From:  (Jody Norman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Raises a new question (Re: Is sexuality chosen or inborn?)
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:36:36 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1993Jan2.155139.11023@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
(Howard Black) wrote:
> 
> In article <1993Jan1.202329.13482@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> >
> >>>>    Well, just when you think you've heard it all...so people object to gays
> >>>>because their sexual practices are mutually non-consensual, since they are
> >>>>too mentally ill to give consent?  Incredible.
> >>>
> >>>	I'm sure you've heard it before.
> >>
> >>    Nope.  Never.  And I exchange ideas with lots of 'phobes.  I'd be
> >>interested to know if anyone else reading this newsgroup has ever heard
> >>this amazing assertion before.
> >
> >	You've never heard that gays are mentally ill?  My argument is 
> >	merely the logical extension of that argument:  the mentally
> >	ill are not considered able to give informed consent.
> 
>     Of course I've heard the argument that gays are mentally ill.  What is
> new to me is the extension thath they are *so* ill that they cannot give
> informed consent to have sex with another person.
>     Your extension is anything but logical.  Even if gays were mentally
> ill, which the AMA, APA et al. have deemed not true, their mental
> competence is another matter.  Let's say you're an agoraphobic, or anxious,
> or suffer from any of a multitide of such problems.  Does that mean you are
> non compus mentis?  Hardly.
> 
> >	If it helps, I've heard it a number of times from the 
> >	fundies in my area (MD/Va/DC)
> 
>     The mentally-ill charge, or the "too ill for conformed consent"
> blather?
> 
> >>    I think this is a terrible example.  It implies that gays are
> >>equivalent mentally to a retarded person.  I'm sure you know that this
> >>isn't the case.
> >
> >	No, it implies that, if we consider gays mentally ill 
> >	(perhaps not you or I, but the vast majority) then we
> >	cannot allow them to determine their own health.
> 
>     "Vast majority"?  Please.  Either support this or don't claim it.
> 
>     And, by "support", I don't mean some hate pamphlet from CFV.  I
> honestly doubt that even a majority of homophobes feel that gays are
> mentally ill.
> 
> >	Please.  I've heard it so many times it's boring.  The 
> >	gays are mentally ill perverts argument is probably as old
> >	as the "gays are servents of satan" argument.  If you haven't
> >	heard it before, you've been hiding in some dark cave somewhere.
> 
>     Sure; but we're talking about competence.
> 
> -- 
>    ******************************************************************
>      Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
>      Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 


Come on, people, can't we have a rational, calm, *mature* conversation
here?  Both had good points -- homosexuality *was* considered as mental
illness not so long ago, and the fact that that judgement has been
rescinded (thank God) does not mean that the lay populace out there know,
care, or have changed their minds.  The extension of this lay argument to
include the notion that gays are incapable of consenual sex is a statement
that, though it wouldn't be allowed in court anymore (or, God, I hope
not!), might still be used by a lay person on the street.  Thus, it's a
valid point.  And it doesn't particularly matter if the vast majority of
homophobes feel that they are or aren't mentally ill if their actions
remain the same.

Jody
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality