I sm just curious as to what your thougts are on the subject of gay marriage in general (I am writing yet another college essay).

Personally, I am for it, but I was wondering what you all thought about this highly debated topic. I know it was touched on in some other threads, but I wanted to make one on gay marriage in general.

Thanks.

I'm all for parties....

I mean WEDDINGS! WEDDINGS! I don't just enjoy an excuse to wear my tux... really....

I'm not only in favor of legalized same-sex marriage between consenting adults, I'm also very much in favor of legalized polygamous marriage for consenting, polyamorous adults.

I'm all in favor of people taking vows to support each other in committed relationships, and signing legal contracts stating same.

Hell, the more people committed to supporting each other, means the fewer people I'll have to support with my tax dollars.

-- Nephele

All this AND she's an anagrammist, folks.





I think whoever wants a gay marriage should get one, and whoever doesn't want one shouldn't get one, and then should shut the fuck up.

agreed with Nephele.

It always boggles the mind as to why people should have an opinion on other peoples' sex/marriage lives when they don't actually know the person..... whether it's gay marriage, interracial marriage, polygamous marriage, inter-faith marriage, whatever..... I guess some people don't have anything better to do than criticize others.

Love is the right of every living thing.

Anyhow, I also don't see why "transsexual" is added to the second category, as gender identity has nothing to do with one's sexuality.

Whoa there! Not to stamp all over your parade but there is a very good reason that bigamy is illegal in most parts of the world. Its a simple matter of tax and inheritance, the legal reform needed to allow one person to essentially split into two (or more) distinct legal parties, and this is completely ignoring the concept of personal limited companies, would require bottom up grassroots change of some very old and essentially stable legal principles.

Think about it this way, especially in a federalised state like the US, married couples get some hefty tax breaks doled out at numerous governmental levels. If one of those levels changed their policy in this regard it creates havoc for all the others. Remember the "one off gift to your spouse" scene in the Shawshank Redemption? What if you had ten spouses? See the implications there? Now thats a very simplistic example but it does get you thinking. The tax system of any nation is full of loopholes enough without adding the administrative quagmire of polygamy into the mix. The only way to mitigate this would be to either have a hub system(i.e. like muslims with the man at the centre), a commune system (with too many implications to mention) or a cerimonial non binding agreement with no legal privilages like some pagans do anyway. And whats the point in that?

A similar and even more comlicated problem exists in the issue of inheritance. Simply put, the institution of marriage isn't really about those getting married, though it does have its benifits. Its about their children. Its designed to form a sort of legal saftey blanket to protect them in the event of a death, much like the family unit in sociological terms, and to ensure that the assets of the deceased pass on to the person most likely to care for them. In modern terms its the mother/father*. Polygamy throws up all sorts of problems with this concept (unless the hub system mentioned above is used)and the question of inheritance sans Will and testament becomes too complicated for real contemplation by any, no matter how intelligent, layman. If you think inheritance law is difficult to understand now just wait till you see the can of worms that that little beauty would unleash.

Back on point though:-

I'm for gay marriage in every legal sense of the word but given that "marrige" is a fundamentally religious affair I'm not for calling it marriage. In the UK we have Civil Partnerships which, inspite of the differing name, confers the exact same rights and responsibilities to gay couples as marrige does. Saves face for the old school religous types and redresses the unequal balance we had beforehand.

*incidentally thats why in Ancient Athens if a male died his closest male relative had to marry his wife.

The United States government needs a complete overhaul of the way it taxes its citizenry, in addition to the way it assumes the role of "protector of morality" by interfering in our personal lives through legislating what we choose to do with OUR sovereign bodies and property.

As for those tax loopholes you mentioned, they have been employed a-plenty by wealthy heterosexual married couples in this nation.

I have absolutely no problem at all with non-traditional married couples or groups of people getting creative in order to get some breaks, just as the Helmsleys and the Olenicoffs have been doing for years.

-- Nephele

I kind of echo everything that Naphele has said.

BTW, when I got married in 1997, I actually paid *higher* taxes, because filing jointly put us in a higher tax bracket. In 2003, this was amended, but there's been suggestion that this higher marriage tax penalty may be reinstated this year:
http://marriage.about.com/od/finances/a ... enalty.htm

So, that tax break for being married thing? It's an outdated idea that people keep clinging to.

1. The problem with tax in the US is the federal system its self. You are paying to at least 4 layers of government, potentially many more, which renders systematic grassroots change nigh on impossible.

2. Thats kind of my point though. Everyone shoud be able to use them. Hell, most of them were put there intentionally to be used by married couples.

3. Polygamy under current rules could see individuals paying no tax what so ever. At all... It would not be an inconsiderable number of people either. That would prove catastophic for a government, like the US, that runs at a continual funding deficit already. Trying to change the current rules to accommodate this sort of union would almost certainly make the problem all the more acute. Current tax laws are mature and have evolved slowly over centuries to deal with the kind of problems posed by tax evasion. Such a fundamental change would create entirely new problems that, trust me, would take many decades, if not the rest of this century to deal with.

Polygamous divorce cases would be awesome. I'm in favour of polygamous marriage just to watch the fireworks when the first one of these comes up. It'd be spectacular.

Centurion, as far as I'm aware trans people(sorry, I'm always confused as to whether to say '-sexual' or '-gender as I don't know if it's interchangable) have always been considered part of the community. I've never heard one say that they didn't want to be associated with it.

I'm for any marriage between consenting adults, however many are involved. As long as it's safe, sane and consensual no one has any right to say nay to any of it. Unfortunately, jealousy is a huge issue with most people and would make most poly-marriages difficult unless everyone in them is mature about it.

I also don't see anything wrong with all of the children of such a marriage being raised together. Hell, it might actually bring real communiteis back!

Can you imagine! Honestly, if I thought it was likely I'd quit my job and study to be a divorce lawyer. What a money spinner.

Then current rules – regarding taxation as well as legalized marriage -- need to change. But, even under current rules, I hardly think we would wind up with citizens paying no tax at all.

I have learned never to underestimate our government's determination in continually finding new ways to tax the populace.



I don't see anything wrong with that, either, Wolfmammy. It's time our government stopped being the "village" that raises our children, and it's time that extended families -- blood-related or not -- take over as that "village."

I'm gazing into my crystal ball right now (figuratively speaking) and seeing barely two or three generations into the future when a populace dissatisfied with government intervention and control of our lives results in a renaissance of newly found independence based on personal lifestyle choices.

Marriage will take the form of inter-dependent pairs AND groups of people coming together to pool resources, care for each other in sickness and old age, and share child-rearing responsibilities. It will happen – it IS happening -- not only because it is expedient for those involved, but also because it ultimately promotes a nation's interests in seeing that its citizenry are cared-for.

-- Nephele

As far as I am concerned sexual orientation should have nothing to do with whether or not you can get married. However, despite it being legalised in some areas it is very clearly not accepted in many places. Whilst the creation of Civil Partnerships in Britain did allow gay couples to aquire the same rights as married heterosexual couples I don't personally consider it to be a long term solution. My husband and I had a civil ceremony, so the church was in no way involved in our wedding. I find it sad that whilst we were able to establish a non-religious legal union and officially call it marriage, thousands of other people are unable to do the same. I think that if heterosexual marriage can be conducted outside the religious sphere and called marriage exactly the same thing should be allowed for gay couples. After all, I don't think anyone has actually copywrited the word...

Nephelle, I think your crystal ball needs retuning. The world grows ever more opressive with each passing day.