Incest...

[Larry Gude]

...are you more or less likely to have sex with your kids since sodomy is no longer illegal in Texas and, hence, the rest of the nation, due to Lawrence v. Tejas?

Or, is sex with the kids simply not going to be on the 'to do' list, no matter what?

 

[Otter]

...are you more or less likely to have sex with your kids since sodomy is no longer illegal in Texas and, hence, the rest of the nation, due to Lawrence v. Tejas?

Or, is sex with the kids simply not going to be on the 'to do' list, no matter what?

What color was that shark's eyes when you jumped it?

 

[Merlin99]

What color was that shark's eyes when you jumped it?

They have lifeless eyes, black eyes, like A doll's eyes. Until they bite you, and the eyes roll over.

 

[Larry Gude]

What color was that shark's eyes when you jumped it?

Yeah, it's pretty bad. It just totally freaks me out the obsession supposed conservatives have about sex wherein, as far as they are concerned, the only thing that kept them from being incestuous gay camel humpers is that there was some law against it thus, absent a specific law prohibiting gay camel sex with family members, the Apocalypse is nigh.

 

[libertytyranny]

Yeah, it's pretty bad. It just totally freaks me out the obsession supposed conservatives have about sex wherein, as far as they are concerned, the only thing that kept them from being incestuous gay camel humpers is that there was some law against it thus, absent a specific law prohibiting gay camel sex with family members, the Apocalypse is nigh.

My humps, my humps. My lovely lady lumps.

 

[Larry Gude]

My humps, my humps. My lovely lady lumps.

I had a guy worked for me for several years, decent enough person, a little odd, family man, responsible. He said to me he saw no reason, other than his church and faith, why someone would not rape, rob and murder.

I'm like, WTF.

It's right there; Endowed with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[PJumper]

...are you more or less likely to have sex with your kids since sodomy is no longer illegal in Texas and, hence, the rest of the nation, due to Lawrence v. Tejas?

Or, is sex with the kids simply not going to be on the 'to do' list, no matter what?

And why would the absence of sodomy law affect incest? Two totally different things! Both disgusting but different!

 

[Larry Gude]

And why would the absence of sodomy law affect incest? Two totally different things! Both disgusting but different!

Hell if I know. Some people seem to think that absent a piece of paper, there is no moral code, no right, no wrong.

:shrug:

 

[bcp]

...are you more or less likely to have sex with your kids since sodomy is no longer illegal in Texas and, hence, the rest of the nation, due to Lawrence v. Tejas?

Or, is sex with the kids simply not going to be on the 'to do' list, no matter what?

Personally I dont think for me at least, going back past 10 years is really a moral option.
However, some people feel differently, so I imagine the first thing that would have to be determined would be age.
What age do we consider legal, and who comes up with that age and their reasons for doing so.

maybe instead of age we can have a sex test to prove that you can enter into a relationship with full knowledge and full consent, and then drop the age requirement?

 

[bcp]

Hell if I know. Some people seem to think that absent a piece of paper, there is no moral code, no right, no wrong.

:shrug:

Its not the paper that makes the relationship
but it is the paper that gets you the tax rates and benefits (if you can actually call them that)

 

[Tilted]

...are you more or less likely to have sex with your kids since sodomy is no longer illegal in Texas and, hence, the rest of the nation, due to Lawrence v. Tejas?

Or, is sex with the kids simply not going to be on the 'to do' list, no matter what?

I haven't gotten a chance to read, and comment in, the other thread yet. But, I'd like to make one point clear in case it is not already so: The law in question in Lawrence v Texas did not make sodomy illegal. It only made sodomy between members of the same sex illegal.

Heterosexual couples were free to do the nasty (whatever the law may have considered as such) or play out their homoerotic fantasies. It was just the homos that weren't allowed to (unless they were pretending to be straight at the time).

As for the the various opinions in that case - the only one that is reasonably well-grounded in reason is Justice O'Connor's (unjoined) concurrence. Everyone else whiffed, though some to greater degrees than others.


EDIT: Oh, and pre-Lawrence, the same was true in some other states as well: Sodomy was illegal between same sex partners but not between partners that had the right repsective plumbing.

 

[PJumper]

Its not the paper that makes the relationship
but it is the paper that gets you the tax rates and benefits (if you can actually call them that)

Moral values separate humans from animals, yet some animals might actually edge some of the human low-lifes.

Kinky Female Bats Share Mates With Their Mothers, Avoid Incest | LiveScience

 

[Larry Gude]

I haven't gotten a chance to read, and comment in, the other thread yet. But, I'd like to make one point clear in case it is not already so: The law in question in Lawrence v Texas did not make sodomy illegal. It only made sodomy between members of the same sex illegal.

Heterosexual couples were free to do the nasty (whatever the law may have considered as such) or play out their homoerotic fantasies. It was just the homos that weren't allowed to (unless they were pretending to be straight at the time).

As for the the various opinions in that case - the only one that is reasonably well-grounded in reason is Justice O'Connor's (unjoined) concurrence. Everyone else whiffed, though some to greater degrees than others.


EDIT: Oh, and pre-Lawrence, the same was true in some other states as well: Sodomy was illegal between same sex partners but not between partners that had the right repsective plumbing.

I think you've just about put this one to bed.

Not in a gay way, of course, or even hetero or sodomonistic way but, just, well, you know...

 

[mus]

And why would the absence of sodomy law affect incest? Two totally different things! Both disgusting but different!

Why is sodomy disgusting? Have you ever tried it?

 

[Larry Gude]

Once again, a SOMD poll has revealed and proven out something we may not have considered. At first;

Pot bellied pigs had best look out.

 

[Tilted]

I think you've just about put this one to bed.

Not in a gay way, of course, or even hetero or sodomonistic way but, just, well, you know...

Yeah, basically the law said: So long as you (i.e. as a couple) are physically able to have non-deviant sex, you are allowed to have deviant sex. However, if you aren't physically able to have non-deviant sex, you aren't allowed to have deviant sex.

Put more succinctly: Your ability to Ward and June Cleaver it is your license to get your freak on.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah, basically the law said: So long as you (i.e. as a couple) are physically able to have non-deviant sex, you are allowed to have deviant sex. However, if you aren't physically able to have non-deviant sex, you aren't allowed to have deviant sex.

Put more succinctly: Your ability to Ward and June Cleaver it is your license to get your freak on.

PK, now you go dragging another perversion into all of this, Ward and June...

 

[mus]

Once again, a SOMD poll has revealed and proven out something we may not have considered. At first;

Pot bellied pigs had best look out.

Tang is tang even if it's tattooed on a hog's ass.

 

[PJumper]

Why is sodomy disgusting? Have you ever tried it?

Fellatio side of sodomy by opposite sex is okay by me but try sticking your penis into a tube full of excrement and let me know if that's not disgusting!

 

[aps45819]

how are the poll choices relevant to the proposed law change?