Gay Marriage Is Good

[Obama08]

BBC NEWS | Health | Gay marriage 'is good for health'

Gay marriage is 'good for health'
Gay "marriage" could boost the mental and physical health of homosexuals, doctors believe.
Rates of depression, drug abuse and cancer are higher in the gay community than among heterosexual people.

The report said civil partnerships, which were introduced in England and Wales in December, were likely to reduce prejudice and social exclusion.

The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health article was based on previous studies in other countries.

Denmark was the first country to introduce civil partnerships for same sex couples in 1989, since when several European Union countries, some US states, Australia and Canada have followed suit.

Professor Michael King, of University College London, who co-wrote the article, said: "Civil partnerships are likely to break down some of the prejudice and promote greater understanding, including among staff working in the health service.

"Legal civil partnerships could increase the stability of same sex relationships and minimise the social exclusion to which gay and lesbian people are often subjected."

Research has shown that lesbians have higher risk of breast cancer, heart disease and obesity, while gay men have a higher risk of HIV, the article said.

Gay people are also more likely to suffer from depression, drug abuse and suicidal urges than heterosexual people.

Stable

And the report said studies had shown those who are in a stable relationship, of either the same or opposite sex, enjoyed some health benefits.

It cited Swiss research which showed patients with HIV in stable partnerships were more likely to progress more slowly to Aids.

And other studies have revealed that married same sex couples had greater openness about their sexual orientation and closer relationships with their relatives than same sex couples not in civil partnerships.

But the doctors in the latest study added further research was needed to prove the theory.

Andy Forrest, of Stonewall gay rights campaign group, said the report was "logical" but it would be too early to see if such an impact emerged in England and Wales.

"I think having civil partnerships is going to mean a lot more security, financially, without the need to seek legal recourse, which in turn means less stress and that will be beneficial.

"There is also the issue of prejudice and hassle that people can encounter in their every day lives, with the rights these partnerships have this will be reduced.

If conservative Christians aren't going to give in to letting it be called "marriage", then more states need to start giving "civil-unions" ASAP. It's unfair, rude, and downright disgusting that we still have people in this country discriminating and rebelling against innocent people's happiness for the sake of some fairy tale album written 2,000 years ago.

 

[hypgnostic]

BBC NEWS | Health | Gay marriage 'is good for health'

If conservative Christians aren't going to give in to letting it be called "marriage", then more states need to start giving "civil-unions" ASAP. It's unfair, rude, and downright disgusting that we still have people in this country discriminating and rebelling against innocent people's happiness for the sake of some fairy tale album written 2,000 years ago.

You're absolutely correct! I've debated this issue many times in different forums and the one thing I've noticed above all others is that it is impossible for someone to provide a RATIONAL reason of why same-sex couples should not enjoy the same right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Not even ONE argument against gay marriage has ever been based upon anything other than pure bigotry. There is simply not a way to argue against gay marriage and proclaim oneself to be 'tolerant'. Laws that discriminate against same-sex couples are simply unconstitutional, which is why gay marriage WILL be legal everywhere in the US in time.

And to those who object to gay marriage: NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO HAVE A GAY MARRIAGE. If you don't like it, DON'T HAVE ONE!

 

[Jerry]

BBC NEWS | Health | Gay marriage 'is good for health'

So much for marriage being only "a stricly legal contract".

If conservative Christians aren't going to give in to letting it be called "marriage", then more states need to start giving "civil-unions" ASAP. It's unfair, rude, and downright disgusting that we still have people in this country discriminating and rebelling against innocent people's happiness for the sake of some fairy tale album written 2,000 years ago.

Cute rant, feel beter?

 

[Jerry]

You're absolutely correct! I've debated this issue many times in different forums and the one thing I've noticed above all others is that it is impossible for someone to provide a RATIONAL reason of why same-sex couples should not enjoy the same right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Not even ONE argument against gay marriage has ever been based upon anything other than pure bigotry. There is simply not a way to argue against gay marriage and proclaim oneself to be 'tolerant'. Laws that discriminate against same-sex couples are simply unconstitutional, which is why gay marriage WILL be legal everywhere in the US in time.

And to those who object to gay marriage: NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO HAVE A GAY MARRIAGE. If you don't like it, DON'T HAVE ONE!

"Engage"

You're absolutely correct! I've debated this issue many times in different forums and the one thing I've noticed above all others is that it is impossible for someone to provide a RATIONAL reason of why related couples should not enjoy the same right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Not even ONE argument against incest has ever been based upon anything other than pure bigotry. There is simply not a way to argue against incest and proclaim oneself to be 'tolerant'. Laws that discriminate against related couples are simply unconstitutional, which is why incest WILL be legal everywhere in the US in time.

And to those who object to incest: NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO MARRY A RELATIVE. If you don't like it, DON'T HAVE ONE!

 

[Obama08]

Cute rant, feel beter?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sane Man]

"Engage"

You're absolutely correct! I've debated this issue many times in different forums and the one thing I've noticed above all others is that it is impossible for someone to provide a RATIONAL reason of why related couples should not enjoy the same right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Not even ONE argument against incest has ever been based upon anything other than pure bigotry. There is simply not a way to argue against incest and proclaim oneself to be 'tolerant'. Laws that discriminate against related couples are simply unconstitutional, which is why incest WILL be legal everywhere in the US in time.

And to those who object to incest: NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO MARRY A RELATIVE. If you don't like it, DON'T HAVE ONE!

Strange as it sounds, I found myself agreeing with this. Oh, and don't forget polygamy and bestiality.

 

[Jerry]

Strange as it sounds, I found myself agreeing with this. Oh, and don't forget polygamy and bestiality.

The constitution doesn't cover animals as animals are not "persons" just as fetuses are not "persons", so bestiality is not an issue.

Polygamy is a bit of a different animal, though, in that polygamy is free religious expression as enumerated in the 1st. amendment, not freedom from discrimination as enumerated in the 14th. Amendment.

It's a fine line, but there's a difference.

 

[Jerry]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you still want a hug?

 

[Obama08]

Do you still want a hug?

:blushing:

 

[dottedmint]

"Laws that discriminate against same-sex couples are simply unconstitutional, which is why gay marriage WILL be legal everywhere in the US in time."

And what part of The US Constitution protects gay marriage????

 

[Sane Man]

My constitutional knowledge is pretty rusty, but...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

I'm probably wrong, just throwing it out...

 

[dottedmint]

My constitutional knowledge is pretty rusty, but...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

I'm probably wrong, just throwing it out...

And the way that I read this is that if the people of a particular state wish to make gay marriage legal they can vote on it.

IF the people of a state do NOT think gay marriage should be legal they can vote that way as well.

The States are where marriage is regulated and so they are what would decide to make gay marriage legal. (or not)

Gay marriage is NOT a "right" protected by The US Constitution.

 

[Obama08]

And the way that I read this is that if the people of a particular state wish to make gay marriage legal they can vote on it.

IF the people of a state do NOT think gay marriage should be legal they can vote that way as well.

The States are where marriage is regulated and so they are what would decide to make gay marriage legal. (or not)

Gay marriage is NOT a "right" protected by The US Constitution.

I'm pretty sure the federal government has a bigger say though...or at least in terms of federal law. Take for instance marijuana. If a state legalizes small amounts can't you still be charged under federal law?? Correct me if I'm wrong. My knowledge is rusty as well.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

"Engage"

You're absolutely correct! I've debated this issue many times in different forums and the one thing I've noticed above all others is that it is impossible for someone to provide a RATIONAL reason of why related couples should not enjoy the same right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Not even ONE argument against incest has ever been based upon anything other than pure bigotry. There is simply not a way to argue against incest and proclaim oneself to be 'tolerant'. Laws that discriminate against related couples are simply unconstitutional, which is why incest WILL be legal everywhere in the US in time.

And to those who object to incest: NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO MARRY A RELATIVE. If you don't like it, DON'T HAVE ONE!

Interesting. The argument against polygamy is actually far easier then the one against incest to debate. In fact, if you eliminate the possibility of biological procreation, something that is certainly a detriment to incestuous coupling, one must wonder why there are not as many voices wanting to legalize adult incest as there are for other, currently 'taboo' couplings. Before I get to my theory, however, we must clarify something. Define incest. Careful, Jerry...:mrgreen:

 

[Jerry]

:blushing:

Awww come-ere ya big lug :2grouphug

 

[hypgnostic]

Strange as it sounds, I found myself agreeing with this. Oh, and don't forget polygamy and bestiality.

I think bestiality can harm animals, and polygamy certainly has a whole set of possible ways of harming others. I would strictly caution people to engage in polygamy, but I certainly would not ban it, unless it was not consensual or not between grown adults.

 

[Jerry]

Interesting. The argument against polygamy is actually far easier then the one against incest to debate. In fact, if you eliminate the possibility of biological procreation, something that is certainly a detriment to incestuous coupling, one must wonder why there are not as many voices wanting to legalize adult incest as there are for other, currently 'taboo' couplings. Before I get to my theory, however, we must clarify something. Define incest. Careful, Jerry...:mrgreen:

Yeah, you know, I went looking for a good conversation and found an opportunity to pull the oll Slippery-Slope™ outa the box. Not wanting the same oll same oll, I decided to brake out incest rather than polygamy. I like the incest angle because being related to someone is as uncontrollable as race or born sexual orientation, which makes a stronger discrimination case.

Though if I had to pick which one comes next, after GM, I would pick polygamy over incest due to the growing influence of Muslims.

For these typ of discussions I do tend to use general legal definitions unless the conversation turns toward spicific state or federal regulation.

I have used Law.com for such definitions for over a year here, and that source has thus far survived all challenges of bias and inaccuracy.

So if you accept my source, then here is the definition I use:

incest

n. sexual intercourse between close blood relatives, including brothers and sisters, parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, or aunts or uncles with nephews or nieces.

It is a crime in all states, even if consensual by both parties. However, it is often co-existent with sexual abuse since usually the younger person is a victim of the predatory sexual activities of an older relative. Recently, it has drawn more attention as people began talking about the "silent crime," which is often covered up by a wife fearful of losing a husband, or the memory has been suppressed by the youthful victims. One problem is that on the surface the family may appear to be "All-American" while abusive incest continues. In 18 states incest also includes copulation or cohabitation between first cousins, but the majority of jurisdictions permit marriage between such cousins.

The rationale for prohibition of first cousin marriages is not so much moral as the fear of proliferation of mental or physical weakness due to the joining of recessive family genes carrying such weaknesses.

As you can see if we remove procreation from the concept of marriage then there really is no legal reason to prohibit incest among consenting adults.

 

[americanwoman]

I'm pretty sure the federal government has a bigger say though...or at least in terms of federal law. Take for instance marijuana. If a state legalizes small amounts can't you still be charged under federal law?? Correct me if I'm wrong. My knowledge is rusty as well.

oh yeah, the DEA is always after those states that have medical marijuana laws. Those bastards



In the end of course the federal government will prevail.

Now as for gay marriage I am all for it. It's bad enough they have to try to hide what they are, they are also denied rights that every couple should have.

 

[dottedmint]

Re: difference between marriage and drugs

I'm pretty sure the federal government has a bigger say though...or at least in terms of federal law. Take for instance marijuana. If a state legalizes small amounts can't you still be charged under federal law?? Correct me if I'm wrong. My knowledge is rusty as well.

The origional statement was that gay marriage was a Constitutional "right".

As I pointed out The US Constitution does NOT provide a "right" to gay marriage.

The Amendment that is quoted gives the authority to regulate/define marriage to the states.

I actually don't know of any federal laws that pertain to marriage.

Do you?

In some states you can marry at one age while in other states you can marry at a different age.

In some states you can marry your cousin and in some states you can't.

Marriage is an issue that is left up to the states to decide upon.

It is NOT a Constitutional "right".

Unless you can show me where The US Constitution protects it.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

Re: difference between marriage and drugs

The origional statement was that gay marriage was a Constitutional "right".

As I pointed out The US Constitution does NOT provide a "right" to gay marriage.

The Amendment that is quoted gives the authority to regulate/define marriage to the states.

I actually don't know of any federal laws that pertain to marriage.

Do you?

In some states you can marry at one age while in other states you can marry at a different age.

In some states you can marry your cousin and in some states you can't.

Marriage is an issue that is left up to the states to decide upon.

It is NOT a Constitutional "right".

Unless you can show me where The US Constitution protects it.

Wilkepedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

 

[dottedmint]

Re: difference between marriage and drugs

Hmmmm....

Didn't think of that.

But does that not simply leave it up to individual States to either allow gay marriage or not?

But in either case the origional statement was that gay marriage was a Constitutional "right".

The US Constitution does not protect gay marriage.

It leaves it up to the States.

 

[hypgnostic]

Yeah, you know, I went looking for a good conversation and found an opportunity to pull the oll Slippery-Slope™ outa the box. Not wanting the same oll same oll, I decided to brake out incest rather than polygamy. I like the incest angle because being related to someone is as uncontrollable as race or born sexual orientation, which makes a stronger discrimination case.

Though if I had to pick which one comes next, after GM, I would pick polygamy over incest due to the growing influence of Muslims.

For these typ of discussions I do tend to use general legal definitions unless the conversation turns toward spicific state or federal regulation.

I have used Law.com for such definitions for over a year here, and that source has thus far survived all challenges of bias and inaccuracy.

So if you accept my source, then here is the definition I use:

incest


As you can see if we remove procreation from the concept of marriage then there really is no legal reason to prohibit incest among consenting adults.

MUST we climb this slippery slope? Incest and polygamy have NOTHING to do with GM. Please try to stay on topic.

t

 

[hypgnostic]

I'm pretty sure the federal government has a bigger say though...or at least in terms of federal law. Take for instance marijuana. If a state legalizes small amounts can't you still be charged under federal law?? Correct me if I'm wrong. My knowledge is rusty as well.

That is precisely why we need to amend the US Constitution to protect the CIVIL right of same-sex couples to the right of marriage. It doesn't take a genius to understand how discriminatory these state amendments are that ban or criminalize gay marriage.

I am actually embarrassed as an American that there is even a QUESTION about this issue. I mean, how on earth could forbidding consensual adult couples from marriage be anything OTHER than pure bigotry and discriminatory prejudice?! The answer is because there IS not an argument that exists against GM that is not discriminatory and based on pure bigotry. It's like the 60's sexual revolution never happened. I could never figure out why the ideologists don't like the idea of homosexuals having monogamous relationships -- I always thought that the casual sex or anonymous sex was one of the things they hated about homosexuality. Live 'n learn I guess; which is why I am never surprised at the irrational and insensitive behavior of 'moralists'.

 

[hypgnostic]

Re: difference between marriage and drugs

Hmmmm....

Didn't think of that.

But does that not simply leave it up to individual States to either allow gay marriage or not?

But in either case the origional statement was that gay marriage was a Constitutional "right".

The US Constitution does not protect gay marriage.

It leaves it up to the States.

Actually marriage IS a civil right, and as such should not be left up to any state or majority vote. Marriage as a civil right was the argument used to legalize inter-racial marriage after Loving VS Virginia. And that is exactly what will happen when gay marriage is legalized by a Federal amendment, which is absolutely going to happen, it's just a matter of 'when'.

You can actually find the exact wording by the judge if you searched under 'Loving Vs Virginia' -- there are hundreds of resources there in google.

 

[Jerry]

MUST we climb this slippery slope? Incest and polygamy have NOTHING to do with GM. Please try to stay on topic.

t

Someone needs a hug :2grouphug

The reason why I object to gay marriage is because it is a consequence of the wording in Loving-v-Virginia, and it will not be the last either.