Mum had sex with son

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Russ D

That's your opinion.....my view is that we have here a classic case of family abuse.

Please prove the detrimental effects it has on the 18-year old's psychie. It is up to you to prove abuse.

How come you never seem to prove anything you say then?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Electrolyte

How come you never seem to prove anything you say then?

He's a living contradiction.

[Jerrek]

eh?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

eh?

Classic canadian response

OFF TOPIC: Look at Jerreks reputation

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Electrolyte

OFF TOPIC: Look at Jerreks reputation

ew ew ew ew, we've not had a red one before!

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Electrolyte

OFF TOPIC: Look at Jerreks reputation

Ouch
Do red balls increase as your rep drops?

Back on topic, just had a thought about why the mother is being charged and not the son.
He's 18 right? But how 18?
Think about how many months it takes to get a case to court, it could be that at the time of the offence, he was under 18, or have I missed something in the article?

His mother had sex with him WITHOUT his consent (I think) which is why this went to court.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

eh?

I refer you to this post:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...6&postcount=31

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Philip, a few points. These are not "rights" as I mentioned earlier. Marriage is a priviledge. Second, we have to draw the line somewhere. Next up is polygamy, then marriage to animals, and then children is up next. I have a moral code, and no matter how much society wants to break it down, I will stand my ground.

Marriage is for the protection of the family, especially the children. You should not scar a child for life by giving him two same-sex "parents." No one loves a child more than his genetic parents (ignoring the few cases of parents killing their children). Two men cannot have a child naturally, and two women can't have a child naturally. Therefore, a same-sex union is unnatural. A child needs a mother and a father. Not two of the same. Both have roles to fulfill. (Yes, I'm aware the divore rate is high, and that is very sad too.)

By keeping marriage as a union of a man and a woman, you are protecting the family unit, and our children.

Yes, my choice is in part based on religion, and in part based on common sense. Breaking down pillars is not a good idea, and marriage is a pillar of today's society.

Maybe it is just me, but it sounds like you're scoffing anyone making decisions based on his religion?

And here: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...0&postcount=36

Notice the *should.* It is an opinion. And I take myself as an example. I do not want two same-sex "parents."

Better yet, go to an elementary school and ask the toddlers if they want two mommies or two daddies instead.

You make it clear you wish to protect the raising of children as a 'pillar of society'. You are convinced same sex couples will distort this yet you offer no proof or evidence to those conclusions. Despite this you wish to legalise drugs which have strong evidence that it leads to detrimental affects on children, and legalise incest which could encourage child grooming.

The government should not advocate morality, yet can prevent gays from screwing up their own adopted children, and encourage abstiance.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Maybe it is just me, but it sounds like you're scoffing anyone making decisions based on his religion?

Tsk. there he goes again picking and choosing which bit's of his "religion" suit his lifestyle.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I refer you to this post:<snip>

Put better than I could ever have hoped too

I think the work I'm stumbling around for is "gotcha"

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Please prove the detrimental effects it has on the 18-year old's psychie. It is up to you to prove abuse.

How do we know this is the first time?
If he was 16 (the UK age of consent) would it be different?

Ok, let's have a quick summary here:

1) There are some people who think that incest is wrong, full stop, not even when it involves consenting adults and is not for procreation.

2) There are some who think that what consenting adults do in private is nobody's business but their own.

On the first point I have not seen *any* reasonable proof or logical argument to back up *why* it is wrong, just circular arguments of "it's wrong because it's incest and incest is wrong" and "it disgusts me and lots of others" which, whilst emotive, is not exactly a reasonable argument.

On the second point I have seen reasoned arguments in favour this, yet I haven't seen anyone demonstrate *why* what consenting adults do (especially if not for procreation) should be the business of others.

Frankly I have no more interest in contributing to this thread because I enjoy having a reasonable debate but I'm not going to hang around to simply be abused for simply holding a "non-majority" viewpoint.

[Jerrek]

[Admin Edit(Mick): Post Removed]