New York to recognize gay marriages

[Bob Hubbard]

*sigh* They are FORMS of marriage. I'm not saying being gay is related to polygamy.

ok, this is the last time I'm going to respond to this specific topic. Perhaps an analogy will help it sink in. I quote myself

Poligamy I'll correct myslf on.
"[SIZE=-1]The term polygamy (many marriages in late Greek) is used in related ways in social anthropology and sociobiology and sociology. Polygamy can be most succinctly defined as any "form of marriage in which a person [has] more than one spouse."

But Pedophilia HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE! It is not a "FORM" of marriage. It's being turned on sexually and often physically being sexual with a child. I've yet to find -any- definition what equates, relates or otherwise combines Marriage with Pedophilia. You keep bringing it up in the same conversation as if the 2 are somehow connected or elated, they aren't and I'll be blunt, I think anyone who does think they are combined it a few bits short of a byte.
[/SIZE]

Am I arguing that slot machines are the same thing as a lottery? No, I am not. They are, however, both forms of gambling. One person may chose to not gamble, another may play the slots, another the lottery, or someone could play both he slots and the lottery. You can clearly legalize one and not the other. You can also ban all forms of gambling. I'm not arguing the morality or virtue of one or the other, if you have noticed.

I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone who "chose" to be gay. I can choose to gamble or not, I can choose to shag or not, I can choose black or blue socks, but I'm wired the way I am at a genetic level. For me, to happens to be straight, for other it's different. That wasn't a choice, though they can of course choose to deny and fight that wiring, or have it chosen for them as some might prefer, and have done in the past.

Now, you mentioned a few specific examples. Incest is a valid one for this argument, because we have laws against marrying your sibling/cousin.

Very true. Incest also happens to be a primarily hetro issue. Additionally, sleeping with your cousin/brother/sister/parent doesn't require you be married first.

I'm bringing these topics up because the same arguments that are made for gay marriage can be made for other forms of marriage, such a minor marriage, polygamy, and since you mentioned it, incestuous marriages.

The common facts here are those of human rights.
It's against the constitution of NY to have a separate but equal policy, or to enforce inequality.
Marriage is currently defined as 2 adults of the age of consent being lawfully joined.
It allows for those under the age of consent to marry with parental permission, and includes the emancipation of the child, however certain other rights and privileges (smoking/drinking/driving/voting, etc) are still restricted until they reach the prescribed ages.

"I love them, I should be able to express that, I need health insurance, hospital visitations rights, inheritance..."

This can be applied to all forms of marriage, but I don't see crowds demanding polygamy to be legalized, or for incestuous marriages to be legalized. Maybe one day, if enough people start liking the prospect of polygamy or incestuous marriage, they will try to change the definition again. Please note the "maybe".

You like to combine items that are not relevent to increase the squick factor and skew perception.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with incest, polygamy, pedophilia, etc. It's about 2 gay people, having the same rights, responsibilities, obligations, and privileges as 2 hetros.

If the poly movement can get enough support, then it too someday might be able to break away from the stigma of the cultists and obtain their own rights.

These are rights that yes, could be agreed upon through common law contracts. However, hospitals, and families aren't honoring them now, so how do you propose they be forced to do so?

In any event, as I've said, to my knowledge, none of these changes effect the church. It's all civil. Civil protections that straight couple have enjoyed in this country for the last 220+ years, now extend in a few states, and eventually the entire country to gay couples (note thats -2- people, of legal age, not a boy and his dog, or a priest an his altar boy).

To seek to deny these base rights because of one's own bigotry seems rather small to me.

The common glue, the association here, is marriage.

You can have a gay marriage, you can have a polygamous marriage. You can have a normal, straight marriage. That is their association. You can't have a MartialTalk marriage (well, I guess two people could get married off of here hehe). These sexual behaviors can potentially be sanctioned in a marriage. By attempting to modify the definition of marriage, you open up the potential for modifying the definition of marriage to other forms of marriage. Does it mandate that it will ever happen? Clearly not, but the potential does exist, much as I argued with the gambling example. The arguments that are being made in favor of gay marriage are exactly the arguments that can be made in favor of other forms of marriage.

For the most part yes, they are. But you load them up with stuff that's not applicable and designed to equate in peoples mind illegal and immoral with legal.

And, anyone wanting a MartialTalk marriage can talk to me later this year as I might be legally able to officiate them.




Irregardless, some foreign countries still allow polygamy. Legally how does that work here? Do you pick the first wife? Say that Joe is married to Sue and Betty in Nigeria or some place that allows polygamy. They move here and he wants both on his insurance policy. How would that work?[/quote]

I believe they are recognized intact. Some sects of Islam allow up to 4 wives for example.

Anyway, here's some definitions of "Marriage". See more, goto google and type in define:marriage then hit enter.

Definitions of marriage on the Web:
[SIZE=-1]the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]A marriage is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition, usually intimate and sexual, and often created as a contract.The most frequently occurring form of marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Socially-approved sexual and economic union, usually of a male and a female, that is assumed to be more or less permanent.
www.killgrove.org/ANT220/cultanthdef.html[/SIZE]

 

[shesulsa]

The point is that all parties involved in the marriage should be consenting adults.

Plural marriage, as far as I'm concerned, is fine so long as there is no abuse involved such as forcing 14 year old girls to marry 50 year old men, etcetera and so long as blood lines are traced so that the binds of kinship aren't exploited.

Gay marriage - fine with me.

Mixing up pedophilia with homosexuality and poligamy is as misguided as you can get.

Pedophilia is inherently wrong - it involves the exploitation and taking of a child - not just the body but the mind as well. Pedophilia is abuse - RAPE - plain and simple.

If two adult men and three adult women consent and want to marry each other and the fivehood commune as a plural family you have five consenting adults who have the ability to make their own decisions for themselves and who are not forced into something they have no means of making a choice over.

Same with homosexuality.

Just because I don't do it doesn't make it deviant. We need to separate for a moment, sexually deviant crime from long-term committed relationship theory.

 

[Omar B]

I'm very happy about this, love is love and I'm glad my nephew will grow up with his mothers being married.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

I had a smart **** comment ready, but, I'll just say "Best wishes" to all the hopeully happy couples.

 

[Adept]

The point is, I don't think we need to be legislating marriage. It exists in its current form of man + woman. Let it be.

Why should we let it be if people want it changed?

you know, 300 bucks and a lawyer gets you a will, a power of atty, medical directives, those 3 documents solve most of the problems.

I say get the government to issue "domestic contracts" instead of marraige licenses.

I'm all for that. So long as everyone is equal! No marriage licences just for straight couples, and domestic contracts for gay couples.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I'm all for that. So long as everyone is equal! No marriage licences just for straight couples, and domestic contracts for gay couples.

Thing is, that's exactly what this domestic contracts thing does. Straight couples don't have to get into domestic contracts, unless you're using that phrase to refer to the legal benefits bestowed on marriage by the state. Even granting domestic contracts to gay couples where straight couples don't need to get them results in unequal treatment.

 

[Bester]

Just remember, 2 water fountains just makes the lines shorter for all of us.

 

[tellner]

If I were to marry (this is hypothetical, I'm already married, but bear with me) say, a 13 year old girl in New Hampshire (completely legal with her parents' permission) and move to New York, well, we're still married, and I can't be arrested or jailed for having sex with a minor. She's recognized as my spouse, and, while the neighbors, cops, churches, school authorities and everyone else would damn me for the sick puppy I'd have to be, it'd still be legal.].....in theory, anyway.

Not exactly. There was a case not too long ago - I didn't bother to save it because it wasn't terribly important - of a twentysomething who took his fifteen year old girlfriend to a State where they could get married. When they got back he was arrested and convicted of statutory rape. Dunno if it was overturned on appeal. The Court at least thought the case had enough merit to go to trial.

 

[Twin Fist]

ah ha,
BUT
if the precedent is set that one state must recognize another states marraige licences, then a case like that one out to be legal as well. It is the same legal principal.

 

[elder999]

Not exactly. There was a case not too long ago - I didn't bother to save it because it wasn't terribly important - of a twentysomething who took his fifteen year old girlfriend to a State where they could get married. When they got back he was arrested and convicted of statutory rape. Dunno if it was overturned on appeal. The Court at least thought the case had enough merit to go to trial.

If they had sex in the state they went back to before they got married, it's statutory rape....I think....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You might be able to marry her, but consumating it may not be legal, and taking nude shots of her is a def. no--no. (read of a case a while back, don't recall the specifics, other than the guy was arrested and convicted of child endangerment for stupidly trying to get his nudes of his 15 yr old wife developed as a drug store.