Gay Marriage is good for health...
This is all common sense...
Same-sex "marriages" are good for people's health, new research suggests. It says they confer the same benefits on homosexual couples as they do on heterosexuals.
The report says civil partnerships will reduce the prejudice and social exclusion that gay couples feel and should help to cut the high rates of depression and drug-taking among homosexuals.
Heterosexual marriage is known to improve the mental and physical health of couples, reducing alcoholism, heart disease and sexually transmitted diseases.
The report, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Heath, suggests that homosexuals who enter into partnerships should gain many of the same advantages. It says: "Less discrimination against, and greater societal support for, long-term, same-sex relationships may increase self-respect in gay and lesbian people, reduce the tendency to have contact with multiple partners and lead gay people to seek help more promptly for sexual infections."
posted by GayandRight @ 10:17 PM
27 Comments:
This is not science, this is propaganda..
Gay sex, even monogamous, is unhealthy..
www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pd
The anus was not designed for penetration.. Rimming (which over 80% of homosexuals engage in) is also bad..
Any honest medical doctor will tell you the inherent risks of (even monogamous) gay sex
How do you know the anus wasn't designed for penetration? The plain fact of the matter is that both homosexuals and heterosexuals engage in anal sex, and the anus is an erogenous zone. So, the evidence to me is that it WAS designed to be penetrated.
The percentage % of homosexuals vs heterosexuals is over 20-1 according to studies - to try to hide behind the fact that the odd heterosexual also has bad sex habits is a bit disingenous..
.. even the Dalai Lama says that anal sex is "unnatural"..
------------
do not go to this link if you are under 18 or do want to see pornographic images, but this link ably shows how gay marriage (and even when it is monogramous (a rarity) is unhealthy. A huge proportion of gays have anal sex and it is just plain bad for you!!
http://www.heroichomosex.org/crw/frot/not.html
Hearts weren't designed to be transplanted. Humans weren't designed to take showers. Toilets are unnatural.
The fact that the anus may or may not be "designed" for a specific purpose is a bullshit argument, which gets exactly no purchase amongst philosophers and other thoughtful people.
Your argument that only some small percentage of people are gay is also dumb. Why should those people (*however* small their numbers) be kept from happiness? So what if only o.o1 per cent of Canadians curl or play soccer? Who cares about the proportion?
And what does gay sex have to do with marriage? It's something that occurs in marriage, but it's totally to the side. People are going to have gay anal sex and straight anal sex whether or not gay marriage is allowed. Oppose anal sex all you want, it doesn't address the issue of gay marriage.
And the upshot of the gay marriage study is that it's good for gay couples to get married and make a public commitment of their love to one another. More power to them!
- I never even mentioned about the percentage of pop. which is gay..
- many thoughtful people and philosophers DO take Natural Law and "design issues" seriously. I think the Dalai Lama is a very thoughful person
- sex and marriage are intimately linked (that's why incestuous marriage is banned, even between brothers). Therefore gay sex (and gay sex practices) and gay marriage are intimately linked.
- governmental support for gay marriage implies support for gay sex and practices. Instead, governments should promote healthy lifestyles - no smoking, exercise, no gay/anal sex, etc etc
- the scientific/medical facts WILL win out over rhetoric
If "happiness" is the criteria for deciding on whether gays should be allowed to be married, then
- polayamorous marriage
- incestuous marriage (same and opposite sex)
- non-sexual platonic (eg. 2 widowed sisters) marriage
should ALL be allowed! Do you support all of these as well?
sorry, the 20:1 ratio was % of gays doing anal vs % of hets doing anal..
typing too fast...
BTW, I do not support criminalizing anal sex... I jsut don't want governmetn support of institutions (eg. gay marriage) that are tied so closely to such an unhealthy practice..
Some "anonymous" did: "The percentage % of homosexuals vs heterosexuals is over 20-1 according to studies"
Maybe that wasn't you?
Why "annonymous" anyway? Post your name, like I do. Have the courage of your convictions.
"Happiness" is *a* good criteria, but I never said that it's the *only* criteria.
I overspoke: Many thoughtful people do take Natural Law to be important and right. But they typically provide a better argument thatn "It is unnatural and therefore bad."
For one, you need to explain what you mean by "natural" in a way that doesn't exclude things like using toilets, heart transplants, and so on. Unless you want to throw those out too.
I can't see why homosexuality is not natural anyway. And if it is, then the natural expression of homosexuality (gay sex, for instance) is natural too.
For two, you need a story about why "unnatural" is somehow equivalent to "bad." This, too, you will have to do in a way that doesn't equate the "unnaturalness" of using toilet paper with it being bad, or the "unnaturalness" of wearing eyeglass with it being bad.
While thoughtful people might hold this view, it isn't a very good one, and they should reconsider.
Finally, I guess you concede that gay marriage between lesbians should be all right since no anal penetration occurs there. At least we agree on that.
Ooops, while I was typing my comment, you posted in the interim. I see, I see. Never mind the percentage thing, then, but the rest of my comment stands.
I do stand by my convictions.. however I am afraid of gay terrorists like these http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021301.html
attacking me and my family..
- My use of the term Natural is entirely based on Thomistic Natural Law philosophy; not more common "natural" terminology
- Bad health practices are not my sole criteria against SSM; I disagree with Lesbian marriage just like I disagree with Polyamory marriage - but this debate would then get WAY too long..
Gay marriage as it is now defined in Canada has two problems:
1. The relationship is without the ability to create life of itself. Nature perpetuates species. That is clearly evident all around us. If all marriages were homosexual the human species would come to an end, probably in not much more than a century. Therefore the office and potential of homosexual marriage is beneath that of heterosexual marriage, which, disregarding particular individual circumstances, can create life of itself.
2. The government purposefully altered the meaning of a word, i.e. marriage, for purely political reasons, wihtout respect for voters' constituencies, the Constitution or long-standing custom. And it did so without a true free vote
Anon writes:
"1. The relationship is without the ability to create life of itself. Nature perpetuates species. That is clearly evident all around us. If all marriages were homosexual the human species would come to an end, probably in not much more than a century. Therefore the office and potential of homosexual marriage is beneath that of heterosexual marriage, which, disregarding particular individual circumstances, can create life of itself."
This is not a good argument. If everyone became a Catholic priest, the species would fail to survive. Therefore becoming such a priest is immoral. If everyone became a plumber, we wouldn't have doctors. Therefore becoming a plumber is immoral. If everyone had 6 kids, the earth would be overpopulated, and we would probably die out within a century. Therefore, having roughly 6 kids is immoral.
See how bad this argument is?
Point 2 is different in kind. I think it is a justifiable objection to gay marriage.
if you want to get married go right ahead i'll respect it even if they government won't!
Concerning point 2 by anonymous. Question:
Do you think that there should have been a free vote and the approval of the majority on legalizing interracial marriage in the 50s and 60s instead of having the ban being struck down by US Supreme Court? Does that make the US Justices of time "activist judges"?
BTW, there are 2 anons on here..
The law against inter-racial marriage was wrong.. Marriage is INHERENTLY about a man and a woman - rac does NOT play into it
To compare the re-definition of marriage into including sodomistic man-man relationships cannot be compared to stopping the ban on interracial marriage - race has nothing to do with the inherent defeiition of marriage.
A majority of blacks are against SSM and are DEEPLY insulted when comparisons are made with their struggle. Shame on you.
Sara:
do you also respect polygamy and incestuous marriages??
nope, do you?
so why only gay marriage?? RU polyphobic? or incestuphobic?
Don't you just want these people to be "happy"? Surely, you're not judgemental??
---------------------------
(I consistently object to ANY redefinition of marriage away from 1man-1woman)
Some anonymous writes:
"To compare the re-definition of marriage into including sodomistic man-man relationships cannot be compared to stopping the ban on interracial marriage - race has nothing to do with the inherent defeiition of marriage."
There is no "inherent" definition of anything. Words don't have inherent definitions, they are socially defined. An Egyptian pharaoh once kept one of his sons from any social contact to see what a "natural language" would be like. I think you can guess what happened.
There is no "natural" language, language is an artefact. Socially constructed. With socially constructed meanings. There is no "inherent" definition of anything. All definitions are socially constructed.
Maybe a different anonymous writes:
"so why only gay marriage?? RU polyphobic? or incestuphobic?
Don't you just want these people to be "happy"? Surely, you're not judgemental??"
No one said "only gay marriage." But gay marriage is the issue, and polyandrous and polygamous marriage are a separate issue. Don't change the subject.
And, surely, I *am* judgmental. Don't you notice that I'm passing judgment on the shitty arguments that have appeared in these comments? I am *judging* the quality of your arguments. Which, thus far, are poor, and I think everyone with a first-year philosophy course under their belt recognizes the poorness.
And, yes, I *do* want people to be happy. I will take issue with any so-called "morality" that pretends that happiness is irrelevant. But, again, I *never* claimed that happiness is the *sole* criterion. However, any morality that fails to attach at least some (significant) weight to human happiness has an abhorrent pseudo-morality.
So, why not gay marriage? I've shown why the arguments thus far presented are worthless. Have we any better ones? Or are we going to try and change the subject again?
The canadian government considers gay marriage and polygamy to be the SAME subject.. they spent our hard earned tax dollars to study polygamy IN LIGHT of the gay marriage debate..
we can get back to why gay marriage is in fact unhealthy for the couples and society...
Also note that the government act states that it is IN the public interest to have diverse views on marriage:
WHEREAS it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage;
----------
Opposition to same sex "marriage" is PATRIOTIC!! and it helps Canada!
"The canadian government considers gay marriage and polygamy to be the SAME subject.. they spent our hard earned tax dollars to study polygamy IN LIGHT of the gay marriage debate.."
They also say I am a non-dependent worker. You know the lazy bon bon eating, soap opera watching house wife... So don't tell me that shit about what the government says is right!
If he wants to be with another man of age and with consent from both partners then more power to him.
Yes I also judge you! You try to force your religion upon others and that is wrong.
My kids are raised Catholic but they will have free-will, not the typical blasphemy the church goers gossip about!
Get over it! If you don't like it turn your head, no one is forcing you to watch!
I can tell you anonymous I am being tried and convicted by idiots who tell me its wrong to raise my own children, so when I see you arguing like this it makes my blood boil!
Pedofilia is beyond words,,I'd kill the bastard if I ever bump into one!
They hurt children!
So yes there is a difference!
Gays rights do not hurt children!
Poligamy is a joke with a male ego, not my problem!
Sara
You were the 1st one to bring in religion - there are many non-religious arguments against gay marriage.
What are your views on polyandry?? nothing about male ego there..
Also, pls buy a dictionary or use spell-check.. painful to read your spelling of polygamy etc..
don't take cheap shots at me for me spelling or typing, I have a fractured wrist,,one handed typing is what you get deal with it!
polyandry is not my problem either, if it is against the law then tell the police to deal with it! Gay and Lesbian is not against the law.
Yes I brought in religion because that is what the majority of judgements on gays is based on!
Why do you care so much? Your not sleeping with the same sex are you?
Who cares who they sleep with as long as it is legal and of both consent!
"Who cares who they sleep with as long as it is legal and of both consent!"
Well, incest is defined as sexual intercourse and sexual intercourse is defined as penetration of a vagina (according to Canadian law)... so brotherly gay anal intercourse is LEGAL!!
Therefore you think brother-brother gay marriage should be legal??
it says two brothers marry the same woman, nothing describes what you say! oh I'm glad I don't read whats in your house...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home