Current Events > Tennessee Republican representative argues for cousins to get married.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/status/1778512910194532362

Because their priorities are so in line with Americans.

I would love for a Democrat to come up to the microphone after that and just say "No." and walk away. Then start the vote.

I am reminded of the study that found that the banning of marrying cousins was arguably the most instrumental foundation piece to western civilization.

It's gross as fuck. But people should be allowed to be gross as fuck if they are not hurting anyone else.

Usually the (non-ick) reasoning for denying cousin marriage is because of the (remote) possibility of birth defects.

So why couldn't 2 1st cousins of the same sex get married? What interest would the state have in preventing the marriage?

This is mostly playing devils advocate, but I am actually curious if there's a non-ick reasoning to be had.

Dang it Tennessee

i was all ready to be angry about this, then i listened to the video. the guy is arguing that "same sex first-cousins" should be allowed to get married because that presents no risk to public health, like it does with hetero first-cousins, since there's no chance for offspring. it's hard to argue against that, tbh.

cjsdowg posted...

It's gross as fuck. But people should be allowed to be gross as fuck if they are not hurting anyone else.

Allowing people to be gross let COVID spread.

Two cousins procreate and significantly increase the risk of a developmentally stunted fetus.

wackyteen posted...

Usually the (non-ick) reasoning for denying cousin marriage is because of the (remote) possibility of birth defects.

So why couldn't 2 1st cousins of the same sex get married? What interest would the state have in preventing the marriage?

Allowing or not allowing marriages based on the ability to have a kid is gross.

There's more to it than that, and I wish I could remember the exact specifics, but I remember correctly this bill is also for preserving child marriage, that is to say adults marrying minors.

Cemith posted...

Two cousins procreate and significantly increase the risk of a developmentally stunted fetus.

this argument is only about same-sex couples tho

Giant_Aspirin posted...

the guy is arguing that "same sex first-cousins" should be allowed to get married because that presents no risk to public health, like it does with hetero first-cousins, since there's no chance for offspring.

AldousIsDead posted...

this bill is also for preserving child marriage, that is to say adults marrying minors.

So it sounds to me like this bill is actually about preserving child marriage, and the TN repubs are trying to include extra stuff to distract from it.

A TN rep would be the one to argue for this

Japanties posted...

So it sounds to me like this bill is actually about preserving child marriage, and the TN repubs are trying to include extra stuff to distract from it.

i can't comment on that part at all. i was only reacting to what was said on the video in the OP.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

this argument is only about same-sex couples tho

Same-sex cousins

I... I'm just leaving. I can't wrap my head around these conservatives anymore.

We finally know where Shelbyville is.

If a woman was barren or a man was infertile, should they be able to marry their opposite sex cousin?

ellis123 posted...

I am reminded of the study that found that the banning of marrying cousins was arguably the most instrumental foundation piece to western civilization.

Do you have a source for that? Because it honestly sounds kind of made up.

darkmaian23 posted...

Do you have a source for that? Because it honestly sounds kind of made up.

I mean, none that I can just link to off the top of my head. I don't remember who wrote the book about its findings either (which led to some really funny things like pointing out how banning incest created the pocket watch... try telling someone that without context and see their reaction).

That said, it's not really all that hard to find people going over the findings: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/11/roman-catholic-church-ban-in-the-middle-ages-loosened-family-ties/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/western-individualism-arose-from-incest-taboo/

Western individualism, the entire Europe versus Asia versus Native American differentiator in the medieval sense, has been categorically shown to have come about entirely because of incest being banned. Almost everything in modern society has largely been traced back to its banning very specifically, and it's kind of goofy just how explicit its importance is above all else.

Even if you follow his insane reasoning, a law that would allow same-sex cousins to marry but not opposite-sex cousins would be just as discriminatory as anti-same-sex marriage

Shelbyville, TN

I can hear Giuliani salivating.

https://youtu.be/i_pbV8M73A0?si=VlOfFztY2uqpaNSx
He's got some support.

ellis123 posted...

That said, it's not really all that hard to find people going over the findings: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/11/roman-catholic-church-ban-in-the-middle-ages-loosened-family-ties/

This is bloody cool. I recall hearing that the Catholic church also pioneered the nuclear family structure (husband, wife, and children they bore together as opposed to a clan based family that includes extended family members) to allow for nimble family movement in search of superior economic opportunities. This allowed the rise of journeymen and allowed people to learn trades and crafts under experts unrelated to them. Prior to this, skills were mostly taught and passed down from generation to generation within a single family.

So I can see how your link ties into this; reducing the amount of ties to allow someone to walk their own path.

His argument is because otherwise, gay cousins can't marry?

Man, that's GameFAQS-levels of concern trolling.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

His argument is because otherwise, gay cousins can't marry?

Man, that's GameFAQS-levels of concern trolling.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Sad_Face posted...

This is bloody cool. I recall hearing that the Catholic church also pioneered the nuclear family structure (husband, wife, and children they bore together as opposed to a clan based family that includes extended family members) to allow for nimble family movement in search of superior economic opportunities. This allowed the rise of journeymen and allowed people to learn trades and crafts under experts unrelated to them. Prior to this, skills were mostly taught and passed down from generation to generation within a single family.

So I can see how your link ties into this; reducing the amount of ties to allow someone to walk their own path.

That's cool and all, except that communal/extended family helping raise children has been demonstrated as more beneficial to both the children and the parents.

It's also rich that it's the Catholic Church who concocted this as it opens the door for more child abuse when it's only 2 adults in close proximity with the children on a regular basis and so are more easily able to get away with it.

Sad_Face posted...

This is bloody cool. I recall hearing that the Catholic church also pioneered the nuclear family structure (husband, wife, and children they bore together as opposed to a clan based family that includes extended family members) to allow for nimble family movement in search of superior economic opportunities. This allowed the rise of journeymen and allowed people to learn trades and crafts under experts unrelated to them. Prior to this, skills were mostly taught and passed down from generation to generation within a single family.

So I can see how your link ties into this; reducing the amount of ties to allow someone to walk their own path.

Ye, it's a pretty fascinating set of events that only gets more interesting the further you dive.

Also, while I wasn't able to find the study I was able to find one of the books that I read that touched on its findings: https://www.amazon.com/Geography-Thought-Asians-Westerners-Differently/dp/0743255356

As well as another study that the article (that I linked to before) in question was based on: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797618772504

It could be one of the studies that it cites, but I can't remember + I'm not going to pay for access (being a student had its perks...) but if you want to see more of that line there's some stuff to look at.

Kradek posted...

That's cool and all, except that communal/extended family helping raise children has been demonstrated as more beneficial to both the children and the parents.

Within a western culture where the nuclear family is the norm, I can agree, especially in this current day and age where the sense of community has also plummeted in comparison to decades ago. But from the findings of the links @ellis123 brought up, I personally would prefer our current nuclear family based society over a clan based society.

It's also rich that it's the Catholic Church who concocted this as it opens the door for more child abuse when it's only 2 adults in close proximity with the children on a regular basis and so are more easily able to get away with it.

I would deduce that the articles contradict this notion that child abuse would be more prevalent (not saying the other way applies either, I don't know what the statistics are). The articles talk about how people are more trusting of strangers in our current Western society than other clan based societies. If child abuse is more prevalent in nuclear family homes, how is society as a whole more trusting of strangers? If you're raised, not being able to trust your own parents, the people closest to you, to keep you safe, why wouldn't this be extended to strangers? You would be distrusting of everyone else too.

Sad_Face posted...

If child abuse is more prevalent in nuclear family homes, how is society as a whole more trusting of strangers? If you're raised, not being able to trust your own parents, the people closest to you, to keep you safe, why wouldn't this be extended to strangers? You would be distrusting of everyone else too.

The majority of abuse cases come from people the victim knows.

And surprise surprise, a lot of these survivors don't trust a lot of people.

cjsdowg posted...

It's gross as fuck. But people should be allowed to be gross as fuck if they are not hurting anyone else.

So youd have no issue with siblings getting married based on that logic then. Great to know. Tag added.

ClayGuida posted...

https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/status/1778512910194532362

Because their priorities are so in line with Americans.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/7/7e27aed7.png

SHRlKE posted...

So youd have no issue with siblings getting married based on that logic then. Great to know. Tag added.

I literally call this " fucking gross"

cjsdowg posted...

I literally call this " fucking gross"

Sure but you wouldnt have an issue if they legalised it is what Im taking from your post. If not you might want to rework your logic.

wackyteen posted...

Usually the (non-ick) reasoning for denying cousin marriage is because of the (remote) possibility of birth defects.

Children of first-cousin marriages have a 4-6% risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorders compared to the 3% of the children of totally unrelated parents.
You get around the same risk when you pass 40.
The problem starts when you keep doing it for more generations.

The rest of the world looking around awkwardly with them allowing cousin marriage right now.

Picture of politician:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/2a919068.jpg

has anyone given a reason why he's wrong yet

He's a Republican, so he's not arguing in good faith and you should stop treating him as though he were.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

How is that map compared to GOP states?
Perhaps allowing cousin marriage is the solution to give GOP less power?

Foppe posted...

Children of first-cousin marriages have a 4-6% risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorders compared to the 3% of the children of totally unrelated parents.
You get around the same risk when you pass 40.
The problem starts when you keep doing it for more generations.

I mean that's a 50-100% increase.

ClayGuida posted...

I mean that's a 50-100% increase.

And at those low numbers it makes no real difference.

I'm surprised a Republican is actually advocating for same-sex marriage.

Honestly, same sex first cousin marriage should be legal. I think its perverse but if you remove the birth defect issue then its not really the states issue.

lolife67 posted...

I'm surprised a Republican is actually advocating for same-sex marriage.

It's probably some sort of reverse psychology where he'll later say that if you ban first-cousin marriage then you also have to ban same-sex

Foppe posted...

And at those low numbers it makes no real difference.

Do you want to double the chances of your child having a birth defect?