Gay rights vs. religious beliefs

[yellow_hammer 10]

DanKroh,

 

"Yellow_hammer, what you dismiss as strawman arguments, I assert are simply different instances of equivalent "deviations", but which are considered socially acceptable to you, where homosexuality obviously isn't. No amount of discipline/fortitude/determination is going to change a person's sexual orientation, either. Or are you one of these people who believes that homosexuals can be "cured"?"

 

I see now the point where we will never agree. You think that homosexuality is a state that someone is born into, something that they cannot control. You think that homosexuality is equal to being born left-handed or black. Since they are born with the desire for other people of their own sex it is right and proper that they act on that desire.

 

I, on the other hand (pun intended), think that homosexuals choose to be what they are. They may be following an urge that compels them but they still choose to act on that urge. The left-handed and black never have that choice, they just are. Similarly, no one can choose to be left-handed or black as they could choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. It should be clear to anyone without blinders on that a sexual preference for someone of the same sex has far more to to with other sexual preferences than it does with being left-handed or black. The logical leap you are making in this argument is too broad for me to take.

 

I don't know whether someone who has the irrational urge to have sex with someone of their own sex can be cured. I do know that they can choose not to act on that urge. As with anyone else that has a sexual problem - celibacy is a noble option.

 

To answer Gernblanston's question, I would not change my opinions if it were proved that homosexuality had a genetic basis. It would not prove that all homosexuals had this genetic marker. It would only show that some homosexuals may have a predisposition toward being attracted to someone of their own sex. It would still be an act of volition to engage in the relationship.

 

packsaddle,

 

"Gays are already in scouting. I know this as a fact in a real-life situation. In this case, at least, they will not leave. They pose no risk whatsoever to the boys. Your arguments are yesterday's news. Tough luck."

 

Yawn. If it is my tough luck, yesterdays news, and my side has already lost then why all the fuss?

 

I don't think it is healthy for children who are still forming their sexual identity to have an authority figure who is homosexual. There are closet homosexuals in scouting or those serving with a wink and a nod but are they really TRUSTWORTHY since they are being dishonest?

 

Fuzzy Bear,

 

I think it is wonderful that your gay friends are in church. But if they continue to practice homosexual sex then they ignore the scripture at their peril.

 

All,

 

I get tired of the suggestions that anyone against "gay rights" is a bigot or is trying to oppress homosexuals. Here is my opinion as succinctly as I can put it.

 

1. Homosexuals have every right to do what they want with thier private parts as long as their partner is a consenting adult. However, choosing to be different in our society often has a cost. The cost can be ridicule or even ostracism. You have a right to live as you wish within legal bounds - you don't have a right to be accepted no matter what you do. Choose to cover yourself with tatoos, sport a fuschia mowhawk, or carry on an openly gay lifestyle if you please but don't whine when people treat you as what you are... abnormal.

 

2. Marriage is the basic unit of society. It has been between a man and a woman for many centuries. We should not change the marriage contract in a drastic way to suit the desires of a vocal minority. Homosexuals should be able to have a legal agreement of some sort so that they can act for each other in emergencies. (I think that they can already do this, but whatever.) But I think that homosexuals don't really care to have other equal provisions - changing the definition of marriage is part of their path to acceptance and homosexual activists will accept no substitutes. I resent that.

 

3. We who feel that homosexuality is wrong should continue to have the choice not to have homosexuals in positions of authority over our children. Political offices are excepted for obvious reasons.

 

4. No one in this forum has suggested denying homosexuals the rights that they already have. We are against a redefinition of the laws so that they suit the homosexual agenda, which is mostly about acceptance and not a need for the things they are trying to change.

 

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by yellow_hammer)

[DanKroh 11]

"That explains a lot, the conditions related to pedophilia are what you say they are because you say they are, theyre your findings, you and the Psychiatric profession no disrespect intended."

 

You want me to spoon feed you passages from the research articles and textbooks that I read when I was in school? Sorry, don't have that kind of time here. I'm not the one who brought up pedophilia and tried to make it out to be something it wasn't. Do a little research yourself.

 

I agree that a discussion about this is less than fruitful, because we are speaking different languages. I am speaking the language of medicine, and you are talking about something else entirely, and I can't exactly figure out what that is.

 

"Why is it that the psychiatric profession no longer feels homosexuality is a sickness? Did they misread the signs? Misdiagnose the illness? Make a mistake? Could that be true of their position on Pedophiles? Nope, no way, KID CARD trumps open mindedness."

 

Yes, they made a mistake about homosexuality because they did not have a complete understanding of how the brain works. Could that change in the future for pedophilia? About as possible as it is for schizophrenia, autism, OCD, and bipolar disorder. There is CLEAR pathology present in all those disorders, including pedophilia, that is NOT present in homosexuals. One more time, it has nothing to do with kids or not, it has to do with the fact that pedophiles cannot function properly in their daily lives. Their obsession with prepubescent children as sexual objects interferes (to varying extents) with their ability to perform daily functions. I could just as easily say that the obsessions with handwashing of someone with OCD interferes with their ability to perform daily functions. You seem to be the only one hung up on the "kid card".

 

"Im curious though about your reference to the age of menarche. Do you hold that the age or the normal age has changed due to environmental or social influence? Seems like you were saying that in Shakespeares time the norm was different than it is today."

 

Yes, the age of menarche has changed in the past (and will continue to change in the future). There are several factors, including better nutrition and health care, increased overall lifespan, and environmental factors such as additives in our food. Some of these factors work to increase the age of mentrual onset, some to decrease it. I can't give you a complete treatise on the subject because I'm not a medical doctor.

 

"I am totally in favor of gay rights Dan, never said I wasnt."

 

Well, you certainly seemed to imply that you are not in favor of the right of gays to marry, because it would open the door to too many other things. Or was I mistaken in my interpretation of your statements?

 

"My position is that I dont want their views forced upon me. I dont want Gays or Blacks or Catholics or Jews or White Supremacists or Democrats or Republicans or anyone forcing me to associate with someone I chose not to associate with. My problem is not with the equality of gays it with the acceptance of gays at the price of my personal liberty."

 

And how, exactly, is allowing gays to marry going to force you to associate with anyone you don't want to? How is the acceptance of gays going to affect your personal liberty one iota? Specific examples, please, rather than fearmongering "What if" scenarios.

 

"Dan being in the profession could you find or tell me where to look for a copy of Fuzzys book circa 1950? Id really like to know if the definition has changed or if homosexuality as a sickness was just something else I was taught as a child which was BS. I know that definition would have been wrong but I would like to know if it was indeed the 50s definition."

 

I'm afraid I don't have a copy of the DSM from the 1950's laying around my office (we are currently on DSM-IV, btw). I'm sure if you did a google search, you could find the exact text.

[yellow_hammer 10]

The DSM was first published in 1952 and classified homosexuality as a sexual disorder. It was that way until, after several years of having their association meetings disrupted, the APA Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder. This was not done thru scientific research and discussion leading to change but by a vote by a few members at the top.

 

Does this tactic sound familiar?

[Hunt 11]

"Does this tactic sound familiar?"

 

Yes, it reminds me of the tactic the FDA used to stall the approval of Plan B. (How's that for changing the subject, but to another hot-button topic?)

[DanKroh 11]

"The DSM was first published in 1952 and classified homosexuality as a sexual disorder. It was that way until, after several years of having their association meetings disrupted, the APA Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder. This was not done thru scientific research and discussion leading to change but by a vote by a few members at the top."

 

And where exactly did you find that "traditional values" talking point?

 

Try this history from Psychiatric News instead:

 

"Sabshin credited the chair of APA's Committee on Nomenclature in the early 1970s, Robert Spitzer, M.D., with playing a pivotal role in propelling the evolution of APA's position on homosexuality. That committee was charged with revising the initial version of DSM, and Spitzer-armed with research showing there were no valid data to link homosexuality and mental illness-advocated forcefully for the strategy of deleting homosexuality from the disorders list and replacing it with a new one called "sexual orientation disturbance."

 

In a key vote in December 1973, the Board of Trustees overwhelmingly endorsed Spitzer's recommendation. Opponents of the decision attempted to overturn it with a referendum of the APA membership in early 1974-just as Sabshin was beginning his 23-year tenure as APA medical director. The Board's decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual was supported by 58 percent of the membership."

 

Spritzer brought RESEARCH to support his proposal, and after the Board of Trustees overwhelmingly endorsed his recommendation, the decision was supported by 58% (a majority if I remember my math correctly) of the membership.

 

Was the decision controversial? Sure, you bet. Were there protests from gay activitsts in the years leading up to the change? Sure, you bet. But to declare that the change was done SOLELY to appease those protestors or that the change was somehow foisted onto the memberhip is pure hogwash.

 

[LongHaul 10]

Dan,

The original post spoke about the collateral damage being done in the name of tolerance. It referred to the BSA losing its offices in Philly and to schools being forced to accept gay couples with regard to housing. It was not about whether gay marriages should be legal or not. The school would not necessarily have to be opposed to gay marriage just apposed to having gay couples living in school provided housing. I dont care if Gays marry, I dont view marriage in the same light as some do. I see it as a bond between two people. There are marriages of love, of convenience, of necessity. The governmental recognition of those unions IMO has nothing to do with the union itself it has to do with governmental and societal allowances with respect to the union. Should Gays be allowed to enter into a union recognized as equal to FOR PURPOSES OF LEGAL STANDING a heterosexual union YES! Should a Condo Association be able to exclude them from living in their community again YES. Gays shouldnt be denied insurance, recognition of their union by various states, the right to fill joint tax returns. They also shouldnt be allowed to impose their views, customs, and opinions on others. If a community does not accept a gay union as being equal to a straight union FOR THE PURPOSES OF SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE then nothing can force them to change and seeking legal sanctions only strengthens the separation. Gays are trying to force their beliefs on society in excess of gaining equality they demand acceptance and I see the two things as different. If I saw two men making out I would have a conditioned reaction, if I saw a man and a woman making out I would have a conditioned reaction, they wouldnt be the same! I should be allowed this difference without ridicule if the couples in question wish to enjoy the same treatment. My oldest son has a friend who has enough body piercings that it actually makes my skin crawl to be in the same room. I dont counsel my son not to associate with this person, my son is 25 were he 12 it would be a different story. I accept this mans right to express himself and he should accept my right to be repulsed by his expression.

LongHaul

 

[DanKroh 11]

"Should Gays be allowed to enter into a union recognized as equal to FOR PURPOSES OF LEGAL STANDING a heterosexual union YES! Should a Condo Association be able to exclude them from living in their community again YES."

 

Wow, do you even realize how much this argument sounds just like the "separate but equal" arguments used to exclude blacks from housing, schools, and other organizations in the '50s and '60s?

 

"Gays shouldnt be denied insurance, recognition of their union by various states, the right to fill joint tax returns. They also shouldnt be allowed to impose their views, customs, and opinions on others. If a community does not accept a gay union as being equal to a straight union FOR THE PURPOSES OF SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE then nothing can force them to change and seeking legal sanctions only strengthens the separation. Gays are trying to force their beliefs on society in excess of gaining equality they demand acceptance and I see the two things as different."

 

But gays ARE being denied insurance, survivor benefits, and the right to file joint tax returns. Is it a matter of intent, then? If they want marriage because if gives them equality, that is ok, but if they want marriage for social acceptance, it's not? In this case, it seems that gaining equality and acceptance are, unfortunately, inseparable. Does not demanding acceptance trump gaining equality? The only way to get equality is through legal sanctions. Should they give up on gaining equality because, oh no, the acceptance it brings might make some heterosexuals uncomfortable?

 

"If I saw two men making out I would have a conditioned reaction, if I saw a man and a woman making out I would have a conditioned reaction, they wouldnt be the same! I should be allowed this difference without ridicule if the couples in question wish to enjoy the same treatment. My oldest son has a friend who has enough body piercings that it actually makes my skin crawl to be in the same room. I dont counsel my son not to associate with this person, my son is 25 were he 12 it would be a different story. I accept this mans right to express himself and he should accept my right to be repulsed by his expression."

 

But according to your argument above, you should have the right not to associate with him to the point of being able to deny him housing in your condo complex? I'm certainly not going to tell you that you are not allowed to be repulsed by PDA by gay couples. That is your burden to bear. My objection is when you make it THEIR problem instead of yours. My objection is when you use that as an excuse to discriminate in housing, employment, and any of the other ways in which gays continue to be discriminated against today, because you think you should have the right not to have to associate with them. You don't want to associate with them, fine, then vote with your feet, not with discrimination.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

While I have been to a lot of hospitals, I havent been to them all, all I can say is all of the ones I have been to and the ones I worked at regarded gay partners as family. It is indeed distressing to know this attitude is not shared by all. But then again, the fault seems to lie within the hospital, the answer may not be to have gays marry as much to have hospitals change visitation regulations. Wouldnt that accomplish the health issue without such venom?

[yellow_hammer 10]

DanKroh,

 

My source is a member of your profession whom I know personally. I assure you that the person is well qualified.

 

"The assumption I am now challenging is this: that every desire for change in sexual orientation is always the result of societal pressure and never the product of a rational, self-directed goal. This new orthodoxy claims that it is impossible for an individual who was predominantly homosexual for many years to change his sexual orientation -- not only in his sexual behavior ... and to enjoy heterosexuality. Many professionals go so far as to hold that it is unethical for a mental-health professional, if requested, to attempt such psychotherapy. ... Science progresses by asking interesting questions, not by avoiding questions whose answers might not be helpful in achieving a political agenda." - Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University

 

 

"Now I do have to say that one of the concerns of people who have criticized the the study has been criticized severely by many people particularly gay activists who apparently many feel quite threatened by it. I think they have the feeling that in order for them to get their civil rights it's helpful to them if they can present the view that once you're a homosexual it can never change. Which may actually, they may be right, politically it does help them but it may not be scientifically correct." Dr. Robert Spitzer

 

Doesn't sound like an advocate of your "born gay" theory does he.

 

Spitzer lobbied to have the definition changed so that it did not include those with homosexual desires but were not conflicted by them. Those troubled by their desires were included in the new definition. Under pressure, the APA siezed on this and made their decision in a way that was not usual practice.(This message has been edited by yellow_hammer)

[DanKroh 11]

A little more information on Dr. Spitzer's recent work:

 

"In 2001, Spitzer delivered a controversial paper at the 2001 annual APA meeting arguing that "highly motivated" individuals could "successfully" change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. [1]. The APA immediately issued an official disavowal of the paper, noting that it had not been peer reviewed and bluntly stating that "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."[2]

 

Two years later, Spitzer published the paper in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. The publication decision sparked controversy and one sponsoring member resigned in protest. The paper has been criticized on various grounds, including using non-random sampling and poor criteria for "success"."

 

BTW, the research he presented in 1973 that showed no valid data linking homosexuality to mental illness was not his own research, he was only chair of the committee to edit the book. (Just to head off those comments that if his research on reparative therapy is not valid, isn't his research on homosexuality as not a mental illness also invalid).

 

Nice try, yellow_hammer. Care to play again?

 

You might also want to look a little further into what Dr. Spitzer said about his own work and how he felt it was misrepresented by the media: "My study concluded with an important caveat: that it should not be

used to justify a denial of civil rights to homosexuals, or as support for

coercive treatment. I did not conclude that all gays should try to change,

or even that they would be better off if they did. However, to my horror,

some of the media reported the study as an attempt to show that

homosexuality is a choice, and that substantial change is possible for any

homosexual who decides to make the effort."(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[DanKroh 11]

"Wouldnt that accomplish the health issue without such venom?"

 

Yes, OGE, it might. But at what point do gays get to stop clawing their way through all thousand or so benefits that marriage automatically bestows on them, when they could get them all in one fell swoop with marriage rights?

 

Same thing with the living will and health-care proxy argument. Why should a gay couple have to carry around those papers with them all the time (because you never know when an unfortunate circumstance might strike) just to assure that their partner's sister who doesn't like them can't swoop in and declare the partner "persona non grata"? It's part of the whole "separate but equal" argument again. Yes, you can have equal hospital visitation rights, as long as you are willing to do this extra thing that heterosexual couples don't have to do. See the difference?

[yellow_hammer 10]

"We were prompted by the homosexuals pressure..." - Dr. Robert L. Spitzer

 

DanKroh,

 

"Nice try, yellow_hammer. Care to play again?"

 

Sure, I'll play again. Just let me point out that Spitzer is your boy. Pointing out his inconsistencies only strengthens my point that the decision was rushed and did not follow the usual practices when making this sort of change.

 

"Spritzer brought RESEARCH to support his proposal,..."

 

Spitzer didn't present his own research on the topic because he had none. He had no previously published papers on the topic of homosexuality or sexual deviations . And yet he was appointed the chairman of the Nomenclature Task Force on Homosexuality after Dr. Henry Brill was removed from a similar position. Spitzer presented a *position paper* and the board made its decision based on the paper. The idea that they carefully reviewed volumes of research before voting, as you seem to think, is just not true.

 

"... and after the Board of Trustees overwhelmingly endorsed his recommendation, the decision was supported by 58% (a majority if I remember my math correctly) of the membership."

 

Not 58% of the membership - 58% of the ~10,000 who voted in a ~25,000 member organization voted not to overturn the board's recommendation. That is not the same as an endorsement. MY MATH tells me that only about 23% of the membership voted not to overturn their board. (Nice try, care to play again.)

 

Notably, a significant minority of your profession disagreed. They had access to the same research as well as much research to the contrary.

 

The APA position statement following their decision has some interesting statements...

 

"Modern methods of treatment enable a significant proportion of homosexuals who wish to change their sexual orientation to do so."

 

"homosexuality (and perhaps some of the other *sexual deviations*" (emphasis mine)

 

"What will be the effect of carrying out such a proposal? No doubt, homosexual activist groups will claim that psychiatry has at last recognized that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. They will be wrong."

 

Even though the decision was wrong and politically motivated it was not a statement that homosexuals are normal. Even after this decision the APA considered homosexuality to be "deviant" psychiatric condition, just not a disorder when the person was comfortable with his condition.

 

It was a spineless decision to remove themselves from the political debate and in so doing leave homosexuals who might have sought treatment with the impression that they were healthy if they declared themselves so.

 

[DanKroh 11]

"Sure, I'll play again. Just let me point out that Spitzer is your boy. Pointing out his inconsistencies only strengthens my point that the decision was rushed and did not follow the usual practices when making this sort of change."

 

No, Spitzer is not "my boy". He was the psychiatrist who happened to present the research to the Americal Psychiatric Association when they decided to edit the DSM.

 

If the decision was so rushed, why did the American Psychological Association (the organization to which I belong, btw), pass a similar resolution two years later?

 

"Spitzer didn't present his own research on the topic because he had none. He had no previously published papers on the topic of homosexuality or sexual deviations . And yet he was appointed the chairman of the Nomenclature Task Force on Homosexuality after Dr. Henry Brill was removed from a similar position. Spitzer presented a *position paper* and the board made its decision based on the paper. The idea that they carefully reviewed volumes of research before voting, as you seem to think, is just not true."

 

He mostly presented the research of Evelyn Hooker, who performed one of the most groundbreaking studies on the nature of homosexuality. And what I said was that he presented research that there was NO VALID LINK between homosexuality and mental illness. The idea that he presented his personal opinion and then they all sat down to vote, as you seem to think, is just not true.

 

I was not there at the meeting. In 1973, I was happily playing with my Star Trek dolls. Were you there? Were you privy to the inner discussions of the Board of Trustees? However, I have read a variety of accounts of that pivotal meeting (and not just from right-wing sites, either), that all say that the decision was made based on research, not to appease gay activitists. Believe what you like.

 

"Not 58% of the membership - 58% of the ~10,000 who voted in a ~25,000 member organization voted not to overturn the board's recommendation. That is not the same as an endorsement. MY MATH tells me that only about 23% of the membership voted not to overturn their board. (Nice try, care to play again.) Notably, a significant minority of your profession disagreed. They had access to the same research as well as much research to the contrary."

 

And you are making an assumption here that the 15,000 members who did not attend/vote would have voted to overturn the recommendation. What makes you think that the 10,000 who were there were not a representative sample of the entire membership? If the other 15,000 felt strongly about overturning the recommendation, you think they would have made an effort to attend and have their voices heard. And yes, a significant minority did object. Old prejudices die hard, don't they?

 

"The APA position statement following their decision has some interesting statements..."Modern methods of treatment enable a significant proportion of homosexuals who wish to change their sexual orientation to do so.""

 

And both APAs and the American Pediatric Association have since declared that reparative treatments do far more harm than good. So what's your point?

 

"Even though the decision was wrong and politically motivated it was not a statement that homosexuals are normal. Even after this decision the APA considered homosexuality to be "deviant" psychiatric condition, just not a disorder when the person was comfortable with his condition."

 

That was the first revision (prejudice sometimes has to be removed in steps). The second revision removed the condition completely (in the DSM-III).

 

"Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

 

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation."

 

"It was a spineless decision to remove themselves from the political debate and in so doing leave homosexuals who might have sought treatment with the impression that they were healthy if they declared themselves so."

 

So says you. What makes you think homosexuals do not seek treatment? If not, I would not have a practice. The only thing the decision did was to remove the directive to treat them as mentally ill.

[Hunt 11]

"I was not there at the meeting. In 1973, I was happily playing with my Star Trek dolls."

 

Hey, those were action figures, not dolls!

[DanKroh 11]

"Hey, those were action figures, not dolls!"

 

As an interesting aside (well, it's interesting to me)

 

I did a paper in grad school about the gender bias of the whole doll/action figure thing. If you have two plastic figures, which are the same size, both have "real" hair, joints, and clothing that can be changed, why is the one that has breasts a doll and the one without breasts an action figure? (Barbie vs. G.I.Joe)

 

In the absence of any context, male figures were action figures and female figures were dolls, usually. In a context of a child playing with them, whether they were action figures or dolls were generally determined more strongly by the gender of the child playing with them, i.e. girls played with dolls and boys played with action figures, and secondly by the roles being assigned to the figures by the child. However, when the "costumes" were added into the context, figures wearing "street clothes" were dolls, whereas figures wearing "uniforms" were action figures.