So if the purpose of a legal state of marriage isn't about love, but was created for procreation reasons why should the state suddenly care about who you love enough to allow same sex marriages. What is the benefit for society? Also keep in mind that same sex marriages have a higher divorce rate, higher then 50%. Most of these marriages dissolve so what would the purpose be to the entire society, not just the individuals.
2007-05-10 15:28:44 · 9 answers · asked by Peggy Pirate 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
See my last question. I think people misunderstood my last question.
2007-05-10 15:33:52 · update #1
statitics come from a class at Kansas State university. Diversity in families. Since the class was for differences in families I don't think it is propagama, (or however it is spelled)
2007-05-10 15:37:29 · update #2
This question or the last has NOTHING to do with religion. It is a question about Government and natural laws. I think that if there was no such thing as religion government would probably outlaw same sex marriages. There is no natural benefit for the government to even take the time to include it. It would be like do what you like but it doesn't have anything to do with procreation and that is the reason we created marriage.
2007-05-10 15:43:19 · update #3
Same-sex couples cannot in theory have a higher divorce rate than heterosexual couples since they cannot get married in the first place.
The state did not create marriage for the purposes of marriage, the church did that. The state recognizes marriage for legal reasons. Such as the husband having the right to decide whether or not his wife should continue on life support, if her organs should be donated, and where she is buried. A same-sex couple has none of these rights unless expressly laid out in a will and even then they can be contested.
The purpose to society to legalize same-sex marriage would be to equalize our society, to stop ignoring the 14th Amendment to the constitution and to continue the journey towards equality.
Remember it wasn't too long ago really that interracial marriages were NOT recognized by the government. They were actually against the law. Now a days most people think the thought of that is preposterous.
2007-05-10 16:20:12 · answer #1 · answered by moonshadow418 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
properly, it quite is an exciting twist. I by no skill knew there became a clean regulation created for a state disallowing blended marriages. i could believe this merely because of the fact the blending of races can produce some terrible characteristics in a toddler they convceive. of direction, all this has to do with perfect upbringing too. we are a melting pot and blended relationships will proceed. Who am I to assert. There could be some superb marriages available with superb babies that grew as much as be very high quality adults. There are Christian marriages too and that they want to stay by making use of the regulations from the bible too. which would be an excellent marriage too.
2017-01-09 15:17:26 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh, so the purpose is procreation.. that's why the state doesn't allow infertile or old couples to get married. I see. Also, could you cite a source for your statistics? they seem dubious.
Also, we probably shouldn't allowed heterosexual marriages, since many of them dissolve.
What hateful, petty beliefs your religion creates.
2007-05-10 15:34:27 · answer #3 · answered by eldad9 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I dont see a question in here.
The benefit for society is that the gays/lesbians/etc can marry each other and be happy, and we can still marry straight and be happy, or get divorced.
Why should the state care about love in marriage?
2007-05-10 15:33:58 · answer #4 · answered by trainboy765 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No State has the means to enforce 'love in marriage' let alone proving it exists, or even defining it. It is more concerned with licensing, for the sake of order. Get in line for your rations.
2007-05-10 15:33:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Interesting statics but they sound strangely like propaganda. I'm guessing your asking if we should ban things that don't "benefit society?" My answer would be no.
2007-05-10 15:32:50 · answer #6 · answered by God 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are mixing apples and oranges. Different players and different circumstances. Pops
2007-05-10 15:32:55 · answer #7 · answered by Pops 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Is there a question here or just some convoluted personal statement?
2007-05-10 15:32:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
THE STATE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT LOVE._but it does care about citizens being happy.it makes them more efficient
2007-05-10 15:36:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋