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.
something something alabama, something something, it’s now tennessee.
Take me to another place
Take me to another land
Let me fuck my cousin firstly
Let me understand her clam
Tennessee, Tennessee
But I am still thirsty.
Arrested Development does not approve. Such a underrated hiphop group. They lived together communally for a bit!
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.
It’s shouldn’t be the role of government to regulate who you want to marry.
But also don’t do that
There are 8 billion people on this planet now. Surely you can find someone who isn’t black
Same line of reasoning, just 50 years ago.
We shouldn’t ban consenting adult relationships solely because they are icky.
are you seriously comparing marrying a black person with marrying your first cousin
Yes. Explain the difference, if you can.
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.
There’s nothing objectively wrong with either one. Both have been banned because they gross people out for purely social (bigoted) reasons.
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?
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.
As stated several times in this thread, the risk of genetic issues is akin to that of a 40+ year old woman having kids.
It would seem consistent to also ban that if that is your actual issue, right? So, is that what you’re suggesting?
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.
There are 8 billion people on this planet now. Surely you can find someone
Not really.
Speaking from a virgin, and not a cousinfucker, perspective.
‘There’s someone for everyone’ is such a fucking bullshit platitude.
It’s absolutely true though
Sure buddy. Ever heard of ‘Just World Fallacy’?
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.
Relationships are subject to much more than just statistics.
Sure. But I don’t think anyone else is suggesting everyone deserves a relationship.
I don’t see how that fallacy is relevant here though
…You serious?
…?
do you have anything actually to say?
wasn’t talking about myself, which shouldn’t need to be pointed out, but here we are.
Not even remotely implied or relevant
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.
And no, my wife is not remotely related to me.
Does that mean i have to fight my cousin before i can marry them?
This is common in arab countries
As a Texan I’m not sure if I should thank Tennessee for making us seem a little less horrible or curse them for taking attention away from our bat-shittery.
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.
Wtf dude lmao.
These guys REALLY want to fuck close family lmao.
They sure do! Just like all those hillbilly cousin-fuckers in California, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. Buncha backwoods hicks, wouldn’t you agree?
What’s your point?
We’re literally saying it makws no sense that this ban would get pushback. The fact so many other states allow it just makes the point.
Americans are weird when it comes to cousins…
Why does it matter who’s fucking who?
Aren’t we in the middle of a big ass motherfucking fight for people to be able to be with who they want to be with, minus adults and children?
Inbreeding
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.
Risk of genetic defects from cousins is very small, on par with a woman giving birth over age 30.
And “to prevent abuse”? We already have lots of laws to address that.
Stop telling people who they’re allowed to sleep with.
dude, stop trying to fuck your cousin. it’s not cool.
And it’s not your business, or the government’s business.
Besides, not my fault you got uggo cousins
The point is to call out stereotypes.
When the fuck did we start being pro stereotype?
This is another big fight that I remember us being in the middle of right now.
Except it’s actually illegal and all of those places, and has been for a long time.
No it’s legal in those places, the down voted person is right about that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States
Convenient map here.
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage
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.
Alabertex
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.
Holy crap, am I reading this right? In Pakistan, more than 50% of marriages are between cousins??
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.
Yeah I actually knew that one from when I used to listen to Joe Rogan and Gavin Mcinnes was on there. He’s a fucking goof but that fact was disturbing
You read any classic novels from England? Marrying cousins is quite normal at one point in human history. I guess it still is in some backward states.
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.
I’m from Alabama. This shit happens.
Oops. Made a Cousin-fucker mad!
No they are clearly just into Crusader kings roleplay. The worst family title I ever saw in CK3 was cousin grandfather father brother husband.
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.
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!”
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.
Let people do what they want.
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.
deleted by creator
If your first response to a valid point is to attack the other person, then you’re worse than anything inbreeding might produce.
deleted by creator
Found the guy with no coherent counterargument.
deleted by creator
TWO hot cousins, thank you very much
But my point is still correct.
deleted by creator
Too late, they both got married to other people and are very happy😔
deleted by creator
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’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt. Blatant homophobe or no, it’s a valid legal argument that hasn’t been tested in court.
Topical fact of the day: Both Einstein and Darwin married their first cousins.
Edgar Allen Poe as well.
When she was 13.
deleted by creator
I know everyone is like “haha cousin fuckers.”
But really, do we want the government to pass laws restricting who we can and cannot marry?
I can’t help but notice the overlap with LGBT rights. I’m pretty sure I’d prefer them to not pass this law.
Like, from a legal and philosophical perspective, why is it OK for the government to restrict this? Why wouldn’t that same argument apply to gay men getting married?
I’ve noticed people on both sides are cool with laws that hurt others.
Ex: We see plenty of pot smokers supporting banning nicotine products.
Liberals aren’t immune to this just like conservatives. Most people are shit :(
nah dude. one thing hurts you and has severe impacts on your health. Inbreeding and lung cancer don’t have “both sides” of an argument. they’re bad.
Can you elaborate a little? Like do you mean that if LGBTQ is accepted, first cousins are meant to be accepted as well?
This isn’t about “acceptance” in the social sense. I’m not saying you have to accept cousin fuckers in your community.
I’m more worried about the legal framework. If it is legal to outlaw this, why is it illegal to outlaw gay marriage? Like, that doesn’t seem ideologically consistent.
Well, we also can’t let communities discriminate like that…you say you’re “not saying you have to accept [them] in your community regardless of legal status” but I’m assuming you don’t feel loke people should be able to chase other types of minorities out of town if they don’t approve. That’s kinda the whole point of law - to set the rules for how we treat each other. I haven’t thought enough about this particular topic to know how I feel about it. I see the state’s interest in reducing incestuous births, and I’m definitely not ok with the state making reproductive choices for people more generally.
What’s really disgusting is that I bet the entire reason they’re even debating this is because they don’t want to allow any exemption from their abortion ban.
I’m intentionally trying to separate the social discrimination problem from the legal problem, and to not make a comment about the former.
I guess I get that the state has an interest in preventing incestuous birth, but marriage is orthogonal sex.
marriage is orthogonal sex>
Rationally speaking, yes. The religious right seem to feel differently.
