Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > 3 Down, 47 Left To Go

3 Down, 47 Left To Go (Page 5)
Thread Tools
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2009, 09:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
You are confusing consent with approval on my part.
No, just mapping out one of the potential paths that this sort of unrestricted genetic testing for anything and everything can lead to, thus my tirade on the ethics of this particular application.

I was not applying an impression of approval, but rather illustrating for the imagination impaired what could happen, and then why ethically (especially in the medical professional sense) such things should be a no-brainer; unless there's a proven health risk there should be no reason to ever bother testing for something. Period.

And you'll note that I didn't get into who should have access to the results of such testing; I do NOT trust insurance companies in this area...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2009, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
You are confusing consent with approval on my part.

Just because I would consent to allowing parents to test their children for a variety of features or traits does not mean I approve of such behavior. If you read my posts you will realise I am of the opinion that homosexuality is a state of being that does not "confer any benefit [nor] cause any disability" to an individual born homosexual. As such, I find highly offensive the notion of pre-natal testing for homosexuality with the intent to modify/remove such a trait from a person's offspring.

But that does not mean I would want to prevent other parents from having the choice to do so. In fact, I think in a perverse way it would be good to have those parents opposed to having homosexual children given the choice to remove themselves, via genetic testing of their offspring, from the pool of potential parents of homosexual children. This way, the majority of those children born gay would be born to parents who wouldn't mind having a "gay" child and who would willingly welcome such a child into their lives without prejudice.
Welcome to Gattaca

Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
I don't understand why someone who is fine with aborting their child, would abort the child on the basis of its sexual orientation.

I really doubt that the future will be populated by homophobic pro-choicers, so I doubt that a mass "extinguishing" of homosexuality via abortion will ever take place. But if it does, it will be a step back for humanity.
This is common place in Asian countries, most notably The People's Republic of China. Male children are valued more than female children and coupled with the one child policy, females make up the bulk of the aborted pregnancies. Nova did a report on the PRC's "One Child Policy" and this was one of the topics covered.
45/47
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2009, 11:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Welcome to Gattaca
Umm . . . No. Gattaca is just an updated version of Brave New World where genetic testing was mandatory. The ability for parents to choose certain genetic features of their children is NOT the same as the US government mandating ALL citizens be tested and socio-economically ranked according to their genetic makeup. Now is it?

Do you, Chongo, think we should have mandatory pre-natal genetic testing of all individuals in the US? I, dcmacdaddy, do not think we should have mandatory pre-natal genetic testing.

Like I said before, I think parents should have the option to do genetic testing of their children for a wide variety of personal traits or characteristics. Having said that, I have faith in basic human decency that most parents are not going to perform pre-natal genetic testing for every possible physical or physiological feature of their children with the intent of creating some genetically perfect offspring.

Besides, there are too many religious sects that would not allow for such selective genetic testing by their adherents as it would be interfering with God's role in their lives.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2009, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Welcome to Gattaca



This is common place in Asian countries, most notably The People's Republic of China. Male children are valued more than female children and coupled with the one child policy, females make up the bulk of the aborted pregnancies. Nova did a report on the PRC's "One Child Policy" and this was one of the topics covered.
You're confusing abortion for economic value with abortion based on genetic/societal issues.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2009, 09:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You're confusing abortion for economic value with abortion based on genetic/societal issues.
The preference for male children is very much a genetic/societal issue. And it's already hurting the Chinese people.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2009, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
No Kidding! It's like you totally "forgot" how I destroyed your objection to "equal rights for unequal people."
I don't remember figments of your imagination. Especially when they revolve around apparent strawman arguments like "equal rights for unequal people."

Then why do you support the affirmative action of divorce being used to punish the children? Won't someone think of the children!
I don't think divorce is any kind of "affirmative action". We take away the special privileges and benefits we give to people who marry when they decide to divorce. Divorce is legally renouncing the "affirmative actions" that the government previously provided via marriage benefits.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 10:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're nothing if not consistent.

I haven't been able to spend the time that I desired on this thread, but at the least I need to acknowledge this was an excellent, if undeserved, riposte.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2009, 06:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I've already told you that something being a "societal construct" gives us zero information about whether that thing "matters." I defy you to explain how victimization "does not matter" to the societal construct that is America.
I've already explained how it is that opposition to gay marriage exists. Apparently, there are many who believe it is incorrect to accommodate a mental illness in this way and that "it matters". They also define "victims" and "victimization" differently than you.

All gay's don't agree on everything, more at 11...
It is more than disagreement. There are a great many gays who simply do not want to openly acknowledge their homosexuality. Some have pride, some have shame, some have other emotions, the same is true of every group of humans everywhere.

So what? Some have pride, some have shame, some have other emotions, the same is true of every group of humans everywhere. But the fact that a large segment of them have pride tells you it's different from a mental illness.
How does a large segment of them having pride indicate it's not a mental illness? Some have shame, and some have other emotions. There might be a large segment of them in denial about the mental illness and hanging out with one another makes them feel better about themselves.

Only in its unique nature. Can you name a single (recognized) mental illness about which there is a "pride" group? Is there "Alzheimer's Pride?" How about "Dementia Pride?"
White pride groups that march en masse about the superiority of the white race. There are fat pride groups marching for their eating disorders.

And there, you lost it already. It's not bigoted to oppose victimization, and pedophilia undeniably has victims. If pedophilia didn't have victims, it would be just as bigoted to oppose the act as to oppose the person.
The only means we have of defining "victimization" is the societal construct; the one you said earlier would be best served by a team of psychologists, psychiatrists, and endocrinologists. Most don't "oppose" homosexuals, they simply don't "support" their right to marry. This doesn't make them bigots, this makes them "opposed to gay marriage".

You're using a bully tactic of taking much of what I say and undeservingly generalizing it to "anyone who disagrees with me." It's patently childish.
It's not childish if it can be established as fact. I think I've established it as fact that you are calling people opposed to gay marriage "opposed to gays" or "bigoted" when they're not. They're opposed to gay marriage.

What you call the "right to disagree" doesn't give them the right for no one to tell them when they're wrong. For all your bully tactic knows, I could be arguing that two plus two equals four, you could be saying "I'm not saying that two plus two equals five, but people who do so aren't wrong" and you would accuse me of being "bigoted" against them for telling them that yes they were actually wrong about that.
... but I didn't call anyone names. There are those who disagree with you and you are calling them names. I'm sure if it were as simple as "2+2=4", half the population wouldn't figure "5". The failure to acknowledge the diversity of thought on this issue by relegating it to bigotry is a classic bully tactic.

But it also doesn't mean they're not. If you can show that they actually are "blood thirsty," then regardless of what they disagree with you about, saying so doesn't mean you're a "bigot" against them, it's just calling a spade a spade.
Society generally operates under the notion that most aren't absolutely nutters. It serves arguments on the internet of course, but it isn't really solid ground for discourse. If you're opposed to the death penalty, you're welcome to berate people for being "blood thirsty", but I doubt you'll get very far in proving it.

Consensus. In this debate, as in debate in general, we are trying to discover where two sides can find common ground (among other things). I expected that we could all agree that "separate but equal" has been tried and failed in this country. Do you disagree about that?
Right now the consensus is simply "separate" without many instances of "but equal". Wouldn't you consider "separate, but equal" more tolerant and less "bigoted" than "separate and not equal"? Why does it not work? Why should society grant marital rights to homosexuals or special privilege to any mental illness for that matter? What's in it for them?

No, "cures" rarely work on 100% of patients to start with, and that has nothing to do with whether the affliction is genetic or not. Secondly, if the question of genetics is the "core of the disagreement" for you, then some particular answer to this question must be capable of changing your mind on the issue. What answer would that be?
For one, I'm not in disagreement about whether or not gays can marry. Secondly, there's really no compelling reason for me to oppose it, but that doesn't mean I'm right and that the voices of those opposed to it should be silenced as "bigots".
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2009, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I've already explained how it is that opposition to gay marriage exists. Apparently, there are many who believe it is incorrect to accommodate a mental illness in this way and that "it matters". They also define "victims" and "victimization" differently than you.
I never doubted that the opposition exists, but I don't see how that helps your case any more than saying "bigotry exists." Obviously it can still be bigotry even if a majority of people embrace it. A majority being bigoted against a minority is more common than vice versa.

It doesn't matter at all how they define "victims." That's a completely different question, a question of implementation. The question of bigotry is a question of intention. The intention of pedophilia laws is to protect would-be victims. The implementation of that law is to identify those victims for protection. The current system is definitely an imperfect implementation, as it errs heavily on the side of caution. Your complaint over how to identify victims falls entirely under this question of implementation. But while the intention of pedophilia laws is to protect victims, however imperfect our heuristic for identifying those victims might be, the intention of gay marriage bans isn't even about victims. No one is suggesting there even are any victims to begin with. Does this distinction even register with you?

It is more than disagreement. There are a great many gays who simply do not want to openly acknowledge their homosexuality. Some have pride, some have shame, some have other emotions, the same is true of every group of humans everywhere.
That's exactly what disagreement is

How does a large segment of them having pride indicate it's not a mental illness? Some have shame, and some have other emotions. There might be a large segment of them in denial about the mental illness and hanging out with one another makes them feel better about themselves.
Well they're certainly not in denial about being gay! So if you're saying that gay pride stems from denial about the mental illness, you just proved that being gay itself is not the mental illness! Nice going.

White pride groups that march en masse about the superiority of the white race.
Bigotry is not a recognized mental illness either. As much as you want to make an issue out of me lacking a rigid definition of the word "victim," you sure are lax about defining mental illness.

Most don't "oppose" homosexuals, they simply don't "support" their right to marry. This doesn't make them bigots, this makes them "opposed to gay marriage".
And if someone opposes interracial marriage while not "opposing" any particular race, they are still a bigot. The fact that they are innocent of the "greater" bigotry of "opposing gays" does not absolve them of any "lesser" bigotries of opposing gay marriage.

It's not childish if it can be established as fact. I think I've established it as fact that you are calling people opposed to gay marriage "opposed to gays" or "bigoted" when they're not.
Well then it must not be childish to call a bigot a bigot if it's an established fact
The irony of you is too funny for words.

... but I didn't call anyone names. There are those who disagree with you and you are calling them names.
You didn't say this? "You're a bigot against anyone who disagrees with you."
You're really floundering here.

I'm sure if it were as simple as "2+2=4", half the population wouldn't figure "5".
Really? "Half the population" has never been wrong before? "Half the population" opposed interracial marriage for 100's of years. Are you saying they were wrong then, but we're supposed to believe they're right now? Or are you saying they were right to oppose interracial marriage, and wrong to later allow it?

The failure to acknowledge the diversity of thought on this issue by relegating it to bigotry is a classic bully tactic.
I would be downright eager to acknowledge the diversity of thought on this issue, if there is any. All I've seen so far is fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Society generally operates under the notion that most aren't absolutely nutters.
Bigotry isn't "nutters." The long centuries of institutionalized bigotry against any number of minorities wasn't because everyone else was insane.

Right now the consensus is simply "separate" without many instances of "but equal". Wouldn't you consider "separate, but equal" more tolerant and less "bigoted" than "separate and not equal"? Why does it not work?
I'm not sure anyone knows exactly why it doesn't work, but I do think we can agree that it didn't work. Can you agree on that or not ebuddy?

It's reasonable to object to a solution with a proven track record of failure. You might as well ask why communism doesn't work, and wouldn't it be better than anarchy. Like "separate but equal," communism is not the worst possible system, it's better than some of the systems currently in place around the world (anarchy), but like "separate but equal," even though it works on paper it has been proven a failure in the real world, and there's no good reason to keep trying it over and over.

For one, I'm not in disagreement about whether or not gays can marry.
I never said you were

Secondly, there's really no compelling reason for me to oppose it, but that doesn't mean I'm right and that the voices of those opposed to it should be silenced as "bigots".
No, if you didn't have a compelling reason, but one exists which you simply didn't know about, then those who opposed it would not be bigots. If a compelling reason truly does not exist, then those who oppose it with no reason actually are bigots.

Maybe the problem is that you seem to think bigots shouldn't be allowed to speak, or to disagree. I don't know where you got that idea, because I thought freedom of speech (and thought) was a widely known core liberal belief, and I'm surprised if it's not a part of your basic liberal stereotype. Anyway, rest assured that people are free to be bigots in this country. They're just not free from valid criticisms over it.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2009, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I never doubted that the opposition exists, but I don't see how that helps your case any more than saying "bigotry exists." Obviously it can still be bigotry even if a majority of people embrace it. A majority being bigoted against a minority is more common than vice versa.
I maintain that the disagreement is whether or not homosexuality stems from mental illness. I don't think "bigoted" is an apt term for opposing legislation that includes the mentally ill in a federal privilege.

I think a poll is in order and if I get some time I'll draft one. I'd be willing to bet the results would show (in the least) a strong correlation between the degree of acceptance and the genetic viewpoint.

It doesn't matter at all how they define "victims." That's a completely different question, a question of implementation. The question of bigotry is a question of intention. The intention of pedophilia laws is to protect would-be victims. The implementation of that law is to identify those victims for protection. The current system is definitely an imperfect implementation, as it errs heavily on the side of caution. Your complaint over how to identify victims falls entirely under this question of implementation. But while the intention of pedophilia laws is to protect victims, however imperfect our heuristic for identifying those victims might be, the intention of gay marriage bans isn't even about victims. No one is suggesting there even are any victims to begin with. Does this distinction even register with you?
No, it doesn't. Many feel that allowing gay marriage establishes some validation for a mental illness; that as such it is an affront to a socially normalized institution of "marriage", that it skews the perception of children, and produces subtle victimization of society through the slippery slope of relativism. If it is only the pesky bigots who oppose these notions, there will be no one of credibility left to oppose pedophilia and the arguments they use will be deemed equally feeble.

That's exactly what disagreement is
Disagreement with themselves?

Well they're certainly not in denial about being gay! So if you're saying that gay pride stems from denial about the mental illness, you just proved that being gay itself is not the mental illness! Nice going.
You can tout that you like to drink, prefer to hang out with drunks because they're more fun, and still deny alcoholism just as you can march with pride for your eating disorder.

Bigotry is not a recognized mental illness either. As much as you want to make an issue out of me lacking a rigid definition of the word "victim," you sure are lax about defining mental illness.
I wouldn't say you "lack" a definition as much as you lack consistency.

And if someone opposes interracial marriage while not "opposing" any particular race, they are still a bigot. The fact that they are innocent of the "greater" bigotry of "opposing gays" does not absolve them of any "lesser" bigotries of opposing gay marriage.
race is race. mental illness is mental illness. Society regards them differently. Are you suggesting that we treat black people?


Well then it must not be childish to call a bigot a bigot if it's an established fact
The irony of you is too funny for words.
The irony of me? I'm not even sure what this means.

It seems you're working from the premise that you've established some factual evidence of bigotry while I am not working from that premise. I'm working from the premise that you are calling people bigots by virtue of the fact that they oppose the validation of mental illness through federal privilege.


You didn't say this? "You're a bigot against anyone who disagrees with you."
You're really floundering here.
Your inability to follow the flow of a conversation should not be mistaken for me floundering. I prefaced the entire discussion with a definition of "bigot" because it seemed to me this was in order. I then indicated why ad hom is not intended to engage discourse, but to silence with the full statement; You're a bigot against anyone who disagrees with you. You attempt to silence them with bully tactics and "rules" that are vague.

Again, it seems you're working from the premise that you've established some factual evidence of bigotry while I've actually showed that by definition, you've got a problem. Unless of course words don't matter and we just throw around "bigot" for a little quick attention. This is very common as is the comparison to the history of racial insensitivity in a hopeless attempt to put them on some equal footing when they have absolutely nothing in common.

Really? "Half the population" has never been wrong before? "Half the population" opposed interracial marriage for 100's of years. Are you saying they were wrong then, but we're supposed to believe they're right now? Or are you saying they were right to oppose interracial marriage, and wrong to later allow it?
I'm saying clearly they were wrong IMO, but this doesn't mean they're bigoted. In many respects they were likely right as we've agreed on the "slippery slope" argument.

Science and education can do wonders for societal progress and these likely helped affirm the racial plight for equality. Science and education have dismally little to say about homosexuality. There is either a line or there isn't a line. You've argued "victimization", but that's a societal construct that could easily be linked to some bigoted, antiquated Biblical principle.

I would be downright eager to acknowledge the diversity of thought on this issue, if there is any. All I've seen so far is fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Aren't laws themselves often designed to assuage fear, uncertainty, and doubt? Why is this immediately a reprehensible notion? Is FUD always wrong or is it not also an important survival mechanism? I find it interesting that if one makes judgements he is judgmental, but if he does not make judgements he's said to be "lacking judgement." So many grays.

Bigotry isn't "nutters." The long centuries of institutionalized bigotry against any number of minorities wasn't because everyone else was insane.
I would argue that bigotry against those of other races enjoyed quite a period of absolute insanity in this country. Unless you think owning people as property, whipping them to a bloody pulp, and selling them on auction blocks is sane.

I'm not sure anyone knows exactly why it doesn't work, but I do think we can agree that it didn't work. Can you agree on that or not ebuddy?
A screwdriver doesn't work on nails, but it's good for a screw.

It's reasonable to object to a solution with a proven track record of failure. You might as well ask why communism doesn't work, and wouldn't it be better than anarchy. Like "separate but equal," communism is not the worst possible system, it's better than some of the systems currently in place around the world (anarchy), but like "separate but equal," even though it works on paper it has been proven a failure in the real world, and there's no good reason to keep trying it over and over.
We're talking about a much simpler issue here. We're not talking about separate bathrooms, separate seating arrangements at restaurants, separate schools, transportation; leading to poorer funding and accommodation of the "black-only" facilities. I've established this with the California code earlier.

No, if you didn't have a compelling reason, but one exists which you simply didn't know about, then those who opposed it would not be bigots. If a compelling reason truly does not exist, then those who oppose it with no reason actually are bigots.
I've given you reasons. You're confusing "those who oppose gays" with "those who don't support gay marriage". They simply feel there is no compelling reason to grant federal privilege to validate a mental illness.

Maybe the problem is that you seem to think bigots shouldn't be allowed to speak, or to disagree. I don't know where you got that idea...
I didn't get that idea. You just attributed it to me.

... because I thought freedom of speech (and thought) was a widely known core liberal belief, and I'm surprised if it's not a part of your basic liberal stereotype. Anyway, rest assured that people are free to be bigots in this country. They're just not free from valid criticisms over it.
I think bigots are generally more apparent and lack credibility. I never suggested that they not be allowed to speak, but the ad hom is most definitely intended to attack the character of a person to marginalize their credibility. It is an attempt to render their views worthless and as such IMO more adequately fits the term "bigot" by definition. Are some who oppose gay marriage bigots? Certainly. There are some who oppose homosexuality altogether and would like to silence them. Are there blacks who support affirmative action to "sock it to the cracker?" Sure. I would call them potentially bigoted. Are there others with particular reasons to support affirmative action? Absolutely. They are not bigoted. Are all who oppose gay marriage against homosexuality altogether? Certainly not. They simply oppose gay marriage.

There's a big leap from; "I personally support gay marriage" to "those who don't are bigoted".
( Last edited by ebuddy; May 14, 2009 at 07:26 PM. )
ebuddy
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2009, 07:39 PM
 
there shouldn't be any state recognized civil unions or marriages. If 2 people want to slap a ring on someones finger and call themselves married let em. The states/gov should have no part in it...no marriage licenses, no tax breaks..nothing. That'll solve it. Everyone is their own individual responsible for themselves... to the government.
( Last edited by el chupacabra; May 14, 2009 at 08:59 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2009, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I maintain that the disagreement is whether or not homosexuality stems from mental illness.

Isn't what is and isn't mental illness a social construct?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2009, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Isn't what is and isn't mental illness a social construct?
Exactly. I don't want to misquote someone, but that was their point about pedophilia. What is pedophilia in one country is legal in another. Just ask Roman Polanski.
45/47
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2009, 11:41 AM
 
Mental illness is a combination of ineffective coping strategies and a failure of those strategies to allow the individual to function, whether "in society" or just at home. Technically, a person could be schizophrenic but handle it well enough to get along, stay fed and healthy, and he would not be "mentally ill." Think about the "eccentric" people you've met; some of them may suffer from a psychiatric condition but not be mentally ill because they can still function.

Another marker is that the combination of symptoms and lack of function causes the person distress.

Here's the issue when "mental illness" and "homosexuality" intersect: the only functional problem that is inherent to a homosexual orientation is externally imposed. A social stigma is NOT a marker of mental illness. There have been social stigmas applied to divorce, unwed motherhood, masturbation, and a whole raft of other things that are clearly NOT mental illnesses. The qualifier for illness is that daily functioning in what are called "activities of daily living" (from being able to eat and dress to being able to use a phone and write a check for your grocery purchase) is not working. People with mental illnesses can't feed themselves, can't dress appropriately for the weather, sometimes can't even get out of bed. Those are INTERNAL functional obstacles. Society telling you that you're fundamentally wrong because of who you are sexually attracted to is completely separate, having nothing at all to do with whether or not there is a psychiatric problem involved.

Added later, after database bobble...
I also wanted to point out that society has harshly disapproved of a lot of things that are clearly NOT mental illnesses. For example divorce was once extremely difficult because of the social stigma attached to it for both parties. Unwed motherhood was also once so stigmatized by society that it was impossible for a pregnant single woman to find housing, employment or even health care. Social stigma has nothing to do with mental illness. Most social stigmas are "crowd-mentality" behaviors, wherein kids are taught "those people over there are lesser beings because, as you can see, their skin is different from ours..."
( Last edited by ghporter; May 15, 2009 at 01:58 PM. )

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2009, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Those are INTERNAL functional obstacles. Society telling you that you're fundamentally wrong because of who you are sexually attracted to is completely separate, having nothing at all to do with whether or not there is a psychiatric problem involved.

How does this not apply to pedophilia?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2009, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How does this not apply to pedophilia?
Pedophelia is an obsessional disorder. "Liking" underage people is not a problem, as long as that "like" is not acted on. Taking any action on that desire is unlawful, but it also violates so many social and ethical/moral norms that such action pretty much must be driven by an obsessive/compulsive disorder. There are also some personality disorders that can be associated with certain sub-classes of pedophilia, such as the 25 year old that only "dates" 15 year olds because they don't know that he "ain't all that." To me, it's just guys that can't convince an adult woman to give 'em the time of day, so they prey on middle school girls who think any attention is a good thing.

Here in San Antonio there is a fairly large population that actually uses history (older men married underage girls) and culture to justify why they LET their underage daughters go out with these "men." The truth is that when older men did traditionally marry very young women, those men had built a trade or profession and had finally established themselves as providers, unlike the slimballs I see here. Digression over...

Anyway, pedophilia is a combination of dysfunctional, irrational behavior and socially disapproved of behavior. Nobody believes that it's OK for an adult (or even a significantly older child) to take sexual advantage of a young child. There's some disagreement about what constitutes "old enough," but I think neuroscience gives us a conclusive argument that what someone younger than about 21 thinks is "old enough" isn't a particularly rationally derived conclusion. The prefrontal lobes of the brain are the last to mature, and are not fully functional until AT LEAST age 22 or so, and generally not really done until age 25. Interesting how the insurance industry's actuaries were able to conclude that young drivers' judgment isn't all that great until age 25 or so...

But with pedos, the social disapproval is more of a demotivator for this behavior than even the social disapproval of psychotic behavior, perhaps in part because society sees a separate victim in pedophilia, whereas psychosis seems to only affect the person with the symptoms.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2009, 03:03 PM
 
I think you're missing the point gh, no disrespect. You could just about substitute "homos" for "pedos" and your post would read like a homophobe's manifesto.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2009, 04:58 PM
 
Scooped.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2009, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I think you're missing the point gh, no disrespect. You could just about substitute "homos" for "pedos" and your post would read like a homophobe's manifesto.
A basic assumption I took in the above was that the theoretical homosexuals we were discussing were adults. Taking advantage of a minor in any way is both unethical and immoral. Taking sexual advantage is worse by a long shot. Homosexuality is not at all equivalent to pedophilia, though a lot of anti-gay thought goes toward pushing the idea that gays are pedophiles too. Take me for example: I do NOT like "girls;" I like "women." Big difference. Equating homosexuality to pedophilia assumes that someone is victimized by homosexuality. Who would that be, and how do you decide which of the consenting adults involved would be the "victim?"

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2009, 08:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Isn't what is and isn't mental illness a social construct?
In that its definition is most certainly subject to social sentiment, yes. This is one reason why I believe it is easier for society to accept and validate differences of race than it is willing to accommodate sexual preference.
( Last edited by ebuddy; May 15, 2009 at 08:37 PM. )
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2009, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Taking advantage of a minor in any way is both unethical and immoral.

Which goes back to social construction, yes?

It wasn't all that long ago when it was okay in this country for you to own minors.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2009, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
In that its definition is most certainly subject to social sentiment, yes. This is one reason why I believe it is easier for society to accept and validate differences of race than it is willing to accommodate sexual preference.

Do you believe there is an absolute scale of mental illness?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2009, 08:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Which goes back to social construction, yes?

It wasn't all that long ago when it was okay in this country for you to own minors.
One thing about mental illness is that it has only recently been recognized as something other than "being possessed by evil spirits/demons/etc." In the past, it was still never seen as OK (though slave owners' activities were sometimes known but ignored) to sexually abuse children.

The issue of pedophilia is not social. It's not some preference that has merely social repercussions, either. It's a compulsion, which puts it into the realm of personality disorders, irrespective of the legal issues involved. Pedophiles are not simply "normal people with abnormal desires," but rather individuals who fit the classic definition of having mental illness that I mentioned above; dysfunctional behavior that interferes with performance of normal daily activities and causes the individual distress. The abuse of children is merely the structure through which the compulsive behavior is expressed, but it demonstrates that compulsion very clearly. Sexual satisfaction derived from this abuse is still mitigated by the overall distress the individual experiences.

I should also point out that in discussing pedophilia, I'm speaking only of actively abusing children, not "collecting" child pr0n. That doesn't seem to meet the same standards as actively abusing children, though it could on a slightly different level. I have some strong feelings about anything harmful being done to children, so I really haven't studied all aspects of this subject-it's hard to stay objective.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2009, 09:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do you believe there is an absolute scale of mental illness?
I believe there are several published means of measuring social functionality indicating a difference between mild and severe mental illness, but an absolute scale? No, nothing this concrete as far as I know.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2009, 11:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I believe there are several published means of measuring social functionality indicating a difference between mild and severe mental illness, but an absolute scale? No, nothing this concrete as far as I know.

Then it would seem to me what constitutes mental illness isn't merely subject to social sentiment, it's defined by it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2009, 11:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I should also point out that in discussing pedophilia, I'm speaking only of actively abusing children, not "collecting" child pr0n.

What's the thought process behind splitting this up? I've always considered them to be a different points on the same continuum (i.e., we're talking about the same condition, it's just a matter of degree).
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2009, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What's the thought process behind splitting this up? I've always considered them to be a different points on the same continuum (i.e., we're talking about the same condition, it's just a matter of degree).
I disagree that they are the same condition. Being fascinated by particular images is not necessarily the same sort of obsession as feeling compelled to take action against an individual child. The people who CREATE the kiddie pr0n, on the other hand, are indeed active pedophiles.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2009, 05:59 PM
 
I apologize if my questions are irritating, but I can't say this helps me understand why. It's just a reiteration of the notion they are.
( Last edited by subego; May 16, 2009 at 06:23 PM. )
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2009, 06:58 PM
 
Your questions aren't irritating. They focus on some truly important clinical issues. My abnormal psych professor had a very long and "interesting" career as a clinician, starting out at a VA hospital in the 1960s. He had quite a few stories about very interesting issues and how a variety of psychiatric illnesses present. But he was adamant that ALL mental illnesses require those three cardinal conditions. Anything that fails of those requirements may be bizarre and socially disapproved, but it does not qualify as a mental illness. However, since homosexuality is NOT a mental illness, I think it's time this side track rejoined the main line...

I've met a huge number of straight people who were incredibly poorly adjusted in their personal relationships, while most of the gay people I've met were pretty well adjusted in theirs. This is of course related to the people I've met, and is not scientific, but it's good data anyway. The old worry about gay marriage "damaging the institution of marriage" doesn't really wash, because straight people have managed to tear the institution down to the cornerstone and tinkle on the rubble. With a fairly stable divorce rate of around 50%, American straight people have nearly destroyed ANY "institutional value" in marriage. A growing part of our population consists of (theoretically) "serial monogamists," who get married, live together for a while, then get tired of each other, or one or both cheats at some point, or they figure out that they really can't "change" the other person, and they get the marriage terminated and go out looking for someone else whose life they'll muddle up. It's a sad commentary on marriage.

My marriage is strong because our relationship is strong, and in large part that's because my wife and I are best friends. We communicate, really communicate, not just talk at each other, let alone ignore each other. We share ideas, desires, plans and interests without being clingy or obnoxious about our shared interests.

I can't imagine how a lot of couples got together, since they appear to have NOTHING in common except having visited wherever it was that they met. They disdain each others' interests, hobbies, careers, personal habits, etc., and express this disdain to coworkers they have the flimsiest relationships with. I do not see how providing for equality in legal protections and privileges (rights of inheritance, de facto guardianship, etc.) to couples that are made up of two people of the same gender could in any way reduce the "value" found in marriages such as those I describe above.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2009, 08:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
But he was adamant that ALL mental illnesses require those three cardinal conditions. Anything that fails of those requirements may be bizarre and socially disapproved, but it does not qualify as a mental illness.

Thanks for clarifying this. I had lost that point, and it perfectly explains the separation.

So we have:

1. Dysfunctional.
2. Interferes with performance of daily activities.
3. Causes the individual distress.

Earlier you separated the idea of internal vs. external pressures. To me, it flies in the face of all reason to say that for pedophiles, 2 and 3 aren't caused by external pressures.

Sexually exploiting children is a brisk tourist trade in some Pacific rim countries. These tourists aren't distressed by it, and they've been performing their daily activities to have enough money where they can fly halfway around the world to do it.

What makes pedophilia different from any other sexual proclivity beyond it running into a deeply ingrained social boundary?


To come up with another example that has less baggage, if I understand the sociopath model properly, it's partially defined by the absence of 3.

Are we going to change the definition of mental illness to accommodate the sociopath model, or is it enough to know being a sociopath is bad?
( Last edited by subego; May 16, 2009 at 08:46 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2009, 09:24 PM
 
Just so everyone has an idea why I'm taking things down this road (which is ultimately on topic).


ebuddy put forth the question of whether homosexuality is a mental illness or not, this is relevant in terms of the state validating a mental illness.

This requires us to hammer out a definition of mental illness. ebuddy hasn't commented in this go around on the above definition, but extrapolating where he's coming from based on the idea of mild and severe, I think we can safely say the above definition makes only severe cases genuine mental illness.

It's overwhelmingly apparent (to me at least) the above definition does not include "active" pedophilia.


To bring this back to the beginning, we have defined things such that homosexuality isn't a mental illness. Check. By the same definition, pedophilia isn't a mental illness either. Okay... we could try to split this to infinity and to make one a mental illness and the other not, or we can accept the mental illness argument is an ineffective response to the slippery slope question.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2009, 10:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Thanks for clarifying this. I had lost that point, and it perfectly explains the separation.

So we have:

1. Dysfunctional.
2. Interferes with performance of daily activities.
3. Causes the individual distress.

Earlier you separated the idea of internal vs. external pressures. To me, it flies in the face of all reason to say that for pedophiles, 2 and 3 aren't caused by external pressures.

Sexually exploiting children is a brisk tourist trade in some Pacific rim countries. These tourists aren't distressed by it, and they've been performing their daily activities to have enough money where they can fly halfway around the world to do it.

What makes pedophilia different from any other sexual proclivity beyond it running into a deeply ingrained social boundary?


To come up with another example that has less baggage, if I understand the sociopath model properly, it's partially defined by the absence of 3.

Are we going to change the definition of mental illness to accommodate the sociopath model, or is it enough to know being a sociopath is bad?
Sociopathy is a concept that lacks rigor. Further, it's a "personality disorder," something separate from what is typically thought of as "mental illness" such as schizophrenia. More typically, what is called "sociopathy" in the vernacular is what would qualify under formal diagnostic criteria as "antisocial personality disorder," which is characterized by lack of empathy, lack of regard for the safety of self and others, poor behavioral controls, narcissism, and an inability to tolerate boredom.

Mental illness, which includes a lot of issues beyond personality disorders, can be thought of as being a variety of different categories, thus the preferred term of "mental disorder." True "mental illness" would constitute a subset of mental disorders. For example, there is schizophrenia and there is both schizoform and schizotypal personality disorders. As used in common speech, "mental illness" generally refers to "classical mental illnesses" such as schizophrenia. I separate these issues for a reason.

Diagnosis of mental disorders is done per the standards in the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, Text Revision", (DSM IV TR). The DSM separates problems into 5 "axes," with those classical disorders such as schizophrenia on Axis I. Personality disorders are on Axis II, which also includes mental retardation. Axis III is medical conditions that can aggravate or bring on mental problems, including brain injuries. Axis IV is psychosocial and environmental factors (from rotten parents to over-the-top bullies and more), while Axis V is a "Global Assessment of Functioning," reflecting the degree to which the subject actually gets along in the world. Clearly, not everyting in the DSM is an "illness." Further, as part of the update to DSM II in 1973, the outmoded concept of homosexuality as a mental disorder was removed. It seems that DSM II had included homosexuality as a disorder due to a limited editorial group and their personal prejudices. The psychiatric and psychological communities have not considered homosexuality to be a disorder for 36 years, and those old enough to remember using DSM II tend to reflect that the antagonistic and prejudicial inclusion of homosexuality in that volume was unpalatable to say the least.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 09:21 AM
 
I very much appreciate the breakdown, and the correction of my numerous mistakes.

I'm still at a loss as to where pedophilia fits under one of these definitions as it lacks 2 and 3. As I stated above, this is relevant because legalized pedophilia is consistently brought up as the destination of the slippery slope by those who take issue with gay marriage.

So far, the main thing I've seen argued which would supposedly stop this slide is that pedophiles are whack. I don't disagree with that assessment in the slightest, but it isn't a sound argument for someone who has yet to be convinced.

I'm a hardcore civil libertarian. When rights get stepped on, I'm the first to come up with over the top scenarios to demonstrate why we need to retain those rights. I don't accept "it'll never happen" under those circumstances, so it would be intellectually dishonest for me to think it's an acceptable argument here.
( Last edited by subego; May 17, 2009 at 09:54 AM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 09:49 AM
 
Here's my first tentative shot at it.

Acceptance of homosexuality isn't even on the same slope as acceptance of pedophilia.

Pedophilia is on the same slope as rape and kidnapping. Acceptance of homosexuality would have to directly link to an acceptance these crimes for there to be any concern of the acceptance of one leading to acceptance of the other.

Homosexuality has been a crime of various degrees at various times. AFAIK, it's never been a crime involving lack of consent. This is the important distinction.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So far, the only thing I've seen argued which would supposedly stop this slide is that pedophiles are whack. I don't disagree with that assessment in the slightest, but it isn't a sound argument for someone who has yet to be convinced.
Not to be rude or anything, but am I invisible? (half-kidding; I never expected most people to read the multi-posts)

I've been arguing for several pages that pedophiles "civil rights" to abuse children would conflict with their victims' civil rights not to be abused. GHPorter touched on it once as well. To summarize in one word: consent. There is absolutely no comparison to this in the gay rights issue. I think it becomes clearer when you try to compare gay marriage to rape instead of child-rape. "If 'aberrant' sexual desires like homosexuality become accepted then what's to stop 'aberrant' desires like rape too?" The answer is obvious. Regardless of whether you include the distinction of child-rape.

Edit: looks like you were already there
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 12:23 PM
 
I appreciate the tone and the direction of the discussion. Understand that it's not easy to argue the merits of one's view I'm not entirely certain matters. I'm really only trying to narrow down why the views differ and I reject the idea that "bigotry" is an acceptable explanation. Again, I don't deny there is bigotry for some, but there also seems to be a more pervasive, very basic difference in views regarding the nature of homosexuality.

In context of a discussion on the institution of marriage, gh touched on what I've long thought about the "definition of marriage" argument. Heterosexuals have done a fine job of defining it as what I've always referred to; a lifelong commitment of monogamy you make at least twice in a lifetime to two different people with prenups to protect assets and eventual court judgments on child custody.

Still, crash brought up the affirmative action angle which touches on arguments related to the ideal environment. While the success or failure of this attempt at socially engineering the ideal environment is certainly debatable, there is compelling evidence for the fitness of children raised in homes with a committed mother and father. Arguments from this angle would cite the well-documented case for mother/father parenting VS single-parent families, but there are even more studies that directly relate to the fitness and purpose of both a mother and father; Mothering and Fathering: The Gender Differences in Child Rearing. including "The Importance of the Nurturing Mother" in building interdependence and trust and "The Importance of the Encouraging Father" in building independence. The differences in many cases are subtle such as a mother who tends to hold her child closely to her breasts while the father tends to hold children at arms length, over the shoulder and/or looking them directly in the eyes, but the conclusion is generally the same. Both approaches to parenting are valuable and that coordination of the approaches occurs best when both parents are involved in child rearing. This is why you will often see words like "natural" used in these arguments which invariably leads to the accusations of bigotry, IMO unfairly.

The fact that the Federal government is not accessing medical records or questioning the intent of marriage to birth children or parenting "fitness" does not preclude the purpose of the Federal privilege or affirmative action. Science and education through genetics have done wonders IMO to facilitate both acceptance and validation of differing races while offering next to nothing in terms of defining sexual preferences. If in fact homosexuality either is, or stems from mental illness, for many there is no real compelling reason to grant it an identity such that it should be treated with Federal privilege under its intended purpose. As such, it has nothing to do with "opposing gays", "victimization" (since there is nothing that suggests law must be drafted by this litmus anyway), or "bigotry". If this logic holds, then it is only a matter of moralists VS relativists. If relativism wins, there are implications up to and including not only the acceptance of pedophilia, but the validation of it. Evidenced by arguments made in debates on DSM disorder reconsideration such as; Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco's Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of Ottawa who presented a paper entitled, "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal." They conclude that people whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden, or religiously proscribed should not, for those reasons, be labeled mentally ill. Because we've established that it is at times difficult to measure or ascertain mental illness, the first step of acceptance would be the exclusion of it as a "disorder".

Because the intended purpose of the Federal privilege is not being met by the current initiative anyway, I'm comfortable with either granting the privilege to any two persons wishing to access it as merely "civil union" allowing the churches to marry whom they deem fit under their tenets or doing away with the entire notion as someone else suggested above. This does not mean however that the arguments against it are necessarily bigoted or without merit.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
There is absolutely no comparison to this in the gay rights issue.

Not as a legal construct, but the argument for gay marriage has attempted to back this up with the assertion pedophilia is quantified aberration while homosexuality is not.

With what I've seen in this thread, it strikes me as an all or nothing proposition. Both of them are aberrations, or neither of them are.

I still haven't nailed down the real difference between pedophilia and and all the other consensual sexual proclivities other than a legally constructed lack of consent, made in no small part to mitigate the scenario where there is consent, and a social barrier.

All the other proclivities are defined by their target, why isn't this just another target?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
"DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal."

Scooped.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Evidenced by arguments made in debates on DSM disorder reconsideration such as; Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco's Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of Ottawa who presented a paper entitled, "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal." They conclude that people whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden, or religiously proscribed should not, for those reasons, be labeled mentally ill.

The paper you cite says the paraphilias should not be included because "[t]he concept of Paraphilias as psychopathology was analyzed and assessed critically to determine if it meets the definition of a mental disorder presented in the DSM; it does not."

Isn't this honesty? I can't speak for Moser and Kleinplatz, but that was the honest conclusion I came to with the information I've been given.

I'm very pro-homosexual, and I've been putting homosexuality on the same psychological plane with pedophilia for the last few posts. It's not a fun type of honesty, I assure you.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not as a legal construct, but the argument for gay marriage has attempted to back this up with the assertion pedophilia is quantified aberration while homosexuality is not.

With what I've seen in this thread, it strikes me as an all or nothing proposition. Both of them are aberrations, or neither of them are.

I still haven't nailed down the real difference between pedophilia and and all the other consensual sexual proclivities other than a legally constructed lack of consent, made in no small part to mitigate the scenario where there is consent, and a social barrier.

All the other proclivities are defined by their target, why isn't this just another target?
Re: consent and consent laws
French petitions against age of consent laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
45/47
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not as a legal construct, but the argument for gay marriage has attempted to back this up with the assertion pedophilia is quantified aberration while homosexuality is not.
I wasn't talking about aberration, I was talking about consent. I think it was perfectly clear before you took my quote out of context (the last word before the part you quoted being "consent," indicating that "this" in the part you quoted referred to "consent"). But if that wasn't clear, I apologize and please accept this clarification.

"Aberration" is irrelevant. Opposing things just because they are "odd" is the definitive bigotry: intolerance of others just for being different, in other words solely because they are different, not because of the content of those differences. To base one's decision on the degree or quality of being aberrant/unusual is bigoted, and it doesn't matter which side of the debate goes there.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I should point out that "consent" laws have a solid basis in neurodevelopment. The prefrontal cortex does not actually begin to function effectively until the very late teens, and is usually not fully developed until the mid-twenties. Actuarial data from the insurance industry supports a significant difficulty with effective qualitative decision making at ages below about 25. Protecting a minor from making irreversible decisions that could significantly impact his or her lifetime health, particularly decisions that could be made while under strong (and often unfamiliar) hormonal influences makes sense in the context of those minors having seriously immature decision making brain structures.

At 16 I'd probably have said "yes" to anything in a skirt that didn't look too much like a zombie. Fortunately I learned a bit more self control as time went on. Also fortunately, social influences protected me from my libido.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I should point out that "consent" laws have a solid basis in neurodevelopment. The prefrontal cortex does not actually begin to function effectively until the very late teens, and is usually not fully developed until the mid-twenties. Actuarial data from the insurance industry supports a significant difficulty with effective qualitative decision making at ages below about 25. Protecting a minor from making irreversible decisions that could significantly impact his or her lifetime health, particularly decisions that could be made while under strong (and often unfamiliar) hormonal influences makes sense in the context of those minors having seriously immature decision making brain structures.

At 16 I'd probably have said "yes" to anything in a skirt that didn't look too much like a zombie. Fortunately I learned a bit more self control as time went on. Also fortunately, social influences protected me from my libido.
This is why many favor repealing the 26th amendment and raising the voting age back to 21 to match the legal drinking age.
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I wasn't talking about aberration, I was talking about consent. I think it was perfectly clear before you took my quote out of context (the last word before the part you quoted being "consent," indicating that "this" in the part you quoted referred to "consent"). But if that wasn't clear, I apologize and please accept this clarification.

No need to apologize at all, but now I'm confused.

I thought it was clear you were talking about consent as well. Clear enough that I honestly felt I wasn't taking you out of context.

If anything, I should apologize for not paying close enough attention to the earlier arguments.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 02:36 PM
 
What does consent have to do with "quantified aberration?"
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
This is why many favor repealing the 26th amendment and raising the voting age back to 21 to match the legal drinking age.
That "many" probably does not include a majority of the group called "parents of teenagers." Limited independence is a very good step for a young person to take. And it's kind of hard to argue that 18-year-olds are doing a worse job at the polls than their elders, considering how poor the turnouts are for many local elections. Example: here in San Antonio, we just elected a new mayor and most of the City Council. That "we" describes just over 11% of the registered electorate, and does not even touch on the percentage of eligible voters in the city. My 21-year-old son votes-took the presidential election extremely seriously too. His girl friend does not vote, and I still can't figure out why not.

I clearly remember the 26th Amendment going into effect in 1971. The primary argument was that we as a nation were drafting 18-year-olds and sending them to Vietnam, but we didn't allow them to have a say in how the country that was potentially sending them to their deaths was run. This was and would still be patently unfair, and the 26th Amendment fixed that. However I also remember how the 18-year-old population thoroughly demonstrated that they could not, as a group, handle the responsibility of being allowed to buy alcohol, and then how they as a group FAILED to do anything at the ballot box to prevent the federal government from forcing states to change their legal drinking age laws back to 21. Since we do not have a draft and would likely never institute one again, perhaps it is indeed time to explore repealing the 26th Amendment...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2009, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What does consent have to do with "quantified aberration?"

They've both been discussed in this multi-page thread as examples of differences between homosexuality and pedophilia.

I'm saying consent (or lack thereof) is a difference, while quantified aberration isn't.
( Last edited by subego; May 17, 2009 at 07:24 PM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2009, 06:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The paper you cite says the paraphilias should not be included because "[t]he concept of Paraphilias as psychopathology was analyzed and assessed critically to determine if it meets the definition of a mental disorder presented in the DSM; it does not." Isn't this honesty? I can't speak for Moser and Kleinplatz, but that was the honest conclusion I came to with the information I've been given.
Because mental health lacks a definitive measure, it is honest to consider what is and is not a mental disorder. We're essentially defining individual behaviors and assessing them in light of "distress" which suggests that almost any statistically abnormal behavior can be defined away. While this might be the gauge used by the mental health industry, it is not yet the pervasive societal conclusion.

It will still boil down to moralists VS relativists. The arguments against the moralists on the topic of homosexuality will be equally as viable on any other host of behavioral phenomena.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2009, 07:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
All the other proclivities are defined by their target, why isn't this just another target?
Because it's not politically correct, and it makes it tougher to argue that just because you have uncontrollable desires for something, you have a right to be allowed to do it without society judging you. When you explain that there are lots of undesirable behaviors that people don't choose, and are expected to control, it's kind of an argument killer for those who think that their rights are given based just on what they wish to do.

Once that argument is squashed, and it's explained that we aren't dealing with things that have equal societal interest, it makes it difficult to argue that someone is not being afforded "equal rights."
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2009, 09:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Once that argument is squashed, and it's explained that we aren't dealing with things that have equal societal interest, it makes it difficult to argue that someone is not being afforded "equal rights."
Disability laws aren't dealing with "equal societal interest" either, but they are still considered to be concerned with "equal rights." You don't have a leg to stand on with this argument.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:21 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,