How society benefits from banning same-sex marriage

[High_Gravity]

There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.

More women for me.

Women marrying women = more women for you?

Ooops, fuck.

 

[Ariux]

The question in the OP is the wrong question. The question should be:

How does society benefit from the government recognizing same-sex marriages.

 

[catzmeow]

The question in the OP is the wrong question. The question should be:

How does society benefit from the government recognizing same-sex marriages.

No. Further, government has no rights not granted by the people and should be constrained, insofar as is possible, from trampling the rights of the citizens. So, government would need to make a strong case that there was a benefit to denying rights in order to continue to do so (i.e., denying felon voting rights). I do not believe that this benefit exists, and even if a small benefit existed, it would not outweigh the great evil of denying civil liberties.

Denial of same sex marriage rights will go down in 5 years, if not sooner.

 

[Ariux]

The question in the OP is the wrong question. The question should be:

How does society benefit from the government recognizing same-sex marriages.

No. Further, government has no rights not granted by the people and should be constrained, insofar as is possible, from trampling the rights of the citizens. So, government would need to make a strong case that there was a benefit to denying rights in order to continue to do so (i.e., denying felon voting rights). I do not believe that this benefit exists, and even if a small benefit existed, it would not outweigh the great evil of denying civil liberties.

The liberal con is insist this is about homosexual rights, when it's really about expansion of government to deny the rights of people of morality. This fact makes your whole argument about the government trampling rights hypocritical. You want to force churches to hand their property over to homosexual couples wanting to get married. You want to force church members to perform personal services at same-sex weddings. These things are already happening in parts of America.

What force is there in "banning same-sex marriage"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where this is love, there is God, in my humble opinion. Banning universal marriage in unacceptable to me.

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.

 

[catzmeow]

The liberal con is insist this is about homosexual rights, when it's really about expansion of government to deny the rights of people of morality. This fact makes your whole argument about the government trampling rights hypocritical. You want to force churches to hand their property over to homosexual couples wanting to get married. You want to force church members to perform personal services at same-sex weddings. These things are already happening in parts of America.

What force is there in "banning same-sex marriage"?

What rights of people of morality would be denied by legalizing same-sex marriage?

No one is proposing that churches be required to marry anyone they don't want to marry.

Please, tell us where these things are happening. Links, prease.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone can practice their form of morality in a church that does not recognize homosexuality or universal marriage.

The government cannot interfere with religious marriages.

The government can insist that religious marriages that want to be recognized with all the civil perqs of traditional marriage be registered with the state.

 

[Amelia]

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.

The government gives benefits to the surviving partner of a heterosexual marriage but not a same-sex marriage.

The government allows the foreign spouse in a hetersexual marriage to apply for a green card based on that relationship, but not the foreign spouse in a same-sex marriage.

The gov't is already involved, and is discriminating.

 

[Amelia]

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.

So green cards and survivor benefits should go to the spouses in civil unions?


Edit to note that I'm replying as I read along. My apologies if you have already answered this.

 

[Ariux]

The liberal con is insist this is about homosexual rights, when it's really about expansion of government to deny the rights of people of morality. This fact makes your whole argument about the government trampling rights hypocritical. You want to force churches to hand their property over to homosexual couples wanting to get married. You want to force church members to perform personal services at same-sex weddings. These things are already happening in parts of America.

What force is there in "banning same-sex marriage"?

What rights of people of morality would be denied by legalizing same-sex marriage?

No one is proposing that churches be required to marry anyone they don't want to marry.

Please, tell us where these things are happening. Links, prease.

1) Check the news, or Google.
2) Why do you need a link? Why don't you take a position on whether it should or should not be happening?

 

[saveliberty]

Society benefits from having legal protections AND religion. Blurring the two is not progress.

 

[blackhawk]

Same sex marriage is and always will be a non issue with me I just don't care either way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Not to mention their 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A google search reveals no such efforts, Ariux. Fail.

The liberal con is insist this is about homosexual rights, when it's really about expansion of government to deny the rights of people of morality. This fact makes your whole argument about the government trampling rights hypocritical. You want to force churches to hand their property over to homosexual couples wanting to get married. You want to force church members to perform personal services at same-sex weddings. These things are already happening in parts of America.

What force is there in "banning same-sex marriage"?

What rights of people of morality would be denied by legalizing same-sex marriage?

No one is proposing that churches be required to marry anyone they don't want to marry.

Please, tell us where these things are happening. Links, prease.

1) Check the news, or Google.
2) Why do you need a link? Why don't you take a position on whether it should or should not be happening?

 

[Gem]

I have no "fear" of homosexuality or same-sex marriage. But I am concerned as to what the precedent of changing the legal definition of marriage would bring to the United States as time progressed.

Most obviously, once gay marriage has been legalized - the denial of other types of marriage between consenting adults will become all but impossible to argue against. Once we have, as a nation, stated that marriage is not the legal union of a man and a woman, but rather, the legal union of two consenting adults....there is NO argument for why it can't be a legal union between three, four, etc. consenting adults that will hold up in court.

Now, maybe thats fine. Maybe nothing bad will come of allowing six people from "marrying," but it is a conversation we should probably have now, that we aren't having. In fact, many gay-marriage supporters act OFFENDED when the idea is mentioned. This is either naivete or a willful blindness because they don't want to admit that their changing the definition of marriage will open the door to further changes down the road...changes that will only be easier because of their work.

With that problem comes other problems - how do we identify legal parents when a marriage might consist of six people? How do businesses handle the healthcare of families of these types? What happens to assets, children, visitation rights, spousal support, etc. when these families "divorce?"

Again...these problems might not be the end of the US as we know it. They might not even happen. But shouldn't we at least discuss where redefining marriage might lead?

Then there is the question of discrimination...and many here have said "It won't happen." But it IS happening. Denmark is forcing its churches to perform gay marriages. And a wedding photographer in New Mexico lost a law suit when she was sued for refusing to photograph gay marriage ceremonies.

Once we legally recognize something...we are going to have to address whether someone's civil rights are being violated if they are then "denied access" to that "right." These cases WILL become common...and our courts WILL have to address whether or not a church has the right to deny someone something that the United States says they are legally allowed to have. You may feel that churches should have the right to deny a gay couple the ability to marry at their church...but given the fact that other nations are already dealing with this very issue...and given the fact that we are already seeing discrimination cases in our own nation...shouldn't we at least discuss it?

Sadly...I think one of the biggest hindrances to REALLY addressing gay marriage and if it should be legalized is the gay marriage supporters labeling anyone who questions the wisdom of such a decision as a homophobic bigot...effectively stifling any intelligent debate and potentially causing us to make a decision without fully considering the consequences.

I am not against gay marriage - I'm not necessarily for it yet either. I have numerous homosexual friends whose weddings I would be honored to attend. But first, I want to have a thorough, calm, and well-reasoned debate as to whether it is the right decision for our nation - and how we are going to deal with the issues that legalizing gay marriage would bring.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage has responsibilities along with perquisites. Whether two or six people, the responsibilities will be apportioned by law, as they are now for two parents.

Gem's point should not be dismissed but neither should we believe her concerns cannot be addressed by our leges and our courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Within the context of Constitutional case law, and the rule of law in general.

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.

A state disallowing a class of persons access to its laws is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. See e.g. Romer v. Evans.

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.

As mandated by the Constitution.

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

Wishing to realize one’s Constitutional rights is hardly ‘unreasonable.’

 

[bodecea]

There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.

More women for me.

Women marrying women = more women for you?

Ironically, the CWA (Concerned Women of America) have taken the position that if gay marriage is legalized, women will leave their husbands in droves to marry each other.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

More women for me.

Women marrying women = more women for you?

Ironically, the CWA (Concerned Women of America) have taken the position that if gay marriage is legalized, women will leave their husbands in droves to marry each other.

…really can’t blame them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a blessing for many men who will be free to find the right woman (or man).

More women for me.

Women marrying women = more women for you?

Ironically, the CWA (Concerned Women of America) have taken the position that if gay marriage is legalized, women will leave their husbands in droves to marry each other.