TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Gov. Chris Christie plans to sign a bill Monday barring licensed therapists from trying to turn gay teenagers straight, making New Jersey the second state to ban so-called conversion therapy, along with California.
The bill passed both houses of the New Jersey Legislature with bipartisan support in June. Assemblyman Tim Eustace, who sponsored the bill and is openly gay, described the therapy as "an insidious form of child abuse."
In a signing note accompanying the bill that will be made public Monday, Christie said he believes people are born gay and that homosexuality is not a sin. That view is inconsistent with his Catholic faith, which teaches that homosexual acts are sins.
The Republican governor also said the health risks of trying to change a child's sexual orientation, as identified by the American Psychological Association, outweigh concerns over the government setting limits on parental choice.
"Government should tread carefully into this area," he said in the signing note, which was obtained by The Associated Press, "and I do so here reluctantly."
"However, I also believe that on the issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards," Christie said, citing a litany of potential ill effects of trying to change sexual orientation, including depression and suicide. "I believe that exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate."
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Gov. Chris Christie plans to sign a bill Monday barring licensed therapists from trying to turn gay teenagers straight, making New Jersey the second state to ban so-called conversion therapy, along with California.
The bill passed both houses of the New Jersey Legislature with bipartisan support in June. Assemblyman Tim Eustace, who sponsored the bill and is openly gay, described the therapy as "an insidious form of child abuse."
In a signing note accompanying the bill that will be made public Monday, Christie said he believes people are born gay and that homosexuality is not a sin. That view is inconsistent with his Catholic faith, which teaches that homosexual acts are sins.
The Republican governor also said the health risks of trying to change a child's sexual orientation, as identified by the American Psychological Association, outweigh concerns over the government setting limits on parental choice.
"Government should tread carefully into this area," he said in the signing note, which was obtained by The Associated Press, "and I do so here reluctantly."
"However, I also believe that on the issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards," Christie said, citing a litany of potential ill effects of trying to change sexual orientation, including depression and suicide. "I believe that exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate."
erm... does the therapy entail being seduced by hooter / victoria secret girls? If so, I could be gay for a day.
But yeah, changing orientation to me sounds an awful like brainwashing...
That's one thing he's not ashamed of... is his pragmatism. It's just that he doesn't excite the none-establishment types much.
*shrugs* I like the guy well enough (other than his gun control policies). But, he's the governor for NJ for cripes sake... very, much along the same vein as Romney.
In a signing note accompanying the bill that will be made public Monday, Christie said he believes people are born gay and that homosexuality is not a sin. That view is inconsistent with his Catholic faith, which teaches that homosexual acts are sins.
That's one thing he's not ashamed of... is his pragmatism. It's just that he doesn't excite the none-establishment types much.
*shrugs* I like the guy well enough (other than his gun control policies). But, he's the governor for NJ for cripes sake... very, much along the same vein as Romney.
But yeah... good for him on this one.
In my crazy moments, I think that he's planning on switching parties and running in 2016 as a fiscally conservative democrat.
he'll never make it out of the GOP primaries, especially if they decide after 2012 to double down on conservativsm.
While I agree on the gearing up for 2016 comment I also agree that I approve of most things Gov Christie does. I'm also not sure he can survive the GOP primaries based on the nonsensical direction my poor party continues to head but I hope that he can fire up enough people with this non traditional approach and make it through
I completely support banning of gay conversion therapy. I would be awesome if we lived in a world where this kind of nonsense wasnt real. Shame I wont see that world im my life time
That's one thing he's not ashamed of... is his pragmatism. It's just that he doesn't excite the none-establishment types much.
*shrugs* I like the guy well enough (other than his gun control policies). But, he's the governor for NJ for cripes sake... very, much along the same vein as Romney.
But yeah... good for him on this one.
In my crazy moments, I think that he's planning on switching parties and running in 2016 as a fiscally conservative democrat.
he'll never make it out of the GOP primaries, especially if they decide after 2012 to double down on conservativsm.
It's possible... if he campaigns as in outsider (as in, doesn't toe the company line)... it might work.
*shrugs* it's 2013, who knows what's going to be like in 2015?
That's one thing he's not ashamed of... is his pragmatism. It's just that he doesn't excite the none-establishment types much.
*shrugs* I like the guy well enough (other than his gun control policies). But, he's the governor for NJ for cripes sake... very, much along the same vein as Romney.
But yeah... good for him on this one.
In my crazy moments, I think that he's planning on switching parties and running in 2016 as a fiscally conservative democrat.
he'll never make it out of the GOP primaries, especially if they decide after 2012 to double down on conservativsm.
If Hillary Clinton runs and by some horrid fluke of fate ends up winning, I may just spend the years she's in office hiding in a cave. She's essentially a female Obama with a much more acidic edge. Still, at least she won't be as much of a let-down as the Big O. I'll know not to get my hopes up this time around!
Yeah, they were so busy pandering themselves and destroying each other for their "base" (who would vote for them anyway because they would still be voting against the Democrat) that they lost the swing vote.
I think he knows that, but the pundits haven't figured it out yet.
In a signing note accompanying the bill that will be made public Monday, Christie said he believes people are born gay and that homosexuality is not a sin. That view is inconsistent with his Catholic faith, which teaches that homosexual acts are sins.
Anti-Catholic yellow journalism in action.
Isn't it great when others talk about what someone's personal beliefs are supposed to be because that someone follows a certain religion? It leads to all sorts of wonderful moments like non-Muslims telling a Muslim what "real" Muslims believe and non-Christians telling Christians that they're not really Christian if they don't believe X, Y, or Z.
/sarcasm, in case anyone wasn't sure.
Edit: And it's nice how the article just threw that bit in there. Like, oh, he's Catholic, so of course he couldn't really do anything good for the LGBTQ community. He must just be doing it for political reasons, since it's inconsistent with his Catholic faith and everyone knows Catholics all believe and do all the same things, right?
It's really hard to win when you have someone on the extreme flank of your own wing.
Santorum's going to be twice as strong this time around, just because his campaign won't be starting off as a joke this time. He'll have resources and support from the get-go, and that's HUGE. He'll never win because clearly the party wants to run someone electable like McCain and Romney. But he'll make things freakin' miserable for Christie. Santorum is a strong and smart campaigner...even if he's also a lot of other things.
I still say that Christie's Jersey/bully/Sopranos act won't play well everywhere in the country. Maybe it doesn't need to. Still, expect to see all those ugly incidents with him berating New Jerseyians in public to crop up in ads again and again. The guy has a temper and mouth that he doesn't control well, and I think some people are going to like him less once they see that. If I was running another campaign, I'd even try placing hecklers at his rallies and stops just to see if I could get something ugly out of him.
i could see christie being successful with the bully aspect if he runs on some sort of clean up washington / the gop party. Kind of a more angry aggressive hope and change
ironicsilence wrote: i could see christie being successful with the bully aspect if he runs on some sort of clean up washington / the gop party. Kind of a more angry aggressive hope and change
Christie is the perfect VP. Fits the "attack dawg" mode.
ironicsilence wrote: i could see christie being successful with the bully aspect if he runs on some sort of clean up washington / the gop party. Kind of a more angry aggressive hope and change
Christie is the perfect VP. Fits the "attack dawg" mode.
I'd agree with that but i'm not sure there is anyone in the GOP party right now that Christie could safely be a VP for. All the super early contenders for the nomination likely have a lot of differing views from Christie. Having a VP that goes off the script on overall political stances is never a good idea....looking at you Palin
The issue is his public behavior toward *constituents*, not other elected officials. It plays in the Northeast, but I have my doubts about areas of the country more interested in politeness and civility.
Americans like Presidential candidates who seem...Presidential. He might keep his mouth shut and work hard to change his image between now and 2016. But Presidential races have a way of exposing you for what you are. I'm not sure that people outside the region understand what a controversial figure he was even in NJ right up until he got the boost from the hurricane.
He's also not as moderate as the hugs with Obama would seem to indicate.
a zebra cant change his stripes....I dont see Christie being anymore then what he is now. I dont expect the public view of the GOP party to improve any over the next few years so could see him getting support if he picks up the break the norm banner and runs with it, but not sure how that would play with the GOP base.
In a signing note accompanying the bill that will be made public Monday, Christie said he believes people are born gay and that homosexuality is not a sin. That view is inconsistent with his Catholic faith, which teaches that homosexual acts are sins.
Anti-Catholic yellow journalism in action.
Isn't it great when others talk about what someone's personal beliefs are supposed to be because that someone follows a certain religion? It leads to all sorts of wonderful moments like non-Muslims telling a Muslim what "real" Muslims believe and non-Christians telling Christians that they're not really Christian if they don't believe X, Y, or Z.
/sarcasm, in case anyone wasn't sure.
Edit: And it's nice how the article just threw that bit in there. Like, oh, he's Catholic, so of course he couldn't really do anything good for the LGBTQ community. He must just be doing it for political reasons, since it's inconsistent with his Catholic faith and everyone knows Catholics all believe and do all the same things, right?
When I went to Catholic school, we were taught that being gay isn't a sin, only homosexual acts are*. So this isn't even directly against his Catholic beliefs(assuming he follows this doctrine, and assuming he hasn't chosen to fulfill all the requirements to make a moral decision of his own). Which I think is what Manchu is getting at.
*Not a whole lot better, but at least they aren't forcing people to be someone they aren't.
from what I know of the catholic faith, xole has it right, being gay isnt a sin, however making gay whoppie is a sin. So in the eyes of a catholic god, everything is cool as long as there is no penetration
ironicsilence wrote: a zebra cant change his stripes....I dont see Christie being anymore then what he is now. I dont expect the public view of the GOP party to improve any over the next few years so could see him getting support if he picks up the break the norm banner and runs with it, but not sure how that would play with the GOP base.
He'd poll well with independents, which is great, until you reliaze that independents don't (or often can't) vote in primaries.
Conservative Republicans don't trust him, and Democrats might like him, but not enough to elect a republican, which means a GOP budget, right leaning SCOTUS justices, and in general all the partisan conflict that will make it hard for liberals and/or democrats to vote for him.
If he gets the GOP nomination though (which he almost certainly won't), he'd be achingly hard to stop. A lot of normally solid blue states would be in play (New Jersy, PA, Michigan, Wisconsin) while traditonal battleground states would take to him (florida and Ohio).
gorgon wrote: It's really hard to win when you have someone on the extreme flank of your own wing.
Santorum's going to be twice as strong this time around, just because his campaign won't be starting off as a joke this time. He'll have resources and support from the get-go, and that's HUGE. He'll never win because clearly the party wants to run someone electable like McCain and Romney. But he'll make things freakin' miserable for Christie. Santorum is a strong and smart campaigner...even if he's also a lot of other things.
I still say that Christie's Jersey/bully/Sopranos act won't play well everywhere in the country. Maybe it doesn't need to. Still, expect to see all those ugly incidents with him berating New Jerseyians in public to crop up in ads again and again. The guy has a temper and mouth that he doesn't control well, and I think some people are going to like him less once they see that. If I was running another campaign, I'd even try placing hecklers at his rallies and stops just to see if I could get something ugly out of him.
If its Christie vs. Hillary in 2016, as it stands now, he has an excellent chance of losing Texas.
Gore and Kerry were apparently popular in PA too. The commonwealth just leans blue now in Presidential races.
Also, if McCain and Romney can get the nomination, why can't Christie? Clearly the party elite want an electable candiate. But recent history suggests that he'd come into the general election too beat up to win, and there will be other GOP candidates more than willing to beat Christie up during the primaries. They're all there to become President, not to coronate the leadership's preferred choice.
And again, I think that the idea of Christie as the great moderate won't hold up for the general election as people become more familiar with him. Remember how people said the same thing at first about McCain and Romney? Heck, Romney might actually be more moderate than Christie, and look where that got him. And you can forget about Christie as a great uniter/healer of DC...that's not his style or track record at all.
gorgon wrote: It's really hard to win when you have someone on the extreme flank of your own wing.
Santorum's going to be twice as strong this time around, just because his campaign won't be starting off as a joke this time. He'll have resources and support from the get-go, and that's HUGE. He'll never win because clearly the party wants to run someone electable like McCain and Romney. But he'll make things freakin' miserable for Christie. Santorum is a strong and smart campaigner...even if he's also a lot of other things.
I still say that Christie's Jersey/bully/Sopranos act won't play well everywhere in the country. Maybe it doesn't need to. Still, expect to see all those ugly incidents with him berating New Jerseyians in public to crop up in ads again and again. The guy has a temper and mouth that he doesn't control well, and I think some people are going to like him less once they see that. If I was running another campaign, I'd even try placing hecklers at his rallies and stops just to see if I could get something ugly out of him.
If its Christie vs. Hillary in 2016, as it stands now, he has an excellent chance of losing Texas.
Yeah, Texas would be among the places I'm talking about.
gorgon wrote: Gore and Kerry were apparently popular in PA too. The commonwealth just leans blue now in Presidential races.
Also, if McCain and Romney can get the nomination, why can't Christie? Clearly the party elite want an electable candiate. But recent history suggests that he'd come into the general election too beat up to win, and there will be other GOP candidates more than willing to beat Christie up during the primaries. They're all there to become President, not to coronate the leadership's preferred choice.
Yeah, only took how many primary debates full of mudslinging and embarrassing sound-bites and FoxNews trying to get a near unlimited amount of "anybody but Romney" campaigns going before Romney could walk away the victor?
And again, I think that the idea of Christie as the great moderate won't hold up for the general election as people become more familiar with him. Remember how people said the same thing at first about McCain and Romney? Heck, Romney might actually be more moderate than Christie, and look where that got him. And you can forget about Christie as a great uniter/healer of DC...that's not his style or track record at all.
To be fair, moderate Romney polled a hell of a lot better than "hey hey, party base, look at me, I can be a fringe right wing extremist too" Romney.
Romney shook the Etch-a-Sketch and became "Kissing the Base's base" Romney. Then he tried to shake it again, and couldn't clear it.
The Democrats didn't win the 2012 elections near as much as it was lost by the Republicans. And the "pander to the crazy base" primary system is a large cause of that IMO.
I would almost think that open primaries (or at least let Independents vote in either) would help that out.
The media will love Christie until such time as he gets ahead in the primary then they will beat on him to keep the race going.
Once the Presidential Race (ie Democrat vs. Republican) they will turn completely against him. He will be the combative hardliner who sat on children and ate babies when he fought against the unions and good hardworking teachers.
I have no idea how Christie could win the primary. Right now he get can't even get a ticket to CPAC. And that's not a ticket to speak at CPAC - they won't even let him in the door to take a seat in the crowd.
Now, you don't necessarily have to be a CPAC favourite to claim the primary (never got a hope in hell campaigners like Ron Paul and Bobby Jindal have done well in the strawpoll, afterall), but you you look at the list of candidates and you pretty much see the list of people that will run in the next primary. And they won't even let Christie in the door.
Cheesecat wrote: I thought Christie said he wasn't interested in being prez or has that changed now?
No-one is interested until they think they can win
And people in this thread were talking like he could win. He can't, and what's more, Christie is a smart enough operator to know he can't win. Hence his statement
That said, maybe instead of talking about Christie we should talk about banning gay conversion therapy - fething awesome. That stuff feths kids up.
sebster wrote: That said, maybe instead of talking about Christie we should talk about banning gay conversion therapy - fething awesome. That stuff feths kids up.
Amen. It's a vile practice and the sooner it is banned in every state, the better.
ironicsilence wrote: from what I know of the catholic faith, xole has it right, being gay isnt a sin, however making gay whoppie is a sin. So in the eyes of a catholic god, everything is cool as long as there is no penetration
I believe that any sex outside marriage is seen as sinful, not just homosexual encounters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: If its Christie vs. Hillary in 2016, as it stands now, he has an excellent chance of losing Texas.
It's votes, or having them succeed from the Union?
d-usa wrote: To be fair, moderate Romney polled a hell of a lot better than "hey hey, party base, look at me, I can be a fringe right wing extremist too" Romney.
Romney shook the Etch-a-Sketch and became "Kissing the Base's base" Romney. Then he tried to shake it again, and couldn't clear it.
The Democrats didn't win the 2012 elections near as much as it was lost by the Republicans. And the "pander to the crazy base" primary system is a large cause of that IMO.
I would almost think that open primaries (or at least let Independents vote in either) would help that out.
No, I really disagree with that. Credit needs to be given to the Obama campaign for winning a race that should have been unwinnable, thanks to their superior data mining, microtargeting, fundraising, etc.
And I'd also suggest it's not just the Etch-A-Sketch thing at work. Opinions about candidates have a way of shifting after people see more of and "get to know" them. Romney had some issues there, methinks. He was just a little odd somehow (not that many of us wouldn't be), which probably didn't help him given the "detached rich guy" narrative the Obama campaign built.
It's also important to note that lots of candidates have overcome bruising primaries.
whembly wrote: Yeah... the Obama campaign had incredible grass root organizations and was waaay more effective in reaching those "low-information voters".
Future republican campaigns better scrutinize the '12 election and learn from it... if they don't, they'll get clobbered.
gorgon wrote: given the "detached rich guy" narrative the Obama campaign built.
Let's not ignore how much Romeny helped build up that image.
Yeah... that's true. He definitetly had an image problem... and that 49% comment.
"Low-information voters" are just as common (some would argue more common) among hardcore conservative types. See: most of the deep south. Obama also used social media and the internet far more effectively than the Romney camp, and those are rarely "low-information voters".
And yeah, that 49% comment really did a number on his campaign. That and being associated with the circus of republican rape comments. Oof.
whembly wrote: Yeah... the Obama campaign had incredible grass root organizations and was waaay more effective in reaching those "low-information voters".
Future republican campaigns better scrutinize the '12 election and learn from it... if they don't, they'll get clobbered.
gorgon wrote: given the "detached rich guy" narrative the Obama campaign built.
Let's not ignore how much Romeny helped build up that image.
Yeah... that's true. He definitetly had an image problem... and that 49% comment.
"Low-information voters" are just as common (some would argue more common) among hardcore conservative types. See: most of the deep south. Obama also used social media and the internet far more effectively than the Romney camp, and those are rarely "low-information voters".
And yeah, that 49% comment really did a number on his campaign. That and being associated with the circus of republican rape comments. Oof.
Low-information voters... as in, folks who don't normally vote and/or do vote, but don't follow politics. The Obama campaign kicked assed in reaching out to those voters... they got people engaged and took the Romney campaign to the sheds.
in 2012 the obama campaign team basically wrote the book on how to win a modern day election. Everything they did with data mining and such should be used in every campaign going forward
I wasn't just talking about Obama though, I was considering the election as a whole and considering all the offices that were open last year. House/Senate/States. Who expected the Democrats to pick up 2 seats in the Senate?
whembly wrote: Yeah... the Obama campaign had incredible grass root organizations and was waaay more effective in reaching those "low-information voters".
Future republican campaigns better scrutinize the '12 election and learn from it... if they don't, they'll get clobbered.
gorgon wrote: given the "detached rich guy" narrative the Obama campaign built.
Let's not ignore how much Romeny helped build up that image.
Yeah... that's true. He definitetly had an image problem... and that 49% comment.
"Low-information voters" are just as common (some would argue more common) among hardcore conservative types. See: most of the deep south. Obama also used social media and the internet far more effectively than the Romney camp, and those are rarely "low-information voters".
And yeah, that 49% comment really did a number on his campaign. That and being associated with the circus of republican rape comments. Oof.
Low-information voters... as in, folks who don't normally vote and/or do vote, but don't follow politics. The Obama campaign kicked assed in reaching out to those voters... they got people engaged and took the Romney campaign to the sheds.
Erg, my apologies. Confused low-information with single-issue.
Erg, my apologies. Confused low-information with single-issue.
It's cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I wasn't just talking about Obama though, I was considering the election as a whole and considering all the offices that were open last year. House/Senate/States. Who expected the Democrats to pick up 2 seats in the Senate?
When Todd Akins and that GA dude opened their mouth.
In this thread, viewers, if you look carefully, you might see a glimpse of that most rare of creatures - a moderate Republican. Normally they are spooked by loud noises, but I think we can get a closer look - this specimen is from New Jersey, and so may have acclimatized to the noise of people. Hopefully we can try to get him into a breeding program, as we're concerned with his species dwindling numbers. It's a real shame, because these creatures once placed a vital role in a vibrant ecosystem.
And, a dominance display! Look how he shows all the other creatures he intends to challenge the alpha for leadership. Truly, nature is beautiful.
---
So far as separating the conversion therapy thing from talking about Chris Christie, is that possible? I think to do so we'd have to have at least one person claiming conversion therapy is OK, and that seems to have no bites. The closest is Manchu, who is mostly focused on the "yellow journalism" aspect of accurately reporting that the Catholic Church considers acting on homosexual impulses to be sinful? Not exactly... endorsing conversion therapy, there. Not sure how we can discuss the ending of an odious practice without at least one person white knighting it.
Ouze wrote: Not sure how we can discuss the ending of an odious practice without at least one person white knighting it.
I think the clost there is in this thread might be Lord of Deeds, who based on the fact he has a quote from Francis of Acissi in his sig, and is located in Texas (a fairly Christian state iirc), and only posted "" might be in favour of conversion "therapy".
Ouze wrote: Not sure how we can discuss the ending of an odious practice without at least one person white knighting it.
I think the clost there is in this thread might be Lord of Deeds, who based on the fact he has a quote from Francis of Acissi in his sig, and is located in Texas (a fairly Christian state iirc), and only posted "" might be in favour of conversion "therapy".
.
If there was clinical evidence that it worked and the person receiving said therapy was doing so because they actually wanted to for whatever reason I don't see what the problem would be. I suppose that puts me ever so slightly in the "might be in favor of" camp.
However, unless those two criteria are met this sort of thing annoys me on two levels: quack "therapy" and homophobia.
Ouze wrote: In this thread, viewers, if you look carefully, you might see a glimpse of that most rare of creatures - a moderate Republican. Normally they are spooked by loud noises, but I think we can get a closer look - this specimen is from New Jersey, and so may have acclimatized to the noise of people. Hopefully we can try to get him into a breeding program, as we're concerned with his species dwindling numbers. It's a real shame, because these creatures once placed a vital role in a vibrant ecosystem.
This is a beautiful thing.
So far as separating the conversion therapy thing from talking about Chris Christie, is that possible? I think to do so we'd have to have at least one person claiming conversion therapy is OK, and that seems to have no bites. The closest is Manchu, who is mostly focused on the "yellow journalism" aspect of accurately reporting that the Catholic Church considers acting on homosexual impulses to be sinful? Not exactly... endorsing conversion therapy, there. Not sure how we can discuss the ending of an odious practice without at least one person white knighting it.
Fair point. A lot of times I've seen people complain 'how come we're always talking about the bad stuff done by US/UK/Australian governments, why don't we talk about the horrible stuff done by the governments of Russia etc'. And I've made the point you make above - there's no-one there to defend Russia etc, so there's no debate to be had.
Maybe we should just be glad that there is no-one here to defend gay conversion. I don't think that would have been the case a few years ago, where someone might at least have attempted an "I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's their right to do it" bit of nonsense. But now it looks like maybe the bottom really has collapsed out of homophobia. Hopefully, anyway.
I think we need more gay conversion therapy. All of those people with repressed thoughts about whether Timmy likes Jimmy and Lisa likes Sarah. Who wouldn't want more gays in the world? Oh was I arguing the wrong side of gay conversion therapy? Dangit!
Your post connotes confusion. The anti-Catholic bias in the article does not stem from the accurate statement that homosexual acts are sinful according to Catholic tradition; rather the issue is saying that Chris Christie's belief that homosexuality itself is not a sin is inconsistent with his Catholic faith.
Your post connotes confusion. The anti-Catholic bias in the article does not stem from the accurate statement that homosexual acts are sinful according to Catholic tradition; rather the issue is saying that Chris Christie's belief that homosexuality itself is not a sin is inconsistent with his Catholic faith.
Why the actions of gay conversion therapists, acupuncturists and homeopathists(to name a few) aren't considered fraud is completely beyond me.
It's actually really complicated.
Homeopathy is legal mostly because at this point it doesn'tmake any claims. As long as you only allude to magical healing properties, you can sell anything. Look at how vague the claims on a bottle are. It's not fraud because it's not really making an concreate promises.
Gay Conversion isn't fraud because the success or failure of a medical procedure or treament is never certain. As long as the provider doens't guaruntee anything (and no licensed medical provider will), all you're paying for is the attempt. And, belief it or not, but you can find a minority of psychotherapists that believe that homosexuality is a diagnosable condition and can be treated. You start getting into murky waters with regards to malpractice as long as you can show that you are providing bare minimum competency.
Accupuncture is the trickiest one of those, because it's not complete quackery. It's supported by evidence as being slightly effective. My health insurance will cover it, 100%, as long as its administered by an MD.
Homeopathy is legal mostly because at this point it doesn'tmake any claims. As long as you only allude to magical healing properties, you can sell anything. Look at how vague the claims on a bottle are. It's not fraud because it's not really making an concreate promises.
Gay Conversion isn't fraud because the success or failure of a medical procedure or treament is never certain. As long as the provider doens't guaruntee anything (and no licensed medical provider will), all you're paying for is the attempt. And, belief it or not, but you can find a minority of psychotherapists that believe that homosexuality is a diagnosable condition and can be treated. You start getting into murky waters with regards to malpractice as long as you can show that you are providing bare minimum competency.
Accupuncture is the trickiest one of those, because it's not complete quackery. It's supported by evidence as being slightly effective. My health insurance will cover it, 100%, as long as its administered by an MD.
That makes a lot of sense, actually. "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to treat, cure or prevent any disease" and all that.
I would say, in the case of acupuncture as well as chiropractic, that there is a spectrum of quackery. When used in conjunction with actual medical care I see less of a problem, it's when these "doctors" start telling clients that medicine is full of "toxins" and not to vaccinate their children that I get vexed wild.
"What do you call alternative medicine that has been shown to work?"
"Medicine"
Chripracty is an old tradition that survived the consolodation of medicine in the early 20th century, and now eats primarily from people that want a subsidized massage through insurance, people that cannot afford real medical care, and people milking a workers compensation claim. It's not complete quackery, but nothing they do can't be done by a PT or DO.
MrDwhitey wrote: Why do they even need conversion therapy? After all, why don't they just choose to be straight?
Exactly, just like most (but probably not all) of us here chose to be straight. Did it take you long to figure out? I spent a lot of time wavering on the issue, it wasn't easy. I mean, aside from the misplaced anger and fear you get from some people, you have the issues with risk of poor reactions from friends and family, and all that stress bumps up ones odds of abusing drugs and alcohol significantly, along with an astronomically higher risk of attempted or successful suicide. Throw in being treated like a second class citizen in many countries, and outright vilified and hated in others. The inability to adopt in some countries, and even simple rights and privileges are either a tough fight to obtain (marriage, extended benefits) or outright impossible depending on where you are in the world.
I don't know how they do it. It was a struggle to choose to be part of the roughly 90%+ majority that make up our world, with the enhanced quality of life that entails, but I bravely made it all the same.
God speed, brave LGBT members, daring to choose to have what is likely to be a markedly harder if not outright crappier life! May the hate crimes and 'corrective rape' committed against you be infrequent.
I think for a lot of people sexuality isn't a choice but for some it can be like I read an article about a woman who chose to be lesbian as a form of protest against homophobia.
Exactly, just like some (but probably not many) of us here chose to be Christian. I spent a lot of time wavering on the issue, it wasn't easy. I mean, aside from the misplaced anger and fear you get from some people, you have the issues with risk of poor reactions from friends and family, and all that stress bumps up ones odds of abusing drugs, alcohol, being violent, or self-destructive significantly. Throw in being treated like an imbecilic or second class citizen in many countries, and outright vilified and hated in others. The inability to live in some countries, and even simple rights and privileges are either a tough fight to obtain (right to own property, marriage, extended benefits) or outright impossible depending on where you are in the world.
I don't know how they do it. It was a struggle to choose to be part of the roughly 32% that make up our world, with the enhanced quality of life that it supposedly entails, but I bravely made it all the same.
God speed, brave Christian brothers and sisters, daring to choose to have what is likely to be a markedly harder if not outright crappier life! May the hate crimes and official persecution committed against you be infrequent.
I know many of you will reject the juxtaposition given here without much second thought. My point is that sometimes laws like these do more harm than good when they infringe on one groups rights ostensibly to protect another group.
Sigh, I really don't understand why where one person wishes to put their genitals can cause such uproar. Surely, if you don't like the idea of gay relationships, the answer is don't enter into one?
Thanks, I was really swinging for the fences on that one. There's a large LGBT community on another forum I'm a regular on, and reading various gay rights threads taught me a lot, even corrected some views I held that were patiently explained to be wrong.
They also showed me some of the depths to which people will sink in their hatred of things they don't understand, it was actually kind of fun to tap into that briefly.
Lord of Deeds wrote: I know many of you will reject the juxtaposition given here without much second thought. My point is that sometimes laws like these do more harm than good when they infringe on one groups rights ostensibly to protect another group.
Wait wait wait... I did not know that the genetic predisposition towards being Christian had been found!
:-D
Which is to say that they are utterly nothing alike. Religion may be taught at an early age and is a profound part of people's lives, but unlike sexual orientation, we are not born as a follower/member/adherent of *religious faith X*, and it's disingenuous to link them as even remotely similar.
Lord of Deeds wrote: Exactly, just like some (but probably not many) of us here chose to be Christian. I spent a lot of time wavering on the issue, it wasn't easy. I mean, aside from the misplaced anger and fear you get from some people, you have the issues with risk of poor reactions from friends and family, and all that stress bumps up ones odds of abusing drugs, alcohol, being violent, or self-destructive significantly. Throw in being treated like an imbecilic or second class citizen in many countries, and outright vilified and hated in others. The inability to live in some countries, and even simple rights and privileges are either a tough fight to obtain (right to own property, marriage, extended benefits) or outright impossible depending on where you are in the world.
I don't know how they do it. It was a struggle to choose to be part of the roughly 32% that make up our world, with the enhanced quality of life that it supposedly entails, but I bravely made it all the same.
God speed, brave Christian brothers and sisters, daring to choose to have what is likely to be a markedly harder if not outright crappier life! May the hate crimes and official persecution committed against you be infrequent.
I know many of you will reject the juxtaposition given here without much second thought. My point is that sometimes laws like these do more harm than good when they infringe on one groups rights ostensibly to protect another group.
What rights are being infringed on in this case? The rights of dodgy therapists to mess with peoples' heads in ways that cause serious issues?
Lord of Deeds wrote: I know many of you will reject the juxtaposition given here without much second thought. My point is that sometimes laws like these do more harm than good when they infringe on one groups rights ostensibly to protect another group.
I doubt it, I would rather have homosexuals be more free from harassment then have a bunch of witches be allowed to use religion (not saying all religious people are witches or that all religions harass gays I'm sure most religious folks are alright) as an excuse to harm them.
MrDwhitey wrote: Nah, they just haven't posted in this thread due to not noticing it/knowing exactly the reaction they'll get.
Yeah, but to be honest that's good enough for me. Whether we're at a point where people don't believe that nonsense, or still believe it but no longer have the stomach for claiming it in public for fear of the reaction they'll get, the end result is homophobia in terminal decline.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord of Deeds wrote: I know many of you will reject the juxtaposition given here without much second thought. My point is that sometimes laws like these do more harm than good when they infringe on one groups rights ostensibly to protect another group.
I've given it a second, third, and fourth thought. As I'm typing this I've just given it a fifth thought. And that fifth thought is that my thinking alone won't be able to reason through what you've stated in your post, and that maybe we need to commission a team of scientists to give it thoughts 6 through 28, and then write about a thousand of pages of text on it.
Because as near as I can tell, your post is equating the right of one person to inflict a psychologically harmful practice on a minor, with another person's right to be told what they do with another consenting adult is no-one's business but their own, and worrying that possibly the rights of the former group trump the latter. That's a simply incredible point of view, and one that demands many, many more thoughts.
"What do you call alternative medicine that has been shown to work?"
"Medicine"
'Profit'.
Some alternative medicines are bogus, others do work but are not mainstream.
The above joke, which is a political comment of itself is based on the mistaken belief that the medical profession is united as to what is canonic medicine. Corporate medicine in particular will odften favour one approach over another for financial reasons also some medical procedures, accupuncture being a good example have direct provable effects but it is not understood why sio it remains alternative medicine.
This is not nearly as monstrous or noteworthy as some of the stories we've had on here, like the strike team story awhile back.
I condemn those who would make thier peers with a differing orientation out to be sick.
Orlanth wrote: The above joke, which is a political comment of itself is based on the mistaken belief that the medical profession is united as to what is canonic medicine. Corporate medicine in particular will odften favour one approach over another for financial reasons also some medical procedures, accupuncture being a good example have direct provable effects but it is not understood why sio it remains alternative medicine.
Except that once they have direct, provable effects, they actually do stop being treated as alternative medicine. Accupuncture is a good example, as studies have shown its effectiveness then many places around the world have started to cover its use.
The issue is more that medical boards, for very obvious reasons, like to be fairly certain of the effects of treatment before embracing it, and so a person can get ahead of the curve and learn about alternative remedies years, or even decades before they're recognised. The trick then is how confident an individual can be in picking the winners from the junk.
There's also political issues, as well, particularly with things like marijuana.
Iranna wrote: Sigh, I really don't understand why where one person wishes to put their genitals can cause such uproar.
So you have no issue whatsoever with where people want to put their genitals?
As long as It ain't children, animal or dead, I don't give a crap.
Also, Bonobo Monkeys,Dolphins and Giraffes engage in homosexuality, and you don't see them setting up "therapy" centres do you?
What if it's a flaming dead tree? I've always had to keep my pyronecrodendrophillia in check, lest I rush off to a wildfire to get my rocks off...
Also Dolphins also engage in sex with humans, sometimes as the dominant partner... on an unrelated note, don't day drink with your roommate the day before you leave for winter break and watch Flipper movies... you will both ask, "I wonder if anyone has ever had sex with a dolphin" and then google such a question.
Orlanth wrote: The above joke, which is a political comment of itself is based on the mistaken belief that the medical profession is united as to what is canonic medicine. Corporate medicine in particular will odften favour one approach over another for financial reasons also some medical procedures, accupuncture being a good example have direct provable effects but it is not understood why sio it remains alternative medicine.
Except that once they have direct, provable effects, they actually do stop being treated as alternative medicine. Accupuncture is a good example, as studies have shown its effectiveness then many places around the world have started to cover its use.
The issue is more that medical boards, for very obvious reasons, like to be fairly certain of the effects of treatment before embracing it, and so a person can get ahead of the curve and learn about alternative remedies years, or even decades before they're recognised. The trick then is how confident an individual can be in picking the winners from the junk.
There's also political issues, as well, particularly with things like marijuana.
I wouldn't get too carried away with the idea that acupuncture is a proven treatment, though.
Chronic pain treatments often work for bizarre reasons, because chronic pain is such a complex and layered issue.
The best medications for Fibromyalgia (the mother of all nebulous pain disorders) are an anti-depressant and anti-convulsant. The idea that sticking somebody with needles somehow makes them feel better is slightly less crazy.
What I find fascinating about that study (which i've seen references to before) is that while "sham" accupuncture also showed improved pain symtpoms over no acupuncture, the actual proper accupuncture did even better.
So, sure, the underlying theroies are almost assuradely balony. But so what? If it improves pain symptoms, we can worry about how and why later.
The biochemical functioning of anesthetic is actually quite difficult to pin down, even in agents which very clearly do work.
I have heard generally positive things about accupuncture in the literature (not really my field but it is generally discussed along side other strange treatments tangential to things I have studied).
However to get back on topic - it is good that these kinds of practices are being outlawed; hopefully similar "de-gay summer camp" type groups will also be heavily targeted and erradicated in the same move. I've heard some pretty horrific things about some of those places.
If you really want to feel good about the advanced state of medicine, then just pick up a Physicians Desk Reference and look at how all the drugs work.
You will be amazed (and disturbed) and how many of these entries you find:
PDR wrote:Mechanism of Action: Unknown. It is thought.....
We honestly don't know how a lot of the medications we give to people work. You take a pill, you get better, but we don't know why.
And sometimes quackery is 100% as effective as something approved after years of painstaking research and administered by somebody with 4 years of medical school and 6 years of residency because of one single reason: the person getting the treatment believes it is going to work.
And I have seen people die even though they got all the latest treatment and advances, simply because they knew "nothing will work, I am going to die".
I'm not saying that medicine is a total mind game. But the placebo effect is real and there is a distinct mind-body component to healing that is involved.
Should quackery be regulated to make sure people don't do dangerous things? Sure.
Do I encourage patients that are seeking holistic treatment to make sure they are doing that as a part of a comprehensive treatment plan that also includes "western medicine". Of course.
Of course that is all talking about physical treatments. Once you include alternative medicine for mental health issues (such as gay conversion therapy) things get even muddier and the potential of hurting a number of people for every "successful" treatment should be the determining factor for deciding the validity of treatments.
Knowing how bright you are, I'm honestly not convinced that this is a sincere question. But I will answer anyway as part of the intentional avoidance of cynicism. The article technically distinguishes between disapproving of homosexual people and homosexual acts but conflates them for the purpose of criticizing Mr. Christie's view, which is acceptable to mainstream public opinion, as "inconsistent" with his Catholic faith. That is to say, Mr. Christie is right on this issue despite being a Catholic.
Alfndrate wrote: What if it's a flaming dead tree? I've always had to keep my pyronecrodendrophillia in check, lest I rush off to a wildfire to get my rocks off...
Also Dolphins also engage in sex with humans, sometimes as the dominant partner... on an unrelated note, don't day drink with your roommate the day before you leave for winter break and watch Flipper movies... you will both ask, "I wonder if anyone has ever had sex with a dolphin" and then google such a question.
I was another website and there was this guy, a younger fellow who posted a lot and was one of the better known posters on the site (and it was a big forum). He was always involved in the melodramas of the board and was pretty strange, but seemed a likeable enough guy.
After a while another guy turned up, and said he'd been invited over to the board by this fellow, who on that board went by some other name. Someone went over to that board and starting reading what he was posting there, and pretty much all of it was about sex with animals. And the animal he was mostly fixated on was dolphins. And he was fixated in really strange ways, insisting that dolphin spunk comes out so fast that it'd kill a human. He turned up and insisted there was nothing wrong with it. People started talking about how it was rape. Other people called for tolerance. The gak storm lasted weeks, over dozens of threads. Loads of people were banned (and this was a site where, at the time, it was really hard to get banned). It was incredible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: I wouldn't get too carried away with the idea that acupuncture is a proven treatment, though.
Oh, I'm not arguing for accupuncture. I've never had it, and most likely never will (if only because I'm really, really cheap when it comes to medical treatment of any kind ). I was just saying that pointing out that accupuncture is treated as alternative medicine outside despite being shown as effective isn't true, because it is actually covered like conventional treatment in places.
Alfndrate wrote: What if it's a flaming dead tree? I've always had to keep my pyronecrodendrophillia in check, lest I rush off to a wildfire to get my rocks off...
Also Dolphins also engage in sex with humans, sometimes as the dominant partner... on an unrelated note, don't day drink with your roommate the day before you leave for winter break and watch Flipper movies... you will both ask, "I wonder if anyone has ever had sex with a dolphin" and then google such a question.
I was another website and there was this guy, a younger fellow who posted a lot and was one of the better known posters on the site (and it was a big forum). He was always involved in the melodramas of the board and was pretty strange, but seemed a likeable enough guy.
After a while another guy turned up, and said he'd been invited over to the board by this fellow, who on that board went by some other name. Someone went over to that board and starting reading what he was posting there, and pretty much all of it was about sex with animals. And the animal he was mostly fixated on was dolphins. And he was fixated in really strange ways, insisting that dolphin spunk comes out so fast that it'd kill a human. He turned up and insisted there was nothing wrong with it. People started talking about how it was rape. Other people called for tolerance. The gak storm lasted weeks, over dozens of threads. Loads of people were banned (and this was a site where, at the time, it was really hard to get banned). It was incredible.
I know far too much about dolphin/human relationships... I hadn't imbibed enough to black out and not remember any of it... The website that I found corroborated that guy's claim about dolphin baby making juice, as well as some other odd claims... I'm half tempted to go find it again, because as much as no one should EVER have that knowledge, it's a hilarious read.
Back on topic... Is there viable medical proof that gay conversion therapy (or conversion therapy for that matter) works? It seems more like a way to oppress and dehumanize someone... but I'm not a doctor, I just play one on the radio.
Polonius wrote: Chronic pain treatments often work for bizarre reasons, because chronic pain is such a complex and layered issue.
The best medications for Fibromyalgia (the mother of all nebulous pain disorders) are an anti-depressant and anti-convulsant. The idea that sticking somebody with needles somehow makes them feel better is slightly less crazy.
What I find fascinating about that study (which i've seen references to before) is that while "sham" accupuncture also showed improved pain symtpoms over no acupuncture, the actual proper accupuncture did even better.
So, sure, the underlying theroies are almost assuradely balony. But so what? If it improves pain symptoms, we can worry about how and why later.
I believe I read something once to the effect: The needles themselves are not particularly painful and they don't cause much of a conscious response. But they still cause very small amounts of pain. Because pain in one part of the body often distracts from pain elsewhere the story I read was that dozens of needles piercing the skin have a cumulative effect that we consciously don't recognize, distracting the 'patient' from their other discomforts.
I have no idea how scientific that is mind you. Just something I read.
I think employing dolphins to be involved in the gay conversion programs may have a considerable effect.
Seriously I think gay conversion to be similar to aversion therapy, I know someone who did a course , apparently jesus can walk on water but he can't un-gay someone.
Alfndrate wrote: I know far too much about dolphin/human relationships... I hadn't imbibed enough to black out and not remember any of it... The website that I found corroborated that guy's claim about dolphin baby making juice, as well as some other odd claims... I'm half tempted to go find it again, because as much as no one should EVER have that knowledge, it's a hilarious read.
Yeah, this guy was convinced it was at such high speed it like punch right through a human, which was hilarious, and when people saying that wasn't true but it did come out pretty damn fast, and then typing up analogies about exactly how fast I stopped reading.
Back on topic... Is there viable medical proof that gay conversion therapy (or conversion therapy for that matter) works? It seems more like a way to oppress and dehumanize someone... but I'm not a doctor, I just play one on the radio.
What I've read is that there are basically zero cases of people who have only same sex attraction being converted and becoming attracted to the opposite sex - what short term results are claimed are dubious and in the long term you get some pretty messed up people.
But with people who show bi-sexual attraction there's been some success in moving people along the continuum, that is to say people who mostly like the opposite sex and the same sex only sometimes can be shifted to liking the same sex hardly ever. I have no idea if that effect lasts long term.
Maybe we should just be glad that there is no-one here to defend gay conversion. I don't think that would have been the case a few years ago, where someone might at least have attempted an "I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's their right to do it" bit of nonsense. But now it looks like maybe the bottom really has collapsed out of homophobia. Hopefully, anyway.
This is a fallacial argument.
Maybe no one is entering the fray because of the buzz saw/gang up mentality that happens on Dakka to anyone that has an opinion that might remotely believe that homosexuality is not "ok".
Maybe we should just be glad that there is no-one here to defend gay conversion. I don't think that would have been the case a few years ago, where someone might at least have attempted an "I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's their right to do it" bit of nonsense. But now it looks like maybe the bottom really has collapsed out of homophobia. Hopefully, anyway.
This is a fallacial argument.
Maybe no one is entering the fray because of the buzz saw/gang up mentality that happens on Dakka to anyone that has an opinion that might remotely believe that homosexuality is not "ok".
GG
I dunno, I think if someone said 'I'm not a fan of homosexuality, and I personally disagree with it, but I wouldn't force someone who is gay to undergo damaging psychological trauma' then there'd be no problem.
Maybe no one is entering the fray because of the buzz saw/gang up mentality that happens on Dakka to anyone that has an opinion that might remotely believe that homosexuality is not "ok".
GG
You can think and say plenty of things - I don't like rap and find most of the rap culture to be something I don't like. However, I am not going to cheer for "Rap conversion centres" where people's trousers are held up with a belt and they are played rock music at high volumes to "reeducate" them.
A personal opinion is fine, an attempt to force your views on others is not. Think that homosexuality is bad all you want; discuss your dislike of it with likeminded (or not) people all you want (in the appropriate setting if applicable), but don't start loading homosexuals onto the train to "reeducation camps" and try to claim the moral high ground or indeed the right to do such things.
Knowing how bright you are, I'm honestly not convinced that this is a sincere question. But I will answer anyway as part of the intentional avoidance of cynicism. The article technically distinguishes between disapproving of homosexual people and homosexual acts but conflates them for the purpose of criticizing Mr. Christie's view, which is acceptable to mainstream public opinion, as "inconsistent" with his Catholic faith. That is to say, Mr. Christie is right on this issue despite being a Catholic.
Thanks... I guess?
I"m trying to find a polite way to say that you're being super sensitive about this, and I"m struggling, so I'll just say that. I guess I didn't read anything hostile or inflammatory in the article. It seems like you're reading this as "Christie, despite the moral defect of being a Catholic, feels homosexuality is not a sin."
Maybe we should just be glad that there is no-one here to defend gay conversion. I don't think that would have been the case a few years ago, where someone might at least have attempted an "I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's their right to do it" bit of nonsense. But now it looks like maybe the bottom really has collapsed out of homophobia. Hopefully, anyway.
This is a fallacial argument.
Maybe no one is entering the fray because of the buzz saw/gang up mentality that happens on Dakka to anyone that has an opinion that might remotely believe that homosexuality is not "ok".
Man, I feel you. When I have an opinion that's inconsistent with both science and the experiences of most people, it is really unfair when I get called out on it. Especially since there are a soild double handful of bible verses (out of 30k, but whatever) that prove that I'm right!
Honestly, society has been on a downward spiral ever since we started ignoring the biblical truth of geocentrism.
Fafnir wrote: Rationality kind of goes out the window when there's never once been a solid logical argument against gay rights, or the tolerance of gays.
You just supported his point actually. "If you're opposed to me you're insane" ok...
Maybe we should just be glad that there is no-one here to defend gay conversion. I don't think that would have been the case a few years ago, where someone might at least have attempted an "I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's their right to do it" bit of nonsense. But now it looks like maybe the bottom really has collapsed out of homophobia. Hopefully, anyway.
This is a fallacial argument.
Maybe no one is entering the fray because of the buzz saw/gang up mentality that happens on Dakka to anyone that has an opinion that might remotely believe that homosexuality is not "ok".
GG
I dunno, I think if someone said 'I'm not a fan of homosexuality, and I personally disagree with it, but I wouldn't force someone who is gay to undergo damaging psychological trauma' then there'd be no problem.
How about "I don't give a gak. Just stay off my yard."
Fafnir wrote: Rationality kind of goes out the window when there's never once been a solid logical argument against gay rights, or the tolerance of gays.
You just supported his point actually. "If you're opposed to me you're insane" ok...
Exactly..(by the way fafnir completely misrepresented my position)
And to expand on the point...someone was suggesting because no one was on "dakka" giving the opposing position. That somehow means we all think it's ok, when in reality people choose to not chime in on dakka because they know they are going to get shouted down...or the internet version of it.
Fafnir wrote: Rationality kind of goes out the window when there's never once been a solid logical argument against gay rights, or the tolerance of gays.
You just supported his point actually. "If you're opposed to me you're insane" ok...
Well, no, not really. If someone can make a rational argument concerning the invalidity of gays, or provide evidence that gay-conversion "therapy" is actually effective and not harmful, there might be something to talk about. I'd be totally happy to discuss it. But as it is, I've yet to see a single good argument for either case.
Fafnir wrote: Rationality kind of goes out the window when there's never once been a solid logical argument against gay rights, or the tolerance of gays.
You just supported his point actually. "If you're opposed to me you're insane" ok...
Well, no, not really. If someone can make a rational argument concerning the invalidity of gays, or provide evidence that gay-conversion "therapy" is actually effective and not harmful, there might be something to talk about. I'd be totally happy to discuss it. But as it is, I've yet to see a single good argument for either case.
generalgrog wrote: Instead of the ...oh I don't know rational way of discussing things.
If you would like to present an argument as to the validity of 'gay conversion therapy', I'm sure many would be interested to hear it.
;-)
Personally, I see this as a feature, not a bug, so to speak. Similar to how racism has been vilified to a point that, while it's certainly not gone, it's not nearly as tolerated in public discourse. It speaks highly of the character of Dakka as a forum that the members are either accepting and tolerant of others orientations, or at least know well enough to keep their terrible opinions to themselves.
I'm not sure why there needs to be a discussion; New Jersey thinks it's bad, they're banning it, that's another very, very, very small step in the right direction towards gay americans having equal rights. Not all opinions are equally valid, not every issue needs both sides championed, either in earnest or by a devil's advocate.
This is the typical...If you believe a certain way then you are an idiot..internet beat down.
Instead of the ...oh I don't know rational way of discussing things.
Polonius didn't call you an idiot. He merely stated the obvious: if you hold an opinion which is contentious, then voicing it will lead to criticism. This criticism is key to discussing things in a rational manner.
generalgrog wrote: Instead of the ...oh I don't know rational way of discussing things.
If you would like to present an argument as to the validity of 'gay conversion therapy', I'm sure many would be interested to hear it.
;-)
Personally, I see this as a feature, not a bug, so to speak. Similar to how racism has been vilified to a point that, while it's certainly not gone, it's not nearly as tolerated in public discourse. It speaks highly of the character of Dakka as a forum that the members are either accepting and tolerant of others orientations, or at least know well enough to keep their terrible opinions to themselves.
I'm not sure why there needs to be a discussion; New Jersey thinks it's bad, they're banning it, that's another very, very, very small step in the right direction towards gay americans having equal rights. Not all opinions are equally valid, not every issue needs both sides championed, either in earnest or by a devil's advocate.
fafnir...I'm not an expert on the subject of "gay conversion therapy", as I'm assuming that neither are you.
The issue is whether or not gay people are born that way, and if they are (which I don't believe for second) than it would be like trying to make a black person "not black" That's the way the argument is presented, and I believe it's a fallacious argument, in that it begs the question that gay people are born that way.
So the homosexual lobby has been very successful in presenting their "civil rights" argumentation to the general public, and since the general public is so scared of not being politically correct and not wanting to offend anyone, and compounded with the general move towards secularism, they are having success.
I'm fully aware that our society has turned a corner, athiests and or secularists would say this is a good thing. And I personally don't have a problem with homosexuals. What I do have a problem with is the constant Godwinism thrown out there by the left wing and the homsexual lobby, which accuses anyone with conservative religious views as being racist, when the exact opposite is the truth.
When was the last time someone from the KKK, went into a nursing home to pray for people, or fed the hungry, or prayed with homosexuals(not even about homosexuality)
My point is that as a Christian sin is sin, whether or not its homosexual sin or heterosexual sin.
fafnir...I'm not an expert on the subject of "gay conversion therapy", as I'm assuming that neither are you.
The issue is whether or not gay people are born that way, and if they are (which I don't believe for second)
Then how do you explain the physiological differences between heterosexual and homosexual individuals (otoacoustic emissions, differences/irregularities in amygdala size, general trends in long-bone growth)? Additionally, what about biological evidence concerning the inheritence of homosexuality (Fraternal Birth Order Effect, for example).
As well as an actual research paper he wrote on the difference in a very important part of the brain between heterosexual and homosexual men:
http://www.simonlevay.com/research-publications
than it would be like trying to make a black person "not black" That's the way the argument is presented, and I believe it's a fallacious argument, in that it begs the question that gay people are born that way.
And the general scientific consensus is that children are indeed born gay, or that biology has a very considerable impact on one's sexuality.
You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.
generalgrog wrote: fafnir...I'm not an expert on the subject of "gay conversion therapy", as I'm assuming that neither are you.
You don't need to be an expert, you just need to do even a minimal amount of research to see that it doesn't work and the entire argument in favor of it is based on the fact that it aligns well with a certain ideology. The only question that remains is whether it is a case of a sincere but misguided attempt to help people, or fraud.
The issue is whether or not gay people are born that way, and if they are (which I don't believe for second)
Too bad. Just like 1+1=2 no matter how much you might want to believe otherwise it is pretty well established that sexual preferences are heavily influenced, if not entirely determined, by biology and not conscious choice. People can choose how to act on their sexual preferences (the cliche of a gay man marrying and having kids because of their religion but never being happy, for example), but suppressing them doesn't make them go away.
So the homosexual lobby has been very successful in presenting their "civil rights" argumentation to the general public, and since the general public is so scared of not being politically correct and not wanting to offend anyone, and compounded with the general move towards secularism, they are having success.
You know, it's funny that you would dismiss this as being afraid of not being "politically correct", but (presumably) you would be pretty unhappy if there was a law that members of your religion were not allowed to get married. But that would be a much more reasonable law since, unlike being gay or not, religion is very clearly a conscious choice to associate with a particular group.
My point is that as a Christian sin is sin, whether or not its homosexual sin or heterosexual sin.
So are you just as outraged about people who eat shellfish? After all, sin is sin whether it's sexual sin or food sin.
The issue is whether or not gay people are born that way, and if they are (which I don't believe for second) than it would be like trying to make a black person "not black" That's the way the argument is presented, and I believe it's a fallacious argument, in that it begs the question that gay people are born that way.
Whether or not homosexual people are born homosexual is irrelevant and, from a political perspective, little more than a means of creating a catchy slogan.
The question is whether or not people who choose to engage in the sort of lifestyle that entails sexual congress with members of the same sex should be extended the same privileges granted to those who prefer members of the opposite sex. In this context the dispute over homosexual marriage is as much a civil rights issue as interracial marriage given that, in both cases, the relevant parties have the option to choose alternative partners.
dogma wrote: That's a lazy argument. Christians are not necessarily bound by the Old Testament.
Then why do they frequently quote laws from the exact same part of the bible as an argument against homosexuality?
I think we shouldn't lump Christians in with each other like that. It isn't Christians as a whole who are doing this, any more than it is dakka as a whole who was going after Mandelbonder a while ago like he complained.
dogma wrote: That's a lazy argument. Christians are not necessarily bound by the Old Testament.
Then why do they frequently quote laws from the exact same part of the bible as an argument against homosexuality?
Because the prohibition against homosexuality is carried over in the New Testament, which Christians are bound by.
In essence, any text within the OT which is confirmed by the NT can be taken as evidence regarding the whole of the concept being referenced. Anything not confirmed by the NT, however, is only tangentially relevant if it is relevant at all.
fafnir...I'm not an expert on the subject of "gay conversion therapy", as I'm assuming that neither are you.
The issue is whether or not gay people are born that way, and if they are (which I don't believe for second)
Then how do you explain the physiological differences between heterosexual and homosexual individuals (otoacoustic emissions, differences/irregularities in amygdala size, general trends in long-bone growth)? Additionally, what about biological evidence concerning the inheritence of homosexuality (Fraternal Birth Order Effect, for example).
As well as an actual research paper he wrote on the difference in a very important part of the brain between heterosexual and homosexual men:
http://www.simonlevay.com/research-publications
than it would be like trying to make a black person "not black" That's the way the argument is presented, and I believe it's a fallacious argument, in that it begs the question that gay people are born that way.
And the general scientific consensus is that children are indeed born gay, or that biology has a very considerable impact on one's sexuality.
You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.
fafnir..I will look into Simon Levay. However, I will tell you that after doing a quick look at his bio, I see that he is openly gay. So I immediately get the jaundiced eye of caution and question how much bias goes into his research. Having said that, I will look at what you linked.
I also question how much the gay lifestyle can change things physically for themselves? I guess what I'm saying is, how much of these differences he supposedly found are an effect of the lifestyle as opposed to the cause of it. Again I don't know, but its a question in my mind.
I mean alcoholics have liver differences, then a non alcoholic.(I'm just using this as an example..not saying they are exactly the same)
dogma wrote: That's a lazy argument. Christians are not necessarily bound by the Old Testament.
Then why do they frequently quote laws from the exact same part of the bible as an argument against homosexuality?
Because the prohibition against homosexuality is carried over in the New Testament, which Christians are bound by.
In essence, any text within the OT which is confirmed by the NT can be taken as evidence regarding the whole of the concept being referenced. Anything not confirmed by the NT, however, is only tangentially relevant if it is relevant at all.
Dogma is essentially correct here, and we have been over this ground many times.
Orthodox Christian doctrine teaches that humanity is utterly depraved, and that the levitical law was there for a few reasons, moral/universal laws(10 commandments among others), national laws(things like how to deal with divorce & slavery), and holiness laws(things like special fabrics in clothes, what to eat and drink). Christianity teaches that Jesus crucifixion paid for the sins of believers so there is no need to follow the national, and holiness laws. However the moral and universal laws are written in our hearts and we must strive to live up to these.
That's way to short of an explanation, hope fully clears things up a bit.
However I wouldn't use the terminology dogma used, because I wouldn't say that Christians are "bound by the new testament". That sounds too legalistic to me. The new testament contains teachings and guidance, in the form of Historical documentation, and letters written to the churches and Christians of the times.
In studies on rats, alterations in hormone levels in the brain have only been shown to affect sexuality pre-natally.
Not to mention that, short of some very strange kinks(that has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation), homosexual activities do not involve ingesting any materials that would alter someone's physiology, let alone in a way that you would suggest.
generalgrog wrote: This is precisely the danger that the political correct secularist poses to humanity.
What, that people won't be able to abuse their children and use "god says so" as an excuse to avoid punishment? It's just like the people who decide that taking their kid to the hospital is against god's will and leave them to die, you don't get to overrule your kid's best interest just because it disagrees with your religion.
This is precisely the danger that the political correct secularist poses to humanity.
GG
How is it a danger to stop parents abusing their children? If something is proven to damage an individual psychologically, it doesn't matter if it is done in a setting like a gay conversion therapists office, or in a family home, its still psychological abuse.
generalgrog wrote: Orthodox Christian doctrine teaches that humanity is utterly depraved, and that the levitical law was there for a few reasons, moral/universal laws(10 commandments among others), national laws(things like how to deal with divorce & slavery), and holiness laws(things like special fabrics in clothes, what to eat and drink). Christianity teaches that Jesus crucifixion paid for the sins of believers so there is no need to follow the national, and holiness laws. However the moral and universal laws are written in our hearts and we must strive to live up to these.
Yes, I know there's a way of rationalizing away all the laws that are too obviously silly or that people don't want to follow. But what it really comes down to is a belief that shrimp are tasty but two men having sex is gross, and all the biblical laws are interpreted in so that they follow that standard.
The danger is to parents who teach their children that homosexuality is a sin can be branded as "brainwashing" their children & or harming them. And then all you have to do is call in the secular gestapo/cheka and arrest Christian parents for teaching them Christian doctrine. Then we may as well be back to Pol Pot.
This is highly offensive at the bare minimum, and highly dangerous thinking.
generalgrog wrote: The danger is to parents who teach their children that homosexuality is a sin can be branded as "brainwashing" their children & or harming them.
Ah, I misunderstood your initial post. I think it is perfectly alright for parents to teach their kids that Christianity believes that homosexuality is a sin. I thought you were meaning that this "gay conversion therapy" should be allowed to be carried out at home by the parents. Because that would be brainwashing and harming them. If their kid is gay, then they need to accept that, and every time they push against it they are risking damaging him for life, and that is where it becomes bad parenting and negligent.
generalgrog wrote: The danger is to parents who teach their children that homosexuality is a sin can be branded as "brainwashing" their children & or harming them. And then all you have to do is call in the secular gestapo/cheka and arrest Christian parents for teaching them Christian doctrine. Then we may as well be back to Pol Pot.
This is highly offensive at the bare minimum, and highly dangerous thinking.
People should be ashamed to think this way.
GG
Ehrenstein's Law
I am against politically correct nonsense.
If part of a religion involves promoting hatred or child abuse, than you can't teach it to your kids.
People should be ashamed to think that they have any sort of right to force their own ideals upon another human being.
Teaching children that homosexuality is a sin is essentially bringing them up to commit acts of hate crime and speech. Bringing them up to make their own judgements and understand that regardless of those judgements, opinions, and beliefs, everyone's lives are their own to live, is perfectly acceptable.
In short, telling them "I believe homosexuality is a sin, it is your place to make your own choice on that matter" is infinitely better than saying "I believe homosexuality is a sin and so must you", because the latter is stripping a human being of their innate freedoms and subjecting them to become a slave to your reasoning and beliefs alone.
generalgrog wrote: The danger is to parents who teach their children that homosexuality is a sin can be branded as "brainwashing" their children & or harming them.
Sorry, but in many cases it IS brainwashing. The kid wants no part of their parents' religious beliefs, but the parents refuse to let it go. There is a long and ugly history of children being abused by their parents (causing considerable long-term harm) because of their "sin", and you can't just ignore that context.
But let's give you a slightly different situation: I am a devout atheist and think that religion is harmful nonsense. So let's say I have a kid, and despite my best efforts to show them how awesome it is to sleep in on sunday mornings they decide to become a Christian. Would it be ok for me to ban them from attending church or spending time with their religious friends, confiscate their bibles, lecture them on how they're being gullible idiots if they dare to mention their belief in god, and send them to atheism summer camp every year? If not, why is this any different from the parent who does the same kind of things to their gay kid?
And then all you have to do is call in the secular gestapo/cheka and arrest Christian parents for teaching them Christian doctrine. Then we may as well be back to Pol Pot.
Is this now a competition to post the most ridiculous slippery slope "argument"?
Also, don't forget that not all Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong. So even in your absurd slippery slope you're talking about arresting people for teaching your particular version of Christianity, not for teaching Christian doctrine in general.
Avatar 720 wrote: People should be ashamed to think that they have any sort of right to force their own ideals upon another human being.
Teaching children that homosexuality is a sin is essentially bringing them up to commit acts of hate crime and speech. Bringing them up to make their own judgements and understand that regardless of those judgements, opinions, and beliefs, everyone's lives are their own to live, is perfectly acceptable.
In short, telling them "I believe homosexuality is a sin, it is your place to make your own choice on that matter" is infinitely better than saying "I believe homosexuality is a sin and so must you", because the latter is stripping a human being of their innate freedoms and subjecting them to become a slave to your reasoning and beliefs alone.
First of all..it's your opinion that "Teaching children that homosexuality is a sin is essentially bringing them up to commit acts of hate crime and speech"
This is your opinion and only that.
Secondly Parents have the right to teach their children the way they believe their children should be brought up. This is a fundamental human right. Shame on you for trying to take that away from someone, because your opinion disagrees with theirs.
As someone who has a friend who once attempted suicide because they were constantly burdened with the 'sinful nature' of their lifestyle (that they certainly did not ask for), I'd say that those who teach that homosexuality is evil and sinful are far more dangerous than homosexuality or political correctness could ever be.
generalgrog wrote: Secondly Parents have the right to teach their children the way they believe their children should be brought up.
But this is NOT an absolute right. For example, I don't think there would be any controversy about removing kids from parents that were members of the KKK and imposing white supremacist beliefs.
But let's give you a slightly different situation: I am a devout atheist and think that religion is harmful nonsense. So let's say I have a kid, and despite my best efforts to show them how awesome it is to sleep in on sunday mornings they decide to become a Christian. Would it be ok for me to ban them from attending church or spending time with their religious friends, confiscate their bibles, lecture them on how they're being gullible idiots if they dare to mention their belief in god, and send them to atheism summer camp every year? If not, why is this any different from the parent who does the same kind of things to their gay kid?
Fafnir wrote: As someone who has a friend who once attempted suicide because they were constantly burdened with the 'sinful nature' of their lifestyle (that they certainly did not ask for), I'd say that those who teach that homosexuality is evil and sinful are far more dangerous than homosexuality or political correctness could ever be.
Drug addicts and alcoholics also attempt suicide at a high rates, does that mean we should stop trying to help them?
Anyway...we are starting to circle back into the same ole arguments. So I'll be happy to bow out of the thread.
Avatar 720 wrote: People should be ashamed to think that they have any sort of right to force their own ideals upon another human being.
Teaching children that homosexuality is a sin is essentially bringing them up to commit acts of hate crime and speech. Bringing them up to make their own judgements and understand that regardless of those judgements, opinions, and beliefs, everyone's lives are their own to live, is perfectly acceptable.
In short, telling them "I believe homosexuality is a sin, it is your place to make your own choice on that matter" is infinitely better than saying "I believe homosexuality is a sin and so must you", because the latter is stripping a human being of their innate freedoms and subjecting them to become a slave to your reasoning and beliefs alone.
First of all..it's your opinion that "Teaching children that homosexuality is a sin is essentially bringing them up to commit acts of hate crime and speech"
This is your opinion and only that.
Secondly Parents have the right to teach their children the way they believe their children should be brought up. This is a fundamental human right. Shame on you for trying to take that away from someone, because your opinion disagrees with theirs.
GG
Wait, so you don't like we throwing my opinions at you? Why, then, do you insist upon thrusting yours at others, especially those whose minds are the most vulnerable to these things?
Secondly, no, they don't, they have a right to bring their children up to be good human beings. What parents should teach is understanding, like understanding to recognise their own opinions and to form their own ideas and ideals.
I also feel sorry for you, and the fact that you are so against people living their own lives. That you would seek to attempt to shame those who preach freedom speaks ill of your intentions. You also falsely claim that I am removing rights in the name of differing opinion, and yet it is you, and you alone who seeks to remove rights, the right for a human to form his own beliefs and ideals, and the right to grow up in an environment where they will not be thought of any differently should they not ascribe to the beliefs of those around them. It is you who, in the name of differing opinions, seeks to put collars and leashes around others and force them to walk the path you choose for them instead of showing them the paths open and letting them walk down their own.
All the shame here rests upon you, regardless of how much you think otherwise. You disappoint me.
generalgrog wrote: Drug addicts and alcoholics also attempt suicide at a high rates, does that mean we should stop trying to help them?
Really? This is a joke, right?
Just in case it isn't the two situations are completely different. Drug addicts and alcoholics have problems that are directly caused by their addictions. Gay people, on the other hand, only have a high suicide rate because of poor treatment by other people. If you remove the bigots lecturing them about how they're going to burn in hell, parents disowning their children and leaving them nowhere to go just because they're attracted to the "wrong" person, etc, that high suicide rate goes away entirely. So the solution is to stop the poor treatment by other people, not to teach them how to suppress their desires so they can meet your expectations.
Anyway...we are starting to circle back into the same ole arguments. So I'll be happy to bow out of the thread.
Yep, right on schedule. When the same old arguments fail just as badly as they always do it's time to claim some kind of bizarre moral high ground and stop defending them.
But what it really comes down to is a belief that shrimp are tasty but two men having sex is gross, and all the biblical laws are interpreted in so that they follow that standard.
Again, that is lazy. There are several remarks excoriating homosexuality within the NT*. There are no such remarks regarding shellfish, at least that I'm aware of.
generalgrog wrote: Secondly Parents have the right to teach their children the way they believe their children should be brought up.
But this is NOT an absolute right. For example, I don't think there would be any controversy about removing kids from parents that were members of the KKK and imposing white supremacist beliefs.
Has that happened before? I mean... would you be okay with pulling the young kids in the Westboro Church like that?
Even though they're donkey-caves in the highest order, I wouldn't advocate that...
But let's give you a slightly different situation: I am a devout atheist and think that religion is harmful nonsense. So let's say I have a kid, and despite my best efforts to show them how awesome it is to sleep in on sunday mornings they decide to become a Christian. Would it be ok for me to ban them from attending church or spending time with their religious friends, confiscate their bibles, lecture them on how they're being gullible idiots if they dare to mention their belief in god, and send them to atheism summer camp every year? If not, why is this any different from the parent who does the same kind of things to their gay kid?
Would I think that it's abuse for you to do that... no.
Would I think you're a jackass for doing so... absolutely.
Unless there's physical/severe mental harm... parents have near absolute right to raise their children as they see fit.
whembly wrote: I mean... would you be okay with pulling the young kids in the Westboro Church like that?
Yes. Everyone involved with that organization should have had their kids taken away the moment they started using them in their protests.
Unless there's physical/severe mental harm... parents have near absolute right to raise their children as they see fit.
And the point is that there IS severe mental harm happening. Seriously, it's not exactly difficult to find stories from people who were abused by their parents because they were gay.
That's completely different. The camp in that article is for kids who want to be there, nobody is being sent there against their will to be turned into "girls". That's exactly the opposite of the "treatment" in this case, where people are sent there against their will (whether through open force or just "do this or we disown you" coercion) because their parents want them to change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Again, that is lazy. There are several remarks excoriating homosexuality within the NT*. There are no such remarks regarding shellfish, at least that I'm aware of.
Yes, I'm well aware of the rationalizations people have come up with on this subject. The point is that they are rationalizations. Conservative Christians find a way to explain why the anti-gay statements in the bible are important but other commands aren't. Liberal Christians find a way to explain why the anti-gay statements don't matter and god is really about loving everyone. And in both cases they're very obviously picking and choosing to make the bible align with their existing beliefs.
whembly wrote: I mean... would you be okay with pulling the young kids in the Westboro Church like that?
Yes. Everyone involved with that organization should have had their kids taken away the moment they started using them in their protests.
Careful there... how is that any different than, this kid carrying a sign during a pro-abortion rally? Would you be okay with these kids being taken away?
The point is, parents should be able to raise their kids as they see fit... just like the Westboro folks have a right to protest... just like that pro-abortion supporter bring her kid to the protest. No matter how distasteful those can be to different groups, those parents do have that right.
Unless there's physical/severe mental harm... parents have near absolute right to raise their children as they see fit.
And the point is that there IS severe mental harm happening. Seriously, it's not exactly difficult to find stories from people who were abused by their parents because they were gay.
Erm... do you have some examples pertaining to what happened in NJ?
That's completely different. The camp in that article is for kids who want to be there, nobody is being sent there against their will to be turned into "girls". That's exactly the opposite of the "treatment" in this case, where people are sent there against their will (whether through open force or just "do this or we disown you" coercion) because their parents want them to change.
I actually do agree with you here...
But, there are folks that would consider that camp as abuse.
whembly wrote: Careful there... how is that any different than, this kid carrying a sign during a pro-abortion rally? Would you be okay with these kids being taken away?
The difference is that the pro-abortion rally isn't saying "my imaginary friend is going to torture you for eternity because you're a disgusting abomination". There's a difference between using kids to advocate for a political cause (which is still wrong IMO) and using them to gleefully celebrate the murder of the people their parents hate.
Erm... do you have some examples pertaining to what happened in NJ?
Go do a brief google search. It's not exactly hard to find.
But, there are folks that would consider that camp as abuse.
That's because some people don't understand the difference between "allowing a child to do something that I don't approve of" and "forcing a child to do something against their will". I don't see any reason why we should consider the opinions of people who are that out of touch with reality.
whembly wrote: Careful there... how is that any different than, this kid carrying a sign during a pro-abortion rally? Would you be okay with these kids being taken away?
The difference is that the pro-abortion rally isn't saying "my imaginary friend is going to torture you for eternity because you're a disgusting abomination". There's a difference between using kids to advocate for a political cause (which is still wrong IMO) and using them to gleefully celebrate the murder of the people their parents hate.
Eh... I don't really see that much difference there. I think they're both equally wrong.
Erm... do you have some examples pertaining to what happened in NJ?
Go do a brief google search. It's not exactly hard to find.
I've now got several tabs open, been reading... yeesh. You're right... that gak is downright horrible. I'd go Hulk Smash if my kids had to go through with that.
But, there are folks that would consider that camp as abuse.
That's because some people don't understand the difference between "allowing a child to do something that I don't approve of" and "forcing a child to do something against their will". I don't see any reason why we should consider the opinions of people who are that out of touch with reality.
I agree with you up to a point.
My initial concerns is that we need to be very careful whenever we decide that government intervenes on parental issues... that's all.
whembly wrote: Eh... I don't really see that much difference there. I think they're both equally wrong.
There are two huge differences here.
1) The abortion rally is a "reasonable" issue, while the WBC protests are on the same level as a KKK rally. You might disagree with the pro-abortion group, but you have to concede that their viewpoint within the "normal" ethical range in our society (and I'd say the same thing about a mainstream anti-abortion rally). The WBC, on the other hand, is a hate group that even people on the same general "side" of the issues consider a bunch of extremist lunatics. Unless you're committed to a black and white world it's pretty easy to see a scale of harm being done, with extremist hate groups at the far end of it.
2) The abortion rally is about a mainstream issue and a child who participates in it will probably not have any problems later in life. They may be unhappy with their parents later if they end up on the opposite side of the issue, but that won't prevent them from becoming a functioning member of society. Anyone involved in the WBC (or similar hate groups) is going to have massive problems fitting in anywhere outside of their tiny group. And society has a legitimate interest in making sure that children are raised with the ability to function later in life. Taking them out of that kind of environment would be done for their own good.
My initial concerns is that we need to be very careful whenever we decide that government intervenes on parental issues... that's all.
Yes, we should be careful. But we're talking about issues where we've been careful and the need for intervention is clear.
Gay conversion "therapy" is clearly a scam at best. The evidence here is pretty much indisputable. It doesn't work, and there is an ugly history of parents forcing their children into it and causing tremendous harm. This is in the same category as making it a crime to withhold necessary medical treatment from your child because you believe that prayer alone will cure them. You're allowed to have your beliefs and make decisions for yourself, but if you insist on forcing them on your child society has a right (and an obligation, really) to step in and protect them.
Parents involving their kids in WBC/KKK/etc protests are causing significant harm, both in teaching them an ethical system the vast majority of society considers utterly repulsive and in severely crippling their ability to function in normal society as adults. Individual people may disagree on exactly where to draw the line on what beliefs you can teach your children, but there is near-unanimous agreement that extremist hate groups like these are well over that line.
Parents involving their kids in (mainstream) abortion protests may not be raising them the way you or I would prefer, but they haven't crossed that line to the point that government intervention is justified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: The notion that the New Covenant supersedes the Old extends beyond base politics; as it is a very, very old idea.
But that's just one example. You don't have to look very hard to find anti-gay Christians who conveniently forget about the part where Jesus lectures people on the sin of praying in public and obnoxiously showing off their faith.
"Praying in public" and "showing off your faith" are something Jesus spoke against, but for a very specific reason other than "don't pray in public" and "don't show off your faith in public".
I think the religion aspect has brought this thread pretty off-topic.
Unfortunately religion is strongly linked to homophobia and these attempts to 'cure' people. If you were to look at the parents pushing their children into these centres, you'd find them to be overwhelmingly extremely religious. It's like how opposition at gay pride events nearly always comes from people waving bible passages. Where are the crowds of atheists protesting against homosexuality?
Has anybody defended gay conversion therapy because Jesus told them so in this thread? Other than one poster saying "you can't say anything bad about gays or you will get attacked" there has been a universal support of this measure, even from the religious crowd on Dakka.
What is your point exactly? What people say on Dakka is irrespective to the point made. I doubt many Dakkites protest gay rallies or would actually force their children into gay 'therapy', so I'm not expecting anyone to defend it. But such people do exist, and where they do they are typically expressing extreme religious attitudes. These gay therapy centres are usually funded by various religious groups and people, they are not secular. You can't ignore the basis for these 'services' being made available and funded if you want to address them.
Christians are bad because they support this kind of therapy.
If you want to talk about the evils of religion then so be it, it's just silly to claim that Christians support gay-conversion-therapy in a thread where the news of such therapy being outlawed has been cheered by the same Christians that you claim are in support of it.
Of course we are past due for a "religion is bad" thread on Dakka, where is that Bingo card.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: An example to why I think it's a silly train of thought:
I am pretty anti-right-wing-politics (the US kind). It's no secret here that there isn't any love for them from me. And sure, there are some prominent GOP politicians that support gay-conversion-therapy and anything else anti-gay that they could possibly wrap themselves in.
But I would feel pretty damn silly if I read the posts of some of our known conservatives Dakkanauts, such as whembly and dreadclaw, in this thread who are in support of this law and then post "conservatives all want these kind if therapy to be legal".
Are there some conservatives who suppor this therapy, sure. Are there some Christians, sure.
Is bashing either group for an opinion that is counter to the opinion expressed by the members of these groups in this thread stupid? I think so.
Christians are bad because they support this kind of therapy.
I absolutely didn't say that so try again. I described such people supporting/funding as being extreme religious, in both posts. Could be any clearer? You're not interested in discussing anything, clearly. I don't expect people on Dakka to defend views they don't share, but pretending that religious groups aren't involved in the setting up and funding of these centres is just ridiculous. You can't address something if you're not prepared to discuss why there's a demand for it. TBH you seemed to be twisting my words to take as much offence as possible, I'm not saying anything about 'all Christians' by a long way, I didn't even single out Christians. If you're trying to start a fight I'm not interested.
generalgrog wrote: Secondly Parents have the right to teach their children the way they believe their children should be brought up.
But this is NOT an absolute right. For example, I don't think there would be any controversy about removing kids from parents that were members of the KKK and imposing white supremacist beliefs.
But let's give you a slightly different situation: I am a devout atheist and think that religion is harmful nonsense. So let's say I have a kid, and despite my best efforts to show them how awesome it is to sleep in on sunday mornings they decide to become a Christian. Would it be ok for me to ban them from attending church or spending time with their religious friends, confiscate their bibles, lecture them on how they're being gullible idiots if they dare to mention their belief in god, and send them to atheism summer camp every year? If not, why is this any different from the parent who does the same kind of things to their gay kid?
I would not agree with you, but I realize I do not and should not enter your home and interfere with how you raise your child in this instance. I have a cousin that spent 30 years in social services dealing with child abuse cases and he tells me it can be a fine line between what is abuse and what is strict parenting with the state coming in and ruining lives.
But that's just one example. You don't have to look very hard to find anti-gay Christians who conveniently forget about the part where Jesus lectures people on the sin of praying in public and obnoxiously showing off their faith.
That is true enough, as humans often engage with issues before they understand them.
dogma wrote: That's a lazy argument. Christians are not necessarily bound by the Old Testament.
Then why do they frequently quote laws from the exact same part of the bible as an argument against homosexuality?
Others don't. Entire sects have split over the issue. I know, I am part of one.
At a church town meeting a few years back: "well blah blah Filipino bishop says if the US goes this way the rest of the Anglicans will force them to break away." Frazzled: "feth them. I'm an American and they can suck my Texan balls." Silence spread through the room. True story.
Maybe no one is entering the fray because of the buzz saw/gang up mentality that happens on Dakka to anyone that has an opinion that might remotely believe that homosexuality is not "ok".
GG
Yeah, that was already raised, and I agreed that it is likely true. Then I figured that ultimately don't care whether homophobia is no longer defended because there's no-one to defend it, or because those who still believe it are no longer willing to put their arguments up. Either way it marks a terminal decline for homophobia, and I'm happy with that result.
This is the typical...If you believe a certain way then you are an idiot..internet beat down.
Yeah, the internet isn't a very nice place. That often causes problems.
But when the complaint about internet manners is made by people who want to go tell the world that homophobia is sinful, well then I'm really not very sympathetic at all.
"People were mean to me! All I wanted to do was tell people that I think people who are engaged in private, consensual relationships were sinful abominations, and then people were mean to me!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: The danger is to parents who teach their children that homosexuality is a sin can be branded as "brainwashing" their children & or harming them. And then all you have to do is call in the secular gestapo/cheka and arrest Christian parents for teaching them Christian doctrine. Then we may as well be back to Pol Pot.
You can teach your children that black people are an under-race and everything was better when they were owned by white people and made to work on plantations... and they won't take your kids off of you.
And you can get your kids to hold signs saying 'God Hates Fags' at military funerals... and they won't take your kids off of you.
So any fear that suddenly the government will start taking your kids away because you tell them homosexuality is a sin is just complete and total bs.
This is highly offensive at the bare minimum, and highly dangerous thinking.
People should be ashamed to think this way.
People should be ashamed for inventing false nonsense in order to claim 'oppressed status' and sidestep the basic issue that they're the ones telling other people that how they live their private lives is a sin.
People should be ashamed for inventing false nonsense in order to claim 'oppressed status' and sidestep the basic issue that they're the ones telling other people that how they live their private lives is a sin.
Frazzled wrote: Frazzled: "feth them. I'm an American and they can suck my Texan balls."
I may have to get a tattoo of this.
Be careful, that's outlawed in the Old Testament too.
Hence the frequent picketing of tattoo parlours and so on.
Or something.
It's the poor people who have had their testicles crushed or their penis cut off I feel doubly sorry for. Go through all that and then they should be banned from the Church.
.. to be fair not quite sure hoe they'd police that one without a mahoosive FBI investigation.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: Telling gay kids that they're going to Hell is child abuse. There's no "raise kids the way you want" freedom about it.
Are these your gay kids that you're saying will go to hell, or someone else's gay kids that you're telling will go to hell? one of these is parenting from a bigoted or narrow worldview (not always interconnected those two), the other is just being a dick to someone else's kid.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: Telling gay kids that they're going to Hell is child abuse. There's no "raise kids the way you want" freedom about it.
Are these your gay kids that you're saying will go to hell, or someone else's gay kids that you're telling will go to hell? one of these is parenting from a bigoted or narrow worldview (not always interconnected those two), the other is just being a dick to someone else's kid.
Telling it to your own kids is child abuse. There are good arguments that Hell itself is child abuse. The Jews don't believe in it. The fact that it doesn't come up until Judaism 2.0 (Christianity) is proof that it's just a human invention, assuming that the Jewish god (Yahweh/God/Allah) is real.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: Telling gay kids that they're going to Hell is child abuse. There's no "raise kids the way you want" freedom about it.
Are these your gay kids that you're saying will go to hell, or someone else's gay kids that you're telling will go to hell? one of these is parenting from a bigoted or narrow worldview (not always interconnected those two), the other is just being a dick to someone else's kid.
Telling it to your own kids is child abuse. There are good arguments that Hell itself is child abuse. The Jews don't believe in it. The fact that it doesn't come up until Judaism 2.0 (Christianity) is proof that it's just a human invention, assuming that the Jewish god (Yahweh/God/Allah) is real.
Maybe god realised that Christians are evil and so invented somewhere for them all to go?
While I commend Chris Christie on signing the bill rather than making some arbitrary token gesture to appease the most extreme members of his party, I feel it's important to point out that the bill had a veto-proof majority. His signature was unnecessary. Still, good move regardless.
Maybe no one is entering the fray because of the buzz saw/gang up mentality that happens on Dakka to anyone that has an opinion that might remotely believe that homosexuality is not "ok".
GG
You can think and say plenty of things - I don't like rap and find most of the rap culture to be something I don't like. However, I am not going to cheer for "Rap conversion centres" where people's trousers are held up with a belt and they are played rock music at high volumes to "reeducate" them.
A personal opinion is fine, an attempt to force your views on others is not. Think that homosexuality is bad all you want; discuss your dislike of it with likeminded (or not) people all you want (in the appropriate setting if applicable), but don't start loading homosexuals onto the train to "reeducation camps" and try to claim the moral high ground or indeed the right to do such things.
Holy gak.
I was pretty indifferent to this before, but now that I know New Jersey state law required homosexuals to board trains to reeducation camps, rather than the therapy being voluntary, I'm going to organize a march.
That's insane. I can't believe they got away with that.
Seaward wrote: I was pretty indifferent to this before, but now that I know New Jersey state law required homosexuals to board trains to reeducation camps, rather than the therapy being voluntary, I'm going to organize a march.
That's insane. I can't believe they got away with that.
I don't recall saying that the state is rounding up homosexuals and forcing them to undergo "treatment", but your attempt to appeal to ridicule is mildly entertaining. The reference relates to individuals or groups holding to the viewpoint that homosexuality is something that needs treating forcing people to undergo said "treatment" against their will turning round and saying they have the moral right to enforce their views on others against their will, despite crying foul over every perceived "oppression" of own point of view by anyone else.
SilverMK2 wrote: I don't recall saying that the state is rounding up homosexuals and forcing them to undergo "treatment", but your attempt to appeal to ridicule is mildly entertaining. The reference relates to individuals or groups holding to the viewpoint that homosexuality is something that needs treating forcing people to undergo said "treatment" against their will turning round and saying they have the moral right to enforce their views on others against their will, despite crying foul over every perceived "oppression" of own point of view by anyone else.
Edit: Typos
SilverMK2 wrote: Think that homosexuality is bad all you want; discuss your dislike of it with likeminded (or not) people all you want (in the appropriate setting if applicable), but don't start loading homosexuals onto the train to "reeducation camps" and try to claim the moral high ground or indeed the right to do such things.
Okay, if not the state, then who is starting to load homosexuals onto a train to reeducation camps while claiming the moral high ground?
SilverMK2 wrote: I don't recall saying that the state is rounding up homosexuals and forcing them to undergo "treatment", but your attempt to appeal to ridicule is mildly entertaining. The reference relates to individuals or groups holding to the viewpoint that homosexuality is something that needs treating forcing people to undergo said "treatment" against their will turning round and saying they have the moral right to enforce their views on others against their will, despite crying foul over every perceived "oppression" of own point of view by anyone else.
Edit: Typos
SilverMK2 wrote: Think that homosexuality is bad all you want; discuss your dislike of it with likeminded (or not) people all you want (in the appropriate setting if applicable), but don't start loading homosexuals onto the train to "reeducation camps" and try to claim the moral high ground or indeed the right to do such things.
Okay, if not the state, then who is starting to load homosexuals onto a train to reeducation camps while claiming the moral high ground?
GG has the viewpoints (as far as I am aware) that homosexuality is extremely wrong and people related to those who are homosexual (or indeed any "right thinking" person) should be able to "convert them" to being straight, or at least he gives the impression of suggesting that such behaviour should be "ok". Yet on the other hand he cries foul every time there is even the slightest hint (and sometimes even when there is not) of "christians" being "oppressed" by others. Me saying "loading them onto trains" was a colourful way of saying "forcing them against their will" to have this kind of "treatment".
I am suggesting it is extremely hypocritical for GG to defend the "right" of people to force others to undergo such treatment while wanting special protections for "christians" and/or "christian activities/beliefs".
Peregrine wrote: Parents of gay kids, as the article in the OP makes very clear.
So I take it if it was banned for anyone under the age of 18, everybody'd be happy?
That would solve most of the coercion problem, and all of it if you somehow extended it to people over 18 who are still dependent on their parents and vulnerable to coercion. But it wouldn't do anything to solve the fraud problem, where you have people selling a "service" that doesn't work to people who desperately want to believe it will.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: Telling gay kids that they're going to Hell is child abuse. There's no "raise kids the way you want" freedom about it.
Are these your gay kids that you're saying will go to hell, or someone else's gay kids that you're telling will go to hell? one of these is parenting from a bigoted or narrow worldview (not always interconnected those two), the other is just being a dick to someone else's kid.
Telling it to your own kids is child abuse. There are good arguments that Hell itself is child abuse. The Jews don't believe in it. The fact that it doesn't come up until Judaism 2.0 (Christianity) is proof that it's just a human invention, assuming that the Jewish god (Yahweh/God/Allah) is real.
Who cares if the Jews don't believe it. If we're going by what the Jews believe, hey they own that Old Testament thing...
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: Telling it to your own kids is child abuse. There are good arguments that Hell itself is child abuse. The Jews don't believe in it. The fact that it doesn't come up until Judaism 2.0 (Christianity) is proof that it's just a human invention, assuming that the Jewish god (Yahweh/God/Allah) is real.
How is Hell child abuse? It's an "imaginary" place (so far as we have no proof it exists) that serves as a deterrant for doing bad behavior to people of a specific religion. Telling your child that you should strive to be a good person is not a bad thing whatsoever, and telling your child that if they don't strive to be a good person, then they might get sent to a place where they will be punished is not bad, it's just a little off, but it's not child abuse. The problem is that people think that telling a child they will go to hell because of x, y, or z is stupid because they don't temper it with the fact that in many sects of the Christian religion, God will forgive you for all but a few acts.
Telling a child that they're going to hell because they're gay is stupid, and doing it over a long period of time is neglectful and just shows the stupidity of the parent regardless of religious upbringing.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: Telling it to your own kids is child abuse. There are good arguments that Hell itself is child abuse. The Jews don't believe in it. The fact that it doesn't come up until Judaism 2.0 (Christianity) is proof that it's just a human invention, assuming that the Jewish god (Yahweh/God/Allah) is real.
How is Hell child abuse? It's an "imaginary" place (so far as we have no proof it exists) that serves as a deterrant for doing bad behavior to people of a specific religion.
This is something I always found amusing when Athiests get all offended when you mention hell. I mean.. how can you be offended or threatened by something you don't believe exists.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: Telling it to your own kids is child abuse. There are good arguments that Hell itself is child abuse. The Jews don't believe in it. The fact that it doesn't come up until Judaism 2.0 (Christianity) is proof that it's just a human invention, assuming that the Jewish god (Yahweh/God/Allah) is real.
How is Hell child abuse? It's an "imaginary" place (so far as we have no proof it exists) that serves as a deterrant for doing bad behavior to people of a specific religion.
This is something I always found amusing when Athiests get all offended when you mention hell. I mean.. how can you be offended or threatened by something you don't believe exists.
GG
It's not that they're offended by Hell, it's that they're offended by the concept of Hell. It's the "believe or burn" aspect of it. To them, it's a cheap terror tactic that breeds self-righteousness in those that count themselves among the saved.
Ya gotta understand where the opposition is coming from before you start a debate, groggy my boy. I've been lurking in OT for years and that's exactly what your problem is.
generalgrog wrote: [This is something I always found amusing when Athiests get all offended when you mention hell. I mean.. how can you be offended or threatened by something you don't believe exists.
Because it makes some of the people who do believe in it do incredibly stupid and/or hateful things.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: Telling it to your own kids is child abuse. There are good arguments that Hell itself is child abuse. The Jews don't believe in it. The fact that it doesn't come up until Judaism 2.0 (Christianity) is proof that it's just a human invention, assuming that the Jewish god (Yahweh/God/Allah) is real.
How is Hell child abuse? It's an "imaginary" place (so far as we have no proof it exists) that serves as a deterrant for doing bad behavior to people of a specific religion.
This is something I always found amusing when Athiests get all offended when you mention hell. I mean.. how can you be offended or threatened by something you don't believe exists.
GG
It's not that they're offended by Hell, it's that they're offended by the concept of Hell. It's the "believe or burn" aspect of it. To them, it's a cheap terror tactic that breeds self-righteousness in those that count themselves among the saved.
Ya gotta understand where the opposition is coming from before you start a debate, groggy my boy. I've been lurking in OT for years and that's exactly what your problem is.
~Tim?
So? em and the horse they rode in on. Its not their problem.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: Telling it to your own kids is child abuse. There are good arguments that Hell itself is child abuse. The Jews don't believe in it. The fact that it doesn't come up until Judaism 2.0 (Christianity) is proof that it's just a human invention, assuming that the Jewish god (Yahweh/God/Allah) is real.
How is Hell child abuse? It's an "imaginary" place (so far as we have no proof it exists) that serves as a deterrant for doing bad behavior to people of a specific religion.
This is something I always found amusing when Athiests get all offended when you mention hell. I mean.. how can you be offended or threatened by something you don't believe exists.
GG
A) You can still be scared by something that isn't real. The bogeyman isn't real, but kids are still scared of him. Similarly Hell isn't real, but the concept of "a place you're sent to be punished if you're naughty" will still scare a young kid, and using the concept of hell to scare gay kids about how sinful they are is, to me, equivalent to going up to them and saying "you're going to be beaten up and tortured forever for what you are, you monster"
B) I'm an atheist, and I get offend when people (especially Christians) talk about hell, because they invariably refer to it in the "fire and brimstone" sense, whereas in the Bible it's only referred to as torment, which Is the torment of knowing you're not in heaven. The fire and brimstone version was a much later addition.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: Telling it to your own kids is child abuse. There are good arguments that Hell itself is child abuse. The Jews don't believe in it. The fact that it doesn't come up until Judaism 2.0 (Christianity) is proof that it's just a human invention, assuming that the Jewish god (Yahweh/God/Allah) is real.
How is Hell child abuse? It's an "imaginary" place (so far as we have no proof it exists) that serves as a deterrant for doing bad behavior to people of a specific religion.
This is something I always found amusing when Athiests get all offended when you mention hell. I mean.. how can you be offended or threatened by something you don't believe exists.
GG
A) You can still be scared by something that isn't real. The bogeyman isn't real, but kids are still scared of him. Similarly Hell isn't real, but the concept of "a place you're sent to be punished if you're naughty" will still scare a young kid, and using the concept of hell to scare gay kids about how sinful they are is, to me, equivalent to going up to them and saying "you're going to be beaten up and tortured forever for what you are, you monster"
B) I'm an atheist, and I get offend when people (especially Christians) talk about hell, because they invariably refer to it in the "fire and brimstone" sense, whereas in the Bible it's only referred to as torment, which Is the torment of knowing you're not in heaven. The fire and brimstone version was a much later addition.
I so don't care if you're offended. Thats not even a logical argument. I'm not offended if you say "You're going straight to nothingness!!!" I just think you're an idiot, or a politician, but I repeat myself.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: Telling it to your own kids is child abuse. There are good arguments that Hell itself is child abuse. The Jews don't believe in it. The fact that it doesn't come up until Judaism 2.0 (Christianity) is proof that it's just a human invention, assuming that the Jewish god (Yahweh/God/Allah) is real.
How is Hell child abuse? It's an "imaginary" place (so far as we have no proof it exists) that serves as a deterrant for doing bad behavior to people of a specific religion.
This is something I always found amusing when Athiests get all offended when you mention hell. I mean.. how can you be offended or threatened by something you don't believe exists.
GG
A) You can still be scared by something that isn't real. The bogeyman isn't real, but kids are still scared of him. Similarly Hell isn't real, but the concept of "a place you're sent to be punished if you're naughty" will still scare a young kid, and using the concept of hell to scare gay kids about how sinful they are is, to me, equivalent to going up to them and saying "you're going to be beaten up and tortured forever for what you are, you monster"
B) I'm an atheist, and I get offend when people (especially Christians) talk about hell, because they invariably refer to it in the "fire and brimstone" sense, whereas in the Bible it's only referred to as torment, which Is the torment of knowing you're not in heaven. The fire and brimstone version was a much later addition.
I so don't care if you're offended. Thats not even a logical argument. I'm not offended if you say "You're going straight to nothingness!!!" I just think you're an idiot, or a politician, but I repeat myself.
Are you referring to the first part of my post or the second part?
For the first part, just because that wouldn't affect you doesn't mean it won't affect a young child, or someone who's already struggling (maybe due to being called an abomination constantly). It's a form of blackmail aimed at forcing vulnerable people to mess themselves up even further by suppressing who they are, and I find it reprehensible.
For the second part, I used "offended" when "annoyed" would have been better, but I get annoyed by any cases of extreme stupidity, and people insisting that atheists are going to hell, when biblically Hell is living for eternity knowing that you're not in the presence of god, is really frisking stupid. It's like insisting that a vegetarian will be punished for being vegetarian by never being allowed to eat meat again; it's not a punishment, it's an empty threat made self-righteously by people not realising what a stupid comment they just made.
Especially if they use passages from the bible to "prove their point" about why the other person(s) is going to hell.
Feth left handed roundabouts... Had to drive through several in Nassau. Do you know how frustrating it is driving in a car designed for America (driver's seat on the left), and driving in a direction opposite to what you know?! I'm surprised we lived through that adventure.
Noob. Check out the roundabout at the start of London Road in Benfleet on the A13 and A130. 5 mini roundabouts on one large roundabout - having driven round it I think it would be more confusing than the above. I would post a screenshot but I am at work and can't access hosting sites.
I heard a study here in the states that roundabouts are safer than stoplight intersections...
It's actually pretty safe and AFAIK works well.
I would agree. It is just a little confusing if you have never seen one before. In fact they can be easier to navigate than some of the more... interesting intersection layouts I have seen. There is a roundabout in Oxford which I swear has no signposts on it and all the lanes are mis-labeled. It has at least one "through lane" (ie a lane which goes through the middle of the roundabout) and is just a horrific mess
Edit:
Looks nice and simple but it is a three lane roundabout, with each road coming onto it having between 2-4 lanes at the point they join the roundabout.
Roundabouts (although we call them rotaries) are pretty common in the Northeast US. They can work well, if the traffic's not too heavy and the designers don't get over-elaborate. That "magic roundabout" looks challenging.
generalgrog wrote: This is something I always found amusing when Athiests get all offended when you mention hell. I mean.. how can you be offended or threatened by something you don't believe exists.
Consider an atheist talking of an afterlife, which is a black nothingness with absolutely no God at all. It's just an empty place for bored spirits to wander, in which the ghosts of atheists spend all the time pointing out the complete lack of God and mocking the faithful, while the faithful spend their time sitting around thinking about how they were completely and utterly wrong about that whole God thing.
That atheist would, of course, be a self-congratulating little dill weed, and what's more he'd be talking about a place that makes no fething given the basic concepts of atheism.
Well, simply, that's the same problem many atheists have with the Christian notion of hell. It's a basically dishonest way of wishing harm on others, while being completely dishonest about the fact that you're wishing harm on others. "Oh, we're really good people and are actually trying to save you from this horrible fate that we made up and that we decided you're going to'.
And then on top of that there's the big problem of hell having next to no presence in the bible. For a religion based around the bible, making hell such a key part of how the faith is taught makes no sense.
But isn't "hell" simply "not Heaven (or Paradise if you will)"?
I always thought that modern take on "The Hell" was derived from Dante's Inferno...
It goes back farther than that, but it's definitly vaguely sketched out at best in the bible. There is a reference to weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, but that could be poetic license.
Catholic dogma no longer consideres hell to be a place, but rather a state of being. The idea is that it is simpy total and complete disconnect from God.
In the Gospel's, Christ talks about salvation from death, not from hell. Hell is mostly a construct based on the idea that many people do not have the moral complexity for anything other than a fear of punishment.
Polonius wrote: Hell is mostly a construct based on the idea that many people do not have the moral complexity for anything other than a fear of punishment.
Polonius wrote: Hell is mostly a construct based on the idea that many people do not have the moral complexity for anything other than a fear of punishment.
So hell does exist, but only for CEOs?
And the roughly 1 in 200 people who are sociopaths. There's probably some overlap there, though.
Amazing, how the mention of hell makes the athiests start wringing their hands!! (Just kidding guys)
All I'm saying is this, and frazzled kind of beat me to the punch here. I personally think it's a strategic overreaction,almost rhetorical if you will. Its totally illogical to be offended by something that you don't believe exists. An example I can think of would be if a radical Islamist were to say something like "The wrath of Mohamed will rain down upon you" or something or some such. As a Christian, it wouldn't offend me at all, because I don't believe mohamed has any power.
or if someone were to say the bogeyman is going to get you..it has no effect on me, because the bogey man is a mythological construct.
However athiests get all up in arms and start wetting their pants(again guys I'm joking around here) when hell is mentioned. My point is that, I think it's all theatrics on their part to try to put the Christian off guard.
Now as far as the poster that took what I said, and built this straw man argument around threatening little gay kids about hell. Is an example of the hysterical reaction I have seen when ever hell is mentioned. I for one wouldn't "threaten" any children with hell, at least not in the sense of threatening.
Teaching doctrines to children, even if they may be a bit scary to them, is not the same thing as threatening them. but to be honest I don't think I would even broach the subject unless I thought the child/teenager could handle the discussion.
The problem is so many people think that all Christian parents are like the mother from Carrie.
xole wrote: It wouldn't bother you that someone was wishing harm upon you? Hoping something bad happened?
Would you be equally unoffended if I were to say I hope you get hit by a bus?
If you told me you wished I was sent to the land of makebelieve and eaten by faeries I wouldn't be bothered at all. If you don't believe in it then its utterly irrelevant. If some ancient Greek appeared and warned I would go to Hades if I didn't change my ways I wouldn't even break my stride.
I don't know if I'm offended by people that think I'm going to hell, but I know I'm not exactly going to take moral advice from people that seem excited about the suffering of others.
I do know that the judgment of the soul is an issue reserved for the divine, and while we can make some educated guesses, the nature of Christian salvation (not to mention the other covenents) makes handicapping anybody's odds of heaven/Hell litlte more than a crapshoot.
Polonius wrote: I don't know if I'm offended by people that think I'm going to hell, but I know I'm not exactly going to take moral advice from people that seem excited about the suffering of others.
I do know that the judgment of the soul is an issue reserved for the divine, and while we can make some educated guesses, the nature of Christian salvation (not to mention the other covenents) makes handicapping anybody's odds of heaven/Hell litlte more than a crapshoot.
Now Now Polonius... Dont start posting stuff I totally agree with. If you keep it up there may be some sort of nuclear interspacial reaction.
generalgrog wrote: Amazing, how the mention of hell makes the athiests start wringing their hands!! (Just kidding guys)
All I'm saying is this, and frazzled kind of beat me to the punch here. I personally think it's a strategic overreaction,almost rhetorical if you will. Its totally illogical to be offended by something that you don't believe exists. An example I can think of would be if a radical Islamist were to say something like "The wrath of Mohamed will rain down upon you" or something or some such. As a Christian, it wouldn't offend me at all, because I don't believe mohamed has any power.
or if someone were to say the bogeyman is going to get you..it has no effect on me, because the bogey man is a mythological construct.
However athiests get all up in arms and start wetting their pants(again guys I'm joking around here) when hell is mentioned. My point is that, I think it's all theatrics on their part to try to put the Christian off guard.
Now as far as the poster that took what I said, and built this straw man argument around threatening little gay kids about hell. Is an example of the hysterical reaction I have seen when ever hell is mentioned. I for one wouldn't "threaten" any children with hell, at least not in the sense of threatening.
Teaching doctrines to children, even if they may be a bit scary to them, is not the same thing as threatening them. but to be honest I don't think I would even broach the subject unless I thought the child/teenager could handle the discussion.
The problem is so many people think that all Christian parents are like the mother from Carrie.
GG
It's not the words themselves that are offensive, but the sentiments behind them.
Frazzled wrote: And? I see offensive things all the time. meh.
Yeah! Have you seen KFC's menu recently? Everything on it is offensive
I would suggest you avoid ever saying another unkind word about mashed potatos and gravy.
Sorry, I forgot they still serve their potatoes and gravy 'naked' and without chicken, cheese, and corn.
That dish has been forever ruined for me by my university, once a month we'd have 'North of Kentucky Bowls' and after I got sick of them, I'd start quoting Patton Oswalt's bit to my friends about the "sadness pile in a failure bowl" while they ate it.
Frazzled wrote: And? I see offensive things all the time. meh.
Yeah! Have you seen KFC's menu recently? Everything on it is offensive
I would suggest you avoid ever saying another unkind word about mashed potatos and gravy.
I have to aghree with Polonius on that one. I'll bite your ankles er unleash the wiener dogs yea thats it-if further disparage of that greatness is implied. Their corn used to be really good too.
Their corn used to be good, just like their chicken used to be awesome, biscuits are always good, as long as they're not hard tack. I feel like I'm waiting around for terrible heart burn, artery clogging, and digestive issues. If I wanted that I'd go get Taco Bell, at least they're quick
xole wrote: It wouldn't bother you that someone was wishing harm upon you? Hoping something bad happened?
Would you be equally unoffended if I were to say I hope you get hit by a bus?
If you told me you wished I was sent to the land of makebelieve and eaten by faeries I wouldn't be bothered at all. If you don't believe in it then its utterly irrelevant. If some ancient Greek appeared and warned I would go to Hades if I didn't change my ways I wouldn't even break my stride.
It's not me that's bothered by the notion of hell. It's then notion of parents telling their children that a place of eternal unending suffering exists and they can go there for... no fething reason really.
But isn't "hell" simply "not Heaven (or Paradise if you will)"?
I always thought that modern take on "The Hell" was derived from Dante's Inferno...
The issue is that isn't accepted by all Christians. Many, particularly those who insist they follow literal reading of the bible, can get quite outraged at the suggestion that there is no hell.
Alfndrate wrote: Their corn used to be good, just like their chicken used to be awesome, biscuits are always good, as long as they're not hard tack. I feel like I'm waiting around for terrible heart burn, artery clogging, and digestive issues. If I wanted that I'd go get Taco Bell, at least they're quick
OK so I'm not the only one who would get heartburn strong enough to kill a billygoat. Good to know.
generalgrog wrote: All I'm saying is this, and frazzled kind of beat me to the punch here. I personally think it's a strategic overreaction,almost rhetorical if you will. Its totally illogical to be offended by something that you don't believe exists. An example I can think of would be if a radical Islamist were to say something like "The wrath of Mohamed will rain down upon you" or something or some such. As a Christian, it wouldn't offend me at all, because I don't believe mohamed has any power.
What you're failing to understand is that one can be offended, even if one isn't threatened.
You give the example of the bogeyman - consider someone on this forum, in absolute seriousness, believed in the bogeyman and believed he could someone it to do his bidding... and that he told you he was going to summon the bogeyman to punish you because it an appalling act of vanity to sign your post.
You wouldn't feel any threat, because you don't believe in the bogeyman, but you might, in fact you should, feel some offence that someone else has deemed that you will be punished for sins he's made up in his head.
Well, that's how lots of people think about Christians when they go on about how the rest of us are going to hell.
My point is that, I think it's all theatrics on their part to try to put the Christian off guard.
You're wrong. I mean, it may be in some circumstances, but most people don't act that cynically.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: And? I see offensive things all the time. meh.
The question was 'why do people get offended?', not 'should I care that they get offended?'
You are free to care or not care about offending someone else as much or as little as you want. In turn, I personally don't give a gak whether or not you care about someone else's offence.
But you should at least spend the time to learn why someone else might get offended.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: OK so I'm not the only one who would get heartburn strong enough to kill a billygoat. Good to know.
We have KFC over here, and they're basically the only place you can get southern fried chicken. All my life I thought southern fried chicken was pretty crappy, just seasoned lump of greasy chicken.
Then when I was in the US I had southern fried chicken in a restaurant. And I learned that southern fried chicken is completely awesome, and it's just that KFC is really sucky.
The commonwealth just leans blue now in Presidential races.
em and the horse they rode in on. Its not their problem.
