Two questions for atheists?

Question

Since atheism usually is realized when one opens up one minds and thinks critically and rationally, libertarianism or social liberalism usually results. Most atheists I know tend to be wary of laws that try to encourage any sort of general societal morality. For example, most atheists tend to be supportive of abortion rights, euthanasia and assisted suicide (for terminal illnesses), same sex marriage, consensual polygamy, and decriminalization of hard recreational drugs and prostitution. In other words, anything goes as long as other people are not harmed, and everything is consensual. I know atheism doesn't always correlate with social issues, but usually this culture of free thought does this do so. I'm interested to know what your feeling on two questions that stem from this, assuming you are an atheist:

1) Most atheists tend to be against incest, citing a defect perhaps in normal biological attraction. Concerns of consequences for children are valid as well. But one can argue that gay people don't have a normal biological attraction for each other as well. As far as genetic consequences for children, that same argument could be made against traditionally heterosexual women who have children very late. In other words, is there any humanistic reason at all for preventing say two cousins from marrying and having children? Also, would you accept incestuous adoption?

2) What are your thought on age limits on things like gambling, voting, drinking, and sex? Since there are plenty of teenagers who can make better judgments than many adults, do you think such laws should be more flexible?

Answer 1

1.) I wish I had a source, but marriage between cousins leading to children very rarely produces genetic abnormalities, though I personally find it repugnant. I'm unsure if I would vote for a change in the law.



2.) I think 21 for drinking is the correct age, except at home

where in some cultures wine is commonly used. 18 across the board on all the rest.

Answer 2

[incest]

As long as its between two consenting adults then who cares, just go for it. I'd suggest perhaps either side getting their tubes tied if there's a risk of pregnancy but it's only the social stigma that's a real issue.



Comparing it to an attraction to the same sex is retarded though. The reason siblings aren't generally attracted is due to being raised with those siblings AND because we're taught that incest is bad. Sure you can get over the stigma but most people really wouldn't want to.



I honestly can't speak from experience here as I'm gay and have no male siblings.



Incidentally, I am also against people above, say 35-40 having kids, on the grounds that by the time those kids are 20 they'll be 60 as well as the higher risk of congenital defects.



[age limits]

It may be true that there are plenty of teenagers with a higher mental maturity but the simple fact is that they are a minority. The majority are immature and incapable of making their own decisions. I don't believe that laws should be made any more flexible as they are already exploitable enough as it is.

Answer 3

1) this is an interesting question.



If you really think about it, the incest law is not enforced, it can't be. When two people want to get married, they dont have to go through DNA testing to do so, they're trusted that they are. But some people could be marrying relatives out that and have no idea that they are. Thats why it is a social taboo. Everyone knows from a young age that you don't do those things to family member, because its wrong. In fact, the incest taboo is universal, among all cultures, because it has detrimental effects for children. Its not about biological attraction, its about the results for the children.



Homosexuality is completely victimless, no one is hurt by homosexual attraction itself. It is not unnatural either, because you will notice that homosexuality occurs in nature. Many animals have been known to practice homosexuality.



As for older women who have children, that is certainly something that cannot and should not be controlled. If you are a theist, you probably believe that God has a plan and that when God gives a woman a baby it is for a reason, so I dont see the issue here. From an atheist perspective, I certainly think that women should TRY to have babies when they are younger, because its safer for her and for her child, but it should not be enforced. What would you suggest doing, forcing all women over 40 to have hysterectomies? Its impossible.



In other words, incest laws are really useless. Children in ALL cultures around the world are taught from a young age that incest is wrong. Its a universal social taboo, and a law is not needed. Why is it taboo? For about a thousand evolutionary reasons that I can't really explain, you might want to ask this in the biology section because honestly they can give you a great answer.



2) gambling - shouldn't really be an age limit, children dont have a lot of money anyway, there really is no reason for an age limit. You should be able to do with your money what you want.



voting - definitely should be an age limit because most children under the age of 18ish are not interested and know nothing about politics. I know that when I first voted, I was pretty much the only one among my friends who knew what the party platforms were (or cared to know) and I we were all 18. I dont think that law really hurts anyone or takes away any real rights.



drinking - absolutely not, there should not be a drinking age. I dont wanna go off on a tangent about this because I definitely could, but I think that drinking ages CREATE the problem, they dont help at all. I know from my experience as a teenages, drinking was only "cool" BECAUSE it was illegal. It was dangerous and new and exciting, so everyone loved it. I turned 19 last month (legal drinking age in Ontario) and I can tell you that my drinking has actually gone way down. Why? because its not dangerous anymore. I know its silly, but its true.



one of my best friends grew up in a home where her mother had let her and her sibblings drink wine at dinner since they were young, and she is the most responsible drinker I know. Its because it wasn't a novelty to her when her friends started drinking. She knew how to use alcohol correctly, and she is very responsible. I think if all parents were like this, and taught their children how to consume alcohol responsibly, underage drinking would by a non-issue.



sex - Where I live, you can legally consent to sex at 14 years old. I think that this is a good age, because most people don't want to have sex before that age anyway. There should be laws against older men having sex with younger girls (and vice versa, sorry) as there currently are because it prevents children from being taken advantage of. But I dont think that the age for consensual sex should be any older than 14 because at 14 people should be able to decide to have sex.



*Note: all of the above is my opinion, and MY opinion only! Please dont apply this to all atheists, because I am only speaking for myself.



Sorry this was so long!

Answer 4

1. Actually, I am also against older women having children, due to the higher chances of having downs syndrome children. Now, cousin marriages are tolerable. I may find them icky, but there's enough genetic variation for their children to come out ok. Not so in parent-child or sibling relationships, which are the ones I am against.



2. Voting needs an age limit, because young children can't understand politics. I would need a source that states that teens are better at making judgment then adults. Gambling should have an age limit, just because of the types of people that can be found in casinos. Drinking should have an age limit, because children could easily kill themselves doing it, or damage their still developing brains. Sex is the interesting one. I agree with current laws for the most part, even though studies show that consensual sexual relationships between young teens and adults aren't detrimental to their mental health. I just don't think society is quite ready for that.



And what the hell is "incestuous adoption?"

Answer 5

Do I have to be an atheist to answer this question? You do realize not everyone is either an atheist or religious, right?



1. When an older couple has a child, the main concern is an increased risk of downs syndrome. Science has figured out ways for older couples to have a child without this risk, but not every couple is willing to use these options (prenatal screening/abortion). Either way, it's not something the government should get involved in.



2. Gambling: age 18

Voting: 18

Sex: Allow minors to have sex with minors, or adults, as long as the age difference between the two people is 4 years or less.

Drinking: Keep at 21 simply because the liver isn't mature until 21 and drinking before 21 can cause problems with a developing liver.. and because alcohol is not all fun and games there is a dark side to it and I think people need a few extra years of life experience before they should be able to go out and buy it. But I also think branding someone with a criminal record of M.I.P. for having at alcohol at age 19, preventing them from getting a job, is not right either.

Answer 6

1. I do not think incest in any way is okay, or normal and most (note I say most) cases of incest (even if both parties are adults) are usually due to rape and abuse. I can care less about gays.



2. I think parents should be given more rights to thier children, now a days teenagers can call CPS and report thier parents for not letting them skip school, it's stupid. Of coarse the children who are abused should get help but the government has become to critical about parental rights. Children getting abortions should not be allowed to do so unless their parents know, Children getting any kind of medical treatment should need parents permission, and people should not have sex before marriage. Gambling should be illegal and alcohol use should be fore those 25 and older.



but i'm also not an atheists.

Answer 7

1.) Actually, I don't have a problem with incest. The genetic damage takes more than one generation to become a real issue, even between siblings or parent-offspring, and the odds of this happening (except in extreme isolation cases) more than a generation or two are slim to none.



2.) The overwhelming research actually suggests that the brain has not completely developed until generally 21 or even 24. Unless we were to start basing these things on MRIs and in-depth psychological analyses, we have to settle for the compromise of age limits. I think they need to be higher in some cases (driving ages) and lower in others (gambling, drinking and gun ownership), but age provides a useful quantifiable compromise.

Answer 8

1) My objections to incest have little to do with biological attraction. In fact, nothing. The objection relates to the age of one of the parties involved generally, and the inability to realistically determine consent even if both parties are of reasonable age. Provided a woman is still capable of becoming pregnant, then it is her choice to do so - the possibility of genetic disorder stemming from that does not - and should not - mean that an artificial age of childbearing be imposed.

I've no issue with "incestuous adoption" if you mean close family members adopting children from dead relatives. I can't see how that's an issue, so maybe i'm missing your meaning here.



2. Age limits exist because humans remain impressionable and incapable of understanding the consequences of their decisions until quite late in life. As a society that respects the value of individual rights, limiting the freedoms of young members of society - and in particular discouraging others from taking advantage of the immaturity of those members of society - by imposing arbitrary limits on ages to undertake activities with potentially serious consequences seems appropriate.



"there are plenty of teenagers that can make better judgments than adults" - while this may be true, it doesn't mean much, and laws must apply to the general case, rather than just the specific.

Answer 9

Very good questions. Regarding the first, I'm not aware of anything to suggest that children of older women have as great a chance of congenital problems as children of brother-sister or parent-child incest. Personally I wouldn't call cousins getting married incest at all. They only share an eighth of their genes, compared to half shared by siblings or by a child and parent.



Regarding the second, any point you set for the legality of those things is going to leave some people unable to do them even though they're mature enough to handle them, and some unable to handle them even though they're old enough to do them. But you have to set some line, and it needs to be a line that applies to everyone so there won't be worries about favoritism or biased tests or whatever. Generally, I think 18 is within the reasonable range. The only thing I would do differently is be more consistent about it. It doesn't make much sense to me that you can be drafted to go kill people, but we still don't trust you to buy alcohol.

Answer 10

1. I'm not against an incestuous relationship, but only reproduction. If they are two consenting adults it's fine. Adoption is okay to. I'm okay with anyone adopting.



2. Being a teenager myself, I don't know how I feel about this.

But in England they have a lower age of consent and lower age for drinking (and gambling to I think). They have lower teen pregnancy and less teen drinking and driving so it's not like it's causing problems.

Answer 11

1) actually in some states it's legal for 2 cousins to marry.



2) drinking can cause harm to a developing adolescent's brain, so 21 is a good age since by then the brain is done developing. as for voting, i think it's fine where it is becuase, like i said, the brain isn't fully developed in a teenager. gambling & sex, eh. some kids can make good decisions about those, some can't. (same goes for adults, for that matter)

Answer 12

1 - Even though I'm not sure at all whatsoever how someone could be sexually attracted to their relative, that's their business. They shouldn't reproduce though, because of the chance of birth defects. Sterilization... problem solved.



(I don't know what incestuous adoption is.)



2 - Eighteen sounds like a good age limit to me for all of those things. It's the age of the average high-school graduate. And if you're old enough (per the government) to go to war, I think you're old enough to have a drink. And like someone else mentioned, it seems that places that have lower age limits seem to have less problems.

Answer 13

1. Like the first poster said. I only add its fairly dangerous to allow a government to dictate who can have sex with who.



2. My personal opinion on this is that if you want to vote you must pass a test, it should be the exact same test given to immigrants to gain citizenship.



Honestly why should you vote when you can't name how many stars are in the flag? Or when the country came to be. Just my 2c

Answer 14

1) No, and I would say it isn't a concern because I don't think the practice would be prevalent short of some widespread apocalypse. I would feel bad about the potential genetic disaster for the offspring, but it's not my call.



2) I don't think there should be any laws pertaining to gambling, voting, drinking or sex (except rape, of course).

Answer 15

Most of the social issues are supported by half or more of the population, a far greater percentage than be accounted for by atheists alone, which makes the question pointless.

Answer 16

How come you only listed the interesting stuff we're ALL into?



You left out all of the boring stuff like, due process, civil rights, free speech, and the right to privacy. You know, the stuff that Right-Wing Christains just assume we all do without?

.

.

.

.

.

Hey, generalizing and stereo typing IS fun and easy!









BTW : In most bible-belt states, first cousin marriages are both legal and smiled apon.

Answer 17

There are both conservative and liberal atheist, Atheist only agree on one thing; that there is no god. If atheist agree that gays should be allowed to marry it is becasue they do not get their opinions from the bible. Two cousins marrying and having children gamble on birth defects.

Answer 18

1. its a matter of choice and all are able to chose for themselves. (personally incest is just disgusting).



2. people should understand the concept of self discipline.

Answer 19

1. if family members want to have consensual sex, that's incredibly gross, but indeed their choice.



2. hard to say, should be left more to the family

Answer 20

you seem to know an awful lot about athiests. Well one thing you should know is that we don't like to accept facts without evidence, such as the existence of god, which may be all we have in common

these sound like your beliefs, and not the results of scientific survey of athiests' views

Answer 21

Not an atheist, but very dumb questions. I could argue against those questions as someone who believes in God. They really are uninformed, ignorant questions.

Answer 22

Do atheists even have an ethical standard to make these types of decisions?