• Another3quenc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Can you elaborate a little? Like do you mean that if LGBTQ is accepted, first cousins are meant to be accepted as well?

    • cbarrick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • cbarrick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.