 I refrain from trying to cause trouble but at times I stumble into some interesting info that falls into the 'for what it's worth' category that I feel I have to share even if for no other reason than it's 'interesting'Many times certain areas of the country get categorized as hicks, hillbilly's, inbred, backwards, uneducated and so on, so in light of that what do you think is one difference between these two groups of states. The first group were blue states during the last election and the second group were red states during the last election. Now keep in mind the blue states listed here are generally considered enlightened and educated. Well believe it or not the all of the blue States in the first group allow first cousins to marry while it is prohibited in the list of red states. I know, useless information but just saying......you can't make this stuff up and I'm not making any assumptions but I did the research myself so check for yourself. In case you think I'm picking on anyone I will tell you I live in one of the blue states. If you are like me I bet you are surprised by a few of these on either side. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Thursday, October 31, 2013
For what it's worth.....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, that has the potential of explaining some of the stupidity in the last election!
ReplyDeleteJuvat, Could be. Thanks.
DeleteA very good stop and think post. My state is not listed...hum
ReplyDeleteRob, I just included the states which stand out, Some also allow it under certain circumstances but it is interesting.
DeleteDoesn't surprise me. The Blue states will be allowing whole families to marry soon the direction things are going.
ReplyDeletePP, give it time, 40 years ago who would have thought we would be where we are now.
DeleteHeh, and FL is only blue because all the Yankees moved there...
ReplyDeleteOld NFO, well I wasn't going to go there but you are correct, it seems we get our share of liberals although in fairness i have met some who are quite conservative as well. Thanks.
DeleteSomehow, I'm not surprised.
ReplyDeleteRev Paul, very little surprises me anymore. thanks.
DeleteIn the Old South before the War for Southern Independence, first cousins OFTEN married to keep large plantations in the family. Marrying cousins did not constitute incest, and there do not seem to be reports of impaired children from those unions. Don't understand your problem with it. Again, not considered "incest" until recently in our history.
ReplyDeleteAnon, If you read my post again I said it was "interesting" I was not passing judgement merely pointing out hypocrisy of those who make fun of states like West Virginia or Mississippi which they claim allow it when in fact they don't.
DeleteI thought I was clear but I obviously hit too close to home. Sorry.
Not surprised. BTW, welcome back. Let's go shooting.
ReplyDeleteSenior, sounds like a plan.
DeleteNot too surprising - any way to gain new Democrats, they are probably wondering if they can sneak by marrying their pet cat would be legal . . .
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised that some of the Southern states aren't among those who allow it. Back in the days of the plantations and large land holdings, "kissing cousins" was another name for first cousins. Marriages between first cousins were often arranged to insure that the property stayed in the family.
ReplyDeleteThe British did the same thing, so maybe that's where the custom came from originally.
Harry, very true, it's interesting though certain areas get accused of the practice when in fact they don't.
DeleteWhen when was the last time you heard NY accused of being back-woods hicks who married their cousins?