The bill as amended by Rep. Gino Bulso, R-Brentwood, would prohibit first-cousin marriage unless the parties to the marriage contract received counseling from a genetic counselor licensed by the board of medical examiners. Bulso argued during a House floor session on Thursday the bill – as written – could violate the Obergefell v. Hodges U.S. Supreme Court decision, which made same-sex marriage legal across the country.
Bulso, while explaining his reasoning, said the bill was introduced as a public health-related matter, adding the law needed to be passed to prevent cousins from getting married and conceiving a child that could have an increased risk for birth defects. Bulso argued two men who are first cousins could get married without the risk of conceiving a child with birth defects.
This is just another bigoted conservative with an agenda. He’s using this no-brainer anti-cousin-fucking law to push anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. Gino Bulso was a lawyer for just shy of 40 years before joining the Tennessee House of Reps in 2022. He knows this isn’t a reasonable argument and he doesn’t care. He’s just trying to attack Obergefell v. Hodges. He’s basically saying “See what the gays are making me vote against?! I don’t want to allow cousin-fucking but Obergefell v. Hodges says we have to! Trust me, I’m a lawyer!”
Edit: JFC nothing brings out the weirdos as quickly as an article about a ban on cousin-fucking.
Or - mind blowing possibility - maybe you’re bigoted against cousin marriage like the people you hate are bigoted against gay marriage.
The risk of genetic defects is extremely small. People don’t like it because it’s icky, which is not logically consistent. People used to think interracial marriage was icky.
Yeah, I don’t get it, personally. I’m really not a fan of governments telling people who they can fall in love with. You’d think there’s more important issues to deal with.
I mean, I know people who’s parents are cousins. It’s literally a non-issue I couldn’t give less of a fuck since they all seem happy. It’s none of my, or the government’s, business.
That said, it is weird, the lack of logic that goes on around this issue. It’s simply wrong because it’s wrong so it’s therefore good for the government to make laws prohibiting it.
What difference does it make if two people—neither of whom are you—who are cousins fuck eachother?
Even people who bring up up the alleged issue of genetic defects beg the question that governments should be passing laws in the furtherance of eugenics.
He’s a Tennessee Republican so I’m sure he’s terrible. But you don’t think there is a legal argument of a law being overly broad that restricts the rights of same sex couples where the legislative history shows it was based on increased risk of genetic mutations in pregnancy?
Maybe (probably) he’s saying it to beat on LGBTQ people, but a broken clock and all that.
Maybe (probably) he’s saying it to beat on LGBTQ people, but a broken clock and all that.
I am not willing to give republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their invocations of Obergefell v. Hodges to defend cousin-fucking. If you’d like to that’s your prerogative. But doing so is completely unearned on their part and suggests naivety on yours.
All the fuckers in here pretending they actually believe “love is love” just so they can use it as a cudgel against the absolute monsters who think incest is wrong.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Go have your bad faith arguments somewhere else.
With issues like misplaced paternity, people should be dna tested before they marry, anyway. Your first cousin might not actually be your first cousin, and the stranger you meet on the street might actually be family. I’m just saying.
You fucken jest, but there are people in this thread actually arguing that point. They’re just doing it through bad faith means like pretending this issue is at all similar to gay marriage.
Cousin fuckers are not a marginalized group. Anyone telling you different is trying to sell you an ideology.
It’s legal in Finland. It’s pretty damn rare. I wouldn’t consider it a hugely shocking thing though, cousins usually aren’t very close here. Would make for weird family relations though.
I feel like this is just an extension of the “my child, my property” mindset that republicans have. Sure, like others have argued, there might be cases of 25 year-olds genuinely falling in love with first cousins and the whole goverment-shouldn’t-regulate-love thing; but the vast majority of these cases are going to be home-schooled together groomed kids who parents fear having romantic relations outside the family might introduce them to non-conservative or non-religious viewpoints which might break their narcissistic control over their kids lives.
In Germany it is still legal to fuck your cousin. Fucking your sister is technically illegal, but carries no punishment when both are under the age of 18.
if both are consenting adults it shouldn’t be illegal. maybe there’s benefit to genetic counseling if there’s intent or possibility to have children, but it shouldn’t be illegal with or without that.
There are 8 billion people on this planet now. Surely you can find someone other than your cousin.
It really shouldn’t need to be illegal, but I guess residents of the volunteer state require a little more incentive to find dates before the holidays, rather than during them.
I mean you’re just crying about the world being unfair because you’re a virgin. I’d calm the pretentiousness here. I’ll give you a hint: that behavior is a cause as to why you feel that way. Does this need to be dumbed down more? Or do you need to ask a few more wastefully empty replies that add absolutely nothing?
The irony here is astounding. You started off insulting me, and in multiple comments now. The original statement of there being someone for everyone still remains true.
The just world fallacy is about people getting what they deserve.
That doesn’t seem to really apply to the statistical argument that there are enough people out there, the chance for any given individual to not have any shot is effectively (if perhaps not precisely) zero. Small enough to not be worth considering.
Really? Then why the fuck everyone keeps saying you’ll find someone?
Fuck it. I’m not going to argue with ingenious morons anymore, who are either pretending to be dumb or are actually dumb to understand what I am saying. Bye.
No, I want you to explain your reasoning, you’re the one who made it. please explain how marrying a black person is just like marrying your first cousin.
Incorrect. One results in higher than normal birth defects that exacerbate over time, and one is perfectly healthy. We, as a society, should try to limit birth defects, no? Are you also in favor of bringing back thalidomide?
that’s not true, and false equivalencies only serve to make you seem more ridiculous. You’re gross, and your kink is historically shamed because it destroys us a viable species. I feel sorry for the people in your life.
Facts. You just don’t like it because of the ick, and the cognitive dissonance is making you angry. No one likes when it’s pointed out that they’re acting irrationally.
no, I don’t. you seem pretty intent on trying to make me tho. banning first cousin marriages doesn’t lead to us banning all pregnancies began after the mother is 34. you’re using a logical fallacy of the slippery slope and it doesn’t apply.
It’s not a slippery slope, it’s the exact same thing. The same excuse you use for banning incest equally applies to women over 34 giving birth. Banning that would not be a slippery slope, it would be an equivalence.
no it wouldn’t and that’s your logical fallacy. banning consanguineous marriage does not mean banning all women over the age of 34 from giving birth. You’re wrong.
wanting to ban first cousin marriages does not equate to banning pregnancies from woman aged 34 and older. How many times do you need this repeated to you?
Out of curiosity, are you chill with incest if the couple is incapable of biological reproduction? (They’re the same sex, one or both has been sterilized, ect.)
It increases the risk of birth defects slightly but not as much as people seem to think.
a single first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30
Most on Lemmy and other lefty spaces are of the “two consenting adults can do what they want” mind but take an inconsistent turn on this, seemingly because it’s “icky” to them.
How is that any different than conservatives being anti-gay because it’s “icky” to them?
It’s not because it’s “icky”, it’s because if you both have the same grandma then you only have one snickerdoodle recipe for Christmas cookies, genetically speaking.
I never called for a ban. I said maybe go out and explore the forest before climbing up the family tree. And it’s my understanding that most women understand the risk of procreating after 40 and typically avoid it.
But I’m not your daddy. You don’t need my approval to fuck your uncle’s kids.
It really shouldn’t need to be illegal, but I guess residents of the volunteer state require a little more incentive to find dates before the holidays, rather than during them.
I took this to mean that those who don’t voluntarily choose to not marry/have sex with their cousins need to be forced not to by law (a ban). Did I misread that?
Genetically, first cousins are fine. It does slightly increase some risks, I think doubles at most for some very low likelihood cases. I don’t know that it’s any more irresponsible than reproducing with someone that has a family history of genetically passed diseases.
Humans were tribal until very recently, and reproducing with non-immediate relatives was normal. If it were that detrimental, we would not have survived as a species.
As a Texan I’m not sure if I should thank Tennessee for making us seem a little less horrible or curse them for taking attention away from our bat-shittery.
Add comment