The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
brian_eggleston
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Absent Religious Moral Framework, (The Proposition On Offer)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,936 times Debate No: 6973
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that absent a religious moral framework, there is nothing morally outrageous about adoptive siblings engaging in recreational sex or even marriage.

Definitions and Caveats:

Morally Outrageous - That which offends a major tenant of popular (nonreligious) morality.

Adoptive Siblings - Those individuals raised together in the same family as legal siblings though not related by blood.

Recreational Sex - Copulation not for the end of procreation.

For purposes of this debate, recreational sex itself is presumed to not be morally offensive.

*********************************************************

I propose that absent a religious moral framework, there is nothing morally outrageous about adoptive siblings engaging in recreational sex or marriage.

It is no different that any other two non-related people - these two simply happen to share a common childhood. It is not unheard of that two childhood friends will develop a much closer bond with each other than with their own siblings. There is nothing wrong with these individuals engaging in recreational sex. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with adoptive siblings engaging in recreational sex.

Consider:

- There are no health concerns as the two individuals are not related.
- Religious morals like those in Leviticus do not apply.

AFFIRMED.
brian_eggleston

Con

I should firstly like to thank my opponent for posting such a novel debate. I have a presentiment that this should prove to be a most interesting argument!

Next, I would like to accept the definitions my opponent gave and confirm that I will ignore any religious objections. I also accept there would be no physical health implications if two unrelated siblings were to engage in recreational sex with each other.

However, the couple may well find that they are shunned by society, who would no doubt regard their relationship as "wrong".

For example, let's say a couple of sibling lovers still live at home and their father, Mr. Shagnasty, has invited his boss and his wife round for dinner:

Mr. Shagnasty – Hello sir, hello Mrs. Bigbossman, please come in. May I introduce you to my wife, Nora, my son Barry and my daughter Kristy-Agnes?

Mr. Bigbossman – How do you do everybody? This is my wife, Mrs. Bigbossman.

Mr. Shagnasty – Do take a seat, sir, Mrs. Bigbossman. Kristy-Agnes, would you kindly get everybody a drink?

Kristy-Agnes – That's not fair – I laid the table. Why don't you ask Barry to do it?

Mr. Shagnasty – Just do it, young lady and any more arguments from you and you'll get no dessert.

Kristy-Agnes – Okay, okay, but no booze for you, Barry, I don't want a repeat of last night – do you know what I mean Mr. Floppy?

Nora – Thank you very much, Kristy-Agnes, I'm sure Mr. and Mrs. Bigbossman don't want to know what you and your brother get up to in bed…which reminds me, Barry, when you and your sister have finished having sex with each other, please be kind enough to put the condoms in the bin, I'm sick of having to pick them up off the floor…

Mr. Shagnasty - I don't know, kids today eh, sir? Although I'm sure your son and daughter don't expect your wife to pick used blobs up off their bedroom floor after they've had sex together…

Mr. Bigbossman – Eh? Er…well, funnily enough, Shagnasty, my children don't actually sleep with each other. I know you come from the countryside, but here in the city people tend to take a very dim view of incest, myself included.

Mr. Shagnasty – No, no, sir, no, you don't understand, it's okay because they are both adopted, and there is nothing wrong with adoptive siblings engaging in recreational sex. Also, as the two individuals are not related, there's no danger of them giving birth to some mutant baby after they get married.

Mr. Bigbossman – Nothing wrong? Married? What the...?

Shagnasty – Yes, there is nothing morally outrageous about adoptive siblings getting married. That's why I was hoping to get that promotion, sir – as the father of both the bride and the groom, this wedding is going to be a very expensive affair indeed.

Mr. Bigbossman – Jesus Christ on a f***ing bike…

Mrs. Bigbossman – Er, so Kristy-Agnes, how do you feel about changing your surname to your fianc´┐Że's when you get married?

Kristy-Agnes – Well I'm happy to take his name but I'm a very liberated woman so I'm going to use my own name as well: I'll have a double-barrelled surname…

Mr. Bigbossman – So you'll be Mrs. Kristy-Agnes Shagnasty-Shagnasty?

Kristy-Agnes – Yes.

Mr. Bigbossman – F***ing rats c*cks, you're all crazy! Sick and crazy! Come on Mrs. Bigbossman, we're leaving. And as far as your promotion to Chief Child Protection Officer is concerned, Shagnasty, you can forget it.

You see, although adopted siblings having sex for fun is not, technically, incestuous and it may not be illegal for them to get married, normal social conventions dictate that these things are wrong and the wider community is likely to shun brother and sister lovers, even if they are not related by blood.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

I'm glad that Brian, someone with a great sense of humor, took this debate... Let's examine the important parts of his conversation between the Messers Shagnasty and Bigbossman...

The extent of Mr. Bigbossman's moral outrage is contained in the following:

"here in the city people tend to take a very dim view of incest, myself included."
"Jesus Christ on a f***ing bike…"
"F***ing rats c*cks, you're all crazy! Sick and crazy!"

My dear Brian refers to these ejaculations as "normal social conventions" without providing any basis for how these normal social conventions came about. Many social conventions are the result of religious influences - for example, homophobia, anti-polygamist sentiment, anti-incestuous sentiment, anti-adultery sentiment...

What we have here is simply a case of leftover religious socialization. Consider:

1) Neither individual is related to the other.
2) They share a close bond, much like lifelong friends.
3) They are sexually attracted to each other.

Wouldn't these two individuals be perfect candidates to marry each other? Aren't the first and third the only criteria we evaluate when considering the possibility of recreational sex?

The fact that these two individuals happen to have been raised in the same house says absolutely NOTHING about their sexual compatibility.

The only social moral against their actions is perceived incest. It's not even actually incestuous!! I submit that this perceived incestuous relationship is simply a remnant of moral approbation from the remnant of living in a religion-dominated society.

AFFIRMED.
brian_eggleston

Con

Firstly, I would like to extend my thanks to the ever-patient Tarzan for humouring my seemingly inane arguments and, secondly, point out that he did not explicitly state that these hypothetical siblings of his were of the opposite sex.

Perhaps they could both be girls? Since lesbians can get married these days, why not extend my opponent's logic to allow adopted sisters to get wed? And since two women cannot procreate, why do the sisters even have to be adopted? They could be blood relations.

For example, I presume my opponent would agree that Romanian pop star twins, The Cheeky Girls, should be allowed to get married if they suddenly became lesbians?

http://www.solarnavigator.net...

Certainly, I for one, would not object to graphic spy shots of the lovely couple frolicking naked on their honeymoon being published in the newspapers and I don't suppose my opponent would either!

But what if Scottish pop star twins, The Proclaimers, suddenly turned gay and decided to get married?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Would my opponent sanction that? And if not, why not?

Or if he does not object to gay and lesbian siblings getting married, surely he cannot then object to blood brothers and sisters getting married, as to do so would be to discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Now, supposing the public at large adopted my opponent's concept of what marriages should be considered socially acceptable and concluded that adopted siblings, gay brothers and lesbian sisters and, by extension, blood siblings, should be allowed to get married, then it must follow that other close relations should be allowed to tie the knot too. So, if a brother and a sister could get married, why not mother and son, or father and daughter, and since we shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals, why not father and son or mother and daughter?

I would agree with my opponent that social norms are often based on religious doctrines. However, these religious texts were often written in before formal codes of laws were developed and formed a quasi-legal framework around which people were expected to live their lives.

With regard to family issues, procreation and the welfare of children were of paramount importance which is why homosexuality and incest were prohibited.

Even though times have moved on and most people no longer believe in deities, holy spirits and the like, and the majority of people are sufficiently enlightened to accept that gay couples have the right to play a full part in society, including getting married, to extend the same social acceptance to marriage between close members of the same family would inevitably lead to a decline in moral values as well as an increase in deformed babies.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The sex of the two individuals is immaterial unless you have some basis for a moral argument against non-male-female recreational sex or marriage. There simply is no moral argument against either in a non-religious framework.

Furthermore, I'd like to nip this line of reasoning in the bud... an argument from slippery slope is a fallacy unless you prove each step from beginning to end. This is about adoptive siblings, not blood-related siblings.

>> "Certainly, I for one, would not object to graphic spy shots of the lovely couple frolicking naked on their honeymoon being published in the newspapers and I don't suppose my opponent would either!"

Only if they grow out their hair first. But then again, they are not adoptive siblings.

>> "But what if Scottish pop star twins, The Proclaimers, suddenly turned gay and decided to get married?"

That's their prerogative, but I'm not sure they aren't already.

>> "So, if a brother and a sister could get married, why not mother and son, or father and daughter, and since we shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals, why not father and son or mother and daughter?"

Again - immaterial... invalid slippery slope argument, and also a red herring - we're not talking about any of that.

>> "However, these religious texts were often written in before formal codes of laws were developed and formed a quasi-legal framework around which people were expected to live their lives."

Foolish methods of jurisprudence are not my problem.

>> "With regard to family issues, procreation and the welfare of children were of paramount importance which is why homosexuality and incest were prohibited."

Homosexuals cannot procreate, and there is nothing at all to suggest that a man-man or woman-woman pair will care more or less for a child than a man-woman pair. Actual incest is not pertinent to this debate since we're talking about ADOPTIVE siblings.

>> "to extend the same social acceptance to marriage between close members of the same family would inevitably lead to a decline in moral values as well as an increase in deformed babies.'

Again - a slippery slope to an irrelevant part of debate... come now Brian.

*********************************************

My opponent has not addressed the issue at hand whatsoever. He merely asserts without evidence that allowing two unrelated people that have been raised in the same house to have sex or get married will lead to a "decline in moral values as well as an increase in deformed babies."

This is simply false.

By this logic, any two unrelated people raised in the same house would be unfit for marriage or recreational sex. This would include all children in orphanages and foster homes as well. What possible moral argument could there be against some of these scenarios:

Jeff and Clara are unrelated and have been living in a foster home together for 10 years. They begin having recreational sex in their late teens and eventually become happily married with 4 children and a gerbil.

Susan and Todd are unrelated and grew up together in an orphanage. In their late teens, they began having recreational sex and are to this day still gleefully copulating at the ripe old age of 74.

Bill has been living with his parents in Chicago. At age 10, they adopted Anita (also 10). In their late teens, they began having recreational sex and are now happily married with 2 kids, another in the oven, three dogs, and a ferret.

Is there anything MORALLY WRONG with these situations outside of a religious framework???

The answer is quite simply, no.

AFFIRMED.
brian_eggleston

Con

brian_eggleston forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
A forfeit? Come now Brian...
Posted by dtclark2188 8 years ago
dtclark2188
I tried to post a really insightful idea, but it logged me out for some reason and it didn't post. Basically, the simplified version, the origins argument is a fallacy. Tarzan, stop trying to justify your f***ed up family tree ;)
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Get out of here - you're soiling our fun with your religious spewage. Mormons engage in Polygamy, not incest. Come now... really?

There doesn't have to be an example of such a group - the resolution is a hypothetical.
Posted by Yuanti 8 years ago
Yuanti
Is there such a thing as a culture that isn't "religious" that engages in incest? If so, your side is sure to win Tarzan. It'd have to be some aborigine tribe to not have organized religion as an influence.

Funny.. don't the super-nut-so mormon fundamentalists engage in something very close to this? This, of course, does not reflect on mainstream Mormon's though. Only the nut-bars.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
And for the record, I don't have any adopted relatives.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Lol - a buddy of mine and I were talking about this the other day (justin, for you clark...) and concluded that this is a case of excessive entanglement between church and state where prohibited.
Posted by dtclark2188 8 years ago
dtclark2188
It probably comes from the fact that we always give him a hard time about being from Indiana, and the fact that he himself is the product of incest (at some point in the family tree ;)
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
I daren't think where the inspiration for this debate came from Mr. Tarzan! Anyway, it's a good one so I'm going to grab it before anyone else, ha-ha-ha!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
JustCallMeTarzanbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
JustCallMeTarzanbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
JustCallMeTarzanbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
JustCallMeTarzanbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00