What are the benefits of same sex marriage?

[WenisPagon]

Please tell me where in the bible Jesus himself states he is against homosexuality or the marriage of homosexuals. The only reference to such I'm aware of is in Leviticus which is an awful and outdated Old Testament book that was written ostensibly for political and socioeconomic reasons.

Sorry if I caused confusion. Never meant to imply that Jesus Himself said anything regarding homosexual marriage (I can see how one could misunderstand what I meant). I typically use "God" and "Jesus" interchangeably.

There is mention of homosexuality in the New Testament, if you're interested.

1 Timothy 1:9?10; Romans 1:26?27; 1 Corinthians 6:9?10.

None of these excerpts from the Old Testament are conclusively about homosexuality, there is debate between biblical scholars. I'll outline some of it for you:

-In Corinthians and Timothy, the word arsenokoitēs can either be translated as "practicing homosexuals", "abusers of themselves within mankind", or "sexual perverts", among other possible definitions. At the time it was written, however, the term was most widely used to refer to those who practiced anal sex, rather than homosexuality. So, a man could commit arsenokoitēs on his wife.

-The word malakos in Corinthians, translated as homosexual, is contended to actually refer to a specific type of effeminate callboy that was popular at the time, not to homosexuals in general. So it is just as likely a condemnation of prostitution as one of homosexuality.

-The concept of "Homosexuality" itself was not really understood at the time, and writers of the books would not have been aware of its meaning. The idea of sexual orientation did not become a concept until the 19th century.

I'm not saying that the writers were or were not speaking of homosexuals, but if there is this amount of contention over the possibility, how can you authoritatively say that God views homosexuality as sinful?

 

[Waaghpowa]

I just thought I'd do the gentlemanly thing and inform you that I am stealing your picture good sir. It made me smile far too much to leave it just lying around.

I actually just found it on the web, it's one of my main go to's for whenever someone tries to argue "Jesus said [blank]"

 

[snekadid]

Hey, I've skimmed the last few pages, but so much unsavory talk has kept me from checking if you have been informed of these certain things. If you don't like them or they don't fit your thesis, then sorry.

There are ALOT of children without parents, and child services are unlikely to give children to single parents even if they have a partner which is a problem that was a much bigger problem for Homosexual couples until relatively recently. Gay marriage gives greater priority to gay couples that wish to adopt which in the end results in fewer children in the system.
This is a relevant issue as being typically unable to bear their own children(except through the power of science), adoption becomes a favorable option to couples desiring children.

As there is NO evidence that would imply that the children of gay couples lead unhappy lives and there is ALOT of evidence that children raised in the system have emotional difficulties later in life, it would be of great benefit for them to be adopted and take the children off of the tax payers back at the same time.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Hey, I've skimmed the last few pages, but so much unsavory talk has kept me from checking if you have been informed of these certain things. If you don't like them or they don't fit your thesis, then sorry.

There are ALOT of children without parents, and child services are unlikely to give children to single parents even if they have a partner which is a problem that was a much bigger problem for Homosexual couples until relatively recently. Gay marriage gives greater priority to gay couples that wish to adopt which in the end results in fewer children in the system.
This is a relevant issue as being typically unable to bear their own children(except through the power of science), adoption becomes a favorable option to couples desiring children.

As there is NO evidence that would imply that the children of gay couples lead unhappy lives and there is ALOT of evidence that children raised in the system have emotional difficulties later in life, it would be of great benefit for them to be adopted and take the children off of the tax payers back at the same time.

It's a speech but thanks for the info. Nobody has said that.

 

[Friis]

Based on what?

Why does it have to be based off of something. In this case, Christianity. However, some people simply don't agree with it.

To judge other people's sin is an affront to your God, as written in the doctrine of Christianity. That's his job. Leave judgement to your God and try to understand your fellow human beings instead of otherising them as sinful.

I always found that the funniest(funny in the not humorous way) thing about Christianity. Historically they judge everyone, but their own literature has judging other's sins as a hell worthy offense.

I can't help but feel that the people arguing the shotgun wedding topic are either intentionally misunderstanding so that they can make really poor arguments or are ignorant of what it means. A shotgun wedding is a phrase used for a wedding that takes place because the groom got the bride pregnant and was forced to take responsibility, often times with the brides father holding a shotgun to make sure he went through with it. In the present the shotgun has less of a prominent role, yet the phrase remains.

Thus, since it is REALLY hard for homosexual couples to get one another pregnant(Nothing is impossible, they just aren't trying hard enough > ), shotgun weddings are a very unlikely result from them.

But since there's just as many heterosexual men as before, it will do nothing to lessen the amount of shotgun weddings.

But the claim is that they do not create more. It doesn't say that they will prevent heterosexual couples from being stupid(MAGICAL GAYS!!!!!). It claims that Homosexual couples will not add to the number of shotgun weddings which are typically regarded as unstable due to being immature relationships formed from sudden responsibility(that also have little time to form real bonds before they have to take care of a child).

You're intentionally misreading it in a way that allows you to attack the OP and its annoying.

It was listed as a benefit to society for legalizing gay marriage, which it wouldn't be unless it actually directly lessened the number of shotgun weddings.
So no, I did indeed NOT misread the OP.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Based on what?

Why does it have to be based off of something. In this case, Christianity. However, some people simply don't agree with it.

To judge other people's sin is an affront to your God, as written in the doctrine of Christianity. That's his job. Leave judgement to your God and try to understand your fellow human beings instead of otherising them as sinful.

I always found that the funniest(funny in the not humorous way) thing about Christianity. Historically they judge everyone, but their own literature has judging other's sins as a hell worthy offense.

I can't help but feel that the people arguing the shotgun wedding topic are either intentionally misunderstanding so that they can make really poor arguments or are ignorant of what it means. A shotgun wedding is a phrase used for a wedding that takes place because the groom got the bride pregnant and was forced to take responsibility, often times with the brides father holding a shotgun to make sure he went through with it. In the present the shotgun has less of a prominent role, yet the phrase remains.

Thus, since it is REALLY hard for homosexual couples to get one another pregnant(Nothing is impossible, they just aren't trying hard enough > ), shotgun weddings are a very unlikely result from them.

But since there's just as many heterosexual men as before, it will do nothing to lessen the amount of shotgun weddings.

But the claim is that they do not create more. It doesn't say that they will prevent heterosexual couples from being stupid(MAGICAL GAYS!!!!!). It claims that Homosexual couples will not add to the number of shotgun weddings which are typically regarded as unstable due to being immature relationships formed from sudden responsibility(that also have little time to form real bonds before they have to take care of a child).

You're intentionally misreading it in a way that allows you to attack the OP and its annoying.

It was listed as a benefit to society for legalizing gay marriage, which it wouldn't be unless it actually directly lessened the number of shotgun weddings.
So no, I did indeed NOT misread the OP.

It was underneath the People have said heading. Not fact, just opinion.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Gay couples are pretty much exactly like heterosexual ones. You'll often find a female role and a male role despite being of the same sex. One will clean more and one will work more. One will make more decisions than the other one. They all laugh, cry, love, fight, make up and either enjoy the relationship or ditch it.

Incorporating this into a marriage sense:

I'd say about 25 years after country wide implementation of gay marriage the stats will be even with heterosexual couples. The reason I theorize this is that the first generation will cherish this new found freedom and probably will work much harder to make it work. They probably wont take it for granted like heterosexual couples do today. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they don't care I'm just saying that its like electricity. You love it, can't live without, but tend to only notice it when its gone.

I do show a mild concern with gay couples having or adopting children. But only if gay children are still being attacked and bullied. My point is children imitate their parents. This could make the child a target in school. Like wise straight parents could force a child to be straight and while damaging there is not a risk of that child being a target.

It all depends on the couple. Gays are not perfect and not all are nice. There is bound to be divorces.

In the terms of government benefits they should be entitled to the same as straight couples, no more, no less. Currently a major issue is if gay couples who have children break up only one of them will have full custody of the child. The other isn't considered family. If the family spawns a generation their relatives would not technically be their relatives and would be denied hospital visit rights, asset acquisition upon death rights. Even family healthcare.

 

[Lieju]

Wait what? How the hell is legalizing gay marriage going to prevent shotgun marriages? Those two things have NOTHING to do with each other!
As far as I can tell, legalizing gay marriage is going to be a good first step towards showing what's wrong with marriage in general (spoiler: It's women).
More than half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, 70-75% of those divorces are initiated by the woman, and most of them again are no-fault divorces.
We already know that gay male relationships are the least likely to be abusive and/or violent while lesbian relationships are the most likely to be abusive and/or violent, with heterosexual relationships being somewhere in the middle of those two.
Likewise half of all domestic violence in heterosexual couples is goes both ways with the woman more often than not being the one to initiate violence, in the cases where only one partner is abusive/violent, 70% of the time it's the woman who is the abuser.
Legalizing homosexual marriage will help making this clearer by providing two control groups to compare with.

These are extraordinary claims about women, and thus require extraordinary evidence. Please cite your sources so we can examine the studies.

The fact that more than half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce is common knowledge by now and has been for a very long time.
As for who initiates the divorce... Dr. Paula England, a member of the Council on Contemporary Families and a sociology professor at Stanford University has been involved in a few studies about this and says that 2/3rds of divorces are filed by the wife (so my memory was a little off, it's 66%, give or take some unknown amount).
Comparing that data to survey responses of couples after their divorce, women were the ones who were saying that they wanted the divorce more than their husband wanted it.
How often was it that many more of women wanted the divorce more than the men?
2/3rds. The same as the amount responsible for divorce filings. And yet another study of divorced couples found that the majority of divorced wives and husbands both agreed it was the wife who wanted out.
As for the Domestic Violence and abuse statistics I mentioned? Look no further than the CDC NISVS 2010 report with it's findings based on sexual orientation.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf
There you go, the stats for bisexuals seem to be all over the place, ranging from least to most victimized, I have no idea why that is as I can't seem to spot any recognizable pattern in it.
TLR - 26% of gay men reported violence by an intimate partner, 29% of heterosexual men did, 35% of heterosexual women did, 43.8% of lesbian women did.
As for women being more likely to be domestic abusers, that's from the CDC as well:
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
The CDC reports that in cases of non-reciprocal intimate partner violence (one directional) that women are more than twice as likely to be the aggressor. The report cites that women comprise 70% of perpetrators, men 29%.

What I find reprehensible about the CDC NISVS report is how they exclude rape by envelopment from their definition of rape. Excluding half the yearly victims (1.1% of the male population per year, compared to the 1.1% of the female population that are raped each year) of rape from rape statistics, only because they are men and 80% of their perpetrators were women.

What it says about bisexuals: "Across
all forms of violence, the majority of
bisexual women and heterosexual
female victims reported having only
male perpetrators. "

Also about lesbians:
"Most bisexual and heterosexual
women (89.5% and 98.7%,
respectively) reported having
only male perpetrators of
intimate partner violence.
Two-thirds of lesbian women
(67.4%) reported having only
female perpetrators of intimate
partner violence. "

So when it comes to lesbians, those statistics include the straight relationships they had. (Which is common. There are a lot of lesbians who at some point of their life have heterosexual relationships.)

This study seems to indicate that women are more likely to be victims of abuse than men, from both male and female partners.

Also

"Most perpetrators of all forms of
sexual violence against women
were male. "

And what does who initiates the divorce have to do with anything? That only tells us who decides to break it off, abused people are cabable of leaving their abusers too. That statistic alone doesn't say anything about the reasons.

What I find reprehensible about the CDC NISVS report is how they exclude rape by envelopment from their definition of rape. Excluding half the yearly victims (1.1% of the male population per year, compared to the 1.1% of the female population that are raped each year) of rape from rape statistics, only because they are men and 80% of their perpetrators were women.

Those reports did include statistics on coercion, being forced to penetrate your partner etc, though.

The CDC reports that in cases of non-reciprocal intimate partner violence (one directional) that women are more than twice as likely to be the aggressor. The report cites that women comprise 70% of perpetrators, men 29%.

I couldn't find those statistic. On what page are they?

 

[Evil Smurf]

It will help Obama complete his evil satanic homosexual plan to kill jesus, obviously!
Actual answer: gay parents are statistically less likely to abuse their children than straight ones

do you have a reference?

 

[Lightknight]

Marriage licenses were only created in the US to prevent interacial marriages and were used earlier as a form of control of the church in Europe when they were still in power.

I did not know that. That is awful. That means they are still being used that way, except against gay couples rather than interracial couples.

I had previously assumed that marriage licenses were created as a tax to increase government funds. While, while not particularly pleasant, was at least not based on racism or homophobia.

Yeah, before the mid-19th century (coughCivilWarcough) commonlaw marriages were the norm in the US. Then marriage licenses started popping up from state to state to control who got married. It wasn't just to prevent whites from marrying black people. It was also to prevent any other minority from marrying whites.

Originally, marriage licenses were obtained in the Middle Ages to allow a marriage that would otherwise be illegal (such as not following the waiting period). Not for legal marriages.

Many groups consider the right of marriage an unalienable right between two consenting adults. Not something that the government should control aside from those specific illegal examples where the two would not be considered consenting. So that's why I'm up for the abolishment of government issued marriage licenses. At most a return to a license in the event of an exception like if they are underage but have parental consent like we already allow now under that condition. I also want the financial union the government issues to married people now to be universally given to those that are married regardless of who they are as the government shouldn't have control over a religious and cultural institution like it does now. Doing it this way will allow gay couples the rights they desire without the appearance of crushing religious/cultural practices by the government (whether or not the government is actually doing so). It will alleviate several of the fears people have about the government changing said laws, like the prospect that religious organizations would be forced to conduct marriages of individuals whose marriage conflicts with their beliefs. Just like wedding planners/florists/photographers/etc. are currently sued successfully for denying services to gay couples based on personal convictions.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

It could potentially have repercussions in the birth of many "off shoots" to traditional religions too, since the "original" religions can't marry gay couples. Some gay people may still have a faith to one extent or another so there may be new communities born with contemporary twists on existing religions to accommodate religious ceremonies. Don't know if this is a benefit or simply a phenomenon.

My oh my wouldn't that be an unfortunate series of never-before-seen events that definitely has never ever happened and been accepted in the entirety of history

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

It will help Obama complete his evil satanic homosexual plan to kill jesus, obviously!
Actual answer: gay parents are statistically less likely to abuse their children than straight ones

do you have a reference?

My reference is that gay parents are statistically less common than straight ones

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

Also, why are you including links? Are you expecting us to do revision for you?

It's called a bibliography. A little more formal than what we're used to here, perhaps, but citing the source of your information is good practice nonetheless.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

snip

That's a good one. Thanks!

not sure if this counts, but the planets at 7 billion and counting, maybe a reduction in over population if people felt they could openly enter into a relationship that reflects their orientation?

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I've always got the impression the upset with gay marriage not being allowed is less about the benefits and more about the fact that people exist who find the idea of gay people marrying repulsive; and not only is this considered acceptable, but outdated laws are held because of this repulsion.

That being said, the biggest benefit probably has to do with your rights to each other in regards to medical emergencies and next of kin situations. Someone's husband or wife shouldn't be denied any rights to their spouse based on the fact that they're "not really allowed to be married."

Not to mention that the government treating them equal to other couples is probably a necessary step for it to be deemed universally acceptable. If the government had never legally recognized interracial marriage there'd probably be quite a few more people who felt right to criticize it

 

[Silvanus]

But it should'nt affect the religious ceremonies, only the civil ceremonies should be enforcable.

There should be legal and social rights. But don't push it into places it does'nt go.

What about those religious groups who want to perform the ceremonies? The Quakers, for example, or the individual Christian & Jewish Churches which want to perform them?

In these cases, we have religious groups who want to be allowed to perform the ceremonies, and other religious groups arguing that it's infringing their rights to allow anybody religious to perform them.

 

[elvor0]

Butt stuff. This economy is lacking in butt stuff, and friendly queers like myself are willing to give it away for free. Support your local butt stuffers.

I can't help but see your avatar saying that on tv as an advert for a sex shop, with Stephen Fry voicing it for some reason ><

 

[Something Amyss]

Why does it have to be based off of something.

You were talking about tradition. Tradition needs to be based off of something for it to be a tradition. Why do I even need to explain that?

If you're arguing for "traditional" concepts, then you'd best be prepared to point out what tradition you're following.

In this case, Christianity.

Ah. So do you also believe in the tradition that a man owns his wife?
What about the tradition of stoning the woman if she's not a virgin?
The tradition of polygamy? Harems?
Traditional Christian incest?

What you call "traditional" isn't very, you know, traditional.

Not to mention there's a traditional history of gay marriage (even within the Church) going back hundreds of years.

In fact, your idea of marriage is the more modern one. It sounds like you're groping for an excuse.

However, some people simply don't agree with it.

Hopefully, they're wise enough to not call it "traditional" and then say it doesn't have to be based on anything, then.

I gave my reason. I'll elaborate. Again, I hate what they do because it goes contrary to the traditional concept of marriage. To me, something doesn't feel right about two men marrying each other.

So "disgusting" simply means "something that doesn't feel right?" Gotcha. And perverted means something of which you don't approve, I imagine?

I have that right.

And other people have the right to call you on it.

Also, I provided reason.

Not until you were nailed down on it. Before that, it was all "tradition!" and "disgusting!" and most of your argument still revolves around that.

Funny how people are so quick to attack a person's opinion when it's an unpopular one.

You call people being what they are "disgusting" and "perverted." You have no wiggle room to talk there, either.