Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Welcome to the forum → The Lounge → That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

New Britain
February 17, 2025, 11:51 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 15, 2025, 04:00 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM
German nationalist party ...
February 13, 2025, 01:15 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 13, 2025, 01:08 PM
Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM
Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM
Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Poll

  • Question: Should an elderly brother & sister couple engaging in mutually consensual incest without any coercion be automatically imprisoned?  (Voting closed: February 13, 2010, 08:52 PM)
  • Yes - 0 (0%)
  • No - 13 (100%)
  • Total Voters: 13

 Topic: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!

 (Read 6355 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     OP - February 07, 2010, 08:52 PM
    I'd like to explore this single question, as this is the only one that I can see a straightforward yes/no answer for. 

    Not because I want another 30 or so page about incest, but because I was truly disappointed in some of the answers on this issue, and want to get to the bottom of the degree of these differences and why they came about. 

    I for one would not like it to end this topic prematurely, as it is one that obviously invokes passion on both sides of the argument, but wait until it reaches its natural conclusion, i.e. when differences and why they came about are better understood and posters are bored and can no longer be bothered to post on the topic.  That is what I believe a free & open forum should be about, particularly for those who no longer have the religious ruler to guage their behaviour and are now exploring a new evolved set of ethics which they hope will be as strong as they had previously.

    Fortunately we have discovered a subject like this that can get down to the core of our beliefs and explore these ethical structures and how they are constructed.

    I would like to understand the concept of morality as an ex-muslim here.  Morality for me is now a redundant concept and has been superceded by ethics.

    Morality has been traditionally defined by religion, and as a concept that no longer has universal agreement in our world without religion.  Up until now I thought we were agreed what adults do with mutual consent is their business and no reason for others to interfere.

    However it appears this may not be true amongst some - so what concept of morality/ethics do you believe in? How do we then assess what is right and wrong if you do not believe mutual consent is good enough and dont want to allow certain adults the freedom to choose what they wish for their lives? 

    Discuss..
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #1 - February 07, 2010, 08:59 PM
    We aren't going to lock this one but we will be keeping a close eye on it and walloping if things get out of line. Carry on. Smiley
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #2 - February 07, 2010, 09:02 PM
    I don't think it is a crime in any western legal system. There are rules against marriage - but not sex.

    EDIT: googled and I see I was wrong...
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #3 - February 07, 2010, 09:30 PM
    I answered no, but having it legalised is not going to change anything. People, as far as I know, have sex in private, locked places, not on benches in parks (though there are some exceptions), which would mean having it legalised will not have any impact on those willing to indulge in a consensual incestuous relationship.

    On the other hand it could be used as a defense statement when an incestuous rape case is reported.<- (I am not sure about this as I am not very familiar with how exactly the law works, just guesswork.)
    "In every time and culture there are pressures to conform to the prevailing prejudices. But there are also, in every place and epoch, those who value the truth; who record the evidence faithfully. Future generations are in their debt." -Carl Sagan

  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #4 - February 10, 2010, 12:29 AM
    I voted no and I think that everything that needs to be discussed has been discussed but there one thing I would like to bring up.

    I think that children born to incestuous couples are undoubtedly gonna suffer in life so I think we should prevent such couples from having kids.
    First by making it illegal. And because I don't believe in the effectiveness of bans, I suggest forced injectable contraceptives such as Depo Provera to every woman in an incestuous relationship. Failure to use birth control should be punishable under law.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #5 - February 10, 2010, 03:56 AM
    Quote
    I voted no and I think that everything that needs to be discussed has been discussed but there one thing I would like to bring up.

    I think that children born to incestuous couples are undoubtedly gonna suffer in life so I think we should prevent such couples from having kids.
    First by making it illegal. And because I don't believe in the effectiveness of bans, I suggest forced injectable contraceptives such as Depo Provera to every woman in an incestuous relationship. Failure to use birth control should be punishable under law.


    wow, so now the state will control sex too... Wink
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #6 - February 10, 2010, 04:14 AM
    Quote from: z10 on February 10, 2010, 03:56 AM
    wow, so now the state will control sex too... Wink

    If you check the incest thread you'll see I was staunchly pro-incest decriminalization. However I'm only considering this because the incestuous wife and husband are negatively affecting the lives of other (the children). It's one of my consequentialist streaks.
    And I said "wife and husband" because I am for granting all the rights of married couples to incestuous couples.

    I'm open for debate though if you feel like it, z10.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #7 - February 10, 2010, 04:23 AM
    whatever would we debate about? I'm open for a discussion though
    That comment was tongue in cheek, ia, i am on your pro-incestious side - i also understand the problem of kids from an incentious couple - i however don't know why there needs to be a law in place, why not educate and let the mature adults make the right decision for themselves? perhaps adults should be trusted as adults
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #8 - February 10, 2010, 04:52 AM

    You're right but only to a certain extent. Such a law (forced contraception for men/women in incestuous relationships) is a necessary evil that we should enforce as long as incest is as socially deplorable as it is now.

    No such thing as absolute freedom I'm afraid. There needs to be a state. You can argue for a minimal one but it's inconceivable to me that a healthy society can exist without a judiciary and some form of law enforcement.

    I'm all for trusting mature adults with their lives. I just won't trust anyone I don't know with my life. That's why I am for speed limits.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #9 - February 10, 2010, 10:14 AM
    Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on February 10, 2010, 12:29 AM
    I voted no and I think that everything that needs to be discussed has been discussed but there one thing I would like to bring up.

    I think that children born to incestuous couples are undoubtedly gonna suffer in life so I think we should prevent such couples from having kids.
    First by making it illegal. And because I don't believe in the effectiveness of bans, I suggest forced injectable contraceptives such as Depo Provera to every woman in an incestuous relationship. Failure to use birth control should be punishable under law.


    The chances of that are quite small for families who don't regularly engage in incestuous relationships. I can understand making it illegal but going as far as forced contraceptives is a no-no. The government should never be given that sort of power.
    ~My story~
    ~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #10 - February 10, 2010, 01:43 PM
    I wonder if abnormality in any offspring is that common in incestuous couples (not that it applies to the OP scenario of a retired couple).  I know its more likely, but assume its similar to the stats of down syndrome or any other abnormatlity.

    I just can see why in biological DNA terms why it would cause a huge problem.  Sisters & brothers are rarely identical, and in some cases less biologiically similar that cousins.  Yet SE Asians have been marrying amongst cousins for years, and evolutionarily their behaviour has not changed despite this huge problem nor is every 10th person born with some sort sort of disorder.

    I wonder there are any tests/results that we can have a look at?
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #11 - February 10, 2010, 02:43 PM
    I am not talking only about the biological risk. I am also addressing the social acceptance. 
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #12 - February 10, 2010, 02:52 PM
    OK - but I would like to tackle the biological risk as its one that all those against commonly cite.

    A few posters have mentioned a hugely increased risk of gentic disorders, I get the impression that they would be expecting deformities in say 40% of every child born.  My guess is that it would be an increased risk of less than 10% of major deformity, and would just like to substantiate which one is true.
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #13 - February 10, 2010, 04:05 PM
    It is an evolutionary disadvantage to copulate with a family member, due to a lack of diversity in the genes and a danger of recessive genes showing up actively in your off-spring.   
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #14 - February 10, 2010, 04:18 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on February 10, 2010, 02:52 PM
    OK - but I would like to tackle the biological risk as its one that all those against commonly cite.

    A few posters have mentioned a hugely increased risk of gentic disorders, I get the impression that they would be expecting deformities in say 40% of every child born.  My guess is that it would be an increased risk of less than 10% of major deformity, and would just like to substantiate which one is true.


    Islame, you might appreciate this angle that another poster on another forum I use brought to light:

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/sexuality-mature-topics/27422-where-you-stand-incest.html#post1032594

    and her next post:

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/sexuality-mature-topics/27422-where-you-stand-incest-2.html#post1032615

    Infact through the entire thread I felt that the genetic link was dismissed towards the end as being a weak arguement against it.

    (I took the topic there because I wanted to learn more and many of the members there are super smart.  Not saying our members aren't, but you get what I'm saying Tongue)
    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #15 - February 10, 2010, 04:26 PM
    Berbs, we can't see the thread. We need to sign-up.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #16 - February 10, 2010, 04:30 PM
    Haha well you can't, you're banned.  Tongue

    Ok, these were the 2 posts in question:

    Quote from: Qre:us;1032594
    No standing, but, sitting, on top of my brother's.........



    Actually, throughout history, moderate inbreeding has been the common practice, not the exception, in not only humans, but other species. E.g., kissing cousins. Many cultures to this day practice such things as the ideal match-up.

    An article that appeared in Journal of Genetic Counselling (and apparently made the headliens of NY Times), that outlines the recommendation for closely related couples who are pregnant or want to be pregnant:
    Genetic Counseling and Screening of Consanguineous Couples and Their Offspring: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

    As well, too much genetic variety is not always a good thing, while too much genetic homogeneity is a bad thing. The latter magnifies some debilitating conditions because the likelihood that both people have the condition increases (e.g., Martha's Vineyard - the deaf community), while too much genetic variety means that the "strong genes" that survived are diffused by too much heterogeneity.

     

    Quote from: Qre:us;1032615
    Yup, a meta-analysis study (gold standard in studies) proved just what you outlined:
    Correlation between Fitness and Genetic Diversity

    The issue I was outlining is specific to environmental pressures (I don't have my textbooks with me, to get more specific about it)...but, the idea is that, if for some reason, there is too much genetic diversity introduced "suddenly" in an otherwise stable environment where evolution has shaped certain genes to be suited for "survival as the fittest"...this genetic diversity, as a reaction to the environmental pressures, will actually weaken the "fitness". Of course, with enough time (evolution), a balance is reached again. As with all evolving life.


    The whole thread though builds a better picture anyway.
    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #17 - February 10, 2010, 04:51 PM
    Quote from: King Tut on February 10, 2010, 04:05 PM
    It is an evolutionary disadvantage to copulate with a family member, due to a lack of diversity in the genes and a danger of recessive genes showing up actively in your off-spring.  

    Yep, without a doubt - its the whole point of sexual vs assexual reproduction, just trying to guage to what extent..


    Quote
    In fact through the entire thread I felt that the genetic link was dismissed towards the end as being a weak arguement against it.

    (I took the topic there because I wanted to learn more and many of the members there are super smart.  Not saying our members aren't, but you get what I'm saying Tongue)

    Not really, because with or without abnormality it would not change my opinion nor the 100% poll majority of peoples opinion here - as long as the scenario in the poll exists, then the present law should be redrafted.  How?  I dont really care as long as it takes people rights into account.

    Depending on how strong the incidence of abnormality is how I would react to the issue of pregnancy.  However its a difficult subject, as controlling it begs the question about whether we should allow down syndrome/blind/disabled etc partners to mate, and again not an area I am comfortable giving the government the right to rule on..
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #18 - February 10, 2010, 05:01 PM
    My point essentially was, in evolutionary sense we are not programmed to have sex with family members. Since survival of the fittest dictates evolution through natural selection. The process of living species it to propagate their genes, through off-spring, if for would have been more easier for australopithecine to inbreed. But this is not the case when it comes to great apes.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #19 - February 10, 2010, 05:03 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on February 10, 2010, 04:51 PM


    Not really, because with or without abnormality it would not change my opinion nor the 100% poll majority of peoples opinion here - as long as the scenario in the poll exists, then the present law should be redrafted.  How?  I dont really care as long as it takes people rights into account.

    Depending on how strong the incidence of abnormality is how I would react to the issue of pregnancy.  However its a difficult subject, as controlling it begs the question about whether we should allow down syndrome/blind/disabled etc partners to mate, and again not an area I am comfortable giving the government the right to rule on..



    Well for myself it does make a difference.  If without fail every child born to an incestous couple was severely disabled, then I do believe an arguement could be made about reasons to control/prevent pregnancy or continue to have it illegal.

    You say blind/down syndrome/disabled as an example, yet they also do not work under conditions that every child born to a parent with that condition will have a child born the same way.  It's not constant, skips generations, whatever, fact is it's not a 100% fail thing.  I always assumed incestous couples would breed severely ill children 100% of the time, so whilst you may find it means nothing to you to find out this isn;t the case, alot of people would feel more relaxed about dicriminalizing incest based on that knowledge.

    Not accepting it, but removing the right of the state to interfere.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #20 - February 10, 2010, 05:03 PM
    To argue for incest is to dismiss 4 million years of evolutionary history.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #21 - February 10, 2010, 05:05 PM
    Quote from: King Tut on February 10, 2010, 05:03 PM
    To argue for incest is to dismiss 4 million years of evolutionary history.


    No one except liberated is arguing for it lol it's the laws around it that are up for debate mate.  Tongue
    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #22 - February 10, 2010, 05:07 PM
    Actually no it would be 14 million years, and that to, only going back to the most recent common ancestor.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #23 - February 10, 2010, 05:11 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on February 10, 2010, 05:05 PM
    No one except liberated is arguing for it lol it's the laws around it that are up for debate mate.  Tongue


    The law is fine, it allows you to marry your first cousin. And even that shows documented evidence that inbreeding is bad. 

    supplementary:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/331/7528/1292
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #24 - February 10, 2010, 05:12 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on February 10, 2010, 05:03 PM
    You say blind/down syndrome/disabled as an example, yet they also do not work under conditions that every child born to a parent with that condition will have a child born the same way.  It's not constant, skips generations, whatever, fact is it's not a 100% fail thing.  I always assumed incestous couples would breed severely ill children 100% of the time, so whilst you may find it means nothing to you to find out this isn;t the case, alot of people would feel more relaxed about dicriminalizing incest based on that knowledge.

    Oh, I didnt realise you thought it was 100% likely to produce mutated offspring.  

    I am sure that isnt the case, but if thats what you believe and without proof, then I can see your concerns.
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #25 - February 10, 2010, 05:14 PM
    Quote from: King Tut on February 10, 2010, 05:11 PM
    The law is fine, it allows you to marry your first cousin. And even that shows documented evidence that inbreeding is bad. 

    supplementary:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/331/7528/1292


    For this couple the law is not fine:  tainted-love-are-we-wrong-to-treat-incest-as-a-taboo

    Quote
    The bizarre case of Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski has captivated the world since the couple crashed into the headlines in 2001 with the birth of their first incestuous son (two of their four children are disabled). Not just because their self-proclaimed love seems to break one of the modern world's last taboos. But also because last week the couple's lawyer, Dr Endrich Wilhelm, lodged a plea with the country's highest judicial body, the Constitutional Court, in a bid to attempt to overturn Germany's ban on incest.

    According to Dr Wilhelm, there is simply "no moral or legal basis" for incest to be a criminal offence today. Patrick and Susan have issued a statement in which they declare: "We do not feel guilty about what has happened to us. We want the law which makes incest a crime to be abolished."

    But while the world and Germany's Constitutional Court ponder on how and why a brother and sister, cruelly dubbed by Germany's tabloids "the incest couple", fell in love and maintained a sexual relationship for almost a decade, psychiatrists simply shrug knowingly.

    Susan and Patrick's love, they say, is a clear example of Genetic Sexual Attraction, an obsessive emotional response which affects as many as 50 per cent of siblings or parents and offspring who, like Patrick and Susan, were separated at birth, only to be reunited in adulthood.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #26 - February 10, 2010, 05:16 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on February 10, 2010, 05:12 PM
    Oh, I didnt realise you thought it was 100% likely to produce mutated offspring. 

    I am sure that isnt the case, but if thats what you believe and without proof, then I can see your concerns.


    That's what I believed Islame, and considering it was an icky taboo it wasn't necessary to go searching for proof against this belief.

    I have, thanks to all of this, learnt this isn't the case though. 

    I think I wasn't the only misguided person out in the world working under this assumption either.
    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #27 - February 10, 2010, 05:19 PM
    They already have two disabled children, through incest if someone thing negatively effects society and you happen to enjoy it, that is not a good reason for the law to be changed. It's as stupid as a pregnant woman saying, despite the danger of taking drugs, while being pregnant, I am going to take drugs, because I enjoy it. 
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #28 - February 10, 2010, 05:20 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on February 10, 2010, 05:16 PM
    That's what I believed Islame, and considering it was an icky taboo it wasn't necessary to go searching for proof against this belief.

    I have, thanks to all of this, learnt this isn't the case though.  

    I think I wasn't the only misguided person out in the world working under this assumption either.

    I didnt realise..
    Quote from: King Tut on February 10, 2010, 05:11 PM
    The law is fine, it allows you to marry your first cousin.

    We've been though all the arguments on Liberated's thread - if you havent done already, you might want to read it first before repeating them.  btw incest, whether consensual or not, is illegal in most western countries
     
    Quote from: King Tut on February 10, 2010, 05:11 PM
    And even that shows documented evidence that inbreeding is bad.  

    Incest & inbreeding are different things, but one can sometimes follow the other..
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: That thread about that thread.. Oh no not again!
     Reply #29 - February 16, 2010, 10:24 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on February 07, 2010, 08:52 PM

    I would like to understand the concept of morality as an ex-muslim here.  Morality for me is now a redundant concept and has been superceded by ethics.



    What do you think is the difference between the definition of morality and ethics?
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »