Sneaking a lesbian onto the Supreme Court

[RLENT]

Keep in mind that the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a mental disorder until it was removed from that classification in 1973.

For those which are unfamiliar with the process of how so-called "mental illness" is actually "discovered", defined, and adjudicated in the field of psychiatry, and included in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - the "bible" of psychiatry), the above decision (to reclassify) was an entirely political decision ..... which is entirely appropriate I suppose, since, by and large, psychiatry is largely a political subject, and not a scientific, or even a medical, one.

Members of the APA (American Psychiatric Association) get together regularly and vote on what does, and does not, constitute mental illness - and consequently what should be included in the DSM.

As such, what constitutes so-called mental illness is largely a matter of opinion, and not empirical scientific evidence.

This is pretty much entirely unlike anything else in the rest of the medical profession, which is mostly based on scientific methods and principals, and usually involves discovery and observation of some physical thing (a bacteria, virus, physical condition, etc)

When was the last time you heard of a group of normal medical doctors getting together and voting on whether a bacteria or virus was "real" and did indeed exist, or was the cause of a illness or disease ?

Or vote on some other physical condition, such as diabetes, which has clearly observable physical phenomena ?

These are things which are actually subject to the scientific method and experimental proofs.

Over the years, I've come to believe that homosexuality is a form of mental illness brought on by a genetic abnormality.

I view it slightly differently:

Homosexuality is a matter of confusion

Further, I believe it is a spiritual matter, and not a physical (medical or genetic) one.

[RLENT]

One further point that I wanted to mention, which should be somewhat evident, but wasn't clearly stated:

If the above explanation with regard to sexual perversion seems reasonable and logical to one, there is something else that follows as an extension of it .....

But first, I want to address the matter the words pervert (a verb, as in "to pervert") and perversion a little further.

Unfortunately, due to their association with matters of a sexual nature, these words have acquired a lot of baggage as a consequence of various ethical, moral, or religious beliefs or positions that people hold, and perhaps conduct they have engaged in (or not)

Indeed, the use of both words today, outside of a sexual context, is fairly rare - which is somewhat of an odd thing - because the words themselves express a concept which isn't necessarily exclusively sexual.

That this is so (acquisition of baggage), is, perhaps, a testament to the degree which the subject of sex engenders a large amount of emotion and "think" (some of it sane, some of it much less so) for many. For most, particularly in the US, sex itself is a fairly taboo subject - something one doesn't generally discuss trivially in polite company - this is because of it's highly personal and intimate nature, and other social factors.

At any rate ....... the words pervert and perversion at their basic, imply things which the definitions I cited above illustrate (distortion, alteration, misuse, etc.)

Since we are talking about the selection of a Supreme Court Justice (or any judge for that matter), the issues of fidelity and adherence to the law as written and intended, the Framer's original intent and strict construction with regard to the Constitution, and the like are indeed very relevant ..... because the inclination and resulting conduct on the part of any nominee with regard to these things potentially affects the rights and liberties of many.

Any individual's inclination, propensity, and proclivity to adhere to such things without interpreting incorrectly, misconstruing, distorting, or altering them, is a bonafide and entirely valid issue for discussion.

And I would submit that someone who is inclined to pervert things in one area of Life, might well be prone to do it in another (although that isn't necessarily a given, by any means)

Of course, if one subscribes to the view that a person's sexual orientation is a genetic matter (a premise that is by no means scientifically proven), and that such conduct is not a matter of choosing of one's own volition and free will (regardless of whether there might be certain factors that do indeed incline a person in a certain direction), then the premise immediately above will not have much merit, or carry much weight, for you personally.

Understand, that the above sentiments are not targeted specifically at homosexuals (or bisexuals .... or whatever sexuals ....) to the exclusion of heterosexuals - I would just as easily have similar concerns about a heterosexual who was inclined to some other form of sexual perversion (and there are, most assuredly, many)

[Humble2drive]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the only men that are sexually attracted to little boys are homosexual men.

You are wrong. This is well researched and documented. Below is one example out of many on this subject.

Your assumption on this can be dangerous thinking because parents could easily let down their guard when letting heterosexual males have exclusive close contact with young boys.

"Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons.
Groth AN, Birnbaum HJ.
Abstract
A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

Over the years, I've come to believe that homosexuality is a form of mental illness brought on by a genetic abmormality. Keep in mind that the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a mental disorder until it was removed from that classification in 1973. . .

You still believe it to be a mental illness; eventhough, the APA removed it from that classification back in the 70s?

For a little light reading, here's an interesting article on homosexuality and its relation to mental disorders:

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems

Yes, that is very light reading, considering you provided a link to NARTH.
NARTH is a group of therapists who's very existence is depedent on the conclusion that homosexuality is a mental disorder that needs treatment.
They are "An international referral service of licensed therapists offering sexual reorientation treatment in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia"
Hardly an un biased group.

Also, the mental disorders mentioned in the article are more the result of being gay than the cause.

Current research regarding biological factors in the fields of epigenetics and neurobiology are very compelling and make scientific sense. We can agree on the genetic aspect but the mental disorder angle is just soo 70s.

[aristotle]

You are wrong. This is well researched and documented. Below is one example out of many on this subject.

Your assumption on this can be dangerous thinking because parents could easily let down their guard when letting heterosexual males have exclusive close contact with young boys.

[I]"Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons.
Groth AN, Birnbaum HJ.
Abstract
A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."






You still believe it to be a mental illness; eventhough, the APA removed it from that classification back in the 70s?




Yes, that is very light reading, considering you provided a link to NARTH.
NARTH is a group of therapists who's very existence is depedent on the conclusion that homosexuality is a mental disorder that needs treatment.
They are "An international referral service of licensed therapists offering sexual reorientation treatment in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia"
Hardly an un biased group.

Also, the mental disorders mentioned in the article are more the result of being gay than the cause.

Current research regarding biological factors in the fields of epigenetics and neurobiology are very compelling and make scientific sense. We can agree on the genetic aspect but the mental disorder angle is just soo 70s.

In the 1970's we called sexual deviancy by its real name: sexual deviancy. Unnatural acts remain unnatural despite revisionist labeling efforts.

[Humble2drive]

In the 1970's we called sexual deviancy by its real name: sexual deviancy. Unnatural acts remain unnatural despite revisionist labeling efforts.

Homosexuality was and still is NOT the norm; therefore, sexual deviancy remains a correct term regardless of the reason for a person's sexual orientation.
Revisionism cannot change that label; however, political correctness can make it an unpopular term.

[JohnnyMoe]

Well i am not expert on the subject but being lesbian doesnt have anything to do with ability to work as judge.Better have lesbian as judge than homophobic relligion follower.It said in contitution Under God.LOL but i beleive we can choose which god and relligion we choose to follow.Every major religion claims there is god but U.S constitution doesnt specify which one .So if you jew,christian, catholic,hindu ETC you could assume that your relligion is represented equally in U.S constitution.

[davekc]

As with any potential nominee, I would be more interested in their previous rulings rather than what orientations they do or don't have.

[letzrockexpress]

Look, if you got a toe-tapper in the stall next to yourself, just run.

Yeah, I'm with ya on that one....

[letzrockexpress]

So - would the smooth, soft bodies of pre pubescent girls do it for 'em as well ?

Clearly, it's not just about smooth, soft pre pubescent bodies .... but also ones that are male .....


Correct - they are homosexual in the specific sense, in that they prefer young males, as opposed to older males.

The effort to focus on age (on the part of those advancing the homosexual agenda generally, not NAMBLA types) is a red herring .... and is an attempt to divert attention, and sanction and gain approval for perverted behavior (their own) - by contrasting it with a similar, but somewhat different, type of behavior which is clearly indefensible generally, as far as society is concerned.

It's sort of a case of a "Look, what I'm doing is not as bad as _____" justification .... by minimizing the conduct against something considered to be far worse.


And the point of this statement is what, exactly ?

That the individual is still a homosexual in a specific sense, and still has a specific desire or compulsion for having sex with young males ?

Ok, you make a good point about a NAMBLA member being a specific kind of homosexual, however, I find it very hard to believe that if it were known by the appointer that an appointee was a member of such an organization, they would in fact be appointed...

[pelicn]

As with any potential nominee, I would be more interested in their previous rulings rather than what orientations they do or don't have.

Thank you...a voice of reason.

[greg334]

I actually don't care,

I want to know what being gay is defined as because in order to be someone who claims that they can't help it, there has to be something about not having a choice and I don't see it.

Is it a lifestyle or sexual orientation?

Is it defined by the individual or a group?

Why can someone be gay one day and not the other?

[AMonger]

Well i am not expert on the subject but being lesbian doesnt have anything to do with ability to work as judge.

Somebody above made a good point in regard to this, namely, that homosexuality is, whether you're pro- or con, a deviant preference. And perhaps that someone who is a deviant might have rather heterodox views on the Constitution and rule of law. So that's the potential problem there.

Better have lesbian as judge than homophobic relligion follower.

Well, that's an opinion, and a poor one, though you're certainly entitled to it. Further, to set the record straight, there's no such things as "homophobia." Homophobia is an invented term, a neologism, used to convey the idea that disapproval of homosexuality is abnormal, or to go further and equate it with white supremacy. Homophobia, however, isn't a clinical or psychiatric term the way agoraphobia or any other phobia is. It's merely a means to an end, that end being making homosexuality normal and acceptable in the public's eye. Toward that end, they've been very successful. When Jesse Helms opposed one of Clinton's lesbian nominees, forget which one, he gave his reason as, "She's a d*** lesbian!" Most of society kind of shook their collective heads and thought of him as being rather backward.

In fact, homosexuality cannot be equated with something inborn like skin color. Unlike skin color, homosexuality is not a matter of who you are or how you are born; it's a matter of what you DO. Regardless of whatever mixed up feelings you may have, that doesn't make you a homosexual (when I say "you," I mean in general, not any post-er in particular). If you're a person who has sexual relations with someone of your own sex, that makes you a homosexual. Likewise, you may be tempted to rob a bank. Until you act on that temptation, you're not a bank robber. If you do, THEN you're a bank robber. Same thing.

Wouldn't there be general agreement, if not unanimous, that Obama isn't a supporter of the Constitution, the way it's written and the way the framers intended? He has said as much in just so many words. Mightn't that be why he wants someone prone to deviant views on the court?

It said in contitution Under God.LOL but i beleive we can choose which god and relligion we choose to follow.Every major religion claims there is god but U.S constitution doesnt specify which one .So if you jew,christian, catholic,hindu ETC you could assume that your relligion is represented equally in U.S constitution.

Yes, you could, in the "you have a right to be wrong" sense. By that, I mean, that the exercise of your religion, whatever it is or isn't, is indeed protected, as it should be, by the Constitution; that doesn't make your belief correct in the larger sense. But my freedom to worship Who and how I believe is right is intertwined with the same protection yours has, even if you worship this guy:
Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Janette]

I'm just curious as to why people keep referring to this person's
deviant views when nobody has listed any. Putting her sexual preference aside, can someone please enlighten us to some of her past rulings?

[aristotle]

Thank you...a voice of reason.

It can be equally argued this represents the voice of apathy... and apathy leads to the sorry state our nation is in. Not caring strenghtens the radical position. Apathetic citizens have much to be accountable for.

[AMonger]

I'm just curious as to why people keep referring to this person's
deviant views when nobody has listed any. Putting her sexual preference aside, can someone please enlighten us to some of her past rulings?

I'm sure when she's officially nominated, Pandora's box will open and we'll see what a collectivist and anti-Constitutionalist she is. Until then, we can only speculate based on what we see.

My cousin Johnny always wanted to go to the quarry and jump off some of the rockpiles. But then again, he also ate his toenail clippings. Maybe his opinions are too deviant to follow.