicators of social collapse and not just indicators of things you personally think are distasteful.
"But its no where near the same scale as now. Marco now provide me with your evidence."
No. You're claiming a decline in religiosity is causing social collapse (specifically alcholism, drug taking, promiscuous sex). You bring the evidence. "I talked to old people" doesnt count as evidence. And "we can't discuss the massive consumption of Gin because I didn't realise it happened" isnt an argument.
marco i thought we ended the alchol debate allready. The alchol culture came about because of water pollution. But now we have safe water, we no longer need alchol. We now know the dangers of alchol and even with all the knowledge of modern society people are continuing to drink themselves to death.
The only thing I want to say is preventing people with current genetic disorders from having sex and preventing incest are two different things because people with geneic disorders are born with them and have no choice in the matter on whether or not they pass those defective genes where as people that commit incest could avoid a hazardous situation altogether by being responsible enough to avoid having sex among family members. In that sense it could be considered immoral.
As for sex, people had promiscuous sex and have done for ages. Specifically during the war people where having sex all the time because there wasnt a lot else to do.
"Nowhere near the same scale as now."
You have absolutely nothing to back that up. You just assume its true.
marco you say people had promiscuous sex during the war and so on. Well actually you dont have any evidence to back up your theory. There was no large scale increase in unwanted pregnancies. People that did have sex before marriage got married quickly before going off to war. Even the ones that did have casual sex, they took precautions. They tried their hardest not to get pregnant.
marco regarding the sex issue. The evidence can be found by talking to the older generation. The general attitude towards sex in those days is totally different to now. People took marriage very seriously in those days. Sex after marriage was the norm. Sex before marriage was looked down on. I am not saying casual sex did not happen. But its no where near the same scale as now. Marco now provide me with your evidence.
"Its only in the last 20 years they have become a issue"
Are you actually trying to argue alcohol didnt kill people until some scientist discovered it? People died. Kids died too. Its only very recently youngsters drinking has become socially unacceptable.
marco refering to alchol. If we go back to 19th century Britain. You had 2 options you can either drink water from the rivers and DIE. Remember the river waters in those days were polluted with human sewage. It was crawling with rats and so on. And the other option was alchol which was far safer than water. So alchol became part of the British drinking habit. Christianity cannot be blamed for that. Its a matter of survival, alchol was the safer option to water.
marco regarding alchol I wasnt being defensive. I was simply trying to state the fact. I also dont remember you bring up the subject of cheap gin imported from Holland. Lets now round up the alchol debate. In those days people used alchol as a safer replacement to WATER. But now a days people dont need to drink alchol. We now have safe purified water and fruit juice and so on. But people are still turning to alchol. Marco you lost this arguement so lets move om.
I didnt bring up gin? I said alcohol was regarded as a huge social problem and one that was bigger than germany during the 2nd world war. You can't just discard things like gin because you didnt realise it happened.
Churchill drank all constantly. You can't hold it that drinking was OK then so it was OK and isnt OK now so its not OK and its liberals' fault.
We discussed drugs? I dont think we did. If by discuss you mean you ignored reality then changed the subject.
This is based on what? You openly admit you don't read because it takes too long. Alcoholism was known to be a massive social problem, whether the extent of the physical damage might not have been understood...people still died of alcohol poisoning.
Youre a slippery one. You keep changing the topic every time you detect something that contradicts your point.
YOU where talking about casual sex and drug taking as the key indicators. Now suddenly they dont matter and the key indicators are whether people go to war or stop muggings.
If incest were immoral, then Royalty wouldn't be allowed to marry their cousins.
You are correct, mik, though I believe this is just one of the more controversial facets of the belief that it is not wrong to rub your naughty bits on things that (without coercion) want you to rub your naughty bits on them (or on things that aren't living *and* aware).
Ex) I have similar disgust with the idea of bestiality, but it is similarly hard to pin down what's wrong with a dolphin screwing a person.
I'm not saying there aren't social problems. I'm saying there have always been social problems and they aren't being worsened by a lack or religious faith.
You just have a rose tinted view of the past and a media soaked view of the present.
marco the problem with atheism. If you believe there is no god, no after life and no real purpose to life. Then you create selfish uncaring individuals. I am not saying all atheists are selfish and uncaring. If you look at Britain there are about 5 million or more unemployed and a great many of them dont have any religious beliefs. They have this I DONT CARE attitude. I CANT BE BOTHERED attitude.
marco the reality of Britains secular athiestic society is the selfish mindset. Its about me, me, me and screw everyone else. Christianity had that community spirit. If you go back to world war 1 and 2. People would lay down their life for Britain because of the christian community spirit influence. But now you wont get many wanting to fight and die for Britain. The British Army are struggling to recruit. people. The passion is no longer there.
I did go back to WWI and WWII remember? Drugs. Drinking. Casual sex. You argued that high instances of these things are caused by a decrease in christian ethics and mean culture is falling apart. You are wrong. Now you're changing your subject.
marco we allready talked about drugs, drink and casual sex back during world war 1 and 2. Drink and drugs in those days was not seen as a problem. Doctors in those days were not aware of the dangers. Its only in the last 20 years they have become a issue. Also drugs was not widely available to children like it is now. Yes casual sex did happen, but it was a small percentage that had casual sex. Nowhere near the same scale as now. People in those days percieved sex before marriage as unacceptable
marco the simple truth is, todays generation would simply surrender if another nazi germany invaded Britain. We have society today that will turn a blind eye if they see someone get mugged or beaten up. I seen this happen so many times. Civilised well educated people doing nothing when teenage gangs are terrorising communities. All this is the fault of Britains liberals crucade against the christian way of life. Our liberal society as done a lot of damage.
marco come on, dont play the blind man act. Go and see the night clubs on a friday and saturday night. Go and see how people live in the inner cities. Look at the teenagers in their gangs. Observe them. If you talk to young people in the inner cities, what you will get is a lack of any ambition. Many of them are happy to just live off state benefits along with the millions who are allready on benefits. Many of them have no sense of purpose.
Hard drug taken was normal in the first half of the last century. Ah but that doesn't count, right? People where dying on the streets from alcohol poisoning. Unwanted children where left for dead daily.
People had casual sex (especially during the war years) and underage marriage was normal until very recently. Certain alcohols where banned because of the class they where seen to be attached to.
marco back in them days people did not know the dangers of drugs use. Smoking was normal part of life because doctors in those days did not know the damage it can cause. And as for sex, yes did happen in those days, but the main difference is it was considered a bad thing to do. Having sex before marriage was considered a bad thing. People in those days had boundaries. Like once your married you should live together till death. That way of thinking kept families together.
marco when Christianity was strong in Britain, people knew the difference between right and wrong. They had morals. Having casual sex was considered wrong. But now we are told there is nothing wrong with casual sex. Underage sex in those days was just not on. You just did not do it. But now its normal part of liberal Britain. As result we now have an epidemic in sexually transmitted diseases.
If we only deal with cases between consenting siblings, wherein there is no abuse of power/coercion, then it is not really that much of a problem. Especially if of close ages.
At the very worst, it is a misdirection/misuse of sexuality. Not something to become moralistic over.....
Rather then seeking a romantic/sexual interest or partner from outside the family, the choice is here made of one who is already very emotionally & psychologically close to the self.
cant say i have a prob with it what people do in there bedrooms is non of my business i do think its silly brov & sis getting together in a sexual way like that specially when theres millions on this planet to do it with but can understand it is prob more the relationship they have then the sex the risk with children is no greater then a interracial relationship i think ,,but yeah good luck to them
I agree with you. I had a similar conclusion with a discussion I had where someone convinced me that gay male twins having sex wasn't immoral. I think it is "icky" but that isn't grounds for condemnation.
hmmmm, to me the issue is the outcome, incest in itself isn't nescarily morally wrong, but having a child with known consequences *not just incest, but in general, if you know you have a chance of any male offspring or female offspring having X disease, your are knowingly giving that child you have that disease. Is it morally right to do so without some precaution, or method to be sure it's safe? Would you inject a fetis with a chemical that would give them a diease? It's simular to me.
Nuron you have demanded to know things then just ignored what you were told in favor of constructing a fictitious world.
You can here this from lots of people: Atheism isnt a system of thought, a philosophy, or a system of morality. Atheists don't derive morality from atheism.
And Britain is a secular society. More people watch mock the week than go to church. Do you work for the daily mail?
Watch the video below. There are 5 parts to this video. Its about gang rapes in Britain. This could be relevant to any city in Europe today. The program reveals the attitudes young people have towards women. Sexuality and so on. It shows what happens to the minds of young people in a secular society were christianity has been pushed to one side by the liberal elite.
So lets now round up what is acceptable in a atheistic society. Homosexuality, Incest, Adultery, Sexual promescuity, group sex, sado masochism, dogging and so on. The end result of the secular anti christian society in Britain and Europe has been the break down of the family unit. The social break down. The loss of purpose in the lives of people, specially in the poor areas. I think atheist should take a good long look at the damage they have caused.
Marco the evidence is all around you, its not rocket science. Just visit all the nightclubs, pubs, council estates, schools, colleges, universities and observe the way people behave. Observe the alchol, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity.
Mike so are you willing to legalise incest. In a atheistic society you say its perfectly fine for homosexuals to get married and be given the same rights as heterosexuals. So if thousands of people who are envolved in incest want the same rights as homosexuals should our society give them that right.
personally i would consider reproducing when you have a disease like cystic fibrosis immoral. Why would i want to do that to my child? I'm effectively cursing them with a possible disease that shortens their life drastically and the lack of a parent later on in that life (if the disease kills).
I consider it pretty irresponsible to pass something like that on and it would be even worse if its your own child. Just adopt if you really want to have a child so badly.
I saw a Chris Crocker video recently where he and his brother decided they were sexually attracted to each other.
Although I think its weird, they are not going to be having kids with genetic deformities obviously, so I don't see that its wrong.
But if your argument is that incest does not necessarily result in freaky looking people..You should visit some of the old coal mining towns along the Appalachians.
I would not draw such a sharp distinction between emotion and reason. Your revulsion toward incest, which is apparently quite widely shared among humans, may be one of the facts that should inform your consideration of the morality of incest. I'm not suggesting people make moral judgments based on emotion alone, by any means. But I'm suspicious of the notion that it is an intellectual virtue to disregard emotion.
I am a bit surprised that he would use a blanket statement that he has a revulsion to all incest....I could easily picture a smokin' hot female, find out she is my cousin, then still imagine being very attracted to her...
As hard as it is to be an atheist in the south....I am happy to say that I don't have a smokin' hot cousin that I am banging boots with. I do wonder if there is some sort of darwinian genetic trait that somehow influences "attraction chemistry levels" with next of "kin"
Based on my studies I cannot see any virtue in basing morality on shared intuitions about specific acts. It gets rather messy. Thanks for the input though.
I...don't need to watch this video. Because while I only THINK I know where you're going with this, I already agree with your conclusion.
However, I WILL say that, genetically speaking, incest-based reproduction is inadvisable. But otherwise, no, incest is not immoral...unless, of course, it's non-consensual.
No....It is the action that we take that determines morality. Attraction is something that no one has any control over....it is involuntary, and when I say involuntary, I mean neuro-physiologically involuntary. I think any society should do everything they can to protect children.
So...to hesitantly give my opinion...It is not immoral to be ATTRACTED to children, leather, feet, long tongues, piercings, hairy nipples, tiny penises, gremlins, horses, unibrows, etc. Society may consider them weird, imbalanced, sick etc. But, they are not immoral, until one takes action...in the case of taking advantage of children, yes it is immoral. Anything else, from the above list, except horses and gremlins...if it is between two consenting adults I would not consider immoral.
Having been a victim of incest by my father when I was a baby, my opinion is probably not what you would expect. As long as you are talking about consenting adults (underline consenting adults), I do not feel it is immoral.
...but to continue, sometimes I play thought games with myself, and ask myself....what if I substituted some girl X for my daughter....a girl that made my knees turn to melted butter. Would I be attracted to my own daughter, or would there be some sort of biological phenomena that would prohibit my bodies chemistry from allowing that type of emotion.
The thing about sexual arousal, attraction, is that it is involuntary. It's a chemical reaction....You look, you like or don't like. So having an attraction to anyone, anything, is not the moral issue, but rather, how one deals with those emotions. I have a beautiful daughter, but fortunately, I have never looked at her in any way, but through the perspective of a father
I admire your testicular fortitude for taking on this subject....and unfortunately, your immediate disclaimer is necessary unless you enjoy a majority of the population thinking you should be strung up by said balls.
Many ppl with genetic problems have kids and don't even know about their deformity .... If incest is another way for children to possibly be born deformed, then stop incesetural breeding to prevent more children of being deformed
carmenskb 1 week ago
Try googling "genetic sexual attraction". Especially the forum has many stories similar to the one that you told. Thank you for bringing up a taboo, yet important, topic.
RoseWasCute 4 months ago
And exactly what do you think is the value of 'your' moral system? By your own admission you are trying to make something that you yourself find morally repugnant, okay! I'm sorry, but you must EXAMINE yourself, your moral compass is terribly askew! We are told to never even give the semblance of wrongdoing!
boheme19 7 months ago
Though you do not feel any compulsion to commit incest, you do feel a compulsion to be controversial. To shock others. You need to ask yourself why that is! You need to examine yourself. And all your twisting and turning actually only comes back to the same conclusion, therefore making this entire narcissistic indulgence moot.
boheme19 7 months ago
Incest is mostly pedophilia, as you are well aware. Few brothers and sisters are seperated at birth, or mothrs/sons etc. The vast majority of incest is brought about by an adult with a child.
Aside from the morality, we are well aware that the biological outcomes are well known, which is why it is problematic. In the example you use the couple act in ignorance, so would most likely want children as part of a "happy life".
Of course, it's easy to have hypothetical discussions.
augustustoplady1 8 months ago
Incest is mostly pedophilia, as you are well aware. Few brothers and sisters are seperated at birth, or mothrs/sons etc. The vast majority of incest is brought about by an adult with a child.
Aside from the morality, we are well aware that the biological outcomes are well known, which is why it is problematic.
augustustoplady1 8 months ago
You're cute!
Quadlings 10 months ago
I agree about the part that you can't say incest is immoral and without also saying homosexuality is immoral. The "because it's just gross/wrong" argument is not a good enough reason to say something is immoral. However, I don't think an incestuous couple should EVER have kids.
fidget68 11 months ago
I agree that consensual incest should not be punished criminally (with the exception of cases where the sexual interaction was also criminal - I suspect incest is most frequently found in cases of rape and sexual assault).
However, just because it is not criminally wrong, doesn't make it socially acceptable. I also think it's shitty when old men seduce their secretaries and cheat on their wives. Things can be wrong without being against the law.
ItsTheWooo 1 year ago
@ItsTheWooo
Why are those things wrong? Maybe they should be socially acceptable.
Fleefles 11 months ago
@Fleefles if you think pedophelia and hebephilia should be legal (never mind the socially accepted part), you are clearly a pedophile yourself.
Rational people all understand that babies and children and teenagers lack the cognitive capacity to give informed consent for sexual activity... not to mention the fact that children younger than 13 or so lack the physical maturity to enjoy or perceive the full nature of sex... it makes an argument for pedophilia so outrageously insane.
ItsTheWooo 11 months ago
@Fleefles Regarding cheating on your spouse, that is obviously morally wrong because when two people get married they are making a commitment to be sexually exclusive to each other. When a man ignores that and cheats on his wife, he is being unfaithful and dishonest. It is morally wrong.
However if the wife is okay with her husband having extramarital affairs, that's another issue, but most of the time the man lies to his wife while cheating.
ItsTheWooo 11 months ago
Comparing homosexuality to incest is a strawman, because homosexuality is a neurologically based condition where one's brain has a "third sex" in the sense that their neuroanatomy does not fully conform to the norms for their birth sex. Therefore they express a partial or exclusive sexual interest in their own sex, most likely as a result of subtle hormone imbalances prenatally. A homosexual person does not choose to be homosexual.
People who engage in incest have a choice in the matter.
ItsTheWooo 1 year ago
@ItsTheWooo So what? Do you think interracial sex is bad too because they "have a choice"? Consensual adult sex hurts no one.
Fleefles 11 months ago
I would also say that even incestuous couples where there are limited power inequalities (such as a brother + sister as opposed to parent + child)... there are still issues in the formation of identity surrounding one's relationship to their brother or sister, which makes a sexual relationship abnormal as well as inherently imbalanced/controlling. In many ways I have dominance over my sisters because they are younger than me, and always have been.
ItsTheWooo 1 year ago
I think incest is immoral on the basis that children by nature have control and power inequalities with their parents; this makes it easier for the dominant party (the parent) to persuade them to do things they might not have otherwise wanted to do, that they may later regret. It is the same problem whenever there are massive control inequalities - a very older partner with a very young partner (pedophilia or hebephilia), a teacher with student, or any similar situation.
ItsTheWooo 1 year ago
Are you from France? I love that country very much and hail to Napoleon Bonaparte for abolishing those superstitious incest laws making it possible for consenting adults to express their love. First cousin, halfsibling, sibling, uncle/niece or father/daughter relationships wont matter. I'm amazed why not any congregation has approved for marriage to these highly consenting couples? In Sweden we have Edsbyn at north and like in any other inbreed communities there a great bond present.
ShahMashya 1 year ago
The Bible as multiple cases of incest, it must be moral. :)
Hemophilia is a common affect. I had myself fixed because I have a genetic kidney problem, now with a new kidney. People that have children knowing they have a genetic problem should be shamed.
Incest, outside of religion, is still a common immoral act. Sometimes we don't choose these morals, but are raised with them from birth. I'm a gnostic atheist and still consider it immoral. This is based only on my disgust.
matthewtaylorbrown 1 year ago
@matthewtaylorbrown See? I like that. You're not trying to manipulate a belief system to your own personal liking. Most people use their belief systems as veils and add personal opinions, disguise them as facts, and live in a permanent state of denial.
EmoraChan13 1 year ago
@matthewtaylorbrown
So you're an intollerant bigot, no better than people against homosexuals. At least you can admit it.
Fleefles 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TO ALL PERVERTS WHEATHER IT BE
HOMASEXUALS OR LESBIANS OR
WHAT PEOPLE CALL BI OR INCEST OR
ANY OTHER THING THAT BIBLE SAYS
IS A SIN REPENT OF THE EVIL.
BrothersamDavis 1 year ago
@BrothersamDavis
Do yourself a favour and at least learn to spell the names of the groups you hate.
miksedene 1 year ago 6
@miksedene lol his sentiment is well meant.
augustustoplady1 8 months ago
@BrothersamDavis LOL
matthewtaylorbrown 1 year ago
@BrothersamDavis You already lost, see with the laws as they are, if your sister wants a tongue lashing and you don't get down and services her needs and thank her for the experience you will go to jail on her request whether you did or not, catch 22, and if her mom is in on the scam your double sunk, especialy if your brother is the 1st choice anyway and your not being around doesn't matter. So don't think for a moment sex laws do any good. So screwU
Keither9 1 year ago
@BrothersamDavis Read your Bible. It doesn't say that. You're obviously hiding behind the Bible, as most Christians do.
EmoraChan13 1 year ago
@BrothersamDavis Oooo scary! Your god can't throw me in your make believe hell cause he isn't real. For you to say homos are sinners is complete bullshit. Your God says do not judge people b/c only he can judge one for their sins, well guess what a-hole you think homos are bad people therefore you sinned yourself. If god hates gays then why did he put the thought in peoples minds? You clam god created earth well then he also created gays, lesbians too. Can't wait for your holy reply.
flameon07 11 months ago
look up charles darwin please and what he did to his own family, royal family. also christian/catholic faith, Adam and eve were the "first" people ever! we are their children, their for my wife is my sister... lolwot?? get it? you have all ready commited incest, atleast by fucking your "sister" if she gets preggers the baby will prolly come out deformed or die in early child hood of misscarrage
-ps I am also up my self and i dont care about your opinion so dont bother trying to reply.
drphem 2 years ago
I hate when people conflate incest and sexual abuse or rape. They say they or someone else is a "victim of incest." No you're not! You're a victim of sexual abuse. The incest part of it doesn't make it immoral; it's the abuse. The only thing that makes it even more immoral is the fact that you placed trust in that person, and they violated it. Of course, this can apply to ANY relationship, familial or otherwise.
We're all human beings, in the end.
whoo689 2 years ago 2
@whoo689
Amen to that!
darkwarrior000 1 year ago
Consensual incest should never be a crime. If both parties are mentally capable of making the decision and are comfortable with it, who are we to judge?? Just about all the arguments against consensual incest don't hold water. The only argument that comes close is if 2 family members of the opposite sex have a child. Then it gets a little more complex. But even then, you can demolish the arguments against it.
In fact, I find consensual incest between family members kind of hot.
whoo689 2 years ago
The only thing that differs between those who commit incest and those who have sex outside the family is their genetic makeup. Otherwise, they're totally different- personality, physiology, etc. Is one characteristic out of thousands suppose to make it somehow "wrong"? I don't think so.
Besides, when you think about it, incest love is perhaps the purest form there is. What's better than siblings or a parent and a teenager/adult 'child' going that extra step and making their love maximal?
whoo689 2 years ago 2
Love is blind, people. It shouldn't matter whether or not you're related. I find it laughable how, even in the 21st Century, the "advanced" societies like the U.S. still have so many sexual hangups, like incest, polygamy and homosexuality. And some people think unorthodox sexual practices like certain fetishes are somehow 'immoral', like spanking (which I'm into, btw, to an extent).
whoo689 2 years ago
gene pool. Just because you are related you can't? Either you outlaw all harm to the gene pool or you let people make their own informed choices. Period. End of story. People who choose to damage their gene pool will suffer the consequences and those who do not won't. Choice is what it is about and you cannot tell people who they can love and/or reproduce with and still be moral. Consenting adults are consenting adults no matter who they are or what genetic predispotitions they have.
Ingolenuru 2 years ago
Also should we ban people form having children if they have a higher than normal chance of passing on congenital abnormalities? Maybe. But you have to look at the whole picture...not just become reactionary to one phenomenon, like incest. But to be fair you might just happen to be talking about incest in isolation...I dont know your wider opinions.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
Any attempt at making incest illegal on the basis of genetic abnormalities is nothing more than convenient situational ethics. Hemophiliacs, diabetics, those who are mentally challenged, physically challenged(dwarfism) and the entire host of genetically damaged people out there should not be allowed to reproduce if incestuous couples are not able to reproduce based solely on genetic safety. People with genetic dispositions who are not blood related can continually reproduce and harm the (more
Ingolenuru 2 years ago
We might be locking horns for no reason.
I happen to think that there should be no 'right' to have children. A 13 year old kid shouldn't be able to have a baby without some questions being asked. For some reason we bestow this right on everyone.
But that doesn't mean that I think those who aren't fit to have children shouldn't be allowed to have relationships that involve sex. Thats entirely different.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
Does the Bible condemn incest?
I've never undertood the "God's opinion" about it.
By the way, I don't think incest immoral either.
LolitaHazeCI 2 years ago
[...] If the non-linguisticness of animals was considerable in the way you claim, the following logic also works.
1. We know that humans suffer because they tell us so.
2. Animals are non-linguistic so cannot tell us whether they are suffering.
3. Therefore, it is permissible to allow animals to suffer.
gjp840 2 years ago
Well done on tackling this topic. I heard something similar presented by Peter Singer some time back re incest and bestiality. But he rules one of your premises. The fact that animals are non-linguistic is arbitrary. [cont.]
gjp840 2 years ago
miksedene, help me out with this dresteban guy, he's trying to interfere in other peoples affairs
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
Great video, I agree completely with your points. I'd often thought the same thing... that just because a couple wants to fuck, does NOT mean they have any intention of having kids. Who is it hurting? The risks for potential offspring are greatly exaggerated anyway, for cousin/cousin especially. But let's say a brother and a sister do want kids, and have been genetically tested and are carrying no recessive diseases or anything - would people still say it's wrong or dangerous?
suplicio 2 years ago
as above
Incest is only ok for those in the west?
And we are far from being able to test for all recessive conditions easily.
dresteban 2 years ago
Comment removed
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
what about oral sex? should that be illegal too? you cant get pregnant orally.
homosexuality was considered dangerous once too but has been legalised in many countries. the same will probably happen wih incest.
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
homosexuality is not a valid comparison as unless everyone goes gay (which is somewhat unlikely) then there is no impact on us as a species.
You may not be able to get pregnant orally however allowing it would lower the necessary taboos against incest.
dresteban 2 years ago
so you would be okay with legalization of oral sex?
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
In terms of incest as stated above no. As while there is no immediate risk of pregnancy, it is still sexual contact and therefore allowing would/could lower the social taboo that is in place for incest.
My entire argument is not that every case of familial sexual contact will lead to offspring but rather that some cases will and for the overall good it should to not allowed.
It's the sexuality equivalent of the limitations on free speech such as shouting fire in a cinema .
dresteban 2 years ago
but not everyone shares your moral definitions of taboo so how can you enforce your opinion into law?
is who's having oral sex private any of your business? (think logically without emotion/beliefs for a second while bearing in mind we live in a multicultured society)
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
I think you slightly misunderstand me it is not so much a moral issue as a practical issue. Incest is without a doubt bad for the genetic health of the population and therefore we need to put barriers in place to stop it and due to the way humans work in that a blowjob/eating out tends to lead on to sex we must avoid any incestuous sexual contact.
dresteban 2 years ago
okay, what if the oral sex DOESN'T lead on to copulation? there are no genetic health issues then right?
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
also, what do u think should be the penalty if an incest couple is caught having oral sex? and what should they be charged with?
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
you should also check out this video called ''my actual viewpoints on pedophilia'' by ''dendrophilian''
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
what you could do then is only charge/arrest people who go on to have children with family members
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
You could however I view this as impractical having a general rule against is easier and better for society.
As for dendrophilian I saw that video at the time and the best i can say of him is that he is a child and his self identity seems to be wrapped up in having "shocking" ideas.
dresteban 2 years ago
Comment removed
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
by the way, i come from a traditional african family (on my moms side) where we marry our cousins and all my family members seem to be fine without any genetic problems.
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
So we should ignore science and take your personal experience as the definitive source of knowledge?
dresteban 2 years ago
also, what about gay sex? theres no children involved there ............
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
and?
my entire point has been that we need rules/taboos against incest for the greater good and we should stop anything that erodes them. Therefore gay/straight/oral/anal it has to be not allowed.
dresteban 2 years ago
you were making very good argument with genetic health etc. earlier but now your giving illogic bullshit with taboos.
are your taboos with incest related to your catholic beliefs (i assume from reading your videos/profiles) ??? if so, everyone has different faiths and doctrines.
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
how the hell do you think I am Catholic then I have stated above clearly I am an atheist? Just to make it absolutely clear I am utterly non religious and was not raised in a religious manner either. As for the word taboo I am using it in a non religious context not that it comes from Catholicism in the 1st place anyway.
dresteban 2 years ago
but dont u think taboos in society only makes both adults and children insecure and ashamed about themselves?
look at what taboo has done to saudi arabia etc. taboo has gone out of hand there where its gone beyond religious teachings. even the definition of taboo us subjective on grounds of morality and taste.
morals are different in every country/region. in a multicultural society u should not force your morals on others
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
remember when homosexuality was taboo? it isn't anymore.
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
And
remember when eating fish on a friday was taboo
if this is what you are resorting to i see little point in continuing
dresteban 2 years ago
i agree with your points but incestious gay sex and non-reproductive sex should be legal as your opinion/reasoning is meaningless/illogical there.
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
ok One final time
it is about keeping social mores against incest in place to protect the gene pool, therefore all incestuous behaviour must be stopped not just that which explicitly leads to procreation.
for the benefit of the species in the long run it has to be kept as outlawed
this is not to mention the fact the it is disastrous for the family structure to be fucking members of your close family.
dresteban 2 years ago
pointless law really as nobody would ever find out if siblings had sex as its such an exceptional occurance. its probably very common - just taboo so not spoken about
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
common in Norfolk maybe
dresteban 2 years ago
"for the benefit of the species in the long run it has to be kept as outlawed "
That's a circular argument. And eugenic.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
No it is genetics
learn what eugenics is before using the term
dresteban 2 years ago
"I know whats best for the gene pool"
is eugenics.
How genes work...is genetics. The reason incest is looked down upon has NOTHING to do with the safety of the 'gene pool'. The idea that we have to take steps to protect the gene pool is the basis of eugenics. Its just you think you have a water tight case because you can declare "genetics" is guiding you.
Also, you're confusing incest with having babies.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
Yes because sex has nothing to do with producing children. I also think I know what genetics is I have a degree in it. And "I" don't think I know best there is an extremely compelling scientific case to support that incest is bad and should be kept illegal both on the genetic health of the population and for the social aspects it brings as well.
dresteban 2 years ago
I have to add that I consider myself to be a liberal and an atheist however as a genetics graduate I am fairly aware of the multitude of reasons to avoid incest. Comparing it to existing genetic conditions is utterly irrelevant, incest is simply bad for our species. I do think you are rather falling into the liberal trap of never saying anything is bad to show your level of tolerance and open mindedness.
dresteban 2 years ago
''incest is bad for our species''
not eating fruit and veg is bad for our species too but doesnt mean that the law can force you to eat fruit and vegetables.
what about oral sex? what if they carry no recessive genes or disease? what if u use contraceptives?
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
If you think that not eating fruit and veg is a danger to the human population on the same level as inbreeding then you are either very stupid or more likely being highly disingenuous.
As everyone carries recessive genes and we are very far from being able to screen for then all this is again an irrelevance . Also are you saying incest is only ok for those with access to western medical treatments and easy access to contraceptives?
dresteban 2 years ago
Your grasp of the genetic consequences is hard to gauge from this video however incest needs to have both l laws and social taboo against it it protect the genetic fitness of the population. You need only look at the UK Pakistani population and the vastly increased rate of genetic disease caused by close family marriages (cousin to cousin). If the siblings want children or not is not the issue accidents happen and as such we have developed rules to avoid this,
dresteban 2 years ago
This is a fantastic video. In my mind i can't condone it but when it's put to me as an arguement, i cannot think of a rational reason to say it's immoral. As i think about it further i realise that i have been bigoted in my views and narrow minded. It's wrong to stop two consenting adults do this if they so wish, i should have already held this view as a gay person but that's my own issue. Fantastic video and i've subscribed as a result.
Improbable0possible 2 years ago
A well thought out video. Indeed, it is one of the hazards of being a rational person, having to sacrifice the irrational parts of your beliefs. Incest and polyamory are both subjects which fall under this heading and a terribly difficult to resolve within a rational worldview.
MatthiasFarland 2 years ago
So it's not necessarily u'r feelings that drive u but instead u'r beliefs! This isn't a religious argument, although I am in a way "religious". i am simply stating that what u accept as truth is the ultimate force that drives u'r argument!
rndmusrnm 2 years ago
Before, making an argument based morality, you must find a common ground. Without a common set of rules, or a guideline there can be no absolute morality. No true, or false, right or wrong! This is why, finding a moral code, liberally, hasn't, doesn't, and will never work.
Please read my other post be4 responding!
rndmusrnm 2 years ago
i agree a 100%
the law should stop babysitting the adults in this country
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
So then what else is next?
If u allow one thing for one group, in order for it to be fair u must allow something for the others!
I myself do not believe in the gov. ruling the lives of there people, but there are certain aspects we, as a nation, have agreed to, for the gov. to reside over.
rndmusrnm 2 years ago
''there are certain aspects we, as a nation, have agreed to, for the gov. to reside over''
this should not include the choice of sex between 2 consulting adults using a condom
jigglyfidda125 2 years ago
"but there are certain aspects we, as a nation, have agreed to, for the gov. to reside over. "
I didn't say I agree with the things our nation has chosen, just that they have chosen them.
rndmusrnm 2 years ago
Read my other posts, they will help!
rndmusrnm 2 years ago
according to your reasoning I see no reason why you only accept explicit consent and not implicit as well? If a woman lays down and allows an animal to do what he pleases with her, is that not a consent? and as far as children, the same argument could be used or the child could even give explicit consent, with brainwashing them into believing that it's right... who's to fault that relationship?...why does someone have to be a certain age?shouldn't it be based on maturity? who are you to impose?
disofchrist 2 years ago
Only autonomous people can give consent. An autonomous person is rational and informed. Animals are questionably rational as are children (the latter as they are not informed enough, physical maturity brings its own information as well as verbal education). It should indeed be based on maturity, however, lines need to be drawn for any society to function.
miksedene 2 years ago
What do you need to be "informed enough"? Is it gonna be based on IQ.... then what about consenting adaults with a lower IQ than what you propose? Is it gonna be based on maturity... who's gonna judge what exactly is the standard for being "mature"? There are lots of different routes this conversation could go, ... but yes, I totally agree the lines need to be drawn for society to function, but not everyone will be pleased where those lines are drawn, that's just the nature of things.
disofchrist 2 years ago
So if two mentally retarded people were to consent to sexual intercourse, would that not, therefor condemn them, due to there obvious mental deficiency, and lack of the ability to make rational, and/or informed decisions?
rndmusrnm 2 years ago
@miksedene
Animals cannot consent to being eaten, penned/caged, experimented on, castrated, leashed, slaughtered, etc. How come when it comes to sex, they suddenly have the same rights as children? Do you honestly believe a dog who bones its owner is going to be "psychologically damaged" anymore than a dog that humps people's legs? Not playing with your dog is probably more psychological harmful to them. Should that be illegal too?
Fleefles 11 months ago
Comment removed
tazarooni89 2 years ago
Condone means actively promote.
miksedene 2 years ago
lol this video reminds me of that Ghandi quote :P
Reporter: "what do you think of western civilisation?"
Ghandi: "I think it would be a good idea."
LOL
this is why atheism leads to immorality. you remove more and more and more limits and barriers. Necrophilia? No probs. Incest? No probs.
The soul doesn't exist to you dude so how can you talk morality??????
If I fuck up, I need my brain needs re-wiring. Evil doesn't exist. Only malfunction. According to you who believes we are the body.
Rasabihariji 2 years ago
The bible is full of incest. Cain, Able and their wives (all humanity was decended from Adam and Eve) and Lot and his daughters to name but two.
HazelEhren 2 years ago 2
As for sex, you're making the claims. I have no idea how you could make such categorical claims about how and when people are having sense based entirely on your romantic view of the past. Where could you possible get statistics to back up how often people had extra-marital sex? You even say people frowned on it, which would make that data even less reliable!
You also apparently want to imply that if you go to a nightclub on a friday night everyone there is an atheism liberal??
marcotenshi 2 years ago
-In the case of alcohol there is a big connection with labor and productivity, industrialisation and efficiency of work forces, and primarily prices and government legislation of pricing and production. Gin was cheap. Then it wasn't.
-*Specific* alcohol types where used as a political scapegoat for many social ills because of their association with particular classes...nothing even remotely to do with health. There was a time when Gin was illegal and whiskey was legal because of class.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
I'm saying none of those things are recent and none are linked to liberalism or secularism.
-Binge drinking is as old as alcohol and can't be discounted based on water purification. Its rise and fall isn't linked to religiosity.
-drug use isnt modern either. And it isnt more pandemic now. Public perception and legality of drugs and alcohol have nothing to do with religiosity and everything to do with class status.
.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
i want to be clear about we're discussing, or at least what Im arguing versus what I think you're arguing.
You are saying liberal atheism is damaging society and that things like alcohol abuse, promiscuity and drug use are indicators.
Those are clearly falsifiable categorical statements.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
Also stop going on about ale being used to clean water. Gin/Whiskey/Vodka wasn't made to give people clean things to drink. Gin is distilled specifically to get you drunk. I can't see how you can argue that it was designed to stop dehydration.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
Something else that would be nice is for you to explain how your indicators are actually indicators of social collapse and not just indicators of things you personally think are distasteful.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
"But its no where near the same scale as now. Marco now provide me with your evidence."
No. You're claiming a decline in religiosity is causing social collapse (specifically alcholism, drug taking, promiscuous sex). You bring the evidence. "I talked to old people" doesnt count as evidence. And "we can't discuss the massive consumption of Gin because I didn't realise it happened" isnt an argument.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
marco i thought we ended the alchol debate allready. The alchol culture came about because of water pollution. But now we have safe water, we no longer need alchol. We now know the dangers of alchol and even with all the knowledge of modern society people are continuing to drink themselves to death.
Nuron666 2 years ago
The only thing I want to say is preventing people with current genetic disorders from having sex and preventing incest are two different things because people with geneic disorders are born with them and have no choice in the matter on whether or not they pass those defective genes where as people that commit incest could avoid a hazardous situation altogether by being responsible enough to avoid having sex among family members. In that sense it could be considered immoral.
bugninja80 2 years ago
Ok change of tac.
Imagine it's 1930. How would you go about accurately detecting the %age of people having promiscuous / extramarital sex?
Then recall you claiming this is a very new problem and quote yourself as saying "where's the evidence?"
marcotenshi 2 years ago
Comment removed
marcotenshi 2 years ago
As for sex, people had promiscuous sex and have done for ages. Specifically during the war people where having sex all the time because there wasnt a lot else to do.
"Nowhere near the same scale as now."
You have absolutely nothing to back that up. You just assume its true.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
marco you say people had promiscuous sex during the war and so on. Well actually you dont have any evidence to back up your theory. There was no large scale increase in unwanted pregnancies. People that did have sex before marriage got married quickly before going off to war. Even the ones that did have casual sex, they took precautions. They tried their hardest not to get pregnant.
Nuron666 2 years ago
You are the one making the claim. You provide the evidence first.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
marco regarding the sex issue. The evidence can be found by talking to the older generation. The general attitude towards sex in those days is totally different to now. People took marriage very seriously in those days. Sex after marriage was the norm. Sex before marriage was looked down on. I am not saying casual sex did not happen. But its no where near the same scale as now. Marco now provide me with your evidence.
Nuron666 2 years ago
Actually I saw some statistics for america that showed that extramarital sex declined while pre-marital sex increased (since the war).
Wartime marriage rates where huge, then halved after the war finished.
You can't derive all your knowledge from 'looking around you'.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
marco as regarding sexual promiscuity. We are not discussing what went on in America. We are discussing Britain.
Nuron666 2 years ago
"Its only in the last 20 years they have become a issue"
Are you actually trying to argue alcohol didnt kill people until some scientist discovered it? People died. Kids died too. Its only very recently youngsters drinking has become socially unacceptable.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
marco refering to alchol. If we go back to 19th century Britain. You had 2 options you can either drink water from the rivers and DIE. Remember the river waters in those days were polluted with human sewage. It was crawling with rats and so on. And the other option was alchol which was far safer than water. So alchol became part of the British drinking habit. Christianity cannot be blamed for that. Its a matter of survival, alchol was the safer option to water.
Nuron666 2 years ago
"marco refering to alchol. If we go back to 19th century Britain. You had 2 options you can either drink water from the rivers and DIE."
im not talking about ale...I'm talking about cheap gin imported from holland.
"Christianity cannot be blamed for that. Its a matter of survival, alchol was the safer option to water."
No need to be defensive, I never said that.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
marco regarding alchol I wasnt being defensive. I was simply trying to state the fact. I also dont remember you bring up the subject of cheap gin imported from Holland. Lets now round up the alchol debate. In those days people used alchol as a safer replacement to WATER. But now a days people dont need to drink alchol. We now have safe purified water and fruit juice and so on. But people are still turning to alchol. Marco you lost this arguement so lets move om.
Nuron666 2 years ago
I didnt bring up gin? I said alcohol was regarded as a huge social problem and one that was bigger than germany during the 2nd world war. You can't just discard things like gin because you didnt realise it happened.
Churchill drank all constantly. You can't hold it that drinking was OK then so it was OK and isnt OK now so its not OK and its liberals' fault.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
We discussed drugs? I dont think we did. If by discuss you mean you ignored reality then changed the subject.
This is based on what? You openly admit you don't read because it takes too long. Alcoholism was known to be a massive social problem, whether the extent of the physical damage might not have been understood...people still died of alcohol poisoning.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
Youre a slippery one. You keep changing the topic every time you detect something that contradicts your point.
YOU where talking about casual sex and drug taking as the key indicators. Now suddenly they dont matter and the key indicators are whether people go to war or stop muggings.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
If incest were immoral, then Royalty wouldn't be allowed to marry their cousins.
You are correct, mik, though I believe this is just one of the more controversial facets of the belief that it is not wrong to rub your naughty bits on things that (without coercion) want you to rub your naughty bits on them (or on things that aren't living *and* aware).
Ex) I have similar disgust with the idea of bestiality, but it is similarly hard to pin down what's wrong with a dolphin screwing a person.
beriukay 2 years ago
I'm not saying there aren't social problems. I'm saying there have always been social problems and they aren't being worsened by a lack or religious faith.
You just have a rose tinted view of the past and a media soaked view of the present.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
marco the problem with atheism. If you believe there is no god, no after life and no real purpose to life. Then you create selfish uncaring individuals. I am not saying all atheists are selfish and uncaring. If you look at Britain there are about 5 million or more unemployed and a great many of them dont have any religious beliefs. They have this I DONT CARE attitude. I CANT BE BOTHERED attitude.
Nuron666 2 years ago
marco the reality of Britains secular athiestic society is the selfish mindset. Its about me, me, me and screw everyone else. Christianity had that community spirit. If you go back to world war 1 and 2. People would lay down their life for Britain because of the christian community spirit influence. But now you wont get many wanting to fight and die for Britain. The British Army are struggling to recruit. people. The passion is no longer there.
Nuron666 2 years ago
"If you go back to world war 1 and 2. "
I did go back to WWI and WWII remember? Drugs. Drinking. Casual sex. You argued that high instances of these things are caused by a decrease in christian ethics and mean culture is falling apart. You are wrong. Now you're changing your subject.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
marco we allready talked about drugs, drink and casual sex back during world war 1 and 2. Drink and drugs in those days was not seen as a problem. Doctors in those days were not aware of the dangers. Its only in the last 20 years they have become a issue. Also drugs was not widely available to children like it is now. Yes casual sex did happen, but it was a small percentage that had casual sex. Nowhere near the same scale as now. People in those days percieved sex before marriage as unacceptable
Nuron666 2 years ago
marco the simple truth is, todays generation would simply surrender if another nazi germany invaded Britain. We have society today that will turn a blind eye if they see someone get mugged or beaten up. I seen this happen so many times. Civilised well educated people doing nothing when teenage gangs are terrorising communities. All this is the fault of Britains liberals crucade against the christian way of life. Our liberal society as done a lot of damage.
Nuron666 2 years ago
Don't bring bullshit to a facts fight.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
marco come on, dont play the blind man act. Go and see the night clubs on a friday and saturday night. Go and see how people live in the inner cities. Look at the teenagers in their gangs. Observe them. If you talk to young people in the inner cities, what you will get is a lack of any ambition. Many of them are happy to just live off state benefits along with the millions who are allready on benefits. Many of them have no sense of purpose.
Nuron666 2 years ago
Hard drug taken was normal in the first half of the last century. Ah but that doesn't count, right? People where dying on the streets from alcohol poisoning. Unwanted children where left for dead daily.
People had casual sex (especially during the war years) and underage marriage was normal until very recently. Certain alcohols where banned because of the class they where seen to be attached to.
..and more people went to church.
Society isn't falling apart, don't be so naive.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
"Underage sex in those days was just not on. "
You have your fingers in your ears. Why listen to idle facts when you have cold hard rose tinted speculation?
You think society is collapsing. Everyone has always thought society is collapsing, right back to the egyptians.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
" Observe the alchol, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity."
During world war 2 churchill said that alcohol abuse was a bigger problem that the nazis and people had sex all the time whenever they got a chance.
Drug use goes right through our history, sending drugs (and I mean hard drugs) to soldiers in good will packages was normal.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
marco back in them days people did not know the dangers of drugs use. Smoking was normal part of life because doctors in those days did not know the damage it can cause. And as for sex, yes did happen in those days, but the main difference is it was considered a bad thing to do. Having sex before marriage was considered a bad thing. People in those days had boundaries. Like once your married you should live together till death. That way of thinking kept families together.
Nuron666 2 years ago
marco when Christianity was strong in Britain, people knew the difference between right and wrong. They had morals. Having casual sex was considered wrong. But now we are told there is nothing wrong with casual sex. Underage sex in those days was just not on. You just did not do it. But now its normal part of liberal Britain. As result we now have an epidemic in sexually transmitted diseases.
Nuron666 2 years ago
If we only deal with cases between consenting siblings, wherein there is no abuse of power/coercion, then it is not really that much of a problem. Especially if of close ages.
At the very worst, it is a misdirection/misuse of sexuality. Not something to become moralistic over.....
Rather then seeking a romantic/sexual interest or partner from outside the family, the choice is here made of one who is already very emotionally & psychologically close to the self.
19lfm12 2 years ago
cant say i have a prob with it what people do in there bedrooms is non of my business i do think its silly brov & sis getting together in a sexual way like that specially when theres millions on this planet to do it with but can understand it is prob more the relationship they have then the sex the risk with children is no greater then a interracial relationship i think ,,but yeah good luck to them
mywires 2 years ago
I agree with you. I had a similar conclusion with a discussion I had where someone convinced me that gay male twins having sex wasn't immoral. I think it is "icky" but that isn't grounds for condemnation.
stefanlittle 2 years ago
hmmmm, to me the issue is the outcome, incest in itself isn't nescarily morally wrong, but having a child with known consequences *not just incest, but in general, if you know you have a chance of any male offspring or female offspring having X disease, your are knowingly giving that child you have that disease. Is it morally right to do so without some precaution, or method to be sure it's safe? Would you inject a fetis with a chemical that would give them a diease? It's simular to me.
wolfwing1 2 years ago
You also keep swaying between whats acceptable, whats not morally wrong, whats legal and our right.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
Nuron you have demanded to know things then just ignored what you were told in favor of constructing a fictitious world.
You can here this from lots of people: Atheism isnt a system of thought, a philosophy, or a system of morality. Atheists don't derive morality from atheism.
And Britain is a secular society. More people watch mock the week than go to church. Do you work for the daily mail?
marcotenshi 2 years ago
Watch the video below. There are 5 parts to this video. Its about gang rapes in Britain. This could be relevant to any city in Europe today. The program reveals the attitudes young people have towards women. Sexuality and so on. It shows what happens to the minds of young people in a secular society were christianity has been pushed to one side by the liberal elite.
watch?v=qDUJP_JPG7c&feature=related
Nuron666 2 years ago
So lets now round up what is acceptable in a atheistic society. Homosexuality, Incest, Adultery, Sexual promescuity, group sex, sado masochism, dogging and so on. The end result of the secular anti christian society in Britain and Europe has been the break down of the family unit. The social break down. The loss of purpose in the lives of people, specially in the poor areas. I think atheist should take a good long look at the damage they have caused.
Nuron666 2 years ago
Any evidence?
marcotenshi 2 years ago
Marco the evidence is all around you, its not rocket science. Just visit all the nightclubs, pubs, council estates, schools, colleges, universities and observe the way people behave. Observe the alchol, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity.
Nuron666 2 years ago
Mike so are you willing to legalise incest. In a atheistic society you say its perfectly fine for homosexuals to get married and be given the same rights as heterosexuals. So if thousands of people who are envolved in incest want the same rights as homosexuals should our society give them that right.
Nuron666 2 years ago
5 stars! It is clear that your idea of morality doesn't contradict itself. Too bad more people don't think like that.
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
personally i would consider reproducing when you have a disease like cystic fibrosis immoral. Why would i want to do that to my child? I'm effectively cursing them with a possible disease that shortens their life drastically and the lack of a parent later on in that life (if the disease kills).
I consider it pretty irresponsible to pass something like that on and it would be even worse if its your own child. Just adopt if you really want to have a child so badly.
932016 2 years ago
If we are talking about consenting adults, I don't see why it should be illegal or considered immoral, but I still shiver at the thought of it.
qanazir 2 years ago
I saw a Chris Crocker video recently where he and his brother decided they were sexually attracted to each other.
Although I think its weird, they are not going to be having kids with genetic deformities obviously, so I don't see that its wrong.
But if your argument is that incest does not necessarily result in freaky looking people..You should visit some of the old coal mining towns along the Appalachians.
The jokes you hear are true.
corthew 2 years ago
I would not draw such a sharp distinction between emotion and reason. Your revulsion toward incest, which is apparently quite widely shared among humans, may be one of the facts that should inform your consideration of the morality of incest. I'm not suggesting people make moral judgments based on emotion alone, by any means. But I'm suspicious of the notion that it is an intellectual virtue to disregard emotion.
kevinanity 2 years ago
who was this comment for?
biggregg5 2 years ago
Miksedene, after stating his personal revulsion toward incest, suggests that we consider the matter on the basis of the facts and not our emotions.
kevinanity 2 years ago
I am a bit surprised that he would use a blanket statement that he has a revulsion to all incest....I could easily picture a smokin' hot female, find out she is my cousin, then still imagine being very attracted to her...
biggregg5 2 years ago
Back in the day, first cousins used to marry all the time.
ghostofdayinperson 2 years ago
As hard as it is to be an atheist in the south....I am happy to say that I don't have a smokin' hot cousin that I am banging boots with. I do wonder if there is some sort of darwinian genetic trait that somehow influences "attraction chemistry levels" with next of "kin"
biggregg5 2 years ago
Based on my studies I cannot see any virtue in basing morality on shared intuitions about specific acts. It gets rather messy. Thanks for the input though.
miksedene 2 years ago
I...don't need to watch this video. Because while I only THINK I know where you're going with this, I already agree with your conclusion.
However, I WILL say that, genetically speaking, incest-based reproduction is inadvisable. But otherwise, no, incest is not immoral...unless, of course, it's non-consensual.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Just to clarify...The thought experiment is with a 20 something woman....my daughter is 24. Pedophilia is a completely different topic.
biggregg5 2 years ago
So being attracted to children IS immoral? It doesn't matter whether you want to have sex with children or not?
Nomiss9 2 years ago
No....It is the action that we take that determines morality. Attraction is something that no one has any control over....it is involuntary, and when I say involuntary, I mean neuro-physiologically involuntary. I think any society should do everything they can to protect children.
biggregg5 2 years ago
So...to hesitantly give my opinion...It is not immoral to be ATTRACTED to children, leather, feet, long tongues, piercings, hairy nipples, tiny penises, gremlins, horses, unibrows, etc. Society may consider them weird, imbalanced, sick etc. But, they are not immoral, until one takes action...in the case of taking advantage of children, yes it is immoral. Anything else, from the above list, except horses and gremlins...if it is between two consenting adults I would not consider immoral.
biggregg5 2 years ago
Okay. I completely agree.
Nomiss9 2 years ago
Having been a victim of incest by my father when I was a baby, my opinion is probably not what you would expect. As long as you are talking about consenting adults (underline consenting adults), I do not feel it is immoral.
lc237 2 years ago
...but to continue, sometimes I play thought games with myself, and ask myself....what if I substituted some girl X for my daughter....a girl that made my knees turn to melted butter. Would I be attracted to my own daughter, or would there be some sort of biological phenomena that would prohibit my bodies chemistry from allowing that type of emotion.
biggregg5 2 years ago
The thing about sexual arousal, attraction, is that it is involuntary. It's a chemical reaction....You look, you like or don't like. So having an attraction to anyone, anything, is not the moral issue, but rather, how one deals with those emotions. I have a beautiful daughter, but fortunately, I have never looked at her in any way, but through the perspective of a father
biggregg5 2 years ago
I admire your testicular fortitude for taking on this subject....and unfortunately, your immediate disclaimer is necessary unless you enjoy a majority of the population thinking you should be strung up by said balls.
biggregg5 2 years ago