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.

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?

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality.


.... A child of tender years shall not,save in exceptional circumstances,be separated from his mother....

... The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents...

The child shall in all circumstances be among the first to receive protection and relief.


(Childrens rights are not a matter of opinion )

 

[hwyangel]

And pro-creation effects every living, breathing, human being on the planet regardless of you feel about it. It's not because people are against you, it's just a fact of life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A child's right will be protected in same sex as heterosexual marriages.

 

[Gem]

Its Just Me I Think Wrote:

If I said, "If we allow felons to work at McDonalds the next thing you know they'll be controlling the country!!" What would you think?

By chance, would you think that's a bit silly? Maybe...a bit of a leap?

I would ask where you were coming from with such a suggestion. What precedent would you be pointing to in order to make your point? Is there a right that allowing felons to work at McDonald's gives them that they could then use to somehow "control the country?" And what exactly does "controlling the country" mean? If a felon who paid his debt to society began working at a McDonald's and, through hard and honest work, became an important, powerful person in the world - where would the harm be in that? I don't see one...but obviously you do?

The above is, essentially," the shoe on other foot."

No, the above is a silly non-relevant example because you are either being obtuse on purpose, or have no clue how legal precedent works.

You generalize and assume, you've compared the legitimacy of a union between two lovers to that of an orgy. Are you really surprised homosexuals get offended?

Where did I say "an orgy?" And who are YOU to say that three lovers' committed relationship is somehow LESS WORTHY than the committed relationship of two people? I'm offended that you would somehow imply that there is something inherently sordid and ugly about any relationship that involves more than two people. Very close-minded of you, don't you think? After all...it wasn't so long ago that people said the very thing about relationships between two men or two women...it was "abhorrent, immoral, wrong." Yet, now we understand that as long as the two adults are consenting...as long as they approve of their relationship than it IS valid and SHOULD BE recognized...and yet here you come...with your prejudices...saying that somehow just because someone chooses to love more than one person with all their heart that they aren't entitled to the same rights and benefits as people in two-person relationships. Sad.

A conversation can be had about redefining marriage without comparing gay marriage to a 6-person "lovefest"

I think all your post has shown, is that you have some serious issues against people choosing to be in consenting, committed relationships if YOU don't like the way those relationships look. And that...makes you no better than anyone who opposes gay marriage because they don't like homosexuality.

I never stated ANYTHING negative about gay marriage, or people in polygamous marriages (as long as all involved as consenting adults). It was you who used words with negative connotations, "orgy," "lovefest."

I am the one trying to have a serious debate about the long-term ramifications of redefining marriage based on a solid understanding of how legal precedent is used in these matters. Personally, I think you would have had a FAR STRONGER POINT, if you had said - "And what would the negative consequences of allowing multiple consenting adults marry be to our society?" I'm not sure there necessarily would be one...which is why I am not necessarily against gay marriage OR polygamous marriage.

You, on the other hand, seem to be allowing your prejudices to cloud your argument.

 

[logical4u]

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.

You are changing the definition of a word that is the foundation of civilized society.
You are changing the foundation of society from rock solid "family" to a liquid "family unit" (that can have interchangeable people, reducing the value of "people").
You are teaching children that adults have no concept of the obvious (two of the same sex = two of the opposite sex), therefore if adults will deceive on something, so obvious, why wouldn't they be deceptive about everything else?
You are teaching children that one sex has more value than the other sex, not where two people of the opposite sex can work together to become better people (hard to do with two of the same sex, the simiarities don't confront the senses the same way).
You are teaching children that if you don't find a suitable mate, settle for a substitute.
You are teaching children that children are not as important as adults "sex life/lie".

When children are raised with questionable values, they are "more" likely NOT to be "pillars of society", and to get into more trouble, than children that are raised in a loving home with their "biological parents. I am not saying children cannot be raised in other circumstances or even that "biological parents are always perfect, just that in a perfect world, it is a better situation to carry society "forward".

We know that. We can see that. We can prove that. What is wrong with saying that? What is wrong with teaching that?

 

[WorldWatcher]

And pro-creation effects every living, breathing, human being on the planet regardless of you feel about it. It's not because people are against you, it's just a fact of life.

First, can you like to the Civil Marriage law of any state that:

(a) Requires procreation as part of Civil Marriage, or

(b) Requires that participants prove that they are fertile?


Second, you do realize that being homosexual does not mean that the individual is infertile? Right. There are a large number of homosexual couples that have children in the same manner as other couples that are infertile together, i.e. surrogacy, IVF, or adoption.


>>>>

 

[hwyangel]

A child's right will be protected in same sex as heterosexual marriages.

Step parenting is a parent that steps in where a parent is missing. Usually an exception to the rule rather than the goal. Step parenting does not establish or eliminate the responsibility of support from the "missing" parent unless that "missing" parent is dead. And how does eliminating blood testing (according to the ACLU and LGBT its a discrimination, hence the "aids confidentiality Act" ) for genetic diseases or sexually transmitted infections good for the pregnant mother or her children?

TITLE 77: PUBLIC HEALTH CHAPTER I: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SUBCHAPTER k: COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CONTROL AND IMMUNIZATIONS PART 697 HIV/AIDS CONFIDENTIALITY AND TESTING CODE SECTION 697.150 MARRIAGE LICENSE TESTING REQUIREMENTS (REPEALED)

 

[Peach]

There is no benefit in the denial of marriage to gay Americans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

That a citizen exercising his Constitutional rights (in this case the right to equal protection of the law) might offend or upset other citizens is not a legitimate rationale for the state to deny those rights to the citizen.

 

[hwyangel]

Many pregnant women may not get STD tests: MedlinePlus

" Many pregnant women may not get STD tests"

pregnant women have tests for certain sexually transmitted diseases, many may not be getting them


"As our study shows, there's a significant gap between the recommendations and actual practice," said Dr. Jay M. Lieberman, who is medical director for infectious diseases at Quest Diagnostics Inc. and worked on the study.

" Exactly why some pregnant women are not tested as recommended is unclear"

 

[Peach]

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.

The same mindset opposed suffrage for women, and civil rights for Americans of African descent.

 

[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.

That a citizen exercising his Constitutional rights (in this case the right to equal protection of the law) might offend or upset other citizens is not a legitimate rationale for the state to deny those rights to the citizen.

No is saying that anyone should be denied rights. The argument is that instead of pursuing civil partnerships for added amendments or changes why attack marriage?

 

[hwyangel]

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.

The same mindset opposed suffrage for women, and civil rights for Americans of African descent.

Women have rights like maturity leave, and priority for custody that specific to their needs. But their still not allowed in mens public restrooms or mens only clubs.

 

[Peach]

Women in the US did not have the right to vote, except in a few states, until the the 20th century. And there was vigorous opposition to the 19th amendment.

 

[Avatar4321]

I would argue that this is an irrelavant question as no one is attempting to ban same-sex marriage. Marriage is a covenant made between a man and a woman (And often with God). There can no more be a same sex marriage as there can be circular square or a feathered mammal.

The political question being examined is whether the government should recognize same sex unions as marriages sanctioned by the state. Nothing is stopping anyone from entering into a same sex union or even calling it whatever they want, despite it being an oxymoron to call it marriage.

Look at the polygamists. The lack of government recognition doesn't stop them from entering into private covenants and calling it marriage. They, for the most part, aren't going around trying to force people to recognize their marriages. They largely ignore what others have to say and do what they choose to do.

Nothing is stopping homosexual couples from making covenants with one another. Nothing is stopping them from calling their relationship whatever they want. The issue at hand is should the population be forced to recognize and redefine marriage because a small minority wants us to. The answer is no.

The only reason government recognizes traditional marriage is because it serves public policy to do so. and the public policy is the perpetuation and raising of future generations of citizens. If it weren't for that, there would be no reason for government to recognize traditional marriage. In fact, I think there is a strong argument for government getting out of the marriage business. I don't buy the argument, but the argument is there.

I work in the juvenile justice system. I see the affects of the breakdown of the traditional family everyday. Children need both their mother and their father married whenever possible. They need to see how families should behave and should treat one another so they can do the same. The breakdown of the traditional family, which homosexual unions is only a small part of, is leading to a destruction of the culture that has lead the advancement of our society for thousands of years.

People need to make choices. Do we choose to continue to let our culture slide to the lowest common denominator, or should we make a choice to lift our culture to higher ground? Do we choose to give into weakness and treat marriage as a joke or do we get married to our first spouse and stay married. Do we honor the commitments we make even when times are tough or do we run at the first sight of trouble? Do we let our natural urges control us or do we control them?

Yes, im alittle off topic at this point. But I dont think we can address this issue without looking at the bigger cultural battle going on in the hearts and minds of the people, especially our children.

 

[Avatar4321]

Women in the US did not have the right to vote, except in a few states, until the the 20th century. And there was vigorous opposition to the 19th amendment.

Not entirely true. Women were allowed to vote in the US around the time of the Revolution. Unfortunately, women "chose the wrong party" so those in control shortly afterwards decided to pass a law keeping them from voting.

And the western states all allowed women voters back in the 19th century. Wyoming, Utah, Montana, etc. In fact, it was the Federal Government that banned women from voting in Utah when they realized they were voting in favor of polygamy instead of against it.

Just letting you know

 

[Avatar4321]

Women have rights like maturity leave, and priority for custody that specific to their needs. But their still not allowed in mens public restrooms or mens only clubs.

Trust me, they dont want to be allowed in mens restrooms, though im not really sure there is a law against them being there.

 

[Vidi]

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".

A seperate but equal legal definition has been tried in the past. It failed. Miserably.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

No.

The first rule of government is that when it interferes, it is wrong.

You, and government, have no right at all to invade the privacy of any citizen in this country. What any citizen decides to do in the privacy of their own home, with the consent of other adults, simply put, is beyond the authority of government.

The problem with liberals, and some conservatives, is that they think they have the right to write law that will limit or describe the conduct of the citizens of this country.

This is contrary to the entire concept of freedom; specifically, freedom from government tyranny.

A conservative should promote ONLY those laws that rescind the laws that infringe upon the freedom of the citizens of this country.

We have a freedom of Religion. We do NOT have a freedom from religion. But religion does not have the power to dictate the individual actions and morality of the citizens.

Freedom is a bitch because it never gives us everything we want. But it always gives us everything we deserve.

 

[Vidi]

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.

No.

The first rule of government is that when it interferes, it is wrong.

You, and government, have no right at all to invade the privacy of any citizen in this country. What any citizen decides to do in the privacy of their own home, with the consent of other adults, simply put, is beyond the authority of government.

The problem with liberals, and some conservatives, is that they think they have the right to write law that will limit or describe the conduct of the citizens of this country.

This is contrary to the entire concept of freedom; specifically, freedom from government tyranny.

A conservative should promote ONLY those laws that rescind the laws that infringe upon the freedom of the citizens of this country.

We have a freedom of Religion. We do NOT have a freedom from religion. But religion does not have the power to dictate the individual actions and morality of the citizens.

Freedom is a bitch because it never gives us everything we want. But it always gives us everything we deserve.

Just to clarify, then youre FOR same sex marriage?