78 replies to this topic

[escsamx]

i actually dont really care all that much for gay marriage, i mean whats the point in saying yes or no if your opinion doesnt really matter anyway. im catholic. i dont think being gay is really favored in the eyes of God, but im not going to go all out against gays and say terrible things about them because thats really wrong.

[Wenger]

escsamx, on Jun 9 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

i actually dont really care all that much for gay marriage, i mean whats the point in saying yes or no if your opinion doesnt really matter anyway. im catholic. i dont think being gay is really favored in the eyes of God, but im not going to go all out against gays and say terrible things about them because thats really wrong.

I don't consider them to be terrible people. But honestly, I think that being homosexual is a psychological disorder. If you disagree with me, give reasoning, because so far, no one who objects to my ideas has. I see it as an abnormal type of behavior. Marriage serves as the building blocks of a society because it allows people to have families. Males and females are biologically designed to mate with each other. For these reasons, I see say "gay marriage" as a contradictory term.

[JR85]

Wenger, on Jun 9 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

I don't consider them to be terrible people. But honestly, I think that being homosexual is a psychological disorder. If you disagree with me, give reasoning, because so far, no one who objects to my ideas has. I see it as an abnormal type of behavior. Marriage serves as the building blocks of a society because it allows people to have families. Males and females are biologically designed to mate with each other. For these reasons, I see say "gay marriage" as a contradictory term.

Well, as previously said your opinion has been heard. Your opinion isn't going to change the minds of the professionals in the field who say otherwise.


How is it more abnormal than other human activities? Isn't everything we do abnormal.. from abortions to going to outer space, to talking to people across the world?

We sure weren't "biologically designed" to do these things either. Yet we still do?

[Wenger]

JR85, on Jun 9 2008, 08:25 PM, said:

Well, as previously said your opinion has been heard. Your opinion isn't going to change the minds of the professionals in the field who say otherwise.
How is it more abnormal than other human activities? Isn't everything we do abnormal.. from abortions to going to outer space, to talking to people across the world?

We sure weren't "biologically designed" to do these things either. Yet we still do?

First of all, there are professionals who agree with me. I think that you've given terrible examples. By going outer space or "talking to people across the world" we use technology that we engineered. On the other hand, we were biologically designed to be able to reproduce. That doesn't work between people of the same-sex.

[min]

RiNo, on Jul 10 2006, 08:25 PM, said:

And i completely respect yours and all people's religious beliefs, but what happened to the seperation of church and state? It seams that that's what people are forgetting. Why is it fair for you to pose your beliefs on everyone. And this is not even a matter of having a dispute with someone over what is "wrong and right", these are peoples LIVES we're talking about.

And i just what to put a question out there... What do you guys honestly think about "the rights" reasoning in trying to prevent gay marriage.

it also happened that biology created man and women to procreate and have sex.
man and man well..... werent really designed for that task.
why do we still have gay people despite how biology designed us? i have no clue.

[stephanie]

Well, the whole issue of gay marriage shouldn't be a right or wrong opinion argument, it's a political argument. Yes our country was founded on the Christian faith but it was also based on religious freedom. The idea of marriage is NOT only in the Christian faith (most cultures and religions have it) and provides more that a "spiritual bond" so shouldn't it be a government issue? Yes, it's wrong in the eyes of the Christian God but to base a law completely on the Christian idea of right or wrong is basically forcing a religion on us, telling us that one religion is "right".

I personally think that if someone loves someone else, let it be, how does it harm you who someone else choses to love? How does it harm anyone?

[katinka]

Please don't generalize when referring to different faiths; many christian and jewish denominations accept homosexuality as a naturally occurring variant and even bless same sex unions.

[djharkavy]

Wenger, on Jun 9 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

I don't consider them to be terrible people. But honestly, I think that being homosexual is a psychological disorder. If you disagree with me, give reasoning, because so far, no one who objects to my ideas has. I see it as an abnormal type of behavior.

Abnormal does not mean disordered. In order to be a disorder, not only does it have to be abnormal, but it has to be harmful to the people involved or those to whom they come in contact.

Homosexuality, being observed in only a small percentage of the population is abnormal. It is not a disease or disorder.

Wenger, on Jun 9 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

Marriage serves as the building blocks of a society because it allows people to have families. Males and females are biologically designed to mate with each other. For these reasons, I see say "gay marriage" as a contradictory term.

And yet marriages occur all the time without families. Older people who have no hope, or plans of reproduction are allowed to marry without limit. People who are infertile are allowed to marry. So obviously it is not all about reproduction.

Society benefits from marriage because people are taking responsibility for each other, both legally and financially. This adds glue to the social fabric, stretgthening it. I see no rational reason to forbid homosexuals from solemnizing their relationship in the same way as heterosexuals can do so. Indeed, it is a rational argument that providing benefits to heterosexual couples, but not homosexual couples violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

[Wenger]

djharkavy, on Jun 10 2008, 07:25 PM, said:

Abnormal does not mean disordered. In order to be a disorder, not only does it have to be abnormal, but it has to be harmful to the people involved or those to whom they come in contact.

Homosexuality, being observed in only a small percentage of the population is abnormal. It is not a disease or disorder.
And yet marriages occur all the time without families. Older people who have no hope, or plans of reproduction are allowed to marry without limit. People who are infertile are allowed to marry. So obviously it is not all about reproduction.

Society benefits from marriage because people are taking responsibility for each other, both legally and financially. This adds glue to the social fabric, stretgthening it. I see no rational reason to forbid homosexuals from solemnizing their relationship in the same way as heterosexuals can do so. Indeed, it is a rational argument that providing benefits to heterosexual couples, but not homosexual couples violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

Disorders are always observed by a small percentage of the population. The social benefits are intended to support families (who often end up having children.)

[katinka]

Gay and Lesbian people have children too, whether through adoption or natural means, at constantly increasing rates. At the same time, there are heterosexual couples who get married and have no desire to have children. LGBT people have families and are productive members of society. They will be your teachers, your family members, your guidance counselors, your friends, your teammates, your co-workers, your elected officials, and your bosses. And one day, you'll see that being gay isn't all that different or scary.

[djharkavy]

Wenger, on Jun 10 2008, 08:22 PM, said:

Disorders are always observed by a small percentage of the population.

That is part of the definition. Go on to the rest.

Being left-handed is not a disorder. Being intelligent is not a disorder. Both represent a small percentage of the population.

Wenger, on Jun 10 2008, 08:22 PM, said:

The social benefits are intended to support families (who often end up having children.)

Possibly true. But they are still there for childless couples and couples over the age in which reproduction is likely. So it is not exclusively for that purpose.

[min]

katinka, on Jun 10 2008, 09:24 PM, said:

Gay and Lesbian people have children too, whether through adoption or natural means, at constantly increasing rates. At the same time, there are heterosexual couples who get married and have no desire to have children. LGBT people have families and are productive members of society. They will be your teachers, your family members, your guidance counselors, your friends, your teammates, your co-workers, your elected officials, and your bosses. And one day, you'll see that being gay isn't all that different or scary.

I agree,

there is a common belief that somehow if you are gay you will hit on and pounce on every guy you see.

Not true, its just like us "straight people", we are selective and have standards to who we may and may not "hit on".
And most gay men, if they happen to like a straight guy, they totally respect the straight guys sexual orientation and leave it at that.

[Wenger]

min, on Jun 11 2008, 06:26 AM, said:

I agree,

there is a common belief that somehow if you are gay you will hit on and pounce on every guy you see.

Not true, its just like us "straight people", we are selective and have standards to who we may and may not "hit on".
And most gay men, if they happen to like a straight guy, they totally respect the straight guys sexual orientation and leave it at that.

I'm not arguing against that. But I see it as going against the definition of marriage and for the many reasons I've explained wrong.

[Retina]

Wenger, on Jun 12 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

But honestly, I think that being homosexual is a psychological disorder. If you disagree with me, give reasoning, because so far, no one who objects to my ideas has. I see it as an abnormal type of behavior.

Wenger, you have not responded to the assertion that marriage exists for purposes other than child-rearing (as supported by the fact that we allow sterile couples to marry); you are also do not seem to have a clear understanding of what a "psychological disorder" is. If psychological disorders were only determined by their commonality, IQ over 120 or so would be a disorder (approximately 10% of the population has an IQ over 120).

Other common venues used to determine a mental disorder can be:

• whether a person's behavior violates societal norms
  
• whether a person's behavior causes personal suffering
  
• and whether it offends day-to-day functioning

While I could easily discuss the problems associated with using these definitions of "abnormal," it should be noted that same-sex attraction, for many people, does not cause personal suffering or offend day-to-day functioning, and may or may not violate societal norms, depending on whose norms you're referring to (showing us one of the problems with this criterion!).

Despite the fact that homosexuality is not included in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (i.e., the foremost association of American psychologists does not recognize it as a disorder), in addition to the fact that homosexuality does not seem to meet common standards of abnormality, you still seem to think it is.

Can you do a more thorough job of explaining why you are defining homosexuality as a disorder? Your current attempts do not seem to satisfy a cursory review.

[Wenger]

Retina, on Jun 14 2008, 08:58 PM, said:

Wenger, you have not responded to the assertion that marriage exists for purposes other than child-rearing (as supported by the fact that we allow sterile couples to marry); you are also do not seem to have a clear understanding of what a "psychological disorder" is. If psychological disorders were only determined by their commonality, IQ over 120 or so would be a disorder (approximately 10% of the population has an IQ over 120).

Other common venues used to determine a mental disorder can be:

• whether a person's behavior violates societal norms
  
• whether a person's behavior causes personal suffering
  
• and whether it offends day-to-day functioning

While I could easily discuss the problems associated with using these definitions of "abnormal," it should be noted that same-sex attraction, for many people, does not cause personal suffering or offend day-to-day functioning, and may or may not violate societal norms, depending on whose norms you're referring to (showing us one of the problems with this criterion!).

Despite the fact that homosexuality is not included in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (i.e., the foremost association of American psychologists does not recognize it as a disorder), in addition to the fact that homosexuality does not seem to meet common standards of abnormality, you still seem to think it is.

Can you do a more thorough job of explaining why you are defining homosexuality as a disorder? Your current attempts do not seem to satisfy a cursory review.

I never said that anything uncommon is a psychological disorder. I said the converse, that all psychological disorders are uncommon. Your entire post is therefore meaningless.

[PinKkFloyDd]

Wenger, on Jun 9 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

I don't consider them to be terrible people. But honestly, I think that being homosexual is a psychological disorder. If you disagree with me, give reasoning, because so far, no one who objects to my ideas has. I see it as an abnormal type of behavior. Marriage serves as the building blocks of a society because it allows people to have families. Males and females are biologically designed to mate with each other. For these reasons, I see say "gay marriage" as a contradictory term.

But marriage in itself is not biological; monogamy is a man-made concept, and polygamy is species is what is biological. So should we stop marriage altogether seeing as how it is not biological? Hell, survival of the fittest/dog-eat-dog is biological too; should we kill anyone who is not of kin because it's the biological thing to do? We are humans, not animals, so using the biological defense is meaningless.

[Wenger]

PinKkFloyDd, on Jul 28 2008, 01:39 AM, said:

But marriage in itself is not biological; monogamy is a man-made concept, and polygamy is species is what is biological. So should we stop marriage altogether seeing as how it is not biological? Hell, survival of the fittest/dog-eat-dog is biological too; should we kill anyone who is not of kin because it's the biological thing to do? We are humans, not animals, so using the biological defense is meaningless.

I see, so you assume that any type of behavior is considered normal so long as we aren't animals.

[Retina]

Wenger, on Jul 18 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

I never said that anything uncommon is a psychological disorder. I said the converse, that all psychological disorders are uncommon. Your entire post is therefore meaningless.

I'm not sure I understand how my entire post is meaningless.

First, let me correct your assertion that "all psychological disorders are uncommon." Infrequency is not, necessarily, a requirement that something be considered a disorder, a fact that the approximate 30% of Americans with some form of anxiety disorder would be anxious to explain to you.

Second, let me note that you have not seemed to respond to my discussion of why homosexuality does not meet even questionable standards of "abnormal." It is uncommon, as you and I agree, but you and I also agree that something being uncommon does not make it a disorder. In what other way is homosexuality "abnormal"?

Regarding your discussion with PinKkFloyDd: PinKkFloyDd's point seems to be that many behaviors which are considered to be "normal" today (by American culture, if not by most of the world) are not related to (or are perhaps antithesis to) how humans' biology and physiology are set up (e.g., swimming).

[PinKkFloyDd]

Wenger, on Aug 15 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

I see, so you assume that any type of behavior is considered normal so long as we aren't animals.

You missed my point entirely. What I'm saying is that simply stating that the biology of human mating as a reason to be against gay marriage is illogical. If you use "biology" as a reason for one issue, you'd have to use it for every other issue, otherwise you'd just be a hypocrite. According to your logic, all marriage/civil union/monogamy should be illegal because it's not biologically "smart" for the advancement of our species.