More U.S. States Allow Cousin Marriage Than Gay Marriage

[Daamien]

Although we would likely all agree neither issue should involve federal government, it is odd that more states allow you to marry your first cousin than marry someone of the same sex. What are your thoughts?

Article from death+taxes (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/96371/more-u-s-states-allow-cousin-marriage-than-gay-marriage/)

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/marriage_adp.jpg

[ChaosControl]

Marriage is a religious issue
Agree with this

states should issue civil unions universally for tax and inheritance
Disagree with this.

I put other. The state shouldn't be involved at all. I don't think it should issue civil unions.
I think if some combination of individuals who are able to legally consent want to sign some contract stating who gets what in what situation, they should be able to do that. But this should have nothing to do with states recognizing some kind of relationship like a civil union or marriage.

Not that it is relevant but I find less wrong with a cousin marriage than a homosexual marriage, but in the end neither is my business.

[Daamien]

Those contracts are legally enforced by state courts. Therefore, it does require state involvement to some degree to recognize the relationship. Civil unions are a form of voluntary contract after all.

[ChaosControl]

Those contracts are legally enforced by state courts. Therefore, it does require state involvement to some degree to recognize the relationship. Civil unions are a form of voluntary contract after all.

It is a contractual relationship and nothing more. It can be 2 people or 50 people, it doesn't matter. It can be a 20 year old man, a 40 year old man, and an 80 year old woman. No restrictions other than being able to consent to a contract within the state, whatever the consent requirements may be. It has nothing to do with any relationship beyond a contractual one though. Nothing to do with marriage, love, civil union, romanticism, whatever. Just like you can have a business contract and what happens when the business dissolves.

[PermanentSleep]

The only logical argument is personal liberty. Doug Stanhope says it best.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXpsT3e8UsM


...If you want tax breaks, incorporate, right? The government should only look at you as an individual no matter what...If marriage didn't exist, would you invent it? Would you go, "baby, this shit we got together it's so good we got to get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment tweenst us, we need judges and lawyers involved in this shit, baby, it's hot. But someone invented it, and now you gotta do it or you're an ass hole. It's like secretary's day. Every day was fine when you shuffled into the office until someone said, "ah, it's secretary day" and now you're a dick if you don't bring her flowers. Someone invented marriage and now you're a dick if you don't marry her and I'm a dick if I don't show up, and it's a boring, ego maniacal ritual that no one wants to go to. Don't ever for a second think that someone wants to be in your wedding. It's the most boring, horrifying experience. It's like watching someone make out on a bus for six hours...if I'm going to be that privy to your most intimate details, I'd rather just watch you fuck...

[libertybrewcity]

states should stay out of marriage altogether

[Daamien]

It is a contractual relationship and nothing more. It can be 2 people or 50 people, it doesn't matter. It can be a 20 year old man, a 40 year old man, and an 80 year old woman. No restrictions other than being able to consent to a contract within the state, whatever the consent requirements may be. It has nothing to do with any relationship beyond a contractual one though. Nothing to do with marriage, love, civil union, romanticism, whatever. Just like you can have a business contract and what happens when the business dissolves.

You are right, but not dealing with the current system of tax and inheritance laws. States have existing income and inheritance tax laws that favor unions between heterosexual partners, those same unions should be extended to any consenting adults. In this case, state law does have the need to recognize such unions for tax and inheritance benefits to be applied.

In an ideal situation with the absence of any such benefits, you would be correct. However, even under that scenario states would still be involved with enforcing such contacts through courts unless you lived in a stateless society with competing contract arbitrators.

[BuddyRey]

states should stay out of marriage altogether

This! Marriage should have no bearing on taxation whatsoever (everyone should be completely free from federal taxation, IMO), and marriage can become a church/private contract issue again.

[speciallyblend]

i voted other, you have to remember they keep the cousins law legal so they can keep kkk recruiters busy!! government shouldn't be in marriage period!!

[specsaregood]

I find it amusing that none of the options except "other" represents Dr. Paul's position.

[Danke]

What about siblings?

[Daamien]

I find it amusing that none of the options except "other" represents Dr. Paul's position.

I suppose I should have just left Option 1 as "Marriage is a religious issue". But the situation is slightly more nuanced than that. It's unacceptable for states to give tax breaks on the basis of whether a relationship is heterosexual regardless of whether they are involved in marriage. Hence, I don't comprehend the opposition to Option 1 just because it involves our current tax and inheritance benefit structure. If we wanted to be idealistic and simply ignore the current systems under which states operate, then we could just say that states should not be in the business of collecting income or inheritance taxes so civil unions would be pointless. At least Option 1 is a more equitable solution under the current system while a transition could be made to a system devoid of income and inheritance taxes.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

what about a cousin by marriage? if, for instance, you have a step grandmother.

[heavenlyboy34]

the only logical argument is personal liberty. Doug stanhope says it best.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxpst3e8usm
lmao!!! +10000000

[heavenlyboy34]

What about siblings?

that's reserved for when things get desperate and there's a shortage of warm bodies ;) lolz

[nate895]

What about defining marriage by what it actually is: A publicly declared male-female sexual union. Nothing else is marriage. They just don't have the parts.

[thehungarian]

I have no problem with gays or cousins marrying. Funny that cousin-banging is more acceptable(or used to be) than teh gheys. At least gays don't have mutated babies.

[Daamien]

What about defining marriage by what it actually is: A publicly declared male-female sexual union. Nothing else is marriage. They just don't have the parts.

Why does it have to be public? There are plenty historical and even current examples of secret marriage or eloping.

See, your definition isn't the same as mine in that case, so it just as easily may not be the same regarding it being a heterosexual union or even a sexual union. Therefore, it's pointless to try to impose a universal definition. Leave it up to the individuals and their voluntary associations with each other and organization such as churches.

[nate895]

Why does it have to be public? There are plenty historical and even current examples of secret marriage or eloping.



People that elope eventually come home and live together, and everyone notices that. I'm just saying people have to notice it. It isn't Johnny whispering to Suzie in the backseat of his car.

[heavenlyboy34]

what about a cousin by marriage? if, for instance, you have a step grandmother.

Great question! Another-What if it's a cousin by adoption? (for example, if one's mother is adopted and is not blood-related to her siblings)

[heavenlyboy34]

What about defining marriage by what it actually is: A publicly declared male-female sexual union. Nothing else is marriage. They just don't have the parts.

What if one (or both) partners is incapable of sex for some reason and just wants to be married (a veteran who stepped on a landmine, for example)?

[nate895]

Great question! Another-What if it's a cousin by adoption? (for example, if one's mother is adopted and is not blood-related to her siblings)

Cousin by adoption is a legal fiction, whereby they become the actual legally recognized cousin. Presumably, you could marry a cousin in the states that ban it, even if related by blood, but one of the two was adopted, thus making them no longer legal cousins. However, cousins-by-marriage have no legally recognized relationship.

[heavenlyboy34]

Cousin by adoption is a legal fiction, whereby they become the actual legally recognized cousin. Presumably, you could marry a cousin in the states that ban it, even if related by blood, but one of the two was adopted, thus making them no longer legal cousins. However, cousins-by-marriage have no legally recognized relationship.

Yes, but the thread is about the technicalities of law, hence I brought it up. Thanks for answering, though. :)

[nate895]

What if one (or both) partners is incapable of sex for some reason and just wants to be married (a veteran who stepped on a landmine, for example)?

That has nothing to do with the debate since we are talking about appearances. Recognizing homosexual "marriages" is, by definition, wrong, self-evidently. You do not have to investigate to find out that the parties lack the necessary equipment. However, one would need to investigate to figure out that a male and a female were incapable of sexual relations with one another.

[specsaregood]

I suppose I should have just left Option 1 as "Marriage is a religious issue". But the situation is slightly more nuanced than that. It's unacceptable for states to give tax breaks on the basis of whether a relationship is heterosexual regardless of whether they are involved in marriage. Hence, I don't comprehend the opposition to Option 1 just because it involves our current tax and inheritance benefit structure. If we wanted to be idealistic and simply ignore the current systems under which states operate, then we could just say that states should not be in the business of collecting income or inheritance taxes so civil unions would be pointless. At least Option 1 is a more equitable solution under the current system while a transition could be made to a system devoid of income and inheritance taxes.

And none of what you said disputes what I said. Dr. Paul's position (as well as many here) is the govt has no business being in marriage. You don't need a govt civil union either. Inheritance can be dealt with by private contracts just fine and people should be taxed evenly or not at all.

[nate895]

Yes, but the thread is about the technicalities of law, hence I brought it up. Thanks for answering, though. :)

A "legal fiction" is a legal technicality.

[BuddyRey]

What about defining marriage by what it actually is: A publicly declared male-female sexual union. Nothing else is marriage. They just don't have the parts.

So even if I, as an ordained Quaker minister, decide to officiate a same-sex couple's nuptials under my own denomination where same-sex unions are recognized, it's OK for the state to intervene and claim that the marriage is invalid, even though it took place in a legitimate church?

Doesn't this violate the very idea of religious freedom, Nate?

[Daamien]

That has nothing to do with the debate since we are talking about appearances. Recognizing homosexual "marriages" is, by definition, wrong, self-evidently. You do not have to investigate to find out that the parties lack the necessary equipment. However, one would need to investigate to figure out that a male and a female were incapable of sexual relations with one another.

Why does marriage need to be sexual or for that matter exclusively heterosexual? It's not as if a woman can't biologically conceive and give birth to a child out of wedlock. Therefore, marriage is simply a social construct whose definition is open to different interpretations and change as societal norms evolve.

[Daamien]

And none of what you said disputes what I said. Dr. Paul's position (as well as many here) is the govt has no business being in marriage. You don't need a govt civil union either. Inheritance can be dealt with by private contracts just fine and people should be taxed evenly or not at all.

The thing is you are acting as if Option 1 is mutually exclusive to Option 4 (other). Civil unions would be pointless in a system that doesn't have any tax benefits for a union. Therefore, why not recognize them (they are voluntary contracts) in the meantime while working to remove the tax benefits? Find where Ron Paul would disagree with that.

[nate895]

So even if I, as an ordained Quaker minister, decide to officiate a same-sex couple's nuptials under my own denomination where same-sex unions are recognized, it's OK for the state to intervene and claim that the marriage is invalid, even though it took place in a legitimate church?

Doesn't this violate the very idea of religious freedom, Nate?

Just because your "church" is apostate doesn't mean the state has to be too and recognize such self-evident nonsense as "gay marriage". The fact we are even talking about "gay marriage" just shows how far departed our society really is from reality. Marriages require a penis and a vagina, to be blunt, and homosexuals lack one or the other.

[BuddyRey]

Just because your "church" is apostate doesn't mean the state has to be too and recognize such self-evident nonsense as "gay marriage". The fact we are even talking about "gay marriage" just shows how far departed our society really is from reality. Marriages require a penis and a vagina, to be blunt, and homosexuals lack one or the other.

Wow...I've been called a lot of things, but apostate is a new one. I'm a little bowled over actually. So, despite confessing Christ as the son of God and my personal Lord and Savior, I'm an apostate for believing that the power of the Crucifixion undid the mandate for Old Testament prohibitions against things like shaving, shell-fish, and synthetic fabrics?

Suffice it to say that I'm exceedingly happy Jesus was more forgiving to His own disciples than we often are to eachother.

[nate895]

Wow...I've been called a lot of things, but apostate is a new one. I'm a little bowled over actually. So, despite confessing Christ as the son of God and my personal Lord and Savior, I'm an apostate for believing that the power of the Crucifixion undid the mandate for Old Testament prohibitions against things like shaving, shell-fish, and synthetic fabrics?

Suffice it to say that I'm exceedingly happy Jesus was more forgiving to His own disciples than we often are to eachother.

http://americanvision.org/3112/shellfish-logic-and-the-defense-of-homosexual-marriage/

[specsaregood]

The thing is you are acting as if Option 1 is mutually exclusive to Option 4 (other).

Please show me how to select both Option 1 and Option 4 at the same time in this poll then. They sure look mutually exclusive in my browser.

[nate895]

As far as calling Buddy an apostate, I am only following the Scriptures, if he, as he says, would "bless" a homosexual union.

Romans 1:26, 27, 32, ESV:


For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
....
32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

[Sola_Fide]

Wow...I've been called a lot of things, but apostate is a new one. I'm a little bowled over actually. So, despite confessing Christ as the son of God and my personal Lord and Savior, I'm an apostate for believing that the power of the Crucifixion undid the mandate for Old Testament prohibitions against things like shaving, shell-fish, and synthetic fabrics?

Suffice it to say that I'm exceedingly happy Jesus was more forgiving to His own disciples than we often are to eachother.

Marriage comes from the created order though...from before the Mosaic economy.

[BuddyRey]

As far as calling Buddy an apostate, I am only following the Scriptures, if he, as he says, would "bless" a homosexual union.

Romans 1:26, 27, 32, ESV:

I'm not disputing your right to interpret and enforce these scriptures as you see fit within your own denomination (though I do find it mildly disturbing that the above quote alludes to a death penalty for homosexuals). And I think apostasy is a strong word to apply to someone in the Body of Christ who just has Doctrinal differences of opinion, but besides sustaining some mild ego bruising, I can get over that. What really troubles me is that you would seemingly be alright with the use of the state to enforce a private church matter (marriage) instead of letting individual denominations decide policy for themselves. That just doesn't seem like a good move for religious freedom, IMO.

[speciallyblend]

nate 895 unless your being forced to mary someone gay, why is it your business who they marry? Are you trying to input your marriage beliefs to everyone else?? Marriage is between 2 people not you and your beliefs! if you have a problem with your church marrying folks who are gay then bring it up to your church issue over!! christians did not invent marriage.

[Dianne]

None of those options were viable for me... Actually the state has no business worrying about anyone's marriage. Go back to the indian way of marriage, when you would go under a tree, pledge your vows with family watching; and run off into the sunset.

Why the heck do we have to pay the State to get married, and why the hell does the State need to tell us who to marry.

For you homophoics out there, what are you going to do if the current dictatorship is mostly comprised of gay men and women and won't grant a marriage license to anyone who is not gay??? Once you give the government any power to decide the course of your life or the course of another's life; you have granted them the power and legal standing to take it much farther than you ever dreamed.

Look at the current dictatorship. Since Clinton, they have seized a little more power with each administration; and we are in a dictatorship at the moment where corruption and crime by the federal government is rampent. If we had stood up years ago and said "get out of our lives federal government", we would not be in a USA free fall as we are now.

Give the Feds or State Government an inch, and they'll take your entire life and country.

[nate895]

I'm not disputing your right to interpret and enforce these scriptures as you see fit within your own denomination (though I do find it mildly disturbing that the above quote alludes to a death penalty for homosexuals). And I think apostasy is a strong word to apply to someone in the Body of Christ who just has Doctrinal differences of opinion, but besides sustaining some mild ego bruising, I can get over that. What really troubles me is that you would seemingly be alright with the use of the state to enforce a private church matter (marriage) instead of letting individual denominations decide policy for themselves. That just doesn't seem like a good move for religious freedom, IMO.

For one, I just want the state to respect and honor the truth, which includes that one man and one woman in a lifelong, committed relation is the established Creational norm, and no other other sexual relationship is appropriate. Yes, that means that the courts should not even consider arrangements made between homosexuals in relation to their practices.

As for your beliefs on the matter, there are those who profess that Jesus Christ is Lord and do works in His name, and yet are not of his sheep. Considering that you say that you give approval to homosexual relations, which are expressly condemned by the Scriptures and even singled out as a sign of the denial of the Created Order, I have no choice but to conclude that you are outside of His flock and must repent. This is not a doctrinal difference of opinion; you are giving approval to those who deny the created order, and Paul clearly in that passage identified that with non-believers. I urge you to repent.

[Dianne]

Marriage comes from the heart, the soul, love and commitment. Marriage does not come from the bible, nor does it come from you or me; nor does it come from the State and Feds.

[Dianne]

As far as calling Buddy an apostate, I am only following the Scriptures, if he, as he says, would "bless" a homosexual union.

Romans 1:26, 27, 32, ESV:

I don't mean to sound rude, but why did God create gay people to begin with; if they had no place in this world?

[Nate-ForLiberty]

For one, I just want the state to respect and honor the truth, which includes that one man and one woman in a lifelong, committed relation is the established Creational norm, and no other other sexual relationship is appropriate. Yes, that means that the courts should not even consider arrangements made between homosexuals in relation to their practices.

As for your beliefs on the matter, there are those who profess that Jesus Christ is Lord and do works in His name, and yet are not of his sheep. Considering that you say that you give approval to homosexual relations, which are expressly condemned by the Scriptures and even singled out as a sign of the denial of the Created Order, I have no choice but to conclude that you are outside of His flock and must repent. This is not a doctrinal difference of opinion; you are giving approval to those who deny the created order, and Paul clearly in that passage identified that with non-believers. I urge you to repent.

-rep.

This is so the antithesis of Liberty it makes me want to puke. This drivel makes me want to release my bowels. You think you've got the moral high ground, but your just as guilty as those murdering mother fuckers at the Pentagon. You think just like them. You promote hate and intolerance.

You don't even know what it means to Love something or someone so much that you would change who you were to improve their life.

You know nothing of what Jesus was or taught. You are evil.

[Danke]

-rep.

This is so the antithesis of Liberty it makes me want to puke. This drivel makes me want to release my bowels. You think you've got the moral high ground, but your just as guilty as those murdering mother fuckers at the Pentagon. You think just like them. You promote hate and intolerance.

You don't even know what it means to Love something or someone so much that you would change who you were to improve their life.

You know nothing of what Jesus was or taught. You are evil.

He uses Facebook to connect with girls. Of course he is evil.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?273806-How-Lame-Am-I

[CaliforniaMom]

They should allow gay marriage, polygamy, and marriage between any type of family member. If a guy wants to marry his grandfather, they aren't hurting anyone. The government shouldn't control who people are allowed to marry.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Now i just violated the forum guidelines by calling you out nate. I was not respectful at all. Nor will I be as long as you continue promoting this intolerance. I will no longer be responding to you to keep myself from getting temp banned. However, every time you post this crap I'm going to post the Forum Guidelines you are violating.

Believe what you want about marriage and the placement of genitalia. Just keep it to yourself when you are here.



Code of Ethics: Site members are expected to uphold an ethic standard as follows:

+ Be honest and truthful.
+ Respect others life, liberty and property.
+ Respect others copyrights and intellectual property, per legal standards.
+ Work to promote a peaceful, freedom loving, compassionate society.
+ Operate within established morally sound laws.


Content Guidelines: The following guidelines regulate site content:

+ No promoting agendas that counter our Mission Statement.
+ Positive energy should be used with content relating towards the achievement of our Mission Statement. Negative content should be approached with the goal of finding constructive solutions to existing problems.
+ Controversial informational claims should include a verifiable source of the information or note that the information is "unverified".
+ No rude, disruptive or disorderly behavior, including excessive low value posting.
+ Posts should not promote negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals. Such forms of collectivism include sexism, racism, antisemitism; they will not be tolerated here.
+ Posts should respect the intent and desires of the Topic Starter.
+ No posting of graphically offensive material, use links with warnings.
+ Thread starters who are promoting their own material will be limited to two personal thread bumps.


Mission Statement: Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

[nate895]

-rep.

This is so the antithesis of Liberty it makes me want to puke. This drivel makes me want to release my bowels. You think you've got the moral high ground, but your just as guilty as those murdering mother fuckers at the Pentagon. You think just like them. You promote hate and intolerance.

You don't even know what it means to Love something or someone so much that you would change who you were to improve their life.

You know nothing of what Jesus was or taught. You are evil.

Liberty for everyone!

This offer does not apply to traditional Bible-believing Christians, who need to shut up for liberty

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Liberty for everyone!

This offer does not apply to traditional Bible-believing Christians, who need to shut up for liberty

Your Liberty does not include the power to take Liberty from others.

/finished

[specsaregood]

Liberty for everyone!
This offer does not apply to traditional Bible-believing Christians, who need to shut up for liberty

Yeah, it doesn't apply to hitler saluting nazi's either who promote killing all jews either. What's your point?

[Dianne]

For one, I just want the state to respect and honor the truth, which includes that one man and one woman in a lifelong, committed relation is the established Creational norm, and no other other sexual relationship is appropriate. Yes, that means that the courts should not even consider arrangements made between homosexuals in relation to their practices.

As for your beliefs on the matter, there are those who profess that Jesus Christ is Lord and do works in His name, and yet are not of his sheep. Considering that you say that you give approval to homosexual relations, which are expressly condemned by the Scriptures and even singled out as a sign of the denial of the Created Order, I have no choice but to conclude that you are outside of His flock and must repent. This is not a doctrinal difference of opinion; you are giving approval to those who deny the created order, and Paul clearly in that passage identified that with non-believers. I urge you to repent.

That's where we part ways... I am as religious as you are but want to remind you that any scripture you quote; God is a tolerant God. God is not a hell fire damnation God as you reflect. And I never saw anything in the bible anywhere, where God tells us to run to the State for approval of anything !!!! Did you????? If so, quote it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Your Liberty does not include the power to take Liberty from others.

/finished
+rep

[heavenlyboy34]

That's where we part ways... I am as religious as you are but want to remind you that any scripture you quote; God is a tolerant God. God is not a hell fire damnation God as you reflect. And I never saw anything in the bible anywhere, where God tells us to run to the State for approval of anything !!!! Did you????? If so, quote it.
Out of context cut n' paste of Romans 13 in 5...4...3...2... ;)

[RM918]

Your Liberty does not include the power to take Liberty from others.

/finished

This is it.

[BuddyRey]

Your Liberty does not include the power to take Liberty from others.

/finished

"You have given out too much reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later." :o

[nate895]

Your Liberty does not include the power to take Liberty from others.

/finished

It is not a liberty to make a mockery of our courts by letting a tempestuous minority redefine words. Words have meanings, and no matter how many fools want to say marriage is something it isn't, the fact is that it is a union of one man and one woman for life. I will continue to stand against any and all efforts for the courts to recognize any other sexual union, whether they be homosexual, polygamous, bestial, incestuous, or otherwise.

And, no, I don't believe in marriage licenses. Get a clue and stop reading your libertarian ideology into everything and then blasting people for it. You are no better than the liberal hacks at MSNBC.

[BuddyRey]

I'll go on the record and say that I don't think Nate is a bad guy. Full of a lot of zeal, definitely, but I was exactly the same way at his age, and it's not always a bad thing. I thank God we have this (relatively) free country where folks with different opinions can hash these issues out ad nauseam without any one religious group having despotic control over the state's monopoly of force, and that the debate can be civil for the most part, even when we disagree vehemently.

[Dianne]

I'm with ya on the ad nauseam lol

[Dianne]

It is not a liberty to make a mockery of our courts by letting a tempestuous minority redefine words. Words have meanings, and no matter how many fools want to say marriage is something it isn't, the fact is that it is a union of one man and one woman for life. I will continue to stand against any and all efforts for the courts to recognize any other sexual union, whether they be homosexual, polygamous, bestial, incestuous, or otherwise.

And, no, I don't believe in marriage licenses. Get a clue and stop reading your libertarian ideology into everything and then blasting people for it. You are no better than the liberal hacks at MSNBC.

Well then courts will take you down one day, because now you have given them the power to control every aspect of your life and mine. They don't pick and choose, you know. When given authority, they will usurp more to the point that one day you might not even be allowed to practice your religion.. Have you thought of that? Prayer was taken out of school because of your philosophy, are you satisfied with the effect one person like you grant the government to dictate what all of us do? Your cause is important to you, but so was the cause of Madalyn Murray O'Hair no child can pray in school. That was important to her... Now no kids can pray in school. The point being, keep the government out of our personal lives, before they destroy your right to even exist.

[amy31416]

Just because your "church" is apostate doesn't mean the state has to be too and recognize such self-evident nonsense as "gay marriage". The fact we are even talking about "gay marriage" just shows how far departed our society really is from reality. Marriages require a penis and a vagina, to be blunt, and homosexuals lack one or the other.

What if a hermaphrodite marries someone?

[Bruno]

A few years ago I went online at a friend's request, took 30 seconds to become ordained for free, and have legally married three couples since. And I am not even religious. Crazy laws.

[Danke]

What if a hermaphrodite marries someone?

Why would they need to?

[Dianne]

A few years ago I went online at a friend's request, took 30 seconds to become ordained for free, and have legally married three couples since. And I am not even religious. Crazy laws.

They didn't have to pay fees for a marriage license? I love that, gonna get ordained tomorrow :))

[amy31416]

Why would they need to?

I dunno, but they'd meet the penis/vagina requirement (plus an extra in case something very bad happens.)

[specsaregood]

Why would they need to?

^Clearly overlooking the possibilities of them finding another hermaphrodite to marry.

[BuddyRey]

A few years ago I went online at a friend's request, took 30 seconds to become ordained for free, and have legally married three couples since. And I am not even religious. Crazy laws.

That's what I think every Ron Paul supporter should do who is of a mind to. Marriage licenses would become widely ignored/obsolete if there was a vibrant "citizen clergy" going around performing non-state marriages.

[BuddyRey]

They didn't have to pay fees for a marriage license? I love that, gonna get ordained tomorrow :))

Nice!

[heavenlyboy34]

That's what I think every Ron Paul supporter should do who is of a mind to. Marriage licenses would become widely ignored/obsolete if there was a vibrant "citizen clergy" going around performing non-state marriages.

That would be awesome. :D ETA-this site has info on becoming ordained-http://www.ordination.com/ From looking over it, it is a ridiculously easy process. :cool: Maybe I'll get ordained someday just so I can marry people. :cool:

[nicoleeann]

Whenever anyone asks me if i believe in gay marriage i completely suprise them with a simple answer like this: "There should be no government marriage at all. The government should not be rewarding people for getting married. That is discrimination against ugly people." it gets them thinking a bit before i go further into the subject.

[Kludge]

Gov't marriage is meaningless. It merely implies both partners submit to the government for approval before acting or are interested in some of the tax/welfare benefits of being married, but it should also be noted there are government and corporate benefits to not being married rather than married, too. It's entirely a non-issue for people uninterested in government recognition of marriage and does not represent the beliefs of the society at large, especially when you consider US voter turnout (of those eligible) for federal elections is ~50-60% on years of presidential elections and otherwise ~40% (in 2010, fwiw, turnout was ~41.6%). If the biggest issues for gays is gov't-recognized marriage (... and being able to join the military and be openly gay), they're apparently pretty happy with the gov't as is.

[madfoot]

Marriage is a religious issue
Agree with this

states should issue civil unions universally for tax and inheritance
Disagree with this.

I put other. The state shouldn't be involved at all. I don't think it should issue civil unions.
I think if some combination of individuals who are able to legally consent want to sign some contract stating who gets what in what situation, they should be able to do that. But this should have nothing to do with states recognizing some kind of relationship like a civil union or marriage.

Not that it is relevant but I find less wrong with a cousin marriage than a homosexual marriage, but in the end neither is my business.

I think there's some stuff (not including the tax stuff) that can't currently be dealt with by contracts. I suppose that ought to be changed.

[The Moravian]

In the poll, I chose "other" as well.

[The Moravian]

Although we would likely all agree neither issue should involve federal government, it is odd that more states allow you to marry your first cousin than marry someone of the same sex. What are your thoughts?

Article from death+taxes (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/96371/more-u-s-states-allow-cousin-marriage-than-gay-marriage/)

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/marriage_adp.jpg

I see that many other members have made this general point, but I also wanted to chime in.

The premise of the OP is off a bit, enough to make the main point untrue.

Before diving into the usual debate, find out what the actual facts are first. Is gay marriage really "not allowed" in more states than cousin marriage is "not allowed"?

We don't currently need a government issued license to get married; gay, straight, cousins, same-sex, opposite-sex, no-sex, whatever. Gay marriage is not banned in any state of the country. It is "allowed" in every state, unless any of the states have and enforce "sodomy laws", which I don't think they have since Lawrence v. Texas several years ago. I don't know if it is the same with cousin marriage in each of those states. Do some states arrest you for having sex with a cousin, even if you have had a public wedding and vows?

However, if you want a state-issued piece of paper that enables you to file taxes together and make every institution treat you as one, only those states on the maps will issue that piece of paper to you. That's what is really shown on the maps, but they are falsely labeled "want to marry your partner" and "want to marry your cousin". It's a typical liberal ploy to make you think that "somone's rights are being repressed", and stir up your emotions instead of your mind. This kind of nonsense is really getting old for me.

Like so many "controversial" subjects, we who understand liberty and the nature of inalienable rights should be able to show that there really is no inevitable conflict here, but only the common assumption of necessary government involvement makes people think there is.

[Daamien]

However, if you want a state-issued piece of paper that enables you to file taxes together and make every institution treat you as one, only those states on the maps will issue that piece of paper to you. That's what is really shown on the maps, but they are falsely labeled "want to marry your partner" and "want to marry your cousin". It's a typical liberal ploy to make you think that "somone's rights are being repressed", and stir up your emotions instead of your mind. This kind of nonsense is really getting old for me.

Like so many "controversial" subjects, we who understand liberty and the nature of inalienable rights should be able to show that there really is no inevitable conflict here, but only the common assumption of necessary government involvement makes people think there is.

Money is fungible and any government benefit given exclusively to one group comes at a cost to those who are not able to partake in that benefit. Therefore, states which offer benefits for marriage yet limit recognition of marriages are practicing discrimination. You can get benefits from the state for marrying your cousin while you can't for marrying someone of the same gender. This isn't a liberal ploy. It's hypocrisy given they are both taboo, hence the comparison. Pointing out such discrepancies as hypocritical involves using your brain rather than appealing to emotion.

[The Moravian]

-rep.

This is so the antithesis of Liberty it makes me want to puke. This drivel makes me want to release my bowels. You think you've got the moral high ground, but your just as guilty as those murdering mother fuckers at the Pentagon. You think just like them. You promote hate and intolerance.

You don't even know what it means to Love something or someone so much that you would change who you were to improve their life.

You know nothing of what Jesus was or taught. You are evil.

You lost your cool here and it looks like you're sorry for the "outburst". Saying Nate895 is "as guilty as the murdering m*****f***ers at the Pentagon" is ridiculous. I disagree with him that the government should recognize marriage at all. I want government (all gov't, not just federal) completely out of marriage entirely, not "just want the state to respect and honor the truth, which includes that one man and one woman in a lifelong, committed relation is the established Creational norm".

However, the OP is "promot(ing) negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals", by promoting "gay marriage", instead of true individual rights of association. That is as close to "promoting an agenda that counters our Mission Statement" as you think Nate895 is.

"Gay" is a collectivist term which views humans as members of groups rather than individuals. Dr. Paul made that his clear position in the 2007 debates. Further assuming that government action is needed to make people equal is as much "the antithesis of Liberty" as saying that government should not be redefining what marriage means.

Apart from how I want government completely out of marriage, if it is ok to mention "what Jesus taught", I do, however agree with Nate895 that Jesus did teach specifically about marriage that "he who made them in the beginning made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh". (Matthew 19:4-5)

[Daamien]

However, the OP is "promot(ing) negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals", by promoting "gay marriage", instead of true individual rights of association. That is as close to "promoting an agenda that counters our Mission Statement" as you think Nate895 is.

I'm not promoting an agenda or a collectivist mindset. I thought the comparison was interesting to share and clearly it has sparked a great deal of discussion. I don't believe in labels such as gay marriage and straight marriage. Anyone should be able to marry whomever they want and such a consensual and voluntary relationship doesn't have to be religious or sexual. Arguing that tax breaks should be universal if they are applied at all does not equate to supporting the tax breaks and need for state recognition to begin with.

Nice try though at an ad hominem attack and attempting to shut me up.

[The Moravian]

Money is fungible and any government benefit given exclusively to one group comes at a cost to those who are not able to partake in that benefit. Therefore, states which offer benefits for marriage yet limit recognition of marriages are practicing discrimination. You can get benefits from the state for marrying your cousin while you can't for marrying someone of the same gender. This isn't a liberal ploy. It's hypocrisy given they are both taboo, hence the comparison. Pointing out such discrepancies as hypocritical involves using your brain rather than appealing to emotion.

I realize that there is monetary benefit to being able to file taxes jointly and a benefit of convenience by making other institutions consider you "joined", that is why I want to end the issuance of any marriage certificates by any government. Perhaps you can tell me about any other monetary benefits given only to holders of state-issued marriage certificates.

However, I still stand by my statement that your original claim that "More U.S. States Allow Cousin Marriage Than Gay Marriage" is not true, and that you are promoting an agenda that views people in groups, rather than as individuals.

[Batman]

Although we would likely all agree neither issue should involve federal government, it is odd that more states allow you to marry your first cousin than marry someone of the same sex. What are your thoughts?

Article from death+taxes (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/96371/more-u-s-states-allow-cousin-marriage-than-gay-marriage/)

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/marriage_adp.jpg


Wait a sec. I thought Texas doesn't allow cousin marriages.

[The Moravian]

I'm not promoting an agenda or a collectivist mindset. I thought the comparison was interesting to share and clearly it has sparked a great deal of discussion. I don't believe in labels such as gay marriage and straight marriage. Anyone should be able to marry whomever they want and such a consensual and voluntary relationship doesn't have to be religious or sexual. Arguing that tax breaks should be universal if they are applied at all does not equate to supporting the tax breaks and need for state recognition to begin with.

Nice try though at an ad hominem attack and attempting to shut me up.

"Ad hominem" means "against the person". Nate-for-liberty's post to Nate895 is a great example of that. He seems to have apologized for it, which was appropriate to do.

What part of my post is "against the person", instead of pointing out how you are as much in violation of the Mission Statement, as Nate895 is.

If it is ad hominem to point out that an OP is "promoting an agenda that counters our Mission Statement", then I guess it is not ever logical to determine violations of the forum guidelines.

The maps don't merely claim that some people get benefits that others don't, they claim that "gay marriage" is "not allowed" in 45 states, which is not true.

[Ranger29860]

You lost your cool here and it looks like you're sorry for the "outburst". Saying Nate895 is "as guilty as the murdering m*****f***ers at the Pentagon" is ridiculous. I disagree with him that the government should recognize marriage at all. I want government (all gov't, not just federal) completely out of marriage entirely, not "just want the state to respect and honor the truth, which includes that one man and one woman in a lifelong, committed relation is the established Creational norm".



Apart from how I want government completely out of marriage, if it is ok to mention "what Jesus taught", I do, however agree with Nate895 that Jesus did teach specifically about marriage that "he who made them in the beginning made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh". (Matthew 19:4-5)

I can see where his reply to nate stemmed from. Nate did quote the bible saying gays should be killed so i agree with the first reaction. Encouraging and promoting violence is just as bad as actually committing violence. I have seen that passage used to fuel violent hate towards the GLBT community. Openly quoting a passage that says a person deserves death for being gay is dangerous. It saddens me to see that kind of rhetoric on this forum.

Government has no business in marriage at any level.

Even as an atheist i am perfectly fine with other peoples beliefs and i have seen faith help a lot of people out in troubled times so for some i encourage it. But i do not think we should ever allow a religious based position to be implanted into the government for any reason. If we can not get government out of marriage all together then i would want gay marriage to be recognized.

I can not see how some on this forum scream and yell for freedom to do what they want as long as it does not affect others but then turn around and support ideas and positions that would limit the freedoms of others. Gay marriage does NOT affect anyone else besides two consenting adults so why is it any of our business to ban or block it? I hold the same position for cousins. It wont affect me so let them have at it.

Nate do you have any other way to justify your attitude and stance against gay marriage other than your religion? If your belief is all you need for the position thats fine but please think if it is right in a free society to force your belief on others. What if another religion did something similar to you.

[Annihilia]

What about defining marriage by what it actually is: A publicly declared male-female sexual union. Nothing else is marriage. They just don't have the parts.

According to you.

The concept of marriage is as old as humanity and has existed in one form or another across multiple cultures worldwide. By what universal edict is marriage limited to such a specific definition?

[jmdrake]

I voted other. Those are ridiculous poll options. Issue civil unions for inheritance and tax purposes? And that's on a pro liberty website? Taxes shouldn't at all be affected by who you're sleeping with. In fact no taxes are the best taxes. But if you're going to have a tax make it a consumption tax. And you don't at all need the state involved for inheritance purposes. If the state is involved in your estate then the state of your affairs is screwed up. You should do a will or better yet a trust while you're still alive. If you are going to go through the trouble of going to the state to get a marriage license then why can't you go to a lawyer and get a will or trust set up? Or you can do it for yourself for free. Quit being helpless boobs people!

[Carehn]

sounds like a cousin fu&ken good time to me!!!

[Carehn]

i voted other, you have to remember they keep the cousins law legal so they can keep kkk recruiters busy!! government shouldn't be in marriage period!!

The cousin think has more to do with the mormons. It sounds funny but thats not meant as a joke, Its pretty much the truth. Ever wonder why 1 out of 4 of them is born not quit right?

[Ranger29860]

I voted other. Those are ridiculous poll options. Issue civil unions for inheritance and tax purposes? And that's on a pro liberty website? Taxes shouldn't at all be affected by who you're sleeping with. In fact no taxes are the best taxes. But if you're going to have a tax make it a consumption tax. And you don't at all need the state involved for inheritance purposes. If the state is involved in your estate then the state of your affairs is screwed up. You should do a will or better yet a trust while you're still alive. If you are going to go through the trouble of going to the state to get a marriage license then why can't you go to a lawyer and get a will or trust set up? Or you can do it for yourself for free. Quit being helpless boobs people!

I voted other also but i think 1 is an acceptable compromise to work towards its not the best thing in the world but it would be better than the current setup and is more in line with the constitution (in my OPINION)

[jmdrake]

What about defining marriage by what it actually is: A publicly declared male-female sexual union. Nothing else is marriage. They just don't have the parts.


According to you.

The concept of marriage is as old as humanity and has existed in one form or another across multiple cultures worldwide. By what universal edict is marriage limited to such a specific definition?

And since the dawn of humanity across multiple cultures worldwide marriage has been almost universally been between men and women. Even in ancient "gay Greece" marriage was between men and women. The gay relationships were between men and adolescent boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece). Men who grew up still wanting to be on the receiving end of gay sex were looked down on and subservient. Most cultures at one time or another or another allowed polygamy (frowned upon by today's feminist society) and most cultures at one point allowed cousin marriage (a short term requirement for a small isolated group of humans).

All that said, I thought the point of this movement was to reduce the size and scope of the state, as opposed to trying to force everyone to accept some novel definition of marriage and human sexuality?

[jmdrake]

I voted other also but i think 1 is an acceptable compromise to work towards its not the best thing in the world but it would be better than the current setup and is more in line with the constitution (in my OPINION)

I feel just the opposite. I feel that option 1 will just create a whole new "group" that needs "special rights" from the government. I also feel that option 1 guarantees more state involvement in the future because you now have more people invested in the process. And far from being constitutional, it opens the door for first amendment conflicts. A Christian organization has a married couples cruise and Pat and Max show up. (Patrick and Maximilian or Patricia and Maxine). Now what? And lastly, pushing this agenda is a guaranteed way to lose the GOP nomination. Here's a perfect 30 second attack at. "Ron Paul. He's so radical that he not only wants to give gays civil unions, but he wants to get rid of heterosexual marriage at the same time and call that a civil union too." Compare that too "Ron Paul. He wants to get rid of the income tax, individualize health and pension benefits and streamline the estate planning process." Quit thinking like a libertarian and think like a social conservative. Which ad is more likely to get you to vote for Ron Paul?

[ChaosControl]

You are right, but not dealing with the current system of tax and inheritance laws. States have existing income and inheritance tax laws that favor unions between heterosexual partners, those same unions should be extended to any consenting adults. In this case, state law does have the need to recognize such unions for tax and inheritance benefits to be applied.

In an ideal situation with the absence of any such benefits, you would be correct. However, even under that scenario states would still be involved with enforcing such contacts through courts unless you lived in a stateless society with competing contract arbitrators.

Then we need to change those laws so they don't discriminate against unmarried people. You're approaching the issue from the wrong side. You don't support a bad law to make another bad law less bad. Instead get rid of the bad law and support a good law in its place.

[ChaosControl]

I think there's some stuff (not including the tax stuff) that can't currently be dealt with by contracts. I suppose that ought to be changed.

Yes, those things should be changed. That is the appropriate way to address the issue.