Originally posted by obiwan18
Instinctual or simply inconvenient?
Instinctual or simply inconvenient?
In what sense did this not work?
Which are more likely? I'd say both of these are the extremes on their respective bell-curves. I would expect many more stable families with two-parents, a mom and a dad.
Legally, the state stays homosexuals cannot be married at all, at least in the US. You have to slog under morality, not legality to make your case.
The point I was making was that using child-bearing ability as a litmus test for the legal status of a marriage for gays is absurd, since no such requirement is placed on heterosexuals. It's a moot point.
Secondly, the state has interests in preserving marriage, again, as the most stable environment for children.
What would you consider valid? There is no middle ground between approval and prohibition, so the question becomes better framed as why should the state approve of homosexual marriage?
Finally, since you are changing the status quo, the burden should rest on the progressives. If the definition of marriage changes, then the society will change as well.
No, but why get married in the first place? That to me I don't understand.
Try being denied visitation to your partner in a hospital, and see how important such things are.
Purely? Where do I say that?
Why the change? Because homosexual activists argued and lobbied for the change.
http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/library_two/files/asb.htm
Interesting link. Look at some of the arguments made by one of the people responsible for changing the definition of homosexuality as a mental disease.
Do you agree with him here, Boris?
Interesting link. Look at some of the arguments made by one of the people responsible for changing the definition of homosexuality as a mental disease.
Do you agree with him here, Boris?
But at any rate, this link is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with what we're discussing, unless you're somehow trying the tactic of casually linking homosexuality to pedophilia.
From a recent APA article. There has never been a consensus among the APA as you assert.
You will also note that nowhere does it say the authors feel it is a mental disorder!
http://www.counsel.ufl.edu/selfHelp/...rientation.asp
Again, look what they admit:
Can therapy change sexual orientation?
"Close scrutiny of their reports indicates several factors that cast doubt; many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective on sexual orientation, rather than from mental health researchers;"
In other words, they can play the man, not the body. Disappointing.
Why don't they do the research themselves if they do not know?
Why do they say no, when they do not even try?
Again, look what they admit:
Can therapy change sexual orientation?
"Close scrutiny of their reports indicates several factors that cast doubt; many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective on sexual orientation, rather than from mental health researchers;"
In other words, they can play the man, not the body. Disappointing.
Why don't they do the research themselves if they do not know?
Why do they say no, when they do not even try?
"In 1990 the American Psychological Association stated that scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy works and that it can do more harm than good. Changing one’s sexual orientation is not simply a matter of changing one’s sexual behavior. It would require altering one’s emotional, romantic and sexual feelings and restructuring one’s self-concept and social identity. Although some mental health providers do attempt sexual orientation conversion, others question the ethics of trying to alter through therapy a trait that is not a disorder and that is extremely important to an individual’s identity."
It's like a recovering alcoholic Boris.
At will?
Most will require therapy.
Most will require therapy.
Again, these groups REFUSE to provide data for observing case studies, and their most prominent members (remember John Paulk?) "fall off the wagon" or get caught in embarrassing situations, like Paulk's foray into a gay bar in Baltimore. And that was mere weeks after his face was splashed all over the country as a "recovered homosexual."
Is there a demand to do so? That's what I am saying that there is a demand for homosexuals for help, that the APA is not allowing them to do so.
There is nothing instrinsically harmful about being homosexual, hence there's no reason to treat it as something to be cured. It's the self-loathing that needs treatment. I'm sure some blacks are self-loathing and would rather be white. Should medical professionals be in the business of trying to turn such people white?
Reparative therapy is a quick-fix sham that unscrupulous therapists are using to bilk unhappy gay patients out of money while leaving them emotional pudding. If they really wanted to help, they'd just teach people to love who and what they are, accept it and go about living life as best they can.
Comment