Prop H8 hinders the Autistic Rights movement!

Post Reply New Topic

Fair enough; go marry a member of the opposite sex--just like I had to do.



And? Just because blacks and whites were granted that liberty (it's not a right BTW) in no way reflects why two persons of the same sex should. This is like a childish argument, "They got too!"



Love isn't relevant.

1 - It can't be measured, and thus becomes a subjective point to use.
2 - Heterosexuals, according to law, have no commitment to love one another. If the gay community wants to be treated just like the heterosexual community, then "love" simply is not part of the equation.



The gay community is every bit as guilty of bigotry and hatred (if not more) as heterosexuals against same-sex marriage. With instances such as El Coyote in CA where they actively assaulted a business on the basis of what a member of management did on their own time, they are only adding to the problem. Additionally, the bully tactics like suing E-Harmony don't help either.

Having a specific way to speak and/or act as seen in other co-cultures is a lifestyle choice, what sex an individual finds sexually attractive isn't, just like what their skin color is, and so on.

For homosexuals, their behavior is a choice, even if their sexuality is not. The stereotypes of the flaming, wrist flipping, gay man, and the stocky, flannel-wearing gay woman may have some basis' in reality, but I think they may be largely offensive to the average homosexual person. Mainly, a person whose only offset is their sexuality will very likely both know and understand what constitutes appropriate behavior (although they may not give a rip ).

For Aspies and Auties, not so much. We have disorders of perception, and may not know or understand what appropriate behavior is, and much less understand why it's appropriate.

Behavior is a choice for everyone, barring determinists.

What isn't a choice are innate characteristics, and denying someone a legally state sanctioned service/condition based on innate characteristics is illegal. If marriage was a purely religious concept w/ no associated state and/or federal legal rights, then this wouldn't be an issue, but it is, so here we are.

You miss a very key difference here, no one is born to act camp, nor born with an instinct to find someone of the same sex attractive. If we assume the latter then by extension we would have to say that those into bestiality or paedophillia are acting on instinctive attraction.

On the other hand, people are born on the spectrum.

Evidence, Please?

basically from my limited understanding it dissallowed gays to marry. Only unions between same sex couples are recognized.

Now I don't believe the issues are related autism and asds with homosexuality but personally I feel they need to get the same rights as anyone else. I don't understand the problem with gays marrying people don't have to like it quite frankly it doesn't affect them.

People aren't born camp, but they are born w/ a spectrum of characteristics regarding sexuality just like they are born w/ a spectrum of characteristics as it relates to autism. Not all people who are homosexual are campy. In terms of the state observing the marriage of two people, w/ all the state and federal rights that entails, discriminating based on an innate characteristic such as sexual orientation was deemed illegal by the state supreme court. This isn't about campy or not campy, since the behavior of homosexuals in the state varies greatly, but about discrimination based on an innate characteristic.

Pedophilia and bestiality are different because even if they are innate instincts, they are actions that by definition can and likely do cause lasting harm and cannot have the consent of another party, which is why they are illegal. If a homosexual person gets married to a member of the same sex, that member has to consent to the marriage. Even if pedophilia did not result in lasting psychological harm to a child, which it demonstrably does, a child cannot consent due to legal conditions regarding their existence as an autonomous member of society, and an animal can't communicate in a way we understand at all, so they can't consent either. In both cases we are looking at very likely to possible harm, as well as lack of consent, which is why both are illegal.

too bad this post is not only incorrect but the most incoherent point I have ever seen someone try to make. I can only hope those people who share your viewpoints on gay marriage are as incorrect and incoherent as you are they will get their rights in no time then.

When gays claim that the Marriage Protection Act inhibits the Autistic Rights Movement, it makes about as much sense as PETA claiming that eating meat causes Autism.

There simply is no real, reapeatably verifiable evidence to back up the either claim. They are only lame attempts by the claimants to attach their agendas to the completely unrelated problems that Aspies and Auties face.

Only this, and nothing more.

Lets assume the opposite, that someone is born to act camp, or born to find someone of the same sex attractive. Then there would be clear evidence for its heritability. In the same way that someone on the spectrum is likely to have someone with at least the character traits in their own family.

It inhibits it insofar as any discrimination based on innate characteristics does. Is isn't as if banning gay marriage would result in banning autistic rights such as marriage, but it would establish a precedent for discriminating based on an innate characteristic, which could then be used to justify any discriminatory (along the same lines) legislation, be it targeting AS individuals or others.

Like most public statements it tends to be a bit over the top. A realistic version would be that if upheld it sets a precedent that could be used to inhibit Autistic Rights, just like it could help inhibit any other minority w/ some innate characteristic, but we're talking PR here, so I doubt we'll see much realism.

It doesn't but in the end both groups have similar agendas and the banding together could help that movement in the future. Now that won't feasibly happen because gay rights is more about individuals religious affilation and all but in the end its kind of like how hispanics and blacks band together at times in New York.

No.

Let's not assume anything. Let's not play games with words, either.

Instead, provide evidence - real, measureable, and repeatably verifiable evidence - to support your claim.

One set is at best a dubious set of characteristics. The other set is more like instinct.

No, but that is where AFF and some of the other prats which claim to represent us draw the most parallels.

Something being legally recognised does not necessarily make it true. We only have to look at our own condition and how that can be legally recognised to see this fact.

Quite true. But the right for someone behave in a homosexual manner (which would include sex) would effectively be making it a human right to rape someone.

Its called proof by contradiction - which as you know is the only way to prove such a statement

How about you build a case for the counterclaim.