Homosexual marriage II

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Oh? And yet:
"In the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health, the
American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of
same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities
conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same
rights, benefits, and responsibilities.”

Seems like they think there's enough data. And the American Psychological Association feels the same way. Indeed, they'd say "research has found that the factors that predict relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and relationship stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples (Kurdek, 2001, 2004)"

That is certainly not the consensus of the psychiatric branch, however.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Despite the emollience of attitudes towards homosexuality and acceptance of it in some societies, in psychology it is considered an 'understudied relationship'.

And according to those who voted against the decision in the American Psychiatric Association to change their position on homosexuality toward one favoring it, there was no new evidence that was presented on the issue. The minority who were voted down said that the decision had much more to do with politics than it had to do with science.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Also Lief, you still miss what I'm asking: I'm saying that there is nothing in our current laws that seems to have anything to do with the genders of the participants in terms of the benefits provided or the requirements, save for the explicit requirement that they be of other genders.

The gender difference between men and women is a genetics issue. There are significant genetic differences between men and women which cross the whole of the genders and should be taken into account, in our laws.

We do have a legal precedent for setting up laws banning certain kinds of relationships (not that I'm suggesting we ban homosexuality) because they are viewed to be harmful. The reasoning that they are harmful is partly based on genetics. Pedophelia is a good example. Bestiality is another. In those cases, at least part of the reasoning against those relationships is a biological, genetic part.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I'm asking what in there there is even the slightest chance of being bad for gay people. How could it be bad for them to be able to see each other on their deathbeds, to have tax deductions, to get healthcare?

I've answered you twice on this point. I don't choose to impose my opinion, which is what you're asking for. My opinion is just my own opinion, based on my interpretation of my personal experience of knowing homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians.

I don't choose to stand on the grounds of my personal experience and argue from that. That's not solid enough to convince anyone aside from me, who is not predisposed toward accepting my view based on their own personal experience or other sources of evidence. So humbug personal opinions and experiences- because that's what you're asking me to get into. I want data about this genetically different kind of relationship. Our government should have data about it before it makes it, under law, equivalent to heterosexual relationships.

I know that you don't personally see any possible way in which homosexuals could be harmed by marriage laws made for heterosexual relationships. That's your opinion. And mine is different. And it's all just opinion. We need evidence to inform our society's answer on this issue as it is made, and we don't have it. That is why we need studies.