NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[UNA]

BTW, for those that are interested:

Charlotte A. Schoenborn, "Marital Status and Health: United States, 1999-2002," Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Number 351, December 15, 2004) ...

You can find the study here: Marital Status and Health: United States, 1999-2002

Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (New Yorkoubleday, 2000) 50-52. ...

I couldn't find the study but I found this study cited here: The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially Better than nothing :shrug: (out of curiosity, is this the site you were afraid to cite...?)

Since all I can find for this is another reference, we cannot tell under what context the statements were made, she could have concluded that any combination of consenting adults in marriage will result in this finding OR that only opposite sex marriages will...so this source neither lend nor takes away from either 'side'.

... Corey L.M. Keyes, "Social Civility in the United States," Sociological Inquiry 72 (2002): 393-408, as cited in The Family in America New Research, November 2002. Also, Carl L. Bankston III and Min Zhou, "Social Capital as Process: The Meaning and Problems of a Theoretical Metaphor," Sociological Inquiry 72 (2002): 285-317, as cited in The Family in America New Research, December 2002.

I found this study cited here: Civic Engagement: The Role of Family and Faith (...or was it this one?)

Again, I could only find other references to this study so it's not of much consequence to the issue at hand.

(There were two sources cited here, the one above and a source in which the above source was cited in: Social Capital as Process: The Meanings and Problems of a Theoretical Metaphor

This pdf is more than 2000 pages long! There is no mention of "gay", "homosexual", "marriage", nor "couples" so I don't think it ever pertains to this discussion...maybe you shouldn't have cut and pasted the whole citation, rather just the first half. The paper is about social capital and academic achievement.
_____________

Funny, most of the sites I saw these studies cited on were indeed religious in nature...I could only find the first study you cited. Charlotte A. Schoenborn's study was a study done by the CDC. All this study does is show that marital status positively influences the individual's health, it says nothing about heterosexual versus homosexual. Since we're not discussing the benefits of marriage in general, I don't see where this is relevant to the discussion. I don't think anyone here will argue the personal health benefits of marriage in general.

The fact that this is a non-religious CDC study (yet you refused to cite it directly because of the potential for religious bias) tells me that you didn't even bother to research your own sources. You jumped on your religious home page and found someone's blog. Pft...you could have avoided ALL this with 5 seconds of google and posted the CDC link.

BTW, this is all IMO (see relevant thread in forum: http://forums.somd.com/about-somd-com/230870-please-read-our-lawyer-sez.html)

 

[UNA]

Once again, all of the references I provided ARE secular and unbiased, and I presumed you all had google as a website on your internet too.

Hahaha! We were looking them up at the same time

But without your providing the actual studies, we had no way of knowing and your reason for not posting led us to believe they were biased...I didn't know I had to do your research for you :shrug:

Why did it take you so long? You seem to be right, they're secular...so why the delay?

 

[UNA]

To which I say "why", to which you say "cuz it feels right", to which I say "show me the societal benefit", to which you say "why" to which I say "cuz, just like Target and Good Will are treated differently because they offer different benefits to society, traditional marriage and same-sex relationships are similar but provide different benefits to society", to which you say "uhhhhhhhh, but Target and Good Will aren't the same thing", to which I say "yep, that's what i'm saying."

Oh, well I didn't know you had the power to divine my argument for me...because I'm pretty positive I never said "cuz it feels right". Can you show me where I said that? Or have I ACTUALLY made arguments grounded in our nations founding principle of individual liberty? Are you against liberty or just prone it ignore it?

 

[UNA]

"Marriage" has been proven beneficial only as it is defined today. Other types of relationships have not proven equal benefits.

Provide the data to demonstrate that the different thing is as good as the already proven thing, and you'll have an argument.

One doesn't need to prove they deserve equality!

One doesn't need to prove they deserve equality!

One doesn't need to prove they deserve equality!

One doesn't need to prove they deserve equality!

Is there an echo in here or is it just me?

 

[UNA]

That already happens with marriage defined as it is. Done!

Oh, so I can marry any consenting adult I want?

.
.
.
.
.
I'm not convinced you have more than a 10 second memory because I've begun having to repeat myself nearly every page at this point...but...I'm stubborn and I wont shut up until you either concede or ignore me (I apologize to other forumites who are getting tired of this being at the top of this forum )

 

[ice-man]

I question the morality side of this, personally I think it has more to do with fear and hate.

You hypocritical do what I say -not what I do - don't tread on me but I can tread on you homophobic republicans crack me up. You try to tell people how to live, what to do, how to act, who to marry, etc but then you go and try to have sex with other men in the restrooms. lol. You take the gay thing personal like someone is trying to shove a di-- up your a--. Mind your own MF business, stay our of other people's business and get a life.

 

[This_person]

Hahaha! We were looking them up at the same time

But without your providing the actual studies, we had no way of knowing and your reason for not posting led us to believe they were biased...I didn't know I had to do your research for you :shrug:

Why did it take you so long? You seem to be right, they're secular...so why the delay?

I told you they were secular, why assume they weren't just because of where I found them (my homepage is not a religious page, by the way)?

did you see my links to the other things? Did you also look for the pages/studies I suggested, and not just keywords?

 

[This_person]

Oh, well I didn't know you had the power to divine my argument for me...because I'm pretty positive I never said "cuz it feels right". Can you show me where I said that? Or have I ACTUALLY made arguments grounded in our nations founding principle of individual liberty? Are you against liberty or just prone it ignore it?

You're right, I'm wrong. What would your answer be?

 

[This_person]

One doesn't need to prove they deserve equality!

One doesn't need to prove they deserve equality!

One doesn't need to prove they deserve equality!

One doesn't need to prove they deserve equality!

Is there an echo in here or is it just me?

It's you.

I agree, they don't need to prove they deserve equality, because they already have equality. Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is capable of marrying (per the current definition).

 

[This_person]

Oh, so I can marry any consenting adult I want?

Yes, you can.

If you want that marriage recognized by the government, you have to meet the criteria established, but you can marry anyone consenting adult you want.

 

[UNA]

I told you they were secular, why assume they weren't just because of where I found them (my homepage is not a religious page, by the way)?

You were the one who said you didn't want to cite them because they same from a religious source...:shrug:

did you see my links to the other things? Did you also look for the pages/studies I suggested, and not just keywords?

No, did you read all 2000+ pages of the last source?

 

[UNA]

You're right, I'm wrong. What would your answer be?

Answer my question...then ask me one...then I'll answer...

 

[UNA]

It's you.

I agree, they don't need to prove they deserve equality, because they already have equality. Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is capable of marrying (per the current definition).

OK, you've gone to repeating yourself every few posts! Just go read my response the last time you used this "argument" (and I use that term loosely)

 

[UNA]

Yes, you can.

If you want that marriage recognized by the government, you have to meet the criteria established, but you can marry anyone consenting adult you want.

It. Is. The. Criteria. That. People. Have. A. Problem. With.

 

[This_person]

Answer my question...then ask me one...then I'll answer...

Why should similar things be treated as equal things?

 

[This_person]

It. Is. The. Criteria. That. People. Have. A. Problem. With.

Then. Provide. A. Good. Viable. Peer-reviewed. Accurate. Reason. To. Change. The. Criteria.

 

[Wenchy]

Fight on and let the retards win.

IMO we have more important things to worry about

...like the crappy roads and lights right here.

People texting and driving and risking our lives.

Who cares if a penis goes in an ass and they love each other?

Is it going in your ass?

Funny how most people have no problem with woman on woman.

MOM taking more money and limiting our ID's (Freud)

Hypocrites. Again, JMO

 

[McGinn77]

To which I say "why", to which you say "cuz it feels right", to which I say "show me the societal benefit", to which you say "why" to which I say "cuz, just like Target and Good Will are treated differently because they offer different benefits to society, traditional marriage and same-sex relationships are similar but provide different benefits to society", to which you say "uhhhhhhhh, but Target and Good Will aren't the same thing", to which I say "yep, that's what i'm saying."

Hell, why not just do the Spartan thing and if a child has no "social benefit" throw him off a cliff, this is clearly what you want. You are a self righteous bigot. If someone isn't like you, screw them. Very christian of you.

 

[McGinn77]

In her post, UNA discussed holding certain truths to be self-evident, a reference to the Declaration of Independence, and attempting to say that all people are endowed by their Creator with the right to, among other things, have the government recognize their relationship regardless of who their relationship is with.

I suggested back to UNA that a societal benefit falls under the "provide for the ....general welfare of the United States" issue insofar as tax and other perceived benefits goes.

I'm not talking about anyone else's post, I'm talking about yours. Where does the text of that part of the constitution say anything in regards to this conversation. And don't say part one because it says the word "tax" because that was taxes on business. The "marriage benefit" is on income tax which the federal government didn't have the right to collect until the 16th Amendment enacted in 1913.

 

[This_person]

Hell, why not just do the Spartan thing and if a child has no "social benefit" throw him off a cliff, this is clearly what you want. You are a self righteous bigot. If someone isn't like you, screw them. Very christian of you.

Wow, go overboard much?

Do you see a difference between offering benefits to a situation, while allowing other situations without the same benefit, and killing children? I do.

Nothing I said spoke of righteousness, screwing people, or Christianity. In fact, I've gone out of my way to express that the morality involved is separate from all arguments I've made.

Try again, but put some thought into your hatred first.