same sex marriage does it voilates the natural law or ground norms of the society?

Answer 1

No it doesn't violate natural law, because natural law does not convey legal benefits based on a registered state status.

Nor does homosexuality violate natural law, since it appears in about 1% of most vertebrate species. Uncommon, but not unnatural.

As far as "norm of society" it entirely depend on the society. Most objections to homosexual conduct arise from religious grounds, and in the US it's not valid to get the govt to enforce the rules of one particular religion as a matter of law.

Then again, we have no laws prohibiting homosexual marriage. The only laws on the books in the US prohibit the granting of legal benefits to couple of the same gender, regardless of sexual orientation. So, that's pure gender-based discrimination.

Answer 2

Marriage is not natural, it is an institution created by humans. Or do you think that in pre-civilizated societies marriage existed?

So, if once humans created this institution and thought it should be the union between a man and a woman.
Now we can create a new institution or modify this one in order to allow two persons of the same sex to be recognized as a couple --legally and why not? spiritualy.

What is natural law? i mean the one that comes from god? or the one that comes from our reason? That is --for me-- a very relative argument that one can only defend when we are deeply religious and defend religion dogmas. But when you don´t it is very difficult. So what is natural? i believe that if homosexuality exists, then it is natural, how can we say something is un-natural if it is in our nature??

Now as for "Ground norms of the society"...wow!! what a rethoric empty little word. What are those? Morals? well, there are societies that approve the homo legal union, there are others that do not, it is a matter of morality.

Answer 3

"Marriage" of any kind is not part of natural law, whether of one or two sexes.

Homosexuality does occur in nature, however, so it is no more "unnatural" than heterosexuality.

Every society has a different way of viewing marriage. Wife beating was made illegal in the US only about a hundred years ago. Multiple spouses have been the rule (and still is in some places) at many times. For much of the past thousand years, "wife" was synonymous with "slave." That changed. But then, societies do change all the time. What is "normal" today is weird tomorrow and vice versa.

Answer 4

perchance you do not quite recognize as a lot about criminal arguments as you imagine you do. in words of how the U. S. best courtroom has been explaining that's interpretation of the equivalent safe practices Clause of the 14th modification, there are a minimum of two diverse levels the courts use to scrutinize the justifications that authorities provides in protection of its regulations that "discriminate." in the initiating, regulations that "discriminate" adverse to gay everybody isn't presumptively unacceptable. the burden isn't on the authorities to educate that the regulations are "narrowly adapted to serve a compelling purpose," that's the wide-spread that the courts stick with to racially discriminatory regulations. hence, quite, the criminal wide-spread that ought to need to be utilized is the "rational foundation attempt," in which case the authorities purely has the burden for instance that the classification at problem is rationally on the topic matter of a valid governmental purpose. If there is ANY rational justification for the regulation, no count number how a lot you're making imagine that it truly is tenuous, then the regulation should be upheld. My argument for any state regulation that bans gay marriage is the point you stated in #3: promptly couples can clearly reproduce and gay couples do no longer. Any rational and independent human being can see that heterosexual coupling can and commonly does bring about replica, yet gay coupling in no way does. You were quick to communicate about the exceptions to my well-known truth about the frequency with which heterosexuals reproduce. Exceptions to the generalization in no way do count number at the same time as the *rational foundation attempt* is the criminal wide-spread that's utilized by technique of courts.

Answer 5

It is a matter of DEFINITION.
It is people's choice to be with whomever they choose.(as long as it is consensual) The only thing is the term marriage is already taken as to define the bonding relationship between a man and a woman. So all they have to do is come up with a new term, and well then it's "clean as skeeter's peter" as they'd say on the big screen... I wouldn't say that unless I knew for sure...if you know what I mean.... but well there are jokes between the lines... but realize this is a serious issue which can be solved easily by simply saying what it is to say...

It is a matter of definitions, is red blue?

Answer 6

There are no ground norms in the society. And if there are it is too sad to follow them blindly.

But yes, my personal opinion to your question: same sex marriage does go against nature. the two sexes were created with the sole purpose of making the human race a self-evolving system. How is that possible in a same sex marriage (considering you are fulfilling your sex needs with your married partner)?

Answer 7

It does violate the ground norms of society. Whether it violates natural law, is certainly contestable, because while hetersexual pairings must occur for reproduction, most animals happent to be bisexual.

All of that is really irrelevent to what hte law should be though, because homosexual marriages don't hurt anything.

Answer 8

There is no natural law....there is what there is. Humans make decisions and then there is. There are well over 6 billion humans on the planet. Not making more of them is not a bad thing.

Answer 9

It doesn't violate any laws.

Honestly, My opinion is that people should not be judged on their sexual preference. The government assumes that everyone in this country is Christian and doesn't believe in same-sex marriage but I am not Christian and neither is many others.

Answer 10

Same Sex Marriage would actually create a positive Social Evolution.

Currently, there is an overabundance of males that are hounding females all because of sex. This stems from natural urges to procreate. However, since we now live in a world that has a healthy population, we can start focusing on Quality rather than Quantity when it comes to relationships.

You see this in any Start-Up Business. You focus on Volume. Then when you have sold enough and there's a high enough demand, you can cut back on Quantity and improve the Quality of the product or service.

When it comes to relationships there are a lot of them out there, but it's reaching a breaking point where people are frustrated.

I'm a straight male, but I have no problem with gay males being able to express themselves because it means that they'll pair off with each other thinning out the dating pool so that there are fewer male contenders vying or women.

When there are less competitors, the Supply and Demand shifts in favor of the men and relieves the Social Pressures off women to where there will be fewer men for women to choose from because a lot of guys start pairing off.

For anyone who has noticed, there are a whole bunch of women that are getting fed up with guys hitting on them and treating them badly so they go lesbian. They would rather be with a Lesbian Female with a guy because guys are aggressive and want sex.

If Sex is the only thing that ***** guys want and it's short term, Same Sex Marriages and the Gay Community being accepted would cut down on the number of ***** men hounding women because ***** men who aren't embarrassed to pick up another ***** guy at a bar or wherever will start pairing up.

The other positive aspect to Gay and Lesbian Relationships is that it will help with Welfare. It will cut down on Poverty because you'll have fewer Unwanted Pregnancies. If Gay and Lesbian Relationships are accepted, it means there will be a higher percentage of sexually active people who will realize that pairing off with someone of the same sex is safer because they don't have to worry about accidentally getting pregnant.

There are a lot of positive Social Changes that would happen if people accepted the Gay and Lesbian Community and stopped shunning them.

The people who despise the thought of Gay and Lesbian Relationships don't realize how they'd benefit in so many ways if they just let people go.

If you let people go be whom they want to be, there will be less tension and less fake people. There will be fewer people who are hiding whom they are.

For example, they talk about Gay Men who use women as a Beard to hide their sexual orientation. That's not really fair to the woman. On top of that, what if it turned out that there was another straight male that really liked the female?

However, because that Gay Male had to hide his sexuality, he's "squatting" on a woman that could've been an eligible mate for for someone else who doesn't have a partner.

When you have people who are happy and get to be with whom they want to be with, there are less angry people in the world. When there are less angry people in the world, it means there would be less violence.

People always make fun of how effeminate and dainty Gay Men are. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather be surrounded by Nice Gay Men who are non-Threatening than by a bunch of violent angry men with Guns.

As we all know, people are happy after they've had sex. If Gay and Lesbian people can have as much sex as they want and not get pregnant, they can have lots of it and remain in a good mood. It means less violence because everybody's getting laid. When everybody gets laid, everybody's in a good mood.

It's when people don't get laid that they get agitated and irritable. When people aren't getting enough or not getting any, they're in a bad mood and transfer that bad mood onto other people at the workplace, on the street, and to their families. It's because people are miserable.

Same Sex Marriages should already be legal. People don't even realize that it qualifies as a legitimate bond.

You give "impregnate people with thought" so that they "give birth" or "conceive" ideas.

- The Ear is an Intellectual Vagina
- The Brain is an Intellectual Ovum
- Communication is Intellectual Sperm
- Mouth is an Intellectual Penis

Communication qualifies as Sex.

1) You see two males that will obtain a Business License.
2) During that "business marriage," they exchange ideas
3) If Communication is sex, and two males in a business marriage are "swapping ideas," that's sex

If two males in a Business Marriage can have an official license, why can't two Gay Males in a regular marriage?

Technically, when you see a company that says Smith and Son as a Business Marriage, that qualifies as "Business Incest."

When you see a Business that has a License for Lawyers Johnson, Smeed, Erickson, and Logan, that's a "Foursome Business Marriage" between four guys.

That's how silly the whole debate about Same Sex Marriage is. It should already be passed into Law and legal in all states.