<p>i keep practicing but don’t seem to be getting any better,…</p>
<p>“if as the medical community has agreed, that alcoholism is a disease- does an alcoholic really have a choice not to drink if they haven’t been treated for their disease?”</p>
<p>I think convincing the alcoholic he is responsible for his behaviour and does have a choice not to drink is actually part of the standard cure. See the 12 Step Program.</p>
<p>But you don’t really want argue that homosexuality is a disease do you? I mean that would be to concede there WAS something wrong with homosexuality and that is exactly what you want to put me in rehab for I think.</p>
<p>
Uh, no… This law doesn’t exist for homosexuality, as EK4 stated.</p>
<p>hl…if one of your relatives came out, and statistcally, someone in your family is gay, how would you treat them?</p>
<p>its okay, HL, you can go against all the psycology, what the majority of homosexuals say about themselves etc., and believe what you want</p>
<p>its not a disease, it is the way a person is…</p>
<p>not rehab, just some education…and if you don’t think you know any gays, you do…and I would bet one of your friends is either gay, or has a gay family member …and if you say well, I wouldn’t hang out with them, with your attitude they probably woulnd;'t bother to tell you, what would be the point, or once the decided to accept who they are, they would not want anything to do with you</p>
<p>“…you don’t make a decision about your sexual orientation…”</p>
<p>So what if that is true? I think it probably is but what difference does it make? If being born with a particular orientation excuses your behaviour then we would have to excuse child molesters and sexual sadists on the same grounds.</p>
<p>This whole arguement of course boils down to your view of human nature and your assessment of homsexuality. If you think homosexuality is fine and if you think humans haven’t any control of their sexual behaviour then you will feel strongly that homosexuals are poorly treated by society. If on the other hand you believe homosexuality is morally wrong or pathological and that humans are free actors then you will feel society is being harmed by the Homosexual lobby. In the middle are people who think homosexuality is harmful but uncontrollable or controllable but relatively innocuous.</p>
<p>would you like to answer the hypothetical questions?</p>
<p>if not, I understand</p>
<p>so if your nephew or cousin was gay, you would do what?</p>
<p>higherlead,</p>
<p>There are plenty of people out there who believe that different religions are “wrong.” They’ll argue that someone can choose to change religions.</p>
<p>Would you support institutionalized discrimination based on religion? Unlike race, you can very easily change your religion (at least nominally.) But would we be making a good choice as a society to expect this?</p>
<p>Ignore the fact that the US Constitution says something about religion, if only for a moment.</p>
<p>"“if as the medical community has agreed, that alcoholism is a disease- does an alcoholic really have a choice not to drink if they haven’t been treated for their disease?”</p>
<p>I think convincing the alcoholic he is responsible for his behaviour and does have a choice not to drink is actually part of the standard cure. See the 12 Step Program."</p>
<p>Same is true for chronic hypertension, pre-diabetes, and diabetes, and a host of other chronic diseases. The fact that one can choose to manage it does not in and of itself make it any less a disease.</p>
<p>*“if as the medical community has agreed, that alcoholism is a disease- does an alcoholic really have a choice not to drink if they haven’t been treated for their disease?”</p>
<p>I think convincing the alcoholic he is responsible for his behaviour and does have a choice not to drink is actually part of the standard cure. See the 12 Step Program.</p>
<p>But you don’t really want argue that homosexuality is a disease do you? I mean that would be to concede there WAS something wrong with homosexuality and that is exactly what you want to put me in rehab for I think.*</p>
<p>no I wasn’t arguing that sexual orientation was a disease
I was illustrating that in the * case* of diseases like alcoholism and manic depression, that there is not a choice involved- if left untreated- however- if treated- the individual can lead a healthy life</p>
<p>In the case of sexual orientation that is outside the majority- if it only involves consenting adults, then it is a private matter. If the individual feels that their orientation should be changed, as with those in fundamentalist religons, it is possible that with intense therapy they can supress behavior- but that will not change their orientation only how their external behavior is exhibited.
I also believe that while all healthy adults fall somewhere on the spectrum between complete heterosexual orientation and complete homosexual orientation, that to force a change into something different is damaging and can result in very unhealthy behavior, as we saw recently in Co springs.</p>
<p>Actually CGM I know quite a few Gay people, some I work with, some I work for and some have worked for me. Some are “married” and some “divorced”, some single, and one or two are in the closet. I’d like to think most of them are my friends. But I also know alcoholics and gamblers and people with sexual addiction. I like most of them too, but I don’t delude myself that they don’t have a problem that needs fixing.</p>
<p>“Would you support institutionalized discrimination based on religion?”</p>
<p>That would depend on the religion and its teachings. I am not too keen on the Christian Identity movement for instance. Certain Satan worshipping cults and any religion that practices human sacrifice such as the Axtec religion or Infanticide like the Punic cults of Carthage also would cause me to have problems. How about you?</p>
<p>“Same is true for chronic hypertension, pre-diabetes, and diabetes, and a host of other chronic diseases. The fact that one can choose to manage it does not in and of itself make it any less a disease.”</p>
<p>And oddly mini we don’t usually debate whether people with diseases should get treatment and manage them. Is that what you think homosexuals should do - get treatment for and manage their disease?</p>
<p>BTW I am not arguing for legal santions on homsexuals or breaking bedroom doors down in search of unnatural sex practices. In a free society consenting adults ought to be pretty much left alone unless their actions pose a danger to themselves or others. </p>
<p>But just as people who are opposed to the practice of homosexuality have no right not to be called ignorant bigots the homosexual community has no inherent right to never expect to hear the word ■■■■■■ bandied about. I think that brings us back to where this thread started.</p>
<p>wonder what your “friends” would say if they knew you equate them with alcoholcs and child molesters…</p>
<p>higherlead,</p>
<p>You’re ignoring the point.</p>
<p>How about telling Jews that they can’t get married because their ceremonies are different from Christians? Or telling Muslims that they can’t hold public offices? Telling Hindus that they have to swear themselves in on a Bible?</p>
<p>I realize the slippery slope here, but I’m making a point. Why shouldn’t everyone just convert to one religion?</p>
<p>
I don’t know if anyone is arguing that, HL. I can only speak for myself, but I personally do not automatically call people opposed to the practice of homosexuality bigots or ignorant. I do judge their actions. I have some very close friends who are ardently opposed to homosexuality and/or homosexual acts, all for religious reasons. Keep in mind that I’m a lesbian, but nonetheless we somehow make the relationship work and are mutually respectful. I know other people with the same viewpoints who are irrationally hateful, antagonistic, and ignorant: those people are the bigots. I think that most rational supporters of gay rights do recognize this difference. </p>
<p>I also do not think that most rational homosexuals would expect protection against personal opinion; most, however, do expect protection in the law. In many places it is perfectly legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Many of these laws that encounter opposition do so from the religious right. That action is taking personal opinion and trying to make it public, and it is something with which many socially liberal people have a problem. </p>
<p>I don’t think anyone is saying that Coulter did not have the right to use the word “■■■■■■.” That would be ridiculous. Words are powerful, and I believe that all of them have their place and that none should be expressly disallowed (whether legally or by social norms). The discussion earlier in this thread is about the use of such an offensive word by a public figure such as Coulter in a public address and how that reflects on her and the Party that she should be trying to represent.</p>
<p>“And oddly mini we don’t usually debate whether people with diseases should get treatment and manage them. Is that what you think homosexuals should do - get treatment for and manage their disease?”</p>
<p>I go with the scientists and the anthropologists - it ain’t a disease. And, in the vast majority of cultures, homosexuals have played a pivotal role in the survival of the species. </p>
<p>As for religion, we know what Jesus had to say about family. He seems to have been much more condemnatory of bankers - now that IS a disease.</p>
<p>In response to – The law protects you against discrimination in employment and in public accomodation and a few other things.
Corranged wrote – Uh, no… This law doesn’t exist for homosexuality, as EK4 stated.</p>
<p>But, in fact, there are numerous states – including my own, Maine – where these laws exist. After the state legislature passed a law adding sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination law (and the Governor signed the law), a referendum by the Christian Civic League sought to get repeal it. But the people of Maine voted to keep the anti-discrimination law by (about) 55-45%.</p>
<p>Momfromme, my last post: “In many places it is perfectly legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.” Some places institute their own laws and rules, but there is no federal mandate.</p>
<p>But, in fact, there are numerous states – including my own, Maine – where these laws exist.</p>
<p>This is correct
FOr example our state passed recent legislation to make discrimination in housing, employment or lending to gays/lesbians illegal- expanding the state Civil rights act protecting from discrimination based on race,religion, gender and disabilities.
A Republican from my former hometown, who previously had voted against the bill, reversed his stance, turning the tide to pass the vote.</p>
<p>from post 218
Currently, while some states have laws protecting gays against discrimination in jobs or housing, federal law does not.
I expect as we expand civil rights to include sexual orientation as well as race/religion, we will see that changed</p>