Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[Bradski]

AGAIN: In the words of the poignant Sponge Bob -“Good luck with that”

Your first point is contradictory. You say that we are not equal in rights (I’d agree that there is little equality - it depends where you are born, to whom etc) but then you quote the Declaration of Independence to show that we are indeed equal.

Your second point, that a marriage license is not an automatic right, is correct. Certain people can’t get married. But that point doesn’t follow from your first. It can stand alone whether we have equal, inalienable rights or not. That’s what the debate is about.

Your third, that people wanted to encourage marriage because of their Christian beliefs, is irrelevant, whether it is correct or not.

Your last statement, that ‘voting’ for gay marriage is promoting homosexuality behaviour has nothing at all to do with any of the preceding points and is not a valid argument in itself. Let’s be clear: I am not promoting homosexuality. I am not supporting a gay ‘lifestye’. I am not encouraging any type of sexual behaviour.

I could care less what people, including you and your partner, get up to. If people are drawn to other people of the same sex, I have no problem with that. If people want to have homosexual sex, then I have no problem with that. If heterosexual couple want to engage in similar sexual acts, I have no problem with that. The reason is extraordinarily simple: It is none of my business.

What is my business, because it affects people I know and family members, is whether they should be denied the opportunity to get married simply because of their gender.

By the way, there are two definitions for diatribe. The first is 'a bitter or abusive piece of writing’. The second is ‘ironic or satirical criticism’. I used to be guilty of the first but I’d agree with you that I am, occasionally, guilty of the second.

I do try my best not to let it descend into sarcasm.

 

[markeverett49]

Food for thought: Do you know the psychological community was lobbied to remove homosexuality from the list of abnormalities? How can anyone lobby a science? Should we lobby to the physics community that the Earth is flat? Makes no sense at all.

Yes, I’ve read about that. It’s an embarrassing page in the history of psychology. I disagree, though, that this “makes no sense at all.” It may be irrational–hectoring scientists until they tell you what you want to hear makes an intellectual mockery of what they tell you; it’s like pointing a gun at someone and saying, ‘tell me you love me!’–but it makes sense in that I’m not surprised that philosophically un-moored people could act this way. A similar controversy surrounded study of “sex differences” (–they are usually called ‘gender differences’ here in the US, sometimes as a prelude to arguing there is no such thing as gender). It is amazing how many people that only claims that suit them CAN be true.

 

[Faithdancer]

Yes, I’ve read about that. It’s an embarrassing page in the history of psychology. I disagree, though, that this “makes no sense at all.” It may be irrational–hectoring scientists until they tell you what you want to hear makes an intellectual mockery of what they tell you; it’s like pointing a gun at someone and saying, ‘tell me you love me!’–but it makes sense in that I’m not surprised that philosophically un-moored people could act this way. A similar controversy surrounded study of “sex differences” (–they are usually called ‘gender differences’ here in the US, sometimes as a prelude to arguing there is no such thing as gender). It is amazing how many people that only claims that suit them CAN be true.

Opposite gender body parts joining= normal. Same gender body parts joining= abnormal. It’s as simple as basic biology. Normal, healthy people don’t walk on their hands, that’s why we are given feet. We don’t eat through our ears; that’s why we are given mouths.

 

[PRmerger]

Opposite gender body parts joining= normal. Same gender body parts joining= abnormal. It’s as simple as basic biology. Normal, healthy people don’t walk on their hands, that’s why we are given feet. We don’t eat through our ears; that’s why we are given mouths.

'zactly!

See? And you didn’t even have to quote Scripture or the Magisterium to make your point.

Just exactly what I’ve been trying to tell you! Thanks for coming over to our side now!

 

[atheistgirl]

Opposite gender body parts joining= normal. Same gender body parts joining= abnormal. It’s as simple as basic biology. Normal, healthy people don’t walk on their hands, that’s why we are given feet. We don’t eat through our ears; that’s why we are given mouths.

Are you refering to anal sex?

Sarah x

 

[Bradski]

…the average “atheist” here doesn’t seem to have read more than a Wikipedia version of their writings.

Ouch…

And why do you put the word atheist in quotes? If I said: I’m not trying to tell “Christians” how to live their life it would come across as mildly insulting. Do you do that thing with your fingers when you say the word?

Edit: just saw your post explaining this. To be honest, it doesn’t wash. Most Catholics don’t follow all the teachings of the church and I would still be adverse to describing them as “Christians”. ‘Atheist’ is such a simple term but a lot of Christians seem to have a problem with it. If you were doing a crossword and the clue was: Someone who doesn’t believe in gods (7 letters), would you put it in quotes, thinking: well, it should be agnostic, but there’s too many letters in that?

America the priest signs the marriage license in the vestibule after the sacrament is completed. Once ceremony, one license.

It doesn’t have to be a priest. It can be anyone that the state recognises has the authority, such as a judge. You don’t need to go anywhere near a church.

There are some that are acutely indisposed to doing this and it is better for them, for us, and, ultimately for the atheist, that they make no attempt to do this.

I think that, in some cases, it’s better for the Church as well. I won’t go into some of the comments made by a Catholic in a debate I’ve had over the last week or so in regard to gay marriage (another forum), but they are so mind-numbingly inane that any reasonable person would think it was a poor attempt at satire.

Is there a significant effect on the psychological and emotional welfare of children, when homosexual activity is occurring within a household where children are present?

Why would there be? You are making the assumption that homosexual activity is something wrong, therefore asking: is it in the best interest of the child? A person would have to accept the first premise to be able to address the second.

If there is insufficient data either way to indicate whether or not raising children in an environment where homosexual activity among adults is practiced (even discreetly) is harmful, is it ethical to allow active homosexuals to raise children anyway, or is this social experimentation?

If there was evidence to show there was no problem, would you accept it as being OK? You’re going to have to show that it is likely to cause harm to prevent it. And showing it doesn’t mean quoting scripture or pleading for common sense.

Here is the gourmet meal for thought…Homosexual Psychiatrists are responsible for removing homosexuality from the DSM…

I’m sure you realised that someone would ask you to show some evidence for that, so it may as well be me. And in passing, did you know that all organisations that have any expertise in the matter in all countries in what we would generally class as the civilised world* are also in cahoots with the APA and do not class it as a disorder? You must believe that they are all wrong.

• Those countries that do still class it as a disorder as those such as Uganda, Iran, Sierra Leone etc etc etc

Are you refering to anal sex?

Apparently a lot of people think that anything that doesn’t involve putting (ahem) ‘this’ into (cough) ‘that’ is abnormal.

 

[PRmerger]

Apparently a lot of people think that anything that doesn’t involve putting (ahem) ‘this’ into (cough) ‘that’ is abnormal.

Well, by defintion, that which you describe above *is *the normal way. Perhaps you meant to say that some see things not done in the normal way to be perverted?

 

[atheistgirl]

Apparently a lot of people think that anything that doesn’t involve putting (ahem) ‘this’ into (cough) ‘that’ is abnormal.

Indeed. There’s a thread on oral sex and the views expressed by some I found interesting and a little surprizing.

If it was anal sex that was being refered to by the poster, I would point out the statistics for heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex, (some married and Christian no doubt) and also that anal sex does not define homosexuality, with a significant number of homosexual men never engaging in anal sex.

Sarah x

 

[Julia_Mae]

Food for thought: Do you know the psychological community was lobbied to remove homosexuality from the list of abnormalities? How can anyone lobby a science? Should we lobby to the physics community that the Earth is flat? Makes no sense at all.

It makes sense when you know that what is in the DSM is voted on by whoever attends a meeting for that purpose. Those diseases and their descriptions are the result of majority opinion.

Psychology is to physics as Jurassic Park is to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

[Bradski]

It makes sense when you know that what is in the DSM is voted on by whoever attends a meeting for that purpose.

It wasn’t as simple as you imply in the case of homosexuality. Well before the ‘vote’ took place, it had already been decided, the year previously, to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders (DSM) based on scientific criteria.

This procedure took 11 months and passed through 4 separate committees before reaching the board of trustees where it was ratified. No-one had ‘voted’ to have it removed. It was a scientific decision based on scientific findings.

Charles Socradides headed a group that demanded said ‘vote’ (which strikes me, as has been implied, like demanding a vote on whether evolution is true or not).

Socradides had built a career out of ‘curing’ homosexuals. That was his job. That’s what he did when he went into work. That’s how he paid the bills. He went on to set up NARTH which has the same aims. The AMA in 1973 was effectively telling the world that his work had no value. It had no scientific basis. There was nothing to ‘cure’. He was the equivalent of a homeopathy practitioner.

And the majority of the AMA didn’t bother voting because the decision had already been made. You can bet your bottom dollar that they all knew which way the vote was going to go in any case. Less than 1 in 5 members stuck with Socradides – and please bear in mind that this was the early 70’s. Homophobia was everywhere and the medical professions were not exempt from it.

Yet less than 17% wanted to reinstate homosexuality as a disorder.

 

[Faithdancer]

Men and women have complementary body parts, which exist for reproduction. Men do not have complementary body parts for reproduction with each other. Women do not have complementary body parts for reproduction with each other. The natural use of a body part is when it is used for its natural function. The natural use of the feet is for ambulation. The natural use of the hands is for manipulation. To walk on the hands is unnatural. To use a fork with the feet is unnatural, although some may learn to do it if they have no use of their hands; that doesn’t make it natural, however.

Clearly, to use the reproductive body parts in any way other than the manner in which they were designed, i.e. for reproduction between a male and a female, is unnatural. This thread should not degenerate into graphic depictions, despite the puerile attempts to steer it that way. I will merely state that the farther away from male: female reproduction the use of said body parts gets, the more unnatural it is.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It wasn’t as simple as you imply in the case of homosexuality. Well before the ‘vote’ took place, it had already been decided, the year previously, to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders (DSM) based on scientific criteria.

This procedure took 11 months and passed through 4 separate committees before reaching the board of trustees where it was ratified. No-one had ‘voted’ to have it removed. It was a scientific decision based on scientific findings.

Charles Socradides headed a group that demanded said ‘vote’ (which strikes me, as has been implied, like demanding a vote on whether evolution is true or not).

Socradides had built a career out of ‘curing’ homosexuals. That was his job. That’s what he did when he went into work. That’s how he paid the bills. He went on to set up NARTH which has the same aims. The AMA in 1973 was effectively telling the world that his work had no value. It had no scientific basis. There was nothing to ‘cure’. He was the equivalent of a homeopathy practitioner.

And the majority of the AMA didn’t bother voting because the decision had already been made. You can bet your bottom dollar that they all knew which way the vote was going to go in any case. Less than 1 in 5 members stuck with Socradides – and please bear in mind that this was the early 70’s. Homophobia was everywhere and the medical professions were not exempt from it.

Yet less than 17% wanted to reinstate homosexuality as a disorder.

Evolution has not been proven true, it’s a theory and one that has many holes that politically-correct leftists ignore out of personal selfishness.

It’s been widely said that the AMA was influenced by non-scientific sources in this matter.

I don’t think homosexuality is a disease but that doesn’t mean it needs to be subsidized or paraded around in kindergarten classes either…even if it does make some people feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Homophobia, like Islamophobia, are made-up ideas to make the grunt work for progressive name-callers easier when they rapidly lose arguments and to make both them and their twisted ideas sound better and more intelligent than they actually are.

 

[CopticChristian]

**It wasn’t as simple as you imply in the case of homosexuality. Well before the ‘vote’ took place, it had already been decided, the year previously, to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders (DSM) based on scientific criteria.

This procedure took 11 months and passed through 4 separate committees before reaching the board of trustees where it was ratified. No-one had ‘voted’ to have it removed. It was a scientific decision based on scientific findings.**

Charles Socradides headed a group that demanded said ‘vote’ (which strikes me, as has been implied, like demanding a vote on whether evolution is true or not).

Socradides had built a career out of ‘curing’ homosexuals. That was his job. That’s what he did when he went into work. That’s how he paid the bills. He went on to set up NARTH which has the same aims. The AMA in 1973 was effectively telling the world that his work had no value. It had no scientific basis. There was nothing to ‘cure’. He was the equivalent of a homeopathy practitioner.

And the majority of the AMA didn’t bother voting because the decision had already been made. You can bet your bottom dollar that they all knew which way the vote was going to go in any case. Less than 1 in 5 members stuck with Socradides – and please bear in mind that this was the early 70’s. Homophobia was everywhere and the medical professions were not exempt from it.

Yet less than 17% wanted to reinstate homosexuality as a disorder.

Bradski ma man…Science?, excuse me while this scientist pukes…Science? You do not want anyone to believe that do you…spend some time here…

81 Words - This American Life

The story of how the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness.

and then here…

http://www.mindofmodernity.com/not-sick-the-1973-removal-of-homosexuality-from-the-dsm

Science?

 

[Faithdancer]

Evolution has not been proven true, it’s a theory and one that has many holes that politically-correct leftists ignore out of personal selfishness.

It’s been widely said that the AMA was influenced by non-scientific sources in this matter.

I don’t think homosexuality is a disease but that doesn’t mean it needs to be subsidized or paraded around in kindergarten classes either…even if it does make some people feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Homophobia, like Islamophobia, are made-up ideas to make the grunt work for progressive name-callers easier when they rapidly lose arguments and to make both them and their twisted ideas sound better and more intelligent than they actually are.

I agree. If homosexuality is not a disease, then it must be volitional. Of course, that still doesn’t make it any less deviant (as in deviation from the norm, as in abnormal) since the norm is heterosexuality.

 

[Julia_Mae]

It wasn’t as simple as you imply in the case of homosexuality. Well before the ‘vote’ took place, it had already been decided, the year previously, to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders (DSM) based on scientific criteria.

This procedure took 11 months and passed through 4 separate committees before reaching the board of trustees where it was ratified. No-one had ‘voted’ to have it removed. It was a scientific decision based on scientific findings…

No, it really wasn’t. I think you might like this (Not Sick: the 1973 removal of Homosexuality from the DSM) which also has a link to the NPR transcript.

I want to put the last paragraph here:

As the APA prepares for the publication of the DSM-V in 2013, I believe it’s worthwhile to keep this story in mind. Some of the proposed changes seem to have more to do with a desire to remove a stigmatizing label than real “scientific” evidence. And like homosexuality, the pathology of which was for a many years assumed but never proven, the scientific understanding of some of the older DSM diagnoses is not particularly strong.

You also said

And the majority of the AMA didn’t bother voting because the decision had already been made.

I’m sure you meant the APA, obviously the American Medical Association as a whole doesn’t vote, but the reason the majority of the APA didn’t vote is because the majority never does, just those who attend the APA convention. Or at least, that’s how it was all done the last time I had any professional contacts there, which admittedly was 15 yrs ago now. At least. Maybe it’s changed.

I think there is beginning to be something we can call hard science in Psychiatry or psychology. But not much. I’m pretty sure they still just vote on it.

 

[CopticChristian]

It wasn’t as simple as you imply in the case of homosexuality. Well before the ‘vote’ took place, it had already been decided, the year previously, to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders (DSM) based on scientific criteria.

This procedure took 11 months and passed through 4 separate committees before reaching the board of trustees where it was ratified. No-one had ‘voted’ to have it removed. It was a scientific decision based on scientific findings.

**Charles Socradides headed a group that demanded said ‘vote’ (which strikes me, as has been implied, like demanding a vote on whether evolution is true or not). **

Socradides had built a career out of ‘curing’ homosexuals. That was his job. That’s what he did when he went into work. That’s how he paid the bills. He went on to set up NARTH which has the same aims. The AMA in 1973 was effectively telling the world that his work had no value. It had no scientific basis. There was nothing to ‘cure’. He was the equivalent of a homeopathy practitioner.

And the majority of the AMA didn’t bother voting because the decision had already been made. You can bet your bottom dollar that they all knew which way the vote was going to go in any case. Less than 1 in 5 members stuck with Socradides – and please bear in mind that this was the early 70’s. Homophobia was everywhere and the medical professions were not exempt from it.

Yet less than 17% wanted to reinstate homosexuality as a disorder.

Brad,

With a BS in Zoology, they don’t have that degree anymore, but I did learn and regurgitate the THEORY of evolution over and over again…FYI this is a THEORY…

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

You may find this discussion interesting…

ted.com/talks/lang/en/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.html

 

[Julia_Mae]

Evolution has not been proven true, it’s a theory …

Just a note on definition of the word “theory.” It means: an explanation of phenomena that can be observed or predicted.

The theory of aerodynamics explains how things fly. It does not mean “we think maybe it’s possible things fly” it explains how that happens. It is imperfect. it has “holes.”

Saying a theory is not complete is like saying the ocean is not full.

Evolution is a word that means: change over time. “The gull wing fenders on cars from the 60s evolved into the integrated sleek looks of today.”

Biological evolution refers to changes in the biota of the earth, or regions of the earth, over time. The biota is all the living organisms. Theories of biological evolution explain how those changes occur. They do not guess whether maybe it’s possible something changed, we know the content of the biota is different today than it was in the past. It’s how that occurs that the various theories address.

Faithdancer said: If homosexuality is not a disease, then it must be volitional.

Actually no, not really. Exclusive same sex attraction is a trait. It’s genetically-linked as far as the most recent investigations show, and is not acquired, unless it is in utero. This can happen if the epigenetics is the deciding factor, which explains identical twins where one is gay and one is not.

This takes us into some fairly complex genetic theory but then, gender identity and sexual behavior is some of the most complex of human characteristics. Or any vertebrate characteristics.

 

[CopticChristian]

Just a note on definition of the word “theory.” It means: an explanation of phenomena that can be observed or predicted.

The theory of aerodynamics explains how things fly. It does not mean “we think maybe it’s possible things fly” it explains how that happens. It is imperfect. it has “holes.”

Saying a theory is not complete is like saying the ocean is not full.

Evolution is a word that means: change over time. “The gull wing fenders on cars from the 60s evolved into the integrated sleek looks of today.”

Biological evolution refers to changes in the biota of the earth, or regions of the earth, over time. The biota is all the living organisms. Theories of biological evolution explain how those changes occur. They do not guess whether maybe it’s possible something changed, we know the content of the biota is different today than it was in the past. It’s how that occurs that the various theories address.

Actually no, not really. Exclusive same sex attraction is a trait. It’s genetically-linked as far as the most recent investigations show, and is not acquired, unless it is in utero. This can happen if the epigenetics is the deciding factor, which explains identical twins where one is gay and one is not.

This takes us into some fairly complex genetic theory but then, gender identity and sexual behavior is some of the most complex of human characteristics. Or any vertebrate characteristics.

Julia,

Get real. Evolution is not fact. It is conjecture of observation and explanation. You don’t expect intelligent people to accept your explanation do you? Maybe you do…well then maybe I should say…get real Julia if humans came from apes are there still apes producing humans?

 

[CopticChristian]

Just a note on definition of the word “theory.” It means: an explanation of phenomena that can be observed or predicted.

The theory of aerodynamics explains how things fly. It does not mean “we think maybe it’s possible things fly” it explains how that happens. It is imperfect. it has “holes.”

Saying a theory is not complete is like saying the ocean is not full.

Evolution is a word that means: change over time. “The gull wing fenders on cars from the 60s evolved into the integrated sleek looks of today.”

Biological evolution refers to changes in the biota of the earth, or regions of the earth, over time. The biota is all the living organisms. Theories of biological evolution explain how those changes occur. They do not guess whether maybe it’s possible something changed, we know the content of the biota is different today than it was in the past. It’s how that occurs that the various theories address.

Actually no, not really. **Exclusive same sex attraction is a trait. ** It’s genetically-linked as far as the most recent investigations show, and is not acquired, unless it is in utero. This can happen if the epigenetics is the deciding factor, which explains identical twins where one is gay and one is not.

This takes us into some fairly complex genetic** theory **but then, gender identity and sexual behavior is some of the most complex of human characteristics. Or any vertebrate characteristics.

Julia,

Same sex attraction and epigenetics is a theory, not fact. Like the notion of left handedness and being gay and epigenetics…seen that done that.

 

[Faithdancer]

Exclusive same sex attraction is a trait. It’s genetically-linked as far as the most recent investigations show, and is not acquired, unless it is in utero. This can happen if the epigenetics is the deciding factor, which explains identical twins where one is gay and one is not.

This takes us into some fairly complex genetic theory but then, gender identity and sexual behavior is some of the most complex of human characteristics. Or any vertebrate characteristics.

I’ve heard the argument before,that homosexuality is genetically determined. If so, it is obviously a disadvantageous trait, since it contributes nothing to the survival of the species- quite the contrary. Allowing gay couples to reproduce either via surrogates or in vitro could increase the prevalence of the trait in the population. How could this be a good thing for Homo sapiens sapiens?