• Noxy@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • KaiReeve@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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?

        • KaiReeve@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • capital@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • KaiReeve@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

      • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

            • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                There’s nothing objectively wrong with either one. Both have been banned because they gross people out for purely social (bigoted) reasons.

                • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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?

      • Noxy@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        wasn’t talking about myself, which shouldn’t need to be pointed out, but here we are.

  • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • yuriy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • ParabolicMotion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    God damn east coast woke liberal infiltraitors trying to stop me from picking up women and getting some poon at the family reunion.

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

        • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, it’s not that big a deal unless it happens for multiple generations. There is enough genetic difference between first cousins for it to not count as inbreeding.

    I would recommend against it if there is a significant risk of genetic diseases being passed down, but that’s true even for any two random people.

    • athairmor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly, if it’s consensual I don’t care just let women have control of their own bodies and keep their damn religion out of government. They can have cousin-fucking just leave minorities and LGBTQ+ alone.

  • snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    “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.

    • ImpishCook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • uid0gid0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

  • ZeroCool@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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!

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • ZeroCool@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.