posted
A quick Google search reveals that 38 states and DC allow 16 year olds to consent to sex in some circumstances. AL, AK, AR, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IN, IA, KA, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, NV, NH, NC, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, VT, WA, and WV.
Marriage to first cousins is legal in 19 states and another 4 in special circumstances. AL, AK, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VI, and sometimes AZ, IL, ME and WI.
That gives us 12 on both lists, only four of whom are southern, and Florida only about half at that. I know you weren't being serious, Ron, but once you ask a question like that, I just have to satisfy my curiosity.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Depending on what state they were in and how old they both were at the time, there's a chance it's not statutory rape. In fact, there's a pretty good chance it's a misdemeanor.
pH's response was to a part of this quote by Ron Lambert:
quote: If Jamie Lynn got pregnant while only 16, in most states that would mean whoever did it to her is automatically guilty of statutory rape.
When I responded I wasn't talking so much about Jamie Lynn's specific case but more of the attitude (for lack of a better word) that pH seemed to adopt about whether or not statutory rape is "done" to someone. (pH took some umbrage with the phrase "whoever did it to her.") I was just trying to say that whether or not we personally believe that a 16-year-old or anyone else can consent to sex, the law may have to treat it as if the teenager in question had no choice. Obviously it will depend on the case.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Woody Allen (I think it was him) wouldn't have been avoiding entering the US until the statute of limitations ran out if it were just a misdemeanor.
I might regret asking this, but do you honestly not see the difference between a 19 year old dating a 16 year old and a 50 or 60 year dating a 16 year old?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I might regret asking this, but do you honestly not see the difference between a 19 year old dating a 16 year old and a 50 or 60 year dating a 16 year old?
Has "dating" now become a euphemism for "having sex with"? Sigh. (But, yeah, JT, either way: Ick.)
Edited for further clarification: By "either way" above I mean by either use of the word dating, not that it's equally icky whether the adult is 19 or 50.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question is how the law views such behaviors.
AvidReader-thanks for the research. I am surprised there are so many states that allow first cousins to marry. I thought it was only three or four. This does not seem like good news for the quality of the gene pool in this country.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This does not seem like good news for the quality of the gene pool in this country."
I have heard that childbirth complications are markedly lower in cases of first-cousin marriage.
Also, I'm guessing that first-cousin marriage is almost non-existent these days, in most areas. People move long distances a lot more now. Who, these days, would want the stigma of marrying their cousin when other choices are available?
Of course, now somebody is going to angrily denounce me for something I've just said. Go ahead. It's funny. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, there would probably be fewer cases of Rh negative/Rh positive mother/child complications, where it is necessary to do a complete transfusion. But there would still be a greater likelihood of harmful genes being matched, so the child might have serious defects it would have to live with.
I read one time that all people of Indo-European ancestry are at least 32nd cousins. So we all marry our cousins....
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't help but wonder: what would be considered a special circumstance for marrying your first cousin? The only one I can come up with is pregnancy?
posted
Every article I've read (I glanced over a couple) has said there is a very unlikely chance of them prosecuting him (or her). Since they are in a relationship and both under 21, it's unlikely, though not impossible, that they'll be prosecuted.
I think, to balance the irresponsibility of getting pregnant to begin with, she's made a good decision in keeping the baby. I just hope she actually does right by the child unlike her older sister. At the very least she has a perfect model of what NOT to do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is keeping the baby the responsible good decision? Giving the baby up for adoption would be a very good responsible decision, perhaps even better then keeping it.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose it depends entirely on how she takes care of it, but I fear this'll open up a much larger discussion on who should give their children up for adoption. If she's going to take care of it, and she certainly has the money to, then she should keep it. If she was a poor homeless street urchin then I'd say giving it up for adoption would probably be the most responsible thing to do.
But she clearly has the means to take care of the kid, and if she decides to be a good parent, probably not like her sister who also had the means and clearly failed, then it's a good responsible decision.
Some would argue, maybe successfully that despite the fact that Britney was wealthy and married, she probably should have given her kids up for adoption given how she ended up treating them. It's impossible to say before they are born, but I think any time a couple or single parent has the means to take care of their natural children and give them a good home, it's a better more responsible decision than giving it up for adoption.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Deciding to keep the baby in and of itself could be either a good decision or a bad one. We can't know yet which it will be. Deciding to do whatever it takes to be a good mom and give the baby a good life is the responsible decision- which we can't know she has done.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're jumping ahead. I think deciding to keep the baby, which I would have to imagine on the surface makes the assumption of good parenting and a good life, is a certain step in the right direction.
Let me put it this way, I'm making the assumption that in her choosing to keep the baby, she's decided to give it a good home and a good life. Not doing so I think assigns some pretty malicious intent on her part, and I see nothing to give cause to do so, so I'll give her the default status of being a decent human being. Now, in her making that decision, I think she's made a good, responsible choice. If it turns out that she can't hack it and it doesn't work out, then in hindsight it'll appear to be a bad one, but for right now? Good and responsible.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that it assigns some malicious intent-- I think that she may not know how hard this is really going to be. So I don't know that she IS prepared to give the baby a loving home and a good life. She may have vague intentions of doing so but I don't know how she can really be prepared at this point to do so. Hopefully in the next few months, she will come to that understanding, so by the time the baby is born she will truly be able to do it.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, but for the purposes of what I'm saying, her intentions are more what I'm referring to. I doubt any first time parent knows how hard it's going to be.
She may not fully understand what she's going to be doing, but neither do we, and anything we say now is really just a guesstimate of how things will turn out. So for the moment, she's making a good responsible decision to take responsibility for her actions. It may turn out later that she can't fulfill this decision, but for now that's how I see it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I do wish there were more options for the girl. She's a celebrity; I doubt she can anonymously give her baby up for adoption, especially without ruining her career. Which is a shame, because I'm not saying that she SHOULD, but that she should have that option if she decides she can't be the mother she wants to be right at this point in her life.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by prolixshore: I can't help but wonder: what would be considered a special circumstance for marrying your first cousin? The only one I can come up with is pregnancy?
Actually, IIRC, at least one of the "special circumstances" states only allows first-cousin marriages when the woman is past childbearing age.
And studies have shown that, except in families with a high occurrence of certain specific recessive genes, children of first cousins do not have a significantly larger risk of genetic defects than the general population.
Also, for any mother who has been receiving prenatal care, Rh-factor complications should be unlikely. Rhogam shots are a marvelous thing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's right, rivka. Three of the four allow it when one partner is past childbearing or sterile. The other allows it when the couple has received genetic counseling.
One instance of marrying a close relative probably isn't very dangerous. It's families that kept the trend up for generations that get themselves in trouble. Look at the Spanish or Austrian royal families in the 1700s. It's a wonder King Juan Carlos isn't seriously messed up.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
pH's response was to a part of this quote by Ron Lambert:![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
