I wasn’t even talking about The Church. Homosexuality was still listed as a mental disorder until the early 70s. From wikipedia:
If you are 50 now, you were born in 1965 +/-. So maybe it skews a bit older, but not by much. And maybe “taught” was not the right word-- we weren’t taught ANYTHING about homosexuality. It’s just what the general thoughts in society were. Gays were considered deviant and sick, not by everyone, but by most people.
Well said.
I am very much in favor of free markets.
My objection in this thread has been to the use of deception and misinformation in order to send false signals to the market.
I took Psych 101 in the early 70’s and my prof, a Psychiatrist who treated patients at Camarillo, told us it was considered a minor and fairly “normal” perversion, like having a fetish for leather or high heels and there was no need for treatment.
No, Bricker. The market heard the signals loud and clear. The problem was that the legislators thought that the market wouldn’t hear them. That particular dog whistle doesn’t work anymore.
Too bad the market can’t tell the difference between truth and deception without your help. Seems like a weakness.
I thought the beauty of free markets was that they were always self-regulating.
I have documented, in this very thread, the specific factual errors that were in play.
As a reminder, they were the rebuttals to the defense that the Indiana RFRA was largely similar to the federal RFRA and those passed by other states.
Now, some people in this thread have conceded that misinformation was used, and gone on to make compelling cases against the Indiana RFRA using factual information and fair inferences derived therefrom, so I absolutely admit there is a ground to complain about it.
But you cannot claim that misleading information was not used. it was, and I have cited it here.
Nobody cares, dude.
I’m not sure how to respond to this, because it suggests a complete lack of familiarity with free market theory.
It’s true that ultimately, even false signals that have contributed to a misallocation of resources will be corrected in a free market, but that has never been a claim that the free market is immune to the short- and moderate-term effects of false signals.
Friedrich von Hayek, to pick one example, wrote in depth about the effect of false signals sent to the free market through interest-rate changes attributable to a central bank policy.
Which free market economic authors have you read, and from which of their works have you developed your understanding of the free market?
This appears to me to be an admission that you were aware of the misrepresentations and deceptions, but don’t care, because they were offered up in service to a cause you considered just and good.
Is that correct?
You can say it all you want, you can continue to type walls of text all you want but most of us have evaluated it for ourselves using the same information you have and you have totally failed to convince anyone but yourself.
If this were a thread about anthropogenic climate change, and someone posted a similar rejection… (“You can say it all you want, you can post walls and walls of so-called ‘science’ but most of us have evaluated it for ourselves using the same information and you have totally failed to convince anyone…”) what sort of reception would it get? What kind of reaction would you, personally, give it?
What kind of reaction would it deserve?
You cannot apotheosize this sort of reaction when it benefits you, especially on a board supposedly dedicated to fighting ignorance.
“Nobody cares” means that everybody understands that (1) the law was crafted in order to make its actual legal impact difficult to understand, and (2) that its passage was a pro-discrimination statement by the Indiana legislature.
The reaction is to (2). This isn’t a willful acceptance of ignorance, it’s seeing through a dog-whistle that wouldn’t fool a kindergartener.
Yeah - 1965. So it was declassified when I was 8 (although it’s not like every psychologist instantly changed course). By the time I really understood what gay was, I don’t recall any of my peers thinking it was a choice. I do specifically remember one guy in my college dorm telling me he thought it was a disease, so he and I shouldn’t even really discuss right or wrong, since our respective positions were non-starters to the other.
But that guy had his own issues, as it turns out.
Anyway, ‘people a little over 50’ is different than ‘most people over 40’ - there are a lot more Americans younger than me than older. People who believe teh gay isn’t inborn are a quickly dwindling minority.
But the commentary here against the law has not limited itself to (2). It has repeatedly and stubbornly offered up false and misleading commentary about the legal impact.
If the objections to the law were, “it’s a pro-discrimination statement,” then I would not bother posting. But the objections to the law have been buttressed with misleading factual claims.
Look, when the subject is global climate change, or evolution, much hay is made from the fact that opponents to these positions deny and falsify factual information. And rightly so. Evolution is as certain a theory as gravity; climate change is undeniably occurring. Those who obstinately deny it and fight back with factually false claims deserve to have those claims debunked and a light shone upon the truth.
Now, is that commitment to truth limited to areas in which it benefits you?
Or are you willing to also acknowledge the facts when they are not all that helpful?
I had a psychiatrist who, as late as 1980, believed that homosexuality was a developmental disorder.
He favored removing it from the list of mental illnesses, as he believed that helped gays live normal lives. Taking away the stigma was a kind of social therapy, in his view. He was (still is) a liberal, and now fully accepts that sexual orientation is inborn.
It can take a while, even for the best among us, to revise what we were taught.
Still, as you note, it’s been off the books for a damn long time now, so it’s a poor excuse for someone to hold up today.
I think for a lot of older folks, it’s hard to accept changes like that. Similarly, diagnosis of ADHD (damn kids just are misbehaving!) or PTSD (coward!!) or CFS (lazy!!). Most people are not scientists or doctors and don’t necessarily accept new diagnoses. And then the whole realm of psychology is suspect to a lot of people.
You didn’t read this thread, did you? Scroll up and read post #83. There’s your answer.