Chris Christie signs bill banning gay conversion therapy

[Philhelm]

The only proper parenting technique is to raise your children to be gender neutral, and encourage them to suck and lick everything in sight when they become adults (or preteens these days, I guess).

 

[Philhelm]

And who will report Abuse? The Govt? Not much better.

Everyone, actually. See something, say something.

 

[Anti Federalist]

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.

Annnnd, pretty much that.

 

[Pisces]

Does this even work at all? If not, is Christie stopping what is basically fraud?

I mean, is it an infringement of our rights if the government stops a "Snake Oil" salesman or anyone else confirmed to be selling a bullshit product?

I don't know a lot about this so-called conversion therapy. I have heard the argument that banning this type of treatment could also interfere in the treatment of children and teenagers who were sexually abused by an adult of their same sex. The child may feels like his or her same-sex attraction was caused by their abuse history and would like to discuss this with a therapist. However, a law like this could make therapists reluctant to even address this issue. I guess it would depend on how broadly "conversion therapy" is defined.

 

[Danan]

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.

So would you therefore say that nothing is child abuse and parents should be able to force their children to whatever they want? I mean, outlawing that they hit them with a baseball bat or have sex with their children is really just a slippery slope, after all. Right? (Just to make it clear: I know you don't believe that, it's just a rhetorical device - I'm not trying to say you would actually support this)

As far as my personal position goes, I believe that children have individual rights on their own and abusing them, or violating their rights, justifies physical force against the aggressor. That being said, I don't know what exactly constitutes aggression and what not. I can't tell you at all how far I would go with it, because I haven't made up my mind yet.

But you and others are really not very intellectually honest here. If you believe that the government, or anyone else for that matter, has any right to intervene when parents do what in other peoples' minds constitutes child abuse (including actual physical or sexual abuse) then you too are on that slippery slope. You might be more on the outside of it, where it's still more stable, but nonetheless.

We have to recognize that with some issues there are no perfect solutions. Whether or not the parental decision to force their children to do a specific action is considered to be abusive, to what extend and what the proper reactions from others would be are very difficult questions, often without any clearcut answers. Tradition and norms play a huge role there. These can change, though.

Again, I'm not saying that people who argue that this form of therapy may be considered to be child abuse if it's forced are right. But I'm also not saying that you cease to be a libertarian for making such a statement. At least not in my eyes.

 

[Brett85]

As far as my personal position goes, I believe that children have individual rights on their own and abusing them, or violating their rights, justifies physical force against the aggressor. That being said, I don't know what exactly constitutes aggression and what not. I can't tell you at all how far I would go with it, because I haven't made up my mind yet.

I don't believe that anyone can honestly claim that freedom of speech is "abuse." This bill is a violation of the 1st amendment. It criminalizes speech, throwing counselors and psychiatrists in prison for trying to convince gay children to convert to heterosexuality.

 

[Danan]

I don't believe that anyone can honestly claim that freedom of speech is "abuse." This bill is a violation of the 1st amendment. It criminalizes speech, throwing counselors and psychiatrists in prison for trying to convince gay children to convert to heterosexuality.

I'm not talking about this specific bill. Mainly because others were already talking about the general principle and were "attacked" (for the lack of a better word) because, according to some, intervening in parental decisions should not (ever) be allowed (or at least that would be the logical conclusion of what they said). I was just pointing out that actually almost nobody believes that and certainly not those who argued for this position in this thread. So it's not really a disagreement in principle, but rather one of degree.

As to freedom of speech, nobody on this forum wants to ban anyone from saying to anyone that they shouldn't be gay. But even if we assume that all that's happening in these sessions is some people talking to these kids (which apparently is not the case), it still remains the fact that some children are forced to be there (physically) against their will (or at least those are the cases people here were talking about, whether they actually happend or not).

I also said that I doubt that you could make the argument that it should never be allowed for parents to force their children to do anything or to be anywhere under any circumstances. Some pretty ridiculous conclusions would follow from that (although I admittedly haven't thought it through yet). But at the same time parents can't force their children to do everything they want to (for instance to have sex with them). So clearly there has to be a line somewhere. This line will always be arbitrarily and I guess we just have to live with that. But the problem is not with the freedom of speech of the therapists (maybe that's true for that bill, but not true for people here were talking about). It's about forcing children to do something which may or may not be considered abuse.

 

[Danan]

Personally I believe that however the political and legal system looks like, children should always have the right to go in front of a court and to demand to be emancipated. Certainly children who could possibly be considered to be gay should all be at an age at which emancipation would be a possibility (there were times, not too long ago, when you were considered to be an adault at that age anyways). That would solve most problems, imho.

 

[mad cow]

Many children consider school to be abuse.I was one of them,I quit when I was 16.I was shocked to learn that people were forced to attend school until they are 18 these days.
Now there's child abuse.

 

[Brett85]

As to freedom of speech, nobody on this forum wants to ban anyone from saying to anyone that they shouldn't be gay. But even if we assume that all that's happening in these sessions is some people talking to these kids (which apparently is not the case), it still remains the fact that some children are forced to be there (physically) against their will (or at least those are the cases people here were talking about, whether they actually happend or not).

Yes, and like you said later, you can't make the argument that parents can't force their children to do certain things. The logical conclusion of the people who are in favor of this law is to throw parents in prison if they force their children to attend church.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

How do you know that every child is being forced? Isn't it possible that a teen and parents discuss this and decide to try it willingly?

Probable but extremely unlikely in 2013.

 

[Pericles]

The State - "You are prohibited from indoctrinating children. Only we may do that."

Its not illegal if the government does it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Why do you feel that you have the right to raise someone elses child?

You know, I'm almost an anarchist at this point, and I'm not about to advocate for more government to combat virtually any problem, even child abuse, but there are at least certain types of anti-gay therapy that I've read about that could qualify as child abuse.

 

[Brett85]

You know, I'm almost an anarchist at this point, and I'm not about to advocate for more government to combat virtually any problem, even child abuse, but there are at least certain types of anti-gay therapy that I've read about that could qualify as child abuse.

I've said that I wouldn't have a problem with banning certain types of "anti gay therapy" that actually cause physical pain for the child. But, you can ban specific types of therapy without actually making it illegal to try to convert a child to become straight by taking them to a counselor and having them discuss their sexuality with a counselor.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I've said that I wouldn't have a problem with banning certain types of "anti gay therapy" that actually cause physical pain for the child. But, you can ban specific types of therapy without actually making it illegal to try to convert a child to become straight by taking them to a counselor and having them discuss their sexuality with a counselor.

Yeah, I obviously see the distinction there.

 

[otherone]

It is like clockwork. It will happen every time. This is because atheism is a collectivist worldview.

And like Pavlov's dogs, you salivate every time you have an opportunity to promote your myopic worldview.
I'm an atheist. Personally, I believe your particular beliefs, AquaBuddha, to be a symptom of mental illness...perhaps scrupulosity, but I'm not a mental health professional. Unlike you, I won't paint all believers with the same broad brush you paint infidels. It's essentially your particular viewpoints that I find reprehensible. You make a pretense at logic, and are quick to point out your detractor's fallacies, yet repeatedly pepper your own comments with Ad Hominem and No True Scotsman fallacies, so if you are not clinically disturbed, you are at the very least a hypocrite and false witness. My personal belief in this matter is: If the government wants it, I'm against it. , so your assessment about atheism, once again, is wrong....better luck next time (which means the very next thread you comment on).

 

[Danan]

Yes, and like you said later, you can't make the argument that parents can't force their children to do certain things. The logical conclusion of the people who are in favor of this law is to throw parents in prison if they force their children to attend church.

No it's not the logical conclusion, it's a different circumstance. Just like it's not the logical conclusion to say that you don't support intervention in cases where parents force their children to have sex with them, just because you're not against interventions in cases of forced therapy. All of these are individual situations for which you could have differing positions (even though, admitedly, your examples much more similar, but they are still not equal).

Just because parents might be allowed to force their children to do certain things doesn't mean they should be able to force them to do everything they want to.

Also, nobody said anything about prisons. Having some kind of legal remedy for children who are forced to do something which they don't want to do doesn't necessarily entail throwing anyone into a prison cell.

 

[Brett85]

Also, nobody said anything about prisons. Having some kind of legal remedy for children who are forced to do something which they don't want to do doesn't necessarily entail throwing anyone into a prison cell.

How do you think this law is enforced if therapists refuse to stop giving therapy to children who are gay?

 

[Danan]

I've said that I wouldn't have a problem with banning certain types of "anti gay therapy" that actually cause physical pain for the child. But, you can ban specific types of therapy without actually making it illegal to try to convert a child to become straight by taking them to a counselor and having them discuss their sexuality with a counselor.

For the record, I certainly don't support making this illegal. As I said, I don't have a thought-through position on this topic. But I doubt anyone here wants to outright make it illegal to "try to convert a child to try to convert a child to become straight by taking them to a counselor and having them discuss their sexuality with a counselor." It's about forcing children to attend something against their will which these kids might consider to be abusive, if not physically then at least mentally.

Again, I'm not saying I have a good answer for those kind of issues, but I know they are absolutely not easy to find (if there even are any). And trying to delude what the real issue is certainly doesn't help.

 

[Brett85]

For the record, I certainly don't support making this illegal. As I said, I don't have a thought-through position on this topic. But I doubt anyone here wants to outright make it illegal to "try to convert a child to try to convert a child to become straight by taking them to a counselor and having them discuss their sexuality with a counselor." It's about forcing children to attend something against their will which these kids might consider to be abusive, if not physically then at least mentally.

But how could it possibly be considered "abusive" to simply talk to a counselor? And parents force their kids to do certain things all the time, that's part of parenting. And yes, a parent doesn't have the right to physically abuse a child and infringe on their rights. But, generally speaking, I want parents to have the right to raise their children, not the government. (And even "physical abuse" has to be defined very narrowly, as to not turn parents into criminals for spanking their child.)