Chris Christie signs bill banning gay conversion therapy

[Brett85]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/chris-christie-signs-bill-banning-gay-conversion-therapy/

[jkr]

DEMOCRATS...

[Legend1104]

Wow that works out great for Christie. He can pass it off as saying that he is not one of those crazy homophobic republicans in the general, while saying that it had nothing to do with supporting gay marriage because it was just about protecting children during the primaries. Also that banning of the assault rifle should have the same effect.

[RickyJ]

If teenagers willingly want to go through this therapy, then he has no right to say they can't.

[oyarde]

Did not work for him I reckon , so now he is an expert....

[Antischism]

Edit: Misread, further info ahead.

[Sola_Fide]

Just another limitation of freedom. Chris Christie is an authoritarian.

[Brett85]

It seems to me that what this stops is parents from forcing their kids to undergo the "therapy," which I believe is straight up quackery. Parents shouldn't be allowed to force any child into such a heavily discredited practice.

Why do you feel that you have the right to raise someone elses child?

[Sola_Fide]

It seems to me that what this stops is parents from forcing their kids to undergo the "therapy," which I believe is straight up quackery. Parents shouldn't be allowed to force any child into such a heavily discredited practice.

Another authoritarian viewpoint.

[LibertyEagle]

It seems to me that what this stops is parents from forcing their kids to undergo the "therapy," which I believe is straight up quackery. Parents shouldn't be allowed to force any child into such a heavily discredited practice.

So, you think the state should raise the children. Think about it, because that is what you really are saying.

[Antischism]

Why do you feel that you have the right to raise someone elses child?

I feel people who identify as homosexual shouldn't be forced by parents to visit a quack against their own will. That's aggression against an individual.

[Brett85]

I feel people who identify as homosexual shouldn't be forced by parents to visit a quack against their own will. That's aggression against an individual.

Who says that they're "forced to?" Some of these kids, particularly teenagers, may want to get involved in this program.

[Sola_Fide]

Anyone who agrees with this is an authoritarian. Lets see how many atheists are going to be consistent on this.

[LibertyEagle]

I feel people who identify as homosexual shouldn't be forced by parents to visit a quack against their own will. That's aggression against an individual.

Actually, you are using the state to impose your personal beliefs on someone else. Isn't that called statism?

Parents should be raising their children; not the government.

[Antischism]

Who says that they're "forced to?" Some of these kids, particularly teenagers, may want to get involved in this program.

Are they still not allowed to seek this out if it's by their own will? If that's not the case, then I will back down from my position and disagree with Christie. I'm under the impression that it simply prohibits parents from forcing their children into it.

[Brett85]

Are they still not allowed to seek this out if it's by their own will? If that's not the case, then I will back down from my position and disagree with Christie. I'm under the impression that it simply prohibits parents from forcing their children into it.

The bill bans gay conversion therapy for all "children."

[VIDEODROME]

Does this even work at all? If not, is Christie stopping what is basically fraud?

I mean, is it an infringement of our rights if the government stops a "Snake Oil" salesman or anyone else confirmed to be selling a bullshit product?

[COpatriot]

It's a complete farce, but I still don't support banning it. If parents wish to subject their kids to what equates to child abuse, they can learn the hard way.

[Antischism]

The bill bans gay conversion therapy for all "children."

All people should have the right to do or not do something, whether it's in their best interest or not, if they think it's what's best for them. I take back what I said, this is pretty authoritarian. It'd be one thing if it prevented parents from forcing children to get potentially harmful therapy against their own will, it's another thing to just ban everyone from doing it, even if it's their own decision.

[Brett85]

Does this even work at all? If not, is Christie stopping what is basically fraud?

I mean, is it an infringement of our rights if the government stops a "Snake Oil" salesman or anyone else confirmed to be selling a bullshit product?

It's not an infringment of your rights for someone else to send their child to a therapist to talk about their sexuality. Perhaps you should support Chris Christie for President in 2016.

[Antischism]

Does this even work at all? If not, is Christie stopping what is basically fraud?

I mean, is it an infringement of our rights if the government stops a "Snake Oil" salesman or anyone else confirmed to be selling a bullshit product?

As someone who strongly believes being gay isn't a choice, I would view such a practice as a form of brainwashing, personally. But if people want to attempt to get brainwashed or possibly ruin themselves psychologically, it's still their choice. My problem lies with parents who try to "get the gay out of" their children by forcing them into these programs which some have gone as far as to describe as abusive based on personal experiences.

[ZENemy]

I wonder

How much "therapy" does it take to turn a straight person gay?

[kahless]

What nomination does Christie think he is trying to win by consistently legislating like a Progressive. He is delusional if he thinks pandering to Progressives will help him win the Republican nomination.

[Root]

As someone who strongly believes being gay isn't a choice, I would view such a practice as a form of brainwashing, personally. But if people want to attempt to get brainwashed or possibly ruin themselves psychologically, it's still their choice. My problem lies with parents who try to "get the gay out of" their children by forcing them into these programs which some have gone as far as to describe as abusive based on personal experiences.
Still, how is that a violation of your rights?

[Antischism]

Still, how is that a violation of your rights?

It's a violation of the rights of the person being forced into a potentially destructive form of therapy. I view "parental rights" in more of a Rothbardian/Anarchist view, where parents don't have any legal authority to force their children into such things. It's akin to child abuse.

[Acala]

Does this even work at all? If not, is Christie stopping what is basically fraud?

I mean, is it an infringement of our rights if the government stops a "Snake Oil" salesman or anyone else confirmed to be selling a bullshit product?

If they are using outright lies to sell the product, it would be fraud. But if they are simply making performance claims that are not met, it is at most a contract issue and maybe not even that. Think of how often people go to a regular md for treatment and don't find a cure. That isn't fraud.

[V3n]

It's not an infringment of your rights for someone else to send their child to a therapist to talk about their sexuality. Perhaps you should support Chris Christie for President in 2016.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy


Psychologist Douglas Haldeman writes that conversion therapy comprises efforts by mental health professionals and pastoral care providers to convert lesbians and gay men to heterosexuality by techniques including aversive treatments, such as "the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals," and "nausea-inducing drugs...administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli,"

It's not about sitting around and talking about your feelings.

Parent's Rights is one thing, but the Rights of the child NOT to have their genitals electrocuted should also be observed.

[Philhelm]

What nomination does Christie think he is trying to win by consistently legislating like a Progressive. He is delusional if he thinks pandering to Progressives will help him win the Republican nomination.

*Cough* Romney *Cough*

Apparently, He can win the nomination by pandering to progressives, just not the general.

[Root]

It's a violation of the rights of the person being forced into a potentially destructive form of therapy. I view "parental rights" in more of a Rothbardian/Anarchist view, where parents don't have any legal authority to force their children into such things. It's akin to child abuse.
How do you know that every child is being forced? Isn't it possible that a teen and parents discuss this and decide to try it willingly?

[belian78]

It's a violation of the rights of the person being forced into a potentially destructive form of therapy. I view "parental rights" in more of a Rothbardian/Anarchist view, where parents don't have any legal authority to force their children into such things. It's akin to child abuse.

You see, you've ran into one of the more infuriating walls here at RPF, the once bastion of Liberty on the internet. Sure, for the most part they want Liberty for everyone, but you are talking about 'the gays' here, the parents absolutely can treat their spawn as property in that case. :rolleyes:

[belian78]

How do you know that every child is being forced? Isn't it possible that a teen and parents discuss this and decide to try it willingly?

And according to this legislation, that would be perfectly ok. What this legislation requires, is that the child sees a counselor first to ensure that the 'treatment' is what he/she actually wants, and is not being forced upon them by their parents.

[Root]

And according to this legislation, that would be perfectly ok. What this legislation requires, is that the child sees a counselor first to ensure that the 'treatment' is what he/she actually wants, and is not being forced upon them by their parents.
Thanks for clarifying.

[juleswin]

It seems to me that what this stops is parents from forcing their kids to undergo the "therapy," which I believe is straight up quackery. Parents shouldn't be allowed to force any child into such a heavily discredited practice.

Dont get me wrong, I think its completely idiotic for one to put their kid through gay conversion therapy. But how about parent forcing their kids to go to church to worship a God? or how about male circumcision? My guess is that he would leave those popular ones alone and go for the one that affects the smallest voter bloc.

Fucking coward. To me the punishment of losing your money and possibly destroying the relationship you have with your child is punishment enough for a parent who decides to go through the process.

[juleswin]

And according to this legislation, that would be perfectly ok. What this legislation requires, is that the child sees a counselor first to ensure that the 'treatment' is what he/she actually wants, and is not being forced upon them by their parents.

If that is the case, then I have no problem with it.

[kahless]

*Cough* Romney *Cough*

Apparently, He can win the nomination by pandering to progressives, just not the general.

The Republican establishment lost two elections in a row with this failed strategy. With the progress this movement has made and the obvious rejection of Progressive Republicans by the Republican voter I do not believe they are that strong to pull it off for a 3rd time.

[belian78]

Dont get me wrong, I think its completely idiotic for one to put their kid through gay conversion therapy. But how about parent forcing their kids to go to church to worship a God? or how about male circumcision? My guess is that he would leave those popular ones alone and go for the one that affects the smallest voter bloc.

Fucking coward. To me the punishment of losing your money and possibly destroying the relationship you have with your child is punishment enough for a parent who decides to go through the process.
I completely agree with this. Anyone who would put their child through this deserves the drained bank account, and lost relationship with their child that is almost a certainty.

[juleswin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy



It's not about sitting around and talking about your feelings.

Parent's Rights is one thing, but the Rights of the child NOT to have their genitals electrocuted should also be observed.

Just wondering, is that the only method for gay conversion therapy?

[Antischism]

How do you know that every child is being forced? Isn't it possible that a teen and parents discuss this and decide to try it willingly?

Well, that's the crux of the situation and why I was initially confused. The law would ban even a willing participant from trying it until the age of 18, which I of course would have a problem with, thus why I admitted the bill was authoritarian.

I can see an argument some people might make for the law in that, parents, being in a position of authority throughout the child's life, can coerce them into thinking they want it for their own personal reasons, and not the child's best interest. Just like an adult can coerce a child into thinking having sex with them is good/feels good, and the child then 'consents', even though it's a form of abuse and psychologically damages the child.

This "gay conversion therapy" seems like a pretty intense and abusive (both physically and psychologically) procedure. I'm not the most knowledgeable person on it, but many who have had the misfortune of undergoing such a practice tell horror stories.

[Antischism]

And according to this legislation, that would be perfectly ok. What this legislation requires, is that the child sees a counselor first to ensure that the 'treatment' is what he/she actually wants, and is not being forced upon them by their parents.

That's how I initially read it, so now I'm back to square one.

[V3n]

Just wondering, is that the only method for gay conversion therapy?

No, there are other methods mentioned on the page. I just wanted to state that it is not all sit-on-a-couch and talk; but it is not ALL electro-shock therapy either.

[belian78]

That's how I initially read it, so now I'm back to square one.

Well now that I read the article, the part about going to the counselor is for another piece of legislation in regards to medical marijuana for children. They can't be prescribed it unless parent's jump through the 'necessary' hoops first. So this is an outright ban on the gay therapy, and you would be right to call this an authoritarian piece of legislation.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Can minors in New Jersey still have their bodies mutilated and pumped up with hormones, so they can parade around lying to themselves that they're now the opposite gender?

[Antischism]

Well now that I read the article, the part about going to the counselor is for another piece of legislation in regards to medical marijuana for children. They can't be prescribed it unless parent's jump through the 'necessary' hoops first. So this is an outright ban on the gay therapy, and you would be right to call this an authoritarian piece of legislation.

Ah, alright. Thanks for the clarification.

[BamaAla]

That's how I initially read it, so now I'm back to square one.

How is that any different than any other prior restraint / demonstration? Want a gun? That's fine, just show cause and competence. Want to hold a rally? Of course, just come get a permit first. Want to marry your girlfriend? We'd love that, just come in for a blood test and have a mental professional clear you through pre-marriage counseling.

I don't see any real difference other than maybe the minor angle. Am I going to hear "for the kids" on RFP?

[The Free Hornet]

Anyone who agrees with this is an authoritarian. Lets see how many atheists are going to be consistent on this.

Atheism only requires that one lack a particular belief. Everything else is fair game.

As far as your boisterous comment, do you - or anyone else - have the TEXT for this bill. I can't seem to find it...
[edit: this bill text is in post #47 and another link further down in #53]

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillsByNumber.asp

Then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation. Maybe not you and me, but some of us here.

As to so-called "parental rights", I believe in individual rights of which the former is a possible subset.

I'd be curious if this is structured as 'cannot be forced' or 'is not allowed'....

[Antischism]

How is that any different than any other prior restraint / demonstration? Want a gun? That's fine, just show cause and competence. Want to hold a rally? Of course, just come get a permit first. Want to marry your girlfriend? We'd love that, just come in for a blood test and have a mental professional clear you through pre-marriage counseling.

I don't see any real difference other than maybe the minor angle. Am I going to hear "for the kids" on RFP?

Like I previously stated,

It's a violation of the rights of the person being forced into a potentially destructive form of therapy. I view "parental rights" in more of a Rothbardian/Anarchist view, where parents don't have any legal authority to force their children into such things. It's akin to child abuse.

[The Free Hornet]

Here it is: (http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/A3500/3371_S1.HTM)


ASSEMBLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN COMMITTEE



STATEMENT TO



ASSEMBLY, No. 3371



STATE OF NEW JERSEY



DATED: JUNE 13, 2013



The Assembly Women and Children Committee reports favorably

Assembly Bill No. 3371.

This bill prohibits counseling to change the sexual orientation of a minor.

Under the provisions of the bill, a person who is licensed to provide professional counseling, including, but not limited to, a psychiatrist, licensed practicing psychologist, certified social worker, licensed clinical social worker, licensed social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, certified psychoanalyst, or a person who performs counseling as part of the person's professional training, is prohibited from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age.

The bill defines "sexual orientation change efforts" as the practice of seeking to change a person's sexual orientation, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward a person of the same gender. The term, however, does not include counseling for a person seeking to transition from one gender to another, or counseling that: provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a person or facilitates a person's coping, social support, identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and does not seek to change sexual orientation.

This bill is identical to Senate Bill No. 2278 (1R) (Lesniak/Sweeney/Weinberg) which was released by the Senate Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens Committee on March 18, 2013 and is currently pending before the Senate.


The long and short of it seems to be, an unlicensed product may be safer but I'm not sure about the legality of practicing unlicensed. If one was a licensed whatever, this looks like a potential minefield. How do you prove the 16 yo was gay and that one intended to convert instead of comfort. Are you helping them to cope or to suck fewer dicks?!?!?!?!

To my initial reading, this is just PC bullshit that would alter how services are advertised and framed and who may offer them. If I were a licensed counseler, it'd be tempting to just not want to deal with children and this issue. However I suspect so long as you don't advertise the forbidden service, one might be in the clear.

That said, the danger could be targeting a provider with a mole and hidden mic and entrapping someone into violation.

Bad bill regardless.

[juleswin]

How is that any different than any other prior restraint / demonstration? Want a gun? That's fine, just show cause and competence. Want to hold a rally? Of course, just come get a permit first. Want to marry your girlfriend? We'd love that, just come in for a blood test and have a mental professional clear you through pre-marriage counseling.

I don't see any real difference other than maybe the minor angle. Am I going to hear "for the kids" on RFP?

I think this time one can get away with saying its for the kids. This is not a case where adults are told to do or not do something because it indirectly affects the kids somehow. This is actually something done to kids. So yes, I am proud to "say think about the kids" :)

[BamaAla]

Here it is: (http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/A3500/3371_S1.HTM)




The long and short of it seems to be, an unlicensed product may be safer but I'm not sure about the legality of practicing unlicensed. If one was a licensed whatever, this looks like a potential minefield. How do you prove the 16 yo was gay and that one intended to convert instead of comfort. Are you helping them to cope or to suck fewer dicks?!?!?!?!

To my initial reading, this is just PC bullshit that would alter how services are advertised and framed and who may offer them. If I were a licensed counseler, it'd be tempting to just not want to deal with children and this issue. However I suspect so long as you don't advertise the forbidden service, one might be in the clear.

That said, the danger could be targeting a provider with a mole and hidden mic and entrapping someone into violation.

Bad bill regardless.

The state has the licensure, they ban licensed professionals from performing the forbidden therapy, make it a felony to practice any therapy without their license. They got rid of the therapy wholesale.

I'm not a fan of gay conversion therapy, but this is a bad bill.

[jmdrake]

Instead, parents must have a letter of support from a psychiatrist, as well as a pediatrician, and a doctor registered in the program.

It seems to me that what this stops is parents from forcing their kids to undergo the "therapy," which I believe is straight up quackery. Parents shouldn't be allowed to force any child into such a heavily discredited practice.

Let me see if I understand you. You're endorsing a law that requires parents to get a letter from a psychologist who has to be licensed by the same state you claim to be against in order to help their children get therapy that these children may actually want? And you have the nerve to call yourself a libertarian?

[TonySutton]

So this bill also protects heterosexual children from receiving therapy that might turn them gay, right?

[Antischism]

Let me see if I understand you. You're endorsing a law that requires parents to get a letter from a psychologist who has to be licensed by the same state you claim to be against in order to help their children get therapy that these children may actually want? And you have the nerve to call yourself a libertarian?

I misread/misunderstood the bill. I further clarified in the following posts. I guess I should edit that post to avoid confusion.

[TonySutton]

Btw, here is the text

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/A3500/3371_I1.HTM

[RickyJ]

So this bill also protects heterosexual children from receiving therapy that might turn them gay, right?

Without heterosexual conversion therapy there would not be hardly any gays so it is safe to say that will not be happening or the Log Cabin Republicans will throw a hissy fit.

[anaconda]

Are they still not allowed to seek this out if it's by their own will? If that's not the case, then I will back down from my position and disagree with Christie. I'm under the impression that it simply prohibits parents from forcing their children into it.

But parental coercion of minors is largely legal, no? What if a dad makes his kid play little league against his will? I consider this abusive but I doubt it's illegal.

[anaconda]

I'm wondering if Witch Doctors are licensed in N.J.

[69360]

So is therapy to convert straight people to homosexual illegal in NJ as well?

[Smart3]

I support a ban before the age of 12, between 12 and 18 with parental consent and after 18 fully legal.

In return for this approach, ALL organizations performing this therapy must specify that it does not work and is not supported by modern science.

Any child who attempts suicide as a result of this therapy should be removed by CPS.

Is that tolerant enough for you people?

[Sola_Fide]

I support a ban before the age of 12, between 12 and 18 with parental consent and after 18 fully legal.

In return for this approach, ALL organizations performing this therapy must specify that it does not work and is not supported by modern science.

Any child who attempts suicide as a result of this therapy should be removed by CPS.

Is that tolerant enough for you people?



You are an authoritarian, sadly.

I've said I don't know how many times on this forum that atheists cannot be consistent for liberty. Further proof right here.

[Smart3]

You are an authoritarian, sadly.

I've said I don't know how many times on this forum that atheists cannot be consistent for liberty. Further proof right here.
I didn't call for life imprisonment if the kid succeeds in killing himself/herself. I am in a good mood.

[jkob]

The state doesn't own your children but neither do parents, children have rights too. Conversion therapy is child abuse pure and simple. If an adult wants to do this to themselves then more power to them but the rights of children must be protected.

[jbauer]

So since New Jersey is small I guess gay conversion joints are going to start popping up like fireworks stands on the state lines?

[Antischism]

You are an authoritarian, sadly.

I've said I don't know how many times on this forum that atheists cannot be consistent for liberty. Further proof right here.

How does a lack of belief in a God/creator make someone inconsistent with liberty? This sounds strangely dogmatic.

[jmdrake]

I misread/misunderstood the bill. I further clarified in the following posts. I guess I should edit that post to avoid confusion.

Fair enough.

[Pericles]

Does this also apply to attempts to convert straight kids into being gay?

[Sola_Fide]

How does a lack of belief in a God/creator make someone inconsistent with liberty? This sounds strangely dogmatic.

I've pointed out several times on these boards where atheist's natural tendency is to be statist.

You did it here, and several other atheists have done it in other threads. Usually the threads about children, education, global warming, and evolutionism will set off their statism.

It is like clockwork. It will happen every time. This is because atheism is a collectivist worldview.

[Brett85]

You see, you've ran into one of the more infuriating walls here at RPF, the once bastion of Liberty on the internet. Sure, for the most part they want Liberty for everyone, but you are talking about 'the gays' here, the parents absolutely can treat their spawn as property in that case. :rolleyes:

And on the other hand, you guys support "liberty" except when it comes to forcing your views on Christians and trying to force your socially liberal views on people who don't share your views.

[RonPaulMall]

What about Church? Isn't it likely that a parent who is keen on taking his child to gay conversion therapy would also belong to a church that preaches a similar ideology with respect to homosexuality? Where is the law that prevents parents from taking their children to church? Wouldn't that be the logically corollary to this bill? Oh, yeah, I forgot, Christie doesn't believe in intellectual consistency. Politics is not a debating club. He wouldn't want to be confused with a professor. Gay Conversion can be attacked because it has been sufficiently demonized by the media and therefore it can be banned. Church hasn't yet reached that level of demonization, so even though it raises the same exact "problem" as gay conversion, Christie will leave it alone- for now.

The funny thing is despite all his protestations to the contrary, New Jeresy's fattest Nazi does have a political ideology- that the state should assert authority over every aspect of human life possible that is practical within the confines of the current electoral dynamic.

btw- i am not religious and this issue has nothing to do with whether you are atheist or religious.

[Legend1104]

The Republican establishment lost two elections in a row with this failed strategy. With the progress this movement has made and the obvious rejection of Progressive Republicans by the Republican voter I do not believe they are that strong to pull it off for a 3rd time.

True, but I think the general main stream consensus is that they were not progressive enough. They tried to be too conservative during the primary and alienated themselves for the general election and could not gain enough moderate support to win. Many of those main streamers would argue that if they were more progressive and tried less to be conservative during the primary, they could win the general. Truth be told, the Republican party has not elected a conservative Republican since Nixon and many neo-cons and RHINOs would argue that this is the only way to win blah blah blah. Of course I think it is a terrible mistake for the Republican party. I think the best bet too win would be to put up a Rand or Ron type candidate. They are very conservative were it counts, but the libertarian in them causes them to take stands that would gain enough votes from moderates and democrats to compensate for the lack of progressive, moderate credentials. If Rand could win the nomination then he would suck away many of the true anti-war, pro-4th amendment voters from Clinton. Just my 2 cents.

[LibertyEagle]

Parents do a much better job of raising their children, than does the government. Isn't that the point? If we start believing that the government has the all-powerful wisdom to decide how children are to be raised, what's next? Will they soon be telling parents what they can and cannot feed their children? How about whether they can be home-schooled, because you know there is quite a contingent out there who believe that is dangerous to their well-being. Not too long ago, they tried to make it illegal for kids to work on the family farm, but there was so much outcry, it was pulled back. Where does all this end?

[mad cow]

Does this even work at all? If not, is Christie stopping what is basically fraud?

I mean, is it an infringement of our rights if the government stops a "Snake Oil" salesman or anyone else confirmed to be selling a bullshit product?

One man's Snake Oil is another man's GMO free Soft Drink.

[jkob]

What about Church? Isn't it likely that a parent who is keen on taking his child to gay conversion therapy would also belong to a church that preaches a similar ideology with respect to homosexuality? Where is the law that prevents parents from taking their children to church? Wouldn't that be the logically corollary to this bill? Oh, yeah, I forgot, Christie doesn't believe in intellectual consistency. Politics is not a debating club. He wouldn't want to be confused with a professor. Gay Conversion can be attacked because it has been sufficiently demonized by the media and therefore it can be banned. Church hasn't yet reached that level of demonization, so even though it raises the same exact "problem" as gay conversion, Christie will leave it alone- for now.

The funny thing is despite all his protestations to the contrary, New Jeresy's fattest Nazi does have a political ideology- that the state should assert authority over every aspect of human life possible that is practical within the confines of the current electoral dynamic.

btw- i am not religious and this issue has nothing to do with whether you are atheist or religious.

Conversion therapy is ineffectual at best(fraud) and potentially harmful or even torturous, do you have any problem with child abuse being illegal? Is it tyrannical for the state to step in to stop parents from physically or sexually abusing children?

Children are not property and have rights that need to be protected just as me or you. If you want to do this to yourself then go ahead but it should not be allowed to be practiced on minors who cannot consent.

If the same methods used in 'conversion therapy' were done to terrorists, I don't think you guys would be so gung ho.

[RickyJ]

The state doesn't own your children but neither do parents, children have rights too. Conversion therapy is child abuse pure and simple. If an adult wants to do this to themselves then more power to them but the rights of children must be protected.

Many homosexuals were abused as kids and were "converted" to homosexuality by other homosexuals.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't see how anyone who agrees with the government doing this can in any way legitimately refer to themselves as libertarians. Sorry, I really do not.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I don't see how anyone who agrees with the government doing this can in any way legitimately refer to themselves as libertarians. Sorry, I really do not.

Didn't you defend the nuclear bombing of Japanese civilians?

[Brett85]

Conversion therapy is ineffectual at best(fraud) and potentially harmful or even torturous, do you have any problem with child abuse being illegal? Is it tyrannical for the state to step in to stop parents from physically or sexually abusing children?

Would you also be in favor of throwing parents in prison if they take their child to a church that has a pastor that speaks out against homosexuality and tries to convince children and teenagers to not engage in homosexual activity?

[JCDenton0451]

You see, you've ran into one of the more infuriating walls here at RPF, the once bastion of Liberty on the internet. Sure, for the most part they want Liberty for everyone, but you are talking about 'the gays' here, the parents absolutely can treat their spawn as property in that case. :rolleyes:

The curious thing is that this is mostly due to social conservatives being disproportionally active (and agressive) in comments. For what it's worth, 40% of RPF users support abortion rights, although you would have never guessed it from the comments.

Liberty movement itself isn't socially conservative in nature.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Would you also be in favor of throwing parents in prison if they take their child to a church that has a pastor that speaks out against homosexuality and tries to convince children and teenagers to not engage in homosexual activity?

Are the pastors using electric shock therapy?

[mad cow]

Are the pastors using electric shock therapy?

Outlaw electric shock therapy.

[JCDenton0451]

This is a complicated issue from the Liberty standpoint. On the one hand, children have a right not to be subjected to abuse, which is what gay therapy arguably is. Ideally, the decision should be left up to a child. In practice though, the parents have overwhelming influence and control over their children's lives, so the kid isn't really in the position to make an independent choice...

On the one hand gay therapy is a commercial service and its practicioners have a right to make money. But they're also snake oil salesmen, and their business involves hurting and abusing children, who are often forced into this.

Tough situation. My approach would be to ban gay therapy for people under 18.

[Anti Federalist]

I wonder

How much "therapy" does it take to turn a straight person gay?

'Bout 15 years of broadcast TV and pop culture should do the trick.

[Brett85]

Are the pastors using electric shock therapy?

Why not just ban electric shock therapy, rather than banning freedom of speech?

[Anti Federalist]

The State - "You are prohibited from indoctrinating children. Only we may do that."

[jkob]

Why not just ban electric shock therapy, rather than banning freedom of speech?

how does banning conversion therapy for minors violate freedom of speech?

[matt0611]

The State - "You are prohibited from indoctrinating children. Only we may do that."

lol, yup

[jkob]

Many homosexuals were abused as kids and were "converted" to homosexuality by other homosexuals.

No one is converted to homosexuality just as no one is 'cured' of homosexuality from conversion therapy.

[Brett85]

how does banning conversion therapy for minors violate freedom of speech?

You don't think it would violate freedom of speech to throw a Christian counselor in prison for trying to convince a child or teenager to convert to being a heterosexual?

[DamianTV]

Why not just ban electric shock therapy, rather than banning freedom of speech?

Because Freedom of Speech is the REAL target as it poses the biggest threat to the Status Quo. They could care less about shock therapy.

[Anti Federalist]

how does banning conversion therapy for minors violate freedom of speech?

Because it is.

Christie just signed a law attaching criminal penalties for talking to people.

I mean, unless I'm misinformed...this therapy does not involve drugs, or physical pain or anything like that, right?

[Brett85]

I mean, unless I'm misinformed...this therapy does not involve drugs, or physical pain or anything like that, right?

Some people are saying that it does. My argument is that perhaps the actual forms of therapy that cause physical pain should be banned, rather than banning the entire practice of "gay conversion therapy." This law doesn't simply ban certain forms of therapy that involve drugs or physical pain, but also bans freedom of speech.

[samforpaul]

Many homosexuals were abused as kids and were "converted" to homosexuality by other homosexuals.


Thank you for pointing this out. About three years a go a Minister told me that about 28 out of 33 homosexuals that he had counseled had been molested as kids.

[JCDenton0451]

Some people are saying that it does. My argument is that perhaps the actual forms of therapy that cause physical pain should be banned, rather than banning the entire practice of "gay conversion therapy." This law doesn't simply ban certain forms of therapy that involve drugs or physical pain, but also bans freedom of speech.
What about emotional harm? Telling a teen that his sexual proclivities are unnatural and he should be ashamed of himself may hurt his self-esteem.

[Antischism]

Because it is.

Christie just signed a law attaching criminal penalties for talking to people.

I mean, unless I'm misinformed...this therapy does not involve drugs, or physical pain or anything like that, right?

Electric shocks and nausea-inducing drugs are a couple of the methods employed.

There's also this (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/19/nj-gov-christie-signs-ban-on-gay-conversion-therapy/?test=latestnews) slightly humorous quote I found:


Conversion therapy has increasingly drawn criticism for its methods. Last year, four gay men sued a Jersey City group for fraud, saying its program included making them strip naked and attack effigies of their mothers with baseball bats.

[Brett85]

What about emotional harm? Telling a teen that his sexual proclivities are unnatural and he should be ashamed of himself may hurt his self-esteem.

Then try to convince others to not try to convince their kid to change his sexual orientation. Since when is "emotional harm" a crime? If "emotional harm" were a crime, 90% of the American people would be in prison.

[Brett85]

Electric shocks and nausea-inducing drugs are a couple of the methods employed.

There's also this (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/19/nj-gov-christie-signs-ban-on-gay-conversion-therapy/?test=latestnews) slightly humorous quote I found:

Like I said, why not just ban the specific forms of therapy that cause physical pain, rather than completely banning the therapy all together? Freedom of speech should not be illegal in America.

[Anti Federalist]

What about emotional harm? Telling a teen that his sexual proclivities are unnatural and he should be ashamed of himself may hurt his self-esteem.

So we'll shred the Bill of Rights and set a dangerous, huge, precedent WRT to increased government power, because some feelings may be hurt?

**** erk **** God damned computer...must have logged me into the DailyKos or something.

[Antischism]

Thank you for pointing this out. About three years a go a Minister told me that about 28 out of 33 homosexuals that he had counseled had been molested as kids.

Can you please link me to a scientifically sound study which indicates child molestation causes homosexuality?

[Brett85]

So we'll shred the Bill of Rights and set a dangerous, huge, precedent WRT to increased government power, because some feelings may be hurt?

**** erk **** God damned computer...must have logged me into the DailyKos or something.

He's not a libertarian. He's an authoritarian liberal who believes in using the force of government to persecute Christians.

[The Free Hornet]

What about emotional harm? Telling a teen that his sexual proclivities are unnatural and he should be ashamed of himself may hurt his self-esteem.

As much as I abhor TC, he/she said the three magic words that should have sunk this legislation. It doesn't ban abuse that happens to be 'gay conversion therapy'. It bans a point of view.


Some people are saying that it does. My argument is that perhaps the actual forms of therapy that cause physical pain should be banned, rather than banning the entire practice of "gay conversion therapy." This law doesn't simply ban certain forms of therapy that involve drugs or physical pain, but also bans freedom of speech.

[DamianTV]

Gay Scientists have isolated the Christian Gene

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL15E5CAA236CA6DE5&v=qCzbNkyXO50&feature=player_detailpage

(this is SATIRE, it is NOT real)

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Some people are saying that it does. My argument is that perhaps the actual forms of therapy that cause physical pain should be banned, rather than banning the entire practice of "gay conversion therapy." This law doesn't simply ban certain forms of therapy that involve drugs or physical pain, but also bans freedom of speech.

I agree, I was just pointing out my disagreement with this form of "therapy" if it involved physical harm.

[Antischism]

Like I said, why not just ban the specific forms of therapy that cause physical pain, rather than completely banning the therapy all together? Freedom of speech should not be illegal in America.

That's one solution. I agree that this blanket ban isn't the way to go about it. However, I don't believe parents should have the legal authority to force a child who identifies as homosexual to attend this sort of therapy if they don't want it. That's aggression against another person, and attempts to shame them for having a gender preference, further leading to negative psychological conditions in the future. You can't Bible-thump the gay out of an unwilling person and put them at risk for emotional and psychological damage, that's abuse.

[Brett85]

That's one solution. However, I don't believe parents should have the legal authority to force a child who identifies as homosexual to attend this sort of therapy if they don't want it. That's aggression against another person, and attempts to shame them for having a gender preference, further leading to negative psychological conditions in the future. You can't Bible-thump the gay out of an unwilling person and put them at risk for emotional and psychological damage, that's abuse.

If that's the case, would you also be in favor of throwing parents in prison for taking children to a church where the pastor tries to convince the children that homosexuality is wrong and that they should convert to heterosexuality? It seems like the same thing to me.

[LibertyEagle]

Didn't you defend the nuclear bombing of Japanese civilians?

You are attempting to change the conversation.

[Anti Federalist]

That's one solution. I agree that this blanket ban isn't the way to go about it. However, I don't believe parents should have the legal authority to force a child who identifies as homosexual to attend this sort of therapy if they don't want it. That's aggression against another person, and attempts to shame them for having a gender preference, further leading to negative psychological conditions in the future. You can't Bible-thump the gay out of an unwilling person and put them at risk for emotional and psychological damage, that's abuse.

Well stated comrade.

I think we need to have video and audio recording devices installed in all homes with children, to monitor for compliance.

It's for the children, to keep them safe.

[Anti Federalist]

If that's the case, would you also be in favor of throwing parents in prison for taking children to a church where the pastor tries to convince the children that homosexuality is wrong and that they should convert to heterosexuality? It seems like the same thing to me.

Never mind the pastor, what if the parents say it's wrong?

CPS for the kids and the gulag for the unenlightened parental units.

Fuck me, I can't believe what I'm reading here...

[Brett85]

Never mind the pastor, what if the parents say it's wrong.

Next it will probably be illegal for parents to try to convince their gay children to convert to heterosexuality.

[Antischism]

If that's the case, would you also be in favor of throwing parents in prison for taking children to a church where the pastor tries to convince the children that homosexuality is wrong and that they should convert to heterosexuality? It seems like the same thing to me.

You can take (or attempt to take) a child to church which isn't a specific location to try and "convert" a person's sexual preference, and similarly, there are churches which accept homosexuality. Maybe I'm ignorant to how church functions nowadays (I went to one throughout my entire childhood), but no one stands there for an hour simply preaching about how homosexuality is a sin and you should convert, lest you be damned to hell. There are other things a child can listen to while disregarding what they don't believe.

The neat thing about religion is that it's a personal choice, and no one should be forced to believe or disbelieve. I always advocate a person go into religion as a skeptic, asking questions, then making a decision rather than allowing indoctrination and later using weird justification for what they've been told to believe because it has already become a core part of their lives. If a child refuses to go to church because they don't believe it or it's affecting them negatively, no, they should not be forced.

Edit: I also never suggested anyone should be jailed. I'm sure there are other people out there who can't have children willing to adopt and provide a home without the abusive practices.

[jkob]

The 'therapy' in conversion therapy is from what I understand mostly just classical and operant conditioning. It does not work(fraud) in changing sexual orientation and it can be harmful to the child(abuse). If a consenting adult wants to partake then that's their right otherwise the rights of the child should be protected.

[JCDenton0451]

As much as I abhor TC, he/she said the three magic words that should have sunk this legislation. It doesn't ban abuse that happens to be 'gay conversion therapy'. It bans a point of view.

Chris Christie is pandering to the gay lobby obviously. And TC is fighting his little culture war against the 'sodomy'. We don't have to side with either of them.

I'm not really familiar with the NJ law, but if it bans 'gay therapy' outright, this is definitely a case of government overreach.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

You are attempting to change the conversation.

I'm not the one who initially called into question who should be considered a libertarian.

[Brett85]

Chris Christie is pandering to the gay lobby obviously. And TC is fighting his little culture war against the 'sodomy'. We don't have to side with either of them.

I'm not really familiar with the NJ law, but if it bans 'gay therapy' outright, this is definitely a case of government overreach.

I'm not in favor of criminalizing homosexuality in any way. I'm also not in favor of banning freedom of speech.

[Brett85]

The 'therapy' in conversion therapy is from what I understand mostly just classical and operant conditioning. It does not work(fraud) in changing sexual orientation and it can be harmful to the child(abuse). If a consenting adult wants to partake then that's their right otherwise the rights of the child should be protected.

That's your opinion. You don't have the right to raise someone elses child.

[jkob]

That's your opinion. You don't have the right to raise someone elses child.

You don't have the right to abuse your child either.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not the one who initially called into question who should be considered a libertarian.

The problem with your argument is that I have never claimed to be a libertarian.

Now, back to some of you wanting to use government to raise children.

[LibertyEagle]

You don't have the right to abuse your child either.

See, the thing is, in your mind it is abuse. Some people believe homeschooling is abuse too. Nothing is perfect, but overall parents care much more about their own children than government ever can.

This is a slippery slope you are on.

[DamianTV]

You don't have the right to abuse your child either.

And who will define Abuse? The Govt? Oh great.

And who will report Abuse? The Govt? Not much better.

And who will enforce the Law following the definitions and reporting of Abuse? The Govt? We're screwed.

[Brett85]

You don't have the right to abuse your child either.

With your definition of "emotional abuse," 90% of parents will be sent to prison.

[Todd]

So, you think the state should raise the children. Think about it, because that is what you really are saying.

That's what I'm hearing him say.

[Todd]

You don't have the right to abuse your child either.

That's one ginormous stretch don't you think?

[Philhelm]

The only proper parenting technique is to raise your children to be gender neutral, and encourage them to suck and lick everything in sight when they become adults (or preteens these days, I guess).

[Philhelm]

And who will report Abuse? The Govt? Not much better.

Everyone, actually. See something, say something.

[Anti Federalist]

And who will define Abuse? The Govt? Oh great.

And who will report Abuse? The Govt? Not much better.

And who will enforce the Law following the definitions and reporting of Abuse? The Govt? We're screwed.

Annnnd, pretty much that.

[Pisces]

Does this even work at all? If not, is Christie stopping what is basically fraud?

I mean, is it an infringement of our rights if the government stops a "Snake Oil" salesman or anyone else confirmed to be selling a bullshit product?

I don't know a lot about this so-called conversion therapy. I have heard the argument that banning this type of treatment could also interfere in the treatment of children and teenagers who were sexually abused by an adult of their same sex. The child may feels like his or her same-sex attraction was caused by their abuse history and would like to discuss this with a therapist. However, a law like this could make therapists reluctant to even address this issue. I guess it would depend on how broadly "conversion therapy" is defined.

[Danan]

See, the thing is, in your mind it is abuse. Some people believe homeschooling is abuse too. Nothing is perfect, but overall parents care much more about their own children than government ever can.

This is a slippery slope you are on.

So would you therefore say that nothing is child abuse and parents should be able to force their children to whatever they want? I mean, outlawing that they hit them with a baseball bat or have sex with their children is really just a slippery slope, after all. Right? (Just to make it clear: I know you don't believe that, it's just a rhetorical device - I'm not trying to say you would actually support this)

As far as my personal position goes, I believe that children have individual rights on their own and abusing them, or violating their rights, justifies physical force against the aggressor. That being said, I don't know what exactly constitutes aggression and what not. I can't tell you at all how far I would go with it, because I haven't made up my mind yet.

But you and others are really not very intellectually honest here. If you believe that the government, or anyone else for that matter, has any right to intervene when parents do what in other peoples' minds constitutes child abuse (including actual physical or sexual abuse) then you too are on that slippery slope. You might be more on the outside of it, where it's still more stable, but nonetheless.

We have to recognize that with some issues there are no perfect solutions. Whether or not the parental decision to force their children to do a specific action is considered to be abusive, to what extend and what the proper reactions from others would be are very difficult questions, often without any clearcut answers. Tradition and norms play a huge role there. These can change, though.

Again, I'm not saying that people who argue that this form of therapy may be considered to be child abuse if it's forced are right. But I'm also not saying that you cease to be a libertarian for making such a statement. At least not in my eyes.

[Brett85]

As far as my personal position goes, I believe that children have individual rights on their own and abusing them, or violating their rights, justifies physical force against the aggressor. That being said, I don't know what exactly constitutes aggression and what not. I can't tell you at all how far I would go with it, because I haven't made up my mind yet.

I don't believe that anyone can honestly claim that freedom of speech is "abuse." This bill is a violation of the 1st amendment. It criminalizes speech, throwing counselors and psychiatrists in prison for trying to convince gay children to convert to heterosexuality.

[Danan]

I don't believe that anyone can honestly claim that freedom of speech is "abuse." This bill is a violation of the 1st amendment. It criminalizes speech, throwing counselors and psychiatrists in prison for trying to convince gay children to convert to heterosexuality.

I'm not talking about this specific bill. Mainly because others were already talking about the general principle and were "attacked" (for the lack of a better word) because, according to some, intervening in parental decisions should not (ever) be allowed (or at least that would be the logical conclusion of what they said). I was just pointing out that actually almost nobody believes that and certainly not those who argued for this position in this thread. So it's not really a disagreement in principle, but rather one of degree.

As to freedom of speech, nobody on this forum wants to ban anyone from saying to anyone that they shouldn't be gay. But even if we assume that all that's happening in these sessions is some people talking to these kids (which apparently is not the case), it still remains the fact that some children are forced to be there (physically) against their will (or at least those are the cases people here were talking about, whether they actually happend or not).

I also said that I doubt that you could make the argument that it should never be allowed for parents to force their children to do anything or to be anywhere under any circumstances. Some pretty ridiculous conclusions would follow from that (although I admittedly haven't thought it through yet). But at the same time parents can't force their children to do everything they want to (for instance to have sex with them). So clearly there has to be a line somewhere. This line will always be arbitrarily and I guess we just have to live with that. But the problem is not with the freedom of speech of the therapists (maybe that's true for that bill, but not true for people here were talking about). It's about forcing children to do something which may or may not be considered abuse.

[Danan]

Personally I believe that however the political and legal system looks like, children should always have the right to go in front of a court and to demand to be emancipated. Certainly children who could possibly be considered to be gay should all be at an age at which emancipation would be a possibility (there were times, not too long ago, when you were considered to be an adault at that age anyways). That would solve most problems, imho.

[mad cow]

Many children consider school to be abuse.I was one of them,I quit when I was 16.I was shocked to learn that people were forced to attend school until they are 18 these days.
Now there's child abuse.

[Brett85]

As to freedom of speech, nobody on this forum wants to ban anyone from saying to anyone that they shouldn't be gay. But even if we assume that all that's happening in these sessions is some people talking to these kids (which apparently is not the case), it still remains the fact that some children are forced to be there (physically) against their will (or at least those are the cases people here were talking about, whether they actually happend or not).

Yes, and like you said later, you can't make the argument that parents can't force their children to do certain things. The logical conclusion of the people who are in favor of this law is to throw parents in prison if they force their children to attend church.

[QueenB4Liberty]

How do you know that every child is being forced? Isn't it possible that a teen and parents discuss this and decide to try it willingly?

Probable but extremely unlikely in 2013.

[Pericles]

The State - "You are prohibited from indoctrinating children. Only we may do that."

Its not illegal if the government does it.:rolleyes:

[Christian Liberty]

Why do you feel that you have the right to raise someone elses child?

You know, I'm almost an anarchist at this point, and I'm not about to advocate for more government to combat virtually any problem, even child abuse, but there are at least certain types of anti-gay therapy that I've read about that could qualify as child abuse.

[Brett85]

You know, I'm almost an anarchist at this point, and I'm not about to advocate for more government to combat virtually any problem, even child abuse, but there are at least certain types of anti-gay therapy that I've read about that could qualify as child abuse.

I've said that I wouldn't have a problem with banning certain types of "anti gay therapy" that actually cause physical pain for the child. But, you can ban specific types of therapy without actually making it illegal to try to convert a child to become straight by taking them to a counselor and having them discuss their sexuality with a counselor.

[Christian Liberty]

I've said that I wouldn't have a problem with banning certain types of "anti gay therapy" that actually cause physical pain for the child. But, you can ban specific types of therapy without actually making it illegal to try to convert a child to become straight by taking them to a counselor and having them discuss their sexuality with a counselor.

Yeah, I obviously see the distinction there.

[otherone]

It is like clockwork. It will happen every time. This is because atheism is a collectivist worldview.

And like Pavlov's dogs, you salivate every time you have an opportunity to promote your myopic worldview.
I'm an atheist. Personally, I believe your particular beliefs, AquaBuddha, to be a symptom of mental illness...perhaps scrupulosity, but I'm not a mental health professional. Unlike you, I won't paint all believers with the same broad brush you paint infidels. It's essentially your particular viewpoints that I find reprehensible. You make a pretense at logic, and are quick to point out your detractor's fallacies, yet repeatedly pepper your own comments with Ad Hominem and No True Scotsman fallacies, so if you are not clinically disturbed, you are at the very least a hypocrite and false witness. My personal belief in this matter is: If the government wants it, I'm against it. , so your assessment about atheism, once again, is wrong....better luck next time (which means the very next thread you comment on).

[Danan]

Yes, and like you said later, you can't make the argument that parents can't force their children to do certain things. The logical conclusion of the people who are in favor of this law is to throw parents in prison if they force their children to attend church.

No it's not the logical conclusion, it's a different circumstance. Just like it's not the logical conclusion to say that you don't support intervention in cases where parents force their children to have sex with them, just because you're not against interventions in cases of forced therapy. All of these are individual situations for which you could have differing positions (even though, admitedly, your examples much more similar, but they are still not equal).

Just because parents might be allowed to force their children to do certain things doesn't mean they should be able to force them to do everything they want to.

Also, nobody said anything about prisons. Having some kind of legal remedy for children who are forced to do something which they don't want to do doesn't necessarily entail throwing anyone into a prison cell.

[Brett85]

Also, nobody said anything about prisons. Having some kind of legal remedy for children who are forced to do something which they don't want to do doesn't necessarily entail throwing anyone into a prison cell.

How do you think this law is enforced if therapists refuse to stop giving therapy to children who are gay?

[Danan]

I've said that I wouldn't have a problem with banning certain types of "anti gay therapy" that actually cause physical pain for the child. But, you can ban specific types of therapy without actually making it illegal to try to convert a child to become straight by taking them to a counselor and having them discuss their sexuality with a counselor.

For the record, I certainly don't support making this illegal. As I said, I don't have a thought-through position on this topic. But I doubt anyone here wants to outright make it illegal to "try to convert a child to try to convert a child to become straight by taking them to a counselor and having them discuss their sexuality with a counselor." It's about forcing children to attend something against their will which these kids might consider to be abusive, if not physically then at least mentally.

Again, I'm not saying I have a good answer for those kind of issues, but I know they are absolutely not easy to find (if there even are any). And trying to delude what the real issue is certainly doesn't help.

[Brett85]

For the record, I certainly don't support making this illegal. As I said, I don't have a thought-through position on this topic. But I doubt anyone here wants to outright make it illegal to "try to convert a child to try to convert a child to become straight by taking them to a counselor and having them discuss their sexuality with a counselor." It's about forcing children to attend something against their will which these kids might consider to be abusive, if not physically then at least mentally.

But how could it possibly be considered "abusive" to simply talk to a counselor? And parents force their kids to do certain things all the time, that's part of parenting. And yes, a parent doesn't have the right to physically abuse a child and infringe on their rights. But, generally speaking, I want parents to have the right to raise their children, not the government. (And even "physical abuse" has to be defined very narrowly, as to not turn parents into criminals for spanking their child.)

[Christian Liberty]

But how could it possibly be considered "abusive" to simply talk to a counselor? And parents force their kids to do certain things all the time, that's part of parenting. And yes, a parent doesn't have the right to physically abuse a child and infringe on their rights. But, generally speaking, I want parents to have the right to raise their children, not the government. (And even "physical abuse" has to be defined very narrowly, as to not turn parents into criminals for spanking their child.)

I agree. Keep government involvement to a minimum.

Of course, if you give them even that inch, they'll take a mile, apparently with the approval of some in the "liberty movement."

[Danan]

How do you think this law is enforced if therapists refuse to stop giving therapy to children who are gay?

What do you mean by, "refuse to stop giving therapy"? Do you mean even though there is a valid court ruling of some sort they obduct the child and "treat" him/her anyway?

[Danan]

But how could it possibly be considered "abusive" to simply talk to a counselor? And parents force their kids to do certain things all the time, that's part of parenting. And yes, a parent doesn't have the right to physically abuse a child and infringe on their rights. But, generally speaking, I want parents to have the right to raise their children, not the government. (And even "physical abuse" has to be defined very narrowly, as to not turn parents into criminals for spanking their child.)

It depends on the environment and the content of that councelling I guess. If there is a considerably higher suicide rate among children within such a programm that might be an indicator of an abusive environment which being forced to be in might cross the line, for example. I don't know if that's the case, and even if I'm not saying that would necessarily be a perfect argument to justify force to get the child out of there (with the kid's consent). I'm just saying those would be arguments that wouldn't be completely ridiculous and saying something like that wouldn't make you "not a libertarian" in my opinion.

[Dogsoldier]

I said

"Ok who's children are they? Mine or the government? I'll decide for MY children."

Then this is what some gays said to me.

" Nobody should have the right to mentally abuse their children."

"They aren't YOURS, they are citizens of the USA and entitled to protection from abuse... You have a child... but they don't belong to you, like a piece of property."



What frikkin country is this? So according to gays a parent doesn't have the right to teach that being gay is wrong? Children belong to the government now? This also violates freedom of religion at least those that believe being gay is wrong.

Gays are completely missing the boat when it comes to this "gay rights" real meaning "gay privleges".

When it comes to marriage their not even fighting for their "right" to get married their begging the government for "permission" to get married...Nothing more...

This is getting ridiculous...

[TaftFan]

Definite freedom of religion violation here. Get a rope...err...cable. Christie would break a rope.

And while we're at it, ban donuts.

[jkob]

I said

"Ok who's children are they? Mine or the government? I'll decide for MY children."

Then this is what some gays said to me.

" Nobody should have the right to mentally abuse their children."

"They aren't YOURS, they are citizens of the USA and entitled to protection from abuse... You have a child... but they don't belong to you, like a piece of property."



What frikkin country is this? So according to gays a parent doesn't have the right to teach that being gay is wrong? Children belong to the government now? This also violates freedom of religion at least those that believe being gay is wrong.

Gays are completely missing the boat when it comes to this "gay rights" real meaning "gay privleges".

When it comes to marriage their not even fighting for their "right" to get married their begging the government for "permission" to get married...Nothing more...

This is getting ridiculous...

You can teach your child whatever you want but it won't change their sexual orientation no matter how hard you pray or how much you pound it in their head that they'll burn in hell for it. All you will be doing is teaching your child is to hate themselves and later you for teaching them that. If you can't love your child because they're homosexual then you're not much of a parent.

You don't have the right to abuse or torture another individual, your child or not.

As I said earlier in this thread, I doubt you guys would be so gung ho if 'conversion therapy' was done to terrorists. How about Bradley Manning? You guys wouldn't have trouble calling it what it truly is then.

[RickyJ]

Are the pastors using electric shock therapy?

They use a force way more powerful than that, they use the word of God, sharper than any two edged sword, dividing even soul and spirit, joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires and judges them.

[DamianTV]

Three Points:

First Point: Medical Shock Therapy isnt the torturous methods most of us have an image of from movies with insane asylums form the 1960's. Shock therapy today is typically administered while the patient is sedated and unconscious. I believe even people like Michael J. Fox (could be wrong on MJF) have tried shock therapy for treating his Parkinsons Disease. Its not just throwing as much electricity between two wetted cotton tissues applied to the temples. And some shock therapy has shown very positive results to many patients. Subcranial electroshock therapy is also being used to help people with tourettes control their symptoms.

Second Point: The only REAL SIN here is that people that are all against homosexuality refuse to mind their own fucking business.

Third Point: Oh, people really care about that. Lets get involved and find a way to fuck it up for everyone.

[DamianTV]

They use a force way more powerful than that, they use the word of God, sharper than any two edged sword, dividing even soul and spirit, joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires and judges them.

Hmm, replace Homosexuality with Emotional Dependancy on a Church. Yep, it is more powerful, and a very dangerous tool. Like doing brain surgery with a Semi Truck.

[Sola_Fide]

And like Pavlov's dogs, you salivate every time you have an opportunity to promote your myopic worldview.
I'm an atheist. Personally, I believe your particular beliefs, AquaBuddha, to be a symptom of mental illness...perhaps scrupulosity, but I'm not a mental health professional. Unlike you, I won't paint all believers with the same broad brush you paint infidels. It's essentially your particular viewpoints that I find reprehensible. You make a pretense at logic, and are quick to point out your detractor's fallacies, yet repeatedly pepper your own comments with Ad Hominem and No True Scotsman fallacies, so if you are not clinically disturbed, you are at the very least a hypocrite and false witness. My personal belief in this matter is: If the government wants it, I'm against it. , so your assessment about atheism, once again, is wrong....better luck next time (which means the very next thread you comment on).


Yes. I understand. And when the government begins to clamp down controls and send Christians to re-education camps for their "mental illness", atheists like yourself will be the first to waffle on freedom and accept the impositions as for the overall good.

This is because atheism is a collectivist worldview at its foundation and cannot sustain a free society.

[Brett85]

What do you mean by, "refuse to stop giving therapy"? Do you mean even though there is a valid court ruling of some sort they obduct the child and "treat" him/her anyway?

I mean if a parent decides to disobey this law and send their gay child to a Christian counselor to try to convert them to heterosexuality, the parent and the counselor will get thrown in prison for violating this law. A large number of people here support that as well, throwing innocent people in prison who committed no crime except for following the teachings of the Bible. Some so called "libertarians" here believe in criminalizing Christianity.

[jmdrake]

I support a ban before the age of 12, between 12 and 18 with parental consent and after 18 fully legal.

In return for this approach, ALL organizations performing this therapy must specify that it does not work and is not supported by modern science.

Modern science supports the idea that sexual preference is not an accident of birth. So I guess you should be banned.



Any child who attempts suicide as a result of this therapy should be removed by CPS.

Is that tolerant enough for you people?

The idea that suicide is tied to gay conversion therapy is a left wing contrived myth. Anyone who propagates that myth should be locked away in an insane asylum. Is that tolerant enough for you?

[JCDenton0451]

Modern science supports the idea that sexual preference is not an accident of birth. Really? What's your source on this?

[V3n]

I think people saying the practice should not be outlawed really just don't understand what it is. Here are some examples of people's experience in the "therapy"..

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/02/22286/


The one experience that has stood out and has raised eyebrows across the world was my last session with a JONAH “life coach” (a self described ex gay) who manipulated me into removing my clothing and touching myself in a locked room as he looked on.

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2012/10/29/what-actually-happens-during-reparative-therapy?page=full


Three years into the therapy I suffered a physical and mental breakdown precipitated by prolonged, near-fatal doses of five concurrent psychotropic medications, one of the many ways Alfonzo “helped” suppress my libido so that I could “flip over to the other side” (to heterosexuality). When it became clear, despite the medications and almost-daily “feeling therapy,” that my same-sex erotic desires were not diminishing, Alfonzo ordered me to bottle my feces and to sniff it whenever I was attracted to a man. “You need to be reminded where homosexual men stick their penis,” he said. “You need to be reminded that homosexual relations are not pleasurable.” When none of that worked — I was still attracted to men, only now all erotic desire seemed to elicit the smell of feces — Alfonzo threatened to hook my genitals up to electrodes.

http://pix11.com/2013/08/19/gay-conversion-therapy-survivors-speak-out-after-nj-bans-controversial-practice/#axzz2cVtuBLYo


“The therapy went as far as, you know, including Viagra pills, as far as including all these different kind of techniques . . . for masturbation,” said Shurka.

So really.. [Some of] You believe drugging children, making them touch themselves in front of adults, ordering them to carry a bottle of their own feces, giving them vomit-inducing drugs, and sometimes shock therapy is all well and good if the Parents decide that's what they want for their children?

This is all abuse and should be outlawed! It's not "anti-libertarian" to when the Rights of the Child are being abused. I'm not Authoritarian, but I'm not an Anarchist either. Murder is against the law, that's fine, this type of abuse against children should be too.

[jmdrake]

As someone who strongly believes being gay isn't a choice, I would view such a practice as a form of brainwashing, personally. But if people want to attempt to get brainwashed or possibly ruin themselves psychologically, it's still their choice. My problem lies with parents who try to "get the gay out of" their children by forcing them into these programs which some have gone as far as to describe as abusive based on personal experiences.

I'm curious. You understand that the entire brain is plastic right? So why would you believe sexual preference is unchangeable from birth? And further, brainwashing only works on things that are changeable. So the very fact that you believe it is brainwashing undermines your own belief that sexual preference is unchangeable from birth.


I wonder

How much "therapy" does it take to turn a straight person gay?

I've personally known someone who was straight most of their life and became gay. That person didn't say "I secretly liked both genders all my life." But because of liberal brainwashing, many people will say "That person was just a confused bisexual."

[jmdrake]

Really? What's your source on this?

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

The scientific consensus is that there is no consensus on what causes sexual preference.

[jmdrake]

I think people saying the practice should not be outlawed really just don't understand what it is. Here are some examples of people's experience in the "therapy"..

That argument is akin to saying "Because some libertarians are satanists, all libertarians are satanists."

[Danan]

I think people saying the practice should not be outlawed really just don't understand what it is. Here are some examples of people's experience in the "therapy"..

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/02/22286/



http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2012/10/29/what-actually-happens-during-reparative-therapy?page=full



http://pix11.com/2013/08/19/gay-conversion-therapy-survivors-speak-out-after-nj-bans-controversial-practice/#axzz2cVtuBLYo



So really.. [Some of] You believe drugging children, making them touch themselves in front of adults, ordering them to carry a bottle of their own feces, giving them vomit-inducing drugs, and sometimes shock therapy is all well and good if the Parents decide that's what they want for their children?

This is all abuse and should be outlawed! It's not "anti-libertarian" to when the Rights of the Child are being abused. I'm not Authoritarian, but I'm not an Anarchist either. Murder is against the law, that's fine, this type of abuse against children should be too.

So you are against religious freedom, right? :rolleyes:

[JCDenton0451]

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

The scientific consensus is that there is no consensus on what causes sexual preference.

True, which means your previous statement was obviously false.


Modern science supports the idea that sexual preference is not an accident of birth.

[jmdrake]

True, which means your previous statement was obviously false.

Do you have a problem reading?

Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles;

Scientists believing that nature and nurture play complex roles (in sexual orientation) means there is scientific support for the idea that sexual preference is not an accident of birth. That is unless you believe these scientists are believing this for no reason whatsoever. Or maybe you just don't understand science. There is no scientific consensus on what killed the dinosaurs. That doesn't mean there isn't scientific evidence that a meteor shower killed them.

[jmdrake]

So you are against religious freedom, right? :rolleyes:

Or just dishonestly claiming that all gay conversion therapy is created equal. :rolleyes:

[V3n]

Or just dishonestly claiming that all gay conversion therapy is created equal. :rolleyes:

It doesn't work. Even in cases less extreme, it still leads to the homosexual child just feeling anxiety and depressed.
Emotional-abuse-lite is still emotional abuse.

[Icymudpuppy]

I do think that one of the constitutional roles of government is to make and enforce laws against crime in which there is a victim. Fraud against children qualifies.

[JCDenton0451]

jmdrake, you're the guy who thinks that Creationism is "science" and the Theory of Evolution isn't. You should be the last guy to lecture anyone about science. lol
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/statusicon/user-online.png


You also don't seem to understand the difference between the scientific consensus and the opinion of individual scientists. Claiming that modern science supports your view based on a personal (biased and unsubstantiated) opinion of some people is really quite a stretch.

[thoughtomator]

This is a clear 1st Amendment violation and anyone who can't see it needs to smack themselves in the head because they ain't thinkin' right.

[otherone]

It doesn't work. Even in cases less extreme, it still leads to the homosexual child just feeling anxiety and depressed.
Emotional-abuse-lite is still emotional abuse.

How can there even be "gay conversion therapy" for children? Christians have been telling me that children are neither homosexual nor heterosexual, and that homosexuality is a behavior, not a preference. Are parents catching their 10 year-olds in the act of sodomy? If that is the case, their child probably needs actual therapy, not witchcraft.

[jmdrake]

jmdrake, you're the guy who thinks that Creationism is "science" and the Theory of Evolution isn't. You should be the last guy to lecture anyone about science. lol
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/statusicon/user-online.png


Quote where I said that the theory of evolution is science? You can't because I never said that. That said I believe some evolutionists are not scientific when they try to take a fine theory and convert it into a fact.

Also, that you try to dodge the incontrovertible truth I've said by going into an off subject ad hominem shows your own intellectual bankruptcy.



You also don't seem to understand the difference between the scientific consensus and the opinion of individual scientists. Claiming that modern science supports your view based on a personal (biased and unsubstantiated) opinion of some people is really quite a stretch.

So let me get this straight. You are really stupid enough to believe that the American Psychological Association would put something that dramatic on their website, a total 180 from their previous position, just because some scientists had that as an unsubstantiated opinion? Okay. Whatever.

[jmdrake]

It doesn't work. Even in cases less extreme, it still leads to the homosexual child just feeling anxiety and depressed.
Emotional-abuse-lite is still emotional abuse.

It doesn't work....except for when it does. (Donnie McClurkin as but one example).

[jmdrake]

This is a clear 1st Amendment violation and anyone who can't see it needs to smack themselves in the head because they ain't thinkin' right.

There are some here that don't actually believe in the first amendment and hide their statism underneath a thin veneer of fake libertarianism.

[JCDenton0451]

This is a clear 1st Amendment violation and anyone who can't see it needs to smack themselves in the head because they ain't thinkin' right.

How is this a 1st Amendment violation? The law bans licensed therapists from performing "gay conversion therapy". They can still perform the therapy at the risk of losing the license or whatever - I'm not sure what the penalty is.

[V3n]

It doesn't work....except for when it does. (Donnie McClurkin as but one example).

We'll see... He'll be back. ;)

[Danan]

Or just dishonestly claiming that all gay conversion therapy is created equal. :rolleyes:

I didn't say or imply that.

[JCDenton0451]

Quote where I said that the theory of evolution is science? You never said anything like that!
You can't because I never said that. Exactly, so what's your point?
That said I believe some evolutionists are not scientific when they try to take a fine theory and convert it into a fact.Constructing fine theories is what the science is all about.

[matt0611]

How is this a 1st Amendment violation? The law bans licensed therapists from performing "gay conversion therapy". They can still perform the therapy at the risk of losing the license or whatever - I'm not sure what the penalty is.

That's like saying that making a law that outlaws criticizing the government is not violating the first amendment because you can still speak out against the government you just might be penalized for it.

[jmdrake]

How is this a 1st Amendment violation? The law bans licensed therapists from performing "gay conversion therapy". They can still perform the therapy at the risk of losing the license or whatever - I'm not sure what the penalty is.

Because "licensed therapist" is so broad that it includes pastors.

Under the provisions of the bill, a person who is licensed to provide professional counseling, including, but not limited to, a psychiatrist, licensed practicing psychologist, certified social worker, licensed clinical social worker, licensed social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, certified psychoanalyst, or a person who performs counseling as part of the person's professional training, is prohibited from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age.

It's a clear violation of the first amendment and an affront to liberty.

[V3n]

I didn't say or imply that.

I think he meant me. Because I listed the examples of what the "therapy" really is. He's saying there are differences than just the examples I gave.

[jmdrake]

You never said anything like that! Exactly, so what's your point? Constructing fine theories is what the science is all about.

Sorry. I said quote where I said the theory of evolution is not science. I never said that and you know it and you are a liar to pretend I did.

[otherone]

Modern science supports the idea that sexual preference is not an accident of birth.

I'd be uncomfortable sharing a locker room with someone who was heterosexual by choice.

[Danan]

There are some here that don't actually believe in the first amendment and hide their statism underneath a thin veneer of fake libertarianism.

So if I force my children to live with a cult of necrophiles from the age of six onwards, where they are taught the benefits of necrophily, shown videos of it the whole day, etc. - but never physically harassed, abused or forced to engage in necrophily - would that also be ok to you? After all, it should be the first amendment right of all parents to force their children to live in whatever sick institution they want to, unless there is no other physical force than locking them up there. Or am I understanding you wrong?

I'm curious why this case is any different in principle if you agree that it would be legitimate to free these children from that place with their consent.

[jmdrake]

We'll see... He'll be back. ;)

You wish. And this is all because of a twisted political agenda. The only reason the idea that sexual preference is fixed at birth is being pushed is so that sexual preference can be covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It's all about the politics, not the science.

[jmdrake]

I'd be uncomfortable sharing a locker room with someone who was heterosexual by choice.

Would you be comfortable sharing a locker room with someone who was homosexual by birth? :rolleyes: Really, if you don't think you're going to be raped by the gay who might be gay, then why should it matter if it was by choice or by birth?

[JCDenton0451]

Because "licensed therapist" is so broad that it includes pastors.

Under the provisions of the bill, a person who is licensed to provide professional counseling, including, but not limited to, a psychiatrist, licensed practicing psychologist, certified social worker, licensed clinical social worker, licensed social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, certified psychoanalyst, or a person who performs counseling as part of the person's professional training, is prohibited from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age.

It's a clear violation of the first amendment and an affront to liberty.

So, what's going to happen to a pastor if he chooses to perform "gay therapy"? Does being a pastor require a license in New Jersey?

[JCDenton0451]

Sorry. I said quote where I said the theory of evolution is not science. I never said that and you know it and you are a liar to pretend I did.
Creationists Fail a Fourth Grade Science Test (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?413703-Creationists-Fail-a-Fourth-Grade-Science-Test)

It's a very long thread, and I don't have time to sift through all of your posts, but basically you claimed that Evolution is a religion that the secularists are trying to force on children.

[jmdrake]

So if I force my children to live with a cult of necrophiles from the age of six onwards, where they are taught the benefits of necrophily, shown videos of it the whole day, etc. - but never physically harassed, abused or forced to engage in necrophily - would that also be ok to you? After all, it should be the first amendment right of all parents to force their children to live in whatever sick institution they want to, unless there is no other physical force than locking them up there. Or am I understanding you wrong?

I'm curious why this case is any different in principle if you agree that it would be legitimate to free these children from that place with their consent.

I haven't seen anyone mention showing six year olds videos of the benefits of heterosexuality all day. But lets roll with that. I know the "debate" tactic of the other side seems to be to find the most absurd example and push it. Hey, let's go further. Would you be against parents having the right, if they found their child acting out with a corpse, to try to get their children help? Should parents be barred from trying to help their kids not be necrophiliacs if their children really really wanted to do that? For the record, I'm not the one wrapping my argument in libertarianism. It's threads like this that convince me that I probably shouldn't identify as a libertarian because much of what gets pushed off as libertarianism is garbage. I will say this though. I was one that stood up for the rights of the fundy Mormons who were getting their kids snatched by the government because of what turned out to be a fake call for "help." The truth is that the government wanted their land for the trans-Texas corridor. And considering all of the kids that get raped in CPS custody (the same time Texas was trying to take fundy Mormon kids over charges of child marriage and polygamy, the Texas Youth Commission rape scandal was breaking) kids are probably safer with neocrophiliac parents than with government agents.

[jmdrake]

Creationists Fail a Fourth Grade Science Test (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?413703-Creationists-Fail-a-Fourth-Grade-Science-Test)

It's a very long thread, and I don't have time to sift through all of your posts, but basically you claimed that Evolution is a religion that the secularists are trying to force on children.

And that thread proves you are full of shit.


Well it's on the current study guide. See page 9, passage IV.

http://www.act.org/caap/sampletest/pdf/Science.pdf

And yes the creationist view isn't dignified with a choice. But I don't see the relevance. Most creationist textbooks I've seen at least acknowledge the standard scientific view on the origin of species.

That the ultimate personal beliefs of someone about a subject is irrelevant if he knows what is expected of him on the exam.

Edit: In fact, you are such and idiot, you don't realize the thread proves you to be a communist! I had forgotten about this thread! My position was that parents should be able to choose whether to teach creationism or evolution and that the fact that homeschoolers do well on standardized science tests proves that they don't need to have their science curriculum mandated by the state. You took the anti libertarian "Let the state decide what children should learn" position. Now you want to lie and claim that I was saying evolution was not science.

Edit 2: And unlike your cowardly tactic of posting a link to a super long thread, I will post the direct quotes and let others see what a fraud you are.


You want to teach kids Creationism - fine, but do it as a separate subject, don't try to conflate education and religious indoctrination, and of course never attempt to teach Creationism at taxpayer's expense.

The school in question was not in the business of educating children, it was trying to indoctrinate them with Biblical worldview. The kids were never introduced to the proper scientific theories of world.


In a private school you have no right to make any demands! That is why it is a private school! And the fact that you aren't even willing to address the question of science test schools proves that you aren't truly concerned about education anyway. Rather you are a control freak.

In a private school someone should have the right to teach whatever they want. The government should not be allowed to dictate curriculum to private schools and especially to home schools. Take your statist garbage elsewhere!

[otherone]

Would you be comfortable sharing a locker room with someone who was homosexual by birth? :rolleyes: Really, if you don't think you're going to be raped by the gay who might be gay, then why should it matter if it was by choice or by birth?

I didn't mention rape. I'd prefer not being the object of arousal for someone who chooses not to be gay, who. according to you, is everyone.

[jmdrake]

I didn't mention rape. I'd prefer not being the object of arousal for someone who chooses not to be gay, who. according to you, is everyone.

But you're fine being the object of arousal for someone who was born gay? :confused:

[otherone]

But you're fine being the object of arousal for someone who was born gay? :confused:

I'm more comfortable in general being around people who are honest about themselves.
I'm starting to think that those who who believe sexuality is a choice are the same people who have chosen not to live their preferred lifestyle.

[jmdrake]

I'm more comfortable in general being around people who are honest about themselves.
I'm starting to think that those who who believe sexuality is a choice are the same people who have chosen not to live their preferred lifestyle.

So the people who are gay and say they chose to be gay are really closet heterosexuals? :confused:

http://www.*****bychoice.com/

Would you be comfortable being around someone who was openly gay and chose to be gay? Maybe you would be more comfortable around that person because you believed he really wasn't gay and was just lying about it for some strange reason? I dunno. It seems to me that you have a strange case of previously undiagnosed homophobia.

[otherone]

So the people who are gay and say they chose to be gay are really closet heterosexuals? :confused:



You have stated that homosexuality is a choice.
This implies that heterosexuality is a choice.
Not true?

[JCDenton0451]

jmdrake (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?849-jmdrake), you really need to watch your attitude. Why do the social conservatives have to be so in-your-face rude? I can almost smell desperation.

[jmdrake]

You have stated that homosexuality is a choice.
This implies that heterosexuality is a choice.
Not true?

You didn't answer my question. You don't believe that sexuality is a choice at all and that people who say that it is a choice are really hiding their true sexuality. So I will ask you again. Do you believe that people who say they have chosen to be gay are really closet heterosexuals? Answer the question, yes or no.

[jmdrake]

jmdrake (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?849-jmdrake), you really need to watch your attitude. Why do the social conservatives have to be so in-your-face rude? I can almost smell desperation.

I'm not a social conservative. I just don't abide liars. But it's not okay with me for you to make such provably false claims. You said I said evolution was not science. The very thread you liked to proved that wasn't true. I posted the quotes that proved that wasn't true. Rather than addressing that fact like an adult, you want to talk about my "attitude?" So lying is okay to you but calling someone out on it is not? I would have thought you were just "mistaken" but you actually linked to the thread and you're now digging the hole deeper for yourself. Just apologize for not telling the truth and move on. Also I support freedom. I do not abide someone who, like you, supports taking away basic freedom from people like what they choose to teach their children. That is communism. This forum has been put up to fight against what you are pushing. And if you were pushing for a bill to take children away from gay parents I would fight against you just as hard because for me it is about freedom. You don't understand freedom so you can't understand me.

[JCDenton0451]

Religious Right fights for Theocracy, and cries "persecution!" every time they don't get what they want. This is what happened in NJ, and the social conservatives are acting like a bunch of crybabies they are. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to how exactly the new law violates the freedom of speech or "paternal rights". It just looks like the Social conservatives are pissed they're losing the culture war.

[jmdrake]

Religious Right fights for Theocracy, and cries "persecution!" every time they don't get what they want. This is what happened in NJ, and the social conservatives are acting like a bunch of crybabies they are. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to how exactly the new law violates the freedom of speech or "paternal rights". It just looks like the Social conservatives are pissed they're losing the culture war.

So the government becoming a "superparent" that indoctrinates children as they did in Soviet Union is the "new libertarian freedom." Got it. Statism rocks, according to you, as long as it is anti-religious statism. Why do you come here again?

Edit: And it's typical of progressives/communists to redefine words to fit their agenda. So not wanting new laws restricting parents rights or the rights of private schools is now "theocracy?" Really? Under what authority do you base such nonsense? If Chris Christie was signing a bill striking down prostitution and social conservatives were complaining you would have a point. But he didn't, so you don't. This is a movement about less government intrusion. Not more.

[V3n]

Different people can have different levels of what they think is acceptable government and what isn't - that doesn't make them Communists. They just have a different opinion than you.

You are about protecting the rights of the parents, and others are about protecting the rights of the children. I think these therapies are all (at varying degrees) damaging to children. You have a different opinion. That doesn't make me a Communist.

At the end of the day, this law was enacted in New Jersey, not at the Federal level - I would be against a Federal law banning the practice. If you want to send your kids to something like this, you can choose not to live in New Jersey.

Just because we see this issue differently, doesn't mean that we are against you or against the movement.

[JCDenton0451]

So the government becoming a "superparent" that indoctrinates children as they did in Soviet Union is the "new libertarian freedom." Got it. Statism rocks, according to you, as long as it is anti-religious statism. Why do you come here again?

Edit: And it's typical of progressives/communists to redefine words to fit their agenda. So not wanting new laws restricting parents rights or the rights of private schools is now "theocracy?" Really? Under what authority do you base such nonsense? If Chris Christie was signing a bill striking down prostitution and social conservatives were complaining you would have a point. But he didn't, so you don't. This is a movement about less government intrusion. Not more. What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, WTF :confused:

Still waiting for someone to explain exactly how the NJ law violates the freedom of speech and "parents' rights".

[Anti Federalist]

And right there is why "state licensing" of professions is a bad thing.


Because "licensed therapist" is so broad that it includes pastors.

Under the provisions of the bill, a person who is licensed to provide professional counseling, including, but not limited to, a psychiatrist, licensed practicing psychologist, certified social worker, licensed clinical social worker, licensed social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, certified psychoanalyst, or a person who performs counseling as part of the person's professional training, is prohibited from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age.

It's a clear violation of the first amendment and an affront to liberty.

[Anti Federalist]

Religious Right fights for Theocracy, and cries "persecution!" every time they don't get what they want. This is what happened in NJ, and the social conservatives are acting like a bunch of crybabies they are. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to how exactly the new law violates the freedom of speech or "paternal rights". It just looks like the Social conservatives are pissed they're losing the culture war.

Drake made it pretty clear: the law is broad enough that it includes pastors.

If you have law, you have law enforcement.

If a pastor or youth minister violated this law, somebody would lose their livelihood or be placed in a government rape cage for talking to somebody.

For me, the homosexual rights agenda does not trump the Bill of Rights agenda.

Can't make it any more clear than that.

[TonySutton]

It amazes me that people expect anything different from NJ.

[JCDenton0451]

Drake made it pretty clear: the law is broad enough that it includes pastors.

If you have law, you have law enforcement.

If a pastor or youth minister violated this law, somebody would lose their livelihood or be placed in a government rape cage for talking to somebody.

For me, the homosexual rights agenda does not trump the Bill of Rights agenda.

Can't make it any more clear than that.

You both are making up ridiculous stuff. No one will go to prison, the worst that can happen is someone may lose a license. Your livelihood is not protected by the 1st amendment rights. People get fired for saying politically incorrect things all the time.

This law seeks to abolish child abuse, not homophobia. It aims to punish specific action, not the homophobic worlview in general.

[Anti Federalist]

You both are making up ridiculous stuff. No one will go to prison, the worst that can happen is someone may lose a license. Your livelihood is not protected by the 1st amendment rights. People get fired for saying politically incorrect things all the time.

This law seeks to abolish child abuse, not homophobia. It aims to punish specific action, not the homophobic worlview in general.

So, you are both in favor of state licensing of professions and having those documents taken away for speaking in ways that are not government approved.

Gotcha.

[JCDenton0451]

So, you are both in favor of state licensing of professions and having those documents taken away for speaking in ways that are not government approved.

Gotcha.

Are you dim? The law does not punish people for "speaking". It punishes them for performing "gay conversion therapy" on people under 18, which is a form of child abuse.

If you're a medical professional in NJ you can be as homophobic as you like so long as you don't partake in child abuse. Is that clear?

Once again, the law does NOT punish speech.

[Anti Federalist]

Are you dim? The law does not punish people for "speaking". It punishes them for performing "gay conversion therapy" on people under 18, which is a form of child abuse.

If you're a medical professional in NJ you can be as homophobic as you like so long as you don't partake in child abuse. Is that clear?

Once again, the law does NOT punish speech.

Yeah, perfectly clear.

You are in favor of government licensing of professions, and in favor of having those "licenses" taken away if you perform services not approved by government.

Gotcha.

[jmdrake]

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, WTF :confused:

Oh don't play stupid! I posted the quote from the other thread where you clearly said you were against private schools having the right to teach science as they saw fit. And your endorsement of Christie's retarded bill "banning" therapy that you don't agree with is just par for the course. And if someone doesn't want the government granting itself new powers to ban science curriculums you don't like or banning mental therapy you don't like that person is somehow a "theocrat?" You really think anyone here who isn't already a statist like you would fall for this crap?


Still waiting for someone to explain exactly how the NJ law violates the freedom of speech and "parents' rights".

I already explained how the law could be construed to apply to pastors. Now you understand the first amendment applies to more than just speech right? In fact it names 5 freedoms. Did you learn all 5 in infiltration school?

[jmdrake]

Are you dim? The law does not punish people for "speaking". It punishes them for performing "gay conversion therapy" on people under 18, which is a form of child abuse.

If you're a medical professional in NJ you can be as homophobic as you like so long as you don't partake in child abuse. Is that clear?

Once again, the law does NOT punish speech.

You are the one that's dim. The first amendment applies to more than just speech.

[jmdrake]

You both are making up ridiculous stuff. No one will go to prison, the worst that can happen is someone may lose a license. Your livelihood is not protected by the 1st amendment rights. People get fired for saying politically incorrect things all the time.

This law seeks to abolish child abuse, not homophobia. It aims to punish specific action, not the homophobic worlview in general.

And next teaching children that they might go to hell for any reason will be deemed "child abuse."

Edit: And the law doesn't say "no one will go to prison." Here's how someone could end up in prison under this law. He's taken to court under the law. He is sued civilly for violating it. In my state such a suit would end up in chancery court. The chancellor could grant the "relief" of barring the person that was sued from continuing the practice. Now say if this person is a minister of the gospel and he believes "I must obey God rather than man" and continues counseling teens who come to him telling him they do not want to be gay. Well, now he's violating a court order and can be incarcerated for contempt of court.

[Anti Federalist]

Are you dim? The law does not punish people for "speaking". It punishes them for performing "gay conversion therapy" on people under 18, which is a form of child abuse.

If you're a medical professional in NJ you can be as homophobic as you like so long as you don't partake in child abuse. Is that clear?

Once again, the law does NOT punish speech.

Oh, and I'm going to assume that if the parents went to a "back alley therapist", you'd be in favor of the state seizing those children and putting the parents in rape cage.

Is that about it?

[Brett85]

It's quite sad that some people here support repealing the 1st amendment simply because they have such a strong hatred for Christians and social conservatives.

[Brett85]

Religious Right fights for Theocracy, and cries "persecution!" every time they don't get what they want. This is what happened in NJ, and the social conservatives are acting like a bunch of crybabies they are. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to how exactly the new law violates the freedom of speech or "paternal rights". It just looks like the Social conservatives are pissed they're losing the culture war.

No, you guys are fighting for your own form of "theocracy." The "religious right" simply wants to be left alone in this particular case. They want to be left alone from radical left wing authoritarians like yourself you want to throw them in prison simply because they believe in raising their children in a way that you happen to disagree with.

[jmdrake]

Drake made it pretty clear: the law is broad enough that it includes pastors.

If you have law, you have law enforcement.

If a pastor or youth minister violated this law, somebody would lose their livelihood or be placed in a government rape cage for talking to somebody.

For me, the homosexual rights agenda does not trump the Bill of Rights agenda.

Can't make it any more clear than that.

You know, the law is actually worse than I initially thought. It even covers people who don't have a license. Read again. I will enumerate each profession named.

Under the provisions of the bill, 1) a person who is licensed to provide professional counseling, including, but not limited to, 2) a psychiatrist, 3) licensed practicing psychologist, 4) certified social worker, 5) licensed clinical social worker, 6) licensed social worker, 7) licensed marriage and family therapist, 8) certified psychoanalyst, 9) or a person who performs counseling as part of the person's professional training, is prohibited from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age.

The question is does the conjunction "or" before enumerated clause 9 mean this is just another example someone "licensed to provide professional counseling"? Or does the "or" mean "Anyone who is licensed to provide profession counseling or who performs counseling as part of the person's professional training?

If the law was meant to be clear (it probably isn't), clause 9 should have read or a person with a license to perform counseling as part of the person's professional training.

[amy31416]

I want people to consider what their position would be if this were about the mayor of San Francisco banning heterosexual conversion therapy. (Meaning, banning a conversion therapy that would try to turn heterosexual children into homosexuals.) <----- If I'd call that abuse, it's hard for me to argue that it's not abuse to try to force a homosexual child to be heterosexual.

Makes it easy for me to decide that I'm against both, though I think there's a better answer than getting the gov't involved.

[GunnyFreedom]

So, you are both in favor of state licensing of professions and having those documents taken away for speaking in ways that are not government approved.

Gotcha.

The State will allow you the believe in X so long as you do not act as though you believe it in any way, shape or form. Очень хороший товарищ!

For the record, I think most of this kind of therapy is delusional; and even if it is legitimate, any kind of psychotherapy really only works on a willing party in any case. So one way or the other it's a fail waiting to happen. Nevertheless, the notion of someone bringing the guns of government to bear against private parties for behaving in ways that do not affect them simply because they do not like the way they think and act is obscene, and anathema to the fundamental concept of American liberty.

“We don't have freedom of speech to talk about the weather. We have the first amendment so we can say very controversial things.” ~ Ron Paul

If we are unwilling to afford liberty to people whose opinions we do not like, then we do not deserve liberty ourselves. I grew up from childhood saying “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” and I meant it. That's one of the main reasons I joined the Marine Corps (little did I know!)

I've made a career and a half out of defending the rights of people to say and do things that I personally detest. It is ironic, therefore, that those who cry 'freedom' the loudest are often the first to resort to the guns of the State when it comes to a pet issue.

As I tell Republicans until I am blue in the face, you cannot say “I believe in the Constitution except for this one thing” because if all 300 Million of us have our one thing then we have no Constitution at all. The same goes for liberty. We cannot say “I believe in liberty except for this one thing” because if 300 Million people each have their one thing, then we have no liberty at all.

[jmdrake]

It's quite sad that some people here support repealing the 1st amendment simply because they have such a strong hatred for Christians and social conservatives.

Some people are so ignorant of the constitution that they believe the first amendment only applies to speech.

[GunnyFreedom]

I want people to consider what their position would be if this were about the mayor of San Francisco banning heterosexual conversion therapy. (Meaning, banning a conversion therapy that would try to turn heterosexual children into homosexuals.) <----- If I'd call that abuse, it's hard for me to argue that it's not abuse to try to force a homosexual child to be heterosexual.

Makes it easy for me to decide that I'm against both, though I think there's a better answer than getting the gov't involved.

I think the same thing for your scenario as the OP. Government pointing guns at people to control how they think and do is obscene, whether I like what they are thinking and doing or not.

[jkob]

There is no coherent argument here for why conversion therapy isn't abuse, if it were done to anyone else and for any other reason people wouldn't have a problem saying what it truly is. All I've seen here is ridiculous slippery slope BS and somehow spinning this into banning preachers from spreading the gospel, your homophobia and theocratic beliefs are thinly veiled to say the least. Children are not property, children have rights.

[Brett85]

I want people to consider what their position would be if this were about the mayor of San Francisco banning heterosexual conversion therapy. (Meaning, banning a conversion therapy that would try to turn heterosexual children into homosexuals.) <----- If I'd call that abuse, it's hard for me to argue that it's not abuse to try to force a homosexual child to be heterosexual.

Makes it easy for me to decide that I'm against both, though I think there's a better answer than getting the gov't involved.

Both should be legal as long as the therapies don't cause physical pain for the child. Freedom of speech should not be banned in America.

[Brett85]

Children are not property, children have rights.

Your view is that children are property of the government.

[GunnyFreedom]

Your view is that children are property of the government.

You shall not teach unapproved opinions to your children, for it is abuse. The Stasi will see you now, tavorish!

[jmdrake]

I want people to consider what their position would be if this were about the mayor of San Francisco banning heterosexual conversion therapy. (Meaning, banning a conversion therapy that would try to turn heterosexual children into homosexuals.) <----- If I'd call that abuse, it's hard for me to argue that it's not abuse to try to force a homosexual child to be heterosexual.

Makes it easy for me to decide that I'm against both, though I think there's a better answer than getting the gov't involved.

The law that was signed covered people that wanted to no longer be gay. Christi's law specifically allows for counseling to help children be comfortable with being gay. So if a heterosexual child, for whatever reason, decided they wanted to be gay...well there you go. (And of course most people wouldn't consider that child heterosexual.)

Also I find your moral equivalence argument less than compelling. It requires one to adopt the position that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Certainly some people believe that, and that is their right. But others don't. On the flipside I have yet to see anyone make any argument against heterosexuality, biblical or otherwise. (Some radical feminists seem to think that all heterosexual sex is rape, but they are a minority even among feminists I believe.) And that is why this is a 1st amendment issue. What's next? Parents won't be allowed to compel their children to a church that teaches homosexuality is a sin because that might induce the child to seek out help with his feelings? Does your right to attend the church of your choice end only when your child has told you he is gay? Or must you not be allowed to attend the church of your choice because your child might be gay and you don't know it?

[jkob]

Your view is that children are property of the government.

No, children as individuals have rights that must be protected. The legitimate function of the government is to protect those rights for children just the same as you or I. That's also a responsibility of the parent but unfortunately not all parents are created equal. I don't believe you should be forced against your will into some reeducation camp to correct your 'incorrect' political views, why should a child be forced to for the way they were born?

[jmdrake]

There is no coherent argument here for why conversion therapy isn't abuse, if it were done to anyone else and for any other reason people wouldn't have a problem saying what it truly is. All I've seen here is ridiculous slippery slope BS and somehow spinning this into banning preachers from spreading the gospel, your homophobia and theocratic beliefs are thinly veiled to say the least. Children are not property, children have rights.

Let's go back to the necrophiliac example that someone arguing from your point of view brought up. If I found my child sexualizing a dead cat, would it be abuse for me to try to get him help? Yes or no? Because if I take your position that it would be abuse "if it were done to anyone else and for any other reason" then you should call my attempt to get my child to stop sexualizing dead cats abuse.

[Brett85]

No, children as individuals have rights that must be protected. The legitimate function of the government is to protect those rights for children just the same as you or I. That's also a responsibility of the parent but unfortunately not all parents are created equal. I don't believe you should be forced against your will into some reeducation camp to correct your 'incorrect' political views, why should a child be forced to for the way they were born?

Because it's simply your opinion that they were born that way. Other parents disagree, and they shouldn't be thrown in prison simply for disagreeing with you.

[jkob]

Let's go back to the necrophiliac example that someone arguing from your point of view brought up. If I found my child sexualizing a dead cat, would it be abuse for me to try to get him help? Yes or no? Because if I take your position that it would be abuse "if it were done to anyone else and for any other reason" then you should call my attempt to get my child to stop sexualizing dead cats abuse.

Are you comparing necrophilia and homosexuality? Seriously?

[jkob]

Because it's simply your opinion that they were born that way. Other parents disagree,
and they shouldn't be thrown in prison simply for disagreeing with you.

They can disagree all they want but that doesn't give them the right to abuse their children regardless.

[Brett85]

They can disagree all they want but that doesn't give them the right to abuse their children regardless.

Like I said before, if "emotional abuse" of children should be against the law, then you're essentially advocating throwing 90% of parents in America in prison.

[amy31416]

The law that was signed covered people that wanted to no longer be gay. Christi's law specifically allows for counseling to help children be comfortable with being gay. So if a heterosexual child, for whatever reason, decided they wanted to be gay...well there you go. (And of course most people wouldn't consider that child heterosexual.)

Also I find your moral equivalence argument less than compelling. It requires one to adopt the position that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Certainly some people believe that, and that is their right. But others don't. On the flipside I have yet to see anyone make any argument against heterosexuality, biblical or otherwise. (Some radical feminists seem to think that all heterosexual sex is rape, but they are a minority even among feminists I believe.) And that is why this is a 1st amendment issue. What's next? Parents won't be allowed to compel their children to a church that teaches homosexuality is a sin because that might induce the child to seek out help with his feelings? Does your right to attend the church of your choice end only when your child has told you he is gay? Or must you not be allowed to attend the church of your choice because your child might be gay and you don't know it?

You don't have to believe that there isn't anything wrong with being gay, you have to leave people alone who believe that, just as people who believe the opposite should leave you alone.

Personally, I don't give a crap if anyone is gay. I don't give them props for it as some leftists would like, but I don't judge either. My moral compass is just fine--I control myself and nobody else, and I regard anyone who'd use the gov't to control others as having a moral deficiency. So, I can say that I believe that both forms of "conversion therapy" are abusive, emotionally mostly, and using your 1st Amendment argument, am completely within my rights.

No more, no less.

My only point is that this board would be FREAKING OUT if there were such a thing as "straight conversion therapy." And I'd put a couple hundred on it that people would be for using gov't force to ban it. Not saying that's you, but I'd bet that people here would be for banning it, hell--I'd have to consider it for a few moments myself.

[jmdrake]

Are you comparing necrophilia and homosexuality? Seriously?

Like I said, oh yea of reading comprehension problems someone on YOUR side of the argument already made the comparison! That said, why not? It's not like anyone is being hurt by someone sexualizing a dead cat. At least the cat isn't being hurt. Even sexualizing a dead human doesn't hurt the human. We will all be worm food someday. Stick with your argument if you have the courage of your convictions. If it's abuse to impose therapy on someone for any reason, then it's abuse to impose therapy on someone for any reason.

[jmdrake]

You don't have to believe that there isn't anything wrong with being gay, you have to leave people alone who believe that, just as people who believe the opposite should leave you alone.

Personally, I don't give a crap if anyone is gay. I don't give them props for it as some leftists would like, but I don't judge either. My moral compass is just fine--I control myself and nobody else, and I regard anyone who'd use the gov't to control others as having a moral deficiency. So, I can say that I believe that both forms of "conversion therapy" are abusive, emotionally mostly, and using your 1st Amendment argument, am completely within my rights.

No more, no less.

My only point is that this board would be FREAKING OUT if there were such a thing as "straight conversion therapy." And I'd put a couple hundred on it that people would be for using gov't force to ban it. Not saying that's you, but I'd bet that people here would be for banning it, hell--I'd have to consider it for a few moments myself.

Hello amy. Please try to understand what I'm saying. The reason why everyone would be against "straight conversion therapy" is because nobody believes there is anything wrong with heterosexuality. At least no sane person believes that. So your analogy just doesn't hold water. If you want to go with a legit analogy it has to be something that nearly half the population agrees with and half the population disagrees with. I raised the question, which the "ban gay therapy side" raised, of necrophilia therapy. Would you be for or against a ban on therapy to help someone stop sexualizing dead cats? I don't think sexualizing dead cats should be against the law. But I don't approve of the practice either. I really wish I could think of something that people were evenly divided on.

Edit: And I didn't say anything about your moral compass. That's irrelevant to the point I was making. I said you were making a moral equivalence argument, because you were. I didn't say you were applauding anyone for being gay.

[jkob]

Like I said before, if "emotional abuse" of children should be against the law, then you're essentially advocating throwing 90% of parents in America in prison.

That's not what's against the law, conversion therapy is against the law.

[Brett85]

My moral compass is just fine--I control myself and nobody else, and I regard anyone who'd use the gov't to control others as having a moral deficiency. .

The only people advocating using the government to control others are those who are defending this law. The so called "religious right" or "social conservatives" simply want to be left alone in this particular case.

[V3n]

I think Abortion is a better analogy.

It's the parent's decision. The child has no say. The child has no rights. The child gets hurt.

[jmdrake]

That's not what's against the law, conversion therapy is against the law.

Conversion therapy was banned precisely because some people wrongly think it is emotional abuse. That and for no other reason. Nice try. Not cigar.

[jmdrake]

I think Abortion is a better analogy.

It's the parent's decision. The child has no say. The child has no rights. The child gets hurt.

Ah. So a parent trying to help a child who may have asked for the help is the same as killing the child. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

It's more like a law to ban cochlear implants.

[Brett85]

That's not what's against the law, conversion therapy is against the law.

You believe that conversion therapy is somehow "emotional abuse," and the idea that people should get thrown in prison for "emotional abuse" is simply absurd. I have to wonder how far you're willing to take this. If a parent tells their gay child that homosexuality is wrong and tries to convert their child to heterosexuality on their own, should the child's parent get thrown in prison for that?

[jkob]

I think Abortion is a better analogy.

It's the parent's decision. The child has no say. The child has no rights. The child gets hurt.

You might make the Jesus freaks brains explode with that one

Strongly pro-life btw before anyone asks.

[V3n]

Ah. So a parent trying to help a child who may have asked for the help is the same as killing the child. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

It's more like a law to ban cochlear implants.

a·nal·o·gy
/əˈnaləjē/
Noun

A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
A correspondence or partial similarity.

------
C'mon - you're better than that.

[jmdrake]

You might make the Jesus freaks brains explode with that one

Strongly pro-life btw before anyone asks.

Not really. Not unless someone really believed that a parent sincerely trying to help a child (right or wrong in their belief) is the same as a parent killing a child. You have to be really twisted to buy that V3n's argument.

[Brett85]

You might make the Jesus freaks brains explode with that one

Strongly pro-life btw before anyone asks.

I strongly doubt if V3n is pro life, and I doubt if you are either. People who hate Christianity and want to criminalize it generally aren't opposed to abortion.

[jmdrake]

a·nal·o·gy
/əˈnaləjē/
Noun

A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
A correspondence or partial similarity.

------
C'mon - you're better than that.

I am better than to go along with your false analogy. Here's the problem with it. It assumes that the parent seeking to help a child align his life with the parent's Biblical view is the same as a parent killing his or her child. Sorry, but you can't get off the hook just by saying "It's just an analogy." Abortion isn't even arguably done for the benefit of the child.

Edit: But I will remember this the next time someone from your side takes offense at analogies using necrophilia, pedophilia, incest etc.

[amy31416]

Hello amy. Please try to understand what I'm saying. The reason why everyone would be against "straight conversion therapy" is because nobody believes there is anything wrong with heterosexuality. At least no sane person believes that. So your analogy just doesn't hold water. If you want to go with a legit analogy it has to be something that nearly half the population agrees with and half the population disagrees with. I raised the question, which the "ban gay therapy side" raised, of necrophilia therapy. Would you be for or against a ban on therapy to help someone stop sexualizing dead cats? I don't think sexualizing dead cats should be against the law. But I don't approve of the practice either. I really wish I could think of something that people were evenly divided on.

I'm talking, at least, about things that are within the realm of reality. "Sexualizing dead cats therapy" is ridiculous and I refuse to enter that into the debate because it's just silly.

Why not use the example of pedophilia? At least that's a reality (yes, there are teens who sexually abuse younger children.) Do I think it's abuse to try some sort of conversion therapy on them? No. Why not? Their actions are abusive of others who can not consent, that is not (usually) the case with heterosexuality/homosexuality, and to allow that behavior to continue will be harmful to the teen who abuses and to his victims.

[jkob]

You believe that conversion therapy is somehow "emotional abuse," and the idea that people should get thrown in prison for "emotional abuse" is simply absurd. I have to wonder how far you're willing to take this. If a parent tells their gay child that homosexuality is wrong and tries to convert their child to heterosexuality on their own, should the child's parent get thrown in prison for that?

You can tell your child whatever you want, this law bans conversion therapy which is a discredited and harmful 'treatment' for homosexuality.

How does one convert someone to heterosexuality? It doesn't happen. Can I convert you to homosexuality? No amount electrodes on your gonads will change that.

[jmdrake]

I'm talking, at least, about things that are within the realm of reality. "Sexualizing dead cats therapy" is ridiculous and I refuse to enter that into the debate because it's just silly.

No it isn't. I'll PM you.

[V3n]

Not really. Not unless someone really believed that a parent sincerely trying to help a child (right or wrong in their belief) is the same as a parent killing a child. You have to be really twisted to buy that V3n's argument.

Some people who have abortions really do think they're doing the right thing for the child, because they are not financially or emotionally qualified to raise it.

A lot of people think they're doing the best to help their children, and really just end up doing a lot of harm.


I strongly doubt if V3n is pro life, and I doubt if you are either. People who hate Christianity and want to criminalize it generally aren't opposed to abortion.

I am pro-life, and a Christian. So guess again. I'm for banning abortion, just as I'm for banning these harmful practices. I'm for protecting children, not handing them over to frauds that would only hurt them. Jesus would overturn these "therapies" performed in churches, just as quick as he overturned the money-changers!

[Brett85]

You can tell your child whatever you want, this law bans conversion therapy which is a discredited and harmful 'treatment' for homosexuality.

How does one convert someone to heterosexuality? It doesn't happen. Can I convert you to homosexuality? No amount electrodes on your gonads will change that.

There have been people who have been homosexuals their entire lives and have converted to heterosexuality. There have also been people who have been heterosexuals their entire lives and have converted to homosexuality. People change their sexual preferences all the time.

[jkob]

Not really. Not unless someone really believed that a parent sincerely trying to help a child (right or wrong in their belief) is the same as a parent killing a child. You have to be really twisted to buy that V3n's argument.

One of the main arguments pro-abortion people make is that the child cannot be cared for or loved and thus would be better off dead. I don't believe that, I think that children should be protected before and after they're born.

[Brett85]

I am pro-life, and a Christian. So guess again. I'm for banning abortion, just as I'm for banning these harmful practices. I'm for protecting children, not handing them over to frauds that would only hurt them. Jesus would overturn these "therapies" performed in churches, just as quick as he overturned the money-changers!

So you're a Christian who just picks and chooses what parts of the Bible to believe? I guess you do have a lot in common with Christie.

[amy31416]

The only people advocating using the government to control others are those who are defending this law. The so called "religious right" or "social conservatives" simply want to be left alone in this particular case.

What I was asking is if people would also support those who advocate converting heterosexuals to homosexuals would also leave them alone, or if they would be inconsistent and call for a ban on such "therapy."

If you want to be left alone, you ought to leave other people alone.

[V3n]

I am better than to go along with your false analogy. Here's the problem with it. It assumes that the parent seeking to help a child align his life with the parent's Biblical view is the same as a parent killing his or her child. Sorry, but you can't get off the hook just by saying "It's just an analogy." Abortion isn't even arguably done for the benefit of the child.

Edit: But I will remember this the next time someone from your side takes offense at analogies using necrophilia, pedophilia, incest etc.

Hey - Don't lump me in with the necrophilia analogy guy! :p

If it did actually convert a homosexual to a heterosexual, maybe I would argue that they were killed inside.. but since it doesn't work... it just leaves them scarred for life.

[V3n]

So you're a Christian who just picks and chooses what parts of the Bible to believe? I guess you do have a lot in common with Christie.

I believe the "Love your neighbor." and "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." parts. Love the child. Protect the child. Even if you don't agree with his lifestyle.