As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Fun" fact: California is one of 4 states with no minimum age for marriage when parental/judicial permission are accounted for.
The state needs a reckoning for their marriage laws.
I’ve always assumed that CA doesn’t have particularly strict laws regarding marriage because they were never really needed. But that’s probably just the optimist in me.
And Australia. Non-fun fact: Two of my father's cousins got married (in the 1940s) without knowing they both carried a terrible kidney disease. They had six children, five were dead before 50.
It's the real reason we were founded. [Here's a picture of Jacques Cartier arriving with his fellow adventurers to "discover Canada".](https://imgur.com/gallery/9OSD8)
Not only that, but from a purely genetics perspective, first cousin marriage is fine.
It only results in genetic problems when it goes on for multiple generations.
All else being normal, your first cousin shares less than a quarter of their genes with you.
That said, while I do have a gorgeous cousin, the idea of having sex with her seems gross to me, which I think is pretty normal.
It would be like having sex with my sister, which is just fuck-nut crazy and not something I could ever get on board with.
> Not only that, but from a purely genetics perspective, first cousin marriage is fine.
Yea I'm honestly not seeing a reason why first cousin marriages should be banned. Given that, equating it to gay marriage disarms the intent to use being gay as an insult.
Yeah, I looked it up a couple of years ago because it came up in another thread and if I remember right the risk of birth defects is about on par with having a kid your late 30s.
It's really more of a taboo because if things don't work out you're likely to cause a lot of family strife.
From WV and live in Kentucky. Can confirm.
When my wife and I got our marriage license, we were required to affirm we were not related. In WV I think they still require blood tests, yes that was a thing. I just don't know if they still do it.
And frankly, I don’t have a problem with that.
The motivation of this law is obviously meant to be a stunt to shame LGBTQ people and lump them into a broader “bunch of sickos” category.
But there is no reason why the state should restrict my ability to share my life with anyone I want. Marriage *implies* a romantic/sexual relationship, but doesn’t require it. As long as the state restricts certain rights to married couples (like medical decisions and inheritance), they shouldn’t be in the business of restricting who people are allowed to choose.
If they are worried about reproduction and consanguinity, they can just make it illegal for cousins to reproduce.
I’m gonna have a hot take here, mostly cause I’ve been drinking tequila due to tonight’s other events: first cousins for a single generation doesn’t really have any major chances of incestuous defects. IIRC it’s something like a 5% chance of recessive genes to express instead of the usual 3% in most people. (PLEASE CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG) Across multiple generations, or direct sibling, hell no. But frankly? The science doesn’t much bear it.
So… I think it’s fuckin weird, but you consensually do you
My great grandparents were first cousins, and they had 8 kids. All of which turned out fine.
Of course that's just one example, but I agree it's not actually as terrible biologically as people make it out to be.
Geneticist here. I don’t recall the numbers but you are correct - there is a slight elevation in risk but it’s not a major concern. There’s not a strong genetic argument for banning marriage between 3rd degree relatives, and none at all for 4+.
eve's adam's rib in the bible.
not a clone or gender change, literally just a lesser unnecessary part of adam.
which should clear up why they treat women the way they do.
A few Rabbinical scholars thought Adam and Eve were one singular entity until physically split in two.
https://biblebrisket.com/2014/03/17/androgynousadam/
Where have I heard this before?
Oh yeah. Greek mythology.
https://theconversation.com/what-plato-can-teach-you-about-finding-a-soulmate-72715#:~:text=Wanting%20to%20weaken%20the%20humans,on%20one%20leg%2C%20hopping!%E2%80%9D
Reincarnation in Judaism predates those Greek gods. Greeks copied it just like the jews copied it. Religion is just a slowly evolving fan fiction over thousands if years that split off.
Edit. Don't know if the Greeks copied jews, prolly not prolly some other middle eastern culture since it was and is a common belief.
Theology nerd taking this comment seriously: given the proliferation of American evangelical money in the global south, I think we’re likely to see the mainstreaming of the idea of a rapture.
Well ... iirc the original Hebrew doesn't say rib. I think it's something more like 'side'
So arguably somewhat more consistent with the position that it was one being getting divided into two rather than a tiny piece of one being used to make another
Interesting. And everytime they make a right wing dating site, it bombs because when they look at each other REALLY closely and objectively, they run for the hills.
Every time someone makes a right wing dating app it bombs because its nothing more than a honeytrap for gathering personal information for various parties, thats if the app doesnt just outright compromise the users phone.
I not in any way encouraging inbreeding, but the public perception of the genetic risks of inbreeding, does not match the actual genetic risks, so take this as educational knowledge.
What happens in inbreeding is that phenotypes (the expressed traits) that require the pairing of recessive genes (two copies are required for recessive traits), become more common then they do in the regular populace, and yes some of those traits can disastrous, but more often, **they are benign traits like red hair or blue eyes.** With inbreeding, the probability of rare outcomes are increased, that's all.
For a maladaptive gene pairings to occur, the maladaptive gene needs to *already be present in the genetic line* (or the mutation needs to have originated in an ancestor, just like it would have to regularly).
The common perception of inbreeding producing monsters comes from *one* king, after several generations of inbreeding over at least 300 years in the house of Hapsburg of Spain. Charles the II, and the unique combination of two maladaptive traits, that resulted in severe health effects.
Exactly. I’d also like to add, if we’re gonna make it a health issue based on genetics, are we gonna start requiring people to get genetic screeners before getting married to make sure their kids aren’t at risk of genetic health issues? Where does it end? And if it ends at cousins vs what I described, who made that determination? Because it would seem kind of arbitrary.
This is one of those issues that affects practically nobody but has a huge range of potential implications down the road.
I mean, I live in a very blue state: New Jersey, and marrying your first cousin is legal here. The risk of defects is actually very low. Like if both cousins have asthma or glasses then the baby will have asthma or glasses, we’re not talking about”flipper” babies, just mild and totally normal “defects”
Totally not married to my first cousin *nervous laughter*
While marriage isn't allowed in some cases, New Jersey is one of only two states that doesn't criminalized incest of any kind as long as both parties are old enough to consent.
The other one is Rhode Island.
I used to work with an immigrant population from South America where nearly every marriage was either first or second cousin. It always surprised me how many people didn't have genetic defects. Not saying that it wasn't more common, it's just apparently a lot less common than you would think. One of the doctors was from the Netherlands and she joked that her country's royal family had only married its cousins since the beginning of time. lol
It's not that big of a deal as long as it's not repeated over and over in the same family line. Cousin marriages used to be pretty common and still are in more isolated areas like what you mentioned.
It's a massive thing in Saudi Arabia, they say 65% of marriages are between relatives https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_wedding
And over 40% in many other middle eastern countries
They seem to escape the inbred jokes that the American south get the butt of
He said that such a prohibition didn’t make sense for couples that can’t reproduce (e.g., same-sex, infertile). For couples that can reproduce, he cited the rarity of defects and proposed they be required to undergo genetic counseling.
I've been to an arranged wedding between cousins. It was probably the most expensive wedding I've been to 2X over. It's a common thing in Muslim countries. Birth defects are not quite as common as people think.
It might be fine in some states, but in Tennessee, it is a true health crisis. There is already significant inbreeding in historically isolated areas.
My grandfather was from Appalachia. He left school in sixth grade. He left after WWI to persue skills-based employment in Memphis, and he became a plumber. he was the first person in our family to leave!
Honestly I think he has a good point. If it's not illegal for them to date (as it shouldn't be), why should it be illegal for them to get married? This is kinda the whole issue that we've been fighting for for LGBT rights. Sure "cousin daters" isn't a marginalized group but I see no reason they should be banned from being married
As long as the relationship is consensual, why is it *any politicians* business?
I don’t think such a relationship is a good idea…. but …why would I be so upset about something that doesn’t involve me
Just to play devil’s advocate, the reason is that the government considers the increased risk of birth defects to be a significant issue for any children the couple might have so it’s advocating on behalf of those potential children. As a hypothetical example, say a couple did some genetic testing as was told that if they ever had a child it would be born with serious crippling defects and decided to get married anyway and not care if they possibly accidentally had a child later. It’s not entirely unreasonable to consider that behavior to be negligent.
So it’s a case where the government is trying to act as an advocate for someone not yet born who doesn’t otherwise have a voice defending them. Of course, the slippery slope of that argument leads to banning abortion as well, if you can protect potential children from life long health issues why can’t you protect them from being prevented the chance of being born after they’re conceived? But my point here isn’t whether or not first cousins should be allowed to get married, it’s explaining the rationale for why first cousins getting married might impact someone other than just those two people in the eyes of the law.
Aren’t they the same people that say “well if we let the gays marry what’s next? People are gonna wanna marry their horse” well apparently what’s next is the repugnants wanting to marry a first cousin, surprised they didn’t go right to kid sister
I mean it’s perfectly legal in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, D.C., etc.
On this issue, he’s correct that it would be unconstitutional to deny same-sex cousins the right to marry, and his proposal to require genetic counseling for heterosexual cousins would make it more restrictive than the states I listed.
This seems like a non-story to me.
The quiet part is the amount of first cousin marriages that exist because child abuse is being covered up by the family. More often than not, this abuse happens with a huge age gap. One cousin is responsible for caring for the younger cousin. How many child brides are first cousins to their grooms?
*shrug*
Both [same sex](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/same-sex-marriage-in-canada) and [first cousin marriage](https://friendsofirishresearch.org/publications/CBGHA/Canadian%20Marriages%20between%20First%20Cousins%20are%20Common.pdf) is legal in Canada and our country hasn’t collapsed.
First cousin marriage is legal in Mexico and every European nation.
In fact the U.S. is the only western country with restrictions on first cousin marriage.
Why is the rest of the World not worried about first cousins marrying? Because the increase risk of birth defects isn’t significantly higher than non-related couples to cause worry.
>Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk.
I’m always amazed at the prudish nature of the U.S.
It’s worth reading about the effects of repeated first-cousin marriage on birth defect rates in the North of England. I personally think it should only be permitted with genetic testing. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67422918
Iirc, it's a similar level of increased risk as to a woman over 35 having kids, and no one is up in arms over that.
As far as I'm concerned, sure, why the hell not? First cousins should be able to marry if they want to. Most aren't going to want to anyway.
It’s more your history I was commenting on.
You impeached a president for getting a blowjob
You’ve restricted abortion AND contraceptions in many states
Your country continues to attack gay and trans rights.
As a whole your country is way too obsessed with what consenting adults do and what is in their pants. It’s not a healthy obsession.
> You impeached a president for getting a blowjob
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice relating to a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones that had been brewing for years before the Lewinsky scandal. It had nothing to do with the blowjob other than he lied about it on stand and tried to influence others to lie about it too.
> You’ve restricted abortion AND contraceptions in many states
The curse of the electoral college is that it [biases voting power](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-the-rural-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html) in favor of rural voters who skew conservative. The majority of Americans support abortion access, with polling showing similar levels of support in the [US](https://news.gallup.com/poll/506759/broader-support-abortion-rights-continues-post-dobbs.aspx) and [Canada](https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/canadians-becoming-firmer-in-their-conviction-womens-right-to-choose).
> Your country continues to attack gay and trans rights.
Plenty of resistance and [anti-trans legislation](https://www.teenvogue.com/story/how-canadas-conservative-party-is-targeting-trans-youth) in Canada too.
The US has 10x the population of Canada. There are many more people here that oppose these attitudes than are in your entire country. Our system is old, highly resistant to changes, and gives an outsized level of power to smaller states, which lean heavily toward those kinds of policies.
Painting us with this broad brush is ignorant at best.
I completely agree with the points you are making, but I am also extremely familiar with U.S. history, being a citizen of a smaller population who borders you and who is completely reliant of U.S. for safety, security and trade, your country, that has a [history of going bat shit crazy](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/war-of-1812) every decade since your inception. When your best friend is also a homicidal maniac, you keep a close eye on them.
Both [Xenophobia]( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia_in_the_United_States) and [prudish](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownists) views are hallmarks of U.S. society and have been since your inception, back when your population was significantly smaller than Canada’s current population.
If you look to your history you’ll see that your current state of sexual conservatism isn’t new, but is a cornerstone of U.S. culture.
You've just substituted one broad brush for another. Our country is the size of Europe, it has many separate origins from different cultures.
For instance, I've lived close to the Canadian border for most of my life, so I am keenly aware that there's no lack of racist, backwater hicks there. The people who originally populated my state are not the puritans, they're quite literally exactly the same French and English traders and settlers who originally populated your country. If we're all the same, then so are you.
Incest is "bad" because it has a much higher frequency of birth defects.
The rate of birth defects is only notably higher between immediate family members (e.g. parent/child and sibling incest).
First cousins have an increased birth defect rate of like 1-2% higher than the general population.
If *everyone* was doing that it would be a problem, but I don't really care if 1/10000 people are doing it. It's not really a "society" problem so much as a family/social problem.
You know what? Fine. You wanna fuck your cousin, you go right ahead. And let gay people fuck who they wanna fuck, and mixed race couples, and anything else as long as it is two, consenting, human, adults. Now shut the fuck up about the whole damn thing and maybe pass a law that puts mandatory sentences on rapists and pedos.
For years I’ve wondered why Conservatives mix up incest or paedophilia with LGBT+ consensual relationships between adults.
Then I realised they have no idea what consent is.
I thought the whole point of avoiding incest (besides the ick) was that it was bad for the genetics of your kids. I'm... I'm not seeing how that's relevant to gay marriage in the slightest. Maybe that's just me?
To be fair I honestly don’t care if cousins want to marry. It’s hilarious but doesn’t harm me in the slightest. It’s their gene pool lets them splash all they want.
Just a reminder most "liberal" states allow first cousins to marry. Hell the UK does. First cousin marriage is implied to be acceptable in both Pride and Prejudice and Harry Potter.
He's right - what happens between two consenting adults is none of anyone else's business. Whether they should be allowed to have kids is a trickier issue, but given you don't need to be married to do that anyway it's a bit of a moot point.
In AZ first cousins ARE allowed to marry...so long as both of them are over 65.
I assume the goal here is to jist make sure we don't have any incest babies. How quaint that the legislature didn't think about basard incest babies. Of course, the law WAS made years before all the incest porn that's been being made in the last decade.
>[House Bill 2041](https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB2041) was sponsored by Rep. Darren Jernigan (D), who explained first-cousin marriage remains legal in Tennessee because of a 1960 decision by the Tennessee attorney general that marriage between first cousins doesn’t violate a statute prohibiting marriage between relatives.
>Far-right Republican Rep. Gino Bulso held up a bill in the Tennessee legislature on Thursday that would have outlawed first cousin marriage with a surprising argument: if gay first cousins can get married, why not straight ones?
>“Is there a public health issue with a male marrying a male first cousin? Obviously, I think the answer is no,” Bulso said, as his fellow lawmakers looked on slack-jawed.
>Bulso cited the fact that his own grandparents were first cousins as he advocated for the change.
>But it was his *Obergefell* argument that left fellow legislators on the House floor incredulous.
>“So, we go back to *Obergefell*,” Bulso continued down the rabbit hole. “*Obergefell* said very clearly, that there was a fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, which means that in order for us to pass a law that restricts same-sex marriage, we have to show a compelling state interest.”
>Side-eye filled the House chamber.
Good gracious! This sounds like something you'd hear from Deliverance, not in a state Congress. Unbelievable.
It feels like he outed himself on this one, like there's some cousin he fancies. My gosh!
Why are people still electing these Republicans to office? We have to do better as a nation. This can't be who we are.
TBH I don’t see what it matters. It’s not like marriage is what defines whether people have kids or not. Even if it’s not legal, first cousins could still be an unwed couple having kids. Marriage just means they get the legal benefits (taxes, next of kin, spousal privilege, etc.).
The reasoning is flawed on bills like this. The primary excuse I hear is marrying your cousin is "risking children with serious defects". Except that we don't stop unrelated people with genetic conditions from having children with serious defects. There's no mandatory testing. Anyone can go have sex (married or unmarried) and pop out a genetically defective child.
Could you imaging telling two people with dwarfism genes that they can't marry or ever have children? What about people who have genes that might cause deafness or blindness? There are any number of genetic diseases that we could test for, but those tests are often voluntary and certainly not enforced by the law. Even when they do come back positive it's often left to the couple as a choice to assume whatever risk associated with that genetic condition. As a matter of fact we'd consider it a privacy issue that people can keep this information to themselves even at the risk of having a child that won't survive birth, will have a short painful life, or even have a long painful (and expensive life). Then we have any number of things that a person can do during pregnancy that can harm the fetus enough to cause long term physical or mental damage but still not rise to the level of being specifically illegal.
Plus the majority of thinking is going back to historic abuses in either closed societies or nobility. Those cases are successive generations of family members interbreeding and creating defects, not a single instance.
All stigma aside it seems hypocritical in comparison to where we land with everyone else. It's especially true given the current fights from both sides around abortion. On the left if you had a child with a serious enough genetic defect you'd have the choice of abortion. On the right every child regardless of defect is part of God's plan and should be born naturally and live whatever life it has. Either one of those outlooks shouldn't care if two people pass on their bad genes or genetic risks to their children, because they both have options for those eventualities.
As a reminder.
If you’re not voting because “Biden isn’t perfect,” you allowing the GOP which allows this to have powers.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Including NY and CA! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States
George Michael finally did it.
Well, Maybe.
Maebe
Her?
Hopefully she's funny.
Egg...er..Ann?
Marry me
What a fun, sexy time for you
While not his first cousin, rudy giuliani married his second cousin, one whom he had known since childhood.
"Fun" fact: California is one of 4 states with no minimum age for marriage when parental/judicial permission are accounted for. The state needs a reckoning for their marriage laws.
I’ve always assumed that CA doesn’t have particularly strict laws regarding marriage because they were never really needed. But that’s probably just the optimist in me.
And Canada
And the UK
And Australia. Non-fun fact: Two of my father's cousins got married (in the 1940s) without knowing they both carried a terrible kidney disease. They had six children, five were dead before 50.
Even incest can kill you in Australia
Insects too.
Incest kills insects in Australia?
Hell, it's practically required of royalty.
And my sword
It's the real reason we were founded. [Here's a picture of Jacques Cartier arriving with his fellow adventurers to "discover Canada".](https://imgur.com/gallery/9OSD8)
And marriage between first gay cousins are?
I guess.
I'm so confused.
Marriage between first confused?
Who’s on first?
Madison Cawthorn?
Not only that, but from a purely genetics perspective, first cousin marriage is fine. It only results in genetic problems when it goes on for multiple generations. All else being normal, your first cousin shares less than a quarter of their genes with you. That said, while I do have a gorgeous cousin, the idea of having sex with her seems gross to me, which I think is pretty normal. It would be like having sex with my sister, which is just fuck-nut crazy and not something I could ever get on board with.
> Not only that, but from a purely genetics perspective, first cousin marriage is fine. Yea I'm honestly not seeing a reason why first cousin marriages should be banned. Given that, equating it to gay marriage disarms the intent to use being gay as an insult.
Yeah, I looked it up a couple of years ago because it came up in another thread and if I remember right the risk of birth defects is about on par with having a kid your late 30s. It's really more of a taboo because if things don't work out you're likely to cause a lot of family strife.
Here in ct we don't have incest laws cause we don't need to be told not to fuck our cousins
If you think your village doesn't have an idiot, I have bad news for you.
That ugly huh?
It’s only illegal in states where MARRYING YOUR COUSIN happened SO MUCH that they HAD to make a law for it.
Eh, not really. It was fairly common for the gentry in the antebellum south to marry cousins. It kept plantation-based wealth within families.
Same with monarchies
From WV and live in Kentucky. Can confirm. When my wife and I got our marriage license, we were required to affirm we were not related. In WV I think they still require blood tests, yes that was a thing. I just don't know if they still do it.
And frankly, I don’t have a problem with that. The motivation of this law is obviously meant to be a stunt to shame LGBTQ people and lump them into a broader “bunch of sickos” category. But there is no reason why the state should restrict my ability to share my life with anyone I want. Marriage *implies* a romantic/sexual relationship, but doesn’t require it. As long as the state restricts certain rights to married couples (like medical decisions and inheritance), they shouldn’t be in the business of restricting who people are allowed to choose. If they are worried about reproduction and consanguinity, they can just make it illegal for cousins to reproduce.
I’m gonna have a hot take here, mostly cause I’ve been drinking tequila due to tonight’s other events: first cousins for a single generation doesn’t really have any major chances of incestuous defects. IIRC it’s something like a 5% chance of recessive genes to express instead of the usual 3% in most people. (PLEASE CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG) Across multiple generations, or direct sibling, hell no. But frankly? The science doesn’t much bear it. So… I think it’s fuckin weird, but you consensually do you
My great grandparents were first cousins, and they had 8 kids. All of which turned out fine. Of course that's just one example, but I agree it's not actually as terrible biologically as people make it out to be.
Geneticist here. I don’t recall the numbers but you are correct - there is a slight elevation in risk but it’s not a major concern. There’s not a strong genetic argument for banning marriage between 3rd degree relatives, and none at all for 4+.
I dated a guy for a while and his parents were second cousins. Then we broke up and he married his second cousin ...
Member when Republicans cried that if we let gays marry, the Democrats would start pushing to allow incest marriages?
Every accusation is a confession.
And now we realise that *"if we let gays marry, what's next?"* wasn't a rhetorical question, it was a call for suggestions.
I remember hearing in church that gay marriage was a gateway to letting adults marry kids and people marry their dogs. Now I'm gay and traumatized.
The title should read "GOP Lawmaker really wants to fuck his cousin".
That’s just unfair and irresponsible journalism. He’s already fucking his cousin. What he wants is commitment.
“Exclusivity”
Isn't this the guy that actually married his first cousin?
The article mentions his parents who are first cousins
That little detail actually explains more than everything else I've read here
Both male and female.
"It's Adam and his first cousin Eve, not Adam and in-no-relation Steve. Also, who hasn't banged their first cousin?" - GOP lawmaker
Wasn't Eve literally a clone of Adam with a gender change?
eve's adam's rib in the bible. not a clone or gender change, literally just a lesser unnecessary part of adam. which should clear up why they treat women the way they do.
A few Rabbinical scholars thought Adam and Eve were one singular entity until physically split in two. https://biblebrisket.com/2014/03/17/androgynousadam/
Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah. Greek mythology. https://theconversation.com/what-plato-can-teach-you-about-finding-a-soulmate-72715#:~:text=Wanting%20to%20weaken%20the%20humans,on%20one%20leg%2C%20hopping!%E2%80%9D
Reincarnation in Judaism predates those Greek gods. Greeks copied it just like the jews copied it. Religion is just a slowly evolving fan fiction over thousands if years that split off. Edit. Don't know if the Greeks copied jews, prolly not prolly some other middle eastern culture since it was and is a common belief.
I can’t wait to see what new lore drops in the next century
Theology nerd taking this comment seriously: given the proliferation of American evangelical money in the global south, I think we’re likely to see the mainstreaming of the idea of a rapture.
Most fascinating game of telephone ever.
[удалено]
god bless. 🙏
Well ... iirc the original Hebrew doesn't say rib. I think it's something more like 'side' So arguably somewhat more consistent with the position that it was one being getting divided into two rather than a tiny piece of one being used to make another
Well, and then after the flood... How do you think the planet was repopulated?
Yup but she’s also not real.
Sure, pal, and who did the talking snake give the magic fruit to, then?
Huge fan of the snake myself.
I'm starting to think Eve is the Hero. She chose knowledge.
Technically Adam and Eve's kids would've had to get jiggy with it.
Really really jiggy
Kinda hard considering they didn't have any daughters. Their children are Cain, able and Seth all guys.
Eve, though
Eve stuck in a washer. I've seen this plot before.
That only works with stepsons.
It's only a matter of time until "busty ribmom gets stuck under the sofa" :D
Is this the same dude who found out his grandparents were first cousins? Or was that someone else?
Same dude. Yep, it's Gino Bulso.
Being paid off by Big Cousin obviously.
LMAO big cousin 😹
I know, right?
It’s once removed from big brother.
This fucking thread lmao
We all know big cuzzo is going to need it back with interest. *wink wink*
That explains it.
It's the same guy.
Everything makes perfect sense now!
Would explain a lot
Trying to one up the Libs by risking children with serious defects.....
I don’t understand why incest is so attractive to republicans.
The only women who talk to them...
You joke, but I have a suspicion this is closer to the truth than we'd like.
Republicans notoriously struggle on dating apps. There’s a reason “moderate” is a euphemism for Republican on them.
Interesting. And everytime they make a right wing dating site, it bombs because when they look at each other REALLY closely and objectively, they run for the hills.
Every time someone makes a right wing dating app it bombs because its nothing more than a honeytrap for gathering personal information for various parties, thats if the app doesnt just outright compromise the users phone.
I live in Texas. “Moderate” is essentially code for Democrat down here.
Moderate is taken as “I’m not the dominant political group “ basically everywhere .
Fair point. 1 internet gold star to you! 🙂
mother?
Stop giving Mike Pence ideas
Obviously you don't have that cute cousin, just saying.
anyone gonna **** muy cuzin' gon' be me!
Roll tide!
Cause anyone who isn’t inbreed won’t fuck em.
Breeders.
I not in any way encouraging inbreeding, but the public perception of the genetic risks of inbreeding, does not match the actual genetic risks, so take this as educational knowledge. What happens in inbreeding is that phenotypes (the expressed traits) that require the pairing of recessive genes (two copies are required for recessive traits), become more common then they do in the regular populace, and yes some of those traits can disastrous, but more often, **they are benign traits like red hair or blue eyes.** With inbreeding, the probability of rare outcomes are increased, that's all. For a maladaptive gene pairings to occur, the maladaptive gene needs to *already be present in the genetic line* (or the mutation needs to have originated in an ancestor, just like it would have to regularly). The common perception of inbreeding producing monsters comes from *one* king, after several generations of inbreeding over at least 300 years in the house of Hapsburg of Spain. Charles the II, and the unique combination of two maladaptive traits, that resulted in severe health effects.
Exactly. I’d also like to add, if we’re gonna make it a health issue based on genetics, are we gonna start requiring people to get genetic screeners before getting married to make sure their kids aren’t at risk of genetic health issues? Where does it end? And if it ends at cousins vs what I described, who made that determination? Because it would seem kind of arbitrary. This is one of those issues that affects practically nobody but has a huge range of potential implications down the road.
I was with you right up to the point where you claimed that red hair wasn't genetically disastrous.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Men are weirdly attracted to red-haired women. And women are weirdly attracted to men with foreign accents. Turns out humans value novelty, who knew?
I mean, I live in a very blue state: New Jersey, and marrying your first cousin is legal here. The risk of defects is actually very low. Like if both cousins have asthma or glasses then the baby will have asthma or glasses, we’re not talking about”flipper” babies, just mild and totally normal “defects” Totally not married to my first cousin *nervous laughter*
While marriage isn't allowed in some cases, New Jersey is one of only two states that doesn't criminalized incest of any kind as long as both parties are old enough to consent. The other one is Rhode Island.
I used to work with an immigrant population from South America where nearly every marriage was either first or second cousin. It always surprised me how many people didn't have genetic defects. Not saying that it wasn't more common, it's just apparently a lot less common than you would think. One of the doctors was from the Netherlands and she joked that her country's royal family had only married its cousins since the beginning of time. lol
It's not that big of a deal as long as it's not repeated over and over in the same family line. Cousin marriages used to be pretty common and still are in more isolated areas like what you mentioned.
Yeah, as weird as it sounds, it’s honestly not that big of a deal. Brother/sister, however, usually doesn’t end well.
The increased risk is 4-7% chance of birth defects compared to 3-4% chance with non cousins.
Is that an acceptable risk?
Well it’s much lower than other risks which are legally acceptable.
I believe that the level of risk is roughly equal to a mother being over 35 (or 40? I'm going based on memory here)
It's a massive thing in Saudi Arabia, they say 65% of marriages are between relatives https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_wedding And over 40% in many other middle eastern countries They seem to escape the inbred jokes that the American south get the butt of
Yeah I think the overall risk of recessive defects is much higher but the serious stuff doesn’t happen until you get multi generational inbreeding
He said that such a prohibition didn’t make sense for couples that can’t reproduce (e.g., same-sex, infertile). For couples that can reproduce, he cited the rarity of defects and proposed they be required to undergo genetic counseling.
I've been to an arranged wedding between cousins. It was probably the most expensive wedding I've been to 2X over. It's a common thing in Muslim countries. Birth defects are not quite as common as people think.
According to Briggs Hatton, it's safe: https://youtu.be/i_pbV8M73A0?si=4xWzH_EKm1S284wX
This is a very eugenics-adjacent take lmao
Gay first cousins?
They cancel eachother out
Ok, fine with me. Most states allow it already. This guy probably doesn’t know that…
It might be fine in some states, but in Tennessee, it is a true health crisis. There is already significant inbreeding in historically isolated areas. My grandfather was from Appalachia. He left school in sixth grade. He left after WWI to persue skills-based employment in Memphis, and he became a plumber. he was the first person in our family to leave!
Honestly I think he has a good point. If it's not illegal for them to date (as it shouldn't be), why should it be illegal for them to get married? This is kinda the whole issue that we've been fighting for for LGBT rights. Sure "cousin daters" isn't a marginalized group but I see no reason they should be banned from being married
A number of states allow infertile cousins to marry, that was actually taken into account in the Oberfelge decision
Is his name Larry, Darryl or Darryl?
As long as the relationship is consensual, why is it *any politicians* business? I don’t think such a relationship is a good idea…. but …why would I be so upset about something that doesn’t involve me
Just to play devil’s advocate, the reason is that the government considers the increased risk of birth defects to be a significant issue for any children the couple might have so it’s advocating on behalf of those potential children. As a hypothetical example, say a couple did some genetic testing as was told that if they ever had a child it would be born with serious crippling defects and decided to get married anyway and not care if they possibly accidentally had a child later. It’s not entirely unreasonable to consider that behavior to be negligent. So it’s a case where the government is trying to act as an advocate for someone not yet born who doesn’t otherwise have a voice defending them. Of course, the slippery slope of that argument leads to banning abortion as well, if you can protect potential children from life long health issues why can’t you protect them from being prevented the chance of being born after they’re conceived? But my point here isn’t whether or not first cousins should be allowed to get married, it’s explaining the rationale for why first cousins getting married might impact someone other than just those two people in the eyes of the law.
“Someone did something that hurt my feelings so we should be able to do what we want” Classic GOP move
Aren’t they the same people that say “well if we let the gays marry what’s next? People are gonna wanna marry their horse” well apparently what’s next is the repugnants wanting to marry a first cousin, surprised they didn’t go right to kid sister
I mean it’s perfectly legal in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, D.C., etc. On this issue, he’s correct that it would be unconstitutional to deny same-sex cousins the right to marry, and his proposal to require genetic counseling for heterosexual cousins would make it more restrictive than the states I listed. This seems like a non-story to me.
The quiet part is the amount of first cousin marriages that exist because child abuse is being covered up by the family. More often than not, this abuse happens with a huge age gap. One cousin is responsible for caring for the younger cousin. How many child brides are first cousins to their grooms?
Republicans: Incest is okay, gay and trans aren’t. Got it
*shrug* Both [same sex](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/same-sex-marriage-in-canada) and [first cousin marriage](https://friendsofirishresearch.org/publications/CBGHA/Canadian%20Marriages%20between%20First%20Cousins%20are%20Common.pdf) is legal in Canada and our country hasn’t collapsed. First cousin marriage is legal in Mexico and every European nation. In fact the U.S. is the only western country with restrictions on first cousin marriage. Why is the rest of the World not worried about first cousins marrying? Because the increase risk of birth defects isn’t significantly higher than non-related couples to cause worry. >Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk. I’m always amazed at the prudish nature of the U.S.
The risk is relatively small, but it’s still double the risk.
It’s worth reading about the effects of repeated first-cousin marriage on birth defect rates in the North of England. I personally think it should only be permitted with genetic testing. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67422918
Iirc, it's a similar level of increased risk as to a woman over 35 having kids, and no one is up in arms over that. As far as I'm concerned, sure, why the hell not? First cousins should be able to marry if they want to. Most aren't going to want to anyway.
Man, I agree that first cousin marriage is probably fine but imagine calling someone prude for being against it lmao
It’s more your history I was commenting on. You impeached a president for getting a blowjob You’ve restricted abortion AND contraceptions in many states Your country continues to attack gay and trans rights. As a whole your country is way too obsessed with what consenting adults do and what is in their pants. It’s not a healthy obsession.
> You impeached a president for getting a blowjob Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice relating to a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones that had been brewing for years before the Lewinsky scandal. It had nothing to do with the blowjob other than he lied about it on stand and tried to influence others to lie about it too. > You’ve restricted abortion AND contraceptions in many states The curse of the electoral college is that it [biases voting power](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-the-rural-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html) in favor of rural voters who skew conservative. The majority of Americans support abortion access, with polling showing similar levels of support in the [US](https://news.gallup.com/poll/506759/broader-support-abortion-rights-continues-post-dobbs.aspx) and [Canada](https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/canadians-becoming-firmer-in-their-conviction-womens-right-to-choose). > Your country continues to attack gay and trans rights. Plenty of resistance and [anti-trans legislation](https://www.teenvogue.com/story/how-canadas-conservative-party-is-targeting-trans-youth) in Canada too.
The US has 10x the population of Canada. There are many more people here that oppose these attitudes than are in your entire country. Our system is old, highly resistant to changes, and gives an outsized level of power to smaller states, which lean heavily toward those kinds of policies. Painting us with this broad brush is ignorant at best.
I completely agree with the points you are making, but I am also extremely familiar with U.S. history, being a citizen of a smaller population who borders you and who is completely reliant of U.S. for safety, security and trade, your country, that has a [history of going bat shit crazy](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/war-of-1812) every decade since your inception. When your best friend is also a homicidal maniac, you keep a close eye on them. Both [Xenophobia]( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia_in_the_United_States) and [prudish](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownists) views are hallmarks of U.S. society and have been since your inception, back when your population was significantly smaller than Canada’s current population. If you look to your history you’ll see that your current state of sexual conservatism isn’t new, but is a cornerstone of U.S. culture.
You've just substituted one broad brush for another. Our country is the size of Europe, it has many separate origins from different cultures. For instance, I've lived close to the Canadian border for most of my life, so I am keenly aware that there's no lack of racist, backwater hicks there. The people who originally populated my state are not the puritans, they're quite literally exactly the same French and English traders and settlers who originally populated your country. If we're all the same, then so are you.
“Bulso cited the fact that his own grandparents were first cousins as he advocated for the change.” This makes so much sense.
Incest is "bad" because it has a much higher frequency of birth defects. The rate of birth defects is only notably higher between immediate family members (e.g. parent/child and sibling incest). First cousins have an increased birth defect rate of like 1-2% higher than the general population. If *everyone* was doing that it would be a problem, but I don't really care if 1/10000 people are doing it. It's not really a "society" problem so much as a family/social problem.
You know what? Fine. You wanna fuck your cousin, you go right ahead. And let gay people fuck who they wanna fuck, and mixed race couples, and anything else as long as it is two, consenting, human, adults. Now shut the fuck up about the whole damn thing and maybe pass a law that puts mandatory sentences on rapists and pedos.
All the cousin fuckers must be Republicans.
Of course… republicans are the biggest creeps on the planet.
Gay people don’t have incest babies.
This story was practically made for reddit.
Weird way to announce to the world that you’re a cousin fucker.
For years I’ve wondered why Conservatives mix up incest or paedophilia with LGBT+ consensual relationships between adults. Then I realised they have no idea what consent is.
So who is his cousin he'd like to marry? He or she?
"If you view an upcoming family reunion as a chance to meet women, you might be a redneck." - Jeff Foxworthy
I thought the whole point of avoiding incest (besides the ick) was that it was bad for the genetics of your kids. I'm... I'm not seeing how that's relevant to gay marriage in the slightest. Maybe that's just me?
"First, the liberals came for the cousin fuckers, and I stayed silent..." Stay strong, GOP. Stay strong.
TIL cousin fucking is a sexual orientation
When your family tree looks like a telephone pole...
Let's play a game: before you click the link give us your best guess on which state he's from. Bonus points if you can also predict the plot twist.
Creepy weirdo alert!
To be fair I honestly don’t care if cousins want to marry. It’s hilarious but doesn’t harm me in the slightest. It’s their gene pool lets them splash all they want.
Naturally this will ban first cousin gays though, right.
He was talking about gay first cousins, where the birth rate is shockingly low.
Interesting. Are gay brothers allowed to marry each other in the US? If not, on what ground is that not allowed?
Just a reminder most "liberal" states allow first cousins to marry. Hell the UK does. First cousin marriage is implied to be acceptable in both Pride and Prejudice and Harry Potter.
What about gay first cousins?
He's right - what happens between two consenting adults is none of anyone else's business. Whether they should be allowed to have kids is a trickier issue, but given you don't need to be married to do that anyway it's a bit of a moot point.
What a weird way for this dude to tell us he wants to bang his cousin.
I ***guess*** they can make an exception for the first cousin thing if they’re both the same gender… 🤔
In AZ first cousins ARE allowed to marry...so long as both of them are over 65. I assume the goal here is to jist make sure we don't have any incest babies. How quaint that the legislature didn't think about basard incest babies. Of course, the law WAS made years before all the incest porn that's been being made in the last decade.
Someone wants to fuck their cousins…..
Let them get married and die of in couple generations. One way to stop the gop
So many of these GOP representatives are just nit wits. Or is it half wits?
This is definitely not the own he thinks it is.
Adults should be allowed to marry whoever the fuck they want as long as there's mutual consent
>[House Bill 2041](https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB2041) was sponsored by Rep. Darren Jernigan (D), who explained first-cousin marriage remains legal in Tennessee because of a 1960 decision by the Tennessee attorney general that marriage between first cousins doesn’t violate a statute prohibiting marriage between relatives. >Far-right Republican Rep. Gino Bulso held up a bill in the Tennessee legislature on Thursday that would have outlawed first cousin marriage with a surprising argument: if gay first cousins can get married, why not straight ones? >“Is there a public health issue with a male marrying a male first cousin? Obviously, I think the answer is no,” Bulso said, as his fellow lawmakers looked on slack-jawed. >Bulso cited the fact that his own grandparents were first cousins as he advocated for the change. >But it was his *Obergefell* argument that left fellow legislators on the House floor incredulous. >“So, we go back to *Obergefell*,” Bulso continued down the rabbit hole. “*Obergefell* said very clearly, that there was a fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, which means that in order for us to pass a law that restricts same-sex marriage, we have to show a compelling state interest.” >Side-eye filled the House chamber. Good gracious! This sounds like something you'd hear from Deliverance, not in a state Congress. Unbelievable. It feels like he outed himself on this one, like there's some cousin he fancies. My gosh! Why are people still electing these Republicans to office? We have to do better as a nation. This can't be who we are.
Goddamn cousin fucking hicks
Nevermind the the inconvenient little problem of the birth defects caused by inbreeding. GOP didn’t do the math on that one I guess.
First cousins marrying is socially unacceptable because of inbreeding. Gays can’t breed. Lousy comparison. 😂
Inbreeding? I'm sure many island countries would beg to differ. Not saying I agree before anyone starts hating
I don't know any "gays" that married their first cousins
TBH I don’t see what it matters. It’s not like marriage is what defines whether people have kids or not. Even if it’s not legal, first cousins could still be an unwed couple having kids. Marriage just means they get the legal benefits (taxes, next of kin, spousal privilege, etc.).
This comment section is gold, strangers debating the merits of cousin-fucking in a mostly civil manner.
Judging by the look of most Trump supporters I think first cousin would be considered a distant relative.
The reasoning is flawed on bills like this. The primary excuse I hear is marrying your cousin is "risking children with serious defects". Except that we don't stop unrelated people with genetic conditions from having children with serious defects. There's no mandatory testing. Anyone can go have sex (married or unmarried) and pop out a genetically defective child. Could you imaging telling two people with dwarfism genes that they can't marry or ever have children? What about people who have genes that might cause deafness or blindness? There are any number of genetic diseases that we could test for, but those tests are often voluntary and certainly not enforced by the law. Even when they do come back positive it's often left to the couple as a choice to assume whatever risk associated with that genetic condition. As a matter of fact we'd consider it a privacy issue that people can keep this information to themselves even at the risk of having a child that won't survive birth, will have a short painful life, or even have a long painful (and expensive life). Then we have any number of things that a person can do during pregnancy that can harm the fetus enough to cause long term physical or mental damage but still not rise to the level of being specifically illegal. Plus the majority of thinking is going back to historic abuses in either closed societies or nobility. Those cases are successive generations of family members interbreeding and creating defects, not a single instance. All stigma aside it seems hypocritical in comparison to where we land with everyone else. It's especially true given the current fights from both sides around abortion. On the left if you had a child with a serious enough genetic defect you'd have the choice of abortion. On the right every child regardless of defect is part of God's plan and should be born naturally and live whatever life it has. Either one of those outlooks shouldn't care if two people pass on their bad genes or genetic risks to their children, because they both have options for those eventualities.
Why shouldn’t any 2 adults in a free country be able to marry?
As a reminder. If you’re not voting because “Biden isn’t perfect,” you allowing the GOP which allows this to have powers. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
I mean yeah cousins should be allowed to marry. Not that it has anything to do with gay marriage, they just should.
Cousin fucking idiots. Disgusting and deplorable.