New Jersey Marriage Court Ruling -- Good or Bad for Christie?

[ClydeR]

Republican Gov. Chris Christie said Tuesday that if one of his four children came out as gay, he would “grab them and hug them and tell them I love them.”

He would also tell them “that Dad believes that marriage is between one man and one woman,” he said.
Continue Reading

The New Jersey governor’s comments came in a debate at Montclair State University in Montclair — his second and final one against Democratic gubernatorial candidate Barbara Buono — after the state Supreme Court agreed to weigh his administration’s appeal of a ruling to allow gay marriage.

Buono, who has an openly gay daughter, declined to respond to Christie’s statement.

More... (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/chris-christie-discusses-gay-marriage-98377.html)

The court ruling is bad for Christie's presidential ambitions. If he can't even control his own state, how is he going to run the whole country?

[cwolff]

The court ruling is bad for Christie's presidential ambitions. If he can't even control his own state, how is he going to run the whole country?

These guys are so trapped. They're obviously on the wrong side of this issue, they know it, we know it and we're seeing it all over the country. The world is changing, their base is dying off and all the years they spent politicking based on faith has created a monster they can no longer control.

[Wrathbringer]

The court ruling is bad for Christie's presidential ambitions. If he can't even control his own waist, how is he going to run the whole country?

Fixed.

[Methais]

Fixed.

WRATHBRINGER HATES FAT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!1

[Wrathbringer]

WRATHBRINGER HATES FAT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!1

hahahaha I was waiting for that.

[Methais]

hahahaha I was waiting for that.

Just come to terms with it man, you despise all fat people and view them as inferior slugs.

[Wrathbringer]

Just come to terms with it man, you despise all fat people and view them as inferior slugs.

Perhaps in another session.

[Pumpkin Queen]

Wrathbringer smells like farts.

[Jarvan]

These guys are so trapped. They're obviously on the wrong side of this issue, they know it, we know it and we're seeing it all over the country. The world is changing, their base is dying off and all the years they spent politicking based on faith has created a monster they can no longer control.

I honestly agree with Gay marriage. I just have a question for you, why do YOU agree with it?

[Wrathbringer]

Wrathbringer smells like farts.

Completely false (unless I just farted).

[cwolff]

I honestly agree with Gay marriage. I just have a question for you, why do YOU agree with it?

Freedom. Let every adult do whatever the hell the want including plural marriage.

[Ardwen]

As long as whatever you do in private doesnt harm anyone or anything else that isnt willing to be harmed i am all for letting you do it, why the hell should I give a damn what you do in private, if you start screwing picnic tables in parks or sheep on peoples lawns I draw the line though!

[Methais]

Marriage in general would be a lot more "freedom" if the government wasn't attached to it.

[Jeril]

Spouses have certain legal rights and in the case of the military having a spouse means you get paid more. Outside of the military a lot of those rights can be passed to anyone with the proper paperwork but some can't. Like how one spouse can choose to remain silent in court and not implicate the other in a crime. Another thing is citizenship, you can't exactly fall in love with a foreigner and do some paperwork, other then a marriage, and bring them right home with you. And I am sure there are some other things.

[cwolff]

Marriage in general would be a lot more "freedom" if the government wasn't attached to it.


Spouses have certain legal rights and in the case of the military having a spouse means you get paid more. Outside of the military a lot of those rights can be passed to anyone with the proper paperwork but some can't. Like how one spouse can choose to remain silent in court and not implicate the other in a crime. Another thing is citizenship, you can't exactly fall in love with a foreigner and do some paperwork, other then a marriage, and bring them right home with you. And I am sure there are some other things.

One could argue that marriage is only governmental in nature. It's always been about things like inheritance, division of labor and property rights. The idea of love as we know it is a fairly new construct. In the modern world there is no reason for marriage for practical purposes.

[Jeril]

The idea of love as we know it is a fairly new construct..

Can you clarify this more?


In the modern world there is no reason for marriage for practical purposes.

So getting paid more while in the military isn't practical? Being able to bring someone from another country into the US without having to wait and jump through who knows how many hoops isn't practical? Being able to buy things like joint health insurance isn't practical? Joint loans? Not being forced to testify against someone in court isn't practical? What exactly do you consider practical purposes?

[cwolff]

Can you clarify this more?

Romantic love showed up in our culture around 800 years ago and even then you had to be rich or royal to "experience" it. The majority of folks were too busy getting by to be. Before this time there is no notion of romantic love in our culture. In fact, I don't believe it was present in most cultures globally. It's probably an export from the west.



So getting paid more while in the military isn't practical? Being able to bring someone from another country into the US without having to wait and jump through who knows how many hoops isn't practical? Being able to buy things like joint health insurance isn't practical? Joint loans? Not being forced to testify against someone in court isn't practical? What exactly do you consider practical purposes?

By practical purposes I mean survival. You don't have to have a partner to make it today.

[Jeril]

By practical purposes I mean survival. You don't have to have a partner to make it today.

You can 'make it' on your own sure enough, but there is more then that to life. Also with the right partner you can go a lot further then you can on your own.

[SpiffyJr]

You can 'make it' on your own sure enough, but there is more then that to life. Also with the right partner you can go a lot further then you can on your own.

Felt like that needed repeating.

[Jarvan]

Freedom. Let every adult do whatever the hell the want including plural marriage.

Nice. So you would also be perfectly fine with a Brother and Sister marrying. And a Father and Daughter. or Father and Son.

You really do have a liberal outlook.

[Latrinsorm]

Nice. So you would also be perfectly fine with a Brother and Sister marrying. And a Father and Daughter. or Father and Son.

You really do have a liberal outlook.What about incestuous marriage between adults is wrong besides it creeping you out?

What do you think the homophobic argument against gay marriage boils down to besides it creeping them out?

What's the deal with airline peanuts?

[4a6c1]

Uhhh just off the top of my head...trisomy and various other chromosome abnormalities?

[Latrinsorm]

Uhhh just off the top of my head...trisomy and various other chromosome abnormalities?What about marriage implies childbirth? Bourgeoisie!!!

[Candor]

These guys are so trapped. They're obviously on the wrong side of this issue, they know it, we know it and we're seeing it all over the country. The world is changing, their base is dying off and all the years they spent politicking based on faith has created a monster they can no longer control.

You are delusional. The folks against gay marriage do not know they are on the wrong side of the issue - they know they are on the right side of the issue. Do you really think that most people would fight against something that they actually believe is a good idea (well...not counting politicians)?

Just because you are convinced something is right does not mean that someone fighting against it actually believes they are on the wrong side of the issue.

[Latrinsorm]

You are delusional. The folks against gay marriage do not know they are on the wrong side of the issue - they know they are on the right side of the issue.Consider how almost no neo-Nazi groups sprang up in Germany in the decade following the War of Allied Aggression, when immediately before then millions of people were willing to kill and die for that ethos. Why would this be if they knew they were right? Is it your experience that a defeat prompts people to change their minds? It is my experience that they grow resentful, rationalize their defeat, and hold even firmer to their prior beliefs.

If I may offer an alternative that I think is more coherent: the impact of the individual is massively overestimated, and vice versa for that of the group. Although the term "mob rule" suggests otherwise, it does not take a majority to determine a mob. Just like any other human organization, people generally just want to belong. You may think you would not stand in a line firing on civilians and children, but when the alternative is standing on the other side of the guns (along with your children), it's easy to see how you would stand with the living, and I would, and Terrence would, and in that tragicomic way 90% of the Nazis are NINOs without ever realizing it.

This explains how when you take away the guns, you take away the Nazis. Not because it was impossible to make IEDs in the 40s (c.f. the Irgun), but because they weren't Nazis in the first place and now they are safe to behave that way.

.

Now, it's fair to say people who support gay marriage aren't under the threat of imminent death the way Nazi soldiers were... or is it? Do you think our evolutionary responses distinguish between ostracization and a bullet? It's the threat that's the thing. Would it interest you to learn that those of the lower 48 states where a majority of the population opposes gay marriage are geographically contiguous? Why do you suppose there are as many states that support gay marriage at rates of 23%-32% as those that do so by 39%-48%? That is a very non-statistical thing for them to do.

[Warriorbird]

Consider how almost no neo-Nazi groups sprang up in Germany in the decade following the War of Allied Aggression, when immediately before then millions of people were willing to kill and die for that ethos. Why would this be if they knew they were right? Is it your experience that a defeat prompts people to change their minds? It is my experience that they grow resentful, rationalize their defeat, and hold even firmer to their prior beliefs.

If I may offer an alternative that I think is more coherent: the impact of the individual is massively overestimated, and vice versa for that of the group. Although the term "mob rule" suggests otherwise, it does not take a majority to determine a mob. Just like any other human organization, people generally just want to belong. You may think you would not stand in a line firing on civilians and children, but when the alternative is standing on the other side of the guns (along with your children), it's easy to see how you would stand with the living, and I would, and Terrence would, and in that tragicomic way 90% of the Nazis are NINOs without ever realizing it.

This explains how when you take away the guns, you take away the Nazis. Not because it was impossible to make IEDs in the 40s (c.f. the Irgun), but because they weren't Nazis in the first place and now they are safe to behave that way.

.

Now, it's fair to say people who support gay marriage aren't under the threat of imminent death the way Nazi soldiers were... or is it? Do you think our evolutionary responses distinguish between ostracization and a bullet? It's the threat that's the thing. Would it interest you to learn that those of the lower 48 states where a majority of the population opposes gay marriage are geographically contiguous? Why do you suppose there are as many states that support gay marriage at rates of 23%-32% as those that do so by 39%-48%? That is a very non-statistical thing for them to do.

Stop outing yourself as ClydeR/Tgo01.

[cwolff]

You are delusional. The folks against gay marriage do not know they are on the wrong side of the issue - they know they are on the right side of the issue. Do you really think that most people would fight against something that they actually believe is a good idea (well...not counting politicians)?

Just because you are convinced something is right does not mean that someone fighting against it actually believes they are on the wrong side of the issue.

When it comes to discrimination our country has a long history of people fighting for the wrong side. Attrition will take care of this problem. Sooner than later the current crop of republican intelligentsia is going to die off and the next generation will disavow them.

But you are right about their thinking. The typical right wing voter may actually believe they are doing the "right" thing by fighting gay marriage. The politicians on the other hand know it's a loser and probably don't give two shits about the issue except in how it relates to their ability to be in office. If the Log Cabin republicans are able to generate more support in TX than the Tea Party, even Cruz would switch his view.

[Jarvan]

When it comes to discrimination our country has a long history of people fighting for the wrong side. Attrition will take care of this problem. Sooner than later the current crop of republican intelligentsia is going to die off and the next generation will disavow them.

But you are right about their thinking. The typical right wing voter may actually believe they are doing the "right" thing by fighting gay marriage. The politicians on the other hand know it's a loser and probably don't give two shits about the issue except in how it relates to their ability to be in office. If the Log Cabin republicans are able to generate more support in TX than the Tea Party, even Cruz would switch his view.

I always find it funny how one side always says they have "right" on their side. When in fact, there is no right or wrong in almost any circumstance really. It's all a matter of perception and view.

I bet you anything, if ANY Politician that is FOR same sex marriage would also come out for polygamy and incest marriage, they would be drummed out of office. Think Obama would have been re-elected if he said he thought it would be ok for dads to marry their sons? Cause honestly, there is no difference in that then in two non related people marrying. (and frankly I don't care either way)

The point is, the side of the issue you are on is almost always "right" to you.

[cwolff]

I always find it funny how one side always says they have "right" on their side. When in fact, there is no right or wrong in almost any circumstance really. It's all a matter of perception and view.

I bet you anything, if ANY Politician that is FOR same sex marriage would also come out for polygamy and incest marriage, they would be drummed out of office. Think Obama would have been re-elected if he said he thought it would be ok for dads to marry their sons? Cause honestly, there is no difference in that then in two non related people marrying. (and frankly I don't care either way)

The point is, the side of the issue you are on is almost always "right" to you.

What's with you and incest?

[Parkbandit]

What's with you and incest?

It's the point where your reasoning of "ZOMG WUT ABOUT FREEDOM!?" breaks down.

[cwolff]

It's the point where your reasoning of "ZOMG WUT ABOUT FREEDOM!?" breaks down.

No, that's not it. It just goes to show you that you and Jarvan are being douchebags. Two same sex adults being married is much more like two adults of opposite sex being married than a father marrying his own kid.

Seriously. WTF is wrong with you guys? It's like you just want to argue for no reason.

[Jarvan]

What's with you and incest?

It's pretty much a bell weather point for people. If you believe that two people that love each other should be able to get married, then frankly you HAVE to be for it really. How are you going to tell one group that their love is ok, and another that it isn't? Isn't that the argument with same sex marriage?

You could use polygamy, but frankly incest works better since SOME people want to define marriage as 2 adults. I really think it's going to be hard for any definition of marriage to last long anymore really. Eventually, maybe even 10-20 years from now, the only defining factor will be adult, and likely human. (least till we get some star trek aliens up in this joint)

[Jarvan]

No, that's not it. It just goes to show you that you and Jarvan are being douchebags. Two same sex adults being married is much more like two adults of opposite sex being married than a father marrying his own kid.

Seriously. WTF is wrong with you guys? It's like you just want to argue for no reason.

Yeah.. no it's not.

Richard marrying Frank, is Richard marrying Frank. Doesn't matter if they are father and son or uncle and nephew, or just two guys. There really is zero difference. They can't procreate, so there is no issue with deformed kids. The only issue is the Taboo.

Guess what genius, wasn't it considered taboo for a guy to fuck another guy before? Also, why is incest taboo? In some ancient cultures it was fine. Started becoming an issue during greek and roman times. Generally, it's more a religious thing tho.

Frankly, I don't care who anyone schtups. But if marriage isn't going to be define by just a man and a woman, I really don't think any limitations other then age and species should be put on it.

[Parkbandit]

No, that's not it. It just goes to show you that you and Jarvan are being douchebags. Two same sex adults being married is much more like two adults of opposite sex being married than a father marrying his own kid.

Seriously. WTF is wrong with you guys? It's like you just want to argue for no reason.

Here was your post regarding gay marriage:


Freedom. Let every adult do whatever the hell the want including plural marriage.

I have no issue with gay marriage.

I think I do have an issue with polygamy, but I don't know what my reason is.. so I could probably be easily persuaded with a strong argument for... as long as there are no victims.

Your point that gay marriage should be supported because of freedom is a slippery slope, and that slope begins with polygamy and gets a bucket of Teflon tossed on it with incest.

[Jarvan]

Just curious, so I looked it up..

United States

In the United States the District of Columbia and every state, except Rhode Island, have some form of codified incest prohibition.[40] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989,[40] Ohio only targets parental figures,[40] and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.[40] A conviction for incest attracts the following penalties by state:

5 years imprisonment in Hawaii
10 years imprisonment in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Minnesota
14 years imprisonment in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Idaho
15 years imprisonment in Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and West Virginia
20 years imprisonment in Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Vermont
25 years imprisonment in Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky
Life imprisonment in Florida, Georgia,[41] Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

Three convictions or more of incest also require the offenders to register as "Sex Offenders"

Apparently it isn't even criminal in NJ.

[Gelston]

That wikipedia article is off on Louisiana. The max for incest is 15 years with hard labor if it is a parent/child or brother/sister or $1000 and/or five years imprisonment with or without hard labor if it is an aunt(uncle)/nephew(niece).

[crb]

If a crime is victimless is it really a crime? Should it be?

Jarvan brings up valid points. If you bring god out of the picture, bring religion out, which as an atheist I don't much care about. Then why only monogamous marriages? What vital interest does the State have in outlawing polygamy?

50 years ago if you had asked someone about homosexuals being able to get married they'd laugh, be offended, say those people are rare marginal sexual deviants and who cares about them? Today, ask someone about polygamist, and they'll say those people are rare marginal sexual deviants and who cares about them? You still have a majority oppressing a minority for no purpose.

If you're not a hypocrite, if you support gay marriage, you should also support legalized polygamy.

Personally, I do, a victimless crime doesn't hurt me. If a guy can convince 3 girls to marry him, why should that be illegal?

[Warriorbird]

I have no problem with most notions of marriage between adults (I pity the guy with 4x alimony, even). The issue with incest is one of procreation.

[Jarvan]

I have no problem with most notions of marriage between adults (I pity the guy with 4x alimony, even). The issue with incest is one of procreation.

There is no procreation in a gay marriage. And frankly, you do NOT need marriage to procreate, so it is not a valid point.


That wikipedia article is off on Louisiana. The max for incest is 15 years with hard labor if it is a parent/child or brother/sister or $1000 and/or five years imprisonment with or without hard labor if it is an aunt(uncle)/nephew(niece).

United States

In the United States the District of Columbia and every state, except Rhode Island, have some form of codified incest prohibition.[40] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989,[40] Ohio only targets parental figures,[40] and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.[40] A conviction for incest attracts the following penalties by state:

5 years imprisonment in Hawaii
10 years imprisonment in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Minnesota
14 years imprisonment in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Idaho
15 years imprisonment in Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and West Virginia
20 years imprisonment in Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Vermont
25 years imprisonment in Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky
Life imprisonment in Florida, Georgia,[41] Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

Three convictions or more of incest also require the offenders to register as "Sex Offenders"

In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include:

Father
Mother
Grandfather
Grandmother
Brother
Sister
Aunt
Uncle
Niece
Nephew

In some states, sex between first cousins is prohibited. The cousin marriage law in the United States by state article has a table which shows that cousin sex as well as cousin marriage is outlawed in some states.

Rhode Island allows uncles to marry their nieces if they are part of a community, such as orthodox Jews, for whom such marriages are permitted. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations, including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest

No.... sorry, it is not illegal in NJ. Also, the bolded part basically would negate the whole "procreation" idea.

[Gelston]

There is no procreation in a gay marriage. And frankly, you do NOT need marriage to procreate, so it is not a valid point.



United States

In the United States the District of Columbia and every state, except Rhode Island, have some form of codified incest prohibition.[40] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989,[40] Ohio only targets parental figures,[40] and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.[40] A conviction for incest attracts the following penalties by state:

5 years imprisonment in Hawaii
10 years imprisonment in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Minnesota
14 years imprisonment in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Idaho
15 years imprisonment in Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and West Virginia
20 years imprisonment in Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Vermont
25 years imprisonment in Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky
Life imprisonment in Florida, Georgia,[41] Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

Three convictions or more of incest also require the offenders to register as "Sex Offenders"

In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include:

Father
Mother
Grandfather
Grandmother
Brother
Sister
Aunt
Uncle
Niece
Nephew

In some states, sex between first cousins is prohibited. The cousin marriage law in the United States by state article has a table which shows that cousin sex as well as cousin marriage is outlawed in some states.

Rhode Island allows uncles to marry their nieces if they are part of a community, such as orthodox Jews, for whom such marriages are permitted. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations, including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest

No.... sorry, it is not illegal in NJ. Also, the bolded part basically would negate the whole "procreation" idea.


2011 Louisiana Laws
Revised Statutes
TITLE 14 — Criminal law
RS 14:78 — Incest

Universal Citation: LA Rev Stat § 14:78
§78. Incest
A. Incest is the marriage to, or sexual intercourse with, any ascendant or descendant, brother or sister, uncle or niece, aunt or nephew, with knowledge of their relationship.
B. The relationship must be by consanguinity, but it is immaterial whether the parties to the act are related to one another by the whole or half blood.
C. This Section shall not apply where one, not a resident of this state at the time of the celebration of his marriage, shall have contracted a marriage lawful at the place of celebration and shall thereafter have removed to this state.
D.(1) Whoever commits incest, where the crime is between an ascendant and descendant, or between brother and sister, shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than fifteen years.
(2) Whoever commits incest, where the crime is between uncle and niece, or aunt and nephew, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both.
Acts 1985, No. 706, §1; Acts 2004, No. 26, §8.

I wasn't saying anything about New Jersey, merely pointing out that it is incorrect on Louisiana, which means the article isn't checked very well for accuracy.

[Warriorbird]

There is no procreation in a gay marriage. And frankly, you do NOT need marriage to procreate, so it is not a valid point.

I was saying one reason I had a problem with it. The other would be power differential issues. I have no problem with gay people procreating or not procreating as the case may be. If you're pro incest raise your Lannister flag high, I just don't agree with it.

[Thondalar]

5 years imprisonment in Hawaii
10 years imprisonment in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Minnesota
14 years imprisonment in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Idaho
15 years imprisonment in Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and West Virginia
20 years imprisonment in Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Vermont
25 years imprisonment in Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky
Life imprisonment in Florida, Georgia,[41] Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

I like how the south has the most severe penalties. Reactionary?

[Whirlin]

If you're not a hypocrite, if you support gay marriage, you should also support legalized polygamy.

Personally, I do, a victimless crime doesn't hurt me. If a guy can convince 3 girls to marry him, why should that be illegal?

I have nothing against polygamy. It's not for me, but I'm not one to judge if all members are accepting.

I can understand why the government would draw the line at it. Polygamy is a logistical nightmare with processes such as managing benefits such as health insurance, taxes, etc. At least 1:1 relationship of the current marriage structure is a bit easier to manage, and the infrastructure supports the 1:1, whether straight or gay. It's not quite rocking the boat the same way.

Theoretically, what if everyone in the US married eachother... what would the IRS do? That'd be a painful audit!

... if Polygamy were legalized, that'd be an awesome movement: just have tons of ceremonies where everyone marries everyone.

[Gelston]

I like how the south has the most severe penalties. Reactionary?

From information I gleened from this http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/criminal_incest%20chart%20_2010.pdf only Montana and Nevada offer a life sentence for a first time offense. Most states have additional penalties for aggravating conditions.

In New Jersey, it is a 2nd Degree crime if the victim is between 13 and 16. So in that, you are correct in that incest is legal for two consenting adults over the age of 18.

2C:14-2. Sexual assault. a. An actor is guilty of aggravated sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:

(1) The victim is less than 13 years old;

(2) The victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years old; and

(a) The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree, or

(b) The actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim by virtue of the actor's legal, professional, or occupational status, or

(c) The actor is a resource family parent, a guardian, or stands in loco parentis within the household;

-skipping irrelevant sections-

c. An actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:

(1) The actor uses physical force or coercion, but the victim does not sustain severe personal injury;

(2) The victim is on probation or parole, or is detained in a hospital, prison or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim by virtue of the actor's legal, professional or occupational status;

(3) The victim is at least 16 but less than 18 years old and:

(a) The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree; or

(b) The actor has supervisory or disciplinary power of any nature or in any capacity over the victim; or

(c) The actor is a resource family parent, a guardian, or stands in loco parentis within the household;

[Jarvan]

I have nothing against polygamy. It's not for me, but I'm not one to judge if all members are accepting.

I can understand why the government would draw the line at it. Polygamy is a logistical nightmare with processes such as managing benefits such as health insurance, taxes, etc. At least 1:1 relationship of the current marriage structure is a bit easier to manage, and the infrastructure supports the 1:1, whether straight or gay. It's not quite rocking the boat the same way.

Theoretically, what if everyone in the US married eachother... what would the IRS do? That'd be a painful audit!

... if Polygamy were legalized, that'd be an awesome movement: just have tons of ceremonies where everyone marries everyone.

It was a logistical nightmare to free the slaves as well. Not that I am saying the two are the same thing, just realistically, if the only valid reason to not doing something is "OMG it would be hard -whines-" it's not really a valid reason.

I really do love how a schtupping a step sibling can get you thrown in jail in most states.

[Latrinsorm]

Stop outing yourself as ClydeR/Tgo01.Have you ever wondered about that? Have you ever stared into a starry sky? Lying on your back, you're asking "Why? What's the purpose? I wonder who am I..." If you've ever stared into a starry sky.

[ClydeR]

Nazis

This thread got to Nazis in just 25 posts. Therefore, I win. That's the rule on the internet.

[Jeril]

This thread got to Nazis in just 25 posts. Therefore, I win. That's the rule on the internet.

You win one free internets, use it wisely.

[Methais]

This thread got to Nazis in just 25 posts. Therefore, I win. That's the rule on the internet.

You can't reply to yourself, even if it is your alter ego.

It's just internetly unethical.

[Doyle Hargraves]

You can't reply to yourself, even if it is your alter ego.

It's just internetly unethical.

Ain't that the truth. Much like how I can't eat around retards and antique furniture.

That shit's just unethical.