File this under: it’s about damned time. Here’s what the press release from Equality California said:
The California Assembly today [Monday] passed an Equality California-sponsored bill (AB2199) that would repeal a particularly offensive section of the California Welfare and Institutions code, which instructs the State Department of Mental Health to conduct research into the “causes and cures of homosexuality.” The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), passed with bipartisan support and a unanimous vote.
“Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice any more than one’s height, and neither can be changed,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California. “We are thrilled with the passage of this vital bill, as all Californians regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, deserve to be treated equally and with dignity and respect.”
The code implies that being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is harmful and that LGBT individuals can and should be cured, in direct contradiction with an enormous body of research that demonstrates otherwise.
“It’s discriminatory, it’s insulting and it has to go,” Lowenthal said. “Sixty years is more than long enough
Actually 60 years as way too long, but this reparative bill is a very good thing
I think that this topic is a test by Celeste to see if we can discuss the topic calmly and rationally.
“Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice any more than one’s height…
That’s a politically-based conclusion rather than scientifically based. I wouldn’t have a problem with such language in bills if it were actually proven. It wasn’t all that long ago in our history that psychiatrists considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder, and that only changed after political pressure.
I’d like to read unbiased scientific studies on this, and I mean truly unbiased where the evidence isn’t rigged to come to the conclusion desired. If it turns out that homosexuality can be “cured” or whatever word you choose, wouldn’t it be a disservice to gays if that study wasn’t pursued? Of couse, I wouldn’t hold my breath for a government grant on that, and I wouldn’t trust any study performed by or on behalf of the government.
One article said, “activists often attempt to blur the distinction between having a desire and choosing to act on it.” That’s like alcoholism. Do you help someone by explaining or excusing it or helping them to not act on their urges? Of couse, others disagree with that.
When I researched the subject on Google Scholar, I couldn’t readily tell what studies to accept, and they don’t all agree, despite the California legislature being so sure.
So, while the California legislature did what it believed to be compassionate and politically correct, was it actually the right thing to do for those whom it was trying to defend? How can they or you be sure?
Woody, perhaps you’ll take my word for it. Over a 40 year career I’ve often studied brain formation and its impact on homosexual behavior. I’m absolutely convinced that in-utero influences alter structure. I’ve had two brother’s in law (one from my first wife, one from my second) who were Homosexual. The first, is deceased but I studied him from the age of 9 when I first met him and before he had developed any sexual orientation. He was decidedly homosexual with all the pointers you could want. As he grew into manhood, he appeared to be as masculine as any heterosexual male you’ve ever seen in your life, but his orientation was equally decidedly homosexual. Here and here and here are some scholarly studies which are no more biased than the man in the moon (feel free to ignore the sources). Lastly, exclusive homosexual behavior has been identified in almost all mammalian and avian species. These animals can hardly be termed able to make homosexual/heterosexual choices.
G.M., the acceptance of homosexuality has been a political movement rather than one advanced by science, and it went from wanting acceptance to one of wanting special rights and protections not provided by the Constitution (hate crimes, of all things!?).
I find some homosexual demands to be morally wrong, such as adoption of a child by two dads, or stupid, like gays on Navy submarines.
“Advances” were forced by boycotts, politics of personal destruction (Anita Bryant), attacks on organizations like the scouts (who are now really paying a price for having a gay scoutmaster), and Democratic bloc voting – not undisputed scientific evidence, which could have won the day.
And, those activist efforts were as result of conscious decisions by the participants rather than being genetically based. Their destructive approaches indicate a mental disorder to me.
So, I guess, evaluation of homosexuality should be divided into two areas — biological and political, the latter of which is all that is typically allowed to be discussed in a politically-correct climate, to the detriment of the former.
I checked out the articles that you referenced, and I respect your opinion. But, unlike Tommy Boy, who said, “I can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking my head up a bull’s ass, but I’d rather take a butcher’s word for it,” I would like to research it more but while keeping my head out of anyone’s a**.
And, if liberals (NOT ALL OF THEM) consider conservatives to be mental cases, someone can make a case that aberrant sexual behavior fits in that category, too.
I suspect that I’m far from alone in my thoughts on this, so maybe the “offensive’ language being deleted isn’t really offensive to the overwhelming number of informed thinkers, but just a claim to make everyone shut up and accept what happens.
If one is homosexual by nature or nurture is beside the point- they should have the same rights as heterosexuals have, as with all human beings- period.
Name one right that a homosexual doesn’t have that others do…and, don’t say marry, because to do so a you intend is to redefine marriage.
Also, just because something may be genetic doesn’t make it normal.
There may be psychopaths or sex offenders who are born that way. There are children born with Downs Syndrome. It doesn’t matter how one became what. What’s important is whether or not laws were intended to offer them certain liberties or privileges that apply to others without disorders.
Did Woody just come out as being against handicapped parking?
You’re right Woody it’s not about marriage- it’s about equal rights. If marriage has to be, using your terms, redefined, to give a class of people their full rights given to them by God and Country, then so be it.
And to think that a few decades ago homosexuals just wanted to be accepted and left alone. Today, it’s all about preferences.
Alex, if a homosexual wants a spouse, then he can marry someone of the opposite sex. If he wants a partner who is not a woman, call it a civil union.
Gays shouldn’t have any more claim to marry than short, white guys have to play in the NBA.
– – –
Jim, are you suggesting that gays are going to want special parking places now, as being the closest to Pier 1 or wherever gays shop?
– – –
(I bet this would get me banned if it were next week.)
I’ve said before and haven’t heard any logical reason to think I’m wrong with my take that gay couples, in a state sanctioned relationship, should be afforded every single legal right a married couple has. I just don’t believe it should be called a “marriage”.
Rights to a “word” are not guaranteed under the constitution and at some point a stand for tradition has to be made. My stand isn’t based on a dislkie for gays, and if no harm comes from denying that one word to describe a ceremony than where’s the real damage? Hurt feelings, oh well I wasn’t raised thinking life wouldn’t have it’s up and downs and we’re all subject to them.
For a guy who’s been in law enforcement most of his adult life I have a lot of gay friends. I’m pretty convinced that none of them had any choice in who they were attracted to. That being said I don’t belief “all” people who live the gay life were born that way and know some who still are attracted to and go out with the opposite sex.
Bottom line, gay couples having the same rights as “married” couples, while living in the same type of committed relationship is a no brainer, calling it a “marriage” will never sit right with me.