Debates
05 Aug 11
05 Aug 11
Why is a scientific organization endorsing a political agenda?
If, say, the American Automobile Mechanics Association endorsed tax hikes for the rich, would we pay attention to them?
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. This stress can make people physically and psychologically sick, the APA says, calling the link between stress and illness "well established."
That political debate upsets some people is not a good enough reason to end the political debate. Sorry. In any case, giving up on legalization of same sex marriage would have an equally effective impact on ending the "political debate about marriage" but presumably they are not pressing for that conclusion.
05 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76It's endorsing a practice that it feels is beneficial from a psychological health viewpoint. I don't see why it's such a big issue.
Why is a scientific organization endorsing a political agenda?
If, say, the American Automobile Mechanics Association endorsed tax hikes for the rich, would we pay attention to them?
[quote]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 ...[text shortened]... "political debate about marriage" but presumably they are not pressing for that conclusion.
If the American Economic Association endorsed tax hikes for the rich, shouldn't we pay attention? Or the APHA regarding the public health of distributing condoms to teenagers? I think we should pay attention as another factor in the equation.
05 Aug 11
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree that it's not a big issue. In fact, that was kind of my point.
It's endorsing a practice that it feels is beneficial from a psychological health viewpoint. I don't see why it's such a big issue.
If the American Economic Association endorsed tax hikes for the rich, shouldn't we pay attention? Or the APHA regarding the public health of distributing condoms to teenagers? I think we should pay attention as another factor in the equation.
05 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyTo call something "inherently unhealthy" would imply that it always has negative health consequences. This is of course not true of homosexual intercourse if sensible precautions are taken.
If gay marriage can curb the AIDS epidemic perhaps it has merit. Otherwise they are simply endorsing a sexual practice that is inherently unhealthy.
07 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Yep, politics and science, a marriage made in hell.
Why is a scientific organization endorsing a political agenda?
If, say, the American Automobile Mechanics Association endorsed tax hikes for the rich, would we pay attention to them?
[quote]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 "political debate about marriage" but presumably they are not pressing for that conclusion.
Has the APA endorsed cap and trade yet?
07 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI'll bite. How is the APA's endorsement of same-sex marriage effectively an endorsement of a sexual practice? And how is the APA's endorsement of same-sex marriage an endorsement of an unhealthy practice?
If gay marriage can curb the AIDS epidemic perhaps it has merit. Otherwise they are simply endorsing a sexual practice that is inherently unhealthy.
And while you're at it, go ahead and resolve for me your paternalistic concern for homosexuals affected by the HIV epidemic and your ever-present fear of government encroachment on individual liberty, too.