Gay marriages... dictated by religious authorities

[vhawk01]

Because its comparing the average in DC, which has a high number of African Americans, which 'bring down' the average? Perhaps you are right, but it is equally unfair to compare the African American life expectancy in DC to the national average. It is better to compare it to the non-black average in DC, but I didnt have those numbers. I gave you the white numbers. Its unfair to compare to the national average because there may (are) contributing factors that are specific to the location. Comparing them to farmers in Iowa, white or otherwise, is misleading and practically useless. People living in cities have far different health profiles than those in more rural environs.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it doesn't hurt to have the actual numbers? It was posted in support of your ~7 years figure. You see, when you randomly spout off numbers and figures on here, most people tend to completely dismiss them as made-up or horribly out of date (as per your link on homosexual mortality). I just wanted it to be clear that your numbers were relatively accurate on this one, single subject.

[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.

[Darryl_P]

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. Although I do like to seek compromise in discussions usually because it creates a more lively, focused and open discussion, thus giving me more info. which helps in my quest for ultimate truth.

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you assuming I'm on the side of moral relativism? If so, you haven't read many of my posts. If not, then I don't see what you mean here. I see mainly anti-postmodernism sentiment in that thread, which is pretty much my position as well.

[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.

[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.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the most ironic thing you've posted yet.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From your link:

From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hilarious. Its like FlFish picked out a link that refers to himself.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not surprising. Intellectual bigotry against people who hold differing opinions is necessary for people in the public eye. It's a sad state of affairs, and says far more about the gay defenders than the "bigots".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm either dense or what you're saying isn't clear. (perhaps a little of both?) I think it would help if you specified exactly what constitutes 'intellectual bigotry' and how you see it manifesting itself.

If refuting ignorance, dishonesty and prejudice is 'a sad state of affairs' then perhaps we should strive to be as sad as possible.

[Phil153]

Anyone who criticizes homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is labelled a "homophobe" or bigot. Homophobe in particular is a loaded term and is as close to an ad hominem strawman as you'll ever get. I have no fear nor a particular revulsion toward gays - I put them on par with vomit fetishists or BDSM practitioners. Clearly something at some point has [censored] up the wiring in their brain, either through genes, prenatal hormone levels, stunted psychosexual development or personal choices. This doesn't make them less as people or less deserving of rights under the law.

My only interest in this discussion is to keep this perverted behavior out of the mainstream so that less bi curious teens will pick up the unhealthy habit of buttsexing another man.

[FlFishOn]

I assume you are aware of the irony in your choice of avatar.