Poll of the Day > NY Dad is SUING the FEDS for not allowing him to MARRY his BEAUTIFUL DAUGHTER!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

A New York Dad whose name is unknown for obvious reasons is SUING the Feds to overturn laws banning INCEST saying marriage is a matter of "individual autonomy" after he was barred from marrying his DAUGHTER!!

The freak filed a lawsuit in Manhattan fed court on April 1st asking a judge to declare incest laws "unconsitutitional" and unenforceable so tht they can wed their off spring in NYC

He wishes to remain anonymous because they recognize his dream of marrying his "beautiful daughter" is an "action that a large setment of society views as morally, socially and biologically repugnant"

They say they are adults and are biological parent and child and they are unable to procreate

They regard themselves as PAACNP meaning parent and adult child non-procreationalbe couple who believe it would "diminish their humanity" if they could not marry one another

They said enduring bond of marriage would take the parent and child union to agree to a greater level of expression, intimacy and spirituality

The parent claims he will not propose to his daughter because it was sustain harm if they got engaged and can't walk down the aisle

Incest in NY is a third degree class E felony punishable of up to 4 years in the big house.

Incest marriage is not recognized and couples who do marry get up to 6 months behind bars plus a fine

Lawyer Eric Wrubel doubts this suit will be successful pointing out the taboo of incest and said "it's never gonna fly" as the closest you can come with Woody Allen who married his daughter whom he adopted but it still turned people's stomachs

Their lawyer has refused dailymail for a comment

Would you vote to legalize this?

https://i.imgur.com/AYwFqKI.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/k6Ah5fK.jpg
---

That dude north of the wall did it, and he had a pretty cool hut

---

April Fools?

---

mrduckbear posted...

A New York Dad whose name is unknown for obvious reasons is SUING the Feds to overturn laws banning INCEST saying marriage is a matter of "individual autonomy" after he was barred from marrying his DAUGHTER!!

Uh, what? No, it's not fucking obvious. In fact, it's the opposite of obvious since court filings are generally a matter of public record. Just about the only times when the identity could be left off a record would be if it concerned a minor or a matter of national security.

mrduckbear posted...

They say they are adults and are biological parent and child and they are unable to procreate

They regard themselves as PAACNP meaning parent and adult child non-procreationalbe couple who believe it would "diminish their humanity" if they could not marry one another

If the biological father didn't raise the daughter, the only other real argument would be if the union could result in kids. If he didn't and they can't have kids, that kinda takes the big objections off the table.

---

i read that as "my"

---

Zeus posted...

Uh, what? No, it's not f***ing obvious. In fact, it's the opposite of obvious since court filings are generally a matter of public record.

It is, however, obvious why he wouldn't personally share his name and why the journalists writing the article wouldn't push the matter. I'm sure the journalists could have found his name if they dug for it, and it would likely ultimately be deemed legal to do so if it were taken to court, but it's just easier and safer for everyone involved to not invite the kind of harassment and violence (and subsequent lawsuits) publishing his name would invite.

---

mrduckbear posted...

They regard themselves as PAACNP meaning parent and adult child non-procreationalbe couple who believe it would "diminish their humanity" if they could not marry one another

And having such feelings does not diminish one's humanity?

Also, I should answer independent in the poll right? Since I am neither Liberal (Centre to Centre-Right) or Conservative (Centre-Right to Right).

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

And having such feelings does not diminish one's humanity?

not from their perspective

---

adjl posted...

It is, however, obvious why he wouldn't personally share his name and why the journalists writing the article wouldn't push the matter. I'm sure the journalists could have found his name if they dug for it, and it would likely ultimately be deemed legal to do so if it were taken to court, but it's just easier and safer for everyone involved to not invite the kind of harassment and violence (and subsequent lawsuits) publishing his name would invite.

Before saying something like "it's the opposite of obvious," ask yourself "Do I really struggle to understand why things are unfolding this way?" and "Can I reasonably expect everyone else to face similar struggles?". If everybody understands the situation well enough to not warrant further explanation, that's the opposite of the opposite of obvious (or just "obvious," for short).

Did you ask yourself why journalists would have a vested interest in concealing the man's identity? And why tabloids in particular wouldn't want to post salacious supporting information like photos of the man and his daughter? Because it feels like you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary. All logic supports printing the man's name, because that's what these media outlets do. If they wanted to respect the matter, they likely wouldn't mention it at all. Therefore it's conspicuous when a name doesn't appear and odd when a wannabe tabloid writer somehow thinks it's obvious that something is withheld despite binging enough tablets to know that the fact it's being withheld is actually pretty fucking weird, particularly since it limits their clickbait.

---

I guess technically it could be discrimination. Gross regardless.
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Also, I should answer independent in the poll right? Since I am neither Liberal (Centre to Centre-Right) or Conservative (Centre-Right to Right).

jfc. Even ignoring your completely wrong assessment of liberal vs conservative, you're forgetting that Ducky is Canadian and therefore their "conservative" is more liberal than your independent, or possibly even some of your liberal parties.

---

0/10 topic no pics of daughter

---

deoxxys posted...

0/10 topic no pics of daughter

probably for the best

---

I think I'm going to be sick.

---

Zeus posted...

Did you ask yourself why journalists would have a vested interest in concealing the man's identity? And why tabloids in particular wouldn't want to post salacious supporting information like photos of the man and his daughter?

I answered both of those questions in the post you quoted. Please try to keep up.

Zeus posted...

If they wanted to respect the matter, they likely wouldn't mention it at all.

Unless they wanted to keep the public informed of interesting and/or significant goings-on within the nation's legislative system. Which, you know, is why journalism exists. How shocking.

Zeus posted...

odd when a wannabe tabloid writer somehow thinks it's obvious that something is withheld despite binging enough tablets to know that the fact it's being withheld is actually pretty f***ing weird

I think you might be giving Duckbear too much credit to presume him capable of understanding such nuance. That's a little more higher-level thinking than he usually demonstrates.

Zeus posted...

particularly since it limits their clickbait.

Clickbait's in the headline, which almost never publishes names unless it's an ongoing story involving somebody particularly well-known. Not publishing the name doesn't limit the article's clickbait potential at all, because by the time the reader finds out that the name isn't in there, they've already clicked on it (see: your presence in this topic, which did not mention his name in the title). That, and "NY dad suing feds because they won't let him marry his daughter" has about all the clickbait potential any headline can have.

---

Zeus posted...

Even ignoring your completely wrong assessment of liberal vs conservative,

I only know where they fall on the political compass, I know the US uses some words to mean entirely different ideologies when it comes to politics, which just gets confusing.

Zeus posted...

you're forgetting that Ducky is Canadian and therefore their "conservative" is more liberal than your independent, or possibly even some of your liberal parties.

"Our parties"? I am not even sure what independent would mean in that context.

---