How society benefits from banning same-sex marriage

[hwyangel]

The government recognized institution of marriage has very little resemblance to holy matrimony. There are similarities, but fundamentally two separate concepts.
The same is true for Same gender and opposite gender couples. Not to say that either is better or worse than the other, but the inability to comprehend the difference is only proof of how "sex education" has failed to communicate some very basic information.
Regardless of how anyone feels about pro-creation it directly effects the lives of every living, breathing, human being on the planet, and not something that can be swept under a rug. After all, there is a reason why we want young pregnant women to get married and it's not because we like to go to parties, lol. Us old fashioned folks call it "doing the right thing". Which translates as, we believe it's right for a man to be responsible for his family as opposed to burdening the welfare system. We believe that a child needs two parents to be a healthy, well adjusted citizen. We believe that a child has a right to a name that be identified with a medical history or ancestry, ( That info you put on medical forms and college applications). So we encourage this behavior by having them sign a legally bond document known as a marriage certificate.
However, same gender couples also deserve the same rights under the law. But with same gender couples there is a different set of needs and requirements. Like the "aids confidentiality Act" enacted through ACLU and the LGBT to fight discrimination. A very real, very basic need when there are teens committing suicide and the high susceptibility among gay men. This is good thing........for same gender couples. But blood test for an opposite gender couple could at least create awareness and possible prevention of disease, disability, and death to a pregnant woman and/or her children. Equally important issues, but very different.
And here another example: Two sisters, both divorced, both have children. They pool their money together to buy a house. They live there for 20 years and raise their children together. They have the same concerns as any other same gender couple. If one dies, the will loose her home because she will have to sell it pay the taxes.
If we allow those related to marry we intentionally subject children to deformities and disabilities if its an opposite gender couple. But if they are not allowed to marry, then they face discrimination.
So here is the answer. Civil partnerships should be as unique to the specific needs and right of same gender couples as marriage is to opposite gender couples. Obviously you can expect to get the same results in a few years an institution like marriage that has been around for centuries. But I believe that if LGBT people spent as much time, effort and money to advocate for the amendments or rights they need instead of pissing in my yard..........

 

[JakeStarkey]

The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.

 

[hwyangel]

The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.

Actually they legally don't except in a few states. And even that was not by popular vote. And we are talking about rights that could be established through civil partnerships with less effort or cost. Even if you harden your heart to the epidemic of unwed pregnant women, the elimination of blood testing to save lives, and discrimination of related same gender couples, how would justify the special rights for couples as opposed to single parents?

 

[saveliberty]

The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.

They have a right to cohibatate and a civil union. Religious groups have the right to define a marriage. The OP implies, incorrectly, that the ban is somehow a reversal of past practice. History shows marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

 

[manifold]

The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.

They have a right to cohibatate and a civil union. Religious groups have the right to define a marriage. The OP implies, incorrectly, that the ban is somehow a reversal of past practice. History shows marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

The OP implies no such thing.

The author of the OP cannot be held responsible for erroneous inferences subsequently drawn.

 

[tjvh]

The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.

I guess that would depend upon how one defines the word marriage.

 

[Artevelde]

The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.

No they don't. That's a perversion of marriage.

 

[Artevelde]

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.

So I presume you also feel that there should be no ban against multiple marriage, underage marriage, marriage between siblings, etc?

you presume incorrectly

Then I guess Edited. Not Allowed Here.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The point is, hwyangel, that same sex couples have every right to marriage as do heterosexual couples.

They have a right to cohibatate and a civil union.

And in some places they have a right to Civil Marriage.

Religious groups have the right to define a marriage.

True, for Religious Marriage. Some religious groups define Religious Marriage as only valid between members of different sexes. Other religious groups define Religious Marriage as valid between consenting adults.

The OP implies, incorrectly, that the ban is somehow a reversal of past practice. History shows marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

No, actually history shows that "marriage" has been between a man and one or more women. As a matter of fact there are places today where that is in fact still legal and religious groups which condone it.

Now, there are places where same-sex couples can enter into a legal Civil Marriage, an entity distinct and different then a Religious Marriage.



>>>>

 

[hwyangel]

I really do believe that equal justice is deserved by same gender couples. I also believe civil partnerships should be defined and applied specifically to same gender couples to benefit their unique needs. Even if it's just the name "civil partnership" that is offensive I see no reason why it cannot be changed. It would be illegal to intentionally offend a minority group. I just don't understand why it has to marriage? You know it creates contention, you know it changes the institution in a negative way for opposite gender couples, and you know it effects a majority population that doesn't want it changed.

 

[Borillar]

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.

Can you please provide a link? How, where, and when have churches or individuals been forced to do anything in regard to same sex weddings?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I really do believe that equal justice is deserved by same gender couples. I also believe civil partnerships should be defined and applied specifically to same gender couples to benefit their unique needs.

Take two couples:

Same-sex: law abiding, consenting, infertile, US Citizen, Tax paying, adult.

Different: law abiding, consenting, infertile, US Citizen, Tax paying, adult.​

One couple is allowed to Civilly Marry, one couple is not (in most places). What "unique" needs apply to one that doesn't apply to the other?

... you know it changes the institution in a negative way for opposite gender couples,

No it doesn't. Joan and Jane down the street getting Civilly Married has no impact on the Civil/Religous Marriage of me and my wife.

and you know it effects a majority population that doesn't want it changed.

Actually polls show that statement is shifting for a Majority (or at least a plurality) supporting equal treatment under Civil Law for same-sex couples. Them demographics are changing, so you should be wary of claiming justifications simply based on "majority" opinion. That position isn't going to last. As a matter of fact in two states with ballot questions (Washington and Maine) this year, there is a very good shot that one or both will pass Same-sex Civil Marriage based on a referendum.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Can you please provide a link? How, where, and when have churches or individuals been forced to do anything in regard to same sex weddings?

No Church has been forced to perform a same-sex wedding. Just as no Church has been forced to perform interracial weddings, interfaith weddings, or a wedding where one (or both) of the participants were divorced against the dogma of that Church.

The case that is often used when a "source" is asked for is the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersy. They are not a "Church".



There have been multiple cases where individual private businesses have run afoul of state anti-discrimination statutes (commonly called "Public Accommodation Law"). But that is an argument against big government Public Accommodation laws intruding in private business and not a fundamental problem with Same-sex Civil Marriage.



>>>>

 

[hwyangel]

I really do believe that equal justice is deserved by same gender couples. I also believe civil partnerships should be defined and applied specifically to same gender couples to benefit their unique needs.

Take two couples:

Same-sex: law abiding, consenting, infertile, US Citizen, Tax paying, adult.

Different: law abiding, consenting, infertile, US Citizen, Tax paying, adult.​

One couple is allowed to Civilly Marry, one couple is not (in most places). What "unique" needs apply to one that doesn't apply to the other?

... you know it changes the institution in a negative way for opposite gender couples,

No it doesn't. Joan and Jane down the street getting Civilly Married has no impact on the Civil/Religous Marriage of me and my wife.

and you know it effects a majority population that doesn't want it changed.

Actually polls show that statement is shifting for a Majority (or at least a plurality) supporting equal treatment under Civil Law for same-sex couples. Them demographics are changing, so you should be wary of claiming justifications simply based on "majority" opinion. That position isn't going to last. As a matter of fact in two states with ballot questions (Washington and Maine) this year, there is a very good shot that one or both will pass Same-sex Civil Marriage based on a referendum.


>>>>

Same-sex: law abiding,consenting, infertile,US Citizen,Taxpaying,adult. ( kin)

Opposite: law abiding, consenting, fertile, US citizen, taxpaying, adult. (Kin)

 

[hwyangel]

@ WorldWatcher

Two sisters, both divorced, both with kids.
They pool their money together to buy a house.
They live there and raise their children together for 20 years.
If one dies the other will have to sell the house to pay the taxes.
What reason is their to prevent them from getting married?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Same-sex: law abiding,consenting, infertile,US Citizen,Taxpaying,adult. ( kin)

Opposite: law abiding, consenting, fertile, US citizen, taxpaying, adult. (Kin)

@ WorldWatcher

Two sisters, both divorced, both with kids.
They pool their money together to buy a house.
They live there and raise their children together for 20 years.
If one dies the other will have to sell the house to pay the taxes.
What reason is their to prevent them from getting married?

Deflection.

You said that same-sex couples that are not allowed to Civilly Marry have "unique" needs, I asked specifically what those needs were to different-sex couples that are allowed to Civilly Marry - and you deflect to, supposedly, incest.


Your second post closely resembles my real-life sisters who later in life moved back into the house we were raised in and raised our niece after issues with her mother (the nieces) made her unfit to raise her. To tell the truth, I would have had no problem with my heterosexual sisters being allowed to Civilly Marry in recognition of the (true, non-traditional) family they created to raise my niece.



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, it sure did when women got the vote, and when blacks got civil rights.

And all the good things of those facts will occur again when the universal marriage war is over and same sex has won.

I really do believe that equal justice is deserved by same gender couples. I also believe civil partnerships should be defined and applied specifically to same gender couples to benefit their unique needs. Even if it's just the name "civil partnership" that is offensive I see no reason why it cannot be changed. It would be illegal to intentionally offend a minority group. I just don't understand why it has to marriage? You know it creates contention, you know it changes the institution in a negative way for opposite gender couples, and you know it effects a majority population that doesn't want it changed.

 

[oldernwiser]

The government recognized institution of marriage has very little resemblance to holy matrimony. There are similarities, but fundamentally two separate concepts.
The same is true for Same gender and opposite gender couples. Not to say that either is better or worse than the other, but the inability to comprehend the difference is only proof of how "sex education" has failed to communicate some very basic information.

I'll go along with the 1st part of this - civil marriage is a legal definition of the actual contract where fundamental marriage is a church sacrament. They are, and should be, fundamentally different - especially in light of the fact that not many religions will define the legal ramifications of divorce. Some religions actually deal with that by expressly prohibiting divorce entirely - which raises even MORE questions.

Sex for procreation is only 1 small part of the act of marriage. I think it takes higher priority as well since one may have a child without marriage, but one doesn't need marriage to make a baby. Looking at the (Christian) scripture which discusses marriage in detail, procreation is a minor aspect. Love and respect for one another are the stars.

Regardless of how anyone feels about pro-creation it directly effects the lives of every living, breathing, human being on the planet, and not something that can be swept under a rug. After all, there is a reason why we want young pregnant women to get married and it's not because we like to go to parties, lol. Us old fashioned folks call it "doing the right thing". Which translates as, we believe it's right for a man to be responsible for his family as opposed to burdening the welfare system. We believe that a child needs two parents to be a healthy, well adjusted citizen. We believe that a child has a right to a name that be identified with a medical history or ancestry, ( That info you put on medical forms and college applications). So we encourage this behavior by having them sign a legally bond document known as a marriage certificate.

I'm not sure I'm tracking this properly. Women have gotten pregnant with and without the "benefit" of marriage since forever. We "did the right thing" and married because that was expected behavior at the time, not that marriage was the correct option at the time. In some cases, marriage was actually the exact WORSE option. There was a period before that where women simply went "away" for a few months.

A child's name isn't as important today as it used to be. We don't care so much about our lineage today since we don't derive any special recognition as you'd find in Europe.

And finally, there are studies which argue the point that children fare better/worse/the same in hetero- versus homosexual relationships. It all depends on who you read and whether there's an axe to grind. Maybe children actually DO become "well adjusted" in a 2 adult family, but there are plenty of single moms and dads. Limiting options arbitrarily doesn't seem like the right way to go.

However, same gender couples also deserve the same rights under the law. But with same gender couples there is a different set of needs and requirements. Like the "aids confidentiality Act" enacted through ACLU and the LGBT to fight discrimination. A very real, very basic need when there are teens committing suicide and the high susceptibility among gay men. This is good thing........for same gender couples. But blood test for an opposite gender couple could at least create awareness and possible prevention of disease, disability, and death to a pregnant woman and/or her children. Equally important issues, but very different.
And here another example: Two sisters, both divorced, both have children. They pool their money together to buy a house. They live there for 20 years and raise their children together. They have the same concerns as any other same gender couple. If one dies, the will loose her home because she will have to sell it pay the taxes.

Again, I'm failing to see the logic - and, to be honest, can't verify your claim that privacy legislation was enacted to prevent discrimination. There are quite a few privacy laws which supercede even marriage. Privacy laws make it necessary to be explicit about who should know YOUR affairs. I guess even married couples like to have a few secrets.

Let's go on with another example:
A man and a woman lived together without marrying (let's just say they simply saw no reason to be "traditional") for 40 years. During that time, they raise 4 kids. They lived in a very committed and loving family until he suddenly died at the age of 68. Since they considered themselves married in every respect - except religiously, what's the difference?

If we allow those related to marry we intentionally subject children to deformities and disabilities if its an opposite gender couple. But if they are not allowed to marry, then they face discrimination.
So here is the answer. Civil partnerships should be as unique to the specific needs and right of same gender couples as marriage is to opposite gender couples. Obviously you can expect to get the same results in a few years an institution like marriage that has been around for centuries. But I believe that if LGBT people spent as much time, effort and money to advocate for the amendments or rights they need instead of pissing in my yard..........

I fail to see where a special case needs to applied to any committed, loving, long-term relationship. From a civil aspect, it becomes simple contract law defining benefits, responsibilities, and penalties - all of which are already established. If a church would agree to marry a couple (or even a couple dozen), then that's a spiritual blessing and carries importance that's relevant only to the partners involved.

I really don't see the protection of individual choice as pissing in anyone's yard. In fact, restricting someone's choice is more like pissing in THEIR yard, don't you think?

 

[hwyangel]

Same-sex: law abiding,consenting, infertile,US Citizen,Taxpaying,adult. ( kin)

Opposite: law abiding, consenting, fertile, US citizen, taxpaying, adult. (Kin)

@ WorldWatcher

Two sisters, both divorced, both with kids.
They pool their money together to buy a house.
They live there and raise their children together for 20 years.
If one dies the other will have to sell the house to pay the taxes.
What reason is their to prevent them from getting married?

Deflection.

You said that same-sex couples that are not allowed to Civilly Marry have "unique" needs, I asked specifically what those needs were to different-sex couples that are allowed to Civilly Marry - and you deflect to, supposedly, incest.


Your second post closely resembles my real-life sisters who later in life moved back into the house we were raised in and raised our niece after issues with her mother (the nieces) made her unfit to raise her. To tell the truth, I would have had no problem with my heterosexual sisters being allowed to Civilly Marry in recognition of the (true, non-traditional) family they created to raise my niece.



>>>>

The point is that fertility changes everything. The sisters are no different than any other same gender couple. But if two sisters can marry then would it "fair" to discriminate against a brother and a sister? Even knowing that the reason for prohibiting kin from marriage is because of the consequences it poses to children? Or would in instead be "fair" to discriminate against all kin couples?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Same-sex: law abiding,consenting, infertile,US Citizen,Taxpaying,adult. ( kin)

Opposite: law abiding, consenting, fertile, US citizen, taxpaying, adult. (Kin)

@ WorldWatcher

Two sisters, both divorced, both with kids.
They pool their money together to buy a house.
They live there and raise their children together for 20 years.
If one dies the other will have to sell the house to pay the taxes.
What reason is their to prevent them from getting married?

Deflection.

You said that same-sex couples that are not allowed to Civilly Marry have "unique" needs, I asked specifically what those needs were to different-sex couples that are allowed to Civilly Marry - and you deflect to, supposedly, incest.


Your second post closely resembles my real-life sisters who later in life moved back into the house we were raised in and raised our niece after issues with her mother (the nieces) made her unfit to raise her. To tell the truth, I would have had no problem with my heterosexual sisters being allowed to Civilly Marry in recognition of the (true, non-traditional) family they created to raise my niece.



>>>>

The point is that fertility changes everything. The sisters are no different than any other same gender couple. But if two sisters can marry then would it "fair" to discriminate against a brother and a sister? Even knowing that the reason for prohibiting kin from marriage is because of the consequences it poses to children? Or would in instead be "fair" to discriminate against all kin couples?

Fertility doesn't change anything. No state in the union requires a fertility test to enter into Civil Marriage.

Civil Marriage between consenting adults based on gender is the issue. (You realize that there are no laws that prevent two homosexuals from Civil Marriage, they are all based on gender.)

Please explain where fertility matters anywhere as it pertains to consenting non-related adults which is the issue at hand.


>>>>