My original comment said nothing about homosexuality per se (for or against), but was a statement that the APA reclassification was influenced by non-scientific factors. I stand by that, and notice from other posts that others seem not to be seriously disputing that. If you would be interested in another version of how the APA decision came about, you can go here (I warn you in advance, though, that reading this will no doubt cause you distress).
inoohr.org.
I would define group behavior as what actions identifiable groups (not by name and address!) engage in. For example there exists a "group" that engage in promiscuous, unprotected sex. The National Center for Disease Control has specifically stated that this group is responsible for a resurgence in sexually transmitted diseases that were previously thought to be conquered (forgive my sp., but these are gonorhea and syphilis). In one of these cases, the group in question was further delineated by the Center to be homosexual. (These were articles from the Boston Globe within the last year which I no longer have).
Anyway, even forgetting about the disease consequences, I disapprove of the behavior of this group (or groups). It is as simple as that. Is that what you label as bigotry?
it seems disingenuous to say you are discriminating not against the individual but against the behavior (if that is what you are saying). "Discriminating" has multiple meanings. If someone said you were discriminating in your choice of movies, you would be pleased. However, in the sense that you are using the word it is a verb implying overt action, as in disciminating against blacks. If you have evidence that I have taken overt action to discriminate against homosexuals, or any other person or group, please produce it.
These power-laden words such as discrimination, bigotry, or prejudice, should be used judiciously and with extreme care. Hurling them around carelessly and without a shred of proof, as some do on on this thread, stifles discussion and amounts to unwarranted personal attacks.
Bigotry could be ended almost immediately in America if there was absolutely no tolerance for its public expression, in my opinion. That is a startling assertion. Who do have in mind as the arbiter of what constitutes an expression of bigotry? Do you favor removing "freedom of expression" from our Constitutional rights? Would you support book-burnings to implement your idea? Do you think members of the religious-right should be imprisoned for their views? Are such things part of your vision of a better America? (what ever happened to your concern for civil liberties vis-a-vis the Bush administration?)
As to the APA action, I don't regard the process that led to it as scientific (thus objective), but I think they got it right. I believe the explanation of homosexuality is multifaceted, primarily genetic but in some cases partly psychological (we know that gays have become straight and vice-versa). I don't believe homosexuality is a mental disorder as such, but I do believe that excessive fixation on sexuality as the defining criterion of one's identity reveals a troubled personality.
I had no intention of provoking a discussion of homosexuality when I offered my example. I well know that the topic of sexual preference cannot be dicussed here in a frank and open manner. That seems to be becoming the case in our society at large. I think that is unfortunate, as sexual preferences are not confined to the hetero- and homo- dichotomy alone. Other preferences (or compulsions) exist and some are destructive to our society, such as the various forms of pedophilia. It would be in the interest of society to learn more about the origins, genetic or otherwise, of sexuality through unfettered scientific investigation. But this is not possible if the homosexual variation of sexual preference must be excluded because to include it might offend people. |
