The bill would remove first cousins from the list of family members with whom it's illegal to have sexual relations in the state.
  • mateomaui@reddthat.comEnglish
    1253·
    1 year ago

    Maybe he has a personal interest in this?

    edit:

    The amendment would also reduce the designation of incest by contact to a Class D felony for some cases “unless it is committed with a person who is less than twelve years of age,” in which case it is Class C.

    uhhhhhhhhhhh…. that age cutoff seems low

    • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
      622·
      1 year ago

      The amendment would also reduce the designation of incest by contact to a Class D felony for some cases “unless it is committed with a person who is less than twelve years of age,” in which case it is Class C.

      his 13 year-old cousin, it seems

    • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      I mean… Who hasn’t had a hot cousin when you go to those really big family reunions…

      Most people just legislate to try to rape em.

  • oxjox@lemmy.mlEnglish
    36·
    1 year ago

    So… the same party that wants to stop same sex couples from having sex is upset that the government is telling them whom they can’t have sex with? Golly.

  • Mamertine@lemmy.world
    404·
    1 year ago

    Jokes aside.

    Felony by definition means it’s punishable by at least one year in prison.

    So specifically, why are we incarcerating consenting adults for having sex?

    From a moral point, don’t do that. From a legal point, stay out of the bedroom.

    I’ll also add context of this is a very Western belief. Natives of America prevented inbreeding by not marrying within the clan. Your first cousins could be in a different clan and therefore open for marriage.

      • Mamertine@lemmy.world
        35·
        1 year ago

        Yes, and I’ll counter that argument by suggesting we ban having sex with children regardless of if the molester is related.

        • half_built_pyramids@lemmy.world
          52·
          1 year ago

          Right? It’s only like 1.7 to 2.8% more of a chance of a birth defect. That’s nothing. That’s gambling odds easy. Every day.

          • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
            81·
            1 year ago

            It largely depends on how prevalent it is socially.

            In societies where first cousin reproduction isn’t common, the increased risk of birth defects is about the same as a pregnancy where the mother is in her 40s.

            In societies where it is common, the rates can go up sharply though when it compounds across generations.

            • half_built_pyramids@lemmy.world
              11·
              1 year ago

              Good point. Who cares about the lower rates, honestly? Its not like we’re the ones that have to live with the defect lol, keep blasting homies

    • jak@sopuli.xyz
      3·
      1 year ago

      I think the issue is twofold: if you allow a groomer (a real one, not a drag queen) to be around a child for their entire life, there will be an effect on what the child wants as an adult; and people have a lot of opportunities to blackmail family members.

      Those things make it difficult to determine if the two consenting adults are both truly consenting. It’s the same logic behind banning polygamy- it’s very easy for people to become trapped in it because their entire social universe supports it, so if you say no, you’re excommunicated. There’s therefore no real way to know if you consented.

      It’s the same reason cops can’t have sex with people they are holding under arrest. Oh wait…

  • NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social
    29·
    1 year ago

    I rock climb in Kentucky sometimes. It looks like a war zone. Maybe they should fix the astounding levels of poverty, instead of ensuring that it’s legal to bang your family.

  • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
    291·
    1 year ago

    “I hate how everyone always stereotypes and makes fun of us southern states so much, it’s not fair.”

    Then they go do shit like this.

    • force@lemmy.world
      18·
      1 year ago

      to be fair i’m pretty sure most (first world) countries actually don’t restrict sex between first cousins. or same-sex incest for that matter. could be misremembering though

      what is extremely sickening about it is the age the bill wants which makes it not at all comparable to most other countries (well except like France until recently maybe)

      i mean it’s still pretty incestuous so trying to separate it from other forms of incest as if it’s so much different doesn’t make much sense

      edit: here’s a map

      lmao i like italy’s stance. “yea bro u can fuck ur dad if the news doesn’t find out”

  • lntl@lemmy.ml
    292·
    1 year ago

    How is this important enough to occupy the time of our politicians?

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      16·
      1 year ago

      I mean…look at that guy. It probably occupies all of his time. They intentionally picked that photo for this exact reason, I’m sure.

    • zzzz@lemmy.world
      131·
      1 year ago

      It’s jangling keys. So long as there are enough headlines about cousins banging, we won’t have enough time left over to get upset about corruption, fascism, etc.

  • Wrench@lemmy.world
    296·
    1 year ago

    Eh. I discovered that a married couple I know are first cousins, and have two very normal kids, so I looked into it.

    From a genetics stand point, the risk of inbred related health risks are pretty negligible. I think it basically doubled the risk, on very small chances to begin with.

    Yeah, it’s still kind of weird and rude to talk about.

    As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the age portion of this law is the creepy part. It was my own bias that made the first cousins part weird. As others mentioned, it was pretty common for our tribal ancestors.

    • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
      181·
      1 year ago

      It’s pretty common still in multiple countries and in some migrant subcultures living in other countries. The consequences over multiple generations are not pretty.

      An article with examples: https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-cousin-marriages-create-high-risk-of-genetic-disorders/a-60687452

      Imo it’s still a bad idea to allow it. Even between first cousins of a family without a history of inbreeding, doubling the chance of genetic disorders is not nothing. Scale it up to many people doing it and it becomes a heavy burden on healthcare systems. And in countries with socialized healthcare, it’s not really fair that everyone has to contribute more to healthcare because some people want to defy genetics. Imo again.

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        43·
        1 year ago

        OK. You’re talking about a culture that specifically encourages incest over many generations. Yes, that’s problematic.

        My point is that the social stigma of 1st cousins marrying far exceeds its actual danger in a more isolated case by case basis. Which is really what we’re talking about here.

        Also, your argument about Healthcare reeks of eugenics. Should someone with a known family history of <insert genetic disease> be allowed to reproduce? Or reproduce with someone else with similar genetic risks?

        To put it another way, should my insurance fees / taxes subsidize your high risk of colon cancer?

        Yeah, it sounds like an awful stance, doesn’t it?

        • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
          11·
          1 year ago

          Your children are the victims and should not be punished because you wanted to fuck your cousin, it’s you that should be paying extra taxes to offset the cost to society of your choices.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      93·
      1 year ago

      Maybe things that are ok in a small tribal village shouldn’t necessarily be in a larger interconnected modern civilization

    • Signtist@lemm.ee
      5·
      1 year ago

      You’re spot on. The average risk of some genetic issue occurring in a standard pregnancy is about 3%, and the average risk between 3rd degree relatives, such as first cousins, is about 6%. I used to be a genetic counselor, and I’d seen a few first cousin cases, and even a case of double-first cousins, which was a higher risk, but still not as high as the much more run-of-the-mill scenario of a couple both being carriers of any given recessive genetic condition. People freak out about it because of the jokes about inbred families, but the much bigger issue with it is the power dynamic, especially concerning age. When you hear incest, you shouldn’t be worried about kids with 6 toes, you should be worried about rape.

    • RattlerSix@lemmy.world
      3·
      1 year ago

      I met a guy who was married to his cousin and I had to google it too and found out the same thing. A lot of states allow marriage, and not just southern states as the stereotype would suggest. Here’s the states that allow it: Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Vermont.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      32·
      1 year ago

      “Discovered” and no source to your claims… I don’t think so, Rudy.

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        33·
        1 year ago

        I looked it up over 5 years ago. It was extremely easy to find information. I encourage you to educate yourself on the matter too.