Yeah. I can prove that I was born heterosexual. I remember thinking the doctor who smacked my ass was SO HOT.

I can neither confirm nor deny being turned on by the "Like a Virgin" music video (released when I was 3 years old).

I was 7 and I still can't confirm nor deny. Madonna's a sexy number.

You made a CHOICE to want to find mid-80s Madonna attractive.

You also made a CHOICE to find modern-day Skeletor Madonna unattractive.

Prove you didn't!

I'll give you the first assertion - I cannot, however, in any good conscience, admit to the 2nd assertion.

I'll just say that, as a 3-year old, I made a very mature decision.

Maybe she was the doctor who smacked my ass. Prove she wasn't. I was born this way.

Skeletor Madonna is a minor technicality. Let us remember the good times.

Be happy that we approve of your decision. You'd be fired if we did not.

This is a very good point. Even though I personally don't agree with homosexuality, I am wary when the government says you can't do something because of your sexual preference. That is your own, private business.

True - luckily "Like a Virgin" Madonna has been universally-accepted. Who knows what would have happened if I'd had the same reaction to Cindi Lauper.

That's where I am on this; I think there are certain issues where the government should just back off, short of some serious compelling interest. That's the Libertarian in me breaking out, though.

I think protecting against deviant behavior should be a serious compelling interest. Although my professor swears that "all the good stuff is deviant."

Plus that gets into the definition of "deviant" behavior, and how you're evaluating it. I get very uncomfortable, in most cases, where the baseline is religious doctrine (in terms of the government stepping into issues). So, if you're classifying homosexuality as deviant behavior based on its deviation from the accepted norms of Christianity, I'd rather the government stay out of those issues.

rant/

I have the "what is deviance" discussion with people everyday and a lot of people think you are making a personal value judgment when you say something is a form of deviance. Deepimpact2 is making a personal value judgment because of how she feels about homosexuality. However considerations of deviant behavior are widely accepted in some fields, even among those like myself who don't feel negatively of every deviant behavior and the people who engage in them.

Deviant behavior is anything that goes against normative behavior and it does not have to be based on religion. I prefer it not be. There's generally a consensus regarding what this society's norms are, whether based on the ruling of the majority in numbers or the majority in power.

Based on this perspective, homosexuality, crime, alcoholism, suicidal ideation and behaviors, mental disorders, and drug use are among the conditions and behaviors that are considered deviance regardless of how prevalent they are. Prevalence is difficult to prove for many forms of deviance where there are inconsistent rates, underreporting, etc.

When what this society considers to be the norms change, or the powers that be no longer feel threatened by a condition and its prevalence, so will what people consider to be deviance. If you read scholarly articles published decades ago for a few fields of study, divorce is considered abnormal and deviant. While this is still the case in terms of its impact on society, it is less the case as the divorce rates are so high and people have accepted different family structures.

/rant

I'm more comfortable basing my ideas on "deviance" on the laws as they exist today. Granted, that mentality has its own pitfalls, in that many of the laws are based on notions of morality, and that previous laws have been found to be inconsistent with the realities of society.

But, as noted above, I feel uncomfortable having religion (as opposed to law) being the baseline from which to judge deviation.

ETA: Your post didn't appear to be a rant; it seemed like a scholarly take on the discussion.

Thanks for approving of me. That means I can't be outcasted for my CHOICES.

So let's try to pretend that the law, religion, and morality do not intersect in most societies:

Based on the law, homosexuality is not against the law but certain "manifestations??" of homosexuality are against the law. That could translate to homosexuality as a form of deviance.

But what manifestations of homosexuality are against the law? I can't think of any off the top of my head that would specifically apply to homosexuals.

Would gay marriage apply? What about sodomy laws that people try to apply to homosexuals/say are in reference to homosexuality.

Please don't disapprove. *biting nails*

I think we're defining the issue in different ways. I'm thinking specifically of instances where homosexual behavior is illegal.

I don't see gay marriage as a manifestation of homosexuality that's against the law. In those states where gay marriage is illegal, a gay couple wouldn't be able to falsify a marriage, or falsely represent that they are married. It's a measure against homosexual marraige, but not against homosexuality itself. But, I may be looking at the issue too narrowly. I also don't mean to marginalize the effect that such laws have on gay couples.

As to anti-sodomy laws, the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas invalidated all such laws in the US. So, if there are any laws like that, they're flying in the face of Supreme Court precedent.

Hey, you're the one who wanted to go by the law. I go by normative behavior so it is deviance regardless. :)

ETA: I know it's not against homosexuality, itself. As with many forms of crime and deviance, it only matters within a certain context. I was talking about certain actions, such as marriage.

Ok, fair enough - I was going from a very narrow view, and I see your point about marriage.

Yes, those laws may be flying the face of Supreme Court precedent, but they are still on the books and people are still being prosecuted under them.
I think it should be made clear that my statements concerning deviance are based on religion AND law. However, I always find it interesting that people argue that the two should remain separate. Most laws are based on Christian principles found in the Bible. So the two are never entirely separate.

Where are the anti-sodomy laws still on the books?

As to the issue of deviance in terms of religion and law; there are no laws specifically against homosexuality. There are laws that prevent homosexuals from marrying, but nothing that keeps an individual from maintaining a homosexual relationship.

In saying that religion and law should remain seperate; I think people are arguing that, apart from the laws that are currently on the books, the government shouldn't be forming new laws based on religious norms.

That's not an artful way of describing it, but you get my point.

My home state still has laws against sodomy. Heck, there are some states that still have laws making fornication, adultery, and "shacking up" illegal. Also, you do realize that those types of laws are still in effect for acts done in public right? Lawrence only protects people in the privacy of their homes. If they commit these acts in public, all bets are off. However, my home state has still prosecuted individuals for acts of sodomy since Lawrence. The issue is that no one has challenged the prosecutions.

I would venture to say that laws concerning sodomy and gay marriage ARE two examples of laws that, while they may not prohibit homosexuality in the literal sense, the focus is to put a significant damper on activities that are of significance to the homosexual community.

As far as the government creating new laws, I dare say that even new laws are going to still be based on religious norms. I'm sure for every new law they create, you can find a basis for it in the Bible. Even laws that provide that you must follow the government's leadership have some basis in the Bible.

Ok...I was thinking of the anti-sodomy laws purely in the private context. I'll admit that I haven't looked enough into the issue as far as public sodomy, although I'd wonder why that didn't fall under some larger public indecency act covering all public sexual acts.

They probably do.

It's also probably worth nothing in the context of the thread that Clinton's DADT really doesn't deal with orientation or private behavior. It seems to me to deal with requiring people to be closeted.

Sure, it holds homosexuals to a different standard than heterosexuals, but it also doesn't seek to evaluate orientation or private behavior and act on it.

ETA: Nevermind, a mere suspicion of behavior means that a supervisor can "ask" and investigate, so I think I was way too optimistic. It definitely seeks to evaluate orientation in cases where there's some reason to be suspicious. A quote from wikipedia: "Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender."

Counselor, you're now admitting (under Internet oath) that you currently find Madonna attractive, even though she looks like an awkward manly personal trainer-slash-skeleton in an Olde Timey doctor's office.

Would you like to refresh your memory from your deposition notes, or is this actually your testimony here?

Isn't this the classic "correlation does not imply causation" issue? Also contextual testing?

Whoops, withdrawn. I would like to review my deposition testimony, as I would hope it is inconsistent with my current statements.

If you used your right hand, it falls under work product rules . . . get it? Because the left hand would be the "stranger"? See, this is how interesting I find this troll thread.

Yes and yes.

I feel like I am in a room full of lawyers! :rolleyes:

if a company made a policy (in writing) against hiring blacks, do you think that it would be in the news?

Only if it included a display case with a monkey book. :p