politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.