[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think marriage is more then a piece of paper. Certainly there are gay couples living together. But, as a person who is married, there are many benefits to being married. The gay couples lives would be better if they received the same benefits of marriage as I.

I don't think its too hard to imagine that whatever benefits conservatives think marriage has for heterosexual couples would also be a benefit for homosexual couples.

Is it so hard to imagine that, in a society where a gay couple is allowed to marry, that they too would receive the health benefits that heterosexual men who are married reportedly have?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm perfectly OK with equal footing on benefits as well as scrapping the whole state-sponsored marriage concept itself. I view the piece of paper from the state as little more than a piece of paper, and that would apply to straights and gays equally if it were legalized for gays.

The joke/analogy was about how marriage affects mortality. You say marriage includes health benefits, which is a factor that lowers mortality. My position is that people will get important treatment they need somehow, even if they have to pay more for it, rather than forego the treatment altogether. So it's not a matter of who gets more medical care, but rather who gets it at a better price IMO.

Again, I'm not saying gays shouldn't get it at the same price as straights (all else being equal). What I am saying is that I don't think a given person will have significantly lower mortality just by getting a state marriage certificate (gay or straight).

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing in terms of health benefits; I actually wasn't referring to the legal medical benefits. I'm talking about the fact that married men live longer then single men because they are actually happier, have less stress, receive psychological support, happier, etc.

Though this stuff sounds 'wishy washy', its documented that the emotional benefits from marriage carry on to physical benefits. Add in all the benefits from the legal end as the icing on the cake.

Regarding getting the govt. out: I'm torn. I think we as a society like the govt side of it, which amounts to all the legal parts we all agree are good and should be shared. We have all of those benefits (and responsibilities) codified by law in something we call "Marriage."

IMO- Its the religion part of marriage that is causing all of the problems. As far as the govt is concerned (that is until Bush & like minded politicians got involved)... the religious aspect is arbitrary and unnecessary. And, whether or not gays can marry, would not effect them. If Gays can marry, a Catholic Church would not have to marry gays.

Currently the government has NO say in marriages in terms of religion. As it should be.

For some reason, people are getting hung up on the term 'marriage.' As far as the law is concerned, "marriage" is simply the legal term for the union which allows all those benefits and responsibilities that a lot of people are saying gays should have. I think some people are having semantics issues.

[ QUOTE ]
What I am saying is that I don't think a given person will have significantly lower mortality just by getting a state marriage certificate (gay or straight).

[/ QUOTE ] If you're very literal, I think you are correct. I am merely saying that 'marriage' as the term for life-partners, apparently bestows health benefits for those who do it. The reason I originally brought this up is because Fish was trying to point out that the Homosexual lifestyle meant a shorter lifespan. If he was concerned about their health (which, is pretty unlikely if you read his bile) then he should embrace homosexuals being allowed to marry since promoting the benefits of marriage to them could, theorectically, increase their lifespan.

Anyhoo... enough of that. It was nice chatting with you.