Psychologists are unanimous…I doubt it will phase the believers

Scientists: they figure shit out.

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.

You don’t say?  What else does the APA have for us?

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.”

Wait…so the higher rate of suicide among LGBT teens is not a result of being gay, but rather the result of the mounds of unwarranted shame heaped on them the anti-gay crowd?  Who would have thunk it?

So what does the battery of our most perspicacious minds in the field of psychology recommend?

The American Psychological Association is calling on state and federal officials to stop anti-gay legal measures and to legalize same-sex marriage.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.”

The science is clear and the experts are unanimous.  We should remember why gobs of Americans stand in opposition to the conclusions of the experts: because a nomadic tribe from thousands of years ago supposedly knows better than the sum of our most gifted modern psychologists.  It would be hilarious if the consequences weren’t so malicious.

Irrationality is dangerous.  It causes people to ignore the conclusions of experts in a field.  The results of this can be horrendous, such as making normal kids miserable and driving some to seek out death rather than live in the society of shame constructed by the denizens of our churches.  If you care for the well-being of our species, you must necessarily oppose irrationality, and if you oppose irrationality you must also necessarily oppose the institution of religion which demands the suspension of reason of us.

  • Jonathan

    The nomadic tribe wasn’t claiming that banning same-sex practices made a happier society, they just said their god said it was immoral. And, our most gifted modern psychologists aren’t arguing that same-sex practices are moral, just that banning it harms the psychology of those who practice it. So the two groups aren’t at odds because of symmetric reasons. That being said, there isn’t a reason to actually ban it. We have these two things, marriage and marriage. One is a recognition a certain type of relationship by the state and the other is a recognition of a certain type of relationship by churches. Sometimes they diverge and then everyone gets over it.

  • JT Eberhard

    Jonathan,

    “The nomadic tribe wasn’t claiming that banning same-sex practices made a happier society, they just said their god said it was immoral. And, our most gifted modern psychologists aren’t arguing that same-sex practices are moral, just that banning it harms the psychology of those who practice it.”

    Can you separate the two? I mean, if there’s a religious person out there who thinks god would make a moral decree that would result in a less prosperous society, I’ve not met them. That would mean god was willing to drive us into the ground, which run contra to the Christian message.

    Or, conversely, find me a Christian who thinks homosexuality is immoral who ALSO thinks that legalizing it will result in a better world. Might be tough, since that would mean admitting that some of god’s edicts are not good for us.

    JT

  • http://andythenerd.tumblr.com The Nerd

    Nobody can know your mind quite like JEEZUS!

  • http://kirkaug.com kirkaug

    ” If you care for the well-being of our species, you must necessarily oppose irrationality, and if you oppose irrationality you must also necessarily oppose the institution of religion which demands the suspension of reason of us.”

    Yes. Exactly. Paradoxically, tolerance toward intolerance is a passive form of intolerance, but intolerance toward intolerance is an active form of tolerance… or something like that.

  • Jonathan

    It wouldn’t matter if we find these people or not. The two combinations of ideas you presented just hang on having not separated out psychological good from moral good. If you think that people can get psychological enjoyment from things that are immoral, then you just sidestep the issue. Ok, you’ll grant that a serial killer of a certain kind enjoys murdering people, and now assume that there are moral facts, it turns out that the serial killer’s good (ahem, psychological good) diverges radically from what’s morally good. So maybe it turns out that why some of god’s edicts are not good for us is because it requires serious psychological harm – we just don’t want to follow them.

  • JT Eberhard

    Jonathan,

    Societal good > Individual happiness for anybody with a conscience, which is most of us.

    JT

  • Jonathan

    Does it seem like I’m arguing against that? Could you say a little more what you mean by the last comment?

  • C. Austin

    JT,

    I also find myself confused as to what the substance of your comment could be. What are you trying to get at?

  • John-Henry Beck

    I think you could make an argument combining Jonathan’s & JT’s comments.

    If acting on homosexual desires angers this god who will then punish an entire society, then arguably there’s justification to ban and punish such behavior. Much like how we make it illegal to rob a bank.
    Remember, prison causes psychological (and other) harm to the prisoners. But we imprison people anyway to protect the rest of society.

    Of course, all of that falls apart if there isn’t a jealous, capricious god out there who will torment us over our sexual activities, much less those of some minority of the population.

  • Dennis

    Lexicography complaint: It’s spelled “faze” (disconcert, worry, daunt, or disturb). The homonym “phase” is an entirely different word.

  • 1R

    Ze4hgp[yu]{


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X