Cheat Sheet

soapstarj0e -- lol -- I disagree with your "dealer" comment.

Surely they would love to eliminate the risk of going to the slammer for 200 years.

Prescription Drugs kill 300 % more people in the US than "illegal" drugs ---

Prohibition is fantastic for the Pharmaceutical Industry.

The Legal High --- ask your Dr. if this will work for you ??????

70 Million Americans on Prozac ???????????????????????????

.

If drugs were legalized costs would decrease and dealers would be out of a job.

soapstarj0e

If drugs were legalized costs would decrease and dealers would be out of a job.
_________________________________

You obviously know very little about dealers or drugs.

Drugs are like fine wines and having a good dealer is paramount.

.

Your statement above is a perfect example of snobbery and disdain for anyone who doesn't live up to your standards. Everyone has a right to voice their opinion and to have an opinion, whether they have attained an extended education or not. Your statement shows what is wrong in America today. People like you.

Exactly.....who cares the point is conveyed.

Logically fallacious is the Newyorker.

How does it cheapen the institution of marriage? Why do you feel you are more deserving of rights than others?

If folks are strongly against it, then they shouldn't attend a church that marries gay people. But for the government to forbid it is discrimination plain and simple.

See this is how people ( i use the term loosely) like that are. They do the classic bumpand run spouting the party clap trap and do not answer the question because they cannothave an intelligent discussion.

So, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, you will get a divorce? Your marriage vows won't be as important to you? You will love your spouse less? Have no qualms about cheating?

Easiest solution is to acknowledge that the ONLY thing the state can regulate is the legal contract of partnership, period. That gets around the marriage/civil union debate: EVERYONE gets a civil union from the state. Let 'marriage' be kept as a religious ceremony. If your church doesn't marry same-sex couples, so be it. If mine does, no skin off your nose.

Because religious beliefs are meaningless unless they are endorsed by Big Government. If Government isn't there to tell you what is right and what is wrong, how will people know what to believe? This law is the only thing keeping NYR from turning gay.

...barny frank has been with his partner for years. i believe frank is the younger one.

and if we put miscegenation laws to a national vote when that was an issue, then i wouldn't be happily married to my white wife right now.

there is NO logical reason to be against gay marriage. NONE. especially none involving the government. it will not hurt the well being of the people (and don't spout off about their souls, because the govt shouldn't care about that sort of thing), it will not hurt the country financially, it will not make us weaker in the eyes of our enemies. commerce could only INCREASE because of all the weddings and the services needed by couples looking to build lives with each other.

this whole debate is based on people being scared of gay people. its just sad.

I am married and have been for some time. The marriage my husband and I enjoy will not change because other people are married, regardless of the gender of either of the participants. Our marriage will not be cheapened, nor cheated or changed. It will be what it has been all these years and what will continue into the future. I fail to understand how allowing people to marry cheapens YOUR marriage, unless, perhaps, you or your spouse is married to the wrong gendered person and do not want others to have what you couldn't?

You're a New Yorker? You must have a difficult time living in a liberal state. I'm sorry that you're so misguided and that you wholly lack compassion. Truly, you're everything that's wrong with America today. It makes me sad that people like you can't just mind your own business.

So NY, you think the incredibly high rate of divorce among heteros raises marriage? Once again, your head is really screwed on crooked. Heteros have made a sham of marriage and have no right to preach to any other group about how sacred the institution is that they have completely disrespected. They're married, they cheat, they divorce, they remarry, the cheat, repeat, etc.

People who voted for McGovern vote Republican now...HAHAHAHAHAHA

Try to think for a change. A high majority of under 25's voted for McGovern in 1972-- simple fact. Most people over fifty vote Republican by a small margin. Got it now? When people are young they are far more liberal. When they get older, they are more conservative. It's called maturity. Of course, some people don't change. We call them immature.

Pomposity at its zenith aslanleon. Yes, as people get older they either become conservatives, and if they don't, people like you get to say they are immature.

cbeenthere-- I was ridiculing your obviously false assumption, cbeenthere. If what I said wasn't true, there would be about three Republicans in the whole state. Irony pretty much escapes you, doesn't it.

Everyone was not a Democrat in 1972, there was also a party known as the Republican Party. Your assumption that the majority of young people were Democrats is patently false. I went to a small, religious woman's college, and I was one of the few liberals there, the others were conservative and remain so today. There is a divide in my age group that is as alive and as well as we are. Sorry your stunted view of the world is just that. A wishful fairytale of how one grows up. leon.

cbeenthere - "Your assumption that the majority of young people were Democrats is patently false. I went to a small, religious woman's college . . . " Surely you're joking. You went to a small religious college and you think that's typical? I guess all the polls and studies done on the 1972 election are wrong, too. By all I mean every single one. You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts. Liberals made the same cheery pronouncements about conservatism being dead based on how kids voted in 1972. It simply didn't work out.

Maybe in your world- not in mine. There isn't a republican alive I would vote for. None of them, with the exceptions of the ones from Maine, have the gumption to stand up and vote for what is best for constituents, regardless of what the party wants. Sheep with wet noodle spines, full of hatred and hypocrisy. Racists have a home in the republican party and have been most evident. And I am very much in the "over 50" as are many of the life long democrats I have known. If you vote republican now, you have left behind all the values George McGovern stood for. I have had the pleasure of hearing from George McGovern on a regular basis, as he lived near where I did and spent time in his daughters book store as well as writing opinion pieces in our local paper. You instead are willingly buying into the nastiness of the republicans. Lets hope you find your way back to humanity.

Becoming a tea bagging conservative is not called maturity, its called fear. It's easier to be liberal when we're young because we don't get caught up in our race to keep up with the Joneses and 'eep our Medicare, young people be damned. So, liberals take note! Let's not age into a bunch of selfish republicans who bore our grandchildren with tales of our cool Hippie pasts...you know, back when we cared about people other than ourselves.

That is exactly what I said dcbook. I am sorry you did not understand my post, I did state it had been removed. Pardon me, perahps I should have been more specific and used discredited as you did, you should read and understand posts. as I do keep up. Thanks anyway.

That was a purely political decision and passed by a majority with no supporting studies. Also, I didn't say it was a psychological disorder. I said it was a failure to mature. If you don't know the difference you shouldn't argue psychology. A lot of psychologists do not believe that the original decision was correct and have published dissenting opinions. Science changes and is never the final answer. All scientists know that.

Maybe you are unaware what the DSM is, dcbook, otherwise you would not have misunderstood --it is the manual of the American Psych. Assn. on mental disorders.

Aslanleon-
Your condescension doesn't cut any ice with me. Of course you classified it as a mental disorder, who the heck do you think you are kidding. And who cares if there is dissent? That is par for the course. It does not, more importantly, prove your point.

Cheenthere

I was responding to Aslanleon in my post, not you. Sorry. Should have put a header in my message.

~AslanLeon: "That was a purely political decision and passed by a majority with no supporting studies."~

Aslan is clearly so full of animosity against homosexuals that he would condone the medical community using outdated, incomplete, and corrupted data to conclude there is some sort of dysfunctionality among an entire segment of the population. Which is, by the way, EXACTLY how the psychological community had reached their conclusions prior to the change in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III.

Anyone who values scientific objectivity and the use of falsifying evidence would know that you cannot conclude that a small group of institutionalized individuals with drug addictions and severe psychological and behavioral problems must be representative of the homosexual population as a whole. AslanLeon and his ilk, however, aren't interested in objectivity, they have an agenda to push - to demonize homosexuals and marginalize us as a group.

The medical community realizes that the proper way to evaluate the overall functionality of a group is not to only observe those from a pool of dysfunctional persons, but rather to observe a diverse cross-section of the population. That is what the medical community now does in regards to homosexuals, for instance, and which is why they no longer conclude that homosexuality is a dysfunction leading to behavioral problems.

About forty per cent of all gay males were molested by men as children. That's eight times the overall rate. This is one of the reasons for homosexual behavior. I'm sure there are others.

Exactly what orifice are you pulling this statistic from?

Aslanleon sez "About forty per cent of all gay males were molested by men as children." Which is a bald-faced bigot LIE. I'm a gay man, I know plenty of others, I can't think of ONE that was molested, thus turning him gay. You sir, are a bigoted LIAR.

rustywheeler-- and you don't read psychological studies and have never prosecuted child abusers. Call names all you want. And assume your friends always tell the truth. Let me know how that works out for you.

In a study by the California School of Professional Psychology, the research with 942 adult participants revealed that gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls.

Don't argue with me, rusty. Take it up with the CSPP.

Self-reported correlation does not equal causation. And, I'm sorry; did you just tell me not to argue with you? Spoken like a true authoritarian. I weep for any homosexuals under your 'care'. I'm sure that my healthy, married gay friends who are raising the children of a drug-addicted/convict sibling would love to hear you tell them how immature they are.

So I looked up Alsanleon's favorite research paper, from Marie Tomeo at the California School of Professional Psychology. Here's some of what I learned.

"The study compared people at a gay pride parade with a straight sample drawn primarily from a university."

"In Tomeo's reporting of her study in both the dissertation and the journal article, however, there is a much larger concern. There are contradictions in the paper and the dissertation between the results sections and the discussion sections. A crucial problem is the inability to be certain about when the abuse occurred - before or after awareness of same-sex attraction... It may not, however, be a casual factor in either gender. Perhaps children or adolescents with a higher potential for homosexual behavior are more likely to enter a situation that leads to same-sex molestation. It must also be borne in mind that the present homosexual participants may not be representative of homosexual persons. The overwhelming preponderance of homosexual participants was in the gay pride group. There were only three homosexual men and seven homosexual women in the college group."

"The bottom line is that the study should not be cited until a follow up correction can be made. The main results - gays report more abuse than straights - may indeed be correct, given the similarity to past studies. However, I do not believe any inferences about causation should be made."

Full story here
http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/06/05/

Who said anything about prohibiting gay legal partnerships? I certainly didn't.

In that case I pity your clients. I wonder how many of them would want to continue to see you if they were aware of your postings here. Your views remind me of a counselor took my child to after she was molested by a person of the opposite sex. The first 15 minutes convinced me she would not be helped by this person as he was a "Christian" counselor who wanted to use religious teachings along with supposed mental health. We found another who turned out to be a wonder for my child. She was able to provide the responsible help my daughter needed without trying to force religion and religious guilt onto a child who was victimized. He had an M.A, too, and was a licensed counselor. Having the license only says you met a criteria of education, not that you are good.

Now I am just horrified - you're a licensed counselor? Of what?? You need help. I am a licensed lawyer and I can tell you that if I ever heard of a case in which you were counseling children to question their sexuality and hate themselves for who they are, I would relish prosecuting you to the fullest extent of the law. You are sick and ugly person.

" . . . if I ever heard of a case in which you were counseling children to question their sexuality and hate themselves for who they are, I would relish prosecuting you to the fullest extent of the law. You are sick and ugly person." You have a vivid imagination. Too bad that you have no roots in reality. You don't know me, you don't know my clients, and you don't know how I counsel. I do know what kind of lawyer you are, however. Good lawyers don't make wild suppositions based on little evidence.

I don't know you or your clients, but "therapists" like you who see themselves as the instruments of social and sexual conformity are a menace to those who seek help and a deterrent to those who don't.

nortonclybourn - Actually, social and sexual conformity tends to favor your side a bit more now. You have no idea of what kind of therapy I do or how good I am at it. I am not interested in what is the majority position or what is trendy and cutting edge at the moment any more than I am interested in what was standard fifty years ago. I am interested in what is healthy for my client and what his or her goals are in therapy.

Hold up a mirror to yourself and tell me that I am engaging in hate speech and you are not. And a lawyer who can't spell bigoted and uses 'You're' when you mean 'your?' I'm afraid I lack confidence in your self-perception and legal skills.

If you don't like slavery, don't buy a slave. If you don't like howitzers, don't buy one. If you don't like heroin, don't make it illegal-- just don't use it. If you don't like messy roadsides, don't just litter. Hey, this is great! I can do anything I want using your logic!

How sad it is that leftists, unwilling and unable to convince the people rely on an unelected elite to achieve their ends. Their hatred of the people and their disdain for democracy is an offense to all people who love both.

Huh?

cvillekid - Dr. Erikson a fraud? That'll come as news to his thousands of adherents. You don't know a thing about Dr. Erikson, his theories, or any theories of psychosocial development that conflict with his. In fact, while people critique various emphases he has made, his work is still the basis for almost all serious thought on adolescent psychosocial stages. You attack is just typical liberal boilerplate-- anyone who disagrees with you is discredited.

What is particularly humorous is that you attack my practice and tell me how my clients are doing. I think I'll just rely on my clients and my case history for that.

Marriage is the union between a man and a women. There's nothing stopping gays from participating in that.

ThinkAgain - Don't use reason on them. Apparently it only enrages them.

Of course he does. So does David Duke. The difference between Zinn's history and realistic history is that Zinn takes a tiny proportion of the historical record and blows it out of proportion to the whole record. This is why he is not taught as a serious historian, but only a popularizer with a pronounced political bias.

It's a peculiar circumlocution to say that gay marriage is outlawed. In fact, it's never been in-lawed until a few years ago. It never seemed necessary to have a law against gay marriage because it did not exist. From a realistic viewpoint, it won't exist if it does become legal.

He has no faith in God or Religion to guide people's actions. Morality doesn't count unless the Federal and State Governments enforce it. I can only conclude that Aslan's God is a pussy.

Actually, I didn't use a religious argument. I'm quoting psychological studies. Furthermore, I've been a licensed counselor for over thirty years and have an M.A. My position is not the majority, but it is based on good science. People who think science or psychology is monolithic have absolutely no understanding of either.

So I looked up Alsanleon's favorite research paper, from Marie Tomeo at the California School of Professional Psychology. Here's some of what I learned.

"The study compared people at a gay pride parade with a straight sample drawn primarily from a university."

"In Tomeo's reporting of her study in both the dissertation and the journal article, however, there is a much larger concern. There are contradictions in the paper and the dissertation between the results sections and the discussion sections. A crucial problem is the inability to be certain about when the abuse occurred - before or after awareness of same-sex attraction... It may not, however, be a casual factor in either gender. Perhaps children or adolescents with a higher potential for homosexual behavior are more likely to enter a situation that leads to same-sex molestation. It must also be borne in mind that the present homosexual participants may not be representative of homosexual persons. The overwhelming preponderance of homosexual participants was in the gay pride group. There were only three homosexual men and seven homosexual women in the college group."

"The bottom line is that the study should not be cited until a follow up correction can be made. The main results - gays report more abuse than straights - may indeed be correct, given the similarity to past studies. However, I do not believe any inferences about causation should be made."

Full story here
http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/06/05/

rustywheeler - - As I clearly stated, I don't know how valid that study is. My own experience and the experience of friends and relatives in the field point to a figure of around a quarter, which is still ten times higher proportionally than it would be on a random basis. Sadly, this is also the experience of the Catholic church.

Inbreeding? Sex isn't about children, it's about love. Homosexuals can't have children either, and you would permit them to marry. Try to be more MODERN, grumpy. Love and caring trumps all. That's what abortion and birth control are for. I note that you don't address the problem of polygamy at all. Wise move, since there is no logical reason to oppose it if homosexual marriage is all right. Gay marriage doesn't affect me. It affects all of society by degrading the purpose of marriage and the role of the traditional family as the essential cornerstone of stable, civilized society. If it just bothered me, I wouldn't exert much energy to oppose it. Since it affects the entire society, I feel an imperative as a good citizen to oppose it. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

That polygamy canard is bull, and it puts gay people in the position of defending something that they're not even asking for. Separate issue altogether.

Separate issue? Of course you would like to make it a separate issue. Too bad the lawyers waiting in the wings won't do that as well.

Who is banjo? This is the first time I've been on this thread.

"Banjo1": Everytime the subject of gay marriage came up he equated gay marriage with plural marriage and bestiality. He was eventually cast into cyber exile.

As I said, you do write much better than Banjo. Unfortunately, the thought behind the writing seems to be the same.

SF Giants - I quote studies, professional experience (extensive), and use rational argument. The other team, including you, seems to rely on zero studies, zero professional experiende, zero rational argument, argument by insult, and half remembered magazine articles. Rusty, who disagrees with me on virtually everything, is a respectable and honorable opponent who uses reason, carefully selected factual arguments, and reasonable speculations to disagree with me. Nice fella-- wrong, but wrong for good and rational reasons. Try to emulate him.

Another dumb statement.

Odd you should say that. According to my supervisor, who attended the 1973 APA convention, that's a moderately accurate description of the process that produced the vote. Even the people who advocated the change admit they produced no scientific studies to support what they said. Were you there? Was your supervisor there? You really ought to research what actually happened and how it was done.

Why do you love popular votes in the APA when you hate them for the general population? There are many studies that indicate that people can change sexual behavior and sexual orientation, but only if they want to. Sometimes, the therapy fails, just as it does for every psychological problem.

If a vote by the APA indicates what is absolutely true, were they absolutely correct before 1973 when they considered homosexuality a mental disease? As I have already posted (and I have much more, including a statement by the leader of the original drive) who say it was a purely political decision with no scientific support. Want to see it? My guess is you don't.

So I looked up Alsanleon's favorite research paper, from Marie Tomeo at the California School of Professional Psychology. Here's some of what I learned.

"The study compared people at a gay pride parade with a straight sample drawn primarily from a university."

"In Tomeo's reporting of her study in both the dissertation and the journal article, however, there is a much larger concern. There are contradictions in the paper and the dissertation between the results sections and the discussion sections. A crucial problem is the inability to be certain about when the abuse occurred - before or after awareness of same-sex attraction... It may not, however, be a casual factor in either gender. Perhaps children or adolescents with a higher potential for homosexual behavior are more likely to enter a situation that leads to same-sex molestation. It must also be borne in mind that the present homosexual participants may not be representative of homosexual persons. The overwhelming preponderance of homosexual participants was in the gay pride group. There were only three homosexual men and seven homosexual women in the college group."

"The bottom line is that the study should not be cited until a follow up correction can be made. The main results - gays report more abuse than straights - may indeed be correct, given the similarity to past studies. However, I do not believe any inferences about causation should be made."

Full story here
http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/06/05/

There is no equivalency between a 'popular' vote from a board of accredited professionals regarding institutional policy and a popular vote among citizens regarding civil protections. In any case, the latter has generally been much, much closer than the APA votes have been.

And to turn it around, when gay marriage is finally legalized by popular vote, will you then acknowledge it? Of course not, you've said so a number of times today.

Actually, Dr. Phil has a bachelors, masters, and doctorate in psychology. Self-promoting material? I post material that agrees with me. The other side promotes material that agrees with them. If you're dull enough to think I'm violating a code of ethics, report me. Apparently you have no idea of what the code of ethics is.

Crap, he has no certification, Dr. Phil is an entertainer.

Of course he's an entertainer. He was licensed as a therapist and has been for over thirty years and practiced as a therapist. Unless you have a source for his license being removed, he is still a licensed therapist. And what does that have to do with anything?

So, accepting the premise of your question, any and all sexual behavior is subject to regulation? Which means it was perfectly right to ban miscegenation. And to regulate the kinds of sexual acts that people can perform on each other in the privacy of their own homes?

Now rejecting your premise: equating homosexuality with only sexual behavior belies the fact that it is a biological and cultural construct that has much more to do with human consciousness than simply having homosexual sex.

And further your whole argument then degrades marriage down to a sexual contract when it is so much more than that.

Basically your argument is that any couple which doesn't meet YOUR christian definition of acceptable sexual relations shouldn't be able to be married in the eyes of the state.

My opinion is that if your church doesn't want to marry a couple of gays then so be it; just don't legislate a restriction based on your beliefs that affects such a significant minority amongst us.

Bipartisan - "So, accepting the premise of your question, any and all sexual behavior is subject to regulation?" Of course not. But accepting the premise of your question, all sexual behavior should not be subject to regulation. " . . . equating homosexuality with only sexual behavior belies the fact that it is a biological and cultural construct . . ." Since this is obviously true of any behavior, sexual or otherwise, it would mean that no behavior should be legally regulated. Furthermore, I am not even suggesting that homosexuality be legally regulated at all. I have never believed that. What I oppose is characterizing what I and many researchers consider to be a developmental problem as a protected class like race. You also mention religion, as many posters here have. I haven't made a single argument from a religious viewpoint or even mentioned religion. I have only made arguments on the basis of what I believe about the psychological roots of homosexual behavior and its characteristic of being an immature form of sexual behavior.

People on this thread seem to assume what I have said rather than reading what I actually say. What a peculiar way to argue!

"Aslanleon" as in the christ-substitute lion from "The Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe?" Either don't be persnickety or change your moniker; you've self-identified as christian.

So you don't think that homosexuality should be regulated? Do you support the laws that are written to specifically exclude gays from their benefits? I'd say that you then support an anti-gay law and are effectively regulating homosexuality by excluding it.

As for your belief that gays are created by a developmental problem, that's a bit hypocritical considering you attack others' beliefs that gayness is biological in nature. Your belief is far, very far, from an accepted theory as are all of the various hypotheses that researchers are exploring.

I also find it interesting that you want to exclude a class of individuals from protection who you assert were created by a being the victims of a violent, childhood trauma....

Bipartisan -- You say, "I also find it interesting that you want to exclude a class of individuals from protection who you assert were created by a being the victims of a violent, childhood trauma...." It is very easy to prove that a propensity to violence is caused by violent childhood trauma, as well as shyness, lack of self confidence, and sociopathy, as well as serial killing. I do not think you wish any of these to be legally protected, but only people who exhibit the results of trauma you agree with. I would also point out that the people I do not wish to protect are also the cause of the violent childhood trauma. As I have said before, that is one explanation. There are most likely several different causes of homosexual behavior. However, what causes behavior says precisely nothing about whether they deserve legal protection as a class or legal protection for however they wish to behave. These decisions are in the realm of ethics and morality and not science.

so again you completely back down from the point at hand at lump gays in with pedophiles, serial killers and various others who have emotional difficulties.

Clue yourself in: gays as a class don't hurt others as do pedophiles and serial killers. That's an irresponsible assertion to make, one that is entirely untrue and reveals an ideological blindness on your part.