What are the benefits of same sex marriage?

[DementedSheep]

The question shouldn't be what are the benefits but rather what are the negatives? Even if there was no difference in rights between a civil union and marriage it would still be discrimination. People often over look how important symbolism and use of words actually is to people. Using different terms implies that it is different in a meaningful way and it isn't.

This is reminds me of my grandmother. ?I have no issues with gay men (she regularly forgets lesbians exist) and I know people who are gay (because as we all know, means you can?t be prejudice) but they shouldn't not be able to get married because marriage is between a man and a women. That?s just the way it is?.

 

[Lieju]

As far as legal entitlements of marriage goes, there aren't any benefits. That is to say, the benefits you're entitled to as a married couple are incentives to have children. The only reason a gay couple would want to get married is for the symbolic nature of the act. While that is fulfilling and I agree with it, if you're looking at marriage from a purely pragmatic point of view there's no real point to it for gay couples.

Except that gay couples can and will have children.

There's adoption, of course, but gays/bisexuals can have kids from previous heterosexual relationships, and lesbians can have children if they find a sperm-donor.

 

[Scourch]

I'm going to chip in with a Socio-evolutionary (I don't think that's an actual branch of study) angle, meaning that I'm going to assume socio cultural traits in a community are functionally equal to genetic traits in a population, They contribute to a population's ability to survive and reproduce.

A bit of a foreword here, since the science behind the homosexual 'phenotype' is inconclusive (we don't yet know if the trait is genetic, developed, or a combination of both).

In any other species, This would mean that a trait which effectively takes those genes out of the pool is an evolutionary dead end. In Human beings, however, it is apparent that memetic evolution has contributed more to our survival and dominance of Earth's ecosystems than genetic evolution. The mind, therefore, is more important than physical qualities. It is specially apparent in the United States and countries with similar cultures. The 'childhood' period of a human's lifespan is increasing as a direct result of the importance that knowledge and information (HIgher education) have in those cultures.

What this means in terms of homosexuality is that those individuals in a relationship are no longer a detriment to the survival of the community. They are, in fact, an asset. A Homosexual couple is not likely to produce offspring on it's own, therefore, having more time an energy to devote to the spread of their memes. The theory (for it is just that in my head at the moment since I can't hunt down quotations and evidence during my lunch break) is that a child with a homosexual immediate family member would be much better off developmentally than one without, assuming that family member is involved in that child's rearing.

There is another advantage I have been thinking about, but since this one pertains to a capitalistic society pretty much exclusively I will post on it later on when I'm not as pressed for time.

 

[WenisPagon]

I'm going to chip in with a Socio-evolutionary (I don't think that's an actual branch of study) angle, meaning that I'm going to assume socio cultural traits in a community are functionally equal to genetic traits in a population, They contribute to a population's ability to survive and reproduce.

A bit of a foreword here, since the science behind the homosexual 'phenotype' is inconclusive (we don't yet know if the trait is genetic, developed, or a combination of both).

In any other species, This would mean that a trait which effectively takes those genes out of the pool is an evolutionary dead end. In Human beings, however, it is apparent that memetic evolution has contributed more to our survival and dominance of Earth's ecosystems than genetic evolution. The mind, therefore, is more important than physical qualities. It is specially apparent in the United States and countries with similar cultures. The 'childhood' period of a human's lifespan is increasing as a direct result of the importance that knowledge and information (HIgher education) have in those cultures.

What this means in terms of homosexuality is that those individuals in a relationship are no longer a detriment to the survival of the community. They are, in fact, an asset. A Homosexual couple is not likely to produce offspring on it's own, therefore, having more time an energy to devote to the spread of their memes. The theory (for it is just that in my head at the moment since I can't hunt down quotations and evidence during my lunch break) is that a child with a homosexual immediate family member would be much better off developmentally than one without, assuming that family member is involved in that child's rearing.

There is another advantage I have been thinking about, but since this one pertains to a capitalistic society pretty much exclusively I will post on it later on when I'm not as pressed for time.

This is interesting, but it presumes that other animals do not practice homosexuality (many do). They gleam many of the same benefits that you suggest here, according to studies.

 

[Mad World]

Most people probably won't agree, but my opinion is that same-sex marriage is disgusting and perverted.

 

[WenisPagon]

Most people probably won't agree, but my opinion is that same-sex marriage is disgusting and perverted.

Please clarify. How is it disgusting, and what does it pervert?

 

[Something Amyss]

I think people tend to be repulsed more by the symbolism, and how that situation represented institutionalised racism, more than the practical consideration. There were other seats Rosa Parks could have moved to, for example, in the "coloured" section, but that's not the point. It was still incredibly demeaning. It symbolised something much wider.

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

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Interest upshot is of course if you are gay in the UK you now get two ways to have a relationship recognised, while heterosexuals only have the one.

The love couples feel is the same too, temporary! Matt what ever his name is, the bald, extremely unfunny one from Little Britain (as opposed to the tall, annoying, unfunny one), was the first person to be involved in a civil partnership and among the first to dissolve one too!

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.

 

[Something Amyss]

Most people probably won't agree, but my opinion is that same-sex marriage is disgusting and perverted.

So why? Why specifically is it disgusting and perverted? Certainly you can offer something more than "ew."

 

[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.

 

[WenisPagon]

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.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Benefits?

Happy people.

Well it's still better than the list of cons which still stands at frikkin' zip.

 

[Mad World]

Please clarify. How is it disgusting, and what does it pervert?

So why? Why specifically is it disgusting and perverted? Certainly you can offer something more than "ew."

I think that it should be between a man and a woman. I prefer that traditional view. I'm not saying that I necessarily think that it should be illegal (people should be able to choose). However, I think that it is wrong. Also, I am not homophobic. In the same way that I do not hate gays, I do not hate thieves; I hate what they do.

What an eloquent opinion supported by many facts. It's a wonder most people wouldn't agree with it.

No need to give me an attitude. It's not like I authoritatively said, "Homosexuality is wrong." I merely provided my opinion (without making it come off as fact).

 

[vallorn]

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.

What about those of us who prefer sausage eating to butt stuffing? Can we help with reducing the massive economic surplus of uneaten sausage?

 

[Something Amyss]

I think that it should be between a man and a woman. I prefer that traditional view.

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

In the same way that I do not hate gays, I do not hate thieves; I hate what they do.

Why is that?

No need to give me an attitude. It's not like I authoritatively said, "Homosexuality is wrong." I merely provided my opinion (without making it come off as fact).

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