Skip to comments.Pedophiles 'born that way' - a Must Read and the quote of the month (great conservative article)
Posted on 09/23/2002 5:06:54 AM PDT by chance33_98
Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic and a professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, declares: "Some research suggests that some genetic and hormonal abnormalities may play a role [in pedophilia]....We now recognize that its not just a moral issue, and that nobody chooses to be sexually attracted to young people."
Please note, some adult words and themese are mentioned in this article
Sins of the Fathers
Is child molestation a sickness or a crime?
We use words to label and help us comprehend the world around us. At the same time, many of the words we use are like distorting lenses: They make us misperceive and hence misjudge the object we look at. As Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, the great 19th-century English jurist, aptly put it, "Men have an all but incurable propensity to prejudge all the great questions which interest them by stamping their prejudices upon their language."
Consider the ongoing scandal involving Roman Catholic priests accused of molesting boys. American law defines sexual congress between an adult and a child as a crime. The American Psychiatric Association defines it as a disease called "pedophilia."
Crimes are acts we commit. Diseases are biological processes that happen to our bodies. Mixing these two concepts by defining behaviors we disapprove of as diseases is a bottomless source of confusion and corruption.
That confusion was illustrated by a February 8 letter to The Boston Globe in which the Rev. John F. Burns defended Boston Cardinal Bernard Law against critics who said he ought to resign. As an archbishop, Law had transferred the Rev. John J. Geoghan to a new parish despite allegations of sexual abuse. Geoghan eventually was accused of molesting more than 100 children over three decades.
"It should be noted that neither Cardinal Bernard Law nor Father John Geoghan was aware early on of the etiology or pathology of the disease of pedophilia," Burns wrote. "The cardinal did what an archbishop does best. He showed kindness and love to an apparent errant priest. Father Geoghan also did what more recent knowledge shows pedophiles do: namely, be in total denial, with hardly any remembrance or remorse for their diseased acts. Calling for the cardinals resignation is absurd. Let the healing begin and the law take its course."
The law is taking its course not only in the suits filed against the church by the victims of Geoghan and other abusive priests. Geoghan himself has been convicted of molestation in one case and faces trial in another. But if his behavior was caused by "the disease of pedophilia," a condition that not only compelled him to fondle boys but erased his memory of those "diseased acts," how can it be just to punish him? The uncertainty introduced by viewing sexual abuse as the symptom of a disease played an important role in the churchs failure to protect congregants from priests like Geoghan. In a May 8 deposition, Cardinal Law was asked how he approached molestation charges. "I viewed this as a pathology, as a psychological pathology, as an illness," he said. "Obviously, I viewed it as something that had a moral component. It was, objectively speaking, a gravely sinful act." The combination of these two irreconcilable views, medical and moral, was a recipe for inaction.
Medical Penal Establishment
Today virtually any unwanted behavior, from shopaholism and kleptomania to sexaholism and pedophilia, may be defined as a disease whose diagnosis and treatment belong in the province of the medical system. Disease-making thus has become similar to lawmaking. Politicians, responsive to tradition and popular opinion, can define any act, from teaching slaves to read to the cold-blooded murder of a bank guard, as a crime whose control belongs in the province of the criminal justice system.
Applied to behavior, especially sexual behavior, the disease label combines a description with a covert value judgment. Masturbation, homosexuality, and the use of nongenital body parts (especially the mouth and anus) for sexual gratification have, at one time or place, all been considered sins, crimes, diseases, normal behaviors, and even therapeutic measures. For many years psychiatrists imprisoned homosexuals and tried to "cure" them; now they self-righteously proclaim that homosexuality is normal and diagnose people who oppose that view as "homophobic." Psychiatrists diagnose the person who eats too much as suffering from "bulimia" and the person who eats too little as suffering from "anorexia nervosa." Similarly, the person who has too much sex suffers from "sex addiction," while the person who shows too little interest in sex suffers from "sexual aversion disorder." Yet psychiatrists do not consider celibacy a form of mental illness; celibate persons are not said to suffer from "anerotica nervosa."
Why not? Because psychiatrists, politicians, and the media respect the Roman Catholic Churchs definition of celibacy as a virtue, a "gift from God," even though celibacy is at least as "abnormal" as homosexuality, which the church continues to define as a grievous sin -- an "intrinsic evil," in the words of Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua. Regardless of how unnatural or socially destructive a pattern of sexual behavior might be, if the church declares it to be virtuous -- as with celibacy or abstinence from nonprocreative sexual acts -- psychiatrists do not classify it as a disease. Thus a religions moral teachings shape what is ostensibly a scientific judgment.
Conversely, psychiatric diagnoses affect moral judgments. Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic and a professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, declares: "Some research suggests that some genetic and hormonal abnormalities may play a role [in pedophilia]....We now recognize that its not just a moral issue, and that nobody chooses to be sexually attracted to young people." Yet an action that affects other people is always, by definition, a moral issue, regardless of whether the actor chooses the proclivity to engage in it.
Berlin misleadingly talks about the involuntariness of being "sexually attracted to young people." The issue is not sexual attraction; it is sexual action. A healthy 20-year-old male with heterosexual interests is likely to be powerfully attracted to every halfway pretty woman he sees. This does not mean that he has, or attempts to have, sexual congress with these women, especially against their will. The entire psychiatric literature on what used to be called "sexual perversions" is permeated by the unfounded idea -- always implied, sometimes asserted -- that "abnormal" sexual impulses are harder to resist than "normal" ones.
The acceptance of this notion helps explain the widespread belief that sex offenders are more likely than other criminals to commit new crimes, an assumption that is not supported by the evidence. Tracking a sample of state prisoners who were released in 1983, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 52 percent of rapists and 48 percent of other sex offenders were arrested for a new crime within three years, compared to 60 percent of all violent offenders. The recidivism rates for nonviolent crimes were even higher: 70 percent for burglary and 78 percent for car theft, for example.
These numbers suggest that pedophiles resist their impulses more often than car thieves do. In any case, it is impossible to verify empirically whether an impulse is resistible. We can only say whether it was in fact resisted. But that doesnt matter, because the purpose of such a pseudomedical claim is to excuse the actor of moral and legal responsibility.
Catholic officials took advantage of this psychiatric absolution to avoid dealing decisively with priests who were guilty of sexual abuse. What do church authorities do when a priest is accused of molesting children? They send him to a prestigious psychiatric hospital -- Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, the Institute of Living in Hartford, the Menninger Foundation in Topeka -- for "treatment." In practice, the psychiatric hospital is a safe house for the sexually misbehaving priest, a place where he can be hidden until he is quietly reassigned to continue his abuse elsewhere. Berlin claims such priests are closely watched after being discharged. But a priest who commits sexual abuse is a criminal who should be imprisoned, not a patient who should be monitored by psychiatrists in the churchs pay.
Sex with minors was not always considered a disease. In ancient Greece, sexual relationships between men and boys were a normal part of life. Such relations, called "pederastic," typically occurred between a 20-to-30-year-old man and a 12-to-17-year-old boy. The man pursued the boy, and the boy submitted to him as the passive partner in anal sex. The man also played the role of mentor to his pupil. With the arrival of heavy pubic hair, usually at age 18, the younger man found a boy to mentor and get sexual satisfaction from. Sexual relations between men and young children played no part in Greek pederasty. Judaism and Christianity redefined same-sex relations as unnatural and condemned them as sinful. Then, as criminal laws supplemented or replaced ecclesiastical laws, same-sex relations became crimes as well. That understanding governed popular opinion until the rise of secularism and medical science.
The first person to propose redefining "pederasty," which in the 18th century became the term for what we call homosexuality, appears to have been the French physician Ambroise Tardieu (18181879). In 1857 Tardieu published a forensic-medical study to assist courts in cases involving pederasty. Tardieu believed that the penises of active homosexuals were anatomically different from the penises of passive homosexuals and "normal" men, that the anuses of passive homosexuals were anatomically different from the anuses of active homosexuals and normals, and that physicians could examine individuals and diagnose homosexuality by observing these alleged markers.
It remained for Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal (18331890), a famous German neurologist, to convert homosexuality from a disease identifiable by examining the subjects body into a mental illness identifiable by examining the subjects mind. Westphal renamed pederasty "sexual inversion" (in German, "contrary sexual feeling"), a term that was widely used well into the 20th century. It was also Westphal who popularized the erroneous idea, still held by many people, that male homosexuals are effeminate and female homosexuals are masculine. He argued that since sexual inversion was a disease it should be treated by doctors rather than punished by law.
A Return to Athens
Creating diseases by coining pseudomedical terms was raised to the level of art by Baron Richard von Krafft-Ebing (18401902), a German-born professor of psychiatry at the Universities of Strasbourg, Graz, and Vienna. In his Psychopathia Sexualis (1886), which made him world famous, Krafft-Ebing authoritatively renamed sexual sins and crimes "sexual perversions" and declared them to be "cerebral neuroses." Lawyers, politicians, and the public embraced this transformation as the progress of science, instead of dismissing it as medical megalomania based on nothing more than the manipulation of language. "Sexology" became an integral part of medicine and the new science of psychiatry.
We have come a long way from Krafft-Ebing. In July 1998 Temple University psychologist Bruce Rind and two colleagues published their research on pedophilia in the Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association. The authors concluded that the deleterious effects on a child of sexual relations with an adult "were neither pervasive nor typically intense." They recommended that a childs "willing encounter with positive reactions" be called "adult-child sex" instead of "abuse."
Not surprisingly, this conclusion created a furor, which led to a retraction and apology. Raymond Fowler, chief executive officer of the American Psychological Association, acknowledged that the journals editors should have evaluated "the article based on its potential for misinforming the public policy process, but failed to do so."
Apparently no one noticed that, according to the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV, published in 1994), a person meets the criteria for pedophilia only if his "fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." In short, pedophilia is a mental illness only if the actor is distressed by his actions.
Psychiatrists had likewise classified homosexuality as a disease if the individual was dissatisfied with his sexual orientation ("ego-dystonic homosexuality"), but not if he was satisfied with it ("ego-syntonic homosexuality"). Bending to the wind, the American Psychiatric Association later backtracked. In DSM-IV-TR, published in 2000, the requirement of "clinically significant distress or impairment" was omitted from the criteria for pedophilia.
Mental health professionals are not the only "progressives" eager to legitimize adult-child sex by portraying opposition to it as old-fashioned antisexual prejudice. In a 1999 article, Harris Mirkin, a professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, stated that "children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality." As summarized by The New York Times, he argued that "the notion of the innocent child was a social construct, that all intergenerational sex should not be lumped into one ugly pile and that the panic over pedophilia fit a pattern of public response to female sexuality and homosexuality, both of which were once considered deviant." Mirkin cited precedents such as Greek pederasty. "Though Americans consider intergenerational sex to be evil," he wrote, "it has been permissible or obligatory in many cultures and periods of history." He told the Times: "I dont think its something where we should just clamp our heads in horror....In 1900, everybody assumed that masturbation had grave physical consequences; that didnt make it true."
The analogy is fatally flawed. Autoerotic acts differ radically from heteroerotic acts. Masturbation is something the child does for himself; it satisfies one of his biological urges. In that sense, masturbation is similar to urination or defecation. That is why we do not call masturbation a "sexual relationship," a term that implies the involvement of two (or more) persons, one of whom may be an involuntary participant. Masturbation (in private) is an amoral act: Strictly speaking, it falls outside the scope of moral considerations. In contrast, every sexual relationship is intrinsically a moral matter; medical (or pseudomedical-psychiatric) considerations ought to play no role in our judgments of such acts. The religiously enlightened person may view same-sex relations as evil. The psychologically enlightened person may view any consensual sex relations as good. Society must decide which sexual acts are permissible, and individuals must decide which sexual acts they condemn, condone, or wish to engage in.
The Legal Line
The criminal law defines sex between adults and minors as a crime. But the law is a blunt instrument. Technically, an 18-year-old male who has a consensual sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female is committing a criminal act (statutory rape), even though he might be only one day older than his partner. Such "crimes" generally are not prosecuted.
Sexual contact between a priest and a 10-year-old boy is quite another matter, and here is where the medicalization of unwanted or prohibited behaviors hinders our understanding. To impress the laity, physicians long ago took to using Greek and Latin words to describe diseases. For example, they called inflammation of the lung "pneumonia" and kidney failure "uremia." The result is that people now think that any Greco-Latin word ending in ia -- or with the suffix philia or phobia -- is a bona fide disease. This credulity would be humorous if it were not tragic.
Bibliophilia means the excessive love of books. It does not mean stealing books from libraries. Pedophilia means the excessive (sexual) love of children. It does not mean having sex with them, although that is what people generally have in mind when they use the term. Because children cannot legally consent to anything, an adult using a child as a sexual object is engaging in a wrongful act. Such an act is wrongful because it entails the use of physical coercion, the threat of such coercion, or (what comes to the same thing in a relationship between an adult and a child) the abuse of the adults status as a trusted authority. The outcome of the act -- whether it is beneficial or detrimental for the child -- is irrelevant for judging its permissibility.
Saying that a priest who takes sexual advantage of a child entrusted to his care "suffers from pedophilia" implies that there is something wrong with his sexual functioning, just as saying that he suffers from pernicious anemia implies that there something wrong with the functioning of his hematopoietic system. If that were the issue, it would be his problem, not ours. Our problem is that there is something wrong with him as a moral agent. We ought to focus on his immorality, and forget about his sexuality.
A priest who has sex with a child commits a grave moral wrong and also violates the criminal law. He does not treat himself as if he has a disease before he is apprehended, and we ought not to treat him that way afterward.
Contributing Editor Thomas Szasz, a professor of psychiatry emeritus at the SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, is the author, most recently, of Liberation by Oppression: A Comparative Study of Slavery and Psychiatry (Transaction).
This quote (my quote of the month)is not from this article but from another one he wrote Here (Mental illness: psychiatry's phlogiston)
A priest who has sex with a child commits a grave moral wrong and also violates the criminal law. He does not treat himself as if he has a disease before he is apprehended, and we ought not to treat him that way afterward.
Heh heh heh. The other article I linked to above is even better then this one - it is no wonder liberals hate this guy.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
We are not at that state yet and I hope we never get there but it is necessary to point out where the road is going and what the consequences of that path are.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
...nobody chooses to be sexually attracted to young people.
WRONG! People choose to do wrong things all of the time, including hurting children. Children aren't molested just because someone finds them attractive, but often because someone is exploiting their vulnerability. It's not a sexual thing so much as it is an EVIL thing.
I wonder what sexual activities Berlin willingly engages in that he doesn't choose to do?
I'm confused by this statement, which compares the reporting of sex-crimes with the reporting of burglary and car theft and violent crime.
Wouldn't sex-crimes be less likely to be reported than violent crimes or burglary? Isn't the crime of pedophilia especially likely to be underreported? Can the reporting of pedophilia, which is a crime against a child, really be lumped in with the reporting of any crimes against adults?
Maybe the sex-offenders are committing new crimes, but not being hauled into court for committing them. Maybe this is especially true in the case of pedophiles.
Finally, (and maybe I'm stretching legal terms here, isn't pedophilia often a "violent" crime?
Yes, and they will never stop trying.
Liberals are not normal; and I am convinced that many are born that way as well.
Agreed harpseal. Could not the same be said of abortion? It is after all the most violent form of child abuse.
Szasz is a Libertarian and this sentence shows his Libertarian objection to child abuse.
Most psychologists and psychiatrists hate him too. He's one of only a handful of those in the psychiatric community with any light, the rest, like all cockroaches, hate it.
You just finished reading an article that points out the misuse of language is one of the main ways perversions are put over. Didn't you learn anything from it?
If you are going to call the unborn a "child," then what are you going to call those that are born. They are not the same thing. Since abortion is already allowed, if you make the unborn and the born the same thinkg, in the eyes of those who approve abortion, you are promoting infaticide. Is that what you want?
One reason those who oppose abortion are losing the battle is because almost all of their arguments are wrong.
I understand that and I would state that if the sexual abuse of children were to be sanctioned by the state then such a state would be illegitimate and it should be overthrown violently if necessary.
Analogous-rhetoricly I ask, is Saddam a mortal threat now but that we must wait until he uses a weapon of mass destruction before taking him out of power?
I believe you, and feel the same way. But, you know, I heard a lot of people say the same thing about sex education in the schools (which has put a lot of this over) and about homosexuals, and quite a few other things which are nevertheless not only tolerated by the people who said it, but positively supported by them. How many of these same people are afraid to say where they work or shop, that homosexuals have something wrong with them.
Ah, how Clinton of you. First attack the person.
"If you are going to call the unborn a "child," then what are you going to call those that are born. "
Just that, born or unborn but still a child or human being.
"Since abortion is already allowed, if you make the unborn and the born the same thing, in the eyes of those who approve abortion, you are promoting infaticide. Is that what you want?"
Sorry, Hank Kerchief, I don't get your drift on this one. No way could my comment be construed as supporting abortion or to use your word "infatcide"
"One reason those who oppose abortion are losing the battle is because almost all of their arguments are wrong."
I seriously doubt those who appose abortion are losing the war. Only a athiest lefty could think killing a growing infant, child, human, fetus is a good thing. Talk about arguments being wrong, abortion kills something no matter what the left wants to call it.
I can kill a plant, an insect, an animal (only when PETA is not looking) but abortion is not killing? Come on, be honest, the main reason for abortion is people don't want to take resposibility for thier own actions. Me, me, me, me continues to be the chant from the abortion at any cost crowd.
Hmmmm! Then I guess I am just very confused regarding your statement on child abuse. Occasionally, humans must take up arms against evil. Child abuse=Evil worthy of violence to stop it but Child Abortion not evil enough to fight against. Hmmm, strange life forms these humans.
We think a lot of things might be evil, but we don't go around killing others to change them. That is something we use the process for - change. I thought clinton was evil, but instead of becoming violent towards him I voted against him.
The problem we have, and I DO see your point BTW (one I have made myself many times), is that the government allows something which we find totally wrong - IE we are not fighting a PERSON who is abusing a child (ie killing it by abortion), we are fighting the entire society and legal structure.
If I saw someone trying to kill their kid, I would be able to use lethal force if needed to save the life of the child - and I would be backed up by society and the legal system. Killing the doctors, blowing up the clinics, etc will in the end prove fruitless. Changing the beliefs of people so they agree with you and change the law would in the end save more lives more quickly.
That all said I will say that if the average american say someone, like the tape we all saw of the woman beating her kid, trying to kill a child they would feel justified in using force to stop them (even if the law allowed us to kill kids). We don't with abortion because a) we don't see it as it happens and b)we don't witness the victim's face, hear their yells, etc.
Out of site, out of mind - and most people don't think it is worth their freedom to save the life of someone they do not witness being killed. If all abortions were done live on big screens in stadiums I guarantee people would rush out to stop them.
While I agree in principle witht he article it comes up short in many respects. For example - at the very end (snipped above) he fails to deal with a critical part of the argument about paedophilia. If it can be demonstrated that a child can knowingly and willingly consent then his final statements fall on their face. The historical examples he gave of the physical and then psychological methods used in identifying and then treating homosexuals illustrate a critical mistake so often made. The issue is not whether there are any physical or psychological draw-backs to the behavior - the issues is the source of our moral conviction.
Something is wrong not because it's bad for us just as something isn't good just because it appears to be good for us. A relative moral system invariably changes with the zeitgeist of the age - even the above article ultimately makes room for the potential acceptance of paedophilia despite it's clearly conservative position.
We have embraced homosexuality so openly and so thoroughly in our culture that I see child sex as inevitable in some form or fashion our in future.
It already is infanticide - the pro-abortionists are just dealing in semantics to assuage the guilt that their already thoroughly scarred conscience cannot feel.
I'd be keeping an eye on Vermont.
While I understand what your saying most people in general don't want to get into the business of how two consenting adults live their lives, sexually or otherwise. That is one reason homosexuality was able to win acceptance. It is also, to some extent, why (as I mentioned above) people aren't as mad as they should be about abortion. They don't see it and they don't rationalize an unseen&unborn as a child (just like people don't care about children starving in Africa until they see their photos).
Pedophilia is in danger of having this happen as well - out of site, out of mind, the only difference is people tend to have a soft spot when it comes to children: especially those who have kids (read - heterosexuals, creating your child in your likeness).
With the divorce rate high and people spending more and more time around young kids who are not their own they will try to rationalize sex with those kids because they desire them - rationality such as, it is not incest really and we both enjoyed it.
The breakdown of the family and rampant sexuality in our culture, homosexual or otherwise, has led us down this path of rationalizing our desires above those whom we have power and control over (children). Kids are different, and attempts to make them adults for our sexual use is both selfish and evil (IMHO). I would not blame so much the homosexual movement (alone) it is the lack of parents staying parents of their own children.
Had more to say but have to run and fix a server (and it did come up short btw as you stated)! Thanks for your comments! Sorry I got long winded but this is a touchy subject for me, for this obvious reason:
I agree - homosexuality is a symptom of the problem and pedophilia is a more alarming indication that they 'problem' has spread - significantly.
*shivers* Unfortunately the same argument can be made for a lot of degenerate behavior.
Law applies to social relationships, but morality can extend to inward acts. You can't punish someone for going around hating people, unless he acts on his hatred. Nevertheless, hating people is immoral.
Inordinate pride, envy, gluttony, lust are immoral. Evil starts within the self and then expresses itself outwardly in evil deeds. Law punishes the deeds. Morality tries to deal with the evil before it is committed, or to convert the inner evil into something better.
Law punishes murder. Morality tries to persuade people not to commit murder.
All this is greatly simplified. But it's simply not true that private acts and thoughts have no consequences. You can't--or shouldn't--throw someone in jail for thinking bad thoughts, but you are obliged to counsel your brother or your friend to a happier course of life.
That explains all the votes gore got.
I certainly hope so. :)
I strenuously disagree with this.
Homosexuality is an "issue" conservatives like to harp on because its public face runs so counter to the public face of conservatism (i.e., Provincetown vs. Main Street America). And for many traditional conservatives, especially on Free Republic, the mere fact that such a place like Provincetown or Key West exists is a definitive sign of the coming Armageddon.
The plain fact of the matter is homosexuality is not normal, heterosexuality is. This article is all about semantics, isn't it? How could homosexuality ever be normal? It may be tolerable, but unless we wish to commit suicide as a species, it will never be normal. The vast majority of adult men want to have sex with women---and lots of sex at that. The vast majority of adult women want to have sex with men.
We're being reactionaries here. We see something so whacked out and so against what we consider the right way to live that we figure the whole world is going to hell in a hand basket merely because we can't fathom it and we can't control it. So we manufacture these "slippery slopes" (an expression I hope you'll pardon giving the topic at hand) that are specious at best in order to augment our opposition to it. Just because we, as a society, tolerate adult homosexuals doesn't mean we will inevitably tolerate "intergenerational" homosexual or heterosexual sex. Some of you may squeal at the libertarian definition of it, but think about it rationally: adult homosexuality involves two consenting adults. Pedophilia and ephebophilia, by definition, do not. If anything, Americans of all political persuasions---even evil liberals---put the safety and best interest of their children above even the safety and best interests of themselves. One of the foundations of society---any society---is that its formed to protect the interests of and help foster healthy children.
Also, it seems to me that others are merely defining in secular terms why some of us have instinctive moral and religious aversions to behaviors we find repulsive---behaviors like homosexuality and pedophilia. I don't think it matters why we're repulsed by them as long as we are.
From his other article which seems to go along with your last paragraph.
Perhaps you are right about my point, but I think the more 'perversion' becomes prevelant and accepted in our society the more the morals of individuals on whole will go down over time. Sadly some of the aruguments used are terribly flawed but for reason they make it to the mainstream and into the education area.
I think the liberal objections to the bible for instance in schools will soften for several reasons related to this topic:
1. Group Blasts 'Pro-Gay Scriptures':New Bible (NOAB) waters down homosexuality, Jesus' sovereignty
2. Liberal activist Rev. Barry Lynn claimed that the slave of the Roman centurion commended by Jesus for his faith was actually a male sex slave kept with the Lords approval. The remark came during a formal debate last year on whether homosexuality is compatible with Christianity.
And on and on it will go as people attempt to remove the moral and social objections others have. After seeing Gore get so many votes I am convinced things will only get worse. Thanks for the well written reply, you may live up to your namesake yet ;)
Glad you put the warning up for us.
An excellent way of wording things. One of the ways many of us are different is that while some of us have the impulse to get that SOB that cut us off in traffic we resist it because even though it might make us feel better we know it to be wrong. Those who go through with those actions prove they are a danger to society, though some lawyers would get the sentences reduced as a crime of passion....
If one is to take Szasz's feelings on Mental Illness and apply them to drugs it gets interesting. Example:It is not by accident that, in all the psychiatric literature, there is not a single account of voices that command a schizophrenic to be especially kind to his wife. That is because being kind to one's wife is not the sort of behaviour to which we want to assign a causal (psychiatric) explanation.
Replace schizophrenic with the drug of your choice.