| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ian Braidwood" |
| Date: |
04 Jun 2006 04:50:15 PM |
| Object: |
A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
05 Jun 2006 09:08:08 PM |
|
|
We use to burn people like you alive
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Miles" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
06 Jun 2006 08:52:41 AM |
|
|
wrote:
We use to burn people like you alive
Good ol' Christian morals, right?
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
06 Jun 2006 10:34:39 PM |
|
|
wrote:
We use to burn people like you alive
We used to put people like you in asylums, too.
Olrik
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
05 Jun 2006 04:05:12 PM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in
news:1149457815.397916.75890@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got
into a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what
a surprise ;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer
that what two consenting adults do in private is no one's
business as long as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which
ended up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he
had me stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the
distinction between homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can
give moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay
and that perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a
future battleground between reactionaries and progresssives?
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
The opinion about how closely related people should be for a
relationship to be considered incestous varies. The church used to
forbid marriage between 3rd cousins, or closer relatives, although
it was possible to get a dispensation. Some suspicious people
actually think that a main reason for the rule was that the church
got a nice income from the dispensations. The royalty of that time
sometimes used it to their advantage: if they wanted a divorce they
dug up some common ancestor and had the marriage declaired invalid.
The opinion of many people in the US, that sexual relations between
first cousins are incestous seems very strange. It probably isn't a
good idea to have too many first cousin marriages in the family,
but unless there are some known medical problems, there are not any
reason why the children should have a greater risk for genetic
problems than if the parents are not related.
In Sweden it is legal to marry rather close relatives. A half-
brother/half-sister couple can get permission to get married if
they 1) have not been brought up together and 2) can show that
there will not be any children with inherited medical problems
(usually means that the woman is too old to have children).
Sometime in the future it will be possible to check that the
fertilised eggcell does not have any genetical problems, and then
there will be one less reason to forbid incestous relationships. (I
wonder if that might be another reason why som religious nuts are
so against genetical diagnostics.)
I suppose this consenting adult part is a bit tricky if the
relationship is between a parent and an adult child. It might not
be enough that the child is of adult age, but that he/she is not
dependent on the parent, that is he/she has left the parent's home
and is supporting him/herself.
And yes, I think incest between parent and child or between
siblings is absolutely disgusting, but that is not a reason to
forbid it.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 06:41:04 PM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in
news:1149457815.397916.75890@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a
surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which
ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future
battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
There is no more connection between homosexuality and incest than there
is between gay marriage and marriage between a box turtle and a humen
being. But of course Texas US senator said there was a connection on the
senate floor as he sermonized on the evils of gay marriage. This is a
typical change the subject type logic used frequently by christian
fundamentalists who want to demonize the behavior. Because someone is
gay then they may have sex with their children
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 08:12:52 PM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in
news:1149457815.397916.75890@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
I think the cost in freedom of banning incest between consenting adults
is higher than anything society would gain. Really, how many consenting
adults would choose to participate? And having the right to do something
doesn't mean it is a good idea, or even the right thing to do. Getting
fall-down barfing drunk is not a good idea, but I wouldn't prohibit an
adult from doing it.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Perhaps christians are enslaved by sin, but the rest of us tend to get
enslaved by christians.
-- Dave Fried
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
05 Jun 2006 12:10:39 AM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote:
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Nothing wrong with incest, any more than there's something wrong with
drinking. But if you are planning on producing offspring, it's a bad
idea (as is drinking when pregnant). Where the society/lawmakers draw
the line depends on the time and place (think about Prohibition).
For that matter, there's nothing wrong with polygamy either, other
than major complications for the legal system. I think polygamy,
rather than incest, will be the next "battle" that you speak of.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
06 Jun 2006 02:15:31 PM |
|
|
Hello again everyone and thanks for your replies. Sorry for not
replying yesterday or individually, but this week I'm on 12 hour shifts
and life becomes a cycle of eat, sleep and work.
The situation you describe is pretty much as I thought, except for
comments about inbreeding in Saudi Arabia, which I did find intersting
given the strength of matey boy's opinions. Like the recent revalation
that the rhythm method is the most destructive method of contraception,
it does seem that doctrinal morality rarely survives rational
examination.
It does seem that there is no reason why homosexual consenting incest,
or incest between heterosexual couples where fertilization is blocked
should be banned; though that shouldn't I think be read as to read it
is okay. Apart from a considerable yuck factor, I'm still uneasy about
what affect such acts would have on these people's relationships. It
seems like a profoundly bad idea, but not a criminal one.
Given that I'm not advocating incest, I doubt I'd be stoned to death
for my query, even in a time when such acts weren't recognised as
fundamentally barbaric. Typical of a fundy Christian however, to refer
to such times as some sort of halcyon ideal; they keep reverting to
type.
Thanks again everyone,
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 10:20:10 PM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote:
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
If I recall correctly, the majority of marriages in Iraq are between
first cousins, that this is the accepted norm in tribal Muslim cultures.
So for a Muslim man to argue this line of reasoning is rather odd.
Also, since the original discussion was about homosexuality, bringing
incest into the discussion with respect to offspring seems like a non
sequitur.
Now, sex between a man and a camel is another matter altogether...
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
09 Jun 2006 10:05:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 20:20:10 -0700, (Scott
Richter) wrote in alt.atheism
Ian Braidwood <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote:
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
If I recall correctly, the majority of marriages in Iraq are between
first cousins, that this is the accepted norm in tribal Muslim cultures.
So for a Muslim man to argue this line of reasoning is rather odd.
Also, since the original discussion was about homosexuality, bringing
incest into the discussion with respect to offspring seems like a non
sequitur.
Now, sex between a man and a camel is another matter altogether...
Muhammad {PBUH} loved accepting camels.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 11:47:14 PM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
Biology. Incest causes problems.
Intermarriage between cousins in Saudi Arabia has now caused
huge problems there with people suffering from syndromes
created by long time inbreeding.
We see problems that occured in Europe over long periods
of time due to inbreeding among Europe's royal families.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
In many Islamic nations, incest is common enough by
marriages between cousins used to cement familial relations.
And has been for a long time. Large extended families tightly
bound were power.
Inbreeding has also been a problem for animal breeders.
Breeding desirable lines means inbreeding which raising
problems for breeding of undesirable traits at the same time.
Google saudi arabia, consanguineous marriage, defects
for more. Spina bifida, congenital heart defects and more
are serious problems from inbreeding.
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 11:31:06 PM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood:
...I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
(Note that I'm no atheist, so feel free to ignore this if you aren't
interested ;) )
Tough question. If both persons in that incestous relationship are in full
possession of their mental faculties (well, inasmuch as anyone who's in
love is in that state *lol* ), if no one gets coerced into the relationship
in any way... is it wrong? I know I'll get flak for that, but I'd have to
say "no". We gotta be fair here. I don't _like_ this idea at all, but if we
want to say "it's stictly their own business" for other, non-related
persons, then I guess we don't have much of a choice.
(I'll assume here that we're talking about an all-adult affair - no
father+minor daughter stuff et cetera!)
Now for siring children in such a relationship, that's another question. I
have heard recently that the risk for genetic damage to the child wouldn't
be as great as we commonly think... _if_ this is true (hey, I'm no genetics
specialist ;) ), we _might_ even have to consider legalizing this. Of
course, if the risk for genetic damage _is_ significantly greater than in
non-incestous relationships, I guess we would at least have to consider
making the use of contraceptives mandatory...
....but then, we kind of get into the same area of nasty questions as in
abortion discussions - if the mother won't be able to care for the child
decently, should she not be allowed to abort it, rather then give birth
just to release it into a life of misery? Aaaah, nasty stuff, nasty
nasty...
The legal questions involved in such things will probably be a whole new
dimension of nightmare too. How to judge whether there's really no
emotional coercion et al involved between close relatives? Let alone that
conventional laws of inheritance may become all but impossible to apply to
families descending from such a situation... but that would be another
thread I guess. ;)
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 07:53:29 PM |
|
|
In article <1149457815.397916.75890@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote:
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
My opinin here is that incest is taboo for genetic reasons only.
Recessive traits that are damaging are far more likely to come out in
children born to those too closely related.
Now, if adult siblings were to engage in sex, and they both consented
and made sure they didn't reproduce, I wouldn't bother them. Really,
from a social standpoint, I don't see why adult incest should be
monitored by the state any more than homosexuality. Only when one of the
participants is too young for consent -- which is statutory rape anyway
-- should we get in a twist over it.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
09 Jun 2006 09:39:39 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2006 14:50:15 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
Hehehehheeh. Speaker's Corner can be a 'trip.'
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
[chuckling] A smart and nimble 'speaker.'
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Would it really? This is between two consenting adults afterall.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Incest between consenting adults occurs now-knowingly or not.
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 07:33:00 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2006 14:50:15 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net>
wrote:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
As long as we are talking consenting adults, I don't see a problem
with incest. I also don't think it would be common enough to merit
any special laws anyway.
Some argue that there is a risk of genetic defects in children, but in
most cases I don't think that is a actually a major risk. If a
serious genetic disease runs in your family you might want to make
extra sure that your coupling doesn't produce offspring. As far as I
know, there is no law against unrelated people with family histories
of Huntington's (for example) marrying and/or having children so that
is not a basis for a law against incest.
Beyond that, what legitimate State interest is served by a law against
(consenting adult) incest? The fact that it might offend the
sensibilities of some people is not a legitimate basis.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 07:55:08 PM |
|
|
In article <uft6821sc4vpgnp4ep2go7cjnnnf0aqfih@4ax.com>,
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote:
As far as I
know, there is no law against unrelated people with family histories
of Huntington's (for example) marrying and/or having children so that
is not a basis for a law against incest.
An interesting observation. Do you think that we should consider
mandates for such checks when people ge married?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
05 Jun 2006 12:15:27 AM |
|
|
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-5D1BCB.20515404062006@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <uft6821sc4vpgnp4ep2go7cjnnnf0aqfih@4ax.com>,
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote:
As far as I
know, there is no law against unrelated people with family histories
of Huntington's (for example) marrying and/or having children so that
is not a basis for a law against incest
The incest laws were primarily based on genetic, rather than moral
principles.
(For example, in incest law, although it was considered an offence for a
grandfather to have sex with a grandaughter, it was not considered necessary
to make it an offence for a grandmother to have sex with a grandson, simply
because it was much less likely that a pregnancy could result from the
latter relationship.)
There are often quite valid reasons for avoiding incest, which appear to be
built in to the average human being without necessarily requiring a law to
govern it.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 10:59:16 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:55:08 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
In article <uft6821sc4vpgnp4ep2go7cjnnnf0aqfih@4ax.com>,
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote:
As far as I
know, there is no law against unrelated people with family histories
of Huntington's (for example) marrying and/or having children so that
is not a basis for a law against incest.
An interesting observation. Do you think that we should consider
mandates for such checks when people ge married?
I could see requiring mandatory but confidential screening for
informational purposes only. In other words, you are required to get
the test and discuss the results in confidence with a genetic
counselor. What you do with the information would be your decision.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 07:09:55 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2006 14:50:15 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net>
wrote:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
The offsprings of an incestuous relationship bears a cost to soceity
since we cannot abandon them to their own medical illnesses.
On the other hand, it's not as if there's an epidemic of sibling
itching to marry each other.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2473 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Ahhhhhh, yessssssss, ummmmmmm - Alito, Alito, Alito"
-duke (duckgumbo@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 59
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge,who pussied
out of the Vietnam draft, showing his gay side
despite his avowed anti-gay bigotry
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke is such a racist:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
Father Gerard "Jerry" Martin
stpatrickbr<AT>bellsouth<DOT>net
Saint Patrick Catholic Church
12424 Brogdon Lane
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 06:16:56 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2006 14:50:15 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net>
wrote:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
"Incest" is a very slippery term; ultimately we are all related to one
degree or another. As far as the types that are usually prohibited,
while they're not my cup of tea, I see no reason to prohibit such
things between consenting adults as long as they are aware of the
risks involved should offspring result.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Clover" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 04:56:49 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2006 14:50:15 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
The only real problem with incest is if there are offspring produced (increased
risk of expression of deformities and other recessive traits). Other than that,
it's a behavior most of us find "icky", but as long as it's two consenting
adults, there really isn't any rational reason to condemn it.
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
"A disappearance is when someone has vanished.
A tragedy is when they were photogenic."
- a.t-c's Bo Raxo, paraphrased.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If you look at the whole life of the planet,
man has only been around for a few blinks of an
eye. So if the infection wipes us all out,
that _is_ a return to normality..."
- Sergeant Farrell, "28 Days Later"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bretts Ghost" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 06:21:02 PM |
|
|
Uncle Clover wrote:
On 4 Jun 2006 14:50:15 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
The only real problem with incest is if there are offspring produced (increased
risk of expression of deformities and other recessive traits). Other than that,
it's a behavior most of us find "icky", but as long as it's two consenting
adults, there really isn't any rational reason to condemn it.
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
I remember reading (probably in Dawkins or Ridley -- my two favorite
authors) that, if a boy and girl are brought up together from an early
age, then they tend not to be sexually attracted to each other,
regardless of whether they're indeed siblings. This is due to the
selective disadvantage of the adverse genetic consequences mentioned by
Uncle Clover, since natural selection favored those people who did not
want to screw their siblings and so a rule-of-thumb developed for
distinguishing siblings from non-siblings, which worked well enough, at
least during the EEA.
This is very much different from homosexuality, which appears to confer
some sort of selective advantage on the genes involved, although the
jury is still out regarding just what and how this advantage could be
carried through. In both cases, though, of course I agree with Uncle
Clover. If it's between consenting adults, then it's nobody's business
but theirs. (and I ain't sayin' this jus' cuz I'm from WV, either.)
Again, I only know what I read in the popular literature -- hopefully
some of the science brains in this group can elaborate further. (althow
in life i wuz a scients teacher in a chrsitain skool)
Bretts' Ghost
.
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 08:39:34 PM |
|
|
Bretts' Ghost wrote:
Uncle Clover wrote:
On 4 Jun 2006 14:50:15 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
The only real problem with incest is if there are offspring produced (increased
risk of expression of deformities and other recessive traits). Other than that,
it's a behavior most of us find "icky", but as long as it's two consenting
adults, there really isn't any rational reason to condemn it.
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
I remember reading (probably in Dawkins or Ridley -- my two favorite
authors) that, if a boy and girl are brought up together from an early
age, then they tend not to be sexually attracted to each other,
regardless of whether they're indeed siblings.
They might think of each other as siblings on an emotional level even
if they know for a fact that they are not related. Consider that in any
concievable country where such a test might be done, there would be a
strong social taboo against incest (at least among siblings). Until
they actually find the gene or set of genes that make people less
likely to be attracted to siblings, this will remain a possibility.
Also, if they do have a brother/sister relationship, they may be just
as unwilling to admit to a researcher that they are attracted to each
other as if they were genuine siblings. For that matter, how do we know
that genuine siblings are not attracted to each other and are simply
unwilling to tell anyone because of the taboo? I, personally, don't
have any siblings so I wouldn't know.
This is due to the
selective disadvantage of the adverse genetic consequences mentioned by
Uncle Clover, since natural selection favored those people who did not
want to screw their siblings and so a rule-of-thumb developed for
distinguishing siblings from non-siblings, which worked well enough, at
least during the EEA.
This is very much different from homosexuality, which appears to confer
some sort of selective advantage on the genes involved, although the
jury is still out regarding just what and how this advantage could be
carried through. In both cases, though, of course I agree with Uncle
Clover. If it's between consenting adults, then it's nobody's business
but theirs. (and I ain't sayin' this jus' cuz I'm from WV, either.)
Again, I only know what I read in the popular literature -- hopefully
some of the science brains in this group can elaborate further. (althow
in life i wuz a scients teacher in a chrsitain skool)
Bretts' Ghost
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
05 Jun 2006 09:00:03 PM |
|
|
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Bretts' Ghost wrote:
Uncle Clover wrote:
On 4 Jun 2006 14:50:15 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
The only real problem with incest is if there are offspring produced (increased
risk of expression of deformities and other recessive traits). Other than that,
it's a behavior most of us find "icky", but as long as it's two consenting
adults, there really isn't any rational reason to condemn it.
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
I remember reading (probably in Dawkins or Ridley -- my two favorite
authors) that, if a boy and girl are brought up together from an early
age, then they tend not to be sexually attracted to each other,
regardless of whether they're indeed siblings.
They might think of each other as siblings on an emotional level even
if they know for a fact that they are not related. Consider that in any
concievable country where such a test might be done, there would be a
strong social taboo against incest (at least among siblings). Until
they actually find the gene or set of genes that make people less
likely to be attracted to siblings, this will remain a possibility.
Also, if they do have a brother/sister relationship, they may be just
as unwilling to admit to a researcher that they are attracted to each
other as if they were genuine siblings. For that matter, how do we know
that genuine siblings are not attracted to each other and are simply
unwilling to tell anyone because of the taboo? I, personally, don't
have any siblings so I wouldn't know.
You could test it the same way that it was discovered that there was a
correlation between homophobia and latent homosexual impulses: measure
heart rate, ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
09 Jun 2006 09:41:10 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2006 16:21:02 -0700, "Bretts' Ghost" <bretts1967@hotmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
Uncle Clover wrote:
On 4 Jun 2006 14:50:15 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote:
Hello,
Today, on a day out in London, I came to Speaker's Corner and got into
a debate with a Moslem man attacking Darwinism (I know, what a surprise
;-).
However, he did catch me out when he moved the conversation on to
homosexuality. He asked my view and I gave the standard answer that
what two consenting adults do in private is no one's business as long
as no one is harmed.
Using this principle, he then developed a line of reasoning which ended
up in permitting incest between adults and for a while, he had me
stumped. I wasn't quick witted enough to draw the distinction between
homosexuality and incest.
I did recover by arguing that incest would entail damaging an
established relationship, but I'd like your opinions.
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give
moral quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that
perhaps incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground
between reactionaries and progresssives?
Thanks in advance,
(-: Ian :-)
The only real problem with incest is if there are offspring produced (increased
risk of expression of deformities and other recessive traits). Other than that,
it's a behavior most of us find "icky", but as long as it's two consenting
adults, there really isn't any rational reason to condemn it.
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
I remember reading (probably in Dawkins or Ridley -- my two favorite
authors) that, if a boy and girl are brought up together from an early
age, then they tend not to be sexually attracted to each other,
regardless of whether they're indeed siblings. This is due to the
selective disadvantage of the adverse genetic consequences mentioned by
Uncle Clover, since natural selection favored those people who did not
want to screw their siblings and so a rule-of-thumb developed for
distinguishing siblings from non-siblings, which worked well enough, at
least during the EEA.
This is very much different from homosexuality, which appears to confer
some sort of selective advantage on the genes involved, although the
jury is still out regarding just what and how this advantage could be
carried through. In both cases, though, of course I agree with Uncle
Clover. If it's between consenting adults, then it's nobody's business
but theirs. (and I ain't sayin' this jus' cuz I'm from WV, either.)
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Nice touch.
Again, I only know what I read in the popular literature -- hopefully
some of the science brains in this group can elaborate further. (althow
in life i wuz a scients teacher in a chrsitain skool)
Bretts' Ghost
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 07:30:55 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Ian Braidwood in episode
<1149457815.397916.75890@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give moral
quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that perhaps
incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground between
reactionaries and progresssives?
Well, you could look at it that society has an interest in not sanctioning
such because of the health problems that are forced on the off spring.
They didn't consent.
European royalty inbred for years and produced a great many people with
hemophilia, mental problems, and all kinds of other, ahem, issues...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: A Question for Atheists...From an Atheist |
04 Jun 2006 08:29:45 PM |
|
|
In article <qqadnQEjaaKi5h7ZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@megapath.net>, Mark
K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Ian Braidwood in episode
<1149457815.397916.75890@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
Can the principle of consent, be formulated in a way which can give moral
quidance or do you think that the principle is okay and that perhaps
incest between consenting adults might be a future battleground between
reactionaries and progresssives?
Well, you could look at it that society has an interest in not sanctioning
such because of the health problems that are forced on the off spring.
They didn't consent.
European royalty inbred for years and produced a great many people with
hemophilia, mental problems, and all kinds of other, ahem, issues...
Hemophilia isn't any more common if in family marriages happen (except
for a higher chance of women being hemophiliacs which I don't think
has ever happened in European royalty and would require a male
hemophiliac to marry a female carrier). Male hemophiliacs have only
one gene for hemophilia while inbreeding related problems are recessive
and require two genes. Hemophilia got into European royalty because
Queen Victoria carried the gene and had a large family most of whom
married other European royalty and some of her daughters carried it
with the 50% chance for each of their sons to be hemophiliac and for
each of their daughters to be carriers.
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
