Man Seduces and Marries His Own Daughter

[c-rex]

Amazingly this article is not brought to you by white trash and West Virginia but rather by a rich businessmen who controls trillions in investments. The gist of the article is how a 65 year old man seduced his 35 year daughter (genetically his daughter, DNA shows 99.7% certainty he is her father). He seduced her over a period of a few months, snuck her off to London and married her, despite the fact that they we both married to other people at the time, returned home, divorced his current spouse and set her up in a condo near him. The entire article is much too long to quote in the post, but I’ll stick in some highlights. You can read the entire thing here: http://villagevoice.com/news/0640,cramer,74593,6.html

If you have a firewall kicking your ass let me know and I’ll PM it to you or something.


A secret sexual relationship with his daughter was not enough.
There had to be a wedding.
And it had to be a grand celebration befitting a Fisher Island, Florida, multimillionaire who controls billions from Wall Street to Bermuda, from London to Dubai.
So on a sunny June day two years ago, father and daughter exchanged rings at Westminster Abbey.
They couldn't follow convention by inviting friends or family, and they couldn't make an announcement that they'd eloped.
There was no white dress and no officiant.
D. Bruce McMahan, then 65, and his daughter Linda Marie Hodge McMahan Schutt, then 35, pronounced themselves husband and wife on June 23, 2004.
It was their secret.
Except for a few traditional photographs, it was a wholly unconventional and unholy union.
Several shots show off their new Cartier Trinity rings — hers diamond, his three shades of gold. In other frames, they look the happy couple — cheek to cheek, faces glowing, and the Abbey's Little Cloister garden a royal backdrop. Afterward, she flew home to her legal spouse in Mississippi and he went home to his compound on Fisher Island, a ferry ride from Miami.
From different states, they traded their wedding photos back and forth over e-mail.
He talked about touching up her redeye. She declared her favorite the photo of their hands wearing their new rings, his hand on hers, which they had titled: "Says it ALL." Using codes, they addressed each other in the e-mails as husband and wife. "They are great pictures," McMahan wrote in one of their daily exchanges. "But they tell a story, so pay attention to what happens to them."
With their secret still safe, McMahan filed to divorce his fifth wife, and Linda moved out of the home she shared with her husband.



Bruce McMahan began the seduction of his daughter one evening in the spring of 1998 by having her look over his business writings in the library of his lavish Pelham, New York, estate.
Linda Schutt described the events of that evening earlier this year in a deposition that was taken in Jackson, Mississippi, on April 6. McMahan declined to comment when New Times reached him on the telephone, and he never testified in any of the litigation. But according to Linda's testimony, that night in 1998, McMahan's fourth wife, Cynthia, was at a spa, and a housekeeper was somewhere on the premises. "He opened a bottle of wine. He poured me a glass of wine, and we drank together." While they leafed over his writings, he began to tell her of his sexual relationships with past women. He preferred them slender with wide cheekbones. "He told me he liked to buy furs for women and have sex with women on mink coats."
McMahan, who was then around his 59th birthday, asked his daughter, 29, to move to his bedroom and watch the first 30 minutes of the movie Braveheart. He wanted her to see the love story and clandestine wedding that unfolds in the opening act of Mel Gibson's film because, Linda testified, it reminded him of his relationship with her.
Then McMahan really started to lay it on thick. Linda testified he told her he believed they'd been married in a previous life. Earlier in the evening, she remembered, he had pointed out that her legs were a "very sexy version" of his own.
"He asked me what it would be like to kiss me."
Later that night, he found out.
On his bed, he kissed her and ran his hand over her body, on top of and inside her clothes, she testified. The petting session lasted two hours, she recalled. When Linda said she was tired, McMahan suggested they sleep in separate bedrooms. After Linda returned to California, her father asked if she was OK. She said she felt confused.
Their first episode of actual sexual intercourse wouldn't take place for several months. For that encounter, McMahan arranged a fairly dramatic setting — a hotel suite in London after a transatlantic flight.
But then, McMahan had the cash for that kind of extravagance. Born into a family of entrepreneurs, he set about building his own wealth early on. His father ran McMahan's Furniture, a well-known California retail chain, but Bruce's own ideas were less conventional. Six years after graduating from the University of Southern California in 1960, the young magnate set out with some friends to create their own country.
According to newspaper articles published at the time, the plan involved sinking a mothballed World War II ship 220 miles off the California shore, then piling on concrete, clay, and garbage. The resulting island would be in international waters and outside the jurisdiction of American law. McMahan's group planned to corner the market on abalone fishing.

[Klilynkun]

dude....that's just twisted.

he blatantly screwed with her head

[Kass]

dude....She was 35 years old. She knew what she was doing.

She totally banged her father.

[c-rex]

dude....that's just twisted.

he blatantly screwed with her head
I agree with Kass, she had a PhD in pysch, so I doubt she let herself get mind fucked. My personal theory is she did it for the money. She went from being an adopted girl not knowing who her father was to suddenly having a rich daddy that paid for college and set up a trust fund for her. She got a taste of money and wanted more of it. Look at what the marriage got her, she went from living in Mississippi to the richest zip code in America, $7,500 shopping sprees, etc.

As sick as this is, the only crime the two are guilty of is adultery. They were consenting adults and it isn't society's place to go poking around with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.

[Klilynkun]

wait.... that's not in the excerps.... did you guys read the article fully? cuz i don't have access to it :bang:

PhD in psych...dang... ok... i guess he didn't mess her mind up. He just provided the right opportunity :D

[Idlethought]

But dude, that's his DAUGHTER! Aw man that's probably as bad as it gets. Aw man that's just...aw man...

[c-rex]

wait.... that's not in the excerps.... did you guys read the article fully? cuz i don't have access to it :bang:

PhD in psych...dang... ok... i guess he didn't mess her mind up. He just provided the right opportunity :D
The article is six times the max length allowed in private message. I can dump it into your email if you want.

[Idlethought]

Yea she does have a PhD in Psych, she actually had a postdoctoral fellowship in Neuropsych when they got married.

[c-rex]

But dude, that's his DAUGHTER! Aw man that's probably as bad as it gets. Aw man that's just...aw man...
And she looks to be a pretty good looking blonde too.

I'm still a little sick from the line where a 59 year old guy told his 29 year old daughter she had a sexier version of his legs. How the hell could that line work while dozens of my lines have failed in the bar or Chilis (ask Mads about that one).

Of course the fact I'm worth 8 grand in college debt versus millions of dollars doesn't help alot I bet.

[Kass]

PhD in psychology notwithstanding, she's still 35 years old! That is certainly old enough to know that screwing your father falls under the category of "Really Bad Things to Do."

[c-rex]

PhD in psychology notwithstanding, she's still 35 years old! That is certainly old enough to know that screwing your father falls under the category of "Really Bad Things to Do."
Just out of idle interest lets say Bill Gates came to you and said "I'm STD free and want to sleep with you, I'll pay you 10 billion dollars for one night with you." Would you do it?

[Idlethought]

Yea but she's not Bill Gates' daughter.

[c-rex]

Yea but she's not Bill Gates' daughter.
Once you establish a woman will sleep with someone for money then it just comes down to settling on some specifics.

It's like that old joke, where a guy at the bar asks a woman if she'd sleep with a man for 10 million dollars and she says yes. So he ways how about me for $50 dollars and she gets all insulted. So he says "Honey we've established you're a whore, now we're just working out the price."

[Kass]

Just out of idle interest lets say Bill Gates came to you and said "I'm STD free and want to sleep with you, I'll pay you 10 billion dollars for one night with you." Would you do it?

;) Only if his wife said it was okay. And he paid in cash. I don't take checks.

[Idlethought]

Once you establish a woman will sleep with someone for money then it just comes down to settling on some specifics.

It's like that old joke, where a guy at the bar asks a woman if she'd sleep with a man for 10 million dollars and she says yes. So he ways how about me for $50 dollars and she gets all insulted. So he says "Honey we've established you're a whore, now we're just working out the price."

Still, theres whore, then theres incestuous whore, which is just a new level of horrible. I'm surprised she never tried to analyze her father, thinking "What the fuck is WRONG with you?!"

[c-rex]

;) Only if his wife said it was okay. And he paid in cash. I don't take checks.
My point exactly. So how much extra to do your father? Heck have a bottle of blue agave tequila next to the bed and chug that after the deed. You'll black out and wake up 10 million dollars - taxes - price of a good bottle of liquor richer, some sticky sheets and a hell of a headache.

Also keep in mind the guy is her biological father, but she was adopted and raised by some people out in San Diego while he lived in Florida. She didn't meet this guy until she was in college, so I doubt they had that normal father daughter relationship, heck we know they didn't.

So I guess it would be kind of like sleeping with a distant uncle maybe?

Of course it is still sick, but I can easily see someone doing it for the money.

[Kass]

I was JOKING.

Besides, you said $10 billion. I can be bought, but I'm not cheap. :P

[Klilynkun]

The article is six times the max length allowed in private message. I can dump it into your email if you want.

nah
sok
i'm not that interested in their semi-incestual desires

[c-rex]

I was JOKING.

Besides, you said $10 billion. I can be bought, but I'm not cheap. :P
I was joking too. I was trying to kind of jokingly making the point that even the stuff we claim is sacred can be bought when someone waves a big enough check under your nose. Every person has his price, and it looks like for this woman her price to overcome the stigma of incest was some big shopping sprees. It's still disgusting.

[Plekto]

And this is different other than the money from a dozen places in the world where they still don't get all Christian-anal on you about marrying relatives?

Meh. I want more talk about Japan. I'm SURE the original poster can find something that offends their sensibilities in Japan.
(sorry - this whole thread feels awfully spammish to me)

[Angelyne]

I didn't see it quoted in the OP, but the daughter was intially given away for adoption. She contacted him sometime in her 20s, so she wasn't actually raised by him. They first got to know each other (not necessarily talking about sex here) when they were both adults, which makes it slightly less creepy. It's not like he manipulated her from childhood.

This case is a whole new level of creepy, but is it really that wrong (since they don't have any children that would be affected by this)?

[Digital Masta]

Amazingly this article is not brought to you by white trash and West Virginia but rather by a rich businessmen who controls trillions in investments.

The term white trash has nothing to do with how much money you make. Its a state of being. You can be a millionare and be white trash.

[CrazyAce86]

And everybody thought Woody Allen was bad.

Ah, when one is rich enough, you can get away with anything.

I agree that she probably knew what was going on. But it doesn't matter how many degrees she has, she can be caught up in the glitz and glamour and this guy saying he loves her. She's human. And the allure of money, man, that can definitely draw one in and make her agree to pretty much anything. Psych degree or not, that doesn't make her invulnerable.

And who knows, maybe this guy really does love her. Maybe he hated his wife and here comes a daughter he never knew and perhaps wishes he had.

It's hard thing to call without actually knowing these folks.

I don't agree with what they did, but there's a lot worse crimes going on out there than this. Again, as long as they're not hurting each other and they keep in their bedrooms, I really don't care what they're doing. If they're happy or content with the arrangement, whatever. I'm more concerned about the folks out there who intentionally harm other folks, ya know?

[Masa the Masta]

I don't think a psych degree makes you suddenly have unbreakable morality.


Money is money, but I don't think I'd do something drastic like fucking my mom, not for any sort of price in the world, I'm sorry, but regardless of weighing in any price, I can't overcome that reflex known as the gag.

And Kass makes me laugh. :)

[MFDub]

I find it interesting that the term being used is "seduced." From the descriptions in that article, there was no seducing. The man hit on her and she responded. Maybe to his money. Maybe to him. Maybe he loved her. Maybe he just wanted a lay. Whatever the reason, it definitely seemed like both parties were aware of what they were getting into. Yeah it's sick because of the whole "father-daughter" relationship, but I fail to see where seduction played into it.

[Soli]

There are worse things that can be done. Whatever they do is their business, I suppose.

[Apotheosis]

I find it interesting that the term being used is "seduced." From the descriptions in that article, there was no seducing. The man hit on her and she responded. Maybe to his money. Maybe to him. Maybe he loved her. Maybe he just wanted a lay. Whatever the reason, it definitely seemed like both parties were aware of what they were getting into. Yeah it's sick because of the whole "father-daughter" relationship, but I fail to see where seduction played into it.
It doesn't, but they're ("incest" and "seduce") both words that hook potential readers, which is the newspaper/journalist/title-giver's job.

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

Oh, he did sedduce her, they left out one part. It tells of how he smeared baked beans all over his nipples and she was lured in by his hairy beany nipples, apparantly they went through 5 tins of beans and a can of green giant sweet corn in one session.

[japanat]

As sick as this is, the only crime the two are guilty of is adultery. Umm.... Incest is a crime in every state in the Union.

Biological father, even if he gave her up for adoption, equals incest. In most states, you can marry a 2nd cousin, but no closer blood relations. Woody Allen's situation was a real cluster-f***; but since she wasn't blood, it wasn't a crime.

[Alphonse v.2]

Daddy got Game.

[Beowulf]

Woody Allen.

[SlickWilly440]

Every father wants to bang his own daughter, it just the way nature created man. Why do you think men get married in the first place? So the wife can bear the husband a daugter to one day bang....LOL

[h2orowe]

Every father wants to bang his own daughter, it just the way nature created man. Why do you think men get married in the first place? So the wife can bear the husband a daugter to one day bang....LOL
And that daughter the next, and so on and so forth.
It's a glorious cycle, it really is.


OH GOD! Why couldn't I have been born a caterpillar?!

[Ironfrost]

As sick as this is, the only crime the two are guilty of is adultery.

Umm.... Incest is a crime in every state in the Union.

Biological father, even if he gave her up for adoption, equals incest. In most states, you can marry a 2nd cousin, but no closer blood relations. Woody Allen's situation was a real cluster-f***; but since she wasn't blood, it wasn't a crime.
And don't forget bigamy; that's illegal too.

[Plekto]

That apparently doesn't stop the Mormons.

[h2orowe]

They don't mind marrying underage, in the family, or multiple wives. Mormons know how to party.

[Alphonse v.2]

Looks like some serious man research.

[ultimatedragoon]

ew


...that's it. won't elaborate.

[Kass]

And this is different other than the money from a dozen places in the world where they still don't get all Christian-anal on you about marrying relatives?

Meh. I want more talk about Japan. I'm SURE the original poster can find something that offends their sensibilities in Japan.
(sorry - this whole thread feels awfully spammish to me)

It isn't a matter of Christian or not. It is a matter of just being wrong. You don't screw your kids, regardless of religion. It's also a health matter. Inbreeding creates a lot of birth defects and health issues. Just look at pure-bred dogs.

If you want to talk more about Japan, there is a whole forum for that. Feel free to visit.

If the thread seems spammish to you, don't read it.

[Kass]

Oh, he did sedduce her, they left out one part. It tells of how he smeared baked beans all over his nipples and she was lured in by his hairy beany nipples, apparantly they went through 5 tins of beans and a can of green giant sweet corn in one session.

There is no need for anything like this. Thanks for playing. No parting gifts for you.

[Plekto]

But who's to say it's wrong? Really. If people want to inbreed and cause genetic problems, it still should be their choice, shouldn't it? Even if it's unwise to do so - who are we to try to enforce rules on people's relationships?

Note - Me? I find it to be icky. But what's next? Laws about what positions you can have sex in(oh right - several states in the U.S. already HAVE those sorts of laws). Maybe they'll start telling us what kind of clothes to wear(darn it - schools do that already). In fact I can't find hardly anything we do except eat and breathe that isn't legislated or modified in some restrictive way by some group/religion/whatnot.

It happens. Apparently it's not illegal where they are. There are so many other issues to get all worked up about right now.

[Kass]

Incestuous relationships pose a public health risk. The government is fulfilling its primary mission by looking out for the public good. Since my taxpayer dollars pay for the medical treatment resulting from such issues, I have every right to say ban them, especially since the primary type of incest is child molestation, not two idiotic adults getting married.

The sex itself is illegal where they are, by the way, if the girl is under age 18. These two hid their relationship in order to get married and if I recall correctly, they got married overseas. Their marriage IS illegal. Marriage to a parent or other 1st degree relative is illegal in every state in the union.

These laws have been on the books for decades at least and as of yet, they have not led to the downfall of secular government. Other issues have damaged that, but not this one. Your arguments are specious. Comparing a dress code to incest? Way to overreact.

[Plekto]

So we should just turn the U.S. into England? Have a population of sheepified people what are under watch by cameras 24/7?

There was a recent study that concluded that the human genome is so large that it's perfectly fine to marry first cousins from a genetic stability POV. Only if you do it for generations do you get problems.(royal families and the like are the only area where we have ever seen this be a real problem)

And it's not a helath risk to anyone but the child, which, again, is a very VERY small chance. Far less than people who have inherited diseases and have children anyways.(and of course, saying you can't have children because of bad genetics or mental capacity borders on Eugenics). You can't go there anymore.

So why in the world should governments think they have a right to tell us what to do with our bodies?

As for incest via rape or whatever - that's a whole other issue that decerves to be prosecuted. But if one person wants to marry a cousin or a close relative(or even a brother or sister/etc), or have more than one wife - it's religion that's driving the laws at that point, because there's no logical reason to interfere.

ie - while what the Mormons do is odd from a cultural standpoint, it's perfectly normal in many other countries, so the government should stay out of it. Or, better yet, take Gay Marriage. 500 billion dollar bill for the Iraq war or Gay Marriage? To hear the media, you'd think that Gay Marriage was the next plague, our society has its priorities so far out of balance.

[Jetsetlemming]

The mormons don't practice polygamy anymore. It's illegal. Of course, I'm sure you can find a mormon that does practice polygamy but the sect as a whole rejected the concept. Also, this isn't first cousins. It's father and daughter. She shares a full half his genetic code.

[Beowulf]

The mormons don't practice polygamy anymore. It's illegal. Of course, I'm sure you can find a mormon that does practice polygamy but the sect as a whole rejected the concept.
That's actually becoming something of a huge problem (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/27/us.polygamist.ap/index.html) down in Utah.

[Kass]

So we should just turn the U.S. into England? Have a population of sheepified people what are under watch by cameras 24/7?

There was a recent study that concluded that the human genome is so large that it's perfectly fine to marry first cousins from a genetic stability POV. Only if you do it for generations do you get problems.(royal families and the like are the only area where we have ever seen this be a real problem)

And it's not a helath risk to anyone but the child, which, again, is a very VERY small chance. Far less than people who have inherited diseases and have children anyways.(and of course, saying you can't have children because of bad genetics or mental capacity borders on Eugenics). You can't go there anymore.

So why in the world should governments think they have a right to tell us what to do with our bodies?

As for incest via rape or whatever - that's a whole other issue that decerves to be prosecuted. But if one person wants to marry a cousin or a close relative(or even a brother or sister/etc), or have more than one wife - it's religion that's driving the laws at that point, because there's no logical reason to interfere.

ie - while what the Mormons do is odd from a cultural standpoint, it's perfectly normal in many other countries, so the government should stay out of it. Or, better yet, take Gay Marriage. 500 billion dollar bill for the Iraq war or Gay Marriage? To hear the media, you'd think that Gay Marriage was the next plague, our society has its priorities so far out of balance.

You are just off the scale. You act like we are the only country in the world that sees the need to ban incestuous marriages. The medical problems are NOT that rare. As soon as two people who share 50% of alleles in common breed, the children are in danger. It's almost assured that a child of an incestual relationship will exhibit inbreeding depression. Many die before reaching the age of reproduction.

This couple is not a pair of first cousins. This is a man who is fucking his daughter and vice versa.

Incest laws aren't to protect the gene pool. When they were first passed, gene pools were virtually unheard of. They were passed to protect any offspring and the local community. They were passed because first-degree relatives who breed with each other make messed up babies. It had nothing to do with genetic stability.

As for your Mormon comparison, polygamy is NOT anything like incest. The comarison is not valid. Polygyny does not pose a health risk. Incest does.

The mainstream Mormon church rejected polygamy decades ago. A radical offshoot of the group practices polygamy, which I really don't have a problem with. The bigger problem with that offshoot group is that polygamy is NOT voluntary. The women do not have a choice in whether or with whom they sleep with as well as the problems with their leader brokering young girls as wives.

Your arguments are the exact same as those who would argue that Lawrence v. Texas (the Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws) will lead to this slippery slope allowing beastiality and incest, only you run the other direction. Banning incestwill not lead to some imaginary slippery slope of laws. They've been on the books since the 1800s and up until now, no one has used them as a justification for banning gay marriage, polygamy or anything else. (Polygamy was banned in large part as opposition to Mormons rather than anything else.)

Stop and think about it for a minute. I'm a bisexual, polyamorous woman in a BDSM relationship. Does someone get any less mainstream than that? Any politician who opposes gay marriage automatically loses my vote. I donate to the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom when I have the money. Even the NCSF does not oppose banning incestuous marriages because it is a significant risk to public health, mostly to people who have no choice--children.

Do you ever stop and look at your ramblings? You're an alarmist first degree. I'm the first to tell the govenrment to butt out of my life, from the Department of Education to many agencies restricting free trade and commerce to the IRS. I'm fighting the expansion of the schools into roles the purview of the parents. I've lodged protests over schools requiring community service outside the schools, not because I oppose community service, but because the schools have no business mandating it. If I had my druthers, the DoE would be emptied and burnt to the ground because it is unconstitutional (education is not enumerated in the Constitution and thus is the sole purview of the states). I think no marriage should be recognized period. Not heterosexual, not homosexual, not polygynous. Marriage is a religious sanctification of mating and has no business being regulated by the government. If people want legal benefits for coupling, they can file limited legal partnership papers, just like any other partnership. Civil unions only.

And I support banning marriages to first degree relatives. Good grief.

Oh, and the media is overwhelmingly liberal and supports gay marriage more than not. they'd probably be awfully pissed to hear you accuse them of such religous conservatism. To hear religious nuts talk, it is the next plague. Get your groups straight.

[baffledMONKEY]

oh man...that's just..just SICK! I read 3/4 of the article and could not go on reading. How can a fully grown woman agree to do such a thing with her biological father. I mean...it's not like he kidnapped her when she's a baby and brainwash her. The only conclusion that I can think of is that..she's not mentally all there in her head. This is just ewwww.

[Y.T.]

This couple is not a pair of first cousins. This is a man who is fucking his daughter and vice versa.

Not uncommon among the most "excluded" ,degenerate* and least educated gypsies in Slovakia.. Well.. puts them in good company.. :sarcasm: Though the gypsy families sometimes have children from incest.. given their lack of attention to anything, when they come to see the doctor, it's too late to abort the sprog. The funniest thing is, that our doctors get berated by stupid American activists for sterilizing gypsy women who already had children on medical grounds.**. Their sin is, that after they gave the sometimes unlettered woman a paper to sign, and explained what a sterilization is.. Some years after that, the woman's memory is too hazy or uncertain and she might smell money from rich foreigners(gypsies are very good at trying to obtain money without honest work. Socialism taught them that, at least)).

*should be, "uncultured" but degenerate sounds better..
**There are plenty of those, esp. in women who popped four kids, smoke, drink, and look forty at age 28.

On topic..
Although.. she is probably crazy, or maybe it is GSA. That is genetic sexual attraction..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction
Has she grown up with her father? Or was he always out on some business...?

[baffledMONKEY]

The father did not raised her. They were reunited after 20 something years.

[Plekto]

Your arguments are the exact same as those who would argue that Lawrence v. Texas (the Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws) will lead to this slippery slope allowing beastiality and incest, only you run the other direction. Banning incestwill not lead to some imaginary slippery slope of laws. They've been on the books since the 1800s and up until now, no one has used them as a justification for banning gay marriage, polygamy or anything else. (Polygamy was banned in large part as opposition to Mormons rather than anything else.)

***
And yet I don't find any problem with my POV. Government should get the hell out of out personal relationships, our bodies, our children, and our business. As it is, there's a lawe for so many things that the damn state effectively owns more of us than you or I do. So, yes, I reject the need for laws that are based upon religion and societal values.

Afterall, you yourself said that the laws were made before anyone knew about genetics. So that leaves religion and laws handed down because of royal families making a mess of themselves.

The chance of him and his daughter having messed up kids is extremely small unless they come from a long line of people who lived in an isolated area and have an already deficient gene-pool to begin with.

Lastly - how about this one?
Two kids are seperated and adopted by different families. Years later they meet and eventually get married. Now, legally, there's zero problem and nothing the courts can do to prevent it as they are legally, right down to their birth certificates, now different people and not "related".

Is this whole thing about laws or about morals?

[Jetsetlemming]

The laws were made about health. Inbred babies tend to be messed up. The reason inbreeding is verbatim in most religons and societies, is because it makes messed up babies. We're all against it because inbreeding creates messed up babies. NATURE is against it because it creates messed up babies!
What's wrong with something being rejected by a religon that makes you automatically against it, anyway? They say "thou shalt not kill", are you against that because of the commandment?

[Plekto]

No, it's when our government makes laws that are based upon arbitrary reasons.(bigamy being a perfectly good example) Now, things like stealing, killing, and so on - they all affect others around us in a negative way. But two people wanting to marry each other is hardly the place for our government to get involved.

And if some Mormon really wants to be an idiot and have 5 wives and potentially 5 alimony payments when they can't get along together, well, it's his funeral.

[Jetsetlemming]

How is banning inbreeding "arbitrary", again? :bored:

[japanat]

verbatimI think you meant verboten?

Plekto,
Many cultures have long recognized (for hundreds, if not thousands of years) that children born of very close relatives or in isolated gene pools exhibit a variety of physical and mental aberrations (you ever actually read Darwin's On the Origin of Species?). This is why many 'primitive' cultures would exchange, sell, even obtain by force, women from other groups or tribes.

I do understand and actually agree with the idea that you don't want any further regulation or intrusion of the government into your life. I grew up in the sixties, when the slightly older generation was breaking down some of the laws that are back on the books today. And I happen to think that Big W isn't always right.

But there are often innocent victims here - the children.

And as far as this couple is concerned, I think it's pretty deviant; but they are consenting adults. I only worry about if she were to become pregnant. Besides, what does it tell you about this man's ideas of right and wrong; when he gives his child up for adoption, then seduces her when she seeks out her biological father. I'm sorry, but it makes me wonder if he's done the same kind of thing to young girls before.

[Kass]

Afterall, you yourself said that the laws were made before anyone knew about genetics. So that leaves religion and laws handed down because of royal families making a mess of themselves.


No, I said laws regarding POLYGAMY were morally based. Polygamy: Having multiple marriages. Polygyny: having many wives. Polyandry: having many husbands. Polyamory: having multiple romantic or sexual relationships. Incest: sexual activity between close blood relations. It would behoove you to actually know what you are talking about.

Repeat after me:

Polygamy does not equal incest.
Polygamy does not equal incest.
Polygamy does not equal incest.
Polygamy does not equal incest.
Polygamy does not equal incest.
Polygamy does not equal incest.

Laws regarding incest are a public health matter. It is exactly the same justification for child molestation laws, laws regarding the proper handling of biohazardous waste or hazardous materials disposition. People get hurt if those things are not regulatd.

Actually, the laws in this country read that you cannot marry first-degree blood relatives. In your scenario, there is a problem and the courts can prevent or annull the marriage. The status of guardians, adoptions or any other custodial issues do not negate incest laws. Legal relationship is irrelevant. Biological relationship is the determiner. Two adopted children with entirely different biological parents can get married. It's kind of wierd, but legal. Two children adopted into different families, but who have the same biological parents cannot. Of course, there is the issue of them knowing, but if it is discovered, the marriage is void.

The whole thing is about PUBLIC HEALTH.

The simple fact is even once, two first-degree blood relatives can produce an unhealthy child. It isn't rare at all. When two parents share 50% of the same alleles, genetic anomalies are likely, not a remote possibility. You don't need a degree in genetics to observe a pattern of unhealthy or deformed children being born to incestuous couples. Even European royals recognized it and eventually broadened their gene pool--without a clue about genetics.

Oh yes, and I asked several of my friends from England and Europe. Incestuous marriages between first degree blood relatives is illegal there too. Their marriage is illegal, even in the country they married in. They are liars on top of incestuous sexual partners.

How you can continue to argue your point in the face of such startling facts as lacking support from even sexual rights goups astounds me. Not even the freaks and perverts of this country support you.

Let me ask you this? do you think NAMBLA is a legitimate group and that their argument that sexual and romantic relationships between men and boys are beyond the scope of law as well? They claim that opposition to their behavior is a form of discrimination like I argue that banning gay and polygamous marriages is discrimination and excessive government interference. Should we step back and allow any man who wants to do so screw a little boy? Your arguments are exactly theirs. The government is impinging on their right to screw little kids.

Zakalwe, she was adopted and did not grow up with her biological father. As an adult, she sought out and found her biological parents. The parent-child relationship is clearly established and they publicly behaved as father and daughter even after their illegal marriage.

[Y.T.]

Zakalwe, she was adopted and did not grow up with her biological father. As an adult, she sought out and found her biological parents. The parent-child relationship is clearly established and they publicly behaved as father and daughter even after their illegal marriage.

In that case, it has to be GSA. Reportedly, twins separated at birth who meet each other as adults have a very hard time avoiding falling in love with each other. There is a thing called Westermarck effect. ... read about it.
One more reason to point out the stupidity of theory of intelligent design..
God ordered it thus, to test the faith and obedience of siblings separated at birth.

I really hate falling in love with someone.. that is, if I don't rationally want to live with that person. Those two have very good excuses.. imho. That doesn't mean I think it's ok to marry one's daughter.. Though I think we'll have to reconsider incest once there is no danger of genetic problems.. that is, once the human body holds no more mysteries, and can be modified at will.
I wonder whether I'll get to see genetically engineered humans. It's up to DARPA. The Pentagon would love to have
a clone army :D

[Plekto]

You mean they don't already?

:D

****
In all seriousness, there's nothing to prevent them from marrying.

If she was adopted, the laws are written that when the adpotion takes place, they legally make you the child of the new parent(s) right down to forging a new birth certificate and destroying the old records. You *are* their child now as if you were born to them.

If you happen to meet up with relatives or sibblings later on, there's nothing that they can do legally to keep you two apart. Different names, different birth certificates, different familes now. So it's a problem of the screwy way adoptions are handled in this country if anything, because if it weren't for the stupid media getting involved, they could go to any courthouse in the U.S. and get a civil ceremony done, since nothing connects them on paper anymore.

So legally there's no reason to keep them apart. It all them boils down to some quasi-moral rampage the at the media is going on. Hence my problem with the whole thing. Just leave them alone and move on to other news stories.