HOME | DD

Jathara In reply to amanda2324 [2013-01-09 08:22:04 +0000 UTC]

Why not? For religious reasons, marriage is what I desire - not be in a civil partnership, etc - but I am sexually repulsed by men. I do not have the same rights as my brother. He can marry a woman and I cannot. As I am physically unable to become attracted to a man, it wouldn't make any sense for me to marry one - especially since marriage is sanctimonious to me. I no more decided to be a lesbian than you decided to be a heterosexual, and I really do sometimes with I was a heterosexual. If I want children, I'm going to either have to go through relatively invasive procedures or adopt. As I deeply, deeply want to have children, that's distressing.

Marriage is a socially-supported sanctimonious union for the purpose of making a relationship true in the eyes of God. It is also about child-rearing, and I do intend to raise children - even if I never do find God's partner for me, and I have to raise a child alone (although in such a situation I would not attempt to raise multiple children).

I'm generally a pretty polite person, if you'd be willing to discuss this with me?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

amanda2324 In reply to Jathara [2013-01-13 22:37:45 +0000 UTC]

"He can marry a woman and I cannot."

He can marry any unrelated consenting adult of the opposite sex, just as you can, so yes, your rights are the same.

" As I am physically unable to become attracted to a man, it wouldn't make any sense for me to marry one"

False. There are homosexuals currently in opposite-sex relationships and marriages and doing quite well. It does make sense that opposite-sex couples would be supported by the government, since it's solely due to opposite-sex couples that anyone exists at all, and that we will continue to exist, even if/when our advanced technological devices fail and we're no longer able to mess with the natural processes. There is no good, valid, logical reason to support same-sex couples in the same way that we do opposite-sex couples, since they are fundamentally different. One is fundamental to the existence of the human race in general, and society more specifically, while the other is not.

"Marriage is a socially-supported sanctimonious union for the purpose of making a relationship true in the eyes of God."

False - God will view a marriage as one regardless of whether or not a government, union, church, or society views it as one. God wouldn't allow man to limit Him in that way. Further, if you're speaking about the Christian God, you're very much incorrect in believing that He would support such unions as a marriage.

"It is also about child-rearing, and I do intend to raise children - even if I never do find God's partner for me, and I have to raise a child alone (although in such a situation I would not attempt to raise multiple children)."

It's not simply about child-rearing, but child-bearing as well as child-rearing. It's been proven that children do best when raised by their biological parents whenever possible, and the government should only be interested in promoting what is best for the children.

"I'm generally a pretty polite person, if you'd be willing to discuss this with me?"

I'm not really in the mood for any more debates, but I think I'll go ahead and give this one a go.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Jathara In reply to amanda2324 [2013-01-15 05:31:32 +0000 UTC]

No, because a man is not the same as a woman. There is a fundamental difference between men and women, so the right to marry a woman is entirely different from marrying a man, to either gender. That's sort of an unnecessary thing to discuss, though, in retrospect; since we clearly see equality in a different way, it's perhaps not the best thing to try to discuss, and I apologize for bringing it up - it's an argument rooted in semantics, after all, so it's pretty subjective, and going in circles about semantics is not really practical.

Studies have shown that for the most individuals who attempt to engage in relations and become interested in members of a sex they are not attracted to are more prone to depression and suicide and that a lessening in same-sex attraction does not occur for the vast majority of individuals, even those attending what would be considered reputable SOCE groups - the infamous "Wounded Children" Chick tract was pulled because the so-called "ex-gay" who assisted in its writing killed himself. The American Psychological Association did a review of available peer-reviewed material (available here: [link] ) and "concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates." 83 studies were involved, most of which were found to fail to meet full standards (a lack of background control and a lack of control groups, among other things). A few notes from which I've pulled information I've cited here:
• "Our systematic review of the early research found that enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation was unlikely."
--"[W]hat appears to shift and evolve in some individuals’ lives is sexual orientation identity, not sexual orientation...Compelling evidence of decreased
same-sex sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare."
--Those few who did establish heterosexual relationships successfully were significantly more likely to have had previous heterosexual relationships before beginning therapy, which seems to imply that most of them were likely initially bisexual to some extent.
• "[S]tudies documented iatrogenic effects of aversive forms of SOCE. These negative side effects included loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality, and anxiety. High drop rates characterized early aversive treatment studies and may be an indicator that research participants experienced these treatments as harmful."
• "Studies indicate that experiences of felt stigma—such as self-stigma, shame, isolation and rejection from relationships and valued communities, lack of emotional support and accurate information, and conflicts between multiple identities and between values and attractions—played a role in creating distress in individuals. Many religious individuals’ desired to live their lives in a manner consistent with their values (telic congruence); however, telic congruence based on stigma and shame is unlikely to result in psychological well-being."

Studies have actually showed that having a certain percentage of nonbreeding unions, be they homosexual or infertile, in a society increases its prosperousness by increasing the amount of resources available to other individuals. Homosexuality mainly exists for that reason - studies link female fecundity to male homosexuality. Much like hyenas, where some males choose not to reproduce and instead assist in raising relative's children, increasing the success of their entire clan and as a result spreading their bloodline indirectly (a behavior well documented by Dr. Mills, a leading expert in brown and spotted hyenas), it exists more as a group trait. Constant reproduction is actually detrimental in the long term - there is a reason that Bushmen coming-of-age rituals involved male genital mutilation that severely limited reproductive ability.

I worship in some sense the Christian God, but some of my beliefs would be considered unconventional - they are informed more by a vision I had than anything, which supported my current feelings; I decided to seek the local church to find an explanation for what I witnessed. I'd rather not have my beliefs questioned in these regards. Although I don't believe that the social order limits Him, and a marriage in a Church means the most to me even if it lacks legal standing, the ability to have a slip of paper that says I have a marriage is honestly still very appealing to me - it is relevant to my beliefs, even if it is not necessary to them.

I'm curious - and I know this is frequently considered a silly argument, but everyone dismisses it without explaining it, which frustrates me because I can't come up with something better if no one tells me what's wrong, so what I really want you to do is pick it apart even if it does seem obvious - if marriage is for the purpose of child-bearing why are those who do not intend to bear children and are heterosexual allowed to marry (or those who are infertile, although couples may not be aware of that at the time of marriage - in those cases, since they are not fulfilling the purpose of their marriage, should their benefits be revoked?) If it's about government support for the child-bearing, why not simply give a child-bearing tax credit?

Studies actually show adopted children adopted at a young age (the study was on those adopted before the age of two) do better than biological children on a large scale (check this out: [link] ) on average, and that when background is a control (the base statistics, which give much higher results for adopted children, are not adjusted for biological children on average living in poorer conditions; the study discusses that - it's a good read), success is "not significantly affect[ed]." What you're thinking about, I suspect, are studies about children with step-parents, who frequently do poorly. Furthermore, adopted children do significantly better than fostered ones or ones in orphanages - if the government wants to support the welfare of children, it is exceedingly important to get children out of the foster system, which almost unequivocally results in people doing poorly. The difference between a biological and an adopted child in the same environment is negligible - the difference between a child adopted and a child in foster care is far, far more notable.

Obviously that entirely ignores in vitro fertilization among lesbians, in which case the child has no specific biological father (the biological father is kept anonymous from all parties involved in most cases) and is raised by the biological mother (which appears to be the more meaningful of the two parents: a newborn adopted will not have access to breastmilk, and a newborn is not able to immediately recognize their father in the same way they "imprint" to the mother, to use what is probably the wrong term.) That's a completely different can of worms. It also ignores surrogacy, but I'm going to outright say that I don't know much about that, other than that it's expensive and can serve as a decent way for a woman who doesn't mind having strangers' children (generally through artificial insemination) to make some money on the side if they meet standards.

For reference, my concern about marriage doesn't have to do with taxation - as I feel taxation is a fundamental duty that Americans have to our government in return for the things they do for us, I really don't mind losing out on a tax break, and if an alternative variation of homosexual government recognition not including fiscal benefits was to be proposed, I would be completely joyful with that. There are some rights I'm concerned in, primarily medical ones: the right to be notified if my partner is moved or has their care changed when hospitalized, the right to visit my partner in the hospital, and the right to be involved in medical treatment should my partner be unable to consent. None of those are involved in reproduction or finance. Also, it affects fishing licenses in my home state, and as stupid as that seems, fishing is a great family activity! S:

Thank you! I'll make sure to remain polite - I really believe that debate, online or offline, is a valuable way of learning and developing a viewpoint. You learn a lot more from your differences than your similarities, I think! :3

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

amanda2324 In reply to Jathara [2013-01-15 15:30:39 +0000 UTC]

"No, because a man is not the same as a woman."

And that's exactly why they cannot always be treated the same way. That's why their are male public restrooms, and separate female ones. Male football teams, and female ones. Male softball teams, and female ones. Male basketball teams, and female ones.

"here is a fundamental difference between men and women, so the right to marry a woman is entirely different from marrying a man, to either gender."

Yes, a man marrying a man is useless to society, so they don't need a government recognized marriage. No one does. The government specifically promotes opposite-sex marriage because opposite-sex couples are essential to the survival of our nation. Same-sex couples, however, offer no note-worthy benefit that would warrant them the same treatment.

Marriage is meant to bring the differences of men and women together for the benefit of society. If there were no benefit to society, then the government wouldn't, or shouldn't, support it.

"• "Our systematic review of the early research found that enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation was unlikely."
--"[W]hat appears to shift and evolve in some individuals’ lives is sexual orientation identity, not sexual orientation...Compelling evidence of decreased
same-sex sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare."
--Those few who did establish heterosexual relationships successfully were significantly more likely to have had previous heterosexual relationships before beginning therapy, which seems to imply that most of them were likely initially bisexual to some extent."

First, thanks for the summary. No way could I have read all of that to make a good reply...

"• "Our systematic review of the early research found that enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation was unlikely.""

Unlikely, but not impossible. If it's possible, that means that there -is- a way. For example, a man who once was exclusively heterosexual became exclusively homosexual after an accident. He was a rugby player, and the typical down-and-dirty kind of guy, but after the accident, he became almost the stereotypical homosexual male. So, if a freak accident can cause a change in sexual orientation and identity in general, then one day our technology can do so as well.

"--"[W]hat appears to shift and evolve in some individuals’ lives is sexual orientation identity, not sexual orientation...Compelling evidence of decreased
same-sex sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare.""

I'm not sure I understand what they're saying here.

"--Those few who did establish heterosexual relationships successfully were significantly more likely to have had previous heterosexual relationships before beginning therapy, which seems to imply that most of them were likely initially bisexual to some extent.""

First, they make the assumption that the people were initially bisexual to "some extent," which is, if I may be blunt, a very ignorant assumption to make. The individuals could've been bi-curious, but still exclusively homosexual. Or exclusively homosexual, but wished to change their sexual orientation on their own and thought that dating a person of the opposite sex would help to change that. I personally knew a homosexual man who tried that, but it didn't work out.

"• "[S]tudies documented iatrogenic effects of aversive forms of SOCE. These negative side effects included loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality, and anxiety. High drop rates characterized early aversive treatment studies and may be an indicator that research participants experienced these treatments as harmful.""

As SOCE techniques are still rather new, it's understandable why it'd be flawed. However, important things to note: were those things -caused- by the therapy, or was it caused by something else? Like for when the therapy didn't work, and especially for when they decided to lie that the therapy worked, when in reality, it didn't. I know of a homosexual individual who wanted to kill himself because people refused to allow him to even try to change, and he said he might commit suicide if he couldn't change.

"• "Studies indicate that experiences of felt stigma—such as self-stigma, shame, isolation and rejection from relationships and valued communities, lack of emotional support and accurate information, and conflicts between multiple identities and between values and attractions—played a role in creating distress in individuals. Many religious individuals’ desired to live their lives in a manner consistent with their values (telic congruence); however, telic congruence based on stigma and shame is unlikely to result in psychological well-being.""

So this proves my point; something completely outside of the therapy is supposedly the cause of the so called "negative side-effects."

Though, as a note, these side-effects can only be said to be a correlation with the therapy or even the social stigma and so forth that they mentioned (though I wouldn't doubt for an instant that this has a lot to do with it), not cause-and-effect. I'm going to assume you don't know the differences between correlation studies and causation ones, and explain it in as summarized a way as possible.

Since the scientists are unable to control the variables of social stigma, as in unable to "assign" who gets to be socially stigmatized and who does not, they can only say that the things are -correlated-. If, however, they somehow are able to control those variables, which group does receive social stigma and which one doesn't, only then would it be a cause-and-effect study. Since this was not a cause-and-effect study, they cannot correctly say that one thing causes the other.

"Studies have actually showed that having a certain percentage of nonbreeding unions, be they homosexual or infertile, in a society increases its prosperousness by increasing the amount of resources available to other individuals. Homosexuality mainly exists for that reason - studies link female fecundity to male homosexuality. Much like hyenas, where some males choose not to reproduce and instead assist in raising relative's children, increasing the success of their entire clan and as a result spreading their bloodline indirectly (a behavior well documented by Dr. Mills, a leading expert in brown and spotted hyenas), it exists more as a group trait. Constant reproduction is actually detrimental in the long term - there is a reason that Bushmen coming-of-age rituals involved male genital mutilation that severely limited reproductive ability."

I'd like to see the studies you've mentioned. However, single people would be just as valuable in assisting to raise children and produce the resources that you've mentioned. Actually, they'd be even more useful, because then they don't have a significant other to devote a decent fraction of their time to. But none of what you mentioned supports the idea that the government has any good, logical reason for granting same-sex marriages, as it will make no difference if a homosexual is married or not as to whether or not they are particularly productive in society. Furthermore, with abortion on the rise (especially in the black communities. And I say black, not African-American, because most of the blacks in America are not also citizens of Africa, and some don't even have any ancestors from Africa, but rather, from Jamaica, so it makes little sense to give them that label in my mind. But that's another issue), more people prolonging marriage until their late twenties, or thirties, sometimes even forties, etc., is already limiting children being produced. Moreover, I've talked to people who are my own age, or younger, especially the females, and they plan to make it so that they are unable to naturally have kids, and they will either never have kids, or they will adopt.

So your point doesn't promote the idea of same-sex marriages, but rather, of single-hood, and promoting families helping each other out. My Psychology teacher has a sister who is a homosexual, and she (the sister) spoils my instructors children rotten all the time. But she's been single most of her life. Sexual orientation doesn't have the bearing on whether an individual is productive or helpful in raising the children of relatives, but rather, a lack of children, and sometimes a lack of a spouse, in their own household. It would also help if families lived closer together, rather than being spread out all over the place.

"I worship in some sense the Christian God, but some of my beliefs would be considered unconventional - they are informed more by a vision I had than anything, which supported my current feelings; I decided to seek the local church to find an explanation for what I witnessed. I'd rather not have my beliefs questioned in these regards. Although I don't believe that the social order limits Him, and a marriage in a Church means the most to me even if it lacks legal standing, the ability to have a slip of paper that says I have a marriage is honestly still very appealing to me - it is relevant to my beliefs, even if it is not necessary to them."

But then you take that up with a religious denomination, not the government. The government is not required to fulfill your personal or religious desires. You can make your own paper that says that you're married if you'd like. Because to find a legal paper, from the government, that says that your married quite appealing suggests that you're only looking for an acceptance or other declaration that your marriage is "real." But I would strongly disagree that you should need a piece of paper telling you that your marriage is legitimate to feel or accept that, to you, it is.

"if marriage is for the purpose of child-bearing why are those who do not intend to bear children and are heterosexual allowed to marry (or those who are infertile, although couples may not be aware of that at the time of marriage - in those cases, since they are not fulfilling the purpose of their marriage, should their benefits be revoked?) If it's about government support for the child-bearing, why not simply give a child-bearing tax credit?"

It's not just child-bearing, but also child-rearing.

Here's an analogy:

There is a baseball team. Every baseball team needs three outfielders, three basemen, one at short-stop, one pitcher, and a catcher. All players need hats, gloves, and the catcher needs their equipment. All individuals need bats for when it's their turn to be up to bat. And they all need uniforms. As we all know, the point of an existing baseball team is to win games (or else they lose money from sponsors and the like).

An opposite-sex couple, capable of bearing children, is like the baseball team who occasionally wins games and otherwise does well. They have all of the required equipment and so on, so there's no problems.

An infertile opposite-sex couple represents the baseball team who also meets all of the requirements of equipment and players. Some of these teams do win (through adoption), though their "wins" are more difficult in achieving than the baseball team mentioned above.

An elderly opposite-sex couple is the same as the one above, the participants are simply older (and I would not ever recommend that they adopt, because then the poor children will soon be left without them anyway).

A same-sex couple, however, has either all outfielders or all in-fielders, but never both. They either have bats, or gloves, but never both. Where they are allowed to play, they never, ever win, because they are incapable. Any games the do win are games that they -claimed- to win, but in reality, didn't, or otherwise cheated (because you can't win a baseball game without the necessary equipment, so any wins achieved without said necessary equipment had to have been "cheated" on or "bought" in order to obtain). But most serious baseball leagues would never accept such a "team" as a legitimate baseball team, and sponsors would rightly not support them.

It seems that your focus is on the government benefits of marriage if you're asking about the child-bearing tax. Part one is getting the couple together; the couple -need- to be married first and foremost. The government promotes this, to entice people enough to enter into the unions in the first place. Then the procreation can take place. The idea is that the men and women are supposed to get married and THEN have children, not the nonsense where women decide to have sex outside of marriage and end up pregnant. That creates all sort of problems. For the women who got pregnant due to rape, I feel for them; but I have trouble obtaining any sympathy for the girls and women who do it. But that's another topic entirely.

I hope that answers your question well enough. I'm starting to get a little lazy/rushed in my reply, as I have to be leaving in like an hour and I have other things to do (but I really want to finish this reply, so, yeah).

And btw, just as a random insertion of a God moment (I'm sure it was): yesterday, I went around deciding to disable comments on all of my more political deviations, and for some reason, I got the feeling that I shouldn't disable the comments on this one. So I didn't. Now I remember why. lol It's because I told you I'd be willing to discuss this stuff.

"For reference, my concern about marriage doesn't have to do with taxation - as I feel taxation is a fundamental duty that Americans have to our government in return for the things they do for us, I really don't mind losing out on a tax break, and if an alternative variation of homosexual government recognition not including fiscal benefits was to be proposed, I would be completely joyful with that."

I believe same-sex unions, rather than same-sex marriage, is what you're looking for. I know some homosexuals, and have read arguments by homosexuals, who promote same-sex unions, but are against same-sex marriage. Their most common argument being is that marriage was designed for heterosexuals and opposite-sex couples, not for homosexuals and same-sex couples, so they feel it is a great offense to themselves and to society for them to try to fit into an institution that they simply don't fit.

"There are some rights I'm concerned in, primarily medical ones: the right to be notified if my partner is moved or has their care changed when hospitalized, the right to visit my partner in the hospital, and the right to be involved in medical treatment should my partner be unable to consent. None of those are involved in reproduction or finance. Also, it affects fishing licenses in my home state, and as stupid as that seems, fishing is a great family activity! S:"

This tends to be the problems that many same-sex marriage advocates bring up, and they are all very valid points. However, most of those things are available through other means. If they are not, then you are promoting that those specific things be changed, not that marriage be changed. Because, as a person who is pretty sure she'll remain single for life, I'd like a way to assign like a best friend or other non-relative hospital visitation rights, and so on and so forth. I should be able to obtain that.

But... really? It affects fishing licenses? ...interesting. Just... interesting.

"Thank you! I'll make sure to remain polite - I really believe that debate, online or offline, is a valuable way of learning and developing a viewpoint. You learn a lot more from your differences than your similarities, I think! :3"

Agreed. I've been debating this topic for about six years now and have been able to develop my opinion quite thoroughly. It was a huge pain to debate with some people, though, but in retrospect, I'd say it was worth it. Practice makes perfect, and hard work requires sweat, and sometimes blood and tears. Though not all hard work requires sweat... time and energy it does, though... but anyway. Yeah.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Jathara In reply to amanda2324 [2013-01-15 23:51:26 +0000 UTC]

I'm sorry if this reply feels a little rushed: it ended up longer than I expected, so I ran up against my time and didn't spend as much time proofreading as I like to.

“Yes, a man marrying a man is useless to society, so they don't need a government recognized marriage. No one does. The government specifically promotes opposite-sex marriage because opposite-sex couples are essential to the survival of our nation. Same-sex couples, however, offer no note-worthy benefit that would warrant them the same treatment.”
The difficulty in accepting this argument as an argument againsy marriage, however, is that the benefits of marriage go beyond the fiscal – in my state, they also affect the rights of the spouse of a person in a military (they don’t have the right to vote absentee, among others, and in cases where a disabled veteran goes out of work because they are no longer able to, a previously-unemployed spouse gains a hiring preference in certain situations as they now have to care for a new dependent and have lost a breadwinner – this does not apply to homosexuals)*. It affects planning on death (partner doesn’t have right to military restitution, are not required to be helped by life insurance and if they’ve been set up to receive it it’s also quite difficult to remove them if a breakup occurs, and even if they have made plans and have written consent, they can’t receive possessions of little value from the coroner, which may have much greater sentimental value, and they do not have any say on the burial of their partner in the way a spouse does). It also affects hunting permits for those who own land of their own, which would seem oddly specific but again, in my area most families own a slice of forest. It affects insurance, since a company isn’t required to give a partner a joint plan like they are a spouse – more important, since the individual mandate is coming into effect relatively soon. Mostly it’s cases of things that don’t affect government costs, but are mostly social benefits designed around the idea that two people are codependent on each other.
*Honestly, in my opinion, this law should apply to any singly previously-unemployed person who becomes a primarily caregiver for a disabled veteran, because in cases where a spouse isn’t in the picture siblings frequently take on the task – anyone doing that task is doing a service to America.
“First, thanks for the summary. No way could I have read all of that to make a good reply...”
Thanks! I’m still paging through it – I read the most relevant areas first, but I’m going into extemporaneous speaking as an extracurricular, so having lots of random information should probably be helpful anyways. I’ve seen people pull weird things in in the speeches that win, so the more knowledge, the better!

“Unlikely, but not impossible. If it's possible, that means that there -is- a way. For example, a man who once was exclusively heterosexual became exclusively homosexual after an accident. He was a rugby player, and the typical down-and-dirty kind of guy, but after the accident, he became almost the stereotypical homosexual male. So, if a freak accident can cause a change in sexual orientation and identity in general, then one day our technology can do so as well.”
However, it appeared that some people had the propensity to change, and others didn’t – I’ve met people who seem to have kind of a flowing, variable sexuality, and some who specifically date 130-150 pound blonde women with brown eyes, six to eight inches shorter than them who have friendly, carefree personalities and aren’t particularly bright, and trying to date any deviation – even something as small as wrong hair color – leads to relationship crash-and-burn. As they saw certain traits were much more common in those who changed, and some who have constantly attempted to change have failed, it can be assumed that for the most part change is impossible – I personally have made attempts to change, mostly because I’d really like to naturally be able to have children because having kids is very important to me, and the result was the suicidal depression that put me in therapy (and no change).
Severe brain damage has caused much in the way of changes modern medicine can’t replicate – people who develop incredible, unusual skills (some have lost their ability to effectively make causal connections but gained true and real photographic memory; my father attended an event including such a person as a speaker, and when asked to recite the Gettysburg Address, he gave the address of Gettysburg, as in what you would use to send a letter to; afterwards, he recited random pages from phonebooks at the crowd’s requests), people who have been cured of what we think of as incurable, etc. Some of what has occurred has been completely impossible for any modern medicine to knowledge to explain (one Newsweek included an Ivy League doctor who had a set of incredible visions while in a complete vegetative state with his conscious brain non-functional – he has a book, it’s a good read). As studies on the brain structures of homosexuals versus heterosexuals have shown that they’re different (more androgenized, having some structures more similar to the opposite gender, to the extent that in skills that vary between the genders, homosexuals would fall between men and women: I can’t link you this study, as I read it in print during a psychology course at my college a few years back and I gave the textbook away) so much like inoperable mental illnesses and whatever causes those memory disorders, it would make sense that it would be affected by it. Sometimes I think such things happen for a reason.
If such an operation was possible, it would probably be a waste – studies with hormone injections have failed to produce any effects at all, so likely brain surgery would be needed, and the costs would be high enough that it would make more sense to use in vitro fertilization and not waste time; in addition, even in modern days brain surgery can be quite dangerous – for those who desired it, it would be a service they could have access to, but it would present issues even disregarding that since the brain is so horribly complicated, we have yet to garner a real understanding of how it works on a scale beyond “this is consciousness, this is reasoning, this is associated with creativity” and such.

“"--"[W]hat appears to shift and evolve in some individuals’ lives is sexual orientation identity, not sexual orientation...Compelling evidence of decreased
same-sex sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare.""

I'm not sure I understand what they're saying here.”
They’re saying that for the most part, people made claims that they were heterosexual but did not engage in sexual behavior with the other sex, and in many cases, continued to practice homosexuality secretly– the sexuality they identified as was changed, but their actual orientation was not.

“First, they make the assumption that the people were initially bisexual to "some extent," which is, if I may be blunt, a very ignorant assumption to make. The individuals could've been bi-curious, but still exclusively homosexual. Or exclusively homosexual, but wished to change their sexual orientation on their own and thought that dating a person of the opposite sex would help to change that. I personally knew a homosexual man who tried that, but it didn't work out.”
That was my paraphrasing, because the original wording was in a different tense. It’s the only case where I paraphrased, and I’m sorry I didn’t point that out more cautiously. People who are bi-curious tend to be more likely to succeed, but “bi-curious” means people already have interest in the opposite and same sex, even if it’s not their primary interest – if you’ve seen the Kinsey scale, there is the idea that many people are not exclusively homosexual or heterosexual. Many girls I’ve met have had “that one girl,” frequently the popular, glamorous girls. People who fall at 6 or 0 aren’t going to see much success – those from 1-2 are more likely to succeed at a heterosexual relationship.
It’s sort of the age-old “well yes I’m straight, but that’s Brad Pitt/Britney Spears/Mariska Hargitay/Ozzy Osbourne/obscure anime dude or chick/whatever.”

“As SOCE techniques are still rather new, it's understandable why it'd be flawed. However, important things to note: were those things -caused- by the therapy, or was it caused by something else? Like for when the therapy didn't work, and especially for when they decided to lie that the therapy worked, when in reality, it didn't. I know of a homosexual individual who wanted to kill himself because people refused to allow him to even try to change, and he said he might commit suicide if he couldn't change.”
SOCE is not new – there were studies from the late sixties mentioned in the report, over forty years ago, and in fact the report was an updated version of a report on the subject from 1988 or 1989, which recent studies had apparently changed the conclusions of (I have not read the prior report, but it is mentioned in this one). People born the year the report was published (which happened after the SOCE occurred) have children and in families where people start having children at 20 (common in my area) grandchildren. As the report was conducted by the American Psychological Association and a massive team of doctorate scientists, I’m willing to trust that they looked at background sources. They are considered the best in the country in their field, at least within America.
The person you speak of is part of a minority, but even so I don’t debate that they should have access to those services (although more importantly, depression counseling services, as the APA reports a much, much higher rate of success with those and have yet to make the conclusion that depression counseling services put people at a risk of worsened depression)– this is a free country, and if I can buy pills to “increase virility” likely made out of sugar, grass, and horse spit that don’t work for anyone, I should have access to services that fail the majority but not all who are involved. These studies did indicate that for most people, even the most state-of-the-art procedures performed on people who very badly desired to change had no effect – it’s what lead to the suicide of Perry Roberts, notable for his work on Chick tract “Wounded Children.” I personally know multiple people who have become suicidal as a result of attempting to change sexuality. If those people have a setting in which suicidal themes might be recognized, like with a psychologist, they’re in less risk, and again, this is a free country – I’m not debating your friend’s right to try to access those services on his own (the APA actually makes the suggestion that although they don’t condone such services, support-based groups are much safer: if your friend goes looking for SOCE treatment, look for a group that focuses on community support).
“So this proves my point; something completely outside of the therapy is supposedly the cause of the so called "negative side-effects."

Though, as a note, these side-effects can only be said to be a correlation with the therapy or even the social stigma and so forth that they mentioned (though I wouldn't doubt for an instant that this has a lot to do with it), not cause-and-effect. I'm going to assume you don't know the differences between correlation studies and causation ones, and explain it in as summarized a way as possible.

Since the scientists are unable to control the variables of social stigma, as in unable to "assign" who gets to be socially stigmatized and who does not, they can only say that the things are -correlated-. If, however, they somehow are able to control those variables, which group does receive social stigma and which one doesn't, only then would it be a cause-and-effect study. Since this was not a cause-and-effect study, they cannot correctly say that one thing causes the other.”
There were a handful of studies – older, for the most part, before politicization got in the way of science – where there were attempts to do so, and compared against controls, problems were still seen. The APA also compared support-based programs to fearmongering ones (as is referenced in this quote) and found that the side-effects were found in all programs, but more prevalent in the latter – people in support-based programs were less likely to suffer these (in a group of people looking to do the same as you, it is much easier to talk about struggles one will inevitably face). Part of the irony of this is that fearmongering programs have become more common, not less.
The goal of this report was to find an official stance for the APA to take on the issue based on a comprehensive look at all information. One of the goals was, should SOCE be decided to be bad (it was) to figure out what to do instead. These problems were generally sported up by the stigma of homosexuality within religious groups, and exacerbated through these therapies – those who were unable to change became more frightened, frustrated, and convinced that the failure was specifically theirs


“I'd like to see the studies you've mentioned. However, single people would be just as valuable in assisting to raise children and produce the resources that you've mentioned. Actually, they'd be even more useful, because then they don't have a significant other to devote a decent fraction of their time to. But none of what you mentioned supports the idea that the government has any good, logical reason for granting same-sex marriages, as it will make no difference if a homosexual is married or not as to whether or not they are particularly productive in society. Furthermore, with abortion on the rise (especially in the black communities. And I say black, not African-American, because most of the blacks in America are not also citizens of Africa, and some don't even have any ancestors from Africa, but rather, from Jamaica, so it makes little sense to give them that label in my mind. But that's another issue), more people prolonging marriage until their late twenties, or thirties, sometimes even forties, etc., is already limiting children being produced. Moreover, I've talked to people who are my own age, or younger, especially the females, and they plan to make it so that they are unable to naturally have kids, and they will either never have kids, or they will adopt.”
I can tell you the stuff on hyenas is from Dr. Gill’s work, but I went looking online and couldn’t find it – he does have a book called Hyena Nights and Kalahari Days, and if you see it at a library I’d recommend picking it up even if it’s not the most relevant thing in the world to this discussion because it’s incredibly interesting. I was also able to find the study on fecundity ([link] ) but I couldn’t find the one on nonbreeding individuals in humans – I read it during Biology class). Personally I feel a marriage (or civil union – I’d rather have something called a marriage, but that’s like when you go to the store and they call the yams sweet potatoes when sweet potatoes aren’t the same thing – it’s a little annoying, but it’s meaningless in the end since they taste pretty much identical and I can always just say they’re sweet potato fries instead of yam fries) is part of the social contract, so involving people in it is part of nationalism. In addition, there is actually an advantage to married couples (or civilly joined couples; in the future, when I say married couples assume I mean either, because it’s a pain to type that out) – the base cost of living for two individuals is less than double the base cost of living for a single individual, leaving people with more money to spend on the economy.
Thanks for that distinction, by the way! African-American refers to a more specific group (it makes sense on heritage surveys, just like the term Caucasian, but saying African Americans and whites is silly). I’d prefer adoption to abortion, obviously; there are lots of people out there who would love to adopt, and I’m certainly most likely to in the future, but I’m not an expert in the subject, I’m afraid – it’s so controversial that it’s difficult to find very good information on it.
My mother always said that she would never had children when she was in college – and then she did so, at the age of thirty. Although undoubtedly some of those women won’t have children, I suspect some of them probably will – America is currently very slightly above replacement fertility. I don’t know if I’ll adopt or I’ll go through in vitro, and part of that’s going to depend on how the price on the latter changes, because as badly as I want my own children, the average cost right now is 14,000$ in the U.S., and I don’t know if it’ll be possible for me to make enough money for that in the fields I’m considering. Perhaps looking at ways to reduce that cost would be good – it averages just over 3,000$ in Belgium, and for low-fertility and same-sex female couples, that’s an 11,000$ difference that could influence more people to do so.

“So your point doesn't promote the idea of same-sex marriages, but rather, of single-hood, and promoting families helping each other out. My Psychology teacher has a sister who is a homosexual, and she (the sister) spoils my instructors children rotten all the time. But she's been single most of her life. Sexual orientation doesn't have the bearing on whether an individual is productive or helpful in raising the children of relatives, but rather, a lack of children, and sometimes a lack of a spouse, in their own household. It would also help if families lived closer together, rather than being spread out all over the place.”
Families do need to help each other out. I think we grow too far apart – the family is the core unit of humanity, not the human. A single person can’t do what a family can, and a strong family can help people through rough times. I knew a man who came back from the military a different person – he was in horrible shape, and had he been alone, he’d probably be another veteran on the streets. It was his family who brought him through it.
I definitely agree that families should live closer together! I’ve been able to foster much stronger relationships with my aunt and uncle since they moved back to my homestate (they’re an hour away from where I live, but only about ten minutes from where I study if traffic is good) – my sister lives with my Grannie, my only living grandfather, my uncle, and my uncle’s partner, and although it’s chaotic, it’s a pretty good living situation for her. We live in the same town as my Gramma and it’s really helped her out as she’s aged – when the nursing home messes something up, we can be there to advocate for her.
I also agree that sexual orientation plays no role in childcare ability – why would it? It simply creates a group of people who can’t easily have children on their own, and as a result can serve a social purpose as “extra” caretakers – people who can assist in the care of other’s children, up to and including taking them in as their own.

“But then you take that up with a religious denomination, not the government. The government is not required to fulfill your personal or religious desires. You can make your own paper that says that you're married if you'd like. Because to find a legal paper, from the government, that says that your married quite appealing suggests that you're only looking for an acceptance or other declaration that your marriage is "real." But I would strongly disagree that you should need a piece of paper telling you that your marriage is legitimate to feel or accept that, to you, it is.”
It’s an interesting issue – we have a social contract inspired by and mimicking a religious one, giving people involved on both sides a reason to fight – even if the social contract, although its meaning and intent are up for debate, is from a practical sense clearly the only thing that’s relevant here. I don’t feel I entirely got my point across, and it’s my fault: my wording was poor.
The government recognizes relationships – the current word for this is marriage. I’m not strongly invested in that word: if I have what the government calls a civil union and my church calls a marriage, that’s fine with me. That government recognition calls forth literally hundreds of rights, many irrelevant to childbearing and childrearing – for instance, those about corporation management. In assigning these rights, many irrelevant to gender differences, to only heterosexual unions, it feels kind of like the government is devaluing my relationship – and I think one of the things God calls us to is civic loyalty, so it’s a little frustrating. It’s less an issue of actively feeling like my relationship is meaningless and more an issue of feeling like it’s something that only has value because I say it does, which is just a little sad-making.

“It's not just child-bearing, but also child-rearing.”
Thank you for that: that just about clears it up.

“Here's an analogy:

There is a baseball team. Every baseball team needs three outfielders, three basemen, one at short-stop, one pitcher, and a catcher. All players need hats, gloves, and the catcher needs their equipment. All individuals need bats for when it's their turn to be up to bat. And they all need uniforms. As we all know, the point of an existing baseball team is to win games (or else they lose money from sponsors and the like).

An opposite-sex couple, capable of bearing children, is like the baseball team who occasionally wins games and otherwise does well. They have all of the required equipment and so on, so there's no problems.

An infertile opposite-sex couple represents the baseball team who also meets all of the requirements of equipment and players. Some of these teams do win (through adoption), though their "wins" are more difficult in achieving than the baseball team mentioned above.

An elderly opposite-sex couple is the same as the one above, the participants are simply older (and I would not ever recommend that they adopt, because then the poor children will soon be left without them anyway).

A same-sex couple, however, has either all outfielders or all in-fielders, but never both. They either have bats, or gloves, but never both. Where they are allowed to play, they never, ever win, because they are incapable. Any games the do win are games that they -claimed- to win, but in reality, didn't, or otherwise cheated (because you can't win a baseball game without the necessary equipment, so any wins achieved without said necessary equipment had to have been "cheated" on or "bought" in order to obtain). But most serious baseball leagues would never accept such a "team" as a legitimate baseball team, and sponsors would rightly not support them.”
Same-sex couples aren’t playing baseball. They’re playing an entirely different game – volleyball, let’s say. They only have one kind of person, but that’s okay, because there’s really only one kind of person in volleyball. They can’t make their own nets, but they can always get a net from someone else, or work together with a different volleyball team to make sure they both have nets. Their game is a different game, and they have some different sponsors, but it doesn’t mean they can’t go to the Olympics too. There are similarities – they’re both games about teamwork – and differences – the baseball team is more varied, whereas the volleyball team is more homogenous – but they’re both legitimate sports. Most people like watching baseball better, some people like watching volleyball but only because it’s sexy, and some people like volleyball more for completely legitimate reasons.
“It seems that your focus is on the government benefits of marriage if you're asking about the child-bearing tax.”
That’s just an area I see brought up a lot. Some benefits matter quite a bit to me, but fiscal ones aren’t something I’m concerned with – as I said, taxation is part of the social contract, and I trust the government to do good things with tax dollars. If I had less tax, it would be pleasant, but it’s not like the money is going anywhere bad. My state has extremely high roadwork costs because of our weather and our seasonal cycle, and every time there isn’t a pothole, that’s our money at work.
“Part one is getting the couple together; the couple -need- to be married first and foremost. The government promotes this, to entice people enough to enter into the unions in the first place. Then the procreation can take place. The idea is that the men and women are supposed to get married and THEN have children, not the nonsense where women decide to have sex outside of marriage and end up pregnant. “
I believe that people who have children should be married. It gives some benefits, and in the case that something occurs, those with an official marriage are granted the right to a streamlined divorce, which is still horrible for children but not nearly as bad as a messy weird thing – I know a man who lost everything because he was cohabiting and not married and his partner cleaned their joint bank account out and ran for the hills. Its total benefits are pretty small, however: of the over five hundred benefits in my state, only a small handful have to do with childrearing or taxation, and none of them have anything to do with childbirth unless something goes really wrong. It’s far more important that families are ready to have children – being married is far from a childbearing and rearing panacea, and 17% of abortions are of married women (with another 16% being previously married) – most of whom say that they didn’t have enough money to care for the child, even though they wanted to (and couldn’t give the child up for adoption because they couldn’t deal with pressure from family, friends, and co-workers) but I digress.

“I believe same-sex unions, rather than same-sex marriage, is what you're looking for. I know some homosexuals, and have read arguments by homosexuals, who promote same-sex unions, but are against same-sex marriage. Their most common argument being is that marriage was designed for heterosexuals and opposite-sex couples, not for homosexuals and same-sex couples, so they feel it is a great offense to themselves and to society for them to try to fit into an institution that they simply don't fit.”
I’m in support of either. I like the term marriage better, but it’s sweet potatoes and yams, it’s no big deal. But I don’t understand how a marriage is set up for heterosexuals: I’ve read through all the relevant provisions marriage brings in my home state (even though it’s exceedingly boring in spots: rights to using a dealership car if married to a car dealer, rights to operate farm trucks with a class D license if married to a farmer, receiving insurance in Ramsey county if married to a county worker, certain fishing and sporting licenses, slaughter of poultry and personal animals for family members, various benefits for the family of veterans, insurance, obtaining an injunction against someone attemping to assist in a spouse’s suicide, among hundreds of others.
Of 525 state provisions same-sex couples are affected by here in MN, only 15 regard taxation (plus six about property tax): of these, two aren’t about marriage, they’re about same-sex couples not being defined as family, at least three can in some situations be a detriment to married couples, two have to deal with joint filing, and one has to do with the ability of a spouse to pay a spouse’s taxes. Only a small handful have to do with childrearing, most of which can be negated through a designation (a same-sex partner almost certainly counts as an “important friend”, a family member can designate a same-sex partner as part of the team in regards to a government-supported disability plan for a child, etc). None have to do with childbearing.

“This tends to be the problems that many same-sex marriage advocates bring up, and they are all very valid points. However, most of those things are available through other means. If they are not, then you are promoting that those specific things be changed, not that marriage be changed. Because, as a person who is pretty sure she'll remain single for life, I'd like a way to assign like a best friend or other non-relative hospital visitation rights, and so on and so forth. I should be able to obtain that.”
Most of them actually aren’t. Tim Reardon’s story, of my home-state MN, stands out to me:
“When he and his partner Eric decided to have a child through a surrogate, they made certain all the legal documents were in order.
They already had a partnership agreement, executed before their commitment ceremony in 2001. They had drafted powers of attorney, health-care directives, and every document they could within the restrictions of the law to be certain their relationship to one another and their future children was clear and protected.
Yet when Tess was born in 2003, Tim and Eric waited for a year to get a Judge’s order for a birth certificate because the state insisted on DNA testing for proof of paternity. The cost, both monetary and emotional, was enormous.
Adding to the emotional burden was a serious health challenge. Three months after Tess’ birth, Eric was diagnosed with a brain tumor that later was determined to be malignant. The family life Tim and Eric had dreamed of was suddenly thrown into chaos. Tim and Eric returned to their attorney to be certain their paperwork was in order. It had become imperative that Tim was clearly named the person to “call the shots” upon Eric’s death.
Four years later, when Eric was to go from the hospital to a hospice residence, a social worker collected a financial eligibility screening to determine if Eric was eligible for memorial funds to offset the cost of the hospice residence not covered by either insurance or Medicaid. The hospital business office wanted to include Tim’s earnings in the calculation of “household income.” “They wanted to recognize our relationship when it was financially in their best interest,” Tim said. Tim refused. Yet when Eric died a short time later, Tim was informed that the medical examiner would not recognize Tim’s relationship to Eric.
To make matters worse, the cremation society did not consider Tim next of kin, with the right to make decisions about Eric’s remains even though Tim showed administrators a power-ofattorney document, a health-care directive and Eric’s will all clearly naming Tim as the decision-maker. Only with the consent of Eric’s mother and father was Tim ultimately allowed to sign the cremation society paperwork.
“I felt so violated and angry that at this most vullnerable moment of life, they would not acknowledge our relationship.” Tim said. “All our planning didn’t mean anything to these people. Eric’s wishes didn’t mean anything. This never would have happened to a legal spouse.
“All it takes is one challenge from a person with an issue or different belief system, and the cost to us, in money, time and emotions is enormous – because we have no recourse in the legal system,” Tim continued. “It is unconscionable that when personal decisions need to be made, no matter how much we have planned, we cannot legally make them because of who we love.”

The current system does need to change. This kind of thing is what goes really wrong. And I agree with you – a lot of these rights seem like they should be things that paperwork should be able to sign over. If I’m ever hospitalized, I want my best friend to be there. We’ve been friends since fifth grade – I can guarantee that whoever I may fall in love with, I’ll have known Ellie longer.
“But... really? It affects fishing licenses? ...interesting. Just... interesting.”
It’s tied to some strange things. You’d think we’d be able to figure out what the purpose of a marriage Is and make laws regarding that, but as far as I can tell the purpose is at least in part determined by government convenience.
“Agreed. I've been debating this topic for about six years now and have been able to develop my opinion quite thoroughly. It was a huge pain to debate with some people, though, but in retrospect, I'd say it was worth it. Practice makes perfect, and hard work requires sweat, and sometimes blood and tears. Though not all hard work requires sweat... time and energy it does, though... but anyway. Yeah.”
I’m just entering Extemp. Speaking, and we frequently speak on controversial issues at meets, so I’m expected to know a lot anyways. It’s also an area of personal interest – I look back at some of the juvenile things I have said in the past and it makes me cringe – there are some terribly trite and poorly thought out arguments out there on both sides. Heck, I just changed my signature (which I realized was trite and didn't get across my feelings on the issue in a very good way) to this a few months back! I’ve been debating for six years and it’s almost entertaining to see how much I’ve changed, reading through everything I’ve saved! There are people out there who have changed the way I’ve seen things, and it’s really pretty unpleasant, but in the end I think it’s worth the pain to be able to look into your beliefs and say “this is something I’ve worked for, this is something I’ve built up, this is worthwhile.”

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

amanda2324 In reply to Jathara [2013-01-17 02:47:58 +0000 UTC]

...unfortunately, the reply is so long, I don't think I'll ever be able to get to it. I'm sorry, but I just don't have that kind of time, and don't think I will for a long, long time. ;-;

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Jathara In reply to amanda2324 [2013-01-17 03:24:45 +0000 UTC]

That's okay! If you'd like, I can cut it down - probably a LOT, because I think I might have babbled way too much! I can be a chatterbox - still in NaNoWriMo mode! :3

We can also drop it, if you'd like - as interesting as a discussion this is, I totally understand being busy! I go back to class in 5 days and I've got a lot of stuff on my plate this semester.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

amanda2324 In reply to Jathara [2013-01-17 03:50:45 +0000 UTC]

We could drop it, then, if it's not too much of a disappointment to you. Either one is fine. I have a full plate myself; I'm taking four classes, one being a class, but one of the classes has so much information that you're required to know, it might as well be two or three classes all by itself!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0