Many opposite sex marriages end in divorce when one of the two finally come to terms with his/her true sexuality. Codifying same-sex marriage is an important step towards gay acceptance that will lower the number of gay people entering an opposite sex marriage, which is better for all involved. Same sex marriage will reduce divorce! 
That is real and it is important.
Marriage probably reduces the amount of casual sex with strangers someone is likely to have, whether they’re straight or gay. Married people are less likely to spread or contract diseases through sex.
Married people are better drivers, too, if we’re to believe the insurance companies. The roads become more safe, the more people are married.
Seriously, any benefit marriage provides society for straight people is the same benefit it provides for gays, except that gays are probably more likely to adopt and less likely to hide their children in the basement and rape them for 20 years.
Sure - but it doesn’t butter the bread, and a compelling argument for SSM it does not make, other than to the choir. The positive effects for the SS couples themselves are similar - if you cared about them, you would already be in favor of it.
I was under the vague impression that this thread was a quest for arguments that might demonstrate concrete societal benefits of allowing SSM to anti-SSM types, in part due to this thread’s parallel to the “negative effects” thread. For that, the two categories I mentioned would not be very effective.
Everything else in this thread might be, though. And for the record, after reading the responses in this thread I formally reverse my previously stated opinion that there would be no positive widespread practical effects on society. I have been convinced.
The Constitution is considered by most to be a compelling argument, and not ephemeral either. Equal protection rights are a societal good in themselves, and quite tangible to those affected by their mis/nonapplication.
Having a lot of people be in favor of it doesn’t help an SS couple faced with a child support or medical treatment or inheritance or taxation problem that a straight married couple would not. Only the concrete existence of law does that. Establishing those legal rights as a matter of Constitutional equal protection is certainly the kind of societal benefit for which you are seeking examples.
Excellent.
You are preaching to the choir. Clearly, if you are in favor of banning gays the right to marry, you are at best paying lip service to the idea that gays should have equal rights (absent some other, really REALLY complling reason to ban gay marriage - and such reasons are indeed absent).
You misunderstand - my point was, the anti-SSM people clearly don’t care much if gays have child support or medical treatment or inheritance or taxation problems - if they did, they would already be pro-SSM and you would gain nothing by presenting them with a list of societal benefits.
Don’t get too excited - I already supprted SSM. Just on the grounds of equal rights and harm to those being restricted, not societal beneft (which I still consider a mere grain of sand compared to the beachful of argumentive force provided by the prior two reasons).
Then how is that you label yourself a conservative when you embrace liberalism on this key issue?
Sharing clothes.
A true conservative, one who believes in maximizing individual freedom, would be for SSM. William F. Buckley, I believe, was for the legalization of marijuana.
Voyager nailed it.
You may be interested to know that I oppose torturing kittens, and hardly ever drink the blood of baby liberals.
Same sex marriage cures cancer. That’s a true fact. You can look it up.
Just because you identify as a conservative doesn’t mean you agree with the official conservative position (Is there such a thing? Who gets to define it, if there is?) on every issue.
I don’t buy it. In a more literal sense, “liberal” means “loosely regulated” while conservative means “strictly regulated”.
In terms of social issues, conservtism is about enforcing Traditional Values, especially those associated with religion, and especially those focused on restraining sexual behavior.
Conservatism has always been on guard against behaviors that are feared to be corruptive of society. They’re always worried about the “fabric” of society being “torn apart” as the result of too much permissiveness.
To start from a conservative point of view and to arrive at support for legalizing maijuana is to take an extremely roundabout route. So how do you get “True” conservatism from that?
We’re bringing more analysis of labels into the mix?
I think it’s a lot easier to define the official conservative position than to define an individual as a conservative.
(OTOH, with liberalism there is no official position; it’s all about questioning official positions.)
Well alright, then. Sorry for the hijack.
Rush Limbaugh, or so I thought.
OK, let’s go down the ul. I’ll take a first stab and maybe others can help me out. Full disclosure: I am a lesbian with a partner and a small son, who is legally adopted by both of us.
[LIST]
[li]joint parenting – Positive effect. This protects the child being raised by two same-sex parents. In case one of them dies or becomes incapacitated, there is a legal tie to the other parent. My partner and I have this benefit, thanks to a second parent adoption, but this is not legal in all states, and even where it is not illegal it can be a crap shoot depending on the particular judge you get. This assumes, of course, that you think that having a child stay with the person they know and trust as a parent, who is prepared and committed to raise the child, is a good thing.[/li][li]joint adoption – Positive effect. See above.[/li][li]joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents) – Positive effect for the children.[/li][li]status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent – Very positive. I want the person I choose to live my life with to make these decisions. Arguably, having those decisions made by the person I live with every day, who knows my medical conditions and views about treatment, would be a net positive for the medical community and cost of health care, as well.[/li][li]joint insurance policies for home, auto and health – Good thing, since we own property and cars jointly, they should be covered jointly. As far as health insurance goes, one can argue that a person with decent health coverage, who has the capacity to get regular preventative care and early treatment for illness is a net benefit to society and less of a drain on emergency rooms. Joint health insurance makes this more likely. [/li][li]dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support – Positive. It’s a good thing for society when people have these protections. Same sex couples already live together, own things together, raise children together – but do so without the same legal protections.[/li][li]immigration and residency for partners from other countries – Good thing.[/li][li]inheritance automatically in the absence of a will – Also a good thing. Except, maybe, for the lawyers, like ours, who are making big bucks drafting legal docs that could easily be waved away anyway by some bigoted judge. Surely all that inheritance red tape is costing society money.[/li][li]joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment – Good thing. A whole lot less red tape.[/li][li]inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate) – Good thing. See the stuff in parentheses.[/li][li]benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare – Damn good thing. We work and support each other. Sometimes in a partnership, one person has to give up something to support the other. Let’s say I decide to be a stay-at-home mom, while my partner works. If she dies, I am screwed when it comes to these benefits – even though we have jointly been doing our part to support the family. Having indigent people without the means to support themselves, because of the death or disability of one partner, is not a benefit to society.[/li][li]spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home – Good thing. Hell, even conservatives don’t like more taxes.[/li][li]veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns – Good, I guess. If there were gays in the military, that is. :p[/li][li]joint filing of customs claims when traveling – Uh, good I guess. It means that I don’t have to wait for my partner to get through the line. The customs person has to only talk to one of us, so that would fractionally increase the speed of the line for the people following.[/li][li]wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children – Positive. Mutual support lasting beyond death is a good thing, because people make sacrifices to support each other during life and you never know when one will get the short end of the stick when something goes wrong. Good for society, because that means that the children are cared for and the surviving partner doesn’t become indigent.[/li][li]bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child – Good thing. For example, caring for my ailing partner in our home is a damn sight cheaper for society than having her sit in a hospital.[/li][li]decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her – Good for us. Doesn’t really matter to the larger society, I don’t imagine.[/li][li]crime victims’ recovery benefits – Good.[/li][li]loss of consortium tort benefits – No clue what this means.[/li][li]domestic violence protection orders – Fewer people getting beat up, fewer medical expenses, less money spent on incarceration. Good things.[/li][li]judicial protections and evidentiary immunity – Not sure what that’s good for.[/li][/ul]
For the most part, I know these benefits would be good for me. The question is, are they also, in general, good for society as well? I think that many of them are. Bottom line: legal rights that make it easier for people to have stable, healthy lives with protections from death and other catastrophe are a net good for society. Same-sex marriage benefits extend those protections to gays and lesbians. We’re already living together and raising families (and/or large numbers of pets). We’re already supporting each other. Legal protection for what is already there is a POSITIVE thing.
Here’s an old thread you may find interesting:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=375864&highlight=conservative
Ah. My apologies, then. I must have confused you with someone else. Or confused this issue with another one, one on which your opinion is wrong and mine is right. 