Then they came for the Amish ...

[Ken]

How many states define women as an adult who was born female, and how many define it as something malleable?
I’m really just noting how sometimes we accept the dictionary definitions and sometimes we except them.

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking about what gets printed on someone's birth certificate and if a person can legally change it? Or some other definition found somewhere else in state law?

[RZehr]

How many states define women as an adult who was born female, and how many define it as something malleable?
I’m really just noting how sometimes we accept the dictionary definitions and sometimes we except them.

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking about what gets printed on someone's birth certificate and if they can legally change it? Or some other definition found somewhere else in state law?

I don’t care. This country is so far gone, it doesn’t matter what I think anyway.
“ I’m really just noting how sometimes we accept the dictionary definitions and sometimes we except them.”
I noticed how Sdzfan and you recently turned to the dictionary for definitions. Why use a dictionary when they change the meaning of words mid-conversation?
Out here in the real world, outside of academia, we are living real lives. We are using real words and not spending our energy on thinking up ways to pervert society through coercion of language. No, we are just using our native language organically and genuinely.

[Ken]

How many states define women as an adult who was born female, and how many define it as something malleable?
I’m really just noting how sometimes we accept the dictionary definitions and sometimes we except them.

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking about what gets printed on someone's birth certificate and if they can legally change it? Or some other definition found somewhere else in state law?

I don’t care.
“ I’m really just noting how sometimes we accept the dictionary definitions and sometimes we except them.”

The Miriam-Webster dictionary definition of "woman" doesn't mention genetics or XX chromosomes.

woman (noun)

: an adult female person
: a woman belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination

[mike]

In this country marriage between first cousins is absolutely prohibited in 24 states, allowed in 20 states, and in 6 states it is allowed only under certain narrow circumstances. For example, Arizona prohibits and voids marriage between first cousins and considers sex between them incestuous. Yet, the state will retract its prohibition on marriage provided both partners are over the age of sixty-five, or are younger but can prove infertility.

So in that particular legal definition, there can be no such thing as gay incest? Could brothers get married to each other?

[Szdfan]

In this country marriage between first cousins is absolutely prohibited in 24 states, allowed in 20 states, and in 6 states it is allowed only under certain narrow circumstances. For example, Arizona prohibits and voids marriage between first cousins and considers sex between them incestuous. Yet, the state will retract its prohibition on marriage provided both partners are over the age of sixty-five, or are younger but can prove infertility.

So in that particular legal definition, there can be no such thing as gay incest? Could brothers get married to each other?

I couldn't find anywhere that's been tested. Most laws banning incest don't take sexuality into account.

[Ken]

In this country marriage between first cousins is absolutely prohibited in 24 states, allowed in 20 states, and in 6 states it is allowed only under certain narrow circumstances. For example, Arizona prohibits and voids marriage between first cousins and considers sex between them incestuous. Yet, the state will retract its prohibition on marriage provided both partners are over the age of sixty-five, or are younger but can prove infertility.

So in that particular legal definition, there can be no such thing as gay incest? Could brothers get married to each other?

As far as I can tell, the prohibitions on first cousin marriage don't refer to sex. So if two opposite sex first cousins can't get married then two same sex first cousins would also be prohibited from getting married.

I don't know about two brothers or two sisters.

[HondurasKeiser]

In this country marriage between first cousins is absolutely prohibited in 24 states, allowed in 20 states, and in 6 states it is allowed only under certain narrow circumstances. For example, Arizona prohibits and voids marriage between first cousins and considers sex between them incestuous. Yet, the state will retract its prohibition on marriage provided both partners are over the age of sixty-five, or are younger but can prove infertility.

So in that particular legal definition, there can be no such thing as gay incest? Could brothers get married to each other?

Elsewhere, Ken stated that consenting adults of whatever number, sexuality, gender and consanguinity should be able to marry if they desire. I don't mean that as an attack just a statement of his, very consistent, position.

Honestly I pretty much don't care who gets married as long as they are adults. Children who want to get married can wait until they are age 18 just like they have to wait for their other rights like to vote.

If a brother and sister want to get married for whatever legal reasons they may have I don't really care. What they shouldn't be doing is having kids for obvious reasons. But that is the same whether or not they get married. A brother and sister can be in an incestuous relationship whether or not they are married. There probably isn't as much reason for them to do so as they would probably already have next of kin rights without getting married. But perhaps there might be some legal reason why it would make sense in some odd circumstances. I don't really know. But I'm not going to care one way or the other about it.

Likewise, I don't really object to polygamy. The biggest problem with polygamy is dealing with divorce. I would write the law so that a divorce in a polygamist marriage means half of everything goes to the divorcing wife (including the house) and half of the rest goes to the remaining marriage or something to that effect so that women who leave polygamist marriages are not left high and dry like they are today. I expect that would put a damper on some of the polygamist marriages if the guy with 3 wives knows that any one of his wives can walk out at any time and take half the marital assets plus the house plus half his pension and social security and whatever other resources he has.

There are plenty of ordinary heterosexual couples who already make a complete farce of marriage. A few other odd marriages isn't going to make any difference.

[steve-in-kville]

Yet, the state will retract its prohibition on marriage provided both partners are over the age of sixty-five, or are younger but can prove infertility.

I know of a situation like this. Old enough that no one cared.

[RZehr]

Yet, the state will retract its prohibition on marriage provided both partners are over the age of sixty-five, or are younger but can prove infertility.

I know of a situation like this. Old enough that no one cared.

I think it is still immoral.

[Ken]

In this country marriage between first cousins is absolutely prohibited in 24 states, allowed in 20 states, and in 6 states it is allowed only under certain narrow circumstances. For example, Arizona prohibits and voids marriage between first cousins and considers sex between them incestuous. Yet, the state will retract its prohibition on marriage provided both partners are over the age of sixty-five, or are younger but can prove infertility.

So in that particular legal definition, there can be no such thing as gay incest? Could brothers get married to each other?

Elsewhere, Ken stated that consenting adults of whatever number, sexuality, gender and consanguinity should be able to marry if they desire. I don't mean that as an attack just a statement of his, very consistent, position.

Honestly I pretty much don't care who gets married as long as they are adults. Children who want to get married can wait until they are age 18 just like they have to wait for their other rights like to vote.

If a brother and sister want to get married for whatever legal reasons they may have I don't really care. What they shouldn't be doing is having kids for obvious reasons. But that is the same whether or not they get married. A brother and sister can be in an incestuous relationship whether or not they are married. There probably isn't as much reason for them to do so as they would probably already have next of kin rights without getting married. But perhaps there might be some legal reason why it would make sense in some odd circumstances. I don't really know. But I'm not going to care one way or the other about it.

Likewise, I don't really object to polygamy. The biggest problem with polygamy is dealing with divorce. I would write the law so that a divorce in a polygamist marriage means half of everything goes to the divorcing wife (including the house) and half of the rest goes to the remaining marriage or something to that effect so that women who leave polygamist marriages are not left high and dry like they are today. I expect that would put a damper on some of the polygamist marriages if the guy with 3 wives knows that any one of his wives can walk out at any time and take half the marital assets plus the house plus half his pension and social security and whatever other resources he has.

There are plenty of ordinary heterosexual couples who already make a complete farce of marriage. A few other odd marriages isn't going to make any difference.

There is what the law says and what I care about. Two different things. Personally I don't think for most people that marriage is a bright line that prevents or allows them to have sex. If two siblings want to have an incestuous relationship then I don't think the presence or absence of a marriage license is going to stop them.

When talking about what kinds of sexual relationships should be permissible and which should not be, we all draw the lines differently but I suspect everyone draws the lines somewhere. And the lines we draw for what should be illegal/legal are different from what we consider moral/immoral. Or to put it another way, not every moral guideline should necessarily be criminalized and prosecuted through the justice system.

For example, for traditional Catholics, sex is only permissible between a man and a wife married in the church and then ONLY if they avoid using any form of birth control. Some traditional Catholics advocate imposing this on society by banning birth control. I don't actually know if traditional Catholics have an opinion on different types of sex, maybe they consider some types like oral or anal to be immoral sodomy, I'm really not current on that.

Protestants and Anabaptists tend to draw the line in a different place than Catholics and each group also draws it somewhat differently and that brings in things like divorce, child marriages, and so forth which different sects treat differently.

The law in most states pretty much allows consenting adults do do whatever they want short of incest but prohibits sexual relations between adults and children and nonconsensual sex (rape). Some people draw that line differently and advocate for child marriages and sex between adults and children. And there are even people who believe rape is acceptable. Witness all the rapes happening by Russian soldiers in Ukraine that more or less seems to be accepted Russian policy.

I suspect we could create a giant Venn Diagram showing which types of sexual relations should be legal, which should be illegal, and which are in a middle gray area that depends on circumstance. And we could do separate ones for what we think is moral versus immoral and those will be different from what we think should be legal versus criminalized. I expect everyone here would come up with a slightly different version since not even closely related conservative Anabaptist groups are on the same page on this topic.