Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by KLPDaisy

I'm pretty sure that fertility treatments are covered by the couple, not by health insurance because they aren't viewed as a medically necessary expense.

Okay, so take out fertility treatments.

ETA: Shinerbock, what is your point? I really don't understand. Are you just informing us that you're not aware of the ins-and-outs (hee) of gay sex, or are you trying to say something?

[shinerbock]

valk, no yall have kept this conversation up. I mentioned it a while back about corporate concerns over insuring partners. It came from there I suppose. Then it became a discussion on whether gay people were more prone to certain types of injury, which I imagine they are, but I don't know for sure.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Kd, I think you're still missing my point. Say a person has an attraction to children, but doesn't act in any way to harm them. He has no desire to take advantage of them without their consent, but merely desires young people. Does he still have a mental disorder? If an abnormal attraction, regardless of actions that result because of it, are mental disorders, could homosexuality not be put beneath the same banner? It is not the normal attraction experienced by the majority of people, just as most people don't have any attraction toward children.

Regarding the injury question again, of course it is possible for straight couples as well. Straight sex clumsiness can also cause injury. However, I think such injury could be more likely in gay relationships (I guess, I'm no expert on how these things work), and I think things like infections could pose a problem that straight couples may not experience through clumsiness...(I understand that straight couples get infections from things as well, but people who engage in what I was previously referring to have a entirely different set of health issues to deal with).

Technically speaking sexual deviancies are not considered to be disorders ( by psychologists and psychiatrist standards) until the harm another or interfere with your daily life.

Have a foot fetish? No big deal, as long as you can function at work and such without lunging at shoes, and as long as you aren't mugging people for their shoes.

Same concept goes for other things.

[SOPi_Jawbreaker]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Well, I think I'll make the choice not to do further research. I've always heard that being that area is so sensitive to infection, things can often occur, but seeing as the issue grosses me out some, I'll let it go.

I haven't really researched this either, but I would venture a guess that most sexual injuries occur when people use items not intended for sexual use....like using unclean phallic-shaped vegetables or using a vacuum-cleaner suction hose during masturbation.

[shinerbock]

Thanks, that is a helpful answer. I think there is more to be determined about this issue, and I imagine it will come with time.

[SOPi_Jawbreaker]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Technically speaking sexual deviancies are not considered to be disorders ( by psychologists and psychiatrist standards) until the harm another or interfere with your daily life.

Have a foot fetish? No big deal, as long as you can function at work and such without lunging at shoes, and as long as you aren't mugging people for their shoes.

Same concept goes for other things.

Just adding on to this, fetishes and other sexual deviancies are not considered to be a problem as long as you can still function sexually without the object of your fantasy and as long as you can maintain safe, healthy relationships with family, friends, and significant other.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SOPi_Jawbreaker

Just adding on to this, fetishes and other sexual deviancies are not considered to be a problem as long as you can still function sexually without the object of your fantasy and as long as you can maintain safe, healthy relationships with family, friends, and significant other.

Yeah, although if you're happy with being so obsessed with shoes that you can't function without it, no one's gonna stop you...

[SydneyK]

Ok, as to the mental disorder thing, to compare homosexuality to child molestation is a flawed comparison. But, just for fun, let's look at what it would mean if homosexuality were indeed a mental disorder. (Disclaimer: I do not believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder, but am making an argument in an attempt to answer shinerbock's question.)

First, one could safely assume that, if homosexuality is a mental disorder, it is not something that is chosen. Someone is born with a propensity to be homosexual or not. It seems a bit out of place for the government to say that people who suffer from something (not harmful to others) that is beyond their control should be restricted from certain activities, including marriage. If there's an example that contradicts this, please share it with me... I truly couldn't think of one (but of course, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist).

Second, there are mental disorders which are more detrimental to society than homosexuality. For instance, one could argue that alcoholism is a mental disorder. The government has no restrictions on alcoholics marrying other alcoholics. And, in my opinion, I'd rather the government ban that kind of relationship (for the sake of potential future children) than homosexual relationships. After all, the well-being of a future generation is at stake when alcoholics marry, whereas there is no concern for a future generation (biologically speaking) when homosexuals marry.

Looking at the two points above, it seems clear to me that, even if homosexuality is a mental disorder, it doesn't make sense for the government to ban marriages involing homosexuals. I can understand why the government protects children from people like Michael Jackson (sorry, had to say it); that's the government's responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. But, in the case of homosexual marriage, neither partner is in need of governmental protection.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by kddani

That's funny, because my post didn't say that my point was specific to THIS THREAD only, so your point isn't all that relevant or necessary.

In that case, perhaps your comment was misplaced as well.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is true or that even if it were gay people should be punished or treated like child molestors. I think we all agree that child molestors generally have an attraction to abnormally young people and this is unnatural. According to them, and the medical community I believe, they can't help it. So what then, would we say to people who claim that like people attracted to children, people attracted to the same sex also have a mental disorder. Is the fact that child molestors hurt the innocent, or those who can't make wise decisions, the reasoning for it being a disorder? Or is it that they are attracted to abnormally young people? What if someone had feelings of attraction towards children, but resisted it, is that still a disorder? If so, how would you respond to those who believe being gay is a mental "disorder"? If they are both innate things they cannot choose, what makes a normal but semi-rare attraction, while the other is a mental disorder?

I think you are having a little trouble getting over the concept of a learned/developed sexual preference (say attraction to children) and a genetic pre-disposition towards a sexual preference (homosexuality/bisexuality).

Now you'd be hard pressed to present cases of sexual attraction to children manifesting itself before an individual's sexual maturity... whereas the opposite is true for homosexuality or bisexuality; as there are many cases and studies dating back well over 50 years and throughout the historic record for that matter.

[shinerbock]

I don't think anyone, including myself, was arguing that homosexuality, whether a mental disorder or not, should preclude them from marriage. Again, I think they should be precluded from it because they are not members of the opposite sex. However, I think we've moved beyond this debate. I do agree with you that if it were to be a mental disorder, it would obviously not be chosen. The reason I brought up the mental disorder issue is because many Christians, myself included, struggle to understand homosexuality in terms of our faith. For example, if homosexuality is a sin(which I believe it is) how could it be innate? Why would God create people who are predisposed to a particular sin? However, I heard someone bring up the idea that perhaps it is a mental disorder or abnormality (such as being attracted to children, etc) and that it is a sin only if you act upon it. I'm not sure how I feel about this idea, but for Christians, it is somewhat better than other explanations I've heard.

[sdsuchelle]

Okay back to what I said earlier -- shinerbock -- let's say that you have a child who turns out to be gay. He really wants to marry his same-sex partner and asks why you don't think he should be able to. What do you tell him?

I think everyone needs to realize that homosexuals are human beings like everybody else, with feelings and the desire to find love. It seems very mean and discriminatory to not allow them to be married.

[RACooper]

Okay for the sake of speeding some of the arguing points along why don't I re-hash some of the arguements used up here in Canada:

"Marriage is meant for pro-creation"
- well if that were the case as enforced by law, then the infertile should be prohibited from marrying... but since they aren't, and if they were it would be considered gross discrimination, then this arguement proves invalid in the case of same-sex marriage.

"Marriage is about the raising of children and the development of the family"
- Homosexuality does not some how render someone unable to love and care for children; as for the arguements on how it would affect the family unit/life... well lets just say that if two loving adults can provide a positive homelife and family enviroment, more power to them in this day and age.

"The Bible prohbits same-sex marriage"
- the Bible is not the law, nor is even the basis of the majority of laws... seperation of church and state and all that (although ironically in Canada this doesn't apply) prohibits the dictation of laws by one theological body or source.

"Same-Sex Marriage will destory the social fabric of the nation, and demean the value of marriage"
- well it's been allowed up here in Canada for a number of years... and neither has come to pass - in fact the divorce rate for same-sex couples is muuuuuuch less than that of "traditional" marriages over the same time period.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

For example, if homosexuality is a sin(which I believe it is) how could it be innate? Why would God create people who are predisposed to a particular sin?

According to the Bible (since you are Christian, this argument should hold some weight), we are ALL sinners. Every human being, after Adam and Eve (again, according to the Bible), is predisposed to sin. Some people commit the same sin over and over again. Some people don't. If God didn't want sinners in the world, he wouldn't have given human beings free will (assuming he did). Or, he simply wouldn't have created them in the first place.

Even if homosexuality isn't innate, and even if God forbids it, it still doesn't make it appropriate for any government to say that people of the same sex cannot have the legal right to governmental benefits allowed to people of the opposite sex.

[shinerbock]

You're absolutely right, we are all sinners. But just as I am against school sex ed that doesn't promote abstinance, I would be against using the institution of marriage to unite two homosexuals. For some reason people think that being opposed to gay marriage is meant as some punishment for being homosexual. Rather, it is to promote and keep the sanctity of marriage. I'm sure there are people against gay marriage solely because they don't like gays, just as I imagine there are people promoting gay marriage solely to piss off Christians and Republicans. People on both sides must understand it is the far right and far left driving this debate, just as with other controversial debates like gun control and flag burning. The average American probably doesn't care if gays recieve the same benefits, but when you put their relationship on the same level as the one they had that day in ______ Church, they start to shy away. People value marriage as what it is, a traditional and often holy unification of a man a woman. However, I'm gonna duck out of this particular part of this debate, because we've killed it. If you have specific questions, I'd love to answer them from my point of view, but I know you think it is disciminatory, and I think it is as well, but with good reason to be. Civil unions I could live with, I don't know that I would vote for it if given the chance, I still have reservations, but it would preserve the traditional concept of marriage.