453
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
453 points (98.1% liked)
News
36610 readers
623 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. Blatant homophobe or no, it's a valid legal argument that hasn't been tested in court.
Edit: Unless you have some caselaw already addressing this that I'm not aware of, I'm pretty sure we're having two completely different conversations.
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.
If your first response to a valid point is to attack the other person, then you're worse than anything inbreeding might produce.
Is there a Mrs. The-Hills-Have-Eyes?
Wanna introduce me to your cousin or is she spoken for?
TWO hot cousins, thank you very much
But my point is still correct.
I hope for your sake that Tennessee doesn't outlaw polygamy as well then.
Too late, they both got married to other people and are very happy😔
i am truley sorry for your lots
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.