What are the advantages of gay marriage?

In another thread, I made what was apparently a shocking statement: that I don't support gay marriage because I see no benefit to me. It seems that gay marriage proponents spend all their time defending against objections (disadvantages) to gay marriage, and not nearly as much time laying out the positives. To me, this is a policy debate, and when I took debate class, the rules were this: A plan is laid out, and it must be proven to be advantageous to the status quo. So here's your chance, gay marriage advocates. We know the plan, so how is it advantageous to the status quo?

 

- Children - families with kids that are headed by same-sex couples will be strengthened by equal marriage. With SSM, they will be more financially stable and marriage has been proven to lengthen relationships. Two parents are better than one and lessen any potential financial burden on the state.

- Health and Happiness - Homosexuality will become more socially acceptable in the long run as new generations are born into the world; knowing only that marriage exists between two people no matter what their gender is; that love is equal. As a result, homophobic bullying decreases, less gay children commit suicide, less LGBT engage in risky sexual behaviour (oftentimes the result desperation/depression), and HIV rates drop as a result. The drop also directly coincides with the shift away from the "underground" promiscuous gay male behaviour and the adoption of hetero-normative ways - i.e the increased monogamy marriage brings.

- Increased revenue - gay people will spend more by being permitted to marry and increase revenue for businesses.

That's the three that come to mind, though I'm certain there's more.

 

What were the advantages to you to outlawing slavery?

In the 1960's laws against mixed race marriages were eliminated- not because this created an advantage for my parents, but because there was no reason for a governmental license to be discriminating on the basis of mixed race.

I believe the same applies to same gender marriage- while there is no specific advantage to allowing a gay couple the same license as my wife and I have, I believe that making marriage more equitable is the right thing to do.

If the claim is that marriage is good for society- and that society should grant licenses and rights and obligations based upon marriage, then marriage is good for all of society- not just same race couples or different gender couples.

 

Agreed. I think we've been making this argument for a very long time- decades actually. By stabilizing gay couples' relationships, all society gains from it. The more people we have in committed family relationships, the better.

 

Advantages shouldn't even be taken into consideration regarding a contract between two people, and that is exactly what marriage is, nothing more than a contract. You even have to go to court in order to nullify it and depending on which state you are in the laws determine who gets what.

The only government that has any legal oversight of contracts between individuals is state government. The feds have no business either promoting marriage or impairing marriage by using coercive tax policies etc. It is up to the states to determine if they want any carrots or sticks.

 

I wanted to have a thread addressing the issue according to formal policy debate standards. Advantages and Disadvantages vs status quo is what it's all about.

 

That's like arguing that chicken is better than steak because chickens have feathers. It's a consideration that does not even have any value. If I buy a car from someone and they charge me more than the guy down the street would have for an identical car it is not the government's place to interfere just because I was "disadvantaged". Marriage is no longer just about raising children as more and more people are getting married and not having kids at all. In fact the segment of the population with the fastest rise in having children are single moms.

Since marriage is no longer about having children that leaves only one other reason to get married......stupidity........I mean love. Two people want to profess their love for each other by engaging in a formal ceremony and getting into a legally binding contract.....or in the case of Arkansas if some guy knocks up the farmers daughter and has a literal shotgun marriage. If the purpose of marriage was primarily procreation and stability for little brats then you could argue that it makes sense that only heterosexual people should get married. That is no longer the case as demographics have dramatically changed and marriage is no longer about procreation and providing stability for whiny preteens.

 

OK, although that seems like it's just taking care of a problem which was created by same sex couples to begin with. But I'll grant, it is an advantage over SQ for those children.

Speculative. Feelings toward homosexuality have historically moved as a pendulum, so I would argue that the current trend is likely to reverse itself, as it has many times in the past.

I don't know that this definition of marriage would improve many people's happiness. A few, sure. But most people won't be happier for it, and some people will even be unhappier about it. In terms of utilitarianism, it seems a lateral move.

Before I address this part, please clarify. You said, "as a result". A result of what exactly?

How do you know they will spend more?

 

Did you ever take formal debate? If so, I bet you were a hoot, rejecting the format of it outright. You would turn an "Affirmative or Negative" debate into a "why are we even debating this" debate.

 

Your premise isn't valid so yes, I am rejecting it outright. You need to ask a more specific question. I would recommend looking at the same arguments used in defense of marriage in general. With the exception of more stability for children they all apply to gays just as well as to hetero couples. And as I have shown marriage is no longer primarily about raising kids anymore. Marriage is about two people binding themselves into long lives of suffering and regret. It is nothing more than a social contract between two individuals. If they want to throw their lives away than let them.

 

I have a feeling you may have married someone who you regret doing so.

 

Lol. This might be a case of "be careful what you wish for".

 

how one chooses to engage in sexual relations is not similar to the color of your skin. You disrespect real civil rights by trying to make that false claim

 

Nope, never been married and never will. I have had the good fortune, or misfortune depending on how you look at it, observing what happened to my friends and relatives after they were married. At first its all lovey dovey smooches and muffin hugs. Then after a few years its boredom and stagnation. A few more years down the road and its almost always either outright hostility or complete lack of caring coupled with forlorn misery topped with some regret sprinkles. Very few people I know are happily married to each other after several years. I don't feel like playing the odds and risking years of my life and sanity only to find out that the person I fell in love with has morphed into Lizzie Bordon.

 

We were discussing marriage- not sex. Please don't try to derail the discussion.

What were the advantages to you to outlawing slavery?

In the 1960's laws against mixed race marriages were eliminated- not because this created an advantage for my parents, but because there was no reason for a governmental license to be discriminating on the basis of mixed race.

I believe the same applies to same gender marriage- while there is no specific advantage to allowing a gay couple the same license as my wife and I have, I believe that making marriage more equitable is the right thing to do.

If the claim is that marriage is good for society- and that society should grant licenses and rights and obligations based upon marriage, then marriage is good for all of society- not just same race couples or different gender couples.

 

The same could be said for heterosexuals. Marriage helps create stronger families and lessens the potential financial burden on the state - marriage tax benefits are less than the benefits given to single parents.

As result, both the state and the children benefit.

Risk of "reversal" (though I'm not sure which society you think accepted homosexuality in the same way modern western society does today - as "equal love") does not mean we should avoid the task of attempting to improve the health and happiness of LGBT people; who still suffer widespread social and legal discrimination. We should not shirk our responsibility to create a fairer society on that basis...

That would be a cop out, akin to saying that because racial hatred may one day return to dictating our legal policies, we shouldn't have bothered taking the steps toward racial equality. It's a bogus argument. We do what we do because it's right for our time and where we're at as a society.

If you give "happiness index" scorings any credence, your assertion doesn't appear to hold up:

Top 10:
Hawaii: 71.1
Colorado: 69.7
Minnesota: 68.9
Utah: 68.8
Vermont: 68.6
Nebraska: 68.5
Montana: 68.5
New Hampshire: 68.4
Iowa: 68.1
Massachusetts: 68.1

7 out of the 10 "happiest" states have civil union or equal marriage legislation.

Bottom 10:
Nevada: 65.2
Indiana: 65.1
Louisiana: 64.7
Ohio: 64.6
Alabama: 64.2
Arkansas: 64.1
Tennessee: 64.0
Mississippi: 63.6
Kentucky: 62.7
West Virginia: 61.3

All of these states ban same-sex marriage by statute or constitutional amendment, with only Nevada offering any kind of legal recognition to gay couples.

http://m.livescience.com/27537-list-happiest-states-2012.html

Take from that what you will. I obviously don't have the 'before-and-after' to compare historical trends of happiness in relation to changes in the law, but it doesn't appear that states with more conservative attitudes towards homosexuality have higher levels of happiness. 7/10 of the "happiest states" are socially liberal about homosexuality and have legal unions and other provisions in place for their LGB citizens.

I think any unhappiness among opponents caused by same sex marriage being legislated for will be short-lived. Just ask social conservatives in Massachusetts, today they largely regard it as a non-issue. It seems frightening when it's being debated and scaremongering tactics are used to convince people the sky will fall if gays get married, but when you've lived with it for a decade and it hasn't affected you, the "liberal social engineering threat" mantra sounds silly. Gays marry and the world goes on, the sun still rises, and heterosexual marriage rates are doing just fine. Better than fine in many of the marriage equality states as it happens:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4184261

Again no historical before-and-after-SSM comparisons, but it doesn't help the argument we're hearing from SSM opponents that it hurts straight marriage.

Minority stress. Studies were done that suggested the passing of anti-gay constitutional amendments directly corresponded with a higher HIV infection rate among MSMs. Think about it - when people are depressed or desperate they do things to make them feel happier and forget their problems for a short time. Sex and eating are two of the "best" natural stress-reliefs. In a state of desperation you are also less likely to be "thinking straight" (no pun intended) and perhaps also less likely to use protection in the bedroom.

You could say that is their own fault, but the government should be concerned with reducing HIV infection rates. And ONE extra infection could ultimately result in thousands that would otherwise not have existed down the line.

Here's more info about minority stress if you're interested:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7738327/

Wikipedia:
"In 2010, a Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health study examining the effects of institutional discrimination on the psychiatric health of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals found an increase in psychiatric disorders, including a more than doubling of anxiety disorders, among the LGB population living in states that instituted bans on same-sex marriage. According to the author, the study highlighted the importance of abolishing institutional forms of discrimination, including those leading to disparities in the mental health and well-being of LGB individuals. Institutional discrimination is characterized by societal-level conditions that limit the opportunities and access to resources by socially disadvantaged groups.[21][22]"

"In 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV infection.[26][27] The study linked the passage of a same-sex marriage ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.[28]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

The other obvious fact is that marriage itself is a great encourager of monogamy since you are usually staking your financial situation on the success of the relationship. Add to that the fact marriage encourages LONGER relationships (and therefore typically fewer sexual partners over a lifetime) and you can see how it would almost certainly have an impact on reducing the rate of HIV infection among gay men, and STDs among all LGBT people

Gay people typically have more money than straight people, or at least more expendable income. The average wedding cost is around $25,656. A sudden rush in same-sex couples marrying would benefit licensed venues, florists, photographers, wedding planners, catering companies, travel firms in addition to boosting retail and tourism... The economic impact has been pronounced in states that have allowed it thus far.

 

Strawman. No such claim was made. Not even close.

 

Turnabout is fair play: What were the specific advantages of prohibitions against recognition of same-sex couples' marriages? (and I don't want to hear the inevitable claptrap about 'government shouldn't be involved in marriage'. I'm asking for a substantive argument concerning the specific situation of same-sex couples marrying.)

Same for preventing recognition of those relationships under some other label. Same for preventing recognition of agreements between same-sex couples that attempt to approximate some of the benefits of marriage. All of the above prohibitions were adopted in my state as the outcome of a ballot measure in 2004. If there was some benefit to it, I sure haven't seen it.

 

Turnabout doesn't work in this case. The purpose of this thread is to have this discussion in a proper debating format. That's what makes it different from the huge number of previous threads. The advocate of change (affirmative) must lay out why the change is advantageous to the status quo. They have the burden of proof. The negative position usually defends the status quo (sometimes offers counterplan, but I'm not doing that here). It is nonsensical to say that the status quo has advantages over the status quo.

 

What I said wasn't a cop out. It wasn't really even an argument. It was just questioning an assumption. You said homosexuality WILL become more socially acceptable. I do not accept fortune telling as proof.

Unsurprisingly, I don't give this correlation too much credence. I doubt that an issue which affects so few people will have such an affect on the aggregate happiness of a state. Also, I can think of much more reasonable explanations for many of the states on that list. Hawaii is beautiful, Colorado has ski slopes and lets you smoke weed, and Minnesota, well they must be cool if they had Jesse Ventura for Governor. Conversely, many of the states at the bottom are poor, depressed states. The reason Mississippi sucks is not the lack of gay marriage. Also, remember that I wasn't saying SSM would be a noticeable positive or negative, but probably a fairly lateral move.

This doesn't seem to make sense. Your original comment:

Then I asked a result of what, and you said minority stress. So how does minority stress cause those effects? Or did you mean the REDUCTION of minority stress? That doesn't make sense here, either, because less stress isn't going to cause less bullying. And I'm not sure marriage reduces stress anyway.

And let's not forget that the STD spillover into hetero society would be lessened as well. This is probably the most solid advantage that there is. Undeniable.

Eh, there may be an initial rush for new marriages right after the law changes, but the rates would drop soon thereafter. It's really just cleaning out a backlog.

 

your premise is stupid when you come on here and simply negate the one person who followed your format because you "feel" like he isn't correct.
Dumb thread looking to "win" for bigotry.

 

your continued ignorance and bigotry is a disgrace to the human race.

 

If it does not infringe on your rights, they ought to be able to do it. The advantage is that we are a country that is supposed to protect the rights of the individual. That is all that matters.

 

I'll respond to you more in-depth later Fifth, but it sounds like you have already identified two benefits - children of same-sex couples and reduced STD transmission rates.

 

Respectfully- I don't know what your proper debating format is, nor do I care to play by your rules.

As a happily married straight man, I believe that gay couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as my wife and I enjoy, just as I would have felt that a mixed race couple would have deserved the same benefits when that relationship was not a legal marriage.