Gay marriages... dictated by religious authorities

[Darryl_P]

[ 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).

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing the normal way doesn't seem to get anywhere with you guys since you're obviously interested in something other than reaching a compromise, greater understanding, or any other positive result of normal adult debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the reason it is hard to find common ground on this issue, is because we obviously see it as fundamentally different. Some of us see gay people as normal human beings who happen to have been born with a sexual orientation that puts them in the statistical minority. We do not see them as abnormal, or perverted, or in any way defective as human beings. That is why we feel they deserve the same rights as the rest of us - including the right not to be discriminated against. Saying you'll "allow" gays certain types of legal protections, but not the full institution of marriage like everyone else, is discrimination, at least in my view, and it's no different than racial discrimination.

Others do see gays as defective, obviously. And FFish's statement about their "sham marriages", or that gays have done "their level best" to spread AIDS to the world pretty much shows why it's hard to debate the issue of equal rights rationally with people who are bigoted.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
And FFish's statement about their "sham marriages", or that gays have done "their level best" to spread AIDS to the world...

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate what gays are doing to America. I own that.

They have also, throught their action, excerbated the spread of AIDS. Here's how. In the early years of the disease they fought every possible battle to keep the SF bath houses open. But far worse, in order to generate broad based support for AIDS funding, they implemented a fraudulent PR effort to make AIDS a str8 disease. It clearly was not, in AMerica, a str8 disease and much effort was misdirected, allowing the disease to spread. For this I hate them. It was an epidemiological fraud writ large.

[GreekHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And FFish's statement about their "sham marriages", or that gays have done "their level best" to spread AIDS to the world...

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate what gays are doing to America. I own that.

They have also, throught their action, excerbated the spread of AIDS. Here's how. In the early years of the disease they fought every possible battle to keep the SF bath houses open. But far worse, in order to generate broad based support for AIDS funding, they implemented a fraudulent PR effort to make AIDS a str8 disease. It clearly was not, in AMerica, a str8 disease and much effort was misdirected, allowing the disease to spread. For this I hate them. It was an epidemiological fraud writ large.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you hate Muslims? What about Germans? What about people from Salem?

People from each of these groups have done this way worse than spreading AIDS. But of course, it wasn't the entire group in any of the cases. This post is just an example of completely irrational bigotry.

[Schmitty 87]

Completely agree with OP (and others expressing similar sentiments). The amount of churches preaching blatant hatred at people for expressing their natural desires is sickening.

[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.