• mateomaui@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    157
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Maybe he has a personal interest in this?

    edit:

    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.

    uhhhhhhhhhhh…. that age cutoff seems low

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      81
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      his 13 year-old cousin, it seems

    • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

  • gibmiser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    112
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      10 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

  • ApeCavalry@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    10 months ago

    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    Basically they accidentally left out cousins (and the bill has already been withdrawn) from what sounds like an otherwise good bill and the news media runs wild.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 )

    • cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      10 months ago

      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

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          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!”

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            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).

            • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              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.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              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?

              • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  10 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.

        • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          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.)

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Why is it nasty if you recognize there is no real risk of genetic issues?

        • cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          no rational reason. just feels wrong to me.

          but since I recohnize this I dont think it should be prohibited. hope that makes sense

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

      • ApeCavalry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

    • HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      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

  • oxjox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    10 months ago

    So… the same party that wants to stop same sex couples from having sex is upset that the government is telling them whom they can’t have sex with? Golly.

  • Mamertine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

      • Mamertine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        10 months ago

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

          • kromem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            10 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.

            • half_built_pyramids@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              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

    • jak@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      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. It’s the same logic behind banning polygamy- it’s very easy for people to become trapped in it because their entire social universe supports it, so if you say no, you’re excommunicated. There’s therefore no real way to know if you consented.

      It’s the same reason cops can’t have sex with people they are holding under arrest. Oh wait…

  • lntl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    10 months ago

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

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I mean…look at that guy. It probably occupies all of his time. They intentionally picked that photo for this exact reason, I’m sure.

      • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

    • zzzz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

  • NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

  • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    10 months ago

    “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.

    • force@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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”