APA calls for legalization of same-sex marriage [link inside]

[Dream1a]

Hmmm. I guess so.

I just dropped my ice cream, would you like some? (Can I Facebook that accusation? My wife is laughing her ass off at it.)

In all seriousness though, we all have subtle biases towards one group or another. This is not the end of the world and certainly one shant be defrocked from the clinical psychology world because of it. For example, someday, you will have to see a right-wing republican, christian, evangelical for therapy (probably because he has rage attacks from the legalization of gay marriage in his state, ha). And guess what Dream1a? You will learn how to work with this person effectively DESPITE that you think he's living in sin. That's what make a good psychologist. Its that ability that makes you a true PROFESSIONAL.

No, I will never have to see a right-wing republican, christian, evangelical for therapy because I am not stupid enough to be a psychologist in this day and age. Besides, my homolicious clothing will probably scare them off.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cara susanna]

Again, you have very faulty logic. You understood from what I said as APA dictates how you should think.

But, excuse you, it's not appropriate to have such prejudices (because necessarily that will generalize to gays themselves) if you're going to be in a profession like psychology.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, but that doesn't mean everyone's opinion is right (i.e. appropriate).

Being against legalization of gay marriage does not necessarily mean that you're prejudiced. I don't agree with them, but I know plenty of people who have reasons for being against it beyond "the Bible says so" or "being gay is a sin."

Let me turn this back to you: do you think that you can provide adequate, non-biased therapy to someone who is against gay marriage? If so, is it because you can separate politics from the person? Yeah, so can many people. If being against gay marriage leads to an ethical problem, then let the ethics board deal with it. You can't punish a belief. And what about people who are implicitly prejudiced towards homosexuals, should they not be allowed to be in our field?

And, yes, APA should be more concerned with psychology professional matters because that is their purpose. Gay marriage has plenty of organizations that are dedicated to advancing it, let them handle it.

 

[erg923]

No, I will never have to see a right-wing republican, christian, evangelical for therapy because I am not stupid enough to be a psychologist in this day and age. Besides, my homolicious clothing will probably scare them off.

Oh.....I see. Tell me more.

PS: But you got the point of what i was saying though, Im sure.

 

[cara susanna]

Aw man, erg, I posted pretty much the same thing at the same time.

 

[Dream1a]

Being against legalization of gay marriage does not necessarily mean that you're prejudiced. I don't agree with them, but I know plenty of people who have reasons for being against it beyond "the Bible says so" or "being gay is a sin."

Let me turn this back to you: do you think that you can provide adequate, non-biased therapy to someone who is against gay marriage? If so, is it because you can separate politics from the person? Yeah, so can many people. If being against gay marriage leads to an ethical problem, then let the ethics board deal with it. You can't punish a belief. And what about people who are implicitly prejudiced towards homosexuals, should they not be allowed to be in our field?

And, yes, APA should be more concerned with psychology professional matters because that is their purpose. Gay marriage has plenty of organizations that are dedicated to advancing it, let them handle it.

It's not about whether you can provide them with unbiased therapy.

It's about purposely stalling or attacking something for no reason i.e. why be "against" gay marriage when you can just be indifferent about it.

 

[erg923]

It's about purposely stalling or attacking something for no reason i.e. why be "against" gay marriage when you can just be indifferent about it.

Dude...what?

That's like saying, "you could have an opinion about {insert issue here}, but I'd just prefer you not to, ok? Thank You."

I've heard alot of ballsy things in my day, but noone I have ever debated with has actually told me that I shouldn't even have an active opinion about it. Come on man....wow.

 

[Dream1a]

We're getting off topic here.

You once again only read what you want to read. But i'm not surprised.

But yeah, exactly. People pay for someone to give them their scientific, empirically based opinion, not a personal one (however, psychiatrist is another story). And as such, personal ones should be indifferent or restrained amongst a "scientific, empirically based organization."

 

[cara susanna]

But again, it's not for no reason. They have reasons that they believe are valid, even if you don't agree with them.

 

[Dream1a]

But again, it's not for no reason. They have reasons that they believe are valid, even if you don't agree with them.

They're not scientifically valid, and psychology is a science first and foremost. So, their opinions are, thus, invalid in a scientific context.

 

[erg923]

Ok dream1a, I didn't even understand that last post.

Your not involved in this field, nor do you desire to be (you made that very clear a few posts ago), so your intention here has become quite clear. I think we're done...

 

[Dream1a]

Ok dream1a, I didn't even understand that last post.

Your not involved in this field, not do yo desire to be (you made that very clear a few posts ago), so your intention here has become quite clear. I think we're done...

PHIL101.

Oh, and what intention would that be? Why would I even be on here if I wasn't interested in this field (mental health).

 

[erg923]

PHIL101.

Oh, and what intention would that be? Why would I even be on here if I wasn't interested in this field (mental health).

In the south, we would call you a "rabble-rouser."

 

[Dream1a]

In the south, we would call you a "rabble-rouser."

Well, figures. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't think critically in the south.


Anyway, off to sleep, but before I go, let me make some clarifications for you because it seems as if you have a hard time reading:
psychologists should have "professional" opinions when it comes to the APA, not personal ones.
And professional opinions should be empirically sound.

 

[cara susanna]

Yes, psychologists should have professional opinions and keep personal ones out of professional life. Including APA. How is supporting gay marriage a professional opinion?

 

[erg923]

Fair enough.

And my "professional" opinion about the APA is that they are not a "gay rights" organization, should get their priorities straight and get their noses out of unrelated legal matters such as this. That's my professional opinion about the APA.

 

[roubs]

Fair enough.

And my "professional" opinion about the APA is that they are not a "gay rights" organization, should get their priorities straight and get their noses out of unrelated legal matters such as this. That's my professional opinion about the APA.

I think they should get their priorities gay.

Dream1a, I really tried, but a lot of what you write is incoherent. I kinda have a headache now. Maybe med school is right for you?

erg, I think you know this is not purely a legal matter. The policy change would be a legal one, but you really think the consequences of institutionalized acceptance vs institutionalized discrimination have nothing to do with psychology? Social science research has been challenging these kinds of beliefs on the mainstage since Brown vs Board of Ed.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

I think they should get their priorities gay.

Dream1a, I really tried, but a lot of what you write is incoherent. I kinda have a headache now. Maybe med school is right for you?

LOL That was amazing and awesome.

I think it's also pretty funny when people say that someone who holds discriminatory views shouldn't be an APA member and then they make ridiculously ignorant statements about people from the South. What the heck??

I'm pretty sure this is why I left SDN two years ago.

This issue has become so murky that now I can't even remember what my original opinion about it was

 

[sydb1367]

It is a shame that the most vocal person arguing one side of the issue is, as roubs pointed out, incoherent, and as, RayneeDeigh noted, hypocritical, but my question still remains; how is the apa's actions inconsistent with its purpose as outlined in the mission and vision statement posted on their website? or are all y'all arguin they should change their purpose?

*I never thought I'd be "defending" apa, I don't support them, am not member, and have no plans to be.Mostly due to reasons pointed out in this thread e.g., lack of defending our professional scope or fighting dwindling compensation rates.

 

[FadedC]

I do have to agree that their actions seem completely consistant with their mission statement. They evaluated a series of psychological research studies and used the results to advise public policy. That seems exactly what a scientific organization should do.

A more reasonable question might be what studies they used and whether we agree to the extent to which they support their recomendation.

 

[mperkel]

 

[Dream1a]

LOL That was amazing and awesome.

I think it's also pretty funny when people say that someone who holds discriminatory views shouldn't be an APA member and then they make ridiculously ignorant statements about people from the South. What the heck??

Actually, if you even read what I said, I NEVER professed that I was an APA member. Accordingly, I would only be a hypocrite if I was one (a member that is), which I'm not and never will be. Despite this, I have every right to voice my opinion about how a 'scientific' organization should be run, and accordingly to what standards it should be held to.

Again one must differentiate between personal vs. professional opinion.

I do think it is the "professional" opinion of a profession based on research to have a positive impact in the greater society of what they know to be scientifically true (in any level of applied research).

The bottom line is a scientific organization should NOT be run on personal opinions (religion etc), but on scientific research.

Let me simplify it even more : being anti-gay marriage is a personal opinion, not a scientific one. Fin.

 

[cara susanna]

But the "APA can do both" point is moot anyway because, even if that were true, APA is NOT doing both.

 

[erg923]

LOL That was amazing and awesome.

I think it's also pretty funny when people say that someone who holds discriminatory views shouldn't be an APA member and then they make ridiculously ignorant statements about people from the South. What the heck??

"A southernman man dont need him around anyhow"

Lynyrd Skynyrd

 

[cara susanna]

Neil Young posts on this board? Sweet!

 

[Dream1a]

But the "APA can do both" point is moot anyway because, even if that were true, APA is NOT doing both.

Actually, whether they are doing both is irrelevant.

What you are implying is that the APA is ONLY doing this, which is false.

What other things they do may not be what you think they should be doing; but that doesn't mean that they're only doing this campaign.

 

[Dream1a]

Heh. . . don't bash gays. You shouldn't be a psychologist if you don't support gay marriage. Them southerners are dumb. . .

Idiot.


For the record, I support gay marriage, I don't support APA making a statement about it.

a) you probably shouldn't be a psychologist or rather in the APA, if you are imposing your personal opinions (and values) on a scientific organization.
b) I never actually said that southerners are dumb, everyone seemed to forget that I was called a "rabble-rouser". Logically speaking, not critically thinking about something does not necessitate that one is "stupid". If that were the case, we would have hardly any one in universities, not to mention in the government. So, don't put words in my mouth (or rather keyboard).
c) If you support gay marriage, why do you care if the APA is making a statement about it. What difference does it make to you exactly?

 

[Dream1a]

Oh, please. Suddenly this campaign turns the whole organization into a "politically activist" organization, that is a hyperbole if i've ever seen one.

 

[FadedC]

But the "APA can do both" point is moot anyway because, even if that were true, APA is NOT doing both.

Well that's not quite true. The APA is a large organization that supports psychologists and psychology students of all types, and it has different branches devoted to different things. Not everyone there is a student worried about internship crisis, or a licensed psychologist worried about reimbursement rates. The different branches handle different types of issues.

The fact that you are unhappy with how much is being done by the branch of the APA designed to support professional issues among licensed psychologists does not mean that every other branch of the APA should sit around not doing anything.

 

[Dream1a]

I don't understand this point.





I associate not thinking critically with being stupid.



Because, the populace including various political groups that we are trying to convince of the value of our services does not see gay marriage as a scientific issue. There is already an association with academia as a political weapon of the left. The perception is that we're biased and unscientific. There is no need for APA to take a stand on this at this time and I think it has the potential to harm our other goals (reimbursement, mental health parity, protecting clinical psychology). I don't see it helping gay marriage along. I would be happy to come out, and have, in support of gay marriage as an individual citizen and not as a representative of my university or profession.

An association is not a causal relationship. Psych101 = correlation does NOT equal causality.

Whether the "general population" sees it as a scientific issue or not is redundant. As an academic, scientific organization, it should only be seen as a scientific issue and nothing else. For all we know, the general population (the majority) may see that homosexuality is in fact a mental disorder, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't say anything so that one doesn't "isolate" them.

 

[cara susanna]

Because, the populace including various political groups that we are trying to convince of the value of our services does not see gay marriage as a scientific issue. There is already an association with academia as a political weapon of the left. The perception is that we're biased and unscientific. There is no need for APA to take a stand on this at this time and I think it has the potential to harm our other goals (reimbursement, mental health parity, protecting clinical psychology). I don't see it helping gay marriage along. I would be happy to come out, and have, in support of gay marriage as an individual citizen and not as a representative of my university or profession.

As usual, Jon says it better than I ever could.

And Dream1a, you keep using words that don't mean what you think they mean. I also don't see why gay marriage should be seen as a scientific issue.

 

[Dream1a]

As usual, Jon says it better than I ever could.

And Dream1a, you keep using words that don't mean what you think they mean. I also don't see why gay marriage should be seen as a scientific issue.

Oh really, like what?

The moment that (extensive) research is done, it becomes a scientific issue. What exactly is science I ask you.

But i'm done with this post; I can't be bothered wasting my time on people who are so combative about something, potentially beneficial for a discriminated minority group, for no GOOD reason. Nevertheless, I will just take their combativeness as a sign of their insecurities of their profession and not personally against psychologists!

Good luck to you all.

 

[stigmata]

2 words: ignorant, pedantic

 

[cara susanna]

"redundant" and "isolate."

Gay marriage's legalization is a legal and political issue. Most people also view it as a human rights issue. There is no way to scientifically demonstrate that gay marriage will or will not harm civilization in the long run.

People used to conduct research on whether or not black individuals had the same mental capacity as white individuals. Does that make the illegalization of slavery or Jim Crow laws a scientific issue? You can use scientific data and research to support an argument, but you cannot say that the issue itself is a scientific issue.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

No, I will never have to see a right-wing republican, christian, evangelical for therapy because I am not stupid enough to be a psychologist in this day and age. Besides, my homolicious clothing will probably scare them off.

Thank you for confirming what I originally thought about your participation in this thread.

:troll:

I'd advise others to ignore Dream1a, as it will only further derail this thread.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

My impression of APA (this is my first time at a convention) is that it is a huge unwieldy, rather confused, disorganized and shambolic organization that does not advocate for the profession effectively.

You just encapsulated the reasons why so many professionals have chosen to forego APA membership, and instead support professional organizations that better fit their professional views and values.

 

[cara susanna]

Good advice, T4C.

And re: responses about other branches, that's true. I just think APA should be as politically neutral as possible. It's okay to say that the research supports gay marriage, but to actually say that it should be legal is more advocating a political position, which I think is out of its boundaries. However, advocating removing homosexuality from the DSM was within boundaries because it relates to clinical practice.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

I just think APA should be as politically neutral as possible. It's okay to say that the research supports gay marriage, but to actually say that it should be legal is more advocating a political position, which I think is out of its boundaries.

Sound familiar: "When undertaking research, [psychologists] strive to advance human welfare and the science of psychology. Psychologists try to avoid misuse of their work. Psychologists comply with the law and encourage the development of law and social policy that serve the interests of their patients and clients and the public"?

The psychological is political, in its broadest sense.

 

[roubs]

Good advice, T4C.

And re: responses about other branches, that's true. I just think APA should be as politically neutral as possible. It's okay to say that the research supports gay marriage, but to actually say that it should be legal is more advocating a political position, which I think is out of its boundaries. However, advocating removing homosexuality from the DSM was within boundaries because it relates to clinical practice.

In some states its not even legal for one partner to adopt the others biological children. Their ability to be a cohesive family is basically against the law. Is it that you don't see this second-class citizen status as potentially psychologically harmful? Or you don't believe that if harm to a class of people is enshrined in the law, that professionals who practice in this area shouldn't speak out and say "actually this law causes harm" ? Or the leap to "this law causes harm...getting rid of it would erase that harm. Let's get rid of it" is too much?

 

[cara susanna]

I think the leap is too much. Like I said, saying something like "Research supports that anti-gay marriage laws are psychologically harmful" is okay.

And I think that if you want to advocate for it as an individual, that's fine. I'm just uncomfortable with an organization that advocates for a profession dictating what our politics should be on a matter that is unrelated to advocacy for said profession. Maybe it's easier for you guys to accept because you tend to agree with APA politically. I do not, and I can easily see this turning from gay marriage (which I do agree with them on) to something else that I don't agree with. And according to Buzzsoldier it could get to the point where my political views mean that I'm technically violating the ethics code. Does that really seem reasonable to you guys?

 

[sydb1367]

"Redundant" is to "isolate" as irrelevant is to:
a) Aunt Fanny
b) lateral geniculate nucleus
c) alienate
d) Dream1a

 

[erg923]

In some states its not even legal for one partner to adopt the others biological children. Their ability to be a cohesive family is basically against the law. Is it that you don't see this second-class citizen status as potentially psychologically harmful? Or you don't believe that if harm to a class of people is enshrined in the law, that professionals who practice in this area shouldn't speak out and say "actually this law causes harm" ? Or the leap to "this law causes harm...getting rid of it would erase that harm. Let's get rid of it" is too much?

Yes, that's a shame. But frankly, there are lots of unjust things in this world. APA cant be all things to all people. The minute they start taking on every little cause or social injustice is the day they loose focus on the profession itself, which is what their priority should be. Focus on your actual members...your base....the reason you are in existence (and have money to do things) in the first place!

Look, I'm sorry gays cant get married. I really am. But there are gay rights organizations for that kind of stuff, and APA isnt one of them. To me, they should be a "psychology-rights" organization of sorts, not a half-assed Amnesty International. As other have said, doing research and making a statement that gay marriage appears to be healthy for gay couples, or children of gay couples, or whatever, is fine (so long as the science supports such a statement). Trying to make a political stand for its legalization is getting into a totally different territory. As I said before, I just don't want them spending alot of time (or my membership dollars) on such a thing when we have such a mess in our own backyard.

 

[somedude14]

I'm a bit surprised at the resistance to the APA supporting gay marriage. Then again SDN is a limited and biased sample..

Anyway, I'm glad APA officially supported gay marriage. As a fellow APA member and gay rights supporter, I'm pleased with this. Yes APA doesn't do all that it can for psychology (does any organization ever work perfectly?) but for me it has been pretty solid. I've used APA to win grant money and create new psychology connections. Now the APA is supporting equal rights. Having a major social science organization say that gay marriage is fine and good will only expedite equal rights and progress.

Yes dream1a was a bit incoherent at times but I think the general point was that a social science organization supporting equal rights is good. Can anyone argue with supporting evidence that being oppressed is mentally healthy?

 

[aagman01]

Well stated! If, for some reason, one does not care about equal rights for all, at the very least they should, as aspiring psychologists (or current psychologists) care about promoting well being in the population.

Sense of or experiences with discrimination, over time, impair well being. There is plenty of data available to support this (e.g. the research/writing into microaggressions, stereotype threat, etc).

And seriously...........how much money does a vote of the executive board and phone calls to the media cost?

Only on SDN would the APA advocating for the health and well being of a minority group provoke a reaction like "BUT MY INTERNSHIP CRISIS!!!" as if this gay marriage press release is sucking all the air out of the room and causing the crisis to deepen for all.

Again, the mission of APA:



What further discussion do you need? If you hate gay marriage and you're an APA member, send off your strongly worded letter or quit over it. I'm sure many will applaud planting your flag on this hill.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

And seriously...........how much money does a vote of the executive board and phone calls to the media cost?

This is akin to Congress voting on "Feel Good" legislation that panders for votes without actually doing much. There is a finite amount of time/energy/political capital that can be spent on issues, so the "cost" is far more than just $'s. The executive board vote could have been on the APAs strong opposition to healthcare cuts, and the phone calls to the media could have promoted the importance of MH services in today's stressful world.

 

[FadedC]

This is akin to Congress voting on "Feel Good" legislation that panders for votes without actually doing much. There is a finite amount of time/energy/political capital that can be spent on issues, so the "cost" is far more than just $'s. The executive board vote could have been on the APAs strong opposition to healthcare cuts, and the phone calls to the media could have promoted the importance of MH services in today's stressful world.

But as I said before, the APA does exist to do more then just advocate for the professional issues of mental health providers. Those may be the issues that are the most important to you, but there are many dues paying members who are not licensed psychologists and who could care less about the things you mention. This is why there are multiple branches which work on different issues.

It's fine to question whether the APA overstepped their bounds by taking this stance. But it's silly to complain that because one branch isn't doing everything you want them to, that every branch should sit around and do absolutely nothing.

 

[DrGachet]

Look, I'm sorry gays cant get married. I really am. But there are gay rights organizations for that kind of stuff, and APA isnt one of them.

Though I've generally agreed with your views in this thread, for some reason that does not sound sympathetic to me.

 

[erg923]

Though I've generally agreed with your views in this thread, for some reason that does not sound sympathetic to me.

It was written to convey a point about advocacy roles, not so people on an internet forum would look at it and go "oh, how sweet."

 

[DrGachet]

It was written to convey a point about advocacy roles, not so people on an internet forum would look at it and go "oh, how sweet."

ah, how sweet.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Everyone: Please try to keep everything civil and refrain from hostile, personal attacks. Thanks!

 

[stigmata]

Regardless of whether APA should take any political stance, and I believe they should not, what they are doing is cherry picking political issues and using limited data or science to pander to groups of people whose support they need. They did not come out (pun intended) in support of equal rights for gay couples, but for "gay marriage" which is a buzz-word. I cannot count the number of psychologically related issues they could have made comments about which have much more empirical support, but less political intensity. There is a plethora of research showing hetero marriage frequently leads to divorce and countless problems for the adults and children involved, but you won't see APA making any statements about NOT supporting it. APA has made a habit of pandering to the feel-good side of hot political topics, and it is quite transparent.