Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

 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.

I like the twisted viewpoint that considers abuse and hate to be "help".

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

But let's give you a slightly different situation: I am a devout atheist and think that religion is harmful nonsense.

"And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you"


*Not enough for it to be a significant issue, in my opinion; but then I'm an atheist.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Here's a better example... what's your take on this?
A Boys' Camp to Redefine Gender

So, back on topic, does anyone have the specific treatments that were done in NJ that prompted the state to ban the process?

 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.

Here's a better example... what's your take on this?
A Boys' Camp to Redefine Gender

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

Here's a better example... what's your take on this?
A Boys' Camp to Redefine Gender

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes, I'm well aware of the rationalizations people have come up with on this subject. The point is that they are rationalizations.

The notion that the New Covenant supersedes the Old extends beyond base politics; as it is a very, very old idea.

 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.

The topic of the thread:

Gay therapy centers outlawed.

Everybody in this thread (including Christians):

Great news.

You:

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.

 d-usa wrote:

You:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

I personally detest them- but from my ideological standpoint its fine.

Can we not intentionally troll this thread dears.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 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.

 generalgrog wrote:
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

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. Polonius.

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

I'm not even Texan and I want a tattoo of this!

 sebster wrote:

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.

Stop saying so many sig-worthy things.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

Telling gay kids that they're going to Hell is child abuse. There's no "raise kids the way you want" freedom about it.