Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
lifestyle choices

The American Psychological Association’s New Rules Allow Running Away From Homosexuality

therapy-session1

While a new report from the 150,000-member American Psychological Association declares reparative therapy is a sham and has no effect, it doesn’t go so far as to demand counselors quit telling gay patients to just accept who they are. In fact, the APA’s new guidelines enter a murky area — recognizing some patients will just never reconcile their sexuality with their faith, and thus permitting psychologists to help them abandon their same-sex feelings. Which is not the same thing as going straight.

The APA task force that studied 50 years of data to create the 138-page report says “it is ethical — and can be beneficial — for counselors to help some clients reject gay or lesbian attractions,” relays the WSJ.

So what do the new rules actually entail?

According to new APA guidelines, the therapist must make clear that homosexuality doesn’t signal a mental or emotional disorder. The counselor must advise clients that gay men and women can lead happy and healthy lives, and emphasize that there is no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation.

But if the client still believes that affirming his same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God.

“We’re not trying to encourage people to become ‘ex-gay,'” said Judith Glassgold, who chaired the APA’s task force on the issue. “But we have to acknowledge that, for some people, religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend everything else.”

The APA has long endorsed the right of clients to determine their own identities. But it also warned that “lesbians and gay men who feel they must conceal their sexual orientation report more frequent mental health concerns.”

We’re not going to pretend to know more about psychology than the APA. They’re the experts. And there does need to be a middle ground for gay people who simply want to be loved by Jesus than to love themselves.

But there’s something that nags at us about this methodology: The APA is permitting its 150,000 counselors to tell Americans they should deny themselves sex (a very normal human desire), and even companionship, to cope with the conflict of religion and identity.

No, sexuality is not the same as race. It’s not the same as gender. But we can’t fathom one of the nation’s leading psychological institutions to, say, recommend a Latino man who’s ashamed of his heritage (i.e. something he is born into) to learn how to disassociate from the Latino community and “prioritize” his subscription to “white values.” It’s silly, really. And it sounds perfectly harmful.

Especially to young people. And while we’re sure age and circumstance are taken into account when a therapist decides what strategy to undertake with a patient, it’s hard to reconcile telling a 13-year-old girl or 18-year-old man they can lead happy, fulfilling lives by denying themselves the love of another person.

By:           editor editor
On:           Aug 6, 2009
Tagged: , ,
  • 117 Comments
    • ZJ
      ZJ

      Sexuality isn’t the same as religion, either. Religion is a choice. You can change your religion.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 10:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AlanInSLC
      AlanInSLC

      I think in situations like this where there are people who have conflicts with sexuality vs. religious faith, that the counselors should provide options such as:

      Encouraging the patients to take a chance and explore other religions to see what other faiths say about sexuality. They might find other faiths that allow them to feel loved and still be who they are without the shame that most religions bestow upon those who are gay. They may also even find that they like the teachings in other religions more suiting to their hearts calling. (I personally have found my connection to GOD WITHOUT Christ by exploring more spiritual based theology and not in the box of religion.)

      Advising the clients to try out support groups for those who feel alone and who are going through similar struggles with their faith. Having others who are going through the same things helps not only to give confidence, but to show that there is a possibility of finding comfort in others who are like themselves.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 10:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ajax
      ajax

      They could give us lobotomies. That will help us to deal with our “same sex feelings”.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 10:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • carly
      carly

      The APA just confirmed again what every intelligent person already knew. There is a related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588

      Aug 6, 2009 at 10:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane
      M Shane

      The bottom line on all this is just that the APA while asserting that sexuality can’t be changed simply asserts that people can remain celibate for life (which you have to admit is better for a guy than trying to eat pussy all the time hoping for a change of apppetite). This is not unlike the kind of vows that priests take and lives steers and capons live.
      Personally, I had a much easier time telling my Catholixcrelatives to got take a jump than give up the joys of happy & frequent sodomy. Certainly their are times when I would rather read a book..
      My guess,given the strength of sexual needs , is thaty a shrink would need to give me or anyone making such a denial daily does of strong antipsychotics. Though this is always a happy option for the APA since maximum drug sales are the bottom line in their trade.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      ZJ,
      From what I have heard, part of the guidelines would be to encourage switching churches. I think these are very humane, and if there’s any beef here it should be with the religions that lead to these difficult decisions. A therapist can’t be a theologian. That’s outside their scope.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 10:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeremy/G-A-Y
      Jeremy/G-A-Y

      With all due respect, I think this is a highly inaccurate read of the date. The APA data is an absolute repudiation of “Ex-gay” therapies. It basically says that counselors have to respect faith (which they should) but that the faith views can never change what the science says.

      The WSJ’s “it is ethical — and can be beneficial — for counselors to help some clients reject gay or lesbian attractions” comment is largely spin. That comment is not contained in the report.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 10:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • emb
      emb

      The real problem, of course, is — once again — religion. Take a peek under most personal neuroses and psychoses, societal dysfunctions, national political lunacies, and pretty much any problem in the world, and you’ll find someone’s slimy, eyeless, multilegged religions wiggling around. The issue here isn’t the psychology of sexuality, it’s an individual suffering from religion.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 11:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Republican
      Republican

      The new guidelines are reasonable and fit in with the idea that a shrink should not totally remake a man as the shrink would like but instead show him possibilities and ways to be comfortable with all aspects of his identity. For some, that may involve switching churches or not having sex. Such options are not reasonable for me or probably anyone else on this site, but I can imagine extreme situations involving deeply troubled persons where they might be the best paths to happiness.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 11:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill
      Bill

      Without trying to be a drama queen here, this is one of the saddest things I have ever read.

      Sad because Heterosexuals do not seem to realize that THEY are the ones who need the therapy. Therapy to remove such bigotry from their hearts. Amazing to me that Heterosexuals are so very capable of creating MILLIONS of Gay & Lesbian humans, yet they refuse to learn that it is THIER character flaws that allow this absolutely disgusting and disrespectful treatment of us.

      This article ruined my day, it hit me so hard.

      You would think by the age of 40 that nothing the Heteros do or say would affect me any longer, but this one sure hurt right to the bone.

      The suggestion that Gay people spend loveless, sexless, lonely lives, so that Heterosexuals and their God can be appeased is simply an all time low.

      Even for Heterosexuals.

      And by the way, APA: suck my big Gay dick, assholes.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 11:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jerry Priori
      Jerry Priori

      All gods are human creations; they don’t actually exist outside of the human imagination. Religion may play an important part in the lives of some people, but since they’re all make believe anyway, it makes more sense for a therapist to work on the patient’s faith rather than have them deny who they are. If the patients are going to live in a fantasy world with or with out therapy, at least guide them into living in a nice one instead of the hateful shithole they currently occupy.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 11:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeremy/G-A-Y
      Jeremy/G-A-Y

      Bill: Again, this article is largely spin from the conservative Wall Street Journal. The APA report is mostly great for our side. The social conservatives, while working to spin whatever good they can find, are actually quite upset with this report.

      Here, read the AP’s take:

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/ap_on_re_us/us_psychologists_gays_13

      Or better yet: read the actual report:

      http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/08/thanks-credible-science.html

      Aug 6, 2009 at 11:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alicia banks
      alicia banks

      horridly ignorant and anti-academic/scientific regression that will prove fatal to many suicidal gays!

      just as the recent retro homohating vibe in the naacp

      shame!!!
      ab

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank
      Frank

      @Jerry Priori: Thanks for clearing that up! I think you enunciate remarkably well for someone who’s talking out of his ass.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andrew
      Andrew

      @Republican:
      Republican, I don’t disagree with your basic premise regarding the overarching goal of therapy. Where your position (and maybe the APA’s position?) gets into trouble, it seems, is when you apply that guideline to other aspects of a patient that cause the patient difficulty or unease. Left-handedness is a prime example from centuries ago. Back then, the conventional wisdom (and widely held belief in religious circles) was that left-handedness was abnormal. Thus, for centuries left-handed school children were forced to switch to right-handedness for writing, etc. In some ways, the mere physical act was painful and, in addition, children were punished for using their left-handedness. So… bringing this example to today: Suppose the patient belongs to a religious group that still holds fast to the old belief that left-handedness is abnormal and at odds with the religion’s teaching. The patient wants to conform and put himself through painful efforts to not use his left hand for writing. It might have many effects on his life, career, etc. Using the guideline, the therapist should say something akin to “Being left handed is not an illness but I understand your convictions move you to trying to be right-handed.” And then move on into helping the person try to become right-handed. ??? Does this make any sense? No. Obviously, I’m using a somewhat absurd example, but hopefully my point is not lost in it. There will be many many patients who engage in behaviors that are against their mental health and well-being simply because the behavior is “grounded” in some religious or ethical doctrine. Seems like the APA guideline almost puts therapists out on a limb — how do they make that call? When is it that “rational” takes back seat to “reasonable, given religious belief?” Seems the therapy-community (and its patients) would have been better served by clear guidance from the APA instead of what appears to be guidance warped by fear of upsetting religious folks. (Before everyone jumps all over me on that, I’m not against religious per se. Just against religion’s twisted aspects — and almost all religious dogma about sexuality is twisted and outdated) IMHO.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      I really wish that the APA had taken their report one step further and made it absolutely clear that Our President and the “Gawd’s in the mix” folks should stop likening LGBT relationships to incest, pedophilia and bestiality.

      Doing so, is no less offensive to LGBT people than calling them “faggots”, “deviates”, “perverts”, “fudge-packers” and a whole host of heterosexually-originated, derogatory and demeaning terms designed to minimize and shame a minority group.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane
      M Shane

      @#No. 11 · Jeremy/G-A-Y

      This is most certainly a decisive attack on the most critical assumptions of the Religious fanatics( “Soc.Conservative” is a journalistic euphemism ).

      For their position to hold water for them they have got to “Hate the sin but love the sinner”. They “LOVE homosexuals” but hate what they do sexually (which they believe is a choice) other wise they would hardly be worthy of the Christian name.
      When, as now, the sinner and the sin become one, then they can no longer hate the sin without hating the sinner, practicing or not. They are stuck with hating their kids and relatives who are gay. There is no point in engaging in these changover routines .
      This of course would seem to curse a lot of young men with sins of thought., as wel as feeling crazy all the time. Presumably these shrinks have gone limp in the erection department. But it may save parents from embarassment.

      The offensive part about this is that we all know , from experience that the best couseling for a gay person is to follow their heart (etc) and be true to themselves .

      I expect that what will hapen with this is that therapists will have, without medical intervention, highly conflicted gay patients, and unhappy parents who would prefer to electroshock their kids into submission.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Honestly, if one’s religion is standing in the way of them realizing their sexuality and leading a life that does not deny it, then wouldn’t that render their religion a mental illness? I’m not disagreeing that some people’s religious beliefs are so severe that they are indeed pathologies, but shouldn’t the goal be to free someone from the grip of mental illness, and not encourage it by playing into it?

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @Bill:

      I really related to your post no. 9, Bill.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      The APA has been moving steadily in the right direction for several years. The statement about reparative therapy was needed now because of the hip trend of sending homos off to these places.. they were an oddity in the recent past, and now they are everywhere.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @TANK:

      BINGO!

      That should be so self-evident to everyone as to not even require stating.

      Simply amazing, how much power the American populace has imbued the beast with!

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nunya Bizness
      Nunya Bizness

      I actually think this may be a good thing for the following reasons:

      I grew up in a family (African American & conservative — yep!)strongly associated with a very strict, Christian-based religion that speaks against the “gay lifestyle”. While that religion is “generous” enough to admit that they cannot disprove that many are born homosexual (and “generous” enough to admit that many honored members of that religion “suffer” from the same “dysfunction”) — they continue to treat it as a if it’s an incurable disease that has to be endured; making the homo “victim” who does not accept his reality and “succumb” to a “gay lifestyle” a bit of non-celebrated “survivor” — with some associated stigma, of course.

      Trust me… when raised within a religion like this one — the Language of Suppression is drummed into one’s head from a VERY early age. Thankfully, my parents were also strong believers in pyschotherapy, were more-than-willing to pay for it… and they encouraged me and my siblings to seek therapy during our teenage years.

      Of course, after much thought and anxiety — at about 17, I decided to discuss my conflicting feelings regarding religious beliefs, self-realization and budding sexual “preferences”… and my therapist’s very cut & dry responses regarding “being happy” and “being true to myself” and “living my life” and “loving whom I wish to love” seemed to be a bit of oversimplification (and very next level) to a 17 year old whom, because of those “simple” choices, was potentially facing faith-based social ridicule & exile and alienation from family.

      It also hadn’t taken into account that I wasn’t evolved enough in my spiritual journey to determine whether that religion was actually WRONG in their stance. It was all that I had known and it ruled the household in which I lived. For the therapist — it was simply a choice. For me – it was a way of life — and the only one that I’d known.

      Now in my 30’s – I’ve LONG since found a different spiritual path, come out and have reconciled my needs in regards to love, relationships and happiness with my openly “gay” lifestyle. But trust me — it took a lot of “bumping around”, figuring-it-out, and dealing with many people from my life’s polarized camps of “Religious Right” and “Extreme-out-and-proud-Left” to figure out what MY individual stance would be. (and let’s not forget the many people in my life who came from the same background who until this day, still wallow in married or suppressed homo-aversion and general fukked-up confusion).

      However, to me, that early advice indicated that my therapist was a bit out-of-touch with my psyche… and since she didn’t quite know how I “ticked” – how could she assist me in working through my issues. So — I stepped away from her services and simply told my parents that they were wasting their money.

      I think the knowledge and training mentioned in this article would allow therapists to assist that special “conflicted” patient in at least considering all of their choices (and the associated challenges). And trust me — that kind of understanding and assistance would be most helpful to conflicted young adults. Trust me – their religious leaders aren’t sparing them the doctrine because of their age!

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      It’s like telling a paranoid delusional “that’s right, the government is out to get you! You have every right to that belief, and you should run….now….” If it wouldn’t work out for a biological illness like schizophrenia, why here?

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      @Bill: Bill, I understand you have anger and hurt feelings– but this is JUST the point. The reason many phobes are phobes is that they REALLY THINK that our lives are devoid of love and stability. And that includes the kids– (and who wants a life devoid of love or stability for their child?) some of those little kids are going to grow up and be LGBT people. If they grow up to be the self-loathing types or the build-a-good life types might depend on our willingness to educate their straight (mostly) parents. Most kids’ parents are heteros, and they grew up thinking that their erotic object was the same as everyone else. On a very fundamental level, they don’t understand their gay kids.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @Nunya Bizness:

      Thank you for a very illuminating post and the sharing of a deeply personal ephiphany.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andrew
      Andrew

      @TANK:
      Good point. Where do we (society, doctors, patients…) draw the line? Some religions are called “cults” and action based on those beliefs/tenets would be considered irrational or delusional, etc. Not too long ago, the Mormon Church was considered a cult. Now… it’s more and more “mainstreamed” and accepted as a “religion.” Some accepted religions teach that treating physical illness with medicine is against god’s will. So is a person in therapy who is clearly mentally ill “rational” or “reasonable” for practicing his beliefs and avoiding treatment he really needs?

      This whole discussion, and similar issues, point to just how unworkable it is to try to govern or organize society based upon religious beliefs. It didn’t even work during “biblical times” — and people today continue to go through contortions trying to fit it into the modern era. We need a whole new model — people like Ken Wilbur are making interesting strides. God save us from the old notions of God.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Republican
      Republican

      Andrew, this report does NOT say that the patient should be helped in his attempts to become straight. That would be supporting ex-gay therapy which the APA has clearly rejected.

      The idea is that there are some individuals who are struggling with being both gay and religiously conservative and are also unwilling to take the normal out and active path. In those cases, bringing up the possibility of switching to a gay-friendly church or, if the person is unwilling or unable to change his mind on the sin aspect of gay relations, the possibility of remaining celibate but accepting his orientation seems reasonable. Not saying it isn’t sad, but for a very small group of people, celibacy may be the best way to keep the “demons” away.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @Andrew:

      God save us from the old notions of God.

      Well said!

      Aug 6, 2009 at 12:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Andrew:

      The reason why mormonism is now more mainstreamed and accepted than it was is because it underwent rapid evolution; changing to conform to social pressures and demands. There were extreme pressures for the polygamy and, frankly, harmful practices that it once considered a part of its faith to stop, and it did. It will continue.

      The reason why experiments like stoning adulterers is now largely regarded worldwide by more civilized societies (infinitely) than those who don’t, as an abomination is because they conflicted with our ethical demands and commitments (evolved faculties).

      It seems like the APA draws the line at harm and the potential to cause it. The greater the potential the clearer the line. I think that’s a good place to start.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 1:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DelphKC
      DelphKC

      FROM ABOVE: “But there’s something that nags at us about this methodology: The APA is permitting its 150,000 counselors to tell Americans they should deny themselves sex (a very normal human desire), and even companionship, to cope with the conflict of religion and identity.”

      I have to disagree…

      If there are people out there whose religious beliefs are so intense that being truer to their sexual selves makes them think that God will take revenge upon them at any second, then I think they are worse off than just having repressed sexual longing. That kind of spiritual paranoia would be many times more intense and scary for that person.

      From a medical standpoint, I think the APA hit the right notes on this one. You have to work with a person from within the contexts of their own belief systems, otherwise you could be doing an equal amount of harm to them, just in another direction.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 1:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spence
      Spence

      Ok, right now I am completing my doctorate in clinical psychology. From all I have learned and even witnessed myself, it is more complex than just denying your sexuality.

      What many of us do not realize, is that some peoples’ religious faith is as real and encompassing as their own sexuality. They can no more deny their beliefs as they can their sexuality. The same is true for many of you who have written here condemning religion. You believe that religion is the enemy. I am not saying that any of you are wrong at all, because it is what you believe. And you are passionate about that. But again, your belief that religion is bad is no more valid than the person who believes that it is their salvation. Whether it is a belief in a god or in a principle, it is still a belief that people often will not compromise upon.

      So if you have a gay man or woman who is conflicted where their religious faith and sexuality collide, it isn’t just simply a matter of saying one is wrong and the other is right. At least not to that person. Those beliefs, sexuality and faith, are ingrained in them. Both are right to them and this is where the conflict lies. To just outright counsel someone that one is wrong and the other correct, you may cause more problems than they are already facing.

      Such inner turmoil needs to be handled delicately. Switching your belief system is not an automatic thing for 99% of people.

      Options tend to be the best first step for such people. There are many Judeo-Christian churches out there who are gay friendly and accepting. They believe that God loves homosexuals as much as he does any heterosexual. I also hold to this belief.

      As I said before, changing beliefs and attitudes must be handled delicately and with sensible, calm, intelligent measures. When any group tries to change the way people think with hatred and derision, those they are trying to change just dig their heels in further. Such tactics just make people more sure and righteous about their stand. This goes for both religious zealots and the gay community.

      Religious zealots attack and tell us that we are wrong and damned for our sexuality. As evidenced in most of the above comments, this only angers you and makes you respond in kind. Trust me when I say that these responses only strengthens these religious hardliners stances. The opposite is true as well. When the gay community attacks religion as haters and bigots, this makes the religious community respond in kind. It is a vicious cycle.

      Personally, again I believe that it takes a more subtle approach to changing peoples minds. Anger and outrage, rarely are avenues to conversion of thought.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 1:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      But again, your belief that religion is bad is no more valid than the person who believes that it is their salvation.

      Bare assertion. That’s an informal logical fallacy. Learn how to make a case. In fact, religion is harmful in many cases. That’s a fact, not something that is up to belief. It kills people.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 1:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And again, if a belief causes someone great unhappiness, it seems harmful–like a pathology. It seems like that belief, and not their same sex attraction–is what’s wrong, and should be addressed as harmful. Not really playing into that belief by vindicating it through celibacy.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 1:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • He he he he
      He he he he

      @emb: great descriptors. :-D

      Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @Spence:

      Personally, again I believe that it takes a more subtle approach to changing peoples minds.

      I can relate to that. I recall my mom harping on me about the evils of smoking when I was still in my twenties. That just made me “dig my heels in deeper” and resist her.

      Not until I made the conscious choice to give it up (at age 30) not because that was what she wanted, but because I came to see how detrimental it was to my health, did I choose to quit.

      That said, however, I seriously question the notion that we can change peoples minds who are so thoroughly brainwashed that they will drink the KoolAid as Jim Jones instructed his “believers? to do.

      How do we reach people like that…before they drink the KoolAid, or worse yet, push some young gay boy/girl to drink it?

      Aug 6, 2009 at 2:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nunya Bizness
      Nunya Bizness

      @ Spence

      I have, firsthand, witnessed this statement to be true for many: “…What many of us do not realize, is that some peoples’ religious faith is as real and encompassing as their own sexuality. They can no more deny their beliefs as they can their sexuality…”

      Add to that the frequent circumstance of having one’s ENTIRE preferred social network & support system (family, friends and sometimes even career) encompassed by the same environment… and the person might find it much easier (and less damaging) to deny themselves the emotional or sexual gratification derived from accepting their homosexuality.

      Especially when there’s no lover or mate as the catalyst for accepting one’s gay self. Leaving all of that to sit alone with your “happiness” can be a big decision.

      For me – disagreement with doctrine & pracice — coupled with the lack of choice and supported by my innate yearning for personal freedom and expression — all of those were the catalysts for coming out.

      No anger, no disgruntlement, no waiting husband… just peace with self & my path. Not everyone finds that choice to be optimal for their circumstances, however.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      schlukitz wrote in No 15, “I really wish that the APA had taken their report one step further and made it absolutely clear that Our President and the “Gawd’s in the mix” folks should stop likening LGBT relationships to incest, pedophilia and bestiality.”

      Our president of course never made any such comparisons, nor did Justice Department lawyers providing arguments regarding DOMA (which they claim they have a legal duty to defend regardless of whether that law should be repealed). Part of the legal argument defending DOMA was that some states had in fact refused to recognize marriages from other states in cases in which such a refusal was upheld by a court, which establishes a claim that DOMA cannot be declared unconstitutional merely because it allows a state to not recognize a marriage – there must be some more specific reason. Obviously any such cases cited would have to exclude same-sex marriages – otherwise you have a circular argument.

      It is extremely unusual for the marriage of a straight couple to not be recognized. The precedents they found included one in which the minimum legal age for marriage was lower in one state than another. Another involved marriage between related individuals – how closely related they could legally be was different in one state than another. Those seemed to be the only precedents available – they couldn’t use ones in which one state refused to recognize an interracial marriage from another state because the U.S. Supreme Court previously ruled that such restrictions on marriage are unconstitutional.

      The use of these precedents in no way likening LGBT relationships to anything. Rather, the point was merely that there are circumstances in which a state lawfully refused to recognize a marriage from another state and where such refusals had nothing to do with LGBT marriages.

      Finally, nobody in the government mentioned bestiality. The right-wing religious nuts no doubt did, but the First Amendment gives them, like every other American, the legal right to make a fool of themselves in public. It also gives us the right to call them fools.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 4:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      But surely bestiality incest and pedophilia weren’t the ONLY precedents available, right? The ones that are ALL the religious right’s central slippery slope examples?

      Aug 6, 2009 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Oh, alright…pedophilia and incest, not bestiality in the brief. LOL! As if that somehow makes it better. But I doubt that those were the ONLY examples of a state not recognizing marriage. Yet those were the ones that were used…very interesting, if not bigoted.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 4:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Schlukitz dons hair-shirt and looks about for the quirt for having included the term “bestiality” in the Obama/DoJ reference.

      However, the Christers DO, in fact, frequently include the term “bestiality” when they refer to homosexuals, along with pedophilia and incest.

      Can’t find the quirt?

      Neeeeeeeever mind! LOL

      Aug 6, 2009 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      The APA has become a laughing stock and has lost all credibility in its pursuit of a homosexual, secularist agenda.

      The same organisation that decided homosexuality was no longer a mental disorder has since invented thousands of bogus new disorders like “compulsive shopping disorder” for shoplifters and “oppositional defiant disorder” for unruly kids.

      It’s no coincidence that the number of “disorders” has grown almost as quickly as the number of Psychology grads leaving University and seeking careers.

      No doubt the APA itself is suffering from Delusional Disorder when it tries to deny all the evidence of homosexuals who have voluntarily been rehabilitated.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 4:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz [Different person #1 using similar name]

      I think that the word “sexuality” is unfortunate, because the identity of “gay” is much more than “sex”. If a gay person did not have sex anymore, would he still be gay? Of course. It is also the filter through which we understand and interact with our world. The idea that you could cure someone of “Gay” by making them change (or repress) their sexual desire is silly. At best. The APA is doing a fine job of being 2 or 3 steps ahead of the general population, though not as far ahead as all of us avante guard geniuses.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth [Different person #1 using similar name]

      I am a repressed homosexual with a 3 inch wiener. Which is perfect, since I mostly sleep with children.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fitz
      fitz

      Vile

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cheeky
      Cheeky

      The APA can suck my dick.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      TANK wrote, “Oh, alright…pedophilia and incest, not bestiality in the brief. LOL! As if that somehow makes it better. But I doubt that those were the ONLY examples of a state not recognizing marriage. Yet those were the ones that were used…very interesting, if not bigoted.”

      If you think there are other examples (remember, these have to be ones that were not overthrown by the courts such as ones based on miscegenation laws), then produce some! My guess is that you will find no such precedents, simply because a state never refuses to recognize a marriage if the couple could legally have been married in that state. The only restrictions on who can marry whom in the U.S. are based on (a) gender, (b) age, (c) how closely related the two are, and (d) whether at least one of the two is already married. States differ on (a), (b), and (c) only, and (a) was what the lawsuit was about, so that leaves (b) and (c).

      ALso, “pedophilia and incest” are loaded language The age differences in question were a year or two, with the minimum in the mid teens. None were about marriages with prepubescent children. There were no cases involving marriages between siblings or a parent and child. Rather, some states allowed first cousins to marry and some didn’t, so there was a conflict – do you follow your own state’s policy about how closely related a couple can be to be married or do you let the other state decide? The argument was that you could follow your own state’s policy. That’s all the precedents were about.

      Finally, the religious right wing also rants about polygamy. That wasn’t mentioned at all because all states ban it, so the issue never comes up. If the Dept. of Justice was merely parroting the religious right wing, polygamy would have been mentioned. It wasn’t. There was no “slippery slope” argument. It was more, “as long as it is constitutional, the government has a legal right to pass laws that any sensible person would consider to be a mistake.”

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @B.:

      WHat about illegal immigrants who seek a marriage license? You don’t think there’s ever been a case of that?

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I don’t know why you’re defending the brief, itself penned by a bush DOJ MORMON holdover.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      Funny, coming from the guy who cries “ad hominem” at the drop of a hat.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Now you’re just being antisemitic. You disgust me.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      You DO have a sense of humour after all.

      I am pleasantly surprised.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spence
      Spence

      @TANK:

      Thanks for actually making my case for me and for misinterpreting what I said.

      First, I never suggested in any way that religion was not harmful. Religion can be, as you said, a killer. I would suggest you take your own advice. Learn how to make a case. Religion can also be a comfort to many people. Gay people included. I have a couple of friends who are Hindu and Buddhist. They are very secure in their faiths and have no conflict with their sexuality despite some objections that their own religions have to homosexuality. I have several friends who are Christians and go to churches that believe that God loves them just as he does everyone else. They also have no conflict with their sexuality and their faith. I believe I stated that in my first post. Nowhere, however, did I say that religion could not be harmful. Furthermore, I was addressing belief of any sort. I said that belief that religion is bad is no more VALID than the person who believes it is their salvation. I am justifying both points of view. Where do get from that, that I am saying that religion is NOT harmful in any case?

      Second. There is no bare assertion. Bare assertion fallacy asserts that an argument is true simply because someone says it is true. Where is the fallacy in stating that one person’s belief is as valid as another? The statement neither suggests or purports and either belief is true, helpful, harmful, or substantiated in any way. I’ll dumb it down. Where is the bare assertion fallacy in saying ‘Everyone has opinions and beliefs’ that are right in their own mind? Bare assertion fallacies are a statements like “That’s a fact, not something that is up to belief.” I believe it was you who said that. Not only is your statement a bare assertion fallacy is it unsubstantiated presupposition. “I say it is true statement of fact, therefore it is.”

      Third. You would be right about the quoted statement being informal fallacy if there was anything to support. Informal fallacy is an argument that has failed because the statement maker did not support his/her proposed conclusion. My quoted statement taken to its base level: One belief is as valid as another in each believer’s mind. That is a subjective statement quantifiable by simple dual interaction. Person 1: “I believe in God.” Person 2: “I don’t believe God exists.” Which person’s belief is valid? Both. They are unprovable and unquantifiable. Neither is right. Neither is wrong. They are somewhat like Dyson Statements. Likely to be true but unprovable.

      I would suggest before you throw logic arguments around, you substantiate them. Some of us (notice I said ‘some’ and not ‘all’) are not intimidated by or thrown off when someone throws formal terms at us.

      Fourth. You proved my case by simply attacking what I said. As I said in the post, I believe people who attack others just make the other people dig in their heels even harder. You didn’t sway me with your statement. Instead, you made me feel even more substantiated. Again, thanks.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      And I can’t imagine that being an illegal would be an impediment to marriage (it isn’t here).
      Marriage doesn’t automatically force them to give you a green card, and that is all the feds would care about.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Spence:

      If you think that the comforts of religion outweigh the harm it does (and I don’t deny that people derive solace from it, and perhaps curb sexual appetites–but that’s about it), you’re delusional. I consider the murder of one person because of religious superstition more than enough to outweigh the comfort religion provides to some people. There are other ways to derive solace and comfort–once you’re dead, it’s forever.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spence
      Spence

      @schlukitz:

      Man! If I knew HOW to dissuade some of the people away from such religious freaks, I think I could get rich! LOL. But I don’t think just because someone is religious, they are a freak. I believe in God, and I don’t think God had anything to do with the Jim Jones’ of the world. I’m not going to blame all religious people because of the fanatical and hateful religious ones.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      One belief is as valid as another in each believer’s mind

      First, beliefs are true or false or undecidable. Arguments are valid or invalid.

      One belief isn’t as valid as another in each believer’s mind even, for clearly some beliefs aren’t held and aren’t as valued, etc.

      Third, just because one believes something’s true has no relevance to it actually being true. For that, we need to look at the conditions under which it would be true distinct from one’s believing it’s true. If that condition or conditions obtains, then it’s true.

      And an undecidable belief isn’t the same as a true one, either–nor a demonstrably false one. It’s not “all good” all the same. Beliefs are different, and some are better than others because they don’t carry the same potential to cause harm.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 5:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      They are unprovable and unquantifiable. Neither is right. Neither is wrong. They are somewhat like Dyson Statements. Likely to be true but unprovable.

      Fourth, this is simply your belief. You haven’t argued that it’s not provable or unprovable, or that neither is right and neither is wrong. Argument is key here to establishing whether or not your vacuous claims above are the case. So far, you haven’t done that.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 6:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spence
      Spence

      @TANK:

      See? That is the problem. I don’t think ALL religions or religious people are harmful. Some are. Some aren’t. To make a blanket statement like you made about religion is as bad as those straight people out there who think all homosexuals are child molesting perverts.

      And again, you have put words in my mouth. Where did I state that comfort of religion outweighs the harm it does? What you are saying is that all religion is harmful. Maybe to you. But not to others. You may believe that all religion is harmful, but I will restate something I said before. That is not fact, it is your belief. I respect your opinion, I just don’t agree with it.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 6:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Deonte Harris
      Deonte Harris

      I wasn’t aware of this,is this true?

      Photographs were published yesterday showing the Russian Prime Minister stripped to the waist riding a horse through rugged terrain during a brief holiday in the Siberian region of Tuva. Wearing only green fatigues, his eyes hidden behind reflective sunglasses, Mr Putin also showed his gentler side as he fed the horse from his hand after the ride.

      Mr Putin, who will be 57 in October, showed off a set of rippling arm muscles as he demonstrated his butterfly swimming stroke. The photos will inevitably trigger mass swooning by women all over Russia — as well as unfavourable comparisons of their husbands to Mr Putin’s manly physique. They will also confirm the Russian Prime Minister’s status as a gay icon.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 6:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I’m not saying that all religious people and beliefs are harmful. Oy.

      I’m saying that religious beliefs carry with them the potential to cause harm, as measured in the harm they actually cause. People do terrible things because of their religious beliefs–christianity, islam, and judaism (some of the largest religions in the world). All christians are responsible–whether they are directly responsible for the harm that other christians cause because they’re christian or not. Why? Because they defend and support a faith which brought the harm about.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 6:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spence
      Spence

      @TANK:

      “First, beliefs are true or false or undecidable. Arguments are valid or invalid.”

      Wow, semantics? Use the word undecidable in place of unprovable. Using a word that clearly is a synonym proves what?

      “One belief isn’t as valid as another in each believer’s mind even, for clearly some beliefs aren’t held and aren’t as valued, etc.”

      So are you the judge of what is and isn’t valued? One belief IS as valid as another in each individual mind. Not my personal opinion, but the opinion of most theoretical psychological fields. Do some research. What each person believes is as real and true to him or her as the opposite view held by another equally as convinced. Your statement is reactionary, not substantive.

      “Third, just because one believes something’s true has no relevance to it actually being true.”

      Who said it did? Again putting words in my mouth.

      “And an undecidable belief isn’t the same as a true one, either–nor a demonstrably false one. It’s not “all good” all the same. Beliefs are different, and some are better than others because they don’t carry the same potential to cause harm.”

      What? Wow! You can really misconstrue! Again, for the ‘who-knows-how-many-times’ I never said nor inferred that all beliefs are “good” or “true”. I simply said that they are valid to the person who believes them. You may want to argue your points, but it seems to do that you must skew things I have said to fit your arguments.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 6:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • duttybarb
      duttybarb

      Interesting debate here!!!

      So apparently God is a PFLAG member complete with the rainbow dressing gown…i see.

      Gay Christian(oh, what an hilarious oxymoron) are saying they are at peace with God..ok cool…my question is how????? This is too weird!!!

      Its like an adulterer saying..i read my bible, i pray and i cheat on my wife…damn those old fashioned Christians who say adultery is a sin…this is the new millenia, things have changed.

      Religion is a spiritual thing.. there are guidelines to maintaining this spiritual thing…morals and standards for living. If we amended the teachings at the drop of a hat..what is the point? what is to be aimed for?

      Homosexuality is not a race or a gender that you have no choice in the matter. It is a perversion. Simple and short. You are not born that way. Get help, deny yourself sex, ask God to help you , hell cut your dick off…but stay away from the perversions.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 6:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Wow, semantics? Use the word undecidable in place of unprovable. Using a word that clearly is a synonym proves what?

      I don’t see what purpose this serves; you understood what was meant. And semantics are thought.

      So are you the judge of what is and isn’t valued?

      No. I am describing that some people put a higher premium on sets of beliefs they hold than they do other sets. There’s a hierarchy, and this itself is a standard that is another belief. Describing–though even that’s a type of judgment (the door is open, e.g.)

      One belief IS as valid as another in each individual mind. Not my personal opinion, but the opinion of most theoretical psychological fields. Do some research. What each person believes is as real and true to him or her as the opposite view held by another equally as convinced. Your statement is reactionary, not substantive.

      I’m not denying that the attitudes people have toward propositions (beliefs) are powerful. And that a person who believes something is the case that is not the case has a profound effect on that person’s behavior (screaming there’s fire in a crowded theater, for example, when there’s no fire…causes people to believe that there’s a fire or might be a fire, and trample others to get out).

      I honestly don’t care how a person who believes that cold blooded murder is morally acceptable and his responsibility to carry out is true–I just care that he be stopped at any cost to him.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 6:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spence
      Spence

      @TANK:

      “Fourth, this is simply your belief. You haven’t argued that it’s not provable or unprovable, or that neither is right and neither is wrong. Argument is key here to establishing whether or not your vacuous claims above are the case. So far, you haven’t done that.”

      LOL. I don’t have to argue it… …again. I already supported my statement by saying it is unprovable AND unquantifiable. Do you understand that? Unquantifiable means that no value, good or bad can be attributed to the statement. There is no way to assess its truth or absurdity. And unprovable means that there is no way to argue for or against it. So you are saying I have to argue and unarguable, untestable, non-quantifiable statement? If you think that is in any way possible, you are daft. Since you are so good at this argument business, tell me what the last number possible is. Prove or disprove there is a higher power. Tell me what the last digit of Pi is. Man, I think you like to argue just to argue. And none of your arguments hold weight without you skewing the facts.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 6:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andrew
      Andrew [Different person #1 using similar name]

      Yeeah…let’s change something that is innate within ourselves so we can reconcile that with a choice we were taught about….this country makes no sense…

      Aug 6, 2009 at 7:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      LOL. I don’t have to argue it…

      Then it remains an article of your faith. Unlike atheists who do argue for the absence of faith like dan dennett, sam harris, richard dawkins, and a lot of others–you don’t think you need to prove your agnosticism…therefore, that’s your faith, and it seems pretty religious to me.

      I already supported my statement by saying it is unprovable AND unquantifiable.

      That’s just an assertion, though. That it’s unprovable. That’s not an argument. You’ve proven no more than the theist who says “god exists”…not an argument, either.

      Do you understand that? Unquantifiable means that no value, good or bad can be attributed to the statement.

      But these beliefs are quantifiable in terms of its effects. And further, they can be disproven. There are arguments which disprove the existence of deities, and encourage lack of belief in them because of their shear improbability of existing (making those who believe in them extremely irrational).

      There is no way to assess its truth or absurdity.

      But there is. It’s called argument. I can determine the truth of the claim “god exists” when the term ‘god’ is defined.

      And unprovable means that there is no way to argue for or against it.

      But I can prove it, and I and many, many others can argue against it. You haven’t established that I can’t argue for or against the claim…and further, it’s false.

      So you are saying I have to argue and unarguable, untestable, non-quantifiable statement?

      Obviously not. I’m saying that religious statements can be argued against, and compellingly.

      If you think that is in any way possible, you are daft.

      This doesn’t prove your assertions that religious statements are all unarguable.

      Since you are so good at this argument business, tell me what the last number possible is. Prove or disprove there is a higher power. Tell me what the last digit of Pi is.

      Considering that the set of natural numbers is infinite, and that pi is an irrational number which has a value that cannot be expressed exactly as a fraction–so those are both false parallel. When you define what god is (for example, the christian, muslim and jewish god is a 3-O world creator), or what any religious statement means, I can assess its truth value. What do you think people like Richard Dawkins do when they argue against belief in the existence of fairytales? When they argue against the existence of those entities?

      Aug 6, 2009 at 7:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @ZJ: Religion is not a choice either. It is thrust on us by our parents and by society and it takes a lot of effort to unlearn the doctrine of indoctrination. Its not as easy as just changing religion. We very rarely get away from the religion we were born in. Learning to balance religion with being gay is not a struggle that everyone is willing to go through, and it takes a very long time to “unlearn” all the brain washing you go through when you are raised in a “christian” home.

      Religion is a destructive force, those that are raised without religion are not nearly as fucked in the head as those that are raised with religion, and raising your child with an indoctrinated doctrine should considered emotional abuse.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 7:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @galefan2004:

      Whether or not religion is an easy choice has no relevance to the fact that it’s a lot more of a choice than sexual orientation ever will be.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 7:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      But I agree. It’s actually harder to be an atheist–to overcome the social conditioning of this deeply religious society which considers it wrong and stigmatized to be rational, and lack faith in that for which there is no evidence.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 7:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @duttybarb:

      hell cut your dick off

      Damn. You are one sick puppy!

      It that what you would do to your gay son…to “make sure that he stays away from the perversions”?

      The more you post on these threads, the more I get the feeling that you are one very dangerously deranged person who needs to be confined to a mental institution, not only for your own safety, but that of those around you.

      I’m surprised that someone hasn’t called the cops on you already!

      Aug 6, 2009 at 7:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      @duttybarb: You are so sick and twisted, you do not deserve a response.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 8:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DUTTYBARB
      DUTTYBARB

      @InExile: Kettle, meet pot! You wouldn’t know perverted if it reached out and touched you! Though, I can’t blame you, I mean, I didn’t know perverted until it reached out and touched me. Perverted was what I called my therapist, Dr. Finkleblum. He was the first doctor I approached for my anger management, but that is a completely different story that involving my reaction to my dog when I dropped a pickle from my 5th Big Mack one night, and he made the mistake of eating it before I hit the floor face first to suck it up from the linoleum in my family values room. Anyway, Dr. Finkleblum was a Jew for Christ, and he taught me all about you perverts and what you do in your bedrooms.

      The oral sex was wierd, but only because my food addiction made me want to bite, but who woulda thunk that I’d enjoy anal so much! Anyway, Dr. Finkleblum was very anti-gay and brought me to God…or did he say he was brining me to heaven? I don’t remember, but he sure taught me that homosexuality was the gravest of all sin. I mean, you can eat too much and be glutonous, but you can give up a burger for a couple of days (I mean, you could, I can’t..but Christ forgives me because I’m a heterosexual woman, and I can just lay back and make it through sex with anyone…I mean, you’ve not seen my 4th husband!)…anyway, and if your straight, married and had an affair, you can just go back to fucking your wife….and 5 months in, your adultry charge is dropped…so, if you start again, just ask for forgiveness, do your wife a few times, take a 5 month break from the affair, and …well, it is like wash, rinse and repeat.

      So don’t you call me sick and twisted, unless you have a couple of Big Macs, a large fries, and do anal….you are a top, aren’t you?

      Aug 6, 2009 at 9:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DeAnimator
      DeAnimator

      @DUTTYBARB: What. The. Hell.

      Aug 6, 2009 at 9:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @DUTTYBARB:

      You could be making $10K a week doing this schtick in Vegas. LOL

      Aug 6, 2009 at 9:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rudy
      rudy

      @ajax: I knew a guy whose family actually did do that to him back in the late fifties when he was just a young teen. He was seriously messed up the rest of his life – and, of course, still gay.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 2:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rudy
      rudy

      @DUTTYBARB: This is a gay site and we should be free of gay-bashing trolls.
      Dutty gets a flag from me.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 2:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      TANK wrote, “@B.: WHat about illegal immigrants who seek a marriage license? You don’t think there’s ever been a case of that?”

      http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/marriage.html states that
      “United States citizens and non-US citizens, including temporary visitors, as well as legal and illegal immigrants, have the right to get married in the United States. There are no limitations for foreigners to get married in the United States. However, there are several steps that must be followed in order for the marriage to be valid. The requirements for marriage can differ substantially from state to state. One important prerequisite is the residency requirement, as some states require U.S. residency and others do not. Other factors that must be taken into consideration include other requirements that can vary depending on the state such as blood tests, Identification documentation, types of legal marriages, and age restrictions.”

      Then TANK goes on to say, “I don’t know why you’re defending the brief, itself penned by a bush DOJ MORMON holdover.”

      That is an ad hominem argument (targeting a low-level attorney merely because he was hired before Jan 20), and then misrepresenting what I had written. I didn’t “defend” the brief, but rather merely said that it cited precedents and made no comparisons of LGBT relationships with “incest” or “pedophilia”. You don’t have to like DOMA to state the fact that this brief does not do what some people claim it does, nor do you have to have any opinion on the brief’s overall quality.

      BTW, what evidence do you have the the attorney(s) who wrote the brief are “bush [sic] DOJ MORMON holdover(s)”? It’s not like an attorney’s religious affiliation (if any) appears on DOJ documents. Given your bogus “illegal alien” comment, I’m not sure I’d trust you on that without proof.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 3:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Sexual behavior is a product of orientation and belief. A man who is exclusively homosexual in orientation but believes it’s a sin may remain asexual or attempt ill-fated encounters with women. Either way, he remains a homosexual in orientation.

      Bisexual men – who form the majority of men – often deviate away from same-sex encounters if they believe them to be sinful. Nevertheless, they remain bisexual in orientation.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 3:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • petted
      petted

      @B.: Actually its been widely reported from various media outlets that the DOJ brief on DOMA was by a Bush appointee who was also a Mormon.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 3:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andrew
      Andrew

      Please ignore Dutty — he/she/it can’t help itself.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 12:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @B.:

      But it did put pedophilia and incest in the same category as same sex marriage. That seems like a comparison to me.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 12:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Further, since appearance is reality in politics, and that it can so easily be construed as a statement about the moral legitimacy of same sex marriage given that those comparisons are extremely popular amongst the religious right in attemps to incite violence against lgbts through slippery slope arguments–and that there was no effort to clarify that statement, the damage exceeds the “alleged intent”.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 12:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And since that is a comparison (to place same sex marriage in the same legal category in assessing its legal status as pedophilia and incest), I question the value of its appearance in the brief at all. Surely DOMA could have been defended with other arguments (and was)…than those, right? So why specifically were those chosen?

      Aug 7, 2009 at 12:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Is it helpful to include same sex marriage in the same sentence as pedophilia and incest in a DOJ brief? Is that what an administration which has pledged fierce advocacy does? Includes the most derisive comparisons of our relationships by our enemies in a DOJ DOMA brief, regardless of this “alleged” intent? How is that helpful?

      Aug 7, 2009 at 12:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andrew
      Andrew

      @Spence:
      Re #30: Spence, thanks for your post. Just one comment in response: Any discussion of any issue needs to include/recognize context. In this case, the context IS NOT “Individual grappling with beliefs and behavior and self-image, etc.” The context here IS “Individual SEEKING HELP OF MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL regarding issues of beliefs, behavior, self-image, etc.” Those two contexts are vastly different and shape any discussion. Moreover, certain positions that are valid in one context might be completely invalid in another. For example, in the former context, it would be appropriate to affirm an individual’s right to self-govern in conformity with her religious beliefs. As a lay person, I don’t have a moral duty or obligation to tell her that I think the religious beliefs are detrimental to her well-being. In fact, in that context it might even be rude or socially inappropriate for me to say so. However, in the latter context, the context the APA necessarily speaks to, it would be entirely inappropriate TO NOT SAY that a behavior or belief is detrimental to her well-being or mental health. This is (in part) PRECISELY what the patient seeks from her therapist. In that context, the patient’s “right to belief” or “right to conform to beliefs” might be affirmed and certainly informs the therapy but shouldn’t trump sound medical/psychological science and practice. It seems that the APA fell short in providing nuanced guidance on the issue and punted in favor of a somewhat “politically correct” stance. i.e., “Homosexual orientation is not an illness and religious-based reparative therapy doesn’t work — BUT the patient certainly has the right to treat it as an illness, treat herself as ill or abnormal, and act in furtherance of this belief DESPITE the fact that it may be against her well-being.” Do therapists and the APA really believe that this does not essentially equate to a type of self-imposed reparative therapy? Like you say, it’s complex and in many ways subtle. Yet, the APA’s role is NOT to champion individual rights at the expense of providing leadership and guidance to practitioners that is based science.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 12:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      @rudy: Wassup Rudy did you suddenly lose faith in free speech and tolerance?

      Aug 7, 2009 at 1:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @youcanthandlethetruth:

      Hey..I wanna hear more about that slutty, incestual sister of yours…HeeHeeHee

      Aug 7, 2009 at 2:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Youcanthandlethetruth
      Youcanthandlethetruth

      @rudy: PS, Rudy….just wondering if you would do me a favor. Could you make a fist and then take a measurement of its circumference for me? I’m, ah…I’m not asking for any specific reason, just…ah, wondering…yeah.

      Also, while your hand is in a fist, I wondered if you wouldn’t mind embedding it into a bucket of plaster? When it is dried, I’d really appreciate if you could pour in a latex or rubber type of material, and send me the completed product–just for, you know…hmmm…research, ah, yeah.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 2:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Vancouverite
      Vancouverite

      @duttybarb: You better stop rubbing yourself while trolling gay message boards, or you’re gong to wind up like Lady Gaga, with a clitoris the size of a thumb, easily mistakable for a penis. I say this with love.
      Yours in Christ,
      Vancouverite

      Aug 7, 2009 at 2:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spence
      Spence

      @Andrew:

      Hey Andrew, I’m with you. I’m still getting my doctorate, so I am not practicing yet. I did ask a professor of mine who is a clinical psychologist about this issue. He says that the APA’s stance is written as to give psychologist room for interpretation on the issue.

      It says, “the psychologist CAN help him construct.” Not that they MUST help him construct. I did remember correctly and my professor confirmed that it is the stance of the APA that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Although it used to be until only a couple of decades ago, I believe.

      My prof believes that the stance was also written this way because some people just cannot resolve their conflict between their sexuality and their religious faith. So he believes that APA wants to give psychologists the freedom to help their patients follow the road that will best help their mental stability. That road can either be in helping them accept their sexuality, or to deal with their sexuality through the only routes available to a person who cannot accept their sexuality ats normal due to their religious faith.

      He said as psychologists we must consider the well mental being of our patients over our own personal beliefs. He believes that when we start imposing our personal belief systems onto our patients we are no longer impartial health professionals, we are promoting ourselves. But he also believes that the APA worded the above correctly by saying CAN instead of MUST.

      How do I feel about it? A little conflicted to be honest. On one hand, I know in my heart that there is nothing wrong with my sexuality. I am just fine being gay, thank you! On the other, I have to recognize that not everyone feels the same as I do. As I stated in my above posts, what is right for me, may not be right for others. That is a hard one to overcome, but you have to respect that your stances, beliefs, and opinions are not shared by everyone. Things are not always black and white. No two people are alike and must be handled individually. Bottom line for me is that everyone perceives differently. Truth may be absolute in logic and math, but peoples psyches are neither logical or mathmatic in my opinion.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      @Spence: He said as psychologists we must consider the well mental being of our patients over our own personal beliefs. He believes that when we start imposing our personal belief systems onto our patients we are no longer impartial health professionals, we are promoting ourselves.

      _____________________________________

      But when the APA advises against therapy for religious reasons it IS imposing its personal belief system?

      Aug 7, 2009 at 3:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      APA ‘ignoring the science’ on homosexual reparative therapy

      A Christian attorney says the American Psychological Association’s rejection of therapy designed to help homosexuals leave their lifestyle is “devoid of science, reality and the common practices of a counselor.”

      On Wednesday, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued a strong condemnation of reparative therapy, declaring that mental health professionals should not tell homosexual clients they can change their sexual behavior through therapy or other treatments.

      Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, says the APA is a political organization that has chosen to leave science behind.

      “When it declassified homosexuality in the 1970s, it did it against the background of a lot of science that continued to classify it as a mental disorder. It also ignored over 120 Matt Staveryears of research, which by the way has recently been published showing that individuals who are same-sex attracted can change,” he notes.

      “Consequently, the APA’s position that you’re born with it and that it would be detrimental to counsel someone to change or leave behind their same-sex attractions is simply ignoring the science.”

      Staver says the APA typically recommends client-directed counseling — a counselor being sensitive to the request of a client — except when a client does not want to act on their same-sex attractions.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 3:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @Spence:

      My prof believes that the stance was also written this way because some people just cannot resolve their conflict between their sexuality and their religious faith. So he believes that APA wants to give psychologists the freedom to help their patients follow the road that will best help their mental stability. That road can either be in helping them accept their sexuality, or to deal with their sexuality through the only routes available to a person who cannot accept their sexuality ats normal due to their religious faith.

      Thank you for sharing your thoughtful comments with us, Spence.

      If what your prof says is true, I am deeply saddened to see, yet once again, how much “wiggle room” is given to religion by everyone, including the APA, lest we offend the “church”, while they are busy screwing-up the lives of homosexuals by having placed them on the horns of such a horrible dilemma in the first place.

      And that raises a very important question in my mind. The law does not allow doctors to go around snipping penises off people who believe that they should have been born a female, without subjecting them to very extensive questioning and testing first to make absolutely sure that no one is coercing them or that they are simply suffering from some sort of self-mutilation complex.

      So how come is it, that religious people feel that they have the right to indoctrinate and brainwash a child, from the moment he is born, without questioning him/her about their desire or need to be indoctrinated and brainwashed?

      To my way of thinking, one can live without a penis.

      But, how the fuck does one survive without a reasonable, logical and working mind???

      Aug 7, 2009 at 3:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      @schlukitz: how the fuck does one survive without a reasonable, logical and working mind???
      ______________________________________________________

      You seem to have managed somehow :)

      However your point reveals a deep-seated prejudice against people of faith.

      You seem to resent the fact that many parents want to raise their children in the faith which has sustained them and hundreds of other generations going back thousands of years.

      But presumably you have no problem with parents who raise their children to think that homosexuality is ok.

      If a homosexual wants to be rehabilitated for whatever reason, including religious belief, who are you or the APA to stand in their way?

      Even the APA seems to agree with this stance.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 3:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @youcanthandlethetruth:

      You seem to have managed somehow :)

      Awww…compliments will get you everywhere. :)

      You seem to resent the fact that many parents want to raise their children in the faith which has sustained them and hundreds of other generations going back thousands of years.

      It’s so refreshing to find someone like you who is perceptive and can grasp exactly what I am trying to say without my have to repeat myself…over and over and over and over…oh well, like I said, you’re perceptive and I don’t want to repeat myself.

      But presumably you have no problem with parents who raise their children to think that homosexuality is ok.

      Here again, I find it absolutely amazing that you are on exactly the same page with me before I can even get the words out.

      If a homosexual wants to be rehabilitated for whatever reason, including religious belief, who are you or the APA to stand in their way?

      Exactly. Why would I want to stand in the way of anyone who wants to make themselves look as crazy as possible. I am an equal opportunity “Knock yourself out” supporter. Anyone who wants to wind-up in a straight-jacket in a mental institution should be free to do so in a securlar society, no?

      Even the APA seems to agree with this stance.

      Long live the EPA!

      Aug 7, 2009 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      TANK wrote: “@B.: But it did put pedophilia and incest in the same category as same sex marriage. That seems like a comparison to me.”

      Tank, that statement is simply not true – the brief did not put same sex marriage in the same category as pedophilia and incest, nor vice versa. It simply said that there were precedents for a state not recognizing a marriage that was made in another state, and listed some precedents as examples. The legal point was that there were precedents for a state not recognizing a marriage that violated that state’s policies. It didn’t matter what those policies were, but rather merely that such cases existed and were upheld by the courts.

      When they searched for precedents, the ones they found involved the age at which marriage was legal (not all states use the same age) and in how closely a couple can be related (first cousins verus excluding first cousins and closer). If there were rules that a smoker could not marry a non-smoker (justified by health reasons regarding second hand smoke), they would have used that too – they didn’t simply because no such rule exists.

      I’m curious, though, as to why you put several responses, one after another, all talking about the same thing, as separate comments. Also, what you fail to realize is that it really doesn’t help to accuse the DOJ of things it simply did not do. That sort of behavior just annoys people and makes enemies needlessly. You can diagree about a single issue without demonizing someone just because you don’t like that one issue.

      You also need to realize that arguing that DOMA is constitutional (which is what the DOJ is doing) does not mean that the administration thinks DOMA is a good law. The constitution allows bad laws to be passed, and it also allows those laws to be repealed.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 6:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @B.:

      No, it didn’t, because the wording seems pretty clear in stating that some states dont’ recognize some types of marriage, and those examples were pedophilia and incest–drawing a direct link to the purpose of the brief, which was to defend DOMA–and prevent same sex marriage…you’re a joke.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 6:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      It simply said that there were precedents for a state not recognizing a marriage that was made in another state, and listed some precedents as examples.

      To justify not recognizing same sex marriage, these precedents were pedophilia and incest…that seems like a comparison to me. Maybe it didn’t clearly say that they were ethically equivalent, but it didn’t go out of its way to deny it, either…LOL! That seems like placing it in the same category to me–to be treated the same as incestuous and pedophlic “marriages”.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 6:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      @TANK: There are undeniable similarities between redefining marriage to accommodate homosexuals, pedophiles or close relatives.

      All of these deviations move marriage away from God’s Plan of legitimising children and creating a solid foundation in which they can be loved and raised with a mother and father.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 7:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @TANK: Not really. It comes down to how the person feels about themselves. Its a personal decision. For some people religion stops being a choice. For some people sexuality is a choice TO THEM. Some people don’t want to embrace their sexuality at the cost of their religion. Its called free will, and I’m not about to judge someone else for how they decide to live their life. That is kind of hypocritical of me because I know I don’t want someone else judging me for how I live my life. I decided to dump religion because I knew I was gay. Not everyone is going to decide the way I did, and I respect that. I feel for those that choose religion over being who they are, but I respect them in their choice. When they want to force that choice on others then there is a problem.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 7:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @InExile: Yet you give her one anyways, WTF!!! Here is the beautiful thing about people like DuttyBarb and Illgiveyoumyversionofthetruthyoucan’thandle, when you bloody fucking see their name and don’t even read what they write you save yourself a TON of fucking grief.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 7:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      @galefan2004: Sorry to hear you want to continue living in denial and delusion, but your behaviour is very characteristic of the homosexual condition.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 7:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @galefan2004:

      Yes really. Sexual orientation is a lot less of a choice than religion. First of all, sexual orientation isn’t a choice, and reparative therapies fail. Secondly, people can and do give up their religious faith.

      Aug 7, 2009 at 7:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • gaywad
      gaywad

      @youcanthandlethetruth: Sorry to hear you want to continue living in denial and delusion, but your behaviour is very characteristic of the homophobic condition.

      :P

      Aug 8, 2009 at 12:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      TANK wrote: “No, it didn’t, because the wording seems pretty clear in stating that some states dont’ recognize some types of marriage, and those examples were pedophilia and incest–drawing a direct link to the purpose of the brief, which was to defend DOMA–and prevent same sex marriage…you’re a joke.”

      “You’re a joke” is a classic case of projection. Apparently you do not like the facts are are resorting to infantile personal attacks to cover up your own inadequacies.

      You are misrepresenting what the brief stated repeatedly, and we all know what that makes you.

      The fact is that the term “pedophilia” refers to sex with prepubescent children (typically under the age of 12 or so), not teens old enough to be sexually active. The claim that there was a comparison with pedophilia is a lie, plain and simple
      because the brief said no such thing. Similarly “incest” is a stretch since the marriages in question did not involve incest, which refers to “sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry” as described in http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incest and the marriages in question were between people who were not too closely related to be married. The problem in both cases was merely that the standard varies from state to state.

      What was in the brief is in no way comparable to the “slippery slope” arguments used by the religious right wing.

      Aug 8, 2009 at 3:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      @B.: What about the “slippery slope” used by the homosexuals?

      They see civil unions merely as a stepping stone towards the redefinition of marriage for homosexuals.

      Aug 8, 2009 at 12:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      TANK wrote, “To justify not recognizing same sex marriage, these precedents were pedophilia and incest…that seems like a comparison to me. Maybe it didn’t clearly say that they were ethically equivalent, but it didn’t go out of its way to deny it, either…LOL!”

      At the risk of injecting a dose of reality, the precedents were not pedophilia and incest. Rather they were more or less “off by one” differences in the age for marriage or how closely related a couple could be to be legally married. Both limits are trade offs, and some states picked different values than other states. The brief merely noted that existing precedents allowed a state to not recognize a marriage from a different state when there was a conflict. Once that is established, DOMA’s constitutionality rests on whether or not same-sex marriages can be banned in any state.

      If you would prefer that they picked a different precedent, produce one that they could have used instead. If you can’t find any, you can’t blame them for using what they did – it would be their only option as citing precedents is pretty much a necessity.

      As to “didn’t go out of its way”, you need to gain a sense of perspective – these briefs are legal documents written for a federal judge. The judge is presumed to be well educated and does not need to have his time wasted with politically correct diatribes designed to educate the judge about things the judge is expected to already know.

      Aug 8, 2009 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @B.:

      So now they weren’t even pedophilia and incest…oy. Your apologism knows no reality.

      Aug 8, 2009 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @B.:

      You sound like a NAMBLA member defending the pedophilia charge. That’s not a good way to go in defending the brief against charges of comparing (at least putting it in the same legal category) same sex marriage to pedophilia and incest.

      Aug 8, 2009 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      They didn’t have to use a precedent at all–that was just one argument of many found in the brief. But even if I can’t locate a precedent, it certainly doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. As it stands now, it’s an open question.

      So can someone come up with a single precedent of a state denying a marriage license (even a technicality) that doesn’t involve incest, pedophilia, bestiality or any other sexual perversion?

      Aug 8, 2009 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      TANK wrote (inaccurately): “So now they weren’t even pedophilia and incest…oy. Your apologism knows no reality.” and “You sound like a NAMBLA member defending the pedophilia charge.”

      What you need to do is to learn to act like a responsible adult and stop lying about what others wrote. It really reduces your credibility to just about zero.

      The facts are pretty clear and your statements have obviously nothing to do with reality. The DOJ brief simply claimed that states could lawfully refuse to recognize marriages from other states under certain circumstances, ones in which recognizing a marriage from another state would violate a state’s policies. They listed some precedents. That’s all there was to it.

      It is not “pedophilia” if a 16 year old marries a 16 year old in a state where such a marriage is legal. If 3 years later, they move to a state where the minimum age to marry is 17, that state could refuse to recognize their marriage. Now, explain what you think it is in this situation that has anything to do with “pedophilia”. If you think a 15 or 16 year old teenager is a pedophile for having sex with someone of the same age, then you must think that pedophilia is rampant in the U.S. given the mean age at which people start having sex.

      Similarly, if first cousins marry in a state where that is legal, they are not guilty of incest. They are not even guilty of it if they move to a state where first cousins cannot marry, although they may be trouble if they have sexual relations in that state, depending on the details of that state’s laws.

      It’s really a shame that you are not capable of understanding the issue, but that is quite frankly your problem. A first step for you might be to post civil replies to posts that were merely informative. Resorting to “shoot the messenger” tactics went out of favor a long time ago, once it was realized that it is counterproductive.

      Aug 8, 2009 at 7:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @B.:

      You’re just repeating yourself. Getting into the specific age range that distinguishes pedophile from hebophile just plays into the negative and toxic bigoted stereotypes of gay people by the religious right and others, you idiot. It’s not ingratiating yourself with us or them, or anyone. It’s sad.

      Further, why did they choose those examples? Those examples are hot button incendiary parallels. It’s an open question whether or not there are other examples that don’t invovle, bestiality, incest or pedophilia or hebophilia….and if there are, in fact, these examples, and they do make that point just as well, why were these chosen? And yes, these were comparisons to same sex marriage, make no mistake–to be treated the same way under and by the law…that’s a comparison.

      You’re simply delusional.

      Aug 8, 2009 at 7:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I’m under no obligation to be civil to someone who has his head lodged so far up his own ass that he can count his ribs.

      Aug 8, 2009 at 8:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      TANK dishonestly wrote: “@B.: You’re just repeating yourself. Getting into the specific age range that distinguishes pedophile from hebophile just plays into the negative and toxic bigoted stereotypes of gay people by the religious right and others, you idiot. It’s not ingratiating yourself with us or them, or anyone. It’s sad.”

      What’s “sad” is your dishonesty and need to lie about what I posted. I clearly gave you an example in which neither the term “pedophile” nor “hebophile” apply – two 16 year olds marrying each other and then (maybe several years later) moving to a state in which the minimum age for marriage is higher than 16.
      Under such circumstances, the couple’s marriage may be not recognized by the state they moved to, even though they were well above the legal age to marry when they moved. You can claim if you want that the court decision regarding such cases is dumb, but that does not change the fact that there is a precedent.

      Furthermore, the person repeating himself is you – you are repeating lies over and over. It seems you don’t like the truth about what was in the DOJ brief and can’t understand that one can state what is in the brief accurately while being opposed to DOMA at the same time.

      As I said, the DOJ brief merely points out that there are precedents not involving same-sex marriages in which one state had refused to recognize a marriage made in another state because the marriage was not in accord with the state’s standards. Age is one of the criteria that shows up in practice, but what the criteria are is not particularly important.

      It has absolutely nothing to do with stereotypes about gay people, and nothing you say will change that.

      Aug 9, 2009 at 2:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B.
      B.

      TANK wrote, “I’m under no obligation to be civil to someone who has his head lodged so far up his own ass that he can count his ribs.”

      … which of course is the sort of excuse for rudeness often seen from people who have no valid point, know it, and act out like a little boy caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar!

      Regarding the “discussion”, TANK has yet to furnish one example of a marriage that was not recognized by a state due to something other than (a) genders of the couple, (b) minimum age, and (c) how closely related the couple is, with “first cousins” being the minimum. Restrictions on race, which used to exist, are mute do to the U.S. Supreme Court declaring such restrictions to be unconstitutional.

      One would therefore surmise that “has his head lodged” is TANK’s way of saying that he couldn’t find even one example! So far, he’s have several days to find one and has come up with precisely zero.

      Aug 10, 2009 at 9:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark Zamen
      Mark Zamen

      While your criticisms of the APA report are certainly valid, at least it is a step in the right direction. Attitudes are changing for the better but, as we know, such improvements are gradual. The APA has acknowledged the futility and absurdity of “reparative” efforts and for that we can be thankful. The mindset that suggests aversion/conversion “treatments” are effective or even morally acceptable is on the way out, yet we cannot avoid the fact that a large segment of society still regards gay men and women as second-class citizens – or worse. This is the salient point of my recently released biographical novel, Broken Saint. It is based on my forty-year friendship with a gay man, and chronicles his internal and external struggles as he battles for acceptance (of himself and by others, including fellow Mormons). There is a portion of the story that deals specifically with the Church’s effort to change the sexual orientation of the main character – and of course it failed miserably. More information on the book is available at http://www.eloquentbooks.com/BrokenSaint.html.

      Mark Zamen, author

      Aug 13, 2009 at 1:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • soakman
      soakman

      It’s pretty simple when broken down conceptually via the idea of cognitive dissonance. I wrote a paper on it actually as an undergrad.

      The APA can’t stand behind reorientation therapy, but they can stand behind clinical psychology logic.

      Look at it this way: you have 2 major parts of your identity conflicting. One of them is far more important to your psychological well-being than the other. You have two options. Create for yourself a brand new identity involving their coexistence or destroy one of the parts that is causing the conflict.

      If no reconciliation can be met, the least psychologically valuable to the person might need to be removed from their sense of identity to maintain a healthy psyche. In SOME cases, this is pretty obviously ANY sexual attraction. If the man/woman really values their religious identity over their sexual one (gay, straight, or whatever), it might be more psychologically satisfying for the person to become celibate than lose their faith.

      The APA is NOT saying that reparative therapy works or that someone’s sexual orientation can be forcibly shifted. They are also not attributing homosexuality negativity or other ill will.

      The point being here that the patient’s individual needs MUST come first before political sensationalism on either side. It is what it is. A conflict.

      Nobody should be deluded by any means, though, into believing that homosexuality can be “cured”, removed, transformed, or guilted/scrubbed/scared/tortured away.

      Dec 31, 2009 at 12:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.