Mom, daughter charged with incest after marrying in Oklahoma

[eohrnberger]

Slate.Com is already firing up the pedo-pride parade floats.

Seriously? I mean no way!

Pride in destroying a child's life? How perverse is that?

Seems we've slid down this slipper slope rather far rather quickly.
(To the roaring silence of all those who denied that there was a slipper slope)

 

[roguenuke]

Seriously? I mean no way!

Pride in destroying a child's life? How perverse is that?

Seems we've slid down this slipper slope rather far rather quickly.
(To the roaring silence of all those who denied that there was a slipper slope)

Do you know what a slippery slope would be here?

You do know that Rhode Island has no incest laws right? And they haven't had any since before same sex marriage was legal anywhere in the US. The rest of our states have varying incest laws. This isn't like same sex marriage. Hell even here the woman is getting in trouble. She isn't simply trying to marry a daughter she fell in love with and didn't know or found out was her daughter.

Honestly they shouldn't charge her with incest, but fraud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[eohrnberger]

Do you know what a slippery slope would be here?

In response to

Slate.Com is already firing up the pedo-pride parade floats.

The mere idea that pedo-pride parade floats are even allowed is outrageous, but, there we have it. How long before pedo is accepted as a legitimate alternative life style?

Has everyone forgotten the biblical warnings of Sodom and Gomorrah? You know, there's something to that.

You do know that Rhode Island has no incest laws right? And they haven't had any since before same sex marriage was legal anywhere in the US. The rest of our states have varying incest laws. This isn't like same sex marriage. Hell even here the woman is getting in trouble. She isn't simply trying to marry a daughter she fell in love with and didn't know or found out was her daughter.

Honestly they shouldn't charge her with incest, but fraud.

In this particular case, that would probably be the most appropriate course of action, but the idea that the mother was able to marry her son, and then wanted to marry her daughter, that this idea, that this behavior, is even acceptable is most disturbing, yet there are some here who defend it with 'consenting adults, why should I care?' is the most concerning of all.

Have the morals in society, that on which societies are built, have they collapsed already?

 

[roguenuke]

In response to

​

The mere idea that pedo-pride parade floats are even allowed is outrageous, but, there we have it. How long before pedo is accepted as a legitimate alternative life style?

Has everyone forgotten the biblical warnings of Sodom and Gomorrah? You know, there's something to that.



In this particular case, that would probably be the most appropriate course of action, but the idea that the mother was able to marry her son, and then wanted to marry her daughter, that this idea, that this behavior, is even acceptable is most disturbing, yet there are some here who defend it with 'consenting adults, why should I care?' is the most concerning of all.

Have the morals in society, that on which societies are built, have they collapsed already?

Why is this so much of an issue? She almost certainly was doing this just for some legal status with her children (something that shouldn't be supported being done this way no matter what). It almost certainly wasn't caught because of several potential reasons, lazy clerk, her having a different name than them, their mother being listed as whoever got custody of them, whatever. It isn't that hard to have gotten through.

As for the other part, I guarantee that there aren't major supporters of same sex marriage and gay rights building floats with "pedo-pride" on them. That is a scare tactic, an attempt by those who are upset that same sex marriage is legal to try to discredit major supporters in hopes of gaining support back to their side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I'm torn. It definitely grosses me out to the extreme. But should it be legal? Things get complicated when you are talking about parent child incest. I usually say if it is two, or more, consenting adults mind your own business. The problem is I find it next to impossible to believe that, after a normal childhood, this romantic relationship popped up spontaneously upon adulthood. I don't buy that for a second. This woman was grooming her children for this. And I would also bet that in almost every case of a parent having a romantic relationship with their adult children that there was some ****ed up or downright illegal stuff going on in their childhood to lead to that. Proving it is certainly problematic. But I am not going to lose any sleep if parent/child incest remains illegal.

 

[eohrnberger]

Why is this so much of an issue? She almost certainly was doing this just for some legal status with her children (something that shouldn't be supported being done this way no matter what). It almost certainly wasn't caught because of several potential reasons, lazy clerk, her having a different name than them, their mother being listed as whoever got custody of them, whatever. It isn't that hard to have gotten through.

It is unseemly in the extreme that a mother would first marry her son, and then want to marry her daughter. The matter that benefit fraud, most likely, is the root isn't some sort of excuse for it.

As for the other part, I guarantee that there aren't major supporters of same sex marriage and gay rights building floats with "pedo-pride" on them. That is a scare tactic, an attempt by those who are upset that same sex marriage is legal to try to discredit major supporters in hopes of gaining support back to their side.

Hmm. The Slate support of pedo appears to be real.

I'm a pedophile, but not a monster - Salon.com

Stop childhood sexual abuse: How to treat pedophilia. - Slate
Soft on the pedophiles. An abhorrent behavior, by definition.

Stop Calling Kevin Clash a Pedophile - Slate
Stop calling this man a pedo just because he had sex with the underage?

How can anyone defend this support for pedophiles?
How can anyone support this support for pedophiles?

It's unconscionable.

 

[roguenuke]

I'm torn. It definitely grosses me out to the extreme. But should it be legal? Things get complicated when you are talking about parent child incest. I usually say if it is two, or more, consenting adults mind your own business. The problem is I find it next to impossible to believe that, after a normal childhood, this romantic relationship popped up spontaneously upon adulthood. I don't buy that for a second. This woman was grooming her children for this. And I would also bet that in almost every case of a parent having a romantic relationship with their adult children that there was some ****ed up or downright illegal stuff going on in their childhood to lead to that. Proving it is certainly problematic. But I am not going to lose any sleep if parent/child incest remains illegal.

Did you read the story? This woman likely had very little if any access to her children. She lost custody of them to someone else when they were very young if not babies. And since she already did this same thing once before with her son, it is much more likely to be some sort of scam marriage to establish a legal relationship rather than marriage based on an intimate connection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VanceMack]

Meh...who could have seen this coming...

 

[roguenuke]

It is unseemly in the extreme that a mother would first marry her son, and then want to marry her daughter. The matter that benefit fraud, most likely, is the root isn't some sort of excuse for it.



Hmm. The Slate support of pedo appears to be real.

I'm a pedophile, but not a monster - Salon.com

Stop childhood sexual abuse: How to treat pedophilia. - Slate
Soft on the pedophiles. An abhorrent behavior, by definition.

Stop Calling Kevin Clash a Pedophile - Slate
Stop calling this man a pedo just because he had sex with the underage?

How can anyone defend this support for pedophiles?
How can anyone support this support for pedophiles?

It's unconscionable.

Did you read those stories? They are people who want help for their attractions, which they are not acting on, but who end up getting shunned by society and anyone who finds out about such things just due to the stigma of them. They don't want to act on their attractions, and they don't. But others still treat them as if they have or will simply because of their admitting to those attractions. That is a problem that needs to be addressed instead of sticking the social head in the sand and saying "they're all sick and eventually will hurt children". We need to ensure that they have the support to not hurt children as they aren't now. They haven't said they are proud of their attractions, only that they are proud of their own ability to not harm children despite those attractions and want some help.

 

[eohrnberger]

Did you read those stories? They are people who want help for their attractions, which they are not acting on, but who end up getting shunned by society and anyone who finds out about such things just due to the stigma of them. They don't want to act on their attractions, and they don't. But others still treat them as if they have or will simply because of their admitting to them. That is a problem that needs to be addressed instead of sticking the social head in the sand and saying "they're all sick and eventually will hurt children". We need to ensure that they have the support to not hurt children as they aren't now.

No, they need to be eliminated from the gene pool.
Eliminated from society.
Eliminated from any possible access to children.
There is no such thing as a reformed pedo.

 

[roguenuke]

No, they need to be eliminated from the gene pool.
Eliminated from society.
Eliminated from any possible access to children.
There is no such thing as a reformed pedo.

No they don't. They need help. Just because we don't know how to help them, doesn't mean they are a threat to children. You don't get to kill people based on their thoughts or feelings. Deal with it.

 

[eohrnberger]

No they don't. They need help. Just because we don't know how to help them, doesn't mean they are a threat to children. You don't get to kill people based on their thoughts or feelings. Deal with it.

More like urges and actions they take on those urges.

Fine. Let them move into your neighborhood then.

 

[roguenuke]

More like urges and actions they take on those urges.

Fine. Let them move into your neighborhood then.

No. We are talking about pedophiles who haven't acted on those urges, who have controlled themselves and are seeking help to not do that, and to not be shunned for their actual admitting to feelings and trying to in fact seek help to change them. You wouldn't know if they moved into your neighborhood because such information is and should be confidential medical information.

Innocent until proven guilty. Thoughts are not a crime.

 

[eohrnberger]

No. We are talking about pedophiles who haven't acted on those urges, who have controlled themselves and are seeking help to not do that, and to not be shunned for their actual admitting to feelings and trying to in fact seek help to change them. You wouldn't know if they moved into your neighborhood because such information is and should be confidential medical information.

Innocent until proven guilty. Thoughts are not a crime.

Innocent until how many children's lives have been destroy? That risk and that impact . . . . Needs to be avoided at nearly all cost.

 

[roguenuke]

Innocent until how many children's lives have been destroy? That risk and that impact . . . . Needs to be avoided at nearly all cost.

The risk of which is reduced by teaching children to help protect themselves and getting such people actual help, making it better and safer for them to admit to themselves and healthcare professionals that they feel this way and need help and knowing that doing so won't cause them to either a) be put to death or b) be locked up and isolated from others because of that simple admission. Most people would be more likely to hide themselves, not seek any help, and likely make such issues worse in such a situation than had they felt safe in seeking help.

 

[Hicup]

Well if they broke the law they broke the law.
That doesn't mean I support the law though.
While I personally may find it repulsive If this was consenting sound mind adults the law should be changed, its none of my business or the government's business.

Now on the matter of "off spring" well I leave that up to the medical community. If there is factually some great odds that endanger any off spring of incest then I could support laws concerning "offspring" but not that act itself.

It's a myth, well sort of. What I mean is that statistically the risk of a birth defect is greater when two people carry the same defect on an allele, but without defects such as heart disease, cancer risk, etc.. the risk is only correlative. Truth is that even clones, meaning identical DNA will still have genetic mutation in their offspring, and that if they had two children, male and female and these two children mated, they to would have genetic mutation forming entirely different individuals that in and of themselves would not be any more or less prone to genetic disease than any other subset of the human genome. Take bacteria for example of what it is I'm saying. carried to the extreme; way back when as life began single asexual single celled creatures produced all the variety of life as we see today. How did that happen if humans, or any other species were at any greater or lesser risk of extinction due to lack of genetic variation.

Not that I support incest, but environment may, as it has in the past, necessitate it. In either regard, evolution, and life, as they say, will find a way.

Tim-

 

[roguenuke]

It's a myth, well sort of. What I mean is that statistically the risk of a birth defect is greater when two people carry the same defect on an allele, but without defects such as heart disease, cancer risk, etc.. the risk is only correlative. Truth is that even clones, meaning identical DNA will still have genetic mutation in their offspring, and that if they had two children, male and female and these two children mated, they to would have genetic mutation forming entirely different individuals that in and of themselves would not be any more or less prone to genetic disease than any other subset of the human genome. Take bacteria for example of what it is I'm saying. carried to the extreme; way back when as life began single asexual single celled creatures produced all the variety of life as we see today. How did that happen if humans, or any other species were at any greater or lesser risk of extinction due to lack of genetic variation.

Not that I support incest, but environment may, as it has in the past, necessitate it. In either regard, evolution, and life, as they say, will find a way.

Tim-

This isn't true at all. There are so many different genes that we carry, that such things increase risk by much more than you present here. Children of genetic siblings have a risk of genetic issues that is around 40%, compared to the risk of nonrelated people being 2%. And when such things become generational, as in your example, the risk increases, it doesn't decrease.

 

[SCitizen]

As crazy as I think it is, I don't think incest should be illegal. Nor should polygamy be illegal.

As long as they are consenting adults, I don't see the problem.

It's not my place to push my morals onto other individuals.

I agree 100%.

 

[Hicup]

This isn't true at all. There are so many different genes that we carry, that such things increase risk by much more than you present here. Children of genetic siblings have a risk of genetic issues that is around 40%, compared to the risk of nonrelated people being 2%. And when such things become generational, as in your example, the risk increases, it doesn't decrease.

And when one none related parent carries a genetic disorder and the other doesn't the risk is..?? Thanks.. Come again.

But seriously, if neither parent, related or not, carries a genetic defect, the risk is almost zero. If they do, related or not, the risk increases. That's what I mean by correlative. Admittedly, my single paragraph nowhere near attempts to get into the nitty gritty, but I thought it was a pretty good summation of the actual risks. By your standard one could argue that two related parents carrying no genetic disorders is actually better than two or one none related parent carrying a disorder. They call that eugenics, and Sanger was a proponent of it. Remember her.

Either way, how can the government even begin to legislate relationships based on genetic predisposition. It cannot, at least not yet.

Tim-

 

[roguenuke]

And when one none related parent carries a genetic disorder and the other doesn't the risk is..?? Thanks.. Come again.

But seriously, if neither parent, related or not, carries a genetic defect, the risk is almost zero. If they do, related or not, the risk increases. That's what I mean by correlative. Admittedly, my single paragraph nowhere near attempts to get into the nitty gritty, but I thought it was a pretty good summation of the actual risks. By your standard one could argue that two related parents carrying no genetic disorders is actually better than two or one none related parent carrying a disorder. They call that eugenics, and Sanger was a proponent of it. Remember her.

Either way, how can the government even begin to legislate relationships based on genetic predisposition. It cannot, at least not yet.

Tim-

And related people have a higher risk of carrying more genetic defects or deficiencies, most of which are not obvious. That is where the increased risk comes from. Nonrelated pairs carry much fewer such traits. And not all such things are either a or b. Some have many possibilities for a single gene, rather than simply 2.

 

[AGENT J]

It's a myth, well sort of. What I mean is that statistically the risk of a birth defect is greater when two people carry the same defect on an allele, but without defects such as heart disease, cancer risk, etc.. the risk is only correlative. Truth is that even clones, meaning identical DNA will still have genetic mutation in their offspring, and that if they had two children, male and female and these two children mated, they to would have genetic mutation forming entirely different individuals that in and of themselves would not be any more or less prone to genetic disease than any other subset of the human genome. Take bacteria for example of what it is I'm saying. carried to the extreme; way back when as life began single asexual single celled creatures produced all the variety of life as we see today. How did that happen if humans, or any other species were at any greater or lesser risk of extinction due to lack of genetic variation.

Not that I support incest, but environment may, as it has in the past, necessitate it. In either regard, evolution, and life, as they say, will find a way.

Tim-

THanks for the info. Like I said if all that is true and medical science supports it than Im ok with it as far as laws are concerned. I don't personally support it but I see no reason to outlaw the sex act or the offspring then.

 

[SDET]

As crazy as I think it is, I don't think incest should be illegal. Nor should polygamy be illegal.

As long as they are consenting adults, I don't see the problem.

It's not my place to push my morals onto other individuals.

If everyone promoted that we would have a society with no values, no better than wild animals.

 

[Deuce]

Remember back during the early days of the gay marriage debate when concerns about incest and pedophilia were waved off as "slippery slope" arguments?

Good times. Good times.

Remember back during the early days of the interracial marriage debate when the same thing happened? If you let blacks marry whites, soon people will marry children!!

 

[trouble13]

I thought about this a bit while I read through the thread.
We as a society have decided that we do not tolerate sexual harassment,
be it in the workplace, or in schools, even when all parties are adults.
Our disapproval comes from the idea that if a person has some type of authority
over another individual, there is a risk they could compelled the subordinate into a sex.
If there is anything "wrong" with the mother daughter marriage, I think that would be the issue.

Thats an interesting take that i had not considered.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So I can come jerk *** n front of your house?

as long as you're off my property and out of view of the public I saw jerk *** wherever you want