Chris Christie signs bill banning gay conversion therapy

[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?