Iconic Greek church bans foreign weddings after newly wed couple simulate sex in its grounds.

First topic message reminder :

Its the most beautiful picturesque place to marry...my friends son married there, we have visited it a few times, its a magical place set on a beautiful island.
Now because of the antics of two disrespectful Brits...all foreign weddings have been cancelled, leaving hundreds of couples who have already booked their weddings in the lurch.


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/chapel-on-greek-island-rhodes-bans-foreign-weddings-after-british-couples-sex-photo/ar-AAtnPuA?ocid=spartandhp


"Rhodes' famous St Pauls Chapel has reportedly banned foreigners from getting married there, after a photo of a British couple simulating a sex act went viral. 

Newlyweds Carly and Matthew Lunn stunted up the picture and posted it on Facebook, shortly after they were married.
But while their friends and family saw the funny side, after it was shared multiple times it came to the attention of the religious authorities responsible for the chapel who were said to be "outraged" by the image.

Bishop Kyrillos of Rhodes then took the decision to ban foreigners from getting married at the picturesque location, leaving the fate of thousands of couples hanging in the balance. A number have already cancelled to make alternative plans for their big day. 
We are Greek and we cherish our traditions and the sanctity of our religious sites,” community leader Giorgos Eleftheriou told The Times: “We cannot allow this disgusting behaviour to prevail.”

Mr Eleftheriou, who performed the couple’s ceremony, added: “Shame on those two for the damage they have done. Would they have done the same in their homeland; in front of a British chapel, a Jewish temple, a Muslim mosque?
“I have hundreds of soon-to-be brides from Britain and all over the world calling me today in tears because of this decision. It’s a huge damper on our society here. We are one of the most famous wedding destinations in the world and we are booked solid through to 2021.”

+1

i'm totally with Horatio Tarr on this.

disgusting couple who have shown no respect whatsoever for their surroundings or the local people

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


I see the point went over your head as per usual.

What is decency?

An invented term born from those who have been conditioned through centuries of bullshit religious morality.

I mean, are you going to invoke laws, that make adulterly a criminal offense in certain countries to back a reason for adulterly to be criminal? 

What about homosexual acts criminalized? Are you going to invoke laws around the world on that to as your defense?

Read again and try to use your brain for once


Someone fucking in public, is not a crime. Its based off some view around indecency, born from centuries of Christian morality.

Its the reality that society has come to see sex and nudity as some how wicked and wrong. Only centuries of Christian morality has created and within Paganism, I can give you plenty of examples of where sex is seen as enlightenment and not seen as something to be shamed of.

I mean so what they had sex in public, its really not a crime is it.
Its a perceived crime based around the shame people have come to view sex as.

Its the same shame bullshit found within all the abrahamic religions. That we should be ashamed to express love and our own naked bodies.

Do you wanna see how well sex has been formed to be as shame?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4984594/Bride-performed-sex-act-wedding-photo-mortified.html

Shame is being used to state that something is wrong, not on whether it is wrong or not, but based on a backward morality.

We are the only species that seems ashamed of having sex, as if the very thought of enjoyment is wrong.

So please cut the crap  about obligations, that kind of shit is used to keep Many Muslims, Jews and Christians in line.

Why are you peppering your every post with insults and put downs Didge?
Cant you debate like a grown up anymore?

Your opinion seems to be that if people (by people I mean the vast majority of sane people...not to mention the law of the land) find others banging away in public regardless of who could be watching unacceptable, they must somehow be ashamed of sex in some way.

HT made a post yesterday, she said if public sex was the norm, performed wherever and whenever, in front of everyone including children and wanking dirty old men and perverts.....who would want to live in a country like that?

Obviously other countries would not follow suit.

1) What insults snowflake?

2) More misdirection

3) I am going on about the reality that you have been conditioned to find something completely natural, as so how wrong. Like i said, we are the only species that has come to be ashamed of something beautiful. So like I said, where something was never once a problem and that it never should be. You and others invoke something very religious, based around indecency. The exact same reason used to criminalize homosexuality for example

4) If it was the norm and people knew that it was natural, then what would be the issue? All other animals have sex without the world having a hissy fit over, so why only humans?

Because many have been conditioned to be embarressed not only about our nuidity, but sex itself.

This is what happens when people are brainwahsed to believe something that is beautiful and wonderful is somehow wrong.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Didge wrote:


I see the point went over your head as per usual.

What is decency?

An invented term born from those who have been conditioned through centuries of bullshit religious morality.

I mean, are you going to invoke laws, that make adulterly a criminal offense in certain countries to back a reason for adulterly to be criminal? 

What about homosexual acts criminalized? Are you going to invoke laws around the world on that to as your defense?

Read again and try to use your brain for once


Someone fucking in public, is not a crime. Its based off some view around indecency, born from centuries of Christian morality.

Its the reality that society has come to see sex and nudity as some how wicked and wrong. Only centuries of Christian morality has created and within Paganism, I can give you plenty of examples of where sex is seen as enlightenment and not seen as something to be shamed of.

I mean so what they had sex in public, its really not a crime is it.
Its a perceived crime based around the shame people have come to view sex as.

Its the same shame bullshit found within all the abrahamic religions. That we should be ashamed to express love and our own naked bodies.

Do you wanna see how well sex has been formed to be as shame?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4984594/Bride-performed-sex-act-wedding-photo-mortified.html

Shame is being used to state that something is wrong, not on whether it is wrong or not, but based on a backward morality.

We are the only species that seems ashamed of having sex, as if the very thought of enjoyment is wrong.

So please cut the crap  about obligations, that kind of shit is used to keep Many Muslims, Jews and Christians in line.

Its not about being ASHAMED of having sex its about doing the decent thing and yes we are superior then animals and shouldn't be acting like them.

FFS imagine a world that will allow it!  

Well in the Muslim world they criminalize anal sex, why?

They criminalize homosexuality and adultery.

Is that they decent thing to do?

Then you end with complete arrogance thinking you are superior to all other species. 

This is completely about how people are conditioned and brainwashed to believe something good, is somehow wrong if seen by people.

HoratioTarr wrote:If society starts allowing people to openly fuck in public, then we may as well have porn on TV 24/7 and allow all ages to watch it.   What might start off as a couple having a bit of hanky panky would soon develop into group sex, and much seedier stuff if it all became 'acceptable'.   I don't think it is acceptable, and I don't think children should be exposed to it.   Human nature being what it is, it's all very well thinking that public sex would just be two  people sharing a loving moment.   It wouldn't end there.  The next thing you know you've got dirty old men masturbating in public while they watch on.   No thanks.

Well for hundreds of thousands of years society did fuck in public.
What was wrong then when they did?
They back then had no issue, because they were never embarressed over this, as people are today.
You may not think its acceptable, but that is due to the conditioning that has gone on only for the last 1000 years. It does not mean its wrong in any shape or form.
You already have some dirty men that masturbate in public and as seen no law seems to deter them from doing so. Where based on this are children all in therapy, that have seen this happen? Are any adults?
Are many children in therapy, that have walked in on their parents having sex?
No, hence the poor and absurd view you are making.
Like i say, people have been conditioned to believe sex is dirty and wrong.

Many things are natural - and enjoyable some might say. We already have people who think natural is, where ever when ever, and use the pavements, doorways or war memorials to urinate and defecate. So do we allow all bodilly functions to take place in public now or just public sex, for Didge to enjoy? Seems a bit narrow minded to allow some and not the other natural functions. I think most people think whatever their conditioning, that being intimate with someone you care about is a special time and not an exhibition, although another poster has pointed out there are places you can go with people of like minds to watch and be watched. Most if not all societies have rules and regulations covering what is acceptable behaviour, especially in public, some driven by religion some just by custom, is the entire world practically from the beginning of human awareness wrong, brainwashed and conditioned. Try living without being conditioned by any people, religion or customs, you'd have to live a very isolated existence and even then you'd be conditioned by the conditions to an extent. There are tribes who have lived away from modern influence for who knows how long even they don't get intimate in public, they may do so in tribal long houses but each has their own areas and it is the custom that passers by or those living near by will never enter or look into another persons area. American Indians had rules about an extended family living in a long house or teppee, couples more often than not would go out into the woods or just away from the village on the plains, for privacy, again within the teppe it was a don't look policy for what went on under the buffalo blanket of a married couple.
On some occassions in some times and places there would be such public sex going on, in Egypt there was a festival where adults were expected to get very drunk and have casual sex in and around the temples I expect not much was remembered afterwards, but I doubt people have ever been wading knee deep, through writhing bodies in the streets of past societies on an everyday basis, I don't get why Didge is so obsessed with this idea.

Vintage wrote:Many things are natural - and enjoyable some might say. We already have people who think natural is, where ever when ever, and use the pavements, doorways or war memorials to urinate and defecate.

Didge wrote:
I knew this poor argument would creep in at some point. There is such a thing as sanitation, which helps solve problems like the unhygneic waste from humans.
Have you heard of this at all.
Hence poor strwman arguments
Sex in public is not going to cause a major health problem to people.

So do we allow all bodilly functions to take place in public now or just public sex, for Didge to enjoy? Seems a bit narrow minded to allow some and not the other natural functions.

Didge wrote:
Strawman argument again

I think most people think whatever their conditioning, that being intimate with someone you care about is a special time and not an exhibition, although another poster has pointed out there are places you can go with people of like minds to watch and be watched.

Didge wrote:Ah so your view is subjective and based on how you have become conditioned to believe again someone is somehow dirty,. Hence the poor strawman argument to make this comparable to something that is unhygenic. When they are not comparable.

You see you prove my point in how people have become conditioned to be ashamed of their bodies and think the pleasures of sex are dirty and wrong, if seen. Its made people become embarressed over this, when they never should be.

Most if not all societies have rules and regulations covering what is acceptable behaviour, especially in public, some driven by religion some just by custom, is the entire world practically from the beginning of human awareness wrong, brainwashed and conditioned.

Didge wrote:
Yes and this rules and regulations have been born from such piss poor religious morality. That has as seen and still does try to hold some moral standard over what it constitutes as decent and indecent. Where sadly people still suffer and are criminally punished by such poor beliefs.

Try living without being conditioned by any people, religion or customs, you'd have to live a very isolated existence and even then you'd be conditioned by the conditions to an extent.

Didge wrote:
Would I?

Really based on what?
So what you are saying is that if i live within a community, I must except their customs and religious views?

Wow

Thank goodness enlightenment, secularism and equality came alonge, as it took apart these poor custums and religious beliefs, by ending slavery, bringing civil rights etc

There are tribes who have lived away from modern influence for who knows how long even they don't get intimate in public, they may do so in tribal long houses but each has their own areas and it is the custom that passers by or those living near by will never enter or look into another persons area. American Indians had rules about an extended family living in a long house or teppee, couples more often than not would go out into the woods or just away from the village on the plains, for privacy, again within the teppe it was a don't look policy for what went on under the buffalo blanket of a married couple.

Didge wrote:
And yet another strawman argument
So big whoopdeedoo on your story, is just another extension of poor religious and cultural beliefs, that have come to wrongly view sex as dirty and something to be embarressed with

On some occassions in some times and places there would be such public sex going on, in Egypt there was a festival where adults were expected to get very drunk and have casual sex in and around the temples I expect not much was remembered afterwards, but I doubt people have ever been wading knee deep, through writhing bodies in the streets of past societies on an everyday basis, I don't get why Didge is so obsessed with this idea.

Then you should read the history of Rome.
Anyway, the point is to claim something religious or cultural is thus a superior standard. Is as seen wrong. Because there is no moral absolutes.

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:If society starts allowing people to openly fuck in public, then we may as well have porn on TV 24/7 and allow all ages to watch it.   What might start off as a couple having a bit of hanky panky would soon develop into group sex, and much seedier stuff if it all became 'acceptable'.   I don't think it is acceptable, and I don't think children should be exposed to it.   Human nature being what it is, it's all very well thinking that public sex would just be two  people sharing a loving moment.   It wouldn't end there.  The next thing you know you've got dirty old men masturbating in public while they watch on.   No thanks.

Well for hundreds of thousands of years society did fuck in public.
What was wrong then when they did?
They back then had no issue, because they were never embarressed over this, as people are today.
You may not think its acceptable, but that is due to the conditioning that has gone on only for the last 1000 years. It does not mean its wrong in any shape or form.
You already have some dirty men that masturbate in public and as seen no law seems to deter them from doing so. Where based on this are children all in therapy, that have seen this happen? Are any adults?
Are many children in therapy, that have walked in on their parents having sex?
No, hence the poor and absurd view you are making.
Like i say, people have been conditioned to believe sex is dirty and wrong.

Hundreds of thousands of years?    Are you suggesting we haven't progressed since then?   Of course there's nothing wrong with sex.   There's nothing wrong with wiping the shit off your anus either, but it's not something you do in public and it's certainly not something people want to watch.  Unless you're a pervert.   Look Didge, we all know you like your sex al fresco and with an audience but not everyone wants to see some bloke taters deep on the High Street.

Didge wrote:

Vintage wrote:Many things are natural - and enjoyable some might say. We already have people who think natural is, where ever when ever, and use the pavements, doorways or war memorials to urinate and defecate.

So do we allow all bodilly functions to take place in public now or just public sex, for Didge to enjoy? Seems a bit narrow minded to allow some and not the other natural functions.



I think most people think whatever their conditioning, that being intimate with someone you care about is a special time and not an exhibition, although another poster has pointed out there are places you can go with people of like minds to watch and be watched.

Most if not all societies have rules and regulations covering what is acceptable behaviour, especially in public, some driven by religion some just by custom, is the entire world practically from the beginning of human awareness wrong, brainwashed and conditioned.


Try living without being conditioned by any people, religion or customs, you'd have to live a very isolated existence and even then you'd be conditioned by the conditions to an extent.

There are tribes who have lived away from modern influence for who knows how long even they don't get intimate in public, they may do so in tribal long houses but each has their own areas and it is the custom that passers by or those living near by will never enter or look into another persons area. American Indians had rules about an extended family living in a long house or teppee, couples more often than not would go out into the woods or just away from the village on the plains, for privacy, again within the teppe it was a don't look policy for what went on under the buffalo blanket of a married couple.


On some occassions in some times and places there would be such public sex going on, in Egypt there was a festival where adults were expected to get very drunk and have casual sex in and around the temples I expect not much was remembered afterwards, but I doubt people have ever been wading knee deep, through writhing bodies in the streets of past societies on an everyday basis, I don't get why Didge is so obsessed with this idea.

Then you should read the history of Rome.
Anyway, the point is to claim something religious or cultural is thus a superior standard. Is as seen wrong. Because there is no moral absolutes.

And that is exactly the mind set of Ian Brady.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well for hundreds of thousands of years society did fuck in public.
What was wrong then when they did?
They back then had no issue, because they were never embarressed over this, as people are today.
You may not think its acceptable, but that is due to the conditioning that has gone on only for the last 1000 years. It does not mean its wrong in any shape or form.
You already have some dirty men that masturbate in public and as seen no law seems to deter them from doing so. Where based on this are children all in therapy, that have seen this happen? Are any adults?
Are many children in therapy, that have walked in on their parents having sex?
No, hence the poor and absurd view you are making.
Like i say, people have been conditioned to believe sex is dirty and wrong.

Hundreds of thousands of years?    Are you suggesting we haven't progressed since then?   Of course there's nothing wrong with sex.   There's nothing wrong with wiping the shit off your anus either, but it's not something you do in public and it's certainly not something people want to watch.  Unless you're a pervert.   Look Didge, we all know you like your sex al fresco and with an audience but not everyone wants to see some bloke taters deep on the High Street.

Not with religious morality, that has dulled the minds of humans for the last few thousands of years and still evidently this is a problem.

Again the strawman argument which again tries to make something that is an actual problem with hygenine and can cause desease. Hence why sanitation was introduced to help prevent these problems. Though yet again is it not odd that you choose to use something that is essentailly dirty, through being unhygenic to that of sex. Hence the conditioned mind thinking sex is somehow dirty.

So if you agree there is nothing wrong with sex, then how do you think there is something wrong if then seen in public?

The reason is because like I say, people have been conditioned to view this as something wrong.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:

Then you should read the history of Rome.
Anyway, the point is to claim something religious or cultural is thus a superior standard. Is as seen wrong. Because there is no moral absolutes.

And that is exactly the mind set of Ian Brady.

How emotional. 

There is no absolue morals.

I once believed the same as you that there were and got torn apart by Lord Foul on this.

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Hundreds of thousands of years?    Are you suggesting we haven't progressed since then?   Of course there's nothing wrong with sex.   There's nothing wrong with wiping the shit off your anus either, but it's not something you do in public and it's certainly not something people want to watch.  Unless you're a pervert.   Look Didge, we all know you like your sex al fresco and with an audience but not everyone wants to see some bloke taters deep on the High Street.

Not with religious morality, that has dulled the minds of humans for the last few thousands of years and still evidently this is a problem.

Again the strawman argument which again tries to make something that is an actual problem with hygenine and can cause desease. Hence why sanitation was introduced to help prevent these problems. Though yet again is it not odd that you choose to use something that is essentailly dirty, through being unhygenic to that of sex. Hence the conditioned mind thinking sex is somehow dirty.

So if you agree there is nothing wrong with sex, then how do you think there is something wrong if then seen in public?

The reason is because like I say, people have been conditioned to view this as something wrong.

Rape was common place in ancient Greece.  Does that mean you think it's ok for men to do this as their sexual right, and in public too?

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

And that is exactly the mind set of Ian Brady.

How emotional. 

There is no absolue morals.

I once believed the same as you that there were and got torn apart by Lord Foul on this.

We have a taboo on things like incest and paedophilia for a reason.    Or do you think that's ok too?

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

And that is exactly the mind set of Ian Brady.

How emotional. 

There is no absolue morals.

I once believed the same as you that there were and got torn apart by Lord Foul on this.

How about bestiality and necrophilia?  You into that too?   If you're saying there should be no absolute morals, then you're saying anything goes, yes?

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Hundreds of thousands of years?    Are you suggesting we haven't progressed since then?   Of course there's nothing wrong with sex.   There's nothing wrong with wiping the shit off your anus either, but it's not something you do in public and it's certainly not something people want to watch.  Unless you're a pervert.   Look Didge, we all know you like your sex al fresco and with an audience but not everyone wants to see some bloke taters deep on the High Street.

Not with religious morality, that has dulled the minds of humans for the last few thousands of years and still evidently this is a problem.

Again the strawman argument which again tries to make something that is an actual problem with hygenine and can cause desease. Hence why sanitation was introduced to help prevent these problems. Though yet again is it not odd that you choose to use something that is essentailly dirty, through being unhygenic to that of sex. Hence the conditioned mind thinking sex is somehow dirty.

So if you agree there is nothing wrong with sex, then how do you think there is something wrong if then seen in public?

The reason is because like I say, people have been conditioned to view this as something wrong.

Are you forgetting STD's.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


Not with religious morality, that has dulled the minds of humans for the last few thousands of years and still evidently this is a problem.

Again the strawman argument which again tries to make something that is an actual problem with hygenine and can cause desease. Hence why sanitation was introduced to help prevent these problems. Though yet again is it not odd that you choose to use something that is essentailly dirty, through being unhygenic to that of sex. Hence the conditioned mind thinking sex is somehow dirty.

So if you agree there is nothing wrong with sex, then how do you think there is something wrong if then seen in public?

The reason is because like I say, people have been conditioned to view this as something wrong.

Are you forgetting STD's.

But that is through physical contact, which you could get whether in public or not

Hence poor argument again

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


Not with religious morality, that has dulled the minds of humans for the last few thousands of years and still evidently this is a problem.

Again the strawman argument which again tries to make something that is an actual problem with hygenine and can cause desease. Hence why sanitation was introduced to help prevent these problems. Though yet again is it not odd that you choose to use something that is essentailly dirty, through being unhygenic to that of sex. Hence the conditioned mind thinking sex is somehow dirty.

So if you agree there is nothing wrong with sex, then how do you think there is something wrong if then seen in public?

The reason is because like I say, people have been conditioned to view this as something wrong.

Rape was common place in ancient Greece.  Does that mean you think it's ok for men to do this as their sexual right, and in public too?

Strawman argument again

Not even comparable

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


How emotional. 

There is no absolue morals.

I once believed the same as you that there were and got torn apart by Lord Foul on this.

We have a taboo on things like incest and paedophilia for a reason.    Or do you think that's ok too?

I see nothing wrong with two conscenting adults no matter if relatives.

Of course there is a risk if and its if they decide to have children.

Already people can marry their cousins, which is incent

With paediophillia, is not conscentual sex is it?

Hence why it is wrong

Didge wrote:

Vintage wrote:Many things are natural - and enjoyable some might say. We already have people who think natural is, where ever when ever, and use the pavements, doorways or war memorials to urinate and defecate.

So do we allow all bodilly functions to take place in public now or just public sex, for Didge to enjoy? Seems a bit narrow minded to allow some and not the other natural functions.



I think most people think whatever their conditioning, that being intimate with someone you care about is a special time and not an exhibition, although another poster has pointed out there are places you can go with people of like minds to watch and be watched.

Most if not all societies have rules and regulations covering what is acceptable behaviour, especially in public, some driven by religion some just by custom, is the entire world practically from the beginning of human awareness wrong, brainwashed and conditioned.


Try living without being conditioned by any people, religion or customs, you'd have to live a very isolated existence and even then you'd be conditioned by the conditions to an extent.

There are tribes who have lived away from modern influence for who knows how long even they don't get intimate in public, they may do so in tribal long houses but each has their own areas and it is the custom that passers by or those living near by will never enter or look into another persons area. American Indians had rules about an extended family living in a long house or teppee, couples more often than not would go out into the woods or just away from the village on the plains, for privacy, again within the teppe it was a don't look policy for what went on under the buffalo blanket of a married couple.


On some occassions in some times and places there would be such public sex going on, in Egypt there was a festival where adults were expected to get very drunk and have casual sex in and around the temples I expect not much was remembered afterwards, but I doubt people have ever been wading knee deep, through writhing bodies in the streets of past societies on an everyday basis, I don't get why Didge is so obsessed with this idea.

Then you should read the history of Rome.
Anyway, the point is to claim something religious or cultural is thus a superior standard. Is as seen wrong. Because there is no moral absolutes.

Even the Romans had a set of sexual morals they abided by.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


How emotional. 

There is no absolue morals.

I once believed the same as you that there were and got torn apart by Lord Foul on this.

How about bestiality and necrophilia?  You into that too?   If you're saying there should be no absolute morals, then you're saying anything goes, yes?

Can either give conscent?

Yet more strawman arguments

This is about public sex

You said there is nothing wrong with sex, so why is it wrong to you in public?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:

Then you should read the history of Rome.
Anyway, the point is to claim something religious or cultural is thus a superior standard. Is as seen wrong. Because there is no moral absolutes.

Even the Romans had a set of sexual morals they abided by.

And?

I am just showing they were as an example not really bothered about sex in public

The point is on you failing to provide a valid reason against sex in public, when you have already stated there is nothing wrong with sex.

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:


We have a taboo on things like incest and paedophilia for a reason.    Or do you think that's ok too?

I see nothing wrong with two conscenting adults no matter if relatives.

Of course there is a risk if and its if they decide to have children.

Already people can marry their cousins, which is incent

With paediophillia, is not conscentual sex is it?

Hence why it is wrong

What if the adult says the child agrees to sex?   What if the child is coerced or brainwashed into agreeing?  That's ok then, is it?

There's a very fine line here with you trying to sound 'liberated' and coming across as  perverted.

Well there you are, people are taught be careful of where they urinate and defecate due to infection control, so controlling sexual activity of a group of people to certain degrees would have the same results and purpose in controlling sexually transmitted diseases. Not all the rules and regulations were purposely made up just to spoil peoples fun.. Just look at the genetic problems generations of cousin marriage is causing.

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Even the Romans had a set of sexual morals they abided by.

And?

I am just showing they were as an example not really bothered about sex in public

The point is on you failing to provide a valid reason against sex in public, when you have already stated there is nothing wrong with sex.

Like I said, you're coming across as a bit of a sexual desperado.   We don't live in Ancient Rome, thank God.   Therefore your points have absolutely no relevance to modern times and attitudes.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


I see nothing wrong with two conscenting adults no matter if relatives.

Of course there is a risk if and its if they decide to have children.

Already people can marry their cousins, which is incent

With paediophillia, is not conscentual sex is it?

Hence why it is wrong

What if the adult says the child agrees to sex?   What if the child is coerced or brainwashed into agreeing?  That's ok then, is it?

There's a very fine line here with you trying to sound 'liberated' and coming across as  perverted.

Its neither right, as the child is not of mental age to agree.

Again hence conscent and why under 13 years, is classed as rape by law.

Ah yet more emotions, as you simple cannot debate the points

So yet more strawman arguments, when you stated there is nothing wrong with sex.

So if there is nothing wrong, why is it wrong in public, for the countless times asking

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Rape was common place in ancient Greece.  Does that mean you think it's ok for men to do this as their sexual right, and in public too?

Strawman argument again

Not even comparable

But you're the one comparing ancient times with modern times.    Make your mind up.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


And?

I am just showing they were as an example not really bothered about sex in public

The point is on you failing to provide a valid reason against sex in public, when you have already stated there is nothing wrong with sex.

Like I said, you're coming across as a bit of a sexual desperado.   We don't live in Ancient Rome, thank God.   Therefore your points have absolutely no relevance to modern times and attitudes.

More misdirection, as its you costandly misdirecting onto me

Yes thank goodness we do not like like Ancient Rome, except we still partially act how we have been conditioned by the Church of Rome

But I guess you will never understand that irony

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


Strawman argument again

Not even comparable

But you're the one comparing ancient times with modern times.    Make your mind up.

I gave this as an example, that for hundreds of thousands of years public sex was never an issue.

It took religious morality, to make something essentially good, sex and make it seem as bad and dirty.

So no need for me to make my mind up

All I am seeing is you avoid providing me with a reasoned answer to why you stated there is nothing wrong with sex. To then not provide a reason why its wrong in public.

I mean you gave me countless strawman arguments

Vintage wrote:Well there you are, people are taught be careful of where they urinate and defecate due to infection control, so controlling sexual activity of a group of people to certain degrees would have the same results and purpose in controlling sexually transmitted diseases. Not all the rules and regulations were purposely made up just to spoil peoples fun..       Just look at the genetic problems  generations of cousin marriage is causing.

Never laughed so much in all my life.

So again we are talking about public sex.

Not procreation, with the possible genetic effects of where they are related.

People get sexually transmitted deseases whether in public or not, so again strawman, when they do not use precautions.

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

What if the adult says the child agrees to sex?   What if the child is coerced or brainwashed into agreeing?  That's ok then, is it?

There's a very fine line here with you trying to sound 'liberated' and coming across as  perverted.

Its neither right, as the child is not of mental age to agree.

Again hence conscent and why under 13 years, is classed as rape by law.

Ah yet more emotions, as you simple cannot debate the points

So yet more strawman arguments, when you stated there is nothing wrong with sex.

So if there is nothing wrong, why is it wrong in public, for the countless times asking

But it was commonplace in medieval times and ancient civilisations to marry and have sex with children and also marry your close relatives.   You can't compare only certain things here that suit your agenda.     In Rome, the age of consent for marriage was 12 for a girl.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its neither right, as the child is not of mental age to agree.

Again hence conscent and why under 13 years, is classed as rape by law.

Ah yet more emotions, as you simple cannot debate the points

So yet more strawman arguments, when you stated there is nothing wrong with sex.

So if there is nothing wrong, why is it wrong in public, for the countless times asking

But it was commonplace in medieval times and ancient civilisations to marry and have sex with children and also marry your close relatives.   You can't compare only certain things here that suit your agenda.     In Rome, the age of consent for marriage was 12 for a girl.

More strawman arguments

Again what did you not understand about conscent?

You then compare that to sex, which you say there is nothing wrong with, to then use the above strawman to say its wrong in public.

You really need to get off those ropes and engage your brain and come up with something better.

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

But you're the one comparing ancient times with modern times.    Make your mind up.

I gave this as an example, that for hundreds of thousands of years public sex was never an issue.

It took religious morality, to make something essentially good, sex and make it seem as bad and dirty.

So no need for me to make my mind up

All I am seeing is you avoid providing me with a reasoned answer to why you stated there is nothing wrong with sex. To then not provide a reason why its wrong in public.

I mean you gave me countless strawman arguments

Just because someone wants to keep their sex life private doesn't make them prudes though, does it?   And it doesn't make you a prude if you find others having public sex offensive.

I'm not against sex in public. There are certain places I wouldn't choose to do it, but a beaten path off the dirt track is good.

I don't oppose the photo in the OP either, as I've said. I can pretty old-fashioned when it comes to some things but I think too many people make a big old hoo-ha about sex.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


I gave this as an example, that for hundreds of thousands of years public sex was never an issue.

It took religious morality, to make something essentially good, sex and make it seem as bad and dirty.

So no need for me to make my mind up

All I am seeing is you avoid providing me with a reasoned answer to why you stated there is nothing wrong with sex. To then not provide a reason why its wrong in public.

I mean you gave me countless strawman arguments

Just because someone wants to keep their sex life private doesn't make them prudes though, does it?   And it doesn't make you a prude if you find others having public sex offensive.

So the only thing you can come up with is based on a personal view point, your opinion.

Nothing rational.

Would they think they would need to have sex in private, if they had not been conditioned to believe that someone how sex is dirty and wrong. As they must do, to want to do behind closed doors?

So its up to you if you want to do so in private, but as seen you have no reasoned view against others who have sex in public.

Well I certainly don't want to see a couple having sex.

eddie wrote:I'm not against sex in public.  There are certain places I wouldn't choose to do it, but a beaten path off the dirt track is good.

I don't oppose the photo in the OP either, as I've said. I can pretty old-fashioned when it comes to some things but I think too many people make a big old hoo-ha about sex.

but there you are then eddie, a beaten path off the dirt track is hardly the same as having it off in the car park at tescos with families walking to and fro

i've always liked a bit of al fresco but there are limits

gelico wrote:

i'm totally with Horatio Tarr on this.

disgusting couple who have shown no respect whatsoever for their surroundings or the local people

They are disgusting, no self respect, no decorum. Who on earth wants a photo like that on their wedding day of all days? Chavs. Low life chavs with no idea how to behave and no respect for any one.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


I gave this as an example, that for hundreds of thousands of years public sex was never an issue.

It took religious morality, to make something essentially good, sex and make it seem as bad and dirty.

So no need for me to make my mind up

All I am seeing is you avoid providing me with a reasoned answer to why you stated there is nothing wrong with sex. To then not provide a reason why its wrong in public.

I mean you gave me countless strawman arguments

Just because someone wants to keep their sex life private doesn't make them prudes though, does it?   And it doesn't make you a prude if you find others having public sex offensive.

I think too the point being missed here is that a lot of people find sex closely tied to love and affection.  And to them, sex is special and private, something only they share.   Lust is another thing, and the reason people watch porn.   And everyone knows how destructive porn can be if children are exposed to it, or it's taken too far.

The very fact that the majority of people don't want to have sex in public speaks volumes.   It's not about being sexually repressed or conditioned.   It's about self respect.   There are certain moral laws that are there for a reason, because over time something caused us, as human beings rather than animals,  to create them.   Laws can't truly define human behaviour, they merely reflect the experiences that define them and the cultural agreement as to what our behaviour should be for the greater good of all.

HoratioTarr wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Just because someone wants to keep their sex life private doesn't make them prudes though, does it?   And it doesn't make you a prude if you find others having public sex offensive.

I think too the point being missed here is that a lot of people find sex closely tied to love and affection.  And to them, sex is special and private, something only they share.   Lust is another thing, and the reason people watch porn.   And everyone knows how destructive porn can be if children are exposed to it, or it's taken too far.

The very fact that the majority of people don't want to have sex in public speaks volumes.   It's not about being sexually repressed or conditioned.   It's about self respect.   There are certain moral laws that are there for a reason, because over time something caused us, as human beings rather than animals,  to create them.   Laws can't truly define human behaviour, they merely reflect the experiences that define them and the cultural agreement as to what our behaviour should be for the greater good of all.

you express yourself so well HT

i really like your posts

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Just because someone wants to keep their sex life private doesn't make them prudes though, does it?   And it doesn't make you a prude if you find others having public sex offensive.

So the only thing you can come up with is based on a personal view point, your opinion.

Nothing rational.

Would they think they would need to have sex in private, if they had not been conditioned to believe that someone how sex is dirty and wrong. As they must do, to want to do behind closed doors?

So its up to you if you want to do so in private, but as seen you have no reasoned view against others who have sex in public.

Privacy, personal space, call it what you will, is a fundamental human need.    You keep repeating yourself here as though this will change the outlook.

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

How about bestiality and necrophilia?  You into that too?   If you're saying there should be no absolute morals, then you're saying anything goes, yes?

Can either give conscent?

Yet more strawman arguments

This is about public sex

You said there is nothing wrong with sex, so why is it wrong to you in public?

You are arguing for the sake again. I don't care what they did in ancient times, we are dealing with the here and now. It is offensive to have sex in a public place. Witter about social constructs and norms as much as you like, but in our society it is NOT the norm to undertake private functions in public.
You wouldn't take your wife and go and have sex on the high street or have a bj on the steps of the local church. You know you wouldn't.

HoratioTarr wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Just because someone wants to keep their sex life private doesn't make them prudes though, does it?   And it doesn't make you a prude if you find others having public sex offensive.

I think too the point being missed here is that a lot of people find sex closely tied to love and affection.  And to them, sex is special and private, something only they share.   Lust is another thing, and the reason people watch porn.   And everyone knows how destructive porn can be if children are exposed to it, or it's taken too far.

The very fact that the majority of people don't want to have sex in public speaks volumes.   It's not about being sexually repressed or conditioned.   It's about self respect.   There are certain moral laws that are there for a reason, because over time something caused us, as human beings rather than animals,  to create them.   Laws can't truly define human behaviour, they merely reflect the experiences that define them and the cultural agreement as to what our behaviour should be for the greater good of all.

That is a fair point at last, but basically irrelvant, as its going down a slippery road, that then sex is only okay 
through love. When it ignores ther actual raw passions of people when they get carried away with sex.

Again you go onto what people believe and thus make a poor view. People have been conditioned to believe its wrong, when you said there is nothing wrong with sex. So if sex in public happens, it is as natural as can be. Its only because its made to be viewed as dirty, that people look upon this with distain.

What moral laws and what self respect?
So in the Middle East, do you want me to go on about views they have on self respect and decency, where women have to cover up? Its down this line of thinking that we see problems where people view sex as indecent.

So again there is no moral absolutes, only what people perceive to be right and wrong, that is forever changing.

Miffs2 wrote:

gelico wrote:

i'm totally with Horatio Tarr on this.

disgusting couple who have shown no respect whatsoever for their surroundings or the local people

They are disgusting, no self respect, no decorum. Who on earth wants a photo like that on their wedding day of all days? Chavs. Low life chavs with no idea how to behave and no respect for any one.

Just how many Muslim women view western women how they dress.

Do you see how this conditioning works on people

Look at your language also in how you refer to what is essentially as natural as can be.

Two people engaged in sex.

Miffs2 wrote:

Didge wrote:


Can either give conscent?

Yet more strawman arguments

This is about public sex

You said there is nothing wrong with sex, so why is it wrong to you in public?

You are arguing for the sake again. I don't care what they did in ancient times, we are dealing with the here and now. It is offensive to have sex in a public place. Witter about social constructs and norms as much as you like, but in our society it is NOT the norm to undertake private functions in public.
You wouldn't take your wife and go and have sex on the high street or have a bj on the steps of the local church. You know you wouldn't.

Wrong again.

I think I have reasoned my views well and all I have seen is emotive replies

Again what you and others perceive, is how you have been conditioned to believe something growing up.

Now is there anything wrong with sex between two conscenting adults?

I couldn't have sex in front of others, the Women would want some as well, and the Wife would not be pleased !

Miffs2 wrote:

gelico wrote:

i'm totally with Horatio Tarr on this.

disgusting couple who have shown no respect whatsoever for their surroundings or the local people

They are disgusting, no self respect, no decorum. Who on earth wants a photo like that on their wedding day of all days? Chavs. Low life chavs with no idea how to behave and no respect for any one.

he didn't even have a decent pair of pants on. I bet they were yesterdays skiddies

gelico wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

They are disgusting, no self respect, no decorum. Who on earth wants a photo like that on their wedding day of all days? Chavs. Low life chavs with no idea how to behave and no respect for any one.

he didn't even have a decent pair of pants on.  I bet they were yesterdays skiddies

I'm still on about short sleeves under a tux. Is there nothing sacred?

Why do I not find that photo as offensive as most of you? It's just a bit of fun! Okay, perhaps doing that in a church / sacred place is stupid, (and then posting it online - even more stupid), but why is it so offensive?

I have to be honest, I find most things funny but then I do find the humour in everything.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


So the only thing you can come up with is based on a personal view point, your opinion.

Nothing rational.

Would they think they would need to have sex in private, if they had not been conditioned to believe that someone how sex is dirty and wrong. As they must do, to want to do behind closed doors?

So its up to you if you want to do so in private, but as seen you have no reasoned view against others who have sex in public.

Privacy, personal space, call it what you will, is a fundamental human need.    You keep repeating yourself here as though this will change the outlook.

Personal space

Does that mean, if either of us are appalled at how each other looks, we should all wear bags on our heads?

So to claim personal space is essentially a crock of shit.

Its you saying you do not like something you see.

Only again, as you have been conditioned to believe its wrong.

Its the same ethos used in the Middle East that conditions Muslims to think women should cover up

Reasoned views? Didge you appear to be getting confused just because people prefer their intimate moments to be private doesn't mean they are conditioned to think sex is shameful or dirty. There's a big and obvious difference but then you already know that but ignore just about anything that doesn't fit your agenda, same old narcissism, same old boring, same old thread spoiler, so I'm off to watch paint dry for a while.