Homosexual marriage II

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Oh? And yet:
"In the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health, the
American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of
same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities
conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same
rights, benefits, and responsibilities.”

Seems like they think there's enough data. And the American Psychological Association feels the same way. Indeed, they'd say "research has found that the factors that predict relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and relationship stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples (Kurdek, 2001, 2004)"

That is certainly not the consensus of the psychiatric branch, however.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Despite the emollience of attitudes towards homosexuality and acceptance of it in some societies, in psychology it is considered an 'understudied relationship'.

And according to those who voted against the decision in the American Psychiatric Association to change their position on homosexuality toward one favoring it, there was no new evidence that was presented on the issue. The minority who were voted down said that the decision had much more to do with politics than it had to do with science.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Also Lief, you still miss what I'm asking: I'm saying that there is nothing in our current laws that seems to have anything to do with the genders of the participants in terms of the benefits provided or the requirements, save for the explicit requirement that they be of other genders.

The gender difference between men and women is a genetics issue. There are significant genetic differences between men and women which cross the whole of the genders and should be taken into account, in our laws.

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.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I'm asking what in there there is even the slightest chance of being bad for gay people. How could it be bad for them to be able to see each other on their deathbeds, to have tax deductions, to get healthcare?

I've answered you twice on this point. I don't choose to impose my opinion, which is what you're asking for. My opinion is just my own opinion, based on my interpretation of my personal experience of knowing homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians.

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.

[The Gaffer]

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.

[Nurvingiel]

Wikipedia is not a scientific source. It isn't peer-reviewed and is definitely not a rigorous source.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I am not arguing that it is harmful. Merely that insufficient studies have been done to know whether it is harmful or not, and hence our government should not say it is not harmful until we have done sufficient studies to know. Giving homosexuals marriage rights is saying implicitly that the relationship is not harmful.

You could say the same thing about religion. I believe we should study it a bit more.

[Count Comfect]

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?

The minority who were voted down said that the decision had much more to do with politics than it had to do with science.

And yet the majority not only said it had to do with science, they cited articles.

[Lief Erikson]

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.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

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.

The American Psychological Association made its decision in 1994, before Duck & Wood's book was published. So when it stated its position, homosexuality was still considered to be "understudied."

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:

Originally Posted by The NARTH Organization

1. We urge the A.P.A. to investigate the cause and nature of homosexuality. Such studies should not--as is most often the case--be funded almost solely by gay backers and conducted by gay-activist researchers. More research is necessary, in an open atmosphere.

The A.P.A. Monitor's "When Research is Swept Under the Rug" (August 97) makes reference to the sort of problem NARTH encounters. We have tried announce our annual conventions in the Monitor, and to obtain A.P.A. member mailing lists to conduct our research--and we have been systematically denied the privileges that are enjoyed by gay-affirmative organizations.

Now, here's some useful information about the political climate at the time of the American Psychiatric Association's choice to remove homosexuality from the list of "mental disorders."

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

From the late 1960s, gay rights activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental illness, protesting at APA offices or meetings. At the 1971 APA convention in Washington, gay activist Franklin E. Kameny seized the microphone. In a climate of controversy and social unrest, in 1973/1974, the American Psychiatric Association decided by a small majority (58%) to remove homosexuality as an illness category, although "ego-dystonic homosexuality" remained until 1987 and may still remain indirectly in a category of identify confusion disorder.

I've heard these homosexual activists who intervened in the American Psychiatric Association's decision-making described by my acquaintance who was a former homosexual as being an "angry mob." Wikipedia has refrained from mentioning that what activist Kameny yelled at the convention, to the psychiatrists, was, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate! Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us! You may take this as a declaration of war against you!"

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:

Probably the only studies of homosexuality that have a chance of being reliable would be those in which the researchers hold diverse opinions on the nature of sexual orientation. Unfortunately, to our knowledge, such studies have never been made.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm
This is a statement from an organization that seems to support homosexuality as an acceptable form of behavior.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

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?

I'm not the one who needs to make the studies. I'm not claiming to be professional enough to set them up myself. Homosexual relationships would be studied to find out whether or not they are harmful, and whether or not they would be harmed by marriage laws. I'm not going to give you the specifics you're asking for. I have my own feelings about one or two points where homosexuals might be harmed by marriage laws, because of having a different kind of relationship. However, there may very well be others, and my own feelings are irrelevant. My own thoughts on what might possibly harm homosexuals and what might not may be mistaken because we don't have enough studies to know. So again, my own thoughts are irrelevant.

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.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And yet the majority not only said it had to do with science, they cited articles.

Dr. Socarides wrote in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality that the Psychiatric Association's action "involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years."

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Also, I think I should remind you all that a study from Nature magazine said that Wikipedia is comparable in accuracy to Encyclopedia Britannica.

Then you'll forgive me for reminding you what a pile of pants that study actually revealed Wiki to be:

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...0&postcount=14

Also, NARTH are a well-known anti-homosexual lobby group:

Helping clients bring their desires and behaviors into harmony with their values.

And to think I incremented their web site hit stats to get that quote. Yeurrggghh.

* 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.

[Butterbeer]

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)

[Count Comfect]

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.

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I am not arguing that it is harmful. Merely that insufficient studies have been done to know whether it is harmful or not, and hence our government should not say it is not harmful until we have done sufficient studies to know. Giving homosexuals marriage rights is saying implicitly that the relationship is not harmful.

. . . You think we should study homosexual relationships before giving them any equal rights to marriage because there is a potential for them to be harmful?

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!

[brownjenkins]

Actually, we are studying religious exclusivism in this thread.

[klatukatt]

I have a question.

Did anyone test to see if interracial marrages were "harmful" when they were first legalized?

Just asking.

[The Gaffer]

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

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Actually, we are studying religious exclusivism in this thread.

The very first post to this thread states:

Yes, but the best argument is who is homosexuality hurting?

There have been homosexuals for centuries, and most people turned a blind eye because the rich homosexuals were just "eccentric" and not hurting anyone.

Now that homosexuals want to have rights the same as heterosexuals the world despises them.

Is changing the definition of marriage so very harmful?

That doesn't sound like religious exclusivism to me. Now, you two may have branched off into your own debate based on that point of view, but the original thread asks, "How is it harmful?"

Originally Posted by klatukatt

I have a question.

Did anyone test to see if interracial marrages were "harmful" when they were first legalized?

Just asking.

No, they did not.

They legalized it when they realized they were being bigots.

[Insidious Rex]

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.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So when a law is made, often the people think that the action is therefore valid. That will be especially true when you're extending the laws of an honorable institution like marriage.

FLAW: It is completely irrelevant what any law causes people to think. The relevancy of the law is in its direct application (in this case being constitutionally consistent and non discriminatory). Are you saying if they allow gay marriages tomorrow that you will suddenly think they are ok? What an absurd argument for not allowing it.

No, they don't have ample evidence about homosexual relationships, according to the psychiatric branch. I have already produced a citation demonstrating that.

This position has been well disputed by others since the last time I posted here so I wont bother.

That is like our allowing homosexuality in spite of it being bad for you. Allowing homosexuality isn't really affirming it, just like allowing cigarettes isn't affirming them.

No your analogy is flawed again. “Allowing” homosexuality is not allowing smoking. Allowing homosexuality would be the same as allowing the existence and growth of tobacco. Allowing gays to MARRY (according to your unproven and irrelevant harm argument) would be the same as allowing people to smoke. So using the harm argument simply doesn’t work even if its true which by your admission there is no evidence for at all.

In those places also, the law as it currently is written and has always been interpreted, except now in Massachusets, doesn't allow homosexuals to marry. So you're still changing the law.

Wait… how are you changing the law if you aren’t actually CHANGING THE LAW? How does that work? You can say you are interpreting it correctly but you cant say you are changing it in the cases of states where male-female isn’t designated.

It's all really very simple. I don't need to tell you what kinds of laws.

Lief as long as you are unwilling to give detail as to what you are getting at and not simply say we must ban it because the legal effects might be harmful then you have absolutely no leg to stand on and your argument is baseless.

Those differences stem from the difference in genetics. And when you say not SIMPLY on the genetics of the ape, you admit that genetics is still a factor, which also makes my point.

But the adult homosexual UNlike the ape… is capable of making what we determine to be rational and consensual choices about themselves and their relationships. So yes genetics is a factor and the genetics show that gays are rational and capable of making those decisions themselves and should therefore NOT be treated like apes…

Single parenthood issues are about child-care, not marriage laws.

But the point is clearly being a single parent is more detrimental to the child and to society at large then having two parents. Do you disagree? So we MUST BAN IT! Or else those damn single parents are going to need to come up with some tests to prove its not too harmful. Right?

I do believe that homosexuality is immoral, but that personal view has nothing to do with the arguments I am currently presenting.

But that’s the thing Lief… It clearly and transparently does. Because your arguments don’t hold water and are inconsistent and largely irrelevant anyway. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that and continue to batter on with them. You remind me of the creationist who refuses to acknowledge the evidence supporting evolution when its clearly presented to them. And frankly I think that’s a pretty good analogy for you on this subject…

If it was clear that my actions as a Christian were harmful to society, and not harmful only to myself, then yes, I would say that they should be banned.

So you don’t agree with the constitution in regards to freedom of worship then? Id say that’s a pretty dangerous position to hold just so you can be consistent and ban gay marriage lief…

There is clearly a significant genetic difference between men and women. The differences between people of different races are negligible. Again, all you have to do is sit them down in a classroom together in a racially diverse country like the US and see how they score. Simple solution. There is a wealth of evidence available.

Ok and what do we find? Well that whites CONSISTENTLY AND ACROSS THE BOARD score MUCH better then blacks and Hispanics on all tests measuring achievement and intelligence. So what is your conclusion Lief? We should really be testing non whites to make sure they are truly competent to do things like vote or operate a motor vehicle or hold elected office. I mean otherwise we are risking harming them and society at large right…

And no, I'm not going to go digging around for tests on the subject .

Well of course you aren’t… Why sabotage your own argument…

and its impact as regards marriage is easy to see across cultures and civilizations, with few exceptions to certain general rules of how it works.

But its “impact in regards to marriage” in the end is irrelevant to the argument because it treats homosexuals in a way that you DON’T treat anyone else on any other issue. It assumes something so dire as to be cause for not allowing equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals without ANY evidence whatsoever. You cant do that. You need to always allow for equality UNLESS proven otherwise. Not the other way around. Theres no precedent for that kind of approach. Oh wait actually there is but they are all illegal and discriminatory approaches to keeping certain groups from having the same rights as others. Things like poll taxes and jim crow laws… Now Lief do you really want to follow THAT kind of precedent?

Same is true for men, and this goes for people of different races too. There's an abundance of information easily available proving equal ability.

But that’s not true at all. See my argument above regarding the well known fact that blacks and Hispanics tend to do worse on all measures of academic success then whites. Now you can say that’s strictly environmental but youll need to prove that first. So if you are going to be consistent you are going to have to hold most minorities to the same standards you are holding gays: that we need to test to see if we can allow them to do certain things in society because simply including them as the same as whites when we clearly see that they don’t TEST the same could be very harmful…

It is immoral for the government to say something is fine without having any reason to think it is.

Like smoking? Drinking? Skiing? Sky diving? Gambling? Swimming the English Channel? Having unprotected sex? etc…

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.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Pedophile relationships in this country are subject to major discrimination. They aren't allowed, period. Homosexuality is allowed. This may very well be perceived to be a double standard by a future generation, considering how the arguments for homosexual marriage could just as easily be used supporting the legalization of pedophelia.

Wow do I find this ironic coming from the man who JUST said in a post to me:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is the Slippery Slope fallacy. If this thing is allowed, then all these other things will inevitably happen [referring to race and sex discrimination]. That's just absurd. There can be genuine, good reasons for not permitting one thing because of the biology involved, but for allowing other things that are clearly less harmful or not harmful at all.

We have seen the devastation that child abuse can cause Lief. The legal system is choked with cases (as you like to argue). The mental and emotional toll is immense and we have direct victims that can attest by their experience to this fact. The cost of child sexual abuse to our society and to our children and to ourselves is enormous. You DO NOT see that with homosexual relationships. Not even close. So follow your own original advice and reject this “fallacy” you now propose.

[klatukatt]

May I just say, Bravo Insidious Rex.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

That doesn't sound like religious exclusivism to me. Now, you two may have branched off into your own debate based on that point of view, but the original thread asks, "How is it harmful?"

As IR mentioned, I was just teasing Lief a bit.

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.

[Nurvingiel]

*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.

[Lief Erikson]

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 .

[brownjenkins]

Anytime.

Good luck too!