An Appeal to Equality: Why Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legalized

[Anonymous]

1. Because homosexuals want the legal benefits that marriage brings.

In modernity, marriage is a legal status. The government cares about your marriage status, because it collects this information for collecting taxes, for demographics, for providing government aid to needy people, and so on. If homosexual couples are not recognized as legally married, then they will be recognized as singles who cohabit and raise children. Inheritance of valuables of deceased homosexuals will go towards their immediate relatives (brother, sister, mother, father, etc.) instead of their homosexual partner and adopted children.

2. Because homosexuals may have the money to pay for wedding costs.

Weddings are usually very expensive and grand. People make weddings as big as they are, because they symbolize a big milestone in a person's life. As a result, a lot of money goes into the planning of the wedding. Homosexual couples may have family members and friends who support the union emotionally and financially. So, selling services to homosexuals may be profitable, as much as installing extra drinking fountains for colored people was back in the 1950s.

3. Because some religious institutions want to bless same-sex unions.

If the national, secular government were to forbid same-sex marriages, then that would prevent some religious institutions from blessing same-sex unions. The religious official who solemnizes or blesses the union is usually the person who signs the marriage license. No marriage license by the government? No wedding.

4. Because homosexuals are just legally married.

Just because one is legally married does not mean one is recognized as married by the common people of society. There are many people in society. If a homosexual couple seeks a cleric to bless the union but the cleric refuses, then the couple is allowed to seek a different cleric, preferably someone who has no opposition against homosexuality, or a government official. The legalization of same-sex marriage provides a common ground for people who oppose and support same-sex marriage on a personal level but not on a systematic, government level.

#SeeMyWork

[SirenDep]

Homosexuals already have equal rights to everyone else, at least in western countries. The movement about legalizing same-sex marriage isn't based on an appeal to equality, it's based on the ideology of homosexuality. Supporters of that ideology want to popularize and normalize homosexuality as a new norm, an 'alternative' or even 'superior' way of living, a new type of family. They claim that being a homosexual is normal, even preferable to being straight, and homosexuals can and should form a family. By legalizing marriage, we accept that ideology that homosexuality is normal. It's a different thing to have equal rights and not be condemned or singled out for your sexual preferences, and a completely different thing to want to pass your preferences as the norm in society

[OlderAndWiser]

I thnk that much of the opposition is based on the fact that homosexuals want to call it" marriage." Homosexuals could have the same benefits and call it a civil union but they insist on calling it "marriage." It appears to be a ruse to force people to accommodate to and normalize the concept of homosexuality.

[JustAnotherPassenger]

Because it is normal, and I don't see what's wrong with calling it marriage, religion didn't invent marriage, it has been historically that, civil unions, it wasn't until probably one thousand years ago it started becoming a religious thing since the church was pretty much part of the State, but it was just a social compromise to start with, done because of economical and societal reasons.

[OlderAndWiser]

@JustAnotherPassenger So all that stuff in the Bible about Jesus attending a wedding at Canaa was just some made up stuff? And you are sure that there is not an ancient Jewish tradition of marriage?

[JustAnotherPassenger]

Yes, most of the books have made up stuff, they were actually written around 400-500 years after the events they claimed to be record from, but this fact has nothing to do with what I said. And you should learn to read, I never said it wasn't related to religion, but that such relation it wasn't originally that way, such thing came up as religions became institutions and/or part of the government. Marriage is not inherently a religious thing. How do I explain this to you? in basic logic: Dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs, the fact that there is a religious type of marriage and it is the current cultural standard doesn't make it the only kind, and as I said, marriage started as a societal, cultural and political contract (depending on the culture, period, and social strata), it is present in many religions and cultures and it dates way back before the events portrayed in your religious books.

[OlderAndWiser]

@JustAnotherPassenger You included "facts" in your argument and I pointed out that you had at leasyt some of your facts wrong. So now those facts aren't important. Yes, I read everything you said. Do you have any any citations of authorities? FYI, the Book of John, which describes the wedding at Cana, was written between AD 50 and AD 85, not hundreds of years later. . . . but I guess facts aren't important to your argument, so you will find a way to dismiss another error in your statement as being irrelevant. . . right?

[QuestionMan]

I oppose it. Not because the Torah, Bible or Qu'ran told me so or because they're sexual deviants; no my objection comes down to two simple points.

1. The definition of marriage.
I've used the video below many times here on GAG because I think it clearly articulates my perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlhVh5GqU-8

If gays want to live together in a quasi-marriage they should have every right to do so but only if they give it a separate name and have their own traditions instead of copy pasting what straight couples are doing.

2. Marriage is a private affair the government shouldn't be involved.
The fact that our taxes go towards family benefits is ridiculous. Why should my tax dollars be given to someone just because they have a kid or are married?
The government shouldn't even have the authority to ban one union or another it should be up to the individuals. At one point interracial marriages was illegal, simply because a bunch of racists didn't want people marrying outside their race.

[john235711]

The problem is that "marriage" isn't just a cultural/religious/etc. tradition. The word also carries legal meaning, which grants special rights and benefits to married couples, like tax benefits, family leave, hospital visitation, and medical decisions. Calling gay marriage some other name and excluding it from "marriage" denies same-sex couples those rights and benefits.

[QuestionMan]

@john235711 I explained that in my second point.
I don't think straight couples or any other couples should receive benefits.

[Mesonfielde]

But straight couples get benefits because the higher likelihood of having children is supported (not sufficiently but still supported) by the government because having children is beneficial for them on the long term.

[QuestionMan]

@Mesonfielde Having children is a personal choice which the couple must be responsible for.
If a couple can't afford to have kids then they shouldn't have kids.

[myTake Owner]

Tell that to the parents. Some people don't have a choice. They lack education on basic human reproductive biology and contraception or lack access to those things. They may also be prohibited from using contraceptives due to cultural beliefs.

[QuestionMan]

How are the poor choices made by others any of my concern?
If you don't know what a condom is and get pregnant then it's your responsibility to raise the kid. I want my money to play no part in the raising of someone's children.

[RajaRunzin]

Then are you against marriage entirely?

[Mesonfielde]

@RajaRunzin against the institution of marriage, I believe.

He supports commitment but not the paperwork. Makes sense to me, if that's the case.

[QuestionMan]

@RajaRunzin No I fully support marriage but not the government involvement in the process.
I see marriage as a sacred bond in which the government shouldn't intervene.
@Mesonfield yes that is correct

[QuestionMan]

@Mesonfielde Yes that is correct

[ObscuredBeyond]

1. Merely "wanting" !=!=!= (can never equal) Being entitled to!

2. Having the money to pay for a child sex slave doesn't make it right to have one. What kind of "logic" is that, that if I can pay for it, I should automatically be allowed to have it, no other questions asked?

3. The reality is that many institutions that DON'T want to bless it are being FORCED into blessing it. That's why government should, at the very least, be neutral on the subject (assuming that is possible.) It was never about equality. But it's no longer even about simply control anymore either. It's about a neo-puritanical quest to purge all traditional and scientific norms out, and replace them with the new dogma. No dissent allowed. Apostates punished severely for disagreeing with even one dogma. And no one allowed to live in peace unless tribute is payed and affirmation given.

4. Far too many abuse that license to impose the implications on those wishing to avoid it. Actively seeking out those who wish to avoid it, so as to send the message: "You will not evade us!"

The Spirit of Sodom can never live and let live. And that's why the city was destroyed.

[xxxddd]

but it becomes = in societies who fall victim to the ideology of absolute liberty.
And, as is logical, it's these societies that collapse, and lose all liberty.

Look through history: there's never been an exception to the cycle; and there's no way humans will ever learn.

[ThisDudeHere]

I have a very simple motto and I hope it's not offensive to gays - marry all you want, fuck all you want, have rights all you want, do all you want within the bounds of other's safety and privacy so long as you leave me alone and I can completely ignore you.

I am not against gay rights. I am for them BUT I will not support them because the politically correct answer is that it's not my fight to fight. The blunt answer is that I don't care about gays so much that I don't care about helping as well. A gay guy is just another guy for me.

[Oram52]

No appeal is required to begin with because it is none of anyones business what two people do or don't do with their lives.

We are a free country. In a free country everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as they don't break any laws, or infringe on someone else's freedom.

How would same-sex marriage infringe on someone else's freedom? We are a secular country in what way government should be interfering in what two individuals choose to do. Its not the job of the government to impose morals, religion has no bearing on secular laws. So there literally is no justification against same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage is legal in UK. I don't see why it shouldn't be anywhere else.

[ZenithDawn]

Inheritance of valuables of deceased homosexuals will go towards their immediate relatives (brother, sister, mother, father, etc.) instead of their homosexual partner and adopted children.

that's actually not true do some more looking because inheritance in Wills exist Say i never get to marry my boyfriend and he dies if he ever so wanted I'd legally get everything he owned prior to his death and after.

and also you should say back in the 1940's for the blacks only thing in 1954 the supreme court outlawed Racial segregation so most of the 50's wasn't like that [legally].

[davelaneward]

No. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. Its purpose is to declare unification before God, not so your taxes become easier. If you want the state to recognise your togetherness, so your taxes are easier, then appeal for something else which in the eyes of the state is the same as marriage, but is not a religious ceremony, and you cannot force the religious to do this ceremony for you.

[john235711]

Did you know? Non-Christian people get married too! Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Native Americans, atheists, etc. also get married in the U. S.! Who knew?
The concept of marriage doesn't belong to the religion of Christianity.

[davelaneward]

@john235711 Yes they do, but once upon a time the entire world was theistic and marriage was a theistic ceremony, irrelevant of the specifics of the god at hand.

[RajaRunzin]

Actually, you don't need someone to bless your companionship. In no way is it required that you have to go and be acknowledged by a church to get married to someone; that only happens at fancy weddings. I have attended two different types of weddings: a religious one like you stated, where a priest directed the marriage and vows were spoken and such, and also a non-religious one, where the two betrothed simply signed papers and bam, all done. In the modern era, marriage is about the unification of two people legally. Whether or not a divine figure is involved in the process is up to the couple and no one else.

[xxxddd]

@john235711 Why did you pretend he was talking of Christianity specifically? What psychological need made you do so?
:)

This is your list: "Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Native Americans, atheists".
You put religions and ethnicities together: confused. But your confusion there is not your faul, rather your educator's.

Second: even when you aren't confused, you pretend to be. No Judaism, Hinduism, Islam accept homosexual marriage. I see how pretending not to know this allowed you to throw your rant in the direction you desired to, though.

As for the ethnicities, not even your educators would throw ethnicities into the present question. But while having your same likes, they're likely less confused.

[heavensgift2girls]

How about we just destroy the concept of marriage being a legal union instead, and let people define marriage for themselves? Whether or not a couple has a piece of paper stating they are married should not have any effect on how the laws or taxes effect them. The government shouldn't be telling anyone who can and can't be married. This includes people that want to be married to multiple partners or even if they want to marry a tree. It isn't the governments business.

[Spiorad_Aisce]

In the Republic of Ireland we had a constitutional referendum in May 2015 where same sex couples are now given the exact same legal rights as any couple on everything from marriage, inheritance and adoption etc. Despite so nefarious claims from the religious right the sky hasn't fallen in or a plague of locusts hasn't come. In fact rather boringly it is exactly the same as it was before the referendum except same sex couples have rights and respect within the law.

[WombRaider]

You have absolutely no say in who marries who because it doesn't affect you.

God is a fictional being, he's not here to have his say.

The bible is a book. That's like using Harry Potter as evidence that magic exists.

The Church should have no say in law.

[WombRaider]

This was meant to be a response to @Phoenix98

But I guess it goes for everyone who is against the legalisation of same-sex marriage and uses religion as support for their argument.

[Phoenix98]

You post it like it makes a difference or that I care lol, don't forget you asked, if you don't like the answer I can't help that.

[WombRaider]

I'm calling you out. You're a bigot.

[Phoenix98]

So call me out, I stand for what I believe in, and what I think is right I could care less if you see me as a ass, bigot or anything in between.

At the end of the day all you are to me is a stranger on the internet who asked me a question on the internet and got offended by the answer when he didn't like the answer and instead of just leaving it at that he had to go and make a big deal about it.

Also if your going to use the word bigot use it right, I'm not intolerant to your opinion or your view or anyone's views, you and anyone else is free to have it, in whatever measure you or anyone else thinks is right. Your the one who has a problem with my opinion, not me having one with yours, which according to the definition of the word, makes you a bigot. I just don't agree with said opinions but I have no issue with you having them.

[orphan]

while i support gay marriage, to say it doesn't affect others is ignorance.

[John_Doesnt]

I love this post. My belief is that gays should be allowed to get married simply because it's nobody's business who wants to get married to who. They aren't bothering anybody at all.
Even if someone disagrees with homosexual marriages it doesn't bother them one bit if their neighbor was a gay married couple.

[bubbletrouble]

I am against it.
1. Marriage is about raising children.
2. It just leads to tolerance of other taboo crap like incest.
By the way I as a Christian acknowledge that heterosexual marriage is dying out but the solution is not to add other types of marriage but rather fix heterosexual marriage.

[cheapshotbob]

i think what ever happens i hope they can control thing better than they did in orlando. because of they pass that more gay/lesbian people will get hurt. unless people in Washington done really care either way if gays live or die.

[Barrabus_the_Free]

It would be better to just abolish marriage entirely.

[SovereignessofVamps]

I don't see why everyone says marriage is emotional or religious. It was created hundreds of years ago to give people benefits just like how it does now.

[Rawrzz]

Same sex marriage has been legal for, like, a year. If you're from the U. S., you're a little late to the rainbow.

[john235711]

Lots of countries worldwide still have gay marriage illegal and homosexuality a punishable crime.
They include India, Indonesia, Myanmar, nearly all of Middle East, much of Africa, and Jamaica.

[Mesonfielde]

@john235711 oh look, Islamic countries and the third world

Who would have thought

[john235711]

@Mesonfielde Singapore is one of the world's wealthiest countries and is a Buddhist country, yet it bans homosexuality. India, a Hindu country, is not a third world country at all. But yes, you are right for the most part. Poverty → Ignorance → Hate.
But my point was that the person who wrote this might be from one of those countries, or is advocating for legalizing gay marriage in those countries.

[Rawrzz]

@john235711 I realize that. Thus, why I qualified "If you're from the U. S."

[myTake Owner]

@john235711 Honestly, this myTake is written in direct response to An Appeal to Natural Law: Why Same-Sex 'Marriage' Should Be Illegalized. All I did was collect common arguments for same-sex marriage and changed the title a bit. That author wrote from the US; I am also from the US. Yes, I know the USA has already legalized same-sex marriage. I just wrote it for an easy 200 Xper points to get it featured. The other guy got it featured. I got mine featured as well. :D

[Rawrzz]

Alright, makes sense.

[brain5000]

Okay, I am sold. Is your next Take going to be about how lunch counters shouldn't ban negros or how women should have the right to vote?

[myTake Owner]

No. The topic of my Takes may vary, depending on what is currently being Featured. If a person has made a topic Featured, then the reverse topic will likely be Featured, earning me 200 Xper points. Recently, there was a topic titled "An Appeal to Natural Law: Why Same-Sex 'Marriage' Should Not Be Legalized". I knew the topic was controversial, so I could easily scrap up a reverse take on that. :P

[Anonymous]

Short version:
1. They want it.
2. Some will pay money.
3. Some churches want it.
4. It's essentially meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Homosexuality is something a person can overcome with the help of the Lord to allow a person to lead a normal life as a righteous Christian. Straight camp helped me reject my lesbian tenancies.

[myTake Owner]

Well, that is a way to deal with homosexuality. Nowadays, most people seem to agree that sexuality cannot be changed. However, people can cope with what they do with their sexuality by changing their behavior. Some people are told that rejecting homosexual behavior would be denial of their true selves, so they should accept themselves and live out as homosexuals. Other people, like you, are told that rejecting homosexual behavior would be tantamount to rejecting the sinful side. In the end, it all boils down to behavior and attitude.

[DaniaMQ]

Worst reasons ever.
no thanks, we are good like this.

[dudeman]

im against it. not against them being legally binding and getting benefits but marriage was between a man and a women. it kind of cheapens the whole thing if you ask me.