Replies

You're wrong. Trace answered that, but to recap, she is part of your family and as a father with authority over her, a sexual relationship with her is considered exploitation per se, to a criminal extent. Plus you're a sick man if you do that.

Like homosexuality, the miodern concept of family, the roles of fathers and sexual taboos are all religious constrainsts. You have no right to impose your religion or your view of morality on me and my daughter. She is 16 and she is at the age of consent. There are even numerous studies that say sex between parent and child is good for the child . Some cultures demand it.

so, again. Why should the state have any say over our consenual sex.

As far as a strawman argument gos, the whole point that myself and others are against deciding this as a privacy rights issue is because of the various arguments unrelated to homosexual sex that are at stake and cannot be supported with consistant logic after this ruiling.

cannot be supported with consistant logic after this ruiling.

This case and the Michigan law school case prove that logic and principles do not count. The court can vote anyway it wants depending on what they consider "a compelling state interest"

Sorry to burst your bubble, but our society lives with all sorts of seemingly arbitrary and philosophically inconsistent rules. Why can a person who's one hour shy of their 18th birthday not legally drink, but get plastered starting an hour later? Why can you drive 70 on the interstate but not 80, or why can't you drive 70 through a residential area?

Sorry, but most of us live with this seemingly indefensible arbitrariness without the slightest tinge of cognitive dissonance.