288
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ApeCavalryArt@lemmy.world 66 points 2 years ago

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Basically they accidentally left out cousins (and the bill has already been withdrawn) from what sounds like an otherwise good bill and the news media runs wild.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 )

[-] cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

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

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago

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!"

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

Why is it nasty if you recognize there is no real risk of genetic issues?

[-] cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

no rational reason. just feels wrong to me.

but since I recohnize this I dont think it should be prohibited. hope that makes sense

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago

This would be a great example of fake news.

[-] ApeCavalryArt@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Years ago in KY there was an anti-bestiality bill which was defeated. Reason was that it was so vaguely worded that animal husbandry and certain veterinarian practices would be technically illegal.

[-] HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

People are talking about it like they are saying it's legal, rather than it just being left out of a list. Which sure, if it's left out on purpose, that's pretty telling. But a loophole in a law isn't always done on purpose. I'm willing to beleive for now it was an accident

[-] craigers@lemmy.world 57 points 2 years ago

So I do not endorse this guy or any GOP member in any way. But if you read the article he says dropping the first cousin from the list was an error of omission and not intentional, and he is re-filing the bill to include it. The intent of the bill was to expand the classification of incest beyond just intercourse to include any type of sexual contact. Which seems like its actually progressive, just not clickbait worthy.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago

I wouldn't call that "progressive" but it's not exactly libertarian freedom either. The actual law seems weirder than trying to deregulate cousin incest.

Not that I really feel strongly about it but I don't see the state interest in specifically banning cousin blowjobs. Seems like one of those things that should be in the dustbin of overtightened sexual restrictions like sodomy laws.

[-] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 6 points 2 years ago

I've seen some compelling arguments for decriminalizing incest. Basically rape is already illegal [citation needed], the genetic risk is pretty small for the average person, and ultimately regulating what weird stuff consenting adults might choose to do in the bedroom is generally not a good thing. There is of course the problem of social/power dynamics and how that might play into consent but that's another issue not exclusive to incest.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

you could argue that accidentally making cousin fucking legal, like accidentally making weed legal in minnesota (was that minnesota? I think so) is part of an ongoing issue where republicans don't actually know what the laws they're implementing do.

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 45 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Maybe he has a personal interest in this?

edit:

The amendment would also reduce the designation of incest by contact to a Class D felony for some cases "unless it is committed with a person who is less than twelve years of age," in which case it is Class C.

uhhhhhhhhhhh…. that age cutoff seems low

[-] OpenStars@startrek.website 14 points 2 years ago

Not if the child he has his eye set on is just above it. :-(

[-] S_204@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago

She's 10, laws take time to enact....

These people are horrid.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] oxjox@lemmy.ml 35 points 2 years ago

So… the same party that wants to stop same sex couples from having sex is upset that the government is telling them whom they can’t have sex with? Golly.

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

"look, all I'm saying is, two men having consensual sex is wrong. Why can't they be normal and have sex with their 12 year old cousin, like me?"

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Pissnpink@feddit.uk 35 points 2 years ago

That's the look of a man the fucked his first cousin.

[-] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] mechoman444@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago

Guys. I just can't!

Rainbow flags and healthcare for trans people: no way fuck that shit! It's bad for children

Sex with family: no no. It's ok. It's my cousin.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] thorbot@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

"Republican tries to change law so he can fuck his family, nobody bat an eye"

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 years ago

hes a republican so hes already fucking everyone elses family already anyway

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

No, so his already existing relationship is okay.

[-] linuxfiend@kbin.social 22 points 2 years ago

Someone wants to bang their first cousin.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Facebones@reddthat.com 15 points 2 years ago

Republicans: "It's not pedophilia if we get rid of the laws making it illegal!"

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago

Also Republicans: gay sex leads to pedophilia!

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

Oh so this is why all of Project Zomboid's maps are in Kentucky. They're not zombies, just inbred.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

The jokes write themselves.

[-] chrishazfun@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

how the fuck is this a real headline

[-] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago

Because its very misleading and does not properly represent what happened. It was designed to have a response of disbelief.

[-] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Of course they did.

[-] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

We need to make Kentucky Man a thing

[-] lntl@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago

How is this important enough to occupy the time of our politicians?

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I mean…look at that guy. It probably occupies all of his time. They intentionally picked that photo for this exact reason, I’m sure.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SoupyHappenstance@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

This guy's got a couple first cousins somewhere blushing furiously.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Is this guy the representative for Shelbyville?

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 years ago

he must be from shelbyville

[-] AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de 7 points 2 years ago

Hm, I wonder who he is sleeping with...

[-] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

I mean ... the suspect pool is not particularly large.

[-] macrocephalic@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

First cousins in Kentucky? That's probably only a few hundred thousand people it could be.

[-] omega_x3@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

In his defense New York did allow FDR to marry his first cousin.

[-] wabafee@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Country road

Take me home

To the place!

I belonggggggggggggg

WEST VIRGINIA

COUNTRY MAMA

Country road

Take me homeee...

[-] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 5 points 2 years ago

It's still incest mate. Even if you make it legal incest.

[-] NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 2 years ago

"This is the problem I wanted to solve when I was elected"

[-] normalexit@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

At first I assumed since this is a Republican that it would be about reducing abortions in case they had an incest exception.

Turns out they don't have such an exception, so he must have a really hot first cousin that is otherwise dtf.

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

"I hate how everyone always stereotypes and makes fun of us southern states so much, it's not fair."

Then they go do shit like this.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
288 points (90.2% liked)

politics

28486 readers
302 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS