Chris Christie signs bill banning gay conversion therapy

[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.

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.

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.