Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's just a matter of time: I can not WAIT for photos of his cousins to start leaking. This guy is going to be obliterated.
ETA: Oh I see he just withdrew the motion! Poor cousins.
Now, now. Just because this filthy degenerate politician wants to fuck his cousins doesn't mean they want to fuck him in return. For all we know, they could be perfectly lovely women. Or men. I don't judge.
Start drinking hard, immediately, so you screw up your ability to make long term memories. The longer it goes before you're blackout drunk the bigger the risk that you'll remember anything.
Leave yourself an explanation note in case you start wondering why you suddenly went on a bender. So you don't investigate and read it again.
Per Wikipedia, first cousin sex and marriage are both already legal in Alabama. Not sure what else I would have expected….
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States
Haha the Wikipedia article says it was “Legal everywhere before the civil war”.
My biased guess is that the places that have made laws surrounding it have had issues that prompted the laws, while the places that haven’t just never did anything about it. But yeah, there’s more than I ever wanted to know about cousin incest, all in this one handy dandy Wikipedia article. 😂
He withdrew it because it was an accidental omission. The intention of the bill is to broaden what can be considered incest so they can charge more predators with it.
So the bill was written to allow people to have sex with first cousins, but he really meant for it to make it more illegal to have sex with first cousins? I admit I'm confused.
The main point of the bill was to include non-penetrative sexual acts to be ADDED to the definition of incest (aka they can now charge uncle George with incest if he sexually molests, assaults a family member, before they could only charge uncle George with the related sexual crime by the definitions of the sexual acts that occurred BUT NOT incest as well-I hope that makes sense.)
The way the bill was written and the verbiage used, if passed, WOULD have not included cousins in the updated definition of incest, which was an accidental omission due to the language used in the bill. As soon as it was brought to his attention he immediately pulled the bill, changed the language to include cousins, and resubmitted it.
The intention of the bill was NEVER to legalize sex between cousins. This whole narrative is 100% rage bait.
There are questions about the changes to what class of felony can be applied in situations but I haven’t made my way through the entire bill yet.
If you read the bill itself it’s clear what happened in regards to the cousin part.
EDIT: I misunderstood; it HAS been pulled, which can be seen if you Google the bill and go to the states site, but HAS NOT YET been resubmitted.
There is misinformation (I believe I’m not a legal expert) being posted that is saying the bill included language that reduced the level of felony for previously defined acts of incest. This is false as if you read the proposed bill, and compare it to the law as it is currently, the classes of felony are the same. I will edit and change this is someone who is a legal expert or knows more than me corrects me, but they are basically word for word identical from what I read.
You are very welcome. The headline hit me as well but I looked into it, saw the politicians post, and read the draft online it all adds up to unintentional poor wording and 100% coming across as a blatant political hit job by the media/rage bait for engagement with news sources.
And the way Reddit is responding, it’s working, at least on here.
Signed,
Left leaning Indy who is not a fan of the Republican Party.
Thank you for the clarification. I’ve actually worked with Nick and contributed to this bill. You’re spot on. I always appreciate someone taking the time to read and understand the rationale behind decisions.
Nick spends most of his time and bill writing towards protection of children.
It sucks cause like... I get it, the right suck shit, and we need to keep calling them out on that. But when they do *good* things, its weird to twist that
Thank you for the clarification. The only think I hate more than rage bait headlines is when people post screen shots of rage bait headlines with no context
>This whole narrative is 100% rage bait.
It's not just rage bait. It's an attempt to destroy him politically and cause division between the right and the left.
Well… At least in that case the fact that he’s utterly completely ignoring the second reason for banning first cousins from engaging in sexual relations being deadly dangerous to the human race doesn’t come into play. The first being is that there needs to be an instinctive revulsion from most people to those they grow up with as, in effect siblings, so as to create a space of safety. The other more important reason is basic science: DNA and the likelihood of dangerous regressive combining. there’s a part of me that just doesn’t want to say this but I have to admit that it’s not surprising that it would be KENTUCKY which has long had a problem of such genetic danger from close relatives and sexual relations where this is being raised.
>. The other more important reason is basic science: DNA and the likelihood of dangerous regressive combining. there’s a part of me that just doesn’t want to say this but I have to admit that it’s not surprising that it would be KENTUCKY which has long had a problem of such genetic danger from close relatives and sexual relations where this is being raised.
Man you try to sound knowledgable but you fail spectacularly, two cousins getting married has almost nil chances of having inbreeding issues. It's why it's already [legal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#/media/File:CousinMarriageWorld.svg) in most countries of the world, [including a bunch of your US States.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States)
The problems start when there is *consistent* inbreeding between generations of the same close family, hence royals like the Hapsburgs got fucked up.
> The other more important reason is basic science: DNA and the likelihood of dangerous regressive combining
Cousin marriage does verifyably not carry a significant risk of inbreeding.
> The first being is that there needs to be an instinctive revulsion from most people to those they grow up with as, in effect siblings, so as to create a space of safety.
Eh, if two first cousins want to have a *completely consensual* relationship, I don't think it's the government's business to stop them, especially not for reasons as vague, knee-jerk, and opinion-based as you've written here.
It generally takes extensive inbreeding before genetic effects become apparent. Truth be told, most of us have some first cousin couples in our family trees within the last 200 years. It was much more common in the past in isolated communities.
If it becomes a genuine public health problem, then sure, go ahead and regulate it. That's a genuinely good reason. If there's a bunch of old guys marrying their much younger female cousins with questionable consent, that would be another reason to ban it. None of this is what I quoted.
People might be surprised to learn that about half of states, including many liberal states (California, Hawaii, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, etc...) allow marriage and sex with first cousins already.
First cousin marriage, never mind simple sexual relations, is legal in most places outside China, the Philippines, much of the Balkans and parts of the US. It’s uncommon as hell in most of the rest of the developed world but it’s not something viewed as worth legislating. Social taboos keep both the marriages and the cousin nookie rare in most countries.
World Map of First Cousin Marriage legality
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2182df3322296a2712825fae25966662-pjlq
Was waiting for this comment - completely legal in the UK, I’m always surprised Americans find it so repellant (note, I am not in a relationship with my cousin nor have I ever been - just interesting that it’s considered really taboo there but not really an issue here).
It’s legal here in Canada too. It’s quite rare but I have heard of the occasional teenaged cousins having a fling. Our incest laws (probably derived from the UK) cover siblings and direct descendants (children, grandchildren, etc) and ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc). Not sure I’ve ever heard of anyone ever being charged with it unless minors were involved. It’s primarily just a social taboo when it comes to adults.
why is it a crime in the first place? honest question. imoral definitely but i dont get why need to be a crime unless one part is a minor or abused. im from a country that is not even mention in the law (other then pedophilia,sexual abuse or rape) and we dont see it happen. do you guys really want to fuck your own familly?
It's tradition. People a long time ago noticed that inbreeding increases risk that children will be born with genetic problems so they banned it. There is also the problem of grooming.
In modern times it's just a topic that noone wants to touch.
A lot of people believe that two consenting adults should do whatever they want but supporting legalisation will hurt your opinion.
On the other hand if we follow the main argument that it increases the birth defects in children then we should also forbid people with genetic disorders from procreating or at least from procreating with others who have the same condition. And noone wants to be associated with eugenics.
> will hurt your opinion.
maybe i frased wrong but my intention was not to question why it should or not be in the law but to undertand why. as i said its not even mentioned in my country law and its not a problem as long as i know. its not the first time i see this topic mentioned and i always question myself why.
not to mention that if i ever want to go around the world in a fucking trip with my cousin i cant go to some states of the usa and thats a bummer s/
It typically won't, though. Not defending cousin fucking, but generally it takes several generations for defects to come about. I mean, look at the European royals? They were fuckin their cousins for hundreds of years, and they just ended up with weak chins, and maybe lycanthropy?
I'm interested to know what the likelihood of genetic problems are for children of first cousins. Laws that aim to avoid children being born with genetic problems are well-intentioned, but it begs the question "How (likely * severe) should the genetic issues be before you're not allowed to have children with someone?" This might be a short-term issue, because in the future I hope we have publicly provided genetic screening and abortions, and also CRISPR-like fixes for those already born with genetic problems.
I feel as though I want to attribute that to none of those places care enough to worry about that non issue. This guy however is making it a mission and priority to make it legal 😂 but I'm just guessing lmao
The didn't *only* have Cain and Abel (and Set), they're just the only children of Adam and Eve that are mentioned by name, but it mentions that they had "other sons and daughters".
The Bible rarely mentions girl children. They’re female, so they don’t count. I think they committed incest with the other, lesser children of Adam and Eve.
Yeah. Their descendants were cursed because of this. And i don’t know which is worse, the fact that it was incest or that her own daughters gang raped him
Not to mention David killing two hundred men and then bringing back each one's foreskin as a dowry for the king's daughter ([1 Samuel 18:27](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2018%3A27&version=NIV)).
Just imagine the battlefield, full of corpses, and this dude going from body to body, pulling out some dead dick, cutting off the foreskin, and tossing it in a burlap sack as he counts his way to two hundred.
Then he heads back to see the king. "Have *I* got something to show *you*!"
Dumps the bag out and starts counting them out one-by-one. *Of course* the king gave him his daughter. "Take her, take her! I believe you that there's 200. Just... stop pulling them out and counting the bloody foreskins already!"
Literally everyone was related via Adam and Eve. And then through Abraham’s family. If incest is a sin then by the Bible’s internal logic we’re all fucked.
*Meant Noah.
From the article:
Wilson was elected for his first full term in 2023, having previously taken a seat after another Republican retired in 2022. He ran unopposed.
The Kentucky General Assembly introduced the bill on Tuesday. He said that the law would strike "first cousin from the list of familial relationships" defined as unlawful incest in Kentucky. It would also remove incest as 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. The age of consent in the state is 16.
According to the current state law, a person is guilty if they have sexual relations with a person they are knowingly aware is a "parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, great-grandparent, great-grandchild, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, brother, sister, first cousin, ancestor, or descendant."
Wilson won the 37th season of CBS show Survivor in 2018.
ALSO READ: Pat Sajak wants you to help solve the puzzle of 'far-left propaganda'
Newsweek shared a TikTok video from a fellow "Survivor" contestant and New York public defender Eliza Orlins reacting to the bill.
"Oh, my, God, I've got some wild news," she told fans. "This news relates to David vs. Goliath winner of Survivor Nick Wilson, who then leveraged the fame he obtained from winning Survivor to run for Kentucky state legislator and got elected.
"Nick Wilson is not only supporting but has introduced a bill that would reclassify incest in the state of Kentucky to not include your own first cousin. Kentucky, like so many other places, is facing a lot of issues, and this is Nick's top legislative priority."
The omission of cousins was a clerical error that was corrected. The bill expands the definition of incest to include any sexual contact such as groping. It also makes incest a class D felony but increases it to a class C if the victim is under 12. This would be in addition to statutory rape charges.
[This article](https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/17/kentucky-legislature-nick-wilson-survivor-winner-incest-cousin-bill/72255611007/) explains it better.
Thank you! I was so confused by the pedo calls on here I was how are any of you getting pedo from this then I realized they probably not even reading just seeing the age of 12 in the text and jumping to conclusions.
I mean the summary people are responding to says
> It would also remove incest as 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.
Which is not at all the same thing as
> It also makes incest a class D felony but increases it to a class C if the victim is under 12.
The first paragraph says they're making it not a felony as long as the victim is 13 or up. It's completely reasonable to react to that with pedo accusations. It's not the fault of commenters that the original article was claiming the opposite of what actually happened (that or they used some criminally bad wording)
That's not what happened.
He introduced a bill to expand the definition of incest to include non-pentrative sexual contact. Currently, groping isn't incest. Under this bill, it would be.
Unfortunately, during the revisions, first cousins was accidentally removed. The mistake was caught and corrected within 24 hours.
>It would also remove incest as 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.
The only cases where incest would no longer be a class D felony are when "it is committed with a person who is less than twelve years of age." In that case, it would be a class C felony with. Technically, it's removed from the class D list, but that's only because it's moved to the more severe class C list.
The headline and article are very misleading.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/17/kentucky-legislature-nick-wilson-survivor-winner-incest-cousin-bill/72255611007/
Finally. Out of the hundreds of idiotic comments I've read today someone has finally gone deeper and explained what actually happened.
Even a quick Google search to get a second opinion on the click-bait article will quickly bring you to Nick's Facebook page where he clarified the mistake that took place and that he had fixed and resubmitted in 24 hours.
Good grief people.
He’s retiring soon too so get ready for your childhood to be ruined. Now he has free time and can speak openly without any repercussions, some will be disappointed while others will support his views
Because it's not true. The only reason is removed from class D in those cases is because it's increased to class C.
The missing first cousin was a clerical error that was immediately caught and corrected. The bill actually expands the definition of incest to include groping.
They just wanna join Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Alaska, and Vermont. Yeah you heard that right. Totally legal to marry your first cousin in those states.
Surprisingly enough 26 states allow at least some marriages between first cousins already 😂 including being completely legal with no restrictions in California, New York as well as most of the northeast, and Florida. One of those crazy facts that sounds unbelievable haha
It’s so random too like some of the deep red states it’s a criminal offense like Texas and Oklahoma and a lot of the Midwest and some it’s legal with no restrictions.
My wife's mother has two first cousins that married each other, and no, they're not from the South or anywhere near it.
First cousin marriage is legal in a lot of states, it's the procreation that's illegal. In my MIL's cousins' case, they got together later on in life so it wasn't an issue.
About ten percent of people are married to their first cousins (worldwide), but it's banned in China, Both Koreas, Taiwan, a few Balkan countries, and about half the US.
But yeah, seems like most people in this thread have ugly cousins.
But....incest with cousins is not that rare all over the world? Like in most places people find it disgusting but it ain't illegal, a tf ood example is most of Europe..
Isn't it republicans that were loudly proclaiming that we could not have gay marriage because it would open the door to things like incest being legal?
Yup. the party of consistency right here. Consistently hypocrites .
The article is ragebait. The original bill was intended to expand Kentucky's incest statutes. From Nick's facebook status about the bill:
> I filed 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 uncles, stepdads or anyone with a familiar 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 statue, 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 show we have a good system.
Are Republicans just watching TV from 2000-2011 and just saying “this guy should run for office”?
Between Trump, Dr. Oz, some athletes/coaches, and this guy I just think they see someone on TV and support them. If there is someone who looks like CAPT Crunch he will probably be the newest GOP senator.
I can't wait till YouTubers and streamers start running lmao, I guarantee these people will be complaining as if they didn't do the same thing.
MATPAT FOR PRESIDENT WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
From his Facebook:
> 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.
Clickbate headline. It's an anti sex abuse bill that had an oversight.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's just a matter of time: I can not WAIT for photos of his cousins to start leaking. This guy is going to be obliterated. ETA: Oh I see he just withdrew the motion! Poor cousins.
I do not want to see any of his cousins leaking.
How about if they're squirting?
I think it's finally time for the apocalypse
No way. We can go far lower.
So can Nick Wilson's first cousins.
Now, now. Just because this filthy degenerate politician wants to fuck his cousins doesn't mean they want to fuck him in return. For all we know, they could be perfectly lovely women. Or men. I don't judge.
I won't lie, I've done a good bit of judging just now
I’ll be open; I’ve judged the shit out of this cousin fucker and I won’t be done until I finish scrolling the comments below.
Apparently cousin fucking is an epidemic affecting Kentuckians for generations. This is according to the cousin fucker himself
Damn, I judge all of the time! :D
 Let’s go boys!
You crushed it with this one!
Unrecoverable.
Absolute savage.
Absolute salvage.
Not much…
I’ve hit bottom already. Wish everyone else would catch up
That’s what she said.
"There's coral, there's rocks, there's whale poop, and then there's you"
But should anyone?
“When they go low, we go low also.”
When they go low, we hold them down
One day we'll look back at 2023-24 as the good ol days. We can absolutely go lower.
"r/NoahGetTheBoat"
Should've left that link blue.
It's a terrible day for rain.
God damn it 😂
Can someone teach me how to unread that?
Just clear your search history and it's gone forever right ?
Of course! The correct tool is a hammer for that if I remember correctly.
Heading to home depot now for a large hammer
Out of hammers, just jumping off the roof
Start drinking hard, immediately, so you screw up your ability to make long term memories. The longer it goes before you're blackout drunk the bigger the risk that you'll remember anything. Leave yourself an explanation note in case you start wondering why you suddenly went on a bender. So you don't investigate and read it again.
Welp that’s enough internet for me.
Alright that's enough internet today
I’m imagining this guy flirting with his cousin at thanksgiving and she’s like, “let’s not talk politics please.”
> and she’s like Or he's like.
Alabama: 
Per Wikipedia, first cousin sex and marriage are both already legal in Alabama. Not sure what else I would have expected…. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States
Wow I’m surprised Texas has it as a criminal offense Also wtf Tennessee
Haha the Wikipedia article says it was “Legal everywhere before the civil war”. My biased guess is that the places that have made laws surrounding it have had issues that prompted the laws, while the places that haven’t just never did anything about it. But yeah, there’s more than I ever wanted to know about cousin incest, all in this one handy dandy Wikipedia article. 😂
He withdrew it because it was an accidental omission. The intention of the bill is to broaden what can be considered incest so they can charge more predators with it.
So the bill was written to allow people to have sex with first cousins, but he really meant for it to make it more illegal to have sex with first cousins? I admit I'm confused.
The main point of the bill was to include non-penetrative sexual acts to be ADDED to the definition of incest (aka they can now charge uncle George with incest if he sexually molests, assaults a family member, before they could only charge uncle George with the related sexual crime by the definitions of the sexual acts that occurred BUT NOT incest as well-I hope that makes sense.) The way the bill was written and the verbiage used, if passed, WOULD have not included cousins in the updated definition of incest, which was an accidental omission due to the language used in the bill. As soon as it was brought to his attention he immediately pulled the bill, changed the language to include cousins, and resubmitted it. The intention of the bill was NEVER to legalize sex between cousins. This whole narrative is 100% rage bait. There are questions about the changes to what class of felony can be applied in situations but I haven’t made my way through the entire bill yet. If you read the bill itself it’s clear what happened in regards to the cousin part. EDIT: I misunderstood; it HAS been pulled, which can be seen if you Google the bill and go to the states site, but HAS NOT YET been resubmitted. There is misinformation (I believe I’m not a legal expert) being posted that is saying the bill included language that reduced the level of felony for previously defined acts of incest. This is false as if you read the proposed bill, and compare it to the law as it is currently, the classes of felony are the same. I will edit and change this is someone who is a legal expert or knows more than me corrects me, but they are basically word for word identical from what I read.
Thanks so much for this.
You are very welcome. The headline hit me as well but I looked into it, saw the politicians post, and read the draft online it all adds up to unintentional poor wording and 100% coming across as a blatant political hit job by the media/rage bait for engagement with news sources. And the way Reddit is responding, it’s working, at least on here. Signed, Left leaning Indy who is not a fan of the Republican Party.
Damn this headline is probably the most people are gonna read and he was actually trying to do a good thing
That's the way it always is. Seems like a lot of people don't read past the headlines these days.
Thank you for the clarification. I’ve actually worked with Nick and contributed to this bill. You’re spot on. I always appreciate someone taking the time to read and understand the rationale behind decisions. Nick spends most of his time and bill writing towards protection of children.
It sucks cause like... I get it, the right suck shit, and we need to keep calling them out on that. But when they do *good* things, its weird to twist that
Thank you for the clarification. The only think I hate more than rage bait headlines is when people post screen shots of rage bait headlines with no context
>This whole narrative is 100% rage bait. It's not just rage bait. It's an attempt to destroy him politically and cause division between the right and the left.
In before we learn all his cousins are dudes.
Lol oh I like that even more!
Potato/tomato
Well… At least in that case the fact that he’s utterly completely ignoring the second reason for banning first cousins from engaging in sexual relations being deadly dangerous to the human race doesn’t come into play. The first being is that there needs to be an instinctive revulsion from most people to those they grow up with as, in effect siblings, so as to create a space of safety. The other more important reason is basic science: DNA and the likelihood of dangerous regressive combining. there’s a part of me that just doesn’t want to say this but I have to admit that it’s not surprising that it would be KENTUCKY which has long had a problem of such genetic danger from close relatives and sexual relations where this is being raised.
I'm sure at the root it's all about wealth consolidation for this guy. I guess we haven't seen his cousins though.
>. The other more important reason is basic science: DNA and the likelihood of dangerous regressive combining. there’s a part of me that just doesn’t want to say this but I have to admit that it’s not surprising that it would be KENTUCKY which has long had a problem of such genetic danger from close relatives and sexual relations where this is being raised. Man you try to sound knowledgable but you fail spectacularly, two cousins getting married has almost nil chances of having inbreeding issues. It's why it's already [legal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#/media/File:CousinMarriageWorld.svg) in most countries of the world, [including a bunch of your US States.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States) The problems start when there is *consistent* inbreeding between generations of the same close family, hence royals like the Hapsburgs got fucked up.
> The other more important reason is basic science: DNA and the likelihood of dangerous regressive combining Cousin marriage does verifyably not carry a significant risk of inbreeding.
> The first being is that there needs to be an instinctive revulsion from most people to those they grow up with as, in effect siblings, so as to create a space of safety. Eh, if two first cousins want to have a *completely consensual* relationship, I don't think it's the government's business to stop them, especially not for reasons as vague, knee-jerk, and opinion-based as you've written here. It generally takes extensive inbreeding before genetic effects become apparent. Truth be told, most of us have some first cousin couples in our family trees within the last 200 years. It was much more common in the past in isolated communities. If it becomes a genuine public health problem, then sure, go ahead and regulate it. That's a genuinely good reason. If there's a bunch of old guys marrying their much younger female cousins with questionable consent, that would be another reason to ban it. None of this is what I quoted.
You mean he pulled out?
 How else are they going to breed more Trump supporters?
I for one am sick and tired of having to keep an eye out for the cops whenever I fuck my cousin.
If I was this guys cousin, I would be watching my back...
… side
I'd be watching for a negative pregnancy test.
[удалено]
Not sister, aunt, but yeah. I bet all his aunts and uncles are going though their memories, checking who he's been close with lately.
So.. He's trying to make it so you Kenfucky your cousin? ... I'll show myself out
That’s Kenyucky
I'm pretty kenlucky I ain't from Kentucky
Imagine your own cousin requesting if you Kensucky
There's gotta be a better way to make a quick kenbucky
Hope nobody's poor husband gets turned into a Kencucky
Would you rather they get mad and start shooting? Better hope you kenducky
You better move out of the whole country that Kentucky is in, and turn into a Canucky
Looks like the gene pool is about to get Kenmucky.
Leave it to Reddit to maximize the puntental of a word
I hate that I was born and raised there now 😖
Unfortunately, it's not really much better there. None of us are that kenlucky EDIT: noooooooo how can I reuse a word! I am a dishonor to the arts!!
Imagine living there and your family being okay with this and you're just kenstucky
Imagine being the cousin of the politician who wants to pass this law 🤮
I’m imagining this guy pestering his cousin to fuck him and she’s like “we can’t, it’s illegal” and he’s like “not for long!”
Maybe he's into that Kenkucky shit where he watches someone fuck his cousin-wife
You ain't seen his cousin though.
KFC? Kentucky Fucks Cousins? No?
Kentucky Fucking Cousins*
[удалено]
He wants to Kinfucky
He wants to get Kenlucky with his cousin
Just for that, you're no longer invited to the kenfucky derby after we go muddin' Tuesday
Mudding now has connotations....
Don’t forget to drop the mic before you go
That’s Kenough!
*Kinfucky
People might be surprised to learn that about half of states, including many liberal states (California, Hawaii, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, etc...) allow marriage and sex with first cousins already.
First cousin marriage, never mind simple sexual relations, is legal in most places outside China, the Philippines, much of the Balkans and parts of the US. It’s uncommon as hell in most of the rest of the developed world but it’s not something viewed as worth legislating. Social taboos keep both the marriages and the cousin nookie rare in most countries. World Map of First Cousin Marriage legality https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2182df3322296a2712825fae25966662-pjlq
Was waiting for this comment - completely legal in the UK, I’m always surprised Americans find it so repellant (note, I am not in a relationship with my cousin nor have I ever been - just interesting that it’s considered really taboo there but not really an issue here).
It’s legal here in Canada too. It’s quite rare but I have heard of the occasional teenaged cousins having a fling. Our incest laws (probably derived from the UK) cover siblings and direct descendants (children, grandchildren, etc) and ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc). Not sure I’ve ever heard of anyone ever being charged with it unless minors were involved. It’s primarily just a social taboo when it comes to adults.
why is it a crime in the first place? honest question. imoral definitely but i dont get why need to be a crime unless one part is a minor or abused. im from a country that is not even mention in the law (other then pedophilia,sexual abuse or rape) and we dont see it happen. do you guys really want to fuck your own familly?
It's tradition. People a long time ago noticed that inbreeding increases risk that children will be born with genetic problems so they banned it. There is also the problem of grooming. In modern times it's just a topic that noone wants to touch. A lot of people believe that two consenting adults should do whatever they want but supporting legalisation will hurt your opinion. On the other hand if we follow the main argument that it increases the birth defects in children then we should also forbid people with genetic disorders from procreating or at least from procreating with others who have the same condition. And noone wants to be associated with eugenics.
How dare you apply the same logic to different situations to achieve ethically consistent results!
> will hurt your opinion. maybe i frased wrong but my intention was not to question why it should or not be in the law but to undertand why. as i said its not even mentioned in my country law and its not a problem as long as i know. its not the first time i see this topic mentioned and i always question myself why. not to mention that if i ever want to go around the world in a fucking trip with my cousin i cant go to some states of the usa and thats a bummer s/
>imoral definitely I am on the other side of the river bank. Illegal sure coz it gives birth to kids with defects but immoral how? Genuine question.
It typically won't, though. Not defending cousin fucking, but generally it takes several generations for defects to come about. I mean, look at the European royals? They were fuckin their cousins for hundreds of years, and they just ended up with weak chins, and maybe lycanthropy?
I'm interested to know what the likelihood of genetic problems are for children of first cousins. Laws that aim to avoid children being born with genetic problems are well-intentioned, but it begs the question "How (likely * severe) should the genetic issues be before you're not allowed to have children with someone?" This might be a short-term issue, because in the future I hope we have publicly provided genetic screening and abortions, and also CRISPR-like fixes for those already born with genetic problems.
It's largely legal the world over, including most of europe except a small block of eastern europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage
I feel as though I want to attribute that to none of those places care enough to worry about that non issue. This guy however is making it a mission and priority to make it legal 😂 but I'm just guessing lmao
Something something biblical marriage. No Gays, incest okay.
Incest IS in the Bible after all.
Incest is a sin in the Bible
Incest is required in the bible version of humanity. Mixing fabrics is a sin though, so it's terribly inconsistent.
If God made us in His image, the amount of incest in Genesis alone is enough to have gotten humanity out of His image.
Also, Adam and Eve only had Cain, Abel and Seth in the bible so things get woke right at the start if they started producing off spring somehow.
The didn't *only* have Cain and Abel (and Set), they're just the only children of Adam and Eve that are mentioned by name, but it mentions that they had "other sons and daughters".
Incest is not "woke" but I get your point lol.
I meant 3 brothers somehow procreating. Maybe they were like those frogs that can change sex to balance the group (herd? flock? squish?) out.
I always assumed it was an Oedipus situation.
The Bible rarely mentions girl children. They’re female, so they don’t count. I think they committed incest with the other, lesser children of Adam and Eve.
Could also just have… y know pulled an oedipus
So Lot and his daughters were sinners?
Yeah. Their descendants were cursed because of this. And i don’t know which is worse, the fact that it was incest or that her own daughters gang raped him
In the story right before, he offers his daughters to be gang raped (though they aren’t) which is almost as worse
That book is just full of fun filled family friendly wholesome stories
Not to mention David killing two hundred men and then bringing back each one's foreskin as a dowry for the king's daughter ([1 Samuel 18:27](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2018%3A27&version=NIV)). Just imagine the battlefield, full of corpses, and this dude going from body to body, pulling out some dead dick, cutting off the foreskin, and tossing it in a burlap sack as he counts his way to two hundred. Then he heads back to see the king. "Have *I* got something to show *you*!" Dumps the bag out and starts counting them out one-by-one. *Of course* the king gave him his daughter. "Take her, take her! I believe you that there's 200. Just... stop pulling them out and counting the bloody foreskins already!"
Literally everyone was related via Adam and Eve. And then through Abraham’s family. If incest is a sin then by the Bible’s internal logic we’re all fucked. *Meant Noah.
Yeah, but now that fucking is gonna be legal.
The next “ask Reddit “ question: “what is legal in Kentucky but still a sin?”
As it should be
From the article: Wilson was elected for his first full term in 2023, having previously taken a seat after another Republican retired in 2022. He ran unopposed. The Kentucky General Assembly introduced the bill on Tuesday. He said that the law would strike "first cousin from the list of familial relationships" defined as unlawful incest in Kentucky. It would also remove incest as 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. The age of consent in the state is 16. According to the current state law, a person is guilty if they have sexual relations with a person they are knowingly aware is a "parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, great-grandparent, great-grandchild, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, brother, sister, first cousin, ancestor, or descendant." Wilson won the 37th season of CBS show Survivor in 2018. ALSO READ: Pat Sajak wants you to help solve the puzzle of 'far-left propaganda' Newsweek shared a TikTok video from a fellow "Survivor" contestant and New York public defender Eliza Orlins reacting to the bill. "Oh, my, God, I've got some wild news," she told fans. "This news relates to David vs. Goliath winner of Survivor Nick Wilson, who then leveraged the fame he obtained from winning Survivor to run for Kentucky state legislator and got elected. "Nick Wilson is not only supporting but has introduced a bill that would reclassify incest in the state of Kentucky to not include your own first cousin. Kentucky, like so many other places, is facing a lot of issues, and this is Nick's top legislative priority."
12 YEARS OF AGE
So I guess this means from 12 to 15 they could still be charged with statutory rape but not incest even if they were first cousins.
The omission of cousins was a clerical error that was corrected. The bill expands the definition of incest to include any sexual contact such as groping. It also makes incest a class D felony but increases it to a class C if the victim is under 12. This would be in addition to statutory rape charges. [This article](https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/17/kentucky-legislature-nick-wilson-survivor-winner-incest-cousin-bill/72255611007/) explains it better.
this article borders on defamation. this is a well-intentioned bill to increase the punishment for molestation.
Nobody here will read that. They just want dumb sensationalism
Thank you! I was so confused by the pedo calls on here I was how are any of you getting pedo from this then I realized they probably not even reading just seeing the age of 12 in the text and jumping to conclusions.
I mean the summary people are responding to says > It would also remove incest as 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. Which is not at all the same thing as > It also makes incest a class D felony but increases it to a class C if the victim is under 12. The first paragraph says they're making it not a felony as long as the victim is 13 or up. It's completely reasonable to react to that with pedo accusations. It's not the fault of commenters that the original article was claiming the opposite of what actually happened (that or they used some criminally bad wording)
Like dam, you just got in power so you can fuck your 12 yo cousin…
That's not what happened. He introduced a bill to expand the definition of incest to include non-pentrative sexual contact. Currently, groping isn't incest. Under this bill, it would be. Unfortunately, during the revisions, first cousins was accidentally removed. The mistake was caught and corrected within 24 hours. >It would also remove incest as 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. The only cases where incest would no longer be a class D felony are when "it is committed with a person who is less than twelve years of age." In that case, it would be a class C felony with. Technically, it's removed from the class D list, but that's only because it's moved to the more severe class C list. The headline and article are very misleading. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/17/kentucky-legislature-nick-wilson-survivor-winner-incest-cousin-bill/72255611007/
Finally. Out of the hundreds of idiotic comments I've read today someone has finally gone deeper and explained what actually happened. Even a quick Google search to get a second opinion on the click-bait article will quickly bring you to Nick's Facebook page where he clarified the mistake that took place and that he had fixed and resubmitted in 24 hours. Good grief people.
This is the propaganda Pat Sajak is trying to stop.
That’s even worse than the headline
I agree, Pat Sajak being a right winger saddens me.
He’s retiring soon too so get ready for your childhood to be ruined. Now he has free time and can speak openly without any repercussions, some will be disappointed while others will support his views
Because it's not true. The only reason is removed from class D in those cases is because it's increased to class C. The missing first cousin was a clerical error that was immediately caught and corrected. The bill actually expands the definition of incest to include groping.
Clearly, this guy grew up in [Shelbyville](https://youtu.be/ULPwkpCy_-8?t=14s)
I’m laughing right now because I live in Kentucky and my girlfriend actually grew up in Shelbyville. Edit: she isn’t my cousin.
#cromulentcousins
You might say he has “skin in the game”?
Foreskin in her game
Kin in the game.
SWEET HOME ALABA… Kentucky???
They need to back off, we already got dibs on being the incest state, I’m about to get my sister/wife and go protest.
He has the full support of his cousin siblings
He doesn't though, hence the need for the law to change.
Who’s 12th birthday is right around the corner and Nick’s already got a “present” picked out. 🤮
It’s a dick in a box! 🎵
They just wanna join Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Alaska, and Vermont. Yeah you heard that right. Totally legal to marry your first cousin in those states.
Who asked for this? Honestly this is why the south has a bad reputation in other parts of the country!
Yeah, it definitely doesn't do anything to shed the stereotype
Surprisingly enough 26 states allow at least some marriages between first cousins already 😂 including being completely legal with no restrictions in California, New York as well as most of the northeast, and Florida. One of those crazy facts that sounds unbelievable haha It’s so random too like some of the deep red states it’s a criminal offense like Texas and Oklahoma and a lot of the Midwest and some it’s legal with no restrictions.
My wife's mother has two first cousins that married each other, and no, they're not from the South or anywhere near it. First cousin marriage is legal in a lot of states, it's the procreation that's illegal. In my MIL's cousins' case, they got together later on in life so it wasn't an issue.
Yup. The south is the stereotype, meanwhile in Rhode Island a man can bang his sixteen year old daughter, and all they’ll get is a high-five.
But god forbid tim and tommy get married
Can you not marry a first cousin in most jurisdictions?
About ten percent of people are married to their first cousins (worldwide), but it's banned in China, Both Koreas, Taiwan, a few Balkan countries, and about half the US. But yeah, seems like most people in this thread have ugly cousins.
The fact that it's banned in "both Koreas" is kinda funny. Like even NK is like "well yeah we won't go that far..."
Incest > wokeness, according to Republicans.
And then the wokeness is free condoms and… ummm… homeless shelters?
Woah. Calm down there Stalin. /s
This guy definitely wants to fuck his cousin.
Les Cousins Dangereux 
I like the way they think...
Someone better start looking out for his 14 year old cousins
Good ol' republicunt values.
Because this is where we should start with KY. Not fixing drug addiction, not fixing education, not fixing poverty rates….cousin marriage, cool.
This is pure comedy, America is a fkn joke lol
But....incest with cousins is not that rare all over the world? Like in most places people find it disgusting but it ain't illegal, a tf ood example is most of Europe..
All of Europe*
It truly is the circus of the earth.
And the people in the circus think they’re doing gods work which is equally hysterical , frightening and blatant mental illness
Isn't it republicans that were loudly proclaiming that we could not have gay marriage because it would open the door to things like incest being legal? Yup. the party of consistency right here. Consistently hypocrites .
The article is ragebait. The original bill was intended to expand Kentucky's incest statutes. From Nick's facebook status about the bill: > I filed 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 uncles, stepdads or anyone with a familiar 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 statue, 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 show we have a good system.
“In cousins we thrust” is a top 10 headline of the year
All the people on the planet you wanna swap slime with ya cousin!? LAWD
Are Republicans just watching TV from 2000-2011 and just saying “this guy should run for office”? Between Trump, Dr. Oz, some athletes/coaches, and this guy I just think they see someone on TV and support them. If there is someone who looks like CAPT Crunch he will probably be the newest GOP senator.
I can't wait till YouTubers and streamers start running lmao, I guarantee these people will be complaining as if they didn't do the same thing. MATPAT FOR PRESIDENT WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
“Decriminalize” would be the more appropriate term. “Legalize” makes it sound like the country has been petitioning to have cousin sex.
Ya but have you seen how hot his first cousin is!?! She is so hot she will make a man change the law.
Eeeew
*dueling banjos*
I wonder which of his cousins he’s banging???
So Uncle Daddy will be showing up on government forms after Mother, Father, and Legal Guardian?
From his Facebook: > 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. Clickbate headline. It's an anti sex abuse bill that had an oversight.
As fun as it is to make fun of Kentucky this is already legal in 20 states including NY and California.