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.
“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
This was a mistake in the bill which he retracted, amended and resubmitted.
The first cousins are safe, legally anyway.
What I don’t get is I assume they had a law so why was this needed?
Yea, news article I saw said he posted this about it
I filed HB 269 yesterday. 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 uncles, stepdads or 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.
During the drafting process, there was an inadvertent change, which struck “first cousins” from the list of relationships included under the incest statute, and I failed to add it back in. During today’s session, I will withdraw HB 269 and refile a bill with the “first cousin” language intact. The fact that I was able to file a bill, catch the mistake, withdraw the bill and refile within a 24 hour period shows that we have a good system.
This is a bill to combat a problem of familial and cyclical abuse that transcends generations of Kentuckians. I understand that I made a mistake, but I sincerely hope my mistake doesn’t hurt the chances of the corrected version of the bill. It is a good bill, and I hope it will get a second chance.
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.
You say consenting adults, the bill says one of them can be as young as 13 years…
Yes, and I’ll counter that argument by suggesting we ban having sex with children regardless of if the molester is related.
Right? It’s only like 1.7 to 2.8% more of a chance of a birth defect. That’s nothing. That’s gambling odds easy. Every day.
It largely depends on how prevalent it is socially.
In societies where first cousin reproduction isn’t common, the increased risk of birth defects is about the same as a pregnancy where the mother is in her 40s.
In societies where it is common, the rates can go up sharply though when it compounds across generations.
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 have a visceral, what I think is instinctual, revulsion at the concept of incest.
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.
The majority of cases of incest involve sexual abuse and frequently pedophilia.
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?
Incest is, by definition, sexual relations between people too closely related. The question here is whether or not first cousins should count as incest.
I suppose I should better clarify terms here:
- incest is a social/legal term
- inbreeding is a biological term
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.
But next time you debate with someone opposed to homosexuality, ask yourself if they think their revulsion to it is a visceral, instinctual response.
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.
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 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):
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
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 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.
Red River Gorge enjoyer?
Once in a while I grab a slice at Miguel’s and occasionally stick the dyno on June Bug
I used to go backpacking in the gorge like every spring break through hs and college, and I loved seeing Miguel stickers show up all over the country. An ale 8 and a slice of Miguel’s is a fantastic way to end a trip
Sometimes, a picture and a headline is all you need.
How is this important enough to occupy the time of our politicians?
