conuly

You'd think being married (in a good relationship of course) would be GOOD for someone's mental health.

From:

stejcruetekie.livejournal.com

Mental retardation would be more accurate - and I wouldn't consider that a physical disability (maybe it technically is though, being biological and all), although some form of physical disability isn't uncommon.

From:

Possibly. But someone who has is too mentally retarded to understand the ramifications of marriage, or things like sex leads to a risk of having children, etc. cannot really give consent. It's been a problem in some institutions, where adults with the mental equivalence of say 3 year olds (although you can argue over any "mental equivalence" terms as it's not the same as being 3, but let's go with it now as it's a more general point) have often been raped. And it's hard to draw the line between rape and consent, as it is with young children, which is why we have statutory rape in the first place.

Similarly, someone who is psychotic may or may not be able to correctly give consent. Someone who is non-verbal may or may not be able to communicate whether they give consent.

This is why "screened" is the right term. There are people who carefully analyze, in individual cases where it is questionable, which people can be considered able to give consent and which can't. The prolbem is if you just open it all up, then there are many people who could be convinced to act like they're giving consent and it would be rape.

These are extreme cases of mental disability, but it does ruin the phrase to say "and mental disability, except in some extreme cases."

From:

It's difficult, understandable, but it's something that shouldn't be taken lightly by those who DO any sort of screening. Unfortunately, as a society, we've been too judgemental about those who can have relationships. Did you know now you need 90 days to consent to a tubal during a csection because women on welfare in the 70s were asked on the table or in labor if they wanted it, and were pressured to get sterilized? And it happened, of course, to skew towards minorities.

Do you know what kind of screening is done now? In a place like an institution where they have you under close supervision, it would be easier to deny someone the right to marry but what about outside of that?

From:

Also reminds me of a Brother (Catholic, St. Francis of ASsisi order) who pretty much said that my husband should get an annulment because he heard that I was considered sterile. The judgement there was that I was a waste of good Christian sperm. (The doctors were wrong, and I left the church.)

No wonder I get antsy about people making judgements about marrying. ;)

From:

I don't really know details, but I doubt it's done lightly. I've only heard of it being done in institutions, and not always for marriage, but also to see who may room with whom. And the only time I've really heard it spoken of, it's been by people who found it incredibly difficult. THey agonized over wanting to let people have fulfilling human relationships, which we know that most people can enjoy regardless of IQ, versus not wanting people to be raped or abused, which is a serious risk.

As institutionalization becomes less common and more people are cared for in other ways (a trend I am quite fond of, btw) there will probably need to be something worked out to determine how to protect and best serve the needs of people in these cases. But I'm not sure if anything is yet or how it'd be done.

It's not a job I'd want to have. It's just too hard to make a decision like that.

From:

*sighs* There are and probably have always been many horrible things done along these lines. I'm not fond of the many forced sterilizations, coerced sterilizations, and people trying to convince others not to marry. I read

no_pity, a community for people with any sort of disability or who deal with disability issues, and far too often I read stories about people who have to deal with the family of their lovers trying to convince their lovers to break up. Oh no, it'd ruin your life to be with the person you love, because that person has $insert_disability_here.

But really, these problems are cultural. They all stem from the culture having bad views on disability issues and a whole lot of ignorance. I think the only way to fix them is to change the cultural attitudes, so that a generation of doctors, priests, etc. can grow up with better views and it will flow into their work.

From:

The US government classifies it as a "learning disability" for the purposes of qualifying for educational accomodations. The teaching community would refer to it as a "learning disability". Within the field of psychology, it'd probably be called a "cognitive disability", because "cognitive" means thinking. However, teachers use the term "cognitive disability" to refer to the mass of issues that don't involve IQ and are fairly brain-related (dyslexia, autism, ADD, etc.).

From:

I think it's a matter of being able to comprehend what marriage means. Obviously, you and I have various things wrong with our brains, but do you call that a mental disability or a mental disorder? I kind of like the latter, as there's a linguistic distinction that makes me happy; there's a difference between not being able to do something and doing something in a weird way.

It's important, though, that people with mental retardation be counselled; ever had a three-year-old kid ask you to marry him? Little kids get on marriage kicks like that all the time, but they don't know what it means. If someone with, say, Down's syndrome is thinking at that child-like level, then real marriage wouldn't be a good idea.

From:

conuly

But taking out the word "physical" wouldn't.

And really, marriage is all about the tax breaks, so... :P

From:

Just because someone tests on an IQ test in a way that is more like most people of a very different age would test, does not mean they have are "thinking on the level of a person of that age" or that they should have fewer or more rights than people who test more average for their own age. I really wish some of Dave Hingsburger's articles on people he knew from institutions who married were online, because I don't have the ability to convey every single nuance of how this 'mental age' stuff has been used against people with mental retardation.

But briefly, people who are adults and test low on IQ tests have a lifetime of experience behind them and are not the same as three-year-olds no matter how low they test. 'Mental age' is a myth and one that has wrecked more lives than it's helped. It's patronizing to assume that someone with a low 'mental age' needs counseling for marriage so that other people would determine whether they're ready for it or not, whereas the tons of other people who aren't ready for marriage (and may not have any disability-related diagnoses at all) are allowed to get married and seriously screw their lives up that way if they want to.

Maybe you have to have that kind of freedom taken away from you before you know how offensive it is. I don't know.

From:

Nowhere did I say that I was talking about IQ tests. The only thing an IQ test measures is your ability to take tests. I also didn't say anything about "mental age"; what I meant by "thinking on that child-like level" is not anything about cognitive capabilities in the quantifiable sense but rather whether or not the person in question is capable of understanding and carrying out the responsibilities that come with marriage. I'm sorry if you found the child analogy offensive, but honestly it's the best one I could think of; children simply don't have the capacity to understand some things, and neither do some mentally retarded people. That's why I said counselling was important -- not IQ testing, counselling -- by someone who can do a thorough evaluation of a person's level of comprehension as regards marriage (or living on their own, getting a job, et cetera -- any of these big life responsibilities that, frankly, a lot of "normal" people can't handle).

From:

any of these big life responsibilities that, frankly, a lot of "normal" people can't handle

That's actually the crux of my problem with the whole thing. The rest of what I said was just about the construction of some of the arguments people use around it.

"Normal" people are allowed to take the chance that they can't handle it. Whether they understand that they are taking that chance or not, whether they understand what they are getting into or not, whether they understand what they are doing in any particular way or not.

"Normal" people are not forced by default into counseling before they decide to live on their own, marry, or have a job.

I have no faith in the expertise of an outside-appointed counselor to decide who is ready and who is not. If I had that faith, I wouldn't be where I am now. I have a friend — diagnosed as retarded and autistic among a ton of other things — who is still trapped behind those gatekeepers who say he's not ready for freedom and will never be ready. My main fear is that he'll kill himself since his desire for freedom doesn't match his professionals' belief in his ability to handle it (they are operating out of a very false system), but he has no other means of easy escape.

I've seen the professional gatekeepers at work way too often. They already exist in the developmental disabilities field. And it's frankly none of their business deciding for us which of us who want to marry, move away from our parents, live in whatever living arrangements we want to live in, and so forth. If they have a business at all it should be in (if we even want them to) making our decisions work for us, not in constraining our decisions.

If two adults express a wish to marry each other — and I'm not claiming they'd always know what they're doing, who does? — it shouldn't have to go before someone else who can then say "Sorry, your reasons don't match the ones I would have for you, and your understanding of marriage doesn't match mine." This nearly happened to a relative of mine who was trying to get married. I can't really think of any error disabled people could make in this instance that hasn't been duplicated time and time again by non-disabled people.

From:

dnwq.livejournal.com

Well, inserting "... Mental Disability (except _ and _ and _ and _ ), ..." would ruin the effect. =p Avoiding it altogether is a solution - nowhere does it state, after all, that marriage is about mental disability.

From:

scottrossi.livejournal.com

the similarities between love and insanity are frightening. i would think that a person who has an alleged "mental disability" would know if they were in love or not, regardless of how "disabled" they are.

btw, i found an interesting article in a book i have on "mental disabilities" and general "disabilities". i can photocopy it and mail it to you if you want it, email me at scott.rossi@gmail.com with your addy if you do! :)

From:

You'd think being married (in a good relationship of course) would be GOOD for someone's mental health.

From:

stejcruetekie.livejournal.com

Mental retardation would be more accurate - and I wouldn't consider that a physical disability (maybe it technically is though, being biological and all), although some form of physical disability isn't uncommon.

From:

Possibly. But someone who has is too mentally retarded to understand the ramifications of marriage, or things like sex leads to a risk of having children, etc. cannot really give consent. It's been a problem in some institutions, where adults with the mental equivalence of say 3 year olds (although you can argue over any "mental equivalence" terms as it's not the same as being 3, but let's go with it now as it's a more general point) have often been raped. And it's hard to draw the line between rape and consent, as it is with young children, which is why we have statutory rape in the first place.

Similarly, someone who is psychotic may or may not be able to correctly give consent. Someone who is non-verbal may or may not be able to communicate whether they give consent.

This is why "screened" is the right term. There are people who carefully analyze, in individual cases where it is questionable, which people can be considered able to give consent and which can't. The prolbem is if you just open it all up, then there are many people who could be convinced to act like they're giving consent and it would be rape.

These are extreme cases of mental disability, but it does ruin the phrase to say "and mental disability, except in some extreme cases."

From:

It's difficult, understandable, but it's something that shouldn't be taken lightly by those who DO any sort of screening. Unfortunately, as a society, we've been too judgemental about those who can have relationships. Did you know now you need 90 days to consent to a tubal during a csection because women on welfare in the 70s were asked on the table or in labor if they wanted it, and were pressured to get sterilized? And it happened, of course, to skew towards minorities.

Do you know what kind of screening is done now? In a place like an institution where they have you under close supervision, it would be easier to deny someone the right to marry but what about outside of that?

From:

Also reminds me of a Brother (Catholic, St. Francis of ASsisi order) who pretty much said that my husband should get an annulment because he heard that I was considered sterile. The judgement there was that I was a waste of good Christian sperm. (The doctors were wrong, and I left the church.)

No wonder I get antsy about people making judgements about marrying. ;)

From:

I don't really know details, but I doubt it's done lightly. I've only heard of it being done in institutions, and not always for marriage, but also to see who may room with whom. And the only time I've really heard it spoken of, it's been by people who found it incredibly difficult. THey agonized over wanting to let people have fulfilling human relationships, which we know that most people can enjoy regardless of IQ, versus not wanting people to be raped or abused, which is a serious risk.

As institutionalization becomes less common and more people are cared for in other ways (a trend I am quite fond of, btw) there will probably need to be something worked out to determine how to protect and best serve the needs of people in these cases. But I'm not sure if anything is yet or how it'd be done.

It's not a job I'd want to have. It's just too hard to make a decision like that.

From:

*sighs* There are and probably have always been many horrible things done along these lines. I'm not fond of the many forced sterilizations, coerced sterilizations, and people trying to convince others not to marry. I read

no_pity, a community for people with any sort of disability or who deal with disability issues, and far too often I read stories about people who have to deal with the family of their lovers trying to convince their lovers to break up. Oh no, it'd ruin your life to be with the person you love, because that person has $insert_disability_here.

But really, these problems are cultural. They all stem from the culture having bad views on disability issues and a whole lot of ignorance. I think the only way to fix them is to change the cultural attitudes, so that a generation of doctors, priests, etc. can grow up with better views and it will flow into their work.

From:

The US government classifies it as a "learning disability" for the purposes of qualifying for educational accomodations. The teaching community would refer to it as a "learning disability". Within the field of psychology, it'd probably be called a "cognitive disability", because "cognitive" means thinking. However, teachers use the term "cognitive disability" to refer to the mass of issues that don't involve IQ and are fairly brain-related (dyslexia, autism, ADD, etc.).

From:

I think it's a matter of being able to comprehend what marriage means. Obviously, you and I have various things wrong with our brains, but do you call that a mental disability or a mental disorder? I kind of like the latter, as there's a linguistic distinction that makes me happy; there's a difference between not being able to do something and doing something in a weird way.

It's important, though, that people with mental retardation be counselled; ever had a three-year-old kid ask you to marry him? Little kids get on marriage kicks like that all the time, but they don't know what it means. If someone with, say, Down's syndrome is thinking at that child-like level, then real marriage wouldn't be a good idea.

From:

conuly

But taking out the word "physical" wouldn't.

And really, marriage is all about the tax breaks, so... :P

From:

Just because someone tests on an IQ test in a way that is more like most people of a very different age would test, does not mean they have are "thinking on the level of a person of that age" or that they should have fewer or more rights than people who test more average for their own age. I really wish some of Dave Hingsburger's articles on people he knew from institutions who married were online, because I don't have the ability to convey every single nuance of how this 'mental age' stuff has been used against people with mental retardation.

But briefly, people who are adults and test low on IQ tests have a lifetime of experience behind them and are not the same as three-year-olds no matter how low they test. 'Mental age' is a myth and one that has wrecked more lives than it's helped. It's patronizing to assume that someone with a low 'mental age' needs counseling for marriage so that other people would determine whether they're ready for it or not, whereas the tons of other people who aren't ready for marriage (and may not have any disability-related diagnoses at all) are allowed to get married and seriously screw their lives up that way if they want to.

Maybe you have to have that kind of freedom taken away from you before you know how offensive it is. I don't know.

From:

Nowhere did I say that I was talking about IQ tests. The only thing an IQ test measures is your ability to take tests. I also didn't say anything about "mental age"; what I meant by "thinking on that child-like level" is not anything about cognitive capabilities in the quantifiable sense but rather whether or not the person in question is capable of understanding and carrying out the responsibilities that come with marriage. I'm sorry if you found the child analogy offensive, but honestly it's the best one I could think of; children simply don't have the capacity to understand some things, and neither do some mentally retarded people. That's why I said counselling was important -- not IQ testing, counselling -- by someone who can do a thorough evaluation of a person's level of comprehension as regards marriage (or living on their own, getting a job, et cetera -- any of these big life responsibilities that, frankly, a lot of "normal" people can't handle).

From: