Gay Marriage

This is surprisingly similar to the argument used by white men to keep blacks from marrying.

 

That's an incredibly shallow comparison that completely ignores the substance of what I've said.

 

Maybe I am missing something, but I think it gets right to the essence of what you said. As I understood you, you basically said laws exist to protect the status quo of majority, and maintaining or enhancing the status quo is the sole purpose for laws.

 

See http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1280

 

From the link:
"...only heterosexual couples can have sexual intercourse. There is a structural difference between homosexual play and heterosexual intercourse. That is the material basis and the "rational purpose" in law for the traditional identification of marriage as a heterosexual institution."

Surely I don't need to break it down for you. I can have intercourse. . . unless you subscribe to Clinton's definition.

I find it hard to believe that federal law is based on the exploitation of anatomical difference.

 

The logic for the premise of this article seems to say that pregnancy is one of the qualifications for marriage. There are quite a few women that can't ever get pregnant so I guess they can't get married under that theory.

Now on the intercourse thing. Have a look at this link.
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CN00042c.html

The FDA identifies intercourse in a way that describes quite well that 2 males can in fact have intercourse. To say that a penis has to enter a vagina for intercourse is pretty limited thinking. But of course this is from the same people that will claim to know the bible & only follow the parts that fit their prejudices & fear. Completely ignoring the parts that they don't want to follow.

 

Aye, sexual intercourse and sexual reproduction are two different things. The former usually is the process, while the latter is the 'goal'. An I'm wonderin about yer stance on birth control, Huck. Should couples not be allowed to have sex while using contraception, because it inhibits the chances of pregnancy, and therefore damages the species?

Sidenote, I find it interesting that some people try to use science to decry 'devient behaviors', saying that they go against nature, while actively trying to derail other advances of scientific theory, i.e. the big bang theory, evolution, etc.

 

Historically, courts have neglected to mention any societal benefits of marriage. Instead, courts seem to recognize it as a fundamental right:

Marriage has been recognized as a fundamental human right:

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." (US Supreme Court: Cleveland Board of Education v. LeFleur, 1974)
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." (US Supreme Court: Loving v. Virginia, 1967. This was the ruling that allowed mixed-race marriages throughout the U.S.).

 

Historically, marriage has evolved. It is not a fixed instituition.

There have been many restrictions controlling who can marry:

In Old Testament times, when a husband died without children, his wife had to join in a levirate sexual relationship with his brother. She could not marry another man until she had produced a child. That child would be credited to her former husband. There were quite a few unusual marriage and family types in the Old Testament era in addition to the one man-one woman union.
Prior to the civil war, African-Americans were not allowed to marry in some states.
Prior to 1948, inter-racial couples were not allowed to marry in California and some other states. Then, the California Supreme Court ruled that a black woman could marry a white man. 19 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the ironically named case Loving v. Virginia, ruled that mixed-race marriages were legal anywhere in America.
Currently, with the exception of the Netherlands, Belgium and two provinces in Canada, gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry the person with whom they have developed a committed relationship anywhere in the world.

 

The same "societal benefits" that are actually enjoyed by opposite-sex marriage are identical to the ones desired by same-sex partners.

Emotional: Many same-sex couples feel a desire to have society recognize their lifetime commitment to each other -- just as many opposite-sex couples do.
Security: Many have a desire to enjoy the security, protections, and cost savings which would flow from marriage, and the 400 or so state benefits automatically to married couples.
Political: Laws criminalizing same-sex behavior are falling. Human rights laws granting protection in accommodation and employment are being created. But barriers in all but one state prevent same-sex couples from marrying or entering into a civil union. The bar to marriage is the last major obstacle to fall before the concept of equal "liberty and justice for all" can be applied to persons of all sexual orientations.

 

I assume by "societal benefits" you are referring to child rearing. Here is my response.

Year 1996: Evaluation of same-sex parenting by a Hawaiian court:

About a decade ago, SSM was evaluated by the Circuit Court of Hawaii. The court had been asked by the Hawaii Supreme Court to determine if the state had a compelling interest in banning same-sex marriages. All of the expert witnesses, both for the plaintiffs and the defense said that gay and lesbian couples are as fit as parents and as loving as opposite sex couples.

In 1997, Judge Kevin Chang of the Circuit Court ruled that the state had no such compelling interest. He determined that: There certainly is a benefit to children which comes from being raised by their mother and father in an intact and relatively stress-free home. However, there is a diversity in the structure and configuration of families" today, including single parents, divorced parents, stepparents, adoptive parents and gay and lesbian parents. "The evidence presented by [the] plaintiffs and defendant establishes that the single most important factor in the development of a happy, healthy and well-adjusted child is the nurturing relationship between parent and child."

He ruled that:

The State did not prove its major contention that, all things being equal, a child is best raised by his/her biological parents or a married man and woman.
The state did not prove that same-sex marriages would adversely affect the development of their children.
The most important factor for child development is the nurturing relationship between a parent and a child.
Sexual orientation of parents is not an indication of parental fitness.
Gays and lesbians, as well as opposite sex couples, can be fit and loving parents. 2

 

Year 2003: Evaluation of same-sex parenting by a Massachusetts court:

About a decade later, not much had changed. No longitudinal, reliable study of same-sex parents had yet been published. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its ruling Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health. This is the decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. Both the plaintiffs and defendants cited studies of same-sex parenting. However, there were still no reliable definitive, studies to determine whether children in families led by same-sex couples fare any better or worse than children in families led by opposite-sex couples.

Justice Sosman disagreed with the legalization of SSM. She wrote, in part:

"Based on our own philosophy of child rearing, and on our observations of the children being raised by same-sex couples to whom we are personally close, we may be of the view that what matters to children is not the gender, or sexual orientation, or even the number of the adults who raise them, but rather whether those adults provide the children with a nurturing, stable, safe, consistent, and supportive environment in which to mature. Same-sex couples can provide their children with the requisite nurturing, stable, safe, consistent, and supportive environment in which to mature, just as opposite-sex couples do."

"Conspicuously absent from the court's opinion today is any acknowledgment that the attempts at scientific study of the ramifications of raising children in same-sex couple households are themselves in their infancy and have so far produced inconclusive and conflicting results. Notwithstanding our belief that gender and sexual orientation of parents should not matter to the success of the child rearing venture, studies to date reveal that there are still some observable differences between children raised by opposite-sex couples and children raised by same-sex couples...Interpretation of the data gathered by those studies then becomes clouded by the personal and political beliefs of the investigators, both as to whether the differences identified are positive or negative, and as to the untested explanations of what might account for those differences. (This is hardly the first time in history that the ostensible steel of the scientific method has melted and buckled under the intense heat of political and religious passions.) Even in the absence of bias or political agenda behind the various studies of children raised by same-sex couples, the most neutral and strict application of scientific principles to this field would be constrained by the limited period of observation that has been available. Gay and lesbian couples living together openly, and official recognition of them as their children's sole parents, comprise a very recent phenomenon, and the recency of that phenomenon has not yet permitted any study of how those children fare as adults and at best minimal study of how they fare during their adolescent years. The Legislature can rationally view the state of the scientific evidence as unsettled on the critical question it now faces: Are families headed by same- sex parents equally successful in rearing children from infancy to adulthood as families headed by parents of opposite sexes? Our belief that children raised by same-sex couples should fare the same as children raised in traditional families is just that: a passionately held but utterly untested belief. The Legislature is not required to share that belief but may, as the creator of the institution of civil marriage, wish to see the proof before making a fundamental alteration to that institution....." 3

Justice C.J. Marshall agreed with the majority who were in favor of legalizing SSM, and wrote, in part:

"No one disputes that the plaintiff couples are families, that many are parents, and that the children they are raising, like all children, need and should have the fullest opportunity to grow up in a secure, protected family unit. Similarly, no one disputes that, under the rubric of marriage, the State provides a cornucopia of substantial benefits to married parents and their children. The preferential treatment of civil marriage reflects the Legislature's conclusion that marriage 'is the foremost setting for the education and socialization of children' precisely because it 'encourages parents to remain committed to each other and to their children as they grow'...."

"In this case, we are confronted with an entire, sizeable class of parents raising children who have absolutely no access to civil marriage and its protections because they are forbidden from procuring a marriage license. It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation." 3

Justice J. Cordy also disagreed with the legalization of SSM, and wrote, in part:

"We must assume that the Legislature:

might conclude that the institution of civil marriage has successfully and continually provided this structure over several centuries;
might consider and credit studies that document negative consequences that too often follow children either born outside of marriage or raised in households lacking either a father or a mother figure,...and scholarly commentary contending that children and families develop best when mothers and fathers are partners in their parenting; and
would be familiar with many recent studies that variously:
support the proposition that children raised in intact families headed by same-sex couples fare as well on many measures as children raised in similar families headed by opposite-sex couples...
support the proposition that children of same-sex couples fare worse on some measures...
or reveal notable differences between the two groups of children that warrant further study."
"We must also assume that the Legislature would be aware of the critiques of the methodologies used in virtually all of the comparative studies of children raised in these different environments, cautioning that:

the sampling populations are not representative,
that the observation periods are too limited in time,...
that the empirical data are unreliable, and
that the hypotheses are too infused with political or agenda driven bias." 3
Justice C.J. Marshall, who wrote for the majority of the court in support of SSM, criticized Justice Cordy's conclusion, writing:

"Justice Cordy's dissenting opinion...makes much of the current 'battle of the experts' concerning the possible long-term effects on children of being raised in households headed by same-sex parents. We presume that the Legislature is aware of these studies...and has drawn the conclusion that a child's best interest is not harmed by being raised and nurtured by same-sex parents....110 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.09(3) (2000) [states] 'The Department [of Social Services] shall not deny to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or foster parent, on the basis of the ... sexual orientation ... of the person, or of the child, involved.' Either the Legislature's openness to same-sex parenting is rational in light of its paramount interests in promoting children's well- being, or irrational in light of its so-called conclusion that a household headed by opposite-sex married parents is the "optimal" setting for raising children....We give full credit to the Legislature for enacting a statutory scheme of child-related laws that is coherent, consistent, and harmonious." 4

 

Possible positive effects of SSM on the children:

The question that is being debated is not whether children should be raised by same-sex parents. It is whether same-sex parents should be allowed to marry, or whether they must simply live together -- perhaps with children -- under a status less than marriage, with reduced recognition and support by the state.

SSM would benefit children in a same-sex led family. Justice C.J. Marshall of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, composing the majority decision, wrote:

"Without question, civil marriage enhances the 'welfare of the community.' It is a 'social institution of the highest importance.' French v. McAnarney, supra. Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones. It is central to the way the Commonwealth identifies individuals, provides for the orderly distribution of property, ensures that children and adults are cared for and supported whenever possible from private rather than public funds, and tracks important epidemiological and demographic data.....Where a married couple has children, their children are also directly or indirectly, but no less auspiciously, the recipients of the special legal and economic protections obtained by civil marriage.....marital children reap a measure of family stability and economic security based on their parents' legally privileged status that is largely inaccessible, or not as readily accessible, to non-marital children. Some of these benefits are social, such as the enhanced approval that still attends the status of being a marital child. Others are material, such as the greater ease of access to family-based State and Federal benefits that attend the presumptions of one's parentage." 3

The ruling in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health noted hundreds of benefits given to married couples by the state of Massachusetts which were not available to same-sex couples before 2004-MAY when they became able to marry. Many of the benefits from marriage have a positive effect on their children, either directly or indirectly.

Some would argue that when a state allows SSM, the public will gradually become more accepting of homosexual orientation and behavior. They will agree with professional mental health associations and recognize it as a normal, natural, unchosen and unchangeable sexual orientation for a minority of adults. This will reduce levels of discrimination, hatred, and oppression against gays and lesbians, and reduce the levels of ridicule that their children receive from fellow students.

Dr. Anne-Marie Ambert comments that: "Lesbigays who have children often create a network of fictive kin or 'chosen' family (friends, former partners, and willing relatives) for social and emotional support as well as to offer their children suitable adult role models of the other sex. This support network may be entirely gay but generally represents a mixture." This arrangement gives children many additional role models in their life, that children in families led by opposite-sex couples may not have.

Some of the plaintiffs in the case experienced harm to themselves or their children because they lacked the protection of a civil marriage. "For example, Hillary and Julie Goodridge alleged that, when Julie gave birth to their daughter (whom Hillary subsequently coadopted) during a delivery that required the infant's transfer to neonatal intensive care, Hillary 'had difficulty gaining access to Julie and their newborn daughter at the hospital'; Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell alleged that 'Gary pays for a family health insurance policy at work which covers only him and their daughter because Massachusetts law does not consider Rich to be a 'dependent.' This means that their household must purchase a separate individual policy of health insurance for Rich at considerable expense.... Gary has a pension plan at work, but under state law, because he is a municipal employee, that plan does not allow him the same range of options in providing for his beneficiary that a married spouse has and thus he cannot provide the same security to his family that a married person could if he should predecease Rich." These and similar problems will not recur, as the plaintiffs are now married. 5



Possible negative effects of SSM on the children:

Many religious and social conservatives disagree completely with professional mental health organizations and believe that homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural, chosen and changeable. Most disapprove of equal rights for gays and lesbians, including the right to marry the individual that they love. Many believe that homosexual behavior is hated by God. If these beliefs are true, then one might argue:

Children raised in families led by same-sex parents would be continually exposed to homosexuality. They may choose to become gay or lesbian at a higher rate than those raised by a father and mother.
Men and women have very different personalities, brain structure, talents, etc. They are designed to fit into very different roles within the family. In order for children to be properly socialized, they need to be brought up by both a father and a mother. The long range effects on children who are brought up by two women or two men are unknown and can only be speculated upon.
God may punish same-sex parents. This might adversely affect the children in their family.
God may also punish the nation as a whole if SSM is legalized. That would harm all children in the nation.
Children of same-sex couples will be exposed to a great deal of ridicule and hatred by their fellow students. This could negatively affect their development.
Past changes in the family law have had unexpected adverse effects on society. "Legislative actions taken in the 1950's and 1960's in areas as widely arrayed as domestic relations law and welfare legislation have had significant unintended adverse consequences in subsequent decades including the dramatic increase in children born out of wedlock, and the destabilization of the institution of marriage." 6 No-fault divorce has been credited by some as causing a drastic increase in marital breakdown and subsequent divorce. In a similar manner, legislative change which legalilzes SSM might have drastic, long-term, negative results to society that are not currently anticipated.
The desire to marry and settle down with a companion for life is very strong in some adults. So is the desire to have children. If we do not allow SSM, then at least some homosexuals may well be motivated to marry a person of the opposite sex, to leave the homosexual lifestyle, and to become an ex-gay or ex-lesbian.
Same-sex marriage would weaken the institution of marriage by creating a counterfeit version of marriage. This will harm the entire population, including children.
Some studies show that the incidence of violence between same-sex couples is higher than that between opposite-sex couples. This may also be true of same-sex couples in loving, committed relationships. If so, then children are bound to be harmed by the presence of violence in the home.
The availability of SSM may encourage more adults to divorce their opposite-sex spouse and marry a person of the same sex. Divorce is known to have at least a temporary negative effect on children. So they would be harmed by their parents' divorce.

 

Conclusions:

No definite conclusions can be drawn as of 2004-OCT because of the lack of reliable, longitudinal data based on well designed studies. However, it appears as if the advantages or disadvantages, for those children who live in families led by same-sex couples, are relatively minor. Otherwise one would expect that major and consistent results would emerge from the existing published studies, in spite of their deficiencies.

Hopefully, properly designed, long-term studies will eventually be made, and an accurate measure of effects on children of being raised by same-sex couples will be found -- whether those effects are positive or negative. However, that will still leave unanswered questions, such as whether the effects are intrinsic to the sexual orientation of the child's parent(s), or whether they are induced by the atmosphere of hatred, discrimination, and oppression that these families must live with.

The question remains open whether denial of marriage to same-sex couples and their children is warranted in order to prevent any disadvantage to their children which may be uncovered in the future. Maintaining the status quo is guaranteed to harm some children by depriving them of government support, health care, various protections, etc.

 

Huck, I am shocked that you would use NARTH as support.

The Facts About "Ex-Gays" About 30 years ago, the religious right launched a campaign to convince the public that gay people could be "cured" by science and magically become heterosexual. Their thinking was that if they could prove that gay people can change, then there would be no reason to have laws protecting the civil rights of gay people. The problem? The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all say that this talk of science curing "exgays" is all bunk. What's really going on here is that the folks preaching the ex-gay gospel say they're motivated by science, but they're really motivated because they simply don't like gay people. They're religious fanatics who think all gays are going to hell, or they're political activists who think all gays are pedophiles who don't deserve a fair shake at the American dream. Either way, they're simply using false science to justify their prejudice. In America, the "ex-gay" proponents have every right to hate gay people. But they don't have the right to claim they're speaking in the name of science when they're simply trying to force other Americans to live under their own "religiously correct" view of the world. THEIR SCIENCE IS BOGUS 1. The only study the ex-gay proponents use to back their argument was taken out of context. Anti-gay activists can cite only one study (by Dr. Robert Spitzer) to support their contention that gays cans become straight. The problem is that the author of that study has come out and said that the ex-gay proponents misinterpreted his work: "I anticipated some misuse of the study results but I did not anticipate that some of the media would say such ridiculous things as that the study raised the issue of homosexuality and choice. Of course no one chooses to be homosexual and no one chooses to be heterosexual. I did anticipate, and in my presentation warn, that it would be a mistake to interpret the study as implying that any highly motivated homosexual could change if they really were motivated to do so. I suspect that the vast majority of gay people - even if they wanted to - would be unable to make the substantial changes in sexual attraction and fantasy and enjoyment of heterosexual functioning that many of my subjects reported. I also warned against the study results being used to justify pressuring gay people to enter therapy when they had no interest in doing so and I have already heard of many incidents where that has happened. That is what troubles me the most about this controversy." - Dr. Robert Spitzer, May 16, 2001 2. The ex-gay proponents think being gay is a "pathology" and a "disorder" when all the leading medical associations say this simply isn't the case (see extensive quotes at the bottom of this page). "[the] homosexual inclination is developmentally disordered and more highly associated with pathology." - NARTH, the lead ex-gay "science" organization. http://www.narth.com/docs/catholicbishops.html 3. All the ex-gay "poster children" have failed - John Paulk, the current ex-gay leader who was featured on the cover of Newsweek, was subsequently caught in a gay bar in Washington, DC at 11PM on a weeknight. Paulk first lied about why he was there, then later admitted that this wasn't his first visit to a gay bar. - Wade Richards, the former ex-gay teen leader, last year came out and said that he was not "cured" of his homosexuality and that the ex-gay movement is a bunch of bunk. - The two men who founded the ex-gay movement in the early 1970s subsequently quit the movement, and married each other.

 

4. Speaking of children, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the scientific leader of the exgay proponents, has reportedly treated children as young as 3 years of age. And this, we're to believe, is science? NEWSWEEK, August 17, 1998 Can Gays Convert? By John Leland and Mark Miller "Nicolosi's patients, most controversially, can be as young as 3 years old. Like Exodus, he trumpets his success rates, but has done no long-term follow-up study. 'I don't have time,' he says." 5. This isn't about science, it's about anti-gay politics The "ex-gays" are anti-gay political activists hiding behind the shroud of science. And while they have the right to push their own anti-gay political agenda, it would certainly be more honest of them to come out and admit what they're really up to. For example, their web site contains action kits for organizing high school students against gay rights, papers supporting the ban on gay scouts, fact sheets opposing gay marriage and gay adoption, reference information about why private businesses should not provide domestic partner benefits to their gay employees, why gay sex is unhealthy and why companies shouldn't have non-discrimination policies protecting gays. For example, check out the following political materials found on the Web site of the lead "ex-gay" organization that purports to be about science and not politics. tolerance of gays in schools: activists guide: "this handbook is filled with useful suggestions for all parents on how to limit the scope of homosexual activism in public education, while restoring a family-friendly climate for schoolchildren." http://www.narth.com/docs/takeback.html gay adoption http://www.narth.com/docs/endorse.html gay marriage http://www.narth.com/docs/marco.html gay parenting http://www.narth.com/docs/lernernagai.html gays and pedophilia http://www.narth.com/docs/moreonped.html gay civil rights http://www.narth.com/docs/dilemma.html gays and the Boy Scouts http://www.narth.com/docs/teensama.html gays and workplace discrimination http://www.narth.com/docs/employers.html
6. When you read Dr. Nicolosi's quotes (the president of the lead "ex-gay" scientific organization), it's clear that he is hardly an objective unbiased scientist. Dr. Nicolosi made these statements at the "Love Won Out" conference in Decatur, Georgia on October 13, 2001. (I have the entire conference on tape these quotes are verbatim): "Homosexual men are twice as more likely to sexually molest than the heterosexual man. And then letÕs think about it for a moment, letÕs look at this heterosexual man who sexually molests a homosexual boy. How do you define homosexual or heterosexual? Is he a homosexual or is he heterosexual. Well he might be married, but so what donÕt gays themselves say Òwe are everywhere.Ó? Is he homosexual or is he heterosexual? One of the best ways to define a personÕs identity is by his behavior and let me get this straight, youÕre having sex with a boy, hmmm, two penises, now is that homosexual or heterosexual, this is how absurd it becomes. I said the word penis, theyÕll have to edit that out." "There is no such thing as a homosexual. Homosexual is a description of a condition, itÕs not a description of the person. We are all heterosexual, some heterosexuals have a homosexual problem." "A homosexual is a person who because of certain events in his past has lost touch with his authentic heterosexual nature. ItÕs based upon a sense of inferiority about oneÕs sense of gender." "If there is an older brother, itÕs a fear-hostile relationship with the older brother, I have never seen an exception to that. I have never seen a man with a homosexual problem speak with admiration and pride and love of his older brother." "The gay identify offers breaking out of this good little boy mode, and thatÕs why being gay is being bad, this idea of the sexual outlaw, thereÕs something exciting about that. They become bad boys. If you ever take a look at a gay bar, itÕs wild, itÕs outrageous, itÕs like big boys being bad little boys." "We see exhibitionism in adulthood with gays." "So much of the gay agenda is selling the idea that two men or two women are capable of maintaining the kind of life the kind of relationship that is equivalent to heterosexuality. Not true."

 

7. To illustrate just how wacky the "science" is that's backing the ex-gay proponents, these are a few of the things that they say causes people to turn out gay: Masturbation Pornography Spousal abuse in the home Effects of the media/culture Parental adultery Moral relativism Seduction by peers Nearsightedness Hearing loss Chemical imbalances Parents parading nude around the house Poor hand-eye coordination Generational curse Intrauterine trauma - "If the mother was experiencing difficulty in her relationships with her husband while carrying the child or if she felt rejected, unloved, or unwanted by him or she experienced any other painful feelings during pregnancy." 8. And these are a few of the ways the ex-gay experts "cure" gay people and make them heterosexual:Men should play sports Men practice going fishing, women practice putting on make-up Men are taught to sit the right way, no crossed legs Men are taught not to stand with their hand on their hip Take away a man's Calvin Klein clothes and Barbra Streisand records Men should avoid extreme sarcastic behavior Men should wear short business-like haircuts Show a gay man photos of nude men while placing rotted hamburger meat under his nose - he will then associated repulsion with same-sex attraction The laying of hands on a gay man in front of the assembled church congregation Reading a specific prayer over your gay child to list his "generational curse" Forcibly abduct gay teens in their sleep, handcuff them, and send them to military boot camps where they are forced to march 20 miles a day with weights on their backs (this is a true, and horrible, story).

 

9. Finally, this is what the real scientific experts say, dispelling the myth that science can "cure" a gay person and make them heterosexual: AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION á "The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone "reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed ... the APA opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation. á "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation. It is not described in the scientific literature, nor is it mentioned in the APA's latest comprehensive Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders (1989). á "Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so." AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION á "Even though homosexual orientation is not a mental illness and there is no scientific reason to attempt conversion of lesbians or gays to heterosexual orientation, some individuals may seek to change their sexual orientation or that of another individual (for example, parents seeking therapy for their child). Some therapists who undertake this kind of therapy report that they have changed their clients' sexual orientation (from homosexual to heterosexual) in treatment. Close scrutiny of their reports indicates several factors that cast doubt: Many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective on sexual orientation, rather than from mental health researchers; the treatments and their outcomes are poorly documented; and the length of time that clients are followed up on after treatment is too short. á "In 1990, the American Psychological Association stated that scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy works and that it can do more harm than good. Changing one's sexual orientation is not simply a matter of changing one's sexual behavior. It would require altering one's emotional, romantic and sexual feelings and restructuring one's self-concept and social identity. AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION á "Most of the emotional disturbance experienced by gay men and lesbians around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes but rather is due more to a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment. For this reason, aversion therapy (a behavioral or medical intervention which pairs unwanted behavior, in this case, homosexual behavior, with unpleasant sensations or aversive consequences) is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians. Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become comfortable with their sexual orientation and understand the societal response to it." AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS á "The psychosocial problems of gay and lesbian adolescents are primarily the result of societal stigma, hostility, hatred and isolation. The gravity of these stresses is underscored by current data that document that gay youths account for up to 30 percent of all completed adolescent suicides. Approximately 30 percent of a surveyed group of gay and bisexual males have attempted suicide at least once. Adolescents struggling with issues of sexual preference should be reassured that they will gradually form their own identity and that there is no need for premature labeling of one's sexual orientation."

 

Sorry for the long posts, but if you want to have a meaningful, intelligent discussion, you will have to do better than NARTH. . .

 

"We the people"

End of discussion.