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

What marriage should states allow?

  • Marriage is a religious issue; states should issue civil unions universally for tax and inheritance

    Votes: 31 45.6%
  • States should ban both gay and cousin marriage

    Votes: 3 4.4%
  • States should ban gay marriage but allow cousin marriage

    Votes: 3 4.4%
  • States should ban cousin marriage but allow gay marriage

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 30 44.1%

  • Total voters
    68
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?
 
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)
 
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. 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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top