Page 3 of 35
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:21 amby Iron Confederation
Gauthier wrote:Iron Confederation wrote:It still should be legal though.
I mean, everyone should have the right to throw their money and time away however they choose.
Except of course when it's government money thrown away into a religious program.
Of course.
I don't support that because the taxpayers didn't choose to spend that money, the government chose for them.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:23 amby Choronzon
Iron Confederation wrote:Choronzon wrote:>Cynical
>Wants government to have the final say on an issue it is not really qualified to be an authority on
K.
The government would be completely unbiased in this area,
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:23 amby Zaras
Divair wrote:Sensual Boy by Klaus wrote:But if everyone is willing, it should be allowed.
We allow people to change their gender and other parts of their body. They should be allowed to change their sexual orientation, if they want to.
Implying sexual orientation can be changed.
>Implying sexual orientation is constant instead of fluid and existent on a continuum
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:24 amby Iron Confederation
What would the government stand to gain or lose by issuing a survey on the matter?
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:27 amby Gauthier
Iron Confederation wrote:Gauthier wrote:Except of course when it's government money thrown away into a religious program.
Of course.
I don't support that because the taxpayers didn't choose to spend that money, the government chose for them.
And have source to where government mandated someone enroll in a Pray Away the Gay program?
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:31 amby Iron Confederation
Gauthier wrote:Iron Confederation wrote:Of course.
I don't support that because the taxpayers didn't choose to spend that money, the government chose for them.
And have source to where government mandated someone enroll in a Pray Away the Gay program?
You're asking me to source something that I believe would be wrong...?
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:45 amby Meryuma
Holy shit, for once I support something being banned.
Sensual Boy by Klaus wrote:But if everyone is willing, it should be allowed.
That's not generally how it works.
Zaras wrote:>Implying sexual orientation is constant instead of fluid and existent on a continuum
It still can't be changed through anti-gay camps though.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:46 amby Rupudska
Sensual Boy by Klaus wrote:Immoren wrote:But it has nothing/little to do with "Freedom of Speech". :/
But if everyone is willing, it should be allowed.
There are so many things wrong with this argument it's not even funny.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:46 amby Typhlochactas
I've never been prouder of my state.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:46 amby Zaras
Meryuma wrote:Zaras wrote:>Implying sexual orientation is constant instead of fluid and existent on a continuum
It still can't be changed through anti-gay camps though.
Yes, that was the point I was making. You can't
change sexuality to start with, since sexuality is fluid and exists on more of a Kinsey scale, we're just distracted by genderised, kyriarchical socialisation that has fooled us into believing that sexuality is somehow permanent and exclusive.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:51 amby Takaram
Iron Confederation wrote:What would the government stand to gain or lose by issuing a survey on the matter?
The government itself? Probably nothing. The individual bureaucrats and elected officials who could be affected by corrupting outside influences? Quite a fucking lot.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 amby Unavailable
The Black Forrest wrote:Unavailable wrote:Ok, then don't ban the therapies, ban forced enrolment.
And how do you enforce it?
Parents say didn't do that. Indoctrinator says didn't do that.
For example, require counselling with a social worker (psychologist) prior to allowing the child to go to such therapy. It should be fairly simple for a skilled psychologist to tell if the child is being forced to go there or not and give green or red light accordingly.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:00 pmby Liriena
I don't know whether I should be happy about gay Californians or incredibly disgusted at the fact that it wasn't done sooner.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:00 pmby ArghNeedAName
Good decision, I say.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:01 pmby Divair
Liriena wrote:I don't know whether I should be happy about gay Californians or incredibly disgusted at the fact that it wasn't done sooner.
Why not both?
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:03 pmby The House of Petain
I never understood the purpose of gay conversion "therapy." I mean you don't try to change these people. You send them to FEMA work camps, where they help recycle American waste. Because hey, the gays are great at recyclers.
And frankly, somebody has to do it.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:04 pmby Mexican Liberation
I'm kinda wondering what would happen if we were to march to Sacremento,reenacting the Cesar Chavez march,but with gays and LGBT supporters this time
I'd pretty much immediately join them,no matter what my family would think
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:05 pmby Imsogone
Wow. California, for the first time in 40 years, may do something sensible. They might ban a "therapy" that has been proven to be not only useless, but harmful. It is to be hoped that this small sign of common sense isn't wiped out by the wack-jobs that seem to predominate in California politics. Please note, California political wackos have the distinction of being neither liberal nor conservative, just certifiably nuts.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:05 pmby The House of Petain
Imsogone wrote:Wow. California, for the first time in 40 years, may do something sensible. They might ban a "therapy" that has been proven to be not only useless, but harmful. It is to be hoped that this small sign of common sense isn't wiped out by the wack-jobs that seem to predominate in California politics. Please note, California political wackos have the distinction of being neither liberal nor conservative, just certifiably nuts.
This is so true.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:07 pmby Liriena
Imsogone wrote:Wow. California, for the first time in 40 years, may do something sensible. They might ban a "therapy" that has been proven to be not only useless, but harmful. It is to be hoped that this small sign of common sense isn't wiped out by the wack-jobs that seem to predominate in California politics. Please note, California political wackos have the distinction of being neither liberal nor conservative, just certifiably nuts.
Is there any part of the US were wackjobs have just died off already?
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:08 pmby The House of Petain
Liriena wrote:Imsogone wrote:Wow. California, for the first time in 40 years, may do something sensible. They might ban a "therapy" that has been proven to be not only useless, but harmful. It is to be hoped that this small sign of common sense isn't wiped out by the wack-jobs that seem to predominate in California politics. Please note, California political wackos have the distinction of being neither liberal nor conservative, just certifiably nuts.
Is there any part of the
US world were wackjobs have just died off already?
I thought I'd fixed that for you considering how the world seems to be acting as of late.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:08 pmby Yumyumsuppertime
Liriena wrote:Imsogone wrote:Wow. California, for the first time in 40 years, may do something sensible. They might ban a "therapy" that has been proven to be not only useless, but harmful. It is to be hoped that this small sign of common sense isn't wiped out by the wack-jobs that seem to predominate in California politics. Please note, California political wackos have the distinction of being neither liberal nor conservative, just certifiably nuts.
Is there any part of the US were wackjobs have just died off already?
My apartment.
And I'm not so sure about the dog.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:10 pmby Norstal
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Link.Essentially, the California Legislature is voting on a bill that will prohibit licensed therapists and psychiatrists from offering "ex-gay", or "conversion" therapy. This is a form of therapy (mostly) offered by Christian therapists that purports to offer a "cure" for same-sex attraction. It is not supported by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, or any other legitimate medical organization.
Personally, I think that this is long overdue. Churches and other religious institutions may still offer it under the guise of "spiritual counseling" or some such thing, but otherwise, it will be considered the legal and ethical equivalent of peddling snake oil.
This is clearly communism. It's the work of those damn Russians.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:11 pmby Norstal
Iron Confederation wrote:Gauthier wrote:Except of course when it's government money thrown away into a religious program.
Of course.
I don't support that because the taxpayers didn't choose to spend that money, the government chose for them.
The government choose who gets the psychiatry license or not.
What now? And as the ones who gives out the license, they better have some damn control on what these psychiatrists do.
Posted:
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:14 pmby Imsogone
Liriena wrote:Imsogone wrote:Wow. California, for the first time in 40 years, may do something sensible. They might ban a "therapy" that has been proven to be not only useless, but harmful. It is to be hoped that this small sign of common sense isn't wiped out by the wack-jobs that seem to predominate in California politics. Please note, California political wackos have the distinction of being neither liberal nor conservative, just certifiably nuts.
Is there any part of the US were wackjobs have just died off already?
California seems to be exporting it's political insanity to the rest of the US and the world at an alarming rate. The problem is they're giving it away, when, clearly they could charge a small fee and wipe out the state's economic problems in no time.