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.
uhhhhhhhhhhhā¦. that age cutoff seems low
Not if the child he has his eye set on is just above it. :-(
She's 10, laws take time to enact....
These people are horrid.
š¤¢ š¤® šµāš«
Hey Nick Wilson, tell us you fuck your cousin without telling us you fuck your cousin.
The amendment would also reduce the designation of incest by contact to a Class D felony for some cases āunless it is committed with a person who is less than twelve years of age,ā in which case it is Class C.
his 13 year-old cousin, it seems
Less than 12 ... so basically she's 12.
No, she will be 12 just before the law takes effect.
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.
Glad they are tackling the important issues in Kentucky. I'm sure every Kentuckyan has their ability to fuck their first cousin high on the list of problems they wish their government would address.
āAt 17 you can marry your first cousin but you canāt have hormones that your doctor is happy to prescribeā-Kentucky
Actually Iām surprised thatās the youngest I could make that joke. They recently raised the minimum marriage age to 17 with parental consent which like took you long enough but still good job
HB 269 - "The purpose of the bill is to add "sexual contact" to the incest statute. Currently, incest only applies in cases of intercourse. So sexual touching/ groping by .. anyone with a familial relationship is not included in incest. My bill makes that kind of sexual contact a Class D Felony, unless the victim is under the age of 12, then it increases the penalty to a Class C Felony."
Basically they accidentally left out cousins (and the bill has already been withdrawn) from what sounds like an otherwise good bill and the news media runs wild. Keep this handy when you hear about this for the next ( if <= heat death of the Universe )
imho incest should only be outlawed because of the risk of gene defects during pregnancy. so while nasty I dont think a hanky panky from your first cousin should be outlawed
and no, I dont have a hot cousin
Beyond the potential biological issues, the biggest problem tends to be coercion and consent. The majority of incestuous encounters are abusive and involve a power dynamic that makes informed consent impossible.
Now, if every party is an adult and capable of informed consent, it is possible to test for likelihood of genetic defects based upon the parents' genes. So, I can't think of a non-subjective objection if, for example, they met for the first time as adults and didn't know of such relation. Still pretty weird to me but I don't think it's anyone's place to interfere with healthy, loving relationships.
Honestly, this reads like someone dealing with the cognitive dissonance of trying to maintain that they believe that adults should be able to have consensual relations with each other, but at the same time supporting laws that outlaw something they've been conditioned to believe is icky.
It's sounds nearly identical to the "we can't allow gay relationships because they're recruiting kids!"
I don't think that you deserve downvotes for this because I don't think you're necessarily incorrect. I do absolutely feel cognitive dissonance here. I have a visceral, what I think is instinctual, revulsion at the concept of incest. But, if there is love, consensuality, and no one is being harmed (including possible offspring), I cannot in good conscience say that they do not have a right to be together, regardless of how I feel. It takes overriding that feeling to state as such, which isn't comfortable and is, by definition, cognitive dissonance.
I do not, however, think that the comparison to homophobia or other discrimination against LGBTQ+ people is a good comparison. The majority of relationships that LGBTQ+ people engage in are consensual and do not cause harm to anyone. The majority of cases of incest involve sexual abuse and frequently pedophilia. Offspring of close relatives are at high risk for significant biological and social harm (in cases of abuse add psychological harm).
I do not, however, think that the comparison to homophobia or other discrimination against LGBTQ+ people is a good comparison. The majority of relationships that LGBTQ+ people engage in are consensual and do not cause harm to anyone. The majority of cases of incest involve sexual abuse and frequently pedophilia. Offspring of close relatives are at high risk for significant biological and social harm (in cases of abuse add psychological harm).
I think the guy you're referring to isn't trying to compare incest to gay rights or anything. He's merely pointing out that the argument against incest among consentual couples is a slippery slope argument similar to the slippery slope arguments used by the far right to deny the LGBT community their rights: "If we let them do _________, then the next thing they're gonna want is ___________". It's a bad argument to make no matter the subject or which side of an issue you're on. There are plenty of legitimate reasons not to support incest without having to resort to slippery slope arguments.
There's also the fact that if one were to seriously try to legalize incest among consenting adults, the immediate response from the right would be "See? We told you that if we started letting gays marry, they'd want to marry their cousins next! What's next, their pets?". And you and I both know that they would immediately start using this argument to further isolate and marginalize the LGBT community, even if they try to distance themselves from the idea.
Go back some time and see what happened when NAMBLA tried to shoehorn themselves into the LGBT rights movement. The LGBT community immediately denounced the group and distanced themselves from them as quickly and as forcefully as they could, and the far right still shit all over them for it, saying "See? They're starting already!". The same thing would happen here -- the LGBT community would distance themselves from the idea right from the get-go, but that wouldn't stop bigots from blaming them anyway even though they have nothing to do with it.
I have a visceral, what I think is instinctual, revulsion at the concept of incest.
Incest is, by definition, sexual relations between people too closely related. The question here is whether or not first cousins should count as incest.
But next time you debate with someone opposed to homosexuality, ask yourself if they think their revulsion to it is a visceral, instinctual response.
The majority of cases of incest involve sexual abuse and frequently pedophilia.
Well, I'm really not comparing the two, I'm comparing the arguments. But that being said, where are you coming up with the claim that the majority of first cousin sexual attraction is pedophilia or sexual abuse?
Incest is, by definition, sexual relations between people too closely related. The question here is whether or not first cousins should count as incest.
I suppose I should better clarify terms here:
incest is a social/legal term
inbreeding is a biological term
It would make sense for the legal definiton of incest to encompass situations where harm is likely, whether it be social, psychological, physical, or biological, due to relation. So, it would make sense for first cousins to fall into a "possible" category.
But next time you debate with someone opposed to homosexuality, ask yourself if they think their revulsion to it is a visceral, instinctual response.
While you have a good point on perspective, I would say that evidence points towards homophobic behavior being conditoned and inbreeding-phobic behavior being instinctual. Homosexual behavior is seen with statistically-significant frequency throughout the animal kingdom. Familial recognition and its use in mate selection (and rejection) and other behaviors is seen even more widely, occuring in even insects, plants, and microbes.
Well, I'm really not comparing the two, I'm comparing the arguments. But that being said, where are you coming up with the claim that the majority of first cousin sexual attraction is pedophilia or sexual abuse?
I should likely have been more specific in scoping that. I was referring to the superset of cases of incest there, rather than the subset of cousins. I would have to look at data in that subset in order to make a factual statement.
I think something got lost in the shuffle here. The top level comment of this chain was (which is also what the article is about):
imho incest should only be outlawed because of the risk of gene defects during pregnancy. so while nasty I dont think a hanky panky from your first cousin should be outlawed
So in my mind it was always about whether or not first cousins fall into the realm of incest and/or inbreeding. We both agree that there is probably a instinctual component to the rejection of incest. I think that, just like with the rejection of homosexuality, the aversion to first cousins because they're incestual is also conditioned, which is why it shouldn't be outlawed. Although I could be convinced otherwise.
Now, if every party is an adult and capable of informed consent, it is possible to test for likelihood of genetic defects based upon the parentsā genes. So, I canāt think of a non-subjective objection if, for example, they met for the first time as adults and didnāt know of such relation. Still pretty weird to me but I donāt think itās anyoneās place to interfere with healthy, loving relationships.
I was actually thinking more about this when I replied to another comment yesterday. I'd be willing to bet that this happens at the very least more than people think, and I'd be willing to bet there are at least some couples out there who simply do not and may never know they're genetically related. Think about one deadbeat dad, for example, in a given area. Multiple children from multiple mothers. Do you think anybody in those families have any idea of exactly how many cousins, for example, they have living in the area? Worse, if the father is unknown or out of the picture or whatever, there's the possibility of people out there who may be sleeping with their half-siblings and not even know it. I'm not saying there are entire towns of people out there who should be singing Sweet Home Alabama or anything, but I'd be willing to bet the number is above zero.
In cases where children could be produced, I'd fully support incest being illegal. You are subjecting potential children to the increased risks that come along with being a product of incest, along with putting a social stigma on them that they will never be able to shake. I do not believe a child should literally have to spend their lives literally paying for the sins of their parents. But if there is no possibility of children being produced (Say, for example, a homosexual couple or if the woman is beyond child-bearing age) and there's no power dynamic influencing one or both of them (For example, a couple who have been together for a while and didn't know they were related), I can't really say I'm against it either. I don't have to agree with their decisions, but if they're not hurting anybody else, I don't believe it's my place to say no to it either.
(And I'll say again, I'm talking about healthy, consentual relations between two adults who happen to be related. This should not be interpreted to be justification for some 60 year old guy to try to marry his 13 year old niece, or cases where one sibling (or parent or cousin or whatever) pressures another into entering a sexual relationship they wouldn't have otherwise consented to. Those cases are just straight up rape, and should be treated as such -- with the creep thrown in jail to rot for the rest of their lives.)
I'd be willing to bet that this happens at the very least more than people think, and I'd be willing to bet there are at least some couples out there who simply do not and may never know they're genetically related.
I've actually met such a couple who found out after they had been in a long-term relationship for some time. I think it likely does indeed occur far more frequently than we'd think.
Why is it nasty if you recognize there is no real risk of genetic issues?
no rational reason. just feels wrong to me.
but since I recohnize this I dont think it should be prohibited. hope that makes sense
I read something in passing a while ago and didn't care to investigate the claim so I'm sorry this is just heresay, but the claim was the amout of variety in the modern genetics of humans makes gene defects from incest less likely than it has been in the history of the species. Obviously this one's gonna be case by case but I'd assume if it holds true it's for more diverse populations probably from nations with lot's of immigration and probably still really risky if you share parents. But again, I really didn't feel like spending time investing that.
People are talking about it like they are saying it's legal, rather than it just being left out of a list. Which sure, if it's left out on purpose, that's pretty telling. But a loophole in a law isn't always done on purpose. I'm willing to beleive for now it was an accident
This would be a great example of fake news.
Years ago in KY there was an anti-bestiality bill which was defeated. Reason was that it was so vaguely worded that animal husbandry and certain veterinarian practices would be technically illegal.
It should be, it should be for fucks sake, but this apparently is the timeline where it is not:-(.
I feel bad for them. Material is scant, what with Trump and Republicans fucking up reality.
Same. It would be a struggle to write a fake headline about the republican party.
Of course it wouldn't. Would you believe any headline like this?
Kentucky Republican pushes for increased minimum wage
Kentucky Republican calls for greater sex education in schools
Kentucky Republican wants to make abortions more accessible
Soā¦ the same party that wants to stop same sex couples from having sex is upset that the government is telling them whom they canāt have sex with? Golly.
"look, all I'm saying is, two men having consensual sex is wrong. Why can't they be normal and have sex with their 12 year old cousin, like me?"
If you're inferring that this was the point I was making or overlooking, I hope you did so as a joke. The government's role, in part, is to protect people who can not protect themselves. Rape and underage sex aren't the same thing as having sex with your consenting 35 year old cousin. Honestly, as gross as it may be, what gives the government the right to say you can't have sex with your (consenting) middle-aged brother? These are two entirely different issues. Whether or not legislators should be spending any time on these issues is another thing.
My guy, you do realize you're unironically doubling down on being pro-incest right? RIGHT?
There's nothing "unironic" about it. You think the government should tell consenting adults that they can't bang each other? I don't. Just because you or I might find it repulsive doesn't mean the government has the right to imprison you for it. That's how homosexuality and mixed race relationships were outlawed to begin with.
Gay sex and interracial sex are NOT the same thing as incest sex. You do realize you're advocating for dads to bang their own daughters? Cause that's what incest usually results in.
Gay sex and interracial sex are NOT the same thing as incest sex. You do realize youāre advocating for dads to bang their own daughters? Cause thatās what incest usually results in.
This is a slippery slope argument that absolutely nobody is advocating for. It's the same type of argument used to deny trans children the rights to use the bathroom of their choice (because people will pretend to be trans so they can molest your daughters in the bathroom) or to deny LGBT people the right to marry (Because next they'll want to marry their daughters, or their pets, or their car).
Do you think two cousins in their 50s who have decided to have consentual sex is the same as some 40 year old pedo diddling his daughter or some 60 year old creep molesting his 12 year old niece?
They're all incest. Except the first is a decision between two consenting adults and the others are just straight up rape.
A father and daughter having consensual sex is not the same thing as a 30 year old forcing themselves on a 10 year old.
As I said, the government's role is to protect those who can't protect themselves. What you're alluding to isn't incest but rape and/or sexual assault. These are already acts punishable by law.
"A father and daughter having consensual sex..."
It must be wild living in whatever fantasy world you live in. Ask your mom or your dad if you can bang them, jfc...
Dude. Is your brain broken? We're not talking about whether something is morally cool or not. It's the point of the government's involvement in our personal lives.
Here's the thing: You're both right.
(Disclaimer: I am discussing incestuous relationships between two consenting adults. Relationships with children are and should be illegal already, regardless of family relationships. The same goes for non-consentual relationships. Those are just straight up rape and should be treated as such. At no point should anything I say be taken out of context or imply that I condone some 40 year old pedo diddling his 12 year old niece. That is, always will be, and always should be considered straight up rape with the perpetrator being jailed for life.)
One of the big talking points on the right when it comes to restricting gay marriage is the argument of "next, people are going to want to legalize incest". (Or pedophilia, or beastiality, or whatever. They make them all.). Any attempt at removing any time of restriction around incest is going to IMMEDIATELY be met with fierce resistance from both sides, with the republicans especially out there basically saying "See? I told you!". Any attempt at validating incest would almost certainly have a negative impact on marriage equality in general, and I really don't think there's all that much of a community out there of people willing to legalize incest, even if it is between two consenting adults who cannot bear biological children. Regardless of your opinion on the subject, the political will is just not there and any attempt to do so would be guaranteed to cause far more harm than good, particularly in the LGBT community no matter how much they would try to distance themselves from the idea.
But with that said, there is a point to be made about sexual relations between consenting adults who happen to also just be genetically related. Let's be realistic: Some 50 year old guy having sex with his 50 year old cousin down in Alabama isn't going to hurt anyone else. In reality, it's nobody else's business. They're never going to have children. And hell, if they don't say they're cousins, they could go the rest of their lives without anyone figuring it out anyway. A point could be made that these people deserve the same rights to be with their chosen partner as much as anyone else does.
The problem with it, though, is that even among otherwise consenting adults, you can't guarantee that there's a power dynamic influencing their decisions. It's one thing, for example, if Steve and Sarah fell in love then found out they were long-lost siblings. It would be another if Steve was her older brother and was basically the "dominant" sibling of the two for their entire lives, or even in a father-figure type of role. Then it becomes a matter of mutual consent vs. that dominant role he had played extending beyond normal sibling relationships. Same could be said for cousins or any other family relationships. There's way too much muddy water there that would be ripe for abuse.
Honestly, I could see an argument for relaxing some incest laws in limited circumstances. While I have no data to support this at all, I'd be willing to bet that accidental incest probably happens more often than we would think. Think about it......one deadbeat dad has 5 or 6 baby mamas around town. Do you think anyone is able to keep track of all of the first and second cousins those kids have? I'd be willing to bet that most of these kids have no idea how many cousins, if any, live in the area. And given the prevalence of absentee fathers in some parts of the country, it's not unrealistic to think that some of these kids may even be boning their half-siblings without ever realizing it. I'm not saying there are entire towns who should change their anthem to Sweet Home Alabama or anything, but I'd be willing to bet it happens more often than people think.
So I do not endorse this guy or any GOP member in any way. But if you read the article he says dropping the first cousin from the list was an error of omission and not intentional, and he is re-filing the bill to include it. The intent of the bill was to expand the classification of incest beyond just intercourse to include any type of sexual contact. Which seems like its actually progressive, just not clickbait worthy.
I wouldn't call that "progressive" but it's not exactly libertarian freedom either. The actual law seems weirder than trying to deregulate cousin incest.
Not that I really feel strongly about it but I don't see the state interest in specifically banning cousin blowjobs. Seems like one of those things that should be in the dustbin of overtightened sexual restrictions like sodomy laws.
I've seen some compelling arguments for decriminalizing incest. Basically rape is already illegal [citation needed], the genetic risk is pretty small for the average person, and ultimately regulating what weird stuff consenting adults might choose to do in the bedroom is generally not a good thing. There is of course the problem of social/power dynamics and how that might play into consent but that's another issue not exclusive to incest.
By progressive I mean a step in the right direction for shit place like KY. Source: am from KY
you could argue that accidentally making cousin fucking legal, like accidentally making weed legal in minnesota (was that minnesota? I think so) is part of an ongoing issue where republicans don't actually know what the laws they're implementing do.
Because of course that's the top priority for Kentucky Republicans right now š
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.
You say consenting adults, the bill says one of them can be as young as 13 years...
Yes, and I'll counter that argument by suggesting we ban having sex with children regardless of if the molester is related.
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.
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.
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
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. Itās the same logic behind banning polygamy- itās very easy for people to become trapped in it because their entire social universe supports it, so if you say no, youāre excommunicated. Thereās therefore no real way to know if you consented.
Itās the same reason cops canāt have sex with people they are holding under arrest. Oh waitā¦
How is this important enough to occupy the time of our politicians?
I meanā¦look at that guy. It probably occupies all of his time. They intentionally picked that photo for this exact reason, Iām sure.
He just looks like some guy. Not sure why so many people are commenting on his appearance, its childish and unnecessary.
What actually occupies that guys time, is the process of re-filing the bill to rectify the accidental omission of cousins.
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.
It's not.
It's probably a distraction. To what end, I don't know.
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 itās legal to bang your family.
Red River Gorge enjoyer?
Once in a while I grab a slice at Miguelās and occasionally stick the dyno on June Bug
I used to go backpacking in the gorge like every spring break through hs and college, and I loved seeing Miguel stickers show up all over the country. An ale 8 and a slice of Miguelās is a fantastic way to end a trip
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Maybe things that are ok in a small tribal village shouldnāt necessarily be in a larger interconnected modern civilization
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.
"Discovered" and no source to your claims... I don't think so, Rudy.
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.
"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.
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
Apparently the bill was supposed to expand the prosecution of incest not make more of it. Who knows with the KY state reps.
Since weāre talking about KY reps. Damon Thayer is a corrupt scumbag.
Oh so this is why all of Project Zomboid's maps are in Kentucky. They're not zombies, just inbred.
The article conveniently leaves out that 19 states allow marriages between first cousins and additional states allow those marriages under certain conditions according to Wikipedia. It also is legal in most countries.
Never bothering to make a law about something is VERY different than having made such a law in the past and making a point to go out of their way to change it.
Plus, it is funny bc it reinforces the stereotype, which this comment summarizes well.
The law should not be what is preventing people from fucking their cousins for fuck sake
The law is what the political-legislative process agrees to
he must be from shelbyville
āThis candidate knows how to speak to his baseā
I mean ... the suspect pool is not particularly large.
First cousins in Kentucky? That's probably only a few hundred thousand people it could be.
Is this guy the representative for Shelbyville?
I met a pair of lover cousins once at a campsite. They were older, maybe 40s. And they were loud & proud about the fact that they were lovers and first cousins. It was unsettling.
āI eat assā
This was a mistake in the bill which he retracted, amended and resubmitted.
The first cousins are safe, legally anyway.
What I don't get is I assume they had a law so why was this needed?
Yea, news article I saw said he posted this about it
I filed HB 269 yesterday. The purpose of the bill is to add āsexual contactā to the incest statute. Currently, incest only applies in cases of intercourse. So sexual touching/groping by uncles, stepdads or anyone with a familial relationship is not included in incest. My bill makes that kind of sexual contact a Class D Felony, unless the victim is under the age of 12, then it increases the penalty to a Class C Felony.
During the drafting process, there was an inadvertent change, which struck āfirst cousinsā from the list of relationships included under the incest statute, and I failed to add it back in. During todayās session, I will withdraw HB 269 and refile a bill with the āfirst cousinā language intact. The fact that I was able to file a bill, catch the mistake, withdraw the bill and refile within a 24 hour period shows that we have a good system.
This is a bill to combat a problem of familial and cyclical abuse that transcends generations of Kentuckians. I understand that I made a mistake, but I sincerely hope my mistake doesnāt hurt the chances of the corrected version of the bill. It is a good bill, and I hope it will get a second chance.
So wait, he was actually trying to expand the definition of incest to protect more victims?
I didn't see that coming at all! Not from a Republican anyhow. They don't really come off as the party that gives a fuck about the victims.
Huh.
I've made it a goal to stay off reddit, but I'm breaking this pledge today too see with r/survivor has to say about this! I'm positive they won't disappoint
Edit: zut alors! It's not being reported there... Or mods scrubbed it
This guy's got a couple first cousins somewhere blushing furiously.
A Kentucky Republican has introduced legislation that would amend the state's law so a person who had sex with their first cousin would no longer be criminally liable for incest.
According to the Kentucky General Assembly website, it would strike "first cousin from the list of familial relationships" defined as unlawful incest in the state.
In November 2022, Wilson ran unopposed for the 82nd District of the Kentucky House after Republican incumbent Regina Huff retired.
It would also alter Kentucky law on parole for violent offenders to include a person "who has been convicted of incest by sexual contact" within the definition.
In August 2021, webcomic creator and YouTuber Christine Weston Chandler, also known as Chris Chan, was arrested on a charge of incest in Virginia and later caused a stir by stamping their feet repeatedly in court to disrupt proceedings.
French survivors of incest spoke out online in January 2021 using the hashtag #MeTooInceste after prominent lawyer Camille Kouchner alleged that her stepfather, a high-profile political scientist, sexually abused her as a child.
The original article contains 505 words, the summary contains 174 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Kentucky living up to its reputation
It's part of his Game of Thrones omnibus bill.
In his defense New York did allow FDR to marry his first cousin.
Country road
Take me home
To the place!
I belonggggggggggggg
WEST VIRGINIA
COUNTRY MAMA
Country road
Take me homeee...
"This is the problem I wanted to solve when I was elected"
It's still incest mate. Even if you make it legal incest.
At first I assumed since this is a Republican that it would be about reducing abortions in case they had an incest exception.
Turns out they don't have such an exception, so he must have a really hot first cousin that is otherwise dtf.
Hey... uh... Nick? Something you want to tell us?
Sometimes, a picture and a headline is all you need.
He looks like its already legal
i see a lot of headlines about Republicans needing laws governing sex or sexuality.. why are you all so hung up on that shit, you fucking morons?
Pretty sure that's legal here
Okay, to be fair, I see no problem with fucking your first cousin. What I do see a problem with is having a child with them. A couple of my cousins are totally hot and i bet most ppl have one of those. Plus, it prob happens more now anyway since its taboo and that makes it more fun.
Maybe he has a personal interest in this?
edit:
uhhhhhhhhhhhā¦. that age cutoff seems low
Not if the child he has his eye set on is just above it. :-(
She's 10, laws take time to enact....
These people are horrid.
š¤¢ š¤® šµāš«
Hey Nick Wilson, tell us you fuck your cousin without telling us you fuck your cousin.
his 13 year-old cousin, it seems
Less than 12 ... so basically she's 12.
No, she will be 12 just before the law takes effect.
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.
Glad they are tackling the important issues in Kentucky. I'm sure every Kentuckyan has their ability to fuck their first cousin high on the list of problems they wish their government would address.
āAt 17 you can marry your first cousin but you canāt have hormones that your doctor is happy to prescribeā-Kentucky
Actually Iām surprised thatās the youngest I could make that joke. They recently raised the minimum marriage age to 17 with parental consent which like took you long enough but still good job
Itās Kentucky, what else matters? lol
HB 269 - "The purpose of the bill is to add "sexual contact" to the incest statute. Currently, incest only applies in cases of intercourse. So sexual touching/ groping by .. anyone with a familial relationship is not included in incest. My bill makes that kind of sexual contact a Class D Felony, unless the victim is under the age of 12, then it increases the penalty to a Class C Felony."
Basically they accidentally left out cousins (and the bill has already been withdrawn) from what sounds like an otherwise good bill and the news media runs wild. Keep this handy when you hear about this for the next ( if <= heat death of the Universe )
imho incest should only be outlawed because of the risk of gene defects during pregnancy. so while nasty I dont think a hanky panky from your first cousin should be outlawed
and no, I dont have a hot cousin
Beyond the potential biological issues, the biggest problem tends to be coercion and consent. The majority of incestuous encounters are abusive and involve a power dynamic that makes informed consent impossible.
Now, if every party is an adult and capable of informed consent, it is possible to test for likelihood of genetic defects based upon the parents' genes. So, I can't think of a non-subjective objection if, for example, they met for the first time as adults and didn't know of such relation. Still pretty weird to me but I don't think it's anyone's place to interfere with healthy, loving relationships.
Honestly, this reads like someone dealing with the cognitive dissonance of trying to maintain that they believe that adults should be able to have consensual relations with each other, but at the same time supporting laws that outlaw something they've been conditioned to believe is icky.
It's sounds nearly identical to the "we can't allow gay relationships because they're recruiting kids!"
I don't think that you deserve downvotes for this because I don't think you're necessarily incorrect. I do absolutely feel cognitive dissonance here. I have a visceral, what I think is instinctual, revulsion at the concept of incest. But, if there is love, consensuality, and no one is being harmed (including possible offspring), I cannot in good conscience say that they do not have a right to be together, regardless of how I feel. It takes overriding that feeling to state as such, which isn't comfortable and is, by definition, cognitive dissonance.
I do not, however, think that the comparison to homophobia or other discrimination against LGBTQ+ people is a good comparison. The majority of relationships that LGBTQ+ people engage in are consensual and do not cause harm to anyone. The majority of cases of incest involve sexual abuse and frequently pedophilia. Offspring of close relatives are at high risk for significant biological and social harm (in cases of abuse add psychological harm).
I think the guy you're referring to isn't trying to compare incest to gay rights or anything. He's merely pointing out that the argument against incest among consentual couples is a slippery slope argument similar to the slippery slope arguments used by the far right to deny the LGBT community their rights: "If we let them do _________, then the next thing they're gonna want is ___________". It's a bad argument to make no matter the subject or which side of an issue you're on. There are plenty of legitimate reasons not to support incest without having to resort to slippery slope arguments.
There's also the fact that if one were to seriously try to legalize incest among consenting adults, the immediate response from the right would be "See? We told you that if we started letting gays marry, they'd want to marry their cousins next! What's next, their pets?". And you and I both know that they would immediately start using this argument to further isolate and marginalize the LGBT community, even if they try to distance themselves from the idea.
Go back some time and see what happened when NAMBLA tried to shoehorn themselves into the LGBT rights movement. The LGBT community immediately denounced the group and distanced themselves from them as quickly and as forcefully as they could, and the far right still shit all over them for it, saying "See? They're starting already!". The same thing would happen here -- the LGBT community would distance themselves from the idea right from the get-go, but that wouldn't stop bigots from blaming them anyway even though they have nothing to do with it.
Incest is, by definition, sexual relations between people too closely related. The question here is whether or not first cousins should count as incest.
But next time you debate with someone opposed to homosexuality, ask yourself if they think their revulsion to it is a visceral, instinctual response.
Well, I'm really not comparing the two, I'm comparing the arguments. But that being said, where are you coming up with the claim that the majority of first cousin sexual attraction is pedophilia or sexual abuse?
I suppose I should better clarify terms here:
It would make sense for the legal definiton of incest to encompass situations where harm is likely, whether it be social, psychological, physical, or biological, due to relation. So, it would make sense for first cousins to fall into a "possible" category.
While you have a good point on perspective, I would say that evidence points towards homophobic behavior being conditoned and inbreeding-phobic behavior being instinctual. Homosexual behavior is seen with statistically-significant frequency throughout the animal kingdom. Familial recognition and its use in mate selection (and rejection) and other behaviors is seen even more widely, occuring in even insects, plants, and microbes.
I should likely have been more specific in scoping that. I was referring to the superset of cases of incest there, rather than the subset of cousins. I would have to look at data in that subset in order to make a factual statement.
I think something got lost in the shuffle here. The top level comment of this chain was (which is also what the article is about):
So in my mind it was always about whether or not first cousins fall into the realm of incest and/or inbreeding. We both agree that there is probably a instinctual component to the rejection of incest. I think that, just like with the rejection of homosexuality, the aversion to first cousins because they're incestual is also conditioned, which is why it shouldn't be outlawed. Although I could be convinced otherwise.
I was actually thinking more about this when I replied to another comment yesterday. I'd be willing to bet that this happens at the very least more than people think, and I'd be willing to bet there are at least some couples out there who simply do not and may never know they're genetically related. Think about one deadbeat dad, for example, in a given area. Multiple children from multiple mothers. Do you think anybody in those families have any idea of exactly how many cousins, for example, they have living in the area? Worse, if the father is unknown or out of the picture or whatever, there's the possibility of people out there who may be sleeping with their half-siblings and not even know it. I'm not saying there are entire towns of people out there who should be singing Sweet Home Alabama or anything, but I'd be willing to bet the number is above zero.
In cases where children could be produced, I'd fully support incest being illegal. You are subjecting potential children to the increased risks that come along with being a product of incest, along with putting a social stigma on them that they will never be able to shake. I do not believe a child should literally have to spend their lives literally paying for the sins of their parents. But if there is no possibility of children being produced (Say, for example, a homosexual couple or if the woman is beyond child-bearing age) and there's no power dynamic influencing one or both of them (For example, a couple who have been together for a while and didn't know they were related), I can't really say I'm against it either. I don't have to agree with their decisions, but if they're not hurting anybody else, I don't believe it's my place to say no to it either.
(And I'll say again, I'm talking about healthy, consentual relations between two adults who happen to be related. This should not be interpreted to be justification for some 60 year old guy to try to marry his 13 year old niece, or cases where one sibling (or parent or cousin or whatever) pressures another into entering a sexual relationship they wouldn't have otherwise consented to. Those cases are just straight up rape, and should be treated as such -- with the creep thrown in jail to rot for the rest of their lives.)
I've actually met such a couple who found out after they had been in a long-term relationship for some time. I think it likely does indeed occur far more frequently than we'd think.
Why is it nasty if you recognize there is no real risk of genetic issues?
no rational reason. just feels wrong to me.
but since I recohnize this I dont think it should be prohibited. hope that makes sense
I read something in passing a while ago and didn't care to investigate the claim so I'm sorry this is just heresay, but the claim was the amout of variety in the modern genetics of humans makes gene defects from incest less likely than it has been in the history of the species. Obviously this one's gonna be case by case but I'd assume if it holds true it's for more diverse populations probably from nations with lot's of immigration and probably still really risky if you share parents. But again, I really didn't feel like spending time investing that.
People are talking about it like they are saying it's legal, rather than it just being left out of a list. Which sure, if it's left out on purpose, that's pretty telling. But a loophole in a law isn't always done on purpose. I'm willing to beleive for now it was an accident
This would be a great example of fake news.
Years ago in KY there was an anti-bestiality bill which was defeated. Reason was that it was so vaguely worded that animal husbandry and certain veterinarian practices would be technically illegal.
Christ on a bike I thought this was The Onion.
It should be, it should be for fucks sake, but this apparently is the timeline where it is not:-(.
I feel bad for them. Material is scant, what with Trump and Republicans fucking up reality.
Same. It would be a struggle to write a fake headline about the republican party.
Of course it wouldn't. Would you believe any headline like this?
Kentucky Republican pushes for increased minimum wage
Kentucky Republican calls for greater sex education in schools
Kentucky Republican wants to make abortions more accessible
Soā¦ the same party that wants to stop same sex couples from having sex is upset that the government is telling them whom they canāt have sex with? Golly.
"look, all I'm saying is, two men having consensual sex is wrong. Why can't they be normal and have sex with their 12 year old cousin, like me?"
If you're inferring that this was the point I was making or overlooking, I hope you did so as a joke. The government's role, in part, is to protect people who can not protect themselves. Rape and underage sex aren't the same thing as having sex with your consenting 35 year old cousin. Honestly, as gross as it may be, what gives the government the right to say you can't have sex with your (consenting) middle-aged brother? These are two entirely different issues. Whether or not legislators should be spending any time on these issues is another thing.
My guy, you do realize you're unironically doubling down on being pro-incest right? RIGHT?
There's nothing "unironic" about it. You think the government should tell consenting adults that they can't bang each other? I don't. Just because you or I might find it repulsive doesn't mean the government has the right to imprison you for it. That's how homosexuality and mixed race relationships were outlawed to begin with.
Gay sex and interracial sex are NOT the same thing as incest sex. You do realize you're advocating for dads to bang their own daughters? Cause that's what incest usually results in.
This is a slippery slope argument that absolutely nobody is advocating for. It's the same type of argument used to deny trans children the rights to use the bathroom of their choice (because people will pretend to be trans so they can molest your daughters in the bathroom) or to deny LGBT people the right to marry (Because next they'll want to marry their daughters, or their pets, or their car).
Do you think two cousins in their 50s who have decided to have consentual sex is the same as some 40 year old pedo diddling his daughter or some 60 year old creep molesting his 12 year old niece?
They're all incest. Except the first is a decision between two consenting adults and the others are just straight up rape.
A father and daughter having consensual sex is not the same thing as a 30 year old forcing themselves on a 10 year old.
As I said, the government's role is to protect those who can't protect themselves. What you're alluding to isn't incest but rape and/or sexual assault. These are already acts punishable by law.
"A father and daughter having consensual sex..."
It must be wild living in whatever fantasy world you live in. Ask your mom or your dad if you can bang them, jfc...
Dude. Is your brain broken? We're not talking about whether something is morally cool or not. It's the point of the government's involvement in our personal lives.
Here's the thing: You're both right.
(Disclaimer: I am discussing incestuous relationships between two consenting adults. Relationships with children are and should be illegal already, regardless of family relationships. The same goes for non-consentual relationships. Those are just straight up rape and should be treated as such. At no point should anything I say be taken out of context or imply that I condone some 40 year old pedo diddling his 12 year old niece. That is, always will be, and always should be considered straight up rape with the perpetrator being jailed for life.)
One of the big talking points on the right when it comes to restricting gay marriage is the argument of "next, people are going to want to legalize incest". (Or pedophilia, or beastiality, or whatever. They make them all.). Any attempt at removing any time of restriction around incest is going to IMMEDIATELY be met with fierce resistance from both sides, with the republicans especially out there basically saying "See? I told you!". Any attempt at validating incest would almost certainly have a negative impact on marriage equality in general, and I really don't think there's all that much of a community out there of people willing to legalize incest, even if it is between two consenting adults who cannot bear biological children. Regardless of your opinion on the subject, the political will is just not there and any attempt to do so would be guaranteed to cause far more harm than good, particularly in the LGBT community no matter how much they would try to distance themselves from the idea.
But with that said, there is a point to be made about sexual relations between consenting adults who happen to also just be genetically related. Let's be realistic: Some 50 year old guy having sex with his 50 year old cousin down in Alabama isn't going to hurt anyone else. In reality, it's nobody else's business. They're never going to have children. And hell, if they don't say they're cousins, they could go the rest of their lives without anyone figuring it out anyway. A point could be made that these people deserve the same rights to be with their chosen partner as much as anyone else does.
The problem with it, though, is that even among otherwise consenting adults, you can't guarantee that there's a power dynamic influencing their decisions. It's one thing, for example, if Steve and Sarah fell in love then found out they were long-lost siblings. It would be another if Steve was her older brother and was basically the "dominant" sibling of the two for their entire lives, or even in a father-figure type of role. Then it becomes a matter of mutual consent vs. that dominant role he had played extending beyond normal sibling relationships. Same could be said for cousins or any other family relationships. There's way too much muddy water there that would be ripe for abuse.
Honestly, I could see an argument for relaxing some incest laws in limited circumstances. While I have no data to support this at all, I'd be willing to bet that accidental incest probably happens more often than we would think. Think about it......one deadbeat dad has 5 or 6 baby mamas around town. Do you think anyone is able to keep track of all of the first and second cousins those kids have? I'd be willing to bet that most of these kids have no idea how many cousins, if any, live in the area. And given the prevalence of absentee fathers in some parts of the country, it's not unrealistic to think that some of these kids may even be boning their half-siblings without ever realizing it. I'm not saying there are entire towns who should change their anthem to Sweet Home Alabama or anything, but I'd be willing to bet it happens more often than people think.
So I do not endorse this guy or any GOP member in any way. But if you read the article he says dropping the first cousin from the list was an error of omission and not intentional, and he is re-filing the bill to include it. The intent of the bill was to expand the classification of incest beyond just intercourse to include any type of sexual contact. Which seems like its actually progressive, just not clickbait worthy.
I wouldn't call that "progressive" but it's not exactly libertarian freedom either. The actual law seems weirder than trying to deregulate cousin incest.
Not that I really feel strongly about it but I don't see the state interest in specifically banning cousin blowjobs. Seems like one of those things that should be in the dustbin of overtightened sexual restrictions like sodomy laws.
I've seen some compelling arguments for decriminalizing incest. Basically rape is already illegal [citation needed], the genetic risk is pretty small for the average person, and ultimately regulating what weird stuff consenting adults might choose to do in the bedroom is generally not a good thing. There is of course the problem of social/power dynamics and how that might play into consent but that's another issue not exclusive to incest.
By progressive I mean a step in the right direction for shit place like KY. Source: am from KY
you could argue that accidentally making cousin fucking legal, like accidentally making weed legal in minnesota (was that minnesota? I think so) is part of an ongoing issue where republicans don't actually know what the laws they're implementing do.
Because of course that's the top priority for Kentucky Republicans right now š
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.
You say consenting adults, the bill says one of them can be as young as 13 years...
Yes, and I'll counter that argument by suggesting we ban having sex with children regardless of if the molester is related.
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.
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.
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
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. Itās the same logic behind banning polygamy- itās very easy for people to become trapped in it because their entire social universe supports it, so if you say no, youāre excommunicated. Thereās therefore no real way to know if you consented.
Itās the same reason cops canāt have sex with people they are holding under arrest. Oh waitā¦
How is this important enough to occupy the time of our politicians?
I meanā¦look at that guy. It probably occupies all of his time. They intentionally picked that photo for this exact reason, Iām sure.
He just looks like some guy. Not sure why so many people are commenting on his appearance, its childish and unnecessary.
What actually occupies that guys time, is the process of re-filing the bill to rectify the accidental omission of cousins.
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.
It's not.
It's probably a distraction. To what end, I don't know.
That's the look of a man the fucked his first cousin.
I love that it's blue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Fugates
^ This right here is why Lemmy > Reddit š
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 itās legal to bang your family.
Red River Gorge enjoyer?
Once in a while I grab a slice at Miguelās and occasionally stick the dyno on June Bug
I used to go backpacking in the gorge like every spring break through hs and college, and I loved seeing Miguel stickers show up all over the country. An ale 8 and a slice of Miguelās is a fantastic way to end a trip
Inbreeding breeds dumber people, who are more likely to end up in poverty.
That would make the population an ideal Republican electorate.
They are enacting these laws to personally benefit.
The whole family benefits!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Maybe things that are ok in a small tribal village shouldnāt necessarily be in a larger interconnected modern civilization
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.
"Discovered" and no source to your claims... I don't think so, Rudy.
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.
"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.
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"
I think I see a pattern here...
I like the way they think
Republicans: "It's not pedophilia if we get rid of the laws making it illegal!"
Also Republicans: gay sex leads to pedophilia!
Guys. I just can't!
Rainbow flags and healthcare for trans people: no way fuck that shit! It's bad for children
Sex with family: no no. It's ok. It's my cousin.
When pornhub takes over (sexual) education
Is he gonna push a bill to make sex between bros not gay next?
More gay if anything
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
Someone wants to bang their first cousin.
That's not a future event and you know it...
Maybe someone already has lol.
Finally, a win for the Rs
Well, they're into that. If it is taboo, then they are all in that.
This is the most Kentucky thing Iāve ever heard today!
https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article284338699.html
Apparently the bill was supposed to expand the prosecution of incest not make more of it. Who knows with the KY state reps.
Since weāre talking about KY reps. Damon Thayer is a corrupt scumbag.
Oh so this is why all of Project Zomboid's maps are in Kentucky. They're not zombies, just inbred.
The article conveniently leaves out that 19 states allow marriages between first cousins and additional states allow those marriages under certain conditions according to Wikipedia. It also is legal in most countries.
Never bothering to make a law about something is VERY different than having made such a law in the past and making a point to go out of their way to change it.
Plus, it is funny bc it reinforces the stereotype, which this comment summarizes well.
The law should not be what is preventing people from fucking their cousins for fuck sake
The law is what the political-legislative process agrees to
he must be from shelbyville
āThis candidate knows how to speak to his baseā
Of course they did.
The jokes write themselves.
Way to live up to the stereotype, dude.
Home Sweet Home, Alabama! ā„ļø
Seriously, it is incest. And Republicans are into that.
We need to make Kentucky Man a thing
Hm, I wonder who he is sleeping with...
I mean ... the suspect pool is not particularly large.
First cousins in Kentucky? That's probably only a few hundred thousand people it could be.
Is this guy the representative for Shelbyville?
I met a pair of lover cousins once at a campsite. They were older, maybe 40s. And they were loud & proud about the fact that they were lovers and first cousins. It was unsettling.
āI eat assā
This was a mistake in the bill which he retracted, amended and resubmitted.
The first cousins are safe, legally anyway.
What I don't get is I assume they had a law so why was this needed?
Yea, news article I saw said he posted this about it
So wait, he was actually trying to expand the definition of incest to protect more victims?
I didn't see that coming at all! Not from a Republican anyhow. They don't really come off as the party that gives a fuck about the victims.
Huh.
I've made it a goal to stay off reddit, but I'm breaking this pledge today too see with r/survivor has to say about this! I'm positive they won't disappoint
Edit: zut alors! It's not being reported there... Or mods scrubbed it
This guy's got a couple first cousins somewhere blushing furiously.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A Kentucky Republican has introduced legislation that would amend the state's law so a person who had sex with their first cousin would no longer be criminally liable for incest.
According to the Kentucky General Assembly website, it would strike "first cousin from the list of familial relationships" defined as unlawful incest in the state.
In November 2022, Wilson ran unopposed for the 82nd District of the Kentucky House after Republican incumbent Regina Huff retired.
It would also alter Kentucky law on parole for violent offenders to include a person "who has been convicted of incest by sexual contact" within the definition.
In August 2021, webcomic creator and YouTuber Christine Weston Chandler, also known as Chris Chan, was arrested on a charge of incest in Virginia and later caused a stir by stamping their feet repeatedly in court to disrupt proceedings.
French survivors of incest spoke out online in January 2021 using the hashtag #MeTooInceste after prominent lawyer Camille Kouchner alleged that her stepfather, a high-profile political scientist, sexually abused her as a child.
The original article contains 505 words, the summary contains 174 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Kentucky living up to its reputation
It's part of his Game of Thrones omnibus bill.
In his defense New York did allow FDR to marry his first cousin.
Country road
Take me home
To the place!
I belonggggggggggggg
WEST VIRGINIA
COUNTRY MAMA
Country road
Take me homeee...
"This is the problem I wanted to solve when I was elected"
It's still incest mate. Even if you make it legal incest.
Sweet Home Kentucky? š¤£
Dudeās probably fucking his young male cousin.
At first I assumed since this is a Republican that it would be about reducing abortions in case they had an incest exception.
Turns out they don't have such an exception, so he must have a really hot first cousin that is otherwise dtf.
Hey... uh... Nick? Something you want to tell us?
Sometimes, a picture and a headline is all you need.
He looks like its already legal
i see a lot of headlines about Republicans needing laws governing sex or sexuality.. why are you all so hung up on that shit, you fucking morons?
Pretty sure that's legal here
Okay, to be fair, I see no problem with fucking your first cousin. What I do see a problem with is having a child with them. A couple of my cousins are totally hot and i bet most ppl have one of those. Plus, it prob happens more now anyway since its taboo and that makes it more fun.