Nebraska Catholics Want Right to Deny Psychotherapy to Gays
The Nebraska Roman Catholic Conference is pushing a proposal that would let psychologists refuse to treat gay patients on religious grounds. The website 365Gay has the story:
First of all, this is just plain not nice. Gay people have problems too, they need somebody to talk to sometimes, to try to deny them that is low. There is no lofty motive here, the Catholic group simply wants to hurt gay people.
The Lincoln Journal Star has more details -- I'll skip through their story:
Now here's the thing. You go to a psychologist and talk about things you think and feel, and a lot of them are not pretty things. You talk about conflicts, guilt, you confess your secrets -- and the reason they're secrets is because your conscience can't handle them. That's just why you go to a psychologist, so you can say those things you can't tell your mother.
Can you imagine if a psychologist all of a sudden jumped up in the middle of a session and said, "You what? You fantasized about doing what? With who? Get out of my office right this instant, you offensive perverted monster, you!"
Besides the pill-pushers, there are two main approaches to psychotherapy these days. The cognitive approach helps a client reason about his or her problems, you bring out details including their feelings, work out a logical solution, and figure out how to implement the solution. The other approach is the "client-centered" approach, where the therapist provides empathic acceptance for anything the client says, encouraging them to express themselves in an atmosphere of unconditional positive regard. Both of these approaches can help people get over their anxieties and confusion.
There is no approach in psychotherapy where the therapist judges the morality of the client's thoughts and feelings and treats them on the basis of their ethical worthiness. You know the person has dark secrets the minute they walk in the door, you try to get those out in the open and figure out how to deal with them. Some of those dark secrets might even -- gasp! -- involve sexual feelings, and some of those feelings may not fit into the individual's view of themselves and their place in the world. I'm not telling you something you didn't know already, it's a cliche, Woody Allen made a career out of this fact.
The Star Journal interviews a shrink.
Note that the Catholic guys think that not only should psychologists not treat gay people, they shouldn't refer them. Can you imagine? All the horrible things in the world -- this guy mentioned treating killers, for crying out loud, child molesters, psychologists deal with mother rapers, father stabbers, and all kinds of mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys, and the Nebraska Catholic Conference wants them to freeze out gay people. Their sense of proportion is despicable.
Nebraska’s rules for licensed psychologists could change because of concerns about potential conflicts between religious convictions and sexual orientation.
Jim Cunningham of the Nebraska Roman Catholic Conference says psychologists and other licensed therapists should be able to refuse to treat or refer clients because of the counselors’ religious or moral convictions.
But psychologist James Cole told regulators that such a rule could open the door for discrimination as long as a therapist claimed a religious conflict. Cole represented the Nebraska Psychology Association at a recent hearing on the proposal. Neb. Catholics ask for OK for psychologists to not treat gays
First of all, this is just plain not nice. Gay people have problems too, they need somebody to talk to sometimes, to try to deny them that is low. There is no lofty motive here, the Catholic group simply wants to hurt gay people.
The Lincoln Journal Star has more details -- I'll skip through their story:
Psychologists should be able to refuse to treat -- and refuse to refer clients -- because of religious or moral convictions, Jim Cunningham, executive director of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, said during a licensing rules hearing Thursday.
The conference also supports a similar “convictions of conscience” rule for licensed counselors, social workers and marriage and family therapists.
Without any conscience clause, Catholic Charities in Omaha and Catholic Social Services in Lincoln might have to stop hiring licensed counselors and psychologists, Cunningham said.
The Lincoln agency provides about $100,000 in free mental health services, he said Thursday.
While most ethics codes for professional counselors and psychologists allow professionals to refuse to offer services based on ethical or moral convictions, the codes generally require the professional to refer the client.
But even referring clients could be a violation of conscience when the service violates moral or religious convictions, Cunningham said.
...
Without a moral exemption, a psychologist who believes homosexual relationships are immoral might be required to counsel homosexual couples on building a better relationship, said Edward Stringham, a Lincoln psychologist. Groups push for 'conscience clause' for psychologists
Now here's the thing. You go to a psychologist and talk about things you think and feel, and a lot of them are not pretty things. You talk about conflicts, guilt, you confess your secrets -- and the reason they're secrets is because your conscience can't handle them. That's just why you go to a psychologist, so you can say those things you can't tell your mother.
Can you imagine if a psychologist all of a sudden jumped up in the middle of a session and said, "You what? You fantasized about doing what? With who? Get out of my office right this instant, you offensive perverted monster, you!"
Besides the pill-pushers, there are two main approaches to psychotherapy these days. The cognitive approach helps a client reason about his or her problems, you bring out details including their feelings, work out a logical solution, and figure out how to implement the solution. The other approach is the "client-centered" approach, where the therapist provides empathic acceptance for anything the client says, encouraging them to express themselves in an atmosphere of unconditional positive regard. Both of these approaches can help people get over their anxieties and confusion.
There is no approach in psychotherapy where the therapist judges the morality of the client's thoughts and feelings and treats them on the basis of their ethical worthiness. You know the person has dark secrets the minute they walk in the door, you try to get those out in the open and figure out how to deal with them. Some of those dark secrets might even -- gasp! -- involve sexual feelings, and some of those feelings may not fit into the individual's view of themselves and their place in the world. I'm not telling you something you didn't know already, it's a cliche, Woody Allen made a career out of this fact.
The Star Journal interviews a shrink.
“I have provided psychological services to individuals convicted of murder, and I have never had to compromise my moral belief that killing is wrong,” said Cole, a forensic psychologist.
“I have seen sexual offenders including individuals who are sexually attracted to children and who have abused children without ever having to compromise my moral belief that this behavior is wrong,” he said.
The convictions of conscience clause is already a part of proposed rule changes for counselors.
It is compromise language worked out between the Board of Mental Health Practice and the Nebraska Catholic Conference this winter.
The proposed rule changes for psychologists does not include the convictions of conscience clause. There likely would be a second hearing if the licensing board decided to add it, according to the hearing officer.
Note that the Catholic guys think that not only should psychologists not treat gay people, they shouldn't refer them. Can you imagine? All the horrible things in the world -- this guy mentioned treating killers, for crying out loud, child molesters, psychologists deal with mother rapers, father stabbers, and all kinds of mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys, and the Nebraska Catholic Conference wants them to freeze out gay people. Their sense of proportion is despicable.
48 Comments:
This is a fascinating story. Why would a psychologist refuse to provide services to a gay person? Well, if the psychologist is so committed to a theological belief that compels him/her to disregard the standards of the psychology profession (i.e., that being gay is not an illness, that living consistently with one's sexual orientation is a good thing, and that efforts to change one's sexual orientation are ineffective and dangerous), then the psychologist has four options:
1. Deny service without explanation, other than to tell the patient that he/she does not treat gay people.
2. Provide service inconsistent with his/her theological beliefs, in which case the service is likely to not be very good.
3. Provide service that is consistent with his/her theological beliefs, but risk being thrown out of the profession for engaging in improper practices.
4. Tell the patient that, due to his/her theological beliefs (the psychologist's) he/she cannot provide treatment consistent with both the standards of the profession and the teachings of his/her church, and REFUSE to refer the patient to someone who can provide appropriate service consistent with professional standards.
4. Tell the patient that, due to his/her theological beliefs (the psychologist's) he/she cannot provide treatment consistent with both the standards of the profession and the teachings of his/her church, BUT REFER the patient to someone who can provide service consistent with professional standards.
It seems to me that Option 4 is the only arguably fair approach. While Option 3 is one that the Nebraska Roman Catholic Conference would favor, it opens up a very dangerous door: What if a psychologist believed that it was immoral to believe in anything other than a particular theology; should such a psychologist be free to simply turn people away, without a referral to someone who may be able to offer help? I would think that such a psychologist ought not to be licensed by any state or professional entity.
Stories like this can bring the incongruity of bias against gay people into sharp relief.
Andrea- not anon
I would think with the latest revelations about the abuse in Catholic workhomes in Ireland, the Catholic Church hierarchy would want to be keeping quiet about anything besides praying.
Jim writes,
First of all, this is just plain not nice. Gay people have problems too, they need somebody to talk to sometimes, to try to deny them that is low. There is no lofty motive here, the Catholic group simply wants to hurt gay people.
Not nice...not polite...where have you folks been? Living in a cave? Good grief, the culture has certifiably coarsened over the years and all of the sudden you express amazement???
As a Roman Catholic I can assure you that no two Catholics think alike and that I suspect there is no shortage of devout, practicing and believing Catholics that disagree with such a position. I could even see myself disagreeing with such a position. OTOH, there is a genuine concern that with a new sexual morality on the horizon there is a very real possibility that religious faith and affiliation will be used to retaliate against those out of step with our times. Indeed, some of these fear have already realized (the fertility doctor in California sued by a lesbian couple, for example).
Would I treat a gay or lesbian person coming to me for therapy? I would, though I would make certain that they had full disclosure of where I am coming from, giving them the option to see someone I think might be more effective a therapist.
In an other way this is odd...because if I were gay I would want someone who is effective and would respect me as a human person. And I think that straights and gays/lesbians can each set aside certain prejudices in a professional setting and help the other.
Frankly I think Jim is making more of this story then there is...
Orin submitted:
“OTOH, there is a genuine concern that with a new sexual morality on the horizon there is a very real possibility that religious faith and affiliation will be used to retaliate against those out of step with our times. Indeed, some of these fear [sic] have already realized (the fertility doctor in California sued by a lesbian couple, for example).”
I find it odd that you would point to a fertility doctor as an example to help support your case, considering that the infamous “Octo-mom” case has barely cooled down.
What kind of twisted logic does it take to support the notion that it’s ok for a fertility doctor to implant 8 embryos into the body of a single heterosexual woman who is already struggling to support 6 children, and then say that a lesbian couple shouldn’t be allowed to try and have a child or two?
You seem like a reasonable guy Orin, so I suspect that you personally wouldn’t have supported implanting 8 embryos into Nadia Sulaiman. However, when the apparent qualifications for implanting seem to only be that you have a viable uterus, (oh, and that you’re not GAY) it smacks of an unmitigated double standard, if not outright discrimination.
As an EX-Roman Catholic, I hope that the new sexual morality on the horizon is one where everyone can find the one person in the world they love the most, settle down, and build a happy family together.
Peace,
Cynthia
Orin said "Would I treat a gay or lesbian person coming to me for therapy?"
LOL, woe be to any lGBT who'd end up with Orin as a therapist. Orin has an opinion of himself that's grotesquely inflated beyond any connection with reality.
The fact is that if so called Catholic "therapists" don't want to do the proper job for all people they should have their licenses revoked. If you don't like what the job entails it isn't the job for you. Religious therapist is a bit of an oxymoron, religion is about prejudging things and ignoring the evidence. As such religion and psychotherapy are quite frequently at odds.
"woe be to any lGBT who'd end up with Orin as a therapist"
Oh, yeah. We'll send to Priya to get them real straightened out.
hahahahahahahaha
"The fact is that if so called Catholic "therapists" don't want to do the proper job for all people they should have their licenses revoked."
Priya, "proper" job is a matter of opinion.
just like carpenters and beauticians and chefs, psychologists should be free to work for whoever they want
it's called freedom
"The fact is that if so called Catholic "therapists" don't want to do the proper job for all people they should have their licenses revoked."
...psychologists should be free to work for whoever they want
Priya is right. If a therapist is licensed by the state, that therapist must adhere to that state's non-discrimination laws in order to qualify for the license. If they don't follow the laws of the state, then they should lose their license.
it's called freedom
Freedom is one thing, freedom to discriminate against a minority group is another.
"If a therapist is licensed by the state, that therapist must adhere to that state's non-discrimination laws in order to qualify for the license. If they don't follow the laws of the state, then they should lose their license."
This is a perfect example of why discrimination laws based on behavioral and/or emotional characteristics is inappropriate.
This is similar to the suit against the matchmaking website whose founder didn't want to faciltate homosexuality because he believed it was immoral.
"Freedom is one thing, freedom to discriminate against a minority group is another."
When the "minority" refers to a group based on behavior or emotional characteristics, minimum freedom should include the freedom not to enable and support those characteristics. Otherwise, one is being coerced into participating in something they consider evil and the government has become repressive.
That's what's despicable.
Any sane person also recognizes that Orin's point is well taken.
Why would a homosexual want to be treated by someone who finds their lifestyle reprehensible?
They are plenty of psychiatrists who affirm deviant sexual behavior. (and, btw, the whole field is way overrated. the most they can usually do is drug you into a stupor)
Of course, we all know the answer. It's similar to why they want their relationship to be recognized as a marriage by the church and state.
Why would a homosexual want to be treated by someone who finds their lifestyle reprehensible?
A psychotherapist who finds homosexuality reprehensible should have their license revoked.
a governmental body that revokes someone's license because they find homosexuality reprehensible needs to be replaced
but thanks, PB, for reinforcing my point
gays don't want anti-gay professionals to provide services to them
the want everyone who doesn't affirm the normalcy of homosexuality to be forced to do so
there is an totalitarian impulse at the heart of the gay advocacy movement
they want to control thoughts and words
It's the people running the freedom-is-the-right-to-discriminate-against-LGBT-people movement in America today who want to control not only thought and words, they want to withhold at least one of the unalienable rights spelled out in our Declaration of Independence from LGBT people. People who advocate freedom to discriminate don't think gays and lesbians have the right to pursue happiness, even though doing so has no effect on their own homophobic lives.
This is American, we are Americans. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I think they have an absolute right to pursue happiness
they're just not guaranteed any response or participation from anyone else
I really do appreciate it when Priya and Aunt Bea are so candid, both expressing the view that religiously devout therapists should either violate their conscience or have their license to practice revoked. Really now, Anonymous said it best,
gays don't want anti-gay professionals to provide services to them
the want everyone who doesn't affirm the normalcy of homosexuality to be forced to do so
there is an totalitarian impulse at the heart of the gay advocacy movement
they want to control thoughts and words
Yup, that about sums it up...it is the very essence of the totalitarian impulse. Another such expression for such an impulse is soft despotism.
Now on to various other comments as time permits...Cynthia writes,
You seem like a reasonable guy Orin, so I suspect that you personally wouldn’t have supported implanting 8 embryos into Nadia Sulaiman. However, when the apparent qualifications for implanting seem to only be that you have a viable uterus, (oh, and that you’re not GAY) it smacks of an unmitigated double standard, if not outright discrimination.
Thank you for the compliment. I try to be reasonable, and you are correct: I think it is insanity to have a situation where Ms. Sulaiman could get pregnant again. It is a disordered situation that is the result of a disordered society that values "reproductive freedom" uber alles.
Priya writes,
LOL, woe be to any lGBT who'd end up with Orin as a therapist. Orin has an opinion of himself that's grotesquely inflated beyond any connection with reality.
My best friend has told me that he appreciates (even treasures) my candor and honesty...I think the expression he uses is "better the blow from a true friend then the kiss from a false one" (or something like that). The fact that I would be open with such a POV to gays and lesbians I would hope would be welcomed as a breath of fresh air. Still, in a culture that is more and more looking like the Bizarro World, I cannot say that such honesty would be recognized as such.
"Beyond any connection with reality"? Now those are words uttered by someone that has never met me or talked to me...that is to say, words ignorantly written. Here is a challenge for you Priya (and come to think of it, I may have already given you this challenge): go out and find someone whose thinking is different from yours...someone who may think like I do. Ask that person questions...why do they think the way they do? And then listen to them. I have done this as a matter of preference and intellectual curiosity for many years now (when I lived in Southern California, from the late 60's to the late 90's, I would have regular conversations with a self described atheist...this person was as smart as any person I have ever met, and I now understand faith better for having talked and listened to what this person had to say). Problem with this approach though is that it requires the patience to hear the other side out. Give it a try...tell me if you learn anything.
And finally, Aunt Bea writes,
It's the people running the freedom-is-the-right-to-discriminate-against-LGBT-people movement in America today who want to control not only thought and words, they want to withhold at least one of the unalienable rights spelled out in our Declaration of Independence from LGBT people. People who advocate freedom to discriminate don't think gays and lesbians have the right to pursue happiness, even though doing so has no effect on their own homophobic lives.
Nothing could be further from the truth...I know of one gay couple and two lesbian couples on my street and I affirm their right to live as they see fit. Like all of the rest of us, they are as happy or unhappy as they decide they will be. As Anonymous has pointed out they "want everyone who doesn't affirm the normalcy of homosexuality to be forced to do so" and that is what this is really about.
Man Orin, when you don't get it, you don't get it. I could care less if you "affirm the normalcy" of my marriage to my husband and my LGBT friends could care less either. Your affirmation has nothing to do with another person's right to marry or adopt children or have hospital visitation rights, etc., with the person they love as they exercise their unalienable right to pursue happiness.
Aunt Bea writes,
Man Orin, when you don't get it, you don't get it. I could care less if you "affirm the normalcy" of my marriage to my husband and my LGBT friends could care less either.
My, you doth protest too much...when all the academics that have been arguing/advocating for years on behalf of the dissolution of marriage as a core social institution suddenly do an about face and support marriage, including same-sex "marriage" then folks like Anonymous and myself know someone is not being honest with the public.
Your affirmation has nothing to do with another person's right to marry or adopt children or have hospital visitation rights, etc., with the person they love as they exercise their unalienable right to pursue happiness.
Interesting...every time one like myself lays out clearly the case for natural marriage, folks like yourself try to make it about some personal vendetta. The institution of marriage and adoption laws are about children, and how the ext generation will be raised. Folks like Anonymous and myself think children are entitled to a father and a mother, something gay and lesbian couples cannot imitate (though in their attempt they do often rival, surpass and even put to shame far too many heterosexuals). It is my contention that children have been on the receiving end of enough social experimentation for the time being, with divorce "reform" laws being but one of the most recent such cases. Same-sex "marriage" will only quicken the pace of social disintegration started with divorce "reform".
I think Anonymous put it best in a terse manner that is at once pithy and profound.
I think they have an absolute right to pursue happiness
they're just not guaranteed any response or participation from anyone else
I would only add to the "response" and "participation" the word state-endorsed and enforced affirmation.
I know...I know...this drives some gays, lesbians and their "progressive" supporters mad even though advocating same-sex "marriage" is in reality a huge step backwards for Western Civilization, as anyone with a rudimentary of world history and the evolution of social institutions such as natural marriage surely knows.
While Christine McVie (of Fleetwood Mac fame) may advocate a sort of live for the day with a naive faith that tomorrow will ALWAYS be better,
Don't stop, thinking about tomorrow,
Don't stop, it'll soon be here,
It'll be, better than before,
Yesterdays gone, yesterdays gone.
those of us that have spent a little time with this issue know better. Sorry, I know that must offend your egalitarian ethos, but a civilization is about more than individual interests.
Orin, are you really arguing that lgbt people are oppressing the poor straight people by requesting equality in recognition for their unions?
I hate to say it, but it so very much reminds me of the people back home complaining that people of color were oppressing them by demanding to move into their neighborhoods, go to their schools, and eat in their restaurants.
Maybe that will help think of marriage as a neighborhood. Are you oppressed if lgbt people move into that neighborhood? Gay people should stay in their own neighborhoods?
I know you don't mean that. Please explain in a way that I can understand.
BTW, if I were you I would always pause when I found myself agreeing with our anonymous troll. He writes what he does out of simple prejudice. When you ind yourself agreeing with him, pause for a moment.
Happy father's day to all dads.
"Maybe that will help think of marriage as a neighborhood."
No one's barring homosexuals from the marriage neighborhood.
But they have to meet the same requirements as everyone else.
They have to marry an unrelated female of age.
You're welcome to do that, Robo.
"BTW, if I were you I would always pause when I found myself agreeing with our anonymous troll."
This from a guy who sits in the dark and argues with himself like Gollum the demented hobbit.
I just returned from a wonderful opposite sex wedding in New Jersey. This was a beautiful celebration of true love and commitment. And I can't for the life of me figure out how celebration of true love and commitment of same sex couples resulting in legal commitments to shared rights and responsibilities could possible undermine the marriage that my wife and I just witnessed and helped to celebrate.
Orin, you write about "all the academics that have been arguing/advocating for years on behalf of the dissolution of marriage as a core social institution." With all due respect, this is a classic straw man. Could you give me an example of these "academics", who are now being hypocritical or perhaps insidious in their support for same sex marriage? The reality is that people who have been advocating for equal marriage rights are more likely to be married straight parents of gay people who treasure the institution of marriage, and want their children to be able to participate in it.
This is an issue that effects real people's real lives. Orin, I suggest you consider it in these terms, rather than abstractions that really don't connect to the real world.
Orin, I agree with you that not every issue should be looked at solely in the context of individuals' interests. In any community, sometimes the individual's interests must give way to the community's for the greater good. But I still have not heard from you a good reason why the community's greater good is advanced by depriving same sex couples of the same rights and responsibilities as opposite sex couples.
"But I still have not heard from you a good reason why the community's greater good is advanced by depriving same sex couples of the same rights and responsibilities as opposite sex couples."
How is it advanced by pretending that homosexual realtionships are the equivalent of marriage?
Robert writes,
Orin, are you really arguing that lgbt people are oppressing the poor straight people by requesting equality in recognition for their unions?
No, I am not (though I suspect there would be other regulars here that would disagree all the while asserting that I am a lying liar that cannot be depended upon to tell the truth). Does it matter that I support repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the US Defense Dept.? The only thing I oppose is same-sex "marriage" and incrementalist work arounds clearly designed to achieve the same result (only without the label marriage attached to it).
I hate to say it, but it so very much reminds me of the people back home complaining that people of color were oppressing them by demanding to move into their neighborhoods, go to their schools, and eat in their restaurants.
Robert, you hate to say because you know in your heart that you are only repeating what you have heard, and that it is not a fair representation of my POV. Give me the choice of living where I want to and I will always pick areas with diversity because they are more interesting and leave us open to the possibility to learn new things.
Maybe that will help think of marriage as a neighborhood. Are you oppressed if lgbt people move into that neighborhood? Gay people should stay in their own neighborhoods?
Marriage has a purpose, and that purpose (no matter how much feckless heterosexuals violate that purpose) defines the limit, the boundaries if you will, of marriage. Yes, marriage is about love, commitment and mutual caring...all necessary components of any marital relationship that can call itself that. However it is not sufficient to the essential purpose(singular, not plural) of marriage: children. It is not fair to establish as social policy that it does not matter whether a child has a mother and a father, or two fathers or two mothers, i.e. intentionally deny a child of a father and a mother.
I know you don't mean that. Please explain in a way that I can understand.
I hope I have...I know I have tried to the best that I can. The bottom line for me is this: what can be done to minimize the socially disintegration we see taking place all around us? I can ultimately only answer for myself (as I am no sort of paid or unpaid schill for anyone): I am willing to stand up, speak out and question the idea that if we can never have enough "equality". And I do this not so I can score some sort of pie-in-the-sky eternal reward from some hebrew-christian god, but because I genuinely care about the future, here on earth.
BTW, if I were you I would always pause when I found myself agreeing with our anonymous troll. He writes what he does out of simple prejudice. When you ind yourself agreeing with him, pause for a moment.
True...the comment about Gollum diminishes the credibility of such a poster. Still, even a broken clock can be correct twice in a 24 hour period. Still, the comment that Anonymous made regarding the totalitarian impulse within gay/lesbians activists remains a valid one (and can be extended to more political players than even this group).
Happy father's day to all dads.
Thank you...and even if you are not a father (I apologize if you are and I have forgotten), as best as I recall you are a teacher, and any good father is also a teacher. Thank you for the important work you do.
David writes,
Orin, you write about "all the academics that have been arguing/advocating for years on behalf of the dissolution of marriage as a core social institution." With all due respect, this is a classic straw man. Could you give me an example of these "academics", who are now being hypocritical or perhaps insidious in their support for same sex marriage?
I would be delighted to...but it is my bedtime now, so that will need to wait until tomorrow or Tuesday, at the latest (as I have an appointment to chat with a friend online tomorrow nite, in addition to some yard work that must be completed...i.e. plants that need to be planted sooner rather than later).
"the comment about Gollum diminishes the credibility of such a poster"
Actually, no worse than a comment calling someone a "troll".
Do you argue with yourself, Robert?
"But I still have not heard from you a good reason why the community's greater good is advanced by depriving same sex couples of the same rights and responsibilities as opposite sex couples."
Because supporting same sex couples has a cost in dollar terms.
Opposite sex relationships also have a cost but also confer a benefit on society.
Same sex relationships don't.
Any studies showing they do, David?
Orin posited, to Aunt Bea’s inalienable rights comment:
“Nothing could be further from the truth...I know of one gay couple and two lesbian couples on my street and I affirm their right to live as they see fit. Like all of the rest of us, they are as happy or unhappy as they decide they will be. As Anonymous has pointed out they "want everyone who doesn't affirm the normalcy of homosexuality to be forced to do so" and that is what this is really about.
It probably comes as no surprise, but I have to disagree.
No gay person needs their gayness “affirmed” by anyone – they know who they are and nothing the anti-gay propaganda machine throws at them is going to change that. Rock Hudson lived in the closet his entire life without society “affirming” his gaiety. Somehow he still remained gay. As for being “normal” there are plenty of people in the LGBTQ community that delight in their unique identities and personalities and being called “normal” would frankly disappoint them.
What some people don’t seem grasp is that – not denying someone civil rights – is NOT the same as – affirming – someone.
If you want to talk about preserving the sanctity of marriage, that’s fine. Let’s talk about that. Let’s have a serious discussion about who REALLY should get married and who should not.
Let see, what about Glynn Wolfe?
He holds the world record for marriages – 29. His last marriage was apparently a publicity stunt – marrying Linda Essex (the female world record holder).
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glynn_Wolfe )
These two clearly don’t take marriage seriously and probably should have not been allowed to marry after someone noticed all the divorces they had. His shortest marriage lasted 19 days. It is interesting that Glynn was a BAPTIST MINISTER.
And what about Sir Michael Gambon? He just had his 2ND child with his mistress. Apparently his wife knows, and he goes back and forth between his two “family” households and a bachelor pad. (What does he need that for?) Did someone not explain the whole monogamy concept with him before he got “married?” ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/22/harry-potter-star-michael_n_218763.html )
Then there’s David Hasselhoff. He’s a (recovering?) alcoholic, divorced, and with two teenage daughters. One daughter videoed him in yet another drunken stupor to try and get him to sober up so he could keep his job. It’s sad to see children subjected to this kind of parenting, but we allow any alcoholic or drug addict to get married so long as they’re heterosexual. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x30kYRp6Y68 )
Of course, you can’t make a list like this without including Britney Spears. Her first marriage lasted 55 hours, apparently because she “lacked understanding of her actions to the extent that she was incapable of agreeing to marriage because before entering into the marriage the Plaintiff and Defendant did not know each others' likes and dislikes, each others' desires to have or not have children, and each other's desires as to State of residency".
Later she announced her engagement to Kevin Federline, a guy she had known for three months, and who’s previous girlfriend (they weren’t married) was 8 months pregnant with their second child. Who would have guessed this marriage would have ended up in a divorce as well? I fear what will happen to the kids that came out of that marriage. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears )
And yet there are still people that think we should gerrymander civil rights in such a way so as to allow all of the heterosexual alcoholics, serial divorcers, philanderers, felons, drug addicts, and even convicted sex offenders get married – just so long as the GAYS aren’t allowed to marry – we don’t want to potentially risk damaging the children.
Peace,
Cynthia
Anon says that same sex relationships confer no benefit on society, and therefore the costs involved in marriage (insurance, etc) are not warranted.
Here is one (and there are many more, but I have other things to do than respond to Anon):
Providing a legal framework for rights and responsibilities of couples encourages stability and monogamy -- something that has clear societal benefits, including the lessening of the spread of STDs. This is just as true for same sex couples as opposite sex couples. This is one reason why we encourage opposite sex couples to marry even if they are not going to have children.
"Providing a legal framework for rights and responsibilities of couples encourages stability and monogamy -- something that has clear societal benefits, including the lessening of the spread of STDs. This is just as true for same sex couples as opposite sex couples."
I don't think that's true, David.
I think the stability and monogamy is encouraged by the female participation not by city hall.
Unless one of the gays stays home to care for the household or there are kids, there would be few legal consequences of promiscuity.
I love you Orin.
Given where you start (marriage is only about procreation and children are best raised by two opposite-gender parents in a stable relationships) I can see why you come to the conclusions you do. I'm assuming you've read the admittedly small amount of research indicating children raised by same-gender couples are as happy and successful as those raised by opposite-gender couples, all things being equal.
I disagree with you, that marriage is only about children, and that same-gender couples are not equal in child-rearing capacity to opposite-gender couples.
BTW, thank you for your support for ending the misnamed DADT policy. For me and my closest friends, that is a much more pressing issue than marriage. So is, in my oinion, inclusive ENDA. It irritates me that marriage seems to be the only thing people talk about.
Anonymous, I do sometimes argue with myself, but I turn on the lights when I do it. Didn't Jesus argue with himself?
I think the stability and monogamy is encouraged by the female participation not by city hall.
So you must support lesbian marriage. After all, if one female encourages stability and monogamy, what must two females encourage?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
that's right
just like the military
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
thisisadiversegrouptoday
there's needs to be diversity in married partners for stability
if they're all the same gender, there's a missing ingredient, disqualifying the relationship from calling itself marriage
gays oppose diversity in marriage
back to the original topic here:
do gays need psychiatric help?
the answer is yes
Catholic shrinks should honor their calling and take these hard cases, using subtle means to move them toward emotional stability
just because studies have shown that homosexuality is a hard mental disease to treat, doesn't mean professionals should give up
I think anonymous is implying that all men are pigs. Mmmmmh.
no, Robert, I clarified that was not so but Jim deleted the comment
That evil Jim, arbitrarily deleting comments the way he does. I can't imagine him having a reason to do so. You must feel so oppressed.
he can delete all he wants to
I think he was offended because I suggested that DADT is such a good policy that it should be extended to certain other professions
I was just telling you that I already clarified that two genders both contribute and need to be present to constitute a family
both genders have something to contribute
mono-gender relationships are not only boring, they are not valid families
all-male familiess have certain problems, all-female ones have different problems
you see, Robert-Gollum, diversity is an important principle for life
think about it
when you're lucid
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Aaaggghhh! My deletin' finger is getting plum worn out! Please don't be so dumb, Anon, I'm gonna have to put the mouse on the other side if you keep this up.
JimK
chill, Jim
Robert's told me to get out in the sun so here I go
Anon writes:
"Unless one of the gays stays home to care for the household or there are kids, there would be few legal consequences of promiscuity."
Anon has a very bleak view of humanity: Legal frameworks are not just to coerce people into socially desirable behaviors, but also to reinforce such behaviors that people would wish to engage in even without the benefit of law.
But here is one thing on which I might actually agree with Anon: That it is generally desirable that a parent stay home to raise the children. All things being equal (although they never are), I believe it is a good thing for one parent in a couple to be a stay-at-home mom or dad for young children. Indeed, I suspect that same sex couples have such arrangements at least as often as opposite sex couple do these days.
"Anon has a very bleak view of humanity: Legal frameworks are not just to coerce people into socially desirable behaviors, but also to reinforce such behaviors that people would wish to engage in even without the benefit of law."
Actually, I was just surmising that was what you were saying, David.
"Indeed, I suspect that same sex couples have such arrangements at least as often as opposite sex couple do these days."
Seriously, I think you're wrong about that, David.
For my friends, one parent stayed home with their infants the first year, and the other the second. They just made it work for the 4 of them on one income for those two years. Not everyone has that luxury, or that self-discipline. We missed him at work this year, though.
Good for you for getting the sun, anonymous. Remember, you can walk away from this blog and the homosexual propaganda any time you want. Walk away, walk away!
yeah, Robert, but they kids being forced to listen to the homosexual propaganda can't
remember to wear a hat in the sun
you don't want to fry any more brain cells than you already have
Post a Comment
<< Home