Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe we should refer to "incest" by it's true function......."in breeding".
Yet not all people in romantic relationships choose to "breed". Many do not - even in the non incestuous heterosexual community. So trying to make all incestuous relationships as a whole synonymous with the faculty of reproduction would be a misnomer and a complete error. I do not advise it. At all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retired in Illinois
"In breeding" causes a wide range of genetic defects which makes it less than desirable.
No - it does not really. Not to say it does not _ever_ but the vast majority of genetic defects related to incest are not _cause_ by inbreeded. Rather incest increases the probability that genetic defects that already exist will be expressed. This is no small difference and one worth learning.
Further the expression of genetic "defects" is not an issue for us anywhere else in society at a moral and ethical level. So why is it an issue here? There are - for example - people with conditions that are not just likely but 100% certain to be passed on to their children (some forms of dwarfism and deafness would be two examples). Yet few people seem to be suggesting that they should not reproduce. Far from it.
So when one group is 100% certain of passing on defects - while another group is moderately more likely to but only if they _already_ have a defect to pass one - the focus on the latter would seem to be pure comedy really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
It's not natural and you won't find this practiced among other animal species either.
Met any bonobos recently? They love themselves some incest. And homosexuality. And pedpophilia.
But no I do not buy your mantra that humans have distorted sex. Rather in the animal kingdom sex is "for" only one thing almost exclusively. Humans have no distorted it so much as they have built on top of it - in terms of culture and meaning. Sex is not solely "for" reproduction in our species. Nor is there any reason why it should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Do Atheists believe in the existence of a "soul"?
None that I met do in the religious - but the _word_ soul still holds useful meaning to us. I do not think theists and theism own words like "soul" and "spirituality" at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstelm
one reason is that it is not diversifying the gene pool.
There is no onus on anyone to do that though. But even if there was - at a species genetic level there would be a minimum threshold of prevalence incest would have to reach for it to have any impact on genetic diversity that is even _noticeable_ let alone that i s actually _relevant_
Be under no illusions - not many of us having children in the gene pool are diversifying it all that much in the first place. Let alone incestuous couples.
So your appeal to it being wrong on the grounds of science is very much unfounded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstelm
that question is rabble- why are atheist posting on a spirituality thread.
Because "spirituality" is not the sole purview of the religious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstelm
its is morally wrong aka wicked to commit incest because it only exists in selfish desire.
No more or less than any other sexual and romantic relationship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstelm
if there is a baby conceived, it will pay the price.
What price? The vast majority of children of incestuous unions are as healthy and prosperous as any other child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstelm
there is no true reason why a person outside of ones house is not a better mate.
Except for love. There is no reason _any_ mate is the best one or that there is not "better" out there. But we do not choose our mates by some Vulcan process of logic. We choose it based on affairs of the heart.
Except that medically, it has been shown to spread disease. But don't let facts dissuade you from your preconceptions.
Not really no. Rather anal sex has been shown to be a riskier vector of disease than more standard varieties of sex. But Anal Sex is not a synonym for homosexuality. Many heterosexuals engage in Anal Sex. Many many homosexuals do not. To pretend there is some 1:1 overlay between the two therefore is just agenda and bias in play.
As we have seen by the vast misrepresentation of statistics by people like SuperSoul and JeffBase40 over the months and years - the "studies" that attempt to parallel homosexuality with being a disease vector do so by contriving specifically to focus solely on the "MSM" category of homosexuality. A category that includes men who do not even identify as homosexual - while also leaving out the type of homosexuals that do not vector disease (men who do not practice anal sex, and lesbians, for example).
So I am not seeing the problem being the user not allowing "facts to dissuade him from his preconceptions" as you pretend here. So much as it is _your_ preconceptions that are distorting your interpretation of fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
What whining? I called out a cyber bully when I saw him. He called me a bigot, I said he was bullying.
You appear not to understand what "bullying" is and means. Disagreeing with your position and describing it as biggotted is far from what "bullying" means. "Bullying" is an abuse of some level of power - be it physical superiority or some level of authority - to belittle and degrade a person who can not defend themselves and often can not escape.
The user has no such power over you - and you are not forced to be on this forum and can leave any time. This is the exact opposite of bullying therefore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
So....yes, it begins in a sub population. But you can't recognize that the homosexual sub-population has a higher incidence of some diseases?
Is it higher? And by how much? As I said above you would need to focus on the homosexual community as a whole to find an honest and accurate appraisal of that fact. And to do that you would need to find and employ figures that are representative of that community. Rather than figures that contrive to include heterosexual men who for other reasons engaged in homosexual sex - while contriving to exclude homosexuals like Lesbians and certain types of homosexual men who do not engage in sexually risky behaviours.
So yes I am happy to talk "actual facts" as you request. But it would be nice if you collated some supporting your position first so we _can_ discuss them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
We know that homosexuals are more likely to suffer from depression.
Is that a fact? Could you cite your sources on that one please? So we can - once again - discuss them?
Having done that though we must discuss them in the light of "correlation does not imply causation". Are they suffering from depressions because they are homosexual - or are they suffering depressions because of how they are treated _for_ being homosexual? Because if it is the latter then it is not homosexuality that is the root cause of their depression - but people like yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Breast cancer is higher among lesbians. it's a fact.
Now that is a citation I really can not _wait_ to read. Please cite your source on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Yes. Bad people use religion to do bad things. No denying that.
Yes bad people with religion do bad things. Bad people without religion do bad things too.
What concerns people like me is the good people who do bad things that they would likely not do other than due to their religion.
Breast cancer is higher among lesbians. it's a fact.
Yes indeed it is.
Here is why.
Quote:
Studies have found that lesbians and bisexual women get less routine health care than other women
Many health insurance policies don’t cover unmarried partners. This makes it harder for many lesbians and bisexual women to get quality health care.
Fear of having a negative experience with a health care provider can lead some women to delay or avoid medical care, especially routine care such as early detection tests. Missing routine cancer screening tests can lead to cancer being diagnosed at a later stage, when it’s often harder to treat
For the umpteenth time, I think most of us have just witnessed - yet again - what religion can do to a person's brain.
Don't let this happen to you.
Just say "NO!" to any religion which purports to be "The" Truth.
Because it lies.
So if the religion guides it's followers by asking them to live a peaceful and morally cautious life where we should obey law of the land, avoid lying, stealing, cheating, deceiving, raping, killing, being kind to animals, save resources, care for your neighbor, help the needy and less fortunate, be affectionate to children and the elderly, give charity, keeping a good hygiene, save the environment, avoid wasting, volunteers where needed, etc ----- we should ignore it all and listen to YOU, and call it a lie?
Met any bonobos recently? They love themselves some incest. And homosexuality. And pedpophilia.
LOL! bonobos are some of the most sexually odd creatures out there. They are more closely related to humans than any other ape besides the chimpanzee.
Yes humans have distorted sex beyond the max...it's the males species that is mostly responsible for this as well as being responsible for most other distortions against our species and other species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
But no I do not buy your mantra that humans have distorted sex. Rather in the animal kingdom sex is "for" only one thing almost exclusively. Humans have no distorted it so much as they have built on top of it - in terms of culture and meaning. Sex is not solely "for" reproduction in our species. Nor is there any reason why it should be.
I have no such mantra...just a simple observation Nozz.
It's pretty obvious that sex is not solely used for reproductive purposes in our species as well as several others. Nothing new here.
LOL! bonobos are some of the most sexually odd creatures out there.
Perhaps they are. But still perhaps we can agree that your claim that "It's not natural and you won't find this practiced among other animal species either." is still not entirely an accurate one to have made? We do see it in other species - and not just the bonobo either. Sometimes for example chimp mothers let their male off spring mount them as a means to calm them when they are frightened or under extreme duress. I can give other examples - but one is really all that is needed to rebut the generalisation. If you are still not convinced however - do go meet a few banded mongoose too sometime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Yes humans have distorted sex beyond the max...
Again I do not think so. I think the error lies in looking at "sex" in the rest of the animal kingdom - merely choosing that to be some kind of "standard" - and then comparing it to humanity.
Rather what has happened is humanity has evolved language. Culture. Art. Religion. Literature. Social Structures unlike any in the rest of the animal kingdom.
And every one of those feeds into - and is fed into from - the rest of human biology. How we eat. How we defecate. How we reproduce. How we bond and interact. And much more. And sex and sexuality is - simply - another aspect of that evolution.
It is not that we have distorted sex therefore so much as the standards of sex against which you are measuring that distortion - the rest of the animal kingdom - is not a useful standard to be using to measure humanity against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
I have no such mantra...just a simple observation Nozz.
It's pretty obvious that sex is not solely used for reproductive purposes in our species as well as several others. Nothing new here.
It might be useful to keep track of who you are talking to. But yes you are entirely right that sex is not solely for reproductive purposes. It has become - not just in humanity either - a methodology of social bonding and cohesion - as well as a functional part of our art and our culture and our identity. None of this is a "distortion" as to call it a distortion presumes a standard which itself I have not seen justified or rendered meaningful.
Perhaps they are. But still perhaps we can agree that your claim that "It's not natural and you won't find this practiced among other animal species either." is still not entirely an accurate one to have made? We do see it in other species - and not just the bonobo either. Sometimes for example chimp mothers let their male off spring mount them as a means to calm them when they are frightened or under extreme duress. I can give other examples - but one is really all that is needed to rebut the generalisation. If you are still not convinced however - do go meet a few banded mongoose too sometime.
I understand that other species engage in homosexual sex as well as incest...however it's not the norm. In fact there are evolutionary methods to prevent against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
Again I do not think so. I think the error lies in looking at "sex" in the rest of the animal kingdom - merely choosing that to be some kind of "standard" - and then comparing it to humanity.
Humans make up the animal kingdom...we are animals. There is nothing wrong with comparing our species against close relative species of ours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
It is not that we have distorted sex therefore so much as the standards of sex against which you are measuring that distortion - the rest of the animal kingdom - is not a useful standard to be using to measure humanity against.
You being a male of course distorts your views.
If this is not a disgusting distortion of sex then you have blinders on.
It might be useful to keep track of who you are talking to.
LOL Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde...i.e. Hide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
But yes you are entirely right that sex is not solely for reproductive purposes. It has become - not just in humanity either - a methodology of social bonding and cohesion - as well as a functional part of our art and our culture and our identity. None of this is a "distortion" as to call it a distortion presumes a standard which itself I have not seen justified or rendered meaningful.
I understand that some men don't get it...which is why we see so much sexual abuses being carried out by men.
I understand that other species engage in homosexual sex as well as incest...however it's not the norm. "It's not natural and you won't find this practiced among other animal species either."
Sure. Statistically it is uncommon. But again as I said I think we can retract the statement you made that we will not find it anywhere in the animal kingdom - correct? Is it not the case that the statement you made "It's not natural and you won't find this practiced among other animal species either." - was simply a false statement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Humans make up the animal kingdom...we are animals. There is nothing wrong with comparing our species against close relative species of ours. You being a male of course distorts your views. If this is not a disgusting distortion of sex then you have blinders on.
There is no need to gender the issue any more than there is reason to pretend you are talking to users who are not even here. My position on this has nothing to do with the fact I happen to be male - even if your dismissals of that position are. My position on this is based on recognising that while comparisons between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom are possible in some contexts - there are contexts where the existence of art culture language literature higher sentience and much more render the comparisons rather useless. And the comparison of sex and it's meaning in humanity with that of the rest of the animal kingdom is just such an example.
Sure. Statistically it is uncommon. But again as I said I think we can retract the statement you made that we will not find it anywhere in the animal kingdom - correct? Is it not the case that the statement you made "It's not natural and you won't find this practiced among other animal species either." - was simply a false statement?
Yep I meant to say its not natural and you won't find it commonly practiced among other animal species either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
There is no need to gender the issue any more than there is reason to pretend you are talking to users who are not even here.
Wrong. It's most certainly a gender issue...the stats are there if you care to look them up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
My position on this has nothing to do with the fact I happen to be male - even if your dismissals of that position are. My position on this is based on recognising that while comparisons between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom are possible in some contexts - there are contexts where the existence of art culture language literature higher sentience and much more render the comparisons rather useless. And the comparison of sex and it's meaning in humanity with that of the rest of the animal kingdom is just such an example.
You think "humanity" is separate from the animal kingdom? I suggest you recognize evolution for what it is vs. thinking we are some separate species.
Yep I meant to say its not natural and you won't find it commonly practiced among other animal species either. Wrong. It's most certainly a gender issue...the stats are there if you care to look them up.
Well a back pedal is as good as a retraction sometimes - we are agreed the statement itself was simply factually wrong. But what I meant by a gendering the issue is different than you appear to have understand me - perhaps my failing - so I will clarify.
I am aware of the statistics on - say - sex crimes by males compared to females. What I meant by not gendering the issue was your ad hominem "You do not understand because you are a man" type dodge. You let not only yourself down with that level of rhetoric - but the entire movement of feminism I have spent a huge chuck of my life fighting with and for at a social and political level. It poisons the well of the two way conversation of equality men and women should have. It is not big. It is not clever.
If you have to dismiss points on the basis of the gender of the person making them - or even worse by pretending they are people they are not - then perhaps some level of introspection as to the merits of your own position is past warranted and past due?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
You think "humanity" is separate from the animal kingdom? I suggest you recognize evolution for what it is vs. thinking we are some separate species.
Not what I said no. Read it again. But to help you - I said that we are part of the animal kingdom - and many comparisons between us and the animal kingdom are meaningful and useful in many contexts. But recognising that at the expense of recognising what also makes us not just slightly but entirely unique in that animal kingdom would be - and is - a massive and limiting mistake to make. Some things about humanity - most notably anything coming from or heavily influenced by our language and culture and level of sentience and our global societal structures - simply does not map meaningfully onto comparisons with the rest of the animal kingdom.
That is - whether you agree with it or not - quite massively different from a simplistic claim that we are separate from the animal kingdom I trust you will notice?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde...i.e. Hide. 
