A question about sex..

[bailey]

19 states allow first cousins to marry. In Michigan it is illegal for first cousins to marry. Will two same sex cousins who love each other be allowed to marry in Michigan if gay marriage is legalized? If not, why not?

And of course you and Cbats simply illustrate my point. Taking a legitmate discussion to an absurd end in a futile attempt to prove a point. Please point me to petition drive or legal challenge advocating 1st cousin marriage? to Sibling marriage? to Man on dog marriage?

In you're snarky comment you and Bats...of course ignore the fact that if opposite sexed cousins were to travel to one of those 19 states and get married, upon return here, that marriage would be recognized as lawfully performed and they'd be granted all the same rights and priveledges of any other marriage. If it's such an outrage and an affornt to Michigan and presumably God....where is the constitutional amendmetn to deny recognition of this marriage? Where is the DOMA for 1st cousin marriges?

yeah...thought so.

[oladub]

Bailey, I didn't say anything about marrying animals. Sloppy generalizations make for weak arguments. I don't have to point to any petition. There are in fact 31 states that do either completely allow or conditionally allow first cousins to marry.

What is amazing is the discrimination advocated here. Gays should be able to get married if they love each other yadda yadda but other people outside of the heterosexual one man one woman paradign should continue to be discriminated against by the law. Their love for each other must not be as important. The opposition to group marriages, and now first cousin marriages, expressed here is illogical and discriminatory.

And no one, so far, seems to know if two gay cousins will be able to marry if gay marriage is legalized. I guess they could get married in Massachusetts and move back to Michigan...

Locke, Its social and religious taboos that thwart gay marriage too. Marrying a close relative seems icky to me too but not as icky as marrying another guy but that's just me.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Marrying a close relative seems icky to me too but not as icky as marrying another guy but that's just me."

Why bother then? If two men or women can marry, why not brothers and sisters, why not two brothers? This is what you folks are missing, this is a slippery slope. Liken to the folks that deregulated our mortgage industry, we all know how that turned out. As much as some may dislike them, there has to be some guidelines and restrictions in everything, or else collapse.

[gnome]

Attachment 1893

Hey! no fair messin with the a man's choice.

[Sstashmoo]

I'd say that would be a viable option for them two.

[Locke09]

And of course you and Cbats simply illustrate my point. Taking a legitmate discussion to an absurd end in a futile attempt to prove a point. Please point me to petition drive or legal challenge advocating 1st cousin marriage? to Sibling marriage? to Man on dog marriage?

In you're snarky comment you and Bats...of course ignore the fact that if opposite sexed cousins were to travel to one of those 19 states and get married, upon return here, that marriage would be recognized as lawfully performed and they'd be granted all the same rights and priveledges of any other marriage. If it's such an outrage and an affornt to Michigan and presumably God....where is the constitutional amendmetn to deny recognition of this marriage? Where is the DOMA for 1st cousin marriges?

yeah...thought so.

The rest of us are trying to ignore Bats, because we are not talking about bestiality, just what humans who have intelligence want to do.

It is not fair for you to trivialize people who want plural marriage and people who want to marry first cousins. It is not fair for you to consider these two things "absurd". It is not fair for you to require them to occur with a certain frequency before they are legitimate.

There was a time when gays were in the closet and people were certain there were an insignificant number of them so they didn't matter. People who want relationships with first cousins or who want to share spouses just do it informally because they don't want to face the social taboo.

Again, I am not one for plural marriage or marrying my first cousins [[ewwww). But I do recognize that we all just want what we want and just because we want something that is prohibited to us does not mean we will turn around and understand others who want something we don't agree with. We'll say they are absurd even as we vehemently vilify those who think we are absurd. We are all trying to advocate what we want and preserve what we want. In other words, we are all human.

[rb336]

This is what you folks are missing, this is a slippery slope. .

Stash, slippery slope arguments are ALWAYS fallacies

[rb336]

Uhhh, yea. If your spouse were having an affair with a single person, would you not consider it adultery?

you clearly missed the point of the question. is it adultery on the single person's part as well as the spouse? according to M-W and a few other dictionaries, the answer is no, it isn't

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "is it adultery on the single person's part as well as the spouse?"

Some countries it is. It's a cultural thing.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "slippery slope arguments are ALWAYS fallacies"

"Exponential Descent" Is that better? This absolute is not a "fallacy".

With decisions it made and continued to make, and all other factors combined, would you have argued with the fact car companies were on a slippery slope 10 years ago?

[rb336]

the Auto Industry example is not a forensic argument slippery slope as it is looking backwards and for other reasons and is therefore a moot point.

slippery slope arguments are of the

1) if "x" is allowed,
then
2) "y" will inevitably happen

it is used as a cheap scare tactic that usually takes the form "well, this might be OK but if you allow this, then that will certainly happen, and that is not ok" it implies a false causality, especially when used for moral arguments

if you said 15 years ago that if GM offshores parts production, then the next thing you know, there won't be anymore middle/working class jobs, that would have been a slippery slope argument AT THAT TIME

[Sstashmoo]

Your argument is assuming all things are independent, incremental and measured in their occurrence and effect. i.e. Perfect world assumptions. The reasons any good engineer factors in allowances. i.e. device capable of lifting 100 tons is rated for 50. In the matter of predicting what will happen, one only needs to look at what has happened.

On a slope, X and Y are interpolated.

[bailey]

In the matter of predicting what will happen, one only needs to look at what has happened.

Ok... so going along with the 'slippery slope", what you're saying is that you have decided that marriage shall change no further even though it has changed rather regularly through out the ages. Why do you get to make that decision?

[ccbatson]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adultery

Controversial regarding the single person. Not controversial in that it is immoral. "Homewrecker" a better label?

[LodgeDodger]

Uhhh, yea. If your spouse were having an affair with a single person, would you not consider it adultery?

Actually Bats, I would consider it a death sentence--for him.

Seriously, I don't think it's considered adulterous behavior on behalf of the single person. I remember someone making an argument about that some years ago.

[LodgeDodger]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adultery

Controversial regarding the single person. Not controversial in that it is immoral. "Homewrecker" a better label?

While we all have our own opinions concerning morality, it's not part of this argument. The question posed concerned the legal definition of adultery and whether or not it applied to a single person.

[Locke09]

Do slippery slope arguments always say, "If x happens, y is inevitable?" Don't they sometimes say, "If x happens, y is likely to follow.", or, "If x happens, y becomes easier and much more likely.", or "If x happens, then it's harder to prohibit y." There are lots of forms for slippery slope arguments aren't there? The very term "slippery slope" implies things will go downhill, but not that they cannot be stopped once they start rolling, just that it is more difficult to stop them.

In any event, even if they say, "If x happens, y is inevitable," this does not make it a fact that they are always fallacies. Write out the proof for that assertion.

There are tons of small changes in society that led to larger changes until we were far removed from where we started. Hemlines for example. One day they had to be at the ankles. Then people got used to them being at the calf. Now...

That's not to say hemlines should never have changed. It just says society is too often looking back and saying, "How did we get here?" because no one followed changes through to their likely conclusion. Or no one thought several moves ahead.

Nevertheless, we do change. I would say "Change is inevitable", but I have no proof for that

[Ravine]

Just my opinion, but if a single is affairing with a married, I would say they are both committing adultery. I'm not trying to make a legal, or religious, point, and I'm not even passing judgment. Just my way of seeing things.

[LodgeDodger]

Just my opinion, but if a single is affairing with a married, I would say they are both committing adultery. I'm not trying to make a legal, or religious, point, and I'm not even passing judgment. Just my way of seeing things.

The question, as posed, wasn't about our opinion of adultery. Everyone's made their opinions abundantly clear. It was a question to determine who was the adulterer. So, if the married person slept with a single person, according to written definition of adultery, the married person would be the adulterer.

Let's take it one step further, what would be the term used to describe the single person?

Sorry Gnome, this has evolved into much more than just a sexual reassignment question.

[ccbatson]

Home wrecker, immoral, snake?

[LodgeDodger]

Home wrecker, immoral, snake?

Sorry Baby, those are judgement words.

Because I'm curious, would those same words apply if the single person were a man? Just asking.

[ccbatson]

Adulterer isn't a judgement word?

[LodgeDodger]

Adulterer isn't a judgement word?

You can take that up with God--he's the one who wrote the commandments.

[ccbatson]

Not I, I am not confused about the meaning of the word, and yes, it is a "judgement" word.

[Pam]

I ran across this yesterday and I remembered this thread.

http://www.people.com/people/article...316597,00.html

Chaz Bono says his girlfriend of four years, Jennifer Elia, has been completely supportive during his process of becoming a man. Now, he says, his gender reassignment surgery allows the couple to physically have what they've always had emotionally: a heterosexual relationship.