WP: Top Psychiatric Group Urges Making Gay Marriage Legal

[Ancalagon the Black]

When they say "maintaining and promoting mental health," they're clearly not referring to Art's mental health.

_____________

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200785.html

Top Psychiatric Group Urges Making Gay Marriage Legal

Associated Press

Monday, May 23, 2005; A02

ATLANTA, May 22 -- Representatives of the nation's top psychiatric group approved a statement Sunday urging legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

If approved by the association's directors in July, the measure would make the American Psychiatric Association the first major medical group to take such a stance.

The statement supports same-sex marriage "in the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health."

It follows a similar measure by the American Psychological Association last year, little more than three decades after that group removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

The psychiatric association's statement was approved by voice vote on the first day of its weeklong annual meeting in Atlanta. It cites the "positive influence of a stable, adult partnership on the health of all family members."

The resolution recognizes "that gay men and lesbians are full human beings who should be afforded the same human and civil rights," said Margery Sved, a Raleigh, N.C., psychiatrist and member of the assembly's committee on gay and lesbian issues.

The document states that the association is addressing same-sex civil marriage, not religious marriages. It takes no position on any religion's views on marriage.

Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriage. Eighteen states have passed constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[chomerics]

Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriage. Eighteen states have passed constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage.

One of the reasons I'm proud to be from Boston, as I think this is the way society should behave. Tolerant to others and their families. There is no reason for people to dislike somebody simply because they are homosexual, I mean after all it is just sex. The problem arises when you think that sex is an evil deed, and you must be punished for it. There's a lot of Puritanistic views around now, not good.

Go figure though, the one state where we hung people because they were "witches" and did this for religious reigons, is now the only state in the union to recognize the fact that sex is not a sin. At least we've evolved to the point that understanding tolerance is the way to be, and that sex is a really good thing, and it can be great if with the right person, even if it is with the member of the same sex.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by chomerics

One of the reasons I'm proud to be from Boston, as I think this is the way society should behave. Tolerant to others and their families. There is no reason for people to dislike somebody simply because they are homosexual, I mean after all it is just sex. The problem arises when you think that sex is an evil deed, and you must be punished for it. There's a lot of Puritanistic views around now, not good.

Go figure though, the one state where we hung people because they were "witches" and did this for religious reigons, is now the only state in the union to recognize the fact that sex is not a sin. At least we've evolved to the point that understanding tolerance is the way to be, and that sex is a really good thing, and it can be great if with the right person, even if it is with the member of the same sex.

Conversely, a reason I'm glad I'm not from Boston

[Spaceman Spiff]

Originally posted by Sarge

Conversely, a reason I'm glad I'm not from Boston

:laugh: :laugh:

[Larry]

It's a nice gesture, but I don't think it will help.

Let's face it, the American Psychiatric Association can't improve the mental health of people like Bill Frist unless they want to be helped.

[Thiebear]

Top Psychiatric Group Urges Making Gay Marriage Legal

Hmm, someone is trying to earn more money.. The more people we can get married and divorced as messy as possible, the more chances we have at customers....

*** I've been married twice now, I think 40+% Homosexuals should get the chance to go through it like me; with equal pain/suffering ***

[Larry]

But, Thiebear,

Since all our divorce/child custody laws have been written to favor the woman, how would they handle same-sex couples.

Would two females have to pay half of their income to each other?

[Thiebear]

Actually in Virginia you fill out forms... it doesnt matter who the parent is... I didnt even do the lawyer thing as it really wasnt needed... And we actually have the best custody of children you can have....

[Spaceman Spiff]

Actually, I'm for it, only if both chicks are hot.

[Destino]

My problem with gay marriage is that I don't think we know enough about homosexuality to declare it a normal human state, thus making it deserving of acknowledgement and acceptance. I think that it’s important to understand fully what we are dealing with here before taking it too far.

From what I’ve seen homosexuality seems to be involuntary, perhaps the result of genetic or biological triggers. I’ve yet to find anyone that had to choose who they are attracted to contrary to the claims of those decidedly against this behavior. I can say that I didn’t choose to be attracted to woman, I just was. No conscious effort was made in this direction; the choice was made for me.

So then the question remains, what is the cause? The answer to this could be the saving grace of the homosexual community or it’s downfall. With a biological/genetic cause identified one can claim the behavior to be natural. However one might also encounter a situation where this is diagnosed as a condition, one that may be curable. That would certainly lead to some moral disputes wouldn’t it? heh.

Either way, the American Psychiatric Association is free to recommend whatever it wants. I have no doubt that they are doing what they think is best for the cause of mental health. Sadly I have to agree with the majority of the nation that this would be too much too soon.

This is a slight change from previous positions on this subject for me.

[36HAMMER]

don't call evil good and good evil

[Kilmer17]

"The resolution recognizes "that gay men and lesbians are full human beings who should be afforded the same human and civil rights," said Margery Sved, a Raleigh, N.C., psychiatrist and member of the assembly's committee on gay and lesbian issues."

This is the part that is wrong. It presents a false premise. Gay men and women have EXACTLY the same rights as straight men and women regarding marriage. Allowing men to marry men or women to marry women would give homosexuals EXTRA rights not currently available to all.

Im a straight male, and I have the right to marry a woman. That's it. I cant marry a man, I cant marry 2 women. I cant marry a tree. A gay man ALSO has the right to marry a woman.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Im a straight male, and I have the right to marry a woman. That's it. I cant marry a man, I cant marry 2 women. I cant marry a tree. A gay man ALSO has the right to marry a woman.

So, you would support, say, a Constitutional Ammendment that says that you can only marry women of the same race?

After all, it would give blacks (and others) exactly the same rights: The right to marry mary women of the same race.

After all, the ability to marry the person you're attracted to, now that's a special right, that should only be granted to people who vote Republican, right?

Maybe we should have "blacks only" sections on the busses, right? After all, it's equal rights: Every person is allowed in the section for their race.

Yes, these are over-the-top uses of a semantic argument. The exact same over-the-top semantic argument you're using.

And boy, I really hope that the anger that such naked bigotry inspires in me doesn't fully make it through the keyboard.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by Larry

So, you would support, say, a Constitutional Ammendment that says that you can only marry women of the same race?

After all, it would give blacks (and others) exactly the same rights: The right to marry mary women of the same race.

After all, the ability to marry the person you're attracted to, now that's a special right, that should only be granted to people who vote Republican, right?

Maybe we should have "blacks only" sections on the busses, right? After all, it's equal rights: Every person is allowed in the section for their race.

Yes, these are over-the-top uses of a semantic argument. The exact same over-the-top semantic argument you're using.

And boy, I really hope that the anger that such naked bigotry inspires in me doesn't fully make it through the keyboard.

No, such an Amendment isnt necessary. Those rights already exist. What you want is EXTRA rights SPECIFICALLY for homosexuals. For whatever reason, the same rights that I have, arent enough. They need more.

And yes, your anger showed just fine along with your personal attacks. Your own bigotry shines through.

[luckydevil]

Originally posted by Destino

My problem with gay marriage is that I don't think we know enough about homosexuality to declare it a normal human state

Why does it matter?

[Predicto]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

No, such an Amendment isnt necessary. Those rights already exist. What you want is EXTRA rights SPECIFICALLY for homosexuals. For whatever reason, the same rights that I have, arent enough. They need more.

Wrong Kilmer. You see, you too would have the right to marry another man. So you have the same rights as the gays.

That is why the "special rights" argument is baloney.

[Kilmer17]

Okay, but you agree that currently, we all have the same rights regarding marriage?

And would you oppose allowing incestuous marriage? Or polygamy?

Those people have "rights" as well dont they?

[luckydevil]

And would you oppose allowing incestuous marriage? Or polygamy?

I wouldn't.

[twa]

It comes down to whether marriage is a RIGHT...Imo it is not...You could argue that it is needed for the "Pursuit of Happiness" but that is a weak argument,based on my married experiences

Face it is is simply what society has deemed the best way to manage family units.....so untill you change what society believes ,it will not happen....Despite attempts to get around society with the courts. :2cents:

[Larry]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

No, such an Amendment isnt necessary. Those rights already exist. What you want is EXTRA rights SPECIFICALLY for homosexuals. For whatever reason, the same rights that I have, arent enough. They need more.[/i]

Please explain to me the difference between the following statements:

• It's OK to tell gays that they can only mary peope of one, state-mandated gender, because everybody else is only allowed to mary one gender, too.
  
• It's OK to tell people that they can only mary people of the same race, because everybody else is only allowed to mary one race, too.
  
• It's OK to require blacks to ride in their section of the bus, because everybody else is required to ride in their section, too.
  

And yes, your anger showed just fine along with your personal attacks. Your own bigotry shines through.

Observation number one: I haven't made a single personal attack. I have attacked your bigoted position, and the lame method you've chosen to attempt to justify it.

But you are at least partially correct. Whenever I see someone standing up in public arguing that the government should be using it's power to make shure that a group of second-class citizens stay second-class, whether it's somebody claiming that he's defending segregated schools because he's really "defending state's rights", or defending prohibitions on different-sex marriages because he's "defending the purity of the races", or prohibiting gays from ever marying the people they're attracted to because "marrying the person of your choice is a special right", then yeah, I get downright intollerant. It's a hot buton with me.

Y'see, I grew up in the 60's, when people were dieing in an attempt to grant what you are now classifying as "special" rights to a group of second-class citizens. And as I look back on what I remember of those times, I've come to the conclusion that most people weren't bigots. They were just folks who figured that getting equal rights for blacks wasn't worth getting worked up over, bacause after all, it only affected blacks.

And I've concluded that discrimination of that type didn't end when "activist judges" "leglislated from the bench" in Brown vs. Board of Education. What killed that type of discrimination was when people became ashamed to be in the same room as someone who was publicly announcing that he didn't think blacks should be allowed in the University of Alabama. (Or, "OK, they can take classes, but they can't be on the football team". Or "OK, they can play football, but not Quarterback".)

In short, what did racial discrimination in was when the majority stopped saying "it doesn't affect me." Martin Luther King helped reduce discrimination. But so did Archie Bunker.

Blacks can vote, today, because people like me stopped tolerating people like you. And I can't help but believe (it was before my time) that it could've happened a lot sooner, with a lot fewer people having to die, if the majority of the citizens hadn't tolerated people like you for as long as they did.

So you're right. I'm intollerant. (On this subject. And probably, to a lesser extent, on others.) And I intend to remain so. I think it's my duty to the downtrodden, so to speak, to see to it that when a tiny minority is being treated unfairly, they don't have to stand alone.

This kind of, well, "stuff", this position you're defending, should have become extinct 200 years ago.

[Destino]

Kilmer - Your logic appears to be the same as saying people with no legs are free to use the same stairs as anyone else. Yeah they most likely can drag themselves up if they had to, but that kind of equality isn't any good.

LuckyDevil - You asked me "why" and the answer to me is simple, I feel more comfortable making decisions when I know exactly what I'm dealing with. It's purely my preference to do things this way.

TWA - You are spot on, this ultimately is not a issue of rights, it's what society wants. Right now society isn't going for it. Like it or not the nation has for the time being said "no" to this issue.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by Larry

Please explain to me the difference between the following statements:

• It's OK to tell gays that they can only mary peope of one, state-mandated gender, because everybody else is only allowed to mary one gender, too.
  
• It's OK to tell people that they can only mary people of the same race, because everybody else is only allowed to mary one race, too.
  
• It's OK to require blacks to ride in their section of the bus, because everybody else is required to ride in their section, too.
  

Observation number one: I haven't made a single personal attack. I have attacked your bigoted position, and the lame method you've chosen to attempt to justify it.

But you are at least partially correct. Whenever I see someone standing up in public arguing that the government should be using it's power to make shure that a group of second-class citizens stay second-class, whether it's somebody claiming that he's defending segregated schools because he's really "defending state's rights", or defending prohibitions on different-sex marriages because he's "defending the purity of the races", or prohibiting gays from ever marying the people they're attracted to because "marrying the person of your choice is a special right", then yeah, I get downright intollerant. It's a hot buton with me.

Y'see, I grew up in the 60's, when people were dieing in an attempt to grant what you are now classifying as "special" rights to a group of second-class citizens. And as I look back on what I remember of those times, I've come to the conclusion that most people weren't bigots. They were just folks who figured that getting equal rights for blacks wasn't worth getting worked up over, bacause after all, it only affected blacks.

And I've concluded that discrimination of that type didn't end when "activist judges" "leglislated from the bench" in Brown vs. Board of Education. What killed that type of discrimination was when people became ashamed to be in the same room as someone who was publicly announcing that he didn't think blacks should be allowed in the University of Alabama. (Or, "OK, they can take classes, but they can't be on the football team". Or "OK, they can play football, but not Quarterback".)

In short, what did racial discrimination in was when the majority stopped saying "it doesn't affect me." Martin Luther King helped reduce discrimination. But so did Archie Bunker.

Blacks can vote, today, because people like me stopped tolerating people like you. And I can't help but believe (it was before my time) that it could've happened a lot sooner, with a lot fewer people having to die, if the majority of the citizens hadn't tolerated people like you for as long as they did.

So you're right. I'm intollerant. (On this subject. And probably, to a lesser extent, on others.) And I intend to remain so. I think it's my duty to the downtrodden, so to speak, to see to it that when a tiny minority is being treated unfairly, they don't have to stand alone.

This kind of, well, "stuff", this position you're defending, should have become extinct 200 years ago.

People like me? You're an arrogant sob Larry. People like me are the people that got that legislation passed. People like me are the reason that equal rights exist. While people like you sat around and ****ed and complained. People like me stood up and did something about it.

This "tiny minority" is not being treated unfairly. They have the same rights as every other person. I cant marry anyone I want. Neither can you. Neither can a homosexual. It's that simple.

Your arrogance is stunning. Your logic is absurd. And your vitriol is tired.

[luckydevil]

LuckyDevil - You asked me "why" and the answer to me is simple, I feel more comfortable making decisions when I know exactly what I'm dealing with. It's purely my preference to do things this way.

If homosexuality was proven to be a choice, government still shouldn't have the right to treat homosexuals any differently than straight people.

I am not comfortable with giving power to government to decide what lifestyles are appropriate or not appropriate. The concept of "normality" is completely subjective.

It just sex (a consensual act between two individuals)

[Kilmer17]

"It just sex (a consensual act between two individuals)"

No, if it was just sex, there'd be little disagreement. Marriage, and the rights inherent in a marriage are the issue.

Sex,love, and relationships are a completely different matter.

[luckydevil]

Sex,love, and relationships are a completely different matter.

You are right.

It's why marriage should be left to institutions like the church and not the public sector.