Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 10:07 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

It nice that you feel so free to speak for 10 of millions of your fellow citizens who only thing in commen is a medical disorder.

I speak for myself. I am comfortable in my statements though. Can't speak for gays, but given my experience, I believe my speculation on their behalf is correct. I've encountered very little that would make me think contrary.

Your argumentum ad naseum via medical disorder is boring me to tears. If you're doing it to get a rise out of me, don't bother. It's obvious that we're not going to agree on that matter. It's an exercise in futility to try and convince me to ignore the reasoned conclusion by the APA and accept your conspiracy theory.

Who are you representing?

T
K
O
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 10:16 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

It nice that you feel so free to speak for 10 of millions of your fellow citizens who only thing in commen is a medical disorder.


Similarly, it was "nice" for anti-slavery advocates to feel so free to speak for a multitude of blacks who also shared a mental disorder called "drapetomania."
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 10:21 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

What is already interesting is that the gay rights groups, who claim that homosexuality is natural and biologic, have embraced the transgender rights groups, who claim that biology got it wrong.

This is an interesting wormhole in logic you're taking us on. If a biological male is attracted to men but identifies as a man he has a mental disorder, but if a biological male is attracted to men and identifies as a woman and attempts to go through gender reassignment, they are somehow in contention on the issue of whether being gay is biological?

False.
hawkeye10 wrote:

For me this indicates that the rational argument for why homosexuality must be accepted is wall paper. The behaviour is "I want what I want and you can't tell me no!".

The argument is: "I am, I am, who are you to tell me I'm not?" Your argument is the wall paper: You want not for them and you can't understand your limits.
hawkeye10 wrote:

I long ago learned that with women one should always follow what they do over what they say, and I suspect that the same rules applies to gays.

With reasoning and logic skills like you show here, I'm not surprised where you fit into the command chain. Your impotent rhetoric makes you the cabin boy, but you smile cause the captain lets you wear his hat while you sweep the floor.

Maybe that's it. Maybe your insecurity with gays stems from your frustration with where you ended up in terms of gender roles with the women of your lifetime. Don't let me down Hawk, remind me of how impressive and manly you are. I'm sure I'll be very impressed.

T
K
O
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 11:27 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
The argument is: "I am, I am, who are you to tell me I'm not?" Your argument is the wall paper: You want not for them and you can't understand your limits.


You can't seem to get away from thinking in terms of the construct of the individual, which we have made up and which may or may not be useful. In any case the individual is shaped by the community, by culture, by the collective, so what the collective chooses to do as as important as what the individual chooses to do. You take your slavishness to individuality and then claim that the collective has no rights. Wake up......the collective always maintains its rights and the collective will not be talked out of exercising its rights.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 11:33 am
Copper Seth wrote:
Debra Law wrote:
That's like saying if freedom of speech was a fundamental right, then the state could never punish defamation or fighting words.


That's kinda my point, right? Look, we know that speech is fundamental because it is specifically provided for in the Constitution. Other rights have been read into the Constitution (both Fed and State), but in the end, none of them are universal. I never said that speech wasn't fundamental or universal, I simply said that the right to marry is not universal. And you helped me out by pointing out that even ones we hold so dear, like speech and religion, are not entirely protected. So, why is it that we can abridge speech, but not marriage? Why is it that speech, the first right, is less protected than marriage? You seem to take that stand, but I don't. I think marriage has its limits, just like speech.


CopperSeth:

You're being both dishonest and disingenuous.

You denied that the right to marry is a fundamental right. You erroneously defined "fundamental rights" as rights that can never be infringed. At all times, I informed you that marriage is a fundamental right. At all times, I informed you that a fundamental right cannot be denied or disparaged (infringed) UNLESS the infringement was NECESSARY (and narrowly tailored) to serve a COMPELLING state interest. Refer to the conversation in context:

Debra Law wrote:
Copper Seth wrote:
Furthermore, the right to marriage is neither universal nor fundamental, meaning it can be abridged, interrupted, and otherwise prohibited.


Marriage is a fundamental right. The State may not deprive any individual or class of individuals from exercising a fundamental right unless the deprivation is NECESSARY (and narrowly tailored) to serve a COMPELLING State interest.


You went on to allege, IF marriage was a fundamental right, THEN the state could never prohibit incentuous marriages nor prevent children from marrying. I pointed out that your statement concerning the "meaning" of fundamental rights was ABSURD. Again, refer to the conversation in context:

Debra Law wrote:

Copper Seth wrote:
If marriage was a universal right, then the state could never prevent minors, relatives, or specific otrhers from marrying.


That's like saying if freedom of speech was a fundamental right, then the state could never punish defamation or fighting words. That's silly. Every denial or deprivation of a fundamental right must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest. Each denial or deprivation must be analyzed on its own merits.


BECAUSE you finally understood that your definition of fundamental rights was both WRONG and ABSURD, then you pretended that your "point" was something different than what it really was. You dishonestly deleted all context and claimed that your point was, IF the state may infringe speech, THEN why can't it infringe marriage? Rolling Eyes

In the course of your DISINGENOUS acrobatic act, you deleted the portion of my response that ALREADY answered the question:

Debra Law wrote:
Every denial or deprivation of a fundamental right must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest. Each denial or deprivation must be analyzed on its own merits.


I've provided you with authoritative sources in past posts. Here's another source:

The Supreme Court wrote:
The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279. . . .

As we stated recently in Flores, the Fourteenth Amendment "forbids the government to infringe . . . `fundamental' liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest."507 U.S., at 302 .


WASHINGTON v. GLUCKSBERG, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/521/702.html

Thus, with respect to "freedom of speech," a law that on its face or as applied infringes the right to speech (e.g., by penalizing "fighting words") must be necessary (and narrowly tailored) to serve a compelling state interest. Similarly, a law that on its face or as applied infringes the right to marriage (e.g., by denying the right to an entire class of people) must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest. Each and every denial or disparagement (infringement) of a fundamental right must be analyzed on its own merits.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 02:05 pm
@Debra Law,
Is Bigotry a Mental Illness?
--------------------------------

Nothing the APA will do wouldl surprise me in the lest. That a "scientitic body" would have a gay task force dealing with gays concerns said it all.

They sold their souls for a little peace in the 1970s and the results are there for all to see.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 02:15 pm
@Diest TKO,
Well the church can not be wrong all the time<LOL>.


Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.

"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 02:21 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
They sold their souls for a little peace in the 1970s and the results are there for all to see.


That is too harsh......they did abandon science to cave into pressure groups, but as we have seen since so have a huge number of other institutions. The mental illness professions have fallen a long ways; they have their selling out to drug companies to answer for (becoming pill pushers), the support of closing institutions and throwing those in need of mental help onto the streets with no support, pandering to the victim identity of those who come for help, the lack of pressure from their side to get HMO's to include mental illness into their plans, the support of over medicating in general and in particular kids with newly discovered diseases (attention deficit disorder, anxiety disorder and so on and on), the failure to promote the profession to the point that we as a society have the numbers of mental health professionals that we need....

Given four decades of ineptitude from the profession their deciding that homosexuality is not an illness has little credibility.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 03:16 pm
Copper Seth:

Here is our previous conversation in context:

Debra Law wrote:
Copper Seth wrote:
Loving v. Virginia should also not be used in conjuntion with Brown v Board of Education, because this is not an issue of seperate but equal.


You're advocating separate and disparate treatment, and yet you say this is NOT an issue of the "separate but equal" doctrine that was discredited? How can you look at yourself in the mirror with a straight face?

Marriage for heterosexual couples vs. Civil Unions or domestic partnerships for homosexual couples

That's separate and unequal.


Copper Seth wrote:
BvB dealt with public education, something given to everyone for very specific reasons.


Education at public expense is not a right. However, when the State provides public education to children (and mandates compulsory attendance under the penalty of law), then the state has a constitutional duty to treat all children alike. In other words, the State cannot establish superior schools and reserve those schools for a "special class" of heterosexual students and establish inferior second-class schools for disfavored homosexual students. That would be unconstitutional discrimination.

Copper Seth wrote:
But marriage is not given to everyone. Even the ancillary rights that accompany marriage are reserved for that special class of relationships.


Marriage is a fundamental right. The State may not deprive any individual or class of individuals from exercising a fundamental right unless the deprivation is NECESSARY (and narrowly tailored) to serve a COMPELLING State interest. Although you place yourself and your fiancee in that "special class" of heterosexuals whom you believe are entitled to superior rights, you're not any more special than homosexuals.


In the above discussion, you failed to distinguish between liberty secured by the due process clause and the protection of similarly situated persons under the equal protection clause. You erroneously elevated public education to a stature greater than that of a fundamental right because, you stated, it is "given to everyone," whereas marriage is NOT "given to everyone."

You erroneously allege, because education is "given to everyone for very specific reasons" whereas, marriage is NOT "given to everyone," then excluding gay couples from the right to marry is not an issue of "separate but equal" doctrine that was discredited in Brown v. Board of Education.

In your analogy, you erroneously compared apples to oranges as your justification for treating homosexuals as second class citizens. In other words, you compared a fundamental liberty interest (in marriage) to a state-created property interest (in public education).

The Fourteenth Amendment provides, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The United States Supreme Court has clearly ruled that education at public expense is NOT a fundamental right secured as a LIBERTY interest under the due process clause. See SAN ANTONIO SCHOOL DISTRICT v. RODRIGUEZ, 411 U.S. 1 (1973):

Quote:
In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), a unanimous Court recognized that "education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments." Id., at 493. What was said there in the context of racial discrimination has lost none of its vitality with the passage of time:

"Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our [411 U.S. 1, 30] recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms." Ibid.

This theme, expressing an abiding respect for the vital role of education in a free society, may be found in numerous opinions of Justices of this Court writing both before and after Brown was decided. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 213 (BURGER, C. J.), 237, 238-239 (WHITE, J.), (1972); Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 230 (1963) (BRENNAN, J.); McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 212 (1948) (Frankfurter, J.); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Interstate Consolidated Street R. Co. v. Massachusetts, 207 U.S. 79 (1907).

Nothing this Court holds today in any way detracts from our historic dedication to public education. We are in complete agreement with the conclusion of the three-judge panel below that "the grave significance of education both to the individual and to our society" cannot be doubted. 69 But the importance of a service performed by the State does not determine whether it must be regarded as fundamental for purposes of examination under the Equal Protection Clause.

. . . Thus, the key to discovering whether education is "fundamental" is not to be found in comparisons of the relative societal significance of education as opposed to subsistence or housing. Nor is it to be found by weighing whether education is as important as the right to travel. Rather, the answer lies in assessing whether there is a right to education explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. . . .

We have carefully considered each of the arguments supportive of the District Court's finding that education is a fundamental right or liberty and have found those arguments unpersuasive. In one further respect we find this a particularly inappropriate case in which to subject state action to strict judicial scrutiny. The present case, in another basic sense, is significantly different from any of the cases in which the Court has [411 U.S. 1, 38] applied strict scrutiny to state or federal legislation touching upon constitutionally protected rights. Each of our prior cases involved legislation which "deprived," "infringed," or "interfered" with the free exercise of some such fundamental personal right or liberty. . . .

It should be clear, for the reasons stated above and in accord with the prior decisions of this Court, that this is not a case in which the challenged state action must be subjected to the searching judicial scrutiny reserved for laws that create suspect classifications or impinge upon constitutionally protected rights....


Public education is NOT a fundamental liberty interest, it's a property interest. See, eg., Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) :

Quote:
Among other things, the State is constrained to recognize a student's legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause and which may not be taken away for misconduct without adherence to the minimum procedures required by that Clause....Although Ohio may not be constitutionally obligated to establish and maintain a public school system, it has nevertheless done so and has required its children to attend. Those young people do not "shed their constitutional rights" at the schoolhouse door.


In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court struck down the "separate but equal doctrine" that was previously embraced by the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. The Plessy case considered "public transportation." Neither public transportation nor public education are fundamental liberty interests. However, children (like adults) are constitutionally entitled to equal protection of the law. Here's what the Brown Court said:

Quote:
In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, [347 U.S. 483, 488] they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 . Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.

The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction....

In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout [347 U.S. 483, 493] the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws....

In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout [347 U.S. 483, 493] the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.

To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." 10

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. 11 Any language [347 U.S. 483, 495] in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


As I stated before, education at public expense is not a right. In other words, it is not a LIBERTY interest secured by the Constititution. However, when the State provides public education to children (and mandates compulsory attendance under the penalty of law), then the state has a constitutional duty to treat all children alike. In other words, the State cannot establish superior schools and reserve those schools for a "special class" of heterosexual students and establish inferior second-class schools for disfavored homosexual students. That would be unconstitutional discrimination (under the equal protection clause).

The State cannot establish two separate insitutions to deal with similarly situated families as a means to regulate familial rights and duties. Families headed by homosexual couples are similarly situated to families headed by heterosexual couples. By reserving the institution of "marriage" for heterosexuals and segregating homosexuals into a newly created institution called "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships," the State's policy of separating people based solely on their sexual orientation is interpreted as denoting the inferiority of families headed by homosexuals. As the California Supreme Court held, the State is required to provide homsexuals and their families the same respect and dignity that the State affords to heterosexuals and their families.


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 06:24 pm
@Debra Law,
They can look themselves in the mirror, because they are so ignorant about civil rights and equality. There's not cure for stupid.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 06:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
They can look themselves in the mirror, because they are so ignorant about civil rights and equality. There's not cure for stupid.
a person does not need to be ignorant to not agree with you on values. I don't think that civil rights and equality are as important as you do. I am all for promoting both when possible, but we don't agree on where we are right now it seems. Or maybe you are so ignorant that you think that no matter where we are we would be better with a little more civil rights and a little more equality. If you are the latter than you promote the distruction of civilization, if you are the former then we can better come to a mutual understanding if you would stop calling me ignorant and stupid. Then again, if you don't care enough about civility to act civil maybe I already know where you want to go.....
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 08:33 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Given four decades of ineptitude from the profession their deciding that homosexuality is not an illness has little credibility.

Even if what you say is true about the nature of the Mental Health Field, they still have far more credibility than you.

You don't like their ruling, we get it. But it's not just the APA, Biologists and Geneticists are also converging on the APA's stance too. In terms of sociology, groups like the AAP don't see your fears for youth raised in gay families to be a legitimate concern.

T
K
O
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 04:45 am
@Diest TKO,
Come on if you would dare to take any other stand in those fields how likely do you think you would get any more funding and how likely would it be for your family to find protectors marching outside your home?

The California blacklist and the marching around churches tell how the homosexual community react to any one who would dare to disagree with any of their positions.

The gay community and it supporters can not use riots, uncivil protects, and blacklists and after getting such associations as the APA to bend under those kind of pressures, point to the new positions of those associations as scientific proof that homosexuality is not a disorder.


Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 06:40 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Come on if you would dare to take any other stand in those fields how likely do you think you would get any more funding and how likely would it be for your family to find protectors marching outside your home?

How much funding goes into proving the earth is flat?
BillRM wrote:

The California blacklist and the marching around churches tell how the homosexual community react to any one who would dare to disagree with any of their positions.

Yeah, it does. It says that they aren't complacent and this is really important to them. They are here to claim their rights.
BillRM wrote:

The gay community and it supporters can not use riots, uncivil protects, and blacklists and after getting such associations as the APA to bend under those kind of pressures, point to the new positions of those associations as scientific proof that homosexuality is not a disorder.

1) The gay community is not using riots or uncivil protests. To define the actions of the community and it's supporters by the actions of the few is akin to me likening YOU and the rest of the prop8 supporters to the killers of Matthew Sheppard. You're happy to use this standard of evaluation as long as it's not reflected back at you.

2) If the supporters of prop8 suffer financially from a blacklist/boycott, that's their problem. Nothing illegal about it. People are free to choose who they give their business to. The Westborough Baptist Church blacklists and boycotts. They even protest at funerals of gay soldiers. Their assholes, but they are legally protected assholes. For all your talk about the rights of the majority, you seem to speak as if the minority doesn't also have rights and power. Purchasing power is never to be underestimated (especially in the USA).

3) The APA already removed homosexuality from the list. The reasons it was on the list to begin with were found to be invalid. Deal with it. You seem to think that the only reason it's off is because people put pressure on them to take it off and a gay conspiracy at that as well. I don't have anything to prove. You on the other hand do. If you think homosexuality belongs on the list, you are welcome to provide those reasons to the APA and use the power of people and a heterosexual president right now to try to get your way. On top of that, you've even got more people, so it should be easy. Be my guest. I'm sure you have an excuse as to why it wouldn't work via some gay blockade that the gay agenda has created.

It's pretty cowardly on your behalf.

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 07:02 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

a person does not need to be ignorant to not agree with you on values.

And a gay person doesn't have to be mentally ill, sexually disordered, or inherently immoral to not agree with you on values either.

But here we always find ourselves. Gays can't just be different people. They can't disagree without people like you telling them that you know better than them the human condition and all things gay. Their understanding of homosexuality is somehow less than yours in your mind and so you need to feel superior so you talk about gays as if they are...

mentally ill...
sexually disordered...
inherently immoral...

It's your insecurity in your own beliefs. If you were as confident as you claim to be, you wouldn't need to paint your opponent is incapable for discussion, you'd be able to address the topic and their merits one for one. But you can't, and haven't.
hawkeye10 wrote:

I don't think that civil rights and equality are as important as you do. I am all for promoting both when possible, but we don't agree on where we are right now it seems.

At least you are honest. I'm perfectly fine with this being a difference between us.
hawkeye10 wrote:

Or maybe you are so ignorant that you think that no matter where we are we would be better with a little more civil rights and a little more equality.

Sound about right. Yes. Absolutely. I believe the pursuit for Liberty and Equality is one that never ends.

If you are happy with what liberty and the degree of equality you have in your life, consider yourself very fortunate. Don't however think that others don't deserve the same liberty and equality.
hawkeye10 wrote:

If you are the latter than you promote the distruction of civilization, if you are the former then we can better come to a mutual understanding if you would stop calling me ignorant and stupid.

The challenges our civilization faces do not include a gay threat. The world still turn, the sky would not fall.

You aren't called "ignorant" and "stupid" on the basis that you disagree with CI or myself. You are addressed as such because of the intellect and willingness to educate yourself on the topic.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Then again, if you don't care enough about civility to act civil maybe I already know where you want to go.....

I don't CI really cares to be civil to you. At least he's honest in his uncivil language. Your incivility is less honest. You enter this conversation, and elect to pick and choose direct questions asked of you etc. You can dish it out but you can't take it, and now you posture like you're a victim. You're exactly where you put yourself.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 07:06 am
@Diest TKO,
Sorry my friend the gay right movement had broken the law many times over the course of the years.

All for a good ‘cause” of course.

The very event that is used to mark the start of the movement was a three day riot in New York City.

The breaking into meetings and taking them over in many cases such as the Act Out Group was known for is also illegal my friend.

The APA did not find it was invalid that homosexuality was a disorder for any scientific reason but so they could have some peace and it all there in the records.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 07:16 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Sorry my friend the gay right movement had broken the law many times over the course of the years.

All for a good ‘cause” of course.

The very event that is used to mark the start of the movement was a three day riot in New York City.

The breaking into meetings and taking them over in many cases such as the Act Out Group was known for is also illegal my friend.

The APA did not find it was invalid that homosexuality was a disorder for any scientific reason but so they could have some peace and it all there in the records.


You are willing to let this define the "gay movement" but unless you are willing to apply the same standard of definition to the opposition the "gay movement" has encountered, the above is absolutely ignorable.

The only way I'd accept the above as being a fair representation of what I stand for is if you are willing to allow things like the brutal murder of Matthew Sheppard define yours. It's your call. I think I'd still have the high road.

T
K
O
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 07:49 am
@Diest TKO,
You are willing to benefit from the movement illegal acts such as the APA de-listing homosexuality as a disorder after they suffer many illegal disruptions to their meetings.

You do not normally decide scientific facts in my worldview by negotiations with a social right movement to stop disrupting your organization meetings.

Your efforts to claimed that this de-listing has some basic in science when we both know better is shameful in my opinion and make you a very willing partner in the movement illegal behaviors over the years.

Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 08:55 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

You are willing to benefit from the movement illegal acts such as the APA de-listing homosexuality as a disorder after they suffer many illegal disruptions to their meetings.

I'm as willing to benefit from "illegal" acts as you sir. That's the point. You aren't applying the same standard to yourself.
BillRM wrote:

You do not normally decide scientific facts in my worldview by negotiations with a social right movement to stop disrupting your organization meetings.

Science does not agree with your worldview.
BillRM wrote:

Your efforts to claimed that this de-listing has some basic in science when we both know better is shameful in my opinion and make you a very willing partner in the movement illegal behaviors over the years.

Science does not agree with your worldview.

I am doing nothing illegal. I don't advocate doing illegal things either. What I am saying is that you trying to (further) demonize gays by somehow labeling their behavior as unacceptable is based solely on the acts of the few and not a accurate depiction of gays nor their supporters. Further, you refuse to accept that the APA's decision on homosexuality is based on science in any way. Your refusal to educate yourself on the matter is the problem.

It's not like people had not been studying homosexuals when they were still considered mentally ill. Here is just one test I found with 15seconds labor from 1950s: http://www.psychologymatters.org/hooker.html

Quote:
Hooker's work was the first to empirically test the assumption that gay men were mentally unhealthy and maladjusted. The fact that no differences were found between gay and straight participants sparked more research in this area and began to dismantle the myth that homosexual men and women are inherently unhealthy.


Quote:
n conjunction with other empirical results, this work led the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 (it had been listed as a sociopathic personality disorder). In 1975, the American Psychological Association publicly supported this move, stating that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities…(and mental health professionals should) take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness long associated with homosexual orientation." Although prejudice and stigma still exist in society, this research has helped millions of gay men and women gain acceptance in the mental health community.


If social pressure had a role in the boardroom of the APA, it was pressure to acknowledge what science had been telling them the whole time: Gay people were not mentally ill.

Science does not agree with your worldview.

T
K
O
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 09:42 am
@Diest TKO,
Nothing at all wrong with a little social pressure on scientists to get your view of the universe approved is that your position?

Hmm Lest see you explain to all of us how that is not the same as when a little social pressure where placed on the scientist Galileo to declare that he was in error and the earth does not in fact revolve around the sun but the other way around.

You can to this day proudly point out that the great scientist Galileo stated as a scientific fact that the earth is the center of the universe.

Sorry you can not at one hand, at lest honestly, declare something is a scientific fact and with the other hand applause the pressure that was place to have it so declare a fact.

Science does not disagree with my position a social movement that is powerful enough to limit and bend expert opinions disagree with my position science sadly had nothing to do with it.

One fact we do know before that little social pressure was place on the APA it position was that homosexuality was a disorder, just as before a little social pressure was place on Galileo he was under the ‘wrong’ impression that the earth revolve around the sun.



 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 46
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 5.3 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:30:01