Replies

Well, the problem is that psychotherapists became dysfunctional in 1973 or whenever they took same-sex attraction out of the diagnostic manual and did so on purely political, not clinical, basis. Even those psychos who agreed with the decision admitted it was done purely on politics. One of them wrote a book about how the decsion was made.

So, while at one time it might have been reasonable to leave it to the psychos to decide what is dysfunctional, now that the psychos are mostly dysfunctional, I’d say it’s the province of normal folks like you and me to decide.

And yes, same-sex attraction is dysfunctional. It just is. You can put honey on a turd and it’s a honey-coated turd. I’m not a connoisseur of turds, but I’d say, just off the top of my head, that a honey-coated one is dysfunctional. A regular turd is not dysfunctional.

I’ll just concede that every word you say is true. But we are talking about a man running for governor veering WAY off the track to no purpose. He wins no one’s vote he doesn’t already have with this remark. It’s not like his state isn’t fully stocked with red meat economic issues on which he could get elected if he smartly addreses them. It’s just bad politics to suddenly begin playing pop psychologist in the late stages of a political campaign.

(And even if you and I decide homosexuality is dysfunctional what do you propose we do—round up the gays for re-education camp? And advocating such is gonna get someone elected governor of NY—??? Like it isn’t hard enough for conservatives to win in places like NY....

Never mind.)

“It’s not like his state isn’t fully stocked with red meat economic issues on which he could get elected if he smartly addreses them.”

If a politician is attempting to tell the truth, then they should be rewarded by voting for them. Calling a shovel a shovel, or in this case calling queers dysfunctional, is simply stating a fact. Also, the queers have chosen to make their sexuality part of public policy. Politicians are going to have to choose to be for that or against it, and let the voters decide which way to go based on that. Someone that refers to evil as evil is preferable to someone who calls evil good, and good evil. This is politically acceptable, and frankly, this nation has too long been plagued by apologetic go-along politicians who say nothing of substance in order to get elected, as if that were the only important thing.

I wasn’t addressing the rightness or wrongness of Paladino’s statement at all. I was only speaking to the guy who said it’s up to the pyschos to decide. That’s why I replied to that particular comment, not to the first comment in the thread.

I have no idea whether it will help or hurt Paladino. I can see valid arguments both ways. Your position is certainly plausible.

I just wasn’t speaking to that question
at
all.

:-)