this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
563 points (93.5% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2267 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mamertine@lemmy.world 40 points 10 months ago (2 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.

[–] breakingcups@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Mamertine@lemmy.world 39 points 10 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.

[–] half_built_pyramids@lemmy.world 4 points 10 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.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 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 5 points 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…