Academics – when they are developmental psychologists ARE experts in behavior and development. Treating patients clinically is not a prerequisite for that expertise. You can study something extensively without conducting clinical intervention. Claiming expertise on behavior does NOT suggest clinical knowledge. If he said he was an expert in psychopathology or abnormal psychology, then I would agree with the criticism, but that’s not the case here. (I say this with “expertise” in the area of what various areas of psychology are trained in, as I hold a PhD in, actually, clinical psychology, but was trained in a department of academics of a variety of areas of psychology).

Trial started on the 11th. Earthquake struck on the 12th. Not a lot of time for media coverage beforehand. Plus, a lot of the country is viewing this as a California issue. We had a lot of coverage of the trial pre-quake here in LA.

And finally, I hesitate to even get into the sexual orientation vs. race issue because that is one of those “belief” areas that I just don’t see potential resolution on. I strongly believe that neither is a choice, but something someone is born into. I know enough people who would absolutely choose otherwise if they could, but they can’t. Because it’s not a choice…

Comparing one’s choice of sex act / partner to one’s race is absurd.

Dr. Lamb was holding himself out as an expert in behavior – implying clinical knowledge… is quite misleading as he is an academic.

Also, please note that the term “psychologist” is not held only for “clinical psychologists” who treat patients, but for those who hold a PhD in psychology, including developmental psychology. Those with PhDs in developmental psychology are experts in, get this, the development of children. Therefore, Dr. Lamb is absolutely of the background and training to make statements on how gay marriage could impact child development.

Also, MORE tolerant does not equal tolerant. That’s like saying segregation based on race is ok cause it’s an improvement from slavery…

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

If you’re going to present an argument here, it’s in your best interest to familiarize yourself with these before opening your mouth.

So… let me get this straight (pardon the pun). If 99.999% of the people in your state decided to reenact slavery or to take the vote away from women, you’d support it?

Was it “judicial activism” that gave women the right to vote, slaves the right to be free, or mixed-race couples the right to be married?

Just curious.

Instead of arguing for or against the facts at hand, you construct a straw-man argument and then go to town arguing points that have NO bearing whatsoever on this case that is before the courts.

@Anthony Germain:

I find it equally hard to believe that anyone who is interested in the truth would celebrate censorship. Yes, it’s perfectly fine for Protect Marriage California to publish their own views on how the trial is progressing.

That said, it’s hugely disturbing that they publish their views while simultaneously denying the public any ability to comment or challenge them.

The anti-prop8 side also publishes “their views” on this trial, but the *huge* difference is that their major blogs like http://prop8trialtracker.com/ allow commentary from *both* sides. I’ve been reading both, and if you’d bother to you’d also see that pro-prop8 comments are allowed and not deleted by the the opposition.

It strikes me as both cowardly and dishonest to excuse this sort of censorship on the pro-prop8 side as some sort of “balancing” of perceived liberal bias in the media.

Let’s have a real discussion. Without straw-men. Without censorship. Thus far, this is one of the few pro-prop8 blogs I’ve found that allow everyone to comment.

It’s interesting that women have historically been denied certain rights, and much effort (much-needed effort, I might add) has been spent to ensure their equality, but perhaps we have taken it too far. Women ARE different than men in MANY, MANY ways. Perhaps in the effort to make everything equal that is possible to make equal, we have missed the mark to the point where we have blurred the gender line–sending the message that there should be no difference–and even that there IS no difference–between male and female. Men and women ARE different. “Marriage” is the unique union between those genders. We are not in a position to change what “marriage” is and its pro-creative purposes.

Two quick points:

1) Trying to uncover some sort of “gay agenda” is a baseless ad hominem against an entire group of people. The debate about gay marriage should focus on the equality and rights at stake, not the boogeymen you see in your closet.

2) I wasn’t familiar with “Beyond Marriage” until just now, but they seem to advocate many reasonable extensions of current law (e.g. affording better protections and benefits to grandparents who are raising their grandkids because mom and dad have died). At the very least, each of the “alternative forms of household recognition” deserve to be debated on their own merits. Some are obvious losers, some are not. To lump them all in together as evidence that gay marriage will lead to swingers groups getting the same recognition is simply an immature scare tactic.