Tell me what to think (the issue of gay marriages)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Instinctual or simply inconvenient?

We don't know, but since only 3-5% of mammals are monogomous, the odds are, instinct. The only primates with observed monogamy are gibbons, not gorillas.

In what sense did this not work?

Um, I'm still gay. Hellooooooo....

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.

They are extreme, but I will assert that, on average, homosexual couples who go through the process of having kids (which means jumping through many, many hoops) will be more devoted to their kids and to child-rearing than the typical heterosexual. This goes for heterosexuals who also must go through the process of adopting or invitro, etc. To really WANT to have kids makes a big difference.

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.

I honestly don't know what point you're making, since the entire debate is over whether or not it should be legal!

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.

Indeed, but allowing gays to marry won't harm heterosexual marriages at all, and will allow gay couples who have kids to enjoy similarly stable environment. Win-win.

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?

Something that shows gay marriage will somehow be detrimental to the country, for starters, would be a valid point of contention. We've already cited good reasons for the state to recognize gay marriage: encouraging stability in gay relationships; reducing promiscuity and the spread of STDs; bestowing important legal rights on gay partners. All I've seen from the anti- side are variants on "It's wrong!" with no empirical justification for the stance.

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.

Why is it on the burden of group denied its rights to prove it is somehow worthy of them? What did people have to prove in order to be granted a right to vote?

No, but why get married in the first place? That to me I don't understand.

I can't believe you would say this, except that you haven't been paying attention. LEGAL BENEFITS OF RECOGNIZED MARRIAGE.

Try being denied visitation to your partner in a hospital, and see how important such things are.

Purely? Where do I say that?

That's exactly what you implied:

Why the change? Because homosexual activists argued and lobbied for the change.

No other factors mentioned, are there?

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?

*shrug* so what? Does his stance here mean everything he supports is wrong? Not necessarily. But did this guy single-handedly change the opinion of the entire APA? No, of course not. The APA changed its opinion because its members came to the conclusion that classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder was incorrect, and that it did not present any indications of being so. These weren't new notions by any means, as some professionals had begun believing such in the early 20th century.

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.

http://www.narth.com/docs/available.html

From a recent APA article. There has never been a consensus among the APA as you assert.

Ok, maybe I'm daft, but what on EARTH are you talking about? NOTHING in the above link says anything about the status of a consensus. Please look up "consensus." It is not, you will note, synonymous with "unanimous." It means there being a majority of opinion. And I challenge you to show there is not a consensus within the APA on this subject!

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?

Oh please. Selectively ignoring:

"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.

Yeah? **** you, then. Being compared to an alcoholic isn't new, but surprising from you.

At will?

Most will require therapy.

Therapy to affect behavior is only accomplished at the will of the patient.

What about these familiar links:

http://www.exodus-international.org/testimonials_pastors.shtml

http://www.narth.com/docs/bornway.html

What about them? They're malarky.

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.

Psychologists are under no obligation to furnish potentially damaging therapuetic measures for patients, no matter how much the patient may want them. I will point you to the "rebirthing" therapies in which several people have died. Some people want them, some therapists are willing to give them, but why should we allow something which has no evidence of being effective and can potentially hurt?

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.

[Tuberski]

My quick take on gay marriage, part 2:

My ex-wife has an uncle that is gay and lives with his partner in house with the uncle's two children(from his marriage to a lesbian ).

They have lived and acted like they were married for years, but because of stupid legal reasons, they can't even share health insurance coverage.

The kids seem to be growing up to be fairly normal kids. Their father(s) don't act exceedingly gay, I have never seen them kiss, hug or even hold hands. I doubt that their children have either.

I think it takes a lot of guts for them to live together, because I failed to mention WHERE they live.

Utah, THE most conservative state in the Union.

Give them marriage, if nothing else, it will cut down on health care costs for them, because they won't need 2 insurance carriers, and it's none of anybodies else's business who somebody is married to.

Gay marriages won't lessen the meaning of my current marriage at all, but it may help gay couples be closer, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Everyone needs someone.

ACK!

[red_jon]

Tuber

Bors - there;s no point arguing the point with someone who compares homosexuality with paedophilia and alcoholism. Once people are bigoted past a certain point, they won't change their views. And no amount of logic or reasoning is going to change their closed minds.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Albert Speer Like I've said on this site before, I am mostly disturbed by flamboyant homosexuality (we're here and we're queer ****) and am against it but, while opposed to homosexuality in theory, I do have respect for good people who are gay as long as they are reasonable about it and not flamboyant.

Someone's got to say it:

1) "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" is, in logic and semantics, a direct descendent of "Say it loud: I'm Black and I'm proud." The fact that a guy with a Malcolm X avatar finds it objectionable is pretty much a textbook definition of irony.

2) The notion that there are "good" and "bad" gays, and the bad ones are the ones who act "too gay," is really just like the mid-century white pseudo-liberal rheetoric that argued that there are "good" and "bad" blacks, and the bad ones are the ones who act "too black." The fact that a guy with a Malcolm X avatar is offering this line of reasoning is pretty much...well, you know.

[Guynemer]

Goddamn, I hate me some flamboyant heterosexuals. Why don't they understand that no one wants to see that hetero crap?

[Sava]

Any two people (over the age of 18) have the right to consensually join in matrimony. Period.

[Gibsie]

You mean they should have that right, right?

[Sava]

Don't be semantical.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Adults who care about each other and their kids and provide for their kids.

So what about all those heterosexual couples who are married but don't have/want kids? Does that mean their union is invalid? Why should the definition of marriage only extend to those that have children?

[Ramo]

Marriage should be a personal relationship between consenting adults. Outside of insuring consent, there's absolutely no reason that the state should be involved. "Civil Unions" and the like are nothing more than insults to gays, denying the legitimacy of their relationships.

The same goes for adoption. There's absolutely no reason that the state should prohibit gay adoption, particularly given that so many kids are in need of parents.