How society benefits from banning same-sex marriage

[manifold]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.

 

[manifold]

There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.

People seeking same-marriage would likely disagree with you wholeheartedly.

But regardless, that isn't the question. The question is what is the benefit to infringing upon a same-sex couple's pursuit of happiness.

 

[Si modo]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

I neither want a ban on it, nor do I want a government stamp of approval. It's something the government needs to get out of altogether. It never should have BEEN involved, except for the contractual aspects of it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

I neither want a ban on it, nor do I want a government stamp of approval. It's something the government needs to get out of altogether. It never should have BEEN involved, except for the contractual aspects of it.

Sure. But the government is involved. I recognize that you don't want it to be, but it is.

Since it is, is there any reason that same-sex marriages should be discriminated against?

 

[Some Guy]

"Marriage" as recognized by the law for the purpose of home ownership, power of attorney, etc, and "marriage" from a religious standpoint are two totally different things.

I think gays should get the same rights and protections under the law that hetero-sexual couples do... while any religious establishment retains the right to refuse marrying gays in the name of their own religion if they so choose. Asking anything more or less of either side is just being overbearing, IMO.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Marriage" as recognized by the law for the purpose of home ownership, power of attorney, etc, and "marriage" from a religious standpoint are two totally different things.

I think gays should get the same rights and protections under the law that hetero-sexual couples do... while any religious establishment retains the right to refuse marrying gays in the name of their own religion if they so choose. Asking anything more or less of either side is just being overbearing, IMO.

There has never been talk of anyone forcing religions that don't support same-sex marriage to perform them.

 

[Avorysuds]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

I neither want a ban on it, nor do I want a government stamp of approval. It's something the government needs to get out of altogether. It never should have BEEN involved, except for the contractual aspects of it.

Sure. But the government is involved. I recognize that you don't want it to be, but it is.

Since it is, is there any reason that same-sex marriages should be discriminated against?

Seeing as the constitution does not discriminate against gender, sexuality or race I don't see how anyone can make a case that 2 people of the same sex should not be allowed to be married and have that opinion enforced by the Government.

It's pure corruption based on bigotry, plain and simple.

As for the case that there needs to be a benefit to society, where did that come from? Should we outlaw smoking, or eating sugar because there is no benefit to society? Where is this rule being handed down from, the constitution?

 

[manifold]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

I neither want a ban on it, nor do I want a government stamp of approval. It's something the government needs to get out of altogether. It never should have BEEN involved, except for the contractual aspects of it.

I find nothing material in your philosophical viewpoint with which to take issue, except that it doesn't pass pragmatic muster. You see, the government is already involved, and deeply. As long as there is a mechanism in place that allows two consenting adults to participate in a government sponsored institution offering financial and lawful benefits, any two consenting adults ought to qualify... unless of course there is a strong societal benefit to restricting it. So again, what is the benefit?

 

[Some Guy]

"Marriage" as recognized by the law for the purpose of home ownership, power of attorney, etc, and "marriage" from a religious standpoint are two totally different things.

I think gays should get the same rights and protections under the law that hetero-sexual couples do... while any religious establishment retains the right to refuse marrying gays in the name of their own religion if they so choose. Asking anything more or less of either side is just being overbearing, IMO.

There has never been talk of anyone forcing religions that don't support same-sex marriage to perform them.

Well the term "gay marriage" is thrown around a whole lot. It's hard to tell exactly who's talking about what when they refer to "marriage."

 

[Ariux]

There has never been talk of anyone forcing religions that don't support same-sex marriage to perform them.

There are now many laws that force religious people and people of morality to take part in same-sex activities. This is the purpose of having the government recognize same-sex marriage, to have the government force everyone to take part in or support same-sex marriages.

Churches have been forced to open up their property to same-sex weddings. Church members have been forced to provide personal services in same-sex weddings. How nice that a minister hasn't yet been forced to perform a same sex wedding.

 

[saveliberty]

Marriage is a religious institution and civil unions a government-based institution. I see no reason to harm someone economically in one group or the other. Religion should have the right to define what marriage is within their denomination.

 

[manifold]

As for the case that there needs to be a benefit to society, where did that come from? Should we outlaw smoking, or eating sugar because there is no benefit to society? Where is this rule being handed down from, the constitution?

That came from me, as it is my strongly held opinion that infringing upon an individual's pursuit of happiness needs to be justified, at least if I'm going to support it anyway. For example, laws against murder might infringe upon a psychopath's pursuit of happiness, but the benefit to society of outlawing murder is worth it to me. So what is the benefit of banning same-sex marriage?

 

[Si modo]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

I neither want a ban on it, nor do I want a government stamp of approval. It's something the government needs to get out of altogether. It never should have BEEN involved, except for the contractual aspects of it.

Sure. But the government is involved. I recognize that you don't want it to be, but it is.

Since it is, is there any reason that same-sex marriages should be discriminated against?

I thought my views were clear on that. Techincally, the only type of marriages the government is involved in are civil unions, except for their recognition fo the authority of religious persons on granting civil unions. The latter would be easy enough for the government to stop doing.

But, getting into details, marriage is a religious ceremony and the government cannot tell churches what marriages they can or cannot do.

Anyone can have a civil union, on the other hand.

 

[IGetItAlready]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

I neither want a ban on it, nor do I want a government stamp of approval. It's something the government needs to get out of altogether. It never should have BEEN involved, except for the contractual aspects of it.

Sure. But the government is involved. I recognize that you don't want it to be, but it is.

Since it is, is there any reason that same-sex marriages should be discriminated against?

Therein lies the reason for MANY of our problems.
The founders tasked our government with very few and well defined responsibilities. The greatest of which is ensuring the constitutional rights of the people remain intact. Otherwise, the intent was to allow the people to govern themselves.

I have absolutely no problem with the states who BY REFERENDUM have decided to recognize gay unions. I do have an issue with states like Iowa where the decision was made by a handful of judges, most of whom btw became unemployed shortly thereafter.

My biggest issue with the whole gay marriage thing is the insistence of the LGBT lobby to accept nothing less than "marriage". There was a time when all the push was for civil unions but just as the opposition started to wane we got this full court press for "marriage" and nothing less.

Seems pretty unreasonable to me considering the arguments gay advocates make regarding matters of estate and circumstances regarding "immediate family".

 

[manifold]

Fact:

When my wife and I got married, we filled out an application for a MARRIAGE license, we did not fill out an application for a CIVIL UNION license. I'm not sure where people got the crazy notion that the government calls them a civil union and not a marriage.

 

[Si modo]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

I neither want a ban on it, nor do I want a government stamp of approval. It's something the government needs to get out of altogether. It never should have BEEN involved, except for the contractual aspects of it.

I find nothing material in your philosophical viewpoint with which to take issue, except that it doesn't pass pragmatic muster. You see, the government is already involved, and deeply. As long as there is a mechanism in place that allows two consenting adults to participate in a government sponsored institution offering financial and lawful benefits, any two consenting adults ought to qualify... unless of course there is a strong societal benefit to restricting it. So again, what is the benefit?

None that I see in banning it.

 

[Avorysuds]

As for the case that there needs to be a benefit to society, where did that come from? Should we outlaw smoking, or eating sugar because there is no benefit to society? Where is this rule being handed down from, the constitution?

That came from me, as it is my strongly held opinion that infringing upon an individual's pursuit of happiness needs to be justified, at least if I'm going to support it anyway. For example, laws against murder might infringe upon a psychopath's pursuit of happiness, but the benefit to society of outlawing murder is worth it to me. So what is the benefit of banning same-sex marriage?

LOL, my bad… I somehow read what you wrote as asking “How does gay marriage benefit society,” not how does “banning” gay marriage help society.

I agree with you then.

 

[High_Gravity]

There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.

More women for me.

 

[Some Guy]

There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.

More women for me.

Women marrying women = more women for you?