How Many States That Ban Gay Marriage Let You Marry Your Cousin?

[Whoa_Nelly]

http://front.moveon.org/how-many-states-that-ban-gay-marriage-let-you-marry-your-cousin/


<snip> Ever since NY passed gay marriage, however, the number of states where same-sex partners can get married has increased to six!

*I counted 22, even though the graphic's text states 19...

I think I now know where the roots of the Tea Party actually began...

[Fearless]

1. Massachusetts? Vermont? California? Help me out here.

This is just an old argument circling back around. Let it go. We don't fight hate with hate.

[Whoa_Nelly]

2. Didn't know I had a keeper

Just posting to share something I saw. let it go, dude.

[Fearless]

18. Public forums are for discussion... you can't expect to like everything you hear.

[Whoa_Nelly]

22. Am sure you are above being scolded

Being told how I should think is not discussion.

[Fearless]

27. What I said is my opinion... I didn't know we had to explicitly state that now.

[Whoa_Nelly]

28. Telling me to let it go

That's directing, not opinion. It was not posted as fighting hate with hate, but you stated it as "we", with the clear inference that there are unwritten rules, and you are the task reminder.

It is a factual graphic, and an interesting one at that. My son's grandmother was the product of the CA law allowance of cousins marrying cousins. Out of the three kids from that marriage, she was not all there mentally...sweet, but had she been born during the time I've been a SpEd Teacher, she would have been one of my students. And, as for posting the comparative graphics, and also knowing that many of the states which do allow intermarriage, many for a very long time, it's important to note that deliberate genetic combinations through inter-family are still allowed, yet those who are same sex-attracted, are demonized to the point that their very lives are under a microscope, while those who marry cousins get a pass, most likely only a side glance, perhaps nary a blink.

So, you did not respond to my original posting as opinion. You were telling me what to do, and inferring I was fighting hate with hate, when I had done nothing at all like that. I posted a comparative analysis that is actually quite valid. Perhaps if my gay father, a very intelligent and well-educated man, were still alive and had come out of the closet, just maybe he wouldn't have had the self-loathing he carried around inside that manifested in anger toward others because that is how he dealed with it. There were no whispers or negative inferences about my son's grandmother being the product of two first cousins, but my father was who he was born to be, and grew up in an era where it would have ruined him in more ways than I could possibly explain or want to go into here, and he did have to deal with whispers, rumors, and negative inferences always looking over his shoulder in case he had to cover or defend or deflect.

If anything, this simple graphic of comparative analysis is important to point out in that children of cousin-cousin marriage can be born with all sorts of genetic deviations, and then there are those born as same sex-attracted children who are not birth defective, are just human and normal, but treated as if they are garbage.

You are the one who didn't like what I posted. I told you I won't be scolded, which is exactly what you did.

[Fearless]

30. M'kay

[originalpckelly]

5. Dear, it's not a hateful argument, if your wedding also counts as a family reunion.

That's just sick, first cousins?

And what of these states that allow people well under 18 to get married to someone who is in their 50s, as long as the parents approve?

"Yeah, I know he's 51 and I'm 16. Just don't invite Chris Hansen to the wedding."

If the difference between your relationship is contacting your nookie partner in crime through a glass window or walking down the isle with her parents approval, then that's sick. And that is a danger to marriage.

But oh no, can't be gay. They allow that freaky shit, but they can't allow two people WHO ARE NOT RELATED, and who are adults to get married.

That's the point of the argument.

[Bluebear]

6. Speaking of Chris Hansen....

'Terrified': To Catch a Predator host who was 'caught cheating on his wife also sent explicit photos to his mistress'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011881/Terrified-To-Catch-Predator-host-caught-cheating-wife-sent-explicit-photos-mistress.html

[Fearless]

17. I'm not saying it's not perhaps a double standard...

But we as a community should not use this argument because its saying that an activity is "sick" or "freaky"... or might I suggest "unnatural". This argument has been used against us countless times and needs to be let go. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

[Whoa_Nelly]

23. Thank you, originalpckelly

:hi:

[Change has come]

3. When was marriage equality legalized in Maryland?

or New Jersey?

[Whoa_Nelly]

4. Both states recognize same sex civil unions n/t

[Unvanguard]

34. Marriage equality was not achieved in Maryland OR New Jersey.

New Jersey has civil unions. Maryland has neither.

[Little Star]

7. Wow I never paid much attention to states that allow 1st cousins to marry..

My question is: do the states that don't allow 1st cousins to marry recognize those marriages from other states?

[MineralMan]

8. Yes, they do recognize those marriages. They have no choice

but to do so. I hope that they soon will have no choice when it comes to same-sex marriages, as well.

[Shagbark Hickory]

9. You should be able to marry whoever. Get your government hands off my bride. nm

[WatsonT]

10. Why is the government even in the business of recognizing marriages?

It's a private arrangement between individuals that shouldn't involve the state at all.

If I were to say the government should license and regulate who can be BFFs people would look at me like I was insane.

But that's essentially what we do.

Let anyone marry whoever they want and remove the government from the equation.

[yardwork]

11. The government provides more than a thousand benefits to married people.

The government is very much involved in marriage.

[WatsonT]

13. I never doubted they were

merely their need to be involved in marriage.

Do we really need to promote marriage and reproduction via tax benefits?

I'm sure we could come up with a legal contract giving people right to attorney over another should they die, inheritance of their assets in an unexpected death, and so on. all the legal benefits of a marriage could be lined out in a contractual obligation called anything you like. And it wouldn't require any special treatment. Those contracts would be enforced same as any other.

[yardwork]

15. I agree with you. Many European countries have removed most of the benefits of marriage.

A person should not have to get married in order to get access to health care, for instance.

[WatsonT]

16. Agreed

and it seems like tying financial benefits to a personal/sexual relationship is a bad idea.

How many people stay together and are miserable because they worry about losing their benefits?

How many stay in abusive relationships for that reason?

Let people "marry" for love with no legal strings.

Let the contract with each other for personal benefits if they choose but don't tie any religious or sexual connotations to it.

[yardwork]

20. It all goes back to protecting patriarchy. Independent women are a threat.

In the minds of people who benefit from patriarchy, independent women are a threat. Allowing gay people to marry thwarts patriarchy. It upsets traditional ideas about who gets the power and who is supposed to be subservient.

[BillStein]

12. yeah, but...

what about health care for spouses? Without marriage, states can lawfully deny it to gay spouses. And if I go on my husband's plan, or he on mine, we'll be taxed as if it was income.

what about taxes? My husband and I can't file a joint return. He makes almost twice what I make, so it would save us a lot of money.

what about inheritance taxes? or visitation rights?

As long as we continue to define these as "marital" rights, civil unions will be second-rate

[WatsonT]

14. See we've set up this complicated system of law to benefit another

complicated system of law that we really needn't have done. No doubt it would be difficult to untangle at this point but my arugment was simply that we never should have gone that route in the first place.

If the law had said you must designate a buddy (so you can successfully cross the street and go on long trips from your house) in order to get medical care and retirement then no doubt people would fight over who can be designated as someone elses buddy whose buddies are legitimate and whose aren't and so on. And if anyone suggested changing that people would scream: you can't take away my buddy, I need the medical benefits!

My point was simply: why is the government designating buddies in the first place?

[Fearless]

19. Government is a manifestation of society...

Societal acceptance is important to the marriage-wanting members of the GLBTQ community. Government recognized marriage is what we are talking about NOT government SANCTIONED marriage.

[WatsonT]

21. Imagine a society where people were free to live with and sleep with whomever they please

where they could set whatever rules they wanted for such an arrangement and no one cared.

You didn't have to go to the courthouse or anything.

And this applied to everyone, no one got any different treatment.

Does that really sound so bad?

I'm not saying we shouldn't have gay marriage. I'm saying we shouldn't have government sponsored marriage period. For anyone.

Now that is unlikely to happen so as a compromise I do support changing the law to make it equal for everyone. But I do so with the caveat of "this is a compromise, I'd prefer we didn't have this set up at all"

[Fearless]

26. You don't have to get married by the government you know right?

We already have it both ways. So stop trying to suggest that what many of us want, RECOGNITION by our government of the validity of our love, is in some way less deserved.

[WatsonT]

32. If you can honestly read what I wrote

and say that it is a defense of the marriage laws we have right now in this country then I'm sorry your educators failed you so horribly.

[TalkingDog]

24. Why shouldn't cousins marry? They are no more genetically similar than 2 strangers.

Your lack of exposure to basic biology and logic are showing.

[WatsonT]

25. Well they are a bit more related

but the likelyhood of them producing a child with a genetic defect is not significantly higher than two random people.

[Whoa_Nelly]

29. Actually, it is higher

there can be a lot of hidden genetic damage and children are much more likely to get two copies of a damaged gene.

[WatsonT]

31. Not really

the inbreeding coefficient for first cousins is 6.25%

Meaning there is a 6.25% chance of any gene having identical alleles.

This is only a problem if that allele is defective in some way. So it really isn't that bad.

And in fact the chance of having a kid with a defect is higher in completely unrelated couples who are over 35. But no one considers a ban on older women reproducing.

[Unvanguard]

33. There have been a lot of first-cousin marriages throughout history.

I'm pretty sure my family had quite a few. The genetic risk is pretty low (especially if it isn't done generation after generation), there are no issues about consent or power imbalance, it doesn't wreck families the way incest between close relatives can, so what of it? It should be legal. Same-sex marriage should also be legal. I don't see the point of this thread.

[LeftinOH]

35. So- in some states, gay cousins can get married?