Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Family & RelationshipsMarriage & Divorce · 1 decade ago

What is the purpose of gay marriage?

I frequently hear that it's about equality, which I interpret as giving them benefits too and accepting them, just to make them happy.

But why does liking to lick the genitals of somebody of your own gender qualify for these benefits? Why can't my friend and I get these benefits? Because I don't want to lick his genitals?

Marriage, I think, is about providing a foundation for children and maintaining order in society by encouraging the men and women who produce children to stay together for the childrens sake. This is accomplished by providing beneifts such as property transfers and inheritance and medical benefits. It doesn't always work out that way because nothing is perfect. But it does mostly accomplish this task. Family units, when functioning well, are better for society.

I just don't see how this applies to gays as they don't have children with each other. True, gays can find ways to get children, but so can single straight people who don't wish to get married. So why can't marriage apply to them just because they don't want to lick each other's genitals?

I'm not trying to graphic here; I"m just asking a question.

Marriage is not about religion and it's not about making two lovebirds feel accepted.

So what is the purpose of gay marriage? And why can't this purpose apply to more than two people if they so choose? Polygamy?

Update:

1st answer: you are going off on a tangent so as to avoid the question.

The law doesn't require you to have kids if you get married. It simply assumes it's highly probable or at least possible they will.

And you don't need to be marriage to show your affection. I addressed this in the details by saying that marriage is more for order and foundations for children.

Update 2:

2nd answer: marriage, like many other things, were implemented through religion a long time ago because that's how government convinced people to follow through with things. But the purpose was the same.

Update 3:

You guys aren't addressing the main question that was supported in the details section

That is, why can't two people who are straight and of the same gender, but don't want to have sex with each other, get these benefits too by saying they want to live together and get benefits?

Why do they have to want to fornicate?

Update 4:

No Dianna, their is a separation of church and state in the US.

And for the last answer, whoever you are, you have the wrong idea of what marriage is. You are so brainwashed like most people in this culture and have been led to believe that marriage is about love between two people. That is rubbish. Marriage works better if two people are in love, but it doesn't exist for love. It was only until a 150 years ago that people started to marry for love and not for business transactions between two or more other families.

7 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I do agree with you except the part about marriage not being about religion. Marriage is very religious. It's a sacrement. And because of the religious reasons of marriage, gay marriage is not acknowledged. Society can throw in whatever reason it wants too. God already put his foot down long ago about gay marriage. It's very religious.

    Well, like a lot of other wrong things people do, smoking weed, commiting adultery, gay people want to 'right' their wrongs. People are always trying to make the wrong things they are doing seem justifiable.

    As for the comment to my answer..I'm not sure I understood but it seemed like you're saying that government is the reason religion is associate with marriage. Well, whether or not I understood it government doesn't have anything to do with it except the license for records. Remember Adam and Eve. No government, just God...religion. I'm not trying to be argumentative or sarcastic btw.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I agree with the original poster that marriage has historically been an institution for the rearing of children. I support it as an institution largely for that reason.

    But we humans have become more romantic in the last few centuries. We marry for love, we sometimes can't or won't have children, and as pointed out in the original post, many gays have children, whether they're adopted or from heterosexual marriages before they came out, or maybe before they even realized they were gay. E.g., a guy I used to work with had a boyfriend who'd been married 20 years and had 3 kids before he got in touch with his inner gayness, back in the 1980s.

    You can talk about slippery slopes, as people always do about changes they don't like, or about the details of what benefits ought to be received by whom. But the fact is really just as simple as, in our time, people who are in love often want to get married, and ought to be able to whether or not they have children. As for "why have sex?", well, you actually have a point there, and there are lots of widows living together who perhaps ought to have some legal rights they don't now. And that maybe the same ought to be true for some men. But we humans like sex, and marriage is traditionally about sexual fidelity. It's lately about spending your life with someone you love. So, two people in love who want to be married ought to be able to do so.

    We may have differing opinions, but none of us is brainwashed into them. Marriage may not have existed for love 150 years ago, and that may not be its only purpose even today, but you know, the present and the past 150 years do matter and do count. What we think marriage is about today is real. What marriage was about 150 years ago really doesn't matter anymore. We adapt our laws and customs to changing times. 150 years ago, women couldn't vote, African-Americans couldn't vote, the idea of not having slaves was new and controversial, and oral sex was illegal in marriage. 150 years ago, there was no iPod - should I now think the only acceptable way to enjoy music is to go to the symphony?

    As much as I'm in favor of licking genitals, as the original poster put it repeatedly, I feel this is not the main issue, as this is easy to do outside of marriage. It's about equal rights for those who love each other to make a legal commitment to each other.

  • Mike
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    It is because they want equal rights to have social security benefits as married couples do, and more importantly, they want to file joint income tax statements. Eventually, it will wind up in the Supreme Court because states do not have rights to dictate how federal monies are spent; because if you are married in 1 state you're considered married everywhere and are entitled to federal compensation and the same tax breaks married people get.

  • kim h
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    The purpose of gay marriage is they want to be bound to the person they love just like a straight couple. Most of us don't marry to have children only. You don't have to marry to do that. You have a distorted idea of what a marriage is so whatever you are told is not going to matter. Why would you care if I married a man or a woman? It has nothing to do with you and you don't know me.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Zelda
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Gee, thanks for basically telling me that my marriage has no value, since I got my tubes tied before I got married. That's news to me; I thought my husband and I were enjoying being married and feeling satisfied with the arrangement.

  • 1 decade ago

    they just want it for money reasons so they can get insurance benefits and things like that...gay marriage is really an oxymoron

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think if two peopel want to shwo their love for each other they should be able to regardless of what anyone else thinks on the matter.

    So if you are saying marriage is only important for those having kids, what if you are staright and dont have kids should you be made to cohabit forever?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.