this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3461 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1
Kentucky Republican pushes bill to make sex with first cousin not incest (www.newsweek.com)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 )

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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!"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago

How is this important enough to occupy the time of our politicians?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago

Yea, news article I saw said he posted this about it

I filed HB 269 yesterday. 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 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 “first cousins” from the list of relationships included under the incest statute, and I failed to add it back in. During today’s session, I will withdraw HB 269 and refile a bill with the “first cousin” 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 doesn’t hurt the chances of the corrected version of the bill. It is a good bill, and I hope it will get a second chance.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago

Sometimes, a picture and a headline is all you need.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You say consenting adults, the bill says one of them can be as young as 13 years...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, and I'll counter that argument by suggesting we ban having sex with children regardless of if the molester is related.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 it’s legal to bang your family.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Red River Gorge enjoyer?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Once in a while I grab a slice at Miguel’s and occasionally stick the dyno on June Bug

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

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 Miguel’s is a fantastic way to end a trip

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

“At 17 you can marry your first cousin but you can’t have hormones that your doctor is happy to prescribe”-Kentucky

Actually I’m surprised that’s 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