Weirdest story ever: Daughter charged with incest after marrying her own Mother?

[MindWars]

Like ten years in prison is really going to cure the situation. How about mental health help instead.

 

[Votto]

Like ten years in prison is really going to cure the situation. How about mental health help instead.

No, no, prison fixes everything.

Trust me.

 

[Votto]

These two women should petition the LTGB community and sue for going to prison.

Why don't they?

This is what Progressivism is all about, breaking down silly traditions and moral codes based upon religion.

Where are all the protests?

Fecal mater,......er....um....Progressives should be defending these women.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The mother already basically admitted the "marriage" was so she could get health benefits.

It's a con-game, not an LGBT issue.

 

[emilynghiem]

Oklahoma woman pleads guilty to marrying her biological mother; gets 10 years probation

So in this new era of Secular Progressivism, how can two grown lesbians be denied the right to marry?

Mother and daughter? Who the hell cares? Am I right?

Yes Votto you would be right IF we all finally agreed
to keep the social relationships out of state definition of marriage
and just have civil unions and domestic partnerships that are neutral.

As long as we continue to violate the so called principle of "separation of church and state" by having the govt interfere and define who can get married or not because
sexual or social relations are involved, we will continue to see these contradictions.

To avoid any more personal judgment calls and biases in beliefs,
the solution would be for the state only to license
contracts for custody, estates, domestic and property agreements, etc.
just like business partners can be any two people as long
as they are legally competent and consenting adults.

And keep any personal relations or qualifications out of govt jurisdiction.

As for the problem with having children, if the various parties
want to control health and social benefits for couples and families,
they can legislation, regulate or mandate that for their party members
and not impose their standards, values, beliefs or principles on people of other parties.

If all people AGREE on certain health and safety regulations, such as age restrictions
on consent by minors (which can be proven by science as to when the adult brain becomes fully mature around age 21-25), that can be decided democratically and made public by state or federal govt.

But where people disagree such as on same-sex or LGBT relations, that should remain
private because it involves faith-based beliefs not proven one way or another by science.

 

[Pop23]

The mother already basically admitted the "marriage" was so she could get health benefits.

It's a con-game, not an LGBT issue.

But if she married the neighbor lady for the same reason (legal now) its not a con-game?

 

[Pop23]

How is this not a violation of the rights of these two lesbians?

SCOTUS has spoken.

Why are the Dims not protesting and rioting?

Anyone?

Perhaps society is not far enough gone and will view them negatively for sticking up for their constitutional.....er......um.....SCOTUS rights.

When will the ACLU get involved?

 

[emilynghiem]

These two women should petition the LTGB community and sue for going to prison.

Why don't they?

This is what Progressivism is all about, breaking down silly traditions and moral codes based upon religion.

Where are all the protests?

Fecal mater,......er....um....Progressives should be defending these women.

Dear Votto: I would support them in getting proper counseling to resolve whatever spiritual or family issues they may have. I don't recommend to liberals that they depend on govt for marriage rights, so neither would I recommend that to these people. They have every right to exercise their beliefs in private instead of going through govt.

As for Constitutionalists demanding religious freedom, where are they to defend these people's right to exercise their beliefs without harassment or penalty from govt?

I guess most of them would also support Christian beliefs about marriage.
So again, I would support this family getting help to ensure they all marry
their true spiritual partners and not have sexual relations with anyone
who is not their partner but is someone else's. Otherwise that's a form of
relationship abuse.

 

[emilynghiem]

When will the ACLU get involved?

If one of them comes out transgender??? Pop23

 

[BULLDOG]

Two women can marry. Liberals did that. They were told this would happen. They did it anyway.

Gay marriage opened the door to this. If this case is appealed to the Supreme Court, it could legalize marriage between close adult family members.

The slippery slope: Gay couples do not produce offspring, so there is not a compelling interest to prevent their marriage based on recessive genetic defects. Then if gay family member's are allowed to marry "equal protection" kicks in. This leads to male-female family member couples being allowed to marry.

Don't be silly. There have always been people who pulled goofy shit, and there will always be people that pull goofy shit. They are representative of no one but themselves.

 

[Votto]

Oklahoma woman pleads guilty to marrying her biological mother; gets 10 years probation

So in this new era of Secular Progressivism, how can two grown lesbians be denied the right to marry?

Mother and daughter? Who the hell cares? Am I right?

Yes Votto you would be right IF we all finally agreed
to keep the social relationships out of state definition of marriage
and just have civil unions and domestic partnerships that are neutral.

As long as we continue to violate the so called principle of "separation of church and state" by having the govt interfere and define who can get married or not because
sexual or social relations are involved, we will continue to see these contradictions.

To avoid any more personal judgment calls and biases in beliefs,
the solution would be for the state only to license
contracts for custody, estates, domestic and property agreements, etc.
just like business partners can be any two people as long
as they are legally competent and consenting adults.

And keep any personal relations or qualifications out of govt jurisdiction.

As for the problem with having children, if the various parties
want to control health and social benefits for couples and families,
they can legislation, regulate or mandate that for their party members
and not impose their standards, values, beliefs or principles on people of other parties.

If all people AGREE on certain health and safety regulations, such as age restrictions
on consent by minors (which can be proven by science as to when the adult brain becomes fully mature around age 21-25), that can be decided democratically and made public by state or federal govt.

But where people disagree such as on same-sex or LGBT relations, that should remain
private because it involves faith-based beliefs not proven one way or another by science.

Government will NEVER get out of the marriage business, cuz they never get out of anything.

Polygamists and incestuous couples, thumbs down, everyone else, thumbs up.

Maybe if they form their own lobby group like the LGBT lobby group and send them millions they may have a voice, but not until.

Pay your fair share kids or no rights.

 

[Votto]

These two women should petition the LTGB community and sue for going to prison.

Why don't they?

This is what Progressivism is all about, breaking down silly traditions and moral codes based upon religion.

Where are all the protests?

Fecal mater,......er....um....Progressives should be defending these women.

Dear Votto: I would support them in getting proper counseling to resolve whatever spiritual or family issues they may have. I don't recommend to liberals that they depend on govt for marriage rights, so neither would I recommend that to these people. They have every right to exercise their beliefs in private instead of going through govt.

As for Constitutionalists demanding religious freedom, where are they to defend these people's right to exercise their beliefs without harassment or penalty from govt?

I guess most of them would also support Christian beliefs about marriage.
So again, I would support this family getting help to ensure they all marry
their true spiritual partners and not have sexual relations with anyone
who is not their partner but is someone else's. Otherwise that's a form of
relationship abuse.

Here is an idea, why not have government get out of the marriage business altogether and stop giving married folk perks. From what I can make of the article, they were married for health care reasons. That is insane. People should have the same rights regardless as to who or whom they are not married.

But of course, government much prefers that they give the OK, as they do everything else.

Again, pay up or shut up.

 

[bodecea]

Why do I think this was more about legal protections than attraction?

 

[jon_berzerk]

What next? Leftists who want to marry their dogs?

indeed

Woman marries her dog, says ‘I’m totally her b---h’

 

[Disir]

Someone else posted Part 1 and 2 of this saga last year:
Woman arrested for marrying her biological son and daughter (Photos)

Now here's Part 3:
Oklahoma Woman Who Married Her Mother Pleads Guilty To Incest | HuffPost

I thought I read crazy stories before (such as the woman who tried to serve on Jury Duty after changing her name legally to "Jesus H Christ" remember that one?), but this really makes no sense at all.

I understand some people believe in loving and marrying everyone as "one huge family" but this is extreme.

1. First the mother tries to marry her son but is denied by law
2. Then she marries her daughter (because she lost custody, her name was removed from the birth records, so she thought it would pass as legal)
3. Now the daughter is charged and pleading guilty to incest (but not the mother, who is pleading innocent. How, on the basis of insanity?)

This is already crazymaking. But in addition, how can the daughter be guilty of incest and not the mother if they had sexual relations with each other; and isn't the purpose of incest laws to prevent procreation and birth defects in children.

There are people who would LOVE the right to marry without political and legal battles. And yet a case this insane ends up in our court system, wasting public resources and backlogging the system while others are denied a chance at justice. That's crazy, too! No wonder people think Americans are nuts.

We have freedoms on so many levels, that we take for granted, and look what we do with them.

WTFFFF????

One of Patricia’s sons, Cody Spann, told PEOPLE previously that his mother is an alleged “predator” who “forced” his brother and sister to marry her – and threatened to kill them if they did not comply.

“I think she’s just a sick, twisted individual that has something messed up in her head,” Cody, 25, told PEOPLE last September. “Why would you want to be with one of your own kids? Patricia’s a very disgusting and horrible person.”

Cody said Patricia reentered the children’s lives in 2007 or 2008, claiming to be a friend rather than their biological mother. Cody said he, Patricia and his siblings spent some time in Texas where Patricia and Jody became close. The two eventually married, but when the family returned to Oklahoma, everyone learned the truth: that they were related.

“My grandmother looked at my brother and told him that was his mom,” Cody recalled. “My brother … said that he wanted to get away from her – that was not what he wanted. And she threatened to kill him. She threatened to poison him.”






He said Jody was allegedly “manipulated, forced and threatened” after he learned the truth. He said that after that marriage was annulled, Patricia set her sights on Misty, allegedly threatening her with poisoning and kidnapping if Misty refused.

“My sister was manipulated and scared into this. Was she an adult? Yes, she was. But my sister was scared,” Cody said.
Oklahoma Daughter Sentenced After Admitting to Marrying Her Mom

There is actually more to this story.

 

[emilynghiem]

These two women should petition the LTGB community and sue for going to prison.

Why don't they?

This is what Progressivism is all about, breaking down silly traditions and moral codes based upon religion.

Where are all the protests?

Fecal mater,......er....um....Progressives should be defending these women.

Dear Votto: I would support them in getting proper counseling to resolve whatever spiritual or family issues they may have. I don't recommend to liberals that they depend on govt for marriage rights, so neither would I recommend that to these people. They have every right to exercise their beliefs in private instead of going through govt.

As for Constitutionalists demanding religious freedom, where are they to defend these people's right to exercise their beliefs without harassment or penalty from govt?

I guess most of them would also support Christian beliefs about marriage.
So again, I would support this family getting help to ensure they all marry
their true spiritual partners and not have sexual relations with anyone
who is not their partner but is someone else's. Otherwise that's a form of
relationship abuse.

Here is an idea, why not have government get out of the marriage business altogether and stop giving married folk perks. From what I can make of the article, they were married for health care reasons. That is insane. People should have the same rights regardless as to who or whom they are not married.

But of course, government much prefers that they give the OK, as they do everything else.

Again, pay up or shut up.

I think we could do something like this by allowing taxpayers voters and workers the option of managing collective benefits through their own choice of cooperatives like a credit union. Some may organize on a local, state or national level but it can be through non-profit businesses, through workplace unions or by party platforms. That would allow ppl to endorse and support either same sex couples or not without imposing beliefs about marriage outside like-minded groups.

Votto the problem I've run into with trying to separate benefits or health care from govt, is some ppl inherently believe it should be managed through govt as the central authority to defend equal rights access welfare and protections for public health safety and security. So to accommodate ppl of those beliefs, they need some option that's the equivalent of mandating and regulating it through centralized govt. Thats why I suggest using party structure to represent and manage resources collectively for ppl of this belief. Where they can still exercise it equally just not at the expense of equal beliefs of others in free market choices of health care and social programs through nonprofits or other means.