dad and daughter have baby, plan to marry, face multiple charges

by veya_victaous Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

A MAN and his biological daughter who are reportedly “planning to get married” are facing incest charges after they allegedly had a baby together.

According to The Sun, Steven Pladl, 42, of Wake County, North Carolina, gave up Katie Pladl, 20, for adoption as a baby but she contacted her parents through social media when she turned 18, police said.

She went to live with her biological parents and their two children near Richmond, Virginia, in August 2016 before the couple legally separated three months later, according to local news channel WNCN.

The wife, who has not been named, told authorities that her husband would sleep on the floor of Katie’s room in the months before she moved out.

In May last year, she read in one of her children’s journals that Katie was pregnant with her father’s baby and that her husband Steven Pladl had told his other children to call Katie their stepmother, according to the arrest warrant.

When his wife confronted him, Pladl allegedly confirmed he had impregnated their adult daughter and that they planned to marry.

A week later, father and daughter moved to Wake County and in November last year a warrant was issued for their arrest.

They were located at an address last week, where officers discovered a baby boy who is understood to be the four-month-old child of the pair.

Steven and Katie Pladl were held at the Wake County Detention Center pending extradition to Virginia and charged with incest with adult, adultery, contributing to delinquency.

Court records show that Steven Pladl has been released on a $1 million bond while Katie Pladl, issued with the same bond, remains in jail.

According to the warrant, they are due to make their first court appearance on Monday.

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/american-dad-and-daughter-have-baby-plan-to-marry-face-incest-charges/news-story/9aa467e6ac6761f7f6d97c2a28398659

by Guest Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:44 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

And you have condemned them, for what actual crime?

Being in love?

Are you of the school that adultery is now a crime?

Shall we stone them to death?

Should he and her have been honest before they did?

Of course, but again does that mean they should not be together?

We are talking about adults here..

You may not like that they have, but that does not mean any law should deny people being together, when they are adults and they love each other.

The one thing you have failed to answer here, is what is wrong with two adults being in love?

You though discount it as love, how or why?

I disapair at people like you that wish to force your views onto others. You are no better than religious idiots

Are you so thick that you cant see father and daughter being in love sexually isn't the primary issue?
Its the acting on it, having sex and getting pregnant that is the issue.
Don't you understand what will power and restraint is Didge?
Do you believe people have to act on every sexual urge or pang of love they may feel?

And stop bringing homosexuality into every post you make....there is no comparison.

How is it an issue?

Oh, its the acting on being in love?

Come again?

So like others have said before and stated, that gay people should not act on being in love. They should have the will power? Do you know how many homophobes have made that dumb claim?

They are two adults in love. What right do you have to say they cannot be in love or express that love?

I will bring up anything to show how empthatically what a pontificating idiot you are being here

Get used to it, because i have no time for people of your hate of others, simple because you have no idea what love is

by Guest Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:50 pm

Oh and for the record.

Ask any homosexual on forums, how many times they have had the incest view point argument shoved in their face as if to say they cannot be with someone they love and express that

I dare you to ask Eilzel

I fucking dare you

by Syl Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:50 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

Are you so thick that you cant see father and daughter being in love sexually isn't the primary issue?
Its the acting on it, having sex and getting pregnant that is the issue.
Don't you understand what will power and restraint is Didge?
Do you believe people have to act on every sexual urge or pang of love they may feel?

And stop bringing homosexuality into every post you make....there is no comparison.

How is it an issue?

Oh, its the acting on being in love?

Come again?

So like others have said before and stated, that gay people should not act on being in love. They should have the will power? Do you know how many homophobes have made that dumb claim?

They are two adults in love. What right do you have to say they cannot be in love or express that love?

I will bring up anything to show how empthatically what a pontificating idiot you are being here

Get used to it, because i have no time for people of your hate of others, simple because you have no idea what love is

Once again.......homosexuality has nothing to do with incest...is your needle stuck? Rolling Eyes

Let me put it this way...I prefer my version of what being in love is to your version.

Its pretty clear by this debate and others we have had that you have no moral compass whatsoever, if it moves and has a pulse anything and everything is fair game to you....as long as its consensual. Razz

by Guest Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:53 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

How is it an issue?

Oh, its the acting on being in love?

Come again?

So like others have said before and stated, that gay people should not act on being in love. They should have the will power? Do you know how many homophobes have made that dumb claim?

They are two adults in love. What right do you have to say they cannot be in love or express that love?

I will bring up anything to show how empthatically what a pontificating idiot you are being here

Get used to it, because i have no time for people of your hate of others, simple because you have no idea what love is

Once again.......homosexuality has nothing to do with incest...is your needle stuck?

Let me put it this way...I prefer my version of what being in love is to your version.

Its pretty clear by this debate and others we have had that you have no moral compass whatsoever, if it moves and has a pulse anything and everything is fair game to you....as long as its consensual.

I see the points went over that small mind of yours that they have been combined in order to deny homosexuals

And then you make smiles laughing

Its pretty clear, you cannot have a rational debate

You then invoke morals

At least my moral compass does not argue to deny two adults being in love

Which means, like many poor religious views, love is clearly secondary to poor views people hold

You really are not even intelligent enough to formulate a rational decent debate

by Syl Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:10 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

Once again.......homosexuality has nothing to do with incest...is your needle stuck?

Let me put it this way...I prefer my version of what being in love is to your version.

Its pretty clear by this debate and others we have had that you have no moral compass whatsoever, if it moves and has a pulse anything and everything is fair game to you....as long as its consensual.

I see the points went over that small mind of yours that they have been combined in order to deny homosexuals

And then you make smiles laughing

Its pretty clear, you cannot have a rational debate

You then invoke morals

At least my moral compass does not argue to deny two adults being in love

Which means, like many poor religious views, love is clearly secondary to poor views people hold

You really are not even intelligent enough to formulate a rational decent debate

I'm certainly not on the same level as you are re debate.
Maybe you can relate better to this little fellow......I will leave you to it.

dad and daughter have baby, plan to marry, face multiple charges - Page 3 2195379-tinky

dad and daughter have baby, plan to marry, face multiple charges - Page 3 2195379-tinky

by Guest Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:15 pm

You want to relate to something that is a childrens program, when you are acting the child here?

Seriously, who really has been the children here?

You and Mags

Magica lied and claimed I backed the rape of children

She does not understand consentual sex.

That means she lost a debate, where I tried to have a rational debate and she got emotive and lied.

Love is something that is given mutually, not denied and to deny love, is to me the worst crime ever, because its people thinking they can dictate who and what people can love

Trying to reason with you, is like trying to explain to a child not to place their hand in a fire and yet everytime, you get constantly burnt.

I have never denied the love you have with your family or husband, but its you trying to claim others cannot have love unless it conforms to your warped ways. You then ask stupidly if I am loved, as if then people need love. Not understanding you can never know love, if you then crave or need love. Love is something freely given, not yearned. If its needed, that person cannot possible really understand or be happy and in love.

I am loved very much by my family, even though at times we are at odds. Love conqueres all and yet you fail to see that.

Its two adults in love here, seriously, what is actually wrong here?

You are like those who are against who their daughters marry with honours killings. As its based on what they want for their child in who they love. Not what the daughter wants.

That is the fundementall part you cannot grasp.

Its you trying to dictate, not allowing people to be in love

That is what disappoints me about you.

Incest may seem utterly wierd to me, something I would never do, but I am in no place to deny any incestual relationship, if they are in love.

My brother again is married to my cousin. That means they are very closely related. What if the law changed on them?

Would you expect them to give each other up?

by eddie Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:21 pm

Syl, if this story hasn’t ended in a pregnancy and the two had just moved quietly away and told their story in a book, would you still feel the same?

I never like to judge “love”. It comes in so many shapes and forms. I may not always agree but I always accept.

And didge is correct tbh. Gays did used to be judged in the same way.

by Guest Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:22 pm

eddie wrote:Syl, if this story hasn’t ended in a pregnancy and the two had just moved quietly away and told their story in a book, would you still feel the same?

I never like to judge “love”. It comes in so many shapes and forms. I may not always agree but I always accept.

And didge is correct tbh. Gays did used to be judged in the same way.

Thank you

by eddie Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:27 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:Syl, if this story hasn’t ended in a pregnancy and the two had just moved quietly away and told their story in a book, would you still feel the same?

I never like to judge “love”. It comes in so many shapes and forms. I may not always agree but I always accept.

And didge is correct tbh. Gays did used to be judged in the same way.

Thank you

I’ve agreed with you throughout but it seems that because we are saying this that it means we think it’s “nice” or that we’d do it ourselves.
No. I think it’s yucky as do you but......I’m not them.

And love is something that just can’t always be explained or labelled.

by Guest Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:35 pm

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:

Thank you

I’ve agreed with you throughout but it seems that because we are saying this that it means we think it’s “nice” or that we’d do it ourselves.
No. I think it’s yucky as do you but......I’m not them.

And love is something that just can’t always be explained or labelled.

Agreed and hence why views made to me on what i would feel, is beyond the mark. I have no idea nor would I.

I cannot explain how people come to be in love. I have no comprehension in each case, but if they are in love, how can i deny this of them? There is no rational argument.

I get the point around procreation and the risks, but even then. Nobody dictates to couples that knowingly try for children, knowing it could create abnormalities.

I get also people feel very anti this, which I find is more to do, with how societies have formed a social taboo. I think this naturally happens when people raise children, but even then. How can i say how two people so closely related could then fall in love? Is it my place to say whether they can or not?

Of course not.

I have no idea, but does it have to do with how some women choose men they marry, who are like their fathers?

I doubt that is it, but clearly some women do go for men like their fathers. The same with sons going for women like their mothers. Maybe its some paternal thing. I have no idea. I think we need to understand this more Eddie

What I do know is that for years on forums, these arguments have been used against homosexuals being together, which I will not stand by and say nothing.

by eddie Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:52 pm

It’s a little how I feel when a friend will tell me another friend has started dating a guy and she might say “Oh I dont know what she sees in him, he’s so ugly!”

I’ve never understood that. What is “ugly”? And the girl dating him obviously doesn’t think so and also, who cares that much about looks when they’re a small percentage of what makes up attraction?

But I guess we can all judge people’s looks sometimes. Love though, is something that logic defies.

by Guest Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:03 pm

eddie wrote:It’s a little how I feel when a friend will tell me another friend has started dating a guy and she might say “Oh I dont know what she sees in him, he’s so ugly!”

I’ve never understood that. What is “ugly”? And the girl dating him obviously doesn’t think so and also, who cares that much about looks when they’re a small percentage of what makes up attraction?

But I guess we can all judge people’s looks sometimes. Love though, is something that logic defies.

Indeed, love is in the eye of the beyolder, as they say Eddie

I guess, some people are superficial, when all that matters is that both are happy and in love

Sadly people expect others to have the same attractions. Which is utterly stupid. Its what is unique about us as humans. We see beauty in people indivdiually that others do not see

Love has always been more than looks.

Sadly some people like to try and dictate others lives.

by Guest Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:25 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:
Incest is wrong, it just goes against everything we believe in that a parent should mate with their biological child.

I do have sympathy for them, but it shouldnt be condoned.

You mean you think its wrong, just as some people think being gay is wrong?

If two people love each other, and are conscenting adults, how is that wrong?

good evening didge- I can remember a while back when my husband made a thread about this very subject and most were saying it was wrong . But as he pointed out 'love is love ' so why should anyone interfere - just with same sex couples marrying 'love is love '

by Guest Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:26 pm

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
Didge wrote:

You mean you think its wrong, just as some people think being gay is wrong?

If two people love each other, and are conscenting adults, how is that wrong?

good evening didge- I can remember a while back when my husband made a thread about this very subject and most were saying it was wrong . But as he pointed out 'love is love ' so why should anyone interfere - just with same sex couples marrying 'love is love '

Hi Dibs

Indeed, love is love

Hope your family is doing well

by eddie Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:38 pm

And the thing with love is this; no matter how you try to ignore it or fight it, it doesn’t go away.

by Guest Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:42 pm

eddie wrote:And the thing with love is this; no matter how you try to ignore it or fight it, it doesn’t go away.

Boom.

And exactly. Only a fool would try to fight it, when they should embrace that love.

They would only be denying that love to themselves and to the person that loves them.

Night Eddie

x

by Guest Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:45 pm

Didge wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

good evening didge- I can remember a while back when my husband made a thread about this very subject and most were saying it was wrong . But as he pointed out 'love is love ' so why should anyone interfere - just with same sex couples marrying 'love is love '

Hi Dibs

Indeed, love is love

Hope your family is doing well

Yes thank you didge - same with you too .

by Tommy Monk Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:14 am

All I can say about this OP and some of the comments in support of this is...

Oh dear!!!

by Eilzel Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:28 am

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

Are you so thick that you cant see father and daughter being in love sexually isn't the primary issue?
Its the acting on it, having sex and getting pregnant that is the issue.
Don't you understand what will power and restraint is Didge?
Do you believe people have to act on every sexual urge or pang of love they may feel?

And stop bringing homosexuality into every post you make....there is no comparison.

How is it an issue?

Oh, its the acting on being in love?

Come again?

So like others have said before and stated, that gay people should not act on being in love. They should have the will power? Do you know how many homophobes have made that dumb claim?

They are two adults in love. What right do you have to say they cannot be in love or express that love?

I will bring up anything to show how empthatically what a pontificating idiot you are being here

Get used to it, because i have no time for people of your hate of others, simple because you have no idea what love is

Once again.......homosexuality has nothing to do with incest...is your needle stuck?

Let me put it this way...I prefer my version of what being in love is to your version.

Its pretty clear by this debate and others we have had that you have no moral compass whatsoever, if it moves and has a pulse anything and everything is fair game to you....as long as its consensual.

You are correct in saying homosexuality has nothing to do with incest- but that isn't the point didge is making.

In the past, many/most people said homosexuality was 'wrong' because two people of the same gender being in love and having sexual relations was unnatural/disgusting/just wrong. Only two people of opposite genders could be together, they said. And anyone who thought otherwise had the problem.

No reason beyond that- being gay was 'just wrong'.

Despite the fact it hurt no one.

So I get the comparison didge and eds are making. Two immediate relatives having a loving sexual relationship- in itself- hurts no one. So why oppose it other that personal views and queeziness?

My only issue comes where kids are concerned. Because that is harmful.

by Tommy Monk Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:57 am

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading here... that some posters here are trying to argue in favour of this...!!!

What is wrong with you people...!!!???

by Syl Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:22 am

Im finding it seriously disturbing that so many people here seem to condone incest.
Odd how they all find it distastful for themselves, but OK for others.

It goes against nature, if it did not there would not be so much risk in breeding. Swapping dna between close family members multiplies the chance of giving birth to a child with serious defects.

It goes against society...which is why incest is one of the very few taboos worlwide.

To Eizel, yes, practicing homosexuality was once illegal, thankfully, along with women being treated as second class citizens, husbands being free to rape their wives with impunity, and signs banning blacks and Irish from certain establishments thats all in the past.
Perhaps because there was no sense or reason in those outdated veiws.
There is a point in incestuous relationships remaining socially and morally wrong, which is why it is and will thankfully stay illegal.

by Syl Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:29 am

eddie wrote:And the thing with love is this; no matter how you try to ignore it or fight it, it doesn’t go away.

Incest isnt a bloody Mills and Boon novel.
All this talk of love being irresistable and people have no will to fight is is utter crap

Billions of people have in the past and will in the futurel fall in love and not act on it if it hurts others....shagging your daughter or having a sexual relationship with your father....under your mothers nose is wrong... whatever romantic angst you want to disguise it with.

by Eilzel Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:39 am

Syl wrote:Im finding it seriously disturbing that so many people here seem to condone incest.
Odd how they all find it distastful for themselves, but OK for others.

It goes against nature, if it did not there would not be so much risk in breeding. Swapping dna between close family members multiplies the chance of giving birth to a child with serious defects.

It goes against society...which is why incest is one of the very few taboos worlwide.

To Eizel, yes, practicing homosexuality was once illegal, thankfully, along with women being treated as second class citizens, husbands being free to rape their wives with impunity, and signs banning blacks and Irish from certain establishments thats all in the past.
Perhaps because there was no sense or reason in those outdated veiws.
There is a point in incestuous relationships remaining socially and morally wrong, which is why it is and will thankfully stay illegal.

But surely it being 'socially and morally wrong' is just opinion. It isn't based on anything but our own inbuilt notions of what is right and wrong, just as many people also ahered to those other things you listed once.

Condone is a word that can be cast any way you like.

If you mean condone as in I don't think people should be punished for it (ie: jailed or fined) then yes I suppose I condibe it.

BUT if you mean condone as in encourage or being comfortable seeing it become more common then NO I don't condone it all.

What do you think the punishment should be for incestuous couples who don't have and don't intend to have children?

by Syl Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:53 am

Eilzel wrote:
Syl wrote:Im finding it seriously disturbing that so many people here seem to condone incest.
Odd how they all find it distastful for themselves, but OK for others.

It goes against nature, if it did not there would not be so much risk in breeding. Swapping dna between close family members multiplies the chance of giving birth to a child with serious defects.

It goes against society...which is why incest is one of the very few taboos worlwide.

To Eizel, yes, practicing homosexuality was once illegal, thankfully, along with women being treated as second class citizens, husbands being free to rape their wives with impunity, and signs banning blacks and Irish from certain establishments thats all in the past.
Perhaps because there was no sense or reason in those outdated veiws.
There is a point in incestuous relationships remaining socially and morally wrong, which is why it is and will thankfully stay illegal.

But surely it being 'socially and morally wrong' is just opinion. It isn't based on anything but our own inbuilt notions of what is right and wrong, just as many people also ahered to those other things you listed once.

Condone is a word that can be cast any way you like.

If you mean condone as in I don't think people should be punished for it (ie: jailed or fined) then yes I suppose I condibe it.

BUT if you mean condone as in encourage or being comfortable seeing it become more common then NO I don't condone it all.

What do you think the punishment should be for incestuous couples who don't have and don't intend to have children?

Finding it acceptable (even if you do feel uncomfortable) is encouraging it.

If society sinks so low as to accept incestuous relationships, how long before the couples demand the right to breed? One will obviously follow the other.

I dont know what the punishment should be, it will be interesting to see how the couple in the OP are treated.

by Guest Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:11 am

Eilzel wrote:
Syl wrote:Im finding it seriously disturbing that so many people here seem to condone incest.
Odd how they all find it distastful for themselves, but OK for others.

It goes against nature, if it did not there would not be so much risk in breeding. Swapping dna between close family members multiplies the chance of giving birth to a child with serious defects.

It goes against society...which is why incest is one of the very few taboos worlwide.

To Eizel, yes, practicing homosexuality was once illegal, thankfully, along with women being treated as second class citizens, husbands being free to rape their wives with impunity, and signs banning blacks and Irish from certain establishments thats all in the past.
Perhaps because there was no sense or reason in those outdated veiws.
There is a point in incestuous relationships remaining socially and morally wrong, which is why it is and will thankfully stay illegal.

But surely it being 'socially and morally wrong' is just opinion. It isn't based on anything but our own inbuilt notions of what is right and wrong, just as many people also ahered to those other things you listed once.

Condone is a word that can be cast any way you like.

If you mean condone as in I don't think people should be punished for it (ie: jailed or fined) then yes I suppose I condibe it.

BUT if you mean condone as in encourage or being comfortable seeing it become more common then NO I don't condone it all.

What do you think the punishment should be for incestuous couples who don't have and don't intend to have children?

You are wasting your time mate

Some people simple cannot grasp this and are close minded

I feel like I have gone back in time and arguing the same points from the past.

by Eilzel Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:26 am

Syl wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Syl wrote:Im finding it seriously disturbing that so many people here seem to condone incest.
Odd how they all find it distastful for themselves, but OK for others.

It goes against nature, if it did not there would not be so much risk in breeding. Swapping dna between close family members multiplies the chance of giving birth to a child with serious defects.

It goes against society...which is why incest is one of the very few taboos worlwide.

To Eizel, yes, practicing homosexuality was once illegal, thankfully, along with women being treated as second class citizens, husbands being free to rape their wives with impunity, and signs banning blacks and Irish from certain establishments thats all in the past.
Perhaps because there was no sense or reason in those outdated veiws.
There is a point in incestuous relationships remaining socially and morally wrong, which is why it is and will thankfully stay illegal.

But surely it being 'socially and morally wrong' is just opinion. It isn't based on anything but our own inbuilt notions of what is right and wrong, just as many people also ahered to those other things you listed once.

Condone is a word that can be cast any way you like.

If you mean condone as in I don't think people should be punished for it (ie: jailed or fined) then yes I suppose I condibe it.

BUT if you mean condone as in encourage or being comfortable seeing it become more common then NO I don't condone it all.

What do you think the punishment should be for incestuous couples who don't have and don't intend to have children?

Finding it acceptable (even if you do feel uncomfortable) is encouraging it.

If society sinks so low as to accept incestuous relationships, how long before the couples demand the right to breed? One will obviously follow the other.

I dont know what the punishment should be, it will be interesting to see how the couple in the OP are treated.

It isn't encouraging it, and that is the exact language used by the anti-gay lobby for years. With or without 'encouragement' people will fall in love with whomever they fall in love with. There is no 'choosing' and so 'encouragement' isn't possible. The only thing we choose is whether or not to shame certain forms of love.

And if you think accepting incestuous relationahips will lead to accepting them having children then you obviously are not paying attention. So I'll break it down.

1. There us no harm incest in itself.

2. Children of incest are more likely to be born with serious genetic problems due to parentage.

So, 1 is not harmful (and therefore not really anybody elses business).

But 2 is harmful (and therefore shouldn't be allowed).

One therefore does not automatically lead to anothee, due to the main distinction of right or wrong- harm.

by eddie Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:23 am

Eilzel wrote:
Syl wrote:Im finding it seriously disturbing that so many people here seem to condone incest.
Odd how they all find it distastful for themselves, but OK for others.

It goes against nature, if it did not there would not be so much risk in breeding. Swapping dna between close family members multiplies the chance of giving birth to a child with serious defects.

It goes against society...which is why incest is one of the very few taboos worlwide.

To Eizel, yes, practicing homosexuality was once illegal, thankfully, along with women being treated as second class citizens, husbands being free to rape their wives with impunity, and signs banning blacks and Irish from certain establishments thats all in the past.
Perhaps because there was no sense or reason in those outdated veiws.
There is a point in incestuous relationships remaining socially and morally wrong, which is why it is and will thankfully stay illegal.

But surely it being 'socially and morally wrong' is just opinion. It isn't based on anything but our own inbuilt notions of what is right and wrong, just as many people also ahered to those other things you listed once.

Condone is a word that can be cast any way you like.

If you mean condone as in I don't think people should be punished for it (ie: jailed or fined) then yes I suppose I condibe it.

BUT if you mean condone as in encourage or being comfortable seeing it become more common then NO I don't condone it all.

What do you think the punishment should be for incestuous couples who don't have and don't intend to have children?

Everything he just said. ^^^

by eddie Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:26 am

And just because I understand it, doesn’t mean I like it.

What punishment should we give these people - bearing in mind that whatever punishment we give, they will just simply live together again.
What’s the point in spending money on punishing two people for having sex simply because we don’t like it?

by Syl Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:11 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Syl wrote:

Finding it acceptable (even if you do feel uncomfortable) is encouraging it.

If society sinks so low as to accept incestuous relationships, how long before the couples demand the right to breed? One will obviously follow the other.

I dont know what the punishment should be, it will be interesting to see how the couple in the OP are treated.

It isn't encouraging it, and that is the exact language used by the anti-gay lobby for years. With or without 'encouragement' people will fall in love with whomever they fall in love with. There is no 'choosing' and so 'encouragement' isn't possible. The only thing we choose is whether or not to shame certain forms of love.

And if you think accepting incestuous relationahips will lead to accepting them having children then you obviously are not paying attention. So I'll break it down.

1. There us no harm incest in itself.

2. Children of incest are more likely to be born with serious genetic problems due to parentage.

So, 1 is not harmful (and therefore not really anybody elses business). ]

But 2 is harmful (and therefore shouldn't be allowed).

One therefore does not automatically lead to anothee, due to the main distinction of right or wrong- harm.

If incest was socially and legally accepted, if you truly believe that in time incestuous couples would not want the basic right given to other couples, ie to start a family, you don't understand human nature.

Didge, you and others are comparing the way homosexuals were once treated to the way incestuous couples are now treated, so compare the rights that homosexuals have demanded and been granted over the last 50 odd years.....and replace that with couples in incestuous relationships, the difference being that straight incenstuous couples would be able to have their own children.

The way you see it would create a two tier society, those who are allowed to breed and those who are not.....so thanks for pointing out another drawback to ever legalising incest.

by Guest Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:29 pm

Syl wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

It isn't encouraging it, and that is the exact language used by the anti-gay lobby for years. With or without 'encouragement' people will fall in love with whomever they fall in love with. There is no 'choosing' and so 'encouragement' isn't possible. The only thing we choose is whether or not to shame certain forms of love.

And if you think accepting incestuous relationahips will lead to accepting them having children then you obviously are not paying attention. So I'll break it down.

1. There us no harm incest in itself.

2. Children of incest are more likely to be born with serious genetic problems due to parentage.

So, 1 is not harmful (and therefore not really anybody elses business). ]

But 2 is harmful (and therefore shouldn't be allowed).

One therefore does not automatically lead to anothee, due to the main distinction of right or wrong- harm.

If incest was socially and legally accepted, if you truly believe that in time incestuous couples would not want the basic right given to other couples, ie to start a family, you don't understand human nature.

Didge, you and others are comparing the way homosexuals were once treated to the way incestuous couples are now treated, so compare the rights that homosexuals have demanded and been granted over the last 50 odd years.....and replace that with couples in incestuous relationships, the difference being that straight incenstuous couples would be able to have their own children.

The way you see it would create a two tier society, those who are allowed to breed and those who are not.....so thanks for pointing out another drawback to ever legalising incest.

OMG, what if they do not want to procreate?

Is that all your argument hinges on?

So in reality you then would have no issue with homosexual incest then?

I pity people like you Sly in how you were brought up a certain way and have become dogmatic in thinking.

Two adults in love or even enjoying sex, should not be cause to be criminalized.

Whether you like it or not, its not mine, nor yours, or anyones buisness

You then come out with some utter babble about a two tier society around breeding

At the end of the day the same arguments against homosexuality and incest are intertwined. Through the same views that have formed claiming something is socially taboo. Its time people and society, stopped interferring in things that does not harm or effect anyone else.

You are the problem, just as have been those who have denied homosexual couples the right to be together and who are still sadly denied throughout parts of the world. What you believe is up to you, but you have no right to enforce that on anyone. Espcially when it does not effect you or anyone else

You are just one in a long line of people, that still sadly happens today and at its worse where people are murdered over, who think they can dictate and decide who people are allowed to be with.

by Syl Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:56 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

If incest was socially and legally accepted, if you truly believe that in time incestuous couples would not want the basic right given to other couples, ie to start a family, you don't understand human nature.

Didge, you and others are comparing the way homosexuals were once treated to the way incestuous couples are now treated, so compare the rights that homosexuals have demanded and been granted over the last 50 odd years.....and replace that with couples in incestuous relationships, the difference being that straight incenstuous couples would be able to have their own children.

The way you see it would create a two tier society, those who are allowed to breed and those who are not.....so thanks for pointing out another drawback to ever legalising incest.

OMG, what if they do not want to procreate?

Is that all your argument hinges on?

So in reality you then would have no issue with homosexual incest then?

I pity people like you Sly in how you were brought up a certain way and have become dogmatic in thinking.

Two adults in love or even enjoying sex, should not be cause to be criminalized.

Whether you like it or not, its not mine, nor yours, or anyones buisness

You then come out with some utter babble about a two tier society around breeding

At the end of the day the same arguments against homosexuality and incest are intertwined. Through the same views that have formed claiming something is socially taboo. Its time people and society, stopped interferring in things that does not harm or effect anyone else.

You are the problem, just as have been those who have denied homosexual couples the right to be together and who are still sadly denied throughout parts of the world. What you believe is up to you, but you have no right to enforce that on anyone. Espcially when it does not effect you or anyone else

I was addressing Eilzels post to me re incestuous couples having/not having children...I have given my own views throughout the thread, if you had bothered to read them instead of just banging on and answering your own questions (like you do) you would know my stance, I have been perfectly clear.

I have never been against homosexuality, if you or anyone else are gay I could not care less and support your/their equal rights...always have.

Incest is a completely different topic, I understand that you repeatedly comparing it to the way homosexuals were treated appears to strengthen your argument, to me you are throwing in a red herring to back yourself up.

Like I said...back in the day when homosexuality, the low worth of women, husbands being able to rape their wives with impunity, banning blacks and Irish from certain establishments, other ridiculous rules of society have long gone because they had no worth.

Certain laws still apply because they are valid and add to the structure of society, be they moral, legal, social laws....they are there for the good of society not because people are prudes or don't understand 'love'...as you have said ad nauseam.....

Incest, underage sex, bestiality, public indecency, similar laws will stay.....so if you don't like them...emigrate to a more decedant societyif you can find one, where you will probably fit right in.

by Guest Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:10 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

OMG, what if they do not want to procreate?

Is that all your argument hinges on?

So in reality you then would have no issue with homosexual incest then?

I pity people like you Sly in how you were brought up a certain way and have become dogmatic in thinking.

Two adults in love or even enjoying sex, should not be cause to be criminalized.

Whether you like it or not, its not mine, nor yours, or anyones buisness

You then come out with some utter babble about a two tier society around breeding

At the end of the day the same arguments against homosexuality and incest are intertwined. Through the same views that have formed claiming something is socially taboo. Its time people and society, stopped interferring in things that does not harm or effect anyone else.

You are the problem, just as have been those who have denied homosexual couples the right to be together and who are still sadly denied throughout parts of the world. What you believe is up to you, but you have no right to enforce that on anyone. Espcially when it does not effect you or anyone else

I was addressing Eilzels post to me re incestuous couples having/not having children...I have given my own views throughout the thread, if you had bothered to read them instead of just banging on and answering your own questions (like you do) you would know my stance, I have been perfectly clear.

I have never been against homosexuality, if you or anyone else are gay I could not care less and support your/their equal rights...always have.

Incest is a completely different topic, I understand that you repeatedly comparing it to the way homosexuals were treated appears to strengthen your argument, to me you are throwing in a red herring to back yourself up.

Like I said...back in the day when homosexuality, the low worth of women, husbands being able to rape their wives with impunity, banning blacks and Irish from certain establishments, other ridiculous rules of society have long gone because they had no worth.

Certain laws still apply because they are valid and add to the structure of society, be they moral, legal, social laws....they are there for the good of society not because people are prudes or don't understand 'love'...as you have said ad nauseam.....

Incest, underage sex, bestiality, public indecency, similar laws will stay.....so if you don't like them...emigrate to a more decedant societyif you can find one, where you will probably fit right in.

You need to calm down petal and realise that its you being here poor in your views. Which throughout its only ever been emotional and not rational in your replies.

So if you are not against two consenting adults who are homosexual, why are you against two that are closely related? I can thing are far worse things which are repulsive. Like couples wanting to shit and piss in each others mouths (unhygenic). Or even puking, or bondage, where people inflict pain onto each other. That in its extreme form can and does lead to death with things like asphyxiation. Now none of these things are banned in law and rightly so. As what people consent and do with each other sexually, is their own buisness. Yet you draw the line on them being closely related?

Seriously?

At the end of the day what people want to do and consent to, is up to them.

The point on homosexuality, is more to do with you providing ammunition to homophobes. Where again this point has gone so far over your head. You fail to see, incest has been used as means to argue against homosexuality. Again a homophobe will throw into the mix that coeity does not allow two consenting adults, when they are closely related (well society does, by moves the goalpost dependent on the nation in cousins).

The one argument that easily destroys homophobes is the fact they cannot deny two consenting adults having a relationship. You though argue and claim, that for some warped reason, two adults are not allowed to decide, if closely related. Such stupidity, means you can never use the view of two consenting adults, if you are defending homosexuality against a homophobe. They have banged to rights, because you allow a cluase
on things that you deem wrongs. Just as a homophobe does.

I mean what argument will you use against such homophobes, on defending homosexual unions and relationships?

And there we have it again, you throw in beastiality, under age sex, as if comparable, when they never wil be, as its not consentual sex. You know when someone is desperate in their argument, when they play, that piss poor card.

You have now done that twice

Again, incest does not harm anyone

Neither does homosexuality

Sex with children, is harming children, as its abuse, as they mentally cannot consent and in many cases are not fully physically or mentally mature yet. Why sex with a child under 13 its considered rape.

Neither can an animal, hence the absurdity of your arguments

Like i say, you are a dinsoaur mentally. You are one in a long line, that think they can dictate who people can see and be with, when it does not effect you.

You have even claimed the moral highground.

Ethically you failed, because I am not trying impose my views or denying two adults being together. You though are based on emotions on beliefs you hold. Which has been why for centuries people suffer discrimination. People thinking they can impose their beliefs on others

by Syl Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:22 pm

I read the first line of your post...'calm down petal'....and stopped there.

Didge, in real life if anyone dared to be so patronising and condescending to me I would simply walk away....on forums I often give you more leeway because I know your passion for subjects often translates as you trying to browbeat people into submission'
However, your desperation makes you sound probably more pompous and confrontational than you would like to think you are.

You go on the defence, calling people names, being personal, getting peoples backs up....and the debate either stops or turns into a slanging match.

I have said all I need to say now, other people may have different views, not many people have contributed to this thread, the reds I have been given (probably off you) and the greens handed out in this thread does prove that people do feel strongly even if they have stayed quiet.

I have nothing to add.

by Guest Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:22 pm

Syl wrote:

Incest, underage sex, bestiality, public indecency, similar laws will stay.....so if you don't like them...emigrate to a more decedant society if you can find one, where you will probably fit right in.

I am just going to post this comment again, so people can see how pathetic it was.

Like magica, its making an assumption/association to nothing I have said. Claiming I want to make underage sex and beastility legal etc

That really was pathetic.

Not only that, but I have to now leave the country, because i disagree with you on the laws on incest. Which you then disingenuously claim alongside this I also want to change the laws on underage sex, beastaility ect.

wow

Sorry, I am not going to be forced out of where I have been born by a hateful idiot, because she becomes emotionally compremised in a debate and has to sink to such pathetic levels.

You should be ashamed of yourself for that comment, trying to claim I wanted to change the laws on underage sex and beastiality.

You crossed a line here Syl, one i wont forget.

by Eilzel Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:33 pm

Syl wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Syl wrote:

Finding it acceptable (even if you do feel uncomfortable) is encouraging it.

If society sinks so low as to accept incestuous relationships, how long before the couples demand the right to breed? One will obviously follow the other.

I dont know what the punishment should be, it will be interesting to see how the couple in the OP are treated.

It isn't encouraging it, and that is the exact language used by the anti-gay lobby for years. With or without 'encouragement' people will fall in love with whomever they fall in love with. There is no 'choosing' and so 'encouragement' isn't possible. The only thing we choose is whether or not to shame certain forms of love.

And if you think accepting incestuous relationahips will lead to accepting them having children then you obviously are not paying attention. So I'll break it down.

1. There us no harm incest in itself.

2. Children of incest are more likely to be born with serious genetic problems due to parentage.

So, 1 is not harmful (and therefore not really anybody elses business). ]

But 2 is harmful (and therefore shouldn't be allowed).

One therefore does not automatically lead to anothee, due to the main distinction of right or wrong- harm.

If incest was socially and legally accepted, if you truly believe that in time incestuous couples would not want the basic right given to other couples, ie to start a family, you don't understand human nature.

Didge, you and others are comparing the way homosexuals were once treated to the way incestuous couples are now treated, so compare the rights that homosexuals have demanded and been granted over the last 50 odd years.....and replace that with couples in incestuous relationships, the difference being that straight incenstuous couples would be able to have their own children.

The way you see it would create a two tier society, those who are allowed to breed and those who are not.....so thanks for pointing out another drawback to ever legalising incest.

Do you now understand the concept of something that causes harm being wrong?

We KNOW children who are the products of incest have an incredibly high likelihood of being born with serious genetic problems. That is harm.

NOTHING else would matter.

Allowing incestuous couples to have sex is irrelevant because it isn't harming anyone.
Allowing incestuous couples to have children is harmful to the hypothetical children- it would be grossly irresponsible to allow that.

What part of something harmful or not do you not understand?

Are you saying we should criminalise incestuous couples because not doing 'might' lead to us legalising the birthing of children of incest?

by Eilzel Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:39 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

If incest was socially and legally accepted, if you truly believe that in time incestuous couples would not want the basic right given to other couples, ie to start a family, you don't understand human nature.

Didge, you and others are comparing the way homosexuals were once treated to the way incestuous couples are now treated, so compare the rights that homosexuals have demanded and been granted over the last 50 odd years.....and replace that with couples in incestuous relationships, the difference being that straight incenstuous couples would be able to have their own children.

The way you see it would create a two tier society, those who are allowed to breed and those who are not.....so thanks for pointing out another drawback to ever legalising incest.

OMG, what if they do not want to procreate?

Is that all your argument hinges on?

So in reality you then would have no issue with homosexual incest then?

I pity people like you Sly in how you were brought up a certain way and have become dogmatic in thinking.

Two adults in love or even enjoying sex, should not be cause to be criminalized.

Whether you like it or not, its not mine, nor yours, or anyones buisness

You then come out with some utter babble about a two tier society around breeding

At the end of the day the same arguments against homosexuality and incest are intertwined. Through the same views that have formed claiming something is socially taboo. Its time people and society, stopped interferring in things that does not harm or effect anyone else.

You are the problem, just as have been those who have denied homosexual couples the right to be together and who are still sadly denied throughout parts of the world. What you believe is up to you, but you have no right to enforce that on anyone. Espcially when it does not effect you or anyone else

I was addressing Eilzels post to me re incestuous couples having/not having children...I have given my own views throughout the thread, if you had bothered to read them instead of just banging on and answering your own questions (like you do) you would know my stance, I have been perfectly clear.

I have never been against homosexuality, if you or anyone else are gay I could not care less and support your/their equal rights...always have.

Incest is a completely different topic, I understand that you repeatedly comparing it to the way homosexuals were treated appears to strengthen your argument, to me you are throwing in a red herring to back yourself up.

Like I said...back in the day when homosexuality, the low worth of women, husbands being able to rape their wives with impunity, banning blacks and Irish from certain establishments, other ridiculous rules of society have long gone because they had no worth.

Certain laws still apply because they are valid and add to the structure of society, be they moral, legal, social laws....they are there for the good of society not because people are prudes or don't understand 'love'...as you have said ad nauseam.....

Incest, underage sex, bestiality, public indecency, similar laws will stay.....so if you don't like them...emigrate to a more decedant societyif you can find one, where you will probably fit right in.

Re: the bit I've highlighted. It is not entirely unimaginable that one day people will say the same of incest laws. As unthinkable as that is at this point, and despite my own personal repulsion toward it- just because something seems 'obvious' now, does not mean it will be in 100, 50 or even 10 years from now.

People might look back from 2058 and think "What? We seriously used to make criminals of people who had had sex with someone in their family?"
Even people who don't like (most people) might find it stupid to be considered a crime in the same vein as paedophilia or whatever else.

by Guest Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:44 pm

Syl wrote:I read the first line of your post...'calm down petal'....and stopped there.

Didge, in real life if anyone dared to be so patronising and condescending to me I would simply walk away....on forums I often give you more leeway because I know your passion for subjects often translates as you trying to browbeat people into submission'
However, your desperation makes you sound probably more pompous and confrontational than you would like to think you are.

You go on the defence, calling people names, being personal, getting peoples backs up....and the debate either stops or turns into a slanging match.

I have said all I need to say now, other people may have different views, not many people have contributed to this thread, the reds I have been given (probably off you) and the greens handed out in this thread does prove that people do feel strongly even if they have stayed quiet.

I have nothing to add.

I dont want your leeway, when you were the one that made the piss poor comment and do not see that you even did.

Iff you want to act like a child, because you cannot rise up to a rational debate, then jog on and have a pathetic sulk. I simple do not care

Dont dare play the victim bullshit, its not going to buy, as its you that was out of order and you get annoyed because I called you petal after you clearly were poor in your comments and emotional. My petal comment came due to you saying the following

Syl wrote:

Incest, underage sex, bestiality, public indecency, similar laws will stay.....so if you don't like them...emigrate to a more decedant society if you can find one, where you will probably fit right in.

Like magica, its making an assumption/association to nothing I have said. Claiming I want to make underage sex and beastility legal etc

That really was pathetic.

Not only that, but I have to now leave the country, because i disagree with you on the laws on incest. Which you then disingenuously claim alongside this I also want to change the laws on underage sex, beastaility ect.

wow

Sorry, I am not going to be forced out of where I have been born by a hateful idiot, because she becomes emotionally compremised in a debate and has to sink to such pathetic levels.

You should be ashamed of yourself for that comment, trying to claim I wanted to change the laws on underage sex and beastiality. Do you know what is the worst part, I think you actually believe I do want to change those laws also, as why else make such a poor comment?

You crossed a line here Syl, one i wont forget.

by Syl Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:52 pm

Eilzel, I understand everything you have said, do you not understand what I have said?

The couple in the OP have already had a child, they are not the first and probably wont be the last....obviously to fulfill their relationship, which is part of human nature.

If incestuous relationships between close family members were ever to be legalised many would obviously want a family.

Your way would be to putting conditions on them...yes you can marry, but you cant have children....how long would that be acceptable to them?

The very act of incest is wrong even without adding the real harm of genetic damage to the children they may have.

You and others seem to think if something doesn't do harm it shouldn't be criminalised....many things that don't do harm are illegal. Try peeing in the street in public, having sex next time you are picking up the weekly groceries in Asda, masturbating in a public park...and so on.

by Guest Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:56 pm

Syl wrote:Eilzel, I understand everything you have said, do you not understand what I have said?

The couple in the OP have already had a child, they are not the first and probably wont be the last....obviously to fulfil their sexual relationship, which is human nature.

If incestuous relationships between close family members were ever to be legalised many would obviously want a family.

Your way would be to putting conditions on them...yes you can marry, but you cant have children....how long would that be acceptable to them?

The very act of incest is wrong even without adding the real harm of genetic damage to the children they may have.

You and others seem to think if something doesn't do harm it shouldn't be criminalised....many things that don't do harm are illegal. Try peeing in the street in public, having sex next time you are picking up the weekly groceries in Asda, masturbating in a public park...and so on.

Unbelieveable

Peeing in public, is unhygenic, so it can cause harm

I dont think you have a clue what you are talking about.

I see you have not the decency to apologise for your poor comment.

At least I always have for poor comments I have made.

You are certainly not the person I thought you were.

Now tell me and with reason, why two adults who consent to sex should be criminalized?

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:57 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Syl wrote:

If incest was socially and legally accepted, if you truly believe that in time incestuous couples would not want the basic right given to other couples, ie to start a family, you don't understand human nature.

Didge, you and others are comparing the way homosexuals were once treated to the way incestuous couples are now treated, so compare the rights that homosexuals have demanded and been granted over the last 50 odd years.....and replace that with couples in incestuous relationships, the difference being that straight incenstuous couples would be able to have their own children.

The way you see it would create a two tier society, those who are allowed to breed and those who are not.....so thanks for pointing out another drawback to ever legalising incest.

Do you now understand the concept of something that causes harm being wrong?

We KNOW children who are the products of incest have an incredibly high likelihood of being born with serious genetic problems. That is harm.

NOTHING else would matter.

Allowing incestuous couples to have sex is irrelevant because it isn't harming anyone.
Allowing incestuous couples to have children is harmful to the hypothetical children- it would be grossly irresponsible to allow that.

What part of something harmful or not do you not understand?

Are you saying we should criminalise incestuous couples because not doing 'might' lead to us legalising the birthing of children of incest?

The trouble is - how do you say to a related couple that it's OK but they're not to have children? How does anyone stop them having children? The best thing is to make incest illegal in the first place.

by Guest Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Do you now understand the concept of something that causes harm being wrong?

We KNOW children who are the products of incest have an incredibly high likelihood of being born with serious genetic problems. That is harm.

NOTHING else would matter.

Allowing incestuous couples to have sex is irrelevant because it isn't harming anyone.
Allowing incestuous couples to have children is harmful to the hypothetical children- it would be grossly irresponsible to allow that.

What part of something harmful or not do you not understand?

Are you saying we should criminalise incestuous couples because not doing 'might' lead to us legalising the birthing of children of incest?

The trouble is - how do you say to a related couple that it's OK but they're not to have children? How does anyone stop them having children? The best thing is to make incest illegal in the first place.

We already have a system in place to take away children, from parents not fit to raise children. (Though, I see no reason why a child should be taken away if healthy, born of incestual parents.

So is it the best thing?

We already allow unfit parents to procreate.

Mothers that for example are heroin addicts. The children are often taken into care

by Tommy Monk Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:30 am

Syl... excellent posts!

by Syl Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Syl... excellent posts!

Thank you Tommy, I must admit though it's one of the weirdest debates I have ever had on a forum. Evil or Very Mad

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:58 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The trouble is - how do you say to a related couple that it's OK but they're not to have children? How does anyone stop them having children? The best thing is to make incest illegal in the first place.

We already have a system in place to take away children, from parents not fit to raise children. (Though, I see no reason why a child should be taken away if healthy, born of incestual parents.

So is it the best thing?

We already allow unfit parents to procreate.

Mothers that for example are heroin addicts. The children are often taken into care

Yes, but they wouldn't necessarily be unfit parents would they? The problem is more children being born with a higher risk of inherited diseases generally. Some of these diseases can be very nasty indeed.

by magica Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:37 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Syl... excellent posts!

Thank you Tommy, I must admit though it's one of the weirdest debates I have ever had on a forum.

Me too Syl, I'm out of this thread now. You made great posts, I support you all the way x

by Guest Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:28 pm

magica wrote:
Syl wrote:

Thank you Tommy, I must admit though it's one of the weirdest debates I have ever had on a forum.

Me too Syl, I'm out of this thread now. You made great posts, I support you all the way x

Two posters that both made poor disingeions claims on me. When you both had no rational arguments and have not the dencency to apologise for them. Both of you were pathetic for doing so.

Like I say, I will not forget

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:29 pm

Didge wrote:
magica wrote:

Me too Syl, I'm out of this thread now. You made great posts, I support you all the way x

Two posters that both made poor disingeions claims on me. When you both had no rational arguments and have not the dencency to apologise for them. Both of you were pathetic for doing so.

Like I say, I will not forget

I thought you didn't bear grudges.

by Guest Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:31 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Two posters that both made poor disingeions claims on me. When you both had no rational arguments and have not the dencency to apologise for them. Both of you were pathetic for doing so.

Like I say, I will not forget

I thought you didn't bear grudges.

Untill they apologise, I will certainly will in this case.

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:32 pm

Who are the two posters, and what did they do? Disagree with you? Laughing

by magica Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:37 pm

Exactly Rags. What have we got to apologise for?

What, for having a different view to him. It's him who should apologise to us, calling us names when neither of us have to him.

I will not converse with him again

by Sponsored content