[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You are on a slippery slope here. If you think the government has "an interest in the most basic health/welfare issues involving those who can't help themselves" due to retardation why should the government not have "an interest in the most basic health/welfare issues involving those who can't help themselves" due to drug abuse (government-funded needle-exchange or drug-treatment programs), laziness (i.e.: welfare assistance for food/housing), emotional instability (i.e.: government-funded mental-health services)?

I guess my "disclaimer" would be the introduction of the qualifier "due to no fault of their own". If people don't want to get off drugs and chose to do them despite ample warnings regarding their destructive nature, then they've been able to make a choice in regards to their "pursuit of happiness". What has happened to them is BECAUSE of their freedom to pursue.

It gets back to what we as a society want to promote via affirmative actions. I see programs that make it easier to be a drug user or lazy as an affirmative action to continue that sort of behavior. I don't see devising laws to help those who can not walk due to a physical handicap be able to better travel as encouraging them to continue to have an uncontrollable physical handicap. If they could walk like everyone else - even if it required short term discomfort, they would.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, I don't necessarily argue for "less/smaller government." I have argued for less/smaller government in areas that don't really require government intervention.

Who is to say that your definition of "areas that don't really require government intervention" is better than someone else's definition of "areas that don't really require government intervention"? In other words, how do you define your criteria for areas of concern that do or do not require government intervention*? And, again, why do you think it is OK for your personal definitions of "what is appropriate for government to do" to influence government policy (opposing recognition of gay marriage) but it is not OK for other citizens' personal definitions of "what is appropriate for government to do" to influence government policy (support recognition of gay marriage)?


*If, on a federal level, you use criteria for determining validity of government intervention outside those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 8), then you are allowing personal interests to determine what you think is and is not acceptable areas of concern for the federal government. And if you think it is acceptable for you to use personal interests to determine what should or should not be acceptable areas of concern for the federal government then you must allow others to use personal interests to determine what should or should not be acceptable areas of concern for the federal government. (Again, of course, unless you want to be subject to being labeled a hypocrite.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I guess my "disclaimer" would be the introduction of the qualifier "due to no fault of their own".

I think you are still firmly stuck on your slippery slope with this line of reasoning.


Government policy, in the context of this debate, is about providing an affirmative action to a group of individuals for specific reasons. [Providing the affirmative action of recognition of marriage to opposite sex couples.]
Yet you have just said that you think the provision of government affirmative actions can be for individuals who exist in a certain way "due to no fault of their own" (they are born retarded). So, why can't the government provide an affirmative action to another set of individuals who exist in a certain way "due to no fault of their own" (they are born homosexuals)?

In other words, if you want to have an affirmative government policy that applies to a select group of citizens based on certain immutable criteria of the select group of citizens (racial identity or mental handicap) then you have to allow for other groups of citizens to avail themselves of similar affirmative government policies based on their specific immutable criteria (sexual orientation, physical handicap). You can't have a process and criteria for providing preferential treatment to one group (blacks and retards) and then deny that process to another identical* group (homosexuals). That is not providing equal protection before the law.
*Identical in the sense that the criteria for providing preferential treatment is based on an immutable aspect of identity established at birth.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To Uncle Skeleton: Do you believe homosexuality is wholly genetic, partially genetic with psycho-social/environmental component, or wholly psycho-social/environmental?

I ask because I believe this is the unspoken core of the debate. When I have more time and if the opportunity appears fruitful enough, I'll expand on the thought.

I think the whole question is a red herring. Is retardation nature or nurture? Is disability nature or nurture? The answer of course is both, either. Some retardation is genetic, while some is environmental (you know, thalidomide, lead, asbestos, fetal alcohol syndrome, and the whole gambit of emotional disorders from improper parenting). People lose limbs, senses or abilities from genetics, from developmental problems in the womb, or from accidents, injuries or disease throughout life. Even the normal process of aging can lead to disabilities in the elderly, which we also treat. The source of the disability has no bearing on whether society feels obliged to bend over backwards to accommodate these people. If the source of disability and retardation doesn't matter to the remedy, why should the source of homosexuality matter to the remedy? I submit it has nothing to do with source and everything to do with fairness. The origin is nothing but an excuse people use who don't wish to act fairly.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The Special Olympics isn't a government program.

There is more to society than just government.

Are you saying your are interested in treating homosexuality as a handicap, and having the government start programs to help them overcome it to the best of their ability?

Yes, if it allows people like you to see past your prejudice. We didn't go straight from slavery to civil rights, we had to accept compromise with the bigots along the way. The gays should be happy to get the right to marry, even if it means people like you think of it as a disability. It's not like they're going to win over your hearts and minds either way.

Handicapped people for the most part do not want to be handicapped, would do whatever was necessary not to be handicapped, and do not get preferential treatment for endeavors which seek to benefit from their handicap. We do what we can to help them simply live the same as the "norm" within reason.

Some handicapped people have pride in their handicapped identity. Does it remind you of gays that take pride in their gayness instead of being ashamed of it like you think they should?

In as much as you say the disabled don't "benefit" from their handicap, gays don't seek to "benefit" from theirs either, they only want us to do what we can to help them simply live the same as the "norm" within reason.

Fairness based on what? The government "fairness" is based on the societal interest we have in allowing people to have the most very basic ability to engage in a "pursuit of happiness"

That's a fine argument in favor of allowing gay marriage. What could be more basic to the pursuit of happiness than a simple public recognition of that happiness when they are so lucky as to have already found it?

We help out the handicapped because they can't help themselves, and it allows them the most basic ability to have an opportunity to engage in a "pursuit of happiness" in ways which go above and beyond their ability and makes them more productive citizens.

You mean productive of babies? That doesn't make any sense, but unless you're talking about producing babies, then the very same sentiment applies to gays. I don't think the state has an explicit or implicit interest in urging handicapped people, who can't even support themselves and need public assistance, to have kids they won't be able to care for.

edit: duh, forgot url

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Who is to say that your definition of "areas that don't really require government intervention" is better than someone else's definition of "areas that don't really require government intervention"? In other words, how do you define your criteria for areas of concern that do or do not require government intervention*?

Some standard has to be used. I'd say a standard that assumes that those who can't help themselves deserve for the government to be proactive in their basic protection is a pretty good place to start. That includes the handicapped, "retards", and new human life brought into the world by men and women engaging in long term unions.

You can have an expanded definition if you like, but I think that most of society would currently accept this as a reasonable starting point in which to decide if we are treating all those who require special protections the same.

And, again, why do you think it is OK for your personal definitions of "what is appropriate for government to do" to influence government policy (opposing recognition of gay marriage) but it is not OK for other citizens' personal definitions of "what is appropriate for government to do" to influence government policy (support recognition of gay marriage)?

Because of the above. I think it's reasonable to expect the government to look out for those who can't do it for themselves and to provide affirmative actions in order to try and ensure that those people get an equal opportunity at basic pursuit of happiness. I don't think it's reasonable for them to get involved in people's emotions or feelings. We are essentially talking about polar extremes in these examples.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think the whole question is a red herring. Is retardation nature or nurture? Is disability nature or nurture? The answer of course is both, either. Some retardation is genetic, while some is environmental (you know, thalidomide, lead, asbestos, fetal alcohol syndrome, and the whole gambit of emotional disorders from improper parenting).

Well then you're no longer talking about nature/nurture. You're talking about accidents, disease, disorders, and birth defects with well-documented origins, but I find your inclusion of bad parenting fascinating. Most experts believe pedophilia and other sexual disorders are the result of bad parenting. Bad parenting may likewise render a child handicapped and in need of a larger bathroom stall and ramps instead of stairs so we're really talking about various forms of societal accommodation here. Should we allow pedophiles to have sex with children? By what moral standard should we make this judgment? Are those opposed to pedophilia just bigoted against pedophiles? Is societal advancement always the result of increased tolerance or is there a limit? What is that limit? Who defines it, and why?

People lose limbs, senses or abilities from genetics, from developmental problems in the womb, or from accidents, injuries or disease throughout life. Even the normal process of aging can lead to disabilities in the elderly, which we also treat.

But we don't generally treat homosexuality, we treat personal acceptance so again, we're talking about differences in societal accommodation for these circumstances. We don't treat alcoholics' eyesight to enable them to see better when they're drunk and we don't propose widening streets to allow them more "stray", we try to correct their drunkenness. If homosexuality is a disorder, then it is more appropriate to treat the disorder in a clinical environment and the government would contribute then to awareness of the disorder over placing itself in a complex societal debate through legislation and subsequent implication. I'd argue the reason so much gay rights advocacy is centered on the potential genetic components is because they understand perhaps better than most where the crux of the issue lies. So... gay rights advocates employing the genetic causation argument are really guilty of using red herrings?

The source of the disability has no bearing on whether society feels obliged to bend over backwards to accommodate these people.

Of course it does. I just gave you an example above; alcoholism and/or drug abuse. Pedophilia.

If the source of disability and retardation doesn't matter to the remedy, why should the source of homosexuality matter to the remedy? I submit it has nothing to do with source and everything to do with fairness. The origin is nothing but an excuse people use who don't wish to act fairly.

By this reasoning would it not be likewise unfair to deny a consenting child and adult the right to have sex and be married? Isn't the fact that pedophilia is regarded a disorder really the difference here? If no, why? Who is the arbiter of what is and is not fair.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well then you're no longer talking about nature/nurture. You're talking about accidents, disease, disorders, and birth defects with well-documented origins, but I find your inclusion of bad parenting fascinating.

If you find it fascinating, I can only conclude that you've never heard of the nature vs. nurture puzzle before. These are classical textbook examples (of the nurture side). Nurture includes all environmental factors. It's just a catchy alliterative phrase meaning genetic vs. environmental. I'm sorry if that was not understood; I thought it was a more universal phrase.

Most experts believe pedophilia and other sexual disorders are the result of bad parenting. Bad parenting may likewise render a child handicapped and in need of a larger bathroom stall and ramps instead of stairs so we're really talking about various forms of societal accommodation here. Should we allow pedophiles to have sex with children?

Pedophilia and drunk driving are different, because they harm non-consenting second parties. How do gays harm non-consenting bystanders by being married? I believe this has been a more central meme in the gay marriage debate than any genetics argument, and I have yet to hear an answer.

But we don't generally treat homosexuality, we treat personal acceptance

I honestly don't know what you mean by this.

We don't treat alcoholics' eyesight to enable them to see better when they're drunk and we don't propose widening streets to allow them more "stray", we try to correct their drunkenness. If homosexuality is a disorder, then it is more appropriate to treat the disorder in a clinical environment and the government would contribute then to awareness of the disorder over placing itself in a complex societal debate through legislation and subsequent implication.

You seem to have gotten side-tracked (and I see now the terminology can be ambiguous). Equal rights for the disabled is about special treatment, but that treatment is not clinical treatment, it doesn't affect their health, it only affects their rights to be compensated for their disability through added consideration from everyone else. It's not medical.

Regardless, stupendousman's claim that equal rights can't be given to un-equal parties is disproved. Even if you come up with different un-equal parties that are denied equal rights (like polygamists), it doesn't revive his argument.

I'd argue the reason so much gay rights advocacy is centered on the potential genetic components is because they understand perhaps better than most where the crux of the issue lies. So... gay rights advocates employing the genetic causation argument are really guilty of using red herrings?

Yes. Maybe not knowningly.

By this reasoning would it not be likewise unfair to deny a consenting child and adult the right to have sex and be married? Isn't the fact that pedophilia is regarded a disorder really the difference here? If no, why? Who is the arbiter of what is and is not fair.

Children cannot give informed consent to have sex with adults (neither can animals, if you were thinking of going there). That's why they call it "the age of consent."

[OldManMac]

It's amazing how people keep grasping at straws, as if they're going to somehow prove something.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you find it fascinating, I can only conclude that you've never heard of the nature vs. nurture puzzle before. These are classical textbook examples (of the nurture side). Nurture includes all environmental factors. It's just a catchy alliterative phrase meaning genetic vs. environmental. I'm sorry if that was not understood; I thought it was a more universal phrase.

I'm familiar with "nurture/nature". That's why I found your examples of it questionable. Accidents and injuries in particular seemed a bit of a stretch in terms of nurture/nature in its most common context.

Pedophilia and drunk driving are different, because they harm non-consenting second parties.

I mentioned making the streets wider to allow for "stray", but that was only one aspect of alcoholism. Alcoholism is not something we generally seek to accommodate in any way, it's something we seek to correct. I've certainly met children with more intellectual capacity than many adults and I've seen accounts of retarded people getting married. What do we use to calculate what reasonable "consent" is? What moral standard do we use to define pedophilia as wrong and is it likewise bigoted or unfair to deem it wrong?

How do gays harm non-consenting bystanders by being married?

They generally don't, this is why I support their right to be married. There's a big leap from "I support the right of gays to be married" to "anyone who opposes their right to be married is unfair and bigoted"

How do we define "consenting"? Again, my point was that we generally deem pedophilia a disorder and as such, we do not accommodate it. I can only assume there is some moral judgement being made on what is and is not acceptable in society. There may be children who consent for any number of the same reasons adults consent. If 45 year old Joe who lives three doors down is having sexual relations with a consenting 14 year old 4 doors down, how does that affect you? If people are not happy with the relationship, are they just bigoted and unfair against Joe? Of course it doesn't affect you in the least bit. Is this really the most effective gauge of what is and is not acceptable behavior in society? I have yet to get an answer on any of these.

I believe this has been a more central meme in the gay marriage debate than any genetics argument, and I have yet to hear an answer.

The answer is simple, we use moral standards to establish what is and is not acceptable social behavior in society. We do so in defining what is a functional norm and what is not. We often do so in relation to what does and does not directly affect us, but I'm arguing that this is not an effective gauge. In fact, we'll often even differentiate between male child victims of female pedophilia from female child victims of male pedophilia. Is societal advancement always contingent upon more tolerance and differentiating between those things that don't affect you personally and those things that do?

You seem to have gotten side-tracked (and I see now the terminology can be ambiguous). Equal rights for the disabled is about special treatment, but that treatment is not clinical treatment, it doesn't affect their health, it only affects their rights to be compensated for their disability through added consideration from everyone else. It's not medical.

You mention I've gotten side-tracked by reiterating why your points weren't really relevant to what we're talking about. Now I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Regardless, stupendousman's claim that equal rights can't be given to un-equal parties is disproved.

We've also established why; "it doesn't affect me directly" as an effective gauge of acceptable societal practice is disproved. So... with regard to accommodating homosexuality, why should society be concerned with it?

Even if you come up with different un-equal parties that are denied equal rights (like polygamists), it doesn't revive his argument.

Well, to be honest none of the arguments for or against are very strong on this issue.

Children cannot give informed consent to have sex with adults (neither can animals, if you were thinking of going there). That's why they call it "the age of consent."

Sure they can. I was only going to bring up bestiality if someone tried expressing a problem with comparing pedophilia with homosexuality.

There are a great many children with higher capacity for reasoning than adults and they may consent to sex for any number of the same reasons adults do. As far as I can tell, it is not illegal for retarded people to have sex and I've even seen accounts of them getting married. Surely if retarded or severely mentally ill people can consent to sex, a 14 year old can. What is the pesky "moral", "sexual hangup" that would have us oppose pedophilia?

Could it be that it is regarded a disorder? If it's not a disorder, the child is consenting, it doesn't affect us personally, and morality is a "bigoted", "Christian", "right-wing sexual hangup" phenomena to be discouraged; pedophilia should be deemed perfectly acceptable and accommodated in society.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I mentioned making the streets wider to allow for "stray", but that was only one aspect of alcoholism. Alcoholism is not something we generally seek to accommodate in any way, it's something we seek to correct.

I repeat, it's different when it harms non-consenting second parties. If you're trying to argue that drug addictions that are demonstrably not harmful to others should be tolerated, I'd have to agree. But the examples you've given are of addictions that cause harm to others, and I think the reason for that is because your argument wouldn't work otherwise.

They generally don't, this is why I support their right to be married. There's a big leap from "I support the right of gays to be married" to "anyone who opposes their right to be married is unfair and bigoted"

I'm arguing the latter. Do you agree with me or not?

How do we define "consenting"? Again, my point was that we generally deem pedophilia a disorder and as such, we do not accommodate it. I can only assume there is some moral judgement being made on what is and is not acceptable in society.

That moral judgement is the most widely accepted and the most basic to our society, that one person's rights extend only so far as they don't impinge on another's. Or as it is said, your right to swing your fist ends where another's nose begins.

There may be children who consent for any number of the same reasons adults consent. If 45 year old Joe who lives three doors down is having sexual relations with a consenting 14 year old 4 doors down, how does that affect you?

It doesn't affect me. I'm not the victim, the child is. It affects the child.

The answer is simple, we use moral standards to establish what is and is not acceptable social behavior in society. We do so in defining what is a functional norm and what is not.

No, I disagree. Things aren't illegal just because they are "odd." Things are illegal because they harm others.

In fact, we'll often even differentiate between male child victims of female pedophilia from female child victims of male pedophilia.

Huh? Example?

Is societal advancement always contingent upon more tolerance and differentiating between those things that don't affect you personally and those things that do?

Not at all, I never said that. It's about differentiating between those things that don't affect ANYONE and those things that do. If your statement was true then I would oppose laws against murder just because I have never been murdered.

You mention I've gotten side-tracked by reiterating why your points weren't really relevant to what we're talking about. Now I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I'm arguing equal rights, you're talking about medical care. I don't see the connection.

There are a great many children with higher capacity for reasoning than adults and they may consent to sex for any number of the same reasons adults do. As far as I can tell, it is not illegal for retarded people to have sex and I've even seen accounts of them getting married. Surely if retarded or severely mentally ill people can consent to sex, a 14 year old can. What is the pesky "moral", "sexual hangup" that would have us oppose pedophilia?

Age of consent is not about reasoning capacity, it's about emotional capacity. Ever heard of "puberty?" Retarded people have had it, but children haven't. I would wager that the retarded people you are thinking about were/are not physically retarded in a way that avoided puberty.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To Uncle Skeleton: Do you believe homosexuality is wholly genetic, partially genetic with psycho-social/environmental component, or wholly psycho-social/environmental?

I ask because I believe this is the unspoken core of the debate. When I have more time and if the opportunity appears fruitful enough, I'll expand on the thought.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think the whole question is a red herring. Is retardation nature or nurture? Is disability nature or nurture? The answer of course is both, either. Some retardation is genetic, while some is environmental (you know, thalidomide, lead, asbestos, fetal alcohol syndrome, and the whole gambit of emotional disorders from improper parenting). People lose limbs, senses or abilities from genetics, from developmental problems in the womb, or from accidents, injuries or disease throughout life. Even the normal process of aging can lead to disabilities in the elderly, which we also treat. The source of the disability has no bearing on whether society feels obliged to bend over backwards to accommodate these people. If the source of disability and retardation doesn't matter to the remedy, why should the source of homosexuality matter to the remedy? I submit it has nothing to do with source and everything to do with fairness. The origin is nothing but an excuse people use who don't wish to act fairly.

Can you tell just by looking at someone if they are homosexual? You can look at at someone and see that they are: Oriental, Occidental, Aboriginal, male or female.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Can you tell just by looking at someone if they are homosexual?

Sometimes

Originally Posted by Chongo

You can look at at someone and see that they are: Oriental, Occidental, Aboriginal, male or female.

Sometimes

Originally Posted by Not Chongo

Can you tell by sight if someone is disabled/handicapped or retarded?

Sometimes

Originally Posted by Not Chongo

Can you tell by sight if someone is Jewish/Catholic/Irish/Gypsy?

Sometimes


So what? When has "recognized on sight" made any difference?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Can you tell just by looking at someone if they are homosexual?
Sometimes

Originally Posted by Chongo
You can look at at someone and see that they are: Oriental, Occidental, Aboriginal, male or female.
Sometimes

Originally Posted by Not Chongo
Can you tell by sight if someone is disabled/handicapped or retarded?
Sometimes

Originally Posted by Not Chongo
Can you tell by sight if someone is Jewish/Catholic/Irish/Gypsy?
Sometimes







So what? When has "recognized on sight" made any difference?

At one time, and some believe now:
When applying for job, hailing a cab, dining out, getting a drink of water, and so on.

Is this woman, Catholic, Baptist, or Buddhist? Is she straight or lesbian?

[Uncle Skeleton]

What's your point? People only deserve equal rights if you can *see* how they're unequal?

I guess this guy is all set then?

[Laminar]

Looks like a Baptist to me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I repeat, it's different when it harms non-consenting second parties.

You seem to gravitate back to the "non-consenting" angle of the discussion which is fine as these are examples of the current populace view and current law, but then... so is opposition to gay marriage. You've not defined what "consent" is other than "age of consent". This is a societal construct Uncle just as opposition to gay marriage. What defines the societal constructs and why is it bigoted to oppose homosexuality, but acceptable to oppose pedophilia?

If you're trying to argue that drug addictions that are demonstrably not harmful to others should be tolerated, I'd have to agree. But the examples you've given are of addictions that cause harm to others, and I think the reason for that is because your argument wouldn't work otherwise.

My argument is that we regard disorders differently than "subsequent choices" and that the crux of the debate is those who don't believe homosexuality is genetic, but the result of "choices" as they relate to a "disorder". My examples work perfectly well regardless of whether or not there's a "victim". (however that's defined)

I'm arguing the latter. Do you agree with me or not?

No I don't agree with you. I don't think it's bigoted and unfair to oppose homosexuality. I think it's too easy to simply caste others as being bigoted when the indictment cannot be adequately defined and in light of similar context, lacks consistency. i.e. it is fashionable to call someone bigoted != they really are.

That moral judgement is the most widely accepted and the most basic to our society, that one person's rights extend only so far as they don't impinge on another's. Or as it is said, your right to swing your fist ends where another's nose begins.

So... an intelligent 14 year old child cannot consent to sex, but retarded adults and nameless, faceless many adults who lack judgment on any host of issues in their lives can? How?

It doesn't affect me. I'm not the victim, the child is. It affects the child.

There are any number of ways relationships affect all of us? "it doesn't affect me" has no bearing.

No, I disagree. Things aren't illegal just because they are "odd." Things are illegal because they harm others.

Prostitution? How does it harm others? Why is it law that I wear a seatbelt? Who else is that harming?

Huh? Example?

Take any account of the flame-throwing hot female teachers that have "victimized" 13 year old boys in the news in the past several years and do a stare and compare of the sentences between these instances and those that involve a male adult and female students. Whole different scenario. Apparently, though I have yet to find out why.

Not at all, I never said that. It's about differentiating between those things that don't affect ANYONE and those things that do. If your statement was true then I would oppose laws against murder just because I have never been murdered.

There's absolutely nothing that suggests law must be drafted with the "it must affect others" litmus. If you're calling someone bigoted, you're implying they are not tolerant no? I'm guessing your view of "bigot" is negative therefore, societal advancement must then be contingent upon tolerance and acceptance. I'm asking you where that begins and ends? Certainly not at someone's face as I've already indicated with a number of examples.

I'm arguing equal rights, you're talking about medical care. I don't see the connection.

I am too. You brought up a number of examples of conditions society accommodates, failing to realize the form of those accommodations and how they differ. I merely helped you along in logic. In your examples, they were mostly medical/clinical accommodations, not legislative. We're not talking about larger bathroom stalls and stair-ramps. If you're having difficulty seeing the connection, try harder at making one I guess.

Age of consent is not about reasoning capacity, it's about emotional capacity. Ever heard of "puberty?" Retarded people have had it, but children haven't. I would wager that the retarded people you are thinking about were/are not physically retarded in a way that avoided puberty.

"have had it"??? The process of puberty can range from 9 to 23 years of age. Are you sure puberty is the reason for the law? Given the stark contrasts in sentencing between male and female pedophiliac sex offenders and the fact that boys are much more latent in the process of puberty, none of this really holds up. If it's about emotional capacity, there are a wealth of adults diagnosed with any number of emotional and mental illnesses that should be off limits sexually. Of course this isn't the case. It is a moral, societal construct and likely has more to do with conditions we deem offensive, disorderly, or contradictory to what the populace has deemed healthy and normal. Law can be little more than; "this is what society has deemed good for you and good for most of us." Opposition to homosexuality and the subsequent legislation around it is entirely consistent with this notion.

If it is bigoted and unfair to oppose homosexuality, it is likewise bigoted and unfair to oppose pedophilia. Of course, it's possible we throw around the word "bigot" too loosely; a defensive posture for an indefensible view no doubt. Why should society accommodate a mental disorder like homosexuality in this way; a way unique to how we'd accommodate any other mental disorder?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You seem to gravitate back to the "non-consenting" angle of the discussion which is fine as these are examples of the current populace view and current law, but then... so is opposition to gay marriage. You've not defined what "consent" is other than "age of consent". This is a societal construct Uncle just as opposition to gay marriage. What defines the societal constructs and why is it bigoted to oppose homosexuality, but acceptable to oppose pedophilia?

You know what "consent" means, and unless you're going to argue that homos are less able to consent to marriage than heteros are, it's irrelevant anyway. As for "societal construct," it is too non-specific to be meaningful; it doesn't tell us whether something is good or bad. It's no more informative than calling it a "word" or a "noun." Democracy is a societal construct, and so is slavery.

The societal construct of fairness is paramount in a democratic society. Do you disagree?

My argument is that we regard disorders differently than "subsequent choices" and that the crux of the debate is those who don't believe homosexuality is genetic, but the result of "choices" as they relate to a "disorder".

Just because it's not genetic (if indeed it's not) doesn't make it a "choice."

Just to meet you halfway on this point (to a question without a clear answer), is religion a choice? Did you choose your religion? Is religion genetic? To take it one step further, what if homos decide that homosexuality is their religion. It's no more strange than Scientology, and those weirdos seem to be managing to be protected under religious freedom. What could you say to prove them wrong?

No I don't agree with you. I don't think it's bigoted and unfair to oppose homosexuality. I think it's too easy to simply caste others as being bigoted when the indictment cannot be adequately defined and in light of similar context, lacks consistency. i.e. it is fashionable to call someone bigoted != they really are.

I don't agree that opposing a group of people isn't bigotry just because the group is defined by something other than genetics. Is it bigotry to oppose catholics? Is it bigotry to oppose only those catholics who converted to catholicism? (yes, it is)

So... an intelligent 14 year old child cannot consent to sex, but retarded adults and nameless, faceless many adults who lack judgment on any host of issues in their lives can? How?

You are substituting intelligence for emotion, but intelligence has nothing to do with emotion. Very smart people are often emotionally clueless, and very dumb people can be emotional geniuses. The laws about age of consent are about emotion, not intelligence.

There are any number of ways relationships affect all of us

What are they? That's what I'm asking. What are the ways in which gay marriage harms others?

Prostitution? How does it harm others? Why is it law that I wear a seatbelt? Who else is that harming?

Those are silly laws, and they will be next on the chopping block sometime after gay marriage. If you wanted to argue a slippery slope from gay marriage to ending seatbelt laws, you'd probably be right. Regardless, they are aberrations. That's the reason I lean against them, they don't make any sense. I mean, you can't pay a person to have sex with you, but you CAN pay the same person to have sex with you on camera. It's stupid.

Take any account of the flame-throwing hot female teachers that have "victimized" 13 year old boys in the news in the past several years and do a stare and compare of the sentences between these instances and those that involve a male adult and female students. Whole different scenario. Apparently, though I have yet to find out why.

It's my impression that they were all convicted. Can you give an example? Please contrast it to a male perpetrator using similar (lack of) physical force and age of victim. Obviously female perpetrators on average are less likely to use force, therefore their average punishments will be less harsh.

There's absolutely nothing that suggests law must be drafted with the "it must affect others" litmus.

You're wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

If you're calling someone bigoted, you're implying they are not tolerant no? I'm guessing your view of "bigot" is negative therefore, societal advancement must then be contingent upon tolerance and acceptance. I'm asking you where that begins and ends? Certainly not at someone's face as I've already indicated with a number of examples.

Yes, at someone's face, in the sense that bigotry is fine until it harms others (presumably the people you are bigoted against).

In your examples, they were mostly medical/clinical accommodations, not legislative. We're not talking about larger bathroom stalls and stair-ramps.

I was. You're not?

"have had it"??? The process of puberty can range from 9 to 23 years of age. Are you sure puberty is the reason for the law?

Puberty isn't the reason for the law, it's just the most obvious and visible side effect of that reason. If you really don't know why it is a law, you can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statuto...tory_rape_laws
It's pretty obvious that the reason is to protect the children involved from being bamboozled. Are you honestly arguing that homos are getting tricked into wanting to be married, while heteros aren't?

I'll grant you that the biologically accurate age of consent would optimally be decided on a case by case basis by a team of psychologists, psychiatrists and endocrinologists. But that would be logistically impossible, and the current system is a very reasonable estimate. Gay marriage would not be logistically impossible. If the gay community was proposing a change that was logistically impossible, they would not have gained any traction by this point.

Why should society accommodate a mental disorder like homosexuality in this way; a way unique to how we'd accommodate any other mental disorder?

It would be more akin to an endocrine disorder, but regardless there is no medical treatment available for homosexuality. So you would have to compare it to disabilities without medical options, like blindness or paralysis. People with this sort of untreatable condition are granted extraordinary accommodations even while given no treatment (because none exists), so that they can best "fit in" with society, pretending they're normal, even though they can't contribute to society in a productive job. IOW, we don't pretend that blind people (for example) are not blind, we pretend that being blind is normal (not freakish), and we treat them normally (not like freaks). We don't tell blind people "you can do just like everyone else, all you have to do is see." But that's the equivalent of what we do to homos (in 47 states).

[ebuddy]

Hate to dredge this thread up after so long, but I was in Atlanta on business all week and trying to peruse the NNs while on iPhone was... painful.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You know what "consent" means, and unless you're going to argue that homos are less able to consent to marriage than heteros are, it's irrelevant anyway.

Of course I know what "consent" means, that's not what I asked you. I asked you how it's defined. It seems it is defined using a moral or normative standard of sorts, having nothing to do with bigotry as far as I know. You'll recall I was responding to your notion that it is the sluggish, bigoted and unfair who are hampering progress on gay rights. By this logic, you must also conclude that one must be bigoted against pedophiles to oppose pedophilia.

As for "societal construct," it is too non-specific to be meaningful; it doesn't tell us whether something is good or bad. It's no more informative than calling it a "word" or a "noun." Democracy is a societal construct, and so is slavery.
The societal construct of fairness is paramount in a democratic society. Do you disagree?

I disagree. There is little about democracy that can be clearly defined as fair. It is generally a majority rule and in cases when not supported by a majority of people, enjoys majority of funds to lobby. If that rule is fair or the money behind the movement just, then democracy is fair. There are those who view communism or Marxism as more "fair" than democracy and there are those who view it as less "fair". "Fair" in this context is as meaningless as you've deemed "societal construct".

Just because it's not genetic (if indeed it's not) doesn't make it a "choice."

Sure it does. One's upbringing may likewise lead to alcoholism, they are still "choosing" to drink. We don't accommodate alcoholism, we treat it. Regardless of the failure rate.

Just to meet you halfway on this point (to a question without a clear answer), is religion a choice? Did you choose your religion? Is religion genetic?

There have been some equally inconclusive studies to examine whether or not religion is genetic, but given the churn rate of those either leaving it or picking it up I'd be more inclined to believe there's "choice" involved. My family chose my religion during upbringing. While I respected it out of love and respect for my parents, I left it upon leaving the home. Yes, I chose my religion. I don't know that it's genetic.

To take it one step further, what if homos decide that homosexuality is their religion. It's no more strange than Scientology, and those weirdos seem to be managing to be protected under religious freedom. What could you say to prove them wrong?

What unique protections do Scientologists enjoy that gays do not?

I don't agree that opposing a group of people isn't bigotry just because the group is defined by something other than genetics. Is it bigotry to oppose catholics? Is it bigotry to oppose only those catholics who converted to catholicism? (yes, it is)

Is it likewise bigoted to oppose pedophilia?

You are substituting intelligence for emotion, but intelligence has nothing to do with emotion. Very smart people are often emotionally clueless, and very dumb people can be emotional geniuses. The laws about age of consent are about emotion, not intelligence.

I have no clue what you're talking about. I mentioned both intellectual and emotional capacity Uncle. I've not substituted anything.

What are they? That's what I'm asking. What are the ways in which gay marriage harms others?

I guess you'd have to define "harm" which I'd argue is more difficult than you might acknowledge. If defined in terms of potential, long-term negative implication, there might be some examples;

- Relativism becoming the operating mode of law. Law that will inevitably acknowledge and respect polygamy or any other host of "marital" arrangements with their own implications, falling under the same relativist logic.
- People and organizations with conscientious objection to homosexuality will be required to acknowledge and accommodate it under anti-discrimination laws. Cases such as those in New Mexico in which a Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony or a psychologist in Georgia who was fired after she declined to counsel a lesbian about her relationship due to religious beliefs. i.e.; the right to swing your fist now transcends the elusive "someone else's face" boundary.
- Homosexual unions are sterile by nature. It denies a child to a father or a mother.
- The challenge to normative state of difference between fidelity and commitment.
- Per meta-analysis published by gay rights proponents Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz in 2004, entitled, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" actually challenged the overall finding of twenty studies of same-sex parenting suggesting little to no difference between children of straight parents and children of gay parents. They found that in fact there were differences and they cited them as positive. Differences such as; children raised by gay parents showed empathy for "social diversity", were less confined by gender stereotypes, more likely to have confusion about gender identity, more likely to engage in sexual experimentation and promiscuity, and more likely to explore homosexual behavior." In terms of STDs, teen sex, pregnancy, and adolescent mental health there are negative implications.
- There may be other negative implications including the complication of custodial case law regarding children of same sex unions, subversion of immigration law, etc...

Those are silly laws, and they will be next on the chopping block sometime after gay marriage. If you wanted to argue a slippery slope from gay marriage to ending seatbelt laws, you'd probably be right. Regardless, they are aberrations. That's the reason I lean against them, they don't make any sense. I mean, you can't pay a person to have sex with you, but you CAN pay the same person to have sex with you on camera. It's stupid.

One aspect of the "inherent fairness of democracy" is the amount of money behind your lobby. Legalizing gay marriage does not necessarily "slip" to legalizing prostitution or repealing seat belt laws. Whether they are silly or not, they are examples of laws in which there is no definitive "victim" of harm.

It's my impression that they were all convicted. Can you give an example? Please contrast it to a male perpetrator using similar (lack of) physical force and age of victim. Obviously female perpetrators on average are less likely to use force, therefore their average punishments will be less harsh.

How do you mean "obviously female perpetrators of pedophilia on average are less likely to use force"? What evidence do you have of this? Certainly, all are subject to the same laws, but not the same charges or punitive judgments. Mathews, Matthews, and Speltz (1989) suggested that sanctions against female offenders may be less strict because frequently their victims are either too young or too disturbed by the abuse, and therefore are not competent witnesses in court. ...Additionally, society seems to have a “double standard” toward female and male perpetrators when the victim is a teenager of the opposite sex. For example, in the case of adult women who engage in sexual relationships with adolescent males, “our society appears to give some permission for this type of sexual interaction” (Wolfe 1987). Society is less permissive in the case of a sexual relationship between an adult male and an adolescent female.

Another example; Pamela Diehl-Moore, 43, assaulted a boy at least three times at her Lyndhurst home while she worked as a teacher at Woodrow Wilson Elementary School. In sentencing her to probation - and no jail time - Superior Court Judge Bruce Gaeta said the affair may have been a way for the 13-year-old boy to "satisfy his sexual needs.''

If you can provide me a similar example of any such judicial finding or statement made in a case of male pedophilia, I'll reexamine my view. Otherwise, the above examples are wholly consistent with the broad range of expert opinion that male and female sex offenders seek different forms of defense, are charged differently, and that a double-standard in fact applies not only in society, but in the court system.

You're wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

I'm wrong because a British philosopher and political theorist with well-documented mental illness argues for his personal interpretation on the purpose of law as it relates to differences between the offense principal and the harm principle? If your point is that there are many with differing interpretations of the purpose and function of law, I'm not arguing you. If you're argument is that law must satisfy a "it affects others" litmus, your link certainly does nothing to affirm it. In other words, you're wrong and the practical application of law affirms my argument.

Yes, at someone's face, in the sense that bigotry is fine until it harms others (presumably the people you are bigoted against).

We can't really discuss any of this until you've formulated some actionable definition of "bigoted". I've already established how "at someone else's face" is as equally meaningless as "bigoted".

I was. You're not?

Not in context of your line of reasoning. Handicapped individuals in the situations you cited did not choose to require larger bathroom stalls and stair ramps. This notion is generally not arguable. The accommodations made are not those that suit a mental affliction or challenge and/or subsequent behaviors, rather a physical restriction. They likewise do not seek to mitigate or shape populace view on "fairness" or societal ill, but merely accommodate the physical challenge. Sexual orientation as commonly referred to as "sexual preference" is not as easily defined and there are homosexuals who really couldn't care less whether or not gay marriage is legalized. In fact, there are even those opposed to it. Handicapped people on the other hand, certainly do care about whether or not they can use a toilet and I think it'd be much more difficult to cite examples of their opposition to accessibility.

Puberty isn't the reason for the law, it's just the most obvious and visible side effect of that reason. If you really don't know why it is a law, you can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statuto...tory_rape_laws
It's pretty obvious that the reason is to protect the children involved from being bamboozled. Are you honestly arguing that homos are getting tricked into wanting to be married, while heteros aren't?

Your link also cited the challenges posed by critics to this law using similar, unequal adult relationships as the control establishing why the criteria for this law is nebulous at best. Again, it really boils down to populace view and normative social constructs. Society does not accommodate medical afflictions in the same manner as mental afflictions with the latter employing more of a "treatment" philosophy.

I'll grant you that the biologically accurate age of consent would optimally be decided on a case by case basis by a team of psychologists, psychiatrists and endocrinologists But that would be logistically impossible...

There's nothing "logistically impossible" about it as evidenced by the variance in charges and judgements made on cases of male and female pedophilia.

...and the current system is a very reasonable estimate. Gay marriage would not be logistically impossible.

Gay marriage would be as logistically impossible in the 39 States who've drafted "Defense of Marriage Act" legislation as it would be ruling on pedophilia cases in which the laws against it were equally as clear.

If the gay community was proposing a change that was logistically impossible, they would not have gained any traction by this point.

I don't see how "logistical application" of law has any bearing either to be quite honest.

It would be more akin to an endocrine disorder, but regardless there is no medical treatment available for homosexuality.

There may be any number of medical treatments for homosexuality as there are for alcoholism regardless of the success rates of each.

So you would have to compare it to disabilities without medical options, like blindness or paralysis.

No I wouldn't. It's as easy to compare it with any host of societal ills and the subsequent behavioral "choices". There is no accommodations in these examples, only the attempt of various forms of medical and therapeutic treatments.

People with this sort of untreatable condition are granted extraordinary accommodations even while given no treatment (because none exists), so that they can best "fit in" with society, pretending they're normal, even though they can't contribute to society in a productive job. IOW, we don't pretend that blind people (for example) are not blind, we pretend that being blind is normal (not freakish), and we treat them normally (not like freaks). We don't tell blind people "you can do just like everyone else, all you have to do is see." But that's the equivalent of what we do to homos (in 47 states).

Just because a suitable treatment with proven success rate has not been achieved doesn't mean the condition is "untreatable". Otherwise, you'd have a host of disorders in which we'd simply throw our hands in the air. The documentation on the reality of blindness and the methods of testing both the existence of and degree of the condition is overwhelming as are the other "conditions" you cite. Your comparisons simply do not hold up to any consistent standards.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course I know what "consent" means, that's not what I asked you. I asked you how it's defined. It seems it is defined using a moral or normative standard of sorts, having nothing to do with bigotry as far as I know. You'll recall I was responding to your notion that it is the sluggish, bigoted and unfair who are hampering progress on gay rights. By this logic, you must also conclude that one must be bigoted against pedophiles to oppose pedophilia.

Let me get this straight (no pun intended ), are you arguing that pedophilia is a victimless crime, yes or no? If no, then it's not comparable to gay marriage, which is victimless, and by this logic you must also think that being opposed to murder is bigoted against murderers.

I disagree. There is little about democracy that can be clearly defined as fair. It is generally a majority rule and in cases when not supported by a majority of people, enjoys majority of funds to lobby. If that rule is fair or the money behind the movement just, then democracy is fair.

You are describing flaws in (one implementation of) democracy, implying that the goal is to eliminate those flaws (whether or not that goal is achievable in practice), which agrees with my premise: fairness is the goal. I don't see how that constitutes you disagreeing with me.

There have been some equally inconclusive studies to examine whether or not religion is genetic, but given the churn rate of those either leaving it or picking it up I'd be more inclined to believe there's "choice" involved. My family chose my religion during upbringing. While I respected it out of love and respect for my parents, I left it upon leaving the home. Yes, I chose my religion. I don't know that it's genetic.

Great, I agree! Now, is it bigotry for someone to discriminate against you solely for your choice of religion? The point is, merely thinking of a lifestyle as a "choice" (such as being gay or being Christian) does not automatically mean that prejudice against that lifestyle is not bigotry.

What unique protections do Scientologists enjoy that gays do not?

The right to marry whom they wish! Zing!

I have no clue what you're talking about. I mentioned both intellectual and emotional capacity Uncle. I've not substituted anything.

It's not about both, it's only about emotion. I repeat: "The laws about age of consent are about emotion, not intelligence."

I guess you'd have to define "harm" which I'd argue is more difficult than you might acknowledge. If defined in terms of potential, long-term negative implication, there might be some examples;

"Potential?" heh. You're grasping at straws. It's easy to tell whether these are legitimate examples of "harming" the bigot more than "harming" the bigot's target: how would you react if the discrimination was against blacks, instead of gays?

- People and organizations with conscientious objection to homosexuality will be required to acknowledge and accommodate it under anti-discrimination laws. Cases such as those in New Mexico in which a Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony or a psychologist in Georgia who was fired after she declined to counsel a lesbian about her relationship due to religious beliefs. i.e.; the right to swing your fist now transcends the elusive "someone else's face" boundary.

Do civil rights laws "harm" bigots by denying "whites only" policies? This is clearly well within the "someone else's face" boundary.

- Homosexual unions are sterile by nature. It denies a child to a father or a mother.

Do interracial marriages deny a purely white child to some other white father or mother?

- The challenge to normative state of difference between fidelity and commitment.

I wouldn't think you would stoop to this, after the many times you have acknowledged that heterosexuals shouldn't throw stones over infidelity or commitment, not from their own glass house.

- Per meta-analysis published by gay rights proponents Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz in 2004, entitled, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" actually challenged the overall finding of twenty studies of same-sex parenting suggesting little to no difference between children of straight parents and children of gay parents. They found that in fact there were differences and they cited them as positive. Differences such as; children raised by gay parents showed empathy for "social diversity", were less confined by gender stereotypes, more likely to have confusion about gender identity, more likely to engage in sexual experimentation and promiscuity, and more likely to explore homosexual behavior." In terms of STDs, teen sex, pregnancy, and adolescent mental health there are negative implications.

I'm also surprised to see you stoop to this, after the many times you have emphasized that zealots like to remove the countless "coulds," "mights," "mays," and "possiblys" ubiquitous in scientific findings. In this case (one which contradicts decades of prior findings, yet no grain of salt for you) you're actually taking something found by the research to be explicitly positive and trying to cast it as a negative.

- There may be other negative implications including the complication of custodial case law regarding children of same sex unions, subversion of immigration law, etc...

Interracial marriages complicate custody and subvert immigration law too. Do interracial marriages "harm" our legal system?

- Relativism becoming the operating mode of law. Law that will inevitably acknowledge and respect polygamy or any other host of "marital" arrangements with their own implications, falling under the same relativist logic.

I've told you before, you're right about this one. Discrimination against polygamists is equally unjust as discrimination against gays, or blacks, or jews. People argued a slippery slope from interracial marriage to gay marriage in the 50's, and they were right (about the slippery slope aspect). I support the right to polygamist marriage too, but one debate at a time.

How do you mean "obviously female perpetrators of pedophilia on average are less likely to use force"? What evidence do you have of this?

On average, females use less force in every endeavor, criminal or otherwise. I can't honestly fathom how you don't get this.

Certainly, all are subject to the same laws, but not the same charges or punitive judgments. Mathews, Matthews, and Speltz (1989) suggested that sanctions against female offenders may be less strict because frequently their victims are either too young or too disturbed by the abuse, and therefore are not competent witnesses in court. ...Additionally, society seems to have a “double standard” toward female and male perpetrators when the victim is a teenager of the opposite sex. For example, in the case of adult women who engage in sexual relationships with adolescent males, “our society appears to give some permission for this type of sexual interaction” (Wolfe 1987). Society is less permissive in the case of a sexual relationship between an adult male and an adolescent female.

Another example; Pamela Diehl-Moore, 43, assaulted a boy at least three times at her Lyndhurst home while she worked as a teacher at Woodrow Wilson Elementary School. In sentencing her to probation - and no jail time - Superior Court Judge Bruce Gaeta said the affair may have been a way for the 13-year-old boy to "satisfy his sexual needs.''

If you can provide me a similar example of any such judicial finding or statement made in a case of male pedophilia, I'll reexamine my view.

You mean can I find an example of probation for statutory rape? Here's one: http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=7323,3360755

Otherwise, the above examples are wholly consistent with the broad range of expert opinion that male and female sex offenders seek different forms of defense, are charged differently, and that a double-standard in fact applies not only in society, but in the court system.

Is your claim of a double-standard supposed to be an example of just law or unjust law? Are you saying we are supposed to aspire to this double-standard, or correct it? I can't tell.

I'm wrong because a British philosopher and political theorist with well-documented mental illness argues for his personal interpretation on the purpose of law as it relates to differences between the offense principal and the harm principle? If your point is that there are many with differing interpretations of the purpose and function of law, I'm not arguing you. If you're argument is that law must satisfy a "it affects others" litmus, your link certainly does nothing to affirm it. In other words, you're wrong and the practical application of law affirms my argument.

You're wrong because you said that "There's absolutely nothing that suggests law must be drafted with the 'it must affect others' litmus." Much has been written to suggest this. Conservatives oppose it because it doesn't allow them to conserve their preferred prejudices under the mask of "tradition" or "normative standard." This is their best argument against it: it would allow the re-examination of all sorts of crazy crap that has traditionally been forbidden. Gay-bashing was "tradition," we "must" conserve the status quo, but then so was Catholic-bashing. Not to mention slavery.

Not in context of your line of reasoning. Handicapped individuals in the situations you cited did not choose to require larger bathroom stalls and stair ramps.

Yes, handicapped people are the ones who primarily pushed for ADA requirements like larger bathroom stalls and stair ramps

There's nothing "logistically impossible" about it as evidenced by the variance in charges and judgements made on cases of male and female pedophilia.

By a team of scientists? Give even one example of that happening, ever.

Gay marriage would be as logistically impossible in the 39 States who've drafted "Defense of Marriage Act" legislation as it would be ruling on pedophilia cases in which the laws against it were equally as clear.

States drafted Jim Crow legislation too, that doesn't make it right.

I don't see how "logistical application" of law has any bearing either to be quite honest.

Because you misunderstood me. I meant "logistical" as opposed to purely "legal," in the sense that the difficulty would be in the physical barriers to implementing such a law, rather than the legal barriers to changing existing law.

There may be any number of medical treatments for homosexuality as there are for alcoholism regardless of the success rates of each.

As soon as one of those medical treatments is invented, I would be happy to reconsider your comparison. But for now, the comparison is apples to oranges.

No I wouldn't. It's as easy to compare it with any host of societal ills and the subsequent behavioral "choices". There is no accommodations in these examples, only the attempt of various forms of medical and therapeutic treatments.

If calling something a "choice" was damning enough to allow rampant prejudice against it, then "Catholics need not apply" signs would still be commonplace.

Just because a suitable treatment with proven success rate has not been achieved doesn't mean the condition is "untreatable".

Yes, that's exactly what it means. Can you name any "untreatable" condition that doesn't fit that description? Furthermore, is anyone even seriously working on a "treatment" for homosexuality? That would be an interesting read.

Otherwise, you'd have a host of disorders in which we'd simply throw our hands in the air.

Um, aren't there a host of disorders for which we are so far from a treatment that no one is even working on it? For that matter, isn't homosexuality one of them?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Let me get this straight (no pun intended ), are you arguing that pedophilia is a victimless crime, yes or no? If no, then it's not comparable to gay marriage, which is victimless, and by this logic you must also think that being opposed to murder is bigoted against murderers.

My definition of "victim" is not important. First of all, I'm against my daughter having sex at any point outside of marriage. Secondly, as her parent and in my own bias I would likely consider her a "victim" in any number of circumstances regardless of whether or not she was an equal party to the mess. Thirdly, I consider pedophilia a severe mental disorder with pedophilia itself being only one manifestation and would not like my daughter subjected to this disorder any more than I'd feel comfortable with her in a room of alcoholics. After all, I want what's best for my daughter and I can't possibly imagine a situation in which this behavior would lead to a healthy adult relationship at some point. Am I bigoted against adults who prefer sex with children?

You are describing flaws in (one implementation of) democracy, implying that the goal is to eliminate those flaws (whether or not that goal is achievable in practice), which agrees with my premise: fairness is the goal. I don't see how that constitutes you disagreeing with me.

I'm not sure I can agree that "fairness" is the goal in a society supposedly governed by the people. In this sense government relies on the consent of the majority. Still, marriage is not a constitutional principle right? For example, The California family code 297.5 claims; "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

Sounds fair to me right? Prop 8 changes none of this. So... what's the hub-bub? Too often what is at stake here is the desire for acceptance and validation, none of which can be afforded in a document of "fairness". The agenda of democracy may be fairness, but the actions of those under it's guise are not as clear.

Great, I agree! Now, is it bigotry for someone to discriminate against you solely for your choice of religion? The point is, merely thinking of a lifestyle as a "choice" (such as being gay or being Christian) does not automatically mean that prejudice against that lifestyle is not bigotry.

bigot; a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

So... is it bigotry to discriminate against me for my religion? I don't know to be honest. How do you mean discriminate? You mean by selling me as property on an auction block? Not allowing me to eat in the same restaurants as the non-religious? Drink from the same water fountains? Employment? Vote? Discrimination happens in society and there are means to be heard. For example, In Fiscal Year 2008, EEOC received 3,273 charges of religious discrimination. EEOC resolved 2,727 religious discrimination charges and recovered $7.5 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation). It happens just as it happens to gays. I'm not seeing intolerance for an opinion. Gay advocates have as much right to speak their mind, file grievances, and be heard as anyone else. Bigotry would be more accurately defined as a desire to silence them, to not hear their dissent. Not supporting their right to acceptance is an opposing opinion. Truth be told, attempting to legislate acceptance is actually more bigoted by definition than opposing gay marriage. Interestingly, most support gay rights, but do not consider marriage among them. I do not consider this bigoted in the least.

It's not about both, it's only about emotion. I repeat: "The laws about age of consent are about emotion, not intelligence."

Suffice it to say; an even more nebulous term.

"Potential?" heh. You're grasping at straws. It's easy to tell whether these are legitimate examples of "harming" the bigot more than "harming" the bigot's target: how would you react if the discrimination was against blacks, instead of gays?

I would feel terrible because there was a time when blacks couldn't affectively file grievances. Trust me when I tell you that this argument is as tired and failed an argument as any I've listed below. Worse, it really marginalizes the plight of African-Americans in this country. We're not talking about getting pulled over by a police officer because you're gay and driving a nice car. We're not talking about people locking their doors when they drive through the "gay" part of town. I'm also not sure you'd find the term "closet black" anywhere in this discussion. I'm certain you wouldn't find any blacks opposed to civil rights for blacks. There simply is no comparison. The fact of the matter is that the only potentiality I've listed below that could even come close to a valid comparison would be the first one related to conscientious objection. In these cases however, grievances can be filed with monetary reward for the victim. A gay friend of mine who was married to a woman for 8 years, had a child, and was raising that child was gay and yet... no one knew. I sometimes wonder if a black person could somehow suspend his blackness for 8 years and fly under the oppressive radar of discrimination.
Human sexuality occurs on a continuum, but discrimination against blacks does not. When we talk about "civil rights" for blacks and "civil rights" for gays, we're talking about two entirely different things.

Do civil rights laws "harm" bigots by denying "whites only" policies? This is clearly well within the "someone else's face" boundary.

Civil rights are inalienable. They can neither be granted by the government nor taken away. Free speech, the free exercise of religion, a free press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to vote, to be free from unlawful intrusions of government on their persons or property, and the right to fair and equal treatment under the law in all other matters related to Constitutional law. African-Americans were disenfranchised on each of the above whereas homosexuals have been disenfranchised under none of them. Period. "Whites only" policies were a direct affront to the principles of civil rights whereas "straights-only marriage" is not comparable in the least and cannot be defined in any such, similar manner. Just about every aspect of "marital rights" I can think of are afforded by other means including the right to file as a "power of attorney" over your lover's estates, etc... Blacks had no such right to civil justice or the right to seek grievances against it. Why do people insist on marginalizing the plights of blacks in this country by comparing it to the inability to have your "spousal" union called what you want it to be called?

Do interracial marriages deny a purely white child to some other white father or mother?

Are you saying a black man cannot be a father? Try to stay on task.
*hint, the more you have to stretch an argument to fit, the less it fits.

I wouldn't think you would stoop to this, after the many times you have acknowledged that heterosexuals shouldn't throw stones over infidelity or commitment, not from their own glass house.

It's not stooping at all. I merely mentioned that it challenges the normative state between fidelity and commitment. My wife and I are married and we are both heterosexual. Two men are married and they are both homosexual. Don't you think it would be more difficult for me to introduce another heterosexual woman into our relationship than another gay man in a gay relationship?

I'm also surprised to see you stoop to this, after the many times you have emphasized that zealots like to remove the countless "coulds," "mights," "mays," and "possiblys" ubiquitous in scientific findings. In this case (one which contradicts decades of prior findings, yet no grain of salt for you) you're actually taking something found by the research to be explicitly positive and trying to cast it as a negative.

Regardless of my openness to gay marriage, I believe implications can be acknowledged and argued. By claiming my inclusion of this statement as "stooping", I can only assume you have attributed an attitude to me that doesn't exist. In a culture championing "diversity", I happen to appreciate gender stereotypes. As a society, I think we try too hard to marginalize our differences instead of accepting them for their inherent realities. I likewise do not consider "greater confusion about gender identity" a positive thing. Being a kid is tough enough. I do not consider a "greater likelihood of sexual experimentation, promiscuity, and an increase in partners due to the exploration of homosexual behavior" to be a positive trait in terms of the rising rates of STDs, teen sex, pregnancy, and adolescent mental health. I know, I'm really stooping here.

Interracial marriages complicate custody and subvert immigration law too. Do interracial marriages "harm" our legal system?

I believe the current ratio of mother's granting of custodial rights to their children over the father is 86:14. I used "may be other negative implications" to indicate my own view of the strength of the argument, but presented it none the less. If there is some legitimate basis for this gender bias, I'd be curious to see how that holds up in a same-sex environment.

I've told you before, you're right about this one. Discrimination against polygamists is equally unjust as discrimination against gays, or blacks, or jews. People argued a slippery slope from interracial marriage to gay marriage in the 50's, and they were right (about the slippery slope aspect). I support the right to polygamist marriage too, but one debate at a time.

This relativist argument holds for pedophilia as well, but I'll acknowledge your one argument at a time premise on this one.

On average, females use less force in every endeavor, criminal or otherwise. I can't honestly fathom how you don't get this.

I don't necessarily get how this holds in light of male and female pedophilia cases. The subject of that statement. Red-5, stay on target.

You mean can I find an example of probation for statutory rape? Here's one: http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=7323,3360755

The judge in this case deferred the charge of guilty until the perp satisfies 10 years of probation. He may be found guilty and serve an additional punishment. Why this verdict? The parents did not want to subject their daughter to the obligation of testimony. The judge ruled in the child's defense, not the child's need to "express her sexuality" in the perp's defense. Try again.

Is your claim of a double-standard supposed to be an example of just law or unjust law? Are you saying we are supposed to aspire to this double-standard, or correct it? I can't tell.

In terms of criminal defense and the actions of the judicial system, there is an apparent double-standard. However unjust it may appear, it is clear that decisions are being made on a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket application of law. Is a blanket application of law what you want?

You're wrong because you said that "There's absolutely nothing that suggests law must be drafted with the 'it must affect others' litmus." Much has been written to suggest this. Conservatives oppose it because it doesn't allow them to conserve their preferred prejudices under the mask of "tradition" or "normative standard." This is their best argument against it: it would allow the re-examination of all sorts of crazy crap that has traditionally been forbidden. Gay-bashing was "tradition," we "must" conserve the status quo, but then so was Catholic-bashing. Not to mention slavery.

Much has been written to the contrary, this doesn't make any such writings the alpha and omega of law. My point was there is nothing to suggest law must be drafted with this litmus, not that some suggested it should. If it isn't apparent that law must be drafted with your litmus, it really doesn't matter what others have written about the ideal that it should.

Yes, handicapped people are the ones who primarily pushed for ADA requirements like larger bathroom stalls and stair ramps

I wasn't clear enough here. The accommodations made for physical challenges are not the same as those made for mental challenges. I'm guessing most with physical challenges would rather they not have them, thus requiring special accommodations for their condition. Because they have the physical challenge, it follows that they'd be instrumental in the fight for the accommodations.

By a team of scientists? Give even one example of that happening, ever.

Are you claiming that psychologists, psychiatrists, and endocrinologists have never been employed in the judicial process? If they have, how is it logistically impossible?

States drafted Jim Crow legislation too, that doesn't make it right.

You're correct. Jim Crow legislation was patently wrong. Have I missed something here? Are gays fighting for the right to the same public schools, public places, public transportation, and the same restrooms and restaurants as white people?

Because you misunderstood me. I meant "logistical" as opposed to purely "legal," in the sense that the difficulty would be in the physical barriers to implementing such a law, rather than the legal barriers to changing existing law.

I see no "physical barriers" that aren't already addressed in courtrooms across the country on a daily basis. Again, are you saying psychologists and psychiatrists are not used in the judicial system? The original question was why a person is a bigot for opposing homosexuality, but not bigoted for opposing pedophilia. Victims are defined in the courts using any number of means available to them including personal references, psychiatrists and psychologists. You've mentioned that the biologically accurate age of consent would optimally be decided on a case by case basis using the same resources available to the court system already, you're really arguing for relativism. What I find interesting is that you won't answer how someone is bigoted against homosexuals, but not bigoted against pedophiles.

As soon as one of those medical treatments is invented, I would be happy to reconsider your comparison. But for now, the comparison is apples to oranges.

I'll concede this point if you concede that Jim Crow laws and what you call marriage for gays are apples and oranges. BTW, the more a condition is found to be genetic, the more possible a treatment becomes.

If calling something a "choice" was damning enough to allow rampant prejudice against it, then "Catholics need not apply" signs would still be commonplace.

You're confusing one's choice of sexual partner with one's choice to not support it. There's a difference between tolerance and support. You may as well be saying; "human nature need not apply"

Yes, that's exactly what it means. Can you name any "untreatable" condition that doesn't fit that description? Furthermore, is anyone even seriously working on a "treatment" for homosexuality? That would be an interesting read.

There are any number of treatments for homosexuality. I contend that the more a genetic connection to homosexuality is determined, the closer a suitable treatment will be found. The treatments for homosexuality may enjoy no more a success rate than the treatments for alcoholism. This doesn't mean they are both untreatable and as such, no merit in the attempt.

Um, aren't there a host of disorders for which we are so far from a treatment that no one is even working on it? For that matter, isn't homosexuality one of them?

There is gender- affirmative therapy and reparative therapy just as there are fruitless attempts at treating alcoholism.

[Chongo]

from Wiki

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a disorder from the Sexual Deviancy section of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-II.[62] The World Health Organization's ICD-9 (1977) listed homosexuality as a mental illness, and in 1990, a resolution was adopted to remove it in the ICD-10 (1993).[63]

but then..

The ICD-10 added ego-dystonic sexual orientation to the list, which refers to people who want to change their gender identities or sexual orientation because of a psychological or behavioral disorder (F66.1).

[Chongo]

My grandfather would be arrested today. He was 29 and my grandmother was 15. (1919)

[OldManMac]

'Cause the times, they are a changin'!



http://www.commondreams.org/further/2009/05/03-0

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Am I bigoted against adults who prefer sex with children?

Not if your concern is for their victims. If they could carry on without victimizing children, and you persecuted them anyway, then that would be bigoted.

My definition of "victim" is not important...... as her parent and in my own bias I would likely consider her a "victim" in any number of circumstances regardless of whether or not she was an equal party to the mess. Thirdly, I consider pedophilia a severe mental disorder with pedophilia itself being only one manifestation and would not like my daughter subjected to this disorder any more than I'd feel comfortable with her in a room of alcoholics. After all, I want what's best for my daughter

I take it you are trying to imply that if your daughter somehow became involved with homosexuality (as an adult), you would consider her a victim of it? If so, does that include all homosexuals (they are all victims of each other)? Because if it only applies to this one case, in which you have already established you are biased, it's not really relevant.

and I can't possibly imagine a situation in which this behavior would lead to a healthy adult relationship at some point.

So how do you feel about Chongo's grandmother? Does she disprove your imaginings, or is she some sort of deviant who rightly wouldn't have evaded the nanny state if she lived in today's America?

marriage is not a constitutional principle right? For example, The California family code 297.5 claims; "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

Sounds fair to me right? Prop 8 changes none of this. So... what's the hub-bub?

Really? "Separate but equal" sounds fair to you? Drinking fountains aren't a constitutional principle either, but that doesn't mean you can use them to discriminate.

Too often what is at stake here is the desire for acceptance and validation

I agree that in some cases people overreach to try to force those things, but disallowing them to marry whom they want isn't one of those cases, any more than disallowing interracial marriage was, or denying intra-Christian marriage would be.

discriminate? You mean by selling me as property on an auction block? Not allowing me to eat in the same restaurants as the non-religious? Drink from the same water fountains? Employment? Vote?

"It could be worse?" A smokescreen. It would be bigoted to disallow Catholics to marry each other, only allowing them to marry if it was to a non-Catholic, and that would not be changed by the fact that Catholics were never enslaved.

Interestingly, most support gay rights, but do not consider marriage among them. I do not consider this bigoted in the least.

"Most people support civil rights, but do not consider interracial marriage to be among them." You wouldn't consider this bigoted?

I would feel terrible because there was a time when blacks couldn't affectively file grievances.

The same is true for gays! Both groups have come a long way. The fact that one had to come further, from deeper persecution doesn't mean it's right to deny marriage to the other. If it was, then gays would never be entitled to any equal rights, because they were never slaves.

I'm certain you wouldn't find any blacks opposed to civil rights for blacks.

Blacks opposed to interracial marriage? There sure were.

I sometimes wonder if a black person could somehow suspend his blackness for 8 years and fly under the oppressive radar of discrimination.

wat? It's called passing, and it's not uncommon.

Human sexuality occurs on a continuum, but discrimination against blacks does not.

How can you say discrimination is not a continuum?

Are you saying a black man cannot be a father?

As much as a gay man cannot . I challenge you to describe any situation where a homosexual marriage "denies a child to a father or mother," that doesn't have a direct racial counterpart.

Best I can tell, you're saying that there is a man out there somewhere that can't reproduce without a lesbian bearing his seed, and in your mind his interest in creating a child (that doesn't even exist yet!) is more important than her interest in not being his baby-factory. That's pretty sick ebuddy.

It's not stooping at all. I merely mentioned that it challenges the normative state between fidelity and commitment. My wife and I are married and we are both heterosexual.

And increasingly, this makes you unrepresentative of the normative state. Heteros are destroying the sanctity of marriage just fine without any help from homos.

As a society, I think we try too hard to marginalize our differences instead of accepting them for their inherent realities. I likewise do not consider "greater confusion about gender identity" a positive thing.

Those two sentences are contradictory. Pick a side.

If there is some legitimate basis for this gender bias,...

You don't even know what good the gender bias does, if any, but you are arguing we should forbid gay marriage to prevent interfering with it? That's insane.

The judge in this case deferred the charge of guilty until the perp satisfies 10 years of probation. He may be found guilty and serve an additional punishment. Why this verdict? The parents did not want to subject their daughter to the obligation of testimony. The judge ruled in the child's defense, not the child's need to "express her sexuality" in the perp's defense. Try again.

The outcome is the same. No two rulings will be identical in language, so you have set an impossible standard.

In terms of criminal defense and the actions of the judicial system, there is an apparent double-standard. However unjust it may appear, it is clear that decisions are being made on a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket application of law. Is a blanket application of law what you want?

I have no clue what you're talking about. I asked you whether you support or oppose the double-standard, and your reply is that there is a double standard. Is that a "yes" or a "no?"

My point was there is nothing to suggest law must be drafted with this litmus

You first worded it as "societal advancement," not drafting any and all new laws. We've wandered off track somehow. I'm curious how you interpret things like the defense of marriage amendment as "societal advancement," when it doesn't advance anywhere new, but rather conserves things exactly how they have been. "Societal conservation" seems more accurate, or "societal stillness."

I wasn't clear enough here. The accommodations made for physical challenges are not the same as those made for mental challenges.

It's irrelevant. I said if it helps you reconcile unequal accommodations for unequal circumstance, then you can consider homosexuality a disability. Obviously it's not helping you, ebuddy, so you can stop considering it.

Are you claiming that psychologists, psychiatrists, and endocrinologists have never been employed in the judicial process?

In the determination of age of consent, no they haven't that I'm aware of. Do you have any examples to the contrary?

I'll concede this point if you concede that Jim Crow laws and what you call marriage for gays are apples and oranges.

I never said Jim Crow was comparable, only that it disproves the assertion that being a law or a "normative state" or "human nature" is sufficient to justify prejudice.

You're confusing one's choice of sexual partner with one's choice to not support it. There's a difference between tolerance and support. You may as well be saying; "human nature need not apply"

If human nature is excuse enough for you, then why is interracial marriage protected? That's certainly human nature too.

I contend that the more a genetic connection to homosexuality is determined, the closer a suitable treatment will be found.

Wait a minute, didn't you say it was a choice?

There is gender- affirmative therapy and reparative therapy just as there are fruitless attempts at treating alcoholism.

The success rate for those who wish to stop being homosexual isn't even in the same ballpark as that for recovering alcoholics.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Not if your concern is for their victims. If they could carry on without victimizing children, and you persecuted them anyway, then that would be bigoted. I take it you are trying to imply that if your daughter somehow became involved with homosexuality (as an adult), you would consider her a victim of it? If so, does that include all homosexuals (they are all victims of each other)? Because if it only applies to this one case, in which you have already established you are biased, it's not really relevant.

If your basis for law is "victimization", you cannot establish that all children who consent to sex with adults are being victimized just as you cannot establish that all adults are more emotionally stable than children. My point is that there is a more basic principle at play with legislation. I maintain it is a "it's just good for you and good for society" moral principle. Ignoring these principles will have implications. I'm willing to accept the possibility with regard to homosexual unions because I do not think two consenting adults are victims. I do not regard those who differ with me on the relaxation of this principle as "bigots" or "unfair". I did however, ask you to explain how you could and I think we're going on page two of avoidance here.

I believe the most profound factor defining one's view on this issue is whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness. For many, it is not good for society to make social accommodations leading to the acceptance of behavior related to mental illness. They simply feel this is not only unnecessary, but eventually destructive.

I do not contend that my daughter would be a "victim" of homosexuality because I do not think there are any victims in consenting homosexual relationships. I do not see the purpose of a Federally sanctioned union with a long-proven track record of failure. As such, any two people who wish to commit themselves to one another should be acknowledged as civil unions, let the churches "marry" whomever they deem fit.

So how do you feel about Chongo's grandmother? Does she disprove your imaginings, or is she some sort of deviant who rightly wouldn't have evaded the nanny state if she lived in today's America?

I find the relationship described by Chongo an interesting one and he's likely correct that this type of relationship today might land her in prison make her young boyfriend look bad for wanting to explore his sexuality.

Really? "Separate but equal" sounds fair to you? Drinking fountains aren't a constitutional principle either, but that doesn't mean you can use them to discriminate.

For those with a mental illness? Fair enough that while I might disagree with them, I wouldn't regard anyone in favor of this policy a "bigot" or "unfair". In fact, it could be argued that the California family code allowing for similar "spousal" arrangements between heterosexuals and homosexuals is more than fair accommodation for the behavioral disorder.

I agree that in some cases people overreach to try to force those things, but disallowing them to marry whom they want isn't one of those cases, any more than disallowing interracial marriage was, or denying intra-Christian marriage would be.

Race is race. Religion is religion. Behavioral disorders are behavioral disorders. Race is accommodated socially. Religion is accommodated socially. Behavioral disorders are treated.

"It could be worse?" A smokescreen. It would be bigoted to disallow Catholics to marry each other, only allowing them to marry if it was to a non-Catholic, and that would not be changed by the fact that Catholics were never enslaved.

Race is race. Religion is religion. Behavioral disorders are behavioral disorders.

"Most people support civil rights, but do not consider interracial marriage to be among them." You wouldn't consider this bigoted?

Not at all. Most people don't think you should be cruel to those with mental illness, but they won't generally support accommodations that don't produce some therapeutic potential. I don't think it's bigoted, I think it stands to reason based on their view.

The same is true for gays! Both groups have come a long way. The fact that one had to come further, from deeper persecution doesn't mean it's right to deny marriage to the other. If it was, then gays would never be entitled to any equal rights, because they were never slaves.

Very true, they've both certainly come a long way. I'd say homosexuality has actually gone further. One has been realized as a race of mankind worthy of standard civil rights as dissimilar in appearance only while the other has gone from mental disorder to it's own identity.

Blacks opposed to interracial marriage? There sure were.

I said civil rights. Marriage is not a civil right. It's actually a civil privilege granted by the Federal government to encourage a societal condition it can't.

wat? It's called passing, and it's not uncommon.

I'm sure there's all kinds of zany examples you could produce. I stand behind the general sentiment that there are vast differences between assimilating to a sexual environment and a racial environment.

How can you say discrimination is not a continuum?

Because gender preference is a continuum.

As much as a gay man cannot . I challenge you to describe any situation where a homosexual marriage "denies a child to a father or mother," that doesn't have a direct racial counterpart.

Judging by the lengths you're willing to stretch an argument, this will get both of us nowhere.

Best I can tell, you're saying that there is a man out there somewhere that can't reproduce without a lesbian bearing his seed, and in your mind his interest in creating a child (that doesn't even exist yet!) is more important than her interest in not being his baby-factory. That's pretty sick ebuddy.

Why would a lesbian need to bear the seed of a man? Why would any woman need to bear the seed of a man against her will. Are you advocating the forcible rape of lesbians?

And increasingly, this makes you unrepresentative of the normative state. Heteros are destroying the sanctity of marriage just fine without any help from homos.

I agree. I'm repulsed by it. I think it can be argued that the Federal government has created an environment that woos people into relationships they cannot sustain leaving hundreds of thousands of children in unstable environments.

I have no doubt that at some point I will be deemed sick for hearing the arguments of those opposed to homosexuality. Oh well.

Those two sentences are contradictory. Pick a side.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

As a society, I think we try too hard to marginalize our differences instead of accepting them for their inherent realities. I likewise do not consider "greater confusion about gender identity" a positive thing.

- men and women are different. I think we try too hard to suggest they're not.
- greater confusion about gender identity is not a good thing IMO.
Read better.

You don't even know what good the gender bias does, if any, but you are arguing we should forbid gay marriage to prevent interfering with it? That's insane.

I have to assume since the ratio is overwhelmingly in favor of women in custody battles, I'm guessing there's an assumption that women are more capable of producing a more nurturing or hospitable environment for a child. There's some reason for it. I'm curious how those reasons manifest in custody battles of same-sex couples. I merely mentioned it as a complication to custody case laws, not as a reason to forbid gay marriage.

The outcome is the same. No two rulings will be identical in language, so you have set an impossible standard.

I've not set the standards, but the double-standard exists and is recognized by almost any professional you can find on the matter.

I have no clue what you're talking about. I asked you whether you support or oppose the double-standard, and your reply is that there is a double standard. Is that a "yes" or a "no?"

It's a "no".

You first worded it as "societal advancement," not drafting any and all new laws. We've wandered off track somehow.

I first worded what as societal advancement? You called those opposed to gay marriage "bigots". I asked you if you thought societal advancement must then be contingent upon tolerance and acceptance. I asked you where that begins and ends? You said "at someone's face". I disagreed with the premise as there is no such apparent litmus in drafting law. Regardless, there are many who believe gays are "in their face".

I'm curious how you interpret things like the defense of marriage amendment as "societal advancement," when it doesn't advance anywhere new, but rather conserves things exactly how they have been. "Societal conservation" seems more accurate, or "societal stillness."

A good offense is defense. If homosexuality were truly a disorder, we're advancing nothing by accommodating it as opposed to treating it and learning more about human sexuality overall.

It's irrelevant. I said if it helps you reconcile unequal accommodations for unequal circumstance, then you can consider homosexuality a disability. Obviously it's not helping you, ebuddy, so you can stop considering it.

The point didn't make sense then and it makes less sense now. Why would I consider it? Homosexuality was classified a mental disorder, not a disability. They are two different conditions entirely. Disabilities are accommodated, mental disorders are treated regardless of their success rate.

In the determination of age of consent, no they haven't that I'm aware of. Do you have any examples to the contrary?

We were talking about what is and is not logistically impossible.

I never said Jim Crow was comparable, only that it disproves the assertion that being a law or a "normative state" or "human nature" is sufficient to justify prejudice.

No... on the contrary. Our acknowledgement of the "normative state" and "human nature" are the reasons why the prejudice was no longer justifiable. Race is race. Mental disorders are mental disorders.

If human nature is excuse enough for you, then why is interracial marriage protected? That's certainly human nature too.

Because race is not the behavior of one with a mental disorder?

Wait a minute, didn't you say it was a choice?

I'm saying if there is a genetic component, it is a genetic defect and hence, treatable.

The success rate for those who wish to stop being homosexual isn't even in the same ballpark as that for recovering alcoholics.

I think the going success rate on alcoholism is between 5 and 20%? The most optimistic of them around 60%? There are studies on "gay conversion therapy" such as those by M.F. Schwartz and W.H. Masters, "The Masters and Johnson Treatment Program for Dissatisfied Homosexual Men," that show a success rate upwards of 62% after 5-year follow up using a sample of 341 people. There are numerous studies showing anywhere from 30% to 60+% success rate for gay conversion.

Speaking of coming a long way; 4 days ago you didn't know anything about treatment for homosexuality and now you know its success rate.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I believe the most profound factor defining one's view on this issue is whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness. For many, it is not good for society to make social accommodations leading to the acceptance of behavior related to mental illness. They simply feel this is not only unnecessary, but eventually destructive.

Well then, what is your view on homosexuality as a mental illness? Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness?

(For me, I do not think homosexuality is a mental illness. I certainly think homosexuals can have mental illnesses, and I certainly think homosexuals can have mental illnesses due to conflict over their sexual orientation, but I do NOT think the homosexual sexual orientation is in and of itself a mental illness.)

[Chongo]

I find it interesting that during debate last month on expanding the "Matthew Shepard Law" that the Democrats voted down Republican sponsored amendments to include veterans, and exclude pedophiles.
YouTube - Democrats give special protection for pedophials.
YouTube - Hannity on Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hate Crimes Legislation

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Well then, what is your view on homosexuality as a mental illness? Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness?

I lean towards believing it is the result of psychosocial/environmental phenomena during upbringing. There is much to suggest that homosexuality was removed from the APA as a disorder not due to compelling empirical evidence, but a growing political sentiment and the fear of the socially oppressive act of diagnosing homosexuality as an "illness" itself. It would be another two decades before much of the remainder of the globe would agree, again not due to overwhelming empirical evidence, but political pressure and fear that the diagnosis was more destructive than the condition.

(For me, I do not think homosexuality is a mental illness. I certainly think homosexuals can have mental illnesses, and I certainly think homosexuals can have mental illnesses due to conflict over their sexual orientation, but I do NOT think the homosexual sexual orientation is in and of itself a mental illness.)

Given the data available for gay suicides, it is found most frequent upon relationship breakups (different from heteros only in the percentage of those taking their lives), and not due to any traceable societal stigma against them.

I respect your view. I'm pretty close to the center on this one. I lean towards believing it is a social anomaly or disorder because it had already been classified as such with a wealth of evidence affirming it. It seems it has been reconsidered based on what appears little more than political correctness, but I would be interested and open to continued research and discovery on any genetic basis for human sexuality.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I lean towards believing it is the result of psychosocial/environmental phenomena during upbringing. There is much to suggest that homosexuality was removed from the APA as a disorder not due to compelling empirical evidence, but a growing political sentiment and the fear of the socially oppressive act of diagnosing homosexuality as an "illness" itself. It would be another two decades before much of the remainder of the globe would agree, again not due to overwhelming empirical evidence, but political pressure and fear that the diagnosis was more destructive than the condition.


Given the data available for gay suicides, it is found most frequent upon relationship breakups (different from heteros only in the percentage of those taking their lives), and not due to any traceable societal stigma against them.

I respect your view. I'm pretty close to the center on this one. I lean towards believing it is a social anomaly or disorder because it had already been classified as such with a wealth of evidence affirming it. It seems it has been reconsidered based on what appears little more than political correctness, but I would be interested and open to continued research and discovery on any genetic basis for human sexuality.

So the sciences of psychiatry and psychology were already well established before homosexuality was removed from the DSM? We haven't learned anything in the interim? Or is it possible that religious pressure keeps clamoring for it to be labeled as a disorder?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I lean towards believing it is the result of psychosocial/environmental phenomena during upbringing.

Then how do you explain the prevalence of homosexuality in every culture throughout all of history? How do you explain that I have 3 older brothers all raised in the exact same manner yet they are straight?

It seems it has been reconsidered based on what appears little more than political correctness, but I would be interested and open to continued research and discovery on any genetic basis for human sexuality.

Why? To what end? I firmly believe homosexuality is genetic. And I also firmly believe it is natural. Even if you can find a genetic trigger that doesn't mean it needs to be treated or controlled. Should we start "treating" people because of their eye color or the texture of their hair? Why can't people just accept the fact that homosexuality is a natural expression of human sexuality. It doesn't need to be understood. It just needs to be accepted for what it is.

[dcmacdaddy]

I guarantee you someone will come in here and type the following in reply to your post.

Originally Posted by MacNN Poster

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Why can't people just accept the fact that pediasexuality (sexual attraction towards children) is a natural expression of human sexuality. It doesn't need to be understood. It just needs to be accepted for what it is.

Fixed.

or

Originally Posted by MacNN Poster

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Why can't people just accept the fact that zoosexuality (sexual attraction towards animals) is a natural expression of human sexuality. It doesn't need to be understood. It just needs to be accepted for what it is.

Fixed.

[dcmacdaddy]

As for me, I think sexual attraction exists on a continuum between normal and aberrant attractions with human-human sexual attraction at the normal end of the continuum and human-animal sexual attraction at the aberrant end of the continuum.


<<<Normal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aberrant>>>
[ - - - - - - - - - Human-Human Sexual Attraction - - - - - - - - - ][ - - - - - - - - - Human-Animal Sexual Attraction - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - Adult Human<>Adult Human - - ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ - - Adult Human >Juvenile Human - - ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ - - Juvenile Human >Animal - - ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ - - Adult Human >Animal - - ]


In the category of Human-Human Sexual Attraction I did not differentiate between same-sex or opposite-sex attraction as I do not see them as manifestations of a degree of normalcy/aberrancy. (Just a reminder, degree of frequency does NOT imply degree of normalcy.) In the category of Human-Animal Sexual Attraction I placed Adult Humans at the end of the continuum as I presume a fully mentally developed adult would have less reason to pursue sexual relations with an animal than a not fully mentally developed juvenile human (or a not fully developed adult human).

Basically, I use the criteria of degree of personal agency on the part of the person initiating the sexual activity to determine normalcy versus aberrancy. This logical premise presumes that fully mentally developed adults have full personal agency over their actions--are fully mentally and psychologically capable of making choices knowing what the ramifications of their choices will be before-hand--and it presumes that partially mentally developed juveniles (or partially mentally developed adults) have less personal agency over their actions.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Then how do you explain the prevalence of homosexuality in every culture throughout all of history? How do you explain that I have 3 older brothers all raised in the exact same manner yet they are straight?



Why? To what end? I firmly believe homosexuality is genetic. And I also firmly believe it is natural. Even if you can find a genetic trigger that doesn't mean it needs to be treated or controlled. Should we start "treating" people because of their eye color or the texture of their hair? Why can't people just accept the fact that homosexuality is a natural expression of human sexuality. It doesn't need to be understood. It just needs to be accepted for what it is.

One can't explain it, except by referencing an old book written before men knew anything about science, and by constantly bringing up panic inducing strawmen slippery slope arguments. All this talk keeps going back to the same basic point; it can't be allowed because homosexuals are "different," and they're a threat to peoples' beloved institutions, and we can't have that. Reality means nothing in this argument.

[OldManMac]

Make that 5 down, 45 to go, and as of September 1, 6 down and 44 to go! Woot!

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid82660.asp

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I lean towards believing it is the result of psychosocial/environmental phenomena during upbringing.

So, umm... you lean towards no genetics at all?

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I firmly believe homosexuality is genetic.

So, umm... you firmly believe no psychosocial/environmental phenomena at all?

[Laminar]

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I maintain it is a "it's just good for you and good for society" moral principle.

That is true of some laws because those cases are too nebulous (to use your word) to determine accurately. The generalities in place are a crutch to overcome this.

I do not think two consenting adults are victims. I do not regard those who differ with me on the relaxation of this principle as "bigots" or "unfair". I did however, ask you to explain how you could and I think we're going on page two of avoidance here.

I've answered you already several times, including in the very quote block just above your statement, and I'll repeat it again right now. If it doesn't get through to you this time, you're on your own. Ready yourself; here it comes again: Persecution of someone for who they are is bigotry. Persecution of someone for whom they victimize is not. There. Did you miss it again? Here are some examples to help it sink in: If you persecute a child molester because of their victims, it's not bigotry. If you persecute a homo because you believe they have victimized someone, it's not bigotry. If you persecute a child molester who doesn't harm children (if such a thing exists), then it's bigotry.

I believe the most profound factor defining one's view on this issue is whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness.

People who suffer from mental illness aren't proud of their illness. They're often too proud to admit they have the illness in the first place, but they aren't proud of having it.

Race is race. Religion is religion. Behavioral disorders are behavioral disorders. Race is accommodated socially. Religion is accommodated socially. Behavioral disorders are treated.

So... if homosexuals decide to all join the Church of Homosexuality, you would no longer have a basis to discriminate. Interesting.

I said civil rights. Marriage is not a civil right.

Not everyone would draw that distinction, but if you are going to do so then it's pretty obvious that marriage is the proper comparison, not civil rights.

Because gender preference is a continuum.

Apparently you think that only one thing can be "a continuum" at a time(?)

I agree. I'm repulsed by it. I think it can be argued that the Federal government has created an environment that woos people into relationships they cannot sustain leaving hundreds of thousands of children in unstable environments.

In that case, the gay couples "denying a child" to straight couples, which you alluded to earlier, should be a blessing. They are preventing thousands of children from being stuck in those unstable environments.

- men and women are different. I think we try too hard to suggest they're not.
- greater confusion about gender identity is not a good thing IMO.

- gays and straights are different. We try too hard to suggest they're not. But...
- don't be different. Be like ebuddy. Have a hetero-marriage and don't divorce.
Yeah, that's a real consistent message.

I have to assume since the ratio is overwhelmingly in favor of women in custody battles, I'm guessing there's an assumption that women are more capable of producing a more nurturing or hospitable environment for a child. There's some reason for it. I'm curious how those reasons manifest in custody battles of same-sex couples. I merely mentioned it as a complication to custody case laws, not as a reason to forbid gay marriage.

You're "guessing?" There's an "assumption?" Well then, you'd "have to assume" that if one mother is so great then two mothers would be even better, so... lesbians should be better parents than heterosexuals! Your reasoning is just painful here.

I asked you if you thought societal advancement must then be contingent upon tolerance and acceptance. I asked you where that begins and ends? You said "at someone's face". I disagreed with the premise as there is no such apparent litmus in drafting law.

Tolerance and acceptance are one goal of many. They're not obligatory, as you are implying. From there, the rest of your line of reasoning is moot.

Regardless, there are many who believe gays are "in their face".

Just like how the KKK "believes" blacks are "in their face?" Yeah, I see what you did there.

We were talking about what is and is not logistically impossible.

The logistics in question aren't about transporting the psychiatrist to the courtroom!

No... on the contrary. Our acknowledgement of the "normative state" and "human nature" are the reasons why the prejudice was no longer justifiable.

What human nature giveth, human nature can taketh away. Prejudice is human nature, and striving to overcome our human nature is also human nature. Regardless, human nature is no excuse for incivility.

Because race is not the behavior of one with a mental disorder?

Sometimes it is...

I'm saying if there is a genetic component, it is a genetic defect and hence, treatable.

No, you're saying they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. First it was "the crux of the debate is those who don't believe homosexuality is genetic, but the result of 'choices'." And now "if there is a genetic component, it is a genetic defect." So basically, genetics won't sway your opinion, you just want to use it to support you no matter what the outcome. Looks like I hit the nail right on the head when I called it a red herring at the beginning

There are studies on "gay conversion therapy" such as those by M.F. Schwartz and W.H. Masters, "The Masters and Johnson Treatment Program for Dissatisfied Homosexual Men," that show a success rate upwards of 62% after 5-year follow up using a sample of 341 people. There are numerous studies showing anywhere from 30% to 60+% success rate for gay conversion.

Can you please provide any examples in which one of the authors doesn't suspect their co-author/husband of making it all up?

[BadKosh]

Anything to validate moral relativism of the Sexual deviants?

[kmkkid]

Let's throw in some absurdity.

Those of us that use OS X can no longer be married, because we are the deviants, as we are the minority. It may be genetic, pre-disposition, or it could be environmental, who knows? But, one thing is for sure - we do not deserve equal rights!

And you dual-booting bi's, PICK A SIDE DAMNIT!!!


Thank you, good day.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, umm... you firmly believe no psychosocial/environmental phenomena at all?

Ummm.. Correct.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Ummm.. Correct.

Based on scientific evidence or because it serves you better than the alternative?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Then how do you explain the prevalence of homosexuality in every culture throughout all of history? How do you explain that I have 3 older brothers all raised in the exact same manner yet they are straight?

Why limit this to just sexuality? You and your 3 older brothers are all exactly the same? You have the exact same stress reactions to adversity? The same personalities? Of course not. I'd be willing to bet that at least one of them is struggling with another issue entirely. There is nothing new under the sun. Every culture is subject to the same social pressures as another and individuals will react differently to various stimuli. Forget straight and gay brother, the mind is a vast and varied, complex thing.

Why? To what end? I firmly believe homosexuality is genetic. And I also firmly believe it is natural. Even if you can find a genetic trigger that doesn't mean it needs to be treated or controlled.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions. As far as controlling homosexuality, I suspect a great many expecting parents would opt for treatments.

Should we start "treating" people because of their eye color or the texture of their hair?

Can we and is it affordable? I mean, people are trying to change their hair texture, color, and getting contacts for their eyes all the time, why is this so far-fetched?

Should we stop treating people for alcoholism?

Why can't people just accept the fact that homosexuality is a natural expression of human sexuality. It doesn't need to be understood. It just needs to be accepted for what it is.

Why can't you accept that there are those who disagree? There are those opposed to it being taught or regarded as its own legitimate identity, equal to those of differing genders and race. I maintain this is a difference in view regarding the nature of homosexuality. I personally accept it to the degree that I have absolutely no problem replacing any Federal notion of "marriage" (as the failed institution it is) with "civil union" for any two people wishing to enter it and letting the churches "marry" whom they deem fit. I've got several gay friends and I can tell you that I'm not entirely sure simply affording gays the same rights as straights is enough. For many, there seems to be a desire not only for "acceptance", but validation. There's no reason others have to validate you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, umm... you lean towards no genetics at all?

You must've stopped reading early I guess;

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I lean towards believing it is the result of psychosocial/environmental phenomena during upbringing... I would be interested and open to continued research and discovery on any genetic basis for human sexuality.

I guess it was "fair" of you to lump me in with someone as ideologically rigid as Atheist on this issue?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You must've stopped reading early I guess;

No, I stopped reading right here.

[smacintush]

Really, who cares if it is genetic or not? I find the whole argument completely irrelevant.

Being gay doesn't NEED to be excused, justified or quantified. If two men or women want to get together their reasoning shouldn't even come into the equation. It's no one's concern.

Someone please explain to me why the WHY of it SO important? Does genetic automatically mean good or ok? Are we trying to search for a cure? Is it somehow going to change the minds of the kind of people who talk to their invisible friend(s) and believe in talking snakes?

Help me out here because I am missing something.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why limit this to just sexuality? You and your 3 older brothers are all exactly the same? You have the exact same stress reactions to adversity? The same personalities? Of course not. I'd be willing to bet that at least one of them is struggling with another issue entirely. There is nothing new under the sun. Every culture is subject to the same social pressures as another and individuals will react differently to various stimuli. Forget straight and gay brother, the mind is a vast and varied, complex thing.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions. As far as controlling homosexuality, I suspect a great many expecting parents would opt for treatments.


Can we and is it affordable? I mean, people are trying to change their hair texture, color, and getting contacts for their eyes all the time, why is this so far-fetched?

Should we stop treating people for alcoholism?


Why can't you accept that there are those who disagree? There are those opposed to it being taught or regarded as its own legitimate identity, equal to those of differing genders and race. I maintain this is a difference in view regarding the nature of homosexuality. I personally accept it to the degree that I have absolutely no problem replacing any Federal notion of "marriage" (as the failed institution it is) with "civil union" for any two people wishing to enter it and letting the churches "marry" whom they deem fit. I've got several gay friends and I can tell you that I'm not entirely sure simply affording gays the same rights as straights is enough. For many, there seems to be a desire not only for "acceptance", but validation. There's no reason others have to validate you.

So let's see. To sum it all up, homosexuality is either an adverse reaction to external stimuli OR a genetic malfunction that we someday will identify so it can be "treated". What a load of crap.

I can only imagine how our descendants will look back on all of this and laugh at the sheer ignorance of it all.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I can only imagine how our descendants will look back on all of this and laugh at the sheer ignorance of it all.

I believe you meant to say "your."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I've answered you already several times, including in the very quote block just above your statement, and I'll repeat it again right now. If it doesn't get through to you this time, you're on your own. Ready yourself; here it comes again: Persecution of someone for who they are is bigotry. Persecution of someone for whom they victimize is not. There. Did you miss it again? Here are some examples to help it sink in: If you persecute a child molester because of their victims, it's not bigotry. If you persecute a homo because you believe they have victimized someone, it's not bigotry. If you persecute a child molester who doesn't harm children (if such a thing exists), then it's bigotry.

Oh I heard you, but I guess it was a little difficult to reconcile that with...

the biologically accurate age of consent would optimally be decided on a case by case basis by a team of psychologists, psychiatrists and endocrinologists

You really have no definition of "victim" so I'm not certain your definition of "bigot" based on "victimization" holds up very well. Should we find a team of psychologists, psychiatrists and endocrinologists to help you?

People who suffer from mental illness aren't proud of their illness. They're often too proud to admit they have the illness in the first place, but they aren't proud of having it.

Wow, you've not talked to many homosexuals have you?

So... if homosexuals decide to all join the Church of Homosexuality, you would no longer have a basis to discriminate. Interesting.

I don't discriminate. Maybe it's because they already appear to have joined a church of sorts. They certainly have better fellowship by virtue of their sexual preference than most heterosexuals I know.

Apparently you think that only one thing can be "a continuum" at a time(?)

No, it was more an indication of my lacking regard for the seriousness of the question posed to me.

In that case, the gay couples "denying a child" to straight couples, which you alluded to earlier, should be a blessing. They are preventing thousands of children from being stuck in those unstable environments.

You're so all over the place here I have to keep scrolling down for context. I never said anything remotely close to children being denied "straight" couples. I said they're denied a "mother" and a "father". Dude... seriously, this isn't fun when someone keeps putting words in your mouth and responding to them. You don't need me here.

- gays and straights are different. We try too hard to suggest they're not. But...
- don't be different. Be like ebuddy. Have a hetero-marriage and don't divorce.
Yeah, that's a real consistent message.

You're doing it again. Obviously, you got caught with your poor reading comp hanging out. I personally don't care whether or not people have a homo or hetero relationship. Sinking in yet??? Here it comes... watch for it... I think there should be civil unions for any two people who wish to enter into a "spousal" commitment, let the churches "marry" whom they deem fit.

You're "guessing?" There's an "assumption?" Well then, you'd "have to assume" that if one mother is so great then two mothers would be even better, so... lesbians should be better parents than heterosexuals! Your reasoning is just painful here.

You bring up an interesting point. I wonder if it is easier for two lesbians to adopt than it is two gay men?

Just like how the KKK "believes" blacks are "in their face?" Yeah, I see what you did there.

You're certainly welcome to marginalize the plight of people hung by trees en masse for the color of their skin, but I'll leave you to it.

What human nature giveth, human nature can taketh away. Prejudice is human nature, and striving to overcome our human nature is also human nature. Regardless, human nature is no excuse for incivility.

Once again for people to not fall in line behind your line of reasoning makes them uncivil. Solid reasoning like none I've seen here before.

No, you're saying they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. First it was "the crux of the debate is those who don't believe homosexuality is genetic, but the result of 'choices'." And now "if there is a genetic component, it is a genetic defect." So basically, genetics won't sway your opinion, you just want to use it to support you no matter what the outcome. Looks like I hit the nail right on the head when I called it a red herring at the beginning

Not at all. I don't think homosexuals are damned at all. I'm merely framing the differences here. For most, an affirmed genetic component would encourage acceptance and yes, even validation. There are others however, that if treatable (which you'd have to assume would come into question) that would seek to control the sexual preference of their offspring. I mean, you can pick singular statements from singular statements in order to fashion the strawman of your choosing, but again you don't really need me for that. The point is you cannot legislate validation. You cannot legislate acceptance. Lacking things does not make one a bigot by virtue of the fact they have a differing view on how to accommodate mental illness.

Can you please provide any examples in which one of the authors doesn't suspect their co-author/husband of making it all up?

Absolutely, but of course it won't matter. If I cited three more studies, would you concede that homosexuality is a mental illness? Of course not, I'm not even that certain my friend. Suffice it to say, success rates for treatment of alcoholism and homosexuality are equally as specious.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

So let's see. To sum it all up, homosexuality is either an adverse reaction to external stimuli OR a genetic malfunction that we someday will identify so it can be "treated". What a load of crap.

I can only imagine how our descendants will look back on all of this and laugh at the sheer ignorance of it all.

I can appreciate that you're personally invested in the discussion Atheist, but you don't have to suspend logic in an emotional tirade. Ask anyone most favorable to gay rights and I assure you they are of the opinion that homosexuality is genetic. It simply logically follows. You can say it doesn't matter or that it's reprehensible or that people are bigots, but none of this makes you more correct than they. People disagree on how to accommodate a situation based on the nature of that situation. It's really just this simple. We do not generally regard disabilities, disorders, race, and creeds in a similar fashion.

Most who disagree on this issue disagree on the nature of homosexuality. They simply feel there is no sufficient reason to accommodate behaviors related to mental illness and that the long-term implications of suspending this "unwritten" rule are destructive. This is approximately half the country. They may indeed laugh, but I assure you it will be some time.