Mother and son in love in N.M. will go to jail to defend their relationship

[RINO Tom]

I mean, it's gross, but I can't support legislating sexual activity that doesn't harm anyone. Pregnancy is the grey area.

It DOES harm someone!  Cousins?  Sure, who cares?  Even brother-sister?  It's not hurting anyone if they don't reproduce.  But parent-child?  That is INHERENTLY without consent.  I firmly believe that a child is incapable of giving sexual consent to his or her parent; they are inherently unequal, and that creates a huge problem.  This goes WAY beyond thinking it's "icky," this opens up terrifying doors for kids who have "given consent to their parents" (the parents swear it's true, and so do the kids when they are in front of their parents!) and sick parents actually just manipulating their kids.

You are inherently "inferior" to your parent in this type of situation, no matter how ed up things are at your home.

EDIT: I am using the "general you" so the sentence flows better grammatically, I'm obviously not directing this at you.

[RINO Tom]

Yeah it's gross, but where's the harm to anybody else (except any potential children, as already mentioned)?

I mean, it's gross, but I can't support legislating sexual activity that doesn't harm anyone. Pregnancy is the grey area.

It DOES harm someone!  Cousins?  Sure, who cares?  Even brother-sister?  It's not hurting anyone if they don't reproduce.  But parent-child?  That is INHERENTLY without consent.  I firmly believe that a child is incapable of giving sexual consent to his or her parent; they are inherently unequal, and that creates a huge problem.  This goes WAY beyond thinking it's "icky," this opens up terrifying doors for kids who have "given consent to their parents" (the parents swear it's true, and so do the kids when they are in front of their parents!) and sick parents actually just manipulating their kids.

You are inherently "inferior" to your parent in this type of situation, no matter how ed up things are at your home.

You're going to need to explain your thinking a bit more clearly here.  The son is 19.

I personally don't think it matters.  I strongly believe there's a natural dynamic between any parent and that parent's kid, regardless of his/her age, that makes true consent impossible.  The potential (I'd argue sure possibility of) psychological damage should be reason enough to keep it outlawed, but the inequality between the two parties is what should really bother people.  Bear with me (no pun intended), but imagine a future where we've trained a primate to engage in intelligent conversation; should beasteality be legal because "consent" technically can be given on both accounts?  I mean, shlt, a 10-year old can "give her consent."  So what?  True consent must involve two mentally healthy and equal partners agreeing to sexual acts.  If you ask me, mother-son incest meets neither of those requirements, especially the latter.

[RINO Tom]

Never thought I'd say this, but this thread is a perfect example of "who am I to judge" attitude going too far.

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain why the consenting relationship itself should be illegal.

Multiple people have.

[RINO Tom]

There is no grey area. It's wrong, and if you disagree, your "morality" is below the level of human dignity.

Exactly. There are plenty of gay friends of mine who called me a bigot because when I hear about a mother and son in a sexual relationship, I want to throw up.

Wanting to throw up is one thing.  Wanting to keep the activity illegal is another, and nobody has yet put forward a convincing argument in favor of that that doesn't just rely on the first point.

HOLY sh**t, LOL, yes they have!  You're just ignoring them.

For one, multiple people have touched on what should be a universally accepted truth: this is not consent, as a son or daughter cannot give true consent to his or her parent by the very nature of the term.  They're inherently unequal.