Gay Marriage in the Interests of Mental Health

[Irvine511]

[being coy]

and appropriately provocative.

no one is born religious! it's a choice! no special treatment for religious organizations! it's unnatural to be religious!

[also being coy]

 

[nbcrusader]

1. What if it IS actually ok? And they are right or not, in your opinion?
2. I thought you had no personal problem with gay people getting married anyway
3. Is it possible that denial of such civil equality could cause emotional and mental problems?

Sorry I missed your post earlier - you could always PM if you want to get directly to me.

As for your questions - I never questioned the substance of their statement or wanted to turn this into a "gay marriage is right/wrong thread".

I also believe that society needs to examine the broad concept of civil unions as there are many such relationships that are not given sufficient legal recognition/structure to adequately address many life events.

Is the APA correct? I don't know. It does not appear that the statement was made based on studies (such as a betterment of mental health in Massachusetts vs. a decline in the states that have banned gay marriage).

If a medical group will issue statemetns not based on scientific study, then I would suspect there are more political motivations for making the statement (sorry, politics is not just for the Christian conservative).

 

[Irvine511]

the statement does cites the "positive influence of a stable, adult partnership on the health of all family members." it also points to the lack of access to health insurance, pension payments, death benefits and other rights for same-sex couples hurts the stability of their relationships and their mental health.

so it might not affect your mental health, but it does affect the mental health of that already beseiged 5-10% of the population. so your asking for a study on general mental health in Massachusettes vs., say, Missouri misses the point -- it's about being good for the mental health of gay people, and as we know, and as i'm sure you yourself as a happily married man would attest, the stability, love, and support of an adult relationship is good for anyone's mental health.

 

[melon]

I think another aspect has to be considered.

To start my example, take a look at Iraq or other nations where they had decades of ethnic minority rule. Then, abruptly, things change and there's a quick hegemony shift to the ethnic majority. So what happens to that once dominant minority that's now stuck in a permanently subordinate role? The Sunnis are a pretty depressed and demoralized group, now aren't they?

For homosexuals, choosing to be open and honest about themselves is often the equivalent of a hegemony shift. Now you're a permanent "minority." The "majority" can now ignore your wants and needs, because you're not large enough to matter. Politicians can make "compromises" that make for good newspaper headlines--but, ultimately, are bad for you, because the judges they will appoint are heavily anti-gay. They were filibustered for a reason, but, apparently, the desire for happy headlines trump integrity. And for all those who dreamed of spending the rest of their lives with the person they loved, they instead get condescending glares or venom thrown at them by people who don't understand. And why do they have to understand? After all, they're the majority. And the majority doesn't have to give a rat's ass about minority rights!

For the Sunnis, such a hegemony shift went to something relatively "constructive"--insurgency. No, I'm not supporting the insurgents; the key word is "relatively." It's relatively constructive when you look at what the LBGT community has generally resorted to over the years--moping around.

In the fight for equality, blacks had it "relatively" easy. If it were up to the vote of the majority in 1865, blacks would still likely be slaves. It just took the prowess of the North to make ratification of the anti-slavery and black civil rights amendments a condition for the South to be readmitted into the U.S. In other words, blackmail (no pun intended).

But even then, it took 100 years for the U.S. to bother enforcing its own amendments, and it took "activist judges" to do just that. Then good old Sen. Strom Thurmond did his 24-hour filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And did you know that the act contains civil rights that protects against gender too? That provision was thrown in at the last moment by an opponent of the Act, thinking that gender equality would be enough to make it too controversial and derail the bill. But it passed, and rather than the sky falling, less than 10 years later, Strom Thurmond is hiring a black staff member. Obviously, racism is more of a fear of the unknown than any rational fear; and I'd say that the homophobia and attitudes thrown at homosexuals in this country are based on fear of the unknown as well.

But the GOP, this time around, seems to have learned its lessons from 1964--by using the same obstructionist and bigoted tactics to divide the Democratic Party. The Democrats held the high road in 1964--but, in the process, the GOP recruited all the racist Southern Democrats. And now here we are 41 years later, and the GOP is using bigotry to try and divide the Democratic Party all over again.

But I digress. For you, nbcrusader, to pose that question so freely, I would venture to say its because of your detachment from the issue as part of the "majority." Nothing short of full equality will make the gay community happy, and nor should they accept anything less. The fact remains that most of them are striving for readmission into the "dominant hegemony" and discrimination or "separate-but-equal" statuses like civil unions aren't going to satisfy those who want to return to their former "dominant" status.

I think these lessons should be kept in mind when we're dealing with the Sunnis, as well. Making a group feel subordinate or lesser is never good for the old mental health. I will certainly accept nothing less than full equality, and I have to wonder what the U.S. would say if the gay community became more "proactive" like the blacks during the race riots or the Sunnis and started turning violent to achieve their goals. History has also proven that "pacifism" only goes so far.

Melon

 

[pax]

From time to time, melon's posts just make me go, Daaaaaaaaaaaaammmmnnnn.

 

[nathan1977]

I think we need to consider our definitions.

How do we define "equality"?

How do we define "rights"?

Is marriage really the ultimate barometer of human rights? If so, why?

 

[MissMoo]

Considering doctors make pronouncements about smoking being bad for your health, I would think psychiatrists saying that marriage is good for everyone's mental health is within their jurisdiction.

 

[Irvine511]

I think we need to consider our definitions.

How do we define "equality"?

How do we define "rights"?

Is marriage really the ultimate barometer of human rights? If so, why?

1. equality means that citizens are not treated differently nor denied rights on the basis of unchangable characteristics like sex, race, color, or sexual orientation.

2. rights are what is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature

3. in the context of sexual orientation, the denial of marriage is a violation of the idea of equality between different sexual orientation; if one group can get married, and the other cannot, this is, in effect, saying that one group is entitled to rights on the basis of their unchangeable characteristic (heterosexuality) whereas another group is denied them on the basis of their unchangeable characteristics (homosexuality). the right to marriage is the right to 1,049 tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, medical decision rights, and many others that are currently denied the partners of homosexual people. while a civil union might be a way to address these legal greivances, some would argue that by creating something different than marriage is, in effect, making it "less than" marraige via a semantic decision.

essentially, the basis for "gay marriage" ... or let's just call it marriage ... is this: if sexual orientation is involuntary, and if there is no moral distinction to be made bewteen heteresexuality and homosexuality, then there can be no basis for the denial of rights (i.e., discrimination) in a legal context.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I think we need to consider our definitions.

How do we define "equality"?

How do we define "rights"?

Is marriage really the ultimate barometer of human rights? If so, why?

I'd ask that you rightwingers also do the same.

How do YOU define "equality"?

How do YOU define "rights"?

Is marriage A barometre of human rights? If not, why?

I think Irvine summed up the general view of the answers to your questions, so perhaps you could share yours, or anyone who sees it from the same position, as well.

I think regardless of religion and politics, we all try to be fair and compassionate in our views. We want 'good and fair' for all. Marriage is such a common everyday occurrance, yet the very essence of what marriage does and what it means to those who participate in one, know fully, the security and strength one gains from it. It goes from being such an ordinary concept to something which absolutely and totally shifts our senses of self. It empowers, it gives strength and courage, it comforts. It is a powerful and wonderful union for 2 people to partake in. Yet some want to deny this very institution to a select group. This reaks of lack of compassion and fairness. The reasons for why marriage should be for all are overwhelmingly put forward continuously by many in this forum. I'm sure that the arguments for why are nothing new to those who oppose it. But many are still stumped on why there is opposition. Perhaps it is because of the majority vs the minority that people withhold coherant arguments against. But I ask anyone to be brave enough to please address why it is fair to deny rights to others. If it isnt a right, then why not. With all the etcs.

Thanks nbc for replying earlier, as well. I thought you'd avoided those other questions selectively. My bad assumption.

 

[nathan1977]

I would have trouble defining marriage as a basic human right. It's certainly not a Constitutional one.

I think as a metric of equality, it also seems to be something of a non-sequitor. Melon likened racial inequality to sexual. May I go through the door he opened?...

Significant symbols for inequality would seem to be:
- government-sponsored ghettoization (consider the number of Japanese rounded up into internment camps during WWII)
- hate-crimes (compare the numbers of hate crimes committed per year against gay people v. people of an ethnic minority -- particularly Arabs in this country)
- economic disparity (compare the average income of a gay man to that of an African-American/Hispanic-American/Asian American)
- disparity of access to goods and services (I don't remember the last time I saw a "Gay v. straight" water fountain)

I'm not trying to create a firestorm of controversy, I'm really not. And I realize that this comment seems to detract from the initial subject of this thread. It just seems to me that, given the inequities faced by other minority groups throughout the 20th Century, marriage seems somewhat lower on the scale of inequalities to be raged against. (And the reality is that all of us probably have reasons to complain about inequality. In the most just of societies, inequities will exist. But we should probably put those concerns into a larger context.)

I also find it interesting when people talk about the thousands of tax breaks available to married couples, when actually your taxes go UP as a married couple. The two principle tax breaks are for children and homeownership. It's unfortunately a little known fact.

As always, Melon and Irvine make for stimulating thought....

 

[BVS]

Significant symbols for inequality would seem to be:
- government-sponsored ghettoization (consider the number of Japanese rounded up into internment camps during WWII)
- hate-crimes (compare the numbers of hate crimes committed per year against gay people v. people of an ethnic minority -- particularly Arabs in this country)
- economic disparity (compare the average income of a gay man to that of an African-American/Hispanic-American/Asian American)
- disparity of access to goods and services (I don't remember the last time I saw a "Gay v. straight" water fountain)

Use now vs. now for historical examples won't work, do you want to know what some societies did with openly gay individuals?

hate crimes - let's look at the number of racial minorities vs homosexuals. Then let's look at the fact that a black man walking down the street is a black man, a gay man walking down the street isn't visibly gay until you see him with another man or he tells you.

economics - oh but what about gay black men? Oh my. You see the pandora's box you open with this one?

disparity - can't serve you country openly, can't teach children, can't serve in churches, and you can't marry. I see a huge disparity when it comes to these types of things.

Why are you focusing on the fact that marriage isn't a "human right"? Please tell me one other group besides minors(of course they can with written permission) who can't get married.

 

[Irvine511]

Significant symbols for inequality would seem to be:
- government-sponsored ghettoization (consider the number of Japanese rounded up into internment camps during WWII)
- hate-crimes (compare the numbers of hate crimes committed per year against gay people v. people of an ethnic minority -- particularly Arabs in this country)
- economic disparity (compare the average income of a gay man to that of an African-American/Hispanic-American/Asian American)
- disparity of access to goods and services (I don't remember the last time I saw a "Gay v. straight" water fountain)

i think what most people don't understand about gay people in general, is that the gay people you see are the ones who are able to come out. this usually means that you have several, if not all, of the following characteristics:

1. urban
2. white (2nd place, Asian)
3. educated
4. affluent
5. reasonably secure with yourself

there are probably millions of closted gay people who cannot come out for a variety of reasons, due to family or religious pressure or due to very valid safety concerns based upon the areas in which they live or in the communiteis they are a part of. it's no secret that young black gay men and young hispanic gay men have particularly difficult times, especially amongs the lower classes. it seems that gay men are welathy, because the visible gay men are, in fact wealthy. but not all gay men are weathy, and it's more difficult to come out when you are poor.

what this becomes is a kind of mental ghetto, and this is in addition to the fact that, yes, many gay men do live in ghettos. nowadays, most fashionable people want to live in the gay ghettos of the West Village, Dupont Circle, South Boston, South Beach, Hillcrest, West Hollywood, or the Castro because gay men tend to be brilliant urban citizens -- they support coffeshops, bookstores, independent restaruants, independent music scenes, and they are willing, more than any other demographic, to move into run down areas and, bluntly, redecorate. while these are now positive things, it is still, in effect, being placed in an urban ghetto.

hate crimes against gay people are still staggering, only this becomes more difficult to prove since sexual orientation is more difficult to spot than, say, race. i don't have any hard numbers off the top of my head, but it's still shocking the number of people who are beaten, hospitalized, or set on fire (happened a few years ago in AL), or crucified like Matthew Shepard, all for the being gay. and let's add the high rates of gay teen suicide on top of all this -- vastly higher than ANY ethnic group in America, because most gay teens are tremendously isolated and have difficulty seeing a way to be gay if they are, say, trapped in small town Nebraska.

while the water fountain is a good example, the reason why you don't have such blatant discrimination has little to do with anti-gay hate and more to do with the ease with which gay men can pass for straight (whereas its rather difficult for a black man to pass as white). in many states, it is perfectly legal to discriminate in both housing and employment on the basis of sexual orientation, whereas it is not legal to do so on the basis of race. also, people of different races can marry whomever they choose, no matter what crimes they have committed, but a gay person cannot. long term partners have no rights in comparison to the family of the partner -- i've heard stories of a long term couple where one dies, and the parents, out of spite, take all the deceased's assets away from the partner.

no, it's not as obvious or as visually stirring as white-on-black discrimination; it's a far more psychological kind of discrimination. every time you see a romantic comedy, every time you turn on the TV, every Valentine's Day, every time you hear a pop song, you hear about heterosexual love. in some small way, each and every day, you hear that you are different, and that you are still less than. there's no question that alcoholism, drug use, and poor sexual decisions plauge the gay community -- in my opinion, much of this is tied to low self-esteem that no flashy sports car, no fabulous condo, no perfectly toned gym body can make up for. gay men are near miraculous overcompensators, but external factors only compensate so much.

the new evil in the gay community is crystal meth. when you look at the crystal meth epidemic, or the underlying psychological reasons to pursue sex for sex's sake, it strikes me as thuddingly obvious the link to the fact that gay teens and gay men have close to no social incentives for coupling or monogamy. one reason i believe civil marriage is an answer to the problems that plauge gay men is that it will change the dynamic for the socialization of homosexuals and, most crucially, since habits are formed while young, give gay kids a sense of a real future, rather than simply a void where they will be condemned however they live their lives. marriage will save and lengthen gay lives, as it saves and lengthens straight ones, and it just might provide a solution to -- though not yet a cure for -- HIV and AIDS.

 

[nathan1977]

Irvine, as always, a thoughtful, well-reasoned post. Thanks. Just a couple of follow-up thoughts.

1. I'm still not convinced that gay marriage is a solution to the problems you cite, simply because I'm not convinced that many will take advantage of it. This article from UPI seems to indicate that in the Netherlands, few homosexual couples seem interested in it: "The Dutch government agency Statistics Netherlands reported in late 2002, 'Same-sex couples do not seem to be very interested in marriage. Statistics Netherlands estimates that there are about 50,000 same-sex couples in the Netherlands, of whom less than 10 percent have married so far.'"

2. It's hard to know how to combat psychological discrimination, since it is so much in the eye of the beholder. That gets into ultra-PC-ness, thought police and all of that -- messy areas to regulate, to be sure.

3. As far as the ghettoization you describe, I was talking about government-mandated as opposed to self-selected. Gay friends of mine who live in Provincetown and WeHo say that it's easier to live in supportive communities than try to move into other, less-supportive ones. Since they are choosing where to live and make their home, as opposed to being forced into slums, it's hard to say that it's symptomatic of discrimination in the same way that Japanese displacement was.

Again, I agree that gay discrimination exists. I support (and have supported) any hate-crime legislation that would make a case like Matthew Shepard's obsolete. At the same time, when compared to the discrimination that takes place every day and has for the last few centuries or so against people of color, marriage laws (especially when considering the fact that those fabled tax "incentives" for married couples don't seem to actually exist, since your taxes GO UP as a married couple) as a basis of discrimination just seem to pale as a standard.

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine, as always, a thoughtful, well-reasoned post. Thanks. Just a couple of follow-up thoughts.

1. I'm still not convinced that gay marriage is a solution to the problems you cite, simply because I'm not convinced that many will take advantage of it. This article from UPI seems to indicate that in the Netherlands, few homosexual couples seem interested in it: "The Dutch government agency Statistics Netherlands reported in late 2002, 'Same-sex couples do not seem to be very interested in marriage. Statistics Netherlands estimates that there are about 50,000 same-sex couples in the Netherlands, of whom less than 10 percent have married so far.'"

2. It's hard to know how to combat psychological discrimination, since it is so much in the eye of the beholder. That gets into ultra-PC-ness, thought police and all of that -- messy areas to regulate, to be sure.

3. As far as the ghettoization you describe, I was talking about government-mandated as opposed to self-selected. Gay friends of mine who live in Provincetown and WeHo say that it's easier to live in supportive communities than try to move into other, less-supportive ones. Since they are choosing where to live and make their home, as opposed to being forced into slums, it's hard to say that it's symptomatic of discrimination in the same way that Japanese displacement was.

Again, I agree that gay discrimination exists. I support (and have supported) any hate-crime legislation that would make a case like Matthew Shepard's obsolete. At the same time, when compared to the discrimination that takes place every day and has for the last few centuries or so against people of color, marriage laws (especially when considering the fact that those fabled tax "incentives" for married couples don't seem to actually exist, since your taxes GO UP as a married couple) as a basis of discrimination just seem to pale as a standard.

1. it doesn't matter if only one gay person wants to get married, or if all gay people want to get married. sheer numbers do not determine whether or not a group is eligible for basic rights and protections. also, marriage equality is something very new, and i think many gay people who are into their 40s and 50s have lived without marriage, so they might not see any need to change their lives, especially when it is an institution that has discriminated against them for so long. they're skeptical, and understandably so. it will take years and years for marriage equality to normalize itself in the minds of gay people, and frankly, you're probably never going to see gay men getting married in the same numbers as their straight counterparts; however, i would be willing to bet that not only will a higher percentage of lesbians get married than straight women, but these relationships will have a much lower divorce rate than do straight couples. at the end of the day, marriage equality today is for the gay people 20 years from now, those who will know no different. they will view dating as a means to an end, not as an activity in and of itself. give it time.

2. agreed it is messy. what needs to be done, then, is for society, as much as possible, to remove real, quantifiable methods and forms of discrimination -- all states should be required to have "no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation" clauses in both housing and employment; marriage, or at least civil unions, should be adopted by all states; the armed services must drop "don't ask don't tell"; but after that, there's little else that can really be done. i think religion needs to take a good long look at itself; i think gay people need to be "out" so that straight people can understand that it's not all that different, really, from heterosexuality; i think Gay-Straight Alliances in high schools are a good thing; i think teachers and especially guidence counselors need training in dealing with queer youth issues. but at the end of the day, you're never going to eradicate homophobia just like you will never eradicate racism.

3. if you're going to compare the Japanese American internment to pretty much every other episode in American history, you're never going to get anythign that was quite as egregious. though i think there are parallels to be drawn between the scapegoating and fear and paranoia of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor and what could happen even today should another right wing, religious administration be elected in 2008. the internment had nothing to do with military strategy and everything to do with racist right wing groups like Sons of the Golden West exerting pressure on local governments in order to get such legislation passed. it was an invented threat, and passed largely to calm the white population of California, much the same way that Texas thinks that banning gay people from adopting children is somehow a means of addressing the shortcomings of the Texas foster care children. "we don't believe these people should be taking care of our children." how is that any different than "we believe these people are likely to be more loyal to the Emperor of Japan than to FDR."

and you'll notice that there were no camps in Hawaii. because they needed Japanese Americans to pick pineapples.

i also don't think that gay people have as much choice as they might say that they do. you're right, there's no government-mandated housing, but it is legal to say no to tenants based upon their sexual orientation in many states. if i was part of an out, partnered couple, there are many places in this country that i simply cannot live not because it's illegal, but because i would genuinely fear for my safety -- this is several steps beyond feeling "comfortable." speaking for myself, i cannot imagine myself anywhere but a coastal, urban city. this is a mental ghetto, and that's where i live.

marriage laws are a very, very small part of the dangers and discrimination that takes place on a daily basis around the world. actually, i'd argue that homosexuals are the most discriminated against group on earth. you get beheaded in Saudi Arabia; stoned to death under the Taliban; you get jailed in Egypt (and many, many other countries); it's perfectly acceptable to despise homosexuals in most cultures; on playgrounds across the US, "gay" is the most frequent insult after "stupid."

i could go on and on and on, but there's no need.

 

[joyfulgirl]

i cannot imagine myself anywhere but a coastal, urban city. this is a mental ghetto, and that's where i live.

FYI, Santa Fe has the largest population of gays and lesbians per capita than any other city in the country except for San Francisco.

 

[Irvine511]

FYI, Santa Fe has the largest population of gays and lesbians per capita than any other city in the country except for San Francisco.

i've been to santa fe once.

totally santa fe, and much of the southwest.

in fact, am hoping to take a trip out there sometime in the late fall to visit some friends.

straight friends, too.

 

[Irvine511]

also would like to toss a question out there, sort of the reverse question that i've been asked.

other than a Bible-based argument (which may or may not be a misreading, depending on who you talk to), is there any reason not to give marriage rights to gay couples? it seems strange, to me, that we must prove the denial of marriage rights is somehow detrimental, both financially and psychologically, (in addition to having to repeat, over and over, that being gay is neither a choice nor a disorder) in order to convince the masses of the need for marriage equality.

in another world, wouldn't you need to prove to me that gay people getting married is somehow detrimental to society in order to pass a ban on gay people getting married?

(sorry if that's rather clunky, just woke up from a nap)

 

[joyfulgirl]

i've been to santa fe once.

totally santa fe, and much of the southwest.

in fact, am hoping to take a trip out there sometime in the late fall to visit some friends.

straight friends, too.

Then we'll have to have coffee or something.

 

[joyfulgirl]

other than a Bible-based argument (which may or may not be a misreading, depending on who you talk to), is there any reason not to give marriage rights to gay couples?

The question has been asked here over and over and over and over and no one has given an even remotely satisfactory answer. Apparently gay love/sex affects everyone adversely in some vague way that no one can even provide an example of.

 

[Irvine511]

Then we'll have to have coffee or something.

it's a date.