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.

>>36 I see your point. After seeing shows such as 'will and grace' and watching the madcap and yet completely harmless hijinx of will and jack I thought all gay people were normal, healthy people who simply had a bit more pep than the rest of us.

Now that you've opened my eyes to the way they are infiltrating our military and assaulting the holy institute of marriage, I have to admit that the scales have fallen from my eyes!

Thank you, kind sir..thank you indeed!

Gays wouldn't suck if they didn't contain so many predators.

Have you ever worked in a profession where you're surrounded by dancers and actors? So you've been surrounded by these guys? You know, actually seen what they're like?

Have them try to trick you somewhere so they can have your cherry ass? By using attractive girls who are actually fag hags? How about them constantly trying to get your attention? When they're your boss? Or talk with each other about the lover de jour, or how they got in the pants of yet another teenager? Or the wonder of walking into the changeroom and seen them sticking their fucking ass really near you while they drink from a faucet?

I hope I never see that shit again.

>>42


WTF!!!

>>36

      sorry didn't really get back on line to get back to you yesterday.


>Queers are kiddy fiddling degenerate scum who exist soley to foist off their filthy lifestyle choices off on good.


  prove it.  there is not one shred of evidence to prove that a gay person is more likely to be a pedophile than a straight one.  if he is, kill him just like you would kill a straight one sure.  if you don't want him to be a boy scout leader,  welll.... i could call you a hatting asshole, but i do see where you are comming from.  i mean would you let a straight man be the leader of the local girlscout troop???

>It's them or us, they've corrupted our popular culture, now they're going after our military and spiritual strenth.  

Culture??? who the fuck really cares how our own populatiion cares about culture.  however changing a culture takes more than a minority.  it takes more than a handfull of dumb blacks to fund the rap industry, it takes dumb people of other races too.  do i like what rap does to the musical culture??? no. but that doesn't mean i should kill every rapper.  i just make fun of the lack of taste in all the people i know that listen to rap.  the "gay culture" that is spreading is not funded by  gays.  gays make it, but they are not marketing it to gays.  kind of like yaoi anime isn't marketed to gays. it's for straight women that eat the shit up.  don't like it, attack the people that fund it not the people that make it.  it wouldn't be made if people didn'b buy  it.  and i like my lesbian porn that is aimed primarially at a male audience.  i fund the making of it(or i would if i actually paid for porn) so attack me.

Not long after that they'll round up all of the god fearing hetrosexuals and send them to sexual re-education camps.

this is just fucking funny that you believe this. why would they care about us being straight any more than i care if they are gay?  after all if there weren't straights who would breed more fags???

>now they're going after our military and spiritual strenth.

I have never understood the logic that some group of people of a certain race, religion, or now sexual prefference is somehow sub human and should be killed on a whim, but is somehow not good enough to die on the front lines.  comeon.  if they were that subhuman wouldn't they make great cannon fodder.  Lets just use russian military tactics with them if they are in the military and they aren't worth anything.

>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?

No those laws were put on the books by "minorities", primarially blacks, but the laws spread to cover all forms of people that get hatted.  and they are bitch-ass laws and i just felt like mentioning them.  btw taking hate-crimes off the books won't make any assalt, murder, rape that is illegal now legal.  it would just make your feelings about the person you did it to irrelivent.

You implied that every gay is a criminal while every straight is a good god fearing individual.  if that were true, than gays would commit crimes, get arrested and be sepparated from society, and wouldn't cause a serious problem.  there are pleanty of evil straight people-i am sure there are pleanty of good gay people.  Just kill the ones that are proven violent criminals, if they are all criminals than they will all be dead, and you won't even have to worry about preaching that they all should die, which means a lot less resistance about wiping out a  particualr type of person.

>>44

Win. Listen to him, you should. Seriously.
I'm straight, and I'm an atheist. So I'm not god-fearing. Does that make me a bad person? No.
I have friends that are gay. I have friends that are bisexual. I have friends that are all sorts of other odd things. Does that make them bad people? No.
Are they pedophiles? No. Do they try to convert and rape me? No! Do they do anything significantly different than straight people? No!

Another thing! What if you had a straight person who acted like the stereotypical gay guy. What then? Should you kill him? He's straight, but acts gay. What's the problem there?

At what point in a person's life do they become 'sexual' and then what of men who prefer girls who prefer men, is that truly worse than boys who want a safe experience with a man, rather than a boy who will run to school and tell the whole class?

>>46
17 years old

If a man forces himself on a boy who is not a homosexual the results can be devastating. Imagine if your dad forced his cock in your mouth when you were young or something, you'd probably enjoy it since you are a paedophile faggot, but you get the picture. It's not a memory most people want.

The same applies for any adult forcing themselves on a child.

what about bestiality. Furries etc.

Look at these posts
reading them makes you stupid

-Consentual sex between parent and off-spring (any age)?
Very bad. 
-Consentual sex between siblings? 
Also very bad.
-Consentual sex between cousins?
Very bad, but for a big part taboo. Genetically at least not as bad as true inbreeding.
-Consentual sex between pre-adult/teen and pre-adult/teen? 
Nothing wrong with it.
-Consentual sex between pre-teen and pre-teen? 
Nothing wrong with it.
-Consentual sex between pre-adult/teen and pre-teen?
Care must be taken to ensure that the older person is not using his position to force the younger person to do something they don't want. Other than that, we should listen to what the younger person wants too, and not just what society wants.
-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)
See previous statement, but applied more rigorously.
-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)
In these cases it usually concerns an adult who is into the relationship merely for his own sexual desires. Such relationships are not healthy, I believe, and so I think you should see the previous, but apply it 1000000000000x more rigorously.
-Consentual sex between an adult and an adult who are un-wed?
Nothing wrong with it at all.

>>37
I noticed it was trolling at "spiritual strength"

>>47
We're not talking about "forcing a cock down someone's throat". A grown woman would be traumatized just the same when that happened to her. It's called RAPE and it does not HAVE to be an inherit part of pedophilia, just like it doesn't have to be of homosexuality.

We are talking about a child (sexually aware, mind you) that has a relationship with someone who is older and that decides together with that person that they want to have sex. I hate how people bring up babyrape and all sorts of shit whenever the topic of pedophilia is brought up, we're NOT TALKING ABOUT FORCING ANYONE SEX, *only* whether consensual sex between a child and an adult is/should be possible.

>>52
Children don't initiate sexual relationships, therefore you must be forcing your sweaty cheese faggot ass in their face.

>>53
A normal (healthy) relationship never starts sexual. If for example a 13-year old and a 25-year old get a relationship, and they both decide they want to have sex, what is really so wrong with that? Of course, we need to look into whether the "child" can make such a decision at such an age, but this is something that would need to be researched before it can be disputed or accepted. Right now, everyone is just mindlessly spouting the same mantra that "people cannot make rational decisions until they're 18".

You are perhaps talking about children that are not yet sexually aware. As you could have noticed if you had paid attention to my post, I explicitly stated I was not talking about those cases. As with the "rape" examples, it is yet another way of conservatives trying to turn away any sensible discussions of the topic of consensual sex between people with an age gap and to label all such people as child rapers/murderers.

>>54
As you could have noticed if you weren't a perverted fuckwit, the law has to make good approximations to prevent crime, so it can't permit you to have gay sex with 8 year olds since such things rarely come out ok, except perhaps in your pansy faggot world where all children want to suck your cock and there is nothing wrong with you finding somewhere private and showing it to them.

13 year olds can't make decent decisions and are at risk of being preyed apon. If a 13 year old and a 25 year old really were in love, the 25 year old would have no problem waiting until the 13 year old is 16 to make sure he/she doesn't hurt her/him. If the 25 year old is just there for sex and doesn't care about what he/she might do to the 13 year old, then the 25 year old will stay away if he/she knows he/she will be put in jail for having sex with a minor.

Therefore the legal age of consent of 16 stands.

>>55
>it can't permit you to have gay sex with 8 year olds since such things rarely come out ok
Again, I wasn't talking about such little kids (but you like to bring up strawmen), but more importantly, the reason it rarely comes out OK might be because of the stigma associated with it? As someone else pointed out earlier, a large part of people who have had sex at a young age have no trauma associated with it at all. You simply don't hear about them, because only the ones who suffered from it will seek media attention. It's not like I would go shout at the rooftops "Hey guys, I had sex when I was still a kid, but I at least don't suffer from it!" Especially because of society's view on such matters.

And mostly the cases that you hear about involve rape, and so are not representative of the actual discussion of consensual sex that is present.

>13 year olds can't make decent decisions and are at risk of being preyed apon
There you go again with your mantra "they can't make decent decisions". Why? Just because the media has been telling you? Why don't you provide some actual research supporting your claim that "children cannot make rational decisions". Again, I must repeat for you, I'm talking about children who have reached sexual awareness, not toddlers.

I also love your "at risk of being preyed upon". Oooh, the bad pedo is out there, waiting to RAPE the kids! Lol. Seriously, I could just as well say that women are at risk of being "preyed upon" by violent men, hence we should forbid sex between men and women! ANYONE can be at risk of being "preyed upon", but you seem to think that when they are 13-years old, and someone older than them wanted to start a relationship with them, they would all go "Hey okay, I will, because you are older than me and I have no mind of my own, and since the law says it is possible, I MUST get into a sexual relationship with you!"

If the "child" didn't want the relationship, he would be able to say so, unless you believe they are puppy dogs and do whatever anyone tells them to do.

>>55
If a 13 year old and a 25 year old really were in love, the 25 year old would have no problem waiting until the 13 year old is 16 to make sure he/she doesn't hurt her/him
I agree, and I think this is currently probably mostly what happens, in these kind of cases. But really, why should they both be limited to wait until some arbitrary age (16 in your example) before they can have sex? I have heard of cases where the younger person (say 14yo) really wanted it, and even after the "adult" said they should wait, kept insisting. That person was dead set on it, and certainly didn't make some "hasty decision" and the older person has to keep showing restraint, just because society thinks what they're doing is "wrong"?

A sickening thought, preventing two people from loving each other.

>>57
Because the government can't be sure of 1000s of people's intentions and cannot take people to court to make sure they are not sexual predators and give them a license to have sex with minors or whatever.

A sickenning thought, impressionable 14 year olds being mentally screwed with by sick fucks for sex.

sex is sick it should be b&

>>58
"Thousands of people"? And I thought only a few "sickos" had pedophilic tendencies! So if there are so many, why are they all limited in their freedom?

And why would people need to be taken to court to sort such things out? At least where I live, we are able to still work things out without immediately resorting to legal measures. You don't have to take an adult who has a relationship with a "child" to court to see if it is a valid relationship, you just have to ask both partners what they think of it.

"Impressionable"? I remember when I was a kid, I certainly didn't fear adults as much as you seem to think kids do. If I had gotten into a loving relationship with an older person, and eventually we decided to have sex, how is that "impressionable"?

Because its' gay.

-Consentual sex between cousins
legal in many countries

-to make sure they are not sexual predators and give them a license to have sex with minors or whatever
true dat it is designed to protect minors. Sometimes however, it doesn't when a minor falls in love with an adult and wants sex. There are cases where it is a decision made in full consciousness. OP refers to these cases.

Actually consentual sex between cousins is even legal in the US, assuming they are distant enough in relation.  but when does a relative become distant enough it is legal to fuck them.  cousins are probably distant enough to avoid any birth defects. 
    the problem is that there are recessive defective genes spread evenly across the human population, and we all have them.   the reason we don't all have defects from this is because being recessive they require the person have a matching set of them in order for the a serious defect to occur.  minor defects in people happen all the time, however serious ones require more genes and are much less likely to occur.  However a relative is more likely to have the same defective gene as me than another random person from the population, being that a relative and i share a source for our genetic material.  my sister and i have a 1/4 chance of sharing any one particular defective gene.  assuming we have a child the chance of it having a pair of any one of these recessive genes is 1/16(1/4 for my sister and i having the gene, 1/4 for both of us passing it on to the child).  and this is just one gene, we are likely to share several.  cousins are much furher apart genetically.  assuming my father's, sisters, daughter and i have a child the chances that we would pass any specific pair of shared recessive genes can be found with the following.  first assuming i automattically have the gene, it's 1/2 that i got it from my father, and then 1/4 that he shares the gene with his sister(assuming same parents in all cases), then 1/2 that the sister passed it to the daughter, making the chances. so 1/16.  or aproximately 1/4 that of having a kid with my sister.  and the more distant the less the chances are, and with distance the chances of it decrease exponentially.  at what point it becomes the practically the same as not being related at all is about 3rd or 4th cousins.

genetic defects from inbreeding generally become manifest after several generations, not just one. It is quite ok for you to fuck your sister (or brother) as long as your parents aren't closely related or your grandparents aren't closely related etc.

>>44

This is lose. You shouldn't be fucking attacking anyone for any fucking reason. Do you know what the word SUBJECTIVE even fucking means? And I'm glad you came to your senses about judging entire groups of people...because NEWSFLASH: [b]A vast, vast majority of pedos, child molesters and kiddie fiddlers are [b]WHITE MALES.[/u]

>>63
Still, this all concerns having children, we're simply talking about the morality of sex between relatives. It could be argued that there is nothing wrong with just the sex, although I personally find it a disgusting thought.

>>64
>>65

          It is true that the problems are compounded with generations of inbreeding, however the problems are still clearly there, and of much greater probabilty than just fucking someone that isn't related to you.

I don't see anything wrong with any of these, actually.
Sex is, in my opinion, the ultimate expression of intimacy and affection (or at least, it should be) and as long as there is consent (and hopefully love) between all involved parties, everything and anything goes.

     I got 69 W00T.
>>68
     The question is when is a person capeable of giving consent.  is an infant capable of giving you consent to stick your dick in it's mouth?  is a 3 y.o.?  when does a person grow to the point of being able to give consent?

A vast, vast majority of pedos, child molesters and kiddie fiddlers are WHITE MALES.

a) Americans in general are fucked up. You see more serial killers or rapists there than in any other industrialized nation.
b) If you think "majority of pedos, child molesters and kiddie fiddlers are WHITE MALES", you desperately need to visit the rest of the world.

Having said that, something needs to be done. If other 1st-world nations, particularly non-English-speaking ones, somehow avoid problems with crazies, why can't we?

>b) If you think "majority of pedos, child molesters and kiddie fiddlers are WHITE MALES", you desperately need to visit the rest of the world.

The fuck you talking about? Most of the sex trade in asia is aimed at catering *TO* american pedophiles. It's not the result of indiginous kiddy diddlers.

>>71
gb2 grade school maths
Whites are the majority, so they will always be responsible for the majority of crime.

Most of the sex trade in asia is aimed at catering *TO* american pedophiles.

Because they're rich, man. A lot of rich Asian males also pork young girls, in case you weren't aware. Money talks, especially if someone's desperate.

Even ignoring moolah, there are other regions that still have child brides despite the laws, and what about the child rape that's going on in Africa (it cures AIDS!)?

http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm
Rate of child abuse by race in the US.
White = 51%
African American = 25%
Hispanic = 15%
American Indian/Alaska Natives = 2%
Asian/Pacific Islanders = 1%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_demographics_of_the_United_States
Rate of race in the US.
White = 69.1%
African American = 12.9%
Hispanic = 13.4%
American Indian/Alaskan Natives = 1.5%
Asian/Pacific Islanders = 4.2%

Rate of child abuse by race in relation to the average (100%).
White = 73.8%
African American = 193.8%
Hispanic = 111.9%
American Indian/Alaskan Natives = 133.3%
Asian/Pacific Islanders = 23.8%

>>74
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_demographics_of_the_United_States
Rate of race in the US.
White = 69.1%
African American = 12.9%
Hispanic = 13.4%
American Indian/Alaskan Natives = 1.5%
Asian/Pacific Islanders = 4.2%

>>74
Rate of child abuse by race in relation to the average (100%).
White = 73.8%
African American = 193.8%
Hispanic = 111.9%
American Indian/Alaskan Natives = 133.3%
Asian/Pacific Islanders = 23.8%

>>76
Some observations.
Since the stats for native americans and asians are so small it can be assumed their accuracy was reduced due to approximation.

Blacks are 2.63 times more likely to commit child abuse than whites.

>>77
say there are 10000 people in the US
6910 = American
1290 = African American
1340 = Hispanic
150 = American Indian
42 = Asian

there are 1000 cases of child abuse
out of those:

509.9 of these were commited by whites (73.8% of 69.1% = 50.9958%)
255.8 of these were commited by African Americans
149.96 of these were commited by Hispanics
19.995 of these were commited by American Indians
9.996 of these were commited by Asians

so no, blacks are not 2.63 times more like to commit child abuse than whites.

(was just clarifying >>74 for >>77)

>>78 i know my numbers were wrong for the 10000 people, and i didnt bother to round up the results, it was just an example i rushed

If the consent is absolutely clear and definite, I don't really believe that you can call these things immoral so long as there's no intent to reproduce, especially in the case of people who are not old enough to take on the responsibility of raising a child.