Texas GOP argue over proposed therapy to turn gays straight

[Christian Liberty]

Funny, I always thought it was the reverse.

lol!

I wasn't at the state GOP convention, but I'm a Texan with a lot of friends who went and all of the anti gay efforts are tearing any alliance between Tea Party and Liberty types asunder. When the head of the Texas RLC is posting on his Facebook that the Tea Party are bigots, you know tensions are high and alliances are irreparably fucked up.

There is no longer anything resembling an alliance between the two groups. Despite Rand's words about it being a friendly rivalry if he and Cruz run, it will be all out war between supporters of Cruz and supporters of Rand on the ground. Time to put Freedom Fanatic, Traditional Conservative, and their ilk on ignore if you support or have hopes for Rand succeeding in 2016. It's not worth your energy debating dying ideas from the past.

Woah woah woah... hold on a second. Do you think I'm a Ted Cruz supporter? Are you kidding me?

Before you ignore me, I should state that I support Rand at the moment. And my issues with Rand are that he's not libertarian enough, not that he's not conservative enough.

I am culturally conservative and a political voluntarist. I want the government out of marriage. I want the government out of the bedroom. And, for that matter, I want the government out of the public square too. I just want the State gone, period.

But you just assumed that because I am culturally conservative that I'm also a Ted Cruz supporter. Which is odd considering I've called Ted Cruz "evil" "disgusting" and "worse than Ted Bundy" each multiple times on these forums.

I am not a political conservative.

Well it scares non religious people. It's like how some of us feel about Santorum, Bachmann and their ilk. Too extreme. Most people do not want theocratic type legislation yet some portions of the GOP can't seem to let go. This country, this state, and presumedly quite a few citizens who vote are not necessarily ever going to embrace Christian dogma as rules to live by. Most of the ones arguing against the therapy being added were young Republicans. I guess the only way the GOP is going to become relevant is for the old ones to die off. By then no one will remember because we'll be living in liberal hell. Except Texas where we will have some Texanized version of Sharia law apparently.

I doubt you know what theocracy actually is (disclaimer: I oppose theocracy.) The closest thing to actual theocracy is theonomic reconstructionism, the ideology of Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, etc. Incidentally, as far as non-libertarian ideologies go, theonomic reconstructionism is probably the most libertarian (ie. small government) conservative ideology that there is. Santorum and Bachmann aren't theocrats. They're neoconservatives with a socially conservative slant. By contrast, theonomists agree with us on foreign policy.

With that being said, having a negative opinion of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle is NOT a political issue. The GOP is making a mistake by pretending that it is one. So are those who want to put me in Ted Cruz's camp because of it (I'd rather take a bullet to the head than vote for Ted Cruz, for what its worth.)

So is eating shellfish and masturbating and I'm willing to wager a large sum of money that you do at least one of those things.

Eating shellfish is not a sin, but when did I say I don't sin? I have NEVER said that I don't sin. I would never say such a thing. If it were not for God's grace, I'd go to Hell.

From a liberty perspective they're both consensual lifestyles that the individuals involved in get off on; and they don't impinge upon anyone else - so no harm no foul.

Politically I agree with you. In terms of force, I agree with you. No force should be used to restrict those lifestyles. But not all of morality can be summed up by the NAP. The NAP is a legal standard, not a complete moral standard (and I guarantee that everyone here has morals other than the NAP as well.)

The statement made by whoisjohngalt is at least stated as something "thought" by an individual (basically, an opinion)

The statement made by FreedomFanatic is stated as fact, but without proof. It would seem incumbent upon FreedomFanatic to prove the statement, but I think that would be something best relegated to the "Peace Through Religion" forum to discuss. And since the participants in that forum don't even seem to be able to reach consensus on what "Christians" believe - it'd probably be best for the various sects of "Christians" to resolve their differences before they start debating others on behalf of Christianity.

I don't think there's any professing Christian in the Peace through Religion subforum that disagrees that homosexuality is a sin. At the least, I've never seen anyone challenge that stance from a Christian perspective.

Except for humans
[Calvinist]especially Catholics[/Calvinist]
[Catholic]especially Calvinists[/Catholic]

I chuckled at this. Its not accurate, but still.

 

[Snew]

And sometimes at the same time? Shrug. Could just be me.

Different strokes for different folks

 

[Christian Liberty]

Because of foreign policy, not social issues.



Add me, along with many others on here. And, by the way, there are more of us "religious zealots" than there are gays, so alienating us is not a good idea.



How is this theocratic?



And no one in power is trying to force them to.



No one is being coerced into doing anything, how is it like Sharia? It's like having a plank encouraging gun ownership, it doesn't force anyone to buy a gun.



No one is going to base their vote on this who is a swing voter.



If Rick Santorum was anti-war, he would be able to defeat Obama. The GOP is losing because they keep on defending wars that 70%+ of Americans oppose, and demand that new wars be fought. It's not because they oppose SSM (support for which is only slightly in the majority). The Republican establishment loves war and has determined it will not move an inch on that issue, and so they conclude that social issues are to blame.



Maybe all those things happen because vicious, hateful people constantly harass and slander those who change their lifestyle. I can't imagine how hard it is for ex-gays.

I'd be hard pressed to vote for Santorum even if he were completely anti-war. His economic views aren't libertarian or even conservative, and he's supportive of invasive government security. But yeah, my big issue with Santorum isn't really his position on gay marriage

Here's the thing though, guys. Even those who are socially more liberal and "tolerant" need to think through their rhetoric here some. Do you want to be spreading the message that cultural conservatives cannot be libertarians? Trying to convince people that homosexuality really isn't a big deal will just win you statist Republicans who support gay marriage. I don't know about you, but that's not what I want. All that will do is drive cultural conservatives to Cruz, which is the last thing you want. Be very careful that you don't give people the idea that social progressivism is some kind of requirement to be a libertarian.

 

[mosquitobite]

I'd be hard pressed to vote for Santorum even if he were completely anti-war. His economic views aren't libertarian or even conservative, and he's supportive of invasive government security. But yeah, my big issue with Santorum isn't really his position on gay marriage

Here's the thing though, guys. Even those who are socially more liberal and "tolerant" need to think through their rhetoric here some. Do you want to be spreading the message that cultural conservatives cannot be libertarians? Trying to convince people that homosexuality really isn't a big deal will just win you statist Republicans who support gay marriage. I don't know about you, but that's not what I want. All that will do is drive cultural conservatives to Cruz, which is the last thing you want. Be very careful that you don't give people the idea that social progressivism is some kind of requirement to be a libertarian.

I argue against govt involvement in gay marriage in 2 ways:

the history of it is only about 150 or so years old. It started when we began marriage "permission" (aka license) in order to prevent blacks from marrying whites

secondly, since none of the gay marriage bans have survived court, it is not FISCALLY conservative to pass legalism through government.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I argue against govt involvement in gay marriage in 2 ways:

the history of it is only about 150 or so years old. It started when we began marriage "permission" (aka license) in order to prevent blacks from marrying whites

secondly, since none of the gay marriage bans have survived court, it is not FISCALLY conservative to pass legalism through government.

I totally agree with you. I've used the first argument before. I've honestly never thought through the second one. But, I'm not arguing for government involvement in marriage here (as a voluntarist, how could I?). But, opposing government involvement in marriage doesn't mean agreeing with homosexuality or gay marriage. Some of the comments here make it out like libertarianism is an inherently socially liberal position. I don't think it has to be.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I'd be hard pressed to vote for Santorum even if he were completely anti-war. His economic views aren't libertarian or even conservative, and he's supportive of invasive government security. But yeah, my big issue with Santorum isn't really his position on gay marriage

I would be in the same boat as you, but I think he could have won a general election and still have his social positions.

Here's the thing though, guys. Even those who are socially more liberal and "tolerant" need to think through their rhetoric here some. Do you want to be spreading the message that cultural conservatives cannot be libertarians? Trying to convince people that homosexuality really isn't a big deal will just win you statist Republicans who support gay marriage. I don't know about you, but that's not what I want. All that will do is drive cultural conservatives to Cruz, which is the last thing you want. Be very careful that you don't give people the idea that social progressivism is some kind of requirement to be a libertarian.

Yeah, it's like these people forget how supportive Baldwin was of Paul and that pro-Liberty Congressmen Jones and Duncan are very socially conservative.

 

[Carlybee]

I'd be hard pressed to vote for Santorum even if he were completely anti-war. His economic views aren't libertarian or even conservative, and he's supportive of invasive government security. But yeah, my big issue with Santorum isn't really his position on gay marriage

Here's the thing though, guys. Even those who are socially more liberal and "tolerant" need to think through their rhetoric here some. Do you want to be spreading the message that cultural conservatives cannot be libertarians? Trying to convince people that homosexuality really isn't a big deal will just win you statist Republicans who support gay marriage. I don't know about you, but that's not what I want. All that will do is drive cultural conservatives to Cruz, which is the last thing you want. Be very careful that you don't give people the idea that social progressivism is some kind of requirement to be a libertarian.

I don't believe government has the right to be involved in marriage period. I believe gay people are still citizens and as such have as much say over their personal lives as heterosexual citizens do. If the GOP wants to be able to decide what determines a legitimate human being and what determines legitimate human sexuality in their eyes then I don't particularly give a flying monkeys butt what idea people get. Freedom means freedom. There shouldn't be these shades of gray. I don't need to convert cultural conservatives. Either they believe in liberty for all or they don't. I'm not gay..have no plans to become gay but I damn sure don't lose sleep over how to abolish gayness. It's just stupid beyond comprehension.

As for not wanting children exposed to it....have you seem what's on TV? I guarantee you...those kids have seen and heard things that would curl their parents toes in the bathroom a school so unless they are planning to drive down Main Street during a gay pride parade, chances are their children have already been exposed to much more than they think. Some of the biggest sluts I knew growing up were preachers kids.

 

[Crashland]

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.

So for you it's kind of like a censorship issue for the children? The trouble with that is, if the government does not do it, it won't happen -- unless maybe the children eat work and sleep in the church sanctuary, our free society is not going to censor the very existence of homosexual couples.

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 would go a step further. I'd rather a child to be adopted by a gay couple who actually want the child and are prepared to care for them, than to be raised by either a single parent, or straight parents who either did not want the child, or who are unprepared to care for them. The thing about gay couples (or any couple that adopts) - you can't exactly have an unplanned or unwanted adoption.

 

[DamianTV]

Coming Soon: Spiritual North Korea...

 

[VIDEODROME]

Best people? What algorithm determined that?

Maybe I should say "Potentially Best". I generally see military types as very hard working, very loyal, and would go to great lengths for a good cause they believe in. They sign up for the good cause of defending the homeland, but get treated more like a mercenary force that kills and drops bombs in return for a break on College Tuition.

A lot of the same types of people probably become Firefighters or maybe join the Coast Guard. It's a type of person that seems willing to put themselves on the line for something greater than themselves which is admirable. To often with the military though, this trait is twisted into blind Nationalism or they come home disillusioned and depressed.

So I guess I see this type of person as capable of contributing so much, and we toss them all into the meat grinder.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Ender]

There it is - the thing that unites all of Christianity. No agreement about the important stuff like salvation, but in lock step about the gay. Are you sure you guys have your priorities straight (edited to add: pun not intended)?

As a Minister, I 'll take Jesus' word on how to act:

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.




John 8

14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

John 8

14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

In that same passage, didn't Jesus also say to the woman who was caught in adultery, "go and sin no more?" Or in Luke 17, "If your neighbor sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him." It's a both-and message---stop the judgmental folks from stoning, forgive those who repent, but sin is still sin. Mere acknowledgement that something is sin, that a person needs to repent of, is not being judgmental, it's the unforgiving attitude that is the problem.

As for the GOP, if it is useless and stupid for social conservatives to highlight the homosexual issue by going into details in their platform, then it is useless and stupid for social liberals to highlight the homosexual issue by going into details in their platform. It's a cultural war, because two parties are fighting it. Why do some libertarians here treat social conservatives like Palestinians, where only their bad actions get attacked, but not the 'Israeli' social liberal actions that provoked them? How is it imposing an agenda if one advocates for the concept that one can become a former homosexual, but not imposing an agenda if one seeks to ban or demonize the concept?

There are several decades of psychiatric case studies to back up the notion, from the decades prior to the APA becoming politically compromised on the subject in the '70's, and from alternative research in the decades following. We should acknowledge this issue shoots Democrats in the foot as well, when they insist social moderates in their party march in lock step to every single dogma of the social left.

 

[otherone]

It's a cultural war, because two parties are fighting it.

We must not re-enact the history that divides us,

rather we must embrace that which draws us together.

 

[MelissaWV]

We must not re-enact the history that divides us,

rather we must embrace that which draws us together.

Maybe but that's too gay for some folks.

 

[otherone]

Maybe but that's too gay for some folks.

how about this, then?

"Wenn ich Kultur höre ...

entsichere ich meinen Browning!"

 

[Ender]

In that same passage, didn't Jesus also say to the woman who was caught in adultery, "go and sin no more?" Or in Luke 17, "If your neighbor sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him." It's a both-and message---stop the judgmental folks from stoning, forgive those who repent, but sin is still sin. Mere acknowledgement that something is sin, that a person needs to repent of, is not being judgmental, it's the unforgiving attitude that is the problem.

Again, the answer is:

Pull the beam out of your own eye, first, so you can see clearly enough to remove the speck of sawdust from your neighbor's.

Cleaning up our own act should take most of our lives, leaving little room for chastising others. PLUS when we are really cleaned up, we won't chastise others- we will love them, as the 2nd great commandment tells us to do.

 

[jmdrake]

People should be able to seek any kind of therapy that they want!! Or not if they don't!

Exactly.

Why would that even be included in a platform?

Because some people are so anti-liberty as to pass laws telling people what kind of therapy they and can't have. I haven't read through this multi-page thread, but I'm sure if it's like the last time it's full of BS histrionics that pick out the worst examples of "gay therapy", like one example which may be urban myth that clients were being made to strip naked and beat pictures of their mother, and use that to dishonestly justify banning any voluntary counseling for someone who might not like his/her same sex attraction. And I say dishonestly, because it's dishonest to lump every possible type of action into one extreme example. If there is a psychologist who prescribes stripping naked and beating a picture of your mother in order to stop bed wetting, ADD, insomnia or anything else, that psychologist should lose his/her license regardless of the aim of such therapy. And while there may be bigger fish to fry, this is not something the government should be banning or mandating.

 

[jmdrake]

I hope you understand the difference between not judging someone and offering help to someone who comes to you asking for it. I don't judge someone who gambles. But if someone came to me and said "Please help me. I want to stop gambling and I just can't." I would try to point them in the right direction to get help. That's called compassion. That's not judging.

As a Minister, I 'll take Jesus' word on how to act:

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.




John 8

14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

 

[jmdrake]

Again, the answer is:

Pull the beam out of your own eye, first, so you can see clearly enough to remove the speck of sawdust from your neighbor's.

Cleaning up our own act should take most of our lives, leaving little room for chastising others. PLUS when we are really cleaned up, we won't chastise others- we will love them, as the 2nd great commandment tells us to do.

And again, if someone comes to you asking for help in changing a behavior, your saying "Okay I will help you" is not chastisement. I've been both the person asking for help and the person who has been approached by someone wanting help. Not on this particular issue, but why should it matter? Not judging is not judging. If offering someone help who came to you asking for it is somehow judging or chastising, then psychology and counseling as a whole should be abolished.