Why not pass a law legalizing all forms of adult consenting sex?

[Slyhunter]

Hell, expand on it and allow marriage. If you can have sex, you should be able to get married! Right?

You realize that there is no law saying sex is a requirement of a marriage, right?

Divorced my Cambodian bride for refusing to have sex with me.
She tried to put me in jail for attempted rape.
Attempted sex, yes. Rape, no, I took no for an answer but no way in hell am I not going to argue my case with her. I lost, I divorced her.

 

[keepitreal]

Hell, expand on it and allow marriage. If you can have sex, you should be able to get married! Right?

You realize that there is no law saying sex is a requirement of a marriage, right?

You realize, the absence of sex due to one of the parties
refusing, withholding, can be considered abandonment
and grounds for a divorce

 

[francoHFW]

Prostitution works OK in Neth. and Germany...

And it's the ONLY way you ever got laid.

If people are free, they are free to sell their body for sex.

You are SO stupid, Pubtroll. So why do you vote against it? That would be the nanny, busy body, hypocrite GOP.

 

[Pop23]

Hell, expand on it and allow marriage. If you can have sex, you should be able to get married! Right?

You realize that there is no law saying sex is a requirement of a marriage, right?

You realize, the absence of sex due to one of the parties
refusing, withholding, can be considered abandonment
and grounds for a divorce

Ok, but facts are facts. Sex is not a requirement to enter into a marriage in any State.

In fact, unless the law has changed recently, Iowa prohibits marriage between those too closely related, UNLESS the two are same sex. (I know, odd, right?)

Here are the prohibited couples that are closely related by blood, note, they are all opposite sex.

a man and his sister, daughter, aunt, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter, or sister’s daughter

a woman and her brother, son, uncle, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son, or sister’s son

Link:

Marriage Certificate Iowa - Marriage | Laws.com

 

[keepitreal]

All forms? Gernany tried that and ended up with fully consented gay cannibalism. It couldn't be murder because it was fully consensual. Armin Meiweis did a couple of years for manslaughter.

That kind of consensual sex?? ;

There you go again with that same stupid inane equine excrement. There are laws against cannibalism and the desecration of human remains with or with out the consent of the victim. That is not a law that prohibits a form of sex just because 1 in 100 million people might have that fetish. I just don't know if you are really that stupid or just an over the top troll.

There you go again with that same stupid inane equine excrement. There are laws against cannibalism and the desecration of human remains with or with out the consent of the victim. That is not a law that prohibits a form of sex just because 1 in 100 million people might have that fetish.

Inadvertently, at least one prohibits a form of sex, necrophilia.

So, depending on the number of people
who are into something, determines whether
it's a fetish or open to equal rights and anti discrimination laws

Shit, the way transgenders
are coming out of the woodwork,
who knows how many people are into necrophilia!

 

[Pop23]

Hell, expand on it and allow marriage. If you can have sex, you should be able to get married! Right?

You realize that there is no law saying sex is a requirement of a marriage, right?

You realize, the absence of sex due to one of the parties
refusing, withholding, can be considered abandonment
and grounds for a divorce

I don't think my post conflicts that at all. Most states allow the couple to define what the marriage is.

But no state requires sex as a requirement to enter into the contract.

 

[jillian]

Prostitution works OK in Neth. and Germany...

Not so greatvin the Netherlands

How Dutch legalizing of prostitution, drugs, & euthanasia is working out

i'm going to guess you're not going to get an accurate assessment from a religious site.

 

[keepitreal]

Hell, expand on it and allow marriage. If you can have sex, you should be able to get married! Right?

You realize that there is no law saying sex is a requirement of a marriage, right?

You realize, the absence of sex due to one of the parties
refusing, withholding, can be considered abandonment
and grounds for a divorce

I don't think my post conflicts that at all. Most states allow the couple to define what the marriage is.

But no state requires sex as a requirement to enter into the contract.

I don't think my post conflicts that at all. Most states allow the couple to define what the marriage is.

But no state requires sex as a requirement to enter into the contract

I was just saying...
Besides why would sex be a requirement to marry....
I would think that's a given

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hell, expand on it and allow marriage. If you can have sex, you should be able to get married! Right?

You realize that there is no law saying sex is a requirement of a marriage, right?

You realize, the absence of sex due to one of the parties
refusing, withholding, can be considered abandonment
and grounds for a divorce

Ok, but facts are facts. Sex is not a requirement to enter into a marriage in any State.

In fact, unless the law has changed recently, Iowa prohibits marriage between those too closely related, UNLESS the two are same sex. (I know, odd, right?)

Here are the prohibited couples that are closely related by blood, note, they are all opposite sex.

a man and his sister, daughter, aunt, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter, or sister’s daughter

a woman and her brother, son, uncle, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son, or sister’s son

Link:

Marriage Certificate Iowa - Marriage | Laws.com

That is just fucking stupid. That law was written long before anyone could conceive of same sex marriage. Do you really think that a man and his son, or brother would be allowed to marry there? They might take it to court but they would loose on the basis of legislative intent. So what the fuck is your point?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

All forms? Gernany tried that and ended up with fully consented gay cannibalism. It couldn't be murder because it was fully consensual. Armin Meiweis did a couple of years for manslaughter.

That kind of consensual sex?? ;

There you go again with that same stupid inane equine excrement. There are laws against cannibalism and the desecration of human remains with or with out the consent of the victim. That is not a law that prohibits a form of sex just because 1 in 100 million people might have that fetish. I just don't know if you are really that stupid or just an over the top troll.

There you go again with that same stupid inane equine excrement. There are laws against cannibalism and the desecration of human remains with or with out the consent of the victim. That is not a law that prohibits a form of sex just because 1 in 100 million people might have that fetish.

Inadvertently, at least one prohibits a form of sex, necrophilia.

So, depending on the number of people
who are into something, determines whether
it's a fetish or open to equal rights and anti discrimination laws

Shit, the way transgenders
are coming out of the woodwork,
who knows how many people are into necrophilia!

What the fuck!?? Necrophilia ? Can a dead person consent to sex. What does this trip have to do with the OP? The number of people who are "into it " is not the issue . The issue is that there are other laws..... laws other than those concerning sex.... that prohibit something.

Can you possibly be this fucking stupid??

 

[Pop23]

Hell, expand on it and allow marriage. If you can have sex, you should be able to get married! Right?

You realize that there is no law saying sex is a requirement of a marriage, right?

You realize, the absence of sex due to one of the parties
refusing, withholding, can be considered abandonment
and grounds for a divorce

I don't think my post conflicts that at all. Most states allow the couple to define what the marriage is.

But no state requires sex as a requirement to enter into the contract.

I don't think my post conflicts that at all. Most states allow the couple to define what the marriage is.

But no state requires sex as a requirement to enter into the contract

I was just saying...
Besides why would sex be a requirement to marry....
I would think that's a given

Nope. You would need to define what constituted sex......

Oh snap

 

[Pop23]

Hell, expand on it and allow marriage. If you can have sex, you should be able to get married! Right?

You realize that there is no law saying sex is a requirement of a marriage, right?

You realize, the absence of sex due to one of the parties
refusing, withholding, can be considered abandonment
and grounds for a divorce

Ok, but facts are facts. Sex is not a requirement to enter into a marriage in any State.

In fact, unless the law has changed recently, Iowa prohibits marriage between those too closely related, UNLESS the two are same sex. (I know, odd, right?)

Here are the prohibited couples that are closely related by blood, note, they are all opposite sex.

a man and his sister, daughter, aunt, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter, or sister’s daughter

a woman and her brother, son, uncle, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son, or sister’s son

Link:

Marriage Certificate Iowa - Marriage | Laws.com

That is just fucking stupid. That law was written long before anyone could conceive of same sex marriage. Do you really think that a man and his son, or brother would be allowed to marry there? They might take it to court but they would loose on the basis of legislative intent. So what the fuck is your point?

What's your point?

Marriage, as defined under the law, is whatever the couple desires it to be, NOT what YOU think it should be.

This specific contract only has to be for legal purpose. If incest is not legal, than sex could not be a part of this marriage, which, by the way, is not a requirement of this legal contract.

 

[Slyhunter]

All forms? Gernany tried that and ended up with fully consented gay cannibalism. It couldn't be murder because it was fully consensual. Armin Meiweis did a couple of years for manslaughter.

That kind of consensual sex?? ;

There you go again with that same stupid inane equine excrement. There are laws against cannibalism and the desecration of human remains with or with out the consent of the victim. That is not a law that prohibits a form of sex just because 1 in 100 million people might have that fetish. I just don't know if you are really that stupid or just an over the top troll.

There you go again with that same stupid inane equine excrement. There are laws against cannibalism and the desecration of human remains with or with out the consent of the victim. That is not a law that prohibits a form of sex just because 1 in 100 million people might have that fetish.

Inadvertently, at least one prohibits a form of sex, necrophilia.

So, depending on the number of people
who are into something, determines whether
it's a fetish or open to equal rights and anti discrimination laws

Shit, the way transgenders
are coming out of the woodwork,
who knows how many people are into necrophilia!

What the fuck!?? Necrophilia ? Can a dead person consent to sex. What does this trip have to do with the OP? The number of people who are "into it " is not the issue . The issue is that there are other laws..... laws other than those concerning sex.... that prohibit something.

Can you possibly be this fucking stupid??

They can put it in the will to consent to sex after they're dead.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hell, expand on it and allow marriage. If you can have sex, you should be able to get married! Right?

You realize that there is no law saying sex is a requirement of a marriage, right?

You realize, the absence of sex due to one of the parties
refusing, withholding, can be considered abandonment
and grounds for a divorce

Ok, but facts are facts. Sex is not a requirement to enter into a marriage in any State.

In fact, unless the law has changed recently, Iowa prohibits marriage between those too closely related, UNLESS the two are same sex. (I know, odd, right?)

Here are the prohibited couples that are closely related by blood, note, they are all opposite sex.

a man and his sister, daughter, aunt, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter, or sister’s daughter

a woman and her brother, son, uncle, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son, or sister’s son

Link:

Marriage Certificate Iowa - Marriage | Laws.com

That is just fucking stupid. That law was written long before anyone could conceive of same sex marriage. Do you really think that a man and his son, or brother would be allowed to marry there? They might take it to court but they would loose on the basis of legislative intent. So what the fuck is your point?

What's your point?

Marriage, as defined under the law, is whatever the couple desires it to be, NOT what YOU think it should be.

This specific contract only has to be for legal purpose. If incest is not legal, than sex could not be a part of this marriage, which, by the way, is not a requirement of this legal contract.

The discussion is about sex. Not marriage. [emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

All forms? Gernany tried that and ended up with fully consented gay cannibalism. It couldn't be murder because it was fully consensual. Armin Meiweis did a couple of years for manslaughter.

That kind of consensual sex?? ;

There you go again with that same stupid inane equine excrement. There are laws against cannibalism and the desecration of human remains with or with out the consent of the victim. That is not a law that prohibits a form of sex just because 1 in 100 million people might have that fetish. I just don't know if you are really that stupid or just an over the top troll.

There you go again with that same stupid inane equine excrement. There are laws against cannibalism and the desecration of human remains with or with out the consent of the victim. That is not a law that prohibits a form of sex just because 1 in 100 million people might have that fetish.

Inadvertently, at least one prohibits a form of sex, necrophilia.

So, depending on the number of people
who are into something, determines whether
it's a fetish or open to equal rights and anti discrimination laws

Shit, the way transgenders
are coming out of the woodwork,
who knows how many people are into necrophilia!

What the fuck!?? Necrophilia ? Can a dead person consent to sex. What does this trip have to do with the OP? The number of people who are "into it " is not the issue . The issue is that there are other laws..... laws other than those concerning sex.... that prohibit something.

Can you possibly be this fucking stupid??

They can put it in the will to consent to sex after they're dead.

Have you done that ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JBond]

I think we need government subsidies for ugly people so they can afford higher quality hookers.

 

[whitehall]

I think consenting adult sex in the privacy of a home is already legal. Does the crazy left want to get their kicks by listing all the stuff consenting adults can possibly do to each other? Maybe they want to make it a grammar school subject.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think consenting adult sex in the privacy of a home is already legal. Does the crazy left want to get their kicks by listing all the stuff consenting adults can possibly do to each other? Maybe they want to make it a grammar school subject.

Where do you get that Moroni shit from?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pop23]

You realize that there is no law saying sex is a requirement of a marriage, right?

You realize, the absence of sex due to one of the parties
refusing, withholding, can be considered abandonment
and grounds for a divorce

Ok, but facts are facts. Sex is not a requirement to enter into a marriage in any State.

In fact, unless the law has changed recently, Iowa prohibits marriage between those too closely related, UNLESS the two are same sex. (I know, odd, right?)

Here are the prohibited couples that are closely related by blood, note, they are all opposite sex.

a man and his sister, daughter, aunt, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter, or sister’s daughter

a woman and her brother, son, uncle, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son, or sister’s son

Link:

Marriage Certificate Iowa - Marriage | Laws.com

That is just fucking stupid. That law was written long before anyone could conceive of same sex marriage. Do you really think that a man and his son, or brother would be allowed to marry there? They might take it to court but they would loose on the basis of legislative intent. So what the fuck is your point?

What's your point?

Marriage, as defined under the law, is whatever the couple desires it to be, NOT what YOU think it should be.

This specific contract only has to be for legal purpose. If incest is not legal, than sex could not be a part of this marriage, which, by the way, is not a requirement of this legal contract.

The discussion is about sex. Not marriage. [emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then why did the OP bring it up?

He musta had a point, don't you think?

In his post he said "expand on that, if they can have sex, why not marriage".

I simply pointed out that no law required sex within a marriage.

That seems to blow peoples mind

I wonder now what the point th OP was making musta been?

Did he think he was redefining something?

 

[grbb]

I don't say I disagree. As for marriage, government should not deal with it at all either. Anyone can call their relationship anything they wish. Marriage or anything.

But here is why many won't like it.

Imagine if Donald Trump get 10 photo models. There will be less hot babes for the rest of many males.

That is why government tend to "regulate" sex. It's to appease wish of many people for various reasons.

Porn is also problematic for many women. Many hot babes baring it all for men take attention away from average looking girls.

And that is not interests the market "solve". In a sense free market will not help people from superior competitors. Only government can do that. And hence government often regulate.

Government HAS to deal with marriage. Marriage is a construct of government and encompasses more than a thousand rights and obligations that can only be ministered by government

Why does that trouble you?

Actually you got a point here. Marriage is government construct. However, why should government have such construct as marriage.

There used to be a legitimate reason for that.

In ancient time we don't know who the father of a child is if NOT because of marriage.

We didn't have DNA tests before.

So our ancestors use social engineering to assign father to son. We created institution called marriage. Your wife's son is your son that will get your inheritance. Chance is, it's indeed your son because your wife will be killed if she fuck other guys.

However, that's in ancient time.

Now you can easily know who daddy is by DNA test. Current marriage law is a joke that force man to support kids that's not his. The only reason why government still pull that shit up so it can give favorable treatment to certain immigrants that don't necessarily add value to you.

Keep government out of sex and marriage. Let the market decide what marriage is. You want any kind of sexual relationship, you can make your own contract free from government guidance.