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

[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.