American Psychological Association is officially endorsing same-sex marriage

The APA publicly is endorsing same-sex marriage.

Included also is some info from an organization that does "reparative therapy" for those gays that want to become heterosexual. Since the 6:4 ratio vote on whether homosexuality is disorder or not came out. Homosexuals who want to change are ignored and discounted though therapeutic practice and training encourages "taking care of a client/patient." The second web site shows that some committee members had vested interests. From other sources citing the issue it was reported that state psychology associations were not consulted.

Should the APA be neutral or should it take a postion and therefore fringe itself to one side of the spectrum, thus isolating some of its constituency?

See: http://www.apa.org/releases/gaymarriage.html

and

An opposing view from

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

 

About 25 years ago I remember warning a soon to be student that most of the male interior design students at a particular university were gay. Talk about a wasted warning.

He was married and unknown to me was struggling with his sexual identity. The only words from his shrink were to just accept it. Maybe it was the best advice but he felt pretty much abandoned.

With most psychological issues except gay ones, if someone thinks there is a problem, then there is a problem.

While I don't believe that gay people are in need of a cure, I don't think society is served by denigrating those who aren't pleased with the cards they were dealt.

 

Did someone say PC double standards rule? Here's one academic psychologist who left - he just couldn't take it anymore. http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/

 

Funny thing, Orson, there are those who think it's just wonderful to keep on "denigrating those who aren't pleased with the cards they were dealt"--as long as their names are Mark and Rosie Israel and the cards are a horrible injury. There are those who have stated explicitly on this forum that they think it's just wonderful to denigrate Mark and Rosie.

I am opposed on religious grounds to same-sex marriage. If you think otherwise, I respect your opinion. Just don't associate me with opponents like those described in the first paragraph.

(And, no, I'm not including Orson in that description.)

 

Off the meds again Janko.

Janko's conclusion comes about because I saw postive things in the now former online-college forum. Of course I offered Mark and Rosie my sympathies.

If I remember correctly my buddies over there weren't in Unk's fan club either.

 

Nope - I'm not following what Dennis and uncle janko are discussing.

I do know, as per this thread, that may academic associations have dropped all decorum and professional restraint for political advocacy. Hence, sensible historians, a very small minority of the field, have migrated to the Historical Society; the Leftyies can keep the OAH and AHA.

And the intolerant "mainstream" decrys the lack of "diversity?" Look in the mirror! Similarly, Larry Elder exposes the insults and abusive double standards weilded at him as a broadcaster from the Dems convention at Boston here http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39820
UNBELIEVABLE!

--Orson

 

Hi Orson: No, unless you were familiar with the horrible stuff posted and applauded on online-college, and then defended here, you would not.

I agree with you that it is too bad when scholarly organizations become politicized, no matter whether it's extreme left or extreme right.

I recall that in the old country the student unions in the 1930's became the spearhead of mystical fascism and ever more extreme antisemitism; on the other hand, when I was in college, non-Marxist opinion was pretty well unheard, if not unheard of; I was punished in more than one history class for not accepting Marxist views of this or that issue--active antagonism was not needed to make one an ideological target; mere silent nonconcurrence was sufficient.

As I said, I've expressed my opinion on the same-sex thing and won't be drawn into a discussion of that issue again. I do hope that regardless of one's views on that issue, that there is an awareness of the lively danger posed by lockstep political conformity in a scholarly association.

Best wishes, Janko

 

Who cares if two people of the same sex want to get married? Who is harmed? Please don't tell me about protecting marriage. Not only is no one else's marriage harmed, heterosexuals are lousy at it anyway. Other than the fact that some people don't like it, who cares?

 

Agreed. Of course, my church performs holy unions, so what can you expect from me.



Tom Nixon

 

I do....

Nonsense! Jichael Mackson loves his llama, and his llama loves him. They are truly in love. They climb trees, have water balloon fights, and blow bubbles (not the chimp). Why can't they be married?

On a more serious note, if two men are allowed to marry, why not two men and one woman? Or better yet, one man and two women? By your logic, polygamy would be acceptable as long as the parties are in love and wish to get married. Strangely, proponents of gay marriage are against polygamy. Hmmm?

I am conservative Christian, but that is not the main reason I oppose gay marriage. If liberal state judges continue to allow gay marriages, a slippery slope will most certainly follow. Everyone will begin making equal protection arguments, and courts will be forced to deal with full faith and credit issues.

In my opinion, the best thing would be to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment, and then, deal with same sex unions separately. This would pacify the right, and provide gay couples with some mutual rights, such as joint custody of their adopted children. Many (not all) of the other concerns gay couples have could be dealt with via contract law, etc.

In any event, I don't believe that gay marriage bans deny gays equal treatment. They have the same exact right to marry. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex; just like everyone else.

This is a definitely a sensitive issue. Members of the gay community do not deserve to be mistreated. However, I do not believe that legalizing gay marriage is the answer.

 

Back when women were campaigning for the right to vote, some politicians asked where the line would be drawn--would we be letting children and pets vote next? 84 years later, it hasn't happened, and now the question itself sounds silly and out of date.

Busho, if polyamorous marriage ever becomes an issue, it will be an issue separate from gay marriage. The one has nothing to do with other; that would be like saying (as some probably have) that interracial marriage led to gay marriage. The fact of the matter is that until marriage (or equivalent status) is available to gays and lesbians, they are being mistreated--in medical care, in adoption, in retirement, and in so many other ways. The only question I see here is whether it's okay to deny rights and status to outsiders to protect a social institution that benefits insiders. All things being equal, I'd argue that the answer is no. I have doubts about many issues--abortion, the Iraq war, and the death penalty, to name three. I have no doubts whatsoever about gay marriage; I see it as a basic human right long neglected, and I am behind it 100%.


Cheers,

 

Re: I do....

Tom: We can protect the sacred institution of marriage without denying gays and lesbians rights.

Either way, remember this: The mose beautiful thing you can do is share ya bed. Jus' share ya bed!

 

Okay Dennis, this is your final warning.

No more personal attacks.

 

Re: I do....

 

"It has absolutely no bearing on the progress of society."

Actually Rich it does. The rights of a spouse include government benefits; i.e. military retirement, Social Security, etc...

Society will feel this impact and society will incur the obligations in not only the areas I mention but other areas as well. For society to "progress" we need to address all the issues surrounding and impacted by same sex unions. You are right that these efforts need to be gender neutral. The funny thing is that most of our laws are written as surviving spouse so only the interpretation of spouse would need to be addressed to include same sex.

 

Wow, way to go Rich!!! You made every argument I would have thought to make only much better and cleaner.

However ..., as much as I think gay marriage is the right thing, what about the added expense it will add to Social Security, Employer Benefit Plans and other benefits? Does increasing the number of legal marriages impose a legal burden that could endanger the continued existence of these benefits? I don't know. Its just one of those problems we'll have to deal with when gay marriage is finally legalized.

 

Re: Re: I do....

And see, here, this is the other thing: Since when is the U.S. government responsible for the sacred? Isn't it just a little bit idolatrous to say that they can give or take the sanctity of things as they see fit? What if Congress decides to pass laws making the income tax sacred?

I'm afraid I don't get this--have I missed an otherwise ubiquitous pop culture reference again?


Cheers,

 

I'd argue that gays and lesbians make up such a relatively small percentage of the population that gay marriage is unlikely to have as much of an impact on these programs as, say, immigration. When they're funded on a long-term basis again, it'll probably cost more to include gays and lesbians, but I'd wager not much more.

Orson made a fairly solid argument some time back about how gays and lesbians aren't as much of a good deal for Social Security and such because they aren't as likely to bear children (though I predict gay adoption will become more common as civil unions and gay marriage become the law of the land). I don't think this is a good reason to deny gay marriage, but it should be taken into account when we look at the financial side of things.


Cheers,

 

The reason the institution of civil (as opposed to religious) marriage exists is not that it's sacred; it's that it is so CONVENIENT. When two people marry, the resulting relationship is well understood in law and policy as well as social custom.

It seems to me, BTW, that throughout most of human history, polygamy was common and recognized...

 

Considering Evolution...

If evolution (though only a theory) were true, wouldn't that be enough proof that humans are meant to be heterosexual for procreation and sustenance of the race? Seems that theses folks who push hard to same-sex status forget the lessons of "mother nature"?

Check out this interesting article about where the American Psychiatric Associaton (who publishes the DSM-IV) is moving towards in terms of some of the paraphilias:

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