I think what we are lacking here is perspective. It’s awfully easy to say someone is "persecuted" when there no perspective.
I tell ya what, let’s compare gays with blacks folks before the civil-rights movement. A fair comparison considering gays are always comparing their struggle to that of the civil rights movement, right?
Let’s see…
Are gays forced to the back of the bus?
No.
Are gays forced to systematically stay out of “straight-only” places of business?
No.
Are gays forced to live only in certain areas?
No.
Do gays, as a group, have a poorer standard of living than straights?
No.
Are gays forced to be educated in "separate but equal" schools?
No.
Are gays forced to drink from the “gay water fountains”?
No.
If a gay goes into a store and tries on some clothes, would he be forced to buy those clothes if he decided he didn’t want them?
No.
Ummm…I’m runnin’ outta ideas.
So A is just not as bad as B. The reality is that gays are denied various political freedoms that other people have, and they are subject to constant physical and psychological tormenting. That they aren't as extensive as those of 1950s era blacks is immaterial. All over the world, gays are beaten, killed, mocked, tormented, and denied fundamental freedoms. It wasn't too long ago where it was a "sport" among NeoConfederate rednecks to lynch gays, just like blacks. That society has institutionally improved doesn't mean we don't have systematic attacks on gays by large, vocal interest groups.
Let's replace "persecution" with "victimized." That's better.
\And he got the definition from an on-line medical dictionary. He did his “due-diligence”. If you don’t like the definition he pulled off the net--get another one. You’re beating him up right now because you can and it in no way furthers intelligent discussion on this important issue.
A definition which uses a term that isn't even academically appropriate in the field. i already addressed the definition's content, as well. That it's in a dictionary doesn't mean anything other than it's used, not that it's good. The dictionary also defines Atheism as "immorality." Doesn't mean it's accurate.
Any definition that uses such a subjective standard "it's an illness if it's not normal" is practically worthless.
“THe prolem with the definition proposed in the OP is that it's uselessly vague and subective, leading to ridiculous results of flip flopping based on external values, not on anything intrinsic to the patient.” - Technocratic
So you can’t offer up an alternative to build consensus or further along an intelligent dialogue?
There have been: he rejects them in favour of the "if it's abnormal, it's a mental disorder." I cited the current research on the issue and the modern concept of mental illness, which homosexuality's characteristics do not match up to.
It’s possible. To the very best of my knowledge, no one knows what the cause is and science does seem to be leading in the direction that it is a multiple number of factors that cause it.
I agree that the science of sexuality is somewhat nebulous. Current research from the 1990s-2002 has at least identified strong correlations between biology and sexual orientation, although more study needs to be done for causation.Primarily, both in human and non-human animals, there is a correlation between brain structures of those with different orientations. Homosexual brains often have structures that resemble female or male counterparts (depending on the gender). I doubt this is pure coincidence. But for him to act as if it's purely some cultural phenomenon is absurd. No one needs to tell you to be attracted to males or females.
I also think it's a complex, multivariable issue. But he doesn't.
Let’s see…approximately 2% of the population is gay which puts them in a risk group where they will have higher dependency on drugs and alcohol and “are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence” and this is the same as someone like…me…who also believes I “have personal relationship with an invisible, imaginary friend who lives in the clouds”.
Well first, I never said either were the same as each other. Clearly, religious people would be closer to a delusional disorder, if anything. Talking to imaginary beings, and basing your life goals and behaviour upon those irrational fantasies is...well...delusional. The fact that a lot of people suffer from this mind virus doesn't make it any less delusional.
Second, it's true homosexuals are at a higher risk for all of the above: the problem is that's correlational, not causal. The research cited actually indicates it is not being gay itself that causes it. Higher rates of suicide, depression, alcoholism etc all can stem from the social pressures of constantly being social outcasts. We see high rates of alcholism, suicide, and other mental illnesses among Native Americans, too. Doesn't mean being Indian is a mental disorder.
I really fail to see how you connect the two…
Easy. Religious people operate persistantly, often immune to change, under a completely false, almost paranoid-delusional worldview. Similar to schizophrenia.
Uh-huh. Like I said…going down-hill very quickly.
Only because people compartmentalize religious delusion. It's a sacred cow to respect faith. People will tolerate all manner of nonsense, so long as you can slap "religion" on the front of it. This often leads to behaviour which is not only detrimental to themselves, but to others. Take Jones town, the heaven's gate cult, etc. Christianity is just a very popular death cult that ritualizes suffering, self-loathing, etc. Quite depressing.
Are you referring to the hypothalamus studies?
Among other things, those suggest a possible biological corrolation. Both links indicate it, but there are other issues, such as prenatal hormonal influences. I again am not saying it's purely "genetic" determination or only biological, but that biology seems to have a link to sexual attraction. It's also quite intuitive: no one actually teaches anyone explicitly to be attracted to genders. No one had to teach jimmy girls are hot. He came to his own conclusion after puberty.
1. A large chunk of our Judeo-Christian society is not homophobic. I’ve yet to see someone running away screaming like a little girl or peeing all over themselves when a gay person walks into the room.
Good thing that's not the definition of homophobia. It's somewhat of a misnomer.
2. Yes, gays are routinely linked with “sin, evil, disgusting, unnatural and immoral” tags…just like every other sinner, including me.
Except, other "sinners" are rarely singled out with the ire and frothing roid-rage that gays are. When is the last time you heard of someone guilty of gluttony being strung up from a tree? OH wait, almost never. But I hav e seen gays being lynched and whole groups devoted to attacking gays for being evil abominations unto the lord. I rarely, if ever, see mass protests by churches with signs like those of the Westboro Baptists for issues unrelated to homosexuality.
Some sins, as you said, are "super sins" and get all the attention. It is almost an obsessive-compulsive drive among the more conservative and fundamentalist Christians.
To your point, however, I will submit that there are some Christians that treat homosexuality like some kind of “super-sin”. However, this is not a view supported by the Scriptures and I take issue with it.
How so? Does not the bible say that homosexuality is an abomination? It says all kinds of nasty things about it. I thnk you can cherry pick almost anything from religious texts in order to satisfy a preconceived notion. Preachermen do it all the time.
I know you’re not going to like my response here--few people do--but the truth is that gay-folks have the exact same rights to marry as I do.
Only if you fail to account for consideration of like interests. The system is superficially fair in a playground 5 year old sense. While they have technically identical rights, such as the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, that's a meaningless sophism for the concept. During the era of antimicengation laws, blacks couldn't marry whites, but then again, whites couldn't marry blacks either. Doesn't mean the rights of people who couldn't intermarry wouldn't being stomped all over. The law fails to account for actual equality of consideration.
Are the physically identical in what they can do? Yea. But that misses the forest for the trees.
Well, I hang out with a lot of Christians and I can tell ya that none of us feel “oppressed”. And while I’ve never gotten “everything” I’ve ever wanted, I never had to be treated for Christian Persecution Syndrome. In fact, until now, I’ve never even heard of “Christian Persecution Syndrome”
Then clearly, you don't represent the majority of the problem. A lot of these Christians take for granted their values and believe if anyone challenges those enshrined practices, there must be a concerted effort to destroy the judeo-christian heritage or "foundation." They don't care to think whether or not their total domination of American culture is justified in the first place. They complain incessantly about "godlessness" and "immoral secularism" degrading society. We can't even say happy holidays without them launching a Fatwa aganst us. They've crafted their blue laws, their sodomy laws, their assumption of the "traditional definition of marriage," etc. They accuse biology teachers of brainwashing their kids by teaching evolution, and then demand Creationism and prayer be taught in schools. It's all ridiculous. And any deviation from their total cultural control is tantamount to a war.
Don't believe me? Just watch Pat Robertson one time and listen to the "Moral Majority" platform. They are all a bunch of whiny charlatans. If they don't get their way, which amounts to sending a continual stream of propaganda at me, I am trying to keep the Christian Man down. What a load of malarky. I am in one of the least trusted, most despised social minorties on the planet. They have no room to complain.
…I think we may have learned a lot about you. And probably more that you would have liked.[/SIZE][/FONT]
I am not hiding anything. I will be blunt: I don't like Christianity, or any other religon, for that matter. I think they are largely delusional worldviews, socially divisive, and dangerous encouragements of reality deviancy. I find it incredibly offensive how people go out of their way to tip-toe around it, when the religionists certainly do not do the same. Some here claim gays are "mentally ill" yet mysteriously keep their mouths clenched shut when it comes to the blatantly delusional behaviour of religous majorities.
