Well I live in Utah so, anyone who hasn't had sex with their first cousin is probably considered a Eunich here. And the truth is, a lot (and I mean, a WHOLE lot of people) have had sex with their first cousins, for many it's their first sexual experience. I knew a coworker who admitted to it, and then later a woman who was a friend of a friend. And another coworker who got drunk admitted to us. So, it goes on A LOT.
I'm not really arguing for or against it being incest, I guess a case could be made, but it seems like it's not really going to change it happening no matter what label we put on it.
Ok but it’s still incest even if it’s not illegal.
I mean, how difficult is it to simply not fuck your cousins? Go outside your family and meet other people to fuck. Anyone opposed to that idea should be investigated for other reasons.
Why do people care? I don’t get it. I’ll never understand why people care so much about things that don’t concern them. Why not let consenting adults fuck whoever they want? Why support using taxes to criminalize something stupid and unimportant?
Normally, I agree with you. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is not my concern.
But with incest, there’s an underlying question of why communities would be interested in encouraging cousins to pair off. It belies an insularity that is coercive and dangerous to society as a whole. It’s the same argument against polyamory. Consent becomes a weird concept when you’re raised in a cult.
It is pretty silly that we don't give two shits about affairs and cheating anymore legally but still oppose polyamory or polygamy where everyone is aware. Stupid cultists ruining it for everyone else.
“Where everyone is aware” is part of the problem. Most poly groups don’t want people to know, because of the stigma associated with it. That’s a double edged sword, again because how do you say a woman consented to be a sister wife when she’s been conditioned from birth to be a servant inside an insular community?
There are also a number of contractual and legal issues related to being married that are built around a 1 to 1 relationship. If six people want to live in a house together and all sleep together and raise kids together, consenting adults have that option. Who gets custody in a breakup? Who gets the house when someone dies? That’s got to be spelled out because it’s not a standard marriage.
It isn't like being remarried multiple times with step parents who may or may not have adopted their step kids is a smooth process. Or even just a basic divorce can be really complex in a way that having more people wouldn't really be that much of a difference.
But we even treat non-marriage relationships with multiple people worse than someone cheating on their spouse. It is just silly.
I'm not interested, one person is complicated enough for me.
In the case of incest, because it causes a lot of serious birth defects. Something which is unfair on any potential children born out of it, is likely to cause the taxpayer significant sums, and is especially problematic given abortion isn't available universally.
Also: plenty of incestuous relationships are likely to abusive relationships that started when the victim was still a child. Just like laws ban 40 year olds from marrying 15 year olds in most (but not all) states, it makes sense to issue a complete ban on incestuous relationships for this reason. Even if it's a 60 year old marrying his cousin the moment she turns 18, and they're both 'consenting adults'.
That’s insane all the assumptions you’re making. I’ve met people who’s parents were cousins and they were perfectly healthy. I can’t imagine giving a single fuck about it, especially not enough to criminalize people for literally living the wrong person.
To me it seems like y’all just want to judge people to make yourselves feel superior. Have at it, I say! I just think that’s gross - way more than cousins fucking/falling in love with each other!
First cousin parents still have a higher rate of children with disabilities than non related parents. It’s not really just about the sex, it’s more about the outcome of sex.
Granted these laws made more sense when most people never left the town they were born in
(c) Engages in sexual contact; with a person whom he or she knows to be his or her parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, great-grandparent, great-grandchild, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, brother, sister,[ first cousin,] ancestor, or descendant. The relationships referred to herein include blood relationships of either the whole or half blood without regard to legitimacy, relationship of parent and child by adoption, relationship of stepparent and stepchild, and relationship of stepgrandparent and stepgrandchild.
First cousin is crossed out.
Remember everyone, this is the party of “family values.”
I think this misses the point which is Why does Nick Wilson want to legalize it? It is important to note that most of states you have listed appear to have incest laws that are based on very old statutes and seem to have gone mostly unchanged over the years. The point of criticism towards Nick Wilson is that Kentucky currently actually has an incest law that matches modern societal expectations yet he wants to change it. (To be clear, I think those states that currently have it legalized should reexamine their incest code.)
California seems to have defined incest in 1872 when first cousin marriage was seen as more acceptable (still very gross imo): Link
Colorado looks to be a bit more recent, as it looks like their incest laws were at the center of a court case in 1966 but that case does not involve a first cousin, but rather a step daughter (the whole case is still disgusting.) I am finding it more difficult to find official documentation as to when their laws regarding incest were first codified, however, I would assume it would be around 1875 when Colorado officially became a state.
Regardless though, it would seem that even when updates are issued to the criminal code the provisions pertaining to incest laws are laws rarely updated.
This, of course, begs the original question of Why Nick Wilson wants to update this in the first place, especially when first cousin marriage is now frowned upon and can lead to generational, genetic abnormalities? Old laws are typically modified to better match the society they govern.
Edit: Nick Wilson now claims this was filed in error, so I suppose that answers the question. See the new thread.
How many generations does "ancestor" or "descendant" factor for? This law is not prepared for cryogenics or time travel to be introduced to society
relationship of parent and child by adoption
Didn't Queers used to adopt one another before marriage equality was realized? Can this legislation be used to go after couples with those old (or current, if Obergefell gets struck down) jury-rigged marriages?
I never mentioned the time travelers or enstassised persons potentially adversely affected by this law being gay specifically, and I think in Kentucky of all places "could this be used to hurt Queer people" is a pertinent question.
Not too sure about the existing laws, but it looks like it was going to be illegal in the first draft but someone officially crossed out “first cousin” in the final draft of this legislation.
This is just how bills are filed when they're intended to amend a law. The law as it's written is included, and parts are struck out, added, etc. It's basically track changes.
Add comment