Gay Marriage

[LemmingofGlory]

1 I already stated that the "agreement" of healthcare proffessionals etc. is just an opinion. It is unwise to use that as an arguement as large organizations have a history of being just as biased as individuals.

My point is that the professionals who deal with this stuff have jargon for it. Their jargon may differ from the jargon of laymen. So, let's make sure we're all on the same page with jargon use. And if we can agree to the same criteria for "mental illness," then all the better.

2 I consider it to fit the definition because I consider male/male sexual attraction to a "diruption in the ability to relate to others".

Then I assume you also consider female/female attraction along the same lines. (Just bringing that up for completeness.) Again, I ask you to illustrate how it fits that description, and why male/female sexual attraction is not considered a "disruption in the ability to relate to others." That is, if a male attracted to males experiences a disruption in his ability to relate to other males, doesn't a male attracted to females experience that same disruption in his ability to relate to females?

What is your opinion regarding attraction intersexed people feel toward other human beings?

I consider marrige important mainly because promotes the nurture of children. I consider all other positive aspects to actually be inducements(perhaps at level evolutionary biology) to good child care.

Well, I don't see that same-sex marriage would change that. Myself, I see marriage as a legal agreement between two people. "Legal" takes all the touchy-feely stuff out of it, but as far as I can tell, that's what it is in the eyes of the government. And I knowingly limit it to two people. I think promoting monogamy is a Good Thing™, and I have no problems being accused of discrimination for "discriminating against six people who want to get married." (I don't consider discrimination against "six" to be discrimination.)

So, I consider it a legal agreement between two people for the purpose of encouraging monogamous relationships. That's good from a public health standpoint (STDs), and it's good from a child care point of view (all studies I've seen say kids do better with both parents). So, why "marriage" and not "civil unions"? Given my view (first sentence of the paragraph), I don't see a need to make a distinction.

Shame on you for trying to inject race to the topic.

Look at what I wrote. I brought it up and then mocked the fact that I said it. Why? Because it's cliche. Everyone's heard that line before, and it's not really central to the argument anyway. Just look at the next paragraph: the loaded language was what I took issue with.

-Lemmy