Prop 8?

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

How they can ignore what is put right in front of them is beyond me. I can understand disagreeing with it, but they pretend as if it doesn't even exist. If they want to disagree, we can at least have a discussion on the merits of why, but we can't even get there because they won't admit that scientific studies about this topic have been done...

Thoroughly
K
O

It's a sign of internalized oppression. It's quite common, really; people who have a terrible time admitting their own desires and proclivities seek to demonize that behavior in others, for admitting their true feelings is very damaging to their psyche.

It leads to Cognitive Dissonance, when facts are disregarded from one's logical mind in order to protect cherished beliefs. The psychological damage which arises from admitting long-denied inner truths is quite powerful, and the mind just shies away from this again and again, even in the face of factual evidence to the contrary. You see this phenomena quite often amongst the extremes of either end of the political spectrum.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

"The burden on you is to convince others that it is wrong in the case of gays" (hawkeye10)
-Isn't that what political activism is for? Haven't you been telling us how wrong it is for homosexuals to be fighting for rights and trying to show how they ARE equals? Yet, at the same time, you tell people that they should convince others that what they believe (bigotry and inequality) is wrong. How does one do that if they shouldn't speak up and be politically active?

1 Reply

@arrian-syrus,

Quote:

Isn't that what political activism is for? Haven't you been telling us how wrong it is for homosexuals to be fighting for rights and trying to show how they ARE equals? Yet, at the same time, you tell people that they should convince others that what they believe (bigotry and inequality) is wrong. How does one do that if they shouldn't speak up and be politically active

Yes, that would be true if the gay rights movement was trying to make a case for why they should get rights that they have never had. What they are doing is making a demand and telling everyone else that we don't have the right to say no. The bit about bigotry and inequality being wrong is so immature and contrary to human nature that it deserves to be cut to shreds, and I am all in favor of taking on all who push that nonsense.

I have no problem with political activism, though it must not be allowed to corrupt science. If you follow my posting history you will see that I firmly support minority rights at every turn, that be rights as contemplated in the constitution of the US. Minorities have the right to be heard, to make their case, to try to convince, to attempt to make minority views the majority view. Though I have not spoken of it often on a2k I also believe that politics is a service to the people, a high calling....good poloticing is a skill to be admired.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

First, your argument for "rights that they never had" is completely wrong. Everyone in this country who is a natural citizen is assumed to have the same rights as every other citizen of the country. You want to be political about this... it is the political system that has prevented homosexuals from having any rights at all. Did you know that in the majority of states you can be fired for being homosexual, but you can't be fired for being clinically declared mentally unbalanced? Did you know that the reason that is the case is because politicians continually refuse to act on such bills, much as we did for equal rights for women and african americans? Perhaps the reason there has to be a gay rights movement at all is simply because, much as the pre-Civil Rights movement America was, we are to ignorant and unwilling to accept something that heterosexuals can't comprehend.

The APA was lobbied because there was no scientific evidence to have homosexuality listed as a mental disorder (something that's already been argued to death on here). Why was it even listed there in the first place? Because people didn't understand it and were scared of what they don't understand. Had the APA not been lobbied and presented with evidence that homosexuality was not a mental disorder, it would more than likely have just been left on the books (much like civil rights laws in the 1960s).

You seem so outraged by the thought of people trying to make something right where they see a wrong by lobbying and being politically active, yet you then go on to speak of the great good that politics can do?

Finally, the ultimate hypocrisy in your argument is when you say that "Minorities have the right to be heard, to make their case, to try and convinced, to attempt to make minority views the majority view." From my experience, and from what I have read and seen, YOUR view is the minority. However, to drive home the point, the majority view pre-women's suffrage was that women were second class citizens. Guess what they did? They marched in the streets, they lobbied congress, they protested. Sound familiar? Do you honestly believe that they did something wrong? What about the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King, Jr.? They staged rallies that brought in MILLIONS of people.. were they in the wrong because they were the minority opinion?

1 Reply

@arrian-syrus,

Quote:

The APA was lobbied because there was no scientific evidence to have homosexuality listed as a mental disorder (something that's already been argued to death on here). Why was it even listed there in the first place? Because people didn't understand it and were scared of what they don't understand. Had the APA not been lobbied and presented with evidence that homosexuality was not a mental disorder, it would more than likely have just been left on the books (much like civil rights laws in the 1960s).

behaviour disorders exist because psychology is a tool used by the collective to keep wayward individuals in line. I don't defend this. Science had nothing to do with homosexuality being a disorder, nor with removing it, nor with any of the other behaviour disorders that are currently "on the books". I do however think that the collective must be allowed to compel individuals to behave according to some standards, even if no gross transgressions of another takes place. I don't think that special needs individuals should be able to force the collective into paying for all that they want, be it homosexuals having kids, transgender having their operations, or physically disabled having everything in their lives retooled so that they can use it (at the collectives expense)

ya gotta draw the line someplace, maybe it should be with gays, I don't know. If not next up is the transgender crowd, after that I bet it will be ex con's rights....unless adult/child sexual rights crowd beats them out. After that I don't want to hazard a guess.

How low in standards of behaviour are you personally willing to go, and do I have to race to the bottom with you?? NO, and I will not.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Your argument is built on the notion that those things are ordered in some linear progression. This is not true. The "drawing a line" argument is not valid. This isn't about building a dam to levy off the dangerous tides of unknown social behavior.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

hawk's argument is based on experience and observation. There are people who will push every point as far as it will go using the same arguments that succeeded in previous cases.

This argument is based on affordabilty. How many lawyers and lobbyists can the collective afford before they bankrupt the system which they will if not prevented.

1 Reply

@spendius,

But that argument is based on the assumption that something is WRONG or abnormal about homosexuality. You all talk about it like all homosexuals should go to jail, like some terrible injustice is being brought upon the world by homosexuals. What crime do they commit? What great bane upon humanity is wrought by someone being a homosexual? Is it simply that they don't reproduce? In that case, every single person who has never had a child does the same thing. Are they "degrading the moral fiber of our nation"? Over 51% of heterosexual marriages fail. To me, that is degrading the moral fiber of our nation.

Your statement about the APA not being based on science is a slap in the face to all psychologists. The vast majority of mental disorders are measurable by chemical imbalances. The rest are measurable through scientific studies and years of research.

Honestly, what is your argument as to why homosexuality is bad? If it's because it is unnatural to you, then you don't do it. To homosexuals, heterosexual sex is unnatural. What honest reason do you have to make the statement that it is 1. a mental disorder and 2. something that is SO negative?

1 Reply

@arrian-syrus,

To me, it is all sex is natural, normal and lawful between consenting human adults -- just as normal as enjoying a good meal. Of course, there has to be laws protecting non-adults who are not considered developed or experienced enough to make that decision. The often cited and ridiculous notion that if gays are allows to marry, then man and animal should be allowed to marry. That's obvious -- an animal is not a consenting adult and doesn't have the mental capacity to refuse. Exception, of course, if the farmer gets kicked in the groin by his horse.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard, Perfect timing for a good laugh; sex with an animal. ha ha ha...

It's now regressed to the point where these homophobic bigots spew out stupid sexual relationships between animals and humans. How much further into the shite hole?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

How much further into the shite hole?

Neat ci. Very apt.

I liked LW's phrase "not considered experienced or developed enough". He doesn't bother with who is doing the considering mind you.

1 Reply

@spendius,

That's too obvious -- the law does the considering from not just religious morality but that ingrained in the mind at birth. The law is formed and passed by ruling legislative authorities, not by any collective. We live in a democratic republic, derived for the most part from the model created by Sparta, not Athens (explaining a lot about our leader's attitude towards war these days). If one commits murder, one can be tried as an adult, but if two men marry, they aren't considering children.

0 Replies

Quote:

.
.
.
.
Just eight years ago, Proposition 22 was passed, 61.4 to 38.6 percent. The much narrower victory of Proposition 8 suggests that minds are moving toward toleration of same-sex marriage. If advocates of that have the patience required by democratic persuasion, California's ongoing conversation may end as they hope. If, however, the conversation is truncated, as Brown urges, by judicial fiat, the argument will become as embittered as the argument about abortion has been by judicial highhandedness.

Brown's reasoning would establish an unassailable tyranny of a minority -- judges -- over any California majority. Brown, 70, California's former and perhaps future governor, once was a Jesuit seminarian. One American Heritage dictionary definition of "jesuitical" is "given to subtle casuistry"; one of that dictionary's definitions of "casuistry" is "specious or excessively subtle reasoning to rationalize or mislead." These definitions, although unfair to Jesuits, are descriptive of Brown's argument.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011402930.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I remember reading in Geoffrey Gorer's The Americans his claim that California was inventing a new species of mankind.

It remains to be seen whether it takes or not. I'm guessing not.

1 Reply

@spendius,

been a bunch of people saying that Brown and the gay rights pressure groups are trying to make new law, take the law where it has never gone before.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

kind of like the civil rights movement and women's suffrage? why is this really so different for you from any other civil rights movement?

1 Reply

@arrian-syrus,

I am not a historian, but the claim is that women rights and racial rights (black) happened because the Majority for granting them was formed, that with gays rights the pro side wants to use the courts to impose an order upon the collective irregardless of citizen opinion. This is different because democratic principle is being sacrificed.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I disagree. The courts were the ones who forced the first unsegregated school. It was the courts who ruled that laws were unconstitutional that led to the creation of legislation for equal rights. I would also like to point out that when legislation is brought up, it is ignored. However, it has also been the courts that have ruled laws for equal rights for gays illegal. It was courts in California that originally stopped gay marriage.

In our system of government, laws are made and the courts make sure those laws are fair. Is it really that surprising that civil rights activists call on the courts initially to deal with discriminatory laws?

2 Replies

@arrian-syrus,

you would need to go back and look at where the majority was at the time. Courts are intended to move with the times, with the people, and while the courts were involved in the societal change for women and blacks the argument is that they were following then and are leading now

0 Replies

@arrian-syrus,

Quote:

In our system of government, laws are made and the courts make sure those laws are fair. Is it really that surprising that civil rights activists call on the courts initially to deal with discriminatory laws

No, the courts make sure that laws are constitutional, and that individuals are treated fairly under the law. You misunderstand the role of the courts. Re the first: anyone can ask anything of the courts, so agitating in the courts is not a surprise. What is disappointing is that this effort has been somewhat successful.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know