Should two consenting adults be free...

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.