Illinois passes same sex marriage bill

[barts61]

Perhaps this analogy will help. Consider smoking. As an activity it is generally recognized to be harmful to those who do it and to those around them. But most societies tolerate smoking, with certain restrictions. Now suppose all those smokers got it into their heads that they were going to take a page from the gay playbook and form a “Smokers Rights” campaign. Suppose they began to lobby for “full equality” with non-smokers. Suppose they held “Smoker Pride” marches, and insisted that smoking stop being looked down upon. Most people would think they were way out of line. Yet isn’t that just what the gay pride movement is all about? If Bob and Andy can put up with having to go outside their workplace to smoke in the winter, like second class citizens, why can’t they put up with accepting that society does not want to condone their gay sex behavior either? Why are smokers able to put up with the enormous imposition that society places on their activities, as you claim that denying marriage rights to same sex couples would do? It seems that smokers are able to put up with a lot more inconvenience than gay people. Why is that?

That’s a poor analogy. The two are not comparable.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s a poor analogy. The two are not comparable.

I explained how they are similar.

 

[signit]

Perhaps this analogy will help. Consider smoking. As an activity it is generally recognized to be harmful to those who do it and to those around them. But most societies tolerate smoking, with certain restrictions. Now suppose all those smokers got it into their heads that they were going to take a page from the gay playbook and form a “Smokers Rights” campaign. Suppose they began to lobby for “full equality” with non-smokers. Suppose they held “Smoker Pride” marches, and insisted that smoking stop being looked down upon. Most people would think they were way out of line. Yet isn’t that just what the gay pride movement is all about? If Bob and Andy can put up with having to go outside their workplace to smoke in the winter, like second class citizens, why can’t they put up with accepting that society does not want to condone their gay sex behavior either? Why are smokers able to put up with the enormous imposition that society places on their activities, as you claim that denying marriage rights to same sex couples would do? It seems that smokers are able to put up with a lot more inconvenience than gay people. Why is that?

The best answer I can think of is that employers have something at stake for not allowing smoking in the workplace. The smoking might annoy co-workers, and the employer might not want someone going off for a smoke break every so often.

Some employers now won’t even hire employees who smoke. I can see why they might make that decision; a smoker might have more sick time and lost productivity.

That isn’t the case for the gay couple you mention. They’re not necessarily bothering the employer or the other employees by just being there (unless they’re running around harassing the other employees, which of course would be wrong).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The best answer I can think of is that employers have something at stake for not allowing smoking in the workplace. The smoking might annoy co-workers, and the employer might not want someone going off for a smoke break every so often.

Some employers now won’t even hire employees who smoke. I can see why they might make that decision; a smoker might have more sick time and lost productivity.

That isn’t the case for the gay couple you mention. They’re not necessarily bothering the employer or the other employees by just being there (unless they’re running around harassing the other employees, which of course would be wrong).

I’m not suggesting that gay people shouldn’t be hired. I am merely showing an example of another activity (like gay sex) that is tolerated by society, but with restrictions, and certainly not celebrated.

 

[DrTaffy]

“Has been in the past”? The few instances that you have cited in the ancient world and in native American tribes and elsewhere do not constitute a significant historical tradition world-wide that would be deserving of adoption by every culture.

You mean the dozens of examples spanning the entire globe and the whole of recorded history?

How many examples do you think it takes to establish that ‘marriage’ has, in the past, referred to same sex couples?

If you are arguing from the point of view of “let’s keep what we have” vs. “let’s try something different”, the same-sex marriage advocates are clearly more on the side of “let’s try something different” than those that are opposed to same-sex marriage.

No, those opposed to same sex marriage try to make the argument from tradition: that marriage has only ever meant one man and one woman, and so should not be ‘redefined’ as they put it. I merely point out that the argument from tradition is a fallacy, and that the premise is false.

It is incorrect to assume that I would only be concerned about my own children. I can be concerned about all children, whether I have children or not.

Ah, so this howwible howwible injustice to which you are being subjected is not even that your own children are being taught objective truths that you would prefer to conceal from them, but that you are not being allowed to indoctrinate other people’s children into your prejudices against homosexuals?

It is entirely

No, it is a matter of established fact that same sex relationships are socially acceptable in western society today.

Your propaganda - my propaganda - let’s not use loaded words unless the load has been established.

You mean loaded words such as you talking about gays “having to live their sinful lives without the benefit of social approval”?

You will undoubtedly claim that same-sex marriage does no harm to anyone like murders do. I would counter that while murders do great harm to a very few people, societal recognition of same-sex marriage does a smaller amount of harm to a much large group.

I could make the same claim about Catholicism. But if I wish to have society act on that claim, I need to provide objective evidence. Actually, I could probably make a better punt at supporting that claim than you could at supporting yours.

 

[DrTaffy]

Please don’t take this as a “cop out”, but if you have any evidence of Roman or Greek law defining same sex relationships as marriage…please let me know.

I have already cited many examples, and in any case you made the positive assertion that Romans never recognised same sex marriages. Are you now admitting that you based this on zero evidence?

 

[DrTaffy]

Perhaps this analogy will help. Consider smoking. As an activity it is generally recognized to be harmful to those who do it and to those around them. But most societies tolerate smoking, with certain restrictions.

But there is objective evidence that smoking, in and of itself, harms others as well as those doing it. Nor is smoking or not smoking an intrinsic, deeply embedded part of the human psyche the way sexuality and pair-bonding is.

And there is a huge difference between restricting where you can do something, and barring you from a major social institution just because you do something.

If Bob and Andy can put up with having to go outside their workplace to smoke in the winter, like second class citizens, why can’t they put up with accepting that society does not want to condone their gay sex behavior either?

Why should they? There is no objective evidence that their relationship (which I note you again try to reduce to just sex) hurts anyone. Indeed there is evidence that same sex marriage significantly improves the health and life expectancy of those involved. I’m sure Bob and Andy would accept that they should go somewhere private to indulge in the gay sex behavior that you are salivating over.

Why shouldn’t Catholics have to put up with being treated as second class citizens, by your logic? There is evidence that Catholics are more likely to commit criminal offenses than the general public, for example.

It seems that smokers are able to put up with a lot more inconvenience than gay people. Why is that?

Because there is objective evidence that their habit harms both them and those around them.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I have already cited many examples, and in any case you made the positive assertion that Romans never recognised same sex marriages. Are you now admitting that you based this on zero evidence?

The examples YOU gave were well documented forms of Roman homosexual unions. I find no evidence in Roman law defining that sort of relationship as a marriage.

If you can show me where I am wrong, Please let me know, otherwise, the FACT that no civilized culture with a written history ever defined a homosexual relationship as a marriage remains.

 

[SophiaS]

Perhaps this analogy will help. Consider smoking. As an activity it is generally recognized to be harmful to those who do it and to those around them. But most societies tolerate smoking, with certain restrictions. Now suppose all those smokers got it into their heads that they were going to take a page from the gay playbook and form a “Smokers Rights” campaign. Suppose they began to lobby for “full equality” with non-smokers. Suppose they held “Smoker Pride” marches, and insisted that smoking stop being looked down upon. Most people would think they were way out of line. Yet isn’t that just what the gay pride movement is all about? If Bob and Andy can put up with having to go outside their workplace to smoke in the winter, like second class citizens, why can’t they put up with accepting that society does not want to condone their gay sex behavior either? Why are smokers able to put up with the enormous imposition that society places on their activities, as you claim that denying marriage rights to same sex couples would do? It seems that smokers are able to put up with a lot more inconvenience than gay people. Why is that?

Oh where to start…

1. Babies are not born with a cigarette in hand and ashtray following placenta. Orientation is not a choice akin to which brand of laundry powder you buy, it is what it is. In-built. You can choose to stop smoking, you cannot choose, on an ontological level, not to be gay. So it fails there.
2. With the exception of the Catholic church and (but not necessarily the same thing) people who are afraid of gay people because they are different, society does not believe that people in gay relationships are causing harm to others. On a purely economic level marriage benefits society as it leads to more harmonious relationships. On a health level if people are allowed to be married and not forced into unhealthy and psychologically damaging celibacy or unhealthy and damaging promiscuity then gay people are likely to cost the health system significantly less.
3. Smoking is physically bad for you, it is the imposition of a chemical into your body that has psychoactive effects on the nervous system. Unless you’re going to argue that oxytocin and dopamine are comparable to a foreign chemical you have not got a point here.
4. What is this second class citizen thing? I thought Pope Francis and the dogmas of the Catholic church FORBADE treating someone like a second class citizen because they were gay. Why are you advocating this as a valid comparison?
5. Now I think of it, the idea of second hand gay being like second hand smoke is really quite amusing. “Excuse me, could you please go and be gay outside, I have to go for a meal with my wife tonight and if you carry on like this I’ll be eyeing up the waiter.”

So all in all, what you’re advocating here is that gay people should suck it up because we’re lucky enough that society ‘tolerates’ us. Thanks for that. So shall we go back to tolerating people and affording them limited rights because of biological facts they can’t change, you know, like race?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Well, if you want to look at it that way, then all women (= female humans) are also men (= humans). The English language is sometimes ambiguous with respect to sex. Latin was clearer, using homo (=human) and vir (=male human) for the two categories.

Yes. The “homo” element is from the Greek, not the Latin. You can find it in “homogeneous”, “homonym” and “homo(i)ousion”. It means “same”, not “human”.

Thanks for clearing that up. I did not want to offend lady homosexuals.

False. Infertile men and women can marry. Women past the menopause can marry. There is no fertility bar to marriage.

So, all older couples, where the woman can no longer conceive, are automatically divorced. Better let the Pope know.

I never said that infertile men and women can not marry.

A couple that doesn’t want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child.

Even a very elderly couple ( a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children (or could have in the past). and the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases.

Infertile men and women…marry. Elderly men and women…marry. Infertile homosexuals and elderly homosexuals…live together.

Marriage in general is not being redefined. Civil marriage is being redefined. Civil marriage did not exist before the state, obviously, and is defined by the laws of the state. The state has the competence to redefine civil marriage. Different states already define civil marriage differently: age limits, first cousin marriage etc. can differ.

The concept of “civil” or government recognized marriage is based on the traditional definition of marriage that existed before the state. Therefore the state is on thin ice if it begins to redefine.

Firstly…is a redefinition of civil marriage warranted?

The state is acting properly, in accordance with reason, when it bases legal systems on “warranted claims”

We can say that a claim is warranted in a number of ways – based on trustworthy authorities, through natural law, reasoning, reflection on human nature, including our embodied biological nature, human experience, as well as the lessons that come from various cultures, religions, traditions, history, and the social sciences.

With this in mind, one is certainly warranted in believing that society has an important and vital interest in preserving, promoting and defending traditional marriage and families.

The burden of establishing that homosexual unions are similarly important and in need of recognition, as well as being necessary and beneficial to the common good, as heterosexual marriage, is necessarily on those who wish to overturn these warranted claims.

The state has a duty to preserve and promote marriage as an institution that precedes the state, but the state does not have the authority to fundamentally redefine the nature of that institution. The State has the authority to enact the “rules of the road” to protect drivers. But it has no authority or power to change the laws of physics so that car
crashes will be less destructive.

If the state, nonetheless, adopts such proposals in order to further the political or social agendas of those who cannot establish such warrant, the state would be acting illegitimately, and in opposition to reason.

You were incorrect. Historically marriage has often not been “a man and a woman”. The definition of marriage is not fixed. It has changed in the past. It is changing now. It will change in the future. A lot of things change; civil marriage is one of them.
rossum

I was incorrect in that I should have said “men and women”

 

[BellsMom]

Why is there always so much focus in these discussions on gay MEN getting married and how unnatural it is for for gay MEN to have sex?

It seems that those who are anti gay marriage (or just anti homosexual activity in general) are far more offended by male homosexual activity then female.

 

[SophiaS]

Why is there always so much focus in these discussions on gay MEN getting married and how unnatural it is for for gay MEN to have sex?

It seems that those who are anti gay marriage (or just anti homosexual activity in general) are far more offended by male homosexual activity then female.

Excellent, excellent point. And one, I think, that exposes the true fears of (mostly) men who claim doctrine as their basis for opposition when in reality it’s an instinctual ‘squick’ factor at the idea of men doing something that they as men find weird. Finding something else someone does weird is not grounds for making it morally wrong, but boy people seem to be trying.

 

[josh987654321]

I have some points to raise in response to views expressed on this thread.

Okay.

“Love the sin but not the sinner.” This equates roughly to the idea that you can be gay as long as you don’t act gay i.e have sex. The problem with this attitude is it is not scriptural. Jesus clearly equates feeling angry with acting in anger, feeling lustful with acting on lust. So your hair splitting in this regard so that you can practice Christian “love” towards gay people is wrong.

I think you may have had a typo, did you mean “Love the sinner nor the sin?”

I don’t believe we are hairsplitting here, as the Church’s teachings regarding lust are for all men and women, heterosexual or homosexual, married or not. I don’t see here how it’s one rule for some and another for others in that regard, nor do I see how homosexuals would be more tempted in that regard than heterosexuals.

“A man’s private parts were not designed to go up another man’s” Nice, graphic and completely dismissive of any other means a gay person might have of being intimate with another human being other than anal sex. You are aware I hope that there are a significant minority of gay men who do not practice anal sex. This is a nice shock value point for straight men but has little practical value in debate.

I simply believe that the sexual acts of homosexuality means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for and thus it is a sinful thing to do. If they are not doing that in any way, than it’s not considered a sin, however I do believe people have to be naive to believe that same sex marriage does not publicly condone/advocate those acts.

A variety of ‘this will kill the family’ and ‘people need to reproduce.’ - This might come as a shock to some of you, but gay people are not going to naturally have children regardless of whether or not they are married. They can either not have children and kill the family while being married or they can not have children and kill the family anyway without being married. Either way they have no impact on reproductive statistics.

Marriage is associated with family, people get married to start and raise a family together, now when it comes to same sex marriage, you are right, they cannot have a child together.

When it comes to homosexual couples having their own children whether it be IVF or surrogacy (The use of a third party), do you think it is right, to intentional bring a child into this world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their biological mother or father when it is not done to benefit the child?

I believe when it comes to adoption, there is no “one size fits all.” However, I believe, that for homosexual couples to have children, it requires the removal of a third party (biological mother or father e.g. surrogacy or IVF), or both (biological parents e.g. adoption). Is this something that you think should be encouraged? The former with IVF or surrogacy I believe is gravely immoral and I at least understand that when it comes to adoption unfortunatly it happens that children need adopting, but to encourage this? is this the new family ‘norm’ society wishes to advocate?

In any case I believe for a homosexual couple to have children, it rests completely on biological parents doing the wrong thing by their children or a tragic accident/event.

I believe Children need their mother and father, I believe society should be doing all they can to help every child be raised by their healthy biological mother and father, not redefining marriage to say that ‘mother’ and ‘father’ do not matter and are interchangable (i.e. that two fathers or two mothers are just as good as or no different to a healthy biological mother and father).

This will lead to people marrying ‘insert ridiculous slippery slope here’ – No it won’t. Others have already covered this in enough detail for me to hope this will have entered your consciousness.

I believe traditional marriage has firm foundations whilst same sex marriage doesn’t. I have also found that alot of those who advocate same sex marriage, turn around the next day and say “I don’t even know why people get married at all.”

“Scripture and tradition are crystal clear.” - Actually they are not. We as humans suffer from a phenomenon called ‘confirmation bias’ that is that we read into texts the things we think support our points of view. As someone who struggles with the Church’s position I am at least aware that I have confirmation bias against it’s position, I may be incorrect. You should at least acknowledge your own bias in the readings of these texts.

Okay.

What happens when our youth are taught that the words 'husband, wife, boyfriend and girlfriend are homophobic language? - I actually have no idea where you are coming from here. Gay people use these words about their partners too. If you’re going to have a moral panic please aim it in the right direction.

I have used that one before and I don’t believe it’s aimed in the wrong direction or that I am having a moral panic. I have never seen a gay couple refer to themselves as ‘husband’ and ‘wife.’ The terms husband and wife are considered exclusive words when it comes to same sex marriage, thus it is being taught now that the appropriate terms to use should be ‘partner’ or ‘spouse’ thus keeping gender out of ‘marriage’

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

“Homosexuality among males is generally a promiscuous lifestyle.” - This makes me angry, viscerally, white hot hit the roof angry. But I am going to try to answer it calmly. I cannot for the life of me see how the Church cannot see that imposing mandatory life long celibacy and complete suppression of a person’s sexuality with no chance of discernment or choice in the matter is right and that it will be good for the person. We ask our Priests and Religious to take many years of careful spiritual discernment before we ask this of them, but when it comes to gay people it is demanded of people who are simply not called to it. With no outlet for their sexuality and the Church fighting every effort gay people make to form stable loving relationships is it any wonder that gay people resort to promiscuous lifestyles? You are giving them no other choice. Think about that for a moment.

I believe there is not one man or woman who does not suffer from an immoral desire of some kind, some more so than others in all different areas. I believe that our desires are not who we are, and that we have the ability to make that choice.

Sometimes we fall through great temptations and thus have the divine mercy of God to turn to for His graces and efficacious help.

http://s8.postimg.org/422f1cyxh/Christ_9.jpg

Diary of St Faustina -

"My Heart overflows with great mercy for souls, and especially for poor sinners. If only they could understand that I am the best of Fathers to them and that it is for them that the Blood and Water flowed from My Heart as from a fount overflowing with mercy. For them I dwell in the tabernacle as King of Mercy. I desire to bestow My graces upon souls, but they do not want to accept them. You, at least, come to Me as often as possible and take these graces they do not want to accept. In this way you will console My Heart…" (Diary, 367).

"My mercy is greater than your sins and those of the entire world. Who can measure the extent of my goodness? For you I descended from heaven to earth; for you I allowed myself to be nailed to the cross; for you I let my Sacred Heart be pierced with a lance, thus opening wide the source of mercy for you. Come, then, with trust to draw graces from this fountain. I never reject a contrite heart. Your misery has disappeared in the depths of My mercy" (Diary, 1485).

"Oh, if sinners knew My mercy, they would not perish in such great numbers. Tell sinful souls not to be afraid to approach Me; speak to them of My great mercy" (Diary, 1396).

I also believe that if some people’s desires are so innate and so strong that they have ‘no other choice’ other than to give into them, than I believe there is alot of excusable immorality and injustice in this world. Atheism I believe prides itself on determinism, because in that case nothing is ever our fault. In the words of Richard Dawkins, it’s just DNA and people dancing to it’s music.

As for the Church’s teachings having no impact on Non-Catholics – all I have to say is, why are you lobbying secular and governmental institutions so hard in order to make it so they do?

I am not, as I have said, I have no promblem with Civil Unions having the same legal rights regarding taxation, assets etc.

However they refuse to do that and simply say it is ‘easier’ to simply do ‘marriage’ when instead I believe they should be addressing the issues with Civil Unions that are cause homosexual couples greif. Instead they will remove/not add things to Civil Unions that should be there, and than accuse us of oppression because we are against same sex marriage.

So the very fact that they refuse to do that and instead want ‘marriage’ tells me that it’s about much more than legal rights such as taxation, assets etc.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

I’m really not interested in your claims of having ‘homosexual friends’ if I was your friend I would want to be your friend not your ‘homosexual friend’ there for you to conveniently pretend that you see me and respect my personhood when in reality you deny it to me and deny that I am of equal value and worth because I don’t love in the same way you love.

Sexual orientation carries no weight with who my friends are, nor do I mention whether or not I have homosexual friends when debating this issue, because I believe such a point is irrelevant.

I would never, ever, presume to reduce the love and sanctity of someone’s marriage bond to the fact that their penis and vagina are complimentary. To reduce the love and sanctity (and yes I use that word consciously) of a gay person’s deep and abiding love for another person down to genitals is reductionist, souless and wrong. If you can’t see that I am sorry for you.

If the love between a homosexual couple does not enter into the realm of sexually physical, than I believe the Church doesn’t have a problem, but as I said, I believe people would be being naive to believe that same sex marriage does not condone/advocate the physical aspect of it.

The Church says I can love a person deeply, desire and cultivate a relationship with that person so long as that relationship is not physical. Sure it wants to deny me that and condemn me to a life of perpetual celibacy and lonliness (and please don’t talk about the church community, this doesn’t happen and does not meet the same standards) but it’s TECHNICALLY okay as long as I never act physically on my love. This is splitting hairs, either it’s completely wrong or it’s right. Say which one.

I believe the Church is simply against the sexual acts of homosexuality, as I believe it means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for and are thus considered sinful acts.

Stop being scared of gay people.

I’m not.

Come and actually TALK to us, like human beings, understand our hearts and our fears, our sincere desire, just like you for a life lived in obedience to God and lived out in faithful love for another. Just please, please, please stop treating us like a philosophical problem.

Of Course … I want to.

Thank you for your post SophiaS, I hope I have helped and I think you would have recieved more replies if your post wasn’t quite as long

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Why is there always so much focus in these discussions on gay MEN getting married and how unnatural it is for for gay MEN to have sex?

It seems that those who are anti gay marriage (or just anti homosexual activity in general) are far more offended by male homosexual activity then female.

I am glad you made this comment, Bell(name removed by moderator).

First. IT IS unnatural for men to have sex with other men. They were just not built for that.
It is also unnatural for women to have sex with other women. They were not designed for that either.

I have never been offended by male or female homosexuality. I accept it. I am profoundly offended when someone tells me that it is a normal and natural activity. It IS NOT.

 

[rossum]

I never said that infertile men and women can not marry.

They can marry, as all agree. Hence the argument that “same sex couples cannot marry because they cannot have children” is invalid. Infertility is not a valid bar to marriage.

A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child.

After an orchidectomy or a hysterectomy? I think not.

The concept of “civil” or government recognized marriage is based on the traditional definition of marriage that existed before the state. Therefore the state is on thin ice if it begins to redefine.

Marriage existed before Christianity. Christianity has had no problems redefining the forms of marriage it found in existence earlier. Polygamy was not uncommon before Christianity, and Christians changed that definition. You are on weak ground here. Christians define Christian marriage. Mormons define Mormon marriage. Civil law defines civil marriage.

Firstly…is a redefinition of civil marriage warranted?

In the US, many judges have found it warranted by the Constitution. That is sufficient warrant for civil law.

rossum

 

[JimG]

They can marry, as all agree. Hence the argument that “same sex couples cannot marry because they cannot have children” is invalid. Infertility is not a valid bar to marriage.

Of course infertility is not a bar to marriage. That is not the argument. It is not that same sex couples are infertile. It is that they cannot have sex. Marriage is ordered to marital sex. They are naturally incapable of conjugal relations.

 

[rossum]

Of course infertility is not a bar to marriage. That is not the argument. It is not that same sex couples are infertile. It is that they cannot have sex. Marriage is ordered to marital sex. They are naturally incapable of conjugal relations.

Catholic marriage is so ordered. Civil marriage is not. What applies to one does not always apply to the other, divorce being an obvious example.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But there is objective evidence that smoking, in and of itself, harms others as well as those doing it. Nor is smoking or not smoking an intrinsic, deeply embedded part of the human psyche the way sexuality and pair-bonding is.

After you become addicted to nicotine, the desire to satisfy that addiction can be overwhelming. I don’t think that the desire for nicotine is any less demanding than the homosexual desires you mentioned. And as far as harm goes, I believe that there is harm to a person who is confused about his gender identity to deny that person a clear example of what gender identity means. Such is the case when society treats homosexual acts as morally equivalent to ordinary marital sex.

And there is a huge difference between restricting where you can do something, and barring you from a major social institution just because you do something.

Smoking is subject to more restrictions than simply where you can do it. In our country it is also barred from most forms of promotion by advertizing. But official government sanction of homosexual sex would also be an effective form of advertizing. So thanks for prompting me to realize yet another point of comparison between the two.

Why should they? There is no objective evidence that their relationship (which I note you again try to reduce to just sex) hurts anyone.

I am not suggesting that their relationship be forbidden. I am suggesting that their relationship not be celebrated and promoted as normal by our society. For that, I believe, does hurt the moral fabric of our society, especially confused kids.

Indeed there is evidence that same sex marriage significantly improves the health and life expectancy of those involved.

Only when compared to promiscuous homosexuality. But that is an unfair comparison because it is not the only option open to those involved.

Why shouldn’t Catholics have to put up with being treated as second class citizens

They did and in many places they still are.

There is evidence that Catholics are more likely to commit criminal offenses than the general public

This claim was thoroughly discussed and adequately dismissed in another thread. Go back to that thread an read what I wrote about it.