I saw this story and I'm glad you brought it to our attention by way of this article.

"How" you ask. or why? Because the sexual revolution is being orchestrated in a cultural campaign run by the "anything goes" crowd. It all began in 1972 in an attempt to "normalize" homosexuality and other deviant sexual behaviors.

wincest is only cool in pron fantasies and dog breeding. in the human case, the social consensus matches the biological one.

however, if they don't breed, no harm is done. still doesn't seem right.

I can understand some taking that out - perhaps in the case of first cousins.  However in the case of parents and children, there is more going on than sex.  It is clearly rape by the parent since he basically raised the child and was (and probably still is) the authority figure.  Besides having the biological implications, just that is enough to sicken most people, especially women.

The man should be castrated - period.  And then sent to jail to explain his situation to the other felons.

There is no way he waited until she old enough to "consent."  That's just wrong...on so many levels.

well, i suppose the state could choose to ignore the wishes of the people involved and start arresting and interrogating them to get at the truth.

however, if it's indeed consensual and they started humping at the right time ... no crime. or a victimless crime, in case someone digs out some law to nail them. besides, getting dragged out in the open is terrible enough in a country without privacy protection laws.

Well, for right now I'm curious what (if anything) was Columbia U. reaction to finding out they have an incestuous David Epstein on board.  

Maybe as far as actual laws, there is no crime, but there is much harm done.

It is undeniable and absolutely wrong and much harm done when a father and his adult daughter consent to a sexual relationship.  

Who said consent makes something moral? Remember the mass suicide at Jonestown? Was it simply a matter of consenting adults? My point is we can't universally say that whatever consenting adults do is OK. Some things are objectively wrong whether adults consent to them or not.  

Josefine Mutzenbacher might disagree, but it does go against our cultural standards.

What IS the 'much harm done' to anyone in an incestuous consensual relationship anyway, apart from the social scorn that might ensue?

Anyway, there's a biological reason that incest is not acceptable, so insisting on 'undeniably much harm being  done' is moot. It's illegal anyway.

That IS actually a very good point. Sometimes the freedom of the individual has to take second place, if only for their own good.

And besides, who knows if daddy didn't brainwash his daughter into believing it was consensual? parents can do that, given enough time and - ahem - love.

this whole story kinda reminds me of the Clarissa comics from DeepFried:

Being who he is - he may have, but then he still broke a law, so I suspect you may be right.

You apparently did not read anything written here, and have no children. 

There was no gestapo involved - remember?  Obamination is in charge and if a black is not being victimized, no crime is being committed.

I am not at all interested in Columbia's thoughts.  But I find it somewhat satisfying to see the fears of many laid bare by the naked (no pun intended) support for a truly heinous crime.  And it is being demonstrated here by the idiot that keeps saying "No harm, no foul".

There are 2 kinds of people that jump up in this type of situation and claim no harm, no foul - pedophiles and supports of them (that will be next for the no harm, no foul group) and Idiots that are liberals (in other words, they do not have to think).

That proves you do not read.  that question was already answered above.  Try reading - I know it is hard for someone who only gets their information from talking points - but you may find it enlightening.

Let's be clear. Incest is a morally vile act. Incestuous acts are wrong regardless  of the issue of consent becasue not every act can be reduced to the level of preference.

In other words there are some issue that are objectivly right or wrong. Incest is objectively wrong and for that reason alone causes harm. We know this because every person has a sense of right and wrong. It's the inward voice of conscience and a person  knows interiorly when he is going against an inward voice. That's why I said some things are objectivly morally wrong whether adults consent to them or not.

I jumped into a family snake pit (hissing loudly)  on my husband's side regarding this issue on FB a week or so ago.  One of them wrote in using bad examples of marriage (Tiger Woods, Elizabeth Taylor, Brittany Spears etc) to show support for homosexual marrriage. 

My husband replied first explaining that these bad examples  show  the sinfulness of man.  There are many things we're not allowed to do and marrying the same sex is just one example. 

The conversation that ensued got nasty and ugly fast with absolutely no logic coming from these very very liberal relatives (all from MA) .  The attacks started almost immediately.  So typical.  When we'd answer their questions logically, backing them into a corner they'd end with an "I'm done with this conversation" never answering our questions. 

What many didn't see was that the most vicious one publicly was writing to me privately and I have to give him credit because he did apologize in the end.   Although I'm a firm believer that if you make a public idiot of yourself you should rectify it publicly as well. 

But the lack of logic and the attack mode was just so typical.  Even if it's a contentious issue there's absolutley no need for the ugliness that this can generate.   I can't believe they can't see this.  It's just so darn evident.  Instead they seemed to be cheering each other on with a love fest.

And it's true, if you open the door to legalizing homosexual marriage/sex between two consenting adults there can be no justification for NOT allowing incest and the other stuff that comes directly behind it.  Once that door is opened, it's opened.   

Ain't that the truth. Ya, consent is the catchword. If you'll check the homosexual movement is pushing for lowering the age of consent. And in sex ed classes, they tell the kids, sex, any kind with anyone is OK, as long as it's consensual and using contraceptives.

I totally disagree - but it will be used that way.  As long as their  ARGUMENTS are validated, then bestiality (talk to the dog whisperer), pedophilia (consent gets lowered - after all you do not need parents permission to have abortions now), and incest will jump right in with the SAME argument.  and that is what is happening.  What that shows is the basic argument used by some - is fatally flawed.  It does not say that the concept of homosexuals joining is wrong.  But as you pointed out earlier in your post, that is the argument of choice.  And I think many who would not otherwise think of themselves as supporting incest, pedophilia and bestiality do so because they are too stupid to admit they are wrong and stop using fallacious arguments to shove a politically correct point down the "unwashed masses" throat.