After a long article about a guy having sex with and them marrying his daughter, my first thought after reading this:
… was that they were talking about his penis.
Well, certainly I agree with you there, which is why I specified adult onset incest in my previous post. I know of no way father/daughter incest could be considered “between consensual adults” if the daughter is still a child.
Did they swab the alligator for DNA? Might be able to tack on a reptile abuse charge.
Because young females are NOT capable of Coercion. :rolleyes:
<<---------- Would love an answer to this too.
I wonder if some sharp defense attorney could get Woody Allen to be an expert witness.
I didn’t see anyone else bring this up yet so I will.
What about the fact that a father/daughter combo has the potential to produced defective babies? I don’t know a whole lot about this topic but I have read many times that the closer you are related the more likely you are to have children that have mental and physical defects. Isn’t that a good reason to keep family members from marrying?
My husband’s sister and his mom’s brother have been shacked up for decades, on and off. No kids together, but 10 between them. Most of their kids are skeeved out. We were fine with it from a logical standpoint when they first took up with each other, but lately, we vascillate between “Whatever floats your boat” and “Jesus! What the fuck were they thinking!” They don’t have much contact with the family…usually just Christmas, although I talk to my SIL frequently (and was very close with her until the last couple years). My husband’s other sisters are disgusted with the whole thing. It’s their business and theirs alone, but…Jesus, what a clusterfuck.
Although lacking a cite, I’d presume that to be the rationale behind all laws prohibiting marriages and sexual unions between close relatives. Take a look at Prince Charles-there was no lifeguard blowing his whistle at that gene pool. 
I think you’d have a very difficult uphill battle given the language in Lawrence which specifically limits the decision’s scope.
Emphasis mine.
Enjoy,
Steven
My first thought was whether Jerry Springer or Maury Povich would book them first…
Not at all. The Lawrence language specifically excludes persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused, as you correctly point out, but encompasses adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices with each other. The question of consent then becomes a matter of fact for the jury to decide.
If this were not so, then all the prosecution would have to prove under IC 35-46-1-3 is that my client (1) engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman who was (2) his daughter and (3) he knew she was his daughter. If Lawrence’s rationale is applied, then the prosecution also has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a relationship where consent might not easily be refused, or that the daughter was coerced. It lets me put on a defense of live-and-let-live, mutual consenting adults, whereas without that loophole, it’s a prosecutorial slam-dunk.
And even better if the trial judge rules I can’t present such evidence under Lawrence: automatic appealable issue.
Personally distasteful though I find these circumstances, it’s an almost guaranteed shot at a state supreme court hearing, and a better-than-your-average-trial-issue’s chance for US Supreme Court cert.
There is also the question of injury by virtue of the risks inherant with sexual relations with extremely close biological relatives. Even if this particular couple plans not to have children, and/or one of them is sterilized, the statute could stand because it is in the state’s legitimate interest in forbidding relationships with high degress of risk of producing defective offspring(which then go on to become handicapped members of society). Then it becomes a question of if the criminalization of the behavior is constitutional or not. Odds are they can, for the above rationale, refuse to sanction the marriage in any case. They still be able to lock them up if the state’s interest in only allowing relationships which are at lesser risks of producing handicapped citizens outweighs their right to boff any consenting adult.
I guess we may get those questions that the weird Due Process based holding of Lawrence raised answered sooner rather than later.
Enjoy,
Steven
Personally, I think this idea was created to scare people. Somewhere down the line someone had offspring, from the result of incest, which netted double heads/diseases and such. From then on, “Don’t do it! The babies will be deformed!” OMG!1
Shockingly though, the same double heads and diseases also come from regular people with non-family relations too.
I also don’t have any cites either, but I have read some things that debunk these “deformed” theorys. I’ve also read the ones that claim it “will” happen too. So it’s kinda up in the air, and still needs more fact finding research. IMO, I feel the ones that say it “will” happen, are most likely scewed and slanted for a specific agenda. Kinda like smoking will kill you, but KNOWONE REALLY KNOWS FOR SURE. Kinda like that.
Well, actually, Bongmaster has simplified the situation unduly:
- Every relationship has the potential to produce children with either inherited diseases, congenital defects, inherited predisposiotions toward diseases, etc., through reinforcement of recessive traits.
- A relationship in which the members are related shares more genes, and thus the chance of negative reinforcement is greater.
- If these members are closely related, they will share many genes, and quite possibly several recessive traits that cause diseases, etc.
QED, incestuous relationships are genetically dangerous.
Could the state criminalize sexual contact between two unrelated people, if they each know that they each carry a recessive gene that makes it highly likely they will produce handicapped offspring?
I believe that’s actually an unclefuck.
Wonder if they’ve seen SP:BL&U?
Perhaps, but the people on Pitcairn Island have been having incestuous relationships for over 200 years (I think there’s only three last names on the entire island and sooner or later someone’s going to have to tag their cousin at leastto keep things going) and I’ve heard of no deformities or genetic defects.
The birthrate is perhaps not high enough to show it. In 2003 the first child for 17 years was born. They are a population hanging on by its fingernails.
I believe that was actually in France, but a google search turns up the usual amount of comercial websites 
Declan
I thought it was Australia.