Should two consenting adults be free...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

You replied before the edit re: Naturism defence ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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...

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:

: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