Texas GOP argue over proposed therapy to turn gays straight

[Zippyjuan]

Btw apparently it was approved so it will be in the platform.

Platforms are meaningless anyways. They are "constructed" to appease party members by giving them the illusion that their ideas are being taken into consideration when in reality the platform is forgotten almost as soon as they are written. Elected officials never consider what the platform said once they start to make actual decisions on what to do.

 

[Humanae Libertas]

I guess the Texas GOP is working hard to turn Texas blue sooner than they hoped. Good luck with that platform.

 

[TonySutton]

Is divorce another part of our lives the government should become involved in?

No, I am just using this to show they are not being sincere in their words. There is a certain portion of the GOP that is fighting the gays tooth and nail. It appears they do not have any good arguments against gays because they always say it is to protect families yet the reality is divorce does far more damage to the family than the gays. If these people were truly interested in protecting families they would be fighting to end divorce, which they are not.

 

[Origanalist]

No, I am just using this to show they are not being sincere in their words. There is a certain portion of the GOP that is fighting the gays tooth and nail. It appears they do not have any good arguments against gays because they always say it is to protect families yet the reality is divorce does far more damage to the family than the gays. If these people were truly interested in protecting families they would be fighting to end divorce, which they are not.

If they were consistent in protecting peoples liberties I could support this, but they aren't so it seems more than a little hypocritical.

I don't know that banning divorce would be protecting liberties or helping families. But the current system isn't any good either.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

This is not statist, banning this is an extreme statist position.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Texas Republicans already riled up pro choice independent voters with the strict abortion laws. Texas gets bluer by the day. How many independents and libertarians are they willing to lose over this silly therapy thing too?

I know it doesn't apply to this issue, but a lot of libertarians are pro-life, as was Ron Paul. But honestly, I don't see why this is such a big issue for the pro-choice side of it. Mind you, I see why its an issue, but how would that outweigh opposition to laws against drugs, gun ownership, gambling, and any other number of things that no libertarian thinks has a victim? I don't see how any libertarian would refuse to vote for somebody who was unquestionably libertarian on every single non-abortion related issue but took the pro-life stance on abortion. By contrast, I can understand why a pro-life libertarian would not vote for a pro-choice candidate under the same criteria because to pro-life libertarians, abortion actually is murder and this makes it one of the most important issues to us (mind you, for me personally there are limited circumstances in which I would vote for a pro-choice candidate, though this isn't something I like to advertise to pro-life family members. But I can certainly understand not wanting to do it at all. I can't see it the same way from the other side.

No, I am just using this to show they are not being sincere in their words. There is a certain portion of the GOP that is fighting the gays tooth and nail. It appears they do not have any good arguments against gays because they always say it is to protect families yet the reality is divorce does far more damage to the family than the gays. If these people were truly interested in protecting families they would be fighting to end divorce, which they are not.

Who are "these people"?

If you mean the politicians of the GOP, I agree with you that they could care less. Its all about power and control for them.

By contrast, I think what most regular Christian families are worried about is not so much homosexuality existing, but having it exposed to their children in public. Which is a valid concern, at least for me. But more government does not solve the problem, private property does.

This is not statist, banning this is an extreme statist position.

I agree, but why does it ned to be in the platform?

cure
kyo͝or/Submit
verb
1.
relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition.

Since being gay is neither a disease or condition, it is a known that it doesn't work. It's like me saying I don't know if your plan to contact the invisible flying spaghetti monster will work. People should be allowed to engage in whatever foolish nonsense they choose, including entertaining discussions about the efficacy of quackery.

Romans 1 explains why homosexuality exists. I don't really think trying to prevent people from feeling that way using therapy is going to work.

I like how the Constitution Party deals with the homosexual issue, not by trying to "cure" it from within the party, but actually dealing with it in terms of the God-ordained institution of the Family.

I disagree with the last part, as much as I'm sympathetic to it. I don't see any good thing that banning gay adoption could do that privatizing adoption already wouldn't do. If our culture is going to be immoral, no such law would ever pass anyway. If our culture is going to be moral, adoption agencies would prefer other alternatives to gay adoption anyway.

Mind you, I understand that you ultimately want to criminalize homosexuality, and that's a huge philosophical disagreement between us. But at the very least, while things are like they are, I'd rather a child be adopted by a gay couple than be aborted.

If Republicans want to win over young people, they need to pick their battles a little better. This continual need to force moral imperatives does more to alienate and makes them look small minded and kind of stupid. You can't wash the gay away. It's as bad as Dems trying to force it down our throats the other direction. No pun intended.

I don't think we should try to wash it away. I just wish more people would respect the fact that a lot of people are genuinely offended by homosexual behavior, and thus keep it behind closed doors, rather than acting like its the new civil rights issue.

I don't advocate any legal measures with regards to homosexuality, but I don't like the direction society is going with regards to it either, and I certainly think it would be appropriate for a private property owner to forbid public flaunting of homosexuality.

It's about why is it in the platform? Whether it's voluntary or involuntary, putting it in implies an agenda.
You can't promote small government with less intervention and then put your own interventionist items in a platform. Putting it in a political platform implies a political and possible legislative agenda.

Yeah, I agree with you on this.

 

[DamianTV]

Onion: Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene (satire)


Hmm, I wonder if there is a "Republican Gene" or "Neocon Warmonger Gene"?

(Note: AGAIN, satire, thus, NOT FUCKING REAL, just like their "cure" for gays, there is nothing medically "wrong" with gay people)

 

[William R]

The epitome of what's wrong with Evangelicals.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The difference is that homosexuality is a sin, while Christianity is true.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The epitome of what's wrong with Evangelicals.

Really? This is your best argument? I'm an evangelical and even I could come up with a better argument than that.

 

[MelissaWV]

Great. You've cured homosexuality.

When will you cure ignorance, distraction, and hypocrisy?

 

[Antischism]

Despite this being laughable and all, I have one serious question: will this be limited to people above a certain age? I would say parents pressuring or forcing their children to this would have it fall under child abuse. It's a quack "therapy" and while adults should be allowed to seek these things out just like I can go to a psychic or sacrifice my Raisin Bran cereal to an idol resembling a demonic baby Jesus with bat wings every morning, it's concerning because I know children are pressured by their peers and Christian parents to be 'heteronormal'. To offset the shaming and pressure, they may agree to this 'therapy' and as a result, come back out of it with a host of psychological issues.

This social conservatism they're attempting to uphold is the real problem, not someone's sexuality. It's extremely hurtful for those growing up facing the already harsh social stigma that accompanies attraction to the same sex. Now these idiots want to cast seeds of doubt to further make their lives a living hell. Instead of teaching them that attraction to the same sex is something that can't be changed and offering emotional support, they're manipulating and destroying the psyche of these poor kids because their mentality is stuck in the dark ages.

 

[Carlybee]

I know it doesn't apply to this issue, but a lot of libertarians are pro-life, as was Ron Paul. But honestly, I don't see why this is such a big issue for the pro-choice side of it. Mind you, I see why its an issue, but how would that outweigh opposition to laws against drugs, gun ownership, gambling, and any other number of things that no libertarian thinks has a victim? I don't see how any libertarian would refuse to vote for somebody who was unquestionably libertarian on every single non-abortion related issue but took the pro-life stance on abortion. By contrast, I can understand why a pro-life libertarian would not vote for a pro-choice candidate under the same criteria because to pro-life libertarians, abortion actually is murder and this makes it one of the most important issues to us (mind you, for me personally there are limited circumstances in which I would vote for a pro-choice candidate, though this isn't something I like to advertise to pro-life family members. But I can certainly understand not wanting to do it at all. I can't see it the same way from the other side.
Who are "these people"?

If you mean the politicians of the GOP, I agree with you that they could care less. Its all about power and control for them.

By contrast, I think what most regular Christian families are worried about is not so much homosexuality existing, but having it exposed to their children in public. Which is a valid concern, at least for me. But more government does not solve the problem, private property does.





I agree, but why does it ned to be in the platform?



Romans 1 explains why homosexuality exists. I don't really think trying to prevent people from feeling that way using therapy is going to work.



I disagree with the last part, as much as I'm sympathetic to it. I don't see any good thing that banning gay adoption could do that privatizing adoption already wouldn't do. If our culture is going to be immoral, no such law would ever pass anyway. If our culture is going to be moral, adoption agencies would prefer other alternatives to gay adoption anyway.

Mind you, I understand that you ultimately want to criminalize homosexuality, and that's a huge philosophical disagreement between us. But at the very least, while things are like they are, I'd rather a child be adopted by a gay couple than be aborted.


I don't think we should try to wash it away. I just wish more people would respect the fact that a lot of people are genuinely offended by homosexual behavior, and thus keep it behind closed doors, rather than acting like its the new civil rights issue.

I don't advocate any legal measures with regards to homosexuality, but I don't like the direction society is going with regards to it either, and I certainly think it would be appropriate for a private property owner to forbid public flaunting of homosexuality.


Yeah, I agree with you on this.

A lot of people may be offended by it, but more and more people want government out of their bedrooms. It's not going to change. If the Repubs took both houses and the presidency tomorrow, gay people are still going to be gay. Are they going to try and outlaw that? It just makes those who are gay want to flaunt it even more and would empower another Obama type landslide. Does anyone remember the lines at the poll places when Obama was elected? Give people a reason to get really fired up and that's what happens. But you apparently can't fix stupid and you can't force people to remember recent history.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Despite this being laughable and all, I have one serious question: will this be limited to people above a certain age? I would say parents pressuring or forcing their children to this would have it fall under child abuse.

We really need to make a list of people who make stupid comments like this and make sure we never forget about it if/when they ever decide to run for office.

Stop using this site as a platform to oppose freedom and parental rights. No, this is not "child abuse".

It's a quack "therapy" and while adults should be allowed to seek these things out just like I can go to a psychic or sacrifice my Raisin Bran cereal to an idol resembling a demonic baby Jesus with bat wings every morning, it's concerning because I know children are pressured by their peers and Christian parents to be 'heteronormal'.

Unless the child is being physically harmed, so what? Why would anyone want to be gay? Worst case scenario, the therapy doesn't work and the child goes through life with either an incredibly frustrating temptation, or outright deciding to throw Biblical morality out the window. Parents absolutely should try to protect their children from a temptation like that if they can.

To offset the shaming and pressure, they may agree to this 'therapy' and as a result, come back out of it with a host of psychological issues.

Psychological issues are not enough of a reason to throw the NAP out the window.

This social conservatism they're attempting to uphold is the real problem, not someone's sexuality. It's extremely hurtful for those growing up facing the already harsh social stigma that accompanies attraction to the same sex. Now these idiots want to cast seeds of doubt to further make their lives a living hell. Instead of teaching them that attraction to the same sex is something that can't be changed and offering emotional support, they're manipulating and destroying the psyche of these poor kids because their mentality is stuck in the dark ages.

Of course now we see where this comes from, your "thick" libertarianism that demands adherence to progressive ideals.

Why should any Christian offer emotional support for entering into an immoral homosexual lifestyle?

 

[Christian Liberty]

A lot of people may be offended by it, but more and more people want government out of their bedrooms. It's not going to change. If the Repubs took both houses and the presidency tomorrow, gay people are still going to be gay. Are they going to try and outlaw that? It just makes those who are gay want to flaunt it even more and would empower another Obama type landslide. Does anyone remember the lines at the poll places when Obama was elected? Give people a reason to get really fired up and that's what happens. But you apparently can't fix stupid and you can't force people to remember recent history.

First of all, I don't want the State ANYWHERE. I certainly don't want its claws inside the bedroom or outside the bedroom. That said, I wasn't talking about the bedroom at all. I was talking about public exposure.

Private property would fix the problem. People who are more culturally conservative and who have kids and thus don't want to be exposed to public displays of same-sex attraction (which believe it or not, would be quite a lot of people) could go to places where that sort of thing would not be allowed. People with a more progressive outlook could go to places that allow that type of thing. It would be decided by the property owner. Problem solved.

When the State makes a one size fits all solution for "public" property, it leads to conservatives and liberals squabbling amongst themselves about what kind of big government they want. Liberals don't want guns on public property, while conservatives don't want homosexuality, and somebody else doesn't want this, and soon we have a million laws. I don't play that game. But I understand how tempting it is for people who don't understand what's happening. All they see is the liberalization of culture, they don't really get that the State is spurring it on.

 

[Antischism]

Holy shit, you're an idiot. Are you actually suggesting psychological trauma isn't abuse? And you're telling me attraction to a specific gender is a choice? If all that dogmatic nonsense Bible-thumped into your brain can't be cured, homosexuality sure as hell can't.

To be a little more constructive, I will pose a question:

Suppose a child had parents who were atheist and they lived in a highly secular town where Christianity was mocked and laughed at, and the child was born with the very spirit of a saint, well-versed in theology and who longed to become a member of a Christian church. The parents, upon discovering the child's leanings (which had been closeted for some time), decided they wouldn't allow it because no child of theirs was going to devote his or her life to fairy tales when they could be leading a more fulfilling life like theirs, following their carnal desires and living for today, not for the appeasement of some imaginary sky dad and the afterlife. The kid is pressured by society, pressured by his parents, and ultimately forced to attend "conversion therapy" where it's said they can rid him of his delusions, because only mentally unstable people believed in imaginary beings and tall-tales like those found in the Bible.

He/she undergoes rigorous amounts of shaming, psychological manipulation, electroconvulsive therapy, cold showers, hypnosis, and Bible burning as methods to cure them of their Christianity. The child comes out a wreck both emotionally and psychologically.

Furthermore, I used an example where a personal choice—the choice of religion—was the 'undesired' trait. In the case of homosexuality, it's not even a choice.

Tell me, would you not consider that a form of child abuse?

 

[jjdoyle]

What tears at society more? Homosexuality?

How about sending our best people overseas to be blown to bits in useless wars and a stagnate economy?

Unpatriotic, blame America for 9/11 attitude is what you have. AND that's how they would respond to you. Seriously. I know these types.

 

[Carlybee]

When my brother was 6 yrs old he had the reading level of a 10th grader. This was in the late 50s. The school thought he needed to be evaluated as that just wasn't considered normal so they talked my parents into taking him to the state mental hospital where he was questioned, probed an tested. He was put in the same ward as people receiving electro shock therapy. He never forgot it and it totally mind screwed him. It's a damned shame we haven't moved very far from that type of mentality.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Holy shit, you're an idiot. Are you actually suggesting psychological trauma isn't abuse? And you're telling me attraction to a specific gender is a choice? If all that dogmatic nonsense Bible-thumped into your brain can't be cured, homosexuality sure as hell can't.

To be a little more constructive, I will pose a question:

Suppose a child had parents who were atheist and they lived in a highly secular town where Christianity was mocked and laughed at, and the child was born with the very spirit of a saint, well-versed in theology and who longed to become a member of a Christian church. The parents, upon discovering the child's leanings (which had been closeted for some time), decided they wouldn't allow it because no child of theirs was going to devote his or her life to fairy tales when they could be leading a more fulfilling life like theirs, following their carnal desires and living for today, not for the appeasement of some imaginary sky dad and the afterlife. The kid is pressured by society, pressured by his parents, and ultimately forced to attend "conversion therapy" where it's said they can rid him of his delusions, because only mentally unstable people believed in imaginary beings and tall-tales like those found in the Bible.

He/she undergoes rigorous amounts of shaming, psychological manipulation, electroconvulsive therapy, cold showers, hypnosis, and Bible burning as methods to cure them of their Christianity. The child comes out a wreck both emotionally and psychologically.

Furthermore, I used an example where a personal choice—the choice of religion—was the 'undesired' trait. In the case of homosexuality, it's not even a choice.

Tell me, would you not consider that a form of child abuse?

First off, Christianity is not a choice. Whoever taught you that either never read John 6 and Romans 9, or they just ignored them.

Second off, and the by far more important aspect, I was not trying to say that certain forms of therapy couldn't be abusive. I would certainly qualify electroshock therapy as such, NO MATTER WHAT it was being used for. My issue was not with the assertion that certain forms of therapy are child abuse, but that therapy is child abuse because the thing that was being intended to be cured was homosexuality in particular.

Trying to cure homosexuality, even if it can't work, is not necessarily child abuse. It is possible that a specific method could be chosen that would be child abuse. But it isn't child abuse just because its "quacked" or not going to work or whatever.

When my brother was 6 yrs old he had the reading level of a 10th grader. This was in the late 50s. The school thought he needed to be evaluated as that just wasn't considered normal so they talked my parents into taking him to the state mental hospital where he was questioned, probed an tested. He was put in the same ward as people receiving electro shock therapy. He never forgot it and it totally mind screwed him. It's a damned shame we haven't moved very far from that type of mentality.

That sucks...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Btw apparently it was approved so it will be in the platform.

But did the plank about opposition to people passing gas in public get approved?