Delaware bans Conversion Therapy

[Geneviev]

That is true. But it is not purely genetics, so no genetic modification could eliminate it.

Genetics might be factor but no route cause has been found. All that is known is its not a choice. If genetic modification can't eliminate it why do some people talk about it being possible one day?

Who is really talking about eliminating homosexuality through some genetic modification?

[Communaccord]

I would like a source from a gender therapist or a psychiatrist of this happening. I'm sorry but this source you provided smells to high heaven.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6V0p3_bd6w

Watched this a little bit ago and it really interesting, at least- but you're correct, that subset of people in no way are somehow an obstacle or would be screwed over by a ban of conversion therapy for minors.

heres an article on the subject:

https://www.thestranger.com/features/20 ... hey-werent

I've also read of other experiences, but I don't recall where I saw them

I mean, firstly, using people as political footballs in this particular way grosses me out a little, but the whole argument that somehow banning parents from sending LGBT children (or straight children who they're worried are LGBT) to conversion "therapy" is going to cause all straight kids to suddenly get confused about their orientation or gender is fucking retarded fearmongering that has about as much basis as Alex Jones's "turning the frogs gay" rant.

for the last time yay to the ban, I just hope It doesn't have unintended consequences. it's like you want me to be a bigot or something.

*edit: yay for yes, affirmative, good thing

[Communaccord]

Why do you assume that that's some sort of impossibility stitched into the fabric of the universe? This isn't some kind of humanitarian stance it's proposing a hypothetical cap on the limits of what is scientifically possible.

My question is why are you so eager to embrace the idea that someone who is a homosexual should be changed? Why is it important to you that this be both possible and viewed positively?

Truth be told? What two consenting adults do in private is none of your concern. You lack the authority to enforce your personal morality on anyone.

This is some pretty ludicrous fearmongering- banning conversion "therapy" against LGBT youth will cause cis/hetero youth to pretend to be gay? Do you realize how insane that sounds?

The homophobic crowd will go to even more desperate lengths to justify their bigotry the closer society gets to actual equality.

why does everyone ignore how I said I support the ban, but am just stating caution that it might cause unintended consequences for a small subset of people.

[Communaccord]

Now that the tar is stuck in the wrong places, a FINAL clarification:

Torturing LGBTQ youth to the point of suicide and depression is bad yes. There should be no debate on it, banning conversion therapy is good.

HOWEVER, as progress marches forward, we learn about new issues and challenges with each we overcome. So I wanted to acknowledge a segment of the mentally ill, depending on how the law is put into practice, MAY be denied proper care, SO it is our RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that we in our pursuit of the welfare of LGBTQ, we do not harm the mentally ill, a group that still to this day receives despicablely poor treatment.

Oh and what was the response to a fellow liberal voicing concerns for another marginalized group? So far, despite me repetitions of overall support for the bill, I have been painted in all but name as a Homophobic Transphobic Bigot, who actually has no concern for the LGBTQ community, with ONLY ONE person even coming close to recognizing the legitimacy of my caution.

I mean, I actually clicked on this topic because I mistook it as referring to 'conversion therapy' as in 'Sex conversion therapy', and came ready to combat those in favor of banning conversion surgeries. But nope, I find allies celebrating a victory, and made enemies by putting a little rain on their victory parade by mentioning a group that MIGHT be impacted if the law is applied poorly.

[San Lumen]

My question is why are you so eager to embrace the idea that someone who is a homosexual should be changed? Why is it important to you that this be both possible and viewed positively?

Truth be told? What two consenting adults do in private is none of your concern. You lack the authority to enforce your personal morality on anyone.


The homophobic crowd will go to even more desperate lengths to justify their bigotry the closer society gets to actual equality.

why does everyone ignore how I said I support the ban, but am just stating caution that it might cause unintended consequences for a small subset of people.

what unintended consequences could there be?

[Geneviev]

why does everyone ignore how I said I support the ban, but am just stating caution that it might cause unintended consequences for a small subset of people.

what unintended consequences could there be?

I think they mean unintentionally banning access to other therapy that isn't harmful.

[San Lumen]

what unintended consequences could there be?

I think they mean unintentionally banning access to other therapy that isn't harmful.

Ah ok. I dont see that happening though. Also regarding your question about whose talking about eliminating homosexuality via genetic modification ive seen it mentioned here and there including on this site but it wasn't with malicious or bigoted intent

[Geneviev]

I think they mean unintentionally banning access to other therapy that isn't harmful.

Ah ok. I dont see that happening though. Also regarding your question about whose talking about eliminating homosexuality via genetic modification ive seen it mentioned here and there including on this site but it wasn't with malicious or bigoted intent

In that case, I just missed it. Okay.

[San Lumen]

Ah ok. I dont see that happening though. Also regarding your question about whose talking about eliminating homosexuality via genetic modification ive seen it mentioned here and there including on this site but it wasn't with malicious or bigoted intent

In that case, I just missed it. Okay.

No worries its perfectly fine

[Des-Bal]

Genetics might be factor but no route cause has been found. All that is known is its not a choice. If genetic modification can't eliminate it why do some people talk about it being possible one day?

Whose talking explicitly genetics? The issue is that there's no reason to believe that what causes human sexuality is so impossibly complex that even after we've so refined our scientific arts that we hop between worlds, regard cancer as the scraped knee of the juvenile years of our species, and have done things that to modern minds could only be explained as magic it will be beyond us to alter a person's sexuality.

[Prydania]

Genetics might be factor but no route cause has been found. All that is known is its not a choice. If genetic modification can't eliminate it why do some people talk about it being possible one day?

Whose talking explicitly genetics? The issue is that there's no reason to believe that what causes human sexuality is so impossibly complex that even after we've so refined our scientific arts that we hop between worlds, regard cancer as the scraped knee of the juvenile years of our species, and have done things that to modern minds could only be explained as magic it will be beyond us to alter a person's sexuality.

Why are you so eager to trivialize and marginalize homosexuality and bisexuality? Why is it so important to you that practices that harm LGBT+ youth remain legal? Why is it so important to you that homosexual and bisexual people be “changed”? Why does the mere existence of LGBT+ people bother you so much?

“MUH SCIENCE!” isn’t really an acceptable answer, by the way.

why does everyone ignore how I said I support the ban, but am just stating caution that it might cause unintended consequences for a small subset of people.

What you proport to be “cautioning” about is totally unrelated to the issue at hand, and comes off as you convinced that outlawing torturous practices aimed at LGBT youth might lead to straight kids becoming gay.
Whether you intend it or not, your alleged concern comes off as the rantings of someone who uses the phrase “homosexual agenda” unironically.

[Cekoviu]

Why would someone want to change their sexual attraction?

Why should someone want to change their hair color?

I get your point, but I'm not sure that sexual orientation should be trivialized to the point of being at the same level as your hair color.

[Prydania]

Why should someone want to change their hair color?

I get your point, but I'm not sure that sexual orientation should be trivialized to the point of being at the same level as your hair color.

That’s the thing. Des-Bal and Telconi are going on about how much they “totally don’t have a problem with gay people” but they’re also willing to trivialize sexual orientation and are in favour of attempting to change sexual orientation.

It’s concern trolling as an art form.

[Cekoviu]

I get your point, but I'm not sure that sexual orientation should be trivialized to the point of being at the same level as your hair color.

That’s the thing. Des-Bal and Telconi are going on about how much they “totally don’t have a problem with gay people” but they’re also willing to trivialize sexual orientation and are in favour of attempting to change sexual orientation.

It’s concern trolling as an art form.

I'm not reading Telconi as being in favor of it, merely being in favor of people having the choice to do so. Likewise, I'm not in support of people having abortions for trivial reasons, but also think they should have the choice to do so given that it's their body. (I'm not going to debate about abortion here, by the way, so nobody even think about starting.)

[Des-Bal]

Why are you so eager to trivialize and marginalize homosexuality and bisexuality?¹ Why is it so important to you that practices that harm LGBT+ youth remain legal?² Why is it so important to you that homosexual and bisexual people be “changed”?³ Why does the mere existence of LGBT+ people bother you so much?⁴

“MUH SCIENCE!” isn’t really an acceptable answer, by the way.

1. I am in no way doing such a thing.
2. Consistency
3. It's not? I've been pretty clear about that, you've constructed an image of what a person who disagrees with you believes and I'm afraid I don't comport with it.
4. I don't know, I guess because I was raised by gay men hang out with gay, lesbian, and transgender people and believe they are entitled to the same rights, privileges, and fair treatment as any similarly situated person so strongly that I refused to give blood while the FDA's ban on MSM donations was in place, became a minister to protest gay marriage bans, and volunteered during Pride to declare to the world that whether or not people were comfortable with other's lifestyles they would have to deal with them. Oh, sorry that didn't ansewr your question.

[Des-Bal]

That’s the thing. Des-Bal and Telconi are going on about how much they “totally don’t have a problem with gay people” but they’re also willing to trivialize sexual orientation and are in favour of attempting to change sexual orientation.

It’s concern trolling as an art form.

If your sexuality could be changed as easilly as your hair color I don't see why your sexuality should be a larger part of your identity than your hair color.

[Prydania]

I'm not reading Telconi as being in favor of it, merely being in favor of people having the choice to do so.

Well two things.
First? It’s dependent on a truly harmless means of “changing” sexual orientation. Nothing that’s sold as “conversion therapy” qualifies. It’s torture. Plain and simple. And nothing Des-Bal says to trivialize the horrible nature of this stuff changes that.
So right off the bat? The first condition is 100% hypothetical, as we are nowhere close to discovering a truly harmless means of doing what’s being discussed.

Secondly? This gets into deeper issues of identity. Yes, if such a hypothetical harmless mode of changing orientation were discovered, people would have the right to do so if they so desired.
Of course the problem arises that this hypothetical science might be abused.
Beyond that though? We need to consider whether changing sexual orientation, or anything else central to a person’s identity? is morally something that should be pursued.

Regardless of what people like Telconi and Des-Bal say? Sexual orientation is more vital to one’s sense of identity then their hair colour.
And so I feel as if science needs to consider both the moral implications of the sanctity of identity and the potential for political abuse.

Since we’re quoting Jurassic Park?
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they never stopped to think if they should.”

[Telconi]

I get your point, but I'm not sure that sexual orientation should be trivialized to the point of being at the same level as your hair color.

That’s the thing. Des-Bal and Telconi are going on about how much they “totally don’t have a problem with gay people” but they’re also willing to trivialize sexual orientation and are in favour of attempting to change sexual orientation.

It’s concern trolling as an art form.

Do you have a problem with Jews converting to a different religion, or are you an anti-semite?

Because that's literally your level of reasoning right now.

[Telconi]

I'm not reading Telconi as being in favor of it, merely being in favor of people having the choice to do so.

Well two things.
First? It’s dependent on a truly harmless means of “changing” sexual orientation. Nothing that’s sold as “conversion therapy” qualifies. It’s torture. Plain and simple. And nothing Des-Bal says to trivialize the horrible nature of this stuff changes that.
So right off the bat? The first condition is 100% hypothetical, as we are nowhere close to discovering a truly harmless means of doing what’s being discussed.

Secondly? This gets into deeper issues of identity. Yes, if such a hypothetical harmless mode of changing orientation were discovered, people would have the right to do so if they so desired.
Of course the problem arises that this hypothetical science might be abused.
Beyond that though? We need to consider whether changing sexual orientation, or anything else central to a person’s identity? is morally something that should be pursued.

Regardless of what people like Telconi and Des-Bal say? Sexual orientation is more vital to one’s sense of identity then their hair colour.
And so I feel as if science needs to consider both the moral implications of the sanctity of identity and the potential for political abuse.

Since we’re quoting Jurassic Park?
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they never stopped to think if they should.”

What's vital to a person's identity is up to them. Not you.

[Des-Bal]

Well two things.
First? It’s dependent on a truly harmless means of “changing” sexual orientation. Nothing that’s sold as “conversion therapy” qualifies. It’s torture. Plain and simple. And nothing Des-Bal says to trivialize the horrible nature of this stuff changes that.
So right off the bat? The first condition is 100% hypothetical, as we are nowhere close to discovering a truly harmless means of doing what’s being discussed.

Secondly? This gets into deeper issues of identity. Yes, if such a hypothetical harmless mode of changing orientation were discovered, people would have the right to do so if they so desired.
Of course the problem arises that this hypothetical science might be abused.
Beyond that though? We need to consider whether changing sexual orientation, or anything else central to a person’s identity? is morally something that should be pursued.

Regardless of what people like Telconi and Des-Bal say? Sexual orientation is more vital to one’s sense of identity then their hair colour.
And so I feel as if science needs to consider both the moral implications of the sanctity of identity and the potential for political abuse.

Since we’re quoting Jurassic Park?
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they never stopped to think if they should.”

First of all if torturing children is not legal there does not need to be any special consideration for conversion therapy. We don't have a harmless or harmful method, it's a bunch of hokum like ear candling or chiropractic medicine both of which can cause severe and irreparable harm and both of which are legally fine to do to kids.

Stop quoting jurassic park as a justification to fear science, if you can't have an original thought on the subject invite Chricton or Spielberg here to argue in your stead.

[Prydania]

That’s the thing. Des-Bal and Telconi are going on about how much they “totally don’t have a problem with gay people” but they’re also willing to trivialize sexual orientation and are in favour of attempting to change sexual orientation.

It’s concern trolling as an art form.

If your sexuality could be changed as easilly as your hair color I don't see why your sexuality should be a larger part of your identity than your hair color.

Except that science has, up to now, indicated that changing sexual orientation isn’t that easy. Conversion therapy does more harm than good, and simply doesn’t work.
So you’re arguing for a hypothetical that doesn’t exist. You might as well go on about how we should all consider the possibilities if we could use literal magic to change someone’s sexual orientation. It’s just as plausible given our current understanding of the science.

So it seems to me like you’re desperately cheerleading for a result that would trivialize someone’s right to the sexual orientation that they are most comfortable with. Which leads me to...

Why are you so eager to trivialize and marginalize homosexuality and bisexuality?¹ Why is it so important to you that practices that harm LGBT+ youth remain legal?² Why is it so important to you that homosexual and bisexual people be “changed”?³ Why does the mere existence of LGBT+ people bother you so much?⁴

“MUH SCIENCE!” isn’t really an acceptable answer, by the way.

1. I am in no way doing such a thing.

Comparing sexual orientation to hair colour is doing that.

2. Consistency

Your view of the world is pretty fucked if you think we need to keep torture of LGBT children legal for the sake of consistency. How about we try to make the world better rather than round down?

3. It's not? I've been pretty clear about that, you've constructed an image of what a person who disagrees with you believes and I'm afraid I don't comport with it.

Nah, you do.
See, you go on and on about how you’re all for equal rights for LGBT peoples, and then in the same breath excitedly talk about the possibilities of a yet-undiscovered science making it a sinch to eliminate homosexuality and bisexuality with the flick of a switch.
These two things seem inherently contradictory. If you’re such a friend of the LGBT community then why are you spending your time in this thread both trivializing the horrors of conversion therapy and cheerleading the possibility that some day we may be able to “harmlessly” “change” the orientation of LGBT peoples?

Despite your case for an Ally Merit Badge? Your arguments in this thread have consistently been in favour of science that either harms LGBT people or could potentially eliminate them all together.

[Prydania]

That’s the thing. Des-Bal and Telconi are going on about how much they “totally don’t have a problem with gay people” but they’re also willing to trivialize sexual orientation and are in favour of attempting to change sexual orientation.

It’s concern trolling as an art form.

Do you have a problem with Jews converting to a different religion, or are you an anti-semite?

Because that's literally your level of reasoning right now.

I’m Jewish, bud

Thing is, I wasn’t born Jewish. I mean I was I suppose, but I wasn’t born with an inherent predisposition to be Jewish. I could have easily ended up a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or anything else really. Depending on how I was raised.

I’m pretty sure I was born gay though. I never made a choice to be attracted to men. It just happened. And so your analogy fails because religion and sexual orientation are not equivalent.

Oh, by the way. Forcibly converting Jews is an age-old tactic used by anti-Semites. Just a heads up.

First of all if torturing children is not legal there does not need to be any special consideration for conversion therapy.

Ideally no, but double standards exist as a concept.
Just because you refuse to classify conversation therapy as torture doesn’t mean it’s not torture. It just means that despite you claiming to be the LGBT community’s bestest friend? You’re remarkably blind to a lot of realities that effect LGBT folks.

We don't have a harmless or harmful method, it's a bunch of hokum like ear candling or chiropractic medicine both of which can cause severe and irreparable harm and both of which are legally fine to do to kids.

And so your argument is that because we let chiropractors continue with their quackery we should
continue to allow Christian conservatives to torture LGBT youth.

Stop quoting jurassic park as a justification to fear science, if you can't have an original thought on the subject invite Chricton or Spielberg here to argue in your stead.

First off m8, I’ll quote whatever and whoever I want. Me thinking a quote from pop culture having relevance to the current discussion is far less harmful then you pretending to be the world’s greatest ally while also arguing in favour of legalized conversion therapy.

Secondly, I don’t fear science. I fear people. And what certain people will with science if certain moral issues surrounding it are not properly addressed.

[Des-Bal]

Except that science has, up to now, indicated that changing sexual orientation isn’t that easy. Conversion therapy does more harm than good, and simply doesn’t work.
So you’re arguing for a hypothetical that doesn’t exist. You might as well go on about how we should all consider the possibilities if we could use literal magic to change someone’s sexual orientation. It’s just as plausible given our current understanding of the science.

So it seems to me like you’re desperately cheerleading for a result that would trivialize someone’s right to the sexual orientation that they are most comfortable with. Which leads me to...

Comparing sexual orientation to hair colour is doing that.


Your view of the world is pretty fucked if you think we need to keep torture of LGBT children legal for the sake of consistency. How about we try to make the world better rather than round down?


Nah, you do.
See, you go on and on about how you’re all for equal rights for LGBT peoples, and then in the same breath excitedly talk about the possibilities of a yet-undiscovered science making it a sinch to eliminate homosexuality and bisexuality with the flick of a switch.
These two things seem inherently contradictory. If you’re such a friend of the LGBT community then why are you spending your time in this thread both trivializing the horrors of conversion therapy and cheerleading the possibility that some day we may be able to “harmlessly” “change” the orientation of LGBT peoples?

Despite your case for an Ally Merit Badge? Your arguments in this thread have consistently been in favour of science that either harms LGBT people or could potentially eliminate them all together.

The nature of a hypothetical is that it addresses something that is not currently the case. Ineffective and more harm than good, once again: Ear candling and chiropractic adjustment.

I'm not cheerleading anything, this is your frantic need for a homophobic enemy so that you champion luddism in the name of being progessive.

If hair color and sexuality equally easy to change there would be no reason for one to be a more indelible aspect of a person's being than the other.

Your bullshit mudlslinging isn't going to get you anywhere. I see no reason why the ability to alter your sexual preferences is some fundamental evil. I don't see how recognizing and evaluating the exact, statistically recorded harms caused by conversion therapy constitutes minimizing them. It takes balls or willful ignorance to argue a person's "right to the sexual orientation they're comfortable" while treating the sexual orientation a person is by chance saddled with as sacred. You're saying people should not enjoy the power to have the sexual orientation they're comfortable with, that for some unidentifiable good sexuality CANNOT be a choice it MUST be a thing that human beings are helplessly bound to.

And here we are again: Fear science or you hate gay people. Fuck that. Fuck your luddite bullshit. I am in favor of all science, to oppose science is to embrace ignorance. It is nothing less than intellectual cowardice to shy away from discovery, what can be destoryed by the truth ought to be and any motherfucker who would rather sit in the dark is welcome to excuse his or herself from civilized society.

[Telconi]

Do you have a problem with Jews converting to a different religion, or are you an anti-semite?

Because that's literally your level of reasoning right now.

I’m Jewish, bud

Thing is, I wasn’t born Jewish. I mean I was I suppose, but I wasn’t born with an inherent predisposition to be Jewish. I could have easily ended up a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or anything else really. Depending on how I was raised.

I’m pretty sure I was born gay though. I never made a choice to be attracted to men. It just happened. And so your analogy fails because religion and sexual orientation are not equivalent.

Oh, by the way. Forcibly converting Jews is an age-old tactic used by anti-Semites. Just a heads up.

Your religion is irrelevent.

The state in which you were born is irrelevant, I was born dumb, illiterate, and without the use of my legs. That's no reason to stay that way if I don't want to though.

Why aren't they equivalent? What makes your sexual orientation so important so as to remain unchanged, despite a desire to change it?

Which isn't relevant, because we're not talking about forced conversion.

[Des-Bal]

Ideally no, but double standards exist as a concept.
Just because you refuse to classify conversation therapy as torture doesn’t mean it’s not torture. It just means that despite you claiming to be the LGBT community’s bestest friend? You’re remarkably blind to a lot of realities that effect LGBT folks.

Then address those double standards through the law. You can't hook jumper cables up to your kid regardless of the circumstance, if however you're having a witch doctor wave his hands over them or read of out a book at them to change their sexuality that is totally fine.

And so your argument is that because we let chiropractors continue with their quackery we should
continue to allow Christian conservatives to torture LGBT youth.

My argument is that whether or not the quacks are christians is immaterial.

First off m8, I’ll quote whatever and whoever I want. Me thinking a quote from pop culture having relevance to the current discussion is far less harmful then you pretending to be the world’s greatest ally while also arguing in favour of legalized conversion therapy.

You're entitled to quote whoever you want but awkwardly wielding another's words as a substitute for critical thought is not particularly persuasive.

And for your information I don't have a fucking card for you to tear up I'm not going to cry because my support for human rights isn't enough to get me into your book burning parties.

Secondly, I don’t fear science. I fear people. And what certain people will with science if certain moral issues surrounding it are not properly addressed.

Your artfully quoted jurassic park lines suggest you fear science. There is no reason we should not investigate the ability to control a person's sexuality.