As opposed to the even larger number of gay couples who are unhappy now instead of in your theoretical future because they can’t marry…
There’s a five-letter acronym that would be the appropriate response here, jayjay, the same one as is used for the Democratic National Federation of Trusts and Trustees.
Jonathan Rauch makes a good argument in his book Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.
One of the arugments he makes is that Civil Unions will actually weaken Marriage because it will let hetero couples take Civil Unions as a sort of “Marriage Light”.
Martin Niemoller. Martin Heidegger was content enough with the Nazis.
One of them Martins! :o
Thanks.
A more stable society. Society has decided that promotion of Marriage in general is in society’s best interest, as stable family relationships are conducive to stability of employment, home ownership, tax-paying and all other behaviors that society deems Good.
Given that gay people won’t go away just because heteros are uncomfortable about them, it makes sense to encourage their entering into the same kind of society-stabilizing relationships that heteros enter into.
hehe… though I agree with less “fake” marriages… your wrong about “will lead to fewer divorces”… after all there will be gay divorces !
I think the OP meant in more practical and political terms to increase acceptance of gay marriage. Speaking of equality and freedom its easy for us to agree on the issue, especially dopers… but how do you make it politically acceptable or at least not an insta-death for a political career to support gay marriage ? How do you convince regular citizens that its in their interest ?
( Personally I’d rather not see men walking with their hands together… but I sure don’t have a good reason to forbid them either. So I’d rather not be a hypocrite. If I’m allowed to do the same with girls… I say legalize Gay Marriage. I agree with most of the points brought in this thread too… especially health and financial concerns.)
Statistics to back up the above claim, please? I’m not saying that you are necessarily wrong, merely that I don’t see the evidence supporting this. There’s lots of gay couples today, many out of the closet. I’m dubious that allowing gay marriages will change happiness much.
I assure you, my post wasn’t intended as a troll. I’m just doubtful that allowing gay marriage will do much good.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Don’t call people trolls, Poly.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Do you understand that there is a substantive difference between “being an out gay couple” and “being a legally married gay couple”?
I mean, there are plenty of out straight couples, too. Yet I see straight couples getting married every day. Why, if being a couple is just as good as being married, would this happen?
Custom and tradition? My point is that I am dubious that allowing gay marriage will on average make gays happier. Note here I am similarly skeptical that the existence of the institution of heterosexual marriage does much of anything today for the happiness of straight people. Particularly as the laws today grant divorce on demand.
What’s in it for me for the fire department to put out the fire in Wally’s house down the street?
What I still don’t understand is the difference you seem to make between “marriage” and what you call “legal union”.
I you mean by “marriage” the (Christian) religious rite, how come that this is seen as being able to have legal consequences in a secular society?
If you mean by “marriage” the registration of a union between two persons which gives the couple signing this registration all the rights and obligations as described in the US laws , what is the difference then between this "marriage and a “legal union”?
Salaam. A
Sure there is. Legalise it/endorse it (whatever you want to call it) and you have just removed it from the political arena. If that isn’t a benefit, I don’t know what is.
Imagine a run-up to the presidency without the added stress of this issue… 
On the other hand, unless you can come up with a reason NOT to endorse same sex marriages, then you should by default allow them.
What’s in it for the hetero-couple is irrelevant. I don’t think any carrot you dangle in from of the majority of people will ever change their desire to not see gay marriages come to fruition. It will have to succeed on its own merits. I have hope but not much confidence that it will do so.
Note I have already voted NO on the Michigan ballot initiative to constitutionally ban gay marriages and civil unions. Thus a NO vote is the pro-gay position. I am just dubious allowing these will do any good for gays.
Haaahahahaha. Right, and legalizing abortion removed it from the political arena.
It all depends upon who you ask. Some folks feel that it’s good enough if all rights and responsibilities given to couples who marry are given to couples in a civil union. Others feel that calling SSM “civil unions” rather than “marriage” denigrates the commitment that the partners make with each other, essentially treating homosexuals as second-class citizens. Wound it be fair if we said that marriage between people of different races were merely civil unions?
The same arguments work on this issue that have historically worked on other facets of civil rights. What was “in it” for men when women were allowed to vote? What was “in it” for whites when Jim Crow laws were struck down? Only that the society we all live in was made better off, and that we have all benefited.
Contrary to the saddening and rather-insulting attitude in the OP, not every argument is settled by “what’s in it” for somebody. There is genuine altruism in the world, a helluva lot of it. A lot of people do a lot of things for others without expectation of a tangible and direct personal return. It’s not hard for even the most ignorantly cynical to think of countless examples that invalidate the premise.
Well… That is my question.
In my view every “marriage” in a secular society is by the nature of that nation’s secularity limited to representing a “civil union” which then is popularly called “marriage” for the sake of clarity (or whatever).
This “marriage” is not “marriage” in a religious sense, but is purely a signed agreement following the nation’s laws and that gives the couple well defined rights and obligations under the nation’s law. Not under any “religious” law, but under the nation’s secular law system.
Since the US claims to be a secular nation, then what on earth is the difference between what you call “marriage” and what you call “civil union” ?
Salaam. A
Actually a good question… I don’t know in the US… but in Brazil its a civil union when you live together but your not married. Its a legal “status” and quite similar to a legal marriage in many ways.