Nothing as It Seems

In 2001 the Netherlands made history by becoming the first country in the world to legalise same sex marriage (SSM); this feat was soon followed by their closest neighbour, Belgium. Since then several other countries have also amended their laws to permit same-sex couples to marry; they include: Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, Brazil, France, Uruguay, New Zealand, Great Britain, and Luxembourg. In addition, 36 states in the US, at present, allow SSM and over 70 percent of its citizens live in places where gay couples can marry.  There’s a good chance Ireland will soon also join this list. In December the Government announced that a referendum on legalising SSM will take place sometime in May. Public opinion in support of the move has remained steady over the past couple of years: one Irish Times /Ipsos MRBI poll taken just before the Cabinet announcement said that 71 percent support SSM and just 17 percent are agains...

An version of this article was printed in  Humanism Ireland , March-April, Vol. 151 (2015)   Incest is something most people find morally objectionable and it's one of the most common of all cultural taboos. The British Medical Association’s Complete Family Health Encyclopaedia (1990) defines incest as “ intercourse between close relatives,” that usually includes “intercourse with a parent, a son or daughter, a brother or sister, an uncle or aunt, a nephew or niece, a grandparent or grandchild.” The Oxford English Dictionary ’s definition is a little broader: it doesn’t confine incest to just intercourse, but to “sexual relations between people classified as being too closely related to marry each other.”    Most countries have some kind of law against incest—though consensual adult incest is not a crime in France, Spain, Russia the Netherlands, and a host of countries in South America. In England and Wales, however, t he Sexual Offences Act 2003 ...

My forthcoming peer commentary in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics : “ Two Concerns About The Medicalization of Love ” The commentary considers two points relating to the ethical and social implications about the medicalization of love. The first is one that Earp et al broached in their paper, where I examine further the role and influence of pharmaceuticals in society. The other is one they don’t consider – that is, the effects neurotechnologies could have on some non-Western cultures. In the end, I claim that in spite of these concerns, it does not mean we should abandon neurotechnological interventions or a medicalized point of view; yet a more detailed understanding of how potential forms of misuse could emerge needs further examination. To read the article, click HERE

An edited version of this article was printed in  Humanism Ireland , September-October, Vol. 148 (2014) I n an earlier post I discussed the imminent prospect of biological manipulating our different love systems and some of the ethical implications that might follow from it. This topic originally appeared in an article published in 2008 by Oxford ethicists Julian Savulescu and Anders Sandberg, who argue that it might be possible, in the next number of decades or so, to biologically manipulate and enhance our quality of love. They propose that we could supplement our relationship counselling sessions with prescription ‘love drugs’—ones with the purpose of improving intimacy and commitment between partners.  With emerging biotechnologies like this, which includes recent work in neuroscience, psychopharmacology and other related areas, it will also be possible to consider the prospect of using them to manipulate brain systems to diminish and alter the capacity fr...

With Ireland set to have a referendum next year, where citizens will eventually make the decision whether or not to introduce same-sex marriage, it is likely we can expect further heated debate to take place. Earlier this year, to be sure, we got a flavour of how forceful things can get: RTÉ, the national broadcaster, paid out €85,000 to writer and journalist John Waters and five others over a claim on the Saturday Night Show that they were homophobic.   In a detailed article for Village magazine last month, Waters subsequently declared he isn't against same-sex marriage for any theological reason or because he considers it socially destructive, but for it potentially breaking “the maintenance of blood link between parent and child.” Granted, his response to some of the controversial remarks he made about gay marriage and adoption in an interview with a college newspaper a few years ago, however, were rather limited. Waters says he resigned from the Irish Times ...