E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSStraight men are already known to thrive after getting hitched, but the marriage effect might be just as strong for gay men’s health.
In fact, just the possibility of legalized marriage might make gay guys healthier, according to a new study published in the American Journal of Public Health.
Columbia University researchers looked at the health effects on gay men from legalized marriage, surveying 1,211 patients from a large Massachusetts health clinic focused on the gay, lesbian and bisexual community. The researchers examined the clinic’s billing records 12 months before and 12 months after Massachusetts passed the law in 2004 allowing same-sex couples to get married.
In just 12 months after the same-sex marriage law was enacted, doctor visits declined 13 percent and health care costs decreased 14 percent for gay men, compared to the year prior, the researchers found.
Most of the decrease was in the number of visits men made for conditions such as high blood pressure, depression, anxiety, and sexually transmitted diseases, said the study’s lead author Mark Hatzenbueler, a researcher at the School of Public Health at Columbia University. The boost in gay men’s health is likely connected to both the institution of marriage and also the societal changes associated with the new laws.
“What we are saying is that when you legalize same-sex marriage it kind of changes the social environment around gays and lesbians,” Hatzenbueler said. “And that reduces social stigma and stress that has downstream health consequences.”
There weren't enough lesbians in the study to determine legalized marriage's impact on their health. But earlier research by the same researchers found that marriage impacts mental health similarly in gay men and women.
The new study “is adding to the growing body of evidence showing social, economic and health benefits of same-sex marriage,” Hatzenbueler said.
Leave a Comment:
Logical but it's nice to have some numbers behind it.
And how long has this study been going on for, three weeks? What a farce.
Marriage has been consistently shown to improve health. The sample size was greater than 1100 people and extended for a 24 month period. Add in that it was done at Columbia, a very reputable research institution, and only the uneducated would argue its statistical relevance.
...And in walks Timothy1Mil! Right on cue!
"The sample size was greater than 1100 people and extended for a 24 month period."
Does the study include changes in the payment structure? Those would immediately affect health care usage.
Follow up in another 12 months to see an increase in alcoholism .
That's wild. I wonder if there's a statistical difference for couples who actually get married - and if researchers did this in other states that legalized same-sex marriage. [I'd be kinda surprised if Columbia wasn't running this in NY.]
...
Cut it out, ErinNJ. You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor. You know the rules.
@EngEsq: Marriage might improve physical health, but mental health, that's a different story.... oy vey.
Promoting of gay marriage just won't let up will it? What a crazy world we live in. It is no wonder people keep picking at groups, like this one singled out. Seems to me that AIDS is still here ...
As an illegally married lesbian in the state of michigan, I dont know that legalizaling gay marriage would in and of itself have any impact on my health.
But I can definitely see how it would on other people, who especially do not have strong support networks through family and friends. Just the mere IDEA that your state, your community in some ways is saying YOU ARE NOT A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN is huge.
So long as serial adulterers like newt gingrich get to marry the women they cheat on their previous wives with...I think it's only logical to allow gays to be married.
I dont believe, GOD ranked sins...and if he did, he spent far too little time talking about homosexuality if it ranks higher than adultery on the "who's banned from marrying list"
and for those who say "well you can get married, just to a guy"...
explain to me what heterosexual man wants to be in a loveless, emotionless marriage with a lesbian who's more miserable than imagineable?
What crackhead thinks THAT makes sense (other than Michele Bachmann)?
Doris,
This study simply confirms that for gay men, marriage has a similar effect that it does for straight men. Married men are physically healthier. This is a well established fact and longer held belief for straight men and now it crosses the line to be true for gay men.
No promotion, just looking a the facts and reporting on them.
Doris " It is no wonder people keep picking at groups, like this one singled out.
no it isnt any wonder, because fake christians roam this earth every where..
it's supposed to be about love, not what you hate.
live and let live, don't be gay if you dont want to be damned to hell.
let me be gay, marry who I wish...and damn myself to hell if I so choose.
GOD GAVE US FREE WILL, why are you trying to USURP that from him?
So funny to see people so convinced that gays are the root of all things evil that even science won't convince them.
The world has left you behind.
I say that because WebMD states that one in five gay men currently has HIV. So how are these marriage statistics even relevant in that light?
Not logical. What about the one in five gay men that has HIV? Does marriage help them? I think not.
Funny thing about marriage. If you have the right partner, it's the best thing in the world.
Well, I don't know, Timothy. Seems like being in a marriage and having that support system would help any person with a chronic disease, be it AIDS or asthma.
I'd like to see a similar study done for married lesbians. It would be interesting to see if the effect holds true for them as well.
@Timothy1Mil
Not logical. What about the one in five gay men that has HIV? Does marriage help them? I think not.
I would argue the exact opposite, HIV can be checked using anti retrovirals, a monogamous marriage reduces the number of partners at risk for infection.
In a monogamous marriage in which both partners are taking antiretrovirals and practice safe sex should reduce the number of possible future infections to near zero. The number of gay married couples I knew from the East coast have loving, normal, monogamous relationships. They have adopted kids, and yes in some of them one individual is HIV positiv, they will assure you that marriage and equal rights offer so many more opportunities to control the disease just b/c they are more open about their health after marriage. Aside from limiting the number of partners and precautions gay married man can take against AIDS, marriage also screams of equality. By allowing for legal gay marriage, gay men feel more equal and less exiled, young gay men in their teens are more likely to not fall into depression or take their lives. So while gay marriage does not equal equality and acceptance it is a huge step in overcoming inequality and suppression.
Timothy: "What about the one in five gay men that has HIV? Does marriage help them?"
Not after they contract it, of course. But that is not what is being measured. But people who get married, especially at an earlier age, are less likely to get sexually-transmitted diseases, and that is what shows up in the correlation.
Timothy -
What about the one in five gay men that has HIV? What about them? What about the one in four adults in toto that have HIV? Well, I guess they can't get married either?
Grow up. Sex != marriage, marriage != sex. HIV is just as transmissible from a man to a woman as it is from a man to a man, and much harder from a woman to a man, and hardest of all from a woman to a woman. Therefore, by that logic, the only people who should be getting married and having sex are lesbians.
The thing is, right-wingers like Timothy only bring out the STD rates when talking about marriage because they have already lost the battle to have sodomy re-illegalized (though some keep shooting themselves in the foot on that one). They are willing to disincentivize monogamy among gay couples, which would help significantly reduce STDs from spreading. They drag out the STD rates, but completely fail to realize that lesbians actually have the absolute lowest occurence of STD transmission among sexually active adults.
Or they're just dishonest about it (read: liars). I'll let you think about which is more likely.
Since you know so much about this study... How old were the men? Also, was the health of the subjects in the study compared to non married gay men of the same age. Did any of them have a previous condition like AIDs, cancer or diabeties before the 24 month study took place?
I don't care if a study was done at Harvard, Columbia or Stanford. The data collected and commented on can be faulty as many studies are. BEFORE YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING SOMEONE "STUDIED/RESEARCHED" MAKE CERTAIN THERE ISN"T A BIAS BUILT INTO THE RESULTS.
You can make numbers prove anything if present it a certain way!!!
kpokeefe, I did dig into this article a little deeper. The population was taken from a community based health center. As such the population was not necessarily representative of the total population, but rather of a population that typically is dependent upon subsidized care. For example there were higher percentage of minorities represented in the study.
No changes were made to clinic managemnt, operations (it was a blind study), or billing structures were implimented durring the study.
Many of the participants had previous conditions, such as AIDS, and for these patients the researchers found no statistical change in care required.
The primary decrease in health care costs were attributed to reduction in stress related ailments. The sampling was large enough and the duration significant enough that effects like patient attrition, death, and enrollment were statistically irrelevant over the study length.
For what it was, it was a good study. Followups should, and will, happen to cover more representative populations. However, I'd expect that these studies will corroborate this one. But don't take my word for it, after all it was vetted by the APHA, which is the most esteemed association in this space.
And what is the heterosexual rate of infection worldwide?
How about criminal rates and sexuality; rape, murder, assaults and assign rights accordingly? Your stats are irrelevant!
JerseyJ9 ... thanks for pointing out the difference between correlation and causation, a concept that appears to elude many people.
If you are going to rely on christo-bigoted websites like LifeSite News for your information, you deserve to be as misinformed as you clearly are. Their “facts” are hardly reliable, nor is their “research” or “study” credible. Your insistence on citing data from such sites further invalidates your already pathetic credibility.
Your “statistics” are only found on such websites; if you would look at unbiased, reliable, peer-reviewed studies such as those done by the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, Royal College of Psychiatry, etc., you would find that those figures are hardly true, to say the least.
But I repeat: why let facts get in the way of your bigotry and ignorance?
Yep. People are people and marriage helps PEOPLE stay healthier. Very logical. Of course, the people who are so bothered by marriage equality certainly don't care if gay men are healthy or not.
Yes, marriage keeps people living healthier. In particular it helps men because, for some weird reason, a lot of men just don't like to keep up with domestics when they're alone. Older men are really bad at it.
So why the need to throw the gay in there? Who cares whether it's straight or gay partnership? The bottom line is: People do better in pairs, regardless of gender or document.
Curious how those who oppose gay marriage, because it 'demeans marriage,' are the same ones getting divorced in record numbers, hmm?
You want to protect marriage? Outlaw straight divorce!
So why the need to throw the gay in there? Who cares whether it's straight or gay partnership? The bottom line is: People do better in pairs, regardless of gender or document.
The study specifically targeted gay men. Gay men and the health-related effects of marriage on them was the entire basis for the research.
THX
The studies linking straight marriage and good health have already been done. The value of this study is to refute the frequent conservative views about the "unhealthy" gay life style.
"Life style." It's an inborn orientation, not a life style. Just like being left-handed or green-eyed.
I don't disagree, Toasty. The study indicates that if this country will allow them the right to live the lifestyle that is guaranteed to heterosexuals it will be beneficial to their health ..... not unhealthy, as too many conservatives claim. The married "lifestyle" is denied to most homosexual people in this country and that is wrong.
I just make sure to correct people every time I see it. Calling it a life style implies choice, which makes it easier to discriminate, when the reality is that it is an inborn orientation.
Why? Because it is good science to study this extra variable. Yes, there are many studies linking the health of straight males to marriage, but one could easily argue that they can't be extrapolated to gays because of social and cultural differences (perhaps gay men take better care of themselves than straights, or that the cultural pressures are such as marriage doesn't provide the same health benefits). We can now say that this variable has been eliminated, assuming that the study methodology is valid and repeatable.
And how common is anal sex between heterosexual couples? I bet it's more common than you think.
And besides, if neither partner has AIDS, or is HIV-positive, how would they then get it if they are in a committed momogamous relationship?
25% of adults in the US report having anal sex. And 4 % of US adults are gay... you do the math. lol (I would link the site but I am not sure it would be an appropriate link for a public board.. but it is quite easy to look up.)
One more reason to do the right thing.
We all know that the religious wack-o-s that are against gay marriage (yet OK with keeping divorce legal) will secretly relish in this data. They don't want gay people to be healthier. They want them all to go away (you can fill in the blanks here at will) and they hide that behind "we have to defend the act of marriage" BS.
Beyond that, this makes sense.
But again, christians don't typically refer to logic at all. They rely on faith in a book, written long ago by men, and that has been edited by other men. Very logical indeed.
While the attack is uncalled for (I know a few semi-logical christians). Timothy1mil is kind enough to corroborate your statement below.
What a touching example of us working together for a change.
There's no such thing as a typical Christian anymore than there is a typical human.
mt-512899 wrote "We all know that the religious wack-o-s that are against gay marriage"
Since same-sex marriage, of which gay marriage is a 1% category, is illegal in almost every US state, the proponents of gay marriage are the wackos.
"There's no such thing as a typical Christian anymore than there is a typical human."
Or a typical homosexual, or a typical Muslim, or a typical conservative or liberal, or....
"But again, christians don't typically refer to logic at all. They rely on faith in a book, written long ago by men, and that has been edited by other men. Very logical indeed."
And you rely on men and a Darwinian theory so flawed, no scientist in his right mind backs it today because of DNA, but you put your "faith" behind a big rock that existed from all time, exploded from unknown sources, and formed everything in existence including round planets. When have you ever seen an explosion produce round objects? And you mock Christians, what a fool you are.
Timothy, evolution is so well research, corroborated, and validated that very few scientific principles are considered more solid. Having a scientific background, I can say with assurance that DNA evidence has only reinforced the evidence for evolution.
Secondly, you mix up the big bang with evolution. These are entirely separate issues. Moreover, the big bang was not a "big rock" but rather all mass in an infinitesimally small area. Using images of cosmic background radiation we can account for the expansion of the universe from mere fractions of a second post big bang.
Lastly, the big bang did not split out round planets (nor have supernova). Rather mass collates due to the gravitation intrinsic to all mass. Once gravity is large enough a sphere NEEDS to form. Low mass planetoids (like Pluto) are not round.
Timothy, if you are going to mock people for disagreeing with you, at least try not to come accross as so glaringly ignorant. Not only in your total misunderstanding of the Big Bang, but your apparent ignorance of the fact that over 99.99% of biologists accept evolution as obvious.
You guys do know that God made evolution LOOK real just to test our faith, right? :/sarcasm
Umm, round objects in space are created naturally by the force of gravity. Try educationg yourself a little before making a stupid comment. Unless you don't believe in the theory of gravity...
Well, jdk, gravity is not a fact, but just a theory, like evolution. /sarcasm
Luckily folks like Tim are there to counter evolution. It makes so much more sense that a couple of people, sitting around in a garden, eating apples and talking to snakes were the start of humankind.
Later the creator of the universe, surreptitiously impregnated Mary, she had a miracle baby, and if you don't believe he died for your sins then you are going to burn in hell.
Thanks Tim!
Lets look at both sides.
1. a couple of people, sitting around in a garden, eating apples and talking to snakes were the start of humankind.Later the creator of the universe, surreptitiously impregnated Mary, she had a miracle baby, and if you don't believe he died for your sins then you are going to burn in hell.
2. There was a big explosion, then organisms miraculously evolved from a rock, which then turned into small animals, which then turned into monkeys, that finally turned into walking talking humans.
Both are great stories and since you have already experienced death and the crossing over to the other side, I'm glad both of you are here to teach the rest of us.(sarcasm)
Name one flaw in it, Tim. Go ahead.
Kayner -
You forgot a few things:
1) The universe was a collision of the great Earth and Sky. The titan Chronos was born of this collision, as was his sister. They mated and had the 6 high gods: Zeus, Poseiden, Hades, Hera, Demeter, and Hestia.
Many eons later, after the death of Chronos created the seas and the dominions were divided amongst the gods, Zeus formed the first couple out of clay and breathed life into them.
I'm pretty sure there's some things about Zeus being a golden shower to impregnate women, Athena popping out of his head fully formed, Hades capturing Demeter's daughter, and a whole host of other stories around that.
The thing is, we have just as much proof that those myths took place as we do of the ones in the Bible.
2) The world started with a cow and an ice giant. The cow saw a large block of ice, and started to lick it for sustenance (supposedly it was sea ice w/ salt in it). The cow licked it until the ice giant trapped inside emerged, and the giant sustained itself with the milk of the cow. The milk somehow became stars, and the Earth and Time came together somehow to make the first god, Odin All-Father.
Odin did a lot of crazy things, including hanging himself from the great tree Yggdrasil for a long time to gain the wisdom of the dead, putting out his own eye in exchange for more wisdom, fathering multiple hosts of gods, and creating Valhalla, the warrior's paradise. He also helped form the moon and the sun, which are chariots driven by his son and daughter respectively. He gave life to Loki, arguably the devil of the Norse. Many adventures were had by him and his cohorts, and it's all going to end in an apocalypse known as Ragnarok, which has been foretold.
So, please Kayner, please, explain to me just how you know that your particular myth is correct, while these others are lies.
Note: any reference to the Bible saying that it is the word of god is discounted, as all myths claim they have the word of god, and no particular reason is evident to trust your book while discounting all others without external proof. Also, note that contemporary historians did not write of or make mention of Jesus, that all the stories of Jesus coincide almost identically with a historical figure that lived approximately three centuries before him, that all stories in the Pentateuch are swiped from other religions including the Book of the Dead, the Book of the Sun, the prophecies of ancient Egypt, the story of Gilgamesh, and a few others, that your Bible actually starts out by claiming that their god is not the only god, and many, many other things of which you are probably totally ignorant.
So now, would you like to point out to me why I should give your drivel special consideration over any other?
The closer you are to the facts the more likely you are to accept evolution as true.
According to a 2009 Pew study, 32% of Americans believe in evolution. That number jumps to 97% for all scientists (including fields unrelated to biology). In a separate study from 1987, among life scientists and earth scientists, 99.85+ % believe evolution is true. The sample size on that last study was about 480,000.
Evolution is science, while creationism is not, for several reasons
1. A scientific theory must make clear and testable predictions. Creationism just says "God created everything. End of story." As an analogy, creationism is like saying the Bubonic Plague was because God was angry. Evolution is like saying the Bubonic Plague was caused by a bacterium or virus according to germ theory. By the way, we know what caused the plague thanks to DNA testing.
2. A scientific theory must be falsifiable. The idea that the Bubonic Plague was caused by God's wrath is not falsifiable. If there is nothing that can speak in favor of something, there is nothing that can speak against it. That statement is an easy one to prove in mathematics.
3. Nothing is science, or this universe, can really be *proved*. In science, a theory is accepted by how well it's predictions fit real world data. That's why quantum mechanics was such a big deal when it was first developed. However, evidence which is able to falsify a theory must not do so for the theory to be valid. There's no repostulating what would falsify a theory. Generally what can falsify a theory is very fundamental.
Evolution makes huge and sweeping predictions. The evidence with which we may measure against those predictions is overwhelming. For example, the fossil of a single species out of chronological order (homo sapiens fossils in the Triassic period, for example) would falsify evolution. To date, nothing has ever contradicted evolution. DNA evidence is perhaps the most ground breaking and irrefutable support in favor of evolution. It suggested the method of evolution (genes passed to offspring). All major predictions are unequivocally supported by the ponderous empirical data available as well as more recent scientific discoveries.
In order to throw out a scientific theory, you have to show that the current one is falsified by evidence. To supersede a theory, you have to show that a new one works better. Relativity superseded Newtonian mechanics because the latter was mostly right, but not completely so. But for speeds much less than that of light, Relativity and Newtonian mechanics are exactly the same. For creationism to usurp evolution, we would need to have empirical evidence that suggests evolution doesn't fit the data and creationism would have to make the same predictions evolution does that are correct, and make more accurate predictions for where evolution hypothetically wouldn't fit the data. Creationism, however, makes no predictions. Intelligent design doesn't, either.
Noah R -
Great post, but there's even more philosophical reason to trust science over religion:
Science changes when new evidence is presented. Theories get refined or disproven based on what comes to light. As you said, Newtonian mechanics was mostly overridden by relativity (at least for the really fast, massive, and large scales). Newtonian mechanics is still taught today because it is less cumbersome to understand and works very well at predicting forces, velocities, mass interactions, etc. We went to the moon based on Newtonian mechanics because the calculations were cleaner and easier to understand. However, even at those relatively low speeds (compared to the speed of light), there were measurable relativistic effects (those were later confirmed using low orbit flights).
But, religion will not change. It will try to do one of three things:
1) Dismiss any facts that may disprove it or at least that it gets wrong. You get this with many people who discount all evidence pointing to evolution. You frequently see this type of doctrine amongst flat-earthers, young-earth creationists, and fundamentalists. They've made up their minds that their book is right, therefore all other books in the world are wrong unless they talk about how right their book is.
2) Attempt to change the facts to fit their worldview. This involves reinterpretation of the facts to go in their viewpoint. Irreducible complexity comes to mind as the latest and greatest of these hoaxes. Often times, otherwise-respectable scientists will attempt to create or change the facts in order to make it fit into their holy worldview, rather than changing their worldview to fit the facts. As I stated, irreducible complexity is the idea that some systems are so interlinked that they must have been formed whole and complete, and without any one part, the entire thing would fail and be evolutionarily disadvantageous. Of course, they choose to ignore all the mechanisms that have been proposed (and in some cases, traced through fossils, DNA, and other related organisms), in favor of pandering to their base. This is why "Intelligent" Design is nothing more than dressed-up creationism, and should not be taught in schools. It's more of the God-of-the-Gaps hypothesis, wherein the gaps keep on shrinking so it gets harder and harder to find a place where god could hide.
3) Reinterpretation of the worldview to fit the facts. This is one of the more modern methods of theology, wherein a fairly vague passage of the holy book is reinterpreted in light of new evidence, but the underlying message is left intact. At least, that seems to be the idea. Of course, anyone can tell you that 2 sentences in the Quran have absolutely no chance in hell of accurately describing fetal development, for instance. But there are people who try to make it fit. Square peg, round hole, and instead of a crossbreed, you end up with a giant poofball that blows away at the slightest scrutiny. Of course, they attempt to use these passages to prove the authenticity of their holy books, claiming that nobody at the time could have had such knowledge. This brand seems to be gaining in popularity amongst Muslims, recently. For instance, they say that the Quran revealed that the Earth is round and that the Moon reflects light from the Sun, and that nobody knew this at the time, therefore the Quran is clearly inspired by divine revelation and therefore the true holy book. Nevermind the works of ancient Greek and Indian scientists that actually discovered these principles centuries before that book was written. You're not supposed to pay attention to that, just accept what they have told you and move on to becoming a good Christian, Muslim, Hindu, what-have-you.
All in all, religion (and the religious) are very concerned with shutting down the critical mind, that which seeks new knowledge through experimentation and bias removal. Because they are afraid, and understandably so, but also because they have power under the current system, and they refuse to give it up. What matters it to them that a priest/preacher/cleric has greater power over their lives? At least they can go after the atheists and gays and whoever else in order to satisfy their instilled bloodlust and out-group hatred instincts.
Propaganda. Should we normalize all deviant behavior so that the practitioners can feel less stressed out? I'm sure Sandusky is feeling stressed right about now, that doesn't mean we should work to "understand" him and give him social/legal/financial benefits to support his lifestyle.
Yes, if they aren't hurting anyone, we should leave them alone and let them leive their life as stress-free as possible. Obviously, Sandusky was huritng people, even children, and your attempt to equate this to loving adult relationships is just a measure of your hatred and intolerance.
There is a vast chasm of difference between "leaving someone alone" and reorganizing social/legal institutions to allow for all manner of benefits to be conferred upon gays. They do not deserve a single benefit for their choice of lifestyle.
Why do gays in anyway not deserve the same rights as every other adult. to marry the person they love as long as it is a consenting adult. We aren't asking anything other than to be equal why is it so important to you that a portion of this country be less of a person than you?
Claiming Sandusky is representative of gay people is like saying a guy who has sex with 10 year old girls is representative of straight people. Most reputable studies show no higher (indeed often lower) a rate of pedophilia in the gay population compared to straight people (on a per capita basis even).
Pedophiles are criminals, and have very little in common with one's sexuality. Don't let the truth get in your way though...
On what planet is consenting, loving sexual behavior akin to child rape? And exactly what constitutes "deviant" behavior? Do you decide what is deviant and what isn't? I think two people meeting, falling in love and pledging their lives to one another is anything but deviant, it's standard.
However, hate driven by fear IS deviant behavior. Certainly deviates from anything I'm used to or would stand by and allow in my life.
What deviant behavior? Two consenting ADULTS who love one another and want to be married and pay taxes and all the stuff the rest of us married folks do? What is deviant about that?
You have one hell of a nerve to compare what Jerry Sandusky did to victimize young, helpless CHILDREN to what goes on between to consenting ADULTS. You are sick.
If we choose not to "confer benefits" to gays because of their "crime" (what a crock), I assume we will then refund all homosexuals all tax dollars they have paid. After all, they aren't entitled to live like the rest of us so why should they pay taxes like the married straight folk?
What gay people deserve is exactly what the rest of us enjoy...the RIGHT to marry the person we want, the right to raise children, the right to collect benefits. They are people, plain and simple, just like everyone else and they deserve the same rights as everyone else. Some people are so damn backwards in this country that it scares me.
JS wrote ".the RIGHT to marry the person we want, the right to raise children, the right to collect benefits."
You do realize that even so-called straight people also don't have the right to marry any person they want, particularly siblings , first cousins, parents and grandparents. Two brothers with no homosexual tendencies are not allowed to marry for the purpose of raising children.
How does marriage confer the right to raise children? 40% of US children are born to unwed mothers.
As for collecting benefits, what are you talking about?
Not a big fan of science, are you SV?
And here's another argument, along with scientific proof, for marriage equality.
zj Morphine Carnival banned, rereg of multiple accounter Morphine Carnival/l/.
Debraky banned, antigay slurring + personal attacks all over their first several comments. Flameout.
20, 21 deleted, derails about Marcus Bachmann and Republicans from RealAmericanValues and Indigo Halo
~hile hitler blonde haired blue eyed children of nazi ...america? wait...pRoPaGaNa in ~My? country!!! i was born here! wWwWwHat hAhAhAhappened to you miss america?
I can't wait until Morphine is banned... again. I really think this guy should be on an FBI watch list. He's the type that will hurt someone based upon his warped sense of "reality" that is so disconnected from anything resembling such.
Get a clue buddy, NOBODY reads your crap because it is unbearably unstable and an affront to the English language. I doubt you are even capable of forming one coherent post.
hee hee hee~ gRuMMble DEE dee GrUmMblE dee dU somebody reads me
and it all starts with...You.they actually fit ads between our comments now? ...whata suck~>
so ~ you figure you can squeeze me out huh~ cutt in to my rig eh~ divy up the earnings eiy~ well see not on my watch see! i won't be bullied by some purple fink see not on your life see
and i meant to put 2 ll in actuality to commemorate 911...because that's how i roll!
sO wHy dOn't yOu maKe lyKe a thOught...and pOp! (*#)
in actuallity...everybody comes to me! attempts to knock ~Me off the heights of creativity and understanding.
not the other way. i write! ...people read... and that's it...
i'm the guy that gives up the gold...not you~ you can't even handle it babe
and i don't make personal attacks on other users! my attacks are clean and straight to the heart.
i do it the way it's gonna be done son~ that's why i'ma pro and you my hoe
now i recommend you go tend to my garden before i put you away
i want you to try an experiment...but only for the perverts.
if you usually look up gay porn on a regular basis, i want you to switch to overweight heterosexual porn for two weeks! you will notice that you become more accustomed to seeing full figured women rather than your typical male genitalia and furry leathery bodies.
~try it. i want you to understand how attraction works!
it is effects from conditioning in your life that makes that chemical reaction. not a birth defect.
sexuality is habitual...it can be broken any way you wanna make it crumble if you have any will power whatsoever. which in a self serving convenience based society...everything is basically spelled out what they want you to think and choose.
every behavior is a customisable learned reflex sometimes from a memory so far back...you just don't really remember anymore...what lead you to these footsteps at your own front door. let's face it,,,in the world and the condition it's in...you don't exert any of your natural instincts whatsoever...you almost have no concept of survival.
Homos can't get married! Doesn't exist!
Homosexuality is unnatural, immoral, sinful.
Marriage is a man-made construct. You don't get to pick someone else's morality--only your own and only so far as you don't hurt another individual. SSM doesn't hurt anyone and evidence is mounting that it helps the family unit.
As far as whether same sex marriage exists or doesn't exist, Massachusetts, Iowa, New York, Connecticut, D.C., New Hampshire, Vermont Argentina, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Mexico City say it does. I find it interesting that the majority of foreign countries that support SSM have a state-sponsored religion whereas the United States does not. The US is not a theocracy.
Yeah, because if you stick your head in the sand and your nose in your Bible, it'll all just go away, right?
Wake up, you aren't the only one here.
Lord help us. I hope you haven procreated Lonesome. That is far scarier than what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom.
Really? You've got a few hundred thousand homosexuals to explain that to, as they have ALREADY BEEN MARRIED. Homosexual marriage is FAR more moral than heterosexual divorce. If you have an issue protecting marriage, START THERE.
As for sinful, being wantonly ignorant is a far more egregious sin than gay marriage.
"Homosexual marriage is FAR more moral than heterosexual divorce." lol right!
How is divorce "immoral"? It's sad when marriages end, but it is sometimes for the better.
I also think there is nothing wrong with gay marriage.
Instead of "immoral" maybe we should state that divorce already deviates from the strict biblical definition of marriage far more than gay marriage does.
Don't you know that anytime you speak your opinion against ANYTHING gay your comment is deleted on this site, or "collapsed" by the "community?" probably because the moderator is in the 1.7 percent of the population that's gay and they look for for their own.
Yeah Timothy, you got that right. Now go put on your foil hat and play nice.
I have had my very pro-gay rights postings collapsed before and even deleted because I stated something negative when I shouldn't have. It's a fine line.
Hell, even ErinNJ was suspended for mocking you above. Have you been suspended yet by the moderator on this story?
MARRIAGE how can that be? Two gay men/women can't pro create.
Neither can the elderly or the sterile, yet we allow them to get married.
Forgive me if I've forgotten but WHERE within the marriage vows does "promise to procreate" fall? I mean my husband has had a vasectomy so does this mean I should divorce him since he cannot procreate and therefore our marriage is a sham? If only STUPID PEOPLE together would render each other sterile the world would be a better place.
Since no state in the US requires proof of either the intent or ability to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license, your question is invalid. The infertile, elderly people, and those who do not wish to have children are all allowed to marry in this country, since legal marriage in the US is strictly a civil contract.
To sum up: procreation is not required for marriage, and vice versa.
I suppose we shouldn't let women who have gone through menopause get married, right Post?
Gee, I wonder why he hasn't answered these questions...
I wonder why people keep trying to argue that procreation is a requirement for marriage, since that claim is so easily refuted.
because they are dopes that's why.
Erm, that was mostly rhetorical.
gay marriagewas a christian right and prevalent in MANY MANY civilizations before the catholics/english murdered them and took their culture. Convenient you want to only 'go back' to the laws/time you agree with and not back BEFORE that and argue we should use THOSE words. They were around before the english.
Actually the words surrounding marriage (wife, husband, married) stems from the French, not the english.
alwaysanother .. in your zeal to denigrate Erin, you have totally failed to answer her question. If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then why do we permit marriage for those who are unable to reproduce? Even if society didn't want to be intrusive and demand proof that a young couple are capable of having children, it would be a simple matter to deny marriage to those who are, say, 65+ years old.
Actually, your “explanations” are nothing more than whatever data you continuously pull from your ass. Civil marriage predates organized religion by several thousand years; there were provisions and rules regarding marriage found in Hammurabi’s Code, which predates the bible. Furthermore, same-sex marriage was legal in several ancient civilizations: China, Greece, and Rome. Marriage was regarded as a business arrangement whereby families and wealth could be joined; apparently love and attraction had nothing to do with marriage at its inception, and well into the Common Era.
Here is some accurate information regarding the word “homophobia” (contrary to your claim that it is an “old English word”):
homophobia
noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality
Origin:
1955–60; homo(sexual) + -phobia
WRONG AGAIN:
Again: if you had done even a minimum amount of research BEFORE posting, you could have found this information, too. But why let facts get in the way of your ignorance and bigotry?
Actually, marriage has been redefined countless times since this country’s inception. And you are again claiming to “know” why a word was invented, and what its purpose has been? Have you been here since the beginning of time that you “know” all this?
And gays don’t care about the acceptance of you and your ilk; they just want equal rights, and as taxpaying citizens of this country they are entitled to it – we heterosexuals do not own any English words, as you seem to think.
you "logic"-pushing atheists are idiots.
kasparov is jewish and was chess champion of the world for a number of years.
you atheists keep disrespecting the beliefs of your own members of the human species.
please show me a double-blind, randomized study showing how atheism magically turns you into a logical, smarter, more wealthy individual.
get off your high horse, because you're basically saying, "i'm better than you are," while sticking your tongue out. prove your credentials, show your achievements, instead of being christian-hating hypocrites.
I'll stop being a "christian hating hypocrite" as you put it, when christians stop trying to force their "morals" on me and trying to legislate how I should live MY life according to their rules!
Funny Upurass - I don't recall doing that to you. Can you remind me of when I pushed my views on you last?
brownsmith- I'm trying to figure out how Atheism relates to the topic of this thread, that marriage boosts gay men's health. Nothing in your post relates to the article.
Kayner, name-calling not needed. Some Christians do push their version of morality on other people. Evangelicals (used to be called the "Moral Majority"), for instance, who keep pulling the Republican party further and further to the right making it almost impossible for a moderate to have a worthy candidate for whom to vote. The Prop 8 campaign was a product of some Christians (i.e., Mormons) organizing to push their agenda to legislate the denial of civil rights. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, to use a cliche.
Just a slight technicality here - I don't see how referring to someone who chose "Up Uranus" as a screen name as "Upurass" as name-calling.
Jenn, I understand that many Republican'ts are Christians, just like many are not. I understand that many Democraps are athiests, just as many are not. It comes down to people that are too ignorant to make their own decisions, and these sterotypes that the bible thumpers and bible bashers like to throw onto each other do nothing more for our country than what the can'ts, craps, and baggers do.
Agreed Jason
Sorry Smith, but fact is fact. If you don't like science, feel free to turn off the devil machine your keyboard is attached to.
I am shocked we wasted our tax dollars for such a stupid study like this one and so many other like it. Who give a rats rearend if this is true or not. We have to stop this carless spending on studies to keep the colleges with lots of cash.
Jeff ... where did the article say anything about tax dollars being used in the study? You do realize that Columbia is a private, well-endowed college. Don't you?
Have you forgotten that Uranus is a planet? And it happens to be my favorite planet.
I never understood the 'logic' that christians are encouraged to 'harass' gays for their, perceived, choice and that is ok, but NO ONE can 'harass' them for their REAL ACTUAL choice to be christian, and then they exercise ANOTHER choice to go out and 'harass' others for living their lives.
I have nvr heard of marriage translating into improved physical health, and have not observed it either.
Your anecdotal "evidence" is a fallacy. Double blind studies done on a large number of subjects ARE evidence.
There's tons of studies on this. A ten-second search on Google scholar yields this study, for instance, which suggests that getting married may be as beneficial to your health as giving up smoking:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=735205
Gay marriage hasn't been legalized long enough to make this determination.
Did you read the article or do you even care what the evidence shows because it does not fit within your mindset? 7 years is plenty of time to make this conclusion.
Sounds like the marriage propagandists are getting desperate.
Step right up and lose your S$#t
Of course they're getting desperate. Don't Ask, Don't Tell just got dissolved by a democratic vote right before their eyes. That was the last bastion to fall before the Defense of Marriage Act gets crushed, and they see America putting DOMA in its sights next.
Why does a permanent union of gay people have to be called marriage? Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the definition of the word. If the gay community came up with their own word for this union there would be a lot less grief and heartache. How about "melding" or "fusion of souls". I'm sure the creative gay community can come up with something. The overthrowing of "marriage" is the attempt at a community to overthrow an established social union. So far it looks like they don't want a legalized union...they want to over throw and shove their rights down everyone's throats hoping that the embracing of this term will make it acceptable and okay in everyone's eyes. If they got their own word and began to rewrite the laws using it as something new I'm sure they would spend a lot less money on their agenda and it would be accepted much faster. Do they want their rights or do they want to make a point?
We want our rights. Separate but equal does not mean equal. Marriage is a word and in any language words and their meanings change. The word nor the language doesn't belong to religion or straight people, it belongs to everyone.
No. Gay people just want the same rights as everyone else. Look definitions of social institutions change all the time. It wasn't that long ago that interracial marriage wasn't acceptable.
Two homosexuals getting married harms no one. And I dare you to prove otherwise.
If you are tired of wasting time on this issue, I have a suggestion: Get out of the way of progress. You and your ilk will be seen as on the wrong side of history in the decades to come. Not a side I'd want to be on.
triptoe - FR sent btw
Who defined marriage as being between a man and a woman? The dictionary I used (Webster's) defines it thusly (below). Most of us also know "marriage" can mean the joining of many things (marriage of words & music is a song, a marriage of ideas, etc.) Marriage is not the holy, man+woman=right equation that anti-gays make it out to be.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
Who gave YOU ownership of the word "marriage"?
They just want to make a point so someone pays attention to them since their mom or dad did not.
MR2Kuhl: "They just want to make a point so someone pays attention to them since their mom or dad did not."
Isn't that exactly what YOU are doing? If not, then don't assume the same of others. That is not how homosexuality develops, and what difference would it make if it were? It seems a sorry excuse to take someone's rights away.
Because marriage started off as a secular arrangement before the advent of religion.
wombat51, it needs to be called marriage because if you call it anything else (such as civil union) then you can change the benefits for gay couples without changing the benefits for straight married couples. That wouldn't give gay married couples the same rights. Your church doesn't have to perform gay marriages if they don't want to.
Really? Then why do virtually all the state constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage also ban "civil unions"? Apparently, even when the word "marriage" isn't used to describe a secular union between two person of the same sex, the anti-gay crowd becomes apoplectic. It is a fallacy to claim that if only gays didn't want "marriage", then everyone would get along just fine. The christo-taliban will NEVER accept equal rights for gays.
Because is you call it something else...it is something else.
Which only shows the inequality of marriage between heterosexuals and homosexual couples.
Gay marriage has existed and been rrecognized in many cultures and societies, both past and present. You don't get to determine what the word marriage is used for!
That coming from someone who ignores facts in favor of your own opinions! Good one.
How would gay marriage possibly "destroy American customs and life?" Your rants are sounding more ludicrous and paranoid with each post!
The beautiful thing about words and language is that they change with the times, evolve with society. Definitions change. This month, more than ever, we are reminded by Christmas carols to be "merry and gay."
I thought the churches had the right to marry anyone they wanted to and call it what they wanted to, or is that only for churches that agree with your stance?
So freedom of religion, but only yours?
Why?
Then don’t read these threads. I will continue to post factual data to refute the misinformation and lies spread by you and your ilk.
And again you are claiming to know why a word was coined, and its purpose. Who are YOU to make such claims? You clearly know nothing about history, as your lack of research has proven; and you don’t even have a passing knowledge of factual data.
I asked my bigoted stepfather a couple of years ago HOW EXACTLY a homosexual marriage directly impacted him. I'm STILL waiting for a logical answer.
Please do not hold your breath. Clearly, homosexual marriage has ZERO impact on my marriage or anyone else's.
Wrong. Period. Zero is a bold statement. Obviously it has an impact, I try to teach my kids the basics and not tell them to much because it can be confusing if you say to much to a little one. Having a gay couple move in next door to us would have an impact because I would have to explain to them what "gay" is and why the gay dudes dont like women. That is just one example from someone that has little, for lack of a better word, tolerance or understanding, for gays.
That being said, try to understand your father's view, since he has probably "Zero tolerance" for gays. He may be a bigot for his views but you to are a bigot for your views of gays having just as many rights of the non-gays. Just because you believe gays should have all the rights as other people does not mean that everyone should have that view also. This is why being gay should not be debated or paraded around town; do you see straight people with rallies or parades saying embrace your straightness, LOL. Gay pride, pfffff
FYI, A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
For you to say Zero, is adolescent.
What a newsflash!!!????? Ummm duh, marriage helps any man's health, gay or straight.
Even if your argument about the potential gay neighbors forcing you to explain homosexuality to your kid was plausible, how does that gay marriage affect YOUR MARRIAGE? I stand by my statement. Gay marriage has ZERO impact on my marriage. Does two people, any two people, being married to one another have anything to do with MY marriage? With YOUR marriage? My marriage is between two people and only two people...me and my husband. What you do or what my neighbors do or what two guys / girls in some other town do has no bearing whatsoever on my marriage.
So by your logic, a person who thinks racists are ignorant are themselves bigots. Of course, that makes no sense.
Racists are ignorant, as well are homophobic people. It is not bigoted to point out those facts.
Bigoted people judge based on unfounded prejudices--a racist thinks black people are inferior intellectually or a homophobe thinks gay men are moral monsters. Meanwhile, a person who calls a racist or a homophobe ignorant is just pointing out a basic fact. It is ignorant to judge a person based on their biology and not their actions.
So yes JS and I are being judgmental, but our judgments are based on facts, not prejudice. There is the difference and why you're wrong to call people like us bigots.
NR2Kuhl: "Having a gay couple move in next door to us would have an impact because I would have to explain to them what "gay" is"
Yes, you have to explain the real world to your children, but you can't change the real world just to avoid having to talk to your kids. And on this issue, kids are often better able to deal with the real world than adults are.
My kid has always known every kid has a "different" type of family, some kids have a mom & dad, some have just one or the other, some live with grandparents, some have two moms or two dads. And she has never cared about it one bit nor have I ever had to sit down and explain to her "why little Billy's dads don't like ladies". Kids are not so fragile as we think as long as we don't pollute them with hate in the beginning.
NR2Kuhl, why would you need to explain it to your kids? If they are old enough to ask, they should be told the truth. Simply tell them your neighbors are not attracted to women or they fell in love with each other. In case you are not aware of it, gay men do not hate women! They simply do not find the female form sexually stimulating. Not all men find the same female form sexually stimulating either so who is to say what is the right one? Different cultures like different things so why does each person have to find the same thing attractive? Isn't it really more important that each person truly fall in love with one person and be able to marry that person and live with that person in joy and happiness? Seems like a lot of hetro couples can't manage that. The divorce rate is obscene and men and women bed hope like it is an Olympic sport now. Why is your happiness dependent on someone else's misery? Just because you find a gay couple's PDA's upsetting does not mean others do and there are many times a hetro couple's PDA is beyond disgusting! Maybe the biggest issue is teaching your child that minding one's own business, not nosing around in someone else's bedroom and sex life is really proper behavior and teaching them kindness to all is really more important that worrying about who marries who.
According to that logic, it would impact you if a Hassadic family moved in next door because you'd have to explain their manner of dress if your kids asked. So, is that reason enough to deny them their equal rights?
The real issue here is whether people should have equal rights without respect to their socio-economic status, creed, religion, nationality or more generally any difference that can exist between two people. I think everyone would agree that everyone should be granted a right that does not harm or hurt another person and that these rights belong to everyone, rather than any given group or individual.
Conservative apologists argue that gay marriage degrades the moral fabric society (whatever that is), makes it harder to shelter children, etc. ad infinitum. To be fair I'm not well versed on arguments for this side, but more on that in a second.
Gay-rights advocates make their case pretty clear: they want equal rights.
I feel that to restrict the right of another group or an individual, but burden of proof must rest on those who seek to restrict that right. I feel that anyone can give a convincing argument as to why graft, or insider trading, should be illegal. However, I've never heard a grounded and convincing argument in favor of restricting gay marriage. I've heard things ranging from "that's not in the bible" to "we'll have fewer natural disasters because gay marriage invokes God's wrath." Almost all of the examples I've heard have stemmed from religious texts. None have been based in science and in fact, there's a correlation between those who are adamant against gay marriage and a rejection of science altogether. The same science, of course, that gives us every bit of technology we have today and every bit of useful knowledge we have about our world.
If gay marriage really were something that was destructive, I'd be against it. However, none of the arguments I've heard have been anything but weak and most reek of homophobia. I have to concede that efforts to curb gay marriage appear as thinly veiled religious agenda.
He's probably afraid that the entire world will turn gay (I know it sounds crazy but some people actually believe that), which means a world full of nothing but gay couples also would mean no more offspring, which would eventually lead to the extinction of the human species. THAT'S what some people actually believe and THAT is what they have been taught. I know it sounds crazy to anyone who knows that most human beings are born heterosexual and only a small minority are born gay. . .but SOME people actually believe everyone will turn gay if gays are given the "okay" by society.
Straights dont need parades, they already parade around with their wedding rings, wedding announcement in the newspapers, picture of their families at work, talking about their families......and on and on. Nice hourly parade you have daily!!
They're the same people who are projecting their struggles with their own sexuality onto other people. People who are confident in their sexual identity have no such fears.
Quote: "There weren't enough lesbians in the study to determine legalized marriage's impact on their health".
In every jurisdiction that has legalized same-sex marriage, there are far more lesbian couples who marry than gay men. Certainly, there was no shortage of lesbian couples that could have been included in this study. Straight or gay - women's health issues are too often ignored by researchers. In the end, it always comes down to money & priorities, I suppose.
Just guessing here but since they took the information from a single clinic, perhaps that particular clinic does not have enough lsebian couples to be statistically significant?
Homosexual marriage, Sheep lovers marriage, Duck lovers marriage, Nambla marriages....
None of that has a direct effect on me
No, but freedom affects you, and if we start limiting the freedoms of people who are not hurting anyone, when will it stop?
Well I would like to know who gets to stay home and watch Oprah and who has to go out to work if it is a
Adam & Steve couple instead of Adam & Eve?
So what you're saying, post613, is that women stay home and watch Oprah and men go out and work in heterosexual marriages.
Wow, I had no idea this was how people who didn't go to college still lived. In the world of educated folks, women get to work too. CRAZY.
and Cain and Able and Seth. no girls? hmmm, maybe there was a Steve and maybe he just wasn't written about. Maybe they all had sex with Eve. Either way this whole Adam and Eve crap is incest at the core.
I remember the way my Sunday School teacher squirmed when a kid brought up the question of Cain and Able and no women. Like a bad screenwriter, the authors of Genesis really worked themselves into a corner.
Luckily the kid you mentioned did not live during the 600 year Inquisitions or he would have been sent to a dungeon never to be seen again.
The Genesis Creation story is mostly for people who don't believe in Evolution. The Bible's "Genesis" really is an explanation on why a loving "God" would create this less than perfect world where disease, pain, sorrow, loss of loved ones, so on, exist. Why would a loving God purposely place human-kind in this less than perfect world? Genesis tries to explain that "God" would not do this; it is human-kind's fault that we no longer live in the perfect "Garden of Eden" paradise God supposedly created in the beginning. Of course we now know that death has always existed, way way before human beings came into the picture. It wasn't "Adam & Eve's" first "sin" that brought about the less than perfect world we live in; there have always been things such as death and disease and other "imperfect world" things. The question now should be "Why would a loving "God" place human beings and all other living things in such an imperfect world where death, disease and other less-than-paradise-things have always existed since the beginning, even before the first human beings were around to commit "sin"?
This is up there with human-primate head transplants as far as studies go. Does this really matter? Isn't there a better way to use money than nutritional diets of gay men? Does the American Journal of Public Health have so much concern over this, as well as the Columbia researchers, that the real problems worth investigating get thrown into next years basket of "to-do's"? No problem with gay or lesbian, post-partum, post-surgical (or the GLTB spectrum - did I forget someone?) that this requires serious attention. Yes, gay men are stereotyped as being muscle-bound nutritional fetishists, however most of the folks I know seem to be regular guys, liking their beer and wings, with sides of fries and onion rings. This is a ridiculous study. If you have all this money, look at kids. Look at their nutritional intake. If Congress, or the Senate, or whichever moronic governmental body it was, couldn't figure out if pizza was to be classified as a vegetable, spend your money CT scanning these idiots, and an MRI (more expensive but more revealing). Kinda like "what do you mean by 'is'"?
Why even study this to begin with?
1) Risk assessment for insurance companies.
2) Public health, for recommendations and understanding societal trends.
3) Personal interest, I find it interesting.
4) The positive role it plays in promotion of equal rights.
Those are just the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
I bet you were one of those kids that asked the math teacher, "Why do I need to learn Algebra?"