I support gay marriage and polygamy

The Huffington Post today asks these questions:
Do you support the concept of gay marriage?
Do you support the concept of polygamy?
If so, why? If not, why not?

It’s quite simple, really. As an American, I believe in freedom. One of the foremost freedoms set forth in the bill of rights is freedom of religion. There are absolutely no arguments against gay marriage or polygamy that are not firmly rooted in a particular religious belief. To deprive our fellow Americans of the freedom to marry whomever they please is an affront to our way of life. It’s no less bigoted than the long-since vanquished laws preventing inter-racial marriages.  All attempts to “defend marriage” are really attempts to force other people into doing things “your” way or not at all.
Furthermore, it’s none of my, your, or the government’s damned business who’s fucking who, or who lives with who, or who makes a life-long commitment to who. Indeed, commitment is the only thing really involved in marriage, as there’s no law forcing married people to have sex with each other (much as some guys wish there was) or live together. Saying that Tom and Steve can’t make a commitment to each other is tantamount to saying they can’t enter into a legal contract with one another, and that is an incredibly scary precedent if followed through to the extreme.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Jeff KE9V  On May 31, 2007 at 5:49 am

    I don’t know that I agree about gay marriage.

    While I have nothing against gays, it seems that our laws on marriage spring from religion. And if you cut through all the religious crap, the reason for marriage was pro-creation. In the early world there was a need for as many of whatever religion you were so you could successfully fight and kill whatever other religions there were… That’s obviously why religions are also so against birth control.

    Since marriage in the US is simply a legal issue, the tax advantages that it offers seems to me to have been based on an incentive to pro-create — something that gay couples can’t do. So why offer a tax advantage for a service that cannot be performed? I don’t farm — should I get a farm subsidy? I don’t own a business — should I get business tax breaks?

    The same argument could probably be made of male/female couples who do not pro-create although I suppose they may not know at the time of marriage that they are unable to produce offspring….

    If there were no tax advantages to marriage, I wouldn’t care who married who or how many….

  • wolfger  On May 31, 2007 at 6:41 am

    Interesting response. So people who publicly declare they don’t want children should not be allowed to marry? Maybe instead of a wedding, we should just consider a couple married when a child is born between them. Of course, that might not be so desirable if a woman has a child whose biological father is somebody she’d really rather not live with.
    Furthermore, shouldn’t the marriage then be dissolved once all the children have become adults? The cycle of procreation is over at that point.
    Better in my mind to do away with the tax advantages *and* any pretenses of what marriage is “about”. Because the standard wedding vow says nothing about procreating, and even if it did, vows are optional and subject to change from one wedding to the next. Some people (*gasp*) even write their own.

  • Jay  On May 31, 2007 at 7:53 am

    I have no issues with gay marriage. If for no other reason, it is impossible to reasonably define what a non-gay marriage is. Recent attempts go for the one man, one woman approach which is great until you try to define what a man or woman is. You can’t use genes and you can’t use genitals. I posted about this a while ago but if you don’t feel like reading that, the gist was “What about transgendered people and pseudo-hermaphrodites?” It’s important to note that allowing any two people to marry would not require drastic changes in law.

    Polygamy is easier to define and would require much more drastic changes in law. People like to use polygamy as part of a slippery-slope argument about why gay marriage should not be allowed.

  • Jeff KE9V  On May 31, 2007 at 6:12 pm

    Okay, I’ll concede the point about marriage being a tax break. But given that the US population is only growing because of illegal immigration perhaps we need some additional tax breaks to get folks doing some serious pro-creating?

    In any event, for the life of me I don’t understand why a person, of either sex can’t decide who gets all their assets (and liabilities) when they die … after all, once you take the ceremony and tax breaks out of it, what else does legal marriage offer except besides survivor benefits and joint health insurance?

  • wolfger  On May 31, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    Jay: Excellent point about defining “man” and “woman”! And yes, legalizing polygamy would be a more drastic change, legally speaking. It’d also make divorces a lot more… “interesting”.

    Jeff: I’d ask why we should want population growth, but I suspect that my personal bias against procreation would prevent me from appreciating any answer.
    Even if I wanted kids, I’m not sure I’d want to bring them into *this* messed up world. But then my best friend argues that the best reason to have kids and raise them is to make the world a better place… And I have to admit that makes a certain amount of sense. I’m just not patient enough to wait a few generations for that improvement to become noticeable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: