ArchivedOk. Hoping to educate through reasonOh. Gotcha. Well that may be, but it's obvious it just slipped into the "disorder" stage straight from being a terrible thing. In order to justify it being there in the first place, they would have to bring forth evidence showing it's justicfication for being considered a disease. Have you ever seen it? I don't know....this sounds pretty near identical to what the Aids dissidents claim against the medical establishment and their conspiracy to cover up other points of view when they try to get published. I actually sided with them way back in an argument, and got my ass handed to me by knowledgeable scientists and people who work in the medical field. The problem with such a thing is that if you aren't truly IN the field, then you probably don't have a comprehensive enough knowledge to completely understand what you are debating. Since the vast majority agree with the party line, and the consensus of major medical organizations seem to be in agreement with each other, I would tend to believe the majority is correct. I'll still try to debate, but I recognize that I may not fully understand things and may end up being wrong on some points. But we ARE talking about Science here, and these organizations do not have to believe in any kind of dogma regarding homosexuality at all. So they have every reason to be objective about it. Certainly more than organizations with the extra variable of chrisitanity involved in it and all that it entails..... Yes I did know all of that actually. What precisely were you trying to rebut? I never said anything this would refute..unless you misunderstood me. That's a SPECIFIC type of extremist activism. I was referring to the more moderate routes taken. But the change was STILL justified because the evidence for keeping it there was lacking. Do you have it? By all means list it. Unfortunately it happens to Christians too when they get tarred with the fundamentalist brush. It's not fair on EITHER side, but it's all too typical. Ahh.....well I conditionally agree. Most of the time when a subject is SO taboo, it does take an in your face approach to get it started. Hence Stonewall. Ignoring your pious assumption you could teach me "real history", I'm well aware of the argument you would attempt to put forward. Heard it, bought the t-shirt and sold it in a yard sale. It doesn't matter that what you are saying is ALSO true, it was still motivated by Christianity and the desire to convert as the convenient excuse. So even if they only used it as a justification to further their ends, (hmmmm, sounds a bit like Bush to me...), they still did it in the name of Christian activism. Are you denying that they denounced him as a heretic because he said the world revolved around the sun? Do you not recall the very recent public apology from the current papal administration for this very topic? Why do you keep dodging my actual points Aineo? In any case, I went into complete detail on the other thread. Oh come ON. It's activism in the name of Christianity. It'd be no different than someone picketing for the right to put up a copy of the APA's stance on homosexuality in a public office space. That would be called gay activism in two seconds flat. And the ten commandments are NOT the foundation of the States legal system. While the Ten Commandments might have been important in the development of American culture and society, they played a minimal role at best in the legal and philosophical foundation of that country. Even the Christian framers did not believe religion had a place in the function of the state, past guiding the men who would run it. This shouldn't be surprising, considering the religious violence of the Thirty Years' War and the Purian excesses of the English Civil War and Cromwell's republic were as fresh in their minds as the American Civil War is to ours (probably more so, since the Framers had a much better idea of the importance of history than we typically do today). America's law is Anglo-Saxon common law grafted on top of Roman legal philosophy, and their government is the product of the Enlightenment, with some practical ideas borrowed from the Iroquois. The Ten Commandments--the Bible itself--sat on the sidelines while the Framers tried to craft a nation that wouldn't repeat Europe's mistakes. Where are they going to go then? The Church? That's what the courts are FOR, to deal with issues regarding rights and fairness. Whether people like it or not are irrelevant. They didn't like integration in the south either, but they were forced to by LAW, and now it's far less of an "acceptance" issue except to hardcord bigots. The problem with America is that there are still far too many fundamentalists. Thankfully Canada has tended to keep the Church and it's unprovable concepts where they belong. In the church. True, it's not perfect. Sometimes it backfires. Although the arguments about bathhouses are not solely based on promiscuity. Especially at that time, they were essential for a safe meeting place for homosexuals not out of the closet. So it was an issue involving more than simply wanting a warm place to play around. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame