In your post - to which I was replying - you said ...

[quote] I think the fact that nobody is being harmed is irrelevant where moral matters are concerned since morality is not a question of harm but rather is a question of right or wrong. [unquote]

I suggest that it is YOU who is trying to decide what is "right or wrong" and coming up with some weird rape / incest suggestion between father and son is merely a smokescreen.

Parliament usually acts on public demand (thats why the age of consent was recently equalised, and also why homosexual sex was decriminalised in 1967).

The age of consent for heterosexual acts in England was set at 12 in 1275 during the reign of Edward I. It was lowered to 10 in the latter part of the 16th century. Was Parliament right (as you apparently claim) in both those instances ?

Incidentally .... homosexuality was not an offence at all(*) until the Buggery Act of 1533 !

(*) assuming that both parties consented ... otherwise an offence of assault under Common Law would have taken place.

Is the fact that there was a double bed in the room relevant?

Reg wrote:
Is the fact that there was a double bed in the room relevant?

No ... not at all - they were just doing their bit for the Tory environment campaign by keeping warm together and saving the planet !

In The Know wrote:
[quote]In your post - to which I was replying - you said ...

I think the fact that nobody is being harmed is irrelevant where moral matters are concerned since morality is not a question of harm but rather is a question of right or wrong. [unquote]

I suggest that it is YOU who is trying to decide what is "right or wrong" and coming up with some weird rape / incest suggestion between father and son is merely a smokescreen.

Parliament usually acts on public demand (thats why the age of consent was recently equalised, and also why homosexual sex was decriminalised in 1967).

The age of consent for heterosexual acts in England was set at 12 in 1275 during the reign of Edward I. It was lowered to 10 in the latter part of the 16th century. Was Parliament right (as you apparently claim) in both those instances ?

You said "What gives ANYONE the right to impose their prejudice on others" and I answered that the government does. I used the moral dilemma of consensual father and son intercourse to challenge your assertion that those that impose their view of right and wrong (in this case the government)are acting prejudicially. I did not mention rape as you suggest but it is telling that you use the word 'weird' to describe such a consensual act when you yourself made the following statement "What gives ANYONE the right to impose their prejudice on others" Furthermore, according to another poster... What happens between two (or more!) consenting people in their bedroom (or any other room in private!) and harming no one else is nothing to do with me whatsoever. If you also concur with that view, you must explain why you make an exception for the father/son scenario.

anon wrote:

You said "What gives ANYONE the right to impose their prejudice on others" and I answered that the government does.

No it doesn't ... grow up.

In The Know wrote:
anon wrote:

You said "What gives ANYONE the right to impose their prejudice on others" and I answered that the government does.

No it doesn't ... grow up.
Yes it does. My prejudice against consensual incest is supported by government under the sexual offences act and contrary to your view that private sex between consenting adults is nobodies business. There are clearly moral boundaries which consenting adults of legal age should NOT cross. I have highlighted an inconsistency in your statements. [iSaying]"Grow up"[/i]does not resolve the issue or even show where you stand on the matter of this consensual act, its illegality and the governments choice to criminalize it.

anon wrote:
My prejudice against consensual incest is supported by government.

... for how long? When and if the public demand change - they will get it.

Note the first two words (above) .... exactly as I thought !

You can have whatever prejudices you want, Mr Anon, but the government will continue to enact laws which the majority want - and the majority want freedom and less interferance (by both government and others).

You never answered MY question ... was the government right to introduce legalised sex at 12 and then lower that age to 10 ?

According to YOUR principles the government were setting a moral code for legalised sex (with girls) at 10 (as we have already seen there was no legal age for boys).

In The Know wrote:
anon wrote:
My prejudice against consensual incest is supported by government.

... for how long? When and if the public demand change - they will get it.

Note the first two words (above) .... exactly as I thought !

You can have whatever prejudices you want, Mr Anon, but the government will continue to enact laws which the majority want - and the majority want freedom and less interferance (by both government and others).

You never answered MY question ... was the government right to introduce legalised sex at 12 and then lower that age to 10 ?

According to YOUR principles the government were setting a moral code for legalised sex (with girls) at 10 (as we have already seen there was no legal age for boys).
To answer your question, I believe sex before marriage is wrong therefore I believe it should be unlawful to have sex before marriage at ANY age.

My question to you is, do you believe the government are wrong to ban consensual incest between consenting father and son (or other)thus imposing its prejudices (against your wishes)on others or do you believe that what happens in the privacy of the bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the government?

anon wrote:
To answer your question, I believe sex before marriage is wrong therefore I believe it should be unlawful to have sex before marriage at ANY age.

My question to you is, do you believe the government are wrong to ban consensual incest between consenting father and son (or other)thus imposing its prejudices (against your wishes)on others or do you believe that what happens in the privacy of the bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the government?

Thank you for being honest (at last) and admitting that you have an agenda and want to impose YOUR morality on everyone else.

As stated previously I have no idea whether what you claim is actually illegal - can you provide statute details ? - but yes, I do believe that what happens in the privacy of the bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the government.

It may be a matter of concern (in the circumstances that you describe) for other family members, and some others (the Church ?) but it is certainly NO business of the government.

In The Know wrote:
anon wrote:
To answer your question, I believe sex before marriage is wrong therefore I believe it should be unlawful to have sex before marriage at ANY age.

My question to you is, do you believe the government are wrong to ban consensual incest between consenting father and son (or other)thus imposing its prejudices (against your wishes)on others or do you believe that what happens in the privacy of the bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the government?

Thank you for being honest (at last) and admitting that you have an agenda and want to impose YOUR morality on everyone else.

As stated previously I have no idea whether what you claim is actually illegal - can you provide statute details ? - but yes, I do believe that what happens in the privacy of the bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the government.

It may be a matter of concern (in the circumstances that you describe) for other family members, and some others (the Church ?) but it is certainly NO business of the government.

In The Know wrote:
anon wrote:
To answer your question, I believe sex before marriage is wrong therefore I believe it should be unlawful to have sex before marriage at ANY age.

My question to you is, do you believe the government are wrong to ban consensual incest between consenting father and son (or other)thus imposing its prejudices (against your wishes)on others or do you believe that what happens in the privacy of the bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the government?

Thank you for being honest (at last) and admitting that you have an agenda and want to impose YOUR morality on everyone else.

As stated previously I have no idea whether what you claim is actually illegal - can you provide statute details ? - but yes, I do believe that what happens in the privacy of the bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the government.

It may be a matter of concern (in the circumstances that you describe) for other family members, and some others (the Church ?) but it is certainly NO business of the government.
1)I did not say it was me wanting to impose my morality on others. I have gone to some length to show that it is the governmentnot me.
2) You keep wrongly attributed a rape/incest scenario to me on the first post of this page although I have never mentioned rape.

Now that I have highlighted your errors, I would like to say that what two (or more)consenting adults do in the bedroom is not necessarily their own business and I advise you that it IS the business of the government and incest is punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. This includes the scenario I presented.
I agree with give my consent to the governments in this regard. You do not apparently. However, as you yourself say, the government enact the will of the majority.

anon wrote:
]
I agree with give my consent to the governments in this regard. You do not apparently. However, as you yourself say, the government enact the will of the majority.

You have STILL NOT provided any evidence of any offence !

As you seem obsessed with the subject I started to think about it.

Sex with my father? Certainly not ! Sex with my son ? I would have to use a crowbar to remove his attachment to various girls first.
But ... there are one or two of his mates that I would shag !

In The Know wrote:
anon wrote:
]
I agree with give my consent to the governments in this regard. You do not apparently. However, as you yourself say, the government enact the will of the majority.

You have STILL NOT provided any evidence of any offence !

As you seem obsessed with the subject I started to think about it.

Sex with my father? Certainly not ! Sex with my son ? I would have to use a crowbar to remove his attachment to various girls first.
But ... there are one or two of his mates that I would shag !

I am not obsessed with incest at all. Io am merely using it as a tool to discredit your assertion that it is nobodies business what consenting adults do in private. Where did I say I would provide evidence that incest is an offence? It is common knowledge but if you are of the belief that it is not an offence you can check yourself in the 2003 sexual offences act PDF. Here is some further information from the NHS website regarding sexual health and the law
www.sexualhealthtayside.org/Sexual_Healt...e_Law/law_incest.php
Do you STILL maintain that a consenting father and son should be allowed to engage in intercourse and that it should be nobody else's business?

anon wrote:
I am not obsessed with incest at all.

I think you are !!!!

Do you STILL maintain that a consenting father and son should be allowed to engage in intercourse and that it should be nobody else's business?

Isn't the whole and solitary purpose of incest law to prevent inter-breeding (like the Royal family and those sheep farmers in Wales ?)

Pressumably if there is to be no "breeding" then there isn't really a problem is there (except perhaps for God-botherers).

As I doubt that the father will make his son pregnant (or vice versa) we will NOT have a collection of vacant-looking imbeciles to deal with .... so what is the problem ?

Can you give me one single solitary coherent reason why such a law should exist ?

PS - I believe parts of the Sexual Offences Act may have been ammended - but not entirely sure - was the age of consent (to 16) lowered before or after this Act?

It MAY be legal for you already, Mr Anon !

PPS - You never told us whether it was your father or your son that you were "interested" in ! LOL

In The Know wrote:
anon wrote:
I am not obsessed with incest at all.

I think you are !!!!

Do you STILL maintain that a consenting father and son should be allowed to engage in intercourse and that it should be nobody else's business?

Isn't the whole and solitary purpose of incest law to prevent inter-breeding (like the Royal family and those sheep farmers in Wales ?)

Pressumably if there is to be no "breeding" then there isn't really a problem is there (except perhaps for God-botherers).

As I doubt that the father will make his son pregnant (or vice versa) we will NOT have a collection of vacant-looking imbeciles to deal with .... so what is the problem ?

Can you give me one single solitary coherent reason why such a law should exist ?

PS - I believe parts of the Sexual Offences Act may have been ammended - but not entirely sure - was the age of consent (to 16) lowered before or after this Act?

It MAY be legal for you already, Mr Anon !

PPS - You never told us whether it was your father or your son that you were "interested" in ! LOL
When people resort to insult as you have, it is a sign that they are floundering, having now come to the realization that incest IS illegal and that exceptions are not made for cases where there is no possibility of congenital defect (father and son for instance). Of course exceptions could be made for non risk groups but society does not wish it and as you say, the government enacts the wishes of the majority.
Can you give me one single solitary coherent reason why such a law should exist ?
Yes. To prevent moral degradation and abominable acts though I doubt you will hold with that view since there is consent to the abomination and no victim.

anon wrote:
Yes. To prevent moral degradation and abominable acts though I doubt you will hold with that view since there is consent to the abomination and no victim.

Says it all really .... if only you had STARTED by admitting that YOU want to impose YOUR values on others.

You admit there is no victim ... so how can there be a crime ?

I won't have time to reply further .... I'm going to start a campaign to have homosexual incest legalised (perhaps even made compulsory?).

(I bet its your father ! Strict disciplinarian ? Is it that that gives you such a guilty conscience ?)

In The Know wrote:
anon wrote:
Yes. To prevent moral degradation and abominable acts though I doubt you will hold with that view since there is consent to the abomination and no victim.

Says it all really .... if only you had STARTED by admitting that YOU want to impose YOUR values on others.

You admit there is no victim ... so how can there be a crime ?

I won't have time to reply further .... I'm going to start a campaign to have homosexual incest legalised (perhaps even made compulsory?).

(I bet its your father ! Strict disciplinarian ? Is it that that gives you such a guilty conscience ?)
There does not need to be a victim for it to be a crime though. Heard of victimless crime? Drug abuse, soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, cottaging. All fine and dandy in your book I assume but still crimes.

anon wrote:
There does not need to be a victim for it to be a crime though. Heard of victimless crime? Drug abuse, soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, cottaging. All fine and dandy in your book I assume but still crimes.

The police are not bothered about drug abuse (or prostitution) - they consider them "non-crimes" - just as any sensible person would.

If people want to abuse their bodies and risk disease (and worse) - let them ! The sooner they die (and save us alot of money) the better !

In The Know wrote:
anon wrote:
There does not need to be a victim for it to be a crime though. Heard of victimless crime? Drug abuse, soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, cottaging. All fine and dandy in your book I assume but still crimes.

The police are not bothered about drug abuse (or prostitution) - they consider them "non-crimes" - just as any sensible person would.

If people want to abuse their bodies and risk disease (and worse) - let them ! The sooner they die (and save us alot of money) the better !

I would be fearful of living in a society based on your nihlistic principles. A place where drug abuse is legal, so are consensual incest and prostitution. A place where moral values would not be taught to the next generation for fear of imposing them on others!