liberal myths, a list.

[sheepshead]

Here's my list. There are more but these are my favorites. I might be wrong on a couple but I have yet to see any evidence. I have looked, so please if you want to dispute any of these please provide some back up.


1) The 2000 presidential election was stolen.
2) The Bush administration lied about WMD’s in Iraq.
3) Democrat voters were unable to vote in 2000 and/or 2004 due to intimidation.
4) The United States tortures people.
5) Humans have altered the earths weather.
6) The constitution of the United States guarantees the separation of church and state.
7) “Mission Accomplished” sign meant the war was over.
8) Presidents of the United States are in charge of cleaning up after hurricanes.




"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

[sheepshead]

Then we have this :


http://www.electionjournal.org/2009/01/12/accused-black-panther-tied-to-philly-democratic-party/

[sheepshead]

Oh I guess that Bush guy had it right all along:


A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans' private communications may be involved.

The court decision is expected to be disclosed as early as Thursday in an unclassified, redacted form. It was made in December by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which has issued only two prior rulings in its 30-year history.

The decision marks the first time since the disclosure of the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program three years ago that an appellate court has addressed the constitutionality of the federal government's wiretapping powers. In validating the government's wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administration's repeated assertions that the president has constitutional authority to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping.

[gex]

WTF? You responding to your own posts now?

Look around Sheep, the circle-jerk is over, now your just masturbating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0Fd59Z8FEY

[Harlan Huckleby]

1) The 2000 presidential election was stolen.

It was stolen, the SC acted in a very political and biased manner.
Of course they didn't need to steal it, the Republicans would have won anyway, but the outrage is still justified.


2) The Bush administration lied about WMD’s in Iraq.

I agree. Most of Hussein's own senior government officials sincerely thought their were active WMD programs, so of course all the intelligence services around the world thought so too.



3) Democrat voters were unable to vote in 2000 and/or 2004 due to intimidation.

Ya, you can hear the conspiracy theorists on Air America who won't let go of Ohio 2000, 2004. And they have plenty of stats to back up their arguments. The trouble is they don't present the info that contradicts their story.
Very much like the right-wing loons we hear in this forum who claim that Dems steal elections. They know because of what they heard on right wing radio.


4) The United States tortures people.

I don't know what goes on, either do you.


5) Humans have altered the earths weather.

Ridiculous. The levels of pollution in China often affect pollution indexes in U.S. cities. How could putting that much material into the atmosphere NOT affect the weather?



6) The constitution of the United States guarantees the separation of church and state.

The consitution says what the supreme court interprets it to say. This is not a myth.


7) “Mission Accomplished” sign meant the war was over.

The "mission" that was accomplished was said to be the end of large scale fighting. OK, that seemed to be the case, but even this narrowed definition soon was proven wrong. What possible "mission accomplished" do you think they were celebrating? The successful landing of Bush's helicopter on the deck?


8) Presidents of the United States are in charge of cleaning up after hurricanes

PResidents are accountable for the performance of FEMA. If they have incompetent management in this or any federal agency, that CERTAINLY reflects on the administration.

You have picked many strange battles to wage here, Kimosabi.

[sheepshead]

WTF? You responding to your own posts now?

Look around Sheep, the circle-jerk is over, now your just masturbating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0Fd59Z8FEY

I didn't think of those posts as responses, there's just great stuff coming across the wires, I was compelled to add to my points. But I want to thank you for your titillating insightful comments. I live for intelligent dialogue like this.

[sheepshead]

sheepshead wrote:
1) The 2000 presidential election was stolen.


It was stolen, the SC acted in a very political and biased manner.
Of course they didn't need to steal it, the Republicans would have won anyway, but the outrage is still justified.

How can he steal something he won? Its been counted and recounted-he won.

sheepshead wrote:
2) The Bush administration lied about WMD’s in Iraq.


I agree. Most of Hussein's own senior government officials sincerely thought their were active WMD programs, so of course all the intelligence services around the world thought so too.

You agree with whom?


sheepshead wrote:
3) Democrat voters were unable to vote in 2000 and/or 2004 due to intimidation.


Ya, you can hear the conspiracy theorists on Air America who won't let go of Ohio 2000, 2004. And they have plenty of stats to back up their arguments. The trouble is they don't present the info that contradicts their story.
Very much like the right-wing loons we hear in this forum who claim that Dems steal elections. They know because of what they heard on right wing radio.

sheepshead wrote:
4) The United States tortures people.


I don't know what goes on, either do you.

Agreed no evidence. So, it's speculation and I'm not making the accusation.

sheepshead wrote:
5) Humans have altered the earths weather.


Ridiculous. The levels of pollution in China often affect pollution indexes in U.S. cities. How could putting that much material into the atmosphere NOT affect the weather?

I think we should continue to clean up our activities at a rapid pace. Unless its scientifically proven, it aint happening.

sheepshead wrote:
6) The constitution of the United States guarantees the separation of church and state.


The consitution says what the supreme court interprets it to say. This is not a myth.

The constitution is not a living breathing document. It guarantees freedom of religion. period.

sheepshead wrote:
7) “Mission Accomplished” sign meant the war was over.


The "mission" that was accomplished was said to be the end of large scale fighting. OK, that seemed to be the case, but even this narrowed definition soon was proven wrong. What possible "mission accomplished" do you think they were celebrating? The successful landing of Bush's helicopter on the deck?

It was on a ship. I watched that landing live and never thought for a minute it had anything to do with anything other than that ships mission.
sheepshead wrote:
8) Presidents of the United States are in charge of cleaning up after hurricanes


PResidents are accountable for the performance of FEMA. If they have incompetent management in this or any federal agency, that CERTAINLY reflects on the administration.

The only reactive entity in the US government is the military. FEMA is not a reactive entity and I'm not sure I would want the US government as a first responder. The people of Louisiana figured that out and voted those knuckleheads out of office.

[sheepshead]

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

[MJZiggy]

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Who gives a shit why U.S. voters think global warming is occurring? U.S. voters are not scientists.

[mraynrand]

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Who gives a shit why U.S. voters think global warming is occurring? U.S. voters are not scientists.

Some are.

[BallHawk]

Unless its scientifically proven, it aint happening.

Ok, by that logic God doesn't exist. :roll:

[packinpatland]

Unless its scientifically proven, it aint happening.

Ok, by that logic God doesn't exist. :roll:

Thank the Lord that's :wink: settled.

[MJZiggy]

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Who gives a shit why U.S. voters think global warming is occurring? U.S. voters are not scientists.

Some are.

Not enough to make a random sample accurate. Remember, these are the people you accuse of being sheep and who simply believe what they want to believe. If global warming means inconvenience to them, they'll look for the reason to discredit it.

[HowardRoark]

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Who gives a shit why U.S. voters think global warming is occurring? U.S. voters are not scientists.

It means that the religion of Global Warming will no longer have as many worshippers; therefore, the church is less apt to confiscate dollars from the US Treasury.

[mraynrand]

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Who gives a shit why U.S. voters think global warming is occurring? U.S. voters are not scientists.

Some are.

Not enough to make a random sample accurate. Remember, these are the people you accuse of being sheep and who simply believe what they want to believe. .

Which people. Those who voted in the affirmative or those who voted in the negative?


If global warming means inconvenience to them, they'll look for the reason to discredit it.
I think that's what you want to believe.

[MJZiggy]

Not enough to make a random sample accurate. Remember, these are the people you accuse of being sheep and who simply believe what they want to believe. .

Which people. Those who voted in the affirmative or those who voted in the negative? Either way doesn't matter. Are you saying you're going to believe this survey as proof one way or another?


If global warming means inconvenience to them, they'll look for the reason to discredit it.
I think that's what you want to believe.[/quote]Read this thread. People believe what they want to believe and no amount of arguing is going to change the others' opinion

[mraynrand]

Not enough to make a random sample accurate. Remember, these are the people you accuse of being sheep and who simply believe what they want to believe. .

Which people. Those who voted in the affirmative or those who voted in the negative? Either way doesn't matter. Are you saying you're going to believe this survey as proof one way or another?

Are you? I don't believe opinion polls are the way to determine what is or is not scientific fact.


If global warming means inconvenience to them, they'll look for the reason to discredit it.
I think that's what you want to believe.
Read this thread. People believe what they want to believe and no amount of arguing is going to change the others' opinion

Quod volumus, facile credimus?

[MJZiggy]

Ohhh...talk Latin to me, baby. By the way, that's what I'm saying.

And no, you don't believe an opinion poll as scientific fact. That was my point. (I think you just wanted to use the Latin).

[bobblehead]

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Who gives a shit why U.S. voters think global warming is occurring? U.S. voters are not scientists.

So when statisticians say its unhealthy for a child to be raised by homosexuals you glibly accept that?

[MJZiggy]

No, Bobble, I don't. Get me a large sampling of psychologists, psychiatrists, and medical doctors and we might have a discussion.

[mraynrand]

No, Bobble, I don't. Get me a large sampling of psychologists, psychiatrists, and medical doctors and we might have a discussion.

How will you determine whether these experts are giving a scientific/medical appraisal versus an ideologically driven view? Would you care, so long as their 'conclusions' matched your views?

[MJZiggy]

I'd use women doctors.

[bobblehead]

No, Bobble, I don't. Get me a large sampling of psychologists, psychiatrists, and medical doctors and we might have a discussion.

What if statistics proved that most child molesters are in fact gay men? I will do my research....again, but I am quite sure I have read many leading psychiatrists who said a mother and a father is by far the best setting for a child and being raised by homosexuals had certain drawbacks. I've been long past caring about this debate, but I brought it up because liberals want to point to scientists with an agenda as authority, but never want to admit to the statistical correlations between things like drug abuse and single motherhood.

I guess I could have simply stated that a very large number of scientists and climatologists think MMGW is bunk as well and left it at that.

[MJZiggy]

Correlations can be drawn among a lot of things, but it's the causation that matters.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Is Obama the cause of the tingling sensation you have been experiencing of late?

[mraynrand]

Bobble, every organization is opposed to your point of view. For examples:


American Psychiatric Association
Position Statement in Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage
SUPPLEMENT

Background to the Position Statement

Supporting Documents:

American Psychiatric Association (1973), Position statement on homosexuality and civil rights. American J. Psychiatry, 1974, 131:497.
American Psychiatric Association (1990), Position statement on homosexuality and the armed services.
American Psychiatric Association (1991), Position statement: Homosexuality and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. American J. Psychiatry, 148:1625.
American Psychiatric Association Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues (1992), Position statement on homosexuality. American J. Psychiatry, 150:686.
Resource Document on Controversies in Child Custody: Gay and Lesbian Parenting; Transracial Adoptions; Joint v. Sole Custody and Custody Gender Issues: Approved by Board of Trustees, December 1997.
Resource Document on Same Sex Marriage: Approved by the Board of Trustees, December 1998.
American Psychiatric Association (1998), Position statement on psychiatric treatment and sexual orientation. American J. Psychiatry, 1999; 156:1131.
American Psychiatric Association (2000), Commission on Psychotherapy by Psychiatrists (COPP): Position statement on therapies focused on attempts to change sexual orientation (Reparative or conversion therapies). American J. Psychiatry, 157:1719-1721.
American Psychiatric Association (2000), Position statement on same sex civil unions.
American Psychiatric Association (2002), Position Statement on Adoption and Co-Parenting of Children by Same Sex Couples.
Brief for Amici Curiae in the case of Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (signed by American Psychiatric Association), January 2003. www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/amicus/02-102.pdf
American Psychological Association (2004), Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage.
Amended APA Resource Document on Same Sex Marriage; Approved by the Board of Trustees, December 2004.
American Psychiatric Association: Position statement on same sex civil unions (revised); Approved by Board of Trustees, December 2004.
Position paper of the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society on Gay Marriage, November 2004.

PROBLEM:
In 2000 following the creation of Vermont’s same-sex “civil unions” law, the APA passed a Position Statement in support of Same Sex Unions. In subsequent years, the issue of legal recognition of same-sex relationships has become an increasingly debated social issue. On the one hand, Canada has already legalized same-sex civil marriage in seven of ten provinces, as has Massachusetts, and two European countries. Several other countries in Europe and around the world give legal recognition to same sex unions or offer same-sex partner benefits. Legal actions challenging restrictions on same-sex marriage are occurring throughout the United States: courts in New York, California, and Washington State have ruled that heterosexual-only marriage is unconstitutional.
On the other hand, seventeen US states now have state constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage. Other legislatures are also wrestling with this issue, and some of the legislation actually prohibits any recognition of same-sex relationships or domestic partner benefits. Some court cases support this restrictive legislation and non-recognition of gay and lesbian couples and their families.
The APA has recognized the importance of stable, same-sex relationships for the mental health of gay and lesbian people, families and the community through its 2000 Position Statement on Same Sex Civil Unions and its 2002 Position Statement on Adoption and Co-Parenting of Children by Same Sex Couples. The BOT approved a stronger APA Position Statement on Same Sex Civil Unions in December 2004. At the same time, an updated APA Resource Document on Same Sex Civil Marriage was accepted by the BOT in December 2004.
In the current debate, those in favor of legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage frame it also as a civil rights issue—the denial of civil marriage to same-sex couples denies them and their families over a thousand legal benefits to which heterosexual couples and their families are currently entitled. This was highlighted in the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in upholding same-sex civil marriage, pointing out that these legal benefits and protections were not supported by same-sex civil unions, such as in Vermont. Since 1973, APA has issued numerous position statements supporting full civil rights for gay and lesbian individuals based on the values of non-discrimination and equal protection under the law.
A legally recognized marriage offers 1,049 Federal benefits and responsibilities, not including hundreds more offered by every state. Same sex civil unions, regardless of which state offers them, are more limited in the range of benefits they provide couples. Some benefits of the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage that are denied to same-sex couples in a civil union include: Social Security and Veteran death benefits; the ability to file joint Federal income tax returns; an exemption from inheritance, gift and property transfer taxes; an exemption from taxation of retirement savings in case of spousal death; the ability to sponsor family members for immigration; automatic rights to a spouse's estate, regardless of whether a will exists; employer-sanctioned sick leave, bereavement leave, health insurance, disability benefits and pension; the benefit of spouses being able to give an unlimited amount of gifts to each other without being taxed; being entitled to joint child custody and visitation upon divorce (and bear an obligation to pay child support).
In July 2004, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution supporting the legalization of same-sex civil marriages stating that denying same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage is unfair and discriminatory and can adversely affect the psychological, physical, social and economic well-being of gay and lesbian individuals based on the research literature.
Finally, APA has also been asked by other professional organizations to take a position in the courts and in other public arenas on same-sex civil marriage. In response, APA’s Committee on Judicial Action has recommended to the Board of Trustees that the APA sign on to two amici curiae briefs authored by the American Psychological Association in lawsuits challenging existing marriage laws in New Jersey and Oregon [See Appendix]. In November 2004, the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society issued a Position Paper in support of same-sex civil marriage.
Because of the above factors, there is a timely need for a statement from APA on this issue. Therefore, it is proposed that APA approve the following Position Statement in Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage:

Appendix

History of this Position Statement

This appendix is for APA component use only and will not be part of the Position Statement or Background.
In 2004, APA was asked, with other professional organizations, to sign on to amicus briefs written by the American Psychological Association in support of lawsuits for legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage in New Jersey and Oregon. The American Psychological Association had just taken a highly public position in favor of legal access to same-sex civil marriage in August of 2004.
As a result of the process that ensued after this invitation, various APA components were asked to give the Board of Trustees feedback on two issues: (1) whether the APA should sign on to two amicus briefs in support of legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage; and (2) whether APA should take a public position in support of same-sex civil marriage.
APA’s Committee on Judicial Action reviewed the amicus briefs first. In light of historical APA position statements on gay and lesbian mental health and civil rights issues since 1975, the Committee on Judicial Action recommended that APA sign on to the briefs.
Former APA President Lawrence Hartmann, MD, speaking for the Committee on GLB Issues, recommended that APA join the briefs and future briefs as well. He went on to say, “Despite much movement in its favor over the past few years, and despite some setbacks, gay marriage—not just civil unions but marriage—has real psychosocial aspects. It is politically somewhat controversial; it goes against some old traditions; it arouses irrational prejudice; but it is a psychosocial issue that is also a human rights issue and an issue of freedom from discrimination—and it is an issue that has clear relevance to the mental health of children and adults… for the politically and socially cautious it should be comforting that the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and even the American Psychoanalytic Association have all already clearly endorsed gay marriage.”
The BOT, however, deferred joining the briefs in the fall of 2004 since APA had not yet taken an official position on legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage. The Board of Trustees asked at its October 2004 meeting for the Joint Reference Committee to work with four components to draft a Position Statement in Support of Same-Sex Marriage. Those four components were the Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues, Council on Psychiatry and Law, Committee on Judicial Action and Council on Children, Adolescents and Their Families. In November 2004, the Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues drafted the position statement, and it was supported by the Council on Minority Mental Health and Health Disparities. Comments from two components are cited below. Discussions between Francis Lu, Chair of the Council on Minority Mental Health and Health Disparities, with both chairs in February 2005 unfortunately did not lead toward consensus but rather to a clearer understanding that this remains an issue for which there are divergent opinions in the country and among our members for many reasons.
In December 2004, The Council on Psychiatry and Law circulated the draft and received responses from six members, evenly split between regular and corresponding members. Four respondents opposed the APA's taking a position in support of same-sex civil marriage on the grounds that this was a social issue about which our members and the broader society are deeply divided. In the absence of a consensus among our members, these respondents suggested that APA should remain with its current position on civil unions, rather than extending it to include marriage. There was also some concern about the effect of APA taking a position in favor of same-sex marriage on our ability to work with legislatures on issues of crucial importance to us, including psychologist prescribing. Two respondents supported APA’s taking a position in favor of same-sex civil marriage. However, they each recommended that the position statement’s supporting language be revised to more cogently lay out the evidence in support of the position, especially evidence related to health and mental health issues.
The Council on Children, Adolescents and Their Families was evenly divided on this issue. Two were in favor of same-sex marriage. Two others felt this was not a topic the Council should take a position on since it is not a children’s issue.
At the request of the Joint Reference Committee in February 2005, the Position Statement was further revised by the Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues, and it was revised and endorsed by the Council on Minority Mental Health and Health Disparities. It incorporates responses to the comments above from the two Councils. Significantly, the Position Statement title was changed to support "Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage" so as to make clear that it was not about religious marriage. On April 1, it was been submitted to the Joint Reference Committee for review prior to submission for the May 2005 Assembly meeting and then hopefully to the Board of Trustees.



American Psychiatric Association

Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation
POSITION STATEMENT

Approved by the Board of Trustees, December 1998
Approved by the Assembly, November 1998

"Policy documents are approved by the APA Assembly and Board of Trustees… These are …position statements that define APA official policy on specific subjects…" -- APA Operations Manual.

An initial version of this position statement was proposed in September 1998 by the Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues of the Council on National Affairs. It was revised and approved by the APA Assembly in November 1998. The revised version was approved by the Board of Trustees in December 1998.

The Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973 after reviewing evidence that it was not a mental disorder. In 1987 ego-dystonic homosexuality was not included in the revised third edition of DSM (DSM-II-R) after a similar review.

APA does not currently have a formal position statement on treatments that attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation, also known as “reparative therapy” or “conversion therapy.” In 1997 APA produced a fact sheet on homosexual and bisexual issues, which states that “there is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of “reparative therapy” as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation.”

The potential risks of “reparative therapy” are great and include depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone “reparative therapy” relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian are not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed. APA recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors.

Several major professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have made statements against “reparative therapy” because of concerns for the harm caused to patients. The American Psychiatric Association has already taken clear stands against discrimination, prejudice, and unethical treatment on a variety of issues, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Therefore, APA opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy, that is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or is based on the a priori assumption that the patient should change his or her homosexual orientation.

________
1The committee members as of September 1998 were Lowell D. Tong, M.D. (chairperson), Leslie G. Goransson, M.D., Mark H. Townsend, M.D., Diana C. Miller, M.D., Cheryl Ann Clark, M.D., Kenneth Ashley, M.D. (consultant), Stuart M. Sotsky, M.D. (corresponding member), Howard C. Rubin, M.D. (corresponding member), Daniel W. Hicks, M.D. (corresponding member), Ronald L. Cowan, M.D. (corresponding member), Robert J. Mitchell, M.D. (Assembly liaison), Karine Igartua, M.D. (APA/Glaxo Wellcome Fellow), Steven Lee, M.D. (APA/Bristol-Myers Squibb Fellow), and Petros Levounis, M.D. (APA/Center for mental Health Services Fellow).

[mraynrand]

American Psychiatric Association
Adoption and Co-parenting of Children by Same-sex Couples
POSITION STATEMENT

Approved by the Board of Trustees, November 2002
Approved by the Assembly, November 2002

"Policy documents are approved by the APA Assembly and Board of Trustees… These are …position statements that define APA official policy on specific subjects…" -- APA Operations Manual.

Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. This research indicates that optimal development for children is based not on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults. The research also shows that children who have two parents, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientations, do better than children with only one parent.

While some states have approved legislation sanctioning second parent adoption, other court judgments and legislation have prohibited lesbian women and gay men from adopting or co-parenting. Therefore, in most of the United States, only one partner in a committed gay or lesbian couple may have a legal parental relationship to a child they are raising together. Adoption by a second parent, however, would not only formalize a child’s existing relationships with both parents in a same-sex couple, it would also provide vital security for the child. Children could avail themselves of both parents’ health insurance benefits, access to medical care, death benefits, inheritance rights, and child support from both parents in the event of separation. Adoption protects both parents’ rights to custody and/or visitation if the couple separates or if one parent dies.

The American Psychiatric Association has historically supported equity, parity, and non-discrimination regarding legal issues affecting mental health. In 2000, APA supported the legal recognition of same sex unions and their associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities. APA has also supported efforts to educate the public about homosexuality and the mental health needs of lesbian women, gay men, and their families. Removing legal barriers that adversely affect the emotional and physical health of children raised by lesbian and gay parents is consistent with the goals of the APA.

The American Psychiatric Association supports initiatives which allow same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children and supports all the associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities which arise from such initiatives.

This position statement was drafted and proposed by the Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues and was supported by the Council on Minority Mental Health and Health Disparities.

[MJZiggy]

Is Obama the cause of the tingling sensation you have been experiencing of late?No. I'm still trying to get the feeling back in my toes after being in Madison last week. Pins and needles, damn!