Gay marriages... dictated by religious authorities

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize this has slipped into the political realm which is all about compromise and maneuvering for position, but I think there's enough 'search for the truth' element left in it to maintain a take-no-prisoners approach about the nature of homosexuality in humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be possible if it could be agreed that there is one truth applicable to everyone rather than different truths for different people.

Without that agreement, the discussion would need to start at a much more fundamental level before it gets into the level of detail we're discussing here.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I realize the condition is caused by confusing 'no absolute morality' with 'no morality'.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so confusing. There's a well worn path found throughout all human history connecting these two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh... Not really. Abrahamic absolutism is the exception, not the rule. And yes, I know you're "secular," that doesn't change the fact you're taking an Abrahamic position.

[kurto]

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?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
That would be possible if it could be agreed that there is one truth applicable to everyone rather than different truths for different people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm from the school of thought that believes that whatever the truth is a) it exists b) it's very, very unlikely to be halfway between to opposing positions.
( no claim that any supported position reflects reality, the odds are often long against that also).

As an aside, what is the difference between different truths for different people and no truth? ( you should zig over to the postmodernist thread and make a case for it there, it's taking quite a beating so far).

[vhawk01]

You guys are attacking FlFishOn needlessly. His link, that I asked him to provide, does quite a nice job of proving exactly MY point. Here, read this from the link:

"In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996."

Thats exactly what I was saying. The statistics he chooses to believe in, that "In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men." was true, in Vancouver, in the late '80's. It is certainly not true any longer.

Thanks for the link, FlFishOn.

[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).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's all I know. Insurance companies do know. There was a time when, if your occupation was florist or hairdresser AND you were male, life insurance was not available.

Hard #s? I don't have 'em. I don't need 'em. A guess? Gay males live 5-10 years less than str8s.

[/ QUOTE ]

"There was a time"? Yes, you are probably right. Certainly, during the eighties and early nineties, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, this was probably the case. Is it the case now? I would strongly doubt it. I mean, I'm not going to argue that there is a slightly higher incidence of AIDS in homosexual populations. Thats probably the case. But with the treatments for AIDS these days, and the relatively low incidence nationwide, I cant see this having that significant of an impact on overall life expectancy. If you honestly think that its even CLOSE to ten years, you are insane. There aren't any first-world countries that have a life expectancy ten years shorter than ours in the US. Even poor, black people living in DC's 8th District, one of the worst places in the US health-wise, aren't TEN YEARS shorter than the national average.

The fact that you "don't have 'em, don't need 'em" doesn't surprise me. Nor does the fact that your recollection of your anecdotal experience so closely matches your preconceptions. Wouldn't you rather actually know, rather than just assume? It doesn't bother you that you might be GROSSLY inaccurate on this issue, which seems to be pretty central to your opinion on homosexuality?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are clearly willing to argue out of ignorance but unlike myself you lack the perspective of dozens of years? You make your case based only on what you wish to be true, typical of the child or liberal.

[ QUOTE ]
Even poor, black people living in DC's 8th District, one of the worst places in the US health-wise, aren't TEN YEARS shorter than the national average.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know so little, I fear for the state of education in America. Black male life expectancy, just average blacks, is ~7 years less than whites. Add aggravating factors and it might be 15 years in some cohorts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't tell me what I know about my city and its health statistics, thank you. Since you decided to impeach me, here are my data, from a 2002 report by the State Center for Health Statistics Administration, a part of the DC DoH.

Average life expectancy in DC: 68
Average life expectancy of male in DC: 62
Average life expectancy of AA in DC: 64.4
Average life expectancy of AA male in DC: 57.5.

Thats about a 4 year difference from the overall average. Far less than the 15 you seem to imply, but maybe this is what you were referring to:

Average life expectancy of white in DC: 76.1
Average life expectancy of white male in DC: 71.4

Here it is around a 14 year difference, more what you were talking about. So, yes, compared to one specific priveledged group, that has higher health statistics across the board, there is a larger gap. But I hardly think thats a fair comparison.

Either way, there is no way that homosexual males are even close to as much of a underserved and at-risk group as the AA population in DC. I chose this group expressly for the reason that they are, in my recollection, one of the absolute worst groups (health-stat-wise) in the whole US. Almost no other major groups will have health stats anywhere near this bad.

[vhawk01]

Oh, and the overall number, for just the US, is that blacks live to be 72.7, whereas average is 77.5 and whites are 78.0. Thats more like 5 years than 7, but I suppose close enough for government work, right? For males its 69.0/75.3/74.8, so again closer to 6 yrs than 7.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and the overall number, for just the US, is that blacks live to be 72.7, whereas average is 77.5 and whites are 78.0. Thats more like 5 years than 7, but I suppose close enough for government work, right? For males its 69.0/75.3/74.8, so again closer to 6 yrs than 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why bother to post this? A waste to write and to read.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's all I know. Insurance companies do know. There was a time when, if your occupation was florist or hairdresser AND you were male, life insurance was not available.

Hard #s? I don't have 'em. I don't need 'em. A guess? Gay males live 5-10 years less than str8s.

[/ QUOTE ]

"There was a time"? Yes, you are probably right. Certainly, during the eighties and early nineties, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, this was probably the case. Is it the case now? I would strongly doubt it. I mean, I'm not going to argue that there is a slightly higher incidence of AIDS in homosexual populations. Thats probably the case. But with the treatments for AIDS these days, and the relatively low incidence nationwide, I cant see this having that significant of an impact on overall life expectancy. If you honestly think that its even CLOSE to ten years, you are insane. There aren't any first-world countries that have a life expectancy ten years shorter than ours in the US. Even poor, black people living in DC's 8th District, one of the worst places in the US health-wise, aren't TEN YEARS shorter than the national average.

The fact that you "don't have 'em, don't need 'em" doesn't surprise me. Nor does the fact that your recollection of your anecdotal experience so closely matches your preconceptions. Wouldn't you rather actually know, rather than just assume? It doesn't bother you that you might be GROSSLY inaccurate on this issue, which seems to be pretty central to your opinion on homosexuality?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are clearly willing to argue out of ignorance but unlike myself you lack the perspective of dozens of years? You make your case based only on what you wish to be true, typical of the child or liberal.

[ QUOTE ]
Even poor, black people living in DC's 8th District, one of the worst places in the US health-wise, aren't TEN YEARS shorter than the national average.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know so little, I fear for the state of education in America. Black male life expectancy, just average blacks, is ~7 years less than whites. Add aggravating factors and it might be 15 years in some cohorts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't tell me what I know about my city and its health statistics, thank you. Since you decided to impeach me, here are my data, from a 2002 report by the State Center for Health Statistics Administration, a part of the DC DoH.

Average life expectancy in DC: 68
Average life expectancy of male in DC: 62
Average life expectancy of AA in DC: 64.4
Average life expectancy of AA male in DC: 57.5.

Thats about a 4 year difference from the overall average. Far less than the 15 you seem to imply, but maybe this is what you were referring to:

Average life expectancy of white in DC: 76.1
Average life expectancy of white male in DC: 71.4

Here it is around a 14 year difference, more what you were talking about. So, yes, compared to one specific priveledged group, that has higher health statistics across the board, there is a larger gap. But I hardly think thats a fair comparison.

Either way, there is no way that homosexual males are even close to as much of a underserved and at-risk group as the AA population in DC. I chose this group expressly for the reason that they are, in my recollection, one of the absolute worst groups (health-stat-wise) in the whole US. Almost no other major groups will have health stats anywhere near this bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Help me out here. You found a cohort that has 14+ years less life expectancy AND this is exactly what I suggested AND I'm outta line. WTF? Grow up.

Your 4 year difference is a fraud. Do you see why? I'd be very surprised if you did.