Do you support allowing people who divorce to re-marry?
How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot
- Thread starter poet
- Start date
Do you support allowing people who divorce to re-marry?
poet
Banned
Non sequitur. One of the requirements to drive, is to be able to see clearly. That was the most pedestrian and juvenile analogy you could have come up with.
poet
Banned
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/293530-overview
Homosexuality is not a medical or psychiatric disorder, but is a condition associated with certain medical risks. Homosexuality has long been recognized both in human and animal populations. Despite the relative frequency of homosexuality, it remains misunderstood and controversial to much of society. Homosexual individuals who choose members of their own sex for sexual relations and domestic partnerships are often targets of prejudice and may even be discriminated against by health care professionals.
The psychiatric and biologic literature on homosexuality has grown rapidly over the past 30 years. The literature now provides both a biologic and behavioral perspective on homosexuality and guidance on how physicians can positively affect the health of their gay and lesbian patients. Physicians who understand current scientific views of homosexuality are in a position to provide excellent care to gay and lesbian patients and to provide a model of leadership in their communities and hospitals regarding issues of homosexuality. Without such understanding, physicians risk repeating the prejudicial and harmful actions that often characterized medical treatment of gay and lesbian individuals in the past. This article provides an overview of homosexuality and is intended as a basic guide for both psychiatrists and general physicians.
Information regarding homosexuality is spread widely across the disciplines of psychiatry, psychology, general medicine, neuroscience, sociology, genetics, and anthropology. Thus, nonspecialists have difficulty in finding and evaluating the science and literature that are now available. The American Psychiatric Association recognized the need for a comprehensive reference that would make the literature accessible to generalists and specialists alike. The resultant Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health remains the single best reference for psychiatrists and general physicians to find information on homosexuality.[1]
A brief review of definitions and key concepts may be helpful. The term gender identity refers to an individual's internal sense of being male or female, boy or girl, man or woman. According to ego psychology, gender identity develops early in childhood and normally solidifies by age 2.5 years.[2] Most homosexual individuals have a firmly established gender identity that is consistent with their anatomy. For example, a homosexual man understands himself to be a man, just as does a heterosexual man. When gender identity is not firmly established, an individual may experience significant psychological distress, which is termed gender dysphoria.
The term gender orientation refers to an individual's desires and preferences regarding the sex of intimate partners.[3] Like gender identity, gender orientation is based on deeply held conscious and unconscious psychological constructs.[4] As Kinsey and others have shown, gender orientation is more of a dimension than a category.[5, 6] That is, individuals tend to have a range of preferences and desires rather than falling into neat, mutually exclusive categories.[7]
Who is homosexual? On the level of individual psychology, most adults experience themselves, and identify themselves to others, as either heterosexual or homosexual. A smaller number of adults experience themselves as having relatively little preference for one sex over the other, and they identify themselves as bisexual. The terms gay and lesbian have been adopted by a large number of self-identified homosexual individuals as preferred ways of referring to their gender orientation as well as to the culture they have developed as an alternative to mainstream straight (ie, heterosexual) culture.
On the societal level in the United States, each person is usually understood as being either gay or straight, and there is little notice given to the bisexual or others of various gradations in sexual preference. For example, many military, religious, educational, and voluntary organizations often demonstrate intense interest in whether one of their members is or is not homosexual, and they determine ways to deal with the individual once this label has been applied.[8, 9] The intent is usually to expel, or in some way marginalize, the homosexual individual.
People often believe that any same-sex-oriented behavior indicates that a given person is clearly homosexual. This forced choice into rigid, predetermined categories is a custom that has clear parallels in racist attitudes and practices. For example, individuals have been categorized as either colored or white, with the stigmatized colored status conferred on people of mixed heritage even when most of their relatives were white.
Interestingly, in important social institutions, primarily in the arts, sexual orientation appears to be more fluid, orientation categories less clearly defined, and discriminatory practices much less of an issue. In fact, certain entertainers have found commercial advantage in cultivating an image of ambiguous sexual identity and orientation. A more straightforward expression of a homosexual identity may still lead to controversy and potential career problems for mainstream entertainers.
Further complicating the picture is the fact that identity, orientation, behavior, and attraction may be expressed in ways that integrate seemingly contradictory elements. For example, some individuals who think of themselves as heterosexual engage in homosexual behaviors, and vice versa.
Other dimensions of partner choice may be given weight along with gender and, at times, may be of more importance. Individuals may prefer a more or a less active sexual role; younger or older partners; one or another physical focus of erotic feeling; one or another erotic activity; exclusive or nonexclusive partners; sexuality integrated with other elements of relationships or sexuality devoid of personal relationships; extended, nuclear, or other family configurations; and lifestyles that range from traditional modes to unconventional arrangements. In short, sexuality comes in more variations than individuals and society commonly recognize.
Thus, we describe sexual orientation in behavioral terms, designating men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have sex with women (WSW). One often observed pattern is that of a married, apparently heterosexual male who also has sex with men under certain circumstances. This may be an important factor to the primary care physician assessing STD risk in a particular patient. The CDC currently recommends universal HIV testing for everyone aged 13-69 years so that the full details of a patient’s sexuality need not be revealed for good preventive care to take place in the primary care office.
Again, importantly, homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. In this section, the authors briefly review psychiatric disorders that involve elements of sexuality and that could be confused with homosexuality. The purpose of this discussion is to differentiate these disorders from homosexuality and to refer readers to other eMedicine articles for further discussion.
No conclusion as to it not being normal, rather "misunderstood", which is an understatement, where you're concerned.
It depends on why you were divorced and which religion you follow.
Exactly and that is why the government should not be deciding who can get re-married.
I don't think the government should be sanctioning any form of marriages. Offer simple contracts that any two consenting adults can enter. The idea that the government is the place to argue whether this marriage or that one is okay and recognized is government overreach and an attempt at social engineering. I am against any government attempt at social engineering, regardless of which religion they base their sanction on...
I can agree with your position, to me the government should do one or the other.... Let every consenting adult enter into a marriage OR do away with government marriage and provide "form" contract agreements that provide the same relationship status that Marriage once allowed.
I prefer the second option to the first, but yeah.
The problem I see with the second option is that tens of thousands of laws would have to be re-written to include these types of contractural relationsips... For example Florida's PIP statute.
Additionally I belive that spelling rules and some grammer, when you are still able to convey your meaning, are a form of elitism.
If you are educated and know the "Code", you are conisdered intelegent. When you take spelling and grammer beyond the utilitarian tool of being able to convey intent, you are simply using the "code" to exclude others who are not in the know! Its how the Catholic church used the laitn language.
If you are educated and know the "Code", you are conisdered intelegent. When you take spelling and grammer beyond the utilitarian tool of being able to convey intent, you are simply using the "code" to exclude others who are not in the know! Its how the Catholic church used the laitn language.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Jarod I agree with you to some extent. If we're talking about uneducated people, I would never use grammar or writing ability as a measuring stick for intelligence. However, here, with a couple of glaring exceptions, we're all educated. To differing degrees, but I'd bet you can count the posters without at least undergraduate degrees on one hand and have fingers left over.
So ragging on spelling and grammar, on this board, IMO, can be a lot of things, but not elitist or exclusionary.
Why do you and your co-freaks keep bring pedophillia and bestiality into this discussian?
I disagree, they are saying that if you dont know or have an inability to use our "code" that serves no usefull purpose, then your ideas are not as valuable. To me that is elitism, regardless of how educated someone is.
Right, but it really wouldn't take much. You could cover it with "replace 'this' wording with 'this correction' in all cases involving the former 'marriage' laws" or some such. Saying that they would have to pass them all singly is trying to throw obstacles in the way of doing the right thing.
The government, especially the federal government, should not be in the business of defining such things.
I think you are correct in a purely academic perspective, I am simply not sure how it would work in a practical sense. I suspect we would get mired into debates about what "Contracts" constituted the former "Marriage".
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
To shine the harsh light of truth on my discussion with another poster.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That's a lie too.
Nah - it's just something bigots have done for year. Try to equate equivalency where none exists.
And guess what? It fails every time.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
They could make cars with radar and stuff. One of the requirements to marry is to be heterosexual.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I don't care what they do.