if both are consenting adults it shouldn’t be illegal. maybe there’s benefit to genetic counseling if there’s intent or possibility to have children, but it shouldn’t be illegal with or without that.
There are 8 billion people on this planet now. Surely you can find someone other than your cousin.
It really shouldn’t need to be illegal, but I guess residents of the volunteer state require a little more incentive to find dates before the holidays, rather than during them.
I mean you’re just crying about the world being unfair because you’re a virgin. I’d calm the pretentiousness here. I’ll give you a hint: that behavior is a cause as to why you feel that way. Does this need to be dumbed down more? Or do you need to ask a few more wastefully empty replies that add absolutely nothing?
The irony here is astounding. You started off insulting me, and in multiple comments now. The original statement of there being someone for everyone still remains true.
The just world fallacy is about people getting what they deserve.
That doesn’t seem to really apply to the statistical argument that there are enough people out there, the chance for any given individual to not have any shot is effectively (if perhaps not precisely) zero. Small enough to not be worth considering.
Really? Then why the fuck everyone keeps saying you’ll find someone?
Fuck it. I’m not going to argue with ingenious morons anymore, who are either pretending to be dumb or are actually dumb to understand what I am saying. Bye.
No, I want you to explain your reasoning, you’re the one who made it. please explain how marrying a black person is just like marrying your first cousin.
Incorrect. One results in higher than normal birth defects that exacerbate over time, and one is perfectly healthy. We, as a society, should try to limit birth defects, no? Are you also in favor of bringing back thalidomide?
Out of curiosity, are you chill with incest if the couple is incapable of biological reproduction? (They’re the same sex, one or both has been sterilized, ect.)
that’s not true, and false equivalencies only serve to make you seem more ridiculous. You’re gross, and your kink is historically shamed because it destroys us a viable species. I feel sorry for the people in your life.
Facts. You just don’t like it because of the ick, and the cognitive dissonance is making you angry. No one likes when it’s pointed out that they’re acting irrationally.
no, I don’t. you seem pretty intent on trying to make me tho. banning first cousin marriages doesn’t lead to us banning all pregnancies began after the mother is 34. you’re using a logical fallacy of the slippery slope and it doesn’t apply.
It’s not a slippery slope, it’s the exact same thing. The same excuse you use for banning incest equally applies to women over 34 giving birth. Banning that would not be a slippery slope, it would be an equivalence.
no it wouldn’t and that’s your logical fallacy. banning consanguineous marriage does not mean banning all women over the age of 34 from giving birth. You’re wrong.
wanting to ban first cousin marriages does not equate to banning pregnancies from woman aged 34 and older. How many times do you need this repeated to you?
It increases the risk of birth defects slightly but not as much as people seem to think.
a single first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30
Most on Lemmy and other lefty spaces are of the “two consenting adults can do what they want” mind but take an inconsistent turn on this, seemingly because it’s “icky” to them.
How is that any different than conservatives being anti-gay because it’s “icky” to them?
It’s not because it’s “icky”, it’s because if you both have the same grandma then you only have one snickerdoodle recipe for Christmas cookies, genetically speaking.
I never called for a ban. I said maybe go out and explore the forest before climbing up the family tree. And it’s my understanding that most women understand the risk of procreating after 40 and typically avoid it.
But I’m not your daddy. You don’t need my approval to fuck your uncle’s kids.
It really shouldn’t need to be illegal, but I guess residents of the volunteer state require a little more incentive to find dates before the holidays, rather than during them.
I took this to mean that those who don’t voluntarily choose to not marry/have sex with their cousins need to be forced not to by law (a ban). Did I misread that?
Genetically, first cousins are fine. It does slightly increase some risks, I think doubles at most for some very low likelihood cases. I don’t know that it’s any more irresponsible than reproducing with someone that has a family history of genetically passed diseases.
Humans were tribal until very recently, and reproducing with non-immediate relatives was normal. If it were that detrimental, we would not have survived as a species.
“My daddy fucked the shit out of mah sister momma, just like his daddy cousin did to his momma! And ba GAWD I’m gonna fuck my cousin!!” - Jim Bob Smith Senator.
To prevent abuse, and to limit the chances of children being born with serious medical problems they will have to suffer with for the rest of their life.
If those states allow first cousin marrying then yeah, that’s cousin fucker states.
Most of the world doesn’t live in the states man, did you think naming other states was going to offend people? You guys and all your weird hillbilly sex stuff need to get your shit together man. It’s embarrassing to see.
It’s legal in most of the world, including most of Europe. I don’t think legality is necessarily the greatest guide for how often it actually happens or social attitudes towards it.
There’s a map in there too of prevalence though and United States isn’t anywhere close to the most prevelant, it’s extremely rare. What’s going on down in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium though?
Ya know, there’s definitely some towns where I’m from that have shallow gene pools, not gonna lie. But I live in Alberta, we’re sometimes the Texas of Canada, and sometimes the Alabama.
Yeah. Pretty much everything south of Calgary and north of Edmonton is Alabama. I’ve lived in every city in the province, and worked in a lot of the towns. It’s pretty crazy in some of the towns here man.
That chart technically includes second degree cousins and any closer relations. So if you don’t count second degree cousins it might be less. But yeah there’s a tradition of parellel cousin marriage especially in parts of the middle east, north Africa, and south Asia.
Dunno about Belgium but Italy, Spain and Portugal have quite communal family structures, at least by European standards. Not necessarily in the living together sense but in the you’ll definitely see the whole extended shebang every other holiday sense.
It’s not just England. Marrying cousins was considered common practice among royalty and nobles in the past, not “normal” for everyday people.
They would inbreed to try to keep blood “pure”, or to keep the family in power, or to sell off their family for power. People knew a long time ago this was bad and caused health problems, but the rich kept doing it because theyre egoistical maniacs.
We don’t have monarchs and royalty anymore, we can do away with inbreeding completely. The fact some conservatives still defend it is ridiculous.
You fucken jest, but there are people in this thread actually arguing that point. They’re just doing it through bad faith means like pretending this issue is at all similar to gay marriage.
Cousin fuckers are not a marginalized group. Anyone telling you different is trying to sell you an ideology.
All the fuckers in here pretending they actually believe “love is love” just so they can use it as a cudgel against the absolute monsters who think incest is wrong.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Go have your bad faith arguments somewhere else.
With issues like misplaced paternity, people should be dna tested before they marry, anyway. Your first cousin might not actually be your first cousin, and the stranger you meet on the street might actually be family. I’m just saying.
Why should it be illegal to have a relationship with someone you’re only related to by law? I mean yeah, naturally this will rarely ever happen and it’s kinda weird to think about, but something being weird is hardly a reason to ban it.
It’s actually extremely common, some guys will even be with hundreds of step sisters! Of course I get this knowledge from porn, but that’s not my point.
Why should it be illegal to have a relationship with someone you’re only related to by law?
Logically only the same reason you couldn’t have a relationship with first cousins. Inbreeding isn’t exactly a problem for first cousins, they’re genetically different enough for it to not have much of an affect until multiple generations of it (plus same-sex people, sterile people, people who just won’t have kids), so the only plausible argument for it is “marriages between family members are more likely to be from grooming/manipulation/abuse”. Which I don’t think is flawless reasoning to make it illegal, same thing could be said about many other perfectly legal types of relationships. But it is a reason.
That’s a fair point actually. Sometimes I forget how fucked up some people are. A ban would not necessarily help tho, because you can reverse or overturn an adoption under certain circumstances. So you could still groom all you want and then try to convince your adoptive child to leave the family and marry into it again (or maybe even force them somehow).
I think probing for grooming/wellbeing of the child might be a better way to handle this overall.
“Is there a public health issue with a male marrying a male first cousin? Obviously, I think the answer is no,” Bulso said, adding the enhanced risk for birth defects would also not be present for women who marry their first cousin. “A female and a female cannot conceive a child.”
Guy has a valid point about the justification given for the bill, not to mention that not every couple that gets married will be having biological children between them. Not just limited to gay couples, infertile people and people who choose not to have kids get married too.
I’m good with socially discouraging cousins who grew up together getting married, but legal restrictions based on flawed logic is not a good idea.
What about extended family members that you’ve never met in your entire life? Obviously procreation is still insanely gross here and we should outlaw it, but like you said not all relations between a heterosexual couple lead to children.
If your family doesn’t have a history of consanguination then first cousins marrying every few generations is no big deal, genetically. You share about 5% of your genes with any random first cousin, compared to 2.5% with any random stranger. You should still seek generic counseling, you never know what secrets you might find
In Germany it is still legal to fuck your cousin. Fucking your sister is technically illegal, but carries no punishment when both are under the age of 18.
It’s legal in Finland. It’s pretty damn rare. I wouldn’t consider it a hugely shocking thing though, cousins usually aren’t very close here. Would make for weird family relations though.
The bill as amended by Rep. Gino Bulso, R-Brentwood, would prohibit first-cousin marriage unless the parties to the marriage contract received counseling from a genetic counselor licensed by the board of medical examiners. Bulso argued during a House floor session on Thursday the bill – as written – could violate the Obergefell v. Hodges U.S. Supreme Court decision, which made same-sex marriage legal across the country.
Bulso, while explaining his reasoning, said the bill was introduced as a public health-related matter, adding the law needed to be passed to prevent cousins from getting married and conceiving a child that could have an increased risk for birth defects. Bulso argued two men who are first cousins could get married without the risk of conceiving a child with birth defects.
This is just another bigoted conservative with an agenda. He’s using this no-brainer anti-cousin-fucking law to push anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. Gino Bulso was a lawyer for just shy of 40 years before joining the Tennessee House of Reps in 2022. He knows this isn’t a reasonable argument and he doesn’t care. He’s just trying to attack Obergefell v. Hodges. He’s basically saying “See what the gays are making me vote against?! I don’t want to allow cousin-fucking but Obergefell v. Hodges says we have to! Trust me, I’m a lawyer!”
Edit: JFC nothing brings out the weirdos as quickly as an article about a ban on cousin-fucking.
Or - mind blowing possibility - maybe you’re bigoted against cousin marriage like the people you hate are bigoted against gay marriage.
The risk of genetic defects is extremely small. People don’t like it because it’s icky, which is not logically consistent. People used to think interracial marriage was icky.
Yeah, I don’t get it, personally. I’m really not a fan of governments telling people who they can fall in love with. You’d think there’s more important issues to deal with.
I mean, I know people who’s parents are cousins. It’s literally a non-issue I couldn’t give less of a fuck since they all seem happy. It’s none of my, or the government’s, business.
That said, it is weird, the lack of logic that goes on around this issue. It’s simply wrong because it’s wrong so it’s therefore good for the government to make laws prohibiting it.
He’s a Tennessee Republican so I’m sure he’s terrible. But you don’t think there is a legal argument of a law being overly broad that restricts the rights of same sex couples where the legislative history shows it was based on increased risk of genetic mutations in pregnancy?
Maybe (probably) he’s saying it to beat on LGBTQ people, but a broken clock and all that.
Maybe (probably) he’s saying it to beat on LGBTQ people, but a broken clock and all that.
I am not willing to give republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their invocations of Obergefell v. Hodges to defend cousin-fucking. If you’d like to that’s your prerogative. But doing so is completely unearned on their part and suggests naivety on yours.
I feel like this is just an extension of the “my child, my property” mindset that republicans have. Sure, like others have argued, there might be cases of 25 year-olds genuinely falling in love with first cousins and the whole goverment-shouldn’t-regulate-love thing; but the vast majority of these cases are going to be home-schooled together groomed kids who parents fear having romantic relations outside the family might introduce them to non-conservative or non-religious viewpoints which might break their narcissistic control over their kids lives.
Apparently a lot of people here actually care. It’s so insane that people still want to regulate who others can fall in love with/marry.
I wish we’d just end all the benefits that come with marriage. I don’t actually know why it’s still encouraged by the government. It made sense for religions to push for people to get married but why should our government be designed in a way where it matters so much and there’s so many incentives to marry?
Off the top of my head, I can recall some of the reasons people made for same-sex marriage is that hospitals wouldn’t allow gay couples to see each other in emergency rooms because their marriage wasn’t recognized. Another one, not sure how it works, is what happens when your spouse dies. I don’t think their property would automatically go to their spouse unless it was explicitly spelled out in their will.
wsmv.com
Active