Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Bloodwing · 30-09-2012 11:32PM

robindch wrote: »

Ratzinger implies that gay men and women are not fully "developed":

http://www.care2.com/causes/pope-decides-gay-people-arent-fully-developed-humans.html

What an evil little creep he is. Thankfully he's part of a dying breed. How anyone can look to this man as some sort of role model or teacher is beyond me. If there's anyone who isn't fully developed it's him.

OldNotWIse · 01-10-2012 10:29AM

Jellicoe wrote: »

What is it about Gay issues, that it has to be a race to the bottom all the time ?

Happens in a lot of threads I think

01-10-2012 10:31AM

Jellicoe wrote: »

What is it about Gay issues, that it has to be a race to the bottom all the time ?

lol

i see what you did there

Delirium · 01-10-2012 09:27PM

Will Gay-Marriage Advocates' Long Ballot Losing Streak End in Maine?

According to a new poll from Pine Tree State polling outfit Critical Insights, Maine's ballot initiative to overturn the state's current ban on same-sex marriage is currently poised to pass this November. The poll suggests support that is almost too good to be true for gay-rights advocates: 57 percent in favor, 36 percent against, and 7 percent undecided, good for a 21-point lead with a little more than a month to go. Support is particularly strong among Democrats (81 percent), college grads (69 percent), and 18-to-34-years-old (77 percent).

Delirium · 01-10-2012 09:37PM

California governor bans gay 'cures'

California has become the first US state to ban unfounded therapies that attempt to turn gay teenagers straight.

"These practices have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin or quackery," said state governor Jerry Brown in a statement to the San Francisco Chronicle. He signed a bill outlawing the therapies on 29 September.

Brown's conclusions are in line with those reached a few years ago by a task force of psychologists who were commissioned by the American Psychological Association to assess all published research on the therapies. The group, led by Judith Glassgold, found no evidence that the treatment was effective.

robindch · 02-10-2012 11:17AM

Ulster says No!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1002/1224324729207.html

Irish Times wrote:

A MOTION to introduce same-sex marriage in the North was narrowly defeated in the Northern Ireland Assembly yesterday when only three unionist members supported it.

However, equality campaigners hailed the closeness of the vote as evidence of changed times. The motion to extend the rights already available under civil partnership was brought by Sinn Féin and the Green Party, but it was effectively blocked by the DUP, which tabled a “petition of concern”, meaning it needed cross-community support.

The vote was lost by a slim margin of 45 to 49. Of the 45 MLAs in support of the motion, only three were unionists.

The British government is consulting over whether to extend marriage rights to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, while the SNP government in Scotland has pledged to introduce legislation by 2015. Gavin Boyd of the Equal Marriage NI campaign said he was “very happy” with the vote. “A vote this close couldn’t even have been considered some years back,” he said. “There were quite a few MLAs missing from the Assembly for various reasons, so there’s every reason to assume it might have passed. “The DUP’s tabling of the petition of concern was a cynical ploy and an abuse of the petition. The petition exists as a mechanism to protect minority interests, not as a veto. “But at the end of the day, we view their actions as an expression of their fear – it shows they believe the motion could have passed.”

Prior to the debate, there were lively exchanges in the Assembly. Jim Allister, of the Traditional Unionist Voice party, said that just as civil partnership had been the “slippery slope to same-sex marriage”, the legalisation of gay marriage would be a “slippery slope to gay adoption”. The DUP’s Sammy Wilson said a change in the law would create conflicts between church and state – “for example, church youth groups could be banned from using council facilities” as a result of their religious beliefs.

Conall McDevitt of the SDLP countered this “flawed logic” by posing the question: “Are Catholic schools teaching children about divorce?” Sinn Féin MLA Caitríona Ruane sparred energetically with the DUP, scoffing at the “1866 laws they are quoting at us”.

ShooterSF · 02-10-2012 12:44PM

It is strange to think that Sinn Fein are one of the most liberal (unless you're a loyalist of course) secular political parties in Ireland. Shame their economic policies are daft.

seamus · 02-10-2012 12:47PM

Which is also funny when you consider that protestantism is usually associated with a more liberal outlook and catholicism generally more rigid and conservative.

Is it likely it was opposed on political grounds -i.e. just because it was SF who tabled it?

MrPudding · 02-10-2012 12:53PM

seamus wrote: »

Which is also funny when you consider that protestantism is usually associated with a more liberal outlook and catholicism generally more rigid and conservative.

Not in NI. The DUP are the party that don't allow league football on a Sunday. I had a friend that live in Ballymena, which is a fairly staunch area, and he was asked to stop washing his car one day when he had the cheek to do it on a Sunday afternoon.

I have heard many other stories of people being visited by local DUP representatives who informed them that neighbours had complained about car washing or gardening taking place on Sundays.

Remember, these are the same politicians that argued successfully for the creationist display at the giant causeway. They are, typically, bigoted, hate filled bible literalist christians.

seamus wrote: »

Is it likely it was opposed on political grounds -i.e. just because it was SF who tabled it?

This will be part of it, but the DUP would be rabidly anti-gay.

MrP

Nodin · 02-10-2012 04:21PM

seamus wrote: »

Which is also funny when you consider that protestantism is usually associated with a more liberal outlook and catholicism generally more rigid and conservative.

Is it likely it was opposed on political grounds -i.e. just because it was SF who tabled it?

Alas, nay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_Ulster_from_Sodomy

Bear in mind while reading this that he and his wife are from the 'liberal' wing of the party.....
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/first-minister-peter-robinson-backs-wifes-view-that-gays-are-an-abomination-14023693.html
Comedy gold, as long as you don't have to live with it.

Jellicoe · 02-10-2012 06:26PM

shooterSF wrote:

It is strange to think that Sinn Fein are one of the most liberal (unless you're a loyalist of course) secular political parties in Ireland. Shame their economic policies are daft.

You mean that crazy policy where cuts should start at the top with the rich ?
Yeah those crazy cats man, what are they thinking.

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 02-10-2012 10:43PM

robindch wrote: »

Ulster says No!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1002/1224324729207.html

Northern Ireland is like the Texas of the island of Ireland, or the Texas of the United Kingdom (whatever way you look at it).

jill_valentine · 02-10-2012 11:20PM

I can't help enjoying the fact that Ireland's version of the Deep South is up North. Typical Ireland, I suppose.

ShooterSF · 03-10-2012 01:44AM

Jellicoe wrote: »

You mean that crazy policy where cuts should start at the top with the rich ?
Yeah those crazy cats man, what are they thinking.

Partly yes. How much can you cut from people you don't support? Most rich people receive very little money from the state other than children's allowance (which should be means tested), OAP benefits (again which should be means tested) and any public sector wages. Cuts need to be made where we are supporting people that are more comfortable than the state can afford to keep them while protecting the truly vulnerable and I say that as a working class stiff who has relied on the state in between jobs. Anywho that's way off topic. My point was that it's a shame here that all our political parties either seem to be socially stuck in the mud or anti-capitalist which leaves one with a tough choice, well this "one" anywho.

JimiTime · 03-10-2012 09:20AM

koth wrote: »

California governor bans gay 'cures'

Came across the following anecdote in relation to this. Think it sums up the political shenanigans hiding behind 'child protection' succinctly.

A man goes to a psychologist with a problem. “Doctor,” he says, “I’m suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside the body of a man. I want to become a woman.”

The psychologist responds: “No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you’re still sure you want to be a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body. Problem solved.”

Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. “Doctor,” he says, “I feel terrible. I’m a man but I feel attracted to other men. I want to change my sexual preference. I want to become heterosexual.”

The psychologist responds: “Oh no, absolutely not! That would be unethical. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!”

Delirium · 03-10-2012 09:37AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Came across the following anecdote in relation to this. Think it sums up the political shenanigans hiding behind 'child protection' succinctly.

A man goes to a psychologist with a problem. “Doctor,” he says, “I’m suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside the body of a man. I want to become a woman.”

The psychologist responds: “No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you’re still sure you want to be a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body. Problem solved.”

Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. “Doctor,” he says, “I feel terrible. I’m a man but I feel attracted to other men. I want to change my sexual preference. I want to become heterosexual.”

The psychologist responds: “Oh no, absolutely not! That would be unethical. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!”

Surely the second psychologist should have been more professional and suggested they examine why the man feels terrible about being attracted to other men?

Stark · 03-10-2012 09:47AM

JimiTime wrote: »

A man goes to a psychologist with a problem. “Doctor,” he says, “I’m suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside the body of a man. I want to become a woman.”

The psychologist responds: “No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you’re still sure you want to be a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body. Problem solved.”

Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. “Doctor,” he says, “I feel terrible. I’m a man but I feel attracted to other men. I want to change my sexual preference. I want to become heterosexual.”

The psychologist responds: “Oh no, absolutely not! That would be unethical. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!”

You really don't know what you're talking about.

IT-Guy · 03-10-2012 10:10AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Came across the following anecdote in relation to this. Think it sums up the political shenanigans hiding behind 'child protection' succinctly.

A man goes to a psychologist with a problem. “Doctor,” he says, “I’m suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside the body of a man. I want to become a woman.”

The psychologist responds: “No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you’re still sure you want to be a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body. Problem solved.”

Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. “Doctor,” he says, “I feel terrible. I’m a man but I feel attracted to other men. I want to change my sexual preference. I want to become heterosexual.”

The psychologist responds: “Oh no, absolutely not! That would be unethical. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!”

A flawed anecdote, I think you're confusing sex and gender, perhaps even confusing sexual attraction and gender. A quick google threw up this: http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

Sarky · 03-10-2012 10:15AM

Poor Jimitime

Nodin · 03-10-2012 10:58AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Came across (.........)characteristic!”

A man goes to the Psychologist and says 'I've a terrible problem. I'm a heterosexual, but I'm obsessed with gay men', 'I can't get them out of my head - what they do, who they do it with, who is gay, who isn't, what they wear, what rights they have....'

'Well now' said the psychologist 'you may want to take a few deep breaths there and calm yourself, because.....'

robindch · 03-10-2012 11:08AM

Nodin wrote: »

I'm a heterosexual, but I'm obsessed with gay men

Quoth the NIH:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

HE Adams wrote:

Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection (in response) to male homosexual stimuli. [...] Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

JimiTime · 03-10-2012 11:10AM

The fact remains, kids who say they are women trapped in mens bodies can be given all kinds of treatment including hormone blockers, as well as have body parts surgically removed etc. However, kids who say they have an unwanted attraction to members of the same sex cannot, by law, receive any counselling that can be construed as helping them change. This is not 'cannot be told by a professional that its sinful, or made pray or do penance, or be told that its perverted', No, its a blanket, 'Cannot receive any counselling that can be construed as helping the person achieve their desire of changing their sexual attraction'. What of the person who doesn't want to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent's? I take it that such people can only be counselled in controlling their desires, or suppressing them, as obviously, the policy makers believe that one cannot change ones sexual appetite and wish to prevent any attempt to also? This is not about medicine, or psychology, or child protection, its about agenda driven politics.

Dades · 03-10-2012 11:20AM

JimiTime wrote: »

What of the person who doesn't want to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent's? I take it that such people can only be counselled in controlling their desires, or suppressing them, as obviously, the policy makers believe that one cannot change ones sexual appetite and wish to prevent any attempt to also?

But you can't change somebodies sexual preference no matter now much anti-gay proponents want to believe you can. The reason it's banned is because it's not possible and the people who are attempting it are doing so because of their own anti-gay agenda.

Men who want to be women and vice versa can at least undergo treatments that bring them to towards this goal.

Lastly, the person who doesn't want to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescents can indeed do counselling so that they don't act on their desires which would cause harm to minors. Their desires can't be removed any more than straight or gay peoples' can. The difference is theirs has the potential to harm.

JimiTime · 03-10-2012 11:20AM

Nodin wrote: »

A man goes to the Psychologist and says 'I've a terrible problem. I'm a heterosexual, but I'm obsessed with gay men', 'I can't get them out of my head - what they do, who they do it with, who is gay, who isn't, what they wear, what rights they have....'

'Well now' said the psychologist 'you may want to take a few deep breaths there and calm yourself, because.....'

Funnily enough, nothing in what I've said in any way obsesses about what gay people do. It does however, highlight a political agenda.

03-10-2012 11:22AM

JimiTime wrote: »

The fact remains, kids who say they are women trapped in mens bodies can be given all kinds of treatment including hormone blockers, as well as have body parts surgically removed etc. However, kids who say they have an unwanted attraction to members of the same sex cannot, by law, receive any counselling that can be construed as helping them change. This is not 'cannot be told by a professional that its sinful, or made pray or do penance, or be told that its perverted', No, its a blanket, 'Cannot receive any counselling that can be construed as helping the person achieve their desire of changing their sexual attraction'. What of the person who doesn't want to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent's? I take it that such people can only be counselled in controlling their desires, or suppressing them, as obviously, the policy makers believe that one cannot change ones sexual appetite and wish to prevent any attempt to also? This is not about medicine, or psychology, or child protection, its about agenda driven politics.

Did you actually read the law or even the article? Some choice quotes:

California has become the first US state to ban unfounded therapies that attempt to turn gay teenagers straight

The group [APA], led by Judith Glassgold, found no evidence that the treatment was effective

Most people became more depressed and anxious [by the "cures"], and could become suicidal

Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist behind one of the most influential studies backing the "therapies", admitted his work was fatally flawed earlier this year.

Here's a link to the text of the bill: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1172. The bill is specifically created on the basis that there is no scientific evidence that such cures work, and numerous scientific pieces that such cures are harmful.

And for comparison, there are mountains of scientific research on gender identity and transgenderism that supports the treatments that are used. And your shoddy attempt to portray an extremely difficult process that involves extensive psychological profiling and support as "Hey doc, turn me into a woman" "Sure, no problem" is disgraceful

robindch · 03-10-2012 11:25AM

JimiTime wrote: »

[...] a political agenda.

You mean the desire smongst decent people to create an environment in which gay men and women can live without irrational hatred, frequently inspired and openly egged on by religion?

Delirium · 03-10-2012 11:27AM

JimiTime wrote: »

The fact remains, kids who say they are women trapped in mens bodies can be given all kinds of treatment including hormone blockers, as well as have body parts surgically removed etc. However, kids who say they have an unwanted attraction to members of the same sex cannot, by law, receive any counselling that can be construed as helping them change. This is not 'cannot be told by a professional that its sinful, or made pray or do penance, or be told that its perverted', No, its a blanket, 'Cannot receive any counselling that can be construed as helping the person achieve their desire of changing their sexual attraction'. What of the person who doesn't want to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent's? I take it that such people can only be counselled in controlling their desires, or suppressing them, as obviously, the policy makers believe that one cannot change ones sexual appetite and wish to prevent any attempt to also? This is not about medicine, or psychology, or child protection, its about agenda driven politics.

You should know by now that there is the matter of consent when it comes to sexual relations between a gay couple vs. an adult and a pre-pubescent child. There is a very good reason to help adults with an attraction to children control their sexual urges as potentially they could sexually assault a child.

If a person has problems with being attracted to people of the same gender then controlling/suppressing their desire isn't addressing the issue as to why they have a problem with their sexual desire. If it's an unwanted desire that means the person has a problem with homosexuality, which is a problem they need to address.

JimiTime · 03-10-2012 11:27AM

Dades wrote: »

But you can't change somebodies sexual preference no matter now much anti-gay proponents want to believe you can. The reason it's banned is because it's not possible and the people who are attempting it are doing so because of their own anti-gay agenda.

Men who want to be women and vice versa can at least undergo treatments that bring them to towards this goal.

Lastly, the person who doesn't want to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescents can indeed do counselling so that they don't act on their desires which would cause harm to minors. Their desires can't be removed any more than straight or gay peoples' can. But theirs has the potential to harm.

And what of the many ex-gays claims to the contrary? They seem to be the fly in the ointment, and in many cases suffer awful abuse. The hetero community remain wary, and the homosexual community believe they are some kind of traitor. If the anecdotal evidence of gay people with regards to feeling harmed by counselling is being used, then why is the anecdotal evidence of a person who is ex-gay not?

03-10-2012 11:36AM

JimiTime wrote: »

And what of the many ex-gays claims to the contrary? They seem to be the fly in the ointment, and in many cases suffer awful abuse. The hetero community remain wary, and the homosexual community believe they are some kind of traitor. If the anecdotal evidence of gay people with regards to feeling harmed by counselling is being used, then why is the anecdotal evidence of a person who is ex-gay not?

Anecdotal evidence? You mean the scientific process? Again, have you read the legislature? I provided it for you, did you click it and read it? The organisations specifically referenced are:

American Psychological Association
American Psychiatric Association
American School Counselor Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs
National Association of Social Workers
American Counseling Association Governing Council
American Psychoanalytic Association
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Pan American Health Organization (a regional office of WHO)

Which of these are part of the "gay agenda"? Is the best you can come up really "the many ex-gays"? Any chance of a link to these?

Beruthiel · 03-10-2012 11:39AM

JimiTime wrote: »

This is not about medicine, or psychology, or child protection, its about agenda driven politics.

Wrap it up any way you want in order to sleep better at night Jimi.
This "Agenda" is about a certain section of the human population wanting the same rights as the other 90%.
It's as simple as that.
People who cannot seem to accept that are the ones with the Agenda imo.
This is no different from women looking for equal rights.
It is no different from black people wanting to be treated equally.

Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Comments