More Proposition 8 Speculation (BUMPED AND UPDATED)
UPDATE: The court has announced they will issue a ruling on Tuesday May 26th.
Time is running out for the California Supreme Court to issue their ruling on Proposition 8. According to the standard rules of the Court they had 90 days from the arguments to issue the decision and since the court only issues rulings on 2 days (Mondays and Thursdays) they are down to three days.
Tuesday May 26th (because Monday is a holiday). Intent on this ruling would be announced Friday the 22nd.
Thursday May 28th. Intent on this ruling would be announced Wednesday the 27th.
Tuesday June 2nd. Intent on this ruling would be announced on Friday the 29th.
Informed sources suggest the ruling might be issued on Tuesday, which would give everyone an extra day to prepare for the reaction. I have previously offered thoughts on how the court might rule but thought I’d get a little more specific on names.
Two justices I expect to vote to uphold Proposition 8 are Justices Baxter and Chin. Both of them are conservatives who voted against legalizing same sex marriage and they gave no reason to suggest that they would change their minds during the arguments on 8. The closest either came was when Chin speculated on getting rid of the term marriage altogether to make both same and opposite sex marriages civil unions. But that is not much to hang your cap on so I assume two No votes there.
(Note: For purposes of this discussion a No vote is to reject the challenge to Prop 8 and keep it in place while a Yes vote is to accept the challenge and strike 8 down.)
By the same token, Justices Moreno and Werdegar were both strong supporters of the right to marriage in the original case and neither has suggested they changed their mind. In theory Moreno could be swayed by the fact he is, in theory, a candidate for the Souter seat in Washington but I don’t think he would change his mind on this issue (indeed shifting could hurt his chances, which are minimal at best).
So that gives us 2 Yes votes (to strike down 8).
Justice Corrigan was the third vote against recognizing the right to same sex marriage in the original case so I am going to assume she will remain with Chin and Baxter. Some court watchers speculated that her tone and the questions she asked during oral arguments on 8 might hint at a shift in position but I do not buy it.
If you look at her writing in the original ruling she seems to be very sympathetic to the cause personally but also a strong advocate of the view that the voter rules and thus she is probably a No vote. On the other hand *if* she decides that the original ruling did grant a fundamental right, even if she disagrees with that right, then she would slip to the Yes side. But I’m gonna put her down as a No.
So the ruling comes down to the two remaining votes that supported recognizing same sex marriage rights in the original ruling. Both Justice Kennard and Chief Justice George are the question marks in that they voted for the right to marriage but also seemed to be sympathetic to the idea that the will of the voters is important.
Remember that the original ruling was based on what was contained in the California Constitution at the time and the ruling basically said ‘even if you don’t like this we have to honor what is in the document’. If they conclude that the same standard applies here, one or both could vote to uphold 8 which would give the No side a win.
On the other hand they both seemed very focused on the issue that marriage is a fundamental right under the California Constitution and that could compel them to support the revision vs amendment argument which would keep them firmly in the Yes camp.
So I think basically we have two firm No Votes, 2 firm Yes votes and two where I am not sure. My guess is we’ll see Corrigan vote No and George and Kennard split, which would give the No camp a 4-3 victory and Proposition 8 would stand. Next most likely is an exact repeat of the last ruling with a 4-3 decision for the Yes camp to strike down Proposition 8.
But it could go 5-2 in favor of upholding 8 if both Kennard and George shift over or a 5-2 ruling in favor of striking it down should Corrigan shift.
If they strike down Proposition 8 on the revision theory then the issue is basically dead while a decision to uphold it would likely lead to initiatives every few years.
75 Responses to “More Proposition 8 Speculation (BUMPED AND UPDATED)”
Oh trust me, if they strike down Prop 8, the majority of CA voters who VISCERALLY disapprove of deviants getting the right to adulterate the longest-standing 'sacred' arrangement of pairing for reproduction and child-rearing, are not going to take it lying down.
In fact, in these stress-out and tenuous times, to rule in such a way that Californians feel something wholly immoral or otherwise perceived as viscerally or even scientifically wrong [see AI industry's/comparative psychology's findings that sexuality is learned, therefore can be "taught" via social contagion], is shoved down their throats by a tiny-panel in Sacramento…wow…
Talk about the straw that broke the camel's back in CA..
Only in this case, allowing gays to marry, by its opponents, will be perceived as the piano that broke the camel's back. And the voters will once again send another powerful message to Sacramento. That's the funny thing about the “Blue State”…never underestimate the sudden venom of the moderates and conservatives there. Taken together, they form a very stubborn and tenaciouis majority when their backs are pushed to the wall.
Sil, $20 says that if 8 is upheld now it'll be overturned by the voters by 2012.
Regarding the original entry, I think it puts the court in the odd place of deciding whether California actually has a useful constitution – it's not much of a supreme legal document if 50%+.5 of the vote lets you do anything you like.
“You cannot put matter and anti-matter together and expect no explosion. Asking people to rearrange the basic fundamentals of their entire belief system, when everything else is already crumbing around them with losing their homes, job losses and so forth…well… heh…I'll just leave the rest up to the imagination..”
This is probably the most hilarious thing I have ever heard in my life. Do they know gay marriage isn't mandatory? Maybe that's the problem. How in the HELL do two gay people getting married usurp anyone's life and rearrange their belief system? You're insane. You really are. Two people getting married who LOVE each other will only AFFECT THOSE TWO PEOPLE. Nuclear proliferation, Global Economic crisis, worldwide pandemic disease, melting of the polar ice caps, mass job loss, and… GASP! Two people of the same gender want to get married! OMFG! Seriously. Listen to yourself some time.
Forever Married…
[...] Two justices I expect to vote to uphold Proposition 8 are Justices Baxter and Chin. Both of them are conservatives who voted against legalizing same sex marriage and they gave no reason to suggest that they would change their minds … [...]…
Ryan, I don't know about 2012, but it'll come within the next 10 years or so. Look at the polling, if the “no on 8″ crowd had actually done some work before last November it may not have passed at all.
t0dd2, don't get in the way of Don Quixote. This issue seems to be Sil's windmill. Look at all the other “social” issues that destroyed the world: Women's suffrage, inter-racial marriage, plus all those passages in the Bible that talk about dark-people being slaves and not eating shell fish or pork.
Don't you understand?! If the slaves were freed and people started to eat shell fish Sill's entire world would implode upon itself.
Personally, I thinking the No camp will have their 4-3 victory from the court. The justices didn't seem too impressed when they heard the case.
I think as long as people don't have a clear understanding of how sexuality is ACQUIRED at puberty, then yeah, the deviant crowd may get their way by 2012….however…
If the fields of animal science and comparative psychology ever get together and go visibly public via MSM about how sexual preference is a learned phenomenon, fixated around puberty, then the deviants have their work cut out for them. When society finds that deviant sexuality contains a social-contagion element, it's curtains for their hopes to increase their numbers by normalizing their learned preferences.
I would think anyway.
Education about homosexuality and civil unions are the great compromise. We shouldn't jump into rocky pool with our eyes close without making sure we know where all the rocks are and how they got there..
Silhouette–
I know and respect a number of gay people.
And you know what?
I don't care how they got that way.
I've cited them before, but I'll do it again. From the APA: http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
“According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence.”
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.”
“Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience.”
It seems to me that comparative psychology has went public, and has a pretty long trail of research documenting their claims. As far as animal science goes, you've been called out on that so many times that unless you can provide any further evidence to support your position, you have a weak argument. I think you should relax a bit. The world isn't going to end just because two people who love each other (regardless of their sexual identity) want to get married.
And if you think that marriage should be off limits, then perhaps you can explain to me why the current divorce rate is close to 50% among heterosexual couples. For that matter, I would ask anybody to explain this to me. If marriage is such a sanctified institution, then why don't heterosexual couples treat it as such?
I've always been curious why this is such a big deal for Sil, but suppose it's none of my business, LIKE WHO MARRIES WHOM is none of my business. But the ridiculous assertion that marriage is for procreation and child rearing devalues the marriages of everyone in my age bracket, who marry for love, not for children. Many younger couples are also deciding not to procreate for whatever reasons they choose. Again, it's none of my business.
GD – that is a good point. My great-aunt and godmother went through menopause in her mid-20's while engaged to be married (very rare, but it does happen). This was in the 40's. As such, the Catholic Church denied her and her fiance the right to marry, as there 'was no possibility of procreation'. She in fact never married in her 84 years of life (although as time went on, she did rebel enough to date, which lead to some real doosie of fights with her older sister [my grandmother], also a devout Catholic!)
This issue is really not the rights of individuals to marry…. it is about political activists gaining legal standing in the courts so that they can force religious organizations to alter their religious beliefs or fold. As such, the right to religious freedom is much more important a consideration. All we have to do is to look to Canada or England where men of the cloth have ended up in jail for calling homosexuality a sin.
There has been lots of talk about how Prop 8 needed to be a revision. Ryan above says “it's not much of a supreme legal document if 50%+.5 of the vote lets you do anything you like.” Implying that the issue of retaining the historical definition of a word should require a revision of the constitution. But a revision to the CA constitution is serious business. A revision could be used to remove the Supreme court or the legislature entirely. Now that would be a revision!
Many also don't seem to understand the fundamental truth that power, ALL political power, lies with and is derived from the people. Saying that normally sparks a heated debate about mob rule and the intent of the framers for the judiciary branch as a check on a tyrannical majority – but that is a debate for another day. But mob rule does not have to come from a majority. If you look at the behavior of both sides you will see that by and large one side is peaceful. The other side is using threats, intimidation, insults and even violence to try and force its view on others. It may be a minority but it is a tyrannical one and their tactics are a classic attempt at mob rule.
Look, I'd be willing to to concede that if we find, emperically, that the hundreds upon hundreds of studies that support sexual preference in mammals [and therefore in human mammals via comparative psychology] are wrong…that all the hamburgers and dairy we eat every day came from some happenstance freak ability to train only farm animals to a certian type of unnatural sexual preference, I'd eat my hat and bow out of the debate.
However…
The evidence is quite compelling. And ignoring science has never been a good idea. The same people who get up in arms about the far right denouncing scientific fact as to global warming are the exact same crowd who will scream bloody murder if we turn to those same scientists to learn how sexual preference is acquired. They will chant to tell us to not compare human behavior to other mammals [de facto denunciation of the entire field of comparative psychology], how even if it is found to be a learned and then fixated phenomenon, we should “not care anyway”.
They want us to ignore scientific findings, significant ones…at least for the time being until we forget that sexual-preference contians a social-contagion element. They want us to ignore at the same time: the AI industry's findings, comparative psychology, child-developmental psychology, anthropology, sociology and human behavioral psychology in general and instead listen to propoganda dispensed by the far left.
This isn't about religion, this isn't about hatred or homophobia. It is about common sense and following people's research who have college degrees and do nothing but focus on the very building blocks of what makes the world and everything in it the way it is.
Ignoring factual information that compells us to consider that normalizing deviant sexual preference has longterm potential impact on future generations is playing with fire. Just like with the far right and their willful ignorance on global warming. You cannot ignore natural phenomenon without dire consequences..
**
“Silhouette–
I know and respect a number of gay people.
And you know what?
I don't care how they got that way. “
***
Yes Geoge S., but your opinion is in the minority in a big way when it comes to California voters.. And the difference matters hugely.
I don't care about your religion. I dont care about your heterosexual problems. Bottom line is this is a legal issue. In America we believe in equal rights. Guess what? In the original ruling recognizing that gay people have always had equal rights, the court also did something very important. They made gay people a protected class. So what the court is looking at is, can a bare majority of bigots take away a fundamental right from a protected class? The answer is, not without a compeling governmental interest to do so. Gays are now in the same legal position as women and other minorities. Bigots cant take fundamental rights away from them either. As a result, you will not force me to get a divorce from my husband of 14 years, and gays will have equal rights. Get used to it.
Silhouette: “…that all the hamburgers and dairy we eat every day came from some happenstance freak ability to train only farm animals to a certian type of unnatural sexual preference, I'd eat my hat and bow out of the debate.”
Sil, you mean all the beef we eat comes from cows trained to be gay?!?! Well no wonder homosexuals are taking over the planet. I don't blame you a bit for swearing off burgers and eating your clothing.
PecosBill–
I would like to know more about the Canadian and English men of the cloth who have ended up in jail for calling homosexuality a sin. But I can't find anything using Google or Yahoo.
Please let me know your sources.
Thank you.
Another thing! Gay people, have hope. In their last ruling the court said the following:
…the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.
Some of the cows are trained to be gay, or rather the bulls are. They are trained by crosswiring their natural urges to mount cows, frustrated, and then their frustrated desires are vented onto a mount-steer [castrated male cow]. From then on they learn to associate “sex” with “castrated male cow” instead of “female cow”. Once habituated via this environmental classical conditioning, they will seek out steers to the exclusion of cows and many refuse to have anything to do with mounting cows from then on….only a steer will do.
The same is true when they are trained onto inanimate dummy-mounts. They will then only associate sex with that dummy to the exclusion of live animals and so on. This phenomenon isn't limited to cattle. Dogs, horses, pigs, and other animals, mammalian and otherwise exhibit the same “trained preference” when artificially frustrated towards their natural desires onto an unnatural one. The study I've cited repeatedly shows that not only can this be trained purposefully, but it also shows that social pressures or trends in mammals seem to encumber mate selection to specific morphology in the “object of desire”. A simplified example would be brown rats vs white rats [brunettes vs blondes?] Some rate “societies” would seem to prefer a brown mate over white if that was the majority trend…vice versa and so on to include a wide variety of morphological variables.
Also there is evidence suggesting a strong selection preference based on the animals' mother's characteristics. ie: the animal is most likely to choose a mate based on what his mother looked like…even if the mother was an adopted one…
Proving the environemental element instead of genetic in that instance..
Crazy people! Your “science” justification is silly. I'm sure all of those gay animals in nature were “trained” that way. So what you are saying is that heterosexuals are “trained” that way? I'm glad my redneck, military, conservative, religious family “trained” me to be gay. Yea right! You and other bigots are funny. You should take your show on the road. Really, get on the road and go.
Frustration exists in natural conditions as well. For instance, lead stallions in a herd of wild horses will drive off bands of younger stallions who, sexually frustrated, may take to creating fetish mounts of others in their all-male band.
Did you think training was limited to human teachers? Not at all. The environment has many teachers of its own..
Wow Sil, yet again you are so, so full of it.
One of the things that wasn't discussed in the post but I think is extremely relevant to what will be happening in the next few days is the separate decision on whether or not the 18000 recently-married couples in California will be able to remain married. They have their fully-legal marriage certificates hanging on their walls, they went through some sort of ceremony where an officiant said “By the power vested in my by the state of California…”, they paid married-people taxes to the state for 2008. What will happen to them? Will have to go through a divorce? Will all the marriages be immediately dissolved en masse? If they didn't already have a standing domestic partnership will their spouse, will they need one, or will they have to get divorced and then re-DP'ed?
I think I know which way this is going as far as new marriages, which is depressing as it is, but my heart just aches for all those married couples whose domestic situation hangs on the words of the court. (crossing my fingers…)
I knew I was gay before I was sexually mature. I was not and have never been “sexually frustrated.” You're right about one thing. Environment has many teachers, that is why you think the way you do. However, please remember, you can change. Unlike being gay, being a bigot is a choice. I don't call you a bigot to be mean, look up the word. It appears that you are a thoughtful person, just confused. Get your priorities correct. We're only fighting for legal equality, I don't care whether you ever agree or not. This is not about you or other bigots. Good luck.
Sil, where in the world are you getting this crazy idea that public policy is based on scientific research, especially scientific research involving nonhuman “mammals?” Let's take an example. We know from research that male lions and male squirrels will eat their young if not prevented from doing so by females. So, should we then set a policy in the United States protecting infants from their fathers? How preposterous! Besides, you persist in dramatically overstating your case, from a scientific standpoint.
I have no horse in this race. I'm a married heterosexual man with children. But I have absolutely no fear for myself, my children or my nation from any of your imagined threats posed by married gay men or lesbian women. This is, indeed, your windmill to tilt.
Sil — how in the world does it make a lick of difference in our laws for people getting married whether or not bulls like to mount each other? I've said this before, but humans are actually not cows. Or stallions. If it is so easy to accidentally become gay, how, then, is that not “natural”? How is it “deviant” to do exactly what nature programmed us to do? And if sexual frustration makes people gay, how come so many straight people are sexually frustrated? Why don't they just turn gay? Wasn't everyone sexually frustrated throughout puberty? Why aren't we all gay? How come so many gay people slept with members of the opposite sex before finally accepting their gayness?
My point: I don't buy your crap science argument for one second, but even if it turned out that we humans are in fact cows, why should that make any difference in whether or not gay people should be able to marry?
I wonder why we bother arguing with Sil anymore. Sil's opinion belongs to Sil. Nothing is going to change. So why bother?
Roro, it's not caused by frustration, don't you see? It's caused by eating gay hamburger. They train the bulls to be gay, then they breed those same bulls with cows to produce the beef we eat.
How else can you account for the huge rise in the number of homosexuals over the past few decades? It's getting so a man can barely swing a dildo without smacking two or three. I'll bet that corresponds with the period when ranchers started using this technique.
We have to put a stop to it. If you're lucky enough to still be straight, call your congressman immediately and insist the government protect your meat!
so much bitterness and hate in your post
and just because people want equal rights?
You guys crack me up…lol…
“I knew I was gay before I was sexually mature. I was not and have never been “sexually frustrated.” You're right about one thing. Environment has many teachers”~gayatty
******
Frustration is one teacher, inappropriate contact at a pre-pubescent age is another teacher:
Here, read this:
“..Lets be really clear about something, No child is psychologically or emotionally prepared to cope with repeated sexual stimulation. Even a two or three year old, who barely know the sexual activity is “wrong,” will develop problems resulting from the inability to cope with the over stimulation…
..Some children who have been sexually abused have difficulty relating to others except on sexual terms. On the other hand some will eventually have difficulty relating to anyone on a sexual level even within marriage. Some sexually abused children become very sexually promiscuous, hypersexual..
http://www.counselingcorner.net/disorders/sexua…
*****
and this:
****
“When Sigmund Freud discovered that eighteen of his hysterical pa-tients had conscious memories of childhood sexual seductions, mostly by family members, he faced a theoretical impasse.(16) Since he believed only repressed memories could produce hysterical symptoms, the easily accessible detailed memories of his patients could not be the real cause of their hysteria. He therefore concluded that there must in each case have been an earlier seduction, the memory of which was repressed, generally occurring between the ages of two and five and never later than eight. These early scenes had to be reconstructed from fantasies and dreams, and even when Freud pieced them together for the patient, he admitted, “they have no feeling of remembering the scenes…
..Later, he repeatedly wrote such statements as that “the sexual abuse of children is found with uncanny frequency among school teachers and child attendants.. and phantasies of being seduced are of particular interest, because so often they are not phantasies but real memories.” (22) Furthermore, he considered the incestuous memories of such patients as Katharina, Rosalia H., Elisabeth von R. and the Wolf Man as reality, not fantasy, saying of such traumatic child abuse “You must not suppose.. that sexual abuse of a child by its nearest male relatives belongs entirely to the realm of phan-tasy…
.. “The real rape of girls who have hardly grown out of the age of infants, similar sexual acts of mature women with boys, and also enforced homosexual acts, are more frequent occurrences than has hitherto been assumed.”(29) Many women analysts, such as Bonaparte, Jacobson, Greenacre and Reich, (30) were able to empathize with their female patients and admit the reality of their memories of incestuous abuse. Rheingold reported encountering surprisingly frequent cases of real incest in his patients, including a great deal of overt maternal masturbation of young children, fathers orgastically flagellating their daughters, parents forcing children to handle the parents' genitals, mothers encouraging uncles to rape their children, and so on, wondering why “scant attention” had been given to such material by others.(31) Robert Fliess, after a lifetime of psychoanalytic experience in the removal of amnesia from early memories, regularly found real sexual molestation of his patients at the core of their problems, and concluded that “no one is ever made sick by his fantasies. Only traumatic memories in repression can cause the neurosis.”…
…there is evidence that males are far more reluctant to reveal their molestation, partly because it usually occurs earlier for boys than for girls and partly because victimization may be even more difficult for boys to recall and report than for girls…
..the most common age of sexual abuse reported to authorities is four years, while other studies report that from 21 to 50 percent of reported sexual abuse victims involve children under five.(54) Since few people consciously recall traumatic events of any kind before the age of five, and since the graph for sexual abuse distribution by age runs roughly level from ages two to sixteen,(55) the incidence figures stated above should be increased by at least an additional 50 percent..
********
So, you may have memories of your sexual “preference” from the earliest of ages, but who is to say definitively one way or the other if your memory was not that of inappropriate experience that you suppressed as a child?
That's where my money is at.
[sorry about the graphic information, but sometimes the truth is pretty graphic]
There has certainly been quite a lot of presumption on this thread.
For me, I know and respect a number of gay people.
And you know what?
I don't care how they got that way.
Love is a mystery.
Tax breaks, however, are a matter of public policy.
Sil,
This is the 2nd anti gay marraige vote that went down in CA, and it passed by less of a margin than the first time. As time moves forward, the margin will soon reverse as the older less flexible (I am holding my tongue!) people in this state die. It was unfortunate that the pro 8 people lied to scare the electorate. For example, they said that gay marraige would be taught in schools. Hugh? We don't teach about any type of marriage at all in schools. This is just one of the many scare tactics.
George, the acme of all the points I've been making is that hyper or deviant sexuality may not be about love at all. I doubt that other fetishes besides homosexuality could be called “love”. It may be that a person becomes so found of the sex object they've chosen that they call it “love”, or it may actually wind up being love by some happy accident.
I think we need to be very careful when we assign the term of “love” to sexuality. The two are not the same for all the reasons I mentioned above.. And yes, this also applies to heterosexuality. Call me old fashioned, and many do, but I think there were real and solid reasons why chaperones and such were employed and youngsters “virtues” were guarded so carefully. The sexual predation of the young for older people's “jollies” [nothing to do with love at all] have been known and written about for millenia.
Remember the word in gay vernacular: “chicken” means young heterosexual boys “ripe for the picking” by older homosexual men. The name's origins apparently are the navy a hundred years ago or so. The name persists to this day as part of the vernacular…
Silhouette==
You're missing my point, which remains the same.
I know and respect a number of gay people.
And I don't care how they got that way.
The fact is that you can respect them and also care. What kind of a friend are you anyway?
The good news is that equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians is coming. Either now with this ruling or in the very, very near future(for all Americans)!! So, don't worry….we shall overcome. Love always wins. chins up : )
Or does sex always overcome? Which is it.?
Really? Are you sure? I loved my grandma to pieces and my best girlfriend but luckily I hadn't imprinted myself to respond to females sexually so sex with them, logically marriage too, was the furthest thing from my mind.
News bulletin: Love without sex can exist! You heard it here first…lol..
Sil,
You must be closeted, because you are so obsessed with us, LOL!
Silhouette: “Deviant sexuality may not be about love at all….Or it may actually wind up being love by some happy accident.”
Sil, are you going to get to anything beyond maybes and innuendo and vague mumblings about the end of the world to actually propose what we should do?
By your own reasoning, we're stuck with millions of gay people who got that way through unfortunate imprinting around puberty or through abuse as children or whatever the reason. You don't believe they can change at this point, but you want to keep future generations from being gay too. We've tried piling on the opprobrium and keeping gays second-class citizens before, and that failed. So lest we start to think you're a content-free attention whore, what, specifically, are you proposing?
Silhouette–
You're free to believe as you like and call it science.
I do think you're confused about the meaning of the word care.
To say the least.
I didn't do the hundreds of studies cited in the link above. Are you accusing me of lying about those studies? Are you capable of clicking the link, reading the article, scrolling to the bottom and also reading the H-u-n-d-r-e-d-s of studies cited that support it and what I'm simply reporting to you here?
There is irrationality afoot for sure. I suggest y'all look in a mirror for once.
Silhouette–
I've clicked on a bunch of your links and not found H-u-n-d-r-e-d-s of studies cited.
Please repeat.
Funny how Silhouette mentions catholics in one statement and irrationality in another statement. What irony! People choose to be catholics.
How many of the “protect childen” signs did California's most notorious child rape promoter Cardinal Roger Mahony help pay for?
There is irrationality afoot for sure. I suggest y'all look in a mirror for once.
Silhouette–
My computer has some problems loading PDFs, so I didn't look at this PDF you linked to until after my previous comment.
It's to a 31 page article. Doing a search through the article on the character string “homosex” brought up only two times that term was used.
First:
Second:
That seems to be it for references to homosexuality in the article.
There is a section of the article called “Human Considerations” on page 23. The first paragraph does say “Deviant sexual preferences and behaviors are thought to develop through conditioning processes”. Then there follows a brief list of conditioning techniques.
Then comes this disclaimer: “These techniques are often employed despite limited evidence of their effectiveness (Laws and Marshall, 1991; Johnston,
Hudson, and Marshall, 1992).”
I'd like to highlight that (again, it's from p. 23):
“These techniques are often employed despite limited evidence of their
effectiveness (Laws and Marshall, 1991; Johnston, Hudson, and Marshall, 1992).”
This article is a generalized review of the literature concerning the topic of Conditioning and Sexual Behavior (which is the title of the article), and as such is hedged with lots of mays and mights. It has next to nothing to say about homosexuality. It never defines the meaning of “deviant”. It explicitly discusses human sexuality only briefly at the end, and when it does so, it concedes the speculative nature of that discussion.
I do not think I have misrepresented the article in my description of it. However, the hour is late, I read it quickly, and I do not have an advanced degree in this subject. So I have cited the pages I refered to. And there is plenty of other stuff in there that I might have missed. Go ahead and check it out for yourself.
But I doubt this article was intended by its authors to be conclusive in ways that support its use on this thread.
Everyone is free to differ, of course. Just as everyone and anyone is free to believe what they like and call it science.
Personally, I know and respect a number of gay people.
And I don't care how they got that way.
what about the MAJORITY of the people's VOTE????????????? Why can't they respect the VOICE and VOTES of the MAJORITY??????? last time I checked this Country respects the people's VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Right OBAMA???
Well of course they call it a sin, nuns and priest in Ireland are at risk because they practiced it for sixty years, Ted Haggard called it a sin too. Admitting the homosexual sin with an under age in confession will get three Ave Maria and two Pater Noster, the same at the police station would get 10 to 25…
This in answer to GeorgeSorwell query about sources from Pecos Bill.
Well of course they call it a sin, nuns and priest in Ireland are at risk because they practiced it for sixty years, Ted Haggard called it a sin too. Admitting the homosexual sin with an under age in confession will get three Ave Maria and two Pater Noster, the same at the police station would get 10 to 25…
The first in the world to have same sex marriage were the Netherlands, since 2001 and the sky didn't fall but they still have problems with the dikes.
America is so amazing so futuristic so progressive, the first on technology, the first on the moon and yet in Wisconsin there are people who believe praying can cure anything, they soon will be praying to get out of prison.
Religion and religious people should be protected, how about huge camps with signs like “praying macht frei”.
To brandybaby: people don't chose to be Catholics they born and baptized that way, no one want his kid to spend forever in purgatory limbo, so us Catholics were forced into religion, and this is were I like the Baptist, you have to have faith before you accept water boarding.
Thank y'all this was fun
Sil, as I have pointed out before, the study you cite is “academically old”, meaning it wasn't completed within the last 3 years. And I think George did a pretty good drop of addressing the meat and potatoes of the article. I've challenged you on this before, but I will do so again. According to Google Scholar, this study that you cling to has been cited by 84 subsequent studies. Here's a link:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cit…
Why don't you do some research on the current literature and bring us all up to speed. To me, 84 subsequent studies means that an awful lot of work has been done that you either haven't read or are unwilling to consider. Also, you ignored my reference to the APA, and I would be interested in your comments about what they have to say.
Silhouette,
Please do not speak for all Psychologists and the entire psychological field itself, (“They want us to ignore at the same time: the AI industry's findings, comparative psychology, child-developmental psychology, anthropology, sociology and human behavioral psychology in general and instead listen to propoganda dispensed by the far left.”)
Whether you like it or not, you should know that there is psychological evidence which supports BOTH sides of the argument, not just the one you speak of. Why are there studies which SUPPORT (if you know much about psychology, you cannot say that any studies PROVE anything) both sides of the argument? There are studies which show NO psychological dysfunction in mammals who mate with a same sex partner for life (ie: sheep, bonobos). There are many accredited psychologists, neuroscientists, sociologists, etc. who argue in favor of both sides, because you simply cannot get rid of experimenter biases of their interpretation of their results and how they conduct their research; also, it is a very complex subject that you simply cannot just summarize in one study, nor do we even know how to learn about all aspects of homosexuality.
Any conclusions that have been made, are listed on the APA website, which someone provided for you earlier. If you would like to read information on both sides of the argument (where I am assuming you have sources for the things you say,) here is a link to an accredited neuroscientist and his work on sexuality: http://www.simonlevay.com/
I don't speak for all of them…lol….once again you're attempting to denigrate what I'm saying by a clever diversion. Of course not all psychologists are in agreement, only most of them when it comes to child development and comparative psychology.
In fact the building blocks of nearly any psych. major, requirements, are comparative psychology. I had a psych professor once who was avidly christian too. *sigh* He spent the entire time teaching the comparative psychology segments he was required to go over and kept interjecting though, that animals had no higher cognitive capacity, so therefore they couldn't be compared to people. I argued fervently with him daily. I just couldn't let him pollute the other students' minds with his BS. I cited numerous examples in nature where animals used tools and demonstrated complex social societies that involved ongoing learning and adaptation [ie: cognition]. He kept taking the stance that they had “reflexive cognition” instead of true human reasoning. I rebutted him constantly. By the end of the term he was getting visibly agitated with me in class. I made too many points he couldn't refute without falling back on religion. It was clear he was losing ground. I figured my goose was cooked when it came to his grade but I didn't care. I was pulling a 4.0 in my other classes so I figured I could take a C or whatever in his class and not suffer too horribly.
Long story short my grade was an A+. I wound up on high honors that semester. The moral of the story is that even if psychologists disagree, they can make room for that disagreement. The rest of the kids in my class were just utterly silent. They'd shoot me “shut up!” looks like “can't you see we just want to take notes and regurgitate at test times??” or sneers like “she's going to get screwed on her grade”.. Turns out the guy was thrilled that someone wanted to challenge even his status quo and was interested in the subject material enough to debate it. He told me I should stay with the college of psych for my major but alas I had different fish to fry. Though I did stay with the field informally for decades now as an informal minor.