Father, daughter have child together

[heehee]

Father, daughter have child together (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23494958-29277,00.html)

A SOUTH Australian father and daughter have revealed they are a couple, and have had a child together.

John and Jenny Deaves reunited 30 years after Mr Deaves separated from Jenny's mother.

Jenny was 31 and just two weeks after meeting, father and daughter had sex.

"John and I are in this relationship as consenting adults," Mrs Deaves told the Nine Network's 60 Minutes tonight.

"We are just asking for a little bit of respect and understanding."

Their nine-month-old daughter Celeste, shown on TV, appears fit and healthy.

Mrs Deaves said soon after reuniting with her father she began to see him as a man first and her father second.

"I was looking at him, sort of going, oh, he's not too bad," she said.

"Like you might look at a man across the bar at a nightclub."

Mrs Deaves brought two children, Samantha and Alex, into the relationship after splitting from her former partner.

Mr Deaves admitted that he "initially" thought having sex with his daughter was wrong.

"Emotions take over, as people no doubt realise, there are times during your life where emotions do rule the heart, it rules the head," he said.

"I knew it was illegal, of course I knew it was illegal but you know, so what."

Mrs Deaves said the physical relationship with her father was like "a sexual relationship with any other man".

For Mr Deaves the sexual relationship was "absolutely fantastic".

A South Australian police media spokesman said "the couple is being monitored".

:rolleyes:

[obeygiant]

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5973141,00.jpg

Unbelievable.

[marykay9507]

That is a cute baby...with one very creepy conception.

[Santa Rosa]

The babies name rhymes with incest. Coincidence I think not lol!! Feel really sorry for the child though, that story is just plain wrong no matter what way they try and spin it.

[steveza]

Sick, sick, sickity, sick.

[themadchemist]

oh my. that's all I've got.

[ucfgrad93]

Yuck!:eek:

[blackfox]

I'm not sure how to look at this.

It seems that the father left when the daughter was only 1. It is unclear whether they had any contact over the 30 year period (although the article implies no). While this does not erase the fact that they are related, it does alter the wrongness-factor to me.

If the child is healthy and the couple are happy - well, OK then.

I can't help but wondering about the general health of the Aussie dating scene, however...

[brad.c]

My first reaction: this is wrong.

After reading again: Wrong.

EDit: Really, really wrong.

[atszyman]

I'm not sure how to look at this.

It seems that the father left when the daughter was only 1. It is unclear whether they had any contact over the 30 year period (although the article implies no). While this does not erase the fact that they are related, it does alter the wrongness-factor to me.

If the child is healthy and the couple are happy - well, OK then.

I can't help but wondering about the general health of the Aussie dating scene, however...

After 30 years separation, I could understand the mistake of a one night stand... but by the second date they should have figured everything out.

"Say I don't even know your least name..."

"Deaves."

"Wow, that's my last name too. What's you're father's name, we might be distantly related."

"Let's not talk about him, he abandoned us 30 years ago."

"Really? I abandoned my wife and kids 30 years ago. My daughter would be about your age... oh."

[heehee]

You think the kid will be calling the guy dad or grandpa, or the women mom or sis? :confused:

[atszyman]

You think the kid will be calling the guy dad or grandpa, or the women mom or sis? :confused:

This is almost appropriate, although not nearly as ucky...


I'm My Own Grandpa

Lyrics: Dwight Latham, Moe Jaffe
Music: Dwight Latham, Moe Jaffe

Played by Jerry Garcia with David Grisman

Oh, many, many years ago
When I was twenty-three
I was married to a widow
Who was pretty as can be
This widow had a grown-up daughter
Who had hair of red
My father fell in love with her
And soon the two were wed

This made my dad my son-in-law
And changed my very life
For my daughter was my mother
'Cause she was my father's wife
To complicate the matter
Though it really brought me joy
I soon became the father
Of a bouncing baby boy

This little baby then became
A brother-in-law to Dad
And so became my uncle
Though it made me very sad
For if he was my uncle
Then that also made him brother
Of the widow's grown-up daughter
WHo of course is my step-mother

Chorus
I'm my own grandpa
I'm my own grandpa
It sounds funny I know
But it really is so
Oh, I'm my own grandpa

My father's wife then had a son
Who kept them on the run
And he became my grandchild
For he was my daughter's son
My wife is now my mother's mother
And it makes me blue
Because although she is my wife
She's my grandmother too

Now if my wife is my grandmother
Then I'm her grandchild
And every time I think of it
It nearly drives me wild
For now I have become
The strangest case you ever saw
As husband of my grandma
I am my own grandpa

[iMpathetic]

You think the kid will be calling the guy dad or grandpa, or the women mom or sis? :confused:

Dad! Dad! She sent me to my room! She can't do that, I'm just as high up in this family as she is.... Waaaaaahhhhhh....

[nbs2]

You think the kid will be calling the guy dad or grandpa, or the women mom or sis? :confused:

That was my first question upon reading the article.

After 30 years separation, I could understand the mistake of a one night stand... but by the second date they should have figured everything out.

But, it doesn't change the fact that they didn't really have the bond that comes with a father-daughter relationship. Being gone from the family for 30 years, he was as much an emotional stranger as any other guy she might have met at a bar.

Riddle me this Batman - what is creepier: a) a guy hooking up with the 31yo daughter he abandoned when she was one or b) a guy hooking up with his 31yo stepdaughter who he has been family with since she was one?

I wouldn't be able to handle the idea of hooking up with my daughter, but if it works for them and the kid is healthy...

[themadchemist]

After 30 years separation, I could understand the mistake of a one night stand... but by the second date they should have figured everything out.

"Say I don't even know your least name..."

"Deaves."

"Wow, that's my last name too. What's you're father's name, we might be distantly related."

"Let's not talk about him, he abandoned us 30 years ago."

"Really? I abandoned my wife and kids 30 years ago. My daughter would be about your age... oh."

It's not quite clear from the article, but it sounds like they recognized that they were father and daughter *before* they had sex. THAT is the weirdest part to me. It would still be pretty screwed up if they had met each other, formed this whole relationship, and THEN found out. But that their father-daughter connection was not sufficient to prevent them from going forward with this is really freaky.

I feel bad for the kid. Imagine having to explain this to friends, teachers, acquaintances. Can you even wrap your mind around how much therapy this child is going to need?!!

[dops7107]

Man that kid's life is going to be hell. Can you imagine school? That kind of story won't be easy to keep quiet. I wonder if the authorities should intervene?

[blackfox]

After 30 years separation, I could understand the mistake of a one night stand... but by the second date they should have figured everything out.

"Say I don't even know your least name..."

"Deaves."

"Wow, that's my last name too. What's you're father's name, we might be distantly related."

"Let's not talk about him, he abandoned us 30 years ago."

"Really? I abandoned my wife and kids 30 years ago. My daughter would be about your age... oh."

I understand that - and it is somewhere between wierd and reprehensible.

My point was that if they had not ever had a father-daughter relationship, then they are only father-daughter genetically. What would be truly icky yo me is if they had, as there is a bunch more perversion going on under that scenario.

To use a (probably crap) analogy - You are one of two kids given up for adoption. You grow up, vaguely knowing you had a sister/brother - but know nothing about them. In your 30s, you meet a girl/boy and really hit it off. After a little while, it comes to light you are the two kids in question.

Now, although I would certainly be wierded out by such a bombshell if I was either one of these (theoretical) people - perhaps too much to continue the relationship - I might also weigh that against how I felt about him/her. After all, we never had a brother/sister relationship.

I can't bring myself to condemn this couples' choice w/ only the info at hand.

[themadchemist]

I understand that - and it is somewhere between wierd and reprehensible.

My point was that if they had not ever had a father-daughter relationship, then they are only father-daughter genetically. What would be truly icky yo me is if they had, as there is a bunch more perversion going on under that scenario.

To use a (probably crap) analogy - You are one of two kids given up for adoption. You grow up, vaguely knowing you had a sister/brother - but know nothing about them. In your 30s, you meet a girl/boy and really hit it off. After a little while, it comes to light you are the two kids in question.

Now, although I would certainly be wierded out by such a bombshell if I was either one of these (theoretical) people - perhaps too much to continue the relationship - I might also weigh that against how I felt about him/her. After all, we never had a brother/sister relationship.

I can't bring myself to condemn this couples' choice w/ only the info at hand.

Again, I feel like your scenario is a bit off because you're suggesting they hit it off and then discovered this situation. Here, my read of it is that it was the other way around.

[ErikCLDR]

That so disgusting. I feel so bad for the child who will spend her entire life being made fun of.

It must be interesting having your Mom also be your half sister.

[atszyman]

I can't bring myself to condemn this couples' choice w/ only the info at hand.

I didn't mean to condemn... or endorse. I've long advocated that consenting adults can do what they want behind closed doors. But that doesn't mean I can't feel weird about what they do/did if it becomes public knowledge.

This is further complicated by the presence of the child, and I do feel sorry for the child as she grows up with the identity of her parents now being in the public domain.

[blackfox]

chemist - I posted before I knew that tidbit.

Still, as wierd as it is, their "relation" is also a very abstract concept...

[stevento]

You think the kid will be calling the guy dad or grandpa, or the women mom or sis? :confused:


that's what bothers me the most
your dad is also your grandfather and your mom is your sister
you're brothers and sisters are your cousins and uncles and if you have kids then that would mean that ......:confused: :confused: :confused: i'm confused

well i'll say this: the creation of a human is never wrong. but what's going on with its parents/sisters/grandparents is extremely gross

[mogzieee]

ewww, thats just messed up lol

[Shotglass]

In my opinion, whether the parents are punished or not (incest is illegal, right?), the child needs to be taken away and given up for adoption. With no connection to the parents in his whole life. It's the only way to save that poor bugger.

[atszyman]

Here's a pertinent question that should probably be asked that has nothing to do with their relation.

Why would she even consider having a child or stick around a guy who abandoned a family 30 years ago and has evidently had only minimal contact with them in that time? Why would she expect him to stick around this time?

[yg17]

ewwwww........


It would be one thing (albeit still disgusting) if they did it and then found out they were relate. But they knew they were related and then they did it?


He must've been really desperate or popping Viagra if he was even able to get aroused by the thought of doing his daughter

[Santa Rosa]

Why would she expect him to stick around this time?

Because he is obviously getting some. This whole story is sick and both of them should be ashamed of themselves. What a joke, that kids life is going to be hell and I feel so so sorry for it.

[Zwhaler]

After 30 years separation, I could understand the mistake of a one night stand... but by the second date they should have figured everything out.
"Say I don't even know your least name..."
"Deaves."
"Wow, that's my last name too. What's you're father's name, we might be distantly related."
"Let's not talk about him, he abandoned us 30 years ago."
"Really? I abandoned my wife and kids 30 years ago. My daughter would be about your age... oh."

Wow I can totally imagine that conversation. This reminds me of that song "I am my own grandpa"

[shikimo]

Here's a pertinent question that should probably be asked that has nothing to do with their relation.

Why would she even consider having a child or stick around a guy who abandoned a family 30 years ago and has evidently had only minimal contact with them in that time? Why would she expect him to stick around this time?

That's an admirably practical and insightful response to the issue: even if the whole "I'm shagging dad" aspect of the relationship didn't bother her, what about the "I'm shagging a guy who has kids and abandons them, and I should know 'cuz it was me" issue?

Great googly-moogly.

[iJon]

Well in my opinion the only downside to this scenario would be the baby being mentally unstable. Assuming the baby is just fine and normal then I have no gripes.

Still something I would never do though.

jon

[atszyman]

Because he is obviously getting some. This whole story is sick and both of them should be ashamed of themselves. What a joke, that kids life is going to be hell and I feel so so sorry for her.

Well he had kids before, he was obviously getting some then. How is this situation any different than the one he abandoned years ago? (ignoring the obvious).

[Santa Rosa]

Well he had kids before, he was obviously getting some then. How is this situation any different than the one he abandoned years ago? (ignoring the obvious).

Im talking only about the kid, not his daughter.

[Thomas Veil]

"Sick" is the first word that came to mind when I read this.

"I was looking at him, sort of going, oh, he's not too bad," she said.

"Like you might look at a man across the bar at a nightclub." And "creepy" was the second.

I swear, sometimes I think there's this world-wide contest going on that I don't know about, where all the participants are trying to be weirder than the last guy.

[PlaceofDis]

odd story, i still just don't know what to think about it all.

[RaceTripper]

He must've been really desperate or popping Viagra if he was even able to get aroused by the thought of doing his daughter

Damn...I think anyone would have to be desperate and require some Viagra to bonk her.

Now if she were hot I might be able to fathom it...but damn...:rolleyes:

[nbs2]

I can't believe some of the comments I'm reading here. Apparently you all never read or watched the news when gay couples began having or adopting children.

Seriously. Only a couple people here seem to have taken the time to consider that that child is healthy and that the relationship that these two had was father/daughter in name only. If they are comfortable with it, who are we to interfere?

Hypocrites.

[mactastic]

To use a (probably crap) analogy - You are one of two kids given up for adoption. You grow up, vaguely knowing you had a sister/brother - but know nothing about them. In your 30s, you meet a girl/boy and really hit it off. After a little while, it comes to light you are the two kids in question.
Didn't this just happen for real?

I can't believe some of the comments I'm reading here. Apparently you all never read or watched the news when gay couples began having or adopting children.

Seriously. Only a couple people here seem to have taken the time to consider that that child is healthy and that the relationship that these two had was father/daughter in name only. If they are comfortable with it, who are we to interfere?

Hypocrites.
Just because it makes me throw up in my mouth a little doesn't mean I think they should be punished for it. Personally, if they are both consenting adults -- bump uglies all you want even if you are dad and daughter.

[obeygiant]

Personally, if they are both consenting adults -- bump uglies all you want even if you are dad and daughter.

Are you kidding? NO!

[PlaceofDis]

Are you kidding? NO!

who are we to say that what people can and cannot do as adults in the private realm of their lives, which has no impact on the public?

it harms no one, and its their choice.

i don't see the big deal here, other than it being a socially stigmatized taboo. the baby is healthy and has (presumably) loving parents.

[mactastic]

Are you kidding? NO!
What harm are they doing to you, or to society at large? The only objection I can raise is the enhanced probability of genitically defective children as a result of their union, but there are other genetic variations out there that put children at risk of birth defects too (Tay-Sachs is one I have some knowledge of) that we don't forbid carriers from mating because of.

Like I said, I find the idea repugnant personally and would never engage in such behavior myself. But unlike many, I don't find that to be a sound basis for forcing my morality upon others.

[Eric Lewis]

ewwewewewwewewewewewewewe! ewewewew!

i just threw up in my mouth

thats gross

i bet the baby will end up messed for the rest of its life

eewewewewewewe

thats wrong and nasty

[stevento]

i bet the baby will end up messed for the rest of its life
...
thats wrong and nasty

i dont think the creation of a child is ever wrong but what's going on with the parents is gross.
what i would do is give the chld up for adoption and make sure it NEVER knows about its biological family.


Just because it makes me throw up in my mouth a little doesn't mean I think they should be punished for it. Personally, if they are both consenting adults -- bump uglies all you want even if you are dad and daughter.

excuse me whilst i barf forever at the thought of this, but i think you're right about the consenting adults thing.
i agree that as long as they are consenting adults and nobody is by anymeans being hurt or brainwashed etc, you really cannot force your morality on others as well.
*ahem* gay marriage *ahem*
see the thing is the same way we say "a dad and a daughter together makes me barf" is the same way conservative republicans say "two men together makes me barf"

[pseudobrit]

Seriously. Only a couple people here seem to have taken the time to consider that that child is healthy and that the relationship that these two had was father/daughter in name only.

What? I thought they were genetically related. Incest should be illegal because, like polygamy, it usually leads to abuse (particularly for young women). This level of abuse can psychologically impair people through adulthood. Just look at what's going on in Eldorado right now for an example.

Hypocrites.

No, just because everyone who is politically liberal isn't also a hardcore libertarian freak doesn't mean they're hypocrites, and you don't have the right to call people names for it. :rolleyes:

[solvs]

To use a (probably crap) analogy - You are one of two kids given up for adoption. You grow up, vaguely knowing you had a sister/brother - but know nothing about them. In your 30s, you meet a girl/boy and really hit it off. After a little while, it comes to light you are the two kids in question.
That happened recently actually, and was also the plot of both a House and Nip/Tuck episode.

Hypocrites.
You can't tell the difference between gay marriage and this? Well, first of all gay marriage easily adds legal rights that are hard to get otherwise (sometimes impossible) that those who are related already have. Second, there are genetic issues at play. While we may not want to go there overall, it does play somewhat into it. Also the power aspect, a Father over his Daughter, even if he wasn't around. The fact that a Father seducing his Daughter, or vice-versa, is icky to most of us is only a very small part of it. If that's all it was, we would outlaw ugly people and old, wrinkly fat people getting married too. Polygamy and bestiality are different too, I hope I don't have to explain why.

But yeah, no one is calling for them to not be together otherwise, so still not getting the hypocrites part.

[bov]

i just barfed a little in my mouth.

edit: i just barfed a lot in my mouth.

[shikimo]

What harm are they doing to you, or to society at large? The only objection I can raise is the enhanced probability of genitically defective children as a result of their union, but there are other genetic variations out there that put children at risk of birth defects too (Tay-Sachs is one I have some knowledge of) that we don't forbid carriers from mating because of.

Very true: just want to add that genetic mutations are no higher in first-generation inter-family births--even, aack, father/daughter and brother/sister couplings--than in any other category of births. It's not until the gene pool has stayed shallow for multiple generations that the ability to filter out mutated genes is compromised.

Whether we like it or not, in the modern western world of geographic mobility where people have kids with partners from further and further away, incest in small doses is much more of a cultural taboo than a public health concern. And it is far from being a consistent value, historically speaking; many elite groups throughout human history have practiced nothing but incest, to keep bloodlines 'pure' (which is of course a mythical idea as well, but they didn't have modern genealogical research and DNA data to prove it to them ;)).

i agree that as long as they are consenting adults and nobody is by anymeans being hurt or brainwashed etc, you really cannot force your morality on others as well.
*ahem* gay marriage *ahem*
see the thing is the same way we say "a dad and a daughter together makes me barf" is the same way conservative republicans say "two men together makes me barf"

That's a good demonstration of cultural relativism; one could say the same for interracial couplings, which, like being gay, was grounds for a lynching in certain parts of the US not so many years ago.

Oh, and at the risk of incurring the wrath of bible-thumpers, I have to point out that there is even some biblical precedent here: Lot, 'the only righteous man in Sodom,' was given a direct order by an angel to knock up his two daughters (Genesis 19:15). Sure, they had to get him really drunk to do it, and the text implies that he was so trashed he didn't know who was who at the time (G 19:32-36), but still.

And yes, I know incest is condemned four separate times in Leviticus. Gotta love the consistency.


excuse me whilst i barf forever at the thought of this, but i think you're right about the consenting adults thing

Just in case anyone actually follows through on their threat to barf on their laptop, we've already figured out what to do:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=459114

[Mord]

I owe my happiness to inbreeding, my girlfriend's grandparents were somewhat more related than by marriage.

[skunk]

And yes, I know incest is condemned four separate times in Leviticus.One has to wonder why they found it necessary to repeat themselves...

[takao]

ahem .. this is still illegal in a few countries ... yes even in europe

remembers me of a cse in germany when a brother and sister came together and had i think 4 kids by now
he got got convinced with a 1+ year penalty just a few months ago

[skunk]

he got got convinced with a 1+ year penalty just a few months agoThat would be enough to convince anybody.

I think you mean "convicted"... :)

[takao]

That would be enough to convince anybody.

I think you mean "convicted"... :)

slow morning today for me ;)

[solvs]

One has to wonder why they found it necessary to repeat themselves...

Repeating something enough times makes it true. You should know that by now watching how our people get practically brainwashed with slogans. Repeating something enough times makes it true.

[skunk]

Repeating something enough times makes it true. You should know that by now watching how our people get practically brainwashed with slogans. Repeating something enough times makes it true.I suspect the reason was that the practice was so widespread.

[solvs]

I suspect the reason was that the practice was so widespread.

Probably.

And if they repeated themselves enough times, it was bound to be true.

[nbs2]

No, just because everyone who is politically liberal isn't also a hardcore libertarian freak doesn't mean they're hypocrites, and you don't have the right to call people names for it. :rolleyes:

You can't tell the difference between gay marriage and this? Well, first of all gay marriage easily adds legal rights that are hard to get otherwise (sometimes impossible) that those who are related already have. Second, there are genetic issues at play. While we may not want to go there overall, it does play somewhat into it. Also the power aspect, a Father over his Daughter, even if he wasn't around. The fact that a Father seducing his Daughter, or vice-versa, is icky to most of us is only a very small part of it. If that's all it was, we would outlaw ugly people and old, wrinkly fat people getting married too. Polygamy and bestiality are different too, I hope I don't have to explain why.

But yeah, no one is calling for them to not be together otherwise, so still not getting the hypocrites part.

My ire may not have been formatted in the best possible way, and isn't directed towards those who have complaints regarding the relationship (but I'll address that later). It's those who seem intent on taking the child from what appears to be a loving home or are otherwise judging the kind of home that the child will be raised in. If the child is being raised in a loving home, who are we to take her away? The same reaction I'm seeing in a lot of posts is the same that you saw (and still see today among a lot of people) when a homosexual couple wants to adopt or have a child of their own. And I stand by my assertion that someone who argues that the most important thing for a child is a honestly loving home when presented with one nontraditional couple and then rips apart another nontraditional couple is a hypocrite.

As for the foundation of the relationship, I don't see a relationship to gay marriage, beyond that two consenting adults, without any indication that the couple was created through coercion or any other method of force, wish to be together. Yes, they share genetics, and yes, there is a chance that a child will have genetic defects. But, everything seems hunky-dory with Celeste. I don't see how the father could have any level of influence on his daughter/partner greater than any other old man that she hadn't seen for 30 of her 31 years that she might want to hook up with.

Personally, I find this relationship disturbing. But, it don't affect me and it doesn't affect anybody else. Even the Eldorado situation only came to a head because of child abuse. If there was transparency and the children were ok, what would be the problem? At the most basic level, there is no difference between polygamy and Shawn Kemp.

[atszyman]

As for the foundation of the relationship, I don't see a relationship to gay marriage, beyond that two consenting adults, without any indication that the couple was created through coercion or any other method of force, wish to be together. Yes, they share genetics, and yes, there is a chance that a child will have genetic defects. But, everything seems hunky-dory with Celeste. I don't see how the father could have any level of influence on his daughter/partner greater than any other old man that she hadn't seen for 30 of her 31 years that she might want to hook up with.

They have one healthy child, but do we take measures to prevent future children in this relationship due to the increased risk of genetic defects? If so, how do we do that?

Personally, I find this relationship disturbing. But, it don't affect me and it doesn't affect anybody else. Even the Eldorado situation only came to a head because of child abuse. If there was transparency and the children were ok, what would be the problem? At the most basic level, there is no difference between polygamy and Shawn Kemp.

The government's interest in preventing polygamy is simple and obvious when you think beyond the bedroom relationship. My spouse gets to be my guardian if I should become incapacitated and cannot make medical decisions on my own, she also is my next of kin and has control of my assets. If polygamy were legal, which spouse gets to make these decisions? It's much easier to limit the legal side of marriage to two consenting adults and avoid the problem entirely. If those two adults want to share a house/bed with others, that's fine, but giving them legal status in the relationship makes things more confusing when one of the "spouses" becomes incapacitated in some way.

[nbs2]

They have one healthy child, but do we take measures to prevent future children in this relationship due to the increased risk of genetic defects? If so, how do we do that?

The same way we try and control genetic defects in population groups known to be at high risk for genetic defects. I remember going through a detailed understand of both lineages to see if we needed to have my daughter tested for CF while my wife was pregnant. If anything, I'm sure the Ashkenazi Jews can provide more insight.

The government's interest in preventing polygamy is simple and obvious when you think beyond the bedroom relationship. My spouse gets to be my guardian if I should become incapacitated and cannot make medical decisions on my own, she also is my next of kin and has control of my assets. If polygamy were legal, which spouse gets to make these decisions? It's much easier to limit the legal side of marriage to two consenting adults and avoid the problem entirely. If those two adults want to share a house/bed with others, that's fine, but giving them legal status in the relationship makes things more confusing when one of the "spouses" becomes incapacitated in some way.

Having no experience living in a polygamous society I can't speak with absolute certainty, but I have to believe that those situations have been addressed and resolved in the various polygamist groups that exist. As loathe as I am to cite to it, the Wiki article on the various groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_fundamentalism) indicates that not all of them are as twisted as Jeffs's. While I'm sure that all have taken steps towards resolving the issues you present, some of them may have very valid ideas that could be considered. Even if they don't, just because all the concerns haven't been ironed out doesn't mean that they shouldn't be studied to further iron them.

Either way, the issue of spousal rights under gay marriage and polygamy seems a far stretch from the concerns of child abuse that have been raised in both cases, as well as the child development issues that both of those cases (as well as the present case) raise. Clearly child abuse can occur anywhere, in hetero- and homo-sexual couples and within polygamous societies. Whichever of the three a child comes from, if there is no abuse, and there is love and familial support - isn't that the most important thing?

[atszyman]

The same way we try and control genetic defects in population groups known to be at high risk for genetic defects. I remember going through a detailed understand of both lineages to see if we needed to have my daughter tested for CF while my wife was pregnant. If anything, I'm sure the Ashkenazi Jews can provide more insight.

Are you advocating that society as a whole just start accepting incest as valid relationships, provided no coercion or abuse is present?

Having no experience living in a polygamous society I can't speak with absolute certainty, but I have to believe that those situations have been addressed and resolved in the various polygamist groups that exist. As loathe as I am to cite to it, the Wiki article on the various groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_fundamentalism) indicates that not all of them are as twisted as Jeffs's. While I'm sure that all have taken steps towards resolving the issues you present, some of them may have very valid ideas that could be considered. Even if they don't, just because all the concerns haven't been ironed out doesn't mean that they shouldn't be studied to further iron them.

And why can't the government just establish marriage or civil unions as a legal contract between any two people? There's nothing preventing those two people from allowing others to participate in the union, or even to have churches or other institutions bless or condone the other participants, they just don't have any legal standing.

Either way, the issue of spousal rights under gay marriage and polygamy seems a far stretch from the concerns of child abuse that have been raised in both cases, as well as the child development issues that both of those cases (as well as the present case) raise. Clearly child abuse can occur anywhere, in hetero- and homo-sexual couples and within polygamous societies. Whichever of the three a child comes from, if there is no abuse, and there is love and familial support - isn't that the most important thing?

Child abuse and development issues occur in plenty of heterosexual relationships as well and there are plenty of laws and regulations to protect the children, and is a completely separate issue than the relationship aspect.

[mactastic]

One has to wonder why they found it necessary to repeat themselves...
Well, you know, you have to catapult the propaganda.

[nbs2]

Are you advocating that society as a whole just start accepting incest as valid relationships, provided no coercion or abuse is present?

I would never be so liberal as to expand the definition of a valid relationship (even if my marriage would have been verboten a half-century ago). But that is neither here nor there when discussing Celeste's situation, except for the issue that people may feel uncomfortable with the idea of her being raised in "that home."

Yet, if there is no coercion or abuse, why not accept it? If someone has the numbers, I'd love to see the incidence rate of defects in incest-born children versus that of some social/racial/ethnic groups (including the aforementioned Ashkenazi Jews). Perhaps there is significantly higher rate in the former, maybe it's close - I'd like to know. I would never deign to deny the latter the right to relationships and children.

And why can't the government just establish marriage or civil unions as a legal contract between any two people? There's nothing preventing those two people from allowing others to participate in the union, or even to have churches or other institutions bless or condone the other participants, they just don't have any legal standing.

I suppose they could. But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, beyond making the relationship in the present case easier for the government to swallow.

Child abuse and development issues occur in plenty of heterosexual relationships as well and there are plenty of laws and regulations to protect the children, and is a completely separate issue than the relationship aspect.

Yes.

[pseudobrit]

Yet, if there is no coercion or abuse, why not accept it?

Good question. I imagine there are cases where people recreationally or therapeutically use cocaine and heroin without becoming addicted or harming themselves or others. Should we then culturally accept and legalize such use for all?

What you've got here is a case where it's the exception that proves the rule. Incest will stay illegal because as an institution it harms society.

[skunk]

If someone has the numbers, I'd love to see the incidence rate of defects in incest-born children versus that of some social/racial/ethnic groups (including the aforementioned Ashkenazi Jews). Perhaps there is significantly higher rate in the former, maybe it's close - I'd like to know.As it happens, this subject came up over here not too long ago:
Birth defects warning sparks row

A minister who warned about birth defects among children of first cousin marriages in Britain's Asian community has sparked anger among critics.
Phil Woolas said health workers were aware such marriages were creating increased risk of genetic problems.

The claims infuriated the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) which called on the prime minister to "sack him".

MPAC spokesman Asghar Bukhari said Mr Woolas' comments "verged on Islamophobia".

Mr Woolas, an environment minister who represents ethnically-diverse Oldham East and Saddleworth, risked sparking a major row after warning the issue was "the elephant in the room", Mr Bukhari said.

Expert analysis

Mr Woolas said cultural sensitivities made the issue of birth defects difficult to address.

The former race relations minister told the Sunday Times: "If you have a child with your cousin the likelihood is there'll be a genetic problem.

"The issue we need to debate is first cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins, and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability [in children]."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7237663.stm

[nbs2]

As it happens, this subject came up over here not too long ago:

That was an interesting article. If the results in the Pakistani study can be verified across the spectrum, that may be an indication. I would like to know what percentage of Pakistani marriages are between cousins and what percentage of Pakistani births result in defects. Yes they are 30% of all recessive defects, but if they are also 13x more likely, it appears the percentage of defective births cannot be very high. And I still want to know numbers in ethnic groups known for defects.

But, the article provides enough indicators to for me to consider that the risk becomes significantly higher. If so, perhaps the best (even if seemingly draconian) solution would be to suggest that if a couple is intent on an incestual marriage like this one, require vasectomy/tubal ligation. Both are reversible procedures and generally prevent "defected" children - our biggest concern in the relationship since they don't have a developed familial bond. If they don't try to get married - well, I can't think of anything that would work without creating serious privacy issues.

[pdham]

Article which sort of addresses the conversation which has been going on (sort of)http://www.slate.com/id/2081904/

[atszyman]

But, the article provides enough indicators to for me to consider that the risk becomes significantly higher. If so, perhaps the best (even if seemingly draconian) solution would be to suggest that if a couple is intent on an incestual marriage like this one, require vasectomy/tubal ligation. Both are reversible procedures and generally prevent "defected" children - our biggest concern in the relationship since they don't have a developed familial bond. If they don't try to get married - well, I can't think of anything that would work without creating serious privacy issues.

Article which sort of addresses the conversation which has been going on (sort of)http://www.slate.com/id/2081904/

One of the replies to the Slate article does point to one fundamental difference between anti-homosexual laws and anti-incest laws.

Anti-homosexual laws make it illegal to have relations with everyone you could be attracted to.

Anti-incest laws only make it illegal to have relations with a tiny subset of all the people you could be attracted to.

If there is a substantial increase in the rate of birth defects I can see keeping it a social taboo and granting no legal status to incestuous relationships (I already have a legal relationship with my relatives) and having some legal penalties for people who knowingly have children in these types of relationships.

I also see us fast approaching a day, due to adoptions and embryo adoptions and other anonymous processes that allow genetic siblings to be raised with absolutely no knowledge of each other, where getting married will require a genetic test to verify that the couple are not related within a few generations.

If the state starts to try to mandate infertility via reversible procedures in certain relationships, does this mean we can force kids between the ages of 12-18 (or maybe into their 20s) to be made sterile to avoid teenage and unwanted pregnancies as a result of youthful indiscretions?

As far as I know there's almost nothing that can be done to prevent incestuous relationships between consenting adults if they really want to keep it private, and I don't think the state can force an unwed mother to have a paternity test done to determine the father if she doesn't want one.

It's a fine line to be walked, and I admit I don't know what the answer should be.