What are the benefits of same sex marriage?

[Silvanus]

Yes, I can see how being asked to move seats would be a more abhorrent statement than being made to walk in the rain.

That's not what I said.

Being made to walk in the rain would be equally symbolically bad, with added practical imposition. It would be worse. Having to move seats is less impractical, but the symbolism remains. Both are demeaning.

All I said was that the symbolism is a big part of what people remember.

 

[NeutralDrow]

That's the benefit, wider access.

It is a benefit (the main one in fact), but on the basis that it isn't specific to gay marriage it doesn't answer the question being asked. Point 4 is a benefit of marriage of any kind. It's like asking what the benefit of a 360 is and answering "it plays games". So does the PS3. It is not an exclusive benefit.

Different interpretations, I guess. You can certainly say that "playing games" is a benefit of the 360, if you don't assume the question requires a superlative answer. I assumed there was more than one question embedded in the thread title, and both were relevant.

This really isn't any different from how things currently work, so I'd go with "phenomenon." If even that, since denominational and sectarian beliefs can and frequently do change over time, and split to the point that "traditional" religions are essentially made up of nothing but offshoots.

True, but the reason is the key difference. If a denomination of a faith is formed as a direct result of the introduction of gay marriage, then it is relevant (though whether it's a benefit or not is another question entirely, and one which I'm inclined to agree with you on; it's not a benefit or a negative, it's just "a thing").[/quote]

If a new denomination is formed as a direct result of the introduction of legalized same-sex marriage into society, that would be fascinating. It'd be the opposite of what I'd normally expect, since new denominations are generally formed as a result of either oppression or radically new ideas. The Anabaptists formed initially due to the concept of only baptizing adults, the American Baptists took that further into the concept of "soul freedom," the Southern Baptists split off because that was a bunch of hippy talk okay, so that's more a recent development, but still.

On the other hand, while bans on same-sex marriage are (if you ask me) oppression, the concept already exists within pretty much all denominations, whether they support or oppose it. As a legal reality (since the concept of "forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages" is an idea only entertained by the self-deluded and paranoid, while the 1st amendment exists), I'd expect it to be simply absorbed into the existing frameworks, sort of how slavery being a moral evil was. Even denominations that based pretty much their entire hermeneutic on justifying slavery came around, without really changing much else.

 

[Mad World]

Which tradition? And why is it "disgusting" and "perverted?"

Why is that?

And offered no reasoning whatsoever, which is what he caught on to.

The tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman. I personally do not feel that it is right.

Same initial position; I feel that it is disgusting and perverted.

Does not warrant his sarcastic approach.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

As I understand they're moving forward to make Civil Partnerships available to everyone too, but decided broadening marriage was the more pressing matter. Though CPs are really just a way to allow same sex marriage without using the term itself due to people being pissy about it. Which is where the friction from couples who don't want 'I can't believe it's not marriage', but the full deal.

As for the second point I don't really follow.

Yes, I think you are right, I believe civil partnerships will be very popular with heterosexual couples, too.

Sorry, didn't explain the second point very well, it was reference to this rather odd comment collected by the OP, that a benefit of gay marriage is that "marriages will last longer than say, 72 days" - my point just used that chap from Little Britain, who got civil partnershipped and then uncivil partnershipped pretty rapidly, as an example; really just saying marriages can be long or short, be you gay or straight!

I don't envision civil partnerships becoming super popular when opened up, but there are a few people who are put off marriage by the traditional, and religious, sentiments for whom a Civil Partnership may be attractive. Shoring up the laws surrounding long term cohabiting couples would probably help more people than opening up Partnerships, but this is by no means reason not to do it.

On a personal note my problem with Civil Partnerships is the name. I hate "partner" as a word for significant other. It makes it sound like you run a solicitor's office together or you're detectives on the mean streets of New York. It just sounds so businesslike. Though that's just my opinion, and I'm sure just as many, if not more, people dislike Husband or Wife.

 

[Lieju]

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.

If it's already something we 'know', why would we need control groups?

And where do you even get your data from?

 

[Something Amyss]

The tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman.

Based on what?

I personally do not feel that it is right.

That's not an answer.

Same initial position; I feel that it is disgusting and perverted.

So you have absolutely no reason. Good to know.

Does not warrant his sarcastic approach.

You're calling same-sex marriage disgusting and perverted for no reason whatsoever. You're not one to take the high ground.

 

[Abomination]

I'm well known for hating homosexuals and I approve homosexuals being legally wed.

For if there's one thing I desire is to see them just as unhappy as heterosexuals, being legally and financially bound to an individual they will likely grow to hate and despise.

 

[Mad World]

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.

That's not an answer.

Yes - it is.

So you have absolutely no reason. Good to know.

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.

You're calling same-sex marriage disgusting and perverted for no reason whatsoever. You're not one to take the high ground.

No - I am not. I'm saying that I personally do not agree with it... that I personally consider it to be disgusting and perverted; I have that right. Also, I provided reason. There is a difference between stating something as if it were scientifically validated and something that is your opinion.

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

 

[Friis]

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.

 

[shrekfan246]

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.

That might be because hiding behind the banner of "tradition" doesn't make something a good position to take.

That's not an answer.

Yes - it is.

If it is, it's not a very good one.

So you have absolutely no reason. Good to know.

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.

Again, "because tradition" is an extremely weak platform to base a view of an entire aspect of life. It's a bad argument for keeping women out of the workplace or military, it's a bad argument for racism, it's a bad argument against homosexual marriage.

You're calling same-sex marriage disgusting and perverted for no reason whatsoever. You're not one to take the high ground.

No - I am not. I'm saying that I personally do not agree with it... that I personally consider it to be disgusting and perverted; I have that right. Also, I provided reason. There is a difference between stating something as if it were scientifically validated and something that is your opinion.

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

People are "so quick to attack" your opinion because--contrary to what you seem to believe--you haven't actually provided reasoning. You're just hiding behind religion and tradition as if it protects you from criticism. You're not saying why you believe homosexual marriage is "disgusting and perverted", unless your entire reasoning is literally because of Christian heritage. Which, again, is a weak basis for an opinion and an extremely outdated and bigoted one besides.

 

[WenisPagon]

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.

 

[Friis]

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.

If it's already something we 'know', why would we need control groups?

And where do you even get your data from?

See my most recent post.

 

[Mad World]

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 never judged anyone. I never said that homosexuals are automatically going to Hell (and I definitely do not think that they are). I said that I am against homosexual acts. Additionally, according to what I (as a Christian) believe in, God/Jesus would concur (about homosexual acts being abhorrent)... "as written in the doctrine of Christianity."

Obviously, many people do not believed in God. Additionally, many people accept homosexual acts as morally okay. I understand that. However, due to my set of beliefs, I do not consider it to be morally right.

If you don't agree with me, that's fine. But, do not claim that I am judging other people's sins.

 

[Brian Tams]

Off the top of my head:

1. Being protected under Spousal Privilege. What this means is that your spouse cannot be called to trial to testify against you.
2. Medical Decisions in the case of you being ruled unfit to make them yourself are automatically passed on to your spouse.

Um... don't quote me on this, but I believe that married couples receive tax breaks? I do know that married military members receive an increase in pay, so there's that.

All of the above would not be possible if the Government did not recognize marriages as legally binding contracts.

 

[saintdane05]

Two men look WAAAAAYYYYYY better in a horse costume.

 

[sweetylnumb]

I'm doing research of the social and economic benefits of Same sex marriage. If you don't mind escapist, could you give me some points please? This is what I have so far.

Benefits of gay marriage:
1. An economic benefit, with same sex marriage, that?s more people spending money to get married. According to the 2011 Census, there were around 33,700 same-sex couples in Australia. That?s 33,700 potential marriages.
2. being homosexual and having homosexual relationships become socially validated.
3. Homosexual relationships will become legally validated
4. Married partners have immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities.

What people have said:
1. "Marriages will last longer than say, 72 days."
2. "No shotgun weddings"

Links:
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/faqs/what-are-the-benefits-of-same-sex-marriage/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_and_parenting_in_Australia
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/faqs/the-legal-benefits-that-come-with-marriage/
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10July+2013

Thank you for the help.

Shouldn't this be extended to "what are the benefits of marriage?" i mean, it basically just makes an intimate relationship socially validated and economically beneficial doesn't it?

 

[snekadid]

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.

 

[WenisPagon]

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 never judged anyone. I never said that homosexuals are automatically going to Hell (and I definitely do not think that they are). I said that I am against homosexual acts. Additionally, according to what I (as a Christian) believe in, God/Jesus would concur (about homosexual acts being abhorrent)... "as written in the doctrine of Christianity."

Obviously, many people do not believed in God. Additionally, many people accept homosexual acts as morally okay. I understand that. However, due to my set of beliefs, I do not consider it to be morally right.

If you don't agree with me, that's fine. But, do not claim that I am judging other people's sins.

"Gay people are sinful" is a judgement call. You are making a judgement.

If you were truly concerned about following the Bible, you would be surrounding yourself with homosexual colleagues, just as Jesus surrounded himself with prostitutes and other disenfranchised peoples. As it is, you are unfortunately a victim of a church institution fraught with cognitive dissonance.

 

[Friis]

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 never judged anyone. I never said that homosexuals are automatically going to Hell (and I definitely do not think that they are). I said that I am against homosexual acts. Additionally, according to what I (as a Christian) believe in, God/Jesus would concur (about homosexual acts being abhorrent)... "as written in the doctrine of Christianity."

Obviously, many people do not believed in God. Additionally, many people accept homosexual acts as morally okay. I understand that. However, due to my set of beliefs, I do not consider it to be morally right.

If you don't agree with me, that's fine. But, do not claim that I am judging other people's sins.

"Gay people are sinful" is a judgement call. You are making a judgement.

No, that's just repeating he has been taught as fact. That you don't hold the same beliefs as him changes nothing.
By your logic, "Christian beliefs are bigoted." is just as much a judgement call.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Bloody Hell guys, be civil! I'm not asking for an argument, just the social and economic benefits.