[Brendan]

Quote:

'We ended up kissing and kissing led to other things': Mother, 36, and son, 19, who fell in love when they met last year after she gave him up for adoption as a baby, say they'll go to JAIL to defend their relationship

Monica Mares, 36, and her son Caleb Peterson, 19, of Clovis, New Mexico, face up to 18 months in prison if found guilty of incest
The couple said that they are willing to risk everything to be together
They have decided to go public with their affair in a bid to raise awareness of Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) relationships
Mares, a mother of nine, gave birth to Peterson when she was 16 years old, and he was adopted shortly thereafter
They were reunited for the first time last year after reconnecting over Facebook
The couple, who live separately in Clovis, New Mexico, developed feelings for each other and their relationship became sexual a few weeks later
But they are banned from having any contact with each other by the courts

A mother and son whose forbidden love affair could land them each a lengthy jail sentence have declared they are 'madly in love' and nothing will tear them apart.
Monica Mares, 36, and her son Caleb Peterson, 19, face up to 18 months in prison if found guilty of incest at a trial later this year in New Mexico.
But the mother and son couple have vowed to fight for their right to have a sexual relationship and are appealing to the public to donate to their legal fund.
In an exclusive individual interviews with Daily Mail Online, they told how they are willing to risk everything to be together - and have decided to go public with their affair in a bid to raise awareness of Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) relationships.

GSA is defined as sexual attraction between close relatives, such as siblings or half-siblings, a parent and offspring, or first and second cousins, who first meet as adults.
Mares said: 'He is the love of my life and I don't want to lose him.My kids love him, my whole family does. Nothing can come between us not courts, or jail, nothing.
'I have to be with him. When I get out of prison I will move out of Clovis to a state that allows us to be together.'
Incest is a crime in all 50 states, but the specifics of the laws and punishment vary greatly from state to state.
Mother-of-nine Mares said she would even give up the right to see her other children if she was asked to choose between them and her lover.

The couple who currently live separately in Clovis, New Mexico - and are banned from having any contact with each other by the courts - first embarked on their love affair towards the end of last year.
Mares was just 16 when she gave birth to Peterson - whose pre-adoption name was Carlos - and he was adopted as a baby.
The 36-year-old, who didn't raise Peterson, saw him for the first time in 18 years last Christmas when she picked him up at his adoptive father's house in Texas and brought him to her home after the pair got in touch over Facebook.
The couple soon developed romantic feelings for each other and their relationship became sexual a few weeks later.
'The first time I met my son in person I was so happy and excited I gave him a big hug,' Mares said.'I went to go pick him up at his dad's house in Texas.
'He gave me a call and asked me to pick him up, I got butterflies in my stomach.

'I met him outside and I knew it was him when he came towards me. He was crying and he gave me a hug.
'It was almost love at first sight but first it was mother love. He gave me a mother hug.
'He came home in the truck and came to live with me and we were both happy as mother and son.'
Mares said that at first nothing happened but she then started getting these 'crazy' feelings.
She said it felt different because she didn't raise him as her child yet after all these years he came back to her.

'It felt like I met somebody new in my life and I fell in love with him,' she explained.
She continued: 'At first I told him, "I'm sorry I don't know how you are going to react to this. I'm your mom and you're my son, but I'm falling in love with you".
'And he said: "You know what I am too. I was scared to let you know". He was falling in love with his mom and I was falling in love with my son.
'We talked about it and we took off to the park. I said, "Would you ever date your mom?" And he said: "would you ever date your son?" And I said, "Honest truth yes I would".'
Mares says Peterson is the best thing that has happened to her in the past 19 years and wants to be with him for the rest of her life.

She understands that she risks losing all her children and going to state prison but they both want to fight it.
'Caleb is willing to go through the same thing. Whatever it takes to be together,' she said.
At first the couple lived happily together in Mares' mobile home with her two youngest children Uriah and Joseph – keeping their relationship a secret from the world.
Mares' youngest son even began calling Peterson 'dad'.
But police soon found out about the clandestine affair during a call over a row between the family and some neighbors.
The couple was charged with incest – a fourth-degree felony in New Mexico - following the February 25th incident.
They were arraigned and appeared jointly in court in April – but were held in custody for breaching their no-contact order.
They were released on $5,000 bond and now face a trial by jury in September.
Currently Mares is not allowed to see any of her children or have any contact at all with Peterson.Yet she maintains that is has all been worth it.
'It is every bit worth it,' she said. 'If they lock me up for love then they lock me up. There is no way anybody could pull us apart, and I really do love him.
'It hurts he is far away. It hurts really bad. I wish I could see him, talk to him, but I can't risk it.'

Peterson said he started falling love with his mom about a week after meeting her - but claims as he grew up with an adopted parents he never really saw Mares as his mother.
'I never had anyone cook me meals or give me anything,' he said. 'I never got anything my entire life and she went out of her way to make me happy and after about a week or so I started having feelings for her and I guess I fell in love.
'It went beyond a mother-son relationship I never really viewed her as my mom. In certain aspects I do but mostly I don't.
'I never thought I was crazy for having these feelings because I didn't see her as my mom, it was more like going to a club and meeting a random person. It didn't feel wrong, it felt normal.'
Peterson claims it was him who made the first move not his mom.
He recalls: 'We were hanging out just talking and I looked at her and she looked at me and I kissed her.
'It was a real kiss it had feelings behind it, there was a spark that ever since then it just stayed.
'Honestly I never thought we would get into trouble for our relationship. We were both consenting adults - when it comes down to it.
'She's adult I'm adult I can make my own decisions. I never thought it would blow up into something like this.'
Mares also said that it didn't feel strange or wrong when the couple began their sexual relationship - but admits that it probably wouldn't have happened if she had raised Peterson.
'The first time we were physical ended up holding hands and then we ended up kissing and the kissing led to other things,' she said. 'I felt comfortable with him and we fell even more deeply in love.
'If he had been with me all his life I don't think anything would have happened between us.'
As well as legal trouble, the couple has met opposition from friends, neighbors, family members and the wider community.
Mares has been attacked outside her home and subjected to death threats.
She said: 'I've been having a lot of trouble from the people in Clovis. They call me incest.

Mares says other moms she knows don't understand what she's going through but says her kids have said they will love her no matter what.
But with a torn look on her face, she added: 'But if I had to choose between my son and all my other kids I'd chose him.'
Peterson added: 'My dad walked out on me because of it.
'There's a lot of negative comments I read on Facebook and things - people say it's disgusting, it's gross, she's your mom but it doesn't hurt me or affect me at all.
'If they were in my situation or if they were to find out that somebody they loved was actually related to them then they'd be saying the exact opposite.'
Peterson admits that sometimes he wonders if he should have done things differently - if only to spare his family the pain.
But he said that even if the judge offered to spare him jail if he stopped all contact with his mother, he would refuse.
And he has vowed to wait for Mares if she is jailed and he isn't.
'Sometimes the easy way isn't the best way,' he said. 'Sometimes we have to make that life decision that's going to change and affect everything but when it comes down to it, it's worth it.
'I will wait for her if she gets a jail sentence and I don't. For me it's not about patience it's about commitment.
'If I'm committed to something I follow it through that's the kind of person I am.
'If I love her enough and I'm crazy enough to stay in Clovis for her and crazy enough to face all the courts for her then waiting a bit of time to have the rest of my life being happy then I'm willing to do that.'

Daily Mail Online interviewed the couple separately to ensure they did not breach their court order.
As a sign of his love and commitment, Peterson left a rose for Mares on the bench at the park in Clovis where the couple first expressed their love for each other.
He said: 'She's never had anyone give her a rose. If I could I'd give her everything she wants. I miss talking to her and seeing her. There's not a day that goes by that I don't think about her.
'If I could speak to her now I would say to her: "I love you and I miss you and I can't wait to see you again."'
Despite the immense opposition to the couple's relationship, Mares and Peterson do have supporters in the community - including Dayton Chavez, Mares' ex and father to two of her sons Moses, nine, and Joseph, 12.
He said: 'I've told them I still love you guys either way. I support them.
'I would like to see the government get out of their business and let them live a normal life - let them live how they want to live.
'It would be different if it was a domestic violence situation but it's not.
'My point of view is they need to be allowed to live just how they are that's what America is built on.'

The couple - who both have roots with Native American Apache tribes - is also being supported by Cristina Shy who runs http://www.lilysgardener.com, a support and advocacy website for related couples, also known as consanguinamorous people.
Cristina, who is involved in an illegal relationship with her half brother in Minnesota, said: 'Our whole community is watching this case and looking for updates.
'It needs to be brought to the attention of everybody in the country and people need to start thinking differently.
'It was the same with gay people just a few years ago and now they can get married they are accepted.
'Well why not consanguinamorous people like us? We are all adults. We are not pedophiles, there's no domestic issue we are in love, we want to be together but we are related. That shouldn't be a deciding factor.'

Cristina is hoping to raise enough money to get a high profile attorney to defend the case and says the couple is willing to fight all the way to the US Supreme Court.
'This case could set precedent and change laws throughout the United States,' she said.
But Prosecutor Andrea Reeb, District Attorney for the Ninth Judicial District in New Mexico, doesn't agree.
She says incest is against the law and carries a maximum 18 month jail term and/or a $5,000 fine.
Speaking to Daily Mail Online from her office in Clovis, Reeb concedes there is a chance Peterson could be spared jail because of his age - but she's doubtful Mares will be treated as leniently.


She said: 'The law states that if you are related as they are - mother and son - you cannot have any type of sexual intimate relationship. It's a fourth-degree felony. It's the law so our office is bound to uphold the law so we are pursuing it.'
Reeb said that in her 20-year career as a prosecutor she has only handled a few incest cases.
She added: 'This case is going to be difficult only in the sense that some people think that Caleb is a victim and not a defendant.
'I have not got any feedback from the community or from anybody else believing that Monica Mares, the mother, that anybody has any sympathy towards her whatsoever.
'Both have acknowledged they knew it was wrong, they are both consenting adults so they are considered co-defendants.
'It's only a fourth-degree felony so it's the lowest level of felony in New Mexico.'
She added that if the couple reunited after their sentences - and law enforcement found out - they would be held accountable.
For Peterson, he is willing to wait for his mom if she's jailed, and despite the risk of further prosecution he still sees a happy future for the unconventional couple.
'In two years time I can see us living together happily living our lives,' he said. 'True love can do anything.
'This whole case is about whether I have the right to love somebody and I sure as hell have the right to love Monica.
'You can't tell me who to love, who not to love.'

source

She even said she'd give up her other 9 kids just to be together with her son.

[Saweeep]

I'm fairly sure i've read about this on this very forum today, in another thread.

[Brendan]

Ah, I just checked if anyone made a thread for it. Didn't check if anyone posted it in a specific thread.

[John Michael Kane]

#LoveWins!

If it isn't the phags, it is the LITERAL motherfuckers.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

"But they are banned from having any contact with each other by the courts."

And just like that, all of a sudden the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling is exposed as being as legally shaky as its critics said it was.

If the state can't determine what two consenting adults do with gays, why can they do it here? There is no valid legal argument against what they're doing now. And if liberals try to make a moral argument, that's been canceled out as well.

1). If you make it about morality you have to ask: Whose morality? What about the people who think gay love is immoral? Why isn't their morality valid? You can't have "cafeteria morality" when it comes to two consenting adults. They can either do what they want, or they can't.

2). If you make it about their babies being born deformed or with low I.Q.s that's also not an argument. Lots of people carry genetic markers for diseases they pass along to their kids.

(This is a variation of an argument used in favor of gay marriage. When opponents said "But gays can't genetically have kids, so they shouldn't marry," proponents said having kids doesn't matter for marriage. Because if it did, then senior citizens and the infertile should be barred from marriage. Well, that applies here too in its own way.)

This couple should take this to the Supreme Court. I like to hear Ruth Bader Ginsberg twist herself into logical knots explaining why this is wrong but gay marriage is OK. And I can't wait to see how liberals handle it.

One other thing (and it's an important thing): Sexual attraction is actually common for relatives who don't meet until they became adults. This has been studied and if they hire a lawyer, he should present these studies to the courts.

Author Kathryn Harrison didn't meet her father until adulthood and they started an affair. It became the subject of her 1997 novel "The Kiss" (New York Times review here.)

Why were these people arrested but Katherine Harrison was not? Because she's a Stanford graduate and has money?

They should get their lawyer to dig up studies about this -- and haul in Kathryn Harrison to testify. She's probably do it for the free publicity it would bring her book.

[HermeticAlly]

What is wrong with this guy? His mom is, quite literally, butt ugly.

[Dr. Howard]

as per OP

Quote:

She understands that she risks losing all her children and going to state prison but they both want to fight it.

For those non religious types...the hamster is quite a force.

For those religious types, here's the devil reading this story

[LateToTheParty]

Explain the attraction please...
http://m.christianpost.com/news/36-year-...67842/?m=1

[Windom Earle]

Mother Fucker!

[Gorgiass]

(08-13-2016 08:48 AM)HermeticAlly Wrote:  

What is wrong with this guy? His mom is, quite literally, butt ugly.

Holeeeee sheeeeet! Someone needs to get this boy on the forum. I wouldn't bang that with his grandpa's dick and his uncle pushing!

[eradicator]

(08-13-2016 08:48 AM)HermeticAlly Wrote:  

What is wrong with this guy? His mom is, quite literally, butt ugly.

Are you saying you would be ok with this if the mom was hot?

[EDantes]

From the sound of the story both seem pretty messed up psychologically.

First off, any woman who says she'd be okay with abandoning her kids just to be with a man is a selfish tramp - let alone when the "man" is her biological son. Doesn't sound like she knows or cares anything about how to have a real relationship, this is just some weird kinky fantasy about doing something "forbidden".

And the poor kid sounds like he has a serious Norman Bates complex - I suspect he probably hasn't had much or any sexual experience before and has likely never had a real man in his life to teach him proper relationship dynamics. The way he talks about "falling for her" because she "cooked him meals and gave him stuff" sounds like a complete role reversal.

Most likely she's just a domineering control freak who wants a pussy-whipped bitch for a "man" who she knows she can always control, instead of wanting her kid to be dating girls his own age and living a normal life.

And finally, I have a feeling there wouldn't be so many comments in support of this if it was a father and daughter.

[EDantes]

Slightly off-topic, but regarding the "genetic sexual attraction" thing mentioned in the article, this is basically my theory on it.

In evolutionary biology most species avoid mating with relatives unless they have no other options, and it's a choice between that or dying without ever procreating.

Traditionally people would pair off and find a partner some time after adolescence, so if they end up returning to their family after adolescence and having been separated from them, maybe the biology assumes they have no other mating options, and the "GSA" kicks in.

Still even if this served an evolutionary purpose, it would only be a last resort, such as if all of the women had been killed off by a rival tribe, and it was either mate with your sister or other female relative or have the whole tribe die off.

[Tim in real life]

Yuck. Shit like this completely justifies sons to ask in single-mother households, "What are we? A married couple?"

That question might've had saved my life in hindsight.

Addendum: the main point of that question is to point out how selfish single moms use their sons as substitutes for an actual husband, even albeit on an emotional level.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

But how do we all know that they're "Messed-up psychologically?"

What if they're The New Normal? ™ What if they were Born This Way? ™ What if they're a "Modern Family?" ™

What if it's us who are being judgemental? What if we've all been living in the dark ages and are closed-minded when it comes to different kinds of love? In our society today, by what standards can we say this is wrong?

And why does "Modern Family" have a gay couple but not these two? Isn't that being discriminatory and bigoted?

And we all know that in U.S. society 2016, bigotry is worse than anything...even incest.

(The U.S. left has officially painted itself into a corner, and these two hold the paintbrushes. If I were an art critic, I'd call these two as brilliant as Picasso -- and I'd title the 'work' they created "The New New Normal.")

[Bacchus]

@DOBA

The argument that they will use against incest (for the time being), while preserving gay marriage, is externalities. The children produced by incest have genetic defects. Gay marriages may indoctrinate their adopted and test-tube babies with rainbow propaganda, but this isn't considered harm in our society. Fag marriages do not produce genetic freaks that look likes dolphins, so "the Notorious RBG" can make a credible argument that there is a difference between incestual relations and homo relations.

These morals probably won't last, as Scalia is dead and there is no replacement is sight.

Scalia tried to bring up the issue of externalities in gay marriage and was widely shamed for it in the media.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...-more.html

Here's the transcript of his question during the fag marriage case:

Quote:

After enduring a longish, vague speech from Cooper about the “real-world consequences” of redefining marriage, Scalia cut in and just did the job himself: “Mr. Cooper, let me—let me give you one concrete thing. I don’t know why you don’t mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a—in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some states do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “California does.”

Scalia: “I don’t think we know the answer to that. Do you know the answer to that, whether it harms or helps the child?”

Cooper: “No, Your Honor. And there’s—”

Scalia: “But that’s a possible deleterious effect, isn’t it?”

Cooper: “Your Honor, it is certainly among the—”

Ginsburg: “It wouldn’t be in California, Mr. Cooper, because that’s not an issue, is it? In California, you can have same-sex couples adopting a child.”

Cooper: “That’s right, Your Honor. That is true. But—but, Your Honor, here’s the point—”

As seen above, Ginsburg cuts in to stop this line of questioning. For now, gay marriage is acceptable while incest isn't. But the line isn't as clear cut now, and there's no Scalia to speak out or defend the existing order.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

^^^^^^^
"The argument that they will use against incest (for the time being), while preserving gay marriage, is externalities. The children produced by incest have genetic defects."

OK, good point Bacchus. I'm going to counter it. Not to argue with you personally, but to argue against the hypocrisy of liberals and their "situational ethics" on this issue and related ones.

There are diseases that run in families, such as IPEX syndrome, which is passed down through the mother's genes. Yet couples who carry these genetics are still allowed to reproduce -- as are couples who carry genetics for deafness dwarfism, epilepsy, etc.

If we're going to ban incestuous couples from having kids because of genetic defects, then why do we allow these couples the freedom to reproduce? Especially when they knowingly bring harm to their offspring and incestuous pairings only might bring harm?

In fact, around 15 years ago, there was a notorious case of (get ready for this) a deaf lesbian couple who had a deaf baby by choice by selecting a deaf sperm donor.

"Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough, both in their 30s, turned to a friend with five generations of deafness in his family after being turned away by a sperm bank which told them that donors with disabilities were screened out."

The full story is here. The U.S. is being hypocritical -- and violating this couple's civil rights -- in allowing the deaf couple to do this and then banning incest.

If I were arguing the case for incest before a court, I'd say that allowing deafness deliberately is worse than allowing the possibility of genetic flaws from a mother-son pairing. And then I'd bring up how royal families in Europe encouraged incest to assure the wealth stayed in the family.

In closing, I'll say that I hope a smart, conservative lawyer has the balls to take this couple's case to court. This is the door that gay marriage opened up and it's time people walked through it to prove a point...about "modern families."

[Pride male]

The thirst is real.

[The Black Knight]

(08-14-2016 12:23 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

^^^^^^^
"The argument that they will use against incest (for the time being), while preserving gay marriage, is externalities. The children produced by incest have genetic defects."

OK, good point Bacchus. I'm going to counter it. Not to argue with you personally, but to argue against the hypocrisy of liberals and their "situational ethics" on this issue and related ones.

There are diseases that run in families, such as IPEX syndrome, which is passed down through the mother's genes. Yet couples who carry these genetics are still allowed to reproduce -- as are couples who carry genetics for deafness dwarfism, epilepsy, etc.

If we're going to ban incestuous couples from having kids because of genetic defects, then why do we allow these couples the freedom to reproduce? Especially when they knowingly bring harm to their offspring and incestuous pairings only might bring harm?

In fact, around 15 years ago, there was a notorious case of (get ready for this) a deaf lesbian couple who had a deaf baby by choice by selecting a deaf sperm donor.

"Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough, both in their 30s, [b]turned to a friend with five generations of deafness in his family after being turned away by a sperm bank which told them that donors with disabilities were screened out."[/b]

The full story is here. The U.S. is being hypocritical -- and violating this couple's civil rights -- in allowing the deaf couple to do this and then banning incest.

If I were arguing the case for incest before a court, I'd say that allowing deafness deliberately is worse than allowing the possibility of genetic flaws from a mother-son pairing. And then I'd bring up how royal families in Europe encouraged incest to assure the wealth stayed in the family.

In closing, I'll say that I hope a smart, conservative lawyer has the balls to take this couple's case to court. This is the door that gay marriage opened up and it's time people walked through it to prove a point...about "modern families."

Jesus. That should be straight up illegal. Personally, while I don't give a shit if two adults do their gay/incest thing or whatever (it should never be consider a mainstream acceptable thing, however), I don't think gay/incest people should ever be allow to raise/have kids. But to intentionally have a disabled kid?

Fuck the libtards.

[Ocelot]

Actually, to Bacchus and DOBA: I think they'll use a different argument against incest. Genetic defects won't hold up as an argument, for two reasons. The first is that in an anything-goes society, they can endorse incest, and just mandate that they don't actually produce children. The second is that we're approaching the point of peak-relativism where they won't be able to claim that having genetic defects is worse than not having genetic defects. Check this out - an article about a potential cure for down syndrome "prompts soul searching", because:

Quote:

"If Down syndrome were completely cured, the world would lose something from the absence of that culture," said Skotko, who has a sister with the condition. "There is something positive that people with Down syndrome contribute to the world."

They're tying themselves in fucking knots at the thought of a downs cure, because if they acknowledge curing it would be a good thing, that would be admitting being a retard is worse than not being a retard. Beautiful.

There's also the fact that opening the door to incest right now would make fathers screwing their daughters permissible, which I think somehow won't pass the "anything goes" filter.

No, I think the most likely argument they'll make will be centred on "power" in relationships, and how incest between parents and children is an abuse of the power a parent has over a child. This is already the rhetoric used by academic feminists on the topic, and they have a major problem with incest, while seeing no problem with two lesbians adopting a boy and turning him into a girl.

They're particularly fond of rhetoric centred on "power", because power is a fundamental attractor for women, so by undermining the legitimacy of consent given to someone with more "power" than the other party, they're poisoning male-female interactions at the most basic level. Why would they frame the incest issue in terms of birth-externalities, when they have this to fall back on?

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(08-14-2016 07:23 AM)Ocelot Wrote:  

Actually, to Bacchus and DOBA: I think they'll use a different argument against incest. Genetic defects won't hold up as an argument, for two reasons. The first is that in an anything-goes society, they can endorse incest, and just mandate that they don't actually produce children. The second is that we're approaching the point of peak-relativism where they won't be able to claim that having genetic defects is worse than not having genetic defects. Check this out - an article about a potential cure for down syndrome "prompts soul searching", because:

Quote:

"If Down syndrome were completely cured, the world would lose something from the absence of that culture," said Skotko, who has a sister with the condition. "There is something positive that people with Down syndrome contribute to the world."

They're tying themselves in fucking knots at the thought of a downs cure, because if they acknowledge curing it would be a good thing, that would be admitting being a retard is worse than not being a retard. Beautiful.

There's also the fact that opening the door to incest right now would make fathers screwing their daughters permissible, which I think somehow won't pass the "anything goes" filter.

No, I think the most likely argument they'll make will be centred on "power" in relationships, and how incest between parents and children is an abuse of the power a parent has over a child. This is already the rhetoric used by academic feminists on the topic, and they have a major problem with incest, while seeing no problem with two lesbians adopting a boy and turning him into a girl.

They're particularly fond of rhetoric centred on "power", because power is a fundamental attractor for women, so by undermining the legitimacy of consent given to someone with more "power" than the other party, they're poisoning male-female interactions at the most basic level. Why would they frame the incest issue in terms of birth-externalities, when they have this to fall back on?

Excellent points. But I am OBSESSED with this subject and feel the need to play devil's advocate. Actually, I'm hoping a lawyer takes this on and am hoping I can devise the arguments for him to win this case.

Here is a response to your point, and one more of my own:

1). The court would not have the constitutional right to decide that only some incestuous relationship should be banned because of a power dynamic. Because while you might say mother-son is a bad idea, what about brother-and-brother?

Yes!! I went there. I went to homosexual incestuous relationships. But as gross as that is, it matters in the legal sense. The power dynamic argument can't be used for brother-brother or sister-sister, especially if they're twins. So it would be invalid being used elsewhere.

You can't legalize the same thing for some people and not others. It violates their civil rights.

2). Another argument that could be made in favor of incest is that some people are in incestuous relationships but don't know it. I've read that in places where people grown up without clear paternity (i.e. inner cities) sometimes men and women are half-siblings with each other but don't know it, so they unwittingly mate.

Cases like this could be cited in a legal argument. I doubt the courts would want to have to go into places like Detroit and Baltimore and start demanding parents submit to DNA tests or else get "locked up."

From here on in, I'll try to leave this subject alone, but I LOVE exposing weak liberal arguments and this shines a light one of the weakest. Gay marriage as a concept might not be the worst thing ever, but the Supreme Court's overstepping its authority to legalize it was.

This is the end result of that. I just hope some shitlord lawyer forces them to deal with it.

[LeeEnfield303]

(08-14-2016 04:16 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

The thirst is real.

That's not thirst, that's clinical insanity.

[puckerman]

They shouldn't go to jail for this. They are legal adults, but it's still pretty gross.

[General Stalin]

DOBA making rock solid infallible points here. He's absolutely right; in a society where same sex couples are granted legal rights to be married and even have children, it does not make any sense why couples who are blood related can't do the same.

[Tim in real life]

This case alone just made me remember this specific part of the Code of Hammurabi:

"If a son and mother were caught committing incest, they were burned to death."