Homosexuals

[Guest026]

This might sound stupid but what are the benifits of taking rights away from homosexual couples that are married? I've always wondered (not that I dislike gays or anything).

 

Edit: Is benifits spelled wrong? Because, to me, it just doesnt look right.

[Sisyphus]

A few reasons, in order of how common they are:

 

1) Bigotry.

 

2) The belief that the United States (or whatever country you're in) should be a Christian nation, combined with the belief that homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity, and therefore such a union cannot be recognized by the state.

 

3) Pandering to those for whom reasons 1 and 2 apply.

 

4) The belief that marriage should have nothing to do with the law, hence expanding the number of legally married couples (even in the name of making it more fair) is a step backwards.

[timo]

This might sound stupid but what are the benifits of taking rights away from homosexual couples that are married? I've always wondered (not that I dislike gays or anything).

I think it boils down to the question why you (your society) give special rights/privileges to married hetero-couples. It probably has to to with supporting a lifestyle that the you seem worthy of support. If you don't see homosexual marriages as equally worthy of support, you support it less. The reasons why or why not homosexual marriages are more/less/equally worth of support of course vary from person to person (yes, I am aware that you are probably asking for exactly that - I just thought the question should be approached from a different direction).

Edit: Is benifits spelled wrong? Because, to me, it just doesnt look right.

"Benefits".

[ParanoiA]

I think it boils down to the question why you (your society) give special rights/privileges to married hetero-couples. It probably has to to with supporting a lifestyle that the you seem worthy of support.

 

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't believe the special rights/privileges (Ie. Tax breaks via "married filing jointly") were implemented to support a lifestyle deemed worthy of such - I think they were implemented to advance a "fair" tax code - the idea being that married with children was the obvious american experience and families were more important than single people. I say that because at the time this was initiated, homosexuality was, for the most part, universally oppressed and dismissed. I'm not sure gay marriage was seriously considered at all.

[YT2095]

Edit: Is benifits spelled wrong? Because, to me, it just doesnt look right.

 

benefits

[Sisyphus]

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't believe the special rights/privileges (Ie. Tax breaks via "married filing jointly") were implemented to support a lifestyle deemed worthy of such - I think they were implemented to advance a "fair" tax code - the idea being that married with children was the obvious american experience and families were more important than single people. I say that because at the time this was initiated, homosexuality was, for the most part, universally oppressed and dismissed. I'm not sure gay marriage was seriously considered at all.

 

I think you're right about that, and that probably describes the origins of these laws pretty well. However, now, gay marriage is certainly considered a great deal (to the point where most of us are sick of hearing about it), and there is much active opposition to it. Nobody can really claim not to have considered it anymore, since both sides are forcing the issue.

[Severian]

I personally subscribe to Sisyphus' reason 4.