The Texas Inquisition

[Conan71]

I have been following this thread and am genuinely confused. "Marriage" is not simply a "religious rite", it is a legal status with far reaching implications such as inheritance, tax, and child custody. Oklahoma defines marriage in Title 43 as follows:

43 O.S. §, 1.

For whatever reason, gay marriages are not recognized in Oklahoma and DOMA has pretty much made it impossible for one state to recognize another state's decision to allow gay marriage.

That's pretty much what we all agreed upon here, in so many words mind you.  It takes us about five hours and four pages to form a cogent thought some times.

[custosnox]

I have been following this thread and am genuinely confused. "Marriage" is not simply a "religious rite", it is a legal status with far reaching implications such as inheritance, tax, and child custody. Oklahoma defines marriage in Title 43 as follows:

43 O.S. §, 1.

For whatever reason, gay marriages are not recognized in Oklahoma and DOMA has pretty much made it impossible for one state to recognize another state's decision to allow gay marriage.

No, it's not just a religous right, but it is the religious meaning behind it that is sited as to why it should be refused to gays. 

[guido911]

No, it's not just a religous right, but it is the religious meaning behind it that is sited as to why it should be refused to gays. 

You sound as if this is the first time you have learned that some of our laws are rooted in religion. 

[custosnox]

You sound as if this is the first time you have learned that some of our laws are rooted in religion. 

yes, I know, plenty of laws have made it into the books because the majority of people were of this religion or that. Doesn't make it right.

[nathanm]

I have been following this thread and am genuinely confused. "Marriage" is not simply a "religious rite", it is a legal status with far reaching implications such as inheritance, tax, and child custody. Oklahoma defines marriage in Title 43 as follows:

It is both, unfortunately. That's what causes it to be such a hot button issue. If it were just a religious rite and conferred no special benefit then it would be up to individual religions to decide how they want to treat it. If it were solely a legal thing, people wouldn't get so upset about same sex marriage being allowed under the law.

So, gay people want it for the legal benefits and others are against it due to their religious views. (which is silly, IMO, for the reasons I stated earlier)

The legal and religious concepts of marriage need to be separate.

As it stands, in some states two people simply can't enter into contracts that create a status similar to marriage, and even in places where there are civil unions or domestic partnerships and what have you, the pseudo-spouse often can have difficulty exercising a right to hospital visitation or to make medical decisions for their partner when the partner is unable to make those decisions on their own.

That doesn't even begin to get into issues of inheritance, custody of children, and the like, much less the smaller ones like the rights granted to spouses under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and others, which can be a big issue in some corner cases (in the case of the FCRA, the case of a non-working spouse having not having joint accounts reported on his/her report, which can be a big problem in case of divorce)

[bugo]

The "civil union" part of it is where the government comes in and decides on if they can be together or not. 

The government shouldn't be able to decide if a couple can be together or not.  As long as they are consenting adults, then the government has no business getting involved.

[custosnox]

The government shouldn't be able to decide if a couple can be together or not.  As long as they are consenting adults, then the government has no business getting involved.

let me rephrase, it's determines what benefits, if any, are dirived from the coupling.  Now I have to ask, do you feel the same about polygamy?

[Red Arrow]

let me rephrase, it's determines what benefits, if any, are dirived from the coupling.  Now I have to ask, do you feel the same about polygamy?

Any person wanting to "marry" more than one other person at a time needs a psychiatric examination.  Sometimes I think a person even getting "married" to only one person should be examined for a vacuum between the ears. It's a good way to lose your stuff.  Even living together without the "benefit" of marriage won't prevent losing your stuff.  Ask Clint Eastwood.

[nathanm]

It's a good way to lose your stuff.  Even living together without the "benefit" of marriage won't prevent losing your stuff. 

For better or for worse, most states no longer recognize newly (the definition of newly varies by state, in Oklahoma, the cutoff was sometime in '97, IIRC) formed common law marriages.

[custosnox]

Any person wanting to "marry" more than one other person at a time needs a psychiatric examination.  Sometimes I think a person even getting "married" to only one person should be examined for a vacuum between the ears. It's a good way to lose your stuff.  Even living together without the "benefit" of marriage won't prevent losing your stuff.  Ask Clint Eastwood.

Well, sadism aside, how do you feel about a persons personal choice to be married to multiple partners?  Should it be restricted legally?  Or should a persons religious beliefs allow them to exponentially increase their own suffering?

[Red Arrow]

Well, sadism aside, how do you feel about a persons personal choice to be married to multiple partners?  Should it be restricted legally?  Or should a persons religious beliefs allow them to exponentially increase their own suffering?

I think the proper term is masochism.

I accept monogamy much as I accept other arbitrary laws.  I don't know that it can actually be defended other than on a cultural basis and that property laws, child custody etc are already messy enough.

[custosnox]

I think the proper term is masochism.

Sadist, masochist, one likes to hurt others, the other likes to be hurt, I just can't remember which is which.

I accept monogamy much as I accept other arbitrary laws.  I don't know that it can actually be defended other than on a cultural basis and that property laws, child custody etc are already messy enough.

I can understand the need to have something in place to keep things simple.  Something like you have to have a "primary" spouse for legal decisions and what not, and you can only claim being married once on your taxes.  But I don't think that the law should dictate if a marraige situation is illegal if it does not hurt anyone, or violate serious moralities (like being married to a 13 year old, or your cousin). 

[Red Arrow]

(like being married to a 13 year old, or your cousin). 

Now you are imposing your morality. In some cultures, marrying a 1st cousin is acceptable.  I can also imagine that marrying a 13 year old is acceptable in some cultures.  I know my sister would be totally revolted, (and so would I) but if some culture allowed marrying siblings, would you object to that?

Your bias is showing.

[custosnox]

Now you are imposing your morality. In some cultures, marrying a 1st cousin is acceptable.  I can also imagine that marrying a 13 year old is acceptable in some cultures.  I know my sister would be totally revolted, (and so would I) but if some culture allowed marrying siblings, would you object to that?

Your bias is showing.

I know your playing the devil's advocate here, but I'll play up the argument.

if a person is under the age of 18, is is expected, at least in this country, that they are not mature enough to make life dicisions for themselves.  And to marry a minor would be concidered making a life choice for them, something that will effect them even beyond when they are of the age to make the choice themself. 

As far as insestual (I have no idea if I spelled that right, and I really doubt I did) relationships, I have no problem with it, as long as they are of age, consenting, and steril.  I can not agree to the pruduction of children from such a relationship because with such a tight gene pool, it runs a very high risk of birth defects.  High enough that it does not justify taking the risk.  Of course you also have to consider the pschological ramifications of such a relationship as well, and consider if it is a sign of poor mental health, which could be an indication of someone who might be a danger to society.

[nathanm]

Now you are imposing your morality. In some cultures, marrying a 1st cousin is acceptable.  I can also imagine that marrying a 13 year old is acceptable in some cultures.  I know my sister would be totally revolted, (and so would I) but if some culture allowed marrying siblings, would you object to that?

Several states allow 13 year olds (possibly even 12, I don't recall for sure) to marry with their parent's consent. I think 16 is the more common cutoff, though.

Bringing kids into the discussion probably isn't the best idea, given the thorny issues of consent involved.