Chris Christie signs bill banning gay conversion therapy

[jmdrake]

I'd be uncomfortable sharing a locker room with someone who was heterosexual by choice.

Would you be comfortable sharing a locker room with someone who was homosexual by birth? Really, if you don't think you're going to be raped by the gay who might be gay, then why should it matter if it was by choice or by birth?

 

[JCDenton0451]

Because "licensed therapist" is so broad that it includes pastors.

Under the provisions of the bill, a person who is licensed to provide professional counseling, including, but not limited to, a psychiatrist, licensed practicing psychologist, certified social worker, licensed clinical social worker, licensed social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, certified psychoanalyst, or a person who performs counseling as part of the person's professional training, is prohibited from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age.

It's a clear violation of the first amendment and an affront to liberty.

So, what's going to happen to a pastor if he chooses to perform "gay therapy"? Does being a pastor require a license in New Jersey?

 

[JCDenton0451]

Sorry. I said quote where I said the theory of evolution is not science. I never said that and you know it and you are a liar to pretend I did.

Creationists Fail a Fourth Grade Science Test

It's a very long thread, and I don't have time to sift through all of your posts, but basically you claimed that Evolution is a religion that the secularists are trying to force on children.

 

[jmdrake]

So if I force my children to live with a cult of necrophiles from the age of six onwards, where they are taught the benefits of necrophily, shown videos of it the whole day, etc. - but never physically harassed, abused or forced to engage in necrophily - would that also be ok to you? After all, it should be the first amendment right of all parents to force their children to live in whatever sick institution they want to, unless there is no other physical force than locking them up there. Or am I understanding you wrong?

I'm curious why this case is any different in principle if you agree that it would be legitimate to free these children from that place with their consent.

I haven't seen anyone mention showing six year olds videos of the benefits of heterosexuality all day. But lets roll with that. I know the "debate" tactic of the other side seems to be to find the most absurd example and push it. Hey, let's go further. Would you be against parents having the right, if they found their child acting out with a corpse, to try to get their children help? Should parents be barred from trying to help their kids not be necrophiliacs if their children really really wanted to do that? For the record, I'm not the one wrapping my argument in libertarianism. It's threads like this that convince me that I probably shouldn't identify as a libertarian because much of what gets pushed off as libertarianism is garbage. I will say this though. I was one that stood up for the rights of the fundy Mormons who were getting their kids snatched by the government because of what turned out to be a fake call for "help." The truth is that the government wanted their land for the trans-Texas corridor. And considering all of the kids that get raped in CPS custody (the same time Texas was trying to take fundy Mormon kids over charges of child marriage and polygamy, the Texas Youth Commission rape scandal was breaking) kids are probably safer with neocrophiliac parents than with government agents.

 

[jmdrake]

Creationists Fail a Fourth Grade Science Test

It's a very long thread, and I don't have time to sift through all of your posts, but basically you claimed that Evolution is a religion that the secularists are trying to force on children.

And that thread proves you are full of shit.

Well it's on the current study guide. See page 9, passage IV.

http://www.act.org/caap/sampletest/pdf/Science.pdf

And yes the creationist view isn't dignified with a choice. But I don't see the relevance. Most creationist textbooks I've seen at least acknowledge the standard scientific view on the origin of species.

That the ultimate personal beliefs of someone about a subject is irrelevant if he knows what is expected of him on the exam.

Edit: In fact, you are such and idiot, you don't realize the thread proves you to be a communist! I had forgotten about this thread! My position was that parents should be able to choose whether to teach creationism or evolution and that the fact that homeschoolers do well on standardized science tests proves that they don't need to have their science curriculum mandated by the state. You took the anti libertarian "Let the state decide what children should learn" position. Now you want to lie and claim that I was saying evolution was not science.

Edit 2: And unlike your cowardly tactic of posting a link to a super long thread, I will post the direct quotes and let others see what a fraud you are.

You want to teach kids Creationism - fine, but do it as a separate subject, don't try to conflate education and religious indoctrination, and of course never attempt to teach Creationism at taxpayer's expense.

The school in question was not in the business of educating children, it was trying to indoctrinate them with Biblical worldview. The kids were never introduced to the proper scientific theories of world.

In a private school you have no right to make any demands! That is why it is a private school! And the fact that you aren't even willing to address the question of science test schools proves that you aren't truly concerned about education anyway. Rather you are a control freak.

In a private school someone should have the right to teach whatever they want. The government should not be allowed to dictate curriculum to private schools and especially to home schools. Take your statist garbage elsewhere!

 

[otherone]

Would you be comfortable sharing a locker room with someone who was homosexual by birth? Really, if you don't think you're going to be raped by the gay who might be gay, then why should it matter if it was by choice or by birth?

I didn't mention rape. I'd prefer not being the object of arousal for someone who chooses not to be gay, who. according to you, is everyone.

 

[jmdrake]

I didn't mention rape. I'd prefer not being the object of arousal for someone who chooses not to be gay, who. according to you, is everyone.

But you're fine being the object of arousal for someone who was born gay?

 

[otherone]

But you're fine being the object of arousal for someone who was born gay?

I'm more comfortable in general being around people who are honest about themselves.
I'm starting to think that those who who believe sexuality is a choice are the same people who have chosen not to live their preferred lifestyle.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm more comfortable in general being around people who are honest about themselves.
I'm starting to think that those who who believe sexuality is a choice are the same people who have chosen not to live their preferred lifestyle.

So the people who are gay and say they chose to be gay are really closet heterosexuals?

http://www.queerbychoice.com/

Would you be comfortable being around someone who was openly gay and chose to be gay? Maybe you would be more comfortable around that person because you believed he really wasn't gay and was just lying about it for some strange reason? I dunno. It seems to me that you have a strange case of previously undiagnosed homophobia.

 

[otherone]

So the people who are gay and say they chose to be gay are really closet heterosexuals?

You have stated that homosexuality is a choice.
This implies that heterosexuality is a choice.
Not true?

 

[JCDenton0451]

jmdrake, you really need to watch your attitude. Why do the social conservatives have to be so in-your-face rude? I can almost smell desperation.

 

[jmdrake]

You have stated that homosexuality is a choice.
This implies that heterosexuality is a choice.
Not true?

You didn't answer my question. You don't believe that sexuality is a choice at all and that people who say that it is a choice are really hiding their true sexuality. So I will ask you again. Do you believe that people who say they have chosen to be gay are really closet heterosexuals? Answer the question, yes or no.

 

[jmdrake]

jmdrake, you really need to watch your attitude. Why do the social conservatives have to be so in-your-face rude? I can almost smell desperation.

I'm not a social conservative. I just don't abide liars. But it's not okay with me for you to make such provably false claims. You said I said evolution was not science. The very thread you liked to proved that wasn't true. I posted the quotes that proved that wasn't true. Rather than addressing that fact like an adult, you want to talk about my "attitude?" So lying is okay to you but calling someone out on it is not? I would have thought you were just "mistaken" but you actually linked to the thread and you're now digging the hole deeper for yourself. Just apologize for not telling the truth and move on. Also I support freedom. I do not abide someone who, like you, supports taking away basic freedom from people like what they choose to teach their children. That is communism. This forum has been put up to fight against what you are pushing. And if you were pushing for a bill to take children away from gay parents I would fight against you just as hard because for me it is about freedom. You don't understand freedom so you can't understand me.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Religious Right fights for Theocracy, and cries "persecution!" every time they don't get what they want. This is what happened in NJ, and the social conservatives are acting like a bunch of crybabies they are. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to how exactly the new law violates the freedom of speech or "paternal rights". It just looks like the Social conservatives are pissed they're losing the culture war.

 

[jmdrake]

Religious Right fights for Theocracy, and cries "persecution!" every time they don't get what they want. This is what happened in NJ, and the social conservatives are acting like a bunch of crybabies they are. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to how exactly the new law violates the freedom of speech or "paternal rights". It just looks like the Social conservatives are pissed they're losing the culture war.

So the government becoming a "superparent" that indoctrinates children as they did in Soviet Union is the "new libertarian freedom." Got it. Statism rocks, according to you, as long as it is anti-religious statism. Why do you come here again?

Edit: And it's typical of progressives/communists to redefine words to fit their agenda. So not wanting new laws restricting parents rights or the rights of private schools is now "theocracy?" Really? Under what authority do you base such nonsense? If Chris Christie was signing a bill striking down prostitution and social conservatives were complaining you would have a point. But he didn't, so you don't. This is a movement about less government intrusion. Not more.

 

[V3n]

Different people can have different levels of what they think is acceptable government and what isn't - that doesn't make them Communists. They just have a different opinion than you.

You are about protecting the rights of the parents, and others are about protecting the rights of the children. I think these therapies are all (at varying degrees) damaging to children. You have a different opinion. That doesn't make me a Communist.

At the end of the day, this law was enacted in New Jersey, not at the Federal level - I would be against a Federal law banning the practice. If you want to send your kids to something like this, you can choose not to live in New Jersey.

Just because we see this issue differently, doesn't mean that we are against you or against the movement.

 

[JCDenton0451]

So the government becoming a "superparent" that indoctrinates children as they did in Soviet Union is the "new libertarian freedom." Got it. Statism rocks, according to you, as long as it is anti-religious statism. Why do you come here again?

Edit: And it's typical of progressives/communists to redefine words to fit their agenda. So not wanting new laws restricting parents rights or the rights of private schools is now "theocracy?" Really? Under what authority do you base such nonsense? If Chris Christie was signing a bill striking down prostitution and social conservatives were complaining you would have a point. But he didn't, so you don't. This is a movement about less government intrusion. Not more.

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, WTF

Still waiting for someone to explain exactly how the NJ law violates the freedom of speech and "parents' rights".

 

[Anti Federalist]

And right there is why "state licensing" of professions is a bad thing.

Because "licensed therapist" is so broad that it includes pastors.

Under the provisions of the bill, a person who is licensed to provide professional counseling, including, but not limited to, a psychiatrist, licensed practicing psychologist, certified social worker, licensed clinical social worker, licensed social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, certified psychoanalyst, or a person who performs counseling as part of the person's professional training, is prohibited from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age.

It's a clear violation of the first amendment and an affront to liberty.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Religious Right fights for Theocracy, and cries "persecution!" every time they don't get what they want. This is what happened in NJ, and the social conservatives are acting like a bunch of crybabies they are. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to how exactly the new law violates the freedom of speech or "paternal rights". It just looks like the Social conservatives are pissed they're losing the culture war.

Drake made it pretty clear: the law is broad enough that it includes pastors.

If you have law, you have law enforcement.

If a pastor or youth minister violated this law, somebody would lose their livelihood or be placed in a government rape cage for talking to somebody.

For me, the homosexual rights agenda does not trump the Bill of Rights agenda.

Can't make it any more clear than that.

 

[TonySutton]

It amazes me that people expect anything different from NJ.