Aren't we already inbreds already though? Also your wrong about the consequences of inbreeding. There might be a slight more chance of a baby developing an handicap, but no different from the average couple. All babies can be born with deformities, shall be ban heterosexual relationships too? You also make the mistake that two close relatives are engaging in sexual intercourse for reproduction. That might not be true. So, again, your argument falls short. From the atheistic point of view, you cannot say that incest is morally wrong. You just can't.
Why is cannibalism morally wrong?
- Thread starter Craterloads
- Start date
Aren't we already inbreds already though? Also your wrong about the consequences of inbreeding. There might be a slight more chance of a baby developing an handicap, but no different from the average couple. All babies can be born with deformities, shall be ban heterosexual relationships too? You also make the mistake that two close relatives are engaging in sexual intercourse for reproduction. That might not be true. So, again, your argument falls short. From the atheistic point of view, you cannot say that incest is morally wrong. You just can't.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,765
- Location
- Auckland
Our understanding of genetics says that you're demonstrably wrong.
You would still have the issue of coercion, even if both siblings were outwardly consensual you cannot assume that were was not coercion. This is why incest often runs not only to siblings, but to step-siblings, adopted and foster siblings as well. (As well as other family members of course).
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
Ok if there was none of that, like i said 100% of freewill and desire?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Are you asking why society would condemn such a relationship? It's probably as simple a reason as over time it has been deemed unacceptable, that may be partly because of the risk of genetic abnormalities, partly the fiduciary relationship and partly because it is not something that society wanted to encourage.
You might have to expand on your first point if you want it to be taken seriously.
You're right that any couple has a risk of having a baby with a genetic defect, you're utterly wrong to state that it's no different to an "average couple" unless you consider 20%+ greater risk of genetic defects or death for first degree relations (e.g. parent-child or sibling-sibling) to be insignificant.
You appear to be assuming that religion has a monopoly on morals, that's simply not true. There may not be a book defining what is and is not "right" but that doesn't mean there is not a moral code which is followed by many outside of religion.
I'm not an atheist, so I don't know what that has to do with my opinion. And you are demonstrably wrong with regards to the higher probabilities of congenital defects and altered immuneo-response in directly related siblings (parents and children also) studies show upward of a 25-35% increase in morbidity in incestuous offspring. So my argument doesn't fall short, you simply don't understand it.
Killing someone is still worse than eating someone though? Which would still be illegal.
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
In regards to why would it be morally wrong. Two consenting brothers, with no coercion, pressure or anything else decide to embark on a relationship, would it be morrally wrong? Theres no genetic abnormalities to worry about or fiduciary relationships concerns, just love.
I wouldn't find that morally wrong... but it would be ****ing weird.
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
I find it ****** weird you dont think it's morally wrong. And why would it be weird? as opposed to normal homosexuals?
Anyhow, do one surely. What are you still doing here?
Why do you try and start a religious war EVERYWHERE you go?
bugger off already, stop preaching this utter tosh
Then it would simply be down to cultural and societal taboos and behaviour. Has anyone every read Time Enough For Love by Robert Heinlein?
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
It's not usual/common or normal to be homosexual in comparison to heterosexuals, yet that wouldn’t be weird.
Anyhow regardless, you wouldn't have a moral issue with it, so kind of answered.
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
So you dont think it is wrong? or morally wrong?
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
It is ethically relativistic, as many broadly applied moral taboos are. Personally I haven't really given it enough thought, however I would say that the problem would be ensuring a fully equitable relationship between the two (or more) individuals, also I am not sure we can even consider Incest in moralistic terms, it is more about societal taboos.