Good job living up to stereotypes, Tennessee.
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.
There are 8 billion people on this planet now. Surely you can find someone who isn’t black
Same line of reasoning, just 50 years ago.
We shouldn’t ban consenting adult relationships solely because they are icky.
are you seriously comparing marrying a black person with marrying your first cousin
Yes. Explain the difference, if you can.
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.
There’s nothing objectively wrong with either one. Both have been banned because they gross people out for purely social (bigoted) reasons.
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?
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.
Let people do what they want.
Found the guy with the hot cousin.
Most of the world actually has legal marriage between first cousins. In many places it’s not even taboo. And on top of that, the chances of genetic issues with it are actually pretty small. It’s multiple generations of first cousins having kids where it becomes a problem.
Apparently this taboo got started as thing by the Catholic Church during the medieval ages as some kind of property inheritance thing. I can’t remember the details. I remember watching a whole video that argued this anti-cousin marriage thing is where the West got it hyper individualism from, compared to the rest of the world, but I can’t find it now.
Wtf dude lmao.
These guys REALLY want to fuck close family lmao.
“My daddy fucked the shit out of mah sister momma, just like his daddy cousin did to his momma! And ba GAWD I’m gonna fuck my cousin!!” - Jim Bob Smith Senator.
banjo music intensifies
I know everyone is like “haha cousin fuckers.”
But really, do we want the government to pass laws restricting who we can and cannot marry?
I can’t help but notice the overlap with LGBT rights. I’m pretty sure I’d prefer them to not pass this law.
Like, from a legal and philosophical perspective, why is it OK for the government to restrict this? Why wouldn’t that same argument apply to gay men getting married?
Can you elaborate a little? Like do you mean that if LGBTQ is accepted, first cousins are meant to be accepted as well?
This isn’t about “acceptance” in the social sense. I’m not saying you have to accept cousin fuckers in your community.
I’m more worried about the legal framework. If it is legal to outlaw this, why is it illegal to outlaw gay marriage? Like, that doesn’t seem ideologically consistent.
I’ve noticed people on both sides are cool with laws that hurt others.
Ex: We see plenty of pot smokers supporting banning nicotine products.
Liberals aren’t immune to this just like conservatives. Most people are shit :(
nah dude. one thing hurts you and has severe impacts on your health. Inbreeding and lung cancer don’t have “both sides” of an argument. they’re bad.
