• 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!

[W:#49]Conversion therapy is now illegal in Canada

snakestretcher said:
You can't 'incline' toward something which isn't innate. Born gay or straight, that's how you stay, irrespective of any experimentation.
Click to expand...
Nope, everyone is born with "some" level of inclination in direction A and "some level of inclination in direction B.
snakestretcher said:
Are you seriously suggesting that if i, as a heterosexual, was brought up by gay parents, I would be more 'predisposed' to homosexuality? That's preposterous.
Click to expand...
It happens to be true.

Let's assume that you are one of those genetic freaks who is 98% inclined in direction A and 2% inclined in direction B. Being raised in a direction A environment might shift your likely actual behaviour to 99% direction A and 1% direction B while being raised in a direction B environment might shift your actual behaviour to 97% direction A and 3% direction B. [PLEASE NOTE that the degree of the "shift" is picked for ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES only.]
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Nope, everyone is born with "some" level of inclination in direction A and "some level of inclination in direction B.

It happens to be true.

Let's assume that you are one of those genetic freaks who is 98% inclined in direction A and 2% inclined in direction B. Being raised in a direction A environment might shift your likely actual behaviour to 99% direction A and 1% direction B while being raised in a direction B environment might shift your actual behaviour to 97% direction A and 3% direction B. [PLEASE NOTE that the degree of the "shift" is picked for ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES only.]
Click to expand...
Assumption doesn't work I'm afraid. Perhaps if you presented some facts and data it would help.
 
snakestretcher said:
Assumption doesn't work I'm afraid. Perhaps if you presented some facts and data it would help.
Click to expand...
The entirety of the "assumption" is contained in the first sentence.

As to the remainder, I simply don't have the time or inclination to provide you with an intensive course in "Human Sexuality and its Variables".
 
Carjosse said:
CTV News



This is a stronger version of a bill that died on the order paper when the last election was called. Instead of fighting this one though the Conservatives decided to fast track the bill to avoid a recorded the vote and to create a headline on supporting multi-partisanship efforts to pass the bill before the winter break. Every other party unanamiuosly supported it anyways. If the Conservatives decided to force it to go to a recorded vote it would have just given the other parties a bludgening tool to use in the next election, they still can just not as effectivly. One of the rare examples of O'Toole actually controlling the social conservative faction of his party, the rest of the party does support it. Of course that faction is pissed but who cares, O'Toole needs to learn to control them more, the Conservatives electoral prospoects will not get better till he does.

This law is a very good step for LGBT rights. US states need to get on board too.
Click to expand...
The government doesn't have the authority to tell people what treatment they can or cannot do. It's none of their business. That's not what government's are there for.
 
sKiTzo said:
The government doesn't have the authority to tell people what treatment they can or cannot do.
Click to expand...
True, but the government DOES have the authority to tell people what "treatment" then can or cannot provide.
sKiTzo said:
It's none of their business.
Click to expand...
When the "treatment" is valuless AND harmful, it most certainly IS "their business".
sKiTzo said:
That's not what government's are there for.
Click to expand...
If governments are not here to regulate society in the interests of the people - what are they here for?
 
sKiTzo said:
The government doesn't have the authority to tell people what treatment they can or cannot do. It's none of their business. That's not what government's are there for.
Click to expand...

Turns out they can.
 
sKiTzo said:
The government doesn't have the authority to tell people what treatment they can or cannot do. It's none of their business. That's not what government's are there for.
Click to expand...
What do you think the FDA does? Also conversion therapy is not a real treatment to begin with.
 
Carjosse said:
What do you think the FDA does? Also conversion therapy is not a real treatment to begin with.
Click to expand...
I presume that, by "real treatment", you mean "has solid factual data which indicates a successful outcome rate that is sufficiently higher than its unsuccessful outcome rate" PLUS its "negative side effect rate". In which case you are correct that "conversion therapy" does not qualify as a "real treatment".

That, however, does not mean that "conversion therapy" is not "A treatment".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom