[ConsistentLibertarian]

There can be bad arguments for true conclusions. Suppose the judge has simply written "Homosexuality is wrong because God forbids it -- the Bible tells us so". That's one case. The same people would sue him, offering the same argument, and the same people here would defend his moral courage. But this case is interestingly different. The judge isn't making a moral claim. The judge is making a medical diagnosis. Moreover, he seems not to even understand the difference. It's his stupidity that's most worrisome. Even if you applaud his morals, you should be embarrassed by his argument.

[Buffalo Bob]

I don't think there's anything in the bible to the effect that homosexuality is a mental illness ...

I think you are correct, I don't recall any such association. I do remember, however, several passages which refer to homosexuality as sinful, evil, and worthy of death. Imagine the homosexual outrage if the judge would have made those associations. If anything, he was gentle with his assertion.

The judge isn't making a moral claim. The judge is making a medical diagnosis.

You may be right on this one. I think he was making a clear case of their disease being just what most folks know it to be, a mental illness. One that has been shown to be treatable.

[JCG]

The judge is making a medical diagnosis. Moreover, he seems not to even understand the difference. It's his stupidity that's most worrisome.

If I say kleptomaniacs have a mental illness have I made a "medical diagnosis?" No, I've merely stated fact.

Then why shouldn't I say the same about homosexuals?

Because the APA changed the rules in 1973 and the ConsistentLibertarians bought into it?

America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)

[mlmr]

The judge isn't making a moral claim. The judge is making a medical diagnosis.

No he is just stating what had been true for years. Until the APA was lobbied and boycotted to change their diagnosis catogories, homosexuality and lesbianism were medical diagnosis. The only diagnosis to be rallied and boycotted, and politicised out of the DSM, (Diagnostic Manual).

[Ron H.]

The sinful man all down through time has always tried to finds ways to justify his sinful and wicked ways but the Bible has never changed its commandments on sin. It is the same today as it was yesterday and it will still be the same tomorrow. Homosexuality is sinful and an abomination and the sinful will be called to account for their sinful lifestyle on the Day of Judgement.

OBTW. The judge was offering an opinion as a "private" individual wasn't he, not as a sitting Judge rendering an opinion on a case before him was he!? Is he not permitted to have an personal opinion if he says that he does not allow his personal opinion to interfere in his judicial decisions? Isn't that what all good Judges do?