• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mom, daughter charged with incest after marrying in Oklahoma

If people believe that current laws on incest are unjust, intrusive or immoral they can do what the LGBTQ communities have been doing for about half-a-century: make the argument, win the debate, frame the legislation and get it enacted. If enough people come round to the arguments for reform or repeal of anti-incest laws, then they will change. I can't see the problem.
 
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.

What I find fascinating is some people can completely override what occurs naturally in most. Incest is illegal for a reason. It is morally reprehensible, its culturally taboo, genetically messed up, and the off-spring of such a relationship can suffer from a multitude of problems physically and mentally.

I’d hate to see some of these people’s family tree. It’s probably shaped like a stump.
 
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.

While on the surface i do agree, there is a eugenics implication. Children born from incest are far more likely to have defects and experience disabilities.
 
Really...i thought those protesters in ohio had a roght to be in front of the sex offenders house

There is a big difference between being out in front of the house on the sidewalk which is public property and being on the front lawn,which is private property.
How did you not know that?
Didn't they teach you that in school?
 
What I find fascinating is some people can completely override what occurs naturally in most. Incest is illegal for a reason. It is morally reprehensible, its culturally taboo, genetically messed up, and the off-spring of such a relationship can suffer from a multitude of problems physically and mentally.

I’d hate to see some of these people’s family tree. It’s probably shaped like a stump.
I don't think off-spring is an issue with the Mother Daughter thing, but, I suspect some mental issues will be involved.
 
The purpose of these marriages is pretty evident from the info, she is trying to gain something from a legal relationship with her children, establish a legal relationship of some type with them due to losing custody when they were younger. There is something more there as well though, since child services was somehow involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The purpose of these marriages is pretty evident from the info, she is trying to gain something from a legal relationship with her children, establish a legal relationship of some type with them due to losing custody when they were younger. There is something more there as well though, since child services was somehow involved.

Wouldn't "adoption" be a better path forward if it's strictly about a legal mother/daughter tie being reinstated?

Surely it's better than wife-wife.
 
Wouldn't "adoption" be a better path forward if it's strictly about a legal mother/daughter tie being reinstated?

Surely it's better than wife-wife.

Should be but she may not realize it's an option for adults, or may not be able to due to losing custody when they were babies. Depends on those laws.

Note she did the same thing with her son a few years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Incest is illegal because the offspring of such pairings are horrible. ALSO Incest tends to promote and hide abuse, sexual abuse of children. This isn't about "Pushing my morals" it's about having a standard of decency, of protecting innocent lives and preventing genetic abominations.

Sexual abuse of children, or anyone for that matter, is already a crime. A sexual relationship of any kind with a child is already a crime.

If you think the offspring are "genetic abominations," I believe you have a vastly inflated impression of the genetic issues caused.
 
It's icky, seriously icky.

Lots of people say that about you.

You say it's not about pushing your morals, but in the same sentence mention decency. Then you say it's "icky." These are moral judgments, Renae.
 
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 think incest should be illegal for a breeding couple closely related. It's not a matter of what offends me. It's a matter of what will result.

I realize some people think two women can produce a child but science disagrees with them.
 
Since I believe the reason behind incest statutes is that birth defects are thought to be very likely in the case of incest, I see no reason to waste taxpayer money prosecuting them.

Prosecutors should close their eyes, hold their noses and fuggetaboutit.

Getting married doesn't mean the mother and daughter had sex together.
 
Sexual abuse of children, or anyone for that matter, is already a crime. A sexual relationship of any kind with a child is already a crime.

If you think the offspring are "genetic abominations," I believe you have a vastly inflated impression of the genetic issues caused.

As usual you speak without understanding.

Incest can PROMOTE sexual abuse of children. Does it matter that such act is already illegal? Nope. So your comment here is meritless.

Understanding Genetics
A Primer for you on the dangers of incest and the horrors of genetic aberration. Or you could just watch Deliverance.

This is your one thread of conversation to prove I should bother reading you for the month, make it a good one!
 
I agree. My personal moral disapproval is not reason in of itself to deny someone the right to do something.

Cool jack off in public...piss any where u want..

There are reasons other than "personal moral disapproval" for which such behavior is not allowed. I suspect you know that.
 
As usual you speak without understanding.

Incest can PROMOTE sexual abuse of children. Does it matter that such act is already illegal? Nope. So your comment here is meritless.

Understanding Genetics
A Primer for you on the dangers of incest and the horrors of genetic aberration. Or you could just watch Deliverance.

This is your one thread of conversation to prove I should bother reading you for the month, make it a good one!

You mention Deliverance, proving my claim that you have an inflated view of the risks.

But something you should understand, seeing as how we're on the "understanding genetics" bit: Everyone is inbred. It's just a matter of degree. People tend to live in somewhat homogenous communities. My area was settled by a lot of german and scandinavian types back in the day, so a large part of the population reflects that. Any random woman I bone is probably my 15th cousin, or something. But the risks here are acceptably low, and there's no social taboo.

Greater degrees of inbreeding do carry higher risks of various problems, but this is largely something that occurs over several generations of strict inbreeding.

This brings up an interesting question: what degree of genetic disorder risk is acceptable? If I'm a carrier for some genetic trait that is considered negative, does that risk give society the right to prevent me from having children? Because my child will have a 10% chance of having the issue instead of 5%? What about 50% instead of 5%?

How far can this conversation go before we're talking eugenics?
 
You mention Deliverance, proving my claim that you have an inflated view of the risks.

But something you should understand, seeing as how we're on the "understanding genetics" bit: Everyone is inbred. It's just a matter of degree. People tend to live in somewhat homogenous communities. My area was settled by a lot of german and scandinavian types back in the day, so a large part of the population reflects that. Any random woman I bone is probably my 15th cousin, or something. But the risks here are acceptably low, and there's no social taboo.

Greater degrees of inbreeding do carry higher risks of various problems, but this is largely something that occurs over several generations of strict inbreeding.

This brings up an interesting question: what degree of genetic disorder risk is acceptable? If I'm a carrier for some genetic trait that is considered negative, does that risk give society the right to prevent me from having children? Because my child will have a 10% chance of having the issue instead of 5%? What about 50% instead of 5%?

How far can this conversation go before we're talking eugenics?
I think you just ended it. Thank you for wasting my time again, see you next month.

/wave
 
While on the surface i do agree, there is a eugenics implication. Children born from incest are far more likely to have defects and experience disabilities.

Yes, which is why I'm personally still a bit iffy on incest; I can totally get behind polygamy being legal, but incest is kind of a whole different ball park.
 
Last edited:
I think you just ended it. Thank you for wasting my time again, see you next month.

/wave

No rebuttal to anything I said. Nobody is shocked.

Put me on ignore and leave me there. This bait game has been forwarded to moderators.
 
Since I believe the reason behind incest statutes is that birth defects are thought to be very likely in the case of incest, I see no reason to waste taxpayer money prosecuting them.

Prosecutors should close their eyes, hold their noses and fuggetaboutit.

To play devil's advocate, what does the birth defect thing really matter? Let's say a father and daughter want to marry or a brother and sister want to marry. Wouldn't it be discrimination against them (in the liberal mindset) if we allow a normal couple to marry, knowing that there's a chance of having a baby with a birth defect (let's assume they know that one of them carries a gene mutation for something) but we deny fathers and daughters from marrying or brothers and sisters (who could actually conceive a normal child)?
 
I don't think off-spring is an issue with the Mother Daughter thing, but, I suspect some mental issues will be involved.

Of course. I was speaking generally. Those two are obviously messed up in the head. Probably voted for BO. :)
 
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 gay marriage debate when concerns about incest and pedophilia were waved off as "slippery slope" arguments?

Good times. Good times.

Indeed.

Yeah, next there'll be 'The sect of Lott' which will reserve incest as some sort of religious freedom. :roll:

Soon there after NAMBLA will get a government subsidy. :doh
 
Indeed.

Yeah, next there'll be 'The sect of Lott' which will reserve incest as some sort of religious freedom. :roll:

Soon there after NAMBLA will get a government subsidy. :doh


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