8050. The State Department of Mental Health, acting through the
superintendent of the Langley Porter Clinic, shall plan, conduct, and
cause to be conducted scientific research into the causes and cures
of sexual deviation, including deviations conducive to sex crimes
against children, and the causes and cures of homosexuality, and into methods of identifying potential sex offenders.
The bill to repeal this was introduced by California Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, but according to the Sacramento Bee, the gay rights group Equality California is the motivating factor behind this move:
Lowenthal's chief of staff, Will Shuck, said the section was brought to Lowenthal's attention by Equality California, the state's largest gay-rights group.
"This section of the code is deplorable," said Geoff Kors, the group's executive director, because it implies both that homosexuality is an illness and that gays are a threat to children.
And their sponsorship of the bill is confirmed on the Equality California website.
But if the language making the link with homosexuality was really the problem, couldn't the section have been revised like this to strike out the part about homosexuality and continue the parts about sex crimes against children?
8050. (my example of a proposed revision) The State Department of Mental Health, acting through the
superintendent of the Langley Porter Clinic, shall plan, conduct, and
cause to be conducted scientific research into the causes and cures
of sexualdeviation, includingdeviations conducive to sex crimes
against children,and the causes and cures of homosexuality,and into methods of identifying potential sex offenders.
That would be simple, right? So I am wondering if Equality Califiornia doesn't want the state to fund research into "the causes and and cures of sexual deviations conducive to sex crimes against children and into methods of identifying potential sexual offenders." Is it possible that gay rights advocates are concerned that such research might lead back to homosexuality? Or is it that the gay rights ideology of sexual expression ultimately does require support of child sexual abusers as well as homosexuals?
Posts
1 comment:
Having worked with sexually violent preditors in Missouri, I am convinced that sexual deviations that result in sexual crimes against children or adults are not an illness (although the DSM-IV TR classifies them as such). If such deviations are an illness that warrants research to find treatments, causes, and cures, then offenders cannot be held responsible because they are ill. It would be unfair and unconstitutional to put such offenders in prison. Here is my take on this subject. We all are born with certain propensities and inclinations. Some of those are very positive, productive, and socially acceptable. Some of those are not. Regardless, we all have a choice as to whether we allow those inclinations to dominate our thoughts and behaviors or we recognize the potential problems they could cause and discipline ourselves to pursue more postive and productive behaviors. I could sum all that up by saying we are responsible for our behaviors, not the thoughts that "arouse us." As long as these deviant behaviors are treated as an illness, there will be no progress in research or rehabilitation.
Post a Comment