RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events The will of the people has no meaning in California, again

Saying that gay marriage leads to incest and horse fucking makes you a right wing nut job. Learn to embrace who you really are.

"Should These Conditions Be Normalized?"
American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debates Whether Pedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses
By Linda Ames Nicolosi

On Monday, May 19th, 2003 in San Francisco, at a symposium hosted by the American Psychiatric Association, several long-recognized categories of mental illness were discussed for possible removal from the upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.

Among the mental illnesses being debated in the symposium at the APA's annual convention were all the paraphilias--which include pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism.

Also being debated was gender-identity disorder, a condition in which a person feels persistent discomfort with his or her biological sex. Gay activists have long claimed that gender-identity disorder should not be assumed to be abnormal, when, they say, it is usually an expression of healthy prehomosexuality.

Dr Robert Spitzer responded to the symposium as a discussant, urging that the paraphilias and gender-identity disorder be retained in the psychiatric manual.

Disagreeing, Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco's Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of Ottawa presented a paper entitled, "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal." They argued that people whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden, or religiously proscribed should not, for those reasons, be labeled mentally ill.

First, they say, different societies stigmatize different sexual behaviors. Furthermore, the existing research cannot distinguish people with the paraphilias, they say, from "normophilics" (the term the authors use for people with conventional sexual interests), so there is no reason to diagnose paraphilics as either a distinct group, or psychologically unhealthy.

Besides, Moser and Kleinplatz add, psychiatry has no baseline, theoretical model of what, in fact, constitutes normal and healthy sexuality to which it could compare people whose sexual interests draw them to children or sadism/masochism.

Earlier, in the December 2002 issue of a prestigious journal, the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Moser--along with several other prominent mental-health experts--argued in favor of de-pathologizing pedophilia. Some of the commentators writing in that issue said that there is little or no proof that sex with adults is harmful to minors. Another mental-health expert argued that society should not discriminate against adults who are attracted to children--noting that many beloved authors and public figures throughout history have been high-functioning individuals who could actually be classified as pedophiles.

"Any sexual interest," Moser concluded in his Archives commentary, "can be healthy and life-enhancing."


Psychiatry's Method for Defining
"Mental Illness" Has Changed


Moser and Kleinplatz note that the A.P.A. once categorized a condition as a mental illness based on its psychological, emotional or developmental origins, along with the unconscious motivations that were theorized to cause the condition.

But during the last three decades, psychiatry has moved away from reliance on theories of causation--theories which, typically, cannot be verified--and instead sought direct, empirically provable evidence; not of the pathological origins of a condition, but of its disabling effect in the present. Without such evidence for observable distress and disability, a condition is generally not considered to be a mental disorder.

People with "sexually unusual" interests, Moser and Kleinplatz note, may in fact be quite happy and well-adjusted. But the APA's labeling of their conditions as "pathological" fuels social discrimination against them, Moser and Kleinplatz warn, which can lead to distress and discrimination that is psychologically damaging.

Furthermore, they say, since the A.P.A. has no concept of what "healthy sexuality" or even a "healthy personality" actually entails, then how can psychiatry presume to define "unhealthy" sexuality? And since many people engaging in these unusual behaviors are not "distressed" or "disabled" by their interests, how can the A.P.A. justify continuing to pathologize them?


"People with Paraphilic Sexual Interests
Suffer Like Homosexuals Did Before the 1973 Decision"


"The situation of the paraphilias at present," Moser and Kleinplatz conclude, "parallels that of homosexuality in the early 1970's."

Following the presentation of the papers at the symposium, Dr. Robert Spitzer responded with a defense based on a concept of natural law, as established by evolution.. Spitzer is the author of a study on change of sexual orientation that he presented at the 2001 American Psychiatric Association convention.

"Dr. Moser is incorrect," Spitzer said, "when he argues that there is no scientific basis for distinguishing the paraphilias from more common sexual behaviors. In all cultures, as children become adolescents, they develop an interest in sexual behavior. That is how we are designed - whether you believe this design is the work of God, or by evolution through natural selection. This design is clearly for the purpose of facilitating pair bonding and interpersonal sexual behavior.

"The paraphilias, when severe, impair interpersonal sexual behavior," Spitzer continued. "Sexual behavior that facilitates caring bonding between people is normal - and that which impairs it is abnormal, not merely an atypical variation. What is needed is more research on the treatment of the paraphilias, particularly pedophilia. To remove them from DSM-V would be the end of this much-needed research."


"More Research" Will Not Provide More Answers


"What is needed is not more research," NARTH's Joseph Nicolosi countered in response to reports describing the symposium. "What psychology really needs for its advancement is not another study, but a more accurate worldview. That worldview must take into account our creator's design, which inevitably involves gender complementarity.

"And," Nicolosi added, "we must agree on those things that genuinely enhance human dignity. It's a measure of how low the psychiatric establishment has sunk, that it would even debate the idea that pedophilia, transvestism, and sado-masochism could ever be expressions of true human flourishing."

Psychoanalyst Johanna Tabin, Ph.D., of NARTH's Scientific Advisory Committee, also commented on the A.P.A. symposium. "If the arguments prevail that are given for ignoring these psychological problems, then suicide attempts must be considered normal when they are desired by the participants. And what about the sociopath, who--having no conscience--feels quite content with himself?"

"Uncommon 'common sense,'" Dr. Tabin added, "is sure to reassert itself--but in the meantime, the mental health professions are failing many suffering individuals by rigidly adopting political correctness as the guide as to when people need help.

"And the saddest thing about the current climate," she added, "is that people who ask for help because they are not at ease with homosexual impulses, right now are frequently forbidden to obtain it."

It is not automatically given to you. You have to find another consenting adult to marry. If it was a right you could go the government and demand that they marry you to someone against their own will.

If you honestly believe that gay marriage will result in anything other than two men or two women getting married than you are beyond hope.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which voided laws criminalizing sodomy, also aided polygamy's cause because it implied that the court disapproved of laws that reach into the bedroom.

Since then, liberal legal scholars, generally no friend of the polygamists' conservative-leaning politics, have championed decriminalization. One of them is Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who has written two op-eds for USA Today calling for the legalization of bigamy -- and same-sex marriage.

Where blacks who came to the polls to vote for Obama voted overwhelmingly against Proposition 8.

Seriously...why do some straight people get so wound up over this?

I'm straight (except when we're talking about Jaburg, SOM, or Rob...then, I'm gay) and I couldn't give a FUCK less about gays getting married.

I know the Republicans make a big deal over gay marriage since they're trying to appease the religious fanatics who vote for them, but who else truly gives a FUCK?

Hello pot, meet kettle.

As a black man, I would never call a white person black. They wouldn't know what its like to be discriminated against.

If you don't understand the most fundamental aspect of what was being voted on then, like all your posts, everything else you have to say is worthless.

Two points:
1. I think it's simply a defensive reaction to seeing someone being bullied. I probably wouldn't care too much if they were left alone to live their lives but when some religious nutjobs decide to push their view of what's right and wrong on other people then one feels a need to speak up. It's the same as how I don't really spend much time at all thinking about race until someone like wondy says "I'm not racist but black people are more violent than whites." Same principle. I don't like to see an entire group of people being condemned by some holier than thou assholes.
2. Go fuck yourself.

What I meant was: why do straight people oppose gay unions/marriages when it has nothing to do with them?

Also, aren't you the same guy over in the latest gay marriage thread, arguing that CA voters were stupid and were "tricked" into voting against gay marriage?

So you voting on the issue makes you an expert on the issue?

my being there makes me more qualified to discuss the voting experience than someone who wasn't there.

By that logic, everyone who voted against gay marriage in that election is just as qualified as you to render an opinion. And, of course, gay marriage lost. So, therefore, that's really just another argument to uphold the will of the people.

Making a Supreme Court Case for Gay Marriage
By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER

Attorney David Boies knows what it's like to argue a historic case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and he knows what it's like to lose. A decade ago, he squared off against Republican stalwart Theodore Olson before the Justices in Bush v. Gore, the case that narrowly decided the 2000 presidential election in Bush's favor and quickly earned a place in the minds of some legal scholars as one of the high court's most nakedly partisan decisions of all time. Now, thanks to last week's ruling in favor of gay marriage before a federal judge in California, Boies and Olson are working together on a case many feel is as important — and no less political — than Bush v. Gore, and one that is on a collision course with a court that has grown only more conservative over the intervening 10 years.

If the Supreme Court decides to hear their case, Boies and Olson must persuade at least five of its Justices that the decision laid down last week in San Francisco presents the basis for a decision both sides say would be a landmark ruling on one of the fundamental rights in American jurisprudence: the right to marriage. As he awaited the California decision earlier this year, Boies told TIME that no matter what the law says, Justices bring their own perspectives to play as they confront cases that deal with vital questions of public life. "There isn't any doubt," Boies said, "that Justices' private views play a role in how these cases are decided."
(See the top 10 Supreme Court nomination battles.)

But both he and Olson say that even if the odds appear long, a strong case and powerful arguments can change the minds of even a Supreme Court Justice. "All we, as lawyers, can do, is to present the strongest factual record and most thoroughly researched legal arguments and analysis in the most persuasive manner possible," Olson told TIME on Sunday. "In this case, we have an overwhelming factual record — to adopt the phrase used by the trial judge — and extraordinarily powerful legal arguments."

Much has been made of that factual record, and indeed U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker spent scores of pages laying out a long list of findings that, he wrote, had been established as fact during the contentious, weeks-long trial. Among the findings was proof that rules of marriage had been fluid across history, that gender roles once held as absolute are no longer as important in understanding or defining marriage, and that gays and lesbians had been historically discriminated against to the point that laws aimed specifically at them merit additional judicial scrutiny.

Olson says he and Boies will use those findings of fact to anchor their legal arguments as they defend the case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and, if the Justices take it, before the Supreme Court perhaps as soon as the 2011 term. "We have exhaustive and comprehensive highly favorable findings of fact and conclusions of law by an experienced and respected jurist who carefully examined the evidence presented by our nine experts and eight lay witnesses, and the best arguments and evidence that skilled lawyers on the other side could present," he says. "We feel that we have a powerful and compelling record to lay before the appellate courts. We can't do more than that."
....

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2009335,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0w6my5mwq

Marriage isn't a right. Its as simple as that.

It should be noted that changing a thread title doesn't make it true.

It is not a right. It is a privilege. Why can't you understand that?

As a black man, I would never call a white person black. They wouldn't know what its like to be discriminated against.

Either way, when you're discussing public policy it's generally better to leave it to the voters and their elected legislators, not judges.

Homosexuality is...not an inherent genetic trait, but a behavioral choice.

And to many, an immoral and decadent one. And to non-religious people, homosexuality is just a weird and gross choice.

As I quoted in a previous topic years ago, black civil rights leaders were actually offended that gays tried to wedge through their agenda comparing gay rights to the black civil rights movement.

And while you try to deny the issue, the chasm between gay rights and black civil rights was made clear in California's Proposition 8 vote in November 2008.
Where blacks who came to the polls to vote for Obama voted overwhelmingly against Proposition 8.

You've got it backwards.

The truth is, pushing gay marriage is just gay and liberal people forcing their views on conservative and Christian people, spreading misery by forcing their lifestyle, which in every credible study is maybe 2% of the public, and forcing their gay/liberal secularist views onto the overwhelming majority who oppose gay marriage.

Forcing those views on a society created on Christian principles, no less. Ironically, suppressing thre free practice of Christianity in a Christian culture.

Again: gay marriage is an attempt to give gays state-recognized minority protection. And would therefore make any Judao-Christian Bible verses condemning homosexuality a "hate-crime" punishable by large fines or even jail-time. So you want to give gays rights by taking rights away from Christians and other conservatives.

and there's a tremendous difference between a right and a privilege. take driving for example. if everyone has the right to drive, then why can't everyone just hop into the first car they see and take off? if you want to drive, you have to meet certain conditions in order to be granted that privilege. you have to be of legal driving age, you have to apply (and be approved for) a valid driver's license, you have to have insurance, and you have to own or have permission to use a particular vehicle.

similarly, marriage (for anyone) is a privilege - two consenting individuals of opposite sexes, both of the appropriate age of consent, must apply (and be approved for) a marriage license and unless they choose a civil wedding ceremony with a justice of the peace, they usually have to rent the facilities needed and very frequently are required to complete a certain amount of premarital counseling at or through the faith establishment conducting the ceremony. there's nothing keeping gay people from getting married - they have equal access to follow the procedure to obtain the privilege to marry anyone of the opposite sex they want.

because that's what marriage is defined as in nearly the entire country. wanting anything other than that is wanting something other than marriage - call it whatever you like but quibbling over semantics doesn't really impact reality all that much.

also, even if legal codes are sufficiently fucked with to allow same-sex marriages, faith establishments retain the right under the free exercise clause of the first amendment to refuse to perform the ceremony. in which case most gay couples would probably need to settle for a civil marriage ceremony.

in which case they might as well call it a civil union (which I don't see that big of a problem with) and stop dicking around (heh) with the underpinnings of civilization that have worked quite well for several millennia.

also, hi jason.

What I'm saying is that what you have defined as privileges could also be called legal rights, and, therefore, rights.

But a "right" conveyed or created by statute (as opposed to, say, the constitution) can then be taken away simply be repealing or amending the statute. Not much of a right.

And if "gay marriage" is such a right then CA was authorized to ban it by proposition or legislation.

Actually, it is a basic legal principle that the enactment of a new law generally serves to repeal a contradictory existing/prior law. Usually, the only way a new law wouldn't do that would be if the existing law was enacted by a higher authority (for example: federal statute or constitutional provision).

There's no federal statute authorizing gay marriage. In fact, the 1996 "defense of marriage act" tended to discourage recognition of gay marriage.

So, unless you're arguing (as the judge did here) that gay marriage is a constitutional right...