E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Rich Pedroncelli / AP, file
California state Sen. Ted Lieu says therapy that seeks to change a child's sexual orientation amounts to psychological abuse.
California has moved one step closer to becoming the first state in the nation to ban “gay cure” therapy for teens.
The Democratic-controlled state Assembly on Tuesday voted 52-22 to approve a bill that would prohibit licensed therapists from providing so-called “sexual orientation change efforts” to children under 18.
The bill now goes to the Senate, which approved an earlier version in May, for concurrence on amendments. The Senate must act no later than midnight Friday for the bill to be sent to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk. Brown, a Democrat, has not indicated whether he will sign the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, says treatments that attempt to change a gay kid into a straight kid are harmful and amount to "psychological abuse of children."
“These non-scientific efforts have led in some cases to patients later committing suicide, as well as severe mental and physical anguish,” Lieu said in a press release hailing the vote.
Ricardo Lara, an openly gay Democratic assemblyman from Los Angeles County, said the bill would protect “the next generation of Californians.”
"And some of those are sissy boys,” Lara said, Reuters reported. “And some of those sissy boys grow up to be Assembly members. And some of those sissy boys need help. And we are here to stand with those sissy boys."
Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com
Opponents said during debate that the bill intrudes on the rights of parents to make choices for their children’s care.
"That's why parents have children -- to hand down their legacies, their belief systems, the way they want their children raised," Assembly member Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, was quoted by Reuters as saying.
Jim Burroway, editor of Box Turtle Bulletin, which reports on news affecting gays and lesbians, noted the version passed by the Assembly has been watered down to win the backing of state mental health professional organizations:
When the bill was first introduced into the Senate, there were additional provisions which would have required that adults undergoing SOCE to sign a state-mandated informed consent form, and it would have left therapists open to fines of $$5,000 or “actual damages, or statutory damages” if the client later determined that he or she had been harmed by the therapy or if the therapist had contravened California’s restrictions on SOCE. Due to objections from several mental health organizations, the state-mandated informed consent form was dropped, and the fines were eliminated in favor of a new clause which subjects the licensed therapist “to discipline by the licensing entity for that mental health provider.” The bill affects licensed therapists only. It does not affect religious-based ex-gay ministries or unlicensed pastors, counselors or self-described “life coaches.”
In an op-ed column earlier this week in the Los Angeles Times, Lara Embry, a clinical psychologist who is married to actress Jane Lynch, said that the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association and the American Psychiatric Association all declared long ago that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is not a form of mental illness or defect. She wrote:
“Many parents struggle to accept their children as they are, and this makes them vulnerable to the misrepresentations of therapists who offer false reassurances that "no child is really gay." As long as there continues to be a market for these fraudulent treatments, they will be offered, and children will be harmed — unless the law is changed and parents are better educated about how to cope with a child who may be gay or gender nonconforming.”
Previous stories:
Christian group backs away from gay ‘cure’
California weighs bill to ban gay teen ‘conversion’ therapy
London bans ‘gay cure’ ads from buses
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Isaac's storms surge floods parts of Louisiana, Mississippi
- From darkness to gold: Blinded Navy swimmer set to race at Paralympics
- Student subsidies of classmates' tuition add to anger over rising college costs
- Video: Sinkhole stops traffic in San Francisco
- Texas tanning salon owner accused of trying to spy on teenage girls
- Veterans rely on patchwork safety net during hard financial times
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
Leave a Comment:
I agree with the sentiment, but what happens when a pastor talks to a kid and says it's a sin? A person's religious rights, and free speech rights are potentially imperiled if this thing isn't drafted properly.
I'm an atheist. I think religions are a joke. But I DO value people's rights, including religious rights. I suspect there is a way to write the bill that both protects kids from undue damage and preserves religious rights. I just hope they are able to strike the right balance.
Eng,
I agree. I think "curing gay" is the most preposterous bit of faux science around, however I think it should be left to the medical community and their ethics boards, as to whether or not it's an acceptable practice. Those who offer it, should then also face the consequences for it's inevitbale failure and negative impacts, whether they be civil or criminal.
Sarah, I concur with what you say, but many of these "treatments" are done by religious "counselors" who are not bound by medical guidelines. I'm not sure civil and criminal penalties in these circumstances will be applied evenly or justly. Then again maybe I'm wrong.
Anyhow, long time no see. Hope you are doing well.
If something is physically harming to an individual its outlawed, so why should mentally harming a patient be any different?
Eng,
I'm good. I was busy relocating to DC. Now I can really implement my evil, liberal agenda.
bigpicture, the law routinely considered physical injury more important than mental injury, for better or worse.
Parents are free to mentally abuse their kids all the time... such as taking them to church (sorry couldn't resist). Mental harm needs to be egregious before we take away parental rights.
In this framework, we need to approach things carefully, or this could be a time-bomb that adversely effects gay right rather than championing them.
Congrats on the move! There are lots of things to keep you busy in DC. :)
There is only one cure for teen gayness, it is called Vitamin P.
EngEsq - I agree as well. But I'd also add that you can't legislate tolerance.
Could a child be damaged emotionally and/or psychologically by such treatments? Absolutely.
Are such treatments an infringement on one's individual rights? I'd say yes, but since the issue is about minors, ultimately it would be the parents' call to make, right or wrong.
Should the state meddle in such affairs? My emphatic answer is no.
What many people don't understand is a person's sexual orientation is hard-wired into them. Like EngEsq, I can appreciate the sentiment behind such legislation, but if people can't accept that fact and try to re-orient their child, then...well, sadly, that person probably will be messed up, perhaps for life. And the parents will have to take responsibility for it. Unfortunately, many won't though.
Either way, I go back to what I said earlier, which is, you can't legislate tolerance. It has to come from within or not at all.
enq,
good point. sadly, but good point.
I'd wager one could find many psychologists that would testify that not doing so would constitute psychological abuse.
In any event, all this means is that parents will seek such therapy out of state. As for California, this is just further evidence that the inmates are running the asylum.
what a bunch of idiots. If you are born "predisposed" to gayness, that's what you are. Gay cure? I can't believe we have to pay the legislation to take care of that. And I can't believe some therapists offer that dis-service, it doesn't speak very well for the profession. We have much bigger problems. there's been gays on this planet for as long as humanity has been around. And as far as the church is concerned, well, God was wrong.
This therapy has been proven to harm kids psychologically and the all the reputable American Psychology and psychiatry associations have condemned such therapy.
This abuse is used by people to forward their religious views and often charge government for it (note this is exactly what Michelle Bachmann's husband did at the clinic he owns).
It should be illegal! Kids need protection from nutty parents and therapists.
California is ALSO moving towards being the FIRST State in the Union to declare California as a: "Sanctuary STATE".
Wow, first State to legislate themselves to be a "Sanctuary State", first State to declare bankruptcy, first state to give water rights to fish vs farmers, first State to build a high speed rail system to nowhere, and now first State to declare no therapy for kids.
Lots of FIRSTS for California.
So much for the Progressive agenda in California. Maybe Mr. Obama should take note. Wait a minute, that would conflict with his Top Down "Man on Five" Chicago political agenda.
So you can't cure a gay person, what happen if they get really, really sick???? Always one in the bunch!
When did CA declare bankruptcy?
It's certainly not banning therapy for kids; it's banning quackery.
While I agree that attempting to change one's sexual orientation is harmful to the child, I disagree with the sentiment that all "sexual orientation is hardwired"
My personal belief is that sexual orientation is a spectrum, and very few people are 100% hetero and very few ar 100% homo. Most of us are somewhere along a scale where we're 90% or 80% gay or straight (50% being completely bi-sexual). That combined with social pressure, cultural expecations, rebelliousness, and life experiences can make how we choose to express our sexuality much more fluid. This is why gay men can be married for years and a wife might never know or girls in college can go through "a lesbian phase" and then settle down with a guy. I've known more than one woman after a bitter divorce who swore off men, and lived as a lesbian for years afterwards. The fact that our society is more accepting of female homosexuality makes it less taboo, and so female sexuality often appears to be much more fluid with women who identify as straight often nothaving a problem with kissing other women or having an "experience" in their 20s. The cultural taboo prevents men who identify as straight from even considering experimentation in that arena, even though biologically they may only be "mostly straight". In cultures more tolerant of expressions of male homosexulality you see much more. In Antiquity, no one thought of homosexuality as an exclusive or defining characteristic. It is only in today's modern culture that we "choose" to identify primarily as straight or gay, the strong anti-gay undertones in society causing mostly only those men at the far end of the spectrum towards homosexuality to identify as such.
Ido, California has some serious issues, just not any that you noted. However, on the whole, the state rocks. Your post reeks of jealousy.
EngEsg,
Removing the Gay is like trying removing the Black out of African Americans......Religion does not give anyone the right to Hate......I see no reason to protect the Christian Taliban.
PDug19, You want to remove the black from an African American just look inside there's a person!
God forbid that the doctors remove any potential TRICKS from the meat market on the CA. street corners.
Gay atheism; what a messed up religion.
Its fairly well proven that being gay is genetic. Its been here since the beginnng of time and will always be here. Its certainly not deemed a psychiatric disorder and is just a part of the spectrum of society. Parents imposing their will on what someone simply is and so called "cures" won't do any such thing. I would think it could lead to depression, self loathing, poor esteem self esteem or worse to the individual such a "cure" were imposed upon.
I just re-read the article. The law specifically exempts "life counselors" and any unregistered religious hacks. That eliminates my above concerns. No real therapist should be engaging in this farce "therapy".
At least Sarah3043284 admits the liberal agenda is evil. It's about time someone finally admits it.
Reparative therapy is completely and utterly worthless, unless you goal is to promote suicide and depression. You can no more change someone's sexuality or gender idenity, that is determined in utero by hormones, than you can change someone's eye color or handedness. Being GLBT is very normal, healthy and even statistically predictable for 5-8% of the population and there is absolutely nothing that anyone is going to do to change that biological fact. The APA put out a statement more than 10 year ago that said that it is completely uneffective and should not be used.
The problem is not being gay, bi, lesbian or transgender. It is ignorance, bias and conservative religions who try to force their bronze age views on others where they don't belong.
@Zena. You are correct about sexual orientation being more grey than black and white, and it is called the Kinsey scale. Gender identity is on the same sliding scale but I forget the name of that scale.
Man, the baggers really hate California. Oh well, hopefully they'll leave the entire West Coast alone so that we sane people can live in peace.
"Gay cure?" That's the most ridiculous piece of nonsensical crap I've ever heard in my life. The fact that there must be legislation to regulate or ban such a thing is proof positive of how backwards my beloved home state really is.
I won't speak to if being gay or lesbian is genetic, learned or a choice someone makes before they are self-aware enough to make such a choice (don't correct me, let my mind work in it's own little world), but short of a life-altering epiphany or a few concussions, I don't think there's anything that can truly change a person's mind about orientation (sexual, religious, racial, etc.)
Still, there's something to be said about counseling for those who are confused about how they wish to live their lives. All I know is nature is perfect, humanity is not.
Well said SSPerfectChaos
Why can't these guys come up with an "ignorant conservative cure"? They've probably been working on one for years, but so far the only cure for stupid is a high velocity lead deposit.
Save the environment 1.12
What you and others don't or refuse to understand is that the predisposition towards homosexuality can be both innate and learned behavior. Of course there are those that are "born that way" but there are others that are merely confused or indoctrinated towards such behavior. It is the latter that such therapy seeks to benefit, and to not provide this counseling would constitute abuse.
Such counseling should take the form of an act of self discovery for the individual rather than some method of forceful de-programming.
I'm sure this would not affect pastoral counseling (brainwashing), but only medical (mal)practice
As long as any credence is given to these so-called "therapies" it will continue to perpetuate the notion that something in a child is inherently broken and needs to be fixed. It's a predatory industry that's fueled by Christian piety and parent's desperation, but mostly by money. Tax free donations solicited by inciting fear and animosity make a lucrative industry.
Grover Dorkquist @ 1.10: "Wow....California is really pissing off the Tea Tards and their Christian Taliban allies!!"
Guess what Dork, you're just piss'n.
Xina, "...very few people are 100% hetero and very few are 100% homo. Most of us are somewhere along a scale where we're 90% or 80% gay or straight..." I am 100% heterosexual female. Always have been, always will be. Was "hardwired" from the day I was born. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Guess I'm one of the "few" in the "100% hetero" category of yours.
Gay Cure?... So they want to "cure" who people are attracted to?
Next we can start a "cure" for those attracted to fat people, or red-heads, or brunettes, or jocks, or black guys, or Asian girls... hell, lets just decide all the characteristics that people should be attracted to, and "cure" the rest. What do you think... only blonde, blue-eyed people? Sounds awfully familiar to another group from history.
Uhhhhh... that could go either way.
EngEsq - I'm not sure any consideration should be given to religion at all. Most SCOTUS rulings side with Jefferson's guidelines, wherein any religion is free to believe whatever it wants, but its actions can and should be regulated whenever "practices break out into overt acts against the public good". An example would be the Mormons. They were free to believe in, but not to practice polygamy.
If someone started a church that believed child molestation was Biblically commanded (and such passages do exist), why shouldn't the State regulate that molestation practice? I think "faith" gets away with too much as it is.
"Cure the gay" therapies are proven forms of abuse. Why should the Church be allowed to practice these barbaric forms of torture?
@Wet Willy, by definition, a "predisposition" is innate. It would be like me saying that in 2008 I was predisposed to voting against Barack Obama. In order for me to have been predisposed to vote against him I would have had to decide that, somehow, before I knew about it. It was only when I learned about it that I could make a decision.
The rest of your post is spot on.
being gay is not like a tumor, you can CHOOSE to either have sex with men, women or just not have sex at all. by nature we are all made to copulate with the opposite sex but we also have free will and tons of abnormalities so some might not be the same as others. states have ZERO power to legislate these type of actions as long as it is consensual, 'gay' therapy is not in any way harmful, regardless if it works or not.
the only truth to this is that we were made to propagate with the opposite sex. sex is not innate, its a choice. orientation is self appointed.
no proof to your opinion, at the most its an abnormality like being born without a foot. there is no evidence that our ancestors engaged in same sex, anal sex for the purpose of self gratification. there is a huge difference in love for man and wanted to butt drill him. greeks loved man, they didnt work at the fudge factory packing cheeks.
you do understand that you CHOOSE to have sex and that you CHOOSE who you love, being black is not the same as being gay, that is the purest of ignorance to compare the two. being gay does not gives you the right to hate either!
and how is changing an abnormality somehow harmful to the child? people CHOOSE to engage in all of kinds of different sex acts and nothing is harmed of them when they changed who they sleep with or changed position or even do some swinging. a child has no understanding of their sexual urges and can be easily confused into thinking the wrong things.
hey you know what? i can CHOOSE to have sex with this female or i can CHOOSE to have sex with this male, i can also CHOOSE to have sex with both of them. what am i now if i CHOOSE none?
Reaj - yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. You are a minority.
I read an article about Todd Akin, who now believes that breastmilk cures homosexuality. Dear God, the stupidity just never ends.
http://dailycurrant.com/2012/08/26/todd-akin-claims-breastmilk-cures-homosexuality/
http://dailycurrant.com/2012/08/29/kirk-cameron-ready-start-curing-gays-breastmilk/
Ya everyone hates California, they hate it so bad that they move there in droves. At least they protect things like children and the environment.
So under the new ban will it be a crime for a father to tell his son that it's just not right to sodomize his buddys? I guess we might have to send out children to the Middle East for the Cure.
wiseone. I don't know if it can cure a fellow, but it's always kept me from straying. I just love the containers.
EngEsq
and Sarah...stop using this medium a your own personal email....
Looks like the Sociopaths are staying true to their nature in their quest to create willing victims that affirm the acceptability of the crimes perpetrated against them.
You folks cannot legislate the absolution of your sins.
Ohhhhh... so homosexuality and heterosexuality only occurs when you actually have sex. So if you do not have sex, you are not homosexual or heterosexual... you are neither.
So, were you heterosexual as a child? Or were you neither? By your definition, you were ONLY heterosexual if you were having sex. If you were not having sex, then you were not heterosexual... according to your definition.
It's not about sex. It's about love. Get your mind out of the gutter and maybe you'll see things more clearly.
How naive.
Have you seen what this therapy consists of? In its most extreme form, the child is forced to view gay porn, then if there is a physical reaction electroshock is applied to the gentalia to simulate 'aversion therapy', or associating gay sex with extreme pain to create an aversion.
If you think electrocuting someone, particularly a child (and there goes the 'consensual part of your caveat), is not in any way harmful, then I would respectfully submit YOU are the one who needs therapy. The legislation clearly states the intent is to keep a parent from deciding to do this to a child; when the child becomes an adult at18, if they want this, then they can consent. A child cannot legally consent,.
Come on San Andreas fault! Just kiding.
I agree completely.
What we really need is a "cure" for stupid. There's a lot of that going around I'm afraid.
Swagganaut- You are making a common mistake by confusing sex with sexual orientation. One can have sex with a sock, it doesn't mean that they are attracted to socks, get horny in the hosiery department of stores or desire committed relationships with a pair of Gold Toes. Yes, a homosexual man can choose to have sex with a woman or to abstain. That does not alter the fact that they are gay. Just like a straight man can choose to have sex with a man or abstain, and that doesn't change the fact that he is straight.
And the "therapy" they are speaking of has been shown to cause high rates of depression and suicidal tendencies in their patients. It has very little to no success at changing a person's orientation. What it does do is shame the patient into closeting themselves, filling them with self hatred and loathing that eventually manifests into real psychological and physical injury. If that is not the definition of harm, I don't know what is. From a purely medical point of view, the benefits (if any) of such therapy do not outweigh it's many risks.
To look at it another way, lets say that there was a pill that claimed to cure the common cold. Only when it went to market it was found that 99% of it's users still caught colds, half of those also developed fatigue and depression. 20% of the pills users were driven to commit suicide. This medication would be called ineffective at best and highly dangerous at worst and pulled from market. You can believe all you want that colds are bad, that they are not a normal state for the body to be in and not desirable at all. But in this case the "cure" is worse than the disease and as such should not be considered to be a viable solution to what is a benign condition. (Please note that I am not saying that gay is a disease, just trying to put it in terms that this individual can maybe understand)
It is absolutely incredible to me that a State like California, who cannot even pay their bills, and which as a state is teetering on the verge of financially becoming whale-@!$%# on the bottom of the ocean floor, is now trying to find ways to spend more money on really stupid stuff. California is obsessed as a state and its' population with peoples genitals and where they fit into other peoples bodies. Why are they spending time on this insane crap? This is one more way to give the state of Californicate something else that is attached at the groin to someone else's body something to pay for that they can't pay for. What damned morons! The whole state full of homo's!!! California is living proof that the mexicans did f— — — coyotes ...
naive? so you dont choose you you love? how foolish of you to think.
obviously you do not understand nature and our bodies, we are made to propagate with the opposite sex but that engagement IS a choice to be made and with no choice you become celibate by choice. you cannot be a gay celibate or even a straight celibate as sexual identification in celibacy is non existent.
people confuse love with sex, loving another of the same sex is not what makes you "gay", engaging in sexual gratification of the same sex is what makes you "gay." i love men as well women but i will CHOOSE to have sexual relation with who i want. there is nothing wired in our bodies that makes decisions for us, we do that all on our own. so the next time you have sex with the same sex or not, remember that YOU made that choice, not your body or anything other than that sponge in your head.
you are confusing emotions with actions. love is an emotion, sex is an action. sexual orientation is a choice. you can have love without sex and you can choose to not engage in any sexual relations. if i profess my love for another man but never engage in sexual relations. would that make me 'gay?' NO!
I consider myself a Christian and do believe there is a God. Now with that being said, I think many religious practices are harmful and this is one of them. I don't believe people choose to be gay or straight or somewhere in the middle. I also don't care one way or the other. I have no hate or animosity for the LGBT community. I only ask that they respect my position as being heterosexual and I have never had a problem with that. I have had women hit on me and after telling them I wasn't interested, they dropped it.
I don't believe there is any such thing as a "gay cure". From my experiences in life, I think people are born this way. I friend of mines son just came out about a year ago. He was terrified that his parents would reject him and was very surprised when they said it wasn't a big deal and they had already suspected as much. He is 16. His parents said they had noticed since he was a small child that he was more clingy to men and as he grew older, instead of oggling girls, his eyes would follow other boys. No one else in the family is gay, so how can you say that it is a learned behavior and something that can be cured? He was raised in a normal, healthy one man, one woman house. (Not saying that same sex couples aren't normal, just trying to get my point across.) As far as anyone knows, he has never had any contact with a gay person, so it obviously didn't "rub off" on him.
I don't have any statistics or graphs or scientific articles to sight sources in what I believe because these are just my opinons based on my experiences in life. I wish people were more tolerant of others. It doesn't matter who you love and I don't think children are harmed by being raised in a same-sex couple environment.
If I had to guess, I don't think God cares either. He is suppose to be a God of love, so why would He have a problem with two people being the same sex, who honestly love one another and love their children? For those of us who believe in God, maybe He has also changed with the times. Whats to say that He may have been against it when the Bible was written, but as time went on, He changed? Just like parents adapt to their children, why wouldn't God adapt to His children? Just a few thoughts.
Swagganaut - It would depend entirely on the type of love you feel for said man. There are 4 types of love.
So yes, a straight man can love another man without being gay. Just as a gay man can love a woman without being straight. It is the type of love that they feel that changes it. If you as a man feel erotic, romantic love for another man that is a homosexual feeling regardless of if you ever choose to act on it or not. I presume that you value virginity in unmarried people. If your assertion that one cannot be Heterosexual or Homosexual if one chooses to abstain were to be correct, then how on earth do young people who have never had sex get together to get married? Clearly they have an attraction to someone and make a choice to enter into a union with that person. The same applies to gay people, only the people they are attracted to join in union with happen to be of the same gender they are. Not having engaged in the act does not mitigate that attraction. Ask any celibate priest or religious sister, celibacy is a difficult choice to make and live precisely because there are still attractions and temptations to overcome.
OP - how does this bill in any way trample on religious rights? The bill isn't banning religious leaders from declaring homosexuality as a sin, it's banning harmful mental health practices from mental health "professionals." Very, very different and in no way impedes on Amendment 1.
I believe that a woman's sexuality may be somewhat fluid. However, a gay man who is married to a woman knows when he marries that he's gay ... he might be in denial or bowing to outside pressure, but he knows and has always known.
im sorry that you dont know what you are talking about but yet still repeat it. a child is the responsibility of their parent/guardian, not the state. if a parent so wishes to put their child through some therapy that may include shock therapy (which has been proven effective) or anything else that has been so previously approved by the government for suitable treatments, then that is their right and decision to make. the child has no say because the child has no rights as a minor and has no understanding of themselves as a child. to think that at age 9, a child knows anything about being 'gay' or straight is absurd, all they know is from what they have been taught and seen and that can be very different and very wrong.
the state has no authority over the decisions of a parent as long as those decision do not hurt the child physically. mental harm is hard to prove but should be investigated.
i will make this clear, i do not support this type of "therapy" but i also do not support legislation that does not address anything relevant to the needs of our state. lawmakers have better things to do like fix their screw ups.
Barry- there are more "bisexual" men than you would think, it's just that because of the stigma associated with being gay in this society most guys who are only mildly attracted to other men suppress that attraction and stick with girls. Similarly many men who are mildly attracted to women, but mostly favor men simply self identify as Gay because they kind of get branded as such.
swagganuat, do you have a single intelligent thing to say, or just mindless blatherings?
Xina the Awesome
my broader point is that people are mistaking their emotions for something like lust and platonic friendship. i can love another man, i can sleep in the same bed with another man, i can share a house with another man, i can hold hands with another man, i can watch another man get naked, i can do all sorts of things with another man and that does not make my gay. if i made the choice to express my lust for a male and act on it, then i would be 'gay' but if i just told a male i loved him, that does not make me gay. being 'gay or 'straight' is just a label anyhow, its how we interact with others and express our feelings and desires that makes us who we are. what choices you make are your own but do not expect everyone to agree with those choices and do not disparage the ones that dont agree with you. the 'gay' community seems to want to force people to accept their choices but they wont accept others opinions.
when people have no understanding, the look to the outside for guidance, its whats outside you have to worry about.
if we are gonna separate sexual actions into different groups then lets start. lets just have everyone in their own special group who require their own special rules and who wont allow other groups to voice their needs. we can all just work together as a nation in our very own special groups. yeah, that will work out.....
was that suppose to be intelligent, or are you just blathering?
The sad thing is if California was controlled by the Republican Party they would probably be passing legislation that would criminalize being gay.............. THANK GOD THAT"S NOT HAPPENING.
More progressive legislative like this is needed in America. The religious right has conducted a wide spread assault on individual freedoms all across the county for over 100 years and their blind hate has brought America to a boiling point………
This hatred and bigotry is not just pointed toward gays but all minorities that do not follow right wing religious beliefs or for that matter anyone they deem "religiously impure". If this type of discrimination were to be redirected in their direction these religious fanatics would be screaming “WAR ON RELIGION”: but yet they're more than willing to wage their own religious war on the rights of others…. Their hypocrisy is stunning.
Swagganaut - It is not the act of you having sex with a man that makes you gay. It is the desire you have to have sex with another man that makes you gay. I believe the problem here is that Christian teaching for the most part has tried to distinguish the act of homosexual sex (the sin) from the homosexual person (the sinner). Christians are taught that it's not the fact that the person is tempted to sin that is so bad, after all we are all tempted to sin every day, rather it is out choice to act on that temptation that makes it sinful. In other words, hate the sin not the sinner, gays are called to a life of celibacy, the sin is not intheir nature, but in their deeds etc. What you're missing is that while you can believe that to be true, it does not negate the very real fact that for homosexuals that desire to be with someone of the same sex is present regardless of their choice to act on it or not. For those devout Christian homosexuals who choose to live a life of celibacy (or in the closet with a spouse) have a very heavy cross to bear. I have known gay men who married and had children and tried very hard to "be straight" who weren't. I have also dated men who at some point in their lives identified as "gay". I was a shoulder to cry on when a teenage friend of mine realized that he had to break up with his girlfriend because he was into guys and he didn't want to hurt her because he loved her so much. I can't say what causes two people to fall in love. I don't believe that romantic love is a choice. Perhaps you have som choice as to whether you allow yourself to be open to love, but anyone who has been with the "right" person only to wake up one day and just not "feel it" can tell you that you can't will yourself into loving somebody, no matter how much you may want to.
yep, that's true. I can do all of those things and would never even dream of having sex with another man
if you saw a man and even thought that you would like to have sex with him that would mean you were either gay or at the very least bisexual, whether you expressed it or not. in which case you are fooling no one but yourself.
yeah cali has been dong awesome under democrat control for decades -rolls eyes. the only hate i see bigal is yours
he never loved her, he was mistaken and confused so instead of solving the problem, he made it worse. just thinking about same sex does not make you gay, thinking about opposite sex does not make you straight, those are labels you see. its actions that determine who we are, celibacy is apart from sex, its a choice to abstain from any sexual thoughts and emotions of lust. when asked of a celibate if they are gay or straight, the proper answer is neither.
while developing emotions may not be a choice, acting on those emotions is. you may love someone but if no action is taken then that love is meaningless. our thoughts and emotions can pass like the wind and for many they have very little understanding of what they might be feeling, they get confused on what they are experiencing and that can lead to the wrong choices
if a man married a female and had offspring then after many years the man confided in his wife that he was secretly gay, that is an example of someone who is confused about themselves and does not understand what they are doing, he was lying to not only himself, he lied to his wife and his kids along with everyone else. he is the epitome of garbage for lying to that extent and should not be trivialized with being gay. if you cant be honest with yourself then you cant be honest with others
@Swagganaut #1.40: I do (in part) agree with what you said...I know of an identical pair of male twins, of which one is gay and the other is straight...both were raised by the same parents into adulthood...so at least in that case it would appear that being gay was not due to genetic factors. A greater understanding of this issue and the relationship of genetics to it (the extra Y chromosome question) is really necessary.
At this point in time we should be careful as to we say is fact; if everyone agrees that every person is "born" with this predisposition, then what does that infer about a woman who marries a man, has a child, and then later divorces him and enters into a gay relationship. When she first married did she know she was gay, and the marriage was only to obtain a child and support, and her intention all along was to divorce in favor of the gay lifestyle? If she knew she was gay, why did she enter into a heterosexual relationship? That question not only raises social issues but legal ones as well.
This is a very complex issue and certainly more study on it is required, let's not jump to conclusions!
Swagganaut
You are confusing action with attraction. You CHOOSE to perform an action, you DO NOT choose what you are attracted to.
Heterosexuality is the orientation of being ATTRACTED to the opposite sex. It is NOT the action, it is the attraction. The same is true for homosexuality.
As a child, I was heterosexual even though I was not having sex. How did I know? Because I was ATTRACTED to the opposite sex. Were you heterosexual as a child?
Now, attraction is NOT a choice. Attraction is the resulting feeling of dopamine and serotonin being released in your brain, due to external stimuli. When you see an attractive woman, you are NOT choosing to be attracted to her, the physiological chemicals in your brain determine that. Once these chemicals are released, your eyes begin to dilate, blood flow increases to your skin, and a host of subconscious signals begin.
If you believe attraction is a choice, then choose to release dopamine into your brain right now. Do it. Come on, choose to release it. Oh look at that, you can't. How do I know? Because it is impossible to make a choice to consciously release those chemicals.
You know that feeling you get when you see your wife? That is not a choice, that is the physiological release of chemicals that make you feel attracted to her. NOT a choice.
Now, actual sex is a choice. But sex does not determine orientation. I am heterosexual, if I decide not to have sex tonight I am still heterosexual. The action does not change my orientation. In fact, the action is simply a physical reaction to manual stimulation... nothing more. As someone else said, you can have sex with a sock, but that doesn't mean you are attracted to the sock.
Stop confusing the action of sex with the attraction factor of orientation.
Some homosexual men have claimed to have, through counseling, become heterosexual, for lack of a better phrase. I don't see why this is possible with an adult male homosexual but not possible with a minor homosexual male. So rather than ban a therapy which many people who have used to good effect (their claim) why not just allow the present tort system in California deal with the problem, should one arise?
In other words, we don't need yet one more law governing our private interactions and contracts. This is about trying to disprove a theory and therapy that provides people a way to change into something they would prefer to be. Whether we think it works or not is irrelevant, and without some evidence that it doesn't work AND causes harm instead (particularly harm that society will have to pay for), then people should be left to be free. This includes parents of homosexual kids.
California trying to ban the Gay Cure, hmm!
In other news!!
If Cali is so bad, why does YOUR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE live there? Why do countless CEOs choose to live in Orange County, CA? Why are some of the largest corporations, like Google and Apple, headquartered in CA?
Seems if it was so bad, your own candidate would not have a house there. And all those extremely wealthy CEOs would move away from one of the most expensive county's in the entire country. Would you like to take a trip to Cota de Caza and ask the residents why they choose to buy multi-million dollar mansions in CA? Or perhaps Malibu would be a better place to pose that question.
Poor, helpless, defenseless, gays. Don't worry, the government will save you from this cruel world, and exalt you to the status of "superior citizen." That way no one can even look at you funny without being convicted of a hate crime. All language and rhetoric in this country will be pro-gay, and anyone who says otherwise will be instantly silenced for his bigoted hate filled expression of his beliefs. Do not worry gays, you can do no wrong. Nothing is your fault, and you will be held accountable for anything. If anyone tells you otherwise report them to the nearest authority immediately, because they are "damaging you psychologically."
It's my understanding that groups that try to remove homosexual orientation are successful about 50% of the time. Of course that also means they're unsuccessful about 50% of the time.
Nevertheless, the idea that it never works is without merit.
The idea that homosexuality is simply hardwired is also without merit. With identical twims, where one had homsexual orientation, the other had it as well 38% of the time. Now while that is much higher than the 2 to 3% of the population that experiences that naturally, it's well under the near 100% that would be expected for a strictly biological cause. Undoubtedly there is a biological component for many, but not even close to all. This also matches what we see in history, where some cultures such as Sparta in ancient Greece had it as the norm for older men (mentors) and younger men to have relations. Surely that was not biological.
It should also be pointed out that boys that were molested by men have a tendency to have gay leanings. This bill removes the ability to address those issues other than just telling the minor they are gay.
EngEsq.
So catholic priests can claim they were only praying away the gay?
Who would have thought? After all that California technology and glamour, it wounded up being gays the new generation of Californians. And some of those will grow up to be our assemblymen! No wonder there are so many politicians coming out of the closet after they have pushed progay laws! This system is so screwed!
i live in cali and yeah its that bad. romney is not my choice and neither is obama. liberals like to live with liberals and cali is very liberal. juts look at our finances and our asinine laws and you get your answer, btw ive lived in cali for many many many decades and i will never live anywhere else and with that being said, cali is screwed.
actually you can choose who you are attracted to. why wouldnt you? we have free will and because of that we can make choices apart from our emotions and instincts. if you let your emotions control you then you are doomed to failure. we are not just animals like your dog.
lol you really think some chemicals make us choose? lol thats so absurd and the same thing as saying the alcohol made me do it. those chemicals are not solely for the purpose of feeling 'attracted' to someone, they alter your state of being and serve many functions and yes i can choose who im attracted too and i can choose how i feel, its called control and i know most lack any self control but some can.
if im married and see a hotter female. what prevents my emotions from going wild and wanting that hottie? according to you i should just act on it because its not my choice but that would be wrong and cheating so by miracle of FREE WILL i CHOOSE to stay faithful to my wife and NOT let my emotions get the better of me. no chemicals needed for that.
basically all your saying is that we are just emotional animals with no self control and at the first sign of any emotional feeling, we just act on it without thought. glad im not like you, i choose who i mate with and who i love.
thoughts are not an orientation and the engagement of sexual relations does indeed define your sexual preference, without actions you have no definition and with no definition, you have no answer. you can abstain from having sex tonight but are you going to do it tomorrow, or the next? if you choose to never have sex then you are celibate and without desire to choose. all choices.
if we labeled everyone based on thought, we would be pretty screwed. only actions matter for perception and sex is an action.
Let's consider the opposite scenario... you are a straight person, we assume, so how much religious pressure or therapy or counseling would it take for you to be converted to gay? Would church teachings or pro-gay therapy be sufficient to change your orientation?
What's That??? I hear so many of you say: "I'll never stop being straight no matter what you say or do to me"??? You really want to admit that you can not change your orientation as a result of counseling or peer pressure???
Now, why do you think that gays are any less convinced of their desire?
If you believe in God, then surely you must believe that if Gays exist, He must have made them!
And if God made them Gay, why would you want to mess with that?
Nobody here is going to educate Swagganaut. His "mind" is made up.
The clear thing I do get from his posts is that he can't get laid by ANYBODY of either gender.
It's a step in the right direction to protect children from extremists who using their own wacked out views will feel it's right to torture them until they say that they were wrong and that they will follow the wack jobs views. Unfortunately I think the wackos will go under ground and the torture will continue.
Long overdue. These so-called "gay cure" doctors and clinics are nothing but quackery. Only thing they really practice is fleecing the flock, preying on the devoutly clueless. The truth: anyone they "cure" is actually bisexual, and not exclusively homosexual or lesbian. Unless, of course, they're an actor that one of these snake oil salemen hires from Joe the Plumber's temp agency.
One modification to the law: the snake oil these jokers are selling must be submitted to a lab for analysis to determine the exact percentage of snake oil content.
Swaggernaut,
You're right. naive was a poor choice of words. It's actually a toss-up between ignorant and arrogant, or possibly a combination of the two.
Sorry.
nice retort for someone who doesnt have anything to say.
do you disagree that we were made to propagate with the opposite sex? do you disagree that it is a choice to have sexual relations? celibacy is the choice to not engage in any sexual acts for life. do you not agree that celibacy is not an identification of sexual preference? asexual as defined is the ability to self propagate, not abstain from sex. asexuality is a stolen term used improperly to define someone who chooses to not engage in sex, that is already defined as either being celibate (for life) or abstain till ready (ex. marriage). abstaining or celibacy is not an sexual orientation, its the lack of.
what part of the excerpt you posted do you have issue with? or do you just throw accusations with no substance?
Swagganaut,
Prove to me that we were made in such a way that every human being must propogate with the opposite sex. Sure, we were made so that at least some of our species would. But, there's no reason to believe that our species was "purposely made" so that every member of our species propogates or desires the opposite sex.
There are many other species in which a certain subsect of the species doesn't procreate. Bees, for example. Only the queen bee mates and she only mates with certain males. The rest are workers. Several species of monkeys have groups in which there is only one mating pair. The rest of the monkeys have all the right parts to mate, but don't -- they merely help the group with protection, allo-parenting,etc.
So, just because propogation can only occur between a male and a female in our species, it doesn't actually prove that every member of our species was "made" to desire the opposite sex or even to want to propogate.
And, of course, I'm sure I'm going to hear the argument "that just because animals do it, doesn't mean we should." An argument that misses the point -- because I'm NOT arguing that because animals do anything we should do anything. All I'm arguing is that your seemingly "common sense" argument doesn't hold up. There is no proof that homosexuality is unnatural. Or that an individual member of the species not propogating at all is unnatural. Or that every single human was "made to propogate." And thus any claims made in that vein are just unsupported opinion.
Is there a straight cure? Think about it.
Swagganaut
You obviously do not live in Orange County if you think only liberals live in Cali. But that is not surprising, I'm sure it is out of your price range. Only successful individuals can afford to live in that area... you obviously do not fall into this group.
If you CHOOSE who you are attracted to, then why would you classify a female as "hotter" if you are married? Because you can be attracted to someone and not act on it.
Again, you are confusing attraction with action. Action is a CHOICE. Attraction is not.
Because you choose not to ACT on it. Why is this so difficult? Action = Choice. Attraction = physiological response based on chemical secretion in your brain. This is factual science. If you had any knowledge of physiology you would know this. Of course, I would be surprised if you managed to make it to community college.
Do you honestly expect me, another male, to believe that you never, ever, EVER, consider any other woman attractive?
I NEVER said that acting on it was not a choice... in fact I said the exact opposite.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. This is probably why you are not successful enough to live in the Republican-heavy area of Orange County... you lack the intelligence to understand basic written communication.
Nope, never once said that. Now you are a LIAR.
I said you CHOOSE to ACT on it. But what does it matter, you will simply continue to LIE.
So you admit that before you ever had sex, you were not heterosexual. Good to know. Growing up, I was not as confused as you. I was well aware of my orientation before I ever made the choice to engage in a sexual act.
By the way... correct capitalization and punctuation in sentence structure helps to convey a message of intellect and expertise. From your post, you obviously fall short in this department. Once again, I am not surprised. Especially considering that you are so embarrassingly unsuccessful in life that you can not afford to live in the Republican area of California.
In addition to your points, I would also point out that humans are capable of exponential growth in breeding. As a result, if every single member of our species propagated, we would experience severe over-population that could not be sustained. This extreme over-population would lead to our demise, as all natural resources would be used up.
On top of that, humans who are sterile or "barren" are proof enough that not everyone was "made" to propagate.
Of course, this type of mathematics analysis and common sense rational goes well above the head of someone like Swagganaut. He lacks the intelligence to understand anything beyond what his 2,000 year-old religious text tells him.
WHY do they call them queers. if they think they are normal, humph I will have to give that some thought. did some one change the meaning of normal? I'm tired of this personal problem stuff for a country that is supposed to be majority ruled we sure spend allot of time on the 3%, it is a personal issue. and has no place in politics. or mental clinics.
I know that you say your just born that way and its natural but you do need to understand and I think you do, that when we have children we first worry if they will be healthy, when they are born were checking for all fingers and toes, then we get excited about the fact that we had a male or female, its normal to expect that they be what there body and organs say they are, now THAT is human nature and NORMAL! We expect a dog to bark and a cat to meow, thats normal! I'm not saying its bad but you have to understand when people are disappointed even, not even bringing religion into this. That doesn't make you feel good or wanted or accepted but you must understand the other feelings. I do also wonder about some things like the fact that pedophiles are just BORN that way too. They can't change what they feel either! Phycologist have tried to change them and have had no luck. Is it wrong and harmfull for people to try and change them too? Should we just accept it and stop throwing them in jail after all they can't help it and they were born that way, who are we to try and change them?
neice,
Seriously? Comparison to pedophiles is your argument? What part of "consent" is so hard to understand? Pedophiles may very well be born that way, but their problem is the object of their attraction is too young to consent, therefore, no, their actions cannot be excused. Gay adults are attracted to other gay adults, therefore harming no one!
Oh, certainly, let's not imperil the next generation of homosexuals in CA; where would they be without their prancing wonders? Please, people, these are parental rights and need to be respected; if parents don't want their kids being deviants, who the ___— is the CA court system to say otherwise? If they truly want to revel in the homosexual deviancy AFTER they're 18 or 21, well, that's their concern.
Parents have the right to raise their children and to guide them to choices! I do have a feeling that the tables could turn on the gays quickly. What is going to happen when some gay parent decides that his or her heterosexual child should be gay? Will they be allowed to have this child in therapy so that they are more like them? I am sure that there would be a decent percentage of these parents who would be more comfortable if their child was gay (I am not saying all of them, just a small percentage)! So this could boomerang against the very individuals who are now preaching against the "cure"!
We all know the state is omnipotent in making decisions about how parents should raise their children, might as well get out your little red book of Mao's quotations and begin your incantations. All hail Caesar, all hail the State.
MORE sick pandering by politicians for votes. They just can't keep from trying to control the air people breath to try to win elections. Sick, all of them and this proves they really did hire back a nut job for governor. We will feel sorry for the real people out there but have to applaud when it finally falls into the ocean.
@ Swaggnut: definiton of homosexual- Having romantic feelings for the same sex. Being attracted to the same sex romantically, emotionally, and/or sexually. Desiring to have relations or a relationship with a member of the same sex. Enaging in relations with the same sex or desiring to have relations with the same sex. Having romantic thoughts about or romantic/sexual desires for the same sex. If you are physically, romatically and/or sexually attracted to another man you are a homosexual. It is not the act that defines your sexuality it is the attraction to and the feellings that you have for the same or oppposite sex that defines your sexuality. You are in denial. Just Like mguy said, the only person you are fooling is yourself. If you desire to be with another man whether romantically, emotionally, or sexually, you are gay. And if it is all three of them together you are gay.
If you have romantic or sexual thoughts about other men, you are still gay whether you choose to act on these feelings or not. You do not have to have sex with the same sex to be gay. If you simply have the desire to be with the same sex romantically you are gay. If you are attracted to the same sex you are gay. That is the definition. Period. You are gay. You are gay. Look up the definition of homosexual again for you own persoanl research or reasoning. You will find it is the exact same definition I posted above. So your argument holds no weight at all. You do not have to engage in any sexual activity to be gay. All you have to do is simply have desirable feelings or romatic thoughts about the same sex and you are gay. All you have to do is simply be attracted to the same sex to be gay. Thats it. When you engage in the act you are just acting out those emotions pyhsically. Thats all. You are just carrying out your romantic desires sexually. That is all. So yes if this pertains to you or any other individual on this thread using your lame ass defense then you are gay and you are in denial.
Your sexual orientation is based on who are you are attracted to the most, physically, romantically, and sexually. Get some education please. Swagganaut.
The parents have a right also considering since nature still even in California use the act of sex therefore sexual attraction (that part could be in question there)as a means of propagation of the species the parents have a right to or should maintain the right to send children to a therapist of their choosing..ironic how the gay community looks more like the pro-life movement all the time on this issue. The Catholic Church I understand from their business model abortion of future Catholics is bad for production, but what's the gay community's interests in this issue?
Romneyismynightmare
Love California , too bad it's populated..
@sweetcancer That's what brainwashed idiots have brainwashed you into believing. Just because a person happens to appreciate, or is attracted to the qualities of another person (whatever they are) doesn't make you gay or straight. How ridiculous to think so. I guess all football fans are football-sexuals because they fantasize and are attracted to football or watching it. Or car enthusiasts must now be labeled car-sexuals because they are attracted to or love cars you are an idiot supporting perverts who want to dupe people into accepting their form of perversion.
so basically they are saying trying to tell a child he is not gay is a crime but telling a child he is gay is not?
@I'malwayswrite yea that will change in the future we just dont know when yet
Jennifer
Football fans are NOT sexually attracted to the football players. Liking an activity and being a fan are different than being sexually attracted to them.
Again, they are not sexually attracted to cars.
You seem to lack the intelligence to distinguish between sexual attraction and merely being a fan of something. Let me guess, you dropped out of school at around 2nd grade... because "yu dont need no skool wen you gots da bible", right?
Your sexual orientation is based on who you are attracted to physically, mentally, and sexually. So this disproves your agrument. This is the sentence I originally meant to insert instead of the one I typed. Take most out of it. I accidentally typed that word. But Swagganaut you are in serious denial.
And another thing you can be a heterosexual and abstain from having sex. Being celibate means you are abstaining from sex. It means an idividual is making a choice to remain sexually pure. This does not determine their sexuality or sexual orientation. It just means that they are abstinent. Thats it. So this point of your argument is illogical too. Just because you are abstinent does not mean that you do not have a sexual preference or a sexual orientation. Because you can have-majority of these indiviuals do-a sexual preference and be abstinent. I mean your argument is so ridiclous and illogical. I mean what were you trying to prove by bringing this into this discussion. If you were trying to make or have a valid point by making a gay/straight analogy with celibacy, your failed miserably. I didn't get it at all and I'm sure nobody else got it either. Because one has absloutley nothing to do with the other.
Now for your other insensitive comment about this kind of therapy not causing any harm to children, you need to go back and read the article. They have proof that this kind of therapy is harmful to teens in every way. And another person on this thread told you what the the therapy involves and that is causing harm physically, mentally, and emotionally to teens. I have no idea of what your definition of causing harm is if these side effects are not what you consider harmful. Your definition of harm is about as warped as your definition of gay. You really are a moronic insensitive individual. These teens do not deserve this kind of therapy at all. Their parents should not even desire to subject their teens to this kind of therapy just because of their sexual preferences.
I am a Christian and I know for a fact that my Lord and Savior would not approve of these heinous methods. My Lord and Savior teaches us to operate out of love and compassion for one another. Just because you dont like the fact that your child is gay does not give you the right to treat them any kind of way or subject them to any kind of treatment. You are supposed to love your children unconditionally. That means loving them whether you approve of the chioces they make or not. You are supposed to protect them, guide them, teach them, provide for them, and support them emotionally, spiritually, physically and mentally. That means that they are supposed to receive the most love, compassion, spiritual knowledge, and understanding from their parents. Not anybody else. Children should be able to go and talk to their parents about anything. They should not be faced with judgement from their parents.
And as a real Christian I agree with the Democrats and the bill they passed. They should not have any such therapy whatsoever. Having this kind of therapy is wrong. There's no justification for this at all. They are already struggling with the issue as it is. And having to go through this kind of therapy will make matters worse than what they already are. They should not be programmed into being heterosexual or deprogrammed out of homosexuality. This decision should be their's soley to make. The Lord operates out of freewill and allows us to choose for ourselves and children should be given the same freedom.
Jeninfer Cheuvront- That is the actual defintion of being a homosexual. Your comment was very idiotic and illogical. Your intellignce is on the exact same level as Swaganaut. Just like Mguy said there is a huge difference in being a fan of sports and being attracted to a person. Again, one has absolutetly nothing to do with the other. You need to get a dictionary and look up the definition of homosexual and heterosexual and you also need to read all of Swaganaut comments to gain some real understanding as to why I typed exactly what I typed. I gave the real definition for being celibate and for being homosexual. Your reply was completely stupid and unnesscary.
If you have such a problem with the definition then I suggest you contact Microsoft and Webster. I did not give the word homosexual its definition. I just stated what I read. Better yet why don't you contact the person that came up with this definition that these two credible sources posted in their dictionary since you have such a problem with it? Nobody brainwashed me into believing anything. And for the record you are the idiot this time. Unlike you I actually read and do research and make logical arguments. And my analogies are very intellgent and they are actually related to one another. I don't use idiotic analogies to get my point across. I use logical ones that everyone with a brain in their head can understand. And I definitely do not post idiotic comments on threads that are completely irrevelant to the subject at hand.
All of these are facts. So please make sure the next time you call somebody an idiot, make sure that he/she is an actual idiot. Thank You. And please make sure they cannot make your accusation of them being idiot turn around on you and make you look like the idiot instead.
I really shouldn't even be addressing the ridiculous comparison, but.. here it goes.
A pedophile acting on his/her desires results in psychological, emotional and physical harm to a child. There is no evidence that homosexual behavior results in any harm to anyone (excluding people who bully those individuals. But we should no more encourage homosexual individuals to change their behavior because of bullies than we would tell our child to change their behavior because someone at school is bullying them).
Until you can provide any evidence that homosexual behavior is harmful, detrimental to the person or others, or interferes in one's life, you have no claim that the behavior is abnormal (in a clinical sense) or something that is comparable to things like pedophilia, beastiality, or whatever other tenuous comparisons you try to make.
But, if you have the evidence, please tell me. As soon as people can provide credible evidence that homosexuality is detrimental to people, I will completely change my position.
i would never want to live in orange county, anything south of where im at is garbage, the only cali i look at is the very northern part where we dont live like rats in a sewer. if you want to compare assets then lets go but for you to bring that up is very lame and very telling of how insecure you really are (i have a 10k tibetan rug hand made by monks, what do you have)
saying someone is hotter than someone else has nothing to do with a lack of emotional control, we judge alot based on appearance and just because you love someone does not mean they are the most attractive. love is separate from attraction and both need action to complete. i choose who i am attracted to, i choose who i love, i choose how i interact with people. i can have any emotion but action is all that matters.
no you are confused about your emotions. I CHOOSE WHO I AM ATTRACTED TO!!!!!! emotions have no relevance without thought and action.
lol yeah i guess the brain has been 100% figured out huh? we all must be 100% the same huh? so what you feel must be what i feel right? to think that you can tell me how i feel and how i act on my feeling is just the height of arrogance. there is no secretion in my brain when i see hot females and neither when i see hot guys. i control my emotions, least that part lol. emotions are just that, emotions. its actions that define us, not our emotions.
lol im single by choice and yeah most females i see are hot but that means nothing without action. i could be married and still think a female is hotter but without action it means nothing. love is separate from attraction but you would never understand that as society has ruined true love and confused it with lust and attraction.
no, what you implied was that because we have these emotions, they define who we are.
no, you seem to have an understanding problem and instead of a healthy debate you take cheap shots at my income and intelligence, you are the loser in this debate the first time you insulted me.
lol WOW going of the deep ed now eh? i summed up what the impression i got from you, i didnt quote you as saying anything, note my use of the words "basically all your saying is."
yeah and i can choose not to act on it, im in control not my emotions.
well technically yes, as young children we have no sexual identification till we identify it ourselves. you had no idea what sexual orientation was, you had no idea about much of anything as a child but reflection plays tricks and you are trying to use gained knowledge to rewrite your history.
are you gonna pay me to write? no, then i can care less about punctuation as long as my words can be comprehended and i do fairly well. capitalization still does not matter to the proper context of my words. you are grasping from the bottom of the hole you dug with your cheap insults and weak grammar snipe. no one cares about orange county!
attraction, lust and love are separate emotions that can feel very similar.
if i thought about committing a crime but never carried it out. would that make me a criminal for thinking about a crime? no.
if i thought about having sex with men but never did. would that make me homosexual? no.
if i thought about having sex with a female but never did. would that make me a heterosexual? no.
actions are what define us, not emotions or thought.
sexual orientation is a made up term used to separate us into groups. we have whats called FREE WILL and due to that we can make choices separate from our emotions and thought. i can be attracted to this female, love this male and have sex with myself. what label would you give me then?
the problem is you are letting people redefine things to suit wants. if you cannot visualize my emotions and thoughts then how can you label me something that you just made up. you are a hetero when you engage in sex, you are a homo when you engage in sex, just thinking about it does not make it so.
It's deviant because it predisposes people to perversion to be able to commit the acts. For a person to have these attractions to others of the same sex, beasts or objects, to heterosexual people they are not married to or to children requires a person to have a perverted sense of sex and sexuality. Promiscuity and sexual permissiveness is what this society has progressively approved of. Yes, I admit that people who are married heterosexuals do not always provide a good moral base for people to grow from, but if you think that approving of sexual perversion of any kind is going to provide a good moral base you are sadly mistaken. I know you don't believe me but after enough time passes people will realize this is true. And if married heterosexual unions have not provided a good moral base it's not because their structure doesn't work but because the individuals within these unions have allowed their values to lapse into tolerating situations that do not provide a good environment ex (spousal abuse, child abuse whatever else). Enough time has already passed to show that promiscuous heterosexual relationships have done nothing to improve society but only further degrade it. I realize for heterosexuals to feel entitled to live the kind of life of sexual promiscuity they must embrace this union of homosexuals because they (morally deficient heterosexuals) are living a life of sexual perversion themselves and therefore not free to judge against homosexuality. Eventually, once homosexuality reaches the same acceptability of heterosexual promiscuity then these same heterosexuals and homosexuals will realize, in order to not be judgmental, they will need to promote other forms of sexual perversion in order to validate their entitlement of their lifestyles. I know most of you don't think this would ever reach the point of people approving of pedophiles but that's the direction it has already started heading. And go ahead and rant and rave against me all you want to but I know the time will come when God will unfortunately have to rid the planet of all those (including heterosexual married people) who refuse to acknowledge him and live in a morally sound manner. And by being morally sound I don't mean overly restrictive to obstruct personal freedom but to live life in a moral and structured manner that can be beneficial to society and yet still foster creativity and spontaneity. Go ahead and hate on me but that doesn't change the truth!
Jennifer,
By your own logic, then you should be in favor of homosexual marriage in which people take vows to cherish their partner and marriage and stay faithful. Thus, less sexual promiscuity.
All the Gay or LGBTQ people I've met, never complain about being Gay, but, do complain about people and family, doing everything they can to make them feel bad about being Gay!! And, why is it that I never hear Bi-sexual people say they feel bad about being B-sexual? I know the people who so religious and concerned with how some people live their private lives, behave in ways that makes them unconfortable, are so ready to do everything to deny them, Gay and LGBTQ community, the rights and privileges that the heterosexuals enjoy and take for granted.
Fun facts about gay people.
As a demographic they commit the least amount of crime per capita in the world.
As a demographic they have the least poverty.
As a demographic they are the most educated
As a demographic they are the most artistic.
So why does this society pick on gay people?
Homosexuality is a scientific anomaly that happens in the first trimester of pregnancy. it cannot be reversed nor should it. straight people don't want to accept this cause they would not be able to pick on gays anymore. Gay people wont accept is cause they feel it would label them negatively. go figure.
swaggernut, who gives a flying fork what you claim to have?
i couldn't care less if you had a billion dollars or if you were living under a freeway overpass, you're still full of it.
swagfag has got to be the most ill-informed peice of crap on here. Even as children, before we knew what sexual orientation, I STILL KNEW I WAS ATTRACTED TO FEMALES. Why is that? Because we're born with it. I did even know I was supposed to be attracted to ANYONE at that age...but I knew I liked girls. Ask a homosexual, they knew they liked boys before they knew the term gay or homosexual (in most instances, obviously there are cases of people coming out later out of fear). You're whole argument is debunked because of that simple fact. Yes, at our cores we are animals...flesh and bone with a specific mix of chemicals released from the brain that give us our personalities. Thats how it is. You can try ot deny it all you want but luckily science isn't swayed by denial.
that guy sure likes saying sissy boys.
Grover Dorkquist
What does racism have to to with shrinks????? It's about parents and kids not the GOP. Sounds to me that you my friend might be racist!!
Grover-
The Klan was founded by the Democrats. Sounds like you're both ignorant and racist. Mind you, that's the default setting for Liberals.
Sgt D...Yeah thats when the Democrats were the conservative party. It was founded by conservatives regardless of what they called themselves. The whole idea of the KKK is conservative which is the opposite of liberalism or as I would call it tolerance for others with views, ideas and values different than your own. KKK were intolerant of people with different color skin, which is a conservative, not liberal view. So you can try to spin anyway you want KKK were conservatives.
The Klan was founded by people who at that time were Democrats, commonly called "Dixiecrats". After the Equal Rights Act passed in the mid-60s, they all switched party to become the Republicans we all know today.
no, thats a lie that dems were the conservatives and repubs were the liberals. dems were the south, the confederacy, they wanted slaves, they hated repubs. KKK was founded by democrat confederates to kill free blacks and repubs, KKK even had members in congress and created segregation laws, jim crow was a democrat! the late senator bird (d) was a KKK recruiter and even gore's dad was a KKK member, the dems didnt vote for the civil rights act. the list goes on and on on how bad the dems were back then and it should tell you how bad they are now. one thing the dems did right though was to infiltrate the repubs, neo cons was coined back in the late 30's to describe a liberal who turned conservative but now its some kinds dem insult to repubs.
no, maybe if you actually read and understood history, you would realize that the klan was started long before any dixiecrat, it was started by confederates pissed that they lost the war.
None of that changes the fact that once the Equal Rights Act passed, all those Klansmen switched to the Republican Party, or as in the case of Bird, changed their convictions.
Think Jesse Helms, for example. Strom Thurman. George Wallace.
wrong again, (one of the standard lies by the reich-wing) MOST of the SOUTHERN STATE (boll weevil democrats) dems didn't vote for the civil rights act and NONE of the southern state republicans voted for it.
ALL of the non-southern state democrats voted FOR the civil rights act, and a few non southern state republicans voted against it.
it was entirely the south that was against the civil rights act, with a scattering of republicans around the country.
those "southern democrats" have finally gotten over their "black republican" holdover from the civil war and entirely gone over to infest the republicans with their brand of religious hysteria and hatred.
the hardline dems didnt vote, not to say there wasnt a single dem vote but there was no dem support for the act and with just a few dems voting for it means nothing if the party was very against it. dems are the ones who created/supported all segregation laws
i see your bias as clear as day with the use of "reich-wing, you do understand that the nazis were left - national socialist party. hitler was not right wing and was not a christian but hey dont let facts hit you on the way out.
they are still in the dems party as well as the repubs, i can see your just a blind party follower. i do not like either but i do know the history of the democrat party and its not pretty.
the more times you say it does not make it true. there were quite a few klan holdovers in the dem party and anyone who switched sides still had dem support. bird never renounced anything, he always gave full support to the klan and its very well documented he was a racist.
@R Battle:
I caught that too. Always scary to hear politicians re-enforce sexual stereotypes. What does he mean? If you're not a jock you must be gay. Very scary. Think if a boy is molested by another male and isn't the most macho kid in the class. Politicians like this idiot would be convincing him he's gay. And making it illegal to go to therapy that would say otherwise. Sounds like recruiting to me.
the nazis were "liberal socialists"?! hitler was "not right wing"? ROFLMAO!
the only thing "socialist" about the nazis was the name, by that standard, the north koreans are "democratic" (democratic peoples republic of korea)
the nazis were rabidly anti-communist, rabidly anti-union, rabidly anti-atheist, strongly pro-big business, rabidly anti-gay to the point of exterminating them like some christian preachers here have said they want the government to do(because it will make their hands look clean to their hate-filled flock), strongly "pro morals", and quit the league of nations like the lunatic right-wing fringe wants to do with the UN.
some selected quotes:
can't have schools that don't teach religion now, can we?
no atheists allowed...
sounds like ann coulter
uh huh...
yep, he sure sounds like a "socialist, anti-christian liberal" (sarcasm)
Nazi's we're all about big government. Hmmmm, kind of like the democrats. See what I did there Iseeconfused people. Be careful when wielding double edged swords.
Really? Are you sure about that? As you say, "the more times you say it does not make it true.":
that's it? "big government" is all you've got?
the rantings of the far right sound almost exactly like the rantings of the nazis, and you come up with "big government"?
if you want to argue that the bureaucracy has grown too large and needs to be streamlined, I would agree. if you want to argue that the regulations should be consolidated and made simpler to follow, I agree. but if your only comparison of the left with nazis is "big government" then you are nuts.
lol yeah cause their actions really screamed 'right wing.' you just cherry pick what you want to suit your views. hilter did the same exact things very other leftest ideologue did, banned guns, banned public gathering, took away rights for safety, killed their own people, killed even more of the opposition, or 'scapegoats.' stalin was left, mao, lenin, castro, marx, all leftist. why dont you look to hitlers youth and how he came into power and while your at it, read all his work for proper context then you can interview people who were alive to get their perspective. the left is the one who try to say hitler was right wing, even though it was the left who was trying to minimize hitlers conquest prior to us getting involved.
you also dont understand that democracy does not equal freedom, we live in a republic because democracy does not work, its been tried many times before and its always the same result, oppression. im sure north korea's people take their name serious right? it must be about freedom if it has democracy in its name right? why not just call us the Democratic States of America.
i bet you also think unions are left wing right? while the left has used union for their gains, unions were created by the italian mafia. look at italy prior to the mob coming here and you get the answer to where unions came from. who were the first union bosses? sure wasnt someone not connected to the mob.
lol yeah cause what the NAACP says must be true right? did you also know that the NAACP was started by whites? why dont you look into birds actual words instead of a special interest groups revised version -lies. bird never renounced his klan involvement.
swaggthenut, where do you idiots come up with this crap?
So, the Westboro Klan call themselves "Democrat," it doesn't mean they are liberals... far from it. Hell, they don't even like most of the conservative Republicans, whom they consider too liberal for not being anti-gay enough.
Wow. You can't be serious. Because you're basically saying that the NAACP was covering up for someone who was actually a racist Klansman. Is it that hard for you to admit you were wrong? And, given such a stunning case of delusional denial, do you really expect anyone to believe anything else you have to say on the subject?
BTW, apologies to readers for my using the phrase "Equal Rights Act" when it should have been "Civil Rights Act" (of 1964). The ERA never did make it.
lol you offered no proof of anything, NAACP was started by whites and its racist to this day! and yes the NAACP is covering up, WHY DONT YOU FREAKING READ THE DAMN MANS WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!! to his death bed he was a racist and had full support from the party. how would i be wrong if you cant prove your right? NAACP is nothing to anyone and does not represent bird in any shape or form, so by using their words to excuse someone else's, you have already lost.
this thread here was already off topic i just dont like you lefties always constantly being miss informed about your suppose heroes on the left
swaggernut, you offer no proof of any of any of your utterly specious claims (sorry but what some clown sent you in an e-mail doesn't count as proof), yet you chide people for not offering proof of well documented claims
there is also a bill to change the name of the state to sissyfornia.
California legislators, debating the great challenges facing the state. $15 billion deficit? Naaah. Defaulting on pension programs? That's for wusses. They need to address the SERIOUS topics: pot, gay teens, and ultraconservative idiots.
cynic: I've seen the CA legislature and governor addressing the deficit repeatedly--announcing round after round after round of spending cuts. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.
Anything substantial happen? I didn't think so.
I'd call BILLIONS of dollars in budget cuts substantial, yes.
Still doesn't touch the trillion owed!
What ever happened to that guy that got caught with his pants down and his shoes under the stall? Maybe they could get him to teach the boys that gay is good?
markp: I don't understand your point. Would you prefer that they had NOT cut billions and billions?
dslsca
They could cut more if they didn't pander to the unions ans illegals that are ruining your state! And stay out of the rest of the country with your crappy ideas!!
Is that really true Uncle Henry?? Anyway's the big question is, where are Mitt's taxes??
To be totally serious, I see nothing wrong with sitting a young man down who is confused about his thoughts and help him to make some sense of what garbage is being thrown at him by the gay community. A young man needs to be taught to live by the boy scout oath and laws, and taught what is expected of him as a young man and then as a husband to a good woman. He then needs to be taught to be a good husband, father and grandfather. He needs to learn his role in life to have his wife as his best friend, to cherish, love, support all the days of his life. He then needs to go on to teach his children their roles in life. If they are confused he should spend time working with them to get them on the right track. They all have their own free agency to choose what path to take but at least you have tried and should always love them as your children.
I have, an always will tell my children it is wrong to be gay. And btw, I do not believe the gay therapy thing works, the bible says that only God can change the hearts and minds of man. The first step is repentance.
Good sentiment...bad timing. Recognizing a "gay cure" is no more appropriate than a "straight cure"...the issue has become very controversial right now, many elections are in question and, if the Repubs win, the movement will be set back four years. In that light, perhaps, just as a political matter, this could have waited until after November?
Also, the bill is largely show because it exempts pastors, non-licensed counselors and life coaches. Guess who'll be doing the gayorcisms now...
Such religious practices should be exempt, just like exorcism is OK until someone dies. This bill simply clarifies that it's potentially harmful, and not accepted medical practice and thus can't be marketed as such. Note that parents are generally free to practice whatever nutty religious stuff on their children they like....right up until the child's life is at risk. Every once in a while you hear about some parents getting in legal trouble because they failed to get the proper medical attention and their kid died, but up until that point it's simply freedom of religion.
I wonder why they removed the informed consent provision for adults? That makes no sense at all.
Whether or not the religious practices should be exempt is a question of "What is the purpose of this law?".
If, as you posit, the law is actually aimed at preventing false advertising by medical professionals, then I agree with you...religious organizations, life coaches and other non-medical professionals should be exempt since there's no danger of false advertising by a medical professional. Query whether if the goal were to prevent false advertising (outside the medical profession as well) whether this exemption would still be appropriate for life coaches and therapists.
But if, as I suspect from the statements of the legislators that passed it, this law is aimed at protecting children from their parents having authority figures forcibly impose what is, in essence, psychological torture on them...then this bill's limited scope defeats its purpose. Being from the South, I can tell you that pastors/priests/reverends are the ones who need to be regulated if we really want to stop torturing young gay people...there is a bit of irony in the whole thing as well being that many priests are homosexual pedophiles.
Unclear on the informed consent for adults point...the article says that the medical professional lobby had a problem with the broad, ambiguous wording and the fine in the original draft...which makes sense because a traumatized person might give quasi consent and then claim his or her consent was ineffective...thus subjecting the provider to the fine/etc. Meh...I'm less excited about this because the adults are a less vulnerable group.
The bill is specifically directed at therapists and other licensed mental health providers, not priests or other cult leaders. I agree with your point about parents & religion, but the reality is that the courts won't restrict religious freedom in this area - the only place the state has control is in the licensing of mental health professionals.
Here's some of the relevant text:
So it's not just false advertising that's the issue but dangerous practices which have no support in medical science (as the bill states).
That's my problem with the lack of informed consent for adults - medical science considers "ex-gay therapy" to be not just worthless but likely harmful. It's fine for an adult to willingly seek out such "therapy", but they should know that it has no benefit and could result in suicide. I can understand why the industry didn't like the liability provision, but their opposition to informed consent makes no sense at all.
Note that such a bill wouldn't work in Minnesota where Marcus Bachmann "practices" because Minnesota doesn't require a license for therapists. That's why people like him work in such states, because they don't have a degree from any accredited psychotherapy program and thus couldn't even get a license.
Life coaches, to be licensed should be required to have a certain number of hours of college level biology, to include physiology and anatomy, biochemistry, endocrinology, and neurophysiology. This includes church based guidance counselors. It doesn't prohibit one to hold onto one's personal faith at all. Charlie Rose has been broadcasting a series on the mind and it's disorders, and current research, ( and past research for that matter ), and a "Life Coach" should be one that does nothing but recognize certain problems as clinical, and refer the individual to professional evaluation. If a problem isn't clinical, there is little need for further interference from a life coach. If a problem is clinical, there is no need for interference from a life coach.
A "life coach" isn't a state-licensed profession in California. There might be life coach organizations which issue certificates, but that would be outside the scope of the law. Anybody can call themselves a life coach.
Shrekk. I understand the legislation. My point is that, if it's purpose is truly to prevent this sort of thing from happening, the legislation is too narrowly drawn to do the job...since most of this abuse is being done by priests/reverends/pastors at the behest of concerned Christian parents.
And, actually, the state could absolutely prohibit such interventions via a neutral criminal law that's equally applicable to all citizens (regardless of profession or religion). Just write a law that says "it shall be a felony for any person other than a parent to engage in a formal sexuality intervention with a minor" or something to that effect that encompasses the type of actions we're trying to prevent generally rather than targeting a specific subset of the people doing those actions like the current bill does.
Priests can't sacrifice children to their god. Right? Folks can't take cocaine or peyote--even if it's part of their religion. Anti-abortionists can't shoot doctors; nor can Jews/Christians/Mormons partake in polygamy. Catholic priests can't molest children. Crazy Christian parents can't deny their children necessary medical care citing personal belief. Etc. Church's, and religious persons, generally, must abide by religion neutral criminal laws.
Pretty simple fix if the CA legislature really means the Bill to be anything other than a show piece. Again though, poor timing for any of this.
Personally I'd agree with legislation like that, I'm just saying that the courts would very likely view it as a 1st Amendment violation. In general the courts allow the parents to make decisions contrary to medical advice for minor children, especially when religious claims are involved (ie, blood transfusions for Jehovah Witnesses, etc). Only when imminent death of a minor will likely result will a court intervene contrary to the wishes of the parents.
This latitude for religion and parental rights is too broad in my view as it has resulted in the death of a number of kids, but it is what it is. In the case of "ex-gay therapy", it would be hard to prove immediate harm so a court would likely not intervene. That's why professional licensing is the correct route for the restriction. It also removes the imprimatur of legitimacy from the practice, and treats it as the malpractice that it is.
Shrekk, we're obviously on the same side, so no need to argue. Though I cited "withholding medical care" in my litany of examples...there's a distinction to be drawn between abstentions from action (such as the no medical care) and overt action (such as taking peyote, molesting your child or forcing a gayorcism on your child).
It would most certainly be challenged either on the free speech grounds you noted or (ironically) under the right to privacy. Would it hold up? Who knows...maybe, maybe not...my point was that such a law would merely be a difference of degree, not kind, from the other criminal restrictions we already impose on both parenting and religion.
How in the world could therapy change who you are attracted to??? So, could this kind of "therapy" make a straight person gay?? This is just ridiculous.
too much of wealthy bleach blonde shrills speaking at a convention is making them less attractive by the minute...they may be on to something here
lol.
It's basically like an abusive parent beating the @!$%# out of their left-handed child until the poor thing never writes with its left hand again. You're abusing them into behaving against its nature, but the kid is still left-handed.
Wow, I'm left-handed and gay. I'm glad I have great parents.
It's psychological abuse and people aren't allowed to do that by virtue of their position as parents. People don't have a right to temporarily or permanently damage other people, parents are no exception. All the science shows that these methods are majorly misguided and harmful, so allowing them to continue makes the community which abides them complicit in the abuse to my mind.
It's also false advertizing and companies can be excoriated down for that.
All I can say is thank God stupidity can't be legislated against or we would have 10 times the number of Americans incarcerated that we do now.
Sarah: Missed you a lot...welcome back and new happy home.
> All I can say is thank God stupidity can't be legislated against or we would have 10 times the number of Americans incarcerated that we do now
Try 90% of the population, which includes ALL elected officals.
for that matter, being left-handed used to be a "mark of the devil"
Right, there is nothing worse than making a kid behave against their will. I used to try to keep my sons from fighting but I now realize it was what they wanted in life and I was wrong to try to change that. I made them use the toilet instead of peeing off the deck like they wanted. I made them eat healthy food rather than junk food. They were furious that I forced this type of behavior on them. They now believe that this is the RIGHT way to behave, I feel terrible, I was wrong and I am sorry.
I don't know if I am 100% opposed to this type of therapy but there are too many people on this forum saying it is wrong to make kids act in ways that are not natural.
Oh... and "therapy" for lack of a better word can and does work all the time. Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones, the KKK, NAZI Germany.
Peeing off the back deck is not an inborn trait. Being gay is. I assume that you're straight. Do you believe that any amount of "therapy" could make you sexually attracted to men instead of women? I doubt it. So, why do you think that it is possible to change a gay man's sexual orientation?
Barry, people have been convinced to do much worse than "go straight'. Monogamy isn't an inborn trait either. We have classes to teach people relationship skills, we have anger management classes when anger is very much an inborn trait.
Sez the straight guy.
And anger is not not an inborn trait. It's provoked or learned in a habitual way from repeated assaults.
Anger is not a human trait... what planet are you from? What species are you?
Good thing Michelle Bachmanns husband is in MN collecting taxpayer money for his goofy gay cure thing...heck man, he'd be out of business if he was in sissyfornia (thanks Henry)...
This country has become such a pathetic joke. It is no wonder we are now the laughing stock of the world. Even obama, who was once globally seen as a great guy is pushed aside and dismissed by other world leaders.
hes a sissy
That's odd, PAV, because he's gotten more done internationally than Bush ever did. Where are you getting your information?
That's right. Just look how well off the Middle East, North Africa and Asia are now. <sarc>
we're the laughingstock of the world? hmm...proof? This couldn't be your anti-obama bias showing in your partisan hack posts, can it? lol, of course it is.
Trust me, we got a lot more laughs out of dubya. Obama inspires us to do something else...RAWR! lol
I have a feeling the only ones being laughed at from abroad are the ridiculously out of touch and ignorant science denying GOP. How many other countries have candidates who are trying to qualify which types of rape are "legitimate?"
20 % are born gay 30 % are sucked into it and rest of them had it rammed up ther a$$
R Battle I would like to see you go a few rounds with the president. I'll even call the ambulance for you.
drf - which category do you fall under ? the 20% or the 30% or the rest ?
you can't put a square peg in a brown hole. Our society has turned into a bunch of ignorant A55HOLES,
stop worrying about what others do. Live by the golden rule and stay the F*CK out of other peoples business.
We are WAY TOO PC ( POLITICALLY CORRECT)
Our nation of laws is a GLOBAL JOKE.
WE LOOK LIKE DUMB-ASSES ON THE WORLD STAGE.
OUR BACKWETS AND ILLEGALS ARE PI55ING DOWN OUR BACKS...................................
i doubt he would show.and i wouldnt call an ambulance for him anyway.
You must mean GW Bush, the idiot who let Osama get away, and who invaded the wrong country, and insulted most of our Allies??? They guy who left New Orleans and most of the Old South drown after Katrina, yet congratulated the idiot crony who was given title as head of FEMA, but who couldn't manage a road trip? (Good Job Brownie)
President Obama may not be perfect, but he is miles ahead of any of the Republicans, not only in intelligence, but in compassion, integrity and dedication to preserving the US Constitution.
There is nothing to cure about gay, but there is definitely something to cure in the minds of people who run "gay-cure" programs and services. Do we have funding for a program to fix them?
True Ann Heche was very gay until she and Ellen broke up and she married a man and had a child naturally and ...oh wait...she was cured.
History has shown that many women will do many things for money.
I doubt there's a "cure" for being bisexual. And while Heche doesn't like labels, she definitely doesn't self-identify as straight.
There's no 'cure'. Seriously. Look, I am attracted to members of both genders.
It's not so much the outside that I'm attracted to, as it is the soul of the person. I've been attracted to other people all my life, they just happened to all be girls. My husband is the only male I have ever met that I was genuinely attracted to, and I had the good enough sense to marry him. I have, however, told him that if anything ever happens to him, he's the last male who will ever be in my bed.
He knows I like girls, and has no problem with it--no problems with the NFL cheerleader calendars I stick on the wall, the Maxim hotties I paste up, no problem with me drooling over the Victoria's secret catalogs either (in fact, he drools right along with me.) We've been married for 10 years and I can't imagine being this happy with any other man. We have two children, both boys, my youngest (9 years old) is autistic, and my oldest..well, considering he was suspended last year for sneaking into the girls bathroom with one of his (female) friends and comparing anatomy (he's 10), I don't think I have to worry about him in that respect...
jesus tmi there. im surprised you didnt go into detail about your morning bowel movement.
Heche is a bisexual. She just decided to marry an outie rather than an innie.
I thought Amanda's post was kinda hot, actually. Ok, ok, collapse this post...
Sorry if I seemed like I was getting long-winded, but I learned the hard way that if i want to say something I should explain what I mean ENTIRELY. There have been too many times when I posted something on here, only to not include enough detail and then be castigated because what I said was taken entirely differently from what I meant to say.
(laughing) it's okay, I'm not offended. That actually brings up another point I wanted to make, however--there's a definite double-standard. I see people here bashing gays, but I don't hear a lot of people bashing lesbians, and few people find anything wrong at all with two Victoria's Secret Models hugging each other wearing only their underwear. There's a whole lot less reaction to seeing a couple of the Victoria's Secret Angels blowing kisses at each other than if two Chippendale dancers did that. Gay movies like "Brokeback Mountain" get scoffed at, while movies with two girls making out--like Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman in "Black Swan" did, or Neve Campbell and Denise Richards in "Wild Things".
I asked my husband why it's different, and he had no answer for it, he looked at me like I'd grown a second head and said "It just is!"
I mainly think it's because men are generally hypocrits on this subject. They often like the idea of two women together, but just because they aren't attracted to men, they bash the idea of two men together. If they really thought being gay was wrong, they would not have a double standard. I guess all that matters is what turns them on. But take away the physical nature of it and ask if the two women should be allowed to get married? That usually drags them back into their bigoted reality.
Oh brother!
It's likely because many homophobes aren't really religious, therefor you see alot of jock wannabes slamming a guy that might not be straight and then go home and jerk off to two girls going at it, which would make more sense than the guy-girl action because the guy would turn them off, or make them feel guilty because they might find him just a little attractive or make them feel less like a man because he's got a bigger tool and knows what to do with it.
Well, yeah, that just about covers it!
I still can't believe this sort of child abuse isn't already legal in all 50 states, much less just one.
It probably should be treated that way but the courts give very wide birth to really nutty religious practices, including what medical care parents allow their children.
As long as this silly "ex-gay therapy" stuff isn't peddled as legitimate medical practice but rather as religious practice, the courts will allow it.
"That's why parents have children -- to hand down their legacies, their belief systems, the way they want their children raised," Assembly member Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield"
I thought people had children to unconditionally love, allow them to grow as individuals & not try to make them clones of themselves. While you can obviously expose children to your particular religious beliefs, the only thing you can shape is you child's ability to be kind, to be respectful, to work hard & be law abiding. A person's s exualty is not trainable.
If an adult wants to try this therapy that is their option, but forcing this invasive therapy on a child without thought to what mental harm this will do seems abusive. Is it that difficult to love your child without conditions?
Even the president of Exodus House, one of the leaders of reparitive therapy, publicy admitted that this therapy doesn't change people. It teaches a gay person how to try to live a straight life. This is not a cure, but a lesson on how to live a deceptive life, not true to your real self.
I know this might get a lot of reaction, but I don't understand why this world is filled with such harsh judgement of people who are different in any way
Peace.
Republicans only understand something if there's personal gain in it. Unconditional love is pointless to a Republican because there's no leverage there.
You can love someone and still want better for them. For example, let's say your child is a pyromaniac. You still love them and because you love them you want them to stop setting fires so that they won't hurt themselves and others.
And before everybody starts jumping down my throat, I'm not comparing gay people to pyromaniacs, I was just using an example of how parents can love someone and still want to change their behavior.
And no money.
Katy M, there was a time when it was "unnatural" to want to marry outside of your race, religion or social class; when it was "unnatural" to say that women should vote or have careers outside of the home; when it was "unnatural" to want to marry without having children; when it was "unnatural" for whites to think of non-whites as equals; when it was "unnatural" to say that child labor was a crime. I'm sure that many loving parents tried to dissuade their children from having these views or "inclinations" too. All of them, right up there with pyromania. Shame on those parents.
Since I believe in the bible and what it says I have told my children(grown now) what it says about homosexuality. Of course we can not make our children be a certain way but we at least have to make an effort and tell them what we feel is right or wrong and then they can make the choice. Only God can change the hearts and minds of man but that does not excuse us from telling our children what is right according to the bible. If you dont believe in the bible, fine that is your free choice.
Well, we now know there are at least 22 seriously homophobic paperweights amongst the Democrats. Doesn't their vote constitute support of child abuse and torture? Do Californians really want those kind of people in positions of responsibility?
Better than bigots like you son.
Is this a serious article? Whether it is a religious belief or not, a child (nor adult) should be exposed to this abuse. And yes, it is mental abuse. But this is the good ole USA where all men are created equal (well...except those that don't follow Christian beliefs. Then they are not equal and do not have rights.)
Wrong.
That was precisely my thought... WHAT... you have children in order to indoctrinate them into your... whoo boy, people are f'ing nuts, aren't they?
Let your kid be who THEY are, not who YOU are.
Thank you, UDunno!
I thought parents had children because someone forgot to pull out, wear a condom, take a pill, etc.
The primary thing I teach my son is critical thinking. He can decide from there what he wants for belief systems.
Ah yes the gay cure at work...
Richard Cohen
ex-gay therapist demonstrating ex-gay therapy on cnn
this is priceless 1m19sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJXWFZz0Qjo
Cohen is a real nut - a true self-hating gay. He's also deeply involved with Uganda's "Kill the Gays" bill.
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2009/12/richard-cohen-soundly-put-in-his-place-by-rachel-maddow/
He'd make a perfect GOP candidate.
^ lmao!! Thanks for the good laugh, Amunaka.
To..shrekk"""""
Yes he truly is ..
Actually, Cohen's techniques have a certain value. I used some of them when I was cured of christianity. Except I used a tennis racket on a bible instead of a pillow.
All this talk of a gay cure, but no cure for Redneckism?
Here's the beginning of a cure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXeKrbtMz2M
No cure for racism judging by your post.
"Redneck" is a race, Jeff? Really?
forced institutionalized brainwashing isn't what gay people need...what we need is EQUALITY.
Yawn.
and a fresh diaper boohoo
Actually Jeff and Uncle Henry, gays and lesbians WILL get equal rights under the law. They pay taxes, serve in the military, and probably contribute to society more than the two of you combined. You'll still be free to "yawn" and spew your silliness to a degree of course, but cross the line, and you will be fined or jailed.
what you need is repentance to your lord and saviour Jesus Christ
By equality I assume you mean special legistlation that makes you a "protected" minority, puts the rights of gays above the average straight guy and makes it a crime if someone verbalizes a negative opinion of your lifestyle?
"what you need is repentance to your lord and saviour Jesus Christ"
YOUR lord and savior, you assuming, judgmental person.
"By equality I assume you mean special legistlation that makes you a "protected" minority, puts the rights of gays above the average straight guy and makes it a crime if someone verbalizes a negative opinion of your lifestyle?"
Oh, give me a break. No one is asking for "special" legislation, and being gay isn't a "lifestyle". Liking Chinese food, Danish Modern furniture and golfing is a "lifestyle". What's your name, address, race and your religion? Tell us, then we'll verbalize negative opinions about you, which could escalate into physical violence and discrimination against you. Then tell us then that your wish to be free of this kind of crap is "special" and places you above the average person who DOESN'T get hit over the head for being who and what he is.
Now if only they would ban religion all together maybe mankind would be able to evolve a little.
A number of churches support equal rights for gays and lesbians. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
i am shocked here all i see is alot of people wanting to take away freedom are you all saying we should ban hate speech. then what any speech that might hurt someones feelings then what bullying threw speech i see alot of people being put in jail for being to mean hope you all can afford to pay for them less you would rather put them to death what kind of a world do you want to make here if parents do not want there kids to be gay that is there choice not yours should we jail the religious people to cuz they are crazy right. you guys sure hate guns to less you can get someone to use it to lock someone up right you are all sick. there are millions of parents out there that call there kids stupid everyday there not getting put in jail there is no one right way to be a parent. kids are not all the same. holy cow you guys scare me.
Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen. How about simply removing the extra privileges churches have? Like being tax exempt? What about taxing them exactly like any other entity? If nothing else, it would probably solve our budget problems.
chriscone: you mean to tell me you want thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc. banned??? Hellooooo!
WTF! There is still an actual law still on the books!
Stalin's Soviet Union; Hitler's Germany; Progressive's California. Absolutely stunning how a miniscule segment of the popuilation is allowed to mess up this once fine Country. Always makes sense to screw with 97% of the people to placate the other 3%.
Oh yes, nothing screams communist Russia and Nazism like Californian Progressives. Wow, just wow.
Says the guy who will most likely vote for the people that only represent 1% against the 99%. HYPOCRISY MUCH?
Amusingly (not gor gays, though) gays were persecuted in Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. They were sent in concentration camps in Germany and killed.
By the way, the late Sviatoslav Richter, one of the greatest pianists of 20th century (or just greatest), was gay. As was Leonard Bernstein, Vladimir Horowitz (another great pianist).
And how is it hurting the 97% to allow the 3% to live their lives in their own way?
You're absolutely rights. We patriotic, true-blue 97% Americans are fed up with placating the 3% homophobic, buy-bull worshiping, bigoted faux-Americans. No more.
Jerry- you are sooooo very misguided and wrong.....I'll say a prayer for you
Your magic voodoo spell to appease your goblin didn't work. It has no power here.
Sexual orientation is not a choice. Being a bigot is!!!
mark it is a choice
no its not ... when did you choose to be straight ?
the answer is obvious -- you didn't
@one of 777 REALLY, it's a choice? Do you recall being equally attracted to both sexes before finally making your choice? SMH, idiots are so funny.
But EVEN IF IT WERE a choice, what makes you think your way is right??? .... The answer is... the same thing that makes them think theirs is right.
Anthony - very simple, the human anatomy is very obvious that heterosex is normal. Two people of the same sex are missing half the right parts.
It's so good and nice that you agree with Mark that being a bible-worshiping bigot is a choice.
So is adopting the idea the you "own" your children to do with as you please.
No matter what you & I think about the practice the courts will support a parent's right to abuse their children through really nutty religious practices, including exorcism of "teh gay."
Apparently it's only a problem for the courts if the kid dies as a result.
Just more of government making decisions for people. IF someone wants to go to therapy because they don't want to have gay tendencies, then let them. Its not like its the therapists that are pushing it on patients. I think California has bigger problems to worry about anyways.
that's the point CVPDude, these are minors, they are children, you think they have a choice ?
obviously not if California has to actually ban such practices
No it's to protect a child from the mental abuse that would obviously cause. EVERY reputable study has shown that you can "treat" or "pray" the gay away. It's not a medical condition.
And speaking about the "government making decisions for people" it seems to me that all over this country the GOP is using THE GOVERNMENT to make decisions for everyone that is not an old, white, Christian male.
If they're old enough to feel like they're attracted to the same sex, but are confused by it, and don't want to be attracted to the same sex, then they're old enough to talk to professional therapist about it. The fact that CA is banning it doesn't hold much weight...
I meant to say can't
The only reason they would be confused by it is because of the parental and social bigotry against it in the first place, so that makes no sense. You're basically talking about subjecting kids to a psychological program aimed at reinforcing anti-gay propaganda of the parents and society.
A propaganda program which not only ultimately doesn't work, but tends to cause depression and suicide.
LOL@ Parental bigotry!! Wow that tops them all. That's completely absurd.
I don't believe these therapists are abusing anyone. I don't believe the therapists are using propaganda. Its pretty obvious that being homosexual is not normal since that is not the way nature made us. I don't believe that a young person who is confused by their sexual preference in addition to all the other stimulus teengaers get, are that way because of bigotry. They are confused because its not natural.
There is nothing wrong with having a professional to talk to about mental(not mental in a deragatory way) preferences that are confusing. Or maybe they;re not confused, but just want someone to talk to.
I believe that the extreme left in this country are on the attack, and being irrationally over the top.
Why can someone go see a therapist for depression, but not go talk to a therapist about being homosexual? I think CA is tkaing this extemely far, but thats the CA way. Extreme and busted. Extreme on social issues that do nothing to stengthen your state, and totally laxidasicle on issues that would protect the stength of CA.
you just summed it up perfectly for everyone.. YOU believe its not normal and YOU impose YOUR beliefs on a child who is impressionable and looks to you for guidance in life.. thusly, the child is gay but YOU tell the child its not normal and there starts the confusion which is caused by your attitude of bigotry that being gay is not normal.
understand why it has to be banned now ? because there are parents who will take it a step further and stick their child into this "therapy" simply because they are very adamant that they believe its not normal... that gives the child NO choice in the matter
depression is a COMPLETELY different subject than homosexuality. depression can be handled with therapy and medication, sometimes its a chemical imbalance etc, but being a homosexual is not the same thing in any way. that is your sexual orientation and quite a different topic. You can't compare homosexuality with mental illnesses, homosexuality has already been declared not being a mental illness.
I woudn;t impose anything on anyone. All I'm saying is that a young person should have professional to talk to about anything that is on their mind. I don't think therapists in CA are trying to "CURE" anyone. I think they're providing a service that people can use to talk about their emotions.
I didn't say its normal becuase that what I believe. Its a fact that is not natural. What people do in their personal lives makes no diffenrece to me, but young people should be able to talk to someone about homosexuality. I wasn't equating depression to homosexuality, your twisting my words. Depression is just something people go see a professional to talk about and I was only comparing that fact.
Because that would be as misguided and ineffective as going to a psychologist for being a human instead of a dog.
Over 1500 species in nature have been observed practicing homosexuality. Only 1 practices homophobia. You tell me which one is unnatural.
There is no problem with a teenager going to speak to a therapist about homosexuality. I am sure that with a decent therapist who will not try to claim that there is something wrong with the teenager they will be able to make a decision as to whether or not they want to continue on that path. It is not up to the therapist to ignore the fact that homosexuality isn't something that needs to be cured and treat them with "gay cure" therapy. This is to prevent parents from forcing their teenager to get the 'gay cure" therapy because they believe that there is something wrong with being gay.
Have you seen the methods used? A child can be forced to watch gay porn, then when the physical reaction sets in electroshock is used on the genitals to simulate aversion therapy. Seriously, dude, that's abuse and providing pornography to a minor.
Now, if the kid wants to go talk to someone about why he's feeling the way he does, wants to talk about being attracted to the same gender, that's great.
BUT IT HAS TO BE THEIR CHOICE. And under NO circumstances should electroshock therapy be used on a child!!!If you don't see a problem with that, you need the therapy!!!
There is an entire species of lizard called the whiptail lizard living in the southwest that is entirely female. Centuries ago when the southwest was a fertile plain, there were both male and female of the species; when it turned into a desert, the higher temps on the eggs resulted in females being born (ask any herpetologist--higher temps during egg incubation result in females, lower temps result in males) until every single member of the entire species was biologically female.
And they are still reproducing and surviving. Nature finds a way. Thus, 'normal' is subject to one's own interpretation of normal.
Christians believe that God makes no mistakes...so each person is the way they are because God made them that way, and if you are tying to 'cure' homosexuality, isn't that circumventing God's will...just as you accuse us who use birth control as circumventing God's will?
CVPDude, the proposed law doesn't ban teens from talking to therapists about their homosexual feelings, it bans reparative treatments; they are two different things. You say homosexuality is not normal, because that is not what nature intended? There are lots of things that aren't "normal" but they happen in nature, anyway. It's not "normal" to be albino, to be born blind or with a birth defect such as a cleft palate or malformed limbs. It's not "normal" to be born with indeterminate gender. Yet, these things happen.
Having been raised by radical fundamentalist evangelicals I consider all forms of forced religious beliefs including "quack homosexual"cures to be forms of child abuse!
mark: you are right it is not a medical problem, it is a sin problem!!
madd dog17 1,500 animals don't have a conscious and mind that can reason,only one does.
That's called human chauvinism. It's arrogant and wrong.
As the old saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". What? I didn't say it.
If only we could ban such "gay cure" quackery everywhere!
Then Bachman's gay husband would have to close his clinic and get assistance from that "danged 'ol big government."
Cure "gay cure" quackery? If not, let's initiate forced "cures" for straight men and women who are into wife beating, spouse swapping, spouse cheating, sex acts that have nothing to do with procreation.....think of the jobs this would create, not to mention the hue and cry about "rights".