What are the benefits of same sex marriage?

[Evil Smurf]

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/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10July+2013

Thank you for the help.

 

[Silvanus]

Well, though civil partnerships are often legally equivalent (or nearly), they are not symbolically equal.


Symbolism often gets overlooked in this debate in favour of practical considerations (the economic benefit, for example), but it's actually pretty important. After all, African Americans having to ride at the back of the bus was a symbolic issue, and look at how that's regarded now.

In the future, when we look back, we'll remember the symbolic aspects more than the practical ones, I'm sure of it.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

The benefits of gay marriage are (or should be) precisely the same as those of a heterosexual one.

About your points:
2. It is not true. There is absolutely no causal effect that you can say for sure social acceptance will be the result. You might find some people come around to the idea, but it cannot be said with any certainty. A homosexual couple can get married and still be shunned by a homophobic community. This point is not true.
Point 4 is true of any marriage, not specific to homosexual couples.
Also, why are you including links? Are you expecting us to do revision for you?

As you suggest in point 1. one thing that sets it apart is its age, being quite recent and therefore has likely greater potential for business (eg. a previously untapped market). And that's not a benefit to the couple but a boost to the economy.

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.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Equal rights?

I mean, what are the benefits to not being able to pelt Mormons with jellyfish? We don't do that because it's unfair to Mormons. We shouldn't ban gay people from marrying because it's unfair to them.

 

[WenisPagon]

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.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Point 4 is true of any marriage, not specific to homosexual couples.

That's the benefit, wider access.

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.

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. Just going by American Christianity as an example, there's differences in practice and belief between individual churches of the same denomination, let alone the fact that they're already split between Catholic, Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Unitarian, New Thought, Church of Christ, Mormon, Mennonite, Orthodox, Seventh-Day Adventist, etc.

 

[Verlander]

Same as normal marriage? Civil unions that aren't marriage are unpopular because they're discriminatory, not because they are "worse".

 

[Verlander]

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

There is no evidence to prove this in any way. I don't think that many shotgun weddings or "Britney" weddings are the result of a ban on homosexual marriage.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

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.

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").

 

[CriticalMiss]

Equal rights?

I mean, what are the benefits to not being able to pelt Mormons with jellyfish? We don't do that because it's unfair to Mormons.

I'd be more concerned with the rights of the jellyfish than the mormons. JELLYFISH PRIDE!

Personally I'd say the biggest benefit is the equality, because it encompasses everything that a regular marriage does. I hadn't thought about the economic boost but it makes sense, although isn't much of a benefit to the people getting married.

 

[Miyenne]

I instantly just thought: Being with the one you love in all ways. The security of a legal contract, as well.

 

[Gorrath]

The biggest benefit of same-sex marriage is that it will allow homosexuals the same legal rights as heterosexuals. Really that should be the end of the conversation. Personally, I don't think there should be laws recognizing or regarding marriage of any sort, since I don't think people being married should grant any special legal benefit. That is not to say I'm against marriage, just the idea of 'legal' marriage.

 

[Robert Marrs]

Hopefully the biggest benefit is people shut up about it and move on. Just make it legal so we can stop wasting time and resources over something so trivial. The world has much bigger problems right now.

 

[CarlsonAndPeeters]

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.

^This is all that needs to be said

...but I'll throw in another interesting thing to talk about. If marriage is "between one man and one woman," what about intersex people? Are they not allowed to get married because they have some male and female characteristics? As much as some people like to pretend otherwise, humans are not binary. Therefore marriage should not be a binary, either.

 

[Lightknight]

1. Contradiction: The economic benefit is offset by marriage tax breaks. Just FYI. $20k on a one-time wedding does not offset what could be hundreds of thousands over the following decades of a happy marriage.
2. Positive: Adoption rights. Several adoption practices give preference to two parent households or households with income levels that a single person wouldn't necessarily have but they don't count both unless they're married. This places orphans in permanent homes though admittedly few gay people exist so it wouldn't make a dent in the problem, it would matter to the individuals.
3. Contradiction: There is no gaurantee that marriages will last more than 72 days. Homosexual couples are in a tough spot. Where heterosexuals have a huge dating pool from which to find a compatible mate, homosexuals are limited to just over 1% of the population before accounting for preferences like age differences, availability, hair color, tastes, etc. So it's a lot harder for homosexuals to find a truly compatible mate.
4. Positive: A more stable commitment means more monogamous relationships. Unfortunately, gay sex (male) is more prone to STI's and promiscuity exacerbates the problem. Monogamy keeps it contained amongst any demographic. An actual legal marriage that is harder to get out of may prevent some couples from divorcing or may prolong a marriage until it becomes worth divorce.
5. Positive: The government stops overstepping their reach and we maintain a healthy separation of church and state.


I'm up for abolishing the government legislation of marriage altogether. 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.

The government should give the benefits of a civil union to anyone who is married but have no control over who gets married or how. Heck, I'd even be ok with a financial union between individuals who depend on eachother financially while not necessarily being partners otherwise.

In calling it a marriage license, the government has stepped into what most people consider to be a religious/cultural practice and not a government one. So any legislation they make regarding it makes people feel like the government is trying to change/control their customs. That's not the government's place unless the practice is actively harming people. Like marriage between a 40 year old and a 6 year old is still grounds for legislation. But between genders or anything else like race? Not their place.

 

[DANEgerous]

Well marriage of any form makes raising children far more simple and homosexual couples are far more likely to adopt and less kids as orphans and more with loving families is a rather massive benefit. I know it does not make it legal as it is typically legal but the benefits make it far more simple.

 

[Angelowl]

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.

^This is all that needs to be said

...but I'll throw in another interesting thing to talk about. If marriage is "between one man and one woman," what about intersex people? Are they not allowed to get married because they have some male and female characteristics? As much as some people like to pretend otherwise, humans are not binary. Therefore marriage should not be a binary, either.

Well the people who opppose gender neutral marriage tend to deny the existence of intersex individuals. It becomes clear if you as the about transgender issues and they immedeatily say that you are either defined by your genitals or chromosomes, and that there are only to clear cut genders. "There are no inbetweens!" tend to be the common logic.

And if the interexed individual was forced to undergo genital surgery as a baby in order to look like a "normal" boy/girl, they will just go "See?! We have defined what you are, be happy that you are normal now!".

A bit off topic, as a transgendered person I am outright disgusted with the fact that while legal adults have to go through heavy psychological testing in order to get SRS, society seems to be just fine with forcing it upon children way too young to even know their own name.

 

[Something Amyss]

After all, African Americans having to ride at the back of the bus was a symbolic issue, and look at how that's regarded now.

Except that's not true. One of the big elements of the "back of the bus" problem was that a black person was expected/required to give up their seat if a white person came onboard and there was no room. There's nothing "symbolic" about making black people walk in favour of white people.

Well, there is, but it goes beyond mere symbolism.

But aside from that, I have to go with this:

Equal rights?

I mean, what are the benefits to not being able to pelt Mormons with jellyfish? We don't do that because it's unfair to Mormons. We shouldn't ban gay people from marrying because it's unfair to them.

It seems weird that we should be asking about the benefits in the first place. If we applied this elsewhere, we'd probably still be owning black people (in the US, at least). I mean, what benefit is there to giving up free labour?

 

[Something Amyss]

Well the people who opppose gender neutral marriage tend to deny the existence of intersex individuals. It becomes clear if you as the about transgender issues and they immedeatily say that you are either defined by your genitals or chromosomes, and that there are only to clear cut genders. "There are no inbetweens!" tend to be the common logic.

Demonstrating again why common logic should pipe down and let the people who know about things talk.