Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:58pm:


Weeeeeellll, I reckon I covered all of that in my 'piece.'

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:20pm:


I beg to disagree on the 'succinct' claim.  I reckon I covered that in just one word.......'unproductive.'

*No emoticons will ever be abused in the making of my posts.*

hey fake lawyer....  your effort was beyond pitiful.  I could get a better argument from a toothless two-headed tasmanian and his sister than the drivel you wrote. It was in fact a truly embarrassing effort.

Quote:


Irrelevant to 'Gay Incest.'  As I said in just one word ~ 'unproductive.'


Quote:
objections.

Really. What were they and where are your sources for that assertion?

Quote:


Again.....please detail what these are.  Just saying the words is ....... just saying words. 

Quote:


Yeas....but that is just verbal padding  and adds nothing to the incest question.

Quote:


Yeas, so you have already said.  But, you have not explained why.  All you have said is ~ 'moral objection.'  Bewdy.  That an argument does not make.

Quote:


It's the only one I can think of.  I think I referred to that with that one word 'unproductive' on the 'gay' aspect, and with the 'dna' reference, heterosexually.

Quote:


And they will remain so while anyone listens to the Hillsong 'happy clappers' who just mouth the nasty words, as you do, without explaining exactly what you are referring to.

Quote:


I have my ideas about what is right and wrong, just as you do.  On this matter, unlike you, I will not be merely judgemental.....I'll have a go at explaining 'my' position without using blanket black ball words like 'taboo behaviour' and 'moral.'

I do have a fundamental caveat on this matter whether it be on the 'gay' aspect or otherwise.  Given that inherent in the relationship is an issue of close interpersonal proximity (ignoring of course incest by complete accident) there has to be a safeguard.  There must be proper consent.  To go graphically stark to make the point....a five year old child is incapable of giving consent to an adult relation having 'sex' with them.

And yes, melielongtime on one matter you are correct.  Deciding on an age is an arbitrary thing and I have been in countless cases where a bloke was charged with 'unlawful carnal knowledge' (as the offence was then known in a heterosexual context) of a female aged 13 whom he thought was well over that, and of 'lawful' age.  She thought so as well because she had 'developed' physically and mentally to the extent that she was the aggressor.  Yet, the line in the sand was at 16.  It has to be drawn somewhere, and in the case I have outlined, if the Jury convicts, then the Judge will take her level of apparent 'maturity' into account in sentencing.

In any sexual encounter, there must be genuine consent, capable of being given according to Law, and there must be no element of compulsion, or duress or whatever on the part of either of the participants.

Just to get you on edge a tad more, melielongtime, what about sex involving a physically fully developed 'mentally handicapped' person who has a genuine burning desire to rut.....male or female?

only a fake lawyer would ask for citations to prove that there are moral objections to incest.


and boofhead, I was referring to PST-pubescents, not pre-pubescent where sexual activity fails on every criteria.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 1:55pm:


Incest was invented in the 18th century, Longy. It’s not a millennial taboo at all.

It’s a Victorian taboo. The European royal families practiced incest for millennia. In Egypt, pharohs married their siblings. Cleopatra was married off to her brother.

The scientific revolution changed all that, but only for the lower classes - or those subject to "the Welfare". The European aristocracy kept the tradition alive. Incest laws were created in the 19th century, largely the result of the emerging eugenics movement.

You’re free to write about it if you want.

Oh, that’s right - you won’t.

Karnal wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 5:26am:



so you are a liar and a fool?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 9:20am:


And this, leftards, is the response of a writer.

He’s that good.