The American Psychological Association, or at least a group within it, has come out in support of neutering marriage. Here's Alden Mahler Levine's piece at CNN.com.
Of course, brideless or groomless pairings are inherently unequal to marriage, regardless of law or pronouncements from political groups in power within professional organizations.
Surely Anderson has heard of placebos? Security is an illusion in any place with no-fault and/or easy access to divorce and no law against adultery; or, it is dependent entirely on the voluntary actions of the individuals, which they can do with or without a marriage license. Support and validation from whom? Marriage licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state. If the people of a state do not support issuing marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples, the "support and validation" is not there. It's like pointing a gun at someone and saying, "Tell me love you me," and taking their profession of love seriously. Isn't delusion something psychology deals with?
If these are the reasons the APA supports this move, then it should also support giving state marriage licenses to anyone who asks – singles, three people, four people, anybody. Anyone who feels insecure or in need of support or validation should be handed a state marriage license. And I would feel better if I got an award from the APA and a designation as a psychologist. So now, they have to give me those things.
I won't hold my breath for them to make the same observation about conservative religious groups and some of the political debates involving them.
There goes Maggie, raining on the parade.
So we're never supposed to notice the differences in different behaviors?
They aren't as good - not when it comes to forming a microcosm of society to naturally create and raise the next generation with an adult bonding partner from each of the two sexes. This is about with what the law should be concerned. There is a reason that the state gets involved in a bride+groom relationship that simply does not exist when it comes to relationships exclusive of one of the sexes.
This APA is not to be confused with the American Psychiatric Association. Psychiatrists are MDs. The American Psychiatric Association, you may recall, was literally harassed for years into declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. This was not a majority vote. Four years later, 69 percent of members still maintained that homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation.
The scientific and professional organization's guiding body voted unanimously at its annual meeting this week in Washington to declare its support for "full marriage equality for same-sex couples."
Of course, brideless or groomless pairings are inherently unequal to marriage, regardless of law or pronouncements from political groups in power within professional organizations.
Dr. Clinton Anderson, APA associate executive director, said that the timing of the resolution is an indirect result of several states' legalization of marriage.
"We knew that marriage benefits heterosexual people in very significant ways, but we didn't know if that would be true for same-sex couples," said Anderson, who is also director of the APA's Office on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns.
Now that six U.S. states permit same-sex marriage, researchers have been able to conduct studies with those couples.
The research, Anderson said, indicates that marriage "does confer the same sense of security, support, and validation" to same-sex couples as to heterosexual ones.
Surely Anderson has heard of placebos? Security is an illusion in any place with no-fault and/or easy access to divorce and no law against adultery; or, it is dependent entirely on the voluntary actions of the individuals, which they can do with or without a marriage license. Support and validation from whom? Marriage licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state. If the people of a state do not support issuing marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples, the "support and validation" is not there. It's like pointing a gun at someone and saying, "Tell me love you me," and taking their profession of love seriously. Isn't delusion something psychology deals with?
If these are the reasons the APA supports this move, then it should also support giving state marriage licenses to anyone who asks – singles, three people, four people, anybody. Anyone who feels insecure or in need of support or validation should be handed a state marriage license. And I would feel better if I got an award from the APA and a designation as a psychologist. So now, they have to give me those things.
The resolution also points to evidence that ongoing political debate about marriage creates stress for gay men and lesbians and perpetuates stigmas and prejudice about their communities.
I won't hold my breath for them to make the same observation about conservative religious groups and some of the political debates involving them.
Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage, takes issue with the assertion that legalizing same-sex marriage would improve community acceptance of homosexuality.
"There is no evidence that gay teens are better off in Massachusetts, a state that has gay marriage, than they are in Wisconsin, a state which has passed a marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman," she said in an e-mail response to CNN.
There goes Maggie, raining on the parade.
The APA also feels that civil unions miss the mark.
"Anything other than marriage is, in essence, a stigmatization of same-sex couples. Stigma does have negative impacts on people," Anderson said.
So we're never supposed to notice the differences in different behaviors?
"That's the analysis that we've come to and why we've decided to support full marriage equality -- because domestic partnership or civil union will still convey the message that same-sex couples are not as good."
They aren't as good - not when it comes to forming a microcosm of society to naturally create and raise the next generation with an adult bonding partner from each of the two sexes. This is about with what the law should be concerned. There is a reason that the state gets involved in a bride+groom relationship that simply does not exist when it comes to relationships exclusive of one of the sexes.
This APA is not to be confused with the American Psychiatric Association. Psychiatrists are MDs. The American Psychiatric Association, you may recall, was literally harassed for years into declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. This was not a majority vote. Four years later, 69 percent of members still maintained that homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation.
Great analysis. Thanks~
ReplyDelete