Coralville,Society is not trying to cure homosexuality because homosexuality is not considered a disease by the medical community. Normality has nothing to do with it, otherwise we would be trying to "cure" left-handers, libertarians, vegans, and Cub fans.Where one classifies homosexuality is a big portion of my point. It is far too political an issue to make the assertation that you make. It classified the way it is because of strong political pressure and not objective medical or scientific fact. NOBODY knows its source, but many people believe it has a genetic FACTOR.For homosexuality to be considered a disease, it would have to be demonstrated that it harms the individual or prevents the individual from functioning happily in society. By this standard, eliminate the negative effects of homophobic prejudice, and there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality itself is a disease state.This too is not a scientific fact but is more philosophical and political. There are "happy" alcoholics and "happy" addicted gamblers and people who are "happily" addicted to pornography. That does not mean that there aren't significant issues that are a result of a person's chosen lifestyle that are detrimentally affecting a person's life. Again, a highly political issue. Facts are not as important as agenda in this environemnt, so quoting reswearch and "expert" opinion is not going to illuminate much of anything on this issue. Sorry, I don't buy this slippery slope argument. I am sorry as well. Slippery slope is too charged a term, but the reality is still there. Things like this are contimuums and not discrete issues. Rationales for one things are leveraged to rationalize other things. The fear of the pro-abortionist is that bans on partial birth abortions are the beginning of restrictions on other types, just as the pro-lifers were afraid that allowing abortions for some types would lead to partial birth abortions. The same thing can be said for gun control. Lobbying and information campaigns are already in play buy groups like MBLA to further their agenda. It is already becoming more prevalent in Scandanavian Europe which has been more open to homosexuality than the US. There are psycologists there that have already begun to say that childhood sex is normal and beneficial and some even go so far as to suggest taht it is wrong to deny children sexual fulfillment. So, as soon as you legally or otherwise classify something one way or another, you automatically get the group who is one or two steps down the line planning and working their way to move the bar. THe civil union issue is already spillingover into the group realtionship realm. Everything is connected, noting is isolated. With the right PR, even murder becomes socially acceptable.Let me first note the obvious, we are not a theocracy so the basis of our laws must be secular. The best rationale for restricting the freedoms of an individual is to protect individuals or society from harm. We have laws against pedophilia because a good case can be made that pedophilia is frequently coercive and can potentially cause great harm to individuals we believe are incapable of making a mature and reasoned choice.Until such time as mores cahnge in society and we begin to "accept" and "validate" someone else's lifestyle as they have in Europe.I am not arguing this from a theological point of view, by the way. Nowhere have I quoted scripture to support my claims that homosexuality is sinful or wrong. I do believe that the Bible is correct, but my belief is not the basis for my evaluation of the social/political landscape.Therefore, to restrict homosexual behavior one must first demonstrate that such behavior causes harm to the consenting adults involved or to society in general. Make a convincing case and I'll agree that laws should be passed. Otherwise I think homosexuals should be allowed to live as they were "born" (as you put it) just as heterosexuals. I'm not advocating passing laws to make it illegal or anything else. I am saying that when you pass laws declaring it normal, you run risks of unintended consequences. I am saying that we are in no position to make such claims either way and that it is foolish to do so. I also do not advocate "preventing" homosexuals from living as they choose within the legal framework we all do. There is no basis to "legalize" homosexuality any more than there is cause to "legalize" blindness, alcoholism, left handedness or anything else. I am not anit-homosexual. I have worked with a number of homosexuals throughout my life, I have a relative who is homosexual, and I hold no animosity toward them. I don't preach fire and brimstone at them. I have counted some as friends and was never "threatened" in their presence.Ron
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra