Posted on 12/29/2011 9:29:23 PM PST by stevelackner
Technically, sex with his step daughter would not be incest as there was no genetic connection, morally it might be considered fornication. I’m surprised the arguement was not put forth on those grounds...ala the Woody Allen defense!
I always thought incest was sex between two blood relatives.
Step children are not blood relatives. Although I believe that having sex with step kids is wrong,it is more pedophile rape, than incest, unless those step kids are adults.
If they are adults and consent or even start the ball rolling it is not rape or incest, just bad judgement, and bad morals.
“Consent” is the key word here.
They argue that as long as the act has consent, it should be allowed.
If you agree with that, you fall into their trap.
Because, the next step is to lower the “age of consent” like they have done in Europe and other countries....to as low as 14 years old......even 12 years old in places like Mexico.
At that point, pedophilia becomes legal....which is the ultimate goal.
Genetically and LEGALLY are 2 different matters. Today, in most, if is not all states, it is only based on the legal relationship! (Unless you're a celebrity with the right connections.)
In a society where divorce and remarriage puts a large percentage of children under the authority of step parents, blood relationships do not form the basis of many/most families. Incest laws today try to protect all the children in a family.
One big question is where the cutoff age should be. Another is whether a step parent should be allowed to start grooming a step child below the age of consent for a sexual relationship once the become of age.
This kind of judiciary will be part of the reason the nation will split and needs to split.
Perverts, you live here. All others who believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman, those who believe that kids are not sexual objects of desire, that copulating with animals is evil, you should live here.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.03(A)(5) makes it a crime to “engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when . . . [t]he offender is the other person’s natural or adoptive parent, or a stepparent, or guardian, custodian, or person in loco parentis of the other person.”
Incidentally, Lowe did also argue, in addition to his Constitutional claim, that there was a “clear legislative intent to have the law apply to children, not adults,” but that was dismissed by the federal courts as well. I instead focused not on the statute itself, and statutory arguments, but on the Constitutional reasoning used to arrive at the result.
I guess Ingraham said it best in her book "Shut up and Sing"
Meanwhile, if the guy had never married the mom, no law would have been broken if he had decided to switch to the adult daughter.
What if it had been an adult stepson? Is ancestral sodomy okay under Lawrence v. Texas?
Give the homo flitting fairy fascists fits and vote for Rick Santorum!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.