PROFESSOR: How is my incest different than Homosexuality?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

It seems to be you..... who is confused, you keep borrowing the term "consent" as if that is some rock foundation to stand on.

What type of consent would a dog need to give to hump it's owner?

DId they give consent to be put in a crate for the night?

Did they give consent to be bred?

Did they give consent to have their pups sold off?

Or to be put on a chain.... or walked, or worked.... or neutered.

Consent is not needed for anything with an animal.... the question is ...

*Is it abuse or neglect*

So let me ask you, is allowing Fido to mount up... Abuse or neglect?

There are some places which don't even have laws against Bestiality.

Can you even define what "consent" is for people?

When it comes to sexual activities, both parties need to be able to voice their willingness. Otherwise it is abuse. An animal cannot do that. An animal will act based on instinct. To take advantage of that in a sexual way is abuse.

Now, if you could, please stop comparing adult people to animals, and maybe your arguments will start making more sense.

[JohnR! 5,495]

As Taboo as that may be, and no matter how personally offensive it may be to me, what two consenting adults do in thier bedroom is thier business, even if it is father and daughter. Before all you "bestiality will be next crowd get started", I said two consenting adults.. and I might add of sound mind and free from coercion.

And he is right.. it is no different than homosexual sex or heterosexual sex for that mater.

What is rather interesting in this story is that the relationship between this father and daughter is of a heterosexual nature, which indicates the comparison to homosexuality is completely non-germane.

He might as well have said that a father having sex with his daughter is no different than divorce.

Most certainly 3 wives are already on the horizon....

In this country, having several wives became a reality when divorce was legalized.

What type of consent would a dog need to give to hump it's owner?

That is something you should discuss with your dog, since it appears your curiosity on this subject is unrelenting.

[JohnR! 5,495]

The math makes it appear that she was ?17? when this started. So does a relationship between a father and his 17-yr-old daughter sound like a consensual relationship that popped up from nowhere?

In some states, that alone would be considered statutory rape, however heterosexual the nature of their relationship.

[JohnR! 5,495]

How in hades can people not grasp the difference between two consenting adults of legal capacity and a dumb animal. Geez. I even said it, i knew they would whip that out. How can they not grasp the idea of CONSENT!

Alas, I believe they do, but their insistence on the subject seems to indicate they seek to justify their own desires rather than that others.

[Ban Hammer 12,845]

one personal attack removed.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

When it comes to sexual activities, both parties need to be able to voice their willingness. Otherwise it is abuse. An animal cannot do that. An animal will act based on instinct. To take advantage of that in a sexual way is abuse.

Now, if you could, please stop comparing adult people to animals, and maybe your arguments will start making more sense.

Now if someone agrees before they start drinking hard that is different

[Love's JAA 100]

His son and wife would be treated the same for tax purposes. You are way out of your zone here. Tell me Danno. What is the estate tax now and how does it differ from spouse to child

Yes I meant that also. As in addition to being ...

The difference is the marital deduction. In general, one can leave his entire estate to his/her spouse free of estate tax. The amount left to the surviving spouse is deducted from the gross estate in arriving at the taxable estate. There's limitations of course where a surviving spouse remarries. The idea being, the tax will more or less be paid when the surviving spouse dies. You can't however leave an unlimited amount to a child free of tax. Only the estate exclusion amount. No deduction for bequests to children.

[Danno 1,228]

The difference is the marital deduction. In general, one can leave his entire estate to his/her spouse free of estate tax. The amount left to the surviving spouse is deducted from the gross estate in arriving at the taxable estate. There's limitations of course where a surviving spouse remarries. The idea being, the tax will more or less be paid when the surviving spouse dies. You can't however leave an unlimited amount to a child free of tax. Only the estate exclusion amount. No deduction for bequests to children.

It gets boring being right time after time.

Thanks for clarification on that.

[Danno 1,228]

When it comes to sexual activities, both parties need to be able to voice their willingness. Otherwise it is abuse. An animal cannot do that. An animal will act based on instinct. To take advantage of that in a sexual way is abuse.

Now, if you could, please stop comparing adult people to animals, and maybe your arguments will start making more sense.

Cup cake we are talking about law here.... I guess you are fixated on the example offered.

Now why would the womens dog need to "voice" his consent for sex but not to do the same to have his tail docked or his reproductive ability ended?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Now why would the womens dog need to "voice" his consent for sex but not to do the same to have his tail docked or his reproductive ability ended?

There is no need for consent for a dog can't consent. Have at it if that is what floats your boat.

[Mike B. 231]

Cup cake we are talking about law here.... I guess you are fixated on the example offered.

Now why would the womens dog need to "voice" his consent for sex but not to do the same to have his tail docked or his reproductive ability ended?

The states have the authority under Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States to define sex with animals as a crime. There is no Amendment XIV issue like there is with gay marriage. What about this are you incapable of understanding?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The difference is the marital deduction. In general, one can leave his entire estate to his/her spouse free of estate tax. The amount left to the surviving spouse is deducted from the gross estate in arriving at the taxable estate. There's limitations of course where a surviving spouse remarries. The idea being, the tax will more or less be paid when the surviving spouse dies. You can't however leave an unlimited amount to a child free of tax. Only the estate exclusion amount. No deduction for bequests to children.

excuse me. I was talking about normal people for which there is no estate tax

[Love's JAA 100]

excuse me. I was talking about normal people for which there is no estate tax

Did you read the title to this topic? We're not talking about normal people here.

[SMR 368]

The states have the authority under Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States to define sex with animals as a crime. There is no Amendment XIV issue like there is with gay marriage. What about this are you incapable of understanding?

I don't think that was directed at me, but I'll bite. A ban on gay marriage does not violate the 14th amendment. A ban on gay marriage says that anyone can marry someone of the opposite gender while no one can marry someone of the same gender. That is equal protection under the law.

For instance, if the government bans rocky road ice cream, that's equal protection. Everyone can eat vanilla and no one can eat rocky road. Naturally, the ban really only affects people that liked rocky road from the beginning, much like a gay marriage ban only affects people that wanted to marry someone of the same gender to begin with. But that doesn't mean that the law doesn't affect everyone equally.

If the 14th amendment criticism of gay marriage was valid, then the 14th amendment would make all laws unconstitutional, provided you could find someone who had no desire to break said law and someone who did have a desire to break said law. A reasonable interpretation of the 14th amendment cannot take desire to break or not break the law into account.

Now, to the subject of bestiality. I agree that states have the right to ban it and the 14th amendment is not applicable. But assume that the 14th amendment did protect gay marriage and outlaw bans on such. Why would the same argument not apply to bestiality? If someone is protected in his or her right to marry a same gender partner because others are allowed to enter into relationships with heterosexual partners according to their desires, then a person would have to be protected in his right to enter into a relationship with his or her dog.

I am not saying that bestiality is equivalent to homosexuality. My point is only that the 14th amendment does not provide a solid basis on which it can be applied to one and not to the other.

On the subject of consent, animals are not generally required to consent to most actions to which they are subjected. Naturally, animal abuse is illegal. However, if the animal is not physically harmed and does not resist inordinately, then there is little basis for arguing that the animal is abused. Even extreme resistance is not necessarily evidence for abuse as animals regularly resist various actions of their owners.

[Danno 1,228]

Did you read the title to this topic? We're not talking about normal people here.

Exactly we are talking about someone making the Legal case that "all" adults have the "right" to define marriage or a relationship as they are inclined to do.

This isn't about some far-off assumptions such as marriage to a horse.... no these are real life relationships which could be motivated by a number of factors and are buttressed by nearly every

argument the Gay marriage folks used.

How does this man and his daughter(s) having sex effect your life?

If you don't want to marry your kids.... then don't.

Their commitment to each other "honors" marriage.

Polling shows a steady acceptance of "Free-marriage" you should get on the right side of history.

It's just not fair the people in a loving relationship not enjoy the benefits like everyone else.

Blah, blah, blah