Wallenburg wrote:Tsaivao wrote:"So, to summarize, banning conversion therapy is not the same thing as banning booze. One is fun, the other is torture. I hope that you would know which is which."
"If it were torture, this resolution would be illegal for duplication," mutters Ogenbond under his own breath.
"Slight hyperbolization on my part, I will retract "torture" and replace it with "really really bad" to correct myself for that slight blunder."
CoraSpia wrote:Daarwyrth wrote:Barwald: "I'm flattered by the honorific of 'ambassador', but I'm just the Press Secretary these days. Nonetheless, I'll answer your question. By allowing one individual to go through with this absolute farce of a 'procedure', the image might be created that it might be helpful. After all, if a government doesn't ban it, surely it's not harmful? In other words, it will create a false sense of security that will trick others into wanting to try out something that is, in its entirety, exclusively harmful and never helpful. As you can see, it won't cause harm to only one individual, but to multiple. By banning this, it sends a signal to individuals that conversion therapy is indeed harmful, and it shows that bogus theories on different sexual orientations or gender dysphoria being 'curable' will not be tolerated in modern, civilized societies.
And that is all we're going to say to your delegation on this topic, Ambassador. We have tried to show your nation and leadership a different, more tolerant and accepting way of life and perspective on the universe. You rejected it. So be it, but you will have to similarly accept that our patience to interact with delegations espousing such viewpoints and ideologies as your nation does is limited."
"There are many things governments do not ban that are harmful. Alcohol, tobacco, unprotected sex with strangers. It is not a governments job to go around protecting citizens from themselves, but rather from the militaries of other states and other citizens who may wish to do them harm."
"And would you not argue that conversion therapy is 'other citizens who may wish to do [your citizens] harm'? Who protects your citizens from conversion therapy when their mental health is compromised? At what point are you going to actually claim responsibility for the harm done to your citizens? See my point above about why banning alcohol isn't the same."