Should two consenting adults be free...

[j2k4]

...to have a sexual relationship, free from any sort of legal constraint?

This poll is prompted by the Lawrence vs. Texas decision of several months back:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

[Busyman]

Two guys want to drill each other privately or two ladies want to eat twat I see no problem since it doesn't affect me or my kid.

[GepperRankins]

if there's no victims. where's the crime?

[brotherdoobie]

Two guys want to drill each other privately or two ladies want to eat twat I see no problem since it doesn't affect me or my kid.

Straight and to the point...:lol:

Peace bd

[ziggyjuarez]

This is going to be as one side'd as the "have you ever watched pr0n" thread.

[Cheese]

Ugly people should be banned from having sex.

[sArA]

Ugly people should be banned from having sex.


Turning celibate then cheese? :lol: :lol:

[Cheese]

Ugly people should be banned from having sex.


Turning celibate then cheese? :lol: :lol:

I guess I would have to seeing as no-one in Plymouth is as pretty as me.:snooty:

[sArA]

On topic....

I believe that anything goes providing that it is consensual of all parties.


The Spanner (http://www.commex.org/whatever/spanner/spanner.html) case is an example of when the law gets involved in deciding what adults are and are not allowed to do to each other.

(A little extreme but again consensual so who's business is it other than those involved?)

[Barbarossa]

On topic....

I believe that anything goes providing that it is consensual of all parties.


The Spanner (http://www.commex.org/whatever/spanner/spanner.html) case is an example of when the law gets involved in deciding what adults are and are not allowed to do to each other.

(A little extreme but again consensual so who's business is it other than those involved?)

I just had to read this is great depth because I've never heard of it and wondered what they were doing with their spanners... :blushing:

[sArA]

On topic....

I believe that anything goes providing that it is consensual of all parties.


The Spanner (http://www.commex.org/whatever/spanner/spanner.html) case is an example of when the law gets involved in deciding what adults are and are not allowed to do to each other.

(A little extreme but again consensual so who's business is it other than those involved?)

I just had to read this is great depth because I've never heard of it and wondered what they were doing with their spanners... :blushing:


Now you know :lol:

[manker]

What about one consenting adult?

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/654/0518041motel16xm.jpg

[j2k4]

I almost forgot to vote in my own poll; I am amending that oversight now.

Keep posting, people-there is another shoe, which I will drop soon enough.

[Busyman]

I almost forgot to vote in my own poll; I am amending that oversight now.

Keep posting, people-there is another shoe, which I will drop soon enough.
I speak for us all when I say........NO SHIT. :lol: :lol: :lol:

1. I just received new info on something everyone is cool with.
2. I will post a poll for it and purposely hold off my obvious vote.
3. Allow the yes votes to mount up.
4. I then vote and allow more votes to mount up.
5. Then I let them have it. I got them all. :naughty: The voted Yes and with my new post of information....they realize they are wrong.

:dry:

Bring up adultery why don't you CaptainObvious. :ermm:

Marriage law....military law.....

[j2k4]

I almost forgot to vote in my own poll; I am amending that oversight now.

Keep posting, people-there is another shoe, which I will drop soon enough.
I speak for us all when I say........NO SHIT. :lol: :lol: :lol:

1. I just received new info on something everyone is cool with.
2. I will post a poll for it and purposely hold off my obvious vote.
3. Allow the yes votes to mount up.
4. I then vote and allow more votes to mount up.
5. Then I let them have it. I got them all. :naughty: The voted Yes and with my new post of information....they realize they are wrong.

:dry:

Bring up adultery why don't you CaptainObvious. :ermm:

Marriage law....military law.....

Nah.

But I did just read about a case of incest that "Lawrence...", as written, protects.

The offenders seem to be fine candidates for a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, and would presumably resume their prior intimacy.

They are brother and sister, born to the same set of biological parents.

Neat, huh?

[Busyman]

I speak for us all when I say........NO SHIT. :lol: :lol: :lol:

1. I just received new info on something everyone is cool with.
2. I will post a poll for it and purposely hold off my obvious vote.
3. Allow the yes votes to mount up.
4. I then vote and allow more votes to mount up.
5. Then I let them have it. I got them all. :naughty: The voted Yes and with my new post of information....they realize they are wrong.

:dry:

Bring up adultery why don't you CaptainObvious. :ermm:

Marriage law....military law.....

Nah.

But I did just read about a case of incest that "Lawrence...", as written, protects.

The offenders seem to be fine candidates for a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, and would presumably resume their prior intimacy.

They are brother and sister, born to the same set of biological parents.

Neat, huh?
Hmmm...incest. I disagree.

Marriage law was a better fit.

If a dude wants to fuck around on his wife, she would have no grounds for divorce or anything.

It also would trample on Mormon's rights. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Not a slam dunk j2. Not a slam dunk.

[j2k4]

Nah.

But I did just read about a case of incest that "Lawrence...", as written, protects.

The offenders seem to be fine candidates for a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, and would presumably resume their prior intimacy.

They are brother and sister, born to the same set of biological parents.

Neat, huh?
Hmmm...incest. I disagree.

Marriage law was a better fit.

If a dude wants to fuck around on his wife, she would have no grounds for divorce or anything.

It also would trample on Mormon's rights. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Not a slam dunk j2. Not a slam dunk.

So, you're okay with incest?

Lawrence v. Texas makes no appropriate distinction; indeed, it makes none at all...

I don't take your hoops analogy. :huh:

[Busyman]

Hmmm...incest. I disagree.

Marriage law was a better fit.

If a dude wants to fuck around on his wife, she would have no grounds for divorce or anything.

It also would trample on Mormon's rights. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Not a slam dunk j2. Not a slam dunk.

So, you're okay with incest?

Lawrence v. Texas makes no appropriate distinction; indeed, it makes none at all...

I don't take your hoops analogy. :huh:
Incest between two consenting adult should not be illegal.

Why do you deem it such? 'Cause of the possibility of birth defects in a child born of the two? That is the only compelling reason I could think of.

What if I had a threesome with 2 sisters and they licked each other. Is that illegal?

[j2k4]

So, you're okay with incest?

Lawrence v. Texas makes no appropriate distinction; indeed, it makes none at all...

I don't take your hoops analogy. :huh:
Incest between two consenting adult should not be illegal.

Why do you deem it such? 'Cause of the possibility of birth defects in a child born of the two? That is the only compelling reason I could think of.

What if I had a threesome with 2 sisters and they licked each other. Is that illegal?

If one of these sisters had a dick?

You bet. :dry:

[Busyman]

Incest between two consenting adult should not be illegal.

Why do you deem it such? 'Cause of the possibility of birth defects in a child born of the two? That is the only compelling reason I could think of.

What if I had a threesome with 2 sisters and they licked each other. Is that illegal?

If one of these sisters had a dick?

You bet. :dry:
:sick:

No really.

[j2k4]

Incest between two consenting adult should not be illegal.

After this, the rest of your post is superfluous.

I would not have picked you, of all people, to choose this stance... :huh:

[Busyman]

Incest between two consenting adult should not be illegal.

After this, the rest of your post is superfluous.

I would not have picked you, of all people, to choose this stance... :huh:
Sighhhhh.

Why should it be illegal j? Do I have to buy a vowel or what?

It's the birth defect thingie, right?

[sparsely]

Two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they wish together.
Laws need only serve the purpose of the common good.
It is within the common good to disallow close relatives to marry (or have sex), as it causes proven compounding defects and mutations.

[Busyman]

Two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they wish together.
Laws need only serve the purpose of the common good.
It is within the common good to disallow close relatives to marry (or have sex), as it causes proven compounding defects and mutations.
Hopefully that would be j2's answer....since he conveniently chose not to thus far. It really is starting to bore me.

[peat moss]

In my mind the goverment should stay out of our bedrooms , no shit sherlck incest is wrong . I and most civilized people would not argue with your point ,



Do kissing cousins count ? Or do the Euore's have corner on the market ? Fuckers have being it for centuries , explains the big ears !

[j2k4]

It's the birth defect thingie, right?

Sorry to keep you waiting-

Yes, it is the "birth defect thingie".

You yourself said it was "the only compelling reason...", correct?

If you'll forgive my surmise, I'm fairly sure that, ostensibly, at least, compelling reasons are those which result in law being written and enacted, yes? :huh:

[j2k4]

...no shit sherlck incest is wrong . I and most civilized people would not argue with your point...

Just so, peat, but aren't laws written for the less-civilized amongst us?

Would that everyone was possessed of your sterling character and moral fortitude, but, alas...

[vidcc]

Yes, it is the "birth defect thingie".


On the subject I voted yes. Consenting adults should have absolute freedom to do what they want in private whether we approve or not, and it seems odd to me that certainly in the US the ones that wish laws to interfere with this are the ones that hate government interference in their own lives.

Entertain me here J2.


If one of these sisters had a dick?

You bet.
It appears in this thread that you believe incest should illegal be based on the higher risk of birth defects.
Given this, do you think that it should be legal ( repugnant as it may be) for homosexual incest between consenting adults?

What if one or both consenting adult opposite sex siblings were sterile and there was a zero percent chance of pregnancy?( repugnant as it may be)

[peat moss]

I appoligze for the Euro crack I meant royalty . In a perfect world its the role of the parents to teach right or wrong but if Bobs your mom and dads your uncle ..........

"Insert Duelling banjos here "

[j2k4]

On the subject I voted yes. Consenting adults should have absolute freedom to do what they want in private whether we approve or not, and it seems odd to me that certainly in the US the ones that wish laws to interfere with this are the ones that hate government interference in their own lives.

Entertain me here J2.


If one of these sisters had a dick?

You bet.
It appears in this thread that you believe incest should illegal be based on the higher risk of birth defects.
Given this, do you think that it should be legal ( repugnant as it may be) for homosexual incest between consenting adults?

Has homosexual sex (incestuous or otherwise) magically become procreative?

What if one or both consenting adult opposite sex siblings were sterile and there was a zero percent chance of pregnancy?( repugnant as it may be)

There.

Are you not entertained?

[vidcc]

Has homosexual sex (incestuous or otherwise) magically become procreative?



There.

Are you not entertained?

Well the trailer was fun, can't wait to see the whole movie :rolleyes: :lol:

What of the second?... sterility.

I understand the "ickkie" bit and the "moral" part as separate objections but I am going on a purely biological and scientific direction (purely for entertainment) as another way to look at the law as your objection given is possible genetic abnormalities and not morals

You made a good thread about scientific advances hopefully one day making Roe v wade meaningless. Well along those lines may I offer for consideration that science has made the incest laws meaningless if they are based on "spreading the genepool". Today we have methods of birth control both before and after the event.

I would like to make it clear that I agree that it is a bad idea genetically for siblings to mate and do personally find the idea "icckie"

[Rat Faced]

I would have though that to the Religious Right all sex should be illegal..

"As we are all blood relatives to Adam and Eve, its all incest" :P


My view is, what 2 consenting adults do is up to them.

No "Ifs and Buts" its up to them.

That includes incest if thats what they are into and both parties wish this..


Incest is illegal for a very good reason, the chances of Birth Defects.

In this day and age, that need not be a problem..




Why the hell someone would want to fuck their sister though... :sick:

[vidcc]

I would have though that to the Religious Right all sex should be illegal..

"As we are all blood relatives to Adam and Eve, its all incest" :P




You have a point in that some believe that Adam and Eve were just 2 people, however there is a view that Adam means "man/men/mankind" and not a man and Eve isn't just a single woman.

[j2k4]

Has homosexual sex (incestuous or otherwise) magically become procreative?



There.

Are you not entertained?

Well the trailer was fun, can't wait to see the whole movie :rolleyes: :lol:

What of the second?... sterility.

I understand the "ickkie" bit and the "moral" part as separate objections but I am going on a purely biological and scientific direction (purely for entertainment) as another way to look at the law as your objection given is possible genetic abnormalities and not morals

You made a good thread about scientific advances hopefully one day making Roe v wade meaningless. Well along those lines may I offer for consideration that science has made the incest laws meaningless if they are based on "spreading the genepool". Today we have methods of birth control both before and after the event.

I would like to make it clear that I agree that it is a bad idea genetically for siblings to mate and do personally find the idea "icckie"

You mis-spelled icky.

Rat-

Lawrence... makes incest laws moot, and provides grounds to appeal for any already convicted or incarcerated.

[j2k4]

I would have though that to the Religious Right all sex should be illegal..

"As we are all blood relatives to Adam and Eve, its all incest" :P




You have a point in that some believe that Adam and Eve were just 2 people, however there is a view that Adam means "man/men/mankind" and not a man and Eve isn't just a single woman.

Those who do not believe should not attempt to commit theology. ;)

[Rat Faced]

Oh I believe...

...just not the same collection of short fiction stories you do. :P

[vidcc]

You have a point in that some believe that Adam and Eve were just 2 people, however there is a view that Adam means "man/men/mankind" and not a man and Eve isn't just a single woman.

Those who do not believe should not attempt to commit theology. ;)
Just going on how it was explained by a few ministers...personally I think they are all wrong. It's just a fairytale.
I shall spell Icckie how I wish.
Still waiting to be entertained. :rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Oh I believe...

...just not the same collection of short fiction stories you do. :P

I don't ever recall engaging in a discussion of my specific beliefs here, apart from the fact that I hold some.

Apparently now you will take the same tack.

Good enough for me. ;)

[Busyman]

It's the birth defect thingie, right?

Sorry to keep you waiting-

Yes, it is the "birth defect thingie".

You yourself said it was "the only compelling reason...", correct?

If you'll forgive my surmise, I'm fairly sure that, ostensibly, at least, compelling reasons are those which result in law being written and enacted, yes? :huh:
Cool, the birth defect doohicky. I agree on those grounds and those grounds alone.

Now you say the Supreme Court makes no distinction...well neither do you.

So...

2 sisters licking each others twat would be illegal
2 brothers butt-fucking would also.
A sister with a her box taken out having sex with her brother would be illegal.

Correct?

[j2k4]

Sorry to keep you waiting-

Yes, it is the "birth defect thingie".

You yourself said it was "the only compelling reason...", correct?

If you'll forgive my surmise, I'm fairly sure that, ostensibly, at least, compelling reasons are those which result in law being written and enacted, yes? :huh:
Cool, the birth defect doohicky. I agree on those grounds and those grounds alone.

Now you say the Supreme Court makes no distinction...well neither do you.

So...

2 sisters licking each others twat would be illegal
2 brothers butt-fucking would also.
A sister with a her box taken out having sex with her brother would be illegal.

Correct?

You really aren't that thick, so don't play it.

The Senate (not the courts!) should write whatever law they have to to provide whatever distinctions societal mores demand.

If they chose merely to outlaw incest, then the court cases that follow would serve the function of precedent to determine the finer points, see?

The point is that the issue, which I can assure you bothers more people than not, has no provision, resulting from the sweep of Lawrence v. Texas.

[GepperRankins]

i reserve the right to think they're fucking weird, but i don't think they should be locked up or anything

[sparsely]

The Senate (not the courts!) should write whatever law they have to to provide whatever distinctions societal mores demand..

whoa.
this is just a bad idea.
I realize that that is basically what is done, though it's thinking is fundamentally flawed.
Morals, popular or not, are an insufficient basis for law, especially any restrictive law. Morals are inherently based on beliefs, cultural myths and other intangibilities that vary wildly from person to person. By adopting one you marginalize the others, creating unrest and instability within. Not to mention that you'll have to rewrite law every time some new social trend comes along.
The rules we make are for ourselves; for the physical world we live in, and the boundaries of our bodies. The counsel of the wise - both secular and sectarian - should always be sought, but we must take care to not attempt, through law, to satisfy an dogmatic ideaology; but rather, estabish careful boundaries based on the limitations we find in our examinations and assessments of that which which is also physical.
If we accept the posit that we only know a small amount of all available knowledge, then we must also realize that any declaration we make is going to be, at best, somewhat shortsighted.
So it becomes easier to see why laws should instatiate liberty, not control.
This is why equality is mentioned so early in the Declaration of Independence.
Our commonality and that which affects us as a whole must always be stressed, and not distracted from by our differences.

Given all that, we could say incestual relationships are lawful so long as the parties use protection when having sex, or promise not to have children :P
Because we realize that such probhibitions are both unenforcable and overtly intrusive, it becomes easier to prohibit any incestuous relationship.
What the penalty should be, I don't know.
I have diffiuculty with the idea of criminalize and jailing people simply for having sex with each other, but unless the individuals are separated completely, any law regarding such situations would be ineffective...we all know people are pretty much going to do what they want to do, especially in matters of the heart.

I guess that's the long way of saying i don't really have a good answer :lol:
[/soapbox]

[Busyman]

I voted no because legal sexual free-for-alls would invalidate any wrongdoing as it relates to current marriage law.

Pretty easy one.

Incest, relating to increased risk in having defective children, is also a good reason.

This poll was made to be broad and for everyone to pile on yes answers which is why I was specific in my initial answer.

[j2k4]

The Senate (not the courts!) should write whatever law they have to to provide whatever distinctions societal mores demand..

whoa.
this is just a bad idea.
I realize that that is basically what is done, though it's thinking is fundamentally flawed.
Morals, popular or not, are an insufficient basis for law, especially any restrictive law. Morals are inherently based on beliefs, cultural myths and other intangibilities that vary wildly from person to person. By adopting one you marginalize the others, creating unrest and instability within. Not to mention that you'll have to rewrite law every time some new social trend comes along.
The rules we make are for ourselves; for the physical world we live in, and the boundaries of our bodies. The counsel of the wise - both secular and sectarian - should always be sought, but we must take care to not attempt, through law, to satisfy an dogmatic ideaology; but rather, estabish careful boundaries based on the limitations we find in our examinations and assessments of that which which is also physical.
If we accept the posit that we only know a small amount of all available knowledge, then we must also realize that any declaration we make is going to be, at best, somewhat shortsighted.
So it becomes easier to see why laws should instatiate liberty, not control.
This is why equality is mentioned so early in the Declaration of Independence.
Our commonality and that which affects us as a whole must always be stressed, and not distracted from by our differences.

Given all that, we could say incestual relationships are lawful so long as the parties use protection when having sex, or promise not to have children :P
Because we realize that such probhibitions are both unenforcable and overtly intrusive, it becomes easier to prohibit any incestuous relationship.
What the penalty should be, I don't know.
I have diffiuculty with the idea of criminalize and jailing people simply for having sex with each other, but unless the individuals are separated completely, any law regarding such situations would be ineffective...we all know people are pretty much going to do what they want to do, especially in matters of the heart.

I guess that's the long way of saying i don't really have a good answer :lol:
[/soapbox]

All this, then, to say that the very idea of societal mores is passe, that people, other than on an individual basis, should have no say about what type of world they wish to live in, and the idea of individual rights trumps all others, even though this personal control you wish to preserve and hold sacrosanct (in only the most sectarian way, of course) must, by virtue of your definition of it, end at the front door of your house or the edge of your property, beyond which lies the arena of public interface, in which milieu none of your personal beliefs hold sway.

What you do in your bedroom has no import for that world, until you have to bring a physically- or-mentally-impaired person into it; I suppose, though, that technology will allow you to spot the flawed examples and abort them...

Point, set, and match.

You win. :(

[Busyman]

What you do in your bedroom has no import for that world, until you have to bring a physically- or-mentally-impaired person into it; I suppose, though, that technology will allow you to spot the flawed examples and abort them...
Good point. ;)

[vidcc]

All this, then, to say that the very idea of societal mores is passe, that people, other than on an individual basis, should have no say about what type of world they wish to live in, and the idea of individual rights trumps all others, even though this personal control you wish to preserve and hold sacrosanct (in only the most sectarian way, of course) must, by virtue of your definition of it, end at the front door of your house or the edge of your property, beyond which lies the arena of public interface, in which milieu none of your personal beliefs hold sway.

I agree everyone has the right to expect to have a say about the "public world" we live in (within certain boundaries), but not the private world other consenting adults live in.





What you do in your bedroom has no import for that world, until you have to bring a physically- or-mentally-impaired person into it; I suppose, though, that technology will allow you to spot the flawed examples and abort them...

Point, set, and match.

You win. :(

Incest carries a higher risk of abnormalities, not a guarantee. There are whole groups of people that carry greater risks of passing on genetic flaws to their children e.g. Sickle Cell Disorders, Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease. Should we legislate against these people having sex?

But the point is about consenting adults and what they do in private should be of no concern to anyone but themselves.

[Busyman]

There are whole groups of people that carry greater risks of passing on genetic flaws to their children e.g. Sickle Cell Disorders, Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease. Should we legislate against these people having sex?
Another good point. Speaks volumes actually and kinda makes the fact of incest/birth defects moot unless it's coupled with restrictions regarding other genetic disorders.

If incest is singled out then it would have to be solely on moral grounds in light of your post.

[Rat Faced]

whoa.
this is just a bad idea.
I realize that that is basically what is done, though it's thinking is fundamentally flawed.
Morals, popular or not, are an insufficient basis for law, especially any restrictive law. Morals are inherently based on beliefs, cultural myths and other intangibilities that vary wildly from person to person. By adopting one you marginalize the others, creating unrest and instability within. Not to mention that you'll have to rewrite law every time some new social trend comes along.
The rules we make are for ourselves; for the physical world we live in, and the boundaries of our bodies. The counsel of the wise - both secular and sectarian - should always be sought, but we must take care to not attempt, through law, to satisfy an dogmatic ideaology; but rather, estabish careful boundaries based on the limitations we find in our examinations and assessments of that which which is also physical.
If we accept the posit that we only know a small amount of all available knowledge, then we must also realize that any declaration we make is going to be, at best, somewhat shortsighted.
So it becomes easier to see why laws should instatiate liberty, not control.
This is why equality is mentioned so early in the Declaration of Independence.
Our commonality and that which affects us as a whole must always be stressed, and not distracted from by our differences.

Given all that, we could say incestual relationships are lawful so long as the parties use protection when having sex, or promise not to have children :P
Because we realize that such probhibitions are both unenforcable and overtly intrusive, it becomes easier to prohibit any incestuous relationship.
What the penalty should be, I don't know.
I have diffiuculty with the idea of criminalize and jailing people simply for having sex with each other, but unless the individuals are separated completely, any law regarding such situations would be ineffective...we all know people are pretty much going to do what they want to do, especially in matters of the heart.

I guess that's the long way of saying i don't really have a good answer :lol:
[/soapbox]

All this, then, to say that the very idea of societal mores is passe, that people, other than on an individual basis, should have no say about what type of world they wish to live in, and the idea of individual rights trumps all others, even though this personal control you wish to preserve and hold sacrosanct (in only the most sectarian way, of course) must, by virtue of your definition of it, end at the front door of your house or the edge of your property, beyond which lies the arena of public interface, in which milieu none of your personal beliefs hold sway.

What you do in your bedroom has no import for that world, until you have to bring a physically- or-mentally-impaired person into it; I suppose, though, that technology will allow you to spot the flawed examples and abort them...

Point, set, and match.

You win. :(

He does.

Morals are not universal and laws should never be made based upon them.

I have no respect for such laws and have no hesitation about ignoring their existance if they happen to be in the way of stopping me doing what i want.

Any Law that can be ignored and is totally impossible to enforce should be removed, as they both deminish the respect for the rest of the legal system, and take resources away from enforcing real and important Laws.

Laws should only be there to protect society and the individual from harm. How or who someone has sex with in the privacy of their own home has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of society.

[Busyman]

All this, then, to say that the very idea of societal mores is passe, that people, other than on an individual basis, should have no say about what type of world they wish to live in, and the idea of individual rights trumps all others, even though this personal control you wish to preserve and hold sacrosanct (in only the most sectarian way, of course) must, by virtue of your definition of it, end at the front door of your house or the edge of your property, beyond which lies the arena of public interface, in which milieu none of your personal beliefs hold sway.

What you do in your bedroom has no import for that world, until you have to bring a physically- or-mentally-impaired person into it; I suppose, though, that technology will allow you to spot the flawed examples and abort them...

Point, set, and match.

You win. :(

He does.

Morals are not universal and laws should never be made based upon them.

I have no respect for such laws and have no hesitation about ignoring their existance if they happen to be in the way of stopping me doing what i want.

Hogwash. Walk around your front yard naked then.

[vidcc]

Hogwash. Walk around your front yard naked then.


If your yard has a fence that screens out public view including from the upper floors of adjacent buildings you can (or at least should be able to IMO) do just that. It is when you no longer do it privately that it can come under "public decency" codes.
I hasten to add that there should be nothing immoral about the human body, we all have one. just some are not so easy on the eyes.

I think in taking just a sound bite from rat's post you have mis-represented him

Laws should only be there to protect society and the individual from harm. How or who someone has sex with in the privacy of their own home has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of society.

[Busyman]

If your yard has a fence that screens out public view including from the upper floors of adjacent buildings you can (or at least should be able to IMO) do just that. It is when you no longer do it privately that it can come under "public decency" codes.
I hasten to add that there should be nothing immoral about the human body, we all have one. just some are not so easy on the eyes.

I think in taking just a sound bite from rat's post you have mis-represented him
How so? The statement he made was balderdash.

"Public decency" codes are perfect examples of morals in law.

Using profanity in public fits that bill too. How was it deemed profanity?

A moral standard.

[vidcc]

How so? The statement he made was balderdash.

"Public decency" codes are perfect examples of morals in law.

Using profanity in public fits that bill too. How was it deemed profanity?

A moral standard.
If you take snippets from the post it is, but put with the rest of it and in context of the thread it is not.

Public decency codes don't have to be about morals. They are often more about consideration for others. I don't find the naked human body immoral but I would rather not see other men walking around without clothes. A personal freedom is one that doesn't infringe on others.
smoking IMO is not a personal freedom in public places, it is in your own home.

[Busyman]

How so? The statement he made was balderdash.

"Public decency" codes are perfect examples of morals in law.

Using profanity in public fits that bill too. How was it deemed profanity?

A moral standard.
If you take snippets from the post it is, but put with the rest of it and in context of the thread it is not.

Public decency codes don't have to be about morals. They are often more about consideration for others. I don't find the naked human body immoral but I would rather not see other men walking around without clothes. A personal freedom is one that doesn't infringe on others.
smoking IMO is not a personal freedom in public places, it is in your own home.
You could "rather not" like people wearing the color red. You can call it not liking the sight of it morals or "rather not" seeing.

Same principle.

Btw his snippet didn't go with the rest of his post so it was fazelsnitzel.

[j2k4]

Public decency codes don't have to be about morals. They are often more about consideration for others.

I would suggest that to define the difference (while maintaining the requisite and desired secular aspect) is to split that particular hair past any worthwhile meaning.

But, by all means...have it your way.

[Rat Faced]

He does.

Morals are not universal and laws should never be made based upon them.

I have no respect for such laws and have no hesitation about ignoring their existance if they happen to be in the way of stopping me doing what i want.

Hogwash. Walk around your front yard naked then.

Been there, done that... more than once.

Hell, i've had sex there more than once, and over the bonnet of a neighbours car.. :blushing:

Well... the Front Garden, havent got a front yard :P


And even if arrested for walking naked, it would be unlikely to lead to a conviction in this country.

We have now had successful defences for naturism in public... and that was in a city centre, not the suberbs :P

[Busyman]

Hogwash. Walk around your front yard naked then.

Been there, done that... more than once.

Hell, i've had sex there more than once, and over the bonnet of a neighbours car.. :blushing:

Well... the Front Garden, havent got a front yard :P
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Rat Faced]

You replied before the edit re: Naturism defence ;)

[Barbarossa]

Incest carries a higher risk of abnormalities, not a guarantee. There are whole groups of people that carry greater risks of passing on genetic flaws to their children e.g. Sickle Cell Disorders, Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease. Should we legislate against these people having sex?

This is the point I was going to make. ;)

What an odd world this is turning into...

[Rat Faced]

Besides all the genetic arguments, this is clearly just laying the foundations for a land grab in Kentucky by refusing them the right to reproduce :snooty:

[tracydani]

:lol: :lol:

I voted they should be free...... It should not matter if it rubs me the wrong way or not as long as it does me no harm. Besides, I would be a hipocrite(sp?) for wanting to see my wife and her sisters together only to say it is wrong for others :p

[Rat Faced]

We'd all like to see your wife and her sister together... and we dont even know them. :rolleyes:

[twisterX]

who the fuck would stop u. Fuck the goverment