Move over judges- there is about to be a new villain in town:
Representatives of the nation’s top psychiatric group approved a statement Sunday urging legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
If approved by the association’s directors in July, the measure would make the American Psychiatric Association the first major medical group to take such a stance.
The statement supports same-sex marriage “in the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health.”
It follows a similar measure by the American Psychological Association last year, little more than three decades after that group removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.
The psychiatric association’s statement was approved by voice vote on the first day of its weeklong annual meeting in Atlanta. It cites the “positive influence of a stable, adult partnership on the health of all family members.”
The resolution recognizes “that gay men and lesbians are full human beings who should be afforded the same human and civil rights,” said Margery Sved, a Raleigh, N.C., psychiatrist and member of the assembly’s committee on gay and lesbian issues.
This will get ugly.
Brad R.
John, you’re forgetting that the Christian Right has hated psychologists for years- Freud is considered right up there with Darwin as far as demonic secularists go.
Andrei
Let’s not forget how much the church persectued Galileo while we are at it.
Brad R.
Andrei-
Thanks- I’d forgotten about that homosecularist Galileo.
KC
Brad, I visited the Institute for Creation Research’s museum and you’re right about Freud. As I recall, one museum display is in a hall and consists of pictures of scientists, politicians, and other famous people. On one wall are “good” people, on another are “bad” (ie satanic) people. Freud occupies a prominent position close to Darwin on the “bad” wall. Tells me that these psychologists are really screwed now.
KC
Brad, I visited the Institute for Creation Research’s museum and you’re right about Freud. As I recall, one museum display is in a hall and consists of pictures of scientists, politicians, and other famous people. On one wall are “good” people, on another are “bad” (ie satanic) people. Freud occupies a prominent position close to Darwin on the “bad” wall. Tells me that these psychologists are really screwed now.
KC
Brad, I visited the Institute for Creation Research’s museum and you’re right about Freud. As I recall, one museum display is in a hall and consists of pictures of scientists, politicians, and other famous people. On one wall are “good” people, on another are “bad” (ie satanic) people. Freud occupies a prominent position close to Darwin on the “bad” wall. Tells me that these psychologists are really screwed now.
Jon H
I wonder if we’ll see an unholy alliance of the Christian Right, the Moonies, and the anti-psychiatrist Scientologists…
“John, you’re forgetting that the Christian Right has hated psychologists for years”
True, but psychiatrists these days aren’t precisely the same as psychologists. Psychiatry these days is getting more into neurology and empiricism, and away from older things like Freudian psychology.
Current research in psychiatry is more likely to involve a PET scanner or MRI than an inkblot or subjects talking about their mother.
(Not that this would stop the Leviticans from demonizing the psychiatrists as secular Freudian evolutionists…)
Non-Fat Latte Liberal
Filibuster Deal!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050524/D8A97LBG0.html
Dave Ruddell
Why does the APA hate America?
KC
Is anyone curious to know what John thinks about the deal?
Kimmitt
Since the Christian Right already hates science, this won’t make much of a difference.
ppgaz
The resolution recognizes “that gay men and lesbians are full human beings who should be afforded the same human and civil rights” ….
Wow. Imagine, full human beings …afforded rights!
Isn’t that what we are told, after the fact and after the purported reasons turned out to be baloney, that we are fighting for in Iraq?
Too bad we can’t have it in the United States. At least for four more years.
syn
What will really whack the issue into complete meltdown are homosexuals who do not believe in gay marriage, are over the rainbow and would like to have their lives back.
Of course, they do not fit the politically correct policy that all gays believe marriage is a civil right issue and are banished into the lone wilderness for committing heresy against the church.
Halffasthero
I am not suere where you feel that the Christian Right hates Psychology. The Christian Right holding power hates science against their religion but I have not heard anything about any mental health debates.
Slartibartfast
Really? I’d probably fall into the “Christian Right” bin, but I don’t harbor any special loathing for science in my heart. So I’m thinking that this was kneejerk, thoughtless generalization badly disguised as sage observation.
Or, more directly: how much of a putz do you have to be to let stuff like this escape your fingertips?
TM Lutas
The main state interest in marriage is not to promote mental health. To urge a change in the law on mental health grounds is like adding money to the police budget because you like men in uniform. It may coincidentally do some good overall or not but it’s stupid public policy because you’re only coincidentally getting good results. This is shamanism at its worst.
The state has an interest in the continuation of society. If we were at at a 1.1 TFR rate instead of a bit over 2.1, you really wouldn’t want to see the budget projections on Social Security, Medicare, or a dozen other major chunks of the government, nor would you like to see the tax increases needed over the long haul merely to run in place in maintaining our infrastructure.
john
The state has an interest in the continuation of society. If we were at at a 1.1 TFR rate instead of a bit over 2.1, you really wouldn’t want to see the budget projections on Social Security,
WTF?
So if I can’t marry my boyfriend, I’m going to go find a woman and sire some kids?
John Cole
So if I can’t marry my boyfriend, I’m going to go find a woman and sire some kids?
Bingo. At its heart, the anti-gay marriage argument is nothing more than a shoddy slippery slope argument stating that if gays are allowed to marry, all of a sudden we will all become gay and quit having kids.
It makes no sense.
ppgaz
“Slart” reports no “special loathing” for science. God for him/her.
Alas, anecdotal information is of no use here. The audit trail of evangelical loathing of science, and attempts to repress it, is long, deep, and wide.
Look at it this way; in the recent Kansas Monkey Trial, a proponent of “Intelligent Design” was asked how old the earth is. The answer was basically, “It doesn’t matter.”
It doesn’t matter how old the earth is, you see. What matters is how you feel about it.
AWJ
So if I can’t marry my boyfriend, I’m going to go find a woman and sire some kids?
Bingo. And here’s Adam Yoshida (one of my favourite warbloggers to read, because at least some of the time he’s refreshingly open and honest about his fascist leanings) on why “the state has an interest” in the TFR:
http://www.adamyoshida.com/2005/04/illusion-of-permanence.html
Money quote:
I
AWJ
Whoops. I fail at HTML. The second paragraph should also have been in italics. And the emphasis was my addition, not in the original.
Anderson
Slarti, you’re a smart guy, & you can’t possibly be that naive about why someone would suggest that the “Christian Right” hates science.
Of course, being right wing & Christian doesn’t make you part of the “Christian Right.”
Back on topic: is there *already* a Christian Psychological Association, or do we have this to look forward to in the next few months? This will be the trend; it will be possible for fundamentalists to live their entire lives in fundie-only schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, etc., etc.
AWJ
Perhaps I should clarify, since I am a newcomer here. I am not a “Kossack” left-wingnut who believes in “Bushitler”. I have merely observed that there is an element on the present-day Right, represented in the blogosphere by the likes of Yoshida and “Emperor Misha”, and by a few commenters at other blogs, whose ways of thinking come straight out of the second or third-most murderous ideology (depending on whether you separate Leninism and Maoism or lump them together) of the twentieth century.
Andrei
“What will really whack the issue into complete meltdown are homosexuals who do not believe in gay marriage, are over the rainbow and would like to have their lives back.”
Why would this matter whatsoever, even if this sort of ridiculous statement were true?
IOW, There are heterosexuals who don’t believe in marriage, and prefer to live being left alone by the federal or state governments with their partners. Does this cause a crisis these days? Hardly at all.
This is isn’t 300AD anymore. It’s time to move on.
BTW, what will whack the issue into complete meltdown are the people who seemingly can accept the advanced technology we use to support our lives these days — things including jet engines, cars, mass farming and slaughter techniques to fill our super groceries, advanced medicines and hardware for surgery, satellite communications and space exploration — while still taking a book literally that was written back when people thought the world was flat, the universe didn’t exist beyond the skies, and the people who wrote it didn’t even know South America existed.
These people are pushing the rest of us closer to the melting point, and when the time comes to finally say enough is enough, given the history of the world and especially of America, the ones on the side of progress and advancement have won out so pick your side carefully.
Slartibartfast
Got any other kind?
Ah. I guess “Christian Right” is a bit like “neocon”, in that it stands for “Republicans whose views I don’t like” (provided that’s not redundant), but is otherwise meaningless.
Gary Farber
“…but is otherwise meaningless.”
“Neocon” is not meaningless, Slart, but many, if not most, people use it in a meaningless fashion.
Slartibartfast
Thanks for the correction, Gary. I’d have attributed that idea to you, but as you can see that carries its own penalties. Yes, I agree that it does have a meaning, but almost no one who uses it on a regular basis uses it correctly.
In a way it’s been relocated to meaninglessness. But, point taken.
scs
Marriage is, at heart, a RELIGIOUS idea based on the notion that there should not be sex outside of marriage.
Allowing homosexual marriage would be like having a baptism at a local church and then insisting that atheists be allowed to partake and join the church, all the while allowing them to remain atheists. Sorry, its a closed club, members only.
I see no problem with trying to meet the goals of the pyschiatric association for full rights by providing civil unions. Civil unions are a slightly different matter as they take out the religious aspect while affording everyone the same rights.
David Rossie
scs, if marriage is a religious matter then why does the state need to be involved in legislating against homosexual marriage? The proper analogy in that case would be the government going to all churches in the country and forbidding them from allowing deviances from traditional doctrine. So here, in essence, you want centrally-planned religion.
But that’s not an accurate portrayal of the situation at hand. Marriage by the state is a legal matter. You can always get married under God’s eyes without having state sanction if you wish… what we’re debating here is to whom the state will grant the legal privileges and obligations of a marriage contract. There is no rational, constitutional argument for allowing men and women to marry each other while forbidding gays the same privilege. To suggest one usually suggests an explicit religious connotation to state marriage in the first place, and if that’s not a state sanction of religion what is?
Jon H
“while still taking a book literally that was written back when people thought the world was flat, the universe didn’t exist beyond the skies, and the people who wrote it didn’t even know South America existed.”
Hell, they didn’t even have the number zero.
If God dictated the story of creation, and tried to tell them the universe was 15 billion years old, they wouldn’t have been able to understand. They probably didn’t even have numbers big enough.
(India, on the other hand, had no problem with big numbers and vast time spans. They have a word for a span of time described as the time it would take for a mountain like Everest to be worn down to nothing, by being brushed by a feather once every million years. Or something to that effect. A very long time.)
scs
Actually, lets call it what it is. Marriage IS in effect a state sanction of religious traditions. That might violate state and church separation, but its too late to go back now.
Its kind of like “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. Even though its only been in since the ’50’s, people act like our lives as we know it depend on it being in there. So it would cause more trouble than it’s worth to change it.
Why does it have to be marriage if it offends the religious sensiblities of many, when a civil union could accomplish the same thing?
David Rossie
It accomplishes the same thing because it is the same thing, as far as I know. That just brings up the question “why bother?” If we know that state marriages are not the same as religious marriages, who objects to gays marrying? Civil Unions appear to be a way of having seperate but equal; allowing legal equality but only in a way that religious people can feel comfortable about it.
Kimmitt
I’d probably fall into the “Christian Right” bin,
I know you really don’t like me, but it takes a special kind of loathing to patently misrepresent one’s own political views in order to get a cheap shot in. You’re not a member of the Christian Right. You’re a conservative who happens to be Christian, like most conservatives, so far as I can tell.
AWJ
You’re a conservative who happens to be Christian, like most conservatives
Not to mention most moderates and most liberals, at least in North America. Excuse me for being pedantic.
TJ Jackson
Mr. Rossie:
As always you logic is truly unique. Since you deem marriage as a state sanctioned priviledge it shouldn’t object toany of these either.
So the state wouldn’t deny a man from marrying his son?
Nor should it outlaw the marriage of multiple partners or mulitple wifes?
In fact it should allow you to marry your goat according to your parameters should you wish it.
Since you are talking about some sort of priviledge. I hope you are just as broad minded in these other instances and do not practise that narrow minded bigotry so evident among secular fundamentalists.
syn
Ya know Andrei, many of my best friends are homosexual and are so tired have having their lives sucked away by the Gay “rainbow” Movement. As a matter of fact, they hate the word Gay. My point is that just because a small movement of people who insist everything go the way they demand it goes does not necessarily mean that everyone is on board. Why not allow homosexuals the right to enjoy their sexuality in peace instead of turning it into a politically correct movement which has nothing to do with homosexuality.
syn
One reason why I have come to reject the Liberal Left, the rigid and intolerant stance it has become.
Slartibartfast
Odd, that’s almost verbatim what I was thinking about you when I wrote that. Except it was your cheap shot that I was responding to.
Christian? Check.
Right? Check.
You need either better terminology, or you need to stop having labels mean what you want them to mean.
Slartibartfast
That, and you’ve indulged in mass shitslinging in the past; I have no reason to believe that your propensity to generalize far beyond what’s factually supportable has changed.
I don’t hate you, Kimmitt. What I am is disappointed; you’re a guy with marksman skills who’s chosen to wield a sawed-off.
Kimmitt
Odd, that’s almost verbatim what I was thinking about you when I wrote that. Except it was your cheap shot that I was responding to.
You were thinking that I was misrepresenting my own political views when I posted my opinion regarding the political views of someone else? Is today opposite day, or am I rubber and you glue?
You need either better terminology, or you need to stop having labels mean what you want them to mean.
Hm, this may be some useful information for you:
1) A “cartwheel” is in fact a gymnastic technique which resembles the spokes on a cart turning. It is not literally the wheel of a cart.
2) Not every person who belongs to the “Christian Democrats” Party in Germany is Christian.
3) Not all “soccer moms” have children who play soccer. Further, they are also not mothers of soccer balls.
You’re off your game today, man — usually your contentless rhetorical tricks are a bit less obvious.
Kimmitt
you’re a guy with marksman skills who’s chosen to wield a sawed-off.
Thank you for your concern, by the way, and I hope that my laserlike focus on your lameass sophistry has brought you solace and returned your opinion of me to its previous exalted state.
Jon H
TJ Jackson writes: “So the state wouldn’t deny a man from marrying his son?”
The argument against that could hinge on whether consent is genuine in such a situation, where psychological control issues may exist.
Assuming the son is an adult. If the son is a child, then of course there are also the usual consent issues.
“Nor should it outlaw the marriage of multiple partners or mulitple wifes?”
Well, that *would* have Biblical precedent, so if you’re going to base marriage law on the Bible, this would be a problem. You’d have to explain why polygamy isn’t allowable when some of the greatest figures of Judeo-Christian history were polygamous.
Frankly, the only problem I see with that is the sort of dysfunctional behavior you find in closed, cultlike polygamous groups where daughters get married off at 13, where the girls and women have limited freedom, etc.
But if some adults from varied backgrounds meet, and freely elect to establish a long-term polygamous marriage, I’m not sure what the good arguments would be to prevent that.
The best arguments against it would be the complications of divorce and other legal arrangements, when more than 2 people are involved.
“In fact it should allow you to marry your goat according to your parameters should you wish it.”
Goats can’t consent.
Jon H
scs writes: “Marriage IS in effect a state sanction of religious traditions. That might violate state and church separation, but its too late to go back now.”
But the law does not specify which religious traditions. You can have a Buddhist wedding, or a Hindu wedding, and it’s legal.
If two gay people belong to a church which approves of gay marriage, what’s the religious argument against keeping them from being married?
scs
Joh H, What I meant by my statement is that marriage is a state sanctioning of ‘traditional’ religion. Traditional, as in the large religions of the world. I’m not talking about, say, some new fangled San Diego cult religion. I’m talking about Christianity, Buddism, Islam, etc, all of which proscribe one man/one woman marriage. These are the religions that existed when the world’s societies as we know them developed.
Granted pair bonding came before our traditional large religions developed. But I offer that marriage became a legal affair after these societies developed their concept of civil laws, which were based on their developing religions, and then was handed down ever since. Kind of hard to change now.