Should two consenting adults be free...

...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/su...02-102.ZS.html

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Straight and to the point...:lol:

Peace bd

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

Ugly people should be banned from having sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

Ugly people should be banned from having sex.

---

Turning celibate then cheese? :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sara

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

On topic....

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


The Spanner 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?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sara

On topic....

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


The Spanner 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sara

On topic....

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


The Spanner 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:

What about one consenting adult?

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6...1motel16xm.jpg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Hopefully that would be j2's answer....since he conveniently chose not to thus far. It really is starting to bore me.

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 !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peat moss

...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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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)

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 "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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"

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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. ;)

Oh I believe...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.