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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not exactly sure how Romeny messed up that bad...

He was running against Obama. Trump was running against a blonde white lady, accused of corruption. Even if you substituted both Trump and Romeny for identical republican strawmen, it's obvious that the strawman running against Obama would receive fewer minority votes.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
...

What are your views on blue eye or blonde hair conversin therapy techniques? Mengele would really like to know. He had a few ideas of his own. Merely as an aside, of course. Ahem. Since you were interested.

I absolutely support a person's right to do with their body as they wish, without interference from the state (I will make some allowances for a state mediated mechanism for determining efficacy). Do you think otherwise? If so, I can only point out the idea that the state may exercise such control over another person's body bears a great deal more similarity to Mengele's ideals then my own. That said, the truth is the truth, no matter the source.

Also... you do know these things actually exist, right? Do you believe that the FDA should refuse to approve an efficatious treatment that would turn brown eyes blue?

If so, on what basis? If not.. well, then what's the argument against a similar treatment, but one directed at changing inborn elements of sexuality?

No offense, but you seem to have a strong opinion, but rather then express it, you make a rather ham handed comment that... well, doesn't add much, if I may say.

I pose that it is up to the individual in question without any coercion or ramifications. I pose that no stigma should be placed upon any any individual based on that decision or non decision (obviously, since we are discussing this on a politics thread, that implies governmental coercion, societal coercion is a whole different ball of beans). I do not think I am being either ham handed or obtuse. I would think that a well educated individual like yourself would understand the Mengele reference and all the inferences it implies, so I thought no extra comment was needed. No offense, but your entire answer was merely a series of rhetorical questions, that doesn't seem to add much. Touché? If I may say? Also, when you make a comment seemingly denouncing someone like Mengele, you should probably not follow it up with a qualifier like "that said...".

Slightly off topic, but out of curiosity, how do you all think that Trump will get along with Canada, or that his policies will affect Canada? I write this as a concerned observer from the frigid north. I know that Trudeau pledged a while back to work with whoever won, but given Trump's boasts of how he was going to shred NAFTA, I think it's a given that there's going to be plenty of friction in that relationship.

Lord of Nonsensical Crap wrote:
Slightly off topic, but out of curiosity, how do you all think that Trump will get along with Canada, or that his policies will affect Canada? I write this as a concerned observer from the frigid north. I know that Trudeau pledged a while back to work with whoever won, but given Trump's boasts of how he was going to shred NAFTA, I think it's a given that there's going to be plenty of friction in that relationship.

I am not overly optimistic about how our relationship is going to be. There is a lot of bad blood and animosity here. Hopefully we can maintain our mutual self interest and not let our huge differences get in the way.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
...
I pose that it is up to the individual in question without any coercion or ramifications. I pose that no stigma should be placed upon any any individual based on that decision or non decision (obviously, since we are discussing this on a politics thread, that implies governmental coercion, societal coercion is a whole different ball of beans).

This is a very interesting answer. The logical follow-up would seem: if a condition has no moral character, and said condition can be effectively remedied medically, is it morally wrong for there to be coercion?

Obviously a functional Gay Conversion therapy is science fiction at this point. But if it were not, would it be improper for there to be pressure for parents to treat children for this? For adults?

The comparison might be made to vaccines, or certain levels of nutrition. We accept that schools may exclude students who are not vaccinated, and failure to properly feed children may prompt state intervention, possibly removal of said children.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I do not think I am being either ham handed or obtuse. I would think that a well educated individual like yourself would understand the Megele reference and all the inferences it implies, so I thought no extra comment was needed.

Then allow me to put it bluntly: I have no idea how Mengele is relevant to either the post you responded to or even how it illuminated anything in your own post. I really mean that, I would like you to explain what point you are trying to make by mentioning Mengele.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
No offense, but your entire answer was merely a series of rhetorical questions, that doesn't seem to add much. Touché? If I may say?

The problem is my questions were not rhetorical, but Socratic (although I did make a clear statement of principle at the start, so perhaps not Touché?): I really mean it when I say that you seem to have strong opinions, but many of them seem to be built on very questionable foundations. As I pointed out earlier, I think that it is demonstrably true that your understanding of rights (especially the Freedom of Association) is far from accurate.

So these questions are not simple sarcasm or put downs: I want to know the answers because I think that examining why you have come to these conclusions will illuminate why we are coming to different conclusions. It is for this reason I have so bluntly mentioned which principles I have advocated are derived from Jewish law.

I believe that far too often (in the West, at least) we fall into the trap of imagining a shared moral framework. By noting the underpinnings of my own moral stance, I am attempting to challenge that notion and, in turn, explore where moral underpinnings of others. A good example;

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Also, when you make a comment seemingly denouncing someone like Mengele, you should probably not follow it up with a qualifier like "that said...".

When I added "That said, the truth is the truth, no matter the source" this was no mere bon mot, but a statement of Jewish principle formulated by our great sage Maimonidies. Judaism is fundamentally hostile to the notion that the Truth of a statement is contingent on the morality of the speaker.

But there is (or was) a tradition that claimed that moral virtue dictated truth: it's the underpinning of Medieval Christianity's use of Dei judicium (Trial by Combat/Ordeal).

A rather dark example of this was the practice of the Church holding "Disputations". These were ostensibly debates, held between leaders of the Church and the local Jewish community, often focusing on the divinity of Jesus. The similarity between these and trials by ordeal is that, in such trials, it was presumed that no one that is in error could possibly be correct... so mostly the Church simply didn't let the Jews talk. Alternatively, they were permitted to talk... but forbidden from 'blasphemies'. Which, given that denying the divinity of Jesus is a blasphemy, meant the Jews could talk, they just couldn't say anything to support their position... because, after all, the Church knew they were not only wrong, but evil. So why should good Christians listen to them?

To be fair, the one notable time the Jews actually got to argue back it was with Nachmanidies, and it's generally accepted that he 'won' the debate. In that he was awarded a prize (300 gold sólidos) by the King of Aragorn (never before had he heard "an unjust cause so nobly defended)... before he had to flee the wrath of the Church, going from Spain to settle in Jerusalem. Note that the Church sources record it differently, though they do record Nachmanidies being charged with blasphemy by the inquisition, and the orders to burn all copies of the Talmud that were found to offend Christian sensibilities.

Very big on book burning, those Churchmen that were convinced they were in the right.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
The comparison might be made to vaccines, or certain levels of nutrition. We accept that schools may exclude students who are not vaccinated, and failure to properly feed children may prompt state intervention, possibly removal of said children.

No, that's not at all a good comparison. Having immunity to serious diseases or adequate nutrition are things where clear harm is done (or potentially can be done) if you don't have them. So it is legitimate to use coercion for the best interests of the child if the parents refuse to take proper care of them. Being gay, on the other hand, is not a harmful thing. The only result of allowing a child to be gay is that the parents won't be happy about their child not following the parent's beliefs. So a better comparison would be getting a tattoo of the parent's favorite sports team. A consenting adult clearly has the right to get that tattoo, but it is in no way acceptable for a parent to force their child to get one.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act Allows Americans to deduct childcare and eldercare from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-site childcare services and creates tax-free dependent care savings accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.

Another random good idea. This seems like something you'd see out of the D's, not the R's.

We basically already have at least half of that... Unfortunately, it was written by Republicans (most likely, since it was Bush who signed it), and it is largely useless to a family that actually works full time, like mine. Seriously, they allow me to deduct maybe a month or two's worth of childcare payments, it amounts to damn near nothing.

In some ways, I sort of disagree with the elder part: that's what being an adult is partially about... you gotta do what you gotta do to set yourself up for retirement. That said... I can foresee something like this coming to pass in such an extreme, or limited way... In an ideal setting, this limited way would be to cover those low-income people, or people who find themselves in financial difficulties over old-age (sickness, gakky corporations bankrupting your retirement... ya know, capitalism)... But I know that in reality, if they did try to do this, it would be limited in a way that only millionaires would know how to gain access to it, or it would be criminally gakky care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Lord of Nonsensical Crap wrote:
Slightly off topic, but out of curiosity, how do you all think that Trump will get along with Canada, or that his policies will affect Canada? I write this as a concerned observer from the frigid north. I know that Trudeau pledged a while back to work with whoever won, but given Trump's boasts of how he was going to shred NAFTA, I think it's a given that there's going to be plenty of friction in that relationship.

I am not overly optimistic about how our relationship is going to be. There is a lot of bad blood and animosity here. Hopefully we can maintain our mutual self interest and not let our huge differences get in the way.

As mentioned before... It seems doubtful that Trump would have the executive power/authority to actually rip up the treaty (or, ya know... leave). But I agree that there could either be some publicly sour relations, or they'll have some secret closed door meetings and everything will be swell. Feth knows that Trump would never apologize in public for something this stupid, so... hence why things would be done in the backroom

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
...
I pose that it is up to the individual in question without any coercion or ramifications. I pose that no stigma should be placed upon any any individual based on that decision or non decision (obviously, since we are discussing this on a politics thread, that implies governmental coercion, societal coercion is a whole different ball of beans).

This is a very interesting answer. The logical follow-up would seem: if a condition has no moral character, and said condition can be effectively remedied medically, is it morally wrong for there to be coercion?

Obviously a functional Gay Conversion therapy is science fiction at this point. But if it were not, would it be improper for there to be pressure for parents to treat children for this? For adults?

The comparison might be made to vaccines, or certain levels of nutrition. We accept that schools may exclude students who are not vaccinated, and failure to properly feed children may prompt state intervention, possibly removal of said children.

Well one key difference between vaccines, nutrition, and being gay is that one results in dead people and outbursts of easily preventable disease, one can result in developmental problems, while the other results in having intercourse with another person. Failure to properly vaccinate means that not only are you susceptible to the disease, but means that you can now pass the disease on to other people that for one reason or another have not yet been vaccinated (babies) or cannot be vaccinated (immunocompromised people). This leads to outbreaks of disease which kill some of the most vulnerable people by diseases which should have been effectively eradicated by now. Failing to achieve certain levels of nutrition leads to starvation and growth problems, there is not much to elaborate on here. Being gay leads to occasionally having fun with some one of the same genitalia with all the risks that regular intercourse does, minus the risk of pregnancy.

If one were to remove all social factors of social, family, religious, and legal pressures against being homosexual and assume that gay conversion therapy was not some quack idea and could actually work: you would be living in some bizarre fantasy almost completely devoid of reality and, yes, gay conversion therapy would not be morally wrong. The problem with this insane thought experiment is that these social factors are very real things with which people have to deal in their day to day lives. Being homosexual can lead to stigmatisation from many groups and homosexual teens show a depressingly high risk of suicide for being what they are. Many people hide what they are knowing that if they made their orientation public, they would face the same discrimination and rejection that they see directed at other people.

If there were an effective gay conversion therapy that could magically make you not you, there would be a large pressure on people that did not want to use it to go through with it. With minors, the situation is most troubling because they cannot make these decisions for themselves and it is often parents that push children into what they believe are the proper paths of society, but it is also troubling with adults who feel pressured to fit in with the rest of society.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Also... you do know these things actually exist, right? Do you believe that the FDA should refuse to approve an efficatious treatment that would turn brown eyes blue?

If so, on what basis? If not.. well, then what's the argument against a similar treatment, but one directed at changing inborn elements of sexuality?

Here we run into the problem with analogies again. Analogies are useful for learning and explaining things, because they often represent a simplified overview, or generalisation, which makes the concepts easy to grasp. For the very same reason, analogies are often terrible when it comes to matters of ethics and legislation, because they take a complex issue, and strip it down to something that is oversimplified, and often obfuscates the context.

The argument against sexual realignment therapy is that people are frequently subjected to it against their will (or otherwise coerced), which makes it a cruel and traumatic form of abuse for the recipients. So far as I'm aware, claims of abuse are rarely made by the recipients of laser eye surgery. Perhaps I'm mistaken, and laser eye surgery is a much bigger problem than I have been lead to believe, or perhaps it will become a problem in the future? If that were the case, then I would agree that it should be cause for concern, but otherwise it's probably not very "similar" at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
The comparison might be made to vaccines, or certain levels of nutrition. We accept that schools may exclude students who are not vaccinated, and failure to properly feed children may prompt state intervention, possibly removal of said children.

No, that's not at all a good comparison. Having immunity to serious diseases or adequate nutrition are things where clear harm is done (or potentially can be done) if you don't have them. So it is legitimate to use coercion for the best interests of the child if the parents refuse to take proper care of them. Being gay, on the other hand, is not a harmful thing. The only result of allowing a child to be gay is that the parents won't be happy about their child not following the parent's beliefs. So a better comparison would be getting a tattoo of the parent's favorite sports team. A consenting adult clearly has the right to get that tattoo, but it is in no way acceptable for a parent to force their child to get one.

That's a fine distinction, and exactly what I was looking for: you distinguish the conditions by inherent negative nature. But is this really objectively true?

"Being gay, on the other hand, is not a harmful thing. The only result of allowing a child to be gay is that the parents won't be happy about their child not following the parent's beliefs"

This requires a definition of "harmful" and "only result" that excludes a number of things that objectively correlate with homosexuality. A very obvious one is that if your child is exclusively homosexual, the likelihood of parents seeing grandchildren is... well, let's just say dramatically decreased. Is it really obvious that a lack of lineal descendants is something that can be so easily dismissed?

Would it be appropriate to analogize the situation to a parent choosing to sterilize their child? That would fit the analogy above: in both cases the only real, quantifiable matter is a lack of offspring. Certainly there are many people that consider overpopulation a pressing concern. Would it be tolerable to allow parents that suffered from such a fear have their child sterilized?

Morally, I would argue against such a course of action: Jewish law places a specific burden on males to procreate, and there is a general prohibition against castration (including domestic animals, interestingly). As you observe, there are decisions that may be made only by the individual being affected.

This, however, brings up a tangential but important codicil: many (if not all) of the puberty blockers and other hormonal treatments that accompany transgender transition have profound effects on reproductive health. If we judge that parents are not morally capable of making such decisions with reference to sterilization or gay conversion, does this not implicate against the morality of parents treating children in any fashion that would have such long term side effects?

Of course, time is often of the essence: certainly for M2F trans, the earlier they begin transition the more satisfactory their results are likely to be. Waiting until the child has reached the age of majority risks missing a therapeutically significant window of treatment. But that in turn would seem to mitigate against any prohibition of conversion therapies in children.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Also... you do know these things actually exist, right? Do you believe that the FDA should refuse to approve an efficatious treatment that would turn brown eyes blue?

If so, on what basis? If not.. well, then what's the argument against a similar treatment, but one directed at changing inborn elements of sexuality?

Here we run into the problem with analogies again. Analogies are useful for learning and explaining things, because they often represent a simplified overview, or generalisation, which makes the concepts easy to grasp. For the very same reason, analogies are often terrible when it comes to matters of ethics and legislation, because they take a complex issue, and strip it down to something that is oversimplified, and often obfuscates the context.

The argument against sexual realignment therapy is that people are frequently subjected to it against their will (or otherwise coerced), which makes it a cruel and traumatic form of abuse for the recipients. So far as I'm aware, claims of abuse are rarely made by the recipients of laser eye surgery. Perhaps I'm mistaken, and laser eye surgery is a much bigger problem than I have been lead to believe, or perhaps it will become a problem in the future? If that were the case, then I would agree that it should be cause for concern, but otherwise it's probably not very "similar" at all.

The problem with such a dismissal is that one may logically both accept that our current technology is inadequate to the task (and thus an exercise in fraud/abuse) without it being logically clear that our technology will always be inadequate to the task.

As an aside I'll defend analogies as a valuable tool for moral examination: the problem is that you're changing the terms of the analogy. Remember, inherent in the question here is that the treatment is effective. What right parents have to subject their children to quack medicine is a separate discussion.

A further averral to your point: "people are frequently subjected to it against their will (or otherwise coerced), which makes it a cruel and traumatic form of abuse for the recipients". Parents very often must subject children to painful and traumatic medical procedures. That they are painful and traumatic does not mean they are de facto immoral.

 the Signless wrote:


If one were to remove all social factors of social, family, religious, and legal pressures against being homosexual and assume that gay conversion therapy was not some quack idea and could actually work: you would be living in some bizarre fantasy almost completely devoid of reality and, yes, gay conversion therapy would not be morally wrong. The problem with this insane thought experiment is that these social factors are very real things with which people have to deal in their day to day lives. Being homosexual can lead to stigmatisation from many groups and homosexual teens show a depressingly high risk of suicide for being what they are. Many people hide what they are knowing that if they made their orientation public, they would face the same discrimination and rejection that they see directed at other people.

If there were an effective gay conversion therapy that could magically make you not you, there would be a large pressure on people that did not want to use it to go through with it. With minors, the situation is most troubling because they cannot make these decisions for themselves and it is often parents that push children into what they believe are the proper paths of society, but it is also troubling with adults who feel pressured to fit in with the rest of society.

Just read an article on Slate (so... pinch of salt if ya want) where the author did link to evidence showing that rural teens are twice as likely as urban teens to commit suicide.... Now, I wonder how many of those suicides are because of the situation you describe, given that we know that the rural parts are generally more conservative, more religious, and more anti-homosexual policy than more urbanized places.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Parents very often must subject children to painful and traumatic medical procedures. That they are painful and traumatic does not mean they are de facto immoral.

I think the critical difference is how the child looks back on the experience as an adult, and if they agree it was "for their health" or if they feel it was just abusive.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
This requires a definition of "harmful" and "only result" that excludes a number of things that objectively correlate with homosexuality. A very obvious one is that if your child is exclusively homosexual, the likelihood of parents seeing grandchildren is... well, let's just say dramatically decreased. Is it really obvious that a lack of lineal descendants is something that can be so easily dismissed?

So what? Parents don't have a right to have grandchildren, nor do children have any obligation to produce them. You don't get to force changes on people so that you can be happier with what they do.

Would it be appropriate to analogize the situation to a parent choosing to sterilize their child? That would fit the analogy above: in both cases the only real, quantifiable matter is a lack of offspring. Certainly there are many people that consider overpopulation a pressing concern. Would it be tolerable to allow parents that suffered from such a fear have their child sterilized?

No, of course coerced sterilization isn't acceptable. That isn't an action taken on behalf of the child to prevent a clear harm to the child, it's an action taken to make the parents happy.

This, however, brings up a tangential but important codicil: many (if not all) of the puberty blockers and other hormonal treatments that accompany transgender transition have profound effects on reproductive health. If we judge that parents are not morally capable of making such decisions with reference to sterilization or gay conversion, does this not implicate against the morality of parents treating children in any fashion that would have such long term side effects?

This is not correct. The blockers have no short-term side effects, the fertility problems come from getting the replacement hormones (which are not given until the child is old enough to make their own decision). And this comparison ignores a key difference between the situations: the transgender child is asking for the treatment with potential side effects, the gay child and sterilized child are having something done to them against their will. Nobody is declaring a child to be transgender and forcing hormone adjustments on them, treatment is only given after working with a therapist and making sure that the child actually wants it.

Is... is Buzzsaw... is he really trying to argue that being gay can be harmful?

I just popped in to see all the crazy after today and share how my place of work is a madhouse of bigots talking about stringing up Obama when he gets out of office but... good god, please tell me I'm reading some crazy thought experiment here...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
This requires a definition of "harmful" and "only result" that excludes a number of things that objectively correlate with homosexuality. A very obvious one is that if your child is exclusively homosexual, the likelihood of parents seeing grandchildren is... well, let's just say dramatically decreased. Is it really obvious that a lack of lineal descendants is something that can be so easily dismissed?

So what? Parents don't have a right to have grandchildren, nor do children have any obligation to produce them. You don't get to force changes on people so that you can be happier with what they do.

I honestly think this person cannot have any kids at this point. I literally cannot see any way a parent could make this sort of fething argument and sleep at night. My kids have their rights... I have a duty to raise them in the best manner that I can. I derive my happiness from them through seeing their successes, and attempts at success (trying new things), showing me their gak art to put on the fridge at home..... Seriously, if grandchildren are the only way you can derive happiness from offspring, you should never have any.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
This requires a definition of "harmful" and "only result" that excludes a number of things that objectively correlate with homosexuality. A very obvious one is that if your child is exclusively homosexual, the likelihood of parents seeing grandchildren is... well, let's just say dramatically decreased. Is it really obvious that a lack of lineal descendants is something that can be so easily dismissed?

Genetic engineering has come a long way and same sex couple will soon be able to have children with both partners dna.

http://time.com/3748019/same-sex-couples-biological-children/

The upshot: There likely will be a time when reproductive science could create an embryo from the cells of two men or two women.

 the Signless wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
...

Well one key difference between vaccines, nutrition, and being gay is that one results in dead people and outbursts of easily preventable disease, one can result in developmental problems, while the other results in having intercourse with another person. Failure to properly vaccinate means that not only are you susceptible to the disease, but means that you can now pass the disease on to other people that for one reason or another have not yet been vaccinated (babies) or cannot be vaccinated (immunocompromised people). This leads to outbreaks of disease which kill some of the most vulnerable people by diseases which should have been effectively eradicated by now. Failing to achieve certain levels of nutrition leads to starvation and growth problems, there is not much to elaborate on here. Being gay leads to occasionally having fun with some one of the same genitalia with all the risks that regular intercourse does, minus the risk of pregnancy.

While meant in good fun, no doubt, it is worth pointing out that you are rather short-selling many negative health impacts that correlate very strongly with, if not homosexuality per se, what one might reasonably call a 'homosexual lifestyle'. By that I don't mean being faaaaabulous, but rather falling into the category the CDC calls 'men who have sex with men';

CDC wrote:Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent an incredibly diverse community. However, these men are disproportionately impacted by syphilis, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

This is, of course, not necessarily a fair comparison: MSM is a category defined by actions, not an inclination. But it seems too cute by half to imagine that homosexuality has a deminimus effect on overall life and health, beyond the impact on the family line mentioned earlier.

 the Signless wrote:
If one were to remove all social factors of social, family, religious, and legal pressures against being homosexual and assume that gay conversion therapy was not some quack idea and could actually work: you would be living in some bizarre fantasy almost completely devoid of reality and, yes, gay conversion therapy would not be morally wrong. The problem with this insane thought experiment is that these social factors are very real things with which people have to deal in their day to day lives. Being homosexual can lead to stigmatisation from many groups and homosexual teens show a depressingly high risk of suicide for being what they are. Many people hide what they are knowing that if they made their orientation public, they would face the same discrimination and rejection that they see directed at other people.

You seem to be presuming what you need to show: if homosexuality is a mere quirk of biology, why must we eliminate all such other factors before an effective conversion therapy be morally neutral?

Today the Cochlear implant is a widely available and very effective treatment for the deaf. Certainly no one would argue that being deaf is morally objectionable, but it is also certainly the case that there is stigma, and discomfort. Indeed, doubtless there is immense pressure on parents of deaf children to take steps to provide hearing to their children. Does that make the Cochlear implant morally problematic?

 the Signless wrote:
If there were an effective gay conversion therapy that could magically make you not you, there would be a large pressure on people that did not want to use it to go through with it. With minors, the situation is most troubling because they cannot make these decisions for themselves and it is often parents that push children into what they believe are the proper paths of society, but it is also troubling with adults who feel pressured to fit in with the rest of society.

Again: assuming the conversion therapy is effective, why is this pressure of any moral significance? consider the development of a treatment that, if administered to a pre-pubescent child, could ensure a minimum height in males of 5'10". Parents of short children would certainly feel a great deal of pressure to have their child receive this treatment.

Would that make it impermissible? Morally problematic?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
It's funny that you call him a RINO, Whem.

I think we just established that, according to the republican voters, he certainly is a republican and is in fact what they want in a president.

I gotta go with A Town Called Malus here, whembly. You might need to start coming to terms with an election that showed that Trump and the people like him are the core of the Republican party now, and people like you and Paul Ryan are strangers in a strange land.

 Buzzsaw wrote:


You seem to be presuming what you need to show: if homosexuality is a mere quirk of biology, why must we eliminate all such other factors before an effective conversion therapy be morally neutral?

We've recognized homosexuality in every mammalian species, and some avian species, and yet it's somehow wrong for humans to exhibit the same traits?

What is so wrong about homosexuality that you feel the need to force people to conform to YOUR views? Especially since you are equating homosexuality with a lifestyle, why should people conform to a hetero lifestyle?

Prestor Jon wrote:
It's your life, your choices, your decision to be the person you want to be, if that's a person that doesn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings or serve black people at your lunch counter, etc. then you be you. I'd rather have honest people that show their true selves and take the consequences for it than have a govt that takes that liberty away from people in the name of social engineering.

And here we have a requirement to serve people regardless of the colour of their skin defined as social engineering. That's not just wrong, it's utterly ridiculous. It isn't about social engineering or making anyone think one way or another, it is about making sure that minorities can rent houses, get served a dinner, or get a job. The state remains utterly indifferent to whether that service is offered happily by an ordinary person, or offered reluctantly by a bigot. It doesn't take people and make them sing happy songs condemning racism - there is no social engineering. That's just fething nonsense.

It is just about making sure all people have access to the most basic parts of society.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
While meant in good fun, no doubt, it is worth pointing out that you are rather short-selling many negative health impacts that correlate very strongly with, if not homosexuality per se, what one might reasonably call a 'homosexual lifestyle'. By that I don't mean being faaaaabulous, but rather falling into the category the CDC calls 'men who have sex with men';

You're overlooking the reason why those harms happen. The actual issue is not men having sex with men, it's people of any gender having lots of sex with different partners, especially without being careful about health issues. The main reason this disproportionately impacts gay men is largely the shame and oppression that has been directed at gay men. It's not that they're any less likely by nature than straight people or gay women to have stable monogamous (or non-monogamous with a limited set of partners) relationships, it's that when you tell a group "you suck, you can't have a family" they say "fine, if life is going to suck might as well go suck in airport bathrooms". If you take away the poor treatment of gay men the very likely result is that their behavior and risk factors fall in line with everyone else.

 Smacks wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Parents very often must subject children to painful and traumatic medical procedures. That they are painful and traumatic does not mean they are de facto immoral.

I think the critical difference is how the child looks back on the experience as an adult, and if they agree it was "for their health" or if they feel it was just abusive.

Hmm, while an attractive idea that notion would make the morality of any actions taken for the benefit of the health of a child subject to retrospective revision. That would seem untenable as a moral principle, not least because the moral character of your own actions would depend entirely on externalities.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Parents very often must subject children to painful and traumatic medical procedures. That they are painful and traumatic does not mean they are de facto immoral.

I think the critical difference is how the child looks back on the experience as an adult, and if they agree it was "for their health" or if they feel it was just abusive.

Hmm, while an attractive idea that notion would make the morality of any actions taken for the benefit of the health of a child subject to retrospective revision. That would seem untenable as a moral principle, not least because the moral character of your own actions would depend entirely on externalities.

So.... being gay= being unhealthy... I would say this seems to be a new low in the OT... but it probably isn't.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Again: assuming the conversion therapy is effective, why is this pressure of any moral significance? consider the development of a treatment that, if administered to a pre-pubescent child, could ensure a minimum height in males of 5'10". Parents of short children would certainly feel a great deal of pressure to have their child receive this treatment.

Would that make it impermissible? Morally problematic?

The height treatment arguably would be, especially if the child says "I don't want this". But there's a rather significant difference in that height usually has very little importance in defining a person's identity. Very few people say "I'm 5'8" but I just wouldn't be me if I was 5'7" or 6' instead". Who you are attracted to, on the other hand, is an incredibly important part of who you are. Even if you argue that consenting adults, free of coercion, would want the "cure" for being gay they'd still concede that the change from gay to straight is a significant change in who they are.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
While meant in good fun, no doubt, it is worth pointing out that you are rather short-selling many negative health impacts that correlate very strongly with, if not homosexuality per se, what one might reasonably call a 'homosexual lifestyle'. By that I don't mean being faaaaabulous, but rather falling into the category the CDC calls 'men who have sex with men';

You're overlooking the reason why those harms happen. The actual issue is not men having sex with men, it's people of any gender having lots of sex with different partners, especially without being careful about health issues. The main reason this disproportionately impacts gay men is largely the shame and oppression that has been directed at gay men. It's not that they're any less likely by nature than straight people or gay women to have stable monogamous (or non-monogamous with a limited set of partners) relationships, it's that when you tell a group "you suck, you can't have a family" they say "fine, if life is going to suck might as well go suck in airport bathrooms". If you take away the poor treatment of gay men the very likely result is that their behavior and risk factors fall in line with everyone else.

You'll have to forgive me, but I see very little evidence that male homosexual promiscuity is in any significant way tied to social stigma. If that were the case, after all, one would see a marked decrease in multi-partner relationships among MSM in very LGBT friendly places. San Francisco, Tel Aviv, perhaps no places in human history have been as accepting of homosexual behavior as these. To the best of my knowledge these places not only do not see a reduction in MSM promiscuity, but an increase.

I will, however, research this matter further, but my available information mitigates against your conclusion.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Hmm, while an attractive idea that notion would make the morality of any actions taken for the benefit of the health of a child subject to retrospective revision. That would seem untenable as a moral principle, not least because the moral character of your own actions would depend entirely on externalities.

It's hardly a problematic idea when you understand that most actions taken for the benefit of a child have rather predictable outcomes. A reasonable adult is going to look back and say "I'm really glad you made me take those antibiotics so I didn't die when I was 5", and there is very little chance of them believing otherwise. But with things like "curing" homosexuality there is no such guarantee. The person as an adult could be thankful, or they could hate the abuse that was inflicted on them. So when the outcome is legitimately in doubt you err on the side of doing nothing and letting the person make their own choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
You'll have to forgive me, but I see very little evidence that male homosexual promiscuity is in any significant way tied to social stigma. If that were the case, after all, one would see a marked decrease in multi-partner relationships among MSM in very LGBT friendly places. San Francisco, Tel Aviv, perhaps no places in human history have been as accepting of homosexual behavior as these. To the best of my knowledge these places not only do not see a reduction in MSM promiscuity, but an increase.

I don't have a source for this right now (it's something I've heard over and over again in LGBT-related communities), but remember that even when a local area is better than average the culture of the country as a whole still matters. A gay man moving to San Francisco after being disowned by his parents and having a lifetime of being told "no family for you, burn in hell" is still going to carry the impact of that poor treatment. For a counter-example look at how much effort was put into fighting for gay marriage. That only makes sense if gay people want to get married, if they're content to have lots of anonymous sex without relationships then there would be no need to keep fighting once the laws making homosexual acts illegal were struck down. There's a reason why the day gay people were granted the ability to have their long-term commitments acknowledged by society was considered such a huge thing to celebrate.

I have had a very interesting day reading through facebook. Doing some responding. It has been enlightening, really.

Like just earlier, I learned that Trump stereotyping illegal Mexicans as rapists is not racist. Because apparently stereotyping a person is not racism. I was informed that it is prejudice. Prejudice and racism never have an overlap.

I fear for this world.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:


You seem to be presuming what you need to show: if homosexuality is a mere quirk of biology, why must we eliminate all such other factors before an effective conversion therapy be morally neutral?

We've recognized homosexuality in every mammalian species, and some avian species, and yet it's somehow wrong for humans to exhibit the same traits?

What is so wrong about homosexuality that you feel the need to force people to conform to YOUR views? Especially since you are equating homosexuality with a lifestyle, why should people conform to a hetero lifestyle?

I would recommend that you filter on my posts and read from the bottom: in a nutshell I am asking Socratic questions in order to explore the moral underpinings of these ideas.

As for "What is so wrong about homosexuality", as a moral matter I have made clear I am proceeding (in this dialogue) from the position of the Halacha (Jewish Law). There is no debate on the position the Abrahamic faiths take on the matter of MSM (it's quite negative).

I am inviting you to explain why you think what you do. If I propose that MSM is morally objectionable because it is contrary to the dictates of the Abrahamic faiths, your reply is... that it is "natural"?

This does not seem a satisfying answer. After all, infanticide, murdering others for mates, cannibalism, all of these behaviors are well represented in the animal kingdom. Surely you do not consider such representation moral justification for these behaviors in humans?

 Buzzsaw wrote:

As for "What is so wrong about homosexuality", as a moral matter I have made clear I am proceeding (in this dialogue) from the position of the Halacha (Jewish Law). There is no debate on the position the Abrahamic faiths take on the matter of MSM (it's quite negative).

Before I answer... tell me, since you derive your moral views from an old book, if you had a daughter that was raped, would you require her to then be married to her rapist? Because from what you're saying, that's the moral thing to do.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
This requires a definition of "harmful" and "only result" that excludes a number of things that objectively correlate with homosexuality. A very obvious one is that if your child is exclusively homosexual, the likelihood of parents seeing grandchildren is... well, let's just say dramatically decreased. Is it really obvious that a lack of lineal descendants is something that can be so easily dismissed?

So what? Parents don't have a right to have grandchildren, nor do children have any obligation to produce them. You don't get to force changes on people so that you can be happier with what they do.

On the contrary, remember I am arguing from the position of Abrahamic law, which places a specific obligation on males to marry (at least one) women and reproduce.

Certainly you may argue that against such an obligation: but based on what? Must parents be constrained to a bare minimum of their 'rights'? What if they simply have a reasonable expectation that their children will be happier as heterosexuals?

 Peregrine wrote:

Would it be appropriate to analogize the situation to a parent choosing to sterilize their child? That would fit the analogy above: in both cases the only real, quantifiable matter is a lack of offspring. Certainly there are many people that consider overpopulation a pressing concern. Would it be tolerable to allow parents that suffered from such a fear have their child sterilized?

No, of course coerced sterilization isn't acceptable. That isn't an action taken on behalf of the child to prevent a clear harm to the child, it's an action taken to make the parents happy.

Again, "clear harm"? Suppose the parents regard homosexuality as a "clear harm"? There are no shortage of people that would agree to such an assessment.

 Peregrine wrote:

This, however, brings up a tangential but important codicil: many (if not all) of the puberty blockers and other hormonal treatments that accompany transgender transition have profound effects on reproductive health. If we judge that parents are not morally capable of making such decisions with reference to sterilization or gay conversion, does this not implicate against the morality of parents treating children in any fashion that would have such long term side effects?

This is not correct. The blockers have no short-term side effects, the fertility problems come from getting the replacement hormones (which are not given until the child is old enough to make their own decision). And this comparison ignores a key difference between the situations: the transgender child is asking for the treatment with potential side effects, the gay child and sterilized child are having something done to them against their will. Nobody is declaring a child to be transgender and forcing hormone adjustments on them, treatment is only given after working with a therapist and making sure that the child actually wants it.

Your objection seems a distinction without difference, but that's not the meat of things. You claim "the transgender child is asking for the treatment", but what defense is this?

It's been rather strenuously objected that decisions made in an environment that has certain social cues may be suspect. Surely such suspicion must also attach to the 'requests' of a minor child that is, definitionally, incapable of understanding what they are asking for. Would a similar battery of "working with a therapist" ameliorate any ethical concerns regarding this hypothetical gay conversion therapy?