Jason, while normally I agree with you almost as much as I agree with me, this one stopped me for a bit. Let’s backtrack to the APA in 1973 in Honolulu:

The reason the APA dropped homosexuality from its list of mental disorders was that there was absolutely no evidence that being gay is a mental disorder, though there was plenty of evidence that a lot of people didn’t like it, and confused their dislike with sincere medical belief.They had a definition of mental disorder, but to make it stick for gay people they had to ignore their own definition, and say that “Of course. Gay people are mentally disordered BY definition. Just not the definition we apply to everyone else.” It could not hold up to any kind of scientific scrutiny, not that much of psychiatry can. The whole procedure underlined that prejudice was really the defining issue, not homosexuality, as is often the case on issues around sexuality in our deeply puritanical culture.

(On a side note, I used to have a boyfriend who didn’t want to shave his stuff because he thought that it put too much attention there. People might think he was gay and thought ‘too much’ about sex, and you shouldn’t– well, you know. When I pointed out that he is gay, he DID think a lot about it, and liked lots of attention there, he got over himself. but I digress. It’s just an illustration of the twisty ways of sex). Anyway…

Not surprisingly, religious reactions to gay people are very similar. First, a whole category of people is defined as mentally ill (or particularly sinful) with no scientific or experiential (or biblical) reason to do so, only a cultural and religious prejudice. They they have a vote, and presto-change-o, a whole category of people are “cured” overnight. Then, the people who whose livelihood depend on the the “mental illness” issue try to make another vote to make all of those people “sick” again. Sounds just like the Episcopal Church. Clearly, not a matter of good science or good medicine– or good theology– just prejudice. You might call it the politics– or theology– of diagnosis.

A lot of what passes for claiming paraphilia as a sexual disorder is just the mere fact that some people don’t share that particular taste. for example, Diaper Dave was engaging in, I guess, paraphilia that I don’t find particularly attractive. Actually, I don’t find it attractive at all. I also find his brand of conservative hypocrisy unattractive. neither is an illness or even worthy of psychiatric attention.

And thus you are right in your conclusion. It’s another attempt to write an unacknowledged subtext into a conversation that is ostensibly about something else. much like “teaching” gay marriage in school was deliberately conflated with “teaching your children homosexuality, all in an attempt to engage in the gays-are-gonna-get-your-childrenfear-mongering that was a major reason for the success of prop. 8. They couldn’t do much with the child molestation thingy any more– too many people are educated, at least those that aren’t bible-believing Christians of the cherry picking variety. (Jimmy Swaggart: Homosexuality is the WORST sin. No it isn’t, Jimmy. Hypocrisy is miles ahead of it). so they did the next best thing.

No, quo, it’s irrelevant to the subject of Hate Crimes legislation at this time.

“Sexual Orientation” would also not cover hate crimes against sextents or orienteers! That doesn’t mean we’re against protections for both, should it be necessary. But that’s not what’s on the table at this time.

This deliberate confusion of sexual orientation with legitimate mental disorders of a sexual nature was a scare tactic, a mean-spirited one intended to cloud the issue (seems to have worked on you in particular) and make the legislation appear more ominous and threatening than it actually is. They can’t argue the case on it’s merits, or lack thereof, so they have to resort to blatant lies, distortions, and scare tactics.

Which should not be news to anyone who reads this website on a regular basis.

But as far as I know, we don’t have a history of diaper-wearer-bashing in this country — unless, that is, there’s a vast conspiracy on the part of the media not to discuss the rash (excuse the pun) of diaper-wearer-bashing that is sweeping the nation.

But there has been a long history of violence and overt intimidation motivated by race, religion and national origin, which is why those categories are currently protected by law. And the FBI documents a very firm history of violence that is motivated by sexual orientation — and crimes based on sexual orientation are more violent than the other categories.

I think it’s important that we enact laws to solve real problems, and not problems that don’t seem to exist.

I’m confused here. I don’t understand how discussing the hate crimes bill is not relevant to “lying about the hate crimes bill.”

Could you please clarify matters? Also, you don’t seem to have realised that my posts weren’t about fetishes as such, any more than your posts were.

Keep it to the subject and I’m fine. This is about “lying about the hate crime bill”. If you want to talk about the hate crime bill or about lying I’ll be fine. If you want to discuss fethishes – while it might be fun – we aren’t doing that at this time.

Keep it relevant.

You write, “We are discussing how all too frequently anti-gays are blatant liars.”

I see. So what you’re saying is, no one can comment here unless they agree with you? That’s the first time I’ve heard that one here. As far as I’m concerned, my comments are indeed relevant (and no, they aren’t motivated by any desire to talk about paraphilia for its own sake).

I assume that the main reason you don’t like my comments is because I am disagreeing with you and you can’t think of a good response.