Gay marriage debate

Really? He didn't even spell "your" correctly in his outburst.

That's just as bad as stuttering when telling a joke.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
That's just as bad as stuttering when telling a joke.

Touche.

Originally posted by Bentley
Phuck language?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why don't you say what it is you have to say instead of asking rhetorical questions?

The question wasn't rhetorical.

I want to know how you can read that article, where the man goes through pains to explain that law is intended to govern the consequences of normal marriage, and forms a binding contract, prove-able by the fact that the courts (i.e. the government) enforce that contract when it is defaulted, through devices like alimony, and think you're telling me something that somehow counters Sowell's proposition.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why don't you say what it is you have to say ... ?

Now that I come to it again, here's one article that addresses some other questions and issues I have on the thread topic;
I think you'll be just a little surprised at who wrote it, given what they had to say:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sexual reorientation therapy not unethical: Column

Nicholas A. Cummings 6:14 p.m. EDT July 30, 2013

Southern Poverty Law Center wrongly fighting against patients' right to choose.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has done amazing service for our nation in fighting prejudice. But it has gone astray in its recent New Jersey lawsuit charging JONAH, formerly Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing, a group that offers to help gay people change their orientation, with committing consumer fraud. The sweeping allegation that such treatment must be a fraud because homosexual orientation can't be changed is damaging. The lawsuit is the opening salvo of a wave of activism intended to discredit therapy offered in 70 clinics across 20 states, according to the SPLC.

When I was chief psychologist for Kaiser Permanente from 1959 to 1979, San Francisco's gay and lesbian population burgeoned. I personally saw more than 2,000 patients with same-sex attraction, and my staff saw thousands more. We worked hard to develop approaches to meeting the needs of these patients.

INDIVIDUAL's GOALS

They generally sought therapy for one of three reasons: to come to grips with their gay identity, to resolve relationship issues or to change their sexual orientation. We would always inform patients in the third group that change was not easily accomplished. With clinical experience, my staff and I learned to assess the probability of change in those who wished to become heterosexual.

Of the roughly 18,000 gay and lesbian patients whom we treated over 25 years through Kaiser, I believe that most had satisfactory outcomes. The majority were able to attain a happier and more stable homosexual lifestyle. Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful.

I believe that our rate of success with reorientation was relatively high because we were selective in recommending therapeutic change efforts only to those who identified themselves as highly motivated and were clinically assessed as having a high probability of success.

PATIENTS OVER POLITICS

Since then, the role of psychotherapy in sexual orientation change efforts has been politicized. Gay and lesbian rights activists appear to be convincing the public that homosexuality is one identical inherited characteristic. To my dismay, some in the organized mental health community seem to agree, including the American Psychological Association, though I don't believe that view is supported by scientific evidence.

Gays and lesbians have the right to be affirmed in their homosexuality. That's why, as a member of the APA Council of Representatives in 1975, I sponsored the resolution by which the APA stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and, in 1976, the resolution, which passed the council unanimously, that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against in the workplace.

But contending that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality. Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as "unethical" violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients' goals for their own treatment. A political agenda shouldn't prevent gays and lesbians who desire to change from making their own decisions.

Whatever the situation at an individual clinic, accusing professionals from across the country who provide treatment for fully informed persons seeking to change their sexual orientation of perpetrating a fraud serves only to stigmatize the professional and shame the patient.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Cummings was PRESIDENT of the American Psychological Association (1979-80).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/30/sexual-reorientation-therapy-not-unethical-column/2601159/

Originally posted by |King Joker|
That's just as bad as stuttering when telling a joke.

It's worse than terrorism

To go along with that article, here's a clip featuring an actual interview with Cummings.

For the record, I am not the creator of this video, and do not think if I had made such a thing that I would have titled it the way the creator did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NyX5CxGraE

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The question wasn't rhetorical.

I want to know how you can read that article, where the man goes through pains to explain that law is intended to govern the consequences of normal marriage, and forms a binding contract, prove-able by the fact that the courts (i.e. the government) enforce that contract when it is defaulted, through devices like alimony, and think you're telling me something that somehow counters Sowell's proposition.

Because he is wrong. I'm sorry you find his argument so compelling that you cannot accept that.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Now that I come to it again, here's one article that addresses [b]some other questions and issues I have on the thread topic;
I think you'll be just a little surprised at who wrote it, given what they had to say:[/B]

So what? Who cares? I don't even need to address the merits of it because it's not the least bit relevant.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So what? Who cares? I don't even need to address the merits of it because it's not the least bit relevant.

Even you don't believe that much; you wouldn't have been responding in this thread to begin with if you did.

And I can say with confidence that many will find it interesting that the former president of the APA, the very man who campaigned to have homosexuality removed as a mental illness from the Psych books, thinks that homosexuality versus heterosexuality IS a choice for many people, including patients he personally worked with over the course of years.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because he is wrong. I'm sorry you find his argument so compelling that you cannot accept that.

Originally posted by Robtard
You've probably already come to the conclusion, but being wrong is no form or matter sways Bluewhaleguy from continuing his ramblings.

Prove "Bluewhaleguy" is wrong about this and we can test your theory.

See?

Originally posted by Robtard
Really? He didn't even spell "your" correctly in his outburst.

Clearly you mad

Its simple. People should be equal and all have the same rights. Idk why its even a question. Its not someone else business what anyone else does. I may not enjoy watching Homosexuals kiss and the like but hey I have the ability to look away. If two guys or two girls want to have a marriage then there isn't ANY reason as to why they shouldn't.

Religiously speaking it doesn't matter if your god says its wrong. Those two obviously don't care so leave them alone.

Non Religiously speaking....there shouldn't even be an argument. I guess you could argue that gays disrupt the natural process of populating our species but thats a really weak argument of its own.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Even you don't believe that much; you wouldn't have been responding in this thread to begin with if you did.

Motivations are irrelevant. I only care about arguments.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
And I can say with confidence that many will find it interesting that the former president of the APA, the very man who campaigned to have homosexuality removed as a mental illness from the Psych books, thinks that homosexuality versus heterosexuality IS a choice for many people, including patients he personally worked with over the course of years.

Again, so what? Whether or not homosexuality is an immutable characteristic is totally irrelevant to the equal application of the law.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Its not someone else business what anyone else does.

Assuming this premise is true, why exactly do we have a government?

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
I may not enjoy watching Homosexuals kiss ...

😕

Why do you not enjoy this?

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
If two guys or two girls want to have a marriage then there isn't ANY reason as to why they shouldn't.

If that's true, why has this been a national discussion for more than 10 years?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Assuming this premise is true, why exactly do we have a government?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
😕

Why do you not enjoy this?

I mean thats not the point I was making but okay....
The short answer is im a heterosexual male thats not interested in men. That would be why I don't find it enjoyable. As for why I don't want to watch two guys kiss...well im not entirely sure, I just don't. Why do some people not like to look at feet?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
If that's true, why has this been a national discussion for more than 10 years?

Obviously because the people arguing that it shouldn't happen are ignorant. One reason is religion and thats the dumbest reason to not allow a marriage. As I said if your god doesn't want same sex marriage then those two people don't care, apparently. Leave them alone. If its not a religious reason then you are basically making a case to not allow another human(s) do something that has nothing to do with you. Its not hurting other people and its none of their business.