Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do know that masturbation was once considered a mental disorder as well, right? As were female orgasms? Well, until they were then used as treatment for hysteria... a whole other conversation.
We also once thought lobotomies were a good idea, that shock therapy should be widely applied and that insanity was caused by being born under, or sleeping in sight of, a full moon.
I think it was just a few years back that we figured out the earth wasn't flat, too. I know... shocking.
Our definitions and beliefs are constantly changing and evolving based on new information and knowledge. No "pro-anything" agenda required.
If homosexuality is not an abnormality, disorder, or deficiency of some sort, then that makes heterosexuals the ones that are abnormal or deficient. You cannot have it both ways. We have the term "breeders" rubbed in our faces regularly by the gays. There is a very good reason why heterosexuals can reproduce without the intervention of science, and gays cannot. It is because one is natural and one is not.
If you truly do not believe that political activism is what reversed the APA's classification of homosexuality, you are being nothing short of willfully ignorant.
Which is part of what this case will settle if it goes to the SCOTUS - whether or not homosexuals are, in fact, a protected class. As Johnny C outlined earlier in the thread,
Well I missed 1/2 the thread, was brougth into the discussion when it was merged with another one..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsy
it comes down to whether or not homosexuality is a status or a choice of conduct.
I'm not sure thats even the situation or not.. Is pedophilia a choice? Some would say no, people have a mental problem, but we still outlaw pedophilia.. And no, I'm not equating gays to pedophilia, just sighting that as an example about a status vs a choice.. Lots of "non choices" is regulated away. How about domestic violence? Is the perpetrator of domestic violence making a "choice"? You might say they are, while others would argue that its bread into them.. But again we deem that illegal... Obviously I'm again not saying that "gay" should be illegal, but again, we dont allow people to act upon their desires in many situations..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsy
Currently the laws treat it as a choice of conduct - because that is what it has been presumed to be. But traditional beliefs are not the same as rule of law. In addition, we're coming to understand, slowly, that people no more wake up one day and choose to "become" homosexual than they wake up one day and choose to "become" heterosexual.
And one day it might be deemed that people dont wake up and decide to become pedophiles.. (again, not calling gays pedophiles, just sighting it as an example)..
But in reality, isnt gay a choice? I mean one could choose to not have sex.. Its not like its forced upon you? I know nature doesnt say this is reasonable that one go through life a virgin because they find the thought of sex repulsive, but nothing says you have to have sex.. There are people who simply dont believe in sex, so why should these people be denied "protection" that gays are now asking for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsy
This is something I tried to address with one poster earlier... if homosexuals have chosen to become homosexual, when did s/he choose to become heterosexual? And what was s/he BEFORE they made that choice? Bisexual? Asexual? Trisexual? What?
That argument tends to get backed away from rather quickly once it arises - when confronted with the idea that they chose to be heterosexual, with the somewhat explicit implication riding with it that they then had the capacity to be homosexual instead as inherent within them as their heterosexuality apparently was... the discussion gets quickly diverted and the implications never addressed.
I believe most people make a choice to be homo, hetero. I mean lets get serious here, I'm sure lots of hetero's find people of their own sex attractive.. but they make a choice to not act upon their desires.. That doesnt mean that either is wrong, but that also doesnt mean that they be treated the same.. I could after all choose to not have sex.. It is a real option
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsy
So SCOTUS will ultimately be ruling on status vs choice of conduct, and from there the laws will be adjusted - if needed - accordingly. I suspect SCOTUS will recognize it as a status, at which time discrimination against them will no longer be permissible under the law.
I happen to believe that will be the outcome by the SCOTUS but what I object to is this overpowering federal government dictating every single states laws on their behalf. Its almost to the point that states are meaningless, which is the exact opposite of the original layout of government we run under.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsy
I also suspect that within the arguments presented, some savvy lawyer will bring up the potential for "choice of conduct" to still be a potential grounds for non-discrimination laws to apply. If a man or woman can choose to engage in high-risk behavior, which directly results in them becoming disabled, and then be afforded protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act... some lawyer is going to eventually present that as a precedent for "choice of conduct" to be grounds for protection in some circumstances.
This is why I think a final ruling on this MUST take a great deal of consideration and thought - because the implications are much more far reaching than just the obvious. Much like the Michigan amendment passed in 2004, which ended up having unexpected consequences for common law marriages. One of my husband's coworkers who had been a vocal and obnoxious supporter of the amendment was rather angry to find that his own "marriage" and attendant benefits were potentially negatively impacted by it via his common law wife's employer (the county). He blamed the "flaming homos for making the law necessary in the first place" of course.
Thats just it.. If each state can decide laws that oversee "common law marriages" then why cant they do the same for other forms of marriages?
btw, the Supreme Court threw out common law marriages as no longer "marriage", they are technically shared assets..
If homosexuality is not an abnormality, disorder, or deficiency of some sort, then that makes heterosexuals the ones that are abnormal or deficient. You cannot have it both ways. We have the term "breeders" rubbed in our faces regularly by the gays. There is a very good reason why heterosexuals can reproduce without the intervention of science, and gays cannot. It is because one is natural and one is not.
If you truly do not believe that political activism is what reversed the APA's classification of homosexuality, you are being nothing short of willfully ignorant.
If homosexuality is not an abnormality, disorder, or deficiency of some sort, then that makes heterosexuals the ones that are abnormal or deficient. You cannot have it both ways. We have the term "breeders" rubbed in our faces regularly by the gays. There is a very good reason why heterosexuals can reproduce without the intervention of science, and gays cannot. It is because one is natural and one is not.
If you truly do not believe that political activism is what reversed the APA's classification of homosexuality, you are being nothing short of willfully ignorant.
Homosexuality is no more "an abnormality, disorder or deficiency of some sort" than having red hair, green eyes, a pointy nose or a small penis is. It is simply somewhere on the range of acceptable and natural and healthy traits one is born with... there is "the norm" aka "the average" and then a billion other combinations that still fall somewhere on the scale of natural traits and how they may develop, or not, within the human being.
Isn't this exactly what's happening--the legal grounds to discriminate are being removed????
On the judge's view that Proposition 8 enacted a private moral view while not advancing a legitimate government interest:
58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society....
61. Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to codify distinct and unique roles for men and women in marriage....
62. Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples. ...
66. Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage. Domestic partnership reduces but does not eliminate these costs....
Here's a leaflet distributed by Alice Paul outside of the White House in 1917.
President Wilson and Envoy Root are deceiving Russia. They say "We are a democracy. Help us to win the war so that democracies may survive." We women of America tell you that America is not a democracy. Twenty million women are denied the right to vote"
Last edited by pollyrobin; 08-05-2010 at 03:59 PM..
Homosexuality is no more "an abnormality, disorder or deficiency of some sort" than having red hair, green eyes, a pointy nose or a small penis is. It is simply somewhere on the range of acceptable and natural and healthy traits one is born with... there is "the norm" aka "the average" and then a billion other combinations that still fall somewhere on the scale of natural traits and how they may develop, or not, within the human being.
You guys want to have your cake and eat it too. I can't blame 'ya. I've already agreed that I believe being born gay is not a choice in most cases, and that not allowing you guys to marry is unconstitutional, even if I am opposed to it. That right there should let you know that I am more tolerant than many here on CD. But at the same time, I still get slammed as being anti-gay.
I've thrown my two cents out there. Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within 50 years, regardless who opposes it. Just like any other minority fighting for their rights. As Freddie Mercury sang his song "I want it all and I want it now". Well, you guys are going to get it, but there is a process to adhere to.
If homosexuality is not an abnormality, disorder, or deficiency of some sort, then that makes heterosexuals the ones that are abnormal or deficient. You cannot have it both ways. We have the term "breeders" rubbed in our faces regularly by the gays. There is a very good reason why heterosexuals can reproduce without the intervention of science, and gays cannot. It is because one is natural and one is not.
If you truly do not believe that political activism is what reversed the APA's classification of homosexuality, you are being nothing short of willfully ignorant.
Actually, you can have it both ways. Human sexuality involves a wide range of sexual behavior. That we have assigned names to various sections of the range is an artificial construct. Just like assigning names to the spectrum of visible light. Blue is an artificial construct. It helps us understand the world around us, to describe and explain things, but just because you decide that Alfred's sexual turn-ons are abnormal doesn't necessarily make that true. What appeals to Alfred may not appeal to you, but that is the beauty of the human condition, we're all different.
If homosexuality is not an abnormality, disorder, or deficiency of some sort, then that makes heterosexuals the ones that are abnormal or deficient. You cannot have it both ways.
You must believe that left-handedness is a disorder too, given your definition of what's natural or normal.
Quote:
If you truly do not believe that political activism is what reversed the APA's classification of homosexuality, you are being nothing short of willfully ignorant.
This is absolutely ridiculous. You're saying that if we don't believe your conspiracy theory, then we're the ones who are being ignorant.
You must believe that left-handedness is a disorder too, given your definition of what's natural or normal.
This is absolutely ridiculous. You're saying that if we don't believe your conspiracy theory, then we're the ones who are being ignorant.
I am a southpaw, and I wish I was right-handed quite often. There was also a time in history where left handed children were forced to learn how to write right-handed as to be "proper".
As far as the conspiracy theory goes, did you even bother reading the link I provided you a few pages back. In it it states that even the "father of the gay gene theory" agrees that it was changed due to activism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not someone who is staunchly on your side?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
