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

politics

19072 readers
4099 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 149 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 26 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not if the child he has his eye set on is just above it. :-(

[–] S_204@lemm.ee 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

She's 10, laws take time to enact....

These people are horrid.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 119 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Hey Nick Wilson, tell us you fuck your cousin without telling us you fuck your cousin.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 74 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Oderus@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Less than 12 ... so basically she's 12.

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No, she will be 12 just before the law takes effect.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 105 points 9 months ago (2 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.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 20 points 9 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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ApeCavalryArt@lemmy.world 65 points 9 months ago (5 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 )

[–] cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (4 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

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 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.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Naja_Kaouthia@lemmy.world 58 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Christ on a bike I thought this was The Onion.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 21 points 9 months ago

It should be, it should be for fucks sake, but this apparently is the timeline where it is not:-(.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] craigers@lemmy.world 57 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] oxjox@lemmy.ml 43 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (9 children)

"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?"

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Mamertine@lemmy.world 40 points 9 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 9 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 9 months ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 36 points 9 months ago

Because of course that's the top priority for Kentucky Republicans right now 🙄

[–] NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social 32 points 9 months ago (5 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 31 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] zzzz@lemmy.world 17 points 9 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.

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 29 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"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 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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"

[–] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 28 points 9 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Pissnpink@feddit.uk 26 points 9 months ago

That's the look of a man the fucked his first cousin.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RagingSnarkasm@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

[–] linuxfiend@kbin.social 22 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Someone wants to bang their first cousin.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thorbot@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (2 children)

"Republican tries to change law so he can fuck his family, nobody bat an eye"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is he gonna push a bill to make sex between bros not gay next?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] half_built_pyramids@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Republicans: "It's not pedophilia if we get rid of the laws making it illegal!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 9 months ago

he must be from shelbyville

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

“This candidate knows how to speak to his base”

[–] J12@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

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 we’re talking about KY reps. Damon Thayer is a corrupt scumbag.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

The jokes write themselves.

[–] chrishazfun@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

how the fuck is this a real headline

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Of course they did.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Way to live up to the stereotype, dude.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Reptorian@lemmy.zip 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Home Sweet Home, Alabama! ♥️

Seriously, it is incest. And Republicans are into that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›