Which sexual "immorality" is worse?

-Consentual sex between parent and off-spring (any age)? 
-Consentual sex between siblings? 
-Consentual sex between cousins?
-Consentual sex between pre-adult/teen and pre-adult/teen? 
-Consentual sex between pre-teen and pre-teen? 
-Consentual sex between pre-adult/teen and pre-teen?
-Consentual sex between an adult (other than parent/grandparent/etc.) and pre-adult/teen? (Assume the pre-adult/teen understands sex and does consent--legality is not the issue here)
-Consentual sex between an adult (other than parent/grandparent/etc.) and a pre-teen? (Assume the pre-teen understands sex and does consent--legality is not the issue here)
-Consentual sex between an adult and an adult who are un-wed?

Again, legal ramifications are not at issue, only your own personal "morality" towards these specific pairings.

parent and off-spring and adult and pre-adult/teen, first because parent and child sex is just so wrong on every level, and second because it just seems wrong with the age difference.

All of those are much less immoral than sex between two males (regardless of age or consent).

>>3
signed

>>3
2nd signed

>>3
>>3
>>3

>>3
>>4
>>5

You're just conforming to the thought process that was given to you without your consent. So it's not really your opinion because something beyond your control "makes" you react that way.

And, as for the topic. I really can't care about it. Anything that a "majority" of people agree or disagree on is "right" or "wrong" to them. But honestly, they're in no position to determine that, because the entire concept of a larger amount of people thinking likewise doesn't make something right.

Why can't you humans learn to discard the need for contact with others. Erase your humanity.

Erase your humanity.

You first.

the first 3 listed are the most immoral to me, the cousin one to a lesser degree but still wrong. Then the sex between adult+pre-teen, and the pre-teen + pre-teen. I think most teenagers are dumb fucks and shouldnt be allowed to have sex anyway, but since its a common thing nowadays i dont think anyone cares

>>1
If both are legal age and it's consensual I don't think it's immoral. Hell, it's just sex. Now sex with pre-teens there is problem that overwhelming MAJORITY of those who have had sexual contact with adults at that age are traumatised by affair. Sure in some rare cases it might work out, but that's not enough reason to legalise child sex. Child x child sex is ok though and many people actually experiment and practice sex with other children during their childhood.

-Consentual sex between an adult (other than parent/grandparent/etc.) and a pre-teen? (Assume the pre-teen understands sex and does consent--legality is not the issue here)

Morals are beliefs taught to children and illiterate peasants who can't come to the same conclusion through logic

Its 2006, you have the internet.  Let base decisions and opinions on reason instead of "hay thats wrong/right"
You don't support something because its "Immoral"?  what does that mean?  You don't support it because you don't like it, it makes you feel sick?  So if you didn't FEEL it was wrong then it'd be ok for you? Fascinating, but not a very solid arguement

If its not a religious arguement, cut the moral garbage

>>10
Actually its only about half or so, you just never hear about the ones that don't get traumatized

Regardless, adult+preteen is still a no-no IMO
everything else is fine

>>8

Silly mortal of earth. I am not human.

>>12 you are stupid, how can you judge the feelings of someone that is to young to even understand them fully.  i mean if i feel its alright to torture and murder someone it should be all right if it makes me feel good. no thought put into what the other person thinks. 
 
>>10  Also to be the devils advocate as well i will attack you.  those studies are taken under the wrong context if you think about it logically.  perhaps the trama wasn't actually the sexual experience itself but meerly how society viewed it.  if the same study were to be done in ancient rome when it was considered socially acceptable to have sex with those people would the trama be the same??  it is obvously impossible to know this but put some more thought into the social  context of studies like this.

>>14
what the hell are you talking about
not sure if you understood the posts you replied to

Actually morals are there to reinforce logic in the collective perspective and to achieve higher gains. If someone rapes a child, but you don't know this child, it doesn't make it ok, even though logically it doesn't affect you and you may stand to lose by upholding justice. Also it is better if every member of society tries to stop criminals otherwise eventually crime will become rampant and will affect you.

Eliminating evil for the sake of eliminating evil is achieving a higher form of pleasure that adds to your sentience. Yes it is metaphysical, but anyone familiar with the works of Kant will realise that sentience is metaphysical by nature, though we know that we are a super-complex computer in the form of a brain, why we exist as souls to perceive and control this computer appears to be completely metaphysical in nature.

So morals have worth.

P.S. Sex with a child who consents and understands sex and the implications of a relationship is ok. However it is very rare for a child to actually understand sex and it's implications and the adult involved would understand this, in this hypothetical rare occasion, and wait until the child grows up before engaging in a sexual relationship. Whatever the case the age of consent should be 16.

<THE RULES THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE>
1. Parent x Offspring = bad, creates deformed offspring.  Must use birth control and not be predatory in nature.
2. Siblings x Siblings = see 1
3. Any person under 18 must have their parent's permission to engage in sexual activity. Can't be predatory or prostitutive in nature.
4. Any person over 18 seeking sexual activity with someone under 18 needs the minor's parental permission.  3 must apply as well.
5. Marriage is not a license to engage in sexual activity.  Marriage is a commitment that you will raise a family, i.e., have and raise kids.  With the advent of birth control, sex does not automatically mean kids.  Get over it, fundamentalists.
6. Being male and having sex without being employed is a capital offense.  18+ or 18-. I mean an ACTUAL JOB, not a WELFARE CHECK or DISABILITY CHECK.
7. Being female and having sex without attaining orgasm is a capital offense.  18+ or 18-.  I mean an ACTUAL ORGASM, not a FAKED ORGASM or OTHER DUMB BULLSHIT.
8. Not having sex for more than 3 months is a capital offense.  18+ or 18-.  I mean ACTUAL SEX, not MASTURBATION or NON-PENTERATIVE SEXUAL-ORIENTED ACTIVITY.
</THE RULES THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE>

1. Asking for moral opinion + sex related issue + anonymous board + on the internet = ?

2. Orthographically correct sentence + reference to philosopher + egotistical display of technical terms + arrogant short capital/period sentence + on the internet = ?

3. Bold claim + outdated html satire + overuse of capitalization emphasis + more bold claims + on the internet = ?

4. Trying to second-guess anonymous posts on 4chan + unorthodox reply + eating asparagus + while masturbating + on the internet = ?

Les questions mes amis, les questions!

>>18
I don't understand 8. Why, exactly, would not having sex -- let alone for three months -- be a capital offense? I'm 20 and I've never had sex in my entire life. What have I done wrong?

>>20
18 is not to be taken seriously

>>19
1. Insecure fool
2. Pretentious pseudointellectual
3. Prideful idiot
4. Fat kid with too much time

gg

>>20
DICKS AND PUSSIES ARE FOR FUCKING
IF YOU ARE NOT FUCKING, YOU ARE MISUSING YOUR BODY
ERGO, YOU LOSE IT

Let's get back to the real subject:
Which is more immoral; fudge packers or pedophiles?

Honestly and without jokes or sarcasm or just being stupid becuase this is 4chan, #6 and #8 are the worst. and #4 is pretty bad and an indication that #6 or 8 have ocurred. I have never done any of these things myself but would like to try #9.

Other than that if it's consentual and no one involved is under 16, fucking go for it. But use some fucking birthcontrol because no one wants to look at your jawless octo-baby.

why does it matter what is worse.

     I mean would ou ask what was worse rape or murder.  No whoever does either one should get killed and we move on with our lives

>>25 I agree, but yet the fags have managed to force the discussion of having society sanction their ill-fated "unions". Clearly some discussion has to occure because all hell is currently breaking loose!

>>23
What I find interesting is that the O.P., myself, made no clear distinction between male/female relations, male/male relations, and female/female relations.  Simply age-based.  Yet it is gender that is almost immediately brought up in the thread.

        >>27 thats because people are going to talk about what gets your attention.  if you want them to stop bringing it up just stop paying attention to them.  you just feed the flames

>>28
Who said I was complaining?  I find the change in discussion facinating that, even in this day and age, some people are more offended by homosexuality than by incest and pedophilia.

>>29
It's all about morals, so it's perfectly understandable. There's rational reason against acting out pedophilia(causes often damage to child) and that's reason why sex with children ans real CP is outlawed. No rational reason against incest though, expect birth defects, but if it was concentual and all about just sex with adequate protection(or gayness) I don't see nothing wrong with it.

fags should die

>>31, they do, and so do straights. everyone dies.

>>32 clearly you misunderstood me.
Yes, fags and str8s both die. However, it should be legal to brutally beat and murder fags; things such as Matthew Shepard should not be newsworthy due to occuring with great frequency.

You know; the way it was in the old days.

On the alternate hand, str8s should be allowed to live a long and peaceful life.

>>32
He wants them to all die now.

>>33  I knew exactly what you ment, but thank you for clarifiying your stupidity.   Why does it really matter if a queer lives or dies any more than a straight does.  I mean it's not like they breed(often), it's not like a their dangerous to the people around them, and so have an inherint value to the people around them.  wo what does it really matter whether you kill them or not.

     AS for killing them how would you prove that someone was gay before you killed them.  put every person in front of a jury(of straights i guess) to prove everyone straight.  photographic evidence, 3 witnesses like treason, what???????

          We also have these bitch ass laws in the US called "hate crimes" where dumbasses decided that what you are feeling about the person you kill makes it some how worse or not.  So i don't suggest advertising your views if you really plan to go on a rampage.

>I knew exactly what you ment,
The word you're looking for is "meant"

>Why does it really matter if a queer lives or dies any more than a straight does. 

Straights are normal, healthy and productive members of society who have a positive contribution to make. Queers are kiddy fiddling degenerate scum who exist soley to foist off their filthy lifestyle choices off on good, honest folks while at the same time tearing down the very institutions which make society strong (trying to gain admittance into the military, trying to wreck the idea of matrimony).

>it's not like a their dangerous to the people around them,

You don't have children, do you? If you did, I guarentee that if you had any shred of scruples then having children would change your attitude on that.

>wo what does it really matter whether you kill them or not.

It's them or us, they've corrupted our popular culture, now they're going after our military and spiritual strenth. Not long after that they'll round up all of the god fearing hetrosexuals and send them to sexual re-education camps.

>AS for killing them how would you prove that someone was gay before you killed them. 

The same way you prove someone actually comitted any other crime; testimony, physical evidence, etc. It's not as if these screaming mimis exactly hide it or anything.

>We also have these bitch ass laws in the US called "hate crimes" where dumbasses decided that what you are feeling about the person you kill makes it some how worse or not.  So i don't suggest advertising your views if you really plan to go on a rampage.

Those laws were put on the books by who? Fags, that's who. And you still don't see the need to purge our society of them?

Until we can get "bitch ass" laws like that stricken from the books, we'll have to take other measures; such as verbally deriding them for being white while we kill them (possibly earning an cash settlement as a reward for ridding the world of "another oppresive white man").

wow is that good trolling or just plain stupid

between men at any age with an adult women = immoral

>>38
Why?

grown up women sux.