[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You're celebrating RR getting banned?

No, I laughed. But in retrospect, I certainly won't miss him. He contributed nothing around here.

As a person, do you really suck that much?

As a person, go play in traffic. I wouldn't miss you either.

[Laminar]

Keepin' it classy.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What if the gay Republicans understand better than straight liberals that their homosexuality is the product of a mental phenomena developed through psycho-social/environmental factors they don't feel constitute a specified, protected class of people any more than alcoholism? Maybe you can tolerate people without always having to grant them some meaningless status to appease phobias of other kinds.

Or maybe they're just morons and hypocrites.

"I was taking pictures to assess the results of my diet."

"He was my assistant to carry my luggage, because I have a bad back."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Or maybe they're just morons and hypocrites.

Politicians; morons and hypocrites. This shouldn't be surprising to you, even for Republicans.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What if the gay Republicans understand better than straight liberals that their homosexuality is the product of a mental phenomena developed through psycho-social/environmental factors they don't feel constitute a specified, protected class of people any more than alcoholism? Maybe you can tolerate people without always having to grant them some meaningless status to appease phobias of other kinds.

Even if this is 100% true, science included, I can't make the jump to being anti-gay marriage. I think all marriages being civil unions makes the most sense from a governmental standpoint, but since that's not on the table, begrudging the results because it has a different label is just petty.

Again, homosexuality being psychosocial in origin, and/or some form of disorder would have no effect on my opinion. If two adults want to get married, shame on those who won't let them.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What if the gay Republicans understand better than straight liberals that their homosexuality is the product of a mental phenomena developed through psycho-social/environmental factors they don't feel constitute a specified, protected class of people any more than alcoholism? Maybe you can tolerate people without always having to grant them some meaningless status to appease phobias of other kinds.

Here you go again, trying to disingenuously paint homosexuality as a mental disorder! Give it a rest! It doesn't really matter in the end, in any event, as homosexuals have always been with us and will always be with us. Someone, like you, will always find a reason to label them with some tag that fits your unknowledgeable beliefs. The upside is that there are less and less people who care (and I know you purport to "care" about gay rights), and eventually the silly concepts of "protected class" and "special rights" will be seen for what they are; a fallacious straw man argument used by those who have nothing consequential to offer.

Maybe there are straight Republicans who are able to view this issue without the zealotry of atheism and partisan shilling. Or maybe none of this is as black or white as you think.

Priceless! Calling atheism zealotry, when there's never been a single shard of evidence of any mythical deities, and one can hardly turn one's head without seeing or hearing something about how they're going to suffer unimaginably if they don't accept the "one and only" true god. Methinks you need to look up the word zealotry.

I don't think it's as black and white as you apparently think I do, but I also don't make stuff up (like your "mental phenomena developed through psycho-social/environmental factors") just because it happens to fit what I want to believe. The jury is still out on what causes homosexuality (if is caused by one thing or many is just guesswork at this point), but we are painfully slowly learning. In the end, I also don't care all that much what causes it, because it doesn't negatively affect me (and I have a gay daughter), unlike those who choose to let it affect their lives! Despite all the stupendous "logic" and excessive verbiage tossed around here, and elsewhere (such as that from Pat Robertson, who apparently is convinced that homosexual marriage will bring America to its knees, and who's got lots of idiots eagerly regurgitating every word of his as if it were scripture), there's going to be no Armageddon if Susie and Mary are allowed to marry, and you can take that to the bank.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Here you go again, trying to disingenuously paint homosexuality as a mental disorder! Give it a rest! It doesn't really matter in the end, in any event, as homosexuals have always been with us and will always be with us. Someone, like you, will always find a reason to label them with some tag that fits your unknowledgeable beliefs. The upside is that there are less and less people who care (and I know you purport to "care" about gay rights), and eventually the silly concepts of "protected class" and "special rights" will be seen for what they are; a fallacious straw man argument used by those who have nothing consequential to offer.

Right, it matters so little you've just given me an entire paragraph on why it doesn't matter, but that I'm somehow lacking in knowledge. You're welcome to address any of the actual arguments I've made, but because you can't you'll just resort to ad hom. I gotcha.

Of course it matters to you, that's why you believe people were born that way and have to deride anyone who isn't in lockstep with you. What's bothering you is that it doesn't matter to me. My view on gay marriage is clear regardless of what the sciences conclude or can't conclude.

Priceless! Calling atheism zealotry, when there's never been a single shard of evidence of any mythical deities, and one can hardly turn one's head without seeing or hearing something about how they're going to suffer unimaginably if they don't accept the "one and only" true god. Methinks you need to look up the word zealotry.

Of course a zealot can be a fanatic for any cause or philosophy. Do you need me to quote the definition for you? I'm not the one who brought religion into it.

I don't think it's as black and white as you apparently think I do, but I also don't make stuff up (like your "mental phenomena developed through psycho-social/environmental factors") just because it happens to fit what I want to believe.

Why would I want to believe that? Why on earth would it matter to me? I understand why it matters to you, you reiterate it every time the discussion comes up. While I can appreciate your personal, emotional investment in the discussion, I believe it obligates you to deny the fact that even proponents of a genetic component hypothesis (at this point a just-so story that advances only in its discrepant findings) to human sexuality reaffirm the psycho-social/environmental factors of human sexuality in their conclusions. Why? Because that's what we actually do know. It would be downright dubious to exclude it.

The jury is still out on what causes homosexuality (if is caused by one thing or many is just guesswork at this point), but we are painfully slowly learning. In the end, I also don't care all that much what causes it, because it doesn't negatively affect me (and I have a gay daughter), unlike those who choose to let it affect their lives!

So why do you continue to prattle on about it? Don't let it get to you. Let it roll off. It doesn't matter right?

Despite all the stupendous "logic" and excessive verbiage tossed around here, and elsewhere (such as that from Pat Robertson, who apparently is convinced that homosexual marriage will bring America to its knees, and who's got lots of idiots eagerly regurgitating every word of his as if it were scripture), there's going to be no Armageddon if Susie and Mary are allowed to marry, and you can take that to the bank.

I agree with you, but you see it doesn't matter what Pat Robertson thinks. I'm sure he preaches to tithe 10% of their gross income too, but what percentage do you suppose are following that to the letter? At the end of the day, people will think what they think.

You might be able to address Pat Robertson on the folly of his religion and his views on gay marriage, but what does that have to do with my views on homosexuality and gay marriage? Sound logic and wisdom such as yours should not require the use of so many strawmen OldMan. Take it up with Pat Robertson. Otherwise, you come off as an atheist zealot without anything other than a personal dog in the fight.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Even if this is 100% true, science included, I can't make the jump to being anti-gay marriage. I think all marriages being civil unions makes the most sense from a governmental standpoint, but since that's not on the table, begrudging the results because it has a different label is just petty.

Again, homosexuality being psychosocial in origin, and/or some form of disorder would have no effect on my opinion. If two adults want to get married, shame on those who won't let them.

That's what I've been saying. Just because I happen to believe homosexuality is the product of one's psycho-social/environmental factors does not mean I'm obligated to deny civil unions. I support them. The problem is, I think this factor matters to those who oppose homosexuality in that they feel there is simply no need to extend the privilege of marriage to gays. On the scale of what matters, this simply doesn't rate enough for them to champion it.

[subego]

Wait, I'm confused. Didn't the guy campaign against gay marriage?

I can understand not being a champion for gay marriage, but that's different than active opposition to it.

[ironknee]

^^ he prob was married before and knew any marriage is bad?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Wait, I'm confused. Didn't the guy campaign against gay marriage?
I can understand not being a champion for gay marriage, but that's different than active opposition to it.

All I can tell you is that I had no idea of this Hinkle character and know nothing of him other than from the article provided in the OP which offers nothing of his "active opposition" of gays.

IMO, the assumption in the OP is that of course all Republicans champion anti-gay sentiment or are "actively opposed" to gay marriage when there's nothing to suggest Hinkle was any more actively opposed or more anti-gay than anyone else sharing his views on this issue including Obama. Granted, there is no defense of the man as he is decidedly whacko (for the record, anyone looking for boys on Craigslist likely is) and has hurt a number of people. I just don't see the need to make him out to be something he doesn't appear to be at the surface. I'd be willing to read any information that would qualify his active opposition to gay marriage.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

All I can tell you is that I had no idea of this Hinkle character and know nothing of him other than from the article provided in the OP which offers nothing of his "active opposition" of gays.

IMO, the assumption in the OP is that of course all Republicans champion anti-gay sentiment or are "actively opposed" to gay marriage when there's nothing to suggest Hinkle was any more actively opposed or more anti-gay than anyone else sharing his views on this issue including Obama. Granted, there is no defense of the man as he is decidedly whacko (for the record, anyone looking for boys on Craigslist likely is) and has hurt a number of people. I just don't see the need to make him out to be something he doesn't appear to be at the surface. I'd be willing to read any information that would qualify his active opposition to gay marriage.

IIUC, Hinkle is being tagged as anti-gay marriage because he voted for a constitutional amendment outlawing it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What if the gay Republicans understand better than straight liberals that their homosexuality is the product of a mental phenomena developed through psycho-social/environmental factors they don't feel constitute a specified, protected class of people any more than alcoholism? Maybe you can tolerate people without always having to grant them some meaningless status to appease phobias of other kinds.

Maybe there are straight Republicans who are able to view this issue without the zealotry of atheism and partisan shilling. Or maybe none of this is as black or white as you think.

eBuddy...as always, in for the kill!

[Waragainstsleep]

This seems relevant:

200001a

[subego]

"1.     APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder.  Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians.  APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups."

I have something of a hard time believing this doesn't go both ways.

I think there's a significant portion of the population who would refuse to consider it a disorder regardless of evidence, specifically out of a (not unwarranted) fear people would use that information to attack homosexuals.

To be clear, I understand the desire. I'd much rather not feel compelled to make the above observation.

P.S. My understanding is that what constitutes a "disorder" these days has a lot more to do with what you can claim on insurance rather than something more scientifically rigorous. If Glenn is reading he can (and I think will ) confirm or deny this.

[Eug]

Quite frankly, I think it's odd for anyone in 2011 to consider homosexuality a disorder.

The scientific community, which is often somewhat stodgy and often a bit slow to change, decades ago recognized that scientifically it does not make any sense to call homosexuality a disorder.

Originally Posted by subego 

My understanding is that what constitutes a "disorder" these days has a lot more to do with what you can claim on insurance rather than something more scientifically rigorous.

Well, lots of well-recognized disorders/diseases are not covered by certain insurance policies. It all depends on the scope of the insurance policy.

For example most critical illness policies will only cover those critical illnesses specifically listed in the policy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Eug 

It all depends on the scope of the insurance policy.

Q.E.D.

[Eug]

Eh?

[subego]

Disorders are classified in terms of what can be claimed on any given insurance policy.

The fact different policies provide different coverages is what necessitates the classification system in the first place.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The scientific community, which is often somewhat stodgy and often a bit slow to change, decades ago recognized that scientifically it does not make any sense to call homosexuality a disorder.

After a lifetime of seeing rational people (on both sides) thoroughly flip the **** out over this subject, I'm not convinced people can put away their confirmation bias, regardless of whether they say they're scientists. It's hard even for someone as skilled at it as myself

I should also say that IMO, psychology is about as soft as you can get and still be called "science".

[Waragainstsleep]

True. There are also big chunks of archaeology which are suspect. Like where people just take a wild guess at what they think a piece of pottery or metal might have been from or what a given item might have been used for and all of a sudden that guess starts getting treated like scientific fact. Its always bothered me just a bit.

[subego]

I've heard the argument modern thought about the Middle Ages reflects more about the personal agendas of the great 20th century medievalists than it does any actual history.