Why are most atheists against bro/sis coitus?

[Narga_Rocks]

I wonder if there's any discernible difference in what relative number of people without siblings think of incest, as opposed to those with siblings. I'm wondering whether the latter might have a "Do what with my sibling? That dude? Bleh no way" that might not be easy to replicate in as visceral a way for somebody who hasn't had a sibling.

watch the stats be like nope

I think you are right. Not the strikethrough part, the part about a difference. Although, I think you could be even more specific. Like, people with siblings of the gender that they are generally attracted to compared to those people without siblings of the gender that they are generally attracted to. If there is some ingrained distaste for it that most people have genetically and it is more than social conditioning, one could argue that those that have experienced the sibling dynamic that causes an unattractiveness to show up would also get disgusted by other people doing it as well, whereas those that haven't experienced it would be like "what's the big deal?"

As for me implying that atheists have no morals, it's not that I'm intending to do that. It's more a statement that there are these books that say "don't do that" and atheists don't have that so why are they against it? And then you bring up laws but don't forget, sodomy was illegal for a while and still is in some places. That hasn't stopped people from objecting to certain laws and saying "no, that's a stupid law and you shouldn't have that law" and getting it changed. And convincing entire nations to change the majority opinion on it from what it was 50 years ago. So I'm wondering what makes bro/sis coitus so different from anything else that there aren't thousands of people making protests and whatnot about these "antiquated" laws like people like to do about other laws.

[peener weener]

As has been already said, societal norms and possibly a reaction brought by evolution. It would really have to be one of these two things because empathy as a moral "compass" in this case doesn't work. I guess when we try to explain the disgust to ourselves it'd be something like "it's just wrong, ew, we came from the same mother god that's disgusting as fuck" but we don't really know why it's disgusting. I think growing up in the same house does that, sort of like I guess some people who can't hook up with childhood friends because to them it feels wrong, like they're hooking up with a sibling.

My personal stance is "ew. well, whatever the disgusting fuck floats your boat." I think government measures against it are pretty dumb, though, and of course I don't believe in objective moral values so I cannot say it is wrong.

[Chiki]

I really don't understand why you think this is such a big mystery. Atheists are still victims of the culture they were raised inregardless of being religious or not. Atheists aren't purely logical people (no one is).

Edited March 3, 2013 by Olwen

[Florete]

I think you are right. Not the strikethrough part, the part about a difference. Although, I think you could be even more specific. Like, people with siblings of the gender that they are generally attracted to compared to those people without siblings of the gender that they are generally attracted to. If there is some ingrained distaste for it that most people have genetically and it is more than social conditioning, one could argue that those that have experienced the sibling dynamic that causes an unattractiveness to show up would also get disgusted by other people doing it as well, whereas those that haven't experienced it would be like "what's the big deal?"

I think there's a term for this, and yes, this is a common case. For example, the "little sister" character stereotype in lots of Japanese media arises from this and has occasionally been referenced as only appealing to those who don't have a younger sister.

I'm a weird case in that I have both a brother and sister and despite no romantic attraction to either am still not at all disgusted by incest otherwise.

[Randa]

It's illegal in massachusets so the law kind of just rubbed off on my morals I guess.

[Narga_Rocks]

I really don't understand why you think this is such a big mystery. Atheists are still victims of the culture they were raised inregardless of being religious or not. Atheists aren't purely logical people (no one is).

Because the culture thing totally worked for influencing young minds of all those other things they were told were wrong.

There are certain things that make sense to me for why atheists would keep the belief and certain things that make sense to me for atheists to reject. This isn't one of the former. Maybe I just needed a sister to see why people would reject it outside of religious reasons.

[Chiki]

Because the culture thing totally worked for influencing young minds of all those other things they were told were wrong.

There are certain things that make sense to me for why atheists would keep the belief and certain things that make sense to me for atheists to reject. This isn't one of the former. Maybe I just needed a sister to see why people would reject it outside of religious reasons.

I'd say almost everyone, religious or not, have common beliefs: they think killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, having sex on the street is wrong, and so on. You'll find that atheists have a lot in common with others in terms of moral values. Most things, actually.

And another thing you're doing wrong is lumping all atheists together in the same category. There are plenty of atheists who are spiritual and some who believe in science and logic. Atheism isn't as narrow as something like Catholicism. A lot of atheists believe in spiritual things that other atheists would laugh at. The definition of atheist is very flexible in that it allows for a lot of different beliefs.

[peener weener]

I really don't understand why you think this is such a big mystery. Atheists are still victims of the culture they were raised inregardless of being religious or not. Atheists aren't purely logical people (no one is).

I really don't understand why you think this is such a big mystery to me. It's not. I'm just not entirely sure but I have an educated guess that it's because of what I explained in my post.

[Marcell]

... sodomy was illegal for a while and still is in some places. That hasn't stopped people from objecting to certain laws and saying "no, that's a stupid law and you shouldn't have that law" and getting it changed.

And this is exactly why I don't take certain 'truths' for granted, like everyone around me seems to. The "that's just the way it is" argument never convinced of anything. It's the same reason I never understood a lot of gender stereotypes, laws, or religious doctrine, even from a young age.

In the case of incest, there are the genetic defects in offspring due the lack of genetic variance between two mates, which has been covered in this thread already. People have always known this from empirical evidence, and nowadays from scientific evidence. But with contraception, I really don't think it should be an issue anymore. Like you said, maybe we need a sibling to understand (I have half-siblings, but they're on the other side of the world so I'm pretty much an only child). Logically, though, bro/sis coitus shouldn't be a problem as long as there are no kids involved.

It's even less of an issue when you consider studies that show that even first cousins having children together doesn't pose a significant risk of birth defects.

So yeah, I think it's more of a social taboo than scientific, and one I don't expect to see change anytime soon. I hear you, though.

[Narga_Rocks]

I really don't understand why you think this is such a big mystery to me. It's not. I'm just not entirely sure but I have an educated guess that it's because of what I explained in my post.

I think he was talking to me.

[Tamanoir]

I've always been of the mindset that if they love each other, then it doesn't matter, but the case of incest is a grey area for me. I personally could never see myself being attracted like that to either of my siblings, because to me that's mixing up platonic love and romantic love, and that's more than a bit creepy to me. There's also the fact that it's illegal in quite a few areas and there are genetic risks that comes with inbreeding.

Yes, mixing the both kind of love seems pretty wrong.

After all, we're all more or less related. Without incest, we won't be here, or far less.

In fact, for me, that's the incestuous relation that I find wrong.

That means, Althena and Arione are incestuous, even if they are not related, because they were raised as brothers and sister.

Conversely, Seliph and Julia aren't, because they didn't knew they were related, at least at first.

There was this case in Spain, some years ago, when a couple learned they were brother and sister. That was awkward for both of them, but not really wrong.

In fact, in the Anime who makes me hate incest, they weren't even blood related. It didn't stop it to be absolutely awful.

(I referenced Nietzsche before, and now I want to cite Pascal :

"A strange justice that is bounded by a river! Truth on this side of the Pyrenees, error on the other side.")

[Chiki]

I really don't understand why you think this is such a big mystery to me. It's not. I'm just not entirely sure but I have an educated guess that it's because of what I explained in my post.

Why on earth would you think it was targeted to you?

[Balcerzak]

Uh, we aren't. Seriously, none of the atheists I know or have discussed the issue with really care who you stick you dick in, as long as its consensual.

[PresidentEden]

I know this is a whole different bag of worms, but I don't for the life of me understand why what the law says is relevant to this discussion. Multiple people have effectively said "it's the law" as their moral justification for their opposition, and I don't see how that's a moral justification -- hell, any justification -- for any action whatsoever.

[Excellen Browning]

Everyone brings up eugenics as a case for incest laws.

Why are you people so willing to be lumped together with a group of people who agree that "feeble-minded" folks should be removed from the gene pool? Why should this be a sound argument when no one would consider banning people with heritable disorders from reproducing?

(offspring of people with heritable disorders have a much increased chance of being afflicted by it)

[iavasechui]

It's not so much that the dna gets corrupted its that if two people share similar genetic flaws (like blood disorders, mental disabilities, physical disabilities) then the chance of their offspring inheriting such disorders is magnified. Even if the traits are not obvious in the parents if both carry the recessive gene than it is more likely for the child to have it. Incest causes this to happen more often especially if it continues over generations.

[Marcell]

Everyone brings up eugenics as a case for incest laws.

Why are you people so willing to be lumped together with a group of people who agree that "feeble-minded" folks should be removed from the gene pool? Why should this be a sound argument when no one would consider banning people with heritable disorders from reproducing?

(offspring of people with heritable disorders have a much increased chance of being afflicted by it)

Not sure who you're aiming the "you people" at... I'm actually not sure what you're getting at, period :p

Are you saying that we should consider the... 'less genetically gifted' of humanity to be in the same circles as those who are the product of incest? Help me out here.

[Excellen Browning]

Not sure who you're aiming the "you people" at... I'm actually not sure what you're getting at, period :p

Are you saying that we should consider the... 'less genetically gifted' of humanity to be in the same circles as those who are the product of incest? Help me out here.

Why don't you go look up what eugenics is before you start asking me questions.

[Marcell]

Why don't you go look up what eugenics is before you start asking me questions.

I know what eugenics is. Still not sure what you mean, so I'm asking you to clarify. I think it would help if I knew if you were responding to anyone/anything in particular, which is why I asked...

[Excellen Browning]

I know what eugenics is. Still not sure what you mean, so I'm asking you to clarify. I think it would help if I knew if you were responding to anyone/anything in particular, which is why I asked...

I do not see how you do not understand.

Now, in an attempt to make this more clear to everyone:

eugenics - is a social philosophy which advocates practices that improve the genetic composition of a population, usually human. It advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits. In other words, one of it's aims is to reduce the amount of babies born with things like hereditary disorders. One of the ways to do this is to ban certain people (siblings and people who are afflicted by hereditary diseases) from getting children, because of the increased chance of those children having those disorders.

So, simply put, if you were to attempt to ban sibling couples (per example, more incestuous combinations are affected by this as well) from getting children, because of the increased chance of them having heriditary disorders or birth defects, then you'd unfortunately be forced to argue that people who were born with heriditary disorders should be banned from having children as well. Because it would be the same wine in a different sack, for both cases.

[Randa]

On the whole law as moral justification I think I'm only one who used that as direct validation. But I can only say that I am one hundred percent morally ambiguous so I can't talk for everybody else. However the major reason behind my thought that it might be wrong is the state live in is going to give a man who killed his wife a sex change with tax payer money. If the state that is stupid enough to do this thinks its wrong then it makes me thinks its wrong.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Randa

[Marcell]

I do not see how you do not understand.

Now, in an attempt to make this more clear to everyone:

eugenics - is a social philosophy which advocates practices that improve the genetic composition of a population, usually human. It advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits. In other words, one of it's aims is to reduce the amount of babies born with things like hereditary disorders. One of the ways to do this is to ban certain people (siblings and people who are afflicted by hereditary diseases) from getting children, because of the increased chance of those children having those disorders.

So, simply put, if you were to attempt to ban sibling couples (per example, more incestuous combinations are affected by this as well) from getting children, because of the increased chance of them having heriditary disorders or birth defects, then you'd unfortunately be forced to argue that people who were born with heriditary disorders should be banned from having children as well. Because it would be the same wine in a different sack, for both cases.

I thought that's what you meant, I just wanted to make sure, because I didn't want to respond with something completely off-topic and derail the conversation. Hence why I asked if you were asking us to consider the issues of hereditary diseases (i.e. "less genetically gifted") and incest to be treated equally as far as what side of the argument we're on goes. Sorry for the confusion.

I get what you're saying, though. But what you're proposing is a whole new can of worms; "should couples that have a high risk of producing defective offspring be allowed to bear children, regardless of the how or why?"

The article I linked speaks on that issue, somewhat. But I think there's more to worry about with incestuous offspring than just a higher possibility of birth defects... like the concept of family being a bit warped, perhaps.

Anyways, I'm not trying to argue that incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to have kids, or that it should be against the law, or that it's any better or worse than some other issue that might propagate a genetic defect, because I don't believe that I'm qualified to do so (even though my Aunt and Uncle, not blood-related, had three kids with two of them being autistic because there was a high chance of that happening). I'm simply saying that if two siblings have sex with the intention to reproduce, there might be a problem. I'll leave the legality of it up to someone else.

[Nayr Farros]

Okay, so Theists I understand. In most religious books there are specific passages that categorically state don't do it. Or at least I know there is in Christianity and assume it's there in other religions because they don't either. But in an age like now where almost anything consensual is accepted, why is this an exception? And don't simply say "it's creepy as ****", tell me why it's creepy.

First I'll say I'm not an Athiest. I'm a Christian. But I have an opinion about it.

I'd say the reason is because of the potential negative effects. If something went wrong and the sister got pregnant, the kid could have severe birth defects or be born retarded.

I also think a lot of it is mental. People aren't really programmed to think of the people they recognize as family in that way. Even if incest does happen in hillbilly families and in royalty/nobility/rich families.

Plus there's the whole peer judgement thing. Siblings who openly do it would be reviled by everyone around them are trained to think of it as wrong. And probably be subject to legal action in some places.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Nayr Farros

[Pride]

I don't think there's ever been conclusive proof that singular cases of incest tend to produce children with birth defects

Generations of inbreeding sounds much more likely to have strange effects on offspring

I'm just talking out my ass here though, would appreciate any facts someone might have to throw around

For me personally, I really don't care if there's a bro/sis pair. I'm a firm believer in the idea that what people do and who they do is their business (until it affects my life directly anyway) shit, I might even give them my blessing if it seems like it works

but with that said, as someone with a sibling in the same age range as myself I can tell you that I think it's pretty gross

as for why I dunno, maybe social norms, maybe instinctual pre-disposition to not bone my sister, whatever

it's just fuckin weird alright

Edited March 4, 2013 by Pride

[Esau of Isaac]

First I'll say I'm not an Athiest. I'm a Christian. But I have an opinion about it.

I'd say the reason is because of the potential negative effects. If something went wrong and the sister got pregnant, the kid could have severe birth defects or be born retarded.

I also think a lot of it is mental. People aren't really programmed to think of the people they recognize as family in that way. Even if incest does happen in hillbilly families and in royalty/nobility/rich families.

Plus there's the whole peer judgement thing. Siblings who openly do it would be reviled by everyone around them are trained to think of it as wrong. And probably be subject to legal action in some places.

The potential negative effects are only substantial over generations. Outside of direct relation (mother and son, daughter and father, etc.), it would almost certainly not be an issue.

The real reason is the aforementioned Westermarck Effect. It's likely the root of the cultural taboo as well.