“Advances” were forced by boycotts, politics of personal destruction (Anita Bryant), attacks on organizations like the scouts (who are now really paying a price for having a gay scoutmaster), and Democratic bloc voting – not undisputed scientific evidence, which could have won the day.Īnd, those activist efforts were as result of conscious decisions by the participants rather than being genetically based. I find some homosexual demands to be morally wrong, such as adoption of a child by two dads, or stupid, like gays on Navy submarines. G.M., the acceptance of homosexuality has been a political movement rather than one advanced by science, and it went from wanting acceptance to one of wanting special rights and protections not provided by the Constitution (hate crimes, of all things!?). So, while the California legislature did what it believed to be compassionate and politically correct, was it actually the right thing to do for those whom it was trying to defend? How can they or you be sure? When I researched the subject on Google Scholar, I couldn’t readily tell what studies to accept, and they don’t all agree, despite the California legislature being so sure. Do you help someone by explaining or excusing it or helping them to not act on their urges? Of couse, others disagree with that. One article said, “activists often attempt to blur the distinction between having a desire and choosing to act on it.” That’s like alcoholism.
If it turns out that homosexuality can be “cured” or whatever word you choose, wouldn’t it be a disservice to gays if that study wasn’t pursued? Of couse, I wouldn’t hold my breath for a government grant on that, and I wouldn’t trust any study performed by or on behalf of the government. I’d like to read unbiased scientific studies on this, and I mean truly unbiased where the evidence isn’t rigged to come to the conclusion desired. It wasn’t all that long ago in our history that psychiatrists considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder, and that only changed after political pressure. I wouldn’t have a problem with such language in bills if it were actually proven. That’s a politically-based conclusion rather than scientifically based.
“Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice any more than one’s height… I think that this topic is a test by Celeste to see if we can discuss the topic calmly and rationally.
“Sixty years is more than long enoughĪctually 60 years as way too long, but this reparative bill is a very good thing “It’s discriminatory, it’s insulting and it has to go,” Lowenthal said.
#The gay test rigged code#
The code implies that being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is harmful and that LGBT individuals can and should be cured, in direct contradiction with an enormous body of research that demonstrates otherwise. “We are thrilled with the passage of this vital bill, as all Californians regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, deserve to be treated equally and with dignity and respect.” “Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice any more than one’s height, and neither can be changed,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California. The California Assembly today passed an Equality California-sponsored bill (AB2199) that would repeal a particularly offensive section of the California Welfare and Institutions code, which instructs the State Department of Mental Health to conduct research into the “causes and cures of homosexuality.” The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), passed with bipartisan support and a unanimous vote. Here’s what the press release from Equality California said: