But what does that have to do with the debate at hand? Columbia University Press]] Much of the fervor against same-sex marriage relates to same-sex adoption. Number one, it presupposes the very attitude that proposition says they want to remove from society — the belief that homosexuality is somehow different from heterosexuality.
But when the law itself is the one wronging this people, they have no recourse.
Legalization recognizes reality: there are gay people, they love each other and they want to commit to each other through marriage in the same way as straight couples. I am an Atheist. Same-sex marriage leads to a host of social and even public health benefits, including a range of advantages for mental health and wellbeing.
In many countries, certain rights are tied to the recognition of marriage.
There are consequences for children of same-sex marriages as children need to have a male father and female mother. I'm here debate that same sex marriage should not be allowed in the philippines. As an afterthought, I will address a couple of other points you make above: a. This is not only in existence for the normal couples but also for the same sex marriage couples.
But what about the rest?
These can be whittled down to the following claims: 1 States can ignore views that have a religious aetiology when making laws and deciding social policies; 2 Specifically in relation to homosexuality, governments need not be morally agnostic as to whether or not homosexuality — and, hence, same-sex marriage — is acceptable; 3 Since marriage, in its civil guise, bears no necessary or important relation to religious marriage ceremonies, civil marriage should not be exclusive — at most it is religious praxis that need protection, which laws already provide for.
Pro 5 Marriage is an internationally recognized human right for all people. And there are associated deleterious impacts of being denied this opportunity. In a sense — and we think that this was done in good faith — proposition wrongly assumes that opposition is endorsing the content of religious ethics.
Ibid Confining marriage to opposite sex couples is necessary to preserve scarce public and private resources The state could not rationally assume that same-sex couples were more financially independent and thus less in need of public and private subsidies.