How society benefits from banning same-sex marriage

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by manifold, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. oldernwiser
    Offline

    oldernwiser VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    780
    Thanks Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +154
    As are those whose offspring would suffer immediate and usually fatal medical problems due to parental genetic issues.

    In short, procreation is just not a topic of debate in a civil marriage. There is not that much consideration of procreation in ritualistic marriages either.
     
  2. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    89,554
    Thanks Received:
    7,581
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +18,398
    I can't think of a one.

    I can think of why legalizing it would be good for society as a whole.

    Well, for one thing, we won't have people making themselves and others miserable by trying to be something they aren't.

    I've known a few people who were gay, who tried to pretend to be straight in order to placate their religious families or because it was what society expected them to do. To no surprise, th ose marriages failed and in some cases, they lived along miserable for the rest of their lives, in others, they finally found happiness in gay relationships.

    But in the meantime, they made themselves, their partners and in some cases children fairly miserable in situations that never should have been to start with.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  3. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    89,554
    Thanks Received:
    7,581
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +18,398
    But once you've accepted that there is a 'contractual" need for marriage, that the government needs to be involved in, then why should it not be open to everyone?
     
  4. hwyangel
    Offline

    hwyangel Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    86
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +8
    Opposite gender marriage is an exception while same gender changes the concept.

    Im sure DOMA will be overturned eventually, it has been predicted. I have made several points from the aids epidemic to the single mothers. The importance I suppose can only be a matter of opinion. May God have mercy on us.
     
  5. WorldWatcher
    Offline

    WorldWatcher Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    7,121
    Thanks Received:
    1,308
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    VA
    Ratings:
    +1,987
    If your concept is that Civil Marriage requires procreation to be valid, then I can understand how you feel that way.

    If Civil Marriage is about procreation, then infertile different-sex couples that Civilly Marry are also an exception.

    Previously in our history "voter" was equal to "Adult, Citizen, White, Landowning, Male". Then "voter" evolved into "Adult, Citizen, White, Male". Then "voter" evolved into "Citizen, Adult, Male". Then women won the right to vote and "voter" became "Adult, Citizen". Society treating people the same is not a bad thing.

    So what is the compelling governmental reason for discriminating based on gender between infertile different-sex couples and infertile same-sex couples?


    There are two sections to DOMA, one is the federal government usurping the power of the States under the 10th Amendment to define Civil Marriage (in other words the Federal government currently picks and chooses which valid legal Civil Marriages it honors). The second section exempts States from recognizing legal Civil Marriages from other States based on gender.

    The first part is likely to be "overturned" in the courts (well actually it already has, and the case is going to the SCOTUS). The second provision is likely to eventually be repealed or amended. Personally I think that will be a voluntary action by Congress. Personally I have no problem with an amended version that exempts States from having to recognize ALL Civil Marriages from other States that do not conform with that States laws. The difference is it would apply to same-sex marriages and different-sex marriages equally.


    Yes, I've seen the diversionary posts which have nothing to do with Same-sex Civil Marriage.

    AIDS is not a disqualifying condition of Civil Marriage - for same-sex or different-sex couples. Single mothers are irrelevant issue when it pertains to Same-sex Civil Marriage. Unless of course it is viewed in the light that two lesbians who have a child and raise a child (either through sperm donation or adoption) are considered "single mothers" because they are not allowed to Civilly Marry in most States. In that case it would reduce "single mothers" but allowing them to Civilly Marry. Good Point.



    He does.


    >>>>
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  6. onecut39
    Offline

    onecut39 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,524
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +152
    I don't think that is true. Same sex marriage encourages long term, exclusive relationships and the lack of it encourages short term promiscuity and all the social and medical ramifications of that.

    Then too it is simply the right thing to do, getting rid of an economic and social underclass cannot be a bad thing.

    In the end it will be good for the souls of all us. You know, equal treatment under the law and all that stuff we say we believe in.
     
  7. onecut39
    Offline

    onecut39 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,524
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +152
    We are an odd type of country. How is it that we are supposed to be equal under the law and then allow states to discriminate on such a basic right as marriage?

    Why should not a state be able to determine who is to be a slave and who not? The concept is not as different as many would make it.
     
  8. onecut39
    Offline

    onecut39 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,524
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +152
    Anything can be an issue if people want to make it an issue. I don't believe polygamy is constitutionally prohibited, as such it can be an issue.

    So far in our history is has not, except for the fringe groups, and the notable exception of the Mormons, who gave it up at least officially.
     
  9. onecut39
    Offline

    onecut39 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,524
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +152

    Oh I don't know about that. There seem to be far too many who adhere to the principles of the Old Testament rather than the new.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page