This was a prevalently talked about "issue" in the 2004 presidential race.

To me, this is an issue that should not be one. My stance is that if we truly wish to be called a nation of the free and one not of oppression, then Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Americans deserve the right to legally marry the person they love.

I think that "marriage" should be a union that is church-based and between a man and a woman.

However, I do think there should be civil unions that are state-based and give homosexuals the benefits of marriage.

All they need to do is differentiate between state and church-based marriage and they are good. Because I have a great deal of friends who are gay and I understand how they are frustrated about that, so they should get the benefits.

SMR, I saw the thing about "God Hates ___". Those people are a sorry bunch and if there's one thing I know, they do not have God in their hearts, because if there is a God who hates gay people, it's not my God. My God loves everyone. But then again, I don't relate with religious hatred, or even religion. I just follow Jesus of Nazareth.

Sorry for getting OT :angel:

I definitely believe marriage rights should be allowed for gays, I will never, ever understand those who don't, but I am also not religious at all. I do think religion is a poor excuse to use, however...because two consentual adults, regarldess of gender, should be able to marry. Civil unions are still not good enough.

Marriage is a right that should be extended to all citizens of this country. As we are free to worship...or not worship as we see fit...to make marriage a 'church based union' is an affront to the basic principle of freedom of religion.
Civil unions are nothing more than a way to provide separate but equal treatment to a segment of our society. That is called segregation. Laws regarding marriage are not set in stone. There was a time when women had no rights under the laws of marriage. There was a time when blacks could not marry whites. The beauty of our system is that laws can evolve over time. As attitudes and ideas change, laws that are unjust and discriminatory can be revised to truly provide...liberty and justice...for ALL.

Change is one of those things that does not happen overnight. There is still a great deal of cultural and religious stigma towards sexual orientation around the world. The level of hatred and discrimination based on sexual orientation is something that is dumbfounding to me. IE people going to the funerals of fallen military members with signs that read "God hates ___". I understand we have a right to believe and say what we think, but with that also comes responsibility. If you are disrupting and harming other peoples lives simply for their sexual orientation.....that takes on an entirely different picture. These are not vestiges of hate and stigma of past generations....it still goes on today.

We have a long way to go. Still, I'm hopeful people will eventually realize that our differences are what make us stronger and more unique. Isn't diversity one of the principles of the United States of America? The idea that we welcome many different people who learn to work, play, and peacefully coexist amongst one another? I hope all of us can learn to embody and apply that attitude in our daily lives because it can be an enlightening experience that expands your horizons. Ultimately, change begins with the individual and eventually, enough people bring forth societal change. I think GLB will eventually gain full marriage rights and the United States can add another issue to its resume of being a country who promotes human rights.

Let me simplify what I was saying...

Do I think that homosexual marriages are right? no
Does letting gays marry really affect me? not really
If it was allowed, would I care? I don't think I really would.

So basically, I am personally opposed to gay marriage, but it really isn't that important in my opinion and if it is allowed I wouldn't make a fuss.

ETB, I understand what you are saying and I appreciate your thoughts.

I wasn't directing my comments at a particular person, but rather making general comments on the idea of sexual orientation.

I am of the mindset that I don't think gays or lesbians could screw up the marriage contract anymore than the hetrosexuals have. It's not as if the GLB,s would cheapen the straights commitments. Neither have much of that anymore, anyway. It is a pretty much "on to the next" society, I'm afraid. Gosh, I guess I am a pessimst! :hide:

That is understandable. In some cases, being pessimistic is being realistic if a couple is that unhappy in their marriage.

No relationship will ever be perfect regardless of sexual orientation. It takes true love and work to make a happy, healthy, and committed relationship. IMO, it depends on the couple because some couples would genuinely be able to work through their stresses with the help of a Marriage Counselor. Then there are people where divorce truly is the best option for the entire family. Thus, it is a case by case basis as to which option is the best course for the couple and family.

Correct me if I am wrong, but were not Interacial Marriages banned until the early 70's? They eliminated that foolish law. I was eating dinner last night and saw an African American man and Caucasian woman together who were being stared at by other people around them.......is this really 2007? I just kind of shook my head because you could see how both of them looked uncomfortable at being stared at by other people. It's going to take many years for people to be more open even to Interacial dating and Marriage. Still, nevertheless, they also looked very happy and in love.

It's a shame our society is still so stuck on things like race and sexual orientation. Anyway, sorry for the tangent lol. I understand what you're saying Idol and it is important to recognize that side of things.

On an interesting note, I heard on the News that New Hampshire just legalized Civil Unions for Gay and Lesbian couples. Hopefully the next President will make it a Federal law and not simply defer to this as a "state by state" issue.

I heard an interesting bit on a local radio station today. I'm not sure where the article is from, but a woman wrote a piece on how marriage is not even needed....for anyone. The argument was compelling to listen to and she made some great points about the economic, religious, and social implications of marriage. This connects to this topic because she also wrote about how excluding Gay/Lesbian couples is against the core principles of the U.S. and this inequality is part of why she feels like her commited relationship does not need a piece of paper from the state mandating it as true.

Women seem to usually (definitely not always) think that marriage is the final step in commitment, but things maybe changing. They stated that the number of commitment cermonies (for straight couples) are increasing as well. This maybe the answer to the Gay rights/marriage debate. If Gays/Lesbians are recognized as legally married through a commitment ceremony that has nothing to do with religion, then it is a win-win. Full and equal marriage rights are given to Gay couples and the strongly religious can keep their marriage ceremonies as between only men and women. It's definitely an option to think about that would demonstrate tolerance and equality.

Interesting...

Being stared at is not discrimination. We can't tell people to have couth or class when they don't. Interracial couples are still rare as compared to same-race couples. If that in fact was a law in the 70s (I was too young to be aware of the laws then) that really wasn't that long ago. And it is probably more prevalent in the south where the population is far more mixed. I started seeing this trend in the early 80s, even among my friends. It never bothered me, but my parent's generation were appalled by it. In 20 more years it will be just another couple. Might be the same with gay/lesbian couples, as well. I'm not opposed to unions with the same "benefits" for that group.

I just don't understand why old white men with three or four marriages and many more adulteries get to point the finger at gay people for being immoral.

If straight people who cheat and write songs about it get three or four or five marriages, they should really just shut up and let gay people have one or two.

Noles, I agree that social perception has been changing quite a bit. Mostly for the better, but there still is a lot of work to be done. Once Gays/Lesbians are treated fully equally under the law, then I think it can work towards changing cultural bigotry. Perhaps it could be the other way around, but either way, I hope it eventually happens.

I don't know if anyone heard, but a 15 year old was shot by another student at a school a few days ago. The poor student passed away and the other person admitted to it as a hate crime for him being openly Gay. Honestly, it is stories like this one that open my eyes to how bad it can be and still is. For as far as we have come in this country in promoting human rights, a tragedy like this is an eye opener that we have quite a ways to go.

I mentioned that I'm not opposed to civil unions, if it will protect sanctity of marriage. However, I will oppose even civil unions if it leads to more problems as mentioned in the article below. We can't take ethical and moral teaching out of the hands of parents, by allowing our public schools to promote "other" lifestyles.

Dad Challenging Manipulation of Kids

It's not about promoting being Gay. It's about promoting tolerance towards Gay and Lesbian individuals. The bullying begins on the playground, and then becomes increasingly worse. Look at the story of Matthew Shepard from Wyoming. Violence and verbal harrassment towards GLBT in schools and the workplace permeate our society today. I think it is about time that people be more educated about these issues so that we will be less violent and discriminatory while being a more inclusive society. Frankly, I'm tired of reading stories about bullying turning into downright violence.

Why do Gay youth commit suicide at higher rates? It is because of societal oppression and the mistreatment they endure on a daily basis as an effect of being open about their sexual orientation. Every person in this country deserves the dignity of being treated equally and respectfully under the law in addition to their daily lives.

I respect peoples religious beliefs and the right to practice it freely. But why should one religion determine who can or can not marry? As Rick stated upthread, we have freedom of religious belief or lack there of. To justify denying rights/equality to GLBT on the basis of theological argument goes directly against the separation of church and state as well as freedom of belief/religion. JMO

First, I don't think it's fair to say that all who oppose gay marriage do so because of religious reasons. Some just think that it goes against human nature and therefore can't produce a natural family. I do not believe it is a healthy environment for children. While homosexual couples can be just as loving parents as heterosexual parents, children need more than just love and nurturing. They also need the distinctive qualities and natures that come from a male parent and a female parent. Some stages require more from one than the other, but the combination has proved for better development for the child.

My personal feelings about limiting marriage to a man and a woman are strictly because I fear making it available to gay and lesbians will open the door to other groups, as well. Pretty soon we will have to allow polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital group that starts to scream discrimination. Marriage will mean absolutely nothing at that point and could eventually become a thing of the past. If it sounds far-fetched just read a little on the formed groups across the nation just waiting for marriage to be legalized for gays. They claim it will pave the way for all to benefit from this legal bond.

The schools that are introducing 5 year-olds to "alternative lifestyles" are not doing so to curb bullying practices. It is opening up conversations about sexuality and what is okay in the world today, regardless of what is being taught in their home. Not something a 5 year-old is equipped to understand! Some of us, and it is a great majority, do not approve of that lifestyle, even though it does exist. Maybe the schools should concentrate on teaching the children to be nice to everybody and maybe use the quote "do unto others…" Oh wait, that sounds too scriptural, maybe treat others as you would want to be treated, would be better. I don't remember having books to teach me about heterosexual couples in families or single parent homes and lo and behold those were all around me! How did I get by? I had to rely on the way my parents brought me up and what they taught me at home. If I had questions about something that was different, my parents were the ones to enlighten me. I didn't get multiple explanations from all directions. The government needs to stay out of our homes and provide only the basics that are necessary to complete an education.

Lastly, I think the term HATE CRIME is discriminating. If my great aunt (Caucasian and elderly) is attacked in her home and dragged out by her hair and raped, she is no less a victim because she isn't gay or ethnic. She was still a target of hate and crime, but for some reason her perpetrator does not get as stiff a penalty as he would after committing a HATE CRIME. That does not make sense to me. I think anyone who commits a violent crime on another person should get the harshest penalty for the crime regardless of the who the victim is or why they were targeted.

I just read a story the other day about a kid who liked to dress more "feminine" at school--and he may not have been gay, btw. He was constantly called the f-word and other horrible things for weeks. Sadly, another student came to school with a gun and shot him.

One of the main goals of education is socialization, teaching kids how to learn to live with one another's differences without resorting to violence or bullying. If schools don't overtly address the need not to bully or verbally abuse others based on their gender or sexuality, this will continue to happen in our society for a long time.

I think it's entirely possibly to be "against gay marriage" and still be in support of schools acknowledging differences in society and respect for those differences.

Some other random comments/questions, mainly for noles:

(1) If it is assumed that every child needs a male and female model to grow up "properly," what are we supposed to do with all the single parents in this nation? Are you suggesting kids raised by single parents aren't coming out "right" simply because they are missing a male or female adult? And if so, should we legislate on this matter like we do for gay couples? For example, should the government force kids into homes with 2 parents, or put economic/social incentives in place for single parents to get married?

(2) It's a slippery slope argument to claim that legalizing gay marriage automatically opens the door to polygamy. The important similarity between gay and straight coupling is that it's between exactly two consenting adults. There is no logical proof that gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy.

(3) I agree that hate crimes should not receive more of a penalty than non-hate crimes. But I have no problem with labeling it as such, since I do think the term "hate crime" gives more force than just labeling something a "crime."

(4) My opinion on this thread topic: I don't think the government should have ANY say in who can and who can't get married. I don't think it's their business to give credits or punishments (economically or socially) for people who decide to couple, or for those who decide to stay single. In other words, I don' t think marriage should be a legal matter at all.

Churches, however, can do what they want. It's their right.

However, if this society insists on making marriage a civic/legal entity, then it must not discrimnate on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, etc. If we believe in equal rights, we must extend those right to everyone.

Paragraph by paragraph:

Unfortunately, kids are going into schools all over the country and shooting up classmates for NO apparent reason. That's why you have to address it generally and not specifically. Teaching children to treat others as you would have them treat you.

The problem is not always bullying. Sometimes it is just a lack of empathy for others. It is something that we learn at a young age and usually from our parents or home life.

I am against the schools teaching my child specifically about gay marriage and that it is a logical alternative to a traditional family. It is an opinion that is shared among many. It is still my right to voice the opinion that it is inappropriate for the kindergarten curriculum.

I did not say that all children will fail if they do not have the traditional setting of a family. Studies have shown that children from single parent homes are at a high risk of externalizing problems like conduct disorder and hyperactivity. That single parent has to work twice as hard to overcome those odds. Of course there are exceptions to every case, but the risk is greater if the setting is not traditional. Unfortunately, the traditional family is probably in the minority now, even as hard as some families have worked to keep it together. In the 50s, where almost every household had both parents (and mothers were at home) it was few and far between to hear of such heinous acts on the school grounds. Alot of that can be attributed to the family setting. We have made great strides in many areas over the years, but the breakdown of the family
has been detrimental to our society.

Polyamorists are behind the "gay marriage rights" movement to position themselves for their fight later on. They have a top ten law school graduate and political organizer working for them in public office that is devising campaigns for hospital visitation rights, with full marriage and adoption rights to follow. The slippery slope has turned into a level playing field.

Looks like we agree on the hate crime issue.

I agree that the government shouldn't be telling the people. It is the people telling the government that they want traditional marriage protected in this country. My state went as far as to ban gay-adoption. The will of the people...

I agree with your point on empathy. It is a trait that we nurture through our lives to better connect with other people. That includes people who do not follow tradition in every way. I find it sad that a majority anywhere would not allow committed Gay couples to adopt. It is discriminatory and once again singles out how our society feels Gays/Lesbians are unequal. Remember, the majority of this nation thought slavery was ok in this very country.

Once again as I said in my post above, it is not about teaching people to be Gay. It is about advancing knowledge of what sexual orientation is and fostering respect towards any Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexually identitifed persons. Making it a general issue of treating everyone fairly misses the point of exclusively talking about Sexual Orienation and why it is wrong to discriminate because of it.

As for the everything goes once Gays are treated equally argument well.....I'm sure that was the same thing people said before African American men/women gained full civil rights in this country. Now we have a potential future President who is African American and it is because of raising awareness and educating the public on the history of stuggle for the oppressed that this is even possible.

All crimes should be punished equally under the law. However, it is important to distinguish and raise a point when a hate crime happens. It points to the ugly truth that instiutionalized and culturally transmitted values of hatred and bigotry towards specific groups are still an issue. When it is found that someone committed a crime purely for the reason of race, sexual orientation, religion, and so on, it is important to reflect on what the cause and motive of it was. Which is hatred for that persons identity. This manifestation of violence and discriminatory laws prove that we have a ways to go in the human rights department.

That is merely my point about the HATE CRIMES. If I'm attacked because I'm female then that is hate against females. If an elderly person is attacked, then they are attacked because they are a weaker, elderly person. You see, it would apply in every situation. There is a reason why one person or another is chosen to be victimized which made them a target. Many times that reason was unavoidable to the victim. We need to be nice to every race, we need to be nice to every gender, we need be nice to every age, we need to be nice to people for making choices that are different from our own, we need to be nice to everybody! There should be no "special" circumstances for a crime to be more heinous than another. A crime against another person is equally wrong. If a gay person is mugged and robbed, was it a hate crime even if the perp did not know the victim was gay? How do you prove something like that unless there was an admission or a note left behind? That would mean that every ethnicity and gay person has a special right as a victim.

I think we are talking in circles here, so I will just let it be.

No, we do not know if every situation is a hate crime. I can agree with that. But don't you think it is important to talk about it when it clearly is? To show how violence motivated by hatred is wrong. It is symbolic and hopefully will deter future crimes of that nature if we are tough on criminals. (on all levels)

As a sidenote, I have family members and friends who are Gay and Lesbian. That is why I ardently support advocacy for Gay rights and equality. I think if you have people in your life who have suffered or been discriminated against for their sexual orientation, it changes your views on things.

Noles, although we may disagree, I appreciate the debates we have had through these threads :) We have remained civil and had interesting discussion.

I can not believe we are even having this discussion in 2008. It’s unbelievable. I guess I never gave my parents enough credit for having raised me to be accepting of every race, every sexual orientation, every religion . . . etc. Wow. How could it possibly be my business how two other consenting adults choose to (or are born to) live their lives? I just don’t get it. What I do with my partner is no business of theirs, and theirs is no business of mine. Just because the person I choose to love happens to be of the opposite sex and we are married, how does that make our love for one another more valid than a same-sex couple who (ridiculously) isn’t allowed the privilege of marriage? And what makes my husband and I automatically better parents just because we are husband and wife rather than husband and husband or wife and wife? That is absolutely crazy to me. And the “a crime is a crime is a crime” theory is equally insane, in my opinion. If someone paints a swastika on my house, how is that the same crime as breaking my porch light, for example? Both vandalism, yet clearly not equal crimes. I knew I should have stayed out of this thread. All it does is make me even more anxious for the next 332 days to fly by, so that discriminatory laws like banning adoption by gay couples will be as offensive to the administration as they are to most of the people of this country.

I guess my question is, when is a crime against another person not rooted by hate?? I can't think of one that would spawn from love and compassion!

I'm not completely sheltered here in the south. I have worked with and had several friends in my lifetime that are gay. Surprisingly they were completely understanding of my views and we remained friends. They did not expect me to abandon my deeply rooted family values just because they were different. There was a mutual tolerance, respect and caring for each other. I love the person, just not the lifestyle.

I appreciate all of your thoughts and comments, Soul. I think that those who follow their heart and are passionate for a cause close to them are worth listening to. You add alot to this board!

FYI:
In 2008, Massachusetts is the only state that recognizes same sex marriage. A majority of people do not agree with same-sex marriage. Changing the administration in 2008 will not change every state's stance on gay marriage.

Liberal: open-minded or tolerant; favoring or permitting freedom of action with respect of matters of personal belief or expression

To think that I should have changed my personal convictions and beliefs because it is 2008 or that maybe my parents didn't raise me right is not very tolerant or open-minded of my conservative views.

This is an article from the American Psychological Association.

Source: www.apa.org

Timely action

In just three months, an APA working group developed a successful council resolution to support same-sex marriage and parenting.

BY LEA WINERMAN
Monitor Staff
Print version: page 48

On July 28, the APA Council of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples and opposing discrimination against same-sex parents. The resolution passed unanimously and in near-record time--only five months after council first proposed a working group on the subject and three months after the working group formed.

Recent debates--and legal action--concerning same-sex marriage in California, Massachusetts and other states spurred the quick action, according to Armand Cerbone, PhD, chair of the working group and a clinical psychologist in Chicago.

"Given the timeliness and urgency of the issue, APA wanted to be able to inform the public debate with research literature as quickly as possible," he says.

The specific trigger for the resolution, Cerbone says, came during the meeting of the Public Interest Caucus at the February 2004 council meeting, when psychologist John Lorenz, PhD, mentioned that community members, media and clients had been asking about APA's position on gay marriage.

Realizing that APA had given no official word on this, Cerbone, Lorenz, APA Board of Directors member Ruth Ullmann Paige, PhD, and Div. 44 (Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues) representatives Kristin Hancock, PhD, and Doug Haldeman, PhD, decided to propose at the next day's council meeting that APA establish a working group to review the literature on the topic and come up with recommendations.

Council approved that motion and asked the Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest (BAPPI) to appoint the working group. BAPPI then requested nominations from the Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns.

The final working group members--Cerbone, Hancock, Beverly Greene, PhD, Lawrence Kurdek, PhD, Candace McCullogh, PhD, Charlotte Patterson, PhD, and Anne Peplau, PhD--met from April 30 to May 2 to review previous APA policies related to same-sex relationships, marriage and families, as well as relevant research. They focused on two areas of research: same-sex relationships and marriage, and same-sex parents and their children.

The group took pains to stay within the bounds of psychologists' expertise, says Peplau, a professor of social psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has studied gay and lesbian relationships for nearly 30 years.

"One of the challenges for the working group was to sort out what we can say as professional psychologists and what topics are not our province," she explains. "It was really important that the working group address issues of civil marriage and civil laws, and not religious ones. We all wanted to be very respectful of people's differing views."

The final resolution references years of psychological research and states the group's conclusions:

* Psychological research on relationships and couples provides no evidence to justify discrimination against same-sex couples. The working group members cited research that many gay men and lesbians both want and have committed relationships: Studies have found that between 40 and 60 percent of gay men and between 45 and 80 percent of lesbians are involved in committed relationships.

Also, reviews by Peplau and her colleagues have found that partners from same-sex couples and partners from heterosexual couples score comparably on measures of relationship quality, such as satisfaction and commitment. Finally, Kurdek has found that the factors that predict satisfaction, commitment and stability are similar in same-sex couples and heterosexual couples.

* There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. The working group cited statistics from the 2000 census that 33 percent of female same-sex couples have at least one child under 18 in their home, as do 22 percent of male same-sex couples.

Researchers have found that sexual identity, personality and social relationships with peers and adults develop similarly in those children as they do in children of heterosexual parents, according to the group.

Next, the working group put its resolution before APA's Board of Directors, asking it for an expedited review process. Often, it can take as long as 18 months for APA's various boards and committees to review a resolution, but this time all comments were received within one month.

Then, in July, the resolution came before council at APA's 2004 Annual Convention in Honolulu.

"What's significant is that not only did it pass, but it passed unanimously--and this is a sensitive issue," says Cerbone.

Cerbone also says that he found it serendipitous that council passed the resolution at a meeting in Hawaii--the first state to consider the issue of same-sex marriage and the first state to amend its constitution to officially bar same-sex couples from marrying.

Now that APA has passed the resolution, Cerbone says, APA's next step will be to prepare amicus curiae briefs in court cases involving same-sex marriage.

Nathalie Gilfoyle, JD, APA's general counsel, says that her office is working on the first of those briefs right now and will use the working group's report as a resource to identify important research and experts. The case, Lewis v. Harris, involves seven same-sex couples in New Jersey who are suing the state for the right to marry.

Working group member Patterson, a professor at the University of Virginia who studies children of lesbian and gay parents, agrees that this is an important next step.

"Historically, APA has been very much in front on social justice issues of different kinds, and I'm delighted to see us step forward on this," she says.

This is the other article I like from the American Psychological Association

Source: www.apa.org

APA SUPPORTS LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX CIVIL MARRIAGES AND OPPOSES DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LESBIAN AND GAY PARENTS
Denying Same-Sex Couples Legal Access to Civil Marriage is Discriminatory and Can Adversely Affect the Psychological, Physical, Social and Economic Well-Being of Gay and Lesbian Individuals


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

HONOLULU – Prohibiting civil marriage for same-sex couples is discriminatory and unfairly denies such couples, their children and other members of their families the legal, financial and social advantages of civil marriage says the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Council of Representatives in a resolution adopted today. The APA also opposed discrimination against lesbian or gay parents adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care and reproductive health services.

Both policy positions were adopted at the recommendation of an APA Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships. The Working Group, appointed by the APA Council of Representatives in February 2004, was charged with developing policy recommendations for APA that would guide psychologists in the current public debate over civil marriage for same-sex couples. The Working Group was directed further to base its policy recommendations on the research on same-sex relationships and families.

This seven-member team of psychologists with a combination of both scientific expertise in family and couple relations and professional expertise with lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations summarized the research that discrimination and prejudice based on sexual orientation detrimentally affects the psychological, physical, social and economic well-being of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals, that same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation.

"The APA recognizes the importance of the institution of civil marriage which confers a social status with important legal benefits, rights and privileges," said psychologist Armand R. Cerbone, who is a private practitioner in Chicago and chair of the working group. "Discrimination of all kinds takes a toll on people's health and psychological well being. In the context of the huge social and political debate that is currently going on, APA and psychologists had to grapple with the issue of what psychology believes is in the public interest in this controversy.”

Given what research tells us about the impact of discrimination and given that the research further provides no justification for discriminating against same-sex couples in marriage or in parenting, the Working Group strongly recommended that APA support states in providing civil marriage to same-sex couples and fully recognizing the parental rights of lesbians and gay men. As a benefit for human welfare, it is important to point out that permitting same-sex couples to marriage may especially benefit people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, gender and gender identity, religion and socioeconomic status, said Cerbone.

According to the United States Accounting Office (2004), over 1,000 federal statutory provisions exist in which marital status is a factor in determining a person’s eligibility to receive various benefits, rights and privileges.


APA Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships: Armand Cerbone, Ph.D., Chicago, Illinois; Beverly Greene, Ph.D., St. John’s University; Kristin Hancock, Ph.D., Graduate School of Professional Psychology at John F. Kennedy University; Lawrence A. Kurdek, Ph.D., Wright State University; Candace A. McCullough, Ph.D., Bethesda, Maryland; Letitia Anne Peplau, Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles

Thanks for posting that article. I learned something about the APA.
The APA's statement was proposed by the Council on Minority Mental Health and Health Disparities and was developed by its Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues. Nothing like having a bias group doing a study. Many within the APA did not feel that the organization should be making such a statement at all because the issues involved were social or political rather than in the realm of mental health concerns.

There are credible groups that are opposed to the APA's studies , such as the American College of Pediatricians. They claim that there aren't any true gay marriages, that have produced children. The children are usually products from a former heterosexual relationship and may be adopted into a gay union. There are so many other circumstances as to how the family came about, that the results would be inconclusive.

As with every study, the results will yield the findings of the agenda behind the study.

As someone studying Psychology and mental health, I have always held APA to a high standard of excellence in academic and clinical study. Of course there will be literature that contradicts one set of results. However, it is unfair to call this biased because of the people who did the study. Who BETTER to conduct a study than those who have worked closely with GLBT to better comprehend their daily life? These professionals have documented, studied, and analyzed the life development and patterns of GLBT. Is research perfect? Not by a mile, but this is as close to professional as you get.

I am proud to see a scientific field which studies human behavior and cognitive thought processes to take a stand for human rights. Sometimes values do creep into research. Look at "Reparative or Conversion Therapy" which is largely supported and funded by socially conservative and religious think tanks. These schools of thought seek to establish the idea that sexual orientation can be converted from Gay to Straight via therapy. In reality, it is a series of repression techniques which seek to "help" a person to deny who they are. It can cause more harm than good. Yet if you read the articles in support of it, they rarely if at all point to the psychological harm it can induce much less the inherent value judgment in the therapy that a Gay man or woman needs to be "converted".

Also, the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) used to characterize Homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1975. It was during that year that it was removed from the DSM due to the realization that it is NOT abnormal. In reality, a great deal of clinically diagnosed disorders do derive from social cues and societal expectations. For example, Histrionic Personality Disorder usually entails someone with grandiose and dramatic affect that is considered excessive. Where do we get these things from? It is from our culture and therefore, psychology is also largely driven by ideological influences of society, history, and culture.

That was a landmark decision to remove it and abnormality or disorders takes minorities into a much greater account now. Mostly for the fact that a great deal of stigma and historical prejudice still exists towards the GLBT community. It was for this reason that the DSM did not want to start labeling minroties as abnormal due to the historically prejudicial background. Frankly, I'm not surprised that Psychologists have become more involved in this. Times have been and still are changing albeit at a slow pace.

Allow me to adjust my views.

While I'm not really for gay marriage personally, I am not against it politically. I don't see why they can't make state-sanctioned same-sex marriages legal. It's not like abortion where lives are at stake. Nobody is getting hurt.

Plus, as long as the separation of church and state are kept, there's no problems because the gov't can't force churches to marry gays. It would be 100% by the state.

:rocker: :rocker: :rocker:

How is it that the sanctity of marriage will be protected by excluding certain members of society from it? It seems to me that heterosexuals have done the most damage to the SANCTITY of marriage...not gay people.

Agreed especially considering statistics say that every 1 out of 2 couples end up in divorce.

IF this is truly a religious problem, then where is the banning of people from getting a divorce? Because doesn't it comment in the bible about not getting a divorce and remarrying?

But yeah, personally I can't say, I love my gay friends and would never want to deny them that right. Do my beliefs go with it? No, not entirely. Politically I'm okay with it.

EITB and Berkana, I have a question. You say that you oppose Gay Marriage personally, but would support it politically. I respect that you respect human rights despite your personal feelings. My question: Other than your Religion, notion of tradition, or how your parents raised you, why do you hesitate to support Gay Rights/Marriage personally?

I think there is a trend emerging in this thread and most of my conversations with people on this topic. This stigma is clearly taught from generation to generation. How else does such a large number of people hold the same reservation and in some cases downright hostility towards GLBT? (EITB/Berk and others: to qualify, I'm not saying anyone here is hostile, just a general statement about U.S. society).

IMHO, sexual oritentation is as biologically fixed as our eye and hair color. Scientific verification of specified genes has yet to be mapped, but I expect it will in due time. However, I do think we are (in one way or another) socialized to have preconceptions about various groups of people whether they be positive or negative generalizations. In this case: carrying past social, cultural, and religious stigma towards the GLBT community. Just as it took generations to create/maintain the stigma it will take many generations to desocialize the society of the negativity. JMO :)

For me it's just the way our bodies are shaped and the physical changes we go through, where I don't see it for me personally.

I think it has more to do with the fact that a man and a woman come together to procreate. (It's very archaic definition for me, I KNOW! Lol but it's the basic thing for me.) And that a woman and a woman together cannot procreate, or that a man and a man together cannot procreate. (Does this mean Gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt? HECK NO. Infact I'm sure they could do a much better job then over half of hetero couples.)

I personally don't think they should be denied any rights that any other person, be it single or male/female marriage gets. I just know it's not the right path for me.

And you are right it's probably generation to generation. My mum and dad aren't against allowing it to happen at all, and are probably much more accepting if I biologically/psychologically etc chose to fall in love with a woman. Heck I probably wouldn't be against it, and it may change over time.

Berkana kinda summed it up for me right there.

I tend to think sexuality is a lot more fluid than society tells us it is. IMO it's a combination of biological determinism (genes), sexual development, socializtion, and iterated sexual/amorous practices throughout life. I do think genes likely push us one way or another heavily, but not to the complete exclusion of attactions to both sexes.

In other words, I think socialization does a lot of work to make us suppress desires that might otherwise go explored. In some cases, this is a good thing. (If you get a violent urge to kill someone, I'm glad most people have been socialized to see that as a bad desire to act upon.)

But with sexuality, I don't see what the harm is in people exploring their desires IF both parties are mutually interested and there aren't huge risks involved (emotionally, disease-wise, etc.)

I've just known a number of people--both heterosexual and homosexual--who seem to feel compelled to stay in one categorical box even if they express or feel some desire on occasion to explore the other side.

This isn't to say that every single person is secretly bisexual or anything. Didn't Kinsey have a scale that suggested sexuality is more of a spectrum than an absolute categorization? In other words, people can be completely hetero, or mostly hetero (with occasional same sex attraction), or 50/50 bisexual, or homosexual (with some occasional hetero desires), or completely homosexual. I tend to think of sexuity along these lines.

Interestingly, in terms of the political spectrum, it seems that conservatives want to see heterosexualty as an inherent, natural, and stable norm, while homosexuality is a choice and a deviation. Many liberals hold that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are biologically determined categories, and people have no choice in this matter. I suspect it's a more complicated picture than either side puts out there, as sexuality seems to depend on both biology and environment, on intention/will in some cases and on unconscious desires in others.

Thanks for your response. I think the best way to understand is to conceptualize it in much the same way as you stated. (except for Gays/Lesbians obviously) For example, a Lesbian is emotionally and sexually attracted to only women. For her, it would be against her nature and how she always felt to have a romantic relationship with a man because she has never been attracted to men on any level. Therefore, it is exactly the same you thing you just stated except the reverse. You could have friends of the opposite sex, but would never have a sexual relationship with them.

"I just know it's not the right path for me".......well, exactly because I don't see why someone who is Straight would randomly become Gay. Unless a person has always denied who they were (which is the case more times than not).