B
Bradski
Guest
Might is Right may be a better way of describing it. But whater phrase you prefer to use, it has zero relevance to Darwin or evolution.
- Status
R
Robin_des_Bois
Guest
The only consistent way of having Godless morality would be to be libertarian (aka the jungle). For exemple, irreligious people usually accept same-sex marriage, but no incestious marriage, which I find to be inconsistent. For them, homosexuality should be tolerated because it’s genetic, but incestious marriage no, even if the people involved have a genetic tendency to do it (and some societies used to practice it). Yes, incest can cause congenital diseases to the offspring, but so does marrying someone who have Bipolar Disorder, should we ban BPD people from marriage?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
**I meant chronologically before Jesus, ancient civilizations show developments of a natural law. In scotland it is sometimes known as common sense law **
Says you!
**I meant chronologically before Jesus, ancient civilizations show developments of a natural law. In scotland it is sometimes known as common sense law **
Says you!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Great points. And I would add that congenital defects in offspring from parents who are closely related is not that common.
B
Bradski
Guest
You surely understand that a familial relationship, especially between a father or mother and their child (and even between siblings) is substantially different from two people who are not closely related.
There is an entirely natural (and biologically based) trust between a parent and child which it would be invidious to break. To say that a mother (or son or daughter or father) should use that trust in oder to foster a sexual relationship is something that we’d all agree is wrong.
The possibility of that trust being broken is the reason we feel that incest is abhorrent.
P
PRmerger
Guest
What if it’s a father who really didn’t have any relationship with his daughter?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It is interesting to hear you use words like “entirely natural and biologically based” when describing a “trust” relationship but decline to do so when distinguishing a sexual relationship that is biologically ordered towards procreation from a same sex liaison that merely “mimics” the “entirely natural (and biologically based)” procreative one.
Such an arbitrary application of those terms on your part certainly leaves us wondering about which rules of disambiguation you subscribe to.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
**
The possibility of that trust being broken is the reason we feel that incest is abhorrent.**
I don’t understand this argument. If a father and daughter or mother and son decide they want to live as husband and wife, what trust is broken? Because they have always been on intimate terms living together under the same roof, they could make the case that their trust in each other is stronger than the trust any two strangers could ever have for each other.
I agree that incest is abhorrent, but not for the reason you allege. It is abhorrent because it is unnatural, which brings us back to natural law morals rather than trust morals.
If a father and son wanted to marry, that would be doubly abhorrent. No?
**
The possibility of that trust being broken is the reason we feel that incest is abhorrent.**
I don’t understand this argument. If a father and daughter or mother and son decide they want to live as husband and wife, what trust is broken? Because they have always been on intimate terms living together under the same roof, they could make the case that their trust in each other is stronger than the trust any two strangers could ever have for each other.
I agree that incest is abhorrent, but not for the reason you allege. It is abhorrent because it is unnatural, which brings us back to natural law morals rather than trust morals.
If a father and son wanted to marry, that would be doubly abhorrent. No?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. Neither do I.
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Incest =inbred. Inbred offspring (on average) are less fit. Therefore, incest is both morally repugnant and will be discouraged by natural selection.
Note that one should not confuse “natural” and “good”. Cancer, sickle cell anemia…are natural. Incest is unnatural (contrary to evolution) and evil. The fact that the two catagories coincide is coincidence.
Did you know that crime goes up whenever ice cream sales go up? Crime increases in summer because people are more often outside,making their homes more vulnerable to burglars and themselves more vulnerable to mugging. Ice cream sales increase in warm weather (summer) and decrease in colder weather (winter). To suppose a connection between crime and ice cream sales is as absurd as to suppose a connection between natural and the morally good.
Note that one should not confuse “natural” and “good”. Cancer, sickle cell anemia…are natural. Incest is unnatural (contrary to evolution) and evil. The fact that the two catagories coincide is coincidence.
Did you know that crime goes up whenever ice cream sales go up? Crime increases in summer because people are more often outside,making their homes more vulnerable to burglars and themselves more vulnerable to mugging. Ice cream sales increase in warm weather (summer) and decrease in colder weather (winter). To suppose a connection between crime and ice cream sales is as absurd as to suppose a connection between natural and the morally good.
B
Bradski
Guest
I assume that you mean a biological relationship. If they didn’t know the relationship existed, then there is no trust broken. But we are still left with the biological (evolutionary) knowledge that it is a bad idea. Not to mention the fact that we are brought up to consider it taboo.
Are you saying that a gay relationship is not natural? Perhaps you are. As do most Christians. I don’t agree. And yes, a heterosexual couple has the potential to procreate and a gay couple does not. I’m not sure that comes as a surprise. It only has any impact on the discussion if you think that marriage must involve procreation. It doesn’t.
It is abhorrent because it is unatural? Didn’t I say that there was an entirely natural trust which should not be broken? Because that would be, let me see, unatural? It sounds like you’re agreeing with me, Charles.
And as regards a father and son, it’s exactly the same as a father and daughter. Or mother and son. You probably think it’s worse because of the type of sex.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Not at all.
What if it’s a step-father and daughter, and they really love each other? Why should we prevent them from loving whom they want to love?
It may hurt the mother, but the argument that seems to be promoted by those opposed to the CC is this, “No one should prevent me from loving who I want to love!”
Hurt feelings in the mother are a sad side effect, according to these ideologues, but the bottom line is this: I get to love whom I want to love!
Yes? Am I getting the argument incorrect?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Natural, as you have shown is a very ambiguous term. For you to claim homosexuality is “natural” and, therefore, permissible because it occurs in nature is to fall prey to the naturalistic fallacy - that behaviours or actions are good merely because they occur in nature. Surely, you aren’t claiming that, are you?
Secondly, from a purely evolutionary perspective, it is difficult to understand why an orientation or behaviour that practically brings to a terminus the continuation of the genetic makeup of an individual is of any value for survival. In fact, the prima facie conclusion would be that same sex orientation is “nature’s way” of allowing individuals to self-select whether or not they deem themselves fit for reproduction, since these individuals engage in a behaviour that “naturally” thwarts the procreation of their own offspring. Could same sex attraction be this kind of filter to naturally cull individuals that are self-selected as unfit for survival? That would seem an obvious conclusion from evolutionary biology, if you want to play that card.
In which case, same sex orientation completely fits your determination of why incestual relationships are unwanted.
You claimed: “…we are still left with the biological (evolutionary) knowledge that it is a bad idea. Not to mention the fact that we are brought up to consider it taboo.”
Likewise, with same sex orientation. We are left with the biological (evolutionary) knowledge that it is a bad idea because it terminates procreative possibilities, not to mention the fact that it is considered taboo in many (most) cultures outside of the secular modernist ones that exist today.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
In some states such a union is permitted. In other states it is conditionally prohibited (see below). I wouldn’t be the one to write prescriptions on whether or not people are obligated to oppose such unions. But in the general case opposition may arise from concerns for whether or not the marriage was voluntary, coercive, or whether the step father had been engaging in some type of forced sexual activities before the union and other concerns.
ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=075000050K212
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
**
Didn’t I say that there was an entirely natural trust which should not be broken? Because that would be, let me see, unatural? It sounds like you’re agreeing with me, Charles.**
When the time comes for the first father and daughter to demand the right to marry, neither will say that a trust has been broken. Neither would two men who want to marry say that a trust has been broken.
But in both cases trust in the order of nature has been broken for sure.
**
Didn’t I say that there was an entirely natural trust which should not be broken? Because that would be, let me see, unatural? It sounds like you’re agreeing with me, Charles.**
When the time comes for the first father and daughter to demand the right to marry, neither will say that a trust has been broken. Neither would two men who want to marry say that a trust has been broken.
But in both cases trust in the order of nature has been broken for sure.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
B
Bradski
Guest
Let’s say that a man gets married and meets his twenty year old step daughter the next day. He realises, with some dismay, that he’s married the wrong woman. Apart from the obvious turmoil it would cause the family if he were to leave his wife and marry his step-daughter, I would see no problem with it at all.
However, if the step-daughter was a child and he raised that child in a normal father-daughter relationship and then, when she was twenty, realised that he wanted to start a sexual relationship with her, then I, and most people I would imagine, would think that it would be wrong for the reasons I gave earlier.
If I was claiming that, then I would have said so. I am trying to correct the misunderstanding that some people have between something that is not normal (i.e. something that doesn’t happen that often: it snows in New York in August) and something that is unnatural (i.e. something that doesn’t occur within nature: elephants hunting gazelles).
A gay relationship is not normal in the sense that it happens in a minority of cases. But it is entirely natural. It goes without saying that either case has no bearing on whether it can be described as ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
The answer is in the question. Evolution favours the survival of the particular species. It doesn’t work on an individual level. If the survival of our species was dependant on all couples being heterosexual and producing children, then there wouldn’t be any heterosexual couples who didn’t want children (just like animals in the wild have no choice in the matter) and no gay couples. But the survival of our species doesn’t depend on ALL couples being heterosexual and wanting kids.
Having children that have something wrong with them (if close biological couples were allowed to have children) and perpetuating the problem (the problem gets worse as more related couples produce more children) is not a really good idea as far as the survival of the species is concerned. In fact, it would guarantee its demise.
The fact that some people don’t have children is no cause for concern as far as evolution is concerned. The lineage may die out, but it has no effect on overall population.
It has happened – and more than once. And I think that everyone would agree that trust had been broken in each case (assuming it didn’t match the step father scenario above).
May I use that as an example of a non-sequitur whenever I need to explain the term?
J
John_Savage
Guest
Devil’s advocate:
I think pedophilia suffers similarly from Judeo-Christian bias. It was common in many parts of the ancient world. Properly supervised, it needn’t harm either individual and could result in pleasure for both participants. Most of the psychological harm seems to come from shame, the kind of shame that used to cause homosexuals from committing more suicide or suffering more from depression.
In fact, the Guardian made the same point recently.
m.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
I think pedophilia suffers similarly from Judeo-Christian bias. It was common in many parts of the ancient world. Properly supervised, it needn’t harm either individual and could result in pleasure for both participants. Most of the psychological harm seems to come from shame, the kind of shame that used to cause homosexuals from committing more suicide or suffering more from depression.
In fact, the Guardian made the same point recently.
m.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
B
Bradski
Guest
The article says: The Sex Offenders Act 1997 defined paedophilia as a sexual relationship between an adult over 18 and a child below 16.
The church allows children of 14 to marry. How do we reconcile those two facts?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
However, if the step-daughter was a child and he raised that child in a normal father-daughter relationship and then, when she was twenty, realised that he wanted to start a sexual relationship with her, then I, and most people I would imagine, would think that it would be wrong for the reasons I gave earlier.
You didn’t give any reason earlier that made sense. The father and daughter might claim that they were building greater trust in each other by agreeing to get married. That blows your trust argument all to smithereens so far as the father and daughter are concerned. On those grounds, they might demand the right to marry.
Their demand should be refused in law not because of nebulous trust issues that you propose, but rather because of the unnatural nature of the relationship.
Bestiality, for example, is also outlawed in many places. Not because of trust issues, but because of the perverse nature of the relationship between a human and a beast.
However, if the step-daughter was a child and he raised that child in a normal father-daughter relationship and then, when she was twenty, realised that he wanted to start a sexual relationship with her, then I, and most people I would imagine, would think that it would be wrong for the reasons I gave earlier.
You didn’t give any reason earlier that made sense. The father and daughter might claim that they were building greater trust in each other by agreeing to get married. That blows your trust argument all to smithereens so far as the father and daughter are concerned. On those grounds, they might demand the right to marry.
Their demand should be refused in law not because of nebulous trust issues that you propose, but rather because of the unnatural nature of the relationship.
Bestiality, for example, is also outlawed in many places. Not because of trust issues, but because of the perverse nature of the relationship between a human and a beast.
- Status