• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chris Christie Signs Bill Banning Gay 'Conversion' Therapy

What if it is genetic. Someone who is gay gets genetically tested and finds out they are not actually gay?
It's not genetically testable though. There's no genetic markers that exists to say if a person is gay or not. It would be akin to intelligence. You can tell if a person is intelligent, but there's no specific gene that indicates what aptitude a person has. Likewise you can ask a person if he/she is gay, and get a correct response.

The link I posted provides the most recent findings about homosexuality, which is to say that scientists are believing it has to do with epigenetics and prenatal development. Or, put another way, how genes and hormones express themselves while the baby is still developing in the womb.

I really don't have a problem with the government protecting the gay agenda or the anti-life agenda but to have them do so at the expense of the Christian morals agenda is utterly one sided and contrary to everything that the Constitution was created to prevent.
Christian morals don't get a pass if they contradict all empirical evidence. I mean you can certainly believe in the power of faith healing all you want, but you're not going to get off of that homicide charge for killing your child because you were praying instead of taking him to the doctor.
 
The traumatic harm that "conversion" therapy has done to so many young people warrants this ban. I wish it were a Federal ban, in addition.
 
New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie on Monday signed a Bill that bans therapists from providing a service to minors that aims to change their sexual orientation.

The key word here is "minors".

A consenting adult should be free to seek "professional help" to "cure" himself of homosexuality, heterosexuality, vegetarianism, communism, libertarianism - whatever. (Just don't ask me, as a taxpayer, to support any such quackery).

But children are a different story. Should a parent be able to procure breast implants for his 14-year old daughter, for example? You know, to make her more assured of her femininity, best intentions...- ? I honestly don't think so.

Why not? Wouldn't I fight hard, as a sworn libertarian, for his right to home-school and, basically, brainwash the same girl any way he wants? Surely, brain is more important than...mammary glands? ("Yea, right", 75% of normal heterosexual males will say - the other 25% rooting for buttocks implants, other things given equal).

I don't have a good answer. I know our children are not government property. I know they are not our private property either. What exactly are they? - some exotic alien entities that don't fit our standard notions of morality and responsibility?

Gosh, this is a hard one.
 
I don't think it's a good thing to set the precedent that parents can make sexual choices for their kids at such young ages. If an adult feels they do not want to be homosexual and wants to seek help to change then that's their business, but it's not the place of the parents to decide for them.

It reminds me of those parents who decide their kids are transgender because they want to wear a dress or like girl toys. It's absurd to make such major life decisions at that point. Let kids be kids and they can deal with the complexities and struggles of sexuality when they reach an age where the have a maturity to handle it themselves.
 
The key word here is "minors".

A consenting adult should be free to seek "professional help" to "cure" himself of homosexuality, heterosexuality, vegetarianism, communism, libertarianism - whatever. (Just don't ask me, as a taxpayer, to support any such quackery).

But children are a different story. Should a parent be able to procure breast implants for his 14-year old daughter, for example? You know, to make her more assured of her femininity, best intentions...- ? I honestly don't think so.

Why not? Wouldn't I fight hard, as a sworn libertarian, for his right to home-school and, basically, brainwash the same girl any way he wants? Surely, brain is more important than...mammary glands? ("Yea, right", 75% of normal heterosexual males will say - the other 25% rooting for buttocks implants, other things given equal).

I don't have a good answer. I know our children are not government property. I know they are not our private property either. What exactly are they? - some exotic alien entities that don't fit our standard notions of morality and responsibility?

Gosh, this is a hard one.

I could argue that manipulation of a child's mind is a natural and inevitable aspect of parenthood while manipulation of the body is a life decision being made for the child before they have the maturity to consent. That would be the way I'd look at it, anyways.
 
Christian morals don't get a pass if they contradict all empirical evidence. I mean you can certainly believe in the power of faith healing all you want, but you're not going to get off of that homicide charge for killing your child because you were praying instead of taking him to the doctor.

So if someone asks for this kind of therapy they should simply be told "No. You're gay and that's all there is to it. Sorry if that bothers you but it would be illegal for me to offer you any assistance in dealing with this matter. If, however, you decide that you want to embrace your homosexuality then I can offer you all kinds of cool stuff!!"?
 
So if someone asks for this kind of therapy they should simply be told "No. You're gay and that's all there is to it. Sorry if that bothers you but it would be illegal for me to offer you any assistance in dealing with this matter. If, however, you decide that you want to embrace your homosexuality then I can offer you all kinds of cool stuff!!"?

I think therapists are still going to be allowed to help people cope with homosexuality. This is only covering a specific form of treatment for minors.
 
I think therapists are still going to be allowed to help people cope with homosexuality. This is only covering a specific form of treatment for minors.

So little Jimmy's been getting cornholed by Uncle Chester since he was 3 and now, at 12 says "I don't want to be gay". The therapist then says "It's illegal for me to treat you to overcome this issue but if you just choose to be gay we'll give you all the help you could ever ask for!!"

Yippee:roll:
 
New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie on Monday signed a Bill that bans therapists from providing a service to minors that aims to change their sexual orientation.

Generally I don't believe that government has any business getting in the middle of something like this, but I see the quacks and far right religious nuts who push garbage like this for what they are - a threat to the health of young people.

Here's the Yahoo article: http://news.yahoo.com/chris-christie-signs-bill-banning-'gay-conversion-therapy'--163725130.html




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~Robert Green Ingersoll




"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan

I'm not opposed to this initiative, but if people think gay conversion therapy is the only medical quackery being practiced in western society today they're just fools. This smacks of posturing for the 2016 presidential primaries.
 
So if someone asks for this kind of therapy they should simply be told "No. You're gay and that's all there is to it. Sorry if that bothers you but it would be illegal for me to offer you any assistance in dealing with this matter. If, however, you decide that you want to embrace your homosexuality then I can offer you all kinds of cool stuff!!"?
Sexual orientation is not a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. I can base this on anecdotal evidence, as well as the findings of every mainstream scientific and medical organizations from the American Medical Association to the American Academy of Pediatrics to the American Association of Psychiatrists.

The claim otherwise is completely unsupported by any scientific evidence, and would be akin to lying to a patient.
 
Sexual orientation is not a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. I can base this on anecdotal evidence, as well as the findings of every mainstream scientific and medical organizations from the American Medical Association to the American Academy of Pediatrics to the American Association of Psychiatrists.

The claim otherwise is completely unsupported by any scientific evidence, and would be akin to lying to a patient.

Actually, there are studies and they don't all come from right wing sources. - Can Childhood Sexual Abuse Cause Homosexuality? - Born Gay - ProCon.org

I'd actually say that there is substantial evidence that sexual abuse can and sometimes does result in coping behavior of a sexual nature. While this may not be the same thing as someone who realizes their homosexuality through a normal childhood it also shouldn't simply be dismissed and treatment should certainly be allowed.
 
New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie on Monday signed a Bill that bans therapists from providing a service to minors that aims to change their sexual orientation.

Generally I don't believe that government has any business getting in the middle of something like this, but I see the quacks and far right religious nuts who push garbage like this for what they are - a threat to the health of young people.

Here's the Yahoo article: http://news.yahoo.com/chris-christie-signs-bill-banning-'gay-conversion-therapy'--163725130.html




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~Robert Green Ingersoll




"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan

The status quo in Jersey is as many laws as possible. I don't think Christie is some well meaning, benevolent protector. But rather, he's just putting more laws into Jersey, a State already over regulated, a state with the largest percent population getting the heck out of dodge, a State with one of the worst business retention record on the books.

We should probably boot New Jersey out of the Republic. Or at least dig it under and make Pennsylvania the new coastal state.
 
Of course.

I really don't have a problem with the government protecting the gay agenda or the anti-life agenda but to have them do so at the expense of the Christian morals agenda is utterly one sided and contrary to everything that the Constitution was created to prevent.
I'm not entirely sure the Framers intended for religious beliefs to dictate medical or psychological practices, nor that they possessed the slightest inkling as to much progress we would enjoy in those fields over the past hundred years. Your moral agenda could retain more credibility if it was applied to your own person, rather than to enable what amounts to child abuse in many cases.
 
I'm not entirely sure the Framers intended for religious beliefs to dictate medical or psychological practices, nor that they possessed the slightest inkling as to much progress we would enjoy in those fields over the past hundred years. Your moral agenda could retain more credibility if it was applied to your own person, rather than to enable what amounts to child abuse in many cases.

It's just plain and simple not the government's place to determine that a particular medical practice for which no harm has been proven should be made unavailable through private acquisition. More so, to make such a determination based on a determination of religious involvement is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.
 
For the same reason people can't voluntarially feed their children to bears.

The harm that will likely result is greater than whatever benefit those volunteering their children for such "treatment" can legitimately establish might be derived.

If it could be empirically established that, despite the inherant dangers in feeding children to bears or subjecting them to pseudo-scientific religious conversion therapy, there was some great benefit that likely would result I think proponents of either treatment would have a leg to stand on.

Until then I think it's fair that the government step in and say, "You know what, trying to get an old woman to float isn't a reasonable method of determining whether or not she's a witch".



:shrug:

I figure if a 15yo wants to do this, and his parents are okay with it, I don't really see it as the State's business. Ditto faith healing, and whatever else, as long as it is voluntary on the part of the patient and agreed to by the parents of the minor.

In essence the State is saying, "Even if you WANT to try this therapy and your parents agree to it, we FORBID you from trying it even if you believe it will benefit you."


Doesn't really work for me, but whatever.
 
Sexual orientation is not a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. I can base this on anecdotal evidence, as well as the findings of every mainstream scientific and medical organizations from the American Medical Association to the American Academy of Pediatrics to the American Association of Psychiatrists.

The claim otherwise is completely unsupported by any scientific evidence, and would be akin to lying to a patient.


I still can't buy into that. The only real indicator for "orientation" is behavior... and it is well established that behavior varies quite a lot. If orientation were inborn and immutable, this would not be so. It is a circular argument that attempts to be self-justifying. I think the range of human sexual behavior is far too complex to be so simplistically explained.
 
I still can't buy into that. The only real indicator for "orientation" is behavior... and it is well established that behavior varies quite a lot. If orientation were inborn and immutable, this would not be so. It is a circular argument that attempts to be self-justifying. I think the range of human sexual behavior is far too complex to be so simplistically explained.

Many behaviors are instinctual, some behaviors are developed others are brought on through experience.
 
Many behaviors are instinctual, some behaviors are developed others are brought on through experience.


True. Determining which is which can be a bit tricky though, when it is hard to measure except by behavior, which varies far more than the orientation theory can account for. (IMO.)
 
True. Determining which is which can be a bit tricky though, when it is hard to measure except by behavior, which varies far more than the orientation theory can account for. (IMO.)

It's actually not. Determining the instinctual behavior is as simple as finding a neonate and monitoring its behavior. Many instinctual behaviors exist in children that young. Also there is associative behaviors that are instinctual. check out Povlov's work.
.
 
I oppose this feel good legislation. Because it exempts all religious counseling and exempts non-licensed adults, it does not stop the practice. Rather, it has some terrible potential effects including preventing REAL, EDUCATED LICENSED professionals uncovering sexual assault and abuse of children - for which opponents call it the Jerry Sandusky Victimization Act.

It also asserts that everyone including children is 100% certain and certain of their sexuality. Thus, for example, a child or teen who is gay but in peer pressured and parental denial could not obtain counseling to explore and ratify that he/she is in fact gay (or bi).

As for Christie, it should be remembered he vetoed a bill legalizing gay marriage last year and only signed this after the gay daughter of his Democratic opponent blasted him for opposing it.

Christie will say and do anything for his re-election and threw away any hint of personal and political integrity in the last presidential election.
 
This topic has been rehashed many times on this forum and is only a topic now because of Christie, who is a dagger in the back of the RNC and Republicans that the Democrats enjoy twisting any chance possible.

There is no rational debate on the topic because this a gay-rights-supporter acid test topic - and falsely breaks down to (like about every topic) general generic opposites of pro-gay-rights or anti-gay-rights. I am as pro-gay rights as it legitimate, but do not buy into the gay-rights acid tests nor all their slogans. For example, for some people are gay I think it is in their genetics, for others it is in conditioning, for others due to rejection or trauma, for others it is opportunistic, and still for others it is because gender is not the decisive relationship factor including for sexuality.

Because this law excludes all religious organizations (for which anyone can declare him/her/they a religious organization) and excludes non-professionals, it really is just a counter-productive feel-good backing-gay-rights acid test. And in my opinion a very harmful one.

It asserts everyone including youths absolutely know their sexual orientation and that no one - ever for any reason - has any confusion or psychological issues about it. That is absolutely false. And at one level that is known obviously so. For example, the married person who years down the road comes to start to recognize they are gay. If they seek counseling to explore that, is that sexual orientation "conversion therapy" - ie to "convert" a straight person to gayness?

A licensed PhD in psychology and moreso an MD in psychiatry is likely to be unwilling to risk losing their lifetime of studies and their career to explore sexual orientation/desires/attraction issues at the risk of his/her license.

I've given an example of the extreme harms this poises before by a personal example before as this topic of outlawing "gay conversion therapy" comes up over and over - though the law does not stop religious or non-licensed anti-gay conversion activities whatsoever.

It is NOT licensed psychiatrists that are doing the evil therapies. It is religious organizations and camps - and this legislation does not change that. It only shuts down legitimate and necessary mental health therapy - and the potentials and results can be horrific.
 
Here is my example of how putting licensed PhD psychologists and MD psychiatrists licenses at risk if the go into the issue of a person's true "orientation" (or "preference") is a terrible mistake.

A few years ago I was asked to speak with an MD criminal psychiatrist (not just psychologist) working with the criminal justice system with a young man found guilt of sexual violence (though not rape). He had a long and growing record of assaults, though had not killed anyone, and was suspected as a possible serial rapist/killer type for a couple missing people - though no evidence to back that speculation up. The psychiatrist recognized he was a very troubled man. I was asked to speak to him because that man came from the same culture/social group I grew up in.

I'll keep it short. After listening and answering a some questions, I told the psychiatrist I can show him what he's up again if he allows me to be with that guy, that words can't explain it. He agreed and was visible stunned by what happened and how quickly and extreme it was.

When he introduced us, I didn't try to shake the man's hand. I reached towards his face and told him "you're cute." He slapped my hand away and took a fighting stance. I screamed furiously at him "DO WHAT I WANT!" and instantly the man became physically violent. Totally. When I had gotten him down and applied pain (just twisting his arm behind his back) his demeanor instantly changed. He became not only passive, but seductive towards me. Even when I released him and stepped away, he kept up the seductiveness, was soft spoken, submissive body language and making soft romantic suggestions to me.

I had enough of this, left the room with the psychiatrist and told him I won't participate in this anymore because he doesn't have the legal means nor willingness to deal with this. My advice? Lock him up forever or kill him. That he is more dangerous than they can imagine.

Many if not most men who serial pedophiles, serial rapists and serial rapist/killers - whether straight or gay - and whether their victims are same or opposite gender, where psychological, physically and sexually abused (by a man) or sexually degraded (by a woman). They are very messed up about their sexual orientation/preference in a way not easy to determine which it really is nor how to get them to recognizing and living with the "correct orientation" and also to leave the nightmare realities of their youth/childhood behind.

While those who support such a law as this will claim "the law doesn't prevent such counseling," in fact I can not see ANY professional with all the years and years of effort, study and career building willing to take such a risk for such hard cases anyway. Why? Why put everything on the line for it? If it goes wrong, the psychiatrist or psychologist now can be used as the scapegoat using this law to then destroy their career totally and permanently.

For that man? Candidly I think it just too late for him. BUT if he had been rescued and removed while still an adolescent or young teen? Maybe. If so, among other things, it is going to take huge efforts on the topic of sexual/relationship orientations/preferences including about gender - and it the correct one might be exactly opposite the one that child/youth thinks it is the the chaos of such an abusive past.

Sexual orientation and identity issues are at the root of many of the most unthinkably horrific, sadistic and violent criminals in our society. Some are caught. Many are not and for which I suspect among the ever growing list of missing persons are thousands and more likely tens of thousands of bodies of their victims lost out there who suffered a manner of death so terrifying we have to block that prospect out of our thought process - though we all know it happens.

This legislation, which essentially says a psychologist or psychiatrist may never explore or dispute a minor's self declared sexual orientation means it all but impossible to spot sexual abuse or addressing the cures for it.

I am very pro-gay rights and for very real and personal reasons, but tend to despise their slogan, political and ideological acid tests.
 
So little Jimmy's been getting cornholed by Uncle Chester since he was 3 and now, at 12 says "I don't want to be gay". The therapist then says "It's illegal for me to treat you to overcome this issue but if you just choose to be gay we'll give you all the help you could ever ask for!!"

Yippee:roll:

That is a definite example of why this is a bad law, particularly since little Jimmy likely is not going to initially tell of the abuse aspect of it. In fact, little Jimmy might say he is gay to avoid conflict when he is not.
 
Sexual orientation is not a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. I can base this on anecdotal evidence, as well as the findings of every mainstream scientific and medical organizations from the American Medical Association to the American Academy of Pediatrics to the American Association of Psychiatrists.

The claim otherwise is completely unsupported by any scientific evidence, and would be akin to lying to a patient.

Those Associations historically go with whatever is the popular enlightened or cultural stance. For decades, even centuries, and until recently the Association of Psychiatrists declared it FACT that homosexuality was a severe mental disease. Now that the social winds among academia have changed, so have they.

Few of any of those professionals ever deal with sexual orientation issues or child abuse issues. That is a very narrow range of practices. In short, most have no experience in those areas whatsoever.

Moreover, the practices they oppose are those done by religious organizations, which the law does not change.

However, you did get the slogan right.
 
So little Jimmy's been getting cornholed by Uncle Chester since he was 3 and now, at 12 says "I don't want to be gay". The therapist then says "It's illegal for me to treat you to overcome this issue but if you just choose to be gay we'll give you all the help you could ever ask for!!"

Yippee:roll:

This statement makes absolutely no sense. What you have described is a situation surrounding PTSD and child abuse, NOT a situation surrounding sexual orientation. Please educate yourself on this issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom