LGB Dignity Bill (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This bill is disgusting, if people want to better themseleves why should they be denied?  What are we going to ban next, rehab clinics for alcoholics?

That you would even compare the two makes me want to spit on you if I ever ran into you in person.

I have to agree, that was absolutely disgusting.  You imply (actually more than imply) that homosexuality is a disease that those afflicted with should be cured from, if possible.  I would say these things are true about alcoholism.  Homosexuality was taken off the American Psychiatric Associations list of disorder iirc in the 1970's.

What I am implying is that people feel that homosexually is something that they cannot live with and want to try and help themselves, the government should not be in the business of telling them they can't just as much as they should not be in the business of telling them homosexuality is wrong.  The country is taking a dangerous path of giving not an equal field to homosexuals and heterosexuals but putting homosexuals on a pedestal

You're talking as if such treatment actually worked. It doesn't, it merely forces someone to supress a part of themselves. Therefore any institution that claims to 'change' peoples sexuality is fraudulent. Fraudulent businesses of any nature should not be allowed to operate freely or coerce people into accepting their custom.

And you still sicken me.

For any society to remain orderly it is essential for people to supress parts of themselves. Could you imagine what a society in which every emotion, thought, whim, impulse, or worse were openly expressed? There wouldn't be any self-control or self-respect. This country has truly hit bottom and our culture of Selfishness has truly hit new levels where anything, anything at all can be justified as "self-expression". People who decide to supress this or anything else about themselves shouldn't be open to ridicule or scorn, just as those who decide to accept what they are should be likewise treated with respect.

I think that the APA was wrong to de-list homosexuality as a disorder. To say they did so willingly after much study and research is to be in-denile, they were bullied into it by the left. Would I support re-listing it, no, its far too late for that.

This bill is disgusting, if people want to better themseleves why should they be denied?  What are we going to ban next, rehab clinics for alcoholics?

That you would even compare the two makes me want to spit on you if I ever ran into you in person.

If you disagree with someone, spit on them. No wonder politics has gotten so awfull. To be a tollerant Liberal requires you to be completely intollerant of those you disagree with to the point that they need to be assaulted because of it. Whatever happen to respectfully disagreeing, to respecting the sincerity and convictions of someone else eventhough you disagree with someone else? I see several people have given a free pass to this equally sickening behavior, because they agree with the persons position, they refuse to question the persons methods. Now I know why politics in both RL and here are so rancid and it makes me sad beyond belief what has happened to the political discourse in this country.

As to the underlying bill I urge passage of the amendment. The bill as written is clearly unconsitutional, yet again we see more of the "Win by any means necessary" strategy.

I have yet to see any reason why these places don't work other then people's personal views about homosexuality coming into the mix. Again people have the freedom to disagree, no matter how counterproductive or wrongheaded, as long as they aren't hurting themselves(again matter of opinion, they see themselves as helping there condition), or anyone else we can't do a thing about it except encourage them not to through disclaimers and warnings and alike. Living in a free country is so great, we even have the freedom to hurt ourselves, to a degree(though if some of you beleive in Euthenasia I hope you won't be voting for this bill on the account of hypocracy. The same goes of those that support Marijuana legalization, support Alcohol being legal, and support Abortion)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye




I have still not been shown any evidence that proves these places do not work, or are dangerous.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As I said before, with the amendment this bill seems fairly reasonable so

Aye



Out of all the issues this is the one I most wish would just go away. Its divisive and hurtfull, and its one I hate and find difficult to discuss. As such I have tried to avoid this issue as long as possible. I am a Senator, and so I can't hide from an issue just to avoid causing controversy. I have no problem if people are disgusted at me because I voiced my position on an issue, however I don't want people to be disgusted at me for a position I don't hold, for instance, contrary to the common  interpretation here of my previous post, I don't think homosexuality is a disease or an illness. My statement regarding the APA's actions in regards to this was unnecessarily confusing and served no purpose in regards to the overal bill. Therefore I am sorry I wrote I wrote that paragraph. My intent was to pass critisicism on methods used to compel them to take such an action, not the action itself. If you go back an read my post you will see that fits with the posts overall theme that is essentially critical of the Left's tactics and methods.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, just to clarify, you absolutely do not believe that homosexuality is a disease, illness, or disorder of any kind, or harms an individual and/or impairs their ability to live their life?

Edit: And you don't believe it's a choice, right?

No, I don't beleive it is a disease, illness, or disorder. I don't see how it would impair their abililty to live their life even if it were a disease, illness, or disorder, which of course it isn't so thats beside the point.

As to your last question, I don't mean to be Clintonian but that would depend on your definition of "Choice". If you mean a choice of whether or not they supress it then yes it would be a choice since several choose to do so. On the other hand if you are referring to whether or not they have the implulses to supress in the first place, I would have to say that is not a choice.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, just to clarify, you absolutely do not believe that homosexuality is a disease, illness, or disorder of any kind, or harms an individual and/or impairs their ability to live their life?

Edit: And you don't believe it's a choice, right?

No, I don't beleive it is a disease, illness, or disorder. I don't see how it would impair their abililty to live their life even if it were a disease, illness, or disorder, which of course it isn't so thats beside the point.

As to your last question, I don't mean to be Clintonian but that would depend on your definition of "Choice". If you mean a choice of whether or not they supress it then yes it would be a choice since several choose to do so. On the other hand if you are referring to whether or not they have the implulses to supress in the first place, I would have to say that is not a choice.

I appreciate that, though I still found your initial comments as a bit provocative, considering you don't seem to be nearly as unreasonable as they made you out to be on this issue.

As you have noticed before I tend to start out very provocative and then work my way down. It also is affected by my general mood at the time of the posts which was not very positive at the time.

As I said before, with the amendment this bill seems fairly reasonable so

Aye



Out of all the issues this is the one I most wish would just go away. Its divisive and hurtfull, and its one I hate and find difficult to discuss. As such I have tried to avoid this issue as long as possible. I am a Senator, and so I can't hide from an issue just to avoid causing controversy. I have no problem if people are disgusted at me because I voiced my position on an issue, however I don't want people to be disgusted at me for a position I don't hold, for instance, contrary to the common  interpretation here of my previous post, I don't think homosexuality is a disease or an illness. My statement regarding the APA's actions in regards to this was unnecessarily confusing and served no purpose in regards to the overal bill. Therefore I am sorry I wrote I wrote that paragraph. My intent was to pass critisicism on methods used to compel them to take such an action, not the action itself. If you go back an read my post you will see that fits with the posts overall theme that is essentially critical of the Left's tactics and methods.

The reaction I and others had was, you have to understand based on a rather cryptic post. You began by stating that, 'For any society to remain orderly it is essential for people to suppress parts of themselves' and then onwards to your statement that people who wished to try and suppress their sexuality should be allowed to do so. That is a valid point and one many have made, but your pretext that suppression was necessary to ensure that society remained 'ordered' gave the suggestion that such action was preferable, indeed that those who did not suppress were creating a culture of 'selfishness.' This, rather than anything to do with the APA was what led me to the assumption that you were 'anti'

You then began your assessment of the APA. This is a tired argument and one that I've heard many times; it's plausability would only rest on the idea that psychology and all other sciences that compliment it has stood still for nearly 40 years and negates advances in the field and indeed in biological sciences. Had the APA not made it's decision then it would be under strenuous efforts to do so now based on advances in psychology across all fields including those not specific to the study of sexuality. In short an evidence based decision. Indeed many registered psychologists who have professed to have taken a stance against declassifying homosexuality in the 1970's have admitted that advances would have professionally changed their opinion in the years that followed.

Instead you lay the charge that society has been 'bullied' by the left into reaching a concensus on these issues. If you had a breadth and depth of knowledge on the gay rights movement, particularly outside of the bish bash of 'left-right' politics on both sides of the Atlantic and indeed delved back to the 50's, the 30's even the 1800's you would see that this was not the case. The movement tapped into a vast array of political and philosophical sources. It is only since the 80's/90's and the political effects of HIV/AIDS panic that the 'right' has chosen to blame the counter culture for the appraisal of sexuality and it's politicisation. I contend and always have done that this has been to the conservatives movements detriment.

EDIT: Indeed the only issue I would have with the APA and psychologists and psychiatrists in general is not the decision reached but the methodology employed to reach their findings. Do not forget that prior to the 60's it was common to make use of electro-shock, aversion therapy, hormone therapy, lobotomies and even castration to either 'treat' or study sexuality. It is to a very old friend of mines credit he sees the one benefit of his 'treatment' is the fact that it led to it's own end.

1. As I said in response to Marokai up top, I tend to start out very provocative and as I calm down, I return to reason. My whole rant on the Left was generally a reaction to Marokai's statement that he wanted to assualt(Spit on) DWTL. Just because someone says something you disagree with it is never justificalbe to respond in a such away. That of course doesn't excuse what I said either.

2. Yes I do beleive that either way people who suppress themselves or those who choose to live openly should be respected as long as they and no once else made the decision. The comments relating to society and such should have been more clear and preferrably not included at all.

3. My opinion has generally been that the APA was rushed in making a decision, I still think it should and would have de-classiffied a long time ago even if not in 1970. I could of course be wrong on that, its just the impression I got from events. As you said many people who initially opposed it have changed there minds and now believe it was the right decision. 

4. The methods that were used back then were so vile as to qualify as torture. I have seen video footage of them performing electro-shock on people,, and it was sickening. Not one of my favorite fields.