Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

Big T, that commercial is the biggest piece of garbage out there. When the superintendent of California public schools says that this has NOTHING to do with children or schools teaching "gay marriage" to children, it sorta destroys every bit of ammo that statement had.

The bottom line is that being gay should be completely acceptable, and likewise, gay marriage shouldn't be that big of a deal. The people voting for it are the ones who it would never affect and are likely raising children who will grow up to see homosexuality as icky and wrong. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it's not - the conservatives and the religious need to stop being so scared that gays and gay marriage are going to be the downfall of western civiilzation.

People have this big fear of homosexuality, and for no good reason other than they're afraid that they're kids might actually think it's okay to gay. Guess what? It is. If my son or daughter was gay, I'd much rather have my child be comfortable enough to recognize it rather than instill the thought in their head that what they're feeling is evil and wrong and that they're going to hell. I'm so tired of religion and fear governing everything that people do - all it does is breed another generation of people so scared to think for themselves.

Religion is fine if you want something to believe in. It's ridiculous if it's all you believe in. It's fucking absurd when it leads to a contrived concept of people believing that a book written thousands of years ago should be the end-all, be-all to the way we govern society.
 
[quote name='JJSP']Big T, that commercial is the biggest piece of garbage out there. When the superintendent of California public schools says that this has NOTHING to do with children or schools teaching "gay marriage" to children, it sorta destroys every bit of ammo that statement had.[/quote]

I mainly care about the first 10 seconds of the video when that a-hole Gavin Newsom is speaking... that is the single strongest motivation for my Yes on 8 vote!

The bottom line is that being gay should be completely acceptable, and likewise, gay marriage shouldn't be that big of a deal. The people voting for it are the ones who it would never affect and are likely raising children who will grow up to see homosexuality as icky and wrong. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it's not - the conservatives and the religious need to stop being so scared that gays and gay marriage are going to be the downfall of western civiilzation.

People have this big fear of homosexuality, and for no good reason other than they're afraid that they're kids might actually think it's okay to gay. Guess what? It is. If my son or daughter was gay, I'd much rather have my child be comfortable enough to recognize it rather than instill the thought in their head that what they're feeling is evil and wrong and that they're going to hell. I'm so tired of religion and fear governing everything that people do - all it does is breed another generation of people so scared to think for themselves.

Religion is fine if you want something to believe in. It's ridiculous if it's all you believe in. It's ing absurd when it leads to a contrived concept of people believing that a book written thousands of years ago should be the end-all, be-all to the way we govern society.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution. The following is not politically correct so certain people should cover their ears: it is for arbitrary reasons that we consider homosexuality to be an alternative lifestyle rather than a disease (for example, schizophrenia is another maladaptive condition, but no one goes around calling it an alternative lifestyle... well, I guess maybe it is for the homeless in Santa Monica...) ...it all goes back to the arbitrariness and vagueness that encompasses the definition of diseases in the field of psychiatry.
 
[quote name='BigT']I mainly care about the first 10 seconds of the video when that a-hole Gavin Newsom is speaking... that is the single strongest motivation for my Yes on 8 vote!

Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution. The following is not politically correct so certain people should cover their ears: it is for arbitrary reasons that we consider homosexuality to be an alternative lifestyle rather than a disease (for example, schizophrenia is another maladaptive condition, but no one goes around calling it an alternative lifestyle... well, I guess maybe it is for the homeless in Santa Monica...) ...it all goes back to the arbitrariness and vagueness that encompasses the definition of diseases in the field of psychiatry.[/QUOTE]

You are a fucking loon and your post honestly casts doubt whether you ever made it pass jr. high let alone med school.
 
[quote name='BigT']Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution. The following is not politically correct so certain people should cover their ears: it is for arbitrary reasons that we consider homosexuality to be an alternative lifestyle rather than a disease (for example, schizophrenia is another maladaptive condition, but no one goes around calling it an alternative lifestyle... well, I guess maybe it is for the homeless in Santa Monica...) ...it all goes back to the arbitrariness and vagueness that encompasses the definition of diseases in the field of psychiatry.[/QUOTE]

You are a horrible human being.
 
And you aren't a psychiatric expert, otherwise you'd know that homosexuality hasn't been in the DSM for over three decades now.

Moreover, you're merely postulating theoretically to suggest that it's evolutionarily maladaptive. It could be evolutionarily functional to slow down the rate of population increase. That's just as probable, so long as we're passing off theory as fact.
 
[quote name='BigT']Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution. The following is not politically correct so certain people should cover their ears: it is for arbitrary reasons that we consider homosexuality to be an alternative lifestyle rather than a disease (for example, schizophrenia is another maladaptive condition, but no one goes around calling it an alternative lifestyle... well, I guess maybe it is for the homeless in Santa Monica...) ...it all goes back to the arbitrariness and vagueness that encompasses the definition of diseases in the field of psychiatry.[/QUOTE]

I'd love to see some research to back this theory up.
 
[quote name='BigT']Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution. [/quote]

Ummm... are y'all sure you haven't been arguing with a troll all this time?
 
[quote name='BigT']
Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution. The following is not politically correct so certain people should cover their ears: it is for arbitrary reasons that we consider homosexuality to be an alternative lifestyle rather than a disease (for example, schizophrenia is another maladaptive condition, but no one goes around calling it an alternative lifestyle... well, I guess maybe it is for the homeless in Santa Monica...) ...it all goes back to the arbitrariness and vagueness that encompasses the definition of diseases in the field of psychiatry.[/QUOTE]
There's also a maladaptive trait called cranialrectal dysplasia. It's when your head gets lodged up your ass.

You can use all of the big words you want, but it won't change the fact that you, and everyone else who votes yes, are a bigot who thinks everyone should be held to the same moral and social standards they believe in. Of course, you can't see that because you're too busy preaching to honest and good people that being gay is WRONG.

It's not, and that's the point that Newsom was trying to make before the religious factions that back Yes On 8 took two sentences out of his speech completely out of context. Homosexuality is a part of society whether you want to admit and accept it or not. Grant them equal rights in the same way we gave them to blacks, Asians, Mexicans, and everyone else who deserved them in the first place. Stop believing that the gay community is the last social group that is fair game for conservative America to shit on and still feel alright about. Tell that to the people who are deathly afraid of a black president too.
 
[quote name='BigT']Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution. [/quote]

Don't you work in a hospital? You know that many people would be oh so very dead if it weren't for humans intervening to help other humans. Nature and evolution are not the metrics we use for determining how to treat each other.

[quote name='BigT']The following is not politically correct so certain people should cover their ears: it is for arbitrary reasons that we consider homosexuality to be an alternative lifestyle rather than a disease (for example, schizophrenia is another maladaptive condition, but no one goes around calling it an alternative lifestyle... well, I guess maybe it is for the homeless in Santa Monica...) ...it all goes back to the arbitrariness and vagueness that encompasses the definition of diseases in the field of psychiatry.[/quote]

Psychological disorders are defined by whether or not they harm the person who has them or other people around them or impede their ability to function in a normal life. Offending your traditional sensibilities doesn't really qualify.

The only thing that really differentiates a gay person from a straight person other than their attraction to the same sex is that 1) They use their genitalia differently and 2) When doing 1 they can't reproduce. That's fucking it, every other thought and behavior is determined in the same way that any straight person's is. They don't hurt anybody and they can function just fucking fine. The only thing they can't do that you or I (being straight) can do is reproduce in our preferred relationships. But if you or I fucked a dude we couldn't reproduce either, so that's actually not really different.
 
Its shit like this that makes me proud to be originally from Mass. Gay marriage has been legal there for a while and it hasn't turned into a sespool of sin. The state is still here. Its ok. Gay marriage isn't a sign of the apocolypse.

On a side note Question 2 on the mass. ballot turns possession of marijuana into just a ticketed offense!
 
This prop 8 thing is interesting though, it helps me point out the mindless fucktards in my area. If I see a "Vote yes on Prop 8" I know that they are idiot sheep.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I want some "sheep's".

At a family dinner today, a cousin of mine from California suddenly started going on about this. He went on and on about how what this is really about is Church rights.

He talked about how in Mass, the Catholic church ran into all kinds of problems with their adoptive services, since they were somehow legally obligated to then provide their services to gay couples, even though they didn't believe in it, so they had to shut it down. He said some gay couple sued them for refusing to provide their services, and won.

He then went on to say that the implications for many religious run organizations to help people will be in jeopardy, by being forced to legally recognize and participate in something they don't believe in when it comes to their social programs. Adoption and marriage counseling was the only service I can remember, although he rattled off a few others. Obviously, his concern was everyone will lose many of these social services as the churches will shut them down before recognizing married gay couples.

The only thing I had to say to him was that my idea of abolishing legal recognition of marriage and force everyone to enter a civil union would likely fix the problem for everyone.

Anyway, I only bring this up because I don't recall it being brought up yet. I hadn't heard the angle of the argument that is afraid of losing "church rights".
 
See, I can see that being a problem.
I don't think the churches should be required BECAUSE of the whole religious meaning behind a marriage. That's understandable, but the STATE should be like "Yeah thats cool ::eek:ffers license:: with no problems AT. ALL.

--

Also, the reason why homosexuality is not some kind of "CHOICE" or "DISEASE" is because we need gay people. Yes we do :)

If "Gay" never existed---think about how overpopulated the world would be?! Seriously. We need you guys to keep the population goin, however, you guys need us to keep the population from gettin crazy.
Of course I don't have some sort of way of "backing it up", but it clearly makes perfect sense IMO.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I want some "sheep's".

At a family dinner today, a cousin of mine from California suddenly started going on about this. He went on and on about how what this is really about is Church rights.

He talked about how in Mass, the Catholic church ran into all kinds of problems with their adoptive services, since they were somehow legally obligated to then provide their services to gay couples, even though they didn't believe in it, so they had to shut it down. He said some gay couple sued them for refusing to provide their services, and won.

He then went on to say that the implications for many religious run organizations to help people will be in jeopardy, by being forced to legally recognize and participate in something they don't believe in when it comes to their social programs. Adoption and marriage counseling was the only service I can remember, although he rattled off a few others. Obviously, his concern was everyone will lose many of these social services as the churches will shut them down before recognizing married gay couples.

The only thing I had to say to him was that my idea of abolishing legal recognition of marriage and force everyone to enter a civil union would likely fix the problem for everyone.

Anyway, I only bring this up because I don't recall it being brought up yet. I hadn't heard the angle of the argument that is afraid of losing "church rights".[/QUOTE]

If churches are going to elect to not allow a child to be adopted based on sexuality, then we should not permit churches to adopt. Period.

I don't have an issue with them refusing to marry only certain peoples. But they're interfering with the creation of families at this point, and dealing with children. So if they want to discriminate, they can simply not be permitted to adopt, and focus on the social services they provide that don't harm individuals or discriminate. Like Sunday School.
 
What's even worse is that they would just give up instead of letting a gay couple adopt one kid.

I'm still trying to figure out growing up in a gay household is worse than an orphanage. What happened to the Christian ideal of loving everyone?

Did they put the same onus on other social issues? Did they deny a family because they smoked or drank occasionally? I'd think that those were bigger issues than sexuality. They don't show up on an interview so they're easy to hide but can cause much more damage to a child than being raised in a gay household.
 
While I personally admit gay adoption is better than an orphanage, it needs to be understood that these church's feel that homosexuality is immoral and wrong. Now I know most of you disagree with them on that, and that's fine. But you would not ask anyone else to put a children into what they believed were immoral and wrong environments, whether you agree with their stance or not.

That's why they would just get out of the business all together. You are talking about organizations that feel homosexuality is worse than any drug addiction and worse than just about any sin except murder. There is no way they are going to go "Oh well, i guess gay parents are better than no parents". I would say that, many people would say that, but many religions never will.
 
The same argument was used when people wanted to adopt kids outside of their race. Many people thought that the kids would grow confused and would end up in jail or worse. They've proven time and time again that two loving parents of any religion or sexual preference is the ideal situation for any child regardless of age or race.

I do understand where you're coming from thrust, but the Catholic Church's stand on homosexuality is just holding kids back. Their decision to punish sinners punishes children as well.
 
Another thing the church considers immoral and wrong is divorce, but you don't see them discriminating based on if one of the parents has had a divorce before.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']While I personally admit gay adoption is better than an orphanage, it needs to be understood that these church's feel that homosexuality is immoral and wrong. Now I know most of you disagree with them on that, and that's fine. But you would not ask anyone else to put a children into what they believed were immoral and wrong environments, whether you agree with their stance or not.

That's why they would just get out of the business all together. You are talking about organizations that feel homosexuality is worse than any drug addiction and worse than just about any sin except murder. There is no way they are going to go "Oh well, i guess gay parents are better than no parents". I would say that, many people would say that, but many religions never will.[/QUOTE]

Should we let these dudes only allow adoption by white folks, then, since we're so concerned with the rights of the church?
 
BigoT makes for the most appalling physician ever.

Remind me where your residency is, so I can make sure I never go there.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And you aren't a psychiatric expert, otherwise you'd know that homosexuality hasn't been in the DSM for over three decades now.

Moreover, you're merely postulating theoretically to suggest that it's evolutionarily maladaptive. It could be evolutionarily functional to slow down the rate of population increase. That's just as probable, so long as we're passing off theory as fact.[/quote]

It is true that I am not a psychiatrist. However, throughout my training, I fully studied the DSM, have rotated through psychiatric wards, and have had discussions on various topics with psychiatrists... the truth is that the DSM was mainly intended as a research tool in which definitions could be standardized so that different studies would be comparable. Its intent was never to be used clinically as a checklist for diagnoses... but our current billing system has made this convenient. And of course I know that homosexuality is not listed in the DSM... I've made previous posts criticizing the arbitrary nature of the manual.

The theory you propose is about homosexuality reducing population growth is interesting and may be valid. However, we can say this about any disease that may be maladaptive from the individual standpoint while at the same time being adaptive from a population standpoint under the pressure of limited resources: high miscarriage rates, birth defects incompatible with life, various cancers, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy a/w sudden cardiac death, autism, schhizoprhrenia (or the other disorders in this spectrum) that lead to amotivation and a much reduced chance of reproduction. We treat (or at least try to treat) all these disorders. Thus your example does not exempt homosexuality from being considered a disease state.

Why is it so wrong to propose the idea that homosexuality may be classified as a disease state? What convincing arguments did the authors of the DSM provide in the '70s to change their minds? Look, I find intersex and sexual attraction issues to be interesting from a research standpoint... they are complex issues and I am basically throwing up hypotheses that are not necessarily politically correct... I'll provide citations for some interesting papers later, but now I've got to get back to work...
 
Proposing homosexuality as a disease is opposed by most for the same reason that people who area Deaf often don't consider deafness to be a disease or disability. When you propose that something is a disease, then it inherently means that it should be cured.
 
[quote name='Hex']BigoT makes for the most appalling physician ever.

Remind me where your residency is, so I can make sure I never go there.[/quote]

You are the one who is intolerant. I have always tried to remain civil in my responses and have avoided insulting others, unlike you. I provide one controversial hypothesis and everyone jumps on me... but it's not like I didn't expect that.

I can assure you that as a physician, I view my job as being part of a service industry and everyone I deal with gets treated with full effort, dignity, and respect.
 
[quote name='lordwow']Proposing homosexuality as a disease is opposed by most for the same reason that people who area Deaf often don't consider deafness to be a disease or disability. When you propose that something is a disease, then it inherently means that it should be cured.[/QUOTE]

EXACTLY.
I have ASTHMA. That is a disease.
I can take medicine to TREAT my asthma. My asthma will never go away, but I'll always have it :whistle2:(

You can't do that with homosexuality.
 
[quote name='BigT']You are the one who is intolerant. I have always tried to remain civil in my responses and have avoided insulting others, unlike you. I provide one controversial hypothesis and everyone jumps on me... but it's not like I didn't expect that.

I can assure you that as a physician, I view my job as being part of a service industry and everyone I deal with gets treated with full effort, dignity, and respect.[/quote]

Yeah, and you're the paragon of tolerance by saying I'm an evolutionary mistake. That's a pretty significant insult, even if you can't comprehend why. Are those with different coloured skin evolutionary mistakes too?

Here I thought christians didn't believe in evolution, either. Guess your god made me this way, right?
 
'marriage' a term defined by the bible who was written by man years ago to define what is morally right vs what is immoral. Government and religion should be separated. Isn't marriage just a legal union between 2 consenting adults?

George W. Bush succeed in one thing.. bringing religion back into gov't policies. It is wrong to let person beliefs overrule what's best for citizens. Haven't we learned anything?
 
[quote name='BigT']Why is it so wrong to propose the idea that homosexuality may be classified as a disease state?[/quote]

Ideology. That's why. Look, I had a talk of "racism" in class today where I argued that racism is not this evil dichotomous concept that one "is" or "isn't," nor "has" or "hasn't." It's a classification system that we use to recognize and organize groups hierarchically. A group-based ethnocentrism, in other words. We notice other cultures, no? And we evaluate them, for better or worse, based on our knowledge.

So semantically I don't care what you call it. "disease state" or not. But you're trying to wedge in here with the power of expertise that you do not possess, and are trying to justify differential and oppressive treatment of a category of people - not based on your *opinions* or *feelings,* but based on diagnostic tools. You're putting your hands up and saying "these are the reasons it looks like a disease, I have nothing to do with that classification!" Except, of course, you do.

Identifying a difference is one thing; that's fine. Using it to explain the rationale behind your "yes" vote on prop 8, however, shows that you are resting on a false empirical premise to rationalize oppressive treatment of citizens in a democracy. That's ideology in action.

It's pure ideology, plain and simple. Like we used to use biological classifications of races to justify slavery. It wasn't "hate" then, either. It was the biological categorization of blacks as physically and mentally inferior to white Europeans. See also the history of White/Native American relations in the US.

The word, again, is ideology. That's why it's wrong.

What convincing arguments did the authors of the DSM provide in the '70s to change their minds? Look, I find intersex and sexual attraction issues to be interesting from a research standpoint... they are complex issues and I am basically throwing up hypotheses that are not necessarily politically correct... I'll provide citations for some interesting papers later, but now I've got to get back to work...
Click to expand...

Such is the social, and not-very-biological, nature of modern medicine. What do you think you practice right now, at this very moment, which will be looked back (in the future) at in the same way we do phrenology currently?)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Ideology. That's why. Look, I had a talk of "racism" in class today where I argued that racism is not this evil dichotomous concept that one "is" or "isn't," nor "has" or "hasn't." It's a classification system that we use to recognize and organize groups hierarchically. A group-based ethnocentrism, in other words. We notice other cultures, no? And we evaluate them, for better or worse, based on our knowledge.

So semantically I don't care what you call it. "disease state" or not. But you're trying to wedge in here with the power of expertise that you do not possess, and are trying to justify differential and oppressive treatment of a category of people - not based on your *opinions* or *feelings,* but based on diagnostic tools. You're putting your hands up and saying "these are the reasons it looks like a disease, I have nothing to do with that classification!" Except, of course, you do.

Identifying a difference is one thing; that's fine. Using it to explain the rationale behind your "yes" vote on prop 8, however, shows that you are resting on a false empirical premise to rationalize oppressive treatment of citizens in a democracy. That's ideology in action.

It's pure ideology, plain and simple. Like we used to use biological classifications of races to justify slavery. It wasn't "hate" then, either. It was the biological categorization of blacks as physically and mentally inferior to white Europeans. See also the history of White/Native American relations in the US.

The word, again, is ideology. That's why it's wrong.

Such is the social, and not-very-biological, nature of modern medicine. What do you think you practice right now, at this very moment, which will be looked back (in the future) at in the same way we do phrenology currently?)[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what's funnier, that Myke is trying to imply disease status of homosexuality is based on objectivity instead of political pressure, or that his discipline is exempt from the phrenology analogy.

So, if a study is conducted that determines sociologists are inferior in intelligence and can be demonstrated empirically, you would accept that decision instead of using any ideological choice to declare it irrelevant ? What if people with blue eyes, in aggregate terms, are determined to be genetically inferior and should be subject to state mandated birth control? Wouldn't the ideological choice allowing them full reproductive rights as the brown eyed be the correct moral decision regardless of the data?
 
[quote name='lilboo']That's exactly why the church needs to STFU and mind it's own business and let the Government do this shit.[/QUOTE]
That may be the answer. But like it or not, many churches make quite a difference in certain social services. You would notice a statistical difference if they stopped.

[quote name='depascal22']The same argument was used when people wanted to adopt kids outside of their race. Many people thought that the kids would grow confused and would end up in jail or worse. They've proven time and time again that two loving parents of any religion or sexual preference is the ideal situation for any child regardless of age or race.[/quote]
While I think that's deplorable, I believe in an organizations right to discriminate if they want to. If a church or organization believes that red-haired people shouldn't adopt blonde kids, then they can. They still might do quite a bit of good in placing children. But as soon as the state steps in and tells them they can't operate that way, they'll quit, and ultimately kids might have a harder time being placed.

I do understand where you're coming from thrust, but the Catholic Church's stand on homosexuality is just holding kids back. Their decision to punish sinners punishes children as well.
Click to expand...
Please understand that I am not just talking about the catholic church. There are many churches out there with a myriad of services, charities, and social views.

[quote name='lordwow']Another thing the church considers immoral and wrong is divorce, but you don't see them discriminating based on if one of the parents has had a divorce before.[/QUOTE] Maybe catholics. But not all churches consider divorce a sin.

[quote name='mykevermin']Should we let these dudes only allow adoption by white folks, then, since we're so concerned with the rights of the church?[/QUOTE]
I'm actually torn on the issue. If a church wants to offer a much needed service to society, I'm not sure society should get so upset if the church has some crazy ideas.

Some churches only offer adoptive services to upstanding members of their church, and I see no harm in that either. I knew a girl that got knocked up at 17. She decided early on she would put it up for adoption and used her churches help. She defined the criteria for what type of parents she wanted the kid to have, and the church helped her find them. I see nothing wrong with that, nor do I see it the states right to step in and edit the criteria.

[quote name='lordwow']Proposing homosexuality as a disease is opposed by most for the same reason that people who area Deaf often don't consider deafness to be a disease or disability. When you propose that something is a disease, then it inherently means that it should be cured.[/QUOTE]
How is being deaf not a disability?
Is being born with one arm not a disability either? Born with one eye? Born with no testicles?

If I were born physically different than the majority of others, I wouldn't have any quams about being identified as disabled.

There is a huge difference between making sure we try to accommodate disabled people, not discriminating against them, and helping them where we can versus refusing to identify disability for political correct reasons.
 
[quote name='BigT']You are the one who is intolerant. I have always tried to remain civil in my responses and have avoided insulting others, unlike you. I provide one controversial hypothesis and everyone jumps on me... but it's not like I didn't expect that.

I can assure you that as a physician, I view my job as being part of a service industry and everyone I deal with gets treated with full effort, dignity, and respect.[/QUOTE]

To be fair you have made numerous other idiotic posts, I would not be surprised if you really were a fraud.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
How is being deaf not a disability?
Is being born with one arm not a disability either? Born with one eye? Born with no testicles?

If I were born physically different than the majority of others, I wouldn't have any quams about being identified as disabled.

There is a huge difference between making sure we try to accommodate disabled people, not discriminating against them, and helping them where we can versus refusing to identify disability for political correct reasons.[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Such is the social, and not-very-biological, nature of modern medicine. What do you think you practice right now, at this very moment, which will be looked back (in the future) at in the same way we do phrenology currently?)[/quote]


That is so true. The Tuskegee experiments were perfect examples. Since blacks weren't people, they could be experimented on like animals. You can't get away with something like that today but that was the work of the US Government and the doctors in their employ.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']If I were born physically different than the majority of others, I wouldn't have any quams about being identified as disabled. [/quote]

Except that the hidden meaning of being 'disabled' to 'normal' people seems to imply that one is deficient, unwanted, or unacceptable. You sure as hell would have qualms at being disabled if it meant that people were always treating you like you're either stupid, helpless, evil, or a highly contagious plague. Some people can show some common sense and courtesy about things like that, but most people are far worse off (in their own special way) than the people they reject.
 
What does identifying people as disabled actually do? Will you be any nicer to them if they just admit that they're disabled? Is it like coming out of the closet?
 
Identification of a disability is important for legal representation and benefits. People don't like to be looked down on or thought of as lesser, and for good reason. But they sure as shit usually like to wave their flag for disabilities when it gets them free stuff from the government.

We would not have accessibility ramps, doors, theaters, or parking if it were not for identifying the disabled and their needs. The first step in moving society from "What a bunch of freaks" to "Hey sorry you are born that way, what can we do to help" is defining them as disabled or deficient compared to the watermark that is the rest of society.

Now if a group of people, like lordwow pointed out, want to redefine themselves as simply experiencing life differently but not deficient in any kind of way, I'm fine with that and find that admirable. But imo those people also don't get to expect society to bend or change for them either.
 
[quote name='depascal22']That is so true. The Tuskegee experiments were perfect examples. Since blacks weren't people, they could be experimented on like animals. You can't get away with something like that today but that was the work of the US Government and the doctors in their employ.[/QUOTE]

oh yeah?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']oh yeah?[/quote]

Thanks for reinforcing that racism is still alive and well. I just hope that there aren't any doctors being quoted saying, "They aren't any good to me until they die."

(That's an exact quote from one of the docs running the Tuskegee Experiments.)

EDIT -- To follow up on thrust's post, gays are just looking for equal rights. I don't see them looking for "special" treatment. Prop. 8 is about banning gay marriage. Can you imagine if we tried to ban deafness?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']oh yeah?[/quote]

I'm just curious, how does a study towards african americans with a high risk for heart issues compare with unethical experiements concerning syphilis?
 
I'm not making the comparison b/w bidil and tuskeegee - but, rather, pointing out that artificial categories make for targeted marketing in the pharmaceutical industry.

See also "autism."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not making the comparison b/w bidil and tuskeegee - but, rather, pointing out that artificial categories make for targeted marketing in the pharmaceutical industry.[/QUOTE]

I don't get it either. Are you implying that doctors are racists for targeting groups for special treatment? How in the world could this possibly compare to the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments where they had no intention of treating disease ? You have to be out of your mind, at least, beyond your normal temperament.
 
See, the thing about autism is that it's not something made up to be treated with drugs, it's a real developmental disability with some pretty harrowing effects. It's natural to see a disability as difficult as autism and not want to seek a cure. I don't think it's an artificial market at all, but it totally is a goldmine for pharm companies to make a goldmine on, which sucks.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I don't get it either. Are you implying that doctors are racists for targeting groups for special treatment? How in the world could this possibly compare to the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments where they had no intention of treating disease ? You have to be out of your mind, at least, beyond your normal temperament.[/QUOTE]

I didn't make a post 56 minutes before you did.
 
[quote name='Hex']See, the thing about autism is that it's not something made up to be treated with drugs, it's a real developmental disability with some pretty harrowing effects. It's natural to see a disability as difficult as autism and not want to seek a cure. I don't think it's an artificial market at all, but it totally is a goldmine for pharm companies to make a goldmine on, which sucks.[/QUOTE]


Mike's just of his rocker on this one. Different cultural, racial, or geographical groups have different genetic, or perhaps environmental predisposiitons to certain diseases. Categorization of these types of people isn't creating an "artificial" or racist market, it's targeting care to where it's needed the most. It aids in identification of the disease and can help to treat it properly. You'd think even myke could realize this. I guess his blinder's are on again.


But as far as homosexuality being a disease? I don't think it's any more a "disease"(whatever that means - medically, legally, or literally) than nose-picking. It's a behavior that could be regulated if we chose to. But as a real "liberal", I couldn't bring myself to take away someone's right to live their life the way they choose. As long as no one else's rights are infringed upon, do what makes you happy.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'] It's a behavior that could be regulated if we chose to.[/quote]

I disagree. A homosexual individual can't stop being gay any more than a heterosexual person can stop being straight.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah, I'm just an asshole...[/quote]

I'm not denying that there's probably an element of capitalizing off of race, by playing to fear when it comes to marketing.. but isn't that how a lot of pharm companies work, regardless of target race? I'm not saying it's a good thing, quite the opposite- but I don't think this is as sinister as people think. African American individuals don't respond as well to ACE inhibitors, so they stuck drugs that do work better- Isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine- into one pill.

Apparently the FDA also only approved it for use in african american individuals, so that would seem to suggest there's some sort of physiological differences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top