Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it's really quite simple if you try to make it that way. Very little, if any, of the tax code would need to be changed. For example, the tax code around child support just describes how it is or is not deductible. That would not change.
There are a plethora of benefits and circumstances that you need to account for. Simply saying "it's easy, just change the tax code" is a cop out, doesn't answer the question, and doesn't resolve the problem. The current law is set up for 2 people and there isn't any common law to look to or any countries to use as examples. (The middle east isn't a good example)
How do you handle the following?
Divorce. Child support
Estates
Taxes
Dependents
Medical decisions
Gov privileges
SS.
Etc.
There are a plethora of benefits and circumstances that you need to account for. Simply saying "it's easy, just change the tax code" is a cop out, doesn't answer the question, and doesn't resolve the problem. The current law is set up for 2 people and there isn't any common law to look to or any countries to use as examples. (The middle east isn't a good example)
How do you handle the following?
Divorce. Child support
Estates
Taxes
Dependents
Medical decisions
Gov privileges
SS.
Etc.
Maybe Roadking will agree that we should look to Sharia to see how to deal with plural marriage.
Maybe he and others will support replacement of the common law tradition with Sharia.
Au contraire. Divorce is traditionally only supposed to be a very last resort thing to do. It is traditionally NOTHING like we have today. Not for the purposes we cite today, and certainly not as easy as it is today. The concept of divorce is completely viewed in different context from its traditional beginnings.
But anyway, "appeal to tradition" is not a rational basis to deny people their rights as free citizens.
Besides, SSM marriage is only against YOUR tradition and culture of marriage.
Before you or any one of your "extended family" or ancestors ever stepped foot on this continent, marriages and coupling between same sex were taking place. So try again.
And seriously buddy: nobody cares if Dr. Doolittle or anyone else privately or publically considers SSM marriage "not real" because they have the weirdz about "the gays."
We are well used to it. We know not everyone will come around this generation or even the next. It takes a long time. We live in this country and know that there millions of emotionally stunted individuals with the social IQs of a 5 year olds who love to put their two cents in on everything. Usually the same people who want you to respect their practice of talking about ladies who live on clouds with wings who play harps all day.
Wow- Typical lib revisionist history
1. So you say that "gay marriages" were common prior to the colonization of America and accepted? So if it was so "accepted", why were gays killed and ostracized from modern civlized cultures?
2. same sex marriage is not only against MY cultural norms, it is against the cultural norms of mankind since the inception of civilization. Ancient Greece is probably the only notable exception (gee......see how that culture did).
3. "Gay marriage" is not attempt to extend the right of law to gays seeking to cohabitate. It is an effort to change a several thousand year human culture. It is just another liberal agenda seeking to rip apart the fabric that has held the US together.
The easiest solution is to stop giving tax incentives to married people. Single people are persecuted to the same level as gays by the IRS which is wrong and immoral.
and this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by derosterreich
Bestials, polygamists, asexuals, singles, heteros, homos, trannies, etc should all be equally brutalized by the IRS and government as the next human being. The arbitrary fervor over gay marriage is as stupid and illogical as one can expect in 2013.
Actually I do support plural marriage. I have friends in poly relationships, that would love to get married, but even they think it is unworkable legally.
I too would support poly marriages, but it is not the same as ssm or osm, the legalities are not the same, the tax situation is not the same, inheritance, child support or divorce in poly marriages would not be the same. I have friends in poly amorous relationships that would love to marry their spouses, but polyamorous is not the same as polygamy or polyandry, in these two the spouses are not in a relationship with all of the combined, but with a primary. I see polyandry and polygamy much more complicated and convoluted than polyamorous where all involved are equally in love with each other sharing all as one, not as one primary and others as secondary, like a herd stallion with his mares.
I have been with my partner, spouse since 2008, for 34 years now, I honestly do not understand how someone can fall in love, get married, have children, become disillusioned/discouraged/disgusted, fall out of love and get divorced. I have for the most part known mostly straight people and straight couples for most of my life and have known only a few that have made it through all the knocks, dings and dents that happen in a relationship, some friends have made it through two divorces in the time I have known them. Often with children from these failed attempts at marriage. I am not saying that our relationship has been heaven for the past 34 years, far from it. I was 19 and he was 34. It was not always easy and at times quite difficult, I was growing up adjusting to adulthood and its responsibilities, he was coming to term with Vietnam and its scars and we both dealt with his onset of PTSD. Any relationship takes work and understanding and I often think marriage is far too easy to get into and fault that for the skyrocketing divorce rate, marriage is too easy for straight people to get into and just as easy to get out of. Where is the commitment anymore? I think divorce should be much more difficult to get, that if marriage had to be taken more seriously, that fewer people would just marry willy nilly and the divorce rate would go down. Make marriage legal for all, yet make it a more binding and difficult to dissolve by divorce. Maybe make people take a marriage course before marriage, same as drivers education before getting a license makes for better driver.
1. So you say that "gay marriages" were common prior to the colonization of America and accepted? So if it was so "accepted", why were gays killed and ostracized from modern civlized cultures?
2. same sex marriage is not only against MY cultural norms, it is against the cultural norms of mankind since the inception of civilization. Ancient Greece is probably the only notable exception (gee......see how that culture did).
3. "Gay marriage" is not attempt to extend the right of law to gays seeking to cohabitate. It is an effort to change a several thousand year human culture. It is just another liberal agenda seeking to rip apart the fabric that has held the US together.
2) Same sex marriage was just fine in may cultures. There is a church register from 1061 in Spain that records the marriage of Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz (both men). They were married by a priest, and the records were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.
There are records of same sex marriages in Chinas Fuijian provence.
3) I already showed you where SSM has been part of human culture for thousands of years.
;1. So you say that "gay marriages" were common prior to the colonization of America and accepted? So if it was so "accepted", why were gays killed and ostracized from modern civlized cultures?
Judaism. Christianity. Islam. Much of homophobia is also rooted in misogyny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
2. same sex marriage is not only against MY cultural norms, it is against the cultural norms of mankind since the inception of civilization. Ancient Greece is probably the only notable exception (gee......see how that culture did).
You're so beyond ignorant it isn't even funny at this point.
Native Americans also had a tradition of "two spirit" same sex marriages. Many traditional African tribes had same sex marriage.
The poison of religion is the cause of radicalization of attitudes against homosexuality across much of the world where it touched.
Oh... and how well did Ancient Greece do, you say? Well for starters it was and is the literal birthplace of western Civilization, from where our concept of democracy and philosophy flows. The bisexual Alexander the Great conquered only managed to conquer great swaths of the known world. They built fantastic cities and monuments that still stand today.
Yeah, what a failure of a culture!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
3. "Gay marriage" is not attempt to extend the right of law to gays seeking to cohabitate. It is an effort to change a several thousand year human culture. It is just another liberal agenda seeking to rip apart the fabric that has held the US together.
Stop clutching your pearls, Wilma. Gay marriage has been a reality in the civilized parts of Europe for over a decade, and is an inevitability throughout the rest of the truly civilized world. In Canada, our neighbors to the north, nothing has changed. In Mexico, de facto gay marriage recognition is a reality.
You are surrounded. I hope you live long enough to shake your impotent little....fist..... in rage when it becomes the law of the land in this country!
1. So you say that "gay marriages" were common prior to the colonization of America and accepted? So if it was so "accepted", why were gays killed and ostracized from modern civlized cultures?
2. same sex marriage is not only against MY cultural norms, it is against the cultural norms of mankind since the inception of civilization. Ancient Greece is probably the only notable exception (gee......see how that culture did).
3. "Gay marriage" is not attempt to extend the right of law to gays seeking to cohabitate. It is an effort to change a several thousand year human culture. It is just another liberal agenda seeking to rip apart the fabric that has held the US together.
Does it matter what they did in ancient Greece or a province in China, or whatever. Even the judge in the prop 8 case acknowledged that deciding whether a right is fundamental under due process looks to whether the right is rooted in U.S. history, legal traditions, and practices.
I am not out to start arguments--but I AM out to learn things. So I would very much appreciate your thoughts.
If a law were passed Banning Divorce, would you support it?
After all, it would Directly address "The Sanctity of Marriage," without all of this government intervention and needless, wasteful expense.
Thoughts?
Divorce has been made far too easy to get. I wouldn't ban it, but I certainly think it should be the last resort, and very hard to attain. Extra-marital affairs should have consequences as well; though you can't legislate conscience.
Your title is also misleading. Most people are for equality, but also that marriage is between a man and a woman. If a civil union represents (for same-sex relationships) the exact same thing (legally) that marriage represents (for a man and a woman) it would be 100% equality. The insane rhetoric against this fact shows that it isn't equality that is their target, but rather traditional values themselves. If they can't make marriage obsolete the next best thing is bastardize it beyond all recognition.
Extremists intend on dismantling traditional religion, family structure, and common value systems.
I too would support poly marriages, but it is not the same as ssm or osm, the legalities are not the same, the tax situation is not the same, inheritance, child support or divorce in poly marriages would not be the same. I have friends in poly amorous relationships that would love to marry their spouses, but polyamorous is not the same as polygamy or polyandry, in these two the spouses are not in a relationship with all of the combined, but with a primary. I see polyandry and polygamy much more complicated and convoluted than polyamorous where all involved are equally in love with each other sharing all as one, not as one primary and others as secondary, like a herd stallion with his mares.
I have been with my partner, spouse since 2008, for 34 years now, I honestly do not understand how someone can fall in love, get married, have children, become disillusioned/discouraged/disgusted, fall out of love and get divorced. I have for the most part known mostly straight people and straight couples for most of my life and have known only a few that have made it through all the knocks, dings and dents that happen in a relationship, some friends have made it through two divorces in the time I have known them.
Interesting... because poly marriages would be difficult to administer they shouldn't happen... hmmm. Because it is easier to get ones head around... the issue of only two... be they two men or two women or a man and a woman... because that's easier to tax (or not) or create legal loopholes for, then that should be promoted and everything else ignored... hmmmm. Aren't we better than that? I mean... look around on the Internet. There are many more than the three: mw;mm;ww marriage scenario's that you consider valid, warming up in the batter's box. I've got absolutely zero problem with continuing to hold the unique pairing of a man and woman as somehow special. It clearly is. Civil Unions for every other kind of human agglomeration is a fine compromise. Or we do the hard work and make a truly egalitarian state of marriage that can encompass all the possibilities.
H
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So if it was so "accepted", why were gays killed and ostracized from modern civlized cultures?