01-29-2007, 03:05 AM | #241 | ||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We do have a legal precedent for setting up laws banning certain kinds of relationships (not that I'm suggesting we ban homosexuality) because they are viewed to be harmful. The reasoning that they are harmful is partly based on genetics. Pedophelia is a good example. Bestiality is another. In those cases, at least part of the reasoning against those relationships is a biological, genetic part. Quote:
I don't choose to stand on the grounds of my personal experience and argue from that. That's not solid enough to convince anyone aside from me, who is not predisposed toward accepting my view based on their own personal experience or other sources of evidence. So humbug personal opinions and experiences- because that's what you're asking me to get into. I want data about this genetically different kind of relationship. Our government should have data about it before it makes it, under law, equivalent to heterosexual relationships. I know that you don't personally see any possible way in which homosexuals could be harmed by marriage laws made for heterosexual relationships. That's your opinion. And mine is different. And it's all just opinion. We need evidence to inform our society's answer on this issue as it is made, and we don't have it. That is why we need studies.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 01-29-2007 at 03:07 AM. |
||||
01-29-2007, 05:06 AM | #242 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Just to note that there IS consensus on the issue: the APA wouldn't make such a statement if there wasn't because they would lose credibility with their members. (Consensus doesn't mean that EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD has the same opinion.)
On both the American Psychiatric and Psychological Association sites there is substantial material on this, appropriately referenced to relevant empirical and observational evidence. Or you could just continue to cite wiki of course, as it accords with the conclusion you have already drawn I think both professional groups also acknowledge the severe psychological harm (sometimes but not always) caused by the inequality of homosexual relationships. |
01-29-2007, 07:41 AM | #243 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Wikipedia is not a scientific source. It isn't peer-reviewed and is definitely not a rigorous source.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
01-29-2007, 08:54 AM | #244 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
01-29-2007, 09:43 AM | #245 | |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
If both APAs have voted official pronouncements supporting gay marriage (full of citations as recent as 2004 for a vote taken in 2005), that IS the consensus of the psychiatric community. No, not every single person agrees, but there is nothing on which EVERYONE agrees. I'm sure I could find you someone who thinks almost anything is harmful - but we don't leave everything in limbo for that.
By the way, that Wikipedia entry is based on a book published in 1995 (Understudied Relationships, edited by S.W. Duck and J.T. Wood), whereas the American Psychological Ass'n cites research from 2001 and 2004 (see my above post, or just search the APA sites yourself). It may have been understudied in 1995 - it is not now. And the reason I keep asking for your opinion is that I want to know what variable you would study if you were designing the studies you ask for. What part of marriage law would you try to control for? Would you look at couples who already have shared healthcare and try to see if that harmed their relationship, for example? What are we testing here? Quote:
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. Last edited by Count Comfect : 01-29-2007 at 09:45 AM. |
|
01-29-2007, 02:28 PM | #246 | ||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Answers.com says the same thing Wikipedia does, about homosexuality being understudied. Also, I think I should remind you all that a study from Nature magazine said that Wikipedia is comparable in accuracy to Encyclopedia Britannica. I will now show you that Answers.com and Wikipedia don't both just happen this once to be behind the times.
Quote:
Hence, these major psychology organizations are making these big statements about homosexuality, while it is an understudied relationship. If they have used additional research from 2001 or 2002 later on to justify that decision, it does not change the fact that in 1994 when the decision was originally made, homosexuality was considered to be "understudied." And considering the timing and the quotes from Answers.com and Wikipedia, I'd say it's still considered to be understudied. Now, even while major psychology organizations claim homosexuality is not a problem to mental health and is not immoral, the American Psychological Association's research, according to the APA Monitor, "suffers for the sake of political correctness." In their report, they also said that, "scientists who conduct research on politically hot topics risk being labeled based on what their data say." They also said that there were problems of censorship in the American Psychological Association. Here are additional problems with the American Psychological Association's position: Quote:
Quote:
Pro-homosexual rights psychiatrist Dr. Bayer has written in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981) that the activists forged APA credentials, gained access by those credentials to the exhibit areas of the conference and threatened anyone who claimed homosexuals needed to be cured. So we now can see that the American Psychiatric Association made a pressured choice, in a very difficult political climate, with a narrow margin in the vote. This change doesn't sound especially scientific, to me. Especially not when one considers that the minority group said the decision was indeed politically motivated. Here's a quote from the Religious Tolerance Organization: Quote:
This is a statement from an organization that seems to support homosexuality as an acceptable form of behavior. Quote:
I'm finished repeating myself on this. You'll just have to have your curiosity not satisfied. But my main point in answer to this is again that it doesn't matter what my perspective is, or what parts of homosexual relationships I feel might be harmed by marriage laws. What matters is that we don't know much about the relationship and hence won't know in an educated way what may or may not be harmful until we have studies engaged in to find out. Studies on homosexual relationships, when revealing the particulars of how those relationships work, will (provided they are unbiased) provide the necessary evidence. Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 01-29-2007 at 05:35 PM. |
||||||
01-29-2007, 07:51 PM | #247 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Quote:
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...0&postcount=14 Also, NARTH are a well-known anti-homosexual lobby group: Quote:
* Goes for a wash * So, basically, when it comes to the balance of evidence, on the one side you have the vast majority of practising professionals based on reviews of the best available evidence, whilst on the other side you have some unknown wiki hacker/s and a self-confessed anti-gay brainwashing unit. |
||
01-29-2007, 08:46 PM | #248 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 3,514
|
Do you really, Lief, wish to compare the validity and authencity of the Encyclopedia Britannica, with wikkipedia?
Joking aside - do you really wish to proceed with such a position???? ( quite regardless of any context here btw) |
01-29-2007, 09:00 PM | #249 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
Lief - look at your dates again. 1997. 1998. 1994. 1981. The 1970s. The 1960s.
Look at the APA's CURRENT statements and the research they cite. Falkner & Garber, 2002; Morris, Balsam, & Rothblum, 2002; Kurdek, 2003; Kurdek, 2001; Peplau & Beals, 2004; Peplau & Spalding, 2000, etc. Homosexual relationships have been highly studied over this current decade. I really couldn't care less if the original decisions by the APA were or were not pressured, influenced, or otherwise unbiased. Their current position is none of the above, and it is supported by the most up to date data.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
01-29-2007, 09:51 PM | #250 | |
The Rogue Elf
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,722
|
Quote:
As a bisexual, I find this highly, highly amusing. If not vaguely offending in and of itself. People are people, for chrissakes. Why can't all people realize this? You and others are searching for things that aren't there and making judgment calls and separations based on the same ignorant beliefs of people who think so-called "races" are different from each other -- just like homosexuals are somehow different from heterosexuals. It's based in the same narrow-minded thinking, and it's ludicrous. Black. White. Gay. Straight. Asian. Bisexual. Tall. Short. Fat. Skinny. Blonde hair. Black eyes. GET OVER IT ALREADY. PEOPLE = PEOPLE. End of bloody argument and goodnight! |
|
01-29-2007, 11:21 PM | #251 |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Actually, we are studying religious exclusivism in this thread.
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
01-30-2007, 03:59 AM | #252 |
Entmoot's Drunken Uncle
Join Date: May 2005
Location: ghost
Posts: 1,792
|
I have a question.
Did anyone test to see if interracial marrages were "harmful" when they were first legalized? Just asking. |
01-30-2007, 04:18 AM | #253 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Meanwhile, in the real world, Catholic adoption agencies in the UK have been refused an exemption from anti-discrimination laws.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6311097.stm |
01-30-2007, 09:31 AM | #254 | |||
The Rogue Elf
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,722
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
They legalized it when they realized they were being bigots. |
|||
01-30-2007, 04:44 PM | #255 | ||||||||||||||||
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Rana I think bj is engaging in ironic humor... read through the thread a little bit to see what people have already said and the general tone of the various contributors.
Anyway... Lief, sorry for the delay but Ive been busy then sick for a while. I erased some of the post because some points have been clearly taken on by others here in the mean time and well refuted your points. But some of this stuff was still begging to be responded to. Its good to see new blood in the thread basically repeating much of the same things I have been emphasizing all along. Its good to see the flaws in your argument are that clear to folks. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It doesn’t need to be PROVEN to be perfectly safe Lief. In fact there CAN be clear evidence that something has a real element of danger or potential HARM to it and we still allow it in accordance with the true meaning within our constitution. So this whole harm argument always hangs itself on that fact alone if nothing else. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Last edited by Insidious Rex : 01-30-2007 at 04:47 PM. |
||||||||||||||||
01-30-2007, 07:27 PM | #256 |
Entmoot's Drunken Uncle
Join Date: May 2005
Location: ghost
Posts: 1,792
|
May I just say, Bravo Insidious Rex.
|
01-30-2007, 09:06 PM | #257 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
The white elephant in the room is that the only real reason for denying homosexuals marriage is because the bible, by some interpretations, says so. This is evidenced by the fact that I can point out the most blatantly harmful kinds of heterosexual relationships (like marrying a pedofile or a convicted rapist/murderer) and there is absolutely no objection to the legality of such a union. Everything else is a smokescreen, or maybe a bit of self-rationalization, because I do believe that even those who argue against it on this board are generally decent people by any measure of the word. I think they just need to lighten up a bit and maybe interact more firsthand with people involved in homosexual relationships. The more they meet and are willing to give a chance to those they can not understand, the more opinions might change. Studies don't often change opinions, but friendships can. Though, if nothing else, it proves that nurture may be even more difficult, if not impossible, to change than nature is.
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
01-30-2007, 10:56 PM | #258 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
*presents IRex with a bouquet of roses*
*applauds* The only anti-gay marriage that actually make sense is people who say, "I believe that homosexuality is wrong, therefore I don't think gay people should be allowed to get married." It's stupid, but at least it stands up to scrutiny. The only people who's anti-gay marriage arguments make sense and they don't come accross as jerks is people who say, "I believe homosexuality is wrong, so I would vote against a gay marriage bill. You, of course, are free to vote how you want, as I am." Everything else is rubbish.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
01-31-2007, 02:42 AM | #259 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
I'm afraid I've run out of time to continue this debate. I may pick it up again at some future date, but for now, school is setting in hard and I can't any longer afford the time this is taking.
It has been fun . Thanks, everyone, for giving me a lot of intellectual stimulation for a long time! Sorry I don't have time currently for a last response. Maybe this weekend I'll be able to get in a final response. Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks again for the pleasure of discussing these issues with you all .
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
01-31-2007, 02:52 PM | #260 |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Anytime.
Good luck too!
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
marriage | katya | General Messages | 384 | 01-21-2012 12:13 AM |
Homosexual marriage | Rían | General Messages | 999 | 12-06-2006 04:46 PM |
Gays, lesbians, bisexuals | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 988 | 02-06-2006 01:33 PM |
Ave Papa - we have a new Pope | MrBishop | General Messages | 133 | 09-26-2005 10:19 AM |
Women, last names and marriage... | afro-elf | General Messages | 55 | 01-09-2003 01:37 AM |