What's wrong with Gay Marriage?

[budweiser]

THIS DUDE SERIOUSLY HAS A GAGGLE OF BASTARD KIDS TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S RIGHT IN THE EYES OF THE LORD? DISGUSTING, TRULY TRULY DISGUSTING

 

[Jordan8]

Nothing.
Nothing is wrong with Pedophilia, Polygamy, Incest, Bestiality, etc either.

Let em all get married. Im tolerant of all sexual preferences. 

What you disagree? Yous intolerant 

 

[budweiser]

THIS DUDE SERIOUSLY HAS A GAGGLE OF BASTARD KIDS TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S RIGHT IN THE EYES OF THE LORD? DISGUSTING, TRULY TRULY DISGUSTING

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by cartune

Nothing.
Nothing is wrong with Pedophilia, Polygamy, Incest, Bestiality, etc either.

Let em all get married. Im tolerant of all sexual preferences. 

What you disagree? Yous intolerant 

if you are comparing gay marriage to pedophilia and bestiality then there won't be any point even attempting to reason with you.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by cartune

Nothing.
Nothing is wrong with Pedophilia, Polygamy, Incest, Bestiality, etc either.

Let em all get married. Im tolerant of all sexual preferences. 

What you disagree? Yous intolerant 

if you are comparing gay marriage to pedophilia and bestiality then there won't be any point even attempting to reason with you.

 

[timcity2000]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Why would it be wrong or incorrect to classify homosexuality as a disease or disorder ?   

so what's the cure?  lemme know, and i'll make an appointment....

 

[timcity2000]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Why would it be wrong or incorrect to classify homosexuality as a disease or disorder ?   

so what's the cure?  lemme know, and i'll make an appointment....

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by gambit215

To the ppl who support marriage between same sex couples

Should brothers and sisters be able to get married?
What about father and daughter?
Mother and Son?

As long as they are over 18, and they consent, its all good right?

Just a question, try not to look too deep into it, just want to see how people feel about incest. Are we not denying their "Love" for each other?

I think both hetero and #*%* everything comes down to sex, whos allowed to get down?

BTW, Raised Catholic, really could care less if Homosexuals get together and have unions.

How many brothers and sisters? Mothers and sons? Do you know want to get married.

Brothers and sisters=Im ok with

Parent and child-potential for abuse is too great.....it would raise a lot of questions. For a father to marry his daughter it would potentially mean a history of sexual abuse starting when she was a child. This is not consent.

From a biological stand point I would certainly NOT advise because incest causes genetic abnormalities and disease to arise in offspring.

But, just because I know this fact doesn't mean I would force anyone to not do this. As a scientist you find out the facts and lay them on the table. Allowing anyone to do as they see fit with them, as long as they aren't causing harm.

This is exactly why I said I'm ok with it, no one is stupid enough to breed with their own brother or sister. But if they are made aware of the risks they're taking and still feel strongly about it....hey who am I to judge. They should just make sure they take good care of whatever monstrosity results from their coupling. Incestuous marriages are very prevalent in royal families, it doesn't always lead to the monsters that are portrayed in horror movies but it does predispose an offspring to certain recessive traits (Eg. hemophilia in the British royal family)

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by gambit215

To the ppl who support marriage between same sex couples

Should brothers and sisters be able to get married?
What about father and daughter?
Mother and Son?

As long as they are over 18, and they consent, its all good right?

Just a question, try not to look too deep into it, just want to see how people feel about incest. Are we not denying their "Love" for each other?

I think both hetero and #*%* everything comes down to sex, whos allowed to get down?

BTW, Raised Catholic, really could care less if Homosexuals get together and have unions.

How many brothers and sisters? Mothers and sons? Do you know want to get married.

Brothers and sisters=Im ok with

Parent and child-potential for abuse is too great.....it would raise a lot of questions. For a father to marry his daughter it would potentially mean a history of sexual abuse starting when she was a child. This is not consent.

From a biological stand point I would certainly NOT advise because incest causes genetic abnormalities and disease to arise in offspring.

But, just because I know this fact doesn't mean I would force anyone to not do this. As a scientist you find out the facts and lay them on the table. Allowing anyone to do as they see fit with them, as long as they aren't causing harm.

This is exactly why I said I'm ok with it, no one is stupid enough to breed with their own brother or sister. But if they are made aware of the risks they're taking and still feel strongly about it....hey who am I to judge. They should just make sure they take good care of whatever monstrosity results from their coupling. Incestuous marriages are very prevalent in royal families, it doesn't always lead to the monsters that are portrayed in horror movies but it does predispose an offspring to certain recessive traits (Eg. hemophilia in the British royal family)

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

I just told you why it can't/shouldn't be classified as a disease in my post earlier. Being homosexual does not interfere with the ability to have sex, produce gametes, or reproduce. The individuals usually still want children and many of them want their own, and they are fully capable to having them.

Them being attracted to the same sex just usually prevents them from being in a situation where they would be having sex with the opposite sex to create offspring. It doesn't phsicaly inhibit them from being able to reproduce. Many gay couples choose IVF and do have their own offspring/reproduce.

How is one "wrong" you ask? Because it is not relative. Science has rules and definitions which must be followed in order to be true/good science.

As stated earlier a genetic disease is defined as a "disease"because it is a genetic abnormality which causes harm to an individual's ability to survive and undergo natural processes, such as missing the ability to produce viable gametes and therefore being PHYSICALLY unable to reproduce.
Homosexuality does not do this. So this is how one point of view/definition can be wrong, cause biologically and scientifically IT IS WRONG to define it as a disease.

And, I understand what your saying, I know you're not attacking science, but the point of my post is to say that your post is: 1) not needed since no one is implying that science can adjudicate in this scenario, 2) No true scientist would ever try to pass judgment on gay marriage using science, and 3) slightly wrong because it isn't relative, there are strict definitions of what is a genetic disease.

Lastly, no one is comparing gay marriage to eugenics. Again, we are saying that what you posted is BAD science (forcing beliefs/ societal action/ moral views using science) like eugenics, and you shouldn't post that cause no true scientist would do this and posting it can imply that you give acceptance or recognition or understanding to individuals that would. Even if you yourself do not agree.

As for everything else you said unrelated to science I totally understand what you are saying and agree with some points. It is not something anyone can answer since everyone has their own beliefs that they want everyone else to follow because they think they are right. All I can try to say is that yes, who is anyone to tell another person how to live or what's right and wrong? No one really can, but if your views cause harm to other individuals then I think action should be taken by others to prevent you from harming them. Gay marriage harms no one, slavery, stoning for looks, etc.... does.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

I just told you why it can't/shouldn't be classified as a disease in my post earlier. Being homosexual does not interfere with the ability to have sex, produce gametes, or reproduce. The individuals usually still want children and many of them want their own, and they are fully capable to having them.

Them being attracted to the same sex just usually prevents them from being in a situation where they would be having sex with the opposite sex to create offspring. It doesn't phsicaly inhibit them from being able to reproduce. Many gay couples choose IVF and do have their own offspring/reproduce.

How is one "wrong" you ask? Because it is not relative. Science has rules and definitions which must be followed in order to be true/good science.

As stated earlier a genetic disease is defined as a "disease"because it is a genetic abnormality which causes harm to an individual's ability to survive and undergo natural processes, such as missing the ability to produce viable gametes and therefore being PHYSICALLY unable to reproduce.
Homosexuality does not do this. So this is how one point of view/definition can be wrong, cause biologically and scientifically IT IS WRONG to define it as a disease.

And, I understand what your saying, I know you're not attacking science, but the point of my post is to say that your post is: 1) not needed since no one is implying that science can adjudicate in this scenario, 2) No true scientist would ever try to pass judgment on gay marriage using science, and 3) slightly wrong because it isn't relative, there are strict definitions of what is a genetic disease.

Lastly, no one is comparing gay marriage to eugenics. Again, we are saying that what you posted is BAD science (forcing beliefs/ societal action/ moral views using science) like eugenics, and you shouldn't post that cause no true scientist would do this and posting it can imply that you give acceptance or recognition or understanding to individuals that would. Even if you yourself do not agree.

As for everything else you said unrelated to science I totally understand what you are saying and agree with some points. It is not something anyone can answer since everyone has their own beliefs that they want everyone else to follow because they think they are right. All I can try to say is that yes, who is anyone to tell another person how to live or what's right and wrong? No one really can, but if your views cause harm to other individuals then I think action should be taken by others to prevent you from harming them. Gay marriage harms no one, slavery, stoning for looks, etc.... does.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by cartune

Nothing.
Nothing is wrong with Pedophilia, Polygamy, Incest, Bestiality, etc either.

Let em all get married. Im tolerant of all sexual preferences. 

What you disagree? Yous intolerant 

if you are comparing gay marriage to pedophilia and bestiality then there won't be any point even attempting to reason with you.

WOW seriously, the difference is consent and harm buddy. Just in case you still haven't figured it out.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by cartune

Nothing.
Nothing is wrong with Pedophilia, Polygamy, Incest, Bestiality, etc either.

Let em all get married. Im tolerant of all sexual preferences. 

What you disagree? Yous intolerant 

if you are comparing gay marriage to pedophilia and bestiality then there won't be any point even attempting to reason with you.

WOW seriously, the difference is consent and harm buddy. Just in case you still haven't figured it out.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

How many brothers and sisters? Mothers and sons? Do you know want to get married.

Brothers and sisters=Im ok with

Parent and child-potential for abuse is too great.....it would raise a lot of questions. For a father to marry his daughter it would potentially mean a history of sexual abuse starting when she was a child. This is not consent.

From a biological stand point I would certainly NOT advise because incest causes genetic abnormalities and disease to arise in offspring.

But, just because I know this fact doesn't mean I would force anyone to not do this. As a scientist you find out the facts and lay them on the table. Allowing anyone to do as they see fit with them, as long as they aren't causing harm.

This is exactly why I said I'm ok with it, no one is stupid enough to breed with their own brother or sister. But if they are made aware of the risks they're taking and still feel strongly about it....hey who am I to judge. They should just make sure they take good care of whatever monstrosity results from their coupling. Incestuous marriages are very prevalent in royal families, it doesn't always lead to the monsters that are portrayed in horror movies but it does predispose an offspring to certain recessive traits (Eg. hemophilia in the British royal family)

Yup, I feel you. I pretty much agreed with your original post.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

How many brothers and sisters? Mothers and sons? Do you know want to get married.

Brothers and sisters=Im ok with

Parent and child-potential for abuse is too great.....it would raise a lot of questions. For a father to marry his daughter it would potentially mean a history of sexual abuse starting when she was a child. This is not consent.

From a biological stand point I would certainly NOT advise because incest causes genetic abnormalities and disease to arise in offspring.

But, just because I know this fact doesn't mean I would force anyone to not do this. As a scientist you find out the facts and lay them on the table. Allowing anyone to do as they see fit with them, as long as they aren't causing harm.

This is exactly why I said I'm ok with it, no one is stupid enough to breed with their own brother or sister. But if they are made aware of the risks they're taking and still feel strongly about it....hey who am I to judge. They should just make sure they take good care of whatever monstrosity results from their coupling. Incestuous marriages are very prevalent in royal families, it doesn't always lead to the monsters that are portrayed in horror movies but it does predispose an offspring to certain recessive traits (Eg. hemophilia in the British royal family)

Yup, I feel you. I pretty much agreed with your original post.

 

[tkthafm]

We agree it's not physical, but then how about claiming it to be a mental illness/disorder/condition. I know what I'm saying isn't "PC" but looking at it from the other side, why not ? I know it was once more widely viewed that way but activism & changes in norms ended it. 

Here's this from the APA: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Is homosexuality a mental illness or emotional problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.

In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.

For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

Maybe you can shed more light on this, but what scientific studies can possibly rule out if something is a mental disorder or not. Isn't it a gray area that depends on what the scientist views "normal" behavior to be in the first place ? For example, it says "data was examined" ... what ? 

 

[tkthafm]

We agree it's not physical, but then how about claiming it to be a mental illness/disorder/condition. I know what I'm saying isn't "PC" but looking at it from the other side, why not ? I know it was once more widely viewed that way but activism & changes in norms ended it. 

Here's this from the APA: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Is homosexuality a mental illness or emotional problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.

In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.

For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

Maybe you can shed more light on this, but what scientific studies can possibly rule out if something is a mental disorder or not. Isn't it a gray area that depends on what the scientist views "normal" behavior to be in the first place ? For example, it says "data was examined" ... what ? 

 

[rowenarrow]

We straight people can't seem to get it right, so I see nothing wrong with it. Marriage is too legally based anyways, lets get back to where it is in the hearts and not in the courts.

 

[rowenarrow]

We straight people can't seem to get it right, so I see nothing wrong with it. Marriage is too legally based anyways, lets get back to where it is in the hearts and not in the courts.

 

[pmacvilay]

Originally Posted by FinallyFamous


To answer your question there is NOTHING wrong with it.  Let people live.

simple as that.

 

[pmacvilay]

Originally Posted by FinallyFamous


To answer your question there is NOTHING wrong with it.  Let people live.

simple as that.

 

[do work son]

yuku'd

 

[do work son]

yuku'd

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by tkthafm


We agree it's not physical, but then how about claiming it to be a mental illness/disorder/condition. I know what I'm saying isn't "PC" but looking at it from the other side, why not ? I know it was once more widely viewed that way but activism & changes in norms ended it. 

Here's this from the APA: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Is homosexuality a mental illness or emotional problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.

In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.

For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

Maybe you can shed more light on this, but what scientific studies can possibly rule out if something is a mental disorder or not. Isn't it a gray area that depends on what the scientist views "normal" behavior to be in the first place ? For example, it says "data was examined" ... what ? 

A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern generally associated with subjective distress or disability that occurs in an individual, and which is not a part of normal development or culture. Such a disorder may consist of a combination of affective, behavioural, cognitive and perceptual components. The recognition and understanding of mental health conditions has changed over time and across cultures, and there are still variations in the definition, assessment, and classification of mental disorders, although standard guideline criteria are widely accepted. A few mental disorders are diagnosed based on the harm to others, regardless of the subject's perception of distress. Over a third of people in most countries report meeting criteria for the major categories at some point in their lives.



The distress and disability homosexuals feel about their sexual orientation is not inherent, it has more to do with how society treats them. Most homosexual people are fine the way they are, the problem isn't with homosexual people the problem is with homophobes making their lives a living hell


-In the dark ages of science and medicine they made attempts to "cure" homosexuality as a mental illness using various cognitive therapies and failed miserably. It is as difficult to change a person's sexual orientation as it is to change their personality traits and DNA.


For example, if a kid is a minority at a school and gets bullied and picked on everyday. Would it be fair to focus on changing everything about him and labeling him abnormal just to cater to the majority who have a problem with his race. Let that marinade for a second. Until homosexuals start going to the mental clinics in droves to seek help with changing their homosexuality, it is not a psychological illness

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by tkthafm


We agree it's not physical, but then how about claiming it to be a mental illness/disorder/condition. I know what I'm saying isn't "PC" but looking at it from the other side, why not ? I know it was once more widely viewed that way but activism & changes in norms ended it. 

Here's this from the APA: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Is homosexuality a mental illness or emotional problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.

In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.

For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

Maybe you can shed more light on this, but what scientific studies can possibly rule out if something is a mental disorder or not. Isn't it a gray area that depends on what the scientist views "normal" behavior to be in the first place ? For example, it says "data was examined" ... what ? 

A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern generally associated with subjective distress or disability that occurs in an individual, and which is not a part of normal development or culture. Such a disorder may consist of a combination of affective, behavioural, cognitive and perceptual components. The recognition and understanding of mental health conditions has changed over time and across cultures, and there are still variations in the definition, assessment, and classification of mental disorders, although standard guideline criteria are widely accepted. A few mental disorders are diagnosed based on the harm to others, regardless of the subject's perception of distress. Over a third of people in most countries report meeting criteria for the major categories at some point in their lives.



The distress and disability homosexuals feel about their sexual orientation is not inherent, it has more to do with how society treats them. Most homosexual people are fine the way they are, the problem isn't with homosexual people the problem is with homophobes making their lives a living hell


-In the dark ages of science and medicine they made attempts to "cure" homosexuality as a mental illness using various cognitive therapies and failed miserably. It is as difficult to change a person's sexual orientation as it is to change their personality traits and DNA.


For example, if a kid is a minority at a school and gets bullied and picked on everyday. Would it be fair to focus on changing everything about him and labeling him abnormal just to cater to the majority who have a problem with his race. Let that marinade for a second. Until homosexuals start going to the mental clinics in droves to seek help with changing their homosexuality, it is not a psychological illness