Homosexuals don't go to jail for this

[Robert A Whit]

This is a case of two consenting adults having sex, a son then getting arrested.

Those who defend homosexuals also should defend this.



BETHEL, Conn. (AP) — A 46-year-old Connecticut man and his 23-year-old daughter told police they weren't certain they were related before beginning a sexual relationship and having a son together, police said in charging them with sex crimes.
George Sayers Jr. and Tiffany Hartford, of Bethel in western Connecticut, were charged Monday with third-degree sexual assault, obscenity and conspiracy after authorities said DNA tests showed Sayers was the father of both Hartford and her baby. Each pleaded not guilty and was being held on bail.
Hartford told police she aspired to be a porn star before she got pregnant, according to arrest warrant affidavits. The infant is now in state custody.
Hartford's public defender didn't return a message Thursday. It's not clear if Sayers has a lawyer. A woman who answered the phone at their home Thursday hung up on a reporter.
The investigation began in February when Hartford's now-former girlfriend complained to police that Sayers didn't get her permission before selling videos and photos of her and Hartford having sex, according to the affidavits.
Questions about the relationship between Sayers and Hartford arose when police executed a search warrant at their home in the pornography investigation. Detectives asked a relative at the house about the couple's relationship, and she told them that "Tiffany is his girlfriend, but we also think that she is his daughter," the affidavits say.
Police then asked Hartford about the relationship and she said Sayers was her boyfriend. When pressed if Sayers was her father, Hartford said she wasn't sure, police said.
Police said Sayers initially told them that Hartford was a friend. He later acknowledged that he was once told he might be her father, but he didn't believe it, the affidavits say. Still later, he told detectives that he or other men, including his deceased brother, could be Hartford's father, and insisted there was no proof that she was his daughter, the affidavits say.
Investigators say they asked Sayers if a paternity test would show that Hartford and her baby were his children, and he responded that it could be a possibility, according to the affidavits.
Danbury State's Attorney Stephen Sedensky declined to comment, citing rules of professional conduct on pending cases. He said incest cases are rare in Connecticut.
The arrest warrant affidavits were first obtained and reported by The News-Times of Danbury, and later by The Hartford Courant. They are now sealed from public view.
The obscenity and conspiracy charges are related to the selling of the videos and photos of Hartford and her former girlfriend, the affidavits say. The girlfriend was 16 or 17 at the time and knew she was being recorded having sex with Hartford, police said. The age of consent in Connecticut is 16.
The third-degree sexual assault charge is a felony that carries one to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. They are accused under a section of the charge that deals with related people.
Sayers is being held on $100,000 bail and Hartford is detained on $25,000 bail. They're due back in Danbury Superior Court on Dec. 21.



<!-- yog-llu -->

[DragonStryk72]

This is a case of two consenting adults having sex, a son then getting arrested.

Those who defend homosexuals also should defend this.



BETHEL, Conn. (AP) — A 46-year-old Connecticut man and his 23-year-old daughter told police they weren't certain they were related before beginning a sexual relationship and having a son together, police said in charging them with sex crimes.
George Sayers Jr. and Tiffany Hartford, of Bethel in western Connecticut, were charged Monday with third-degree sexual assault, obscenity and conspiracy after authorities said DNA tests showed Sayers was the father of both Hartford and her baby. Each pleaded not guilty and was being held on bail.
Hartford told police she aspired to be a porn star before she got pregnant, according to arrest warrant affidavits. The infant is now in state custody.
Hartford's public defender didn't return a message Thursday. It's not clear if Sayers has a lawyer. A woman who answered the phone at their home Thursday hung up on a reporter.
The investigation began in February when Hartford's now-former girlfriend complained to police that Sayers didn't get her permission before selling videos and photos of her and Hartford having sex, according to the affidavits.
Questions about the relationship between Sayers and Hartford arose when police executed a search warrant at their home in the pornography investigation. Detectives asked a relative at the house about the couple's relationship, and she told them that "Tiffany is his girlfriend, but we also think that she is his daughter," the affidavits say.
Police then asked Hartford about the relationship and she said Sayers was her boyfriend. When pressed if Sayers was her father, Hartford said she wasn't sure, police said.
Police said Sayers initially told them that Hartford was a friend. He later acknowledged that he was once told he might be her father, but he didn't believe it, the affidavits say. Still later, he told detectives that he or other men, including his deceased brother, could be Hartford's father, and insisted there was no proof that she was his daughter, the affidavits say.
Investigators say they asked Sayers if a paternity test would show that Hartford and her baby were his children, and he responded that it could be a possibility, according to the affidavits.
Danbury State's Attorney Stephen Sedensky declined to comment, citing rules of professional conduct on pending cases. He said incest cases are rare in Connecticut.
The arrest warrant affidavits were first obtained and reported by The News-Times of Danbury, and later by The Hartford Courant. They are now sealed from public view.
The obscenity and conspiracy charges are related to the selling of the videos and photos of Hartford and her former girlfriend, the affidavits say. The girlfriend was 16 or 17 at the time and knew she was being recorded having sex with Hartford, police said. The age of consent in Connecticut is 16.
The third-degree sexual assault charge is a felony that carries one to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. They are accused under a section of the charge that deals with related people.
Sayers is being held on $100,000 bail and Hartford is detained on $25,000 bail. They're due back in Danbury Superior Court on Dec. 21.

Um, what does this have to do with homosexuality? I mean, seriously, why do I have to defend it? They didn't know they were related, but possibly might be? Then they're idiots, and why would I have to defend that?

If they might have been related by blood, then they suspected it as a distinct possibility and should have gotten it checked. They chose not to, and went ahead with sexing it up anyway. This has nothing to do with two unrelated men or women having sex. This was like the retard Olympics, I'll grant, but again, apples and oranges comparison.

There are common sense, non-religious reasons for the outlawing of incest. There are none against homosexuality. Incest breeds serious, life-altering- or even ending- birth defects. Homosexuality does not. It in fact harms no one.... well, okay, there have to be some freaks in every sexuality who get off on getting hurt I suppose, but still. Incest is not Homosexuality, and an attempt to connect them shows a lack of solid foundation for your side of the argument. Twist as many facts as you like, it will not change that.

[Robert A Whit]

Um, what does this have to do with homosexuality? I mean, seriously, why do I have to defend it? They didn't know they were related, but possibly might be? Then they're idiots, and why would I have to defend that?

If they might have been related by blood, then they suspected it as a distinct possibility and should have gotten it checked. They chose not to, and went ahead with sexing it up anyway. This has nothing to do with two unrelated men or women having sex. This was like the retard Olympics, I'll grant, but again, apples and oranges comparison.

There are common sense, non-religious reasons for the outlawing of incest. There are none against homosexuality. Incest breeds serious, life-altering- or even ending- birth defects. Homosexuality does not. It in fact harms no one.... well, okay, there have to be some freaks in every sexuality who get off on getting hurt I suppose, but still. Incest is not Homosexuality, and an attempt to connect them shows a lack of solid foundation for your side of the argument. Twist as many facts as you like, it will not change that.

Homosexuality also has nothing to do with the normal marriages is the point.

But why should homosexuals defend this couple?

Because of the legal principle is why.

No mention in the article claimed the son is other than normal.

You outlaw incest because you see it as yucky. You have no facts to support your claims about incest harming the child. A lot of unnormal children are born to non related couples too so the data blaming incest in my opinion is weak at best and most likely false.

The principle of marriage has to still remain as one man to one woman (I favor this and not adult incest marriages by the way) and for homosexuals I have voted for the civil union. I don't want to trample anybody's rights as you clearly do.

I suspect a ton of incest with adults only goes on. Sure, they don't brag about it as homosexuals do so often. No parades in SF for incest couples.

I heard of one woman kind of bragging that in her 20s she decided to go live with father as his live in girlfriend and had several years of sex with the guy. She wrote a book about it.

[DragonStryk72]

Homosexuality also has nothing to do with the normal marriages is the point.

Define "normal" marriage, because marriage to a woman for love is a new concept in our history, whether you're rich or poor, the majority sharehold of marriage in human history had little to do with it. So far in human history, it has been used for alliances, succession, power, trade, money, citizenship, pregnancy, and many more.

But why should homosexuals defend this couple?

Because of the legal principle is why.

No it isn't. The same legal principle does not apply because significant factors are different. Like I said, twist the words however you like, it does not change the facts.

No mention in the article claimed the son is other than normal.

And? This isn't evidence of anything. It's a straw man argument at best.

You outlaw incest because you see it as yucky. You have no facts to support your claims about incest harming the child. A lot of unnormal children are born to non related couples too so the data blaming incest in my opinion is weak at best and most likely false.

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=1010

The principle of marriage has to still remain as one man to one woman (I favor this and not adult incest marriages by the way) and for homosexuals I have voted for the civil union. I don't want to trample anybody's rights as you clearly do.

Remain? It isn't now, and hasn't been since the dawn of human history. Lot had how many wives? Polygamy is still practiced in places around the globe today, and even in places in the US. So how does it "remain" when it never existed in the first place?

I suspect a ton of incest with adults only goes on. Sure, they don't brag about it as homosexuals do so often. No parades in SF for incest couples.

Suspect it all you want. Doesn't change anything.

I heard of one woman kind of bragging that in her 20s she decided to go live with father as his live in girlfriend and had several years of sex with the guy. She wrote a book about it.

Okay, still doesn't change the argument into anything other than a straw man argument.

[fj1200]

Those who defend homosexuals also should defend this.

I'm not quite sure the source of this obsession you have with equating homosexuals with incestuous, redneck, wannabe pornstars.

[logroller]

Defend it; shoot-- I'd abolish it in favor of more modern abilities. The reasoning behind the prohibition of incest is based upon the genetic diseases linked to recessive traits shared among relatives. Currently we have the ability to test for these recessive traits. So we could require all people to undergo genetic testing and prohibit any and all marriages (whether incestuous or not) among people deemed genetically incompatible.
I might add, Connecticut allows same sex marriage and marriage between cousins. Although, since gays can't have kids together--biologically speaking-- theres no practical reason why a same sex marriage should not be exempted from either the current anti-incest laws or the aforementioned genetic testing requirement. How ya like them apples...or is it oranges?:laugh:

[Missileman]

Defend it; shoot-- I'd abolish it in favor of more modern abilities. The reasoning behind the prohibition of incest is based upon the genetic diseases linked to recessive traits shared among relatives. Currently we have the ability to test for these recessive traits. So we could require all people to undergo genetic testing and prohibit any and all marriages (whether incestuous or not) among people deemed genetically incompatible.
I might add, Connecticut allows same sex marriage and marriage between cousins. Although, since gays can't have kids together--biologically speaking-- theres no practical reason why a same sex marriage should not be exempted from either the current anti-incest laws or the aforementioned genetic testing requirement. How ya like them apples...or is it oranges?:laugh:

Bananas?

[taft2012]

There are common sense, non-religious reasons for the outlawing of incest. There are none against homosexuality. Incest breeds serious, life-altering- or even ending- birth defects. Homosexuality does not.

No, but all heterosexuality does. In fact, some heterosexual couples carry worse genes for congenital defects than incestuous couples, yet no laws preclude them from procreating.

You are denying "rights" to incestuous heterosexual couples that you do not deny to non-incestuous heterosexual couples when all other facts are equal. Which I think we would agree is problematic if we are going to examine these relationships in a purely Constitutional manner.

So what about homosexual incestuous couples? If the overriding consideration is birth defects, a gay incestuous couple certainly could not trouble you.

Therefore, if you endorse gay incestuous couples, how can you deny equal rights to heterosexual incestuous couples?

The point I'm getting at is: It's OK to say "I think this is wrong." You can say it based on a religious belief or a personal hunch. You know in your heart incest is wrong. Birth defects is nothing but a intellectual secular cover for personal revulsion. As we climb up and down the sexual activity scale everybody has their own point where they will say "This is wrong," and everyone of those people should have a vote and a say in what we allow in this country.

Gay marriage tugged at this dangling thread, and now arguing against gay incestuous couples has become a lot more troublesome.

[taft2012]

Defend it; shoot-- I'd abolish it in favor of more modern abilities. The reasoning behind the prohibition of incest is based upon the genetic diseases linked to recessive traits shared among relatives. Currently we have the ability to test for these recessive traits. So we could require all people to undergo genetic testing and prohibit any and all marriages (whether incestuous or not) among people deemed genetically incompatible.
I might add, Connecticut allows same sex marriage and marriage between cousins. Although, since gays can't have kids together--biologically speaking-- theres no practical reason why a same sex marriage should not be exempted from either the current anti-incest laws or the aforementioned genetic testing requirement. How ya like them apples...or is it oranges?:laugh:

Ooopsy, this is what happens when one replies to a thread without reading the whole thread first.

We're on precisely the same trajectory here....

[jimnyc]

I said a long time ago that the slippery slope had started. I said that eventually people would want to marry animals and relatives. The animals have been done already, just not in the US yet, and now the arguments for marrying a sister/daughter or other relative begin! LOL At least they supposedly didn't know when it started, but there are wacknuts out there who would willingly engage in sexual relations with their children if they could.

[Robert A Whit]

Defend it; shoot-- I'd abolish it in favor of more modern abilities. The reasoning behind the prohibition of incest is based upon the genetic diseases linked to recessive traits shared among relatives. Currently we have the ability to test for these recessive traits. So we could require all people to undergo genetic testing and prohibit any and all marriages (whether incestuous or not) among people deemed genetically incompatible.
I might add, Connecticut allows same sex marriage and marriage between cousins. Although, since gays can't have kids together--biologically speaking-- theres no practical reason why a same sex marriage should not be exempted from either the current anti-incest laws or the aforementioned genetic testing requirement. How ya like them apples...or is it oranges?:laugh:

I like this reply since it does seem logical rather than "IN YOUR FACE" form of argument. One IYF type pointed out there has long been polygamy. But homosexuals are not arguing for polygamy. I stated several times that I have voted in CA FOR homosexuals to have civil unions so clearly my intent is not to deprive them of unions. This goes along with my libertarian beliefs.

I did not add the caveat to test anybody.

I don't know why civil unions won't do for homosexuals. We gave it a shot in CA.

[Robert A Whit]

No, but all heterosexuality does. In fact, some heterosexual couples carry worse genes for congenital defects than incestuous couples, yet no laws preclude them from procreating.

You are denying "rights" to incestuous heterosexual couples that you do not deny to non-incestuous heterosexual couples when all other facts are equal. Which I think we would agree is problematic if we are going to examine these relationships in a purely Constitutional manner.

So what about homosexual incestuous couples? If the overriding consideration is birth defects, a gay incestuous couple certainly could not trouble you.

Therefore, if you endorse gay incestuous couples, how can you deny equal rights to heterosexual incestuous couples?

The point I'm getting at is: It's OK to say "I think this is wrong." You can say it based on a religious belief or a personal hunch. You know in your heart incest is wrong. Birth defects is nothing but a intellectual secular cover for personal revulsion. As we climb up and down the sexual activity scale everybody has their own point where they will say "This is wrong," and everyone of those people should have a vote and a say in what we allow in this country.

Gay marriage tugged at this dangling thread, and now arguing against gay incestuous couples has become a lot more troublesome.

What gets me is the arguments homosexuals use as their excuse.

Well done argument by Taft. Better than my argument has been. Congratulations.

[Robert A Whit]

I said a long time ago that the slippery slope had started. I said that eventually people would want to marry animals and relatives. The animals have been done already, just not in the US yet, and now the arguments for marrying a sister/daughter or other relative begin! LOL At least they supposedly didn't know when it started, but there are wacknuts out there who would willingly engage in sexual relations with their children if they could.

Some are so eager to get homosexuals to use the same construct heterosexuals use that they actually don't mind the fall out.

[logroller]

Ooopsy, this is what happens when one replies to a thread without reading the whole thread first.

We're on precisely the same trajectory here....
Really what's being described here is eugenics. With respect to jimnyc's slippery slope reference; eugenics has certainly had its time on the teeter-totter, but a balance was found. The balance, IMO, is between voluntary and involuntary, choice vs mandate. Currently we have those tests available, but theres nothing compulsory about participation nor even taking heed of the results. Indeed, I believe the results are a private matter, and the state has no interest. That's why I think the state should get out of the marriage business, not double down. But the equality of marriage and what the two consenting adults have done in the OP are unrelated IMO. I didn't even see mention of marriage, only a dispute over sex tapes...a dispute which could have been averted by a simple contract.

[Robert A Whit]

Really what's being described here is eugenics. With respect to jimnyc's slippery slope reference; eugenics has certainly had its time on the teeter-totter, but a balance was found. The balance, IMO, is between voluntary and involuntary, choice vs mandate. Currently we have those tests available, but theres nothing compulsory about participation nor even taking heed of the results. Indeed, I believe the results are a private matter, and the state has no interest. That's why I think the state should get out of the marriage business, not double down. But the equality of marriage and what the two consenting adults have done in the OP are unrelated IMO. I didn't even see mention of marriage, only a dispute over sex tapes...a dispute which could have been averted by a simple contract.

Suppose the couple in the OP had got married?

Those who support the use of the contract form called marriage for homosexuals surely would back the consenting adults with a son being married?????

[fj1200]

I said a long time ago that the slippery slope had started. I said that eventually people would want to marry animals and relatives. The animals have been done already, just not in the US yet, and now the arguments for marrying a sister/daughter or other relative begin! LOL At least they supposedly didn't know when it started, but there are wacknuts out there who would willingly engage in sexual relations with their children if they could.

Animals do not have the legal capacity to enter into a contract.


Suppose the couple in the OP had got married?

Those who support the use of the contract form called marriage for homosexuals surely would back the consenting adults with a son being married?????

Advocating for the lack of govt support does not equal backing.

[Larrymc]

This is a case of two consenting adults having sex, a son then getting arrested.

Those who defend homosexuals also should defend this.



BETHEL, Conn. (AP) — A 46-year-old Connecticut man and his 23-year-old daughter told police they weren't certain they were related before beginning a sexual relationship and having a son together, police said in charging them with sex crimes.
George Sayers Jr. and Tiffany Hartford, of Bethel in western Connecticut, were charged Monday with third-degree sexual assault, obscenity and conspiracy after authorities said DNA tests showed Sayers was the father of both Hartford and her baby. Each pleaded not guilty and was being held on bail.
Hartford told police she aspired to be a porn star before she got pregnant, according to arrest warrant affidavits. The infant is now in state custody.
Hartford's public defender didn't return a message Thursday. It's not clear if Sayers has a lawyer. A woman who answered the phone at their home Thursday hung up on a reporter.
The investigation began in February when Hartford's now-former girlfriend complained to police that Sayers didn't get her permission before selling videos and photos of her and Hartford having sex, according to the affidavits.
Questions about the relationship between Sayers and Hartford arose when police executed a search warrant at their home in the pornography investigation. Detectives asked a relative at the house about the couple's relationship, and she told them that "Tiffany is his girlfriend, but we also think that she is his daughter," the affidavits say.
Police then asked Hartford about the relationship and she said Sayers was her boyfriend. When pressed if Sayers was her father, Hartford said she wasn't sure, police said.
Police said Sayers initially told them that Hartford was a friend. He later acknowledged that he was once told he might be her father, but he didn't believe it, the affidavits say. Still later, he told detectives that he or other men, including his deceased brother, could be Hartford's father, and insisted there was no proof that she was his daughter, the affidavits say.
Investigators say they asked Sayers if a paternity test would show that Hartford and her baby were his children, and he responded that it could be a possibility, according to the affidavits.
Danbury State's Attorney Stephen Sedensky declined to comment, citing rules of professional conduct on pending cases. He said incest cases are rare in Connecticut.
The arrest warrant affidavits were first obtained and reported by The News-Times of Danbury, and later by The Hartford Courant. They are now sealed from public view.
The obscenity and conspiracy charges are related to the selling of the videos and photos of Hartford and her former girlfriend, the affidavits say. The girlfriend was 16 or 17 at the time and knew she was being recorded having sex with Hartford, police said. The age of consent in Connecticut is 16.
The third-degree sexual assault charge is a felony that carries one to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. They are accused under a section of the charge that deals with related people.
Sayers is being held on $100,000 bail and Hartford is detained on $25,000 bail. They're due back in Danbury Superior Court on Dec. 21.



<!-- yog-llu -->
If such as this can still be prosecuted, why is there debate about sodomy??

[taft2012]

What the marriage issues boils down to is a distinction between "rights" and "privileges."

A 15 year-old kid has the right to write or say anything he or she pleases. These rights can not be taken away. But a 15 year-old kid can be denied the privilege of a driver's license.

Someone convicted of drunken driving can also be denied the privilege of a driver's license as well, but the rights of speech, press, assembly, religion, etc., again remain unalienable.

A convicted felon can get out of prison after doing a 20 year stretch and say and write what he pleases, but his voting privileges can be revoked.

Marriage is a licensed privilege that liberals are endeavoring to transform into a right.

Conversely, gun ownership is a right that liberals are endeavoring to transform into a licensed privilege.

The above two examples should demonstrate that no matter how one feels about gay marriage or guns, interchanging rights and privileges willy nilly is a dangerous precedent, that once started can, and probably will, lead to terrible unanticipated consequences.

[Robert A Whit]

What the marriage issues boils down to is a distinction between "rights" and "privileges."

A 15 year-old kid has the right to write or say anything he or she pleases. These rights can not be taken away. But a 15 year-old kid can be denied the privilege of a driver's license.

Someone convicted of drunken driving can also be denied the privilege of a driver's license as well, but the rights of speech, press, assembly, religion, etc., again remain unalienable.

A convicted felon can get out of prison after doing a 20 year stretch and say and write what he pleases, but his voting privileges can be revoked.

Marriage is a licensed privilege that liberals are endeavoring to transform into a right.

Conversely, gun ownership is a right that liberals are endeavoring to transform into a licensed privilege.

The above two examples should demonstrate that no matter how one feels about gay marriage or guns, interchanging rights and privileges willy nilly is a dangerous precedent, that once started can, and probably will, lead to terrible unanticipated consequences.

Back when states formulated marriage laws, I doubt that many would contest the state laws as some do today.

I believe that what two consenting people do is a right. I voted for the homosexual union thinking it was a right.

I don't attach religion to marriage. I prefer this be treated like any other contract is treated. So long as the 5 elements of contract law get met, anything is legal.

Age of consent is part of a legal contract so I don't want to be accused of children being married. Some support that too. Look at states allowing marriage though neither party is at least age 18.

[Robert A Whit]

This goes to show that there are many things that should be contested in the US Supreme Court. I hoped a lot of other things would be contested than this nonsense about homosexuals.

[taft2012]

This goes to show that there are many things that should be contested in the US Supreme Court. I hoped a lot of other things would be contested than this nonsense about homosexuals.

Yeah.

The Constitutional issue is that everyone has "equal rights." But "equal rights" does not apply to privileges. It just means that everyone has to have equal access to the privileges.

Any man and woman can go and get a marriage license. Unless they're an incestuous couple. Frankly, I think the incesters have a more viable claim to the privilege than do homosexuals.

But again, privileges are not rights and do not need to demonstrate the same equality that rights need to demonstrate.

[jimnyc]

Animals do not have the legal capacity to enter into a contract.

Neither does someone who wants to sleep with and marry their child. :)

[taft2012]

There are common sense, non-religious reasons for the outlawing of incest.

To me, this remains the most intriguing assertion in the thread.

I've had this discussion a few times already over the years and never heard this assertion backed up with any success. I'm interested to see if DS can do so.

[Robert A Whit]

Yeah.

The Constitutional issue is that everyone has "equal rights." But "equal rights" does not apply to privileges. It just means that everyone has to have equal access to the privileges.

Any man and woman can go and get a marriage license. Unless they're an incestuous couple. Frankly, I think the incesters have a more viable claim to the privilege than do homosexuals.

But again, privileges are not rights and do not need to demonstrate the same equality that rights need to demonstrate.

A good discussion would be along these lines.

What gets called a priviledge that really is a right?

I do not think the constitution provides for the government to define marriage. I would say marriage is a right since it is between two consenting adults.

But .... and this is the rub, for eons it seems to me, states have formulated marriage laws and at the moment we are stuck with them.

I do not believe and thus far no clever argument has stood up that what happens to homosexuals is a marriage. This takes a man with the woman. Some claim that many women can participate. I tend to agree.

[taft2012]

A good discussion would be along these lines.

What gets called a priviledge that really is a right?

I do not think the constitution provides for the government to define marriage. I would say marriage is a right since it is between two consenting adults.


The Constitution defines for us what our rights are. If it's not a right, it is subject to definition and enforcement of the people.

Societies have been defining what are accepted relationships within their own circles since forever. The fact that the United States was the first nation to give the most freedoms ever to its people does not mean we also surrendered all of our abilities to define acceptable behavior and control privileges.

Men and women have been hooking up since Adam and Eve, so it may seem like a sort of unalienable right beyond the administration of government.

However, also since Adam and Eve, men have been hunting and fishing to provide for the women and children. So that must be some kind of unalienable right as well.

That being the case, why do I have a license for both hunting and fishing? (Not to mention the marriage).

[Larrymc]

The Constitution defines for us what our rights are. If it's not a right, it is subject to definition and enforcement of the people.

Societies have been defining what are accepted relationships within their own circles since forever. The fact that the United States was the first nation to give the most freedoms ever to its people does not mean we also surrendered all of our abilities to define acceptable behavior and control privileges.

Men and women have been hooking up since Adam and Eve, so it may seem like a sort of unalienable right beyond the administration of government.

However, also since Adam and Eve, men have been hunting and fishing to provide for the women and children. So that must be some kind of unalienable right as well.

That being the case, why do I have a license for both hunting and fishing? (Not to mention the marriage).the law needs a definition to settle disputes, on the subject, unions could provide this for Gays

[logroller]

Suppose the couple in the OP had got married?

Those who support the use of the contract form called marriage for homosexuals surely would back the consenting adults with a son being married?????As CT requires birth records and the identity of the parents of both parties to get married, I suppose they would have discovered their relation.
hypotheticals can be fun-- suppose they were mother and daughter? Or suppose they were brother and sister switched at birth? If circumstances differ, I would think it would have been handled according to the circumstance. These two seemed more concerned over the videos than what others had suspected all along regarding their relationship. Which begs the question--
Had they had definitive evidence they were related-- Do you suppose they would have ended their sexual relationship?
I encourage the use of contracts in relationships prone to disputes that require legal intervention. Period. I believe if more people signed a prenuptial agreement, there'd be a lot less mess with divorce. Now maybe thatd mean there'd be more divorce, or rather, less marriage, but I think people would take marriage more seriously if it was clear from the beginning that the agreement entails more than loving empassioned sexual relations. Statistics show that financial burdens are the number cause of divorce and a contract is an ideal way to outline such details. I think vows are an indispensable aspect of marriage too, but vows before God aren't enforceable by earthly judgement.

[Robert A Whit]

The Constitution defines for us what our rights are. If it's not a right, it is subject to definition and enforcement of the people.

Societies have been defining what are accepted relationships within their own circles since forever. The fact that the United States was the first nation to give the most freedoms ever to its people does not mean we also surrendered all of our abilities to define acceptable behavior and control privileges.

Men and women have been hooking up since Adam and Eve, so it may seem like a sort of unalienable right beyond the administration of government.

However, also since Adam and Eve, men have been hunting and fishing to provide for the women and children. So that must be some kind of unalienable right as well.

That being the case, why do I have a license for both hunting and fishing? (Not to mention the marriage).

When we speak of the Constitution, what we really should address is all 51 of them rather than merely one.

States took on, we must presume, since they have done it, many things that the Feds can't do.

Some of what you speak on are what the state has for us all.

So, if you happen to live in a state that has no fishing license or hunting license, feel good.

I think you know as well as i do that marriage is found in states constitutions. Since I have at no time looked those up, it's hard to make one comment that fits all states.

[Robert A Whit]

As CT requires birth records and the identity of the parents of both parties to get married, I suppose they would have discovered their relation.
hypotheticals can be fun-- suppose they were mother and daughter? Or suppose they were brother and sister switched at birth? If circumstances differ, I would think it would have been handled according to the circumstance. These two seemed more concerned over the videos than what others had suspected all along regarding their relationship. Which begs the question--
Had they had definitive evidence they were related-- Do you suppose they would have ended their sexual relationship?
I encourage the use of contracts in relationships prone to disputes that require legal intervention. Period. I believe if more people signed a prenuptial agreement, there'd be a lot less mess with divorce. Now maybe thatd mean there'd be more divorce, or rather, less marriage, but I think people would take marriage more seriously if it was clear from the beginning that the agreement entails more than loving empassioned sexual relations. Statistics show that financial burdens are the number cause of divorce and a contract is an ideal way to outline such details. I think vows are an indispensable aspect of marriage too, but vows before God aren't enforceable by earthly judgement.

Her mother had fooled around to remind you. The girl lived in a home with her mother with the other guy she grew up with calling him dad. This guy says he was not sure either.

As to the womans birth certificate, I suppose it names the other guy as her father and not the guy she had the son with.

[Robert A Whit]

To me, this remains the most intriguing assertion in the thread.

I've had this discussion a few times already over the years and never heard this assertion backed up with any success. I'm interested to see if DS can do so.

This has been taboo for all of us since birth. But have we read any actual science studies proving it is terrible?

Suppose for instance a family produced a son and daughter, both hot looking and geniuses.

Suppose they mated for life. Why would they not produce off spring that took both traints and perhaps improved on both?

Genes have no idea if they are good genes or bad genes the way I understand it. Any comments?

I went to high school with a girl who was pretty and on the cheer leader squad. I thought she was untouchable.

A few years out of high school, I met her brother. I don't know why he told me but he said that he had handled her sex needs growing up.

[logroller]

^Not sure why you chose to share the story either, other than evidence to the fact that some things are best left as private matters.

[DragonStryk72]

The Constitution defines for us what our rights are. If it's not a right, it is subject to definition and enforcement of the people.

Societies have been defining what are accepted relationships within their own circles since forever. The fact that the United States was the first nation to give the most freedoms ever to its people does not mean we also surrendered all of our abilities to define acceptable behavior and control privileges.

Men and women have been hooking up since Adam and Eve, so it may seem like a sort of unalienable right beyond the administration of government.

However, also since Adam and Eve, men have been hunting and fishing to provide for the women and children. So that must be some kind of unalienable right as well.

That being the case, why do I have a license for both hunting and fishing? (Not to mention the marriage).

Actually, it does not. The Constitution does not grant you a single solitary right, it prohibits the government from taking your rights away. It's only recently that things such and hunting and fishing licenses were even considered to be something necessary. Marriage, even, only became a big legal deal after the adoption of the progressive income tax became a permanent part of our legal system.

Our government didn't give us freedoms, it recognized that we were all born free, and respected those freedoms. Where do you think the line "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" came from?

Actually, Marriage is a right, not a privilege. It falls under "inherent rights" as outlined in the 8th Amendment, that you are free to love and build a life with another person, assuming they can give legal informed consent to it. You get a marriage license not for the ability to be married, but for the legal and tax aspects of the union, and we didn't always have that.

[DragonStryk72]

As to them not being "certain" of their relation to one another: When you suspect that what you're doing might illegal/immoral, you have a responsibility to make yourself certain, and to stop if it is. They had more than enough time to figure out if they were related before the police got involved, and they chose not to.

[fj1200]

What the marriage issues boils down to is a distinction between "rights" and "privileges."

A 15 year-old kid has the right to write or say anything he or she pleases. These rights can not be taken away. But a 15 year-old kid can be denied the privilege of a driver's license.

Not exactly, in loco parentis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis):

First, it allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student) as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties).
There are plenty of examples where minors are not allowed constitutional rights:

Violations of Free Speech
Violations of Free Press
Violations of Free Expression
Violations of Search and Seizure Protections
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html


This goes to show that there are many things that should be contested in the US Supreme Court. I hoped a lot of other things would be contested than this nonsense about homosexuals.

This needs to be decided and is the essential reason why we have a SCOTUS.


Yeah.

The Constitutional issue is that everyone has "equal rights." But "equal rights" does not apply to privileges. It just means that everyone has to have equal access to the privileges.

Any man and woman can go and get a marriage license. Unless they're an incestuous couple. Frankly, I think the incesters have a more viable claim to the privilege than do homosexuals.

But again, privileges are not rights and do not need to demonstrate the same equality that rights need to demonstrate.

Incorrect, You forget the Equal Protection Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Reinhardt wrote that the court did not need to consider Walker's reasons for holding Proposition 8 unconstitutional, namely that "it deprives same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry" and violates the Equal Protection Clause by excluding same-sex couples from an "honored status" permitted different-sex couples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Brown

But right, it's not about rights because marriage is not found in the Constitution.

[fj1200]

Neither does someone who wants to sleep with and marry their child. :)

They don't need a contract or marriage license to engage in the behavior but they both need to have reached majority age to enter into a contract.


A good discussion would be along these lines.

What gets called a priviledge that really is a right?

I do not think the constitution provides for the government to define marriage. I would say marriage is a right since it is between two consenting adults.

But .... and this is the rub, for eons it seems to me, states have formulated marriage laws and at the moment we are stuck with them.

I do not believe and thus far no clever argument has stood up that what happens to homosexuals is a marriage. This takes a man with the woman. Some claim that many women can participate. I tend to agree.

:confused: Marriage is not a right; it is not defined in the Constitution. What is the State's compelling interest in marriage?


The Constitution defines for us what our rights are. If it's not a right, it is subject to definition and enforcement of the people.

No, any law is subject to Constitutional review whether Congress dabbles in non-rights issues or not.


the law needs a definition to settle disputes, on the subject, unions could provide this for Gays

The law doesn't need a definition, the courts need a framework with which to settle disputes. A contract is that framework; written, oral, otherwise.


When we speak of the Constitution, what we really should address is all 51 of them rather than merely one.

At this point we only need to deal with the One; and that has been true since Incorporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights).

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights)to the states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state). Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States). Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause) of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion).