Defend traditional marriage... against what?

[TheTrueCentrist]

Easy to say after the fact. The arrogance is incredible. You and I both know its very likely 100 years from now everything we know will have been turned upside down on itself, and people will be talking about how stupid we were and many obvious things we missed.

Have you read the text of the decision? I posted it a while ago, you can find it here:

We can certainly switch topics if you like, but if you are referring to this decision:
psychiatryonline.com/DSMPDF/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf
I think you will find it mostly unobjectionable.

The link is dead now, but you can also find it here:
pages.uoregon.edu/eherman/teaching/texts/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf

If you read it, you will notice that the change was made simply by realizing that homosexuality simply does not fit their specific clinical definition of a psychological disorder.

Future discoveries may find causes and mechanisms that we had no idea about, but those discoveries do not automatically invalidate our current observations. For example, Newton described gravity very well without understanding anything about relativity or quantum phenomenon. You could say that Newton was “wrong” but he very successfully described the data that he had. Likewise, we still have a lot to learn about genetics, brain functions, hormones, etc, but future discoveries won’t immediately invalidate the data that we currently have.

Also since you realize the effect that inbuilt prejudices can have on the decisions that are made, you don’t think by chance that the global warming proponents might have something to do with pushing contraceptives so we have less kids do you? Its not hard to justify the risks of contraceptives when you believe your saving the world by doing so.

Entirely irrelevant and bordering on conspiracy theory.

Explain how steroids affect other people? Your right people do have the ability to do what they want as long as it doesn’t affect others, but doctors have their own standards to go by. While we can’t regulate sex we can regulate the contraceptives we give out to people. If I walked into the doctors office and said “can I have some codeine cough syrup? I really like how it helps knock me out so I can fall asleep.” They would laugh at me and send me home. If you want a contraceptive to go have some casual sex, that of course is absolutely fine.

As I said before, I am not familiar with the reasoning behind the regulation of steroids. It could be that people are worried about “Roid Rage” caused by steroid abuse, but I don’t know if that is correct. Medicines are typically restricted based on their propensity for being abused. While drug abuse by itself typically doesn’t harm other people, it does frequently lead to crime, either by the abuser resorting to crime to support his habit or the drug making the abuser depressed, violent, or otherwise a danger to society.

Do contraceptives fit any of those criteria? Hardly. Many people don’t even take them just to be promiscuous; there are other benefits.

 

[Nate13]

Have you read the text of the decision? I posted it a while ago, you can find it here:

The link is dead now, but you can also find it here:
pages.uoregon.edu/eherman/teaching/texts/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf

If you read it, you will notice that the change was made simply by realizing that homosexuality simply does not fit their specific clinical definition of a psychological disorder.

Future discoveries may find causes and mechanisms that we had no idea about, but those discoveries do not automatically invalidate our current observations. For example, Newton described gravity very well without understanding anything about relativity or quantum phenomenon. You could say that Newton was “wrong” but he very successfully described the data that he had. Likewise, we still have a lot to learn about genetics, brain functions, hormones, etc, but future discoveries won’t immediately invalidate the data that we currently have.

The problem is they wrapped all cases of homosexual behavior into one. By taking it off the list they basically are saying that homosexual acts are never the cause of a psychological disorder, which we both know is not true. This means that certain people who could be treated, don’t get treatment because everyone is too busy telling them their desires are completely normal. And if you believe that homosexual behaviors are just as fine as heterosexual behaviors why would it matter anyways?

Entirely irrelevant and bordering on conspiracy theory.

As I said before, I am not familiar with the reasoning behind the regulation of steroids. It could be that people are worried about “Roid Rage” caused by steroid abuse, but I don’t know if that is correct. Medicines are typically restricted based on their propensity for being abused. While drug abuse by itself typically doesn’t harm other people, it does frequently lead to crime, either by the abuser resorting to crime to support his habit or the drug making the abuser depressed, violent, or otherwise a danger to society.

Do contraceptives fit any of those criteria? Hardly. Many people don’t even take them just to be promiscuous; there are other benefits.

Your still completely missing the point. I’m not saying that the side effects of the pill are not overshadowed by its benefits in some cases. I am arguing that there are cases some cases where the risks aren’t worth it. Is double the risk of getting breast cancer worth it as a matter of convenience to make having sex less of a hassle? Think of the least important reason someone would be on birth control, and then compare it to these risks:
ditchthepill.org/breastcancer.htm

Can you seriously continue to defend doctors who dish out the pill likes its candy to any woman who is breathing?