DanKroh

FuzzyBear, "To cast fear in the direction of those in the helping professions simply because they do not agree with ones religion makes for a dubious argument." Thank you. "I can without any reservation say the same for incest." Actually, incest is not listed, as such, as a mental disorder, either. Incest (and polygamy, for that matter) represent unique problems that many in my profession struggle with. While the basis of our social taboos for incest and polygamy are NOT based on mental health issues (birth defects for incest, and social roles for polygamy), in reality, those types of relationships are seldom healthy (at least, in our modern American society). Incestuous relationships usually involve issues of authority (power) and lack of consent, and often lead to other mental problems (most notably PTSD). Polygamous relationships traditionally objectify women and reduce them to the status of chattel. (Of course, this is specific to polyGYNY, as opposed to polyANDRY). While I have never encountered anyone who had a healthy incestuous relationship (in my very limited experience), I do know a few people in healthy polygamous (both polygynous and polyandrous) relationships. Of course, there have been cultures and times in history when incest was considered both normal and healthy (which I'm sure Trev could speak to more than I), although that can be said of many things that we consider unhealthy now.

"Now this is truly priceless. Any study that I might produce that disagrees with your position is "tripe" but a study that is clearly flawed (Hooker's) but agrees with your position is "groundbreaking". Hoo hah." Yes, it was groundbreaking. And for something that is "clearly flawed", it's still used and endoresed by an awful lot of academics and researchers in psychiatry and psychology. In fact, the only people I've ever seen present "criticisms" of it are people who clearly have their own anti-gay agenda. So there. We are back to "I say, you say". You say I am biased and I say you are biased. Hoo hah indeed. You must be reading a different version of The Monitor than I do. Can't say I've ever noticed a preponderance of letters complaining about their "liberal positions". Some people do seem to feel that the APA should not take a stand in social issues at all, but that is different than complaining about liberal bias.

"Similar studies on homosexuality could be readily found in 1973." Citations, please. Edited to add; on second thought, don't even bother. I don't really feel like looking up a bunch of biased tripe and having to refute it all. I'm sure such studies could be interpreted to say that the moon is made of cheese, for all the good it will do. "My entire point in this subthread is that the decision then was political and the decisions facing the APAs today will be political as well. They will change definitions when they think that there will be acceptance by the general public NOT when the carefully chosen evidence warrants the change." Again, so says you. But unless you were able to look into the minds and discern the motivations of all the people involved in making those changes then and now, it is still just your opinion. And you've already revealed your bias by reviling homosexuals as deviants. In fact, your entire argument reads uncannily like a page from the NARTH website. "Both. Though the latter has a far more leftward political bent." Ah, of course. They disagree with you, so obviously they must be on the political left. Priceless. We do agree about one thing, though; this discussion is fruitless.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"I was not there. That does not mean that what I say isn't true." Actually, what that makes it is heresay and rumor. Not to mention, heresay and rummor as obviously biased as what you claim was the bias of the people involved. We could go back and forth until the cows come home exchanging heresay and rumor, since I also do not have a first hand account of what happened at the meeting. I do not hold my opinion about the "normalcy" of homosexuality because of the APA. I happen to agree with the APA because my own empirical experience has shown me that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. But that is also heresay, so I don't really expect you to be swayed by it. "In 1977, ten thousand psychiatrists, who were members of the American Medical Association were polled. Of twenty five hundred replies received, 68% answered yes to the question "Is homosexuality usually a pathological adaptation (as opposed to a normal variation)?" What's the difference? There were no threats, intimidation, or political mailings sent to the people who participated in this vote." So, thirty years ago, before the huge amount of research that has now been done about homosexuality existed, 68% of psychiatrists polled (a sample size of 2500, which is valid, while 10,000 is not?) thought homosexuality was not a normal variation. I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! Too bad you couldn't find a more recent poll to see what the opinion would be today. Also, to take a page from your book, I could claim that the sample was stacked, that they chose people who they knew were biased a certain way. But since I don't know that, I won't even try to make that claim. "Today both organizations are firmly in the grip of political activists and are in the process of removing the references to pedophilia in the DSM. Similar considerations for sado-masochism, incest, and beastiality are unders consideration as well. Is there no perversion that the APA of today does not approve of?" Oh joy, more unsupported fearmongering. There is tons of evidence and research supporting that pedophilia is truly a disorder of the mind, resulting in obsessions that interfere with normal functioning (see posts to LongHaul). Something that cannot be said for homosexuality. Wow, you seem to have a real problem with the APA (which one, by the way, Psychiatrists or Psychologists, or both?).(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"Hey, those were action figures, not dolls!" As an interesting aside (well, it's interesting to me) I did a paper in grad school about the gender bias of the whole doll/action figure thing. If you have two plastic figures, which are the same size, both have "real" hair, joints, and clothing that can be changed, why is the one that has breasts a doll and the one without breasts an action figure? (Barbie vs. G.I.Joe) In the absence of any context, male figures were action figures and female figures were dolls, usually. In a context of a child playing with them, whether they were action figures or dolls were generally determined more strongly by the gender of the child playing with them, i.e. girls played with dolls and boys played with action figures, and secondly by the roles being assigned to the figures by the child. However, when the "costumes" were added into the context, figures wearing "street clothes" were dolls, whereas figures wearing "uniforms" were action figures.

"Sure, I'll play again. Just let me point out that Spitzer is your boy. Pointing out his inconsistencies only strengthens my point that the decision was rushed and did not follow the usual practices when making this sort of change." No, Spitzer is not "my boy". He was the psychiatrist who happened to present the research to the Americal Psychiatric Association when they decided to edit the DSM. If the decision was so rushed, why did the American Psychological Association (the organization to which I belong, btw), pass a similar resolution two years later? "Spitzer didn't present his own research on the topic because he had none. He had no previously published papers on the topic of homosexuality or sexual deviations . And yet he was appointed the chairman of the Nomenclature Task Force on Homosexuality after Dr. Henry Brill was removed from a similar position. Spitzer presented a *position paper* and the board made its decision based on the paper. The idea that they carefully reviewed volumes of research before voting, as you seem to think, is just not true." He mostly presented the research of Evelyn Hooker, who performed one of the most groundbreaking studies on the nature of homosexuality. And what I said was that he presented research that there was NO VALID LINK between homosexuality and mental illness. The idea that he presented his personal opinion and then they all sat down to vote, as you seem to think, is just not true. I was not there at the meeting. In 1973, I was happily playing with my Star Trek dolls. Were you there? Were you privy to the inner discussions of the Board of Trustees? However, I have read a variety of accounts of that pivotal meeting (and not just from right-wing sites, either), that all say that the decision was made based on research, not to appease gay activitists. Believe what you like. "Not 58% of the membership - 58% of the ~10,000 who voted in a ~25,000 member organization voted not to overturn the board's recommendation. That is not the same as an endorsement. MY MATH tells me that only about 23% of the membership voted not to overturn their board. (Nice try, care to play again.) Notably, a significant minority of your profession disagreed. They had access to the same research as well as much research to the contrary." And you are making an assumption here that the 15,000 members who did not attend/vote would have voted to overturn the recommendation. What makes you think that the 10,000 who were there were not a representative sample of the entire membership? If the other 15,000 felt strongly about overturning the recommendation, you think they would have made an effort to attend and have their voices heard. And yes, a significant minority did object. Old prejudices die hard, don't they? "The APA position statement following their decision has some interesting statements..."Modern methods of treatment enable a significant proportion of homosexuals who wish to change their sexual orientation to do so."" And both APAs and the American Pediatric Association have since declared that reparative treatments do far more harm than good. So what's your point? "Even though the decision was wrong and politically motivated it was not a statement that homosexuals are normal. Even after this decision the APA considered homosexuality to be "deviant" psychiatric condition, just not a disorder when the person was comfortable with his condition." That was the first revision (prejudice sometimes has to be removed in steps). The second revision removed the condition completely (in the DSM-III). "Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation." "It was a spineless decision to remove themselves from the political debate and in so doing leave homosexuals who might have sought treatment with the impression that they were healthy if they declared themselves so." So says you. What makes you think homosexuals do not seek treatment? If not, I would not have a practice. The only thing the decision did was to remove the directive to treat them as mentally ill.

"Wouldnt that accomplish the health issue without such venom?" Yes, OGE, it might. But at what point do gays get to stop clawing their way through all thousand or so benefits that marriage automatically bestows on them, when they could get them all in one fell swoop with marriage rights? Same thing with the living will and health-care proxy argument. Why should a gay couple have to carry around those papers with them all the time (because you never know when an unfortunate circumstance might strike) just to assure that their partner's sister who doesn't like them can't swoop in and declare the partner "persona non grata"? It's part of the whole "separate but equal" argument again. Yes, you can have equal hospital visitation rights, as long as you are willing to do this extra thing that heterosexual couples don't have to do. See the difference?

A little more information on Dr. Spitzer's recent work: "In 2001, Spitzer delivered a controversial paper at the 2001 annual APA meeting arguing that "highly motivated" individuals could "successfully" change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. [1]. The APA immediately issued an official disavowal of the paper, noting that it had not been peer reviewed and bluntly stating that "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."[2] Two years later, Spitzer published the paper in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. The publication decision sparked controversy and one sponsoring member resigned in protest. The paper has been criticized on various grounds, including using non-random sampling and poor criteria for "success"." BTW, the research he presented in 1973 that showed no valid data linking homosexuality to mental illness was not his own research, he was only chair of the committee to edit the book. (Just to head off those comments that if his research on reparative therapy is not valid, isn't his research on homosexuality as not a mental illness also invalid). Nice try, yellow_hammer. Care to play again? You might also want to look a little further into what Dr. Spitzer said about his own work and how he felt it was misrepresented by the media: "My study concluded with an important caveat: that it should not be used to justify a denial of civil rights to homosexuals, or as support for coercive treatment. I did not conclude that all gays should try to change, or even that they would be better off if they did. However, to my horror, some of the media reported the study as an attempt to show that homosexuality is a choice, and that substantial change is possible for any homosexual who decides to make the effort."(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"Should Gays be allowed to enter into a union recognized as equal to FOR PURPOSES OF LEGAL STANDING a heterosexual union YES! Should a Condo Association be able to exclude them from living in their community again YES." Wow, do you even realize how much this argument sounds just like the "separate but equal" arguments used to exclude blacks from housing, schools, and other organizations in the '50s and '60s? "Gays shouldnt be denied insurance, recognition of their union by various states, the right to fill joint tax returns. They also shouldnt be allowed to impose their views, customs, and opinions on others. If a community does not accept a gay union as being equal to a straight union FOR THE PURPOSES OF SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE then nothing can force them to change and seeking legal sanctions only strengthens the separation. Gays are trying to force their beliefs on society in excess of gaining equality they demand acceptance and I see the two things as different." But gays ARE being denied insurance, survivor benefits, and the right to file joint tax returns. Is it a matter of intent, then? If they want marriage because if gives them equality, that is ok, but if they want marriage for social acceptance, it's not? In this case, it seems that gaining equality and acceptance are, unfortunately, inseparable. Does not demanding acceptance trump gaining equality? The only way to get equality is through legal sanctions. Should they give up on gaining equality because, oh no, the acceptance it brings might make some heterosexuals uncomfortable? "If I saw two men making out I would have a conditioned reaction, if I saw a man and a woman making out I would have a conditioned reaction, they wouldnt be the same! I should be allowed this difference without ridicule if the couples in question wish to enjoy the same treatment. My oldest son has a friend who has enough body piercings that it actually makes my skin crawl to be in the same room. I dont counsel my son not to associate with this person, my son is 25 were he 12 it would be a different story. I accept this mans right to express himself and he should accept my right to be repulsed by his expression." But according to your argument above, you should have the right not to associate with him to the point of being able to deny him housing in your condo complex? I'm certainly not going to tell you that you are not allowed to be repulsed by PDA by gay couples. That is your burden to bear. My objection is when you make it THEIR problem instead of yours. My objection is when you use that as an excuse to discriminate in housing, employment, and any of the other ways in which gays continue to be discriminated against today, because you think you should have the right not to have to associate with them. You don't want to associate with them, fine, then vote with your feet, not with discrimination.

"The DSM was first published in 1952 and classified homosexuality as a sexual disorder. It was that way until, after several years of having their association meetings disrupted, the APA Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder. This was not done thru scientific research and discussion leading to change but by a vote by a few members at the top." And where exactly did you find that "traditional values" talking point? Try this history from Psychiatric News instead: "Sabshin credited the chair of APA's Committee on Nomenclature in the early 1970s, Robert Spitzer, M.D., with playing a pivotal role in propelling the evolution of APA's position on homosexuality. That committee was charged with revising the initial version of DSM, and Spitzer-armed with research showing there were no valid data to link homosexuality and mental illness-advocated forcefully for the strategy of deleting homosexuality from the disorders list and replacing it with a new one called "sexual orientation disturbance." In a key vote in December 1973, the Board of Trustees overwhelmingly endorsed Spitzer's recommendation. Opponents of the decision attempted to overturn it with a referendum of the APA membership in early 1974-just as Sabshin was beginning his 23-year tenure as APA medical director. The Board's decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual was supported by 58 percent of the membership." Spritzer brought RESEARCH to support his proposal, and after the Board of Trustees overwhelmingly endorsed his recommendation, the decision was supported by 58% (a majority if I remember my math correctly) of the membership. Was the decision controversial? Sure, you bet. Were there protests from gay activitsts in the years leading up to the change? Sure, you bet. But to declare that the change was done SOLELY to appease those protestors or that the change was somehow foisted onto the memberhip is pure hogwash.

"That explains a lot, the conditions related to pedophilia are what you say they are because you say they are, theyre your findings, you and the Psychiatric profession no disrespect intended." You want me to spoon feed you passages from the research articles and textbooks that I read when I was in school? Sorry, don't have that kind of time here. I'm not the one who brought up pedophilia and tried to make it out to be something it wasn't. Do a little research yourself. I agree that a discussion about this is less than fruitful, because we are speaking different languages. I am speaking the language of medicine, and you are talking about something else entirely, and I can't exactly figure out what that is. "Why is it that the psychiatric profession no longer feels homosexuality is a sickness? Did they misread the signs? Misdiagnose the illness? Make a mistake? Could that be true of their position on Pedophiles? Nope, no way, KID CARD trumps open mindedness." Yes, they made a mistake about homosexuality because they did not have a complete understanding of how the brain works. Could that change in the future for pedophilia? About as possible as it is for schizophrenia, autism, OCD, and bipolar disorder. There is CLEAR pathology present in all those disorders, including pedophilia, that is NOT present in homosexuals. One more time, it has nothing to do with kids or not, it has to do with the fact that pedophiles cannot function properly in their daily lives. Their obsession with prepubescent children as sexual objects interferes (to varying extents) with their ability to perform daily functions. I could just as easily say that the obsessions with handwashing of someone with OCD interferes with their ability to perform daily functions. You seem to be the only one hung up on the "kid card". "Im curious though about your reference to the age of menarche. Do you hold that the age or the normal age has changed due to environmental or social influence? Seems like you were saying that in Shakespeares time the norm was different than it is today." Yes, the age of menarche has changed in the past (and will continue to change in the future). There are several factors, including better nutrition and health care, increased overall lifespan, and environmental factors such as additives in our food. Some of these factors work to increase the age of mentrual onset, some to decrease it. I can't give you a complete treatise on the subject because I'm not a medical doctor. "I am totally in favor of gay rights Dan, never said I wasnt." Well, you certainly seemed to imply that you are not in favor of the right of gays to marry, because it would open the door to too many other things. Or was I mistaken in my interpretation of your statements? "My position is that I dont want their views forced upon me. I dont want Gays or Blacks or Catholics or Jews or White Supremacists or Democrats or Republicans or anyone forcing me to associate with someone I chose not to associate with. My problem is not with the equality of gays it with the acceptance of gays at the price of my personal liberty." And how, exactly, is allowing gays to marry going to force you to associate with anyone you don't want to? How is the acceptance of gays going to affect your personal liberty one iota? Specific examples, please, rather than fearmongering "What if" scenarios. "Dan being in the profession could you find or tell me where to look for a copy of Fuzzys book circa 1950? Id really like to know if the definition has changed or if homosexuality as a sickness was just something else I was taught as a child which was BS. I know that definition would have been wrong but I would like to know if it was indeed the 50s definition." I'm afraid I don't have a copy of the DSM from the 1950's laying around my office (we are currently on DSM-IV, btw). I'm sure if you did a google search, you could find the exact text.

"The excuse that Gays bring to the table that they have to be alowed to be married because of the health issues is completely false. If our gay married couple from Mass. wants to go to Florida and is afraid that other states won't recognize their union, why are hospitals always brought in the mix. Very few governmental unit hospitals exist today." What makes you think this only applies to government hospitals? "Next the visitation thing. I am not sure where people who say you must be married to visit someone in the hospital live, but it must be somewhere I havent been. I have been in hospitals from Key West, Florida to the big island of Hawaii and I havent been in one that has a rule against unmarried co-habitants visiting each other. The American Hospital Association long ago put into its rules for Accreditation that hospitals were supposed to allow the "significant other" of the patient special access." Tell that to Bill Flanagan, who (in 2000) was denied to be at the beside of his dying partner by the University of Maryland hospital. Tell that to Eric & William, when Eric was told by the nurse in the private hospital ICU where he was admitted (in 2003) that she would not share his medical information with his partner nor would she allow him visitation because "he wasn't really family". Why are gay couples worried about this? Because it has happened in the past, and continues to happen today. I have heard horror stories from couples to whom it has happened. If you want to believe that it is "completely false", then go ahead. I know differently. Yes, in 2001, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations defined family as: The person(s) who plays a significant role in the individuals [patients] life. This may include a person(s) not legally related to the individual (Joint Commission Resources JCR, 2001 Hospital Accreditation Standards, p. 322). However, that is very vague, and highly open to the interpretation of the hospital staff. It does stop the discrimination from happening, because they don't have the legitimization of marriage to back it up.

Packsaddled asked " OK, some clarification by the legal eagles, please. If a couple is married in MA, and take a driving trip to FL, and one gets sick (or something similar) on the way down. They end up in a clinic in south GA. Will this legal marriage be recognized by the state GA?" No, probably not. That is one of the big fears for gay married couples in Massachusetts. No other state has to respect their marriage. So, if they ever move out of MA, their marriage will not be recognized by their new state. If they ever have a medical problem while traveling, they will not have any protections given to married couples concerning spousal rights to make medical decisions, have access to medical records, or even unrestricted visitation in other states. Even the federal government does not respect the marriages of gay couples from Massachusetts, since they cannot file their federal income tax as married couples. Of course, I believe similar circumstances existed for interracial couples when their marriages were beginning to be recognized by only a handful of states, before a federal ruling was handed down.

Ed says "If gays marrying gays becomes the norm then our society will die out. Maybe not in two years or two decades, but it will die out. Why? Gays can't procreate." What an utterly ridiculous statement. First, gay marriage is never going to be the "norm", if by norm, you mean the majority of marriages, because gays only represent about 10% of the population. Second, gays can procreate. Just not with each other. Many gays are still managing to have their own biological children. Third, so you think being married or not is going to change whether or not gays can/do procreate? Oh wait, it will; they will be MORE likely to have children because their families will then be protected by the legality of marriage. Fourth, in case you hadn't heard, the world is overpopulated and there are many, many children waiting to be adopted by loving parents. Even if every gay person decided NOT to have any biological children, the world would still be overpopulated.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"That would be only about 70% of the US population." Actually, a poll by ABC news in June 2006 shows opposition to same sex marriage to be down to 58% nationwide. At the rate that percentage is dropping, I predict we will see it enter a minority within a decade. "Can gay couples adopt? Can they be foster parents? Are they more prone to abuse, as some studies have shown?" Excuse me? More prone to abuse? What kind of abuse? What studies? "Mass. will most likely be voting on it before long." Doubtful. After three attempts, the legislature has still not approved the ammendment for the ballot even once, and it has to pass twice before it even gets on the ballot. And even if it does get on the ballot, in Massachusetts, the percentage of those apposing same-sex marriage is about 38% (as of May 2005). So I can't say I'm too concerned about the marriages of my gay friends being dissolved. "Hmmm... looks like I'm not in the minority." You would be if you lived in Massachusetts.

"I'll give you the same courtesy of an answer you gave me - "You'd have to ask them." I don't live in Mass." Well, I do live in Mass, so since you in effect just asked me, I'll answer. There has been no effect on heterosexual marriages. There has been no sudden shortage of marriage licenses or officials to perform marriage ceremonies. There has been no sudden surge for acceptance of polygamy, marriage to children, sibling marriage, or marriage to pets or inanimate objects in Massachusetts. On the other hand, didn't one of those Midwestern states that has a no same-sex marriage law just try to redefine the age of marital consent to 12? "If you can't see that you just admitted society encourages gays to enter into sham marriages, then we have nothing further to discuss. That fact is as plain as the nose on your face." Actually, what it looks like Merlyn just admitted is that the segment of society that denigrates gays and finds homosexual relationships to be less "pro-family" than heterosexual marriages are enncouraging gays to enter sham marriages. Hmm. I wonder if that could be the same segment that "defends traditional marriage"? Nah, must be a coincidence.

LongHaul, "You keep on about the fact that pedophiles cant form healthy relationships with other adults, that they (pedophiles) have an internal conflict. Says who?" The psychologists who have done research into the pathology and treatment of pedophilia. Including myself. "Others in this thread are talking about Douglas Smith do you consider him to be a pedophile? Where were these signs of problematic relationships which should have alerted all his associates?" Well, since I don't know much about Douglas Smith other than what I read briefly about him in the news, I'm not prepared to make such a diagnosis. Let's say for the sake of the argument that he is a pedophile. Just because someone is mentally ill doesn't mean that they are stupid. Some people are very good at hiding their mental illnesses. Unless his associates are trained to recognize the signs of a mental illness like pedophilia, no, I would not expect them to have been alerted. "Maybe my first error was in not defining terms but I doubt it." I think you first error was trying to define pedophilia as something it is not, without understanding the actual mental processes of someone who suffers from pedophilia. "We can cloud the whole discussion with what constitutes a pedophile and at what age is a child not a child and at what point is it OK to fantasize about them. The whole pedophile problem is that it involves children and we cant get past that." Actually, I think you are trying to cloud the issue about gay rights with the whole pedophilia discussion, by tapping into that visceral revulsion most people feel about pedophilia (and child molestation) and trying to apply it to homosexuality. "Pedophilia involves children and that means it cant be accepted even as a mental disorder it must be wrong in all forms." No, pedophilia is considered a mental disorder because those suffering from it display disordered thinking that interferes with their ability to cognitively process, not because it involves children. Lots of other mental disorders do not involve children. They are still mental disorders because they cause impairment of cognitive processes. "This is the same way homosexuality was viewed, it involves same gender intimate contact which must be viewed as wrong no matter what." Maybe by you, but not by me. Perhaps that is why I am having difficulty understanding the relevance of the entire pedophile analogy. "Gays have spent a lot of effort trying to defend the concept that loving someone is not wrong even if they are of the same gender but age! Oh thats a different story. The pictures Douglas Smith had on his computer where illegal, had those pictures been of adult males would he still have been in as much trouble?" Well, he would have still been in trouble with the BSA, that's for sure. I don't know the legality of pornogrphy in Texas, so I can't speak to his legal trorubles. A better question might be would he have been in as much trouble with the BSA if those pictures had been of adult females? "Child pornography is only bad because society says it is bad." Those who have survived being exploited by the child pornography industry might disagree with you. "Romeo and Juliette were 14 and they were about to start a family. Juliets parents were about to marry her off. An adult having fantasies about her would be sick?" And at that time, 14 was the accepted age of marriage, because girls went though menarche at 10, and the average life span was 30. When someone was considered an adult was much different. "We can argue all we want about terminology and medical definition my point is the same a door has been opened and more things are going to come through it that was intended." Well, I disagree with that assessment, but the reason we are aguing about medical terminology is because you based your support for that assessment on a faulty definition of what constitutes a pedophile. "If we are going to talk about acceptance then we should be ready to discuss accepting everyone no matter what. If we are supposed to set aside old ideas then set aside all the old ideas not just those affecting our personal issue." I agree that acceptance of everyone is a noble goal. I am prepared to pretty much accept people based on their individual merits, as long as what they are doing is not doing harm to themselves or others, and even the "to themselves" is very open to interpretation. For instance, I accept smokers, even though I feel that they are doing themselves harm. I accept people who want to pierce and tatoo their bodies, even though I feel they are doing themselves harm. Allowing gays to marry harms no one. Why do people assume that the rest of the members of society are so stupid that they can't tell the difference between accepting something that harms no one and drawing a line at something that does cause harm?

"First you admit that you, and apparently the APA, cant separate the fantasy from the act so not only is it illegal to do it its illegal to fantasize about it!" Well, actually, first, I never said anything about the illegality of pedophilia. I talked about it as a medical condition. "In the second part you say the condition is considered detrimental because it interferes with the persons ability to form healthy relationships with other adults. Kind of like homosexuality in the 50s huh?" Um, no. Pedophiles cannot form healthy relationships (and no, that doesn't just mean sexual relationships, even friendships are problematic) not because of the judgements of others, but because of an internal conflict within themselves. Homosexuals have no difficulty forming healthy relationships with other adults (sexual or otherwise). Other adults may have a problem with a person's homosexuality, but that's not the same thing. "If we accept pedophilia as a condition and stop stigmatizing it they wont have to hide it and then the social problem will go away." Again, no. The problems pedophiles have are internal conflicts, not from societal pressure. "We can start treating them alike drug users who cant relate or alcoholics who can't form relationships or any of the other thousand people with diminished social skills, but when you say relationship you really mean sexual relationship with other adults." No, mistaken again. See above. "Again its because she was taught cetain things were wrong not because she felt it all on her own. What was happening to her had been stigmatized by society just as homosexuality had been. How many young children were traumatized because they had feelings for members of the same sex and society told them it was wrong? Where is the difference?" Yes, many young people, mostly teenagers, are affected by society's (and in some cases, their families') rejection of them for their homosexuality. I'm not sure how that relates to the sexualization of prepubescent children for child pornography. Can you elucidate? "When we embrace pedophilia as an alternate lifestyle and stop traumatizing children with old fashioned stereotypes the pain and suffering will end." No, it won't. Just like if we accept schizophrenia, it won't suddenly make the schizophrenic all better and able to function in society. Pedophiles have an inherent, internal conflict. How society views it is not going to affect that at all. "You will argue for gays and against pedophiles and use the same arguments "they" used agaist gays but not see the error becasue you don't accept pedophilia as being acceptable even if it is not a choice." Pedophilia is not a choice. Period. No if about it. Anymore than saying a schizophrenic chooses to be schizophrenic or depressive chooses to be depressed. I think it's pretty clear that you don't understand the psychology of pedophilia, but are rather invoking the "pedophilia is like homosexuality" simply for the visceral reaction that it evokes. "Well there are many people who still don't feel being gay is acceptable either. They feel gays can't form healthy relationships with other adults." Actually, they can. They can form healthy relationships with other adults. They can also form healthy sexual relationships with other adults, those adults just happen to be of the same sex. "I wonder how the APA defined homosexuality back in the 50's?" Actually, until the mid 1970's, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the APA. I make no pretense of hiding that fact. And if we go back 50 years before that, most mental disorders were thought to be demonic possession. But as we gain a better understanding of the mind, we learn. We change. And we make corrections to the way we look at mental and physical health. Your entire premise seems to be based on the idea that being accepted by society will make the pedophile's internal conflict go away. It won't. The pedophile will always have abnormal relationships with adults, even if the other adults are willing to be completely accepting of the pedophile's "orientation". The second part of your faulty premise is that homosexual relationships are not healthy. Since there is no evidence in the mental health field to support that assertion, then the argument based on that premise kinda crumbles under it's own weight.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"You are going to argue that McGreevey wanted to be MARRIED so badly, that he was willing to marry a woman, even though he didn't love her. In fact, he was so enamoured with MARRIAGE that he entered into marriage contracts twice, even though he was only interested in men, and didn't love the women at all (and had children with both women). Is that why he was in sham marriages - he just loved the married life so much?" Well, I'm not Merlyn, but yes, I would be willing to argue that. Or at least that, since I haven't spoken to Mr. McGreevey to determine his mental processes, that such things definitely DO happen. Why? Because it is what society (and usually specific influential people in their lives, parents expecially) expects of them. "If not, then why didn't he just live with another man, as do most other homosexual couples?" Because society (and perhaps people in his life whose opinion mattered greatly to him) found that to be unacceptable, or at least, not as socially advantageous as being in a heterosexual marriage. To some people, acceptability matters more than being true to themselves. Sad, but true.

"I wonder if Dina McGreevey, wife of James McGreevey, considers herself a victim of homosexuality?" I wonder if the myriad of heterosexuals who get divorced consider themselves to be victims of heterosexuality? Or maybe they are victims of marriage?

LongHaul: "Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children this does not mean they wish to engage in sex with them." Actually, it does. The APA definition of pedophilia is: "Pedophilia is defined as the act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children as the preferred or exclusive method of achieving sexual excitement." No, not all pedophiles will actually act on those fantasies and become child molesters. But the condition (pedophilia) is still considered detrimental because it interfers with the pedophile's ability to form healthy relationships with other adults. One of the defining symptoms in diagnosing pedophilia is that "The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." So yes, even a pedophile who does not become a child molester should still be treated as someone in need of help. Of course, if you are talking about something else, then it isn't pedophilia, and now we are talking about changing the definition of pedophilia. "Society believes that photographing a child is harmful. Its only harmful if we tell the child it is harmful, that its wrong, that its sick. Children that are raised to believe that nudity is acceptable dont have that view so it must not be natural but is in fact a learned response." Whether photographing children in the nude is harmful/"sick" is entirely in the cirumstances. I'm sure I have some pictures of my sons somewhere from their first baths, etc., with full frontal nudity. Does that make me a deviant? No, because the purpose is not sexual. Children who are photographed for the "kiddie porn" industry are usually put into sexual situations. I have one client who was a kiddie-porn victim. No one had to tell her that the situations she was put in to be photographed were not "natural". They just felt wrong to her. Pedophiles are not interested in looking at innocent bath photographs of children. They want them in situations that are going to feed their sexual fantasies. And yes, creating those types of photographs is harmful to the children.

"We are not discussing lefties, blacks, orientals, handicapped, etc. They have no choice in their condition and no amount of discipline/fortitude/determination will change their condition. Bringing it up is a strawman argument meant to detour the conversation toward feelings instead of reason." Yellow_hammer, what you dismiss as strawman arguments, I assert are simply different instances of equivalent "deviations", but which are considered socially acceptable to you, where homosexuality obviously isn't. No amount of discipline/fortitude/determination is going to change a person's sexual orientation, either. Or are you one of these people who believes that homosexuals can be "cured"? The purpose of analogies to other groups that also happen to be a statistical minority is to try to show how silly your arguments/assertions about homosexuals are when your only reason for making them is that they are a statistical minority. If anything, I am trying to apply reason (such as an analogy), and not my feelings and opinions. You, on the other hand, are trying to pass your feelings/opinions/morals off as "facts" and "reason"; very intellectually disingenuous. "But it is my nature to call something what it is without regard to politically correct speech requirements of the day. Homosexual sex is deviant. To me that is as plainly true as the sky is blue. That may hurt someone's *feelings* but it is no less true in my view." So since you think I am trying to call you a bigot, if it hurts your feelings, does that make it any less true in my view? It is not my intention to call anyone a bigot. Do you feel that your views about homosexuals express bigotry? Does the fact that you are calling me full of BS (say what you mean, after all) hurt my feelings? Not really. I just consider the source. My mother, who was unfortunately raised to be very racist, used to go on quite adamantly how she couldn't be a racist because she had an acquaintance, after all, who was Black. She even had a boss who was Black who she actually respected! How could she be a racist? "Why does everyone understand that?" Do not truly not understand the difference between a consenting adult and a child/animal/inanimate object? Or are you just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse? BrentAllen: "I suggest you read up on the former Governor of New Jersey. He is in his second marriage." I followed this with interest when the story broke. And there is a reason both of those marriages failed. The former Governor was trying to be in love with people (women) in direct conflict with his sexual orientation. Unfortunately, many homosexuals feel societal pressure to enter into heterosexual marriages even though those relationships are not based on feelings that lead to successful marriages. That is why almost all of such marriges are destined to fail. I've had clients who were married in heterosexual relationships, some with full knowledge that they did not really love their spouses. But they felt it was what they were expected to do, and eventually, they could no longer live that lie and the marriage failed. Yes, this is a generalization, but it is one I have found to be true in an overwhelming percentage of these cases.

Equating homosexual relationships/marriages with "relationships" to children, animals, and inanimate objects (like blow up dolls) is a common tactic for de-humanizing gays, relegating them to a sub-human status. And when a gay person is no longer considered really a "person", it becomes much easier to demonize them and rationalize discrimination against them. Otherwise, as hyperbole, these types of comparisons also fail, because everyone understands that a consenting adult is NOT the same thing as a child, an animal, or an inanimate object. That is the problem I have with the slipper slope argument. As far as the polygamy slippery slope, on the one hand, if it is a consentual relationship, I honestly couldn't care. On the other hand, if I did care, I can still see that there is a difference between being able to marry ONE person, regardless of their gender, and marrying multiple people. Not being able to marry multiple people is NOT going to prevent someone from benefiting from the institution of marriage on an equal footing with everyone else. Not being able to marry someone of the same gender does prevent someone from benefiting from the institution of marriage because a gay person is NOT going to fall in love with and marry someone of the opposite gender, no matter what.

"The natural purpose of sex is for men and women to procreate and recreate as in men with women and women with mean. Anything else is clearly *deviation* from the natural and best purpose." So you mean deviant in a purely statistical fashion? Well, given that the word has a lot of negative connotations surrounding it, I think you could chose a better word if you did not intent to convey those negative connotations. Did or did you not intend to convey those negative implictions surrounding the word "deviant"? Someone who is left handed is a "deviant" in the strict sense of the word, since only about 10% of the population has that trait, as well. Perhaps we should start preventing them from endulging in their deviation. I think reparative therapy would help them immensely. "The anus is clearly meant to be an exit port for body waste. Any other use is a *deviation* from the natural and best purpose." And the lungs are meant to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide, not transmit nicotine into the bloodstream. Using the lungs to mainline nicotine is a deviation fom the natural and best purpose. Let's put a stop to that practice, as well. So since lesbian sex does not involve anuses, does that mean it is less deviant? There are lots of other sexual acts that heterosexuals (many of them married to each other!) engage in that are a deviation from the natural purpose of the organs. Maybe we should void the marriages of those who engage in these deviant practices, too. "Your assertion that homosexuality is not a a sexual deviance is not based on reason but purely on your feelings on the matter and what you wish to be true." And your assertion that it is somehow detrimental to society is based purely on your feelings and what you wish to be true. As I said, we can cloak our biases in reason, but that doesn't change the fact that they are rationalizations for our opinions and morals. I find your "reasons" to be no less flawed than you find mine, so again, we seem to be at an impasse due to a lack of common viewpoints. Let me put this another way, if we were trying to have a discussion about left-handedness, and I came straight out of the block going on and on about how anyone who is left-handed is a "deviant", don't you think I'd get a negative reaction? Well, when you start in with the "homosexuals are deviants" rhetoric, it is going to effectively shut down any civil discourse. Or was that your goal?

"Being attracted to children is no different than being attracted to one of the same sex." Well, other than one involves two consenting adults and the other involves a child legally not capable of consent who, by the strict definition of pedophile (target being a prepubescent youth), does not even realy have an understanding of what sex is. "Pedophiles cant help being pedophiles, its in their genes. First we will be bombarded with the realization that pedophiles are not necessarily child molesters. Just because a person is attracted to children does not mean they have to act on that desire." Well, lots of things that are not healthy are genetic. Diabetes is genetic. Schizophrenia is genetic. ADHD is genetic. Pedophilia may in fact, turn out to be genetic. However, whether or not homosexuality is one of those genetic traits that we should strive to suppress for the betterment of society is where opinions part ways. And while we can cast the reasons to allow or disallow homosexual behavior in the diguise of logic, all we are really doing is coming up with rationalizations for our personal opinions/morals.