Does gay marriage benefit society in any way?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It does benefit society because it is an attempt at ordering a society in that they will have to pay taxes according to their state and also hire and pay for divorce proceedings if they so choose. Monetarily, it benefits, I would say.

.

Since most states tax married couples at lower rates and offer more deductions it would be monetarily beneficial for the state to not redefine marriage as a same sex relationship

In most states that have redefined marriage to include same sex couples, a marriage can be annulled if it is not consummated. A legally married gay couple can simply request an annulment and avoid Divorce court. No divorce proceedings to pay for.

 

[Richca]

I’ve been thinking about this, are there any benefits to society from gay marriage?

{it must be a benefit exclusively because of gay marriage}

Gay marriage is contrary to the divine law. It is a sin and a sin is a bad act. Every sin whether little or great harms the person committing it, the whole human community, the whole universe at large, and the whole creation’s relationship with God. On the other hand, every good act done in accordance with the divine law benefits the whole human community, the whole universe, and the whole creation’s relationship with God.

 

[AyJSimon]

In most states that have redefined marriage to include same sex couples, a marriage can be annulled if it is not consummated. A legally married gay couple can simply request an annulment and avoid Divorce court. That’s pretty easy. They have a built-in “break-up” ticket.
Another reason gay “marriage” makes a mockery of traditional marriage.

The specifics vary by state, but as far as I’m aware, non-consummation can only be grounds for an annulment if it’s due to physical incapacity. Which, by the way, is the exact same standard for traditional marriage (where the practice originated), so I’m not sure why you think you can make a special case out of gay marriage.

 

[epan]

I’ve been thinking about this, are there any benefits to society from gay marriage?

{it must be a benefit exclusively because of gay marriage}

The answer is obvious, to those who support that advance of civil liberties. This has been a long process, spanning centuries. As we grow as a society, our understanding of civil liberties broadens. So, yes of course, we benefit as a society as we work to end bigotry, and to promote diversity.

The grounds for opposing these changes are always rooted in old and outdated ideas, and often irrational misunderstanding and hatred. However, history has repeated itself over and again, when it comes to the expansion of rights for minority or oppressed groups. The arguments don’t vary much. Over time, they always are viewed as having been on the wrong side of history.

Looking at history, and at modern religions, we know that religious ideas have often been used to promote bigotry and to oppose social progress. On other issues, religious ideas have supported social justice and the expansion of civil rights.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The specifics vary by state, but as far as I’m aware, non-consummation can only be grounds for an annulment if it’s due to physical incapacity. Which, by the way, is the exact same standard for traditional marriage (where the practice originated), so I’m not sure why you think you can make a special case out of gay marriage.

Yes, physical incapacity, can be grounds for annulment,but not the ONLY grounds.

“The law, in its rules regarding consummation, embodies an important insight into the nature of marriage as a bodily – no less than spiritual and emotional – union that is actualized in reproductive-type acts.”

A valid marriage is called ratified and consummated if the parties have performed between themselves in a human manner the conjugal act which is per se suitable for the generation of children,

I have yet to see any analysis, jurisprudence, legislation, argumentation, or explanation of how a same-sex “marriage” is consummated

 

[AyJSimon]

Yes, physical incapacity, can be grounds for annulment,but not the ONLY grounds.

“The law, in its rules regarding consummation, embodies an important insight into the nature of marriage as a bodily – no less than spiritual and emotional – union that is actualized in reproductive-type acts.”

A valid marriage is called ratified and consummated if the parties have performed between themselves in a human manner the conjugal act which is per se suitable for the generation of children,

I have yet to see any analysis, jurisprudence, legislation, argumentation, or explanation of how a same-sex “marriage” is consummated

You’re mistaking the secular definition of consummation with the Catholic definition of it. As far as the U.S. secular governments are concerned, the definition of ‘consummation’ does not hang on whether a sexual union could theoretically result in children.

Being gay doesn’t give you a practical advantage when it comes to obtaining an annulment.

 

[Catholic13]

The answer is obvious, to those who support that advance of civil liberties. This has been a long process, spanning centuries. As we grow as a society, our understanding of civil liberties broadens. So, yes of course, we benefit as a society as we work to end bigotry, and to promote diversity.

The grounds for opposing these changes are always rooted in old and outdated ideas, and often irrational misunderstanding and hatred. However, history has repeated itself over and again, when it comes to the expansion of rights for minority or oppressed groups. The arguments don’t vary much. Over time, they always are viewed as having been on the wrong side of history.

Looking at history, and at modern religions, we know that religious ideas have often been used to promote bigotry and to oppose social progress. On other issues, religious ideas have supported social justice and the expansion of civil rights.

You’re not even a practicing Catholic.

 

[ServusHumilis]

The answer is obvious, to those who support that advance of civil liberties. This has been a long process, spanning centuries. As we grow as a society, our understanding of civil liberties broadens. So, yes of course, we benefit as a society as we work to end bigotry, and to promote diversity.

The grounds for opposing these changes are always rooted in old and outdated ideas, and often irrational misunderstanding and hatred. However, history has repeated itself over and again, when it comes to the expansion of rights for minority or oppressed groups. The arguments don’t vary much. Over time, they always are viewed as having been on the wrong side of history.

Looking at history, and at modern religions, we know that religious ideas have often been used to promote bigotry and to oppose social progress. On other issues, religious ideas have supported social justice and the expansion of civil rights.

What a bunch of nonsense. Our faith is based on old and outdated ideas? How about the word of our blessed Lord? Who cares what false modern religions preach? The only thing you’re right about is that history indeed does repeat itself; this has all happened before and society was smart enough to rise above. Now some want us to go backwards? No thanks. Why encourage something that has zero intrinsic value to society? Sodomy is not a matter of “civil rights.” No black man can take off his black skin, while homosexual actions are a choice and nothing but. Indeed the answer is obvious. Those who are on the side of the culture of death will in the end find themselves as having been on the wrong side of things by supporting the collapse of western civilization.