California to ban gay "therapy" for minors

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Volf:
why are people allowed to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or each cheese burgers?

Alcohol, cigarettes and cheese burgers are legal. Although in Norway these things are not legal for teens save your "cheese burger". Where did that come from?

Which part of harmful practice are you not getting? I am pretty sure they didn't sit down one day and said! "Lets ban this". There is research behind this and they conclude that this is not healthy practice. Google up on teen gay suicides to get a picture of what it is about. The teenage mind is a fragile thing that should not be messed with by religious nut jobs playing at being Sigmund Freud. They have no business telling kinds they are not normal for being what they are.

Rastelin:

Volf:
why are people allowed to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or each cheese burgers?

Alcohol, cigarettes and cheese burgers are legal. Although in Norway these things are not legal for teens save your "cheese burger". Where did that come from?

Which part of harmful practice are you not getting? I am pretty sure they didn't sit down one day and said! "Lets ban this". There is research behind this and they conclude that this is not healthy practice. Google up on teen gay suicides to get a picture of what it is about. The teenage mind is a fragile thing that should not be messed with by religious nut jobs playing at being Sigmund Freud. They have no business telling kinds they are not normal for being what they are.

So then if this form of "therapy" is harmful, why allow anybody to take it? If it really is to help people, then why only prevent teens from taking it? Which goes back to my point about cigarettes, alcohol and cheese burgers. If the state is just trying to look out for the health of its citizens, then why are the other things I mentioned allowed to be consumed by the general public?

Volf:

Shaoken:

snip

Again, if it can be shown that the teen has chosen to go through with this therapy, they should be allowed to go through with it. If the state is so concerned with people doing things that harm them, why are people allowed to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or each cheese burgers?

It can't, for the most part, and these programs wouldn't exist for minors if the demand was coming from the minors themselves because minors don't have money for things like this; their parents do. If California ruins the dreams of every child in the state that was born gay in a Christian household and really wanted the opportunity to be turned straight without any sort of pressure from their parents or peers in an effort to prevent gay teens from being subjected to what is effectively torture, then they saved a lot of kids at the expense of a tiny minority that need some real therapy, anyway.

Serge A. Storms:

Volf:

Shaoken:

snip

Again, if it can be shown that the teen has chosen to go through with this therapy, they should be allowed to go through with it. If the state is so concerned with people doing things that harm them, why are people allowed to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or each cheese burgers?

It can't, for the most part, and these programs wouldn't exist for minors if the demand was coming from the minors themselves because minors don't have money for things like this; their parents do.

You know who else doesn't have money? Toddlers and yet the wiggles and their concerts still exist. Its nonsense to say that if it was coming from minors that it wouldn't exist.

Volf:

Rastelin:

Volf:
why are people allowed to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or each cheese burgers?

Alcohol, cigarettes and cheese burgers are legal. Although in Norway these things are not legal for teens save your "cheese burger". Where did that come from?

Which part of harmful practice are you not getting? I am pretty sure they didn't sit down one day and said! "Lets ban this". There is research behind this and they conclude that this is not healthy practice. Google up on teen gay suicides to get a picture of what it is about. The teenage mind is a fragile thing that should not be messed with by religious nut jobs playing at being Sigmund Freud. They have no business telling kinds they are not normal for being what they are.

So then if this form of "therapy" is harmful, why allow anybody to take it? If it really is to help people, then why only prevent teens from taking it? Which goes back to my point about cigarettes, alcohol and cheese burgers. If the state is just trying to look out for the health of its citizens, then why are the other things I mentioned allowed to be consumed by the general public?

As has been pointed out, alcohol and tobacco are prohibited to minors. Should they not be?

All I have to say is good on California.

evilneko:

Volf:

Rastelin:

Alcohol, cigarettes and cheese burgers are legal. Although in Norway these things are not legal for teens save your "cheese burger". Where did that come from?

Which part of harmful practice are you not getting? I am pretty sure they didn't sit down one day and said! "Lets ban this". There is research behind this and they conclude that this is not healthy practice. Google up on teen gay suicides to get a picture of what it is about. The teenage mind is a fragile thing that should not be messed with by religious nut jobs playing at being Sigmund Freud. They have no business telling kinds they are not normal for being what they are.

So then if this form of "therapy" is harmful, why allow anybody to take it? If it really is to help people, then why only prevent teens from taking it? Which goes back to my point about cigarettes, alcohol and cheese burgers. If the state is just trying to look out for the health of its citizens, then why are the other things I mentioned allowed to be consumed by the general public?

As has been pointed out, alcohol and tobacco are prohibited to minors. Should they not be?

My point was that if the therapy is harmful, then why is allowed when a person becomes a adult? If the state is trying to prevent people from harming themselves, shouldn't they care about adults as much as they do children(both are people and both are citizens)? And if they do try to pass a bill to ban this "therapy" for adults, then why not ban other things that harm adults like alcohol, cigarettes and cheese burgers?

Volf:

Serge A. Storms:

Volf:
Again, if it can be shown that the teen has chosen to go through with this therapy, they should be allowed to go through with it. If the state is so concerned with people doing things that harm them, why are people allowed to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or each cheese burgers?

It can't, for the most part, and these programs wouldn't exist for minors if the demand was coming from the minors themselves because minors don't have money for things like this; their parents do.

You know who else doesn't have money? Toddlers and yet the wiggles and their concerts still exist. Its nonsense to say that if it was coming from minors that it wouldn't exist.

Parents pay for what entertains their kids, obviously, but this is completely different. This isn't a form of entertainment or a product for kids to consume, it's a form of therapy meant to alter a person's sexual orientation. If you've ever met or even heard of someone under the age of 18 that had both the desire and the financial resources to enter themselves into a program like this, you know of one more person than anyone here.

Volf:

evilneko:

Volf:
So then if this form of "therapy" is harmful, why allow anybody to take it? If it really is to help people, then why only prevent teens from taking it? Which goes back to my point about cigarettes, alcohol and cheese burgers. If the state is just trying to look out for the health of its citizens, then why are the other things I mentioned allowed to be consumed by the general public?

As has been pointed out, alcohol and tobacco are prohibited to minors. Should they not be?

My point was that if the therapy is harmful, then why is allowed when a person becomes a adult? If the state is trying to prevent people from harming themselves, shouldn't they care about adults as much as they do children(both are people and both are citizens)? And if they do try to pass a bill to ban this "therapy" for adults, then why not ban other things that harm adults like alcohol, cigarettes and cheese burgers?

So cigs and booze should either be allowed for kids too, or banned for adults too?

Volf:

As has been pointed out, alcohol and tobacco are prohibited to minors. Should they not be?

My point was that if the therapy is harmful, then why is allowed when a person becomes a adult? If the state is trying to prevent people from harming themselves, shouldn't they care about adults as much as they do children(both are people and both are citizens)?

They may care, but it's not up to them at that point. We are of the opinion that adults are more capable of making informed decisions for themselves than minors. This is true for many areas, such as consenting to sex, to medical treatments, voting, watching pornography, drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco.

In the earlier example, an adult is expected to be more capable of understanding the harmfulness of drinking too much alcohol. While not always true of course (as many, many alcoholics prove), we view adults as generally more capable of responsibly drinking hard alcohol and also of understanding the risks and dangers they expose themselves to than a teenager would be. That's why we allow adults to decide for themselves, including deciding to harm themselves, while we forcibly protect minors until they are old enough to make those decisions.

EDIT: To the below: It's a balancing act of self-determination and protection. But since we expect adults to be more capable of the protection-aspect themselves (in regards to drinking responsibly, for instance) and also better informed and matured to decide to harm themselves, self-determination outweighs protection on that issue when a person is an adult.

EDIT2: Also, let's not forget that alcohol for example has known neurological effects. A teenager's brain is still developing, so drinking alcohol is empirically more problematic for a youth than for an adult.

evilneko:

Volf:

evilneko:

As has been pointed out, alcohol and tobacco are prohibited to minors. Should they not be?

My point was that if the therapy is harmful, then why is allowed when a person becomes a adult? If the state is trying to prevent people from harming themselves, shouldn't they care about adults as much as they do children(both are people and both are citizens)? And if they do try to pass a bill to ban this "therapy" for adults, then why not ban other things that harm adults like alcohol, cigarettes and cheese burgers?

So cigs and booze should either be allowed for kids too, or banned for adults too?

Banned for adults if the states objective is to protect its citizens health.

Skeleon:

Volf:

As has been pointed out, alcohol and tobacco are prohibited to minors. Should they not be?

My point was that if the therapy is harmful, then why is allowed when a person becomes a adult? If the state is trying to prevent people from harming themselves, shouldn't they care about adults as much as they do children(both are people and both are citizens)?

They may care, but it's not up to them at that point. We are of the opinion that adults are more capable of making informed decisions for themselves than minors. This is true for many areas, such as consenting to sex, to medical treatments, voting, watching pornography, drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco.

In the earlier example, an adult is expected to be more capable of understanding the harmfulness of drinking too much alcohol. While not always true of course (as many, many alcoholics prove), we view adults as generally more capable of responsibly drinking hard alcohol and also of understanding the risks and dangers they expose themselves to than a teenager would be. That's why we allow adults to decide for themselves, including deciding to harm themselves, while we forcibly protect minors until they are old enough to make those decisions.

Like I said earlier, I understand if people were saying that 13year old gay teen shouldn't go into "therapy", but I can't see the logic in how a 17year old and 11 month old teen should be forbidden from taking the therapy. Just what is it exactly that he or she experiences in the last month before their 18, that suddenly qualifies them to make what was previously thought of as a enormous choice? Can it really be said that they'll be a different/more mature person within a month?

Volf:
Like I said earlier, I understand if people were saying that 13year old gay teen shouldn't go into "therapy", but I can't see the logic in how a 17year old and 11 month old teen should be forbidden from taking the therapy.

We have to draw a somewhat arbitrary deadline somewhere. If it weren't 18 but 17, you (or somebody else) could equally ask why a 16 years and 11 months old doesn't get to make that decision. Rinse and repeat.

Just what is it exactly that he or she experiences in the last month before their 18, that suddenly qualifies them to make what was previously thought of as a enormous choice?

Nothing. But a deadline of some sort is required. Deadlines will always be too late for some and too early for others, that's just in their nature. Some 16 year olds are very mature and capable of thinking for themselves and some 20 year olds are still very childish and irresponsible.
But you have to draw a sensible line somewhere. Personally, I'm not fixed on 18, but your argumentation doesn't really lead us anywhere because any other deadline would also be arbitrary to a degree because people differ. 18 is just a very well established deadline for all sorts of issues of self-determination and adulthood, that's probably one of the main reason it in particular was chosen rather than 16 or 21.

Additionally, please note the two EDITS I made to the earlier post going into more detail on the alcohol example.

Volf:
Like I said earlier, I understand if people were saying that 13year old gay teen shouldn't go into "therapy", but I can't see the logic in how a 17year old and 11 month old teen should be forbidden from taking the therapy. Just what is it exactly that he or she experiences in the last month before their 18, that suddenly qualifies them to make what was previously thought of as a enormous choice? Can it really be said that they'll be a different/more mature person within a month?

No. But you know what they will be at 18 that they aren't at 17 years and 11 months? A legal adult. Someone who has the right to tell their parents "No, I won't go do that." Before you turn 18, your individual rights are limited, and your parents are legally allowed to make decisions for you. Once you're an adult, if you want to attend that kind of brainwashing nonsense, no one has the right to stop you. But as a minor, no one has the right to stop your parents from enrolling you in that sort of thing, and that's why the law is there.

Volf:
Like I said, if gay christian teenagers want to pursue pray-the-gay-away places let them. If the teenager makes the choice, why can't they pursue it?

The 'choice' homosexual kids get to 'make' is kind of like the choice a store clerk gets to 'give' money when being robbed.

They are coerced, psychologically tortured, abused heavily and severely, downright bullied into such programs where they are tortured some more. Doing such things to children is a criminal offense already, in any country. Treating homosexual kids like that out of a religion is the only exception where such cruel treatment of minors is allowed.

Generally people in such radical Christian sects who are homosexual end up with a lifelong trauma, and the first person who caused it is yet to be punished. Any law to curtail such savage practises deserves full and unconditional support.

Skeleon:
snip

What I'm getting at is if the state is saying "we are doing this because we believe it is harmful to citizens", then why not push for the bill to include adults as well? Is this therapy somehow not harmful to a person once they are an adult?

As for your edits, good point about the brain developing, but that still leaves cigarettes and cheese burgers.

Aris Khandr:

Volf:
Like I said earlier, I understand if people were saying that 13year old gay teen shouldn't go into "therapy", but I can't see the logic in how a 17year old and 11 month old teen should be forbidden from taking the therapy. Just what is it exactly that he or she experiences in the last month before their 18, that suddenly qualifies them to make what was previously thought of as a enormous choice? Can it really be said that they'll be a different/more mature person within a month?

No. But you know what they will be at 18 that they aren't at 17 years and 11 months? A legal adult. Someone who has the right to tell their parents "No, I won't go do that." Before you turn 18, your individual rights are limited, and your parents are legally allowed to make decisions for you. Once you're an adult, if you want to attend that kind of brainwashing nonsense, no one has the right to stop you. But as a minor, no one has the right to stop your parents from enrolling you in that sort of thing, and that's why the law is there.

Again if this "therapy" is harmful, why shouldn't the state stop adults from enrolling in it? Why should the state focus on the health and safety of teenagers but not young adults?

If they - quite reasonably - think gay therapy for minors is more often than not child abuse, then they should use the means that already exist to interfere against such. Not pass some excessive law, that also limits the freedom of gay minors who actively want such therapy, perhaps even against their parent's advice. If the effects of it are really that horrible, then child abuse should be easy to prove when it happens anyway.

The motives might be all cuddly, but freedom comes first. This laws bans what is not inherently coercive, rather than ban the coercion it targets itself. Hence it is excessive, and it should probably also be taken to court for an examination of how well it holds up with Freedom of Religion (...if as a minor you aren't allowed to gather with others to "pray the gay away", even when it's for yourself, then the state isn't really allowing you to practise your religion).

Volf:
What I'm getting at is if the state is saying "we are doing this because we believe it is harmful to citizens", then why not push for the bill to include adults as well? Is this therapy somehow not harmful to a person once they are an adult?

Again, because adults have further extended rights to self-determination than minors do, including risking harm to themselves. Minors are not considered capable of making the informed decision we consider necessary to allow that risk of self-harm, so the government steps in and grants both broader protections to minors and stricter rules.

I don't really see why you think this is so weird. We do it for hardcore pornography, we do it for medical procedures, we do it for all sorts of things.

We don't consider minors capable of judging the full scope of some decisions, so the government makes rules to protect them. Adults don't require that same amount of protection anymore because they are older and assumed to be more mature and capable of making informed decisions at that point in their lives.

Volf:
Again if this "therapy" is harmful, why shouldn't the state stop adults from enrolling in it? Why should the state focus on the health and safety of teenagers but not young adults?

Because adults are free to make their own choices. If their mentality is that such things are helpful to them, they can enroll in them all they like. That, too, is freedom, even if the rest of us believe that they're insane for it. The law protects minors because otherwise nothing else can.

Skeleon:
snip

Again, it makes little sense to forbid a 17year old from getting this therapy, but not an 18 year old. If the therapy[1] is truly harmful(as others have said), then why is it allowed at all? And on that note, I brought up alcohol, cigarettes, and cheese burgers. If the state is trying to ban things that are bad for the health of its citizens, why are those three things permitted? Telling me, "just because" is a real hollow answer. However if you can give me a answer that makes sense[2], I'm willing to listen.

[1] In case there is any confusion I do think that this therapy is crap and not at all affective
[2] like your comment about the developing brain of a teenager and how alcohol can negatively affect it, hence banning alcohol to minors

Volf:
Again, it makes little sense to forbid a 17year old from getting this therapy, but not an 18 year old.

Do you want me to repeat myself on the issue of deadlines? Because my answer will be the same.

If the therapy is truly harmful(as others have said), then why is it allowed at all? And on that note, I brought up alcohol, cigarettes, and cheese burgers. If the state is trying to ban things that are bad for the health of its citizens, why are those three things permitted?

Well, cheeseburgers fall out of that list because they aren't nearly as harmful as alcohol and tobacco. You need to consume a lot of fatty foods for the health risks to be anywhere comparable to the health risks of alcohol or tobacco, so that's why there's no age limit on cheeseburgers.

That said, we don't allow minors to have free access to those harmful things, either, as you're fully aware. So where is the double standard here? Both this supposed therapy and alcohol/tobacco are considered harmful, both are things that minors are to be protected from. It's perfectly consistent.

The point isn't to protect the citizenship at all costs and regardless of infringements of self-determination. The point is to provide sensible protections for vulnerable elements of our society (minors) and to provide a reasonable balance of protection and self-determination to people (so, for example, drinking alcohol is allowed, but drinking alcohol while driving is prohibited for adults). It's a balancing act. But you talk about this like an absolutist issue.

Skeleon:

Volf:
Again, it makes little sense to forbid a 17year old from getting this therapy, but not an 18 year old.

Do you want me to repeat myself on the issue of deadlines? Because my answer will be the same.

If the therapy is truly harmful(as others have said), then why is it allowed at all? And on that note, I brought up alcohol, cigarettes, and cheese burgers. If the state is trying to ban things that are bad for the health of its citizens, why are those three things permitted?

Well, cheeseburgers fall out of that list because they aren't nearly as harmful as alcohol and tobacco. You need to consume a lot of fatty foods for the health risks to be anywhere comparable to the health risks of alcohol or tobacco, so that's why there's no age limit on cheeseburgers.

That said, we don't allow minors to have free access to those harmful things, either, as you're fully aware. So where is the double standard here? Both this supposed therapy and alcohol/tobacco are considered harmful, both are things that minors are to be protected from. It's perfectly consistent.

The point isn't to protect the citizenship at all costs and regardless of infringements of self-determination. The point is to provide sensible protections for vulnerable elements of our society (minors) and to provide a reasonable balance of protection and self-determination to people (so, for example, drinking alcohol is allowed, but drinking alcohol while driving is prohibited for adults). It's a balancing act. But you talk about this like an absolutist issue.

hmmm... ok good points.

Imperator_DK:
If they - quite reasonably - think gay therapy for minors is more often than not child abuse, then they should use the means that already exist to interfere against such. Not pass some excessive law, that also limits the freedom of gay minors who actively want such therapy, perhaps even against their parent's advice. If the effects of it are really that horrible, then child abuse should be easy to prove when it happens anyway.

Well, clearly that wasn't working as well as they would have hoped: either they couldn't demonstrate the coercion and abuse in the majority of cases, or simply felt that, similar to the case with cigarettes and alcohol, a form of psychotherapy where the only known result is potentially severe psychological damage to the individual should not be an option to a minor, whether or not they feel "adult" enough or not. I think that both are reasonable to assume.

The motives might be all cuddly, but freedom comes first.

Minors. Minors minors minors minors. Minors do not have all the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges as adults in our society. They are (rightfully) considered to have inferior judgement, and have (legally speaking) an extremely subservient role to their legal guardians. Saying "freedom comes first" when it comes to minors undertaking a very harmful procedure with no known benefits, especially when a large number of cases involve severe duress and coercion from the family, is ludicrous. It's like saying "Freedom comes first" when figuring out whether or not to allow a 6-year-old to drink Absinth.

This laws bans what is not inherently coercive, rather than ban the coercion it targets itself.

Because it's all but impossible to attack the coercion itself, but it needs to stop somehow either way.

Hence it is excessive, and it should probably also be taken to court for an examination of how well it holds up with Freedom of Religion (...if as a minor you aren't allowed to gather with others to "pray the gay away", even when it's for yourself, then the state isn't really allowing you to practise your religion).

My religion involves offering my children Jim Beam with every meal. Your laws limiting alcohol consumption of minors interferes with my ability to practice my religion.

Look, I get your arguments, but I think you don't quite get what's wrong here. Try, whenever you would say "gay therapy", replacing it with "hard liquor". The analogy fits the bill almost perfectly - the reason for forbidding them for minors is essentially the same. Short- and long-term physical and psychological detriment; the minor cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions about the issue on his own, especially while coercive factors - parental coercion and peer pressure - play such a gigantic role in the decision.

Volf:
Again, it makes little sense to forbid a 17year old from getting this therapy, but not an 18 year old. If the therapy[1] is truly harmful(as others have said), then why is it allowed at all?

That's a valid question. A complete ban would be a much better step for the reason you indicated. But I fear there's no political will for that in the US.

Heck, they had the health inspection crack down on such gay torture practises here in the Netherlands and even here Christian politicians made a fuss about it.

[1] In case there is any confusion I do think that this therapy is crap and not at all affective

Stagnant:
...
Well, clearly that wasn't working as well as they would have hoped: either they couldn't demonstrate the coercion and abuse in the majority of cases, or simply felt that, similar to the case with cigarettes and alcohol, a form of psychotherapy where the only known result is potentially severe psychological damage to the individual should not be an option to a minor, whether or not they feel "adult" enough or not. I think that both are reasonable to assume.

Then they should have expended the necessary resources on investigation and a proper social system. Resorting to the penal code to resolve social problems is primitive, ineffective, and excessive, and limiting the freedom of others to do to themselves whatever they wish for "the greater good" impermissible.

Minors. Minors minors minors minors. Minors do not have all the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges as adults in our society. They are (rightfully) considered to have inferior judgement, and have (legally speaking) an extremely subservient role to their legal guardians. Saying "freedom comes first" when it comes to minors undertaking a very harmful procedure with no known benefits, especially when a large number of cases involve severe duress and coercion from the family, is ludicrous. It's like saying "Freedom comes first" when figuring out whether or not to allow a 6-year-old to drink Absinth.

Even so, you're limiting the freedom of the parents to raise their child even when there's no proof they're coercing or harming it, and the child is eager and willing to comply. And children are not entirely without rights, they too have Freedom of Expression, and it extends to religious expressions as well (arguably even more so for those).

Because it's all but impossible to attack the coercion itself, but it needs to stop somehow either way.

If society fails to protect its citizens, then the solution is never to take away opportunities and rights for "the victim": Particularly when not all considers themselves so anyway. That's exactly what went down with that idiotic Burqa ban.

My religion involves offering my children Jim Beam with every meal. Your laws limiting alcohol consumption of minors interferes with my ability to practice my religion.

If your religion existed, then it'd have to bow down before the fact that doing so is inherently physically abusive to the child, alcohol being an organic dissolvent, with some objective and measurable biological effects that always take place.

Look, I get your arguments, but I think you don't quite get what's wrong here. Try, whenever you would say "gay therapy", replacing it with "hard liquor". The analogy fits the bill almost perfectly - the reason for forbidding them for minors is essentially the same. Short- and long-term physical and psychological detriment; the minor cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions about the issue on his own, especially while coercive factors - parental coercion and peer pressure - play such a gigantic role in the decision.

If there is conclusive proof that it is inherently harmful to the interests of any child, that there is for all practical purposes not a single child subjected to it who'd ever as an adult look back on it and still consider it the right and proper thing to do (not from your perspective, mind you, but from its own perspective, perhaps as a literalistic ultraconservative Christian), then I'd accept the ban.

But it doesn't fit the bill that well.

I personally would move towards a complete ban, but baby steps, right? Ex-gay treatment is as abhorrent as it is ineffective, and the fact that this actually blocks children from receiving the treatment and sparing the gay children of the homophobic jackasses is call for celebration. Now if the ban would just spread...

Volf:

Skeleon:
snip

Again, it makes little sense to forbid a 17year old from getting this therapy, but not an 18 year old. If the therapy[1] is truly harmful(as others have said), then why is it allowed at all? And on that note, I brought up alcohol, cigarettes, and cheese burgers. If the state is trying to ban things that are bad for the health of its citizens, why are those three things permitted? Telling me, "just because" is a real hollow answer. However if you can give me a answer that makes sense[2], I'm willing to listen.

Because immediate and outright bans have a tendency to backfire. As nice as a total ban would be, the controversy relating to the total ban could lead to a backlash that would have the bill shot down by conservative politicians. While it is totally true that the practice is intensely harmful and should be outright banned because the advocates claim their is medical benefits when there clearly isn't, the full ban will have to happen when the child ban spreads to more than just California.
That said you also brought up a few other harmful practices. While i'll joke and say i advocate the banning of fast food, i don't think shit food and mildly toxic beverages should be outlawed outright so long as people know what they're getting into. Alcohol and fast food don't kill outright when used responsibly, so i don't have an issue with them. Cigarettes on the other hand i do support a ban of because they don't even have the decency to relieve stress and second hand smoke is a bit of a problem, but like i said, you need to work slowly. Bans of smoking in public areas and increases on tobacco taxes are the right measures to take against cigarettes, so keep an eye out for those policies since you'll need to undermine the market before you can kill it.

[1] In case there is any confusion I do think that this therapy is crap and not at all affective
[2] like your comment about the developing brain of a teenager and how alcohol can negatively affect it, hence banning alcohol to minors

Imperator_DK:
Resorting to the penal code to resolve social problems is primitive, ineffective, and excessive, and limiting the freedom of others to do to themselves whatever they wish for "the greater good" impermissible.

Sorry bub, this isn't a social issue, it's a medical one. Most of the people who advertise themselves as capable of changing a person's sexual orientation are not even therapists and the actual theraphy itself is recognized as being harmful by virtually every single psychological association in the world. It's basically homeopathy for the mind except it can also kill you.

Imperator_DK:
Even so, you're limiting the freedom of the parents to raise their child even when there's no proof they're coercing or harming it, and the child is eager and willing to comply.

You know, banning spanking also limits the freedom of the parents when it comes to raising their children except in that case we recognize spanking is an abusive practice that needs to stop. This is no different.

I'd imagine we haven't seen a move towards a complete ban because any politician that makes that kind of move (banning what will be called a voluntary program for Christians to heal themselves according to their beliefs) would be accused of moving a step closer to taking away everyone's Bible. That's obviously hyperbolic nonsense but that's also why we have a conversation every six months or so about some school district getting a push to introduce a new brand of creationism into schools. The point isn't that lawmakers give a shit about creationism in schools when everyone's just trying to figure out how to leave enough in the budget to maintain a public education system, the point is that whoever made the push is in the news talking about the glory of Jesus Christ, and if someone pushes back it's because they're a dirty liberal that wants to replace the Bible with the Communist Manifesto. Again, that's very obviously a load of bullshit, but American politics are run by people looking to get elected and stay in office, and red meat doesn't go out of style in this country.

All that said, California would be the state to make a move like this, and baby steps are both meaningful progress and about as fast as we're going to go.

Hell yes! We're reducing intentional infliction of emotional trauma! Like Kat said, I would have liked to see this happen via prosecuting for false advertisement, but as long as it's effective, I'm for it.

Imperator_DK:
Even so, you're limiting the freedom of the parents to raise their child even when there's no proof they're coercing or harming it, and the child is eager and willing to comply. And children are not entirely without rights, they too have Freedom of Expression, and it extends to religious expressions as well (arguably even more so for those).

Yes. And you know what? We already do that too. A parent cannot physically abuse their child, no matter how much the child agrees that they deserve it. And this too can also be turned into a "freedom of religion" argument: "spare the rod, spoil the child", to the point where the child believes that it is necessary due to their religious teachings!

If society fails to protect its citizens, then the solution is never to take away opportunities and rights for "the victim": Particularly when not all considers themselves so anyway. That's exactly what went down with that idiotic Burqa ban.

If taking away those opportunities and rights leads directly and only to stopping the activity we are trying to protect against, then there is nothing wrong with it. The Burqa ban didn't put a halt to the real problem (oppressive and sexist arabs oppressing their women), it simply got rid of a symptom with no real excuse. This directly solves the problem and every side-effect can be entirely justified with "minors do not have sufficient judgement to make this kind of decision for themselves", much like with alcohol and cigarettes.

If your religion existed, then it'd have to bow down before the fact that doing so is inherently physically abusive to the child, alcohol being an organic dissolvent, with some objective and measurable biological effects that always take place.

And here is the entire breaking point: it has been shown time and time again that anti-gay therapy has exactly one tangible effect: psychological damage for the recipient. That is the ONLY effect, and while how severe this is varies from person to person, it is well-documented. This is why it's being legislated against in the first place!

If there is conclusive proof that it is inherently harmful to the interests of any child, that there is for all practical purposes not a single child subjected to it who'd ever as an adult look back on it and still consider it the right and proper thing to do (not from your perspective, mind you, but from its own perspective, perhaps as a literalistic ultraconservative Christian), then I'd accept the ban.

It is inherently harmful. The second half of that sentence is a complete non-sequitur. A guy who drops dead at 30 from a poisoned liver probably didn't look back and say "You know, drinking all that alcohol was a bad idea" - at least, not before it's too late. It doesn't matter if they think it's a good idea or not.

Imperator_DK:
If there is conclusive proof that it is inherently harmful to the interests of any child

Now firstly, they claim this has beneficial effects. The ball is in the court of the homophobes. Now not only can that be dismissed as utter shite out of hand because you don't improve in any way from fancying another gender opposed to what you were into before, so beneficial effects are impossible by definition. But also it has never been proven they can actually do this, change people's sexual orientation. A case further destroyed by strong indications of genetic causes and proven pre-birth hormonal causes for sexuality, both of which are obviously completely impossible to change, unless one is to remove a person's brain.

Secondly, the therapy consists out of teaching self-hatred. Hating oneself is obviously a harmfull state, and there's a whole range of conditions for which you can you can receive psychological therapy aimed at stopping hating oneself. For instance victims of sexual abuse often feel dirty and guilty (since often, they're shushed by religious communities or the perpetrator like they're to blame) and therapy often involves stopping such feelings.

Thirdly, there's of course the fact that every self-respecting psychologist, psychiatrist and organisation of thoses smashes 'gay therapy' torture as being harmfull.


We don't even have to adress the remote possibility of the stuff being anything outside of hatred and torture.

Ultratwinkie:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/04/23/469667/california-ex-gay-bill/

So what do you think, Escapist?

I would call this a huge win, personally. Normally you cant confront any religious dogma without being ostracized as some sort of racist, fascist, anti-semite, islamaphobe, etc.

Huge, huge civil rights win. I'm not a violent person but the thought of these "parents" sending their gay children to "reeducation" camps makes me want to physically harm them. The parents. Not the children. ;)

I am very pleased at this and hope other states follow suit. Let these religions and their old ideas just die off already.

Volf:

Skeleon:
snip

Again, it makes little sense to forbid a 17year old from getting this therapy, but not an 18 year old. If the therapy[1] is truly harmful(as others have said), then why is it allowed at all? And on that note, I brought up alcohol, cigarettes, and cheese burgers. If the state is trying to ban things that are bad for the health of its citizens, why are those three things permitted? Telling me, "just because" is a real hollow answer. However if you can give me a answer that makes sense[2], I'm willing to listen.

I'd have thought this was obvious, but they've chosen 18 years because that is the age of consent for sex. You need to be consistent. The state has declared that people under the age of 18 are unable to correctly determine the uses of their own genitalia, and therefore, they would not be able to correctly assess whether this therapy was suitable for them. I personally disagree with 18 as the age of consent, but I agree with the consistency being in place. I do think that after 17 years a teenager is old enough to decide for themselves whether to take this therapy, but at the same time they are old enough to have sex. Given that the state has already deemed a 17 year old incapable of sexual decision making, they must assume any desire to go through sex related therapy comes from the parents.

[1] In case there is any confusion I do think that this therapy is crap and not at all affective
[2] like your comment about the developing brain of a teenager and how alcohol can negatively affect it, hence banning alcohol to minors

Those camps are disgusting, a huge step forward for gay rights in America.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked