Another one (like the Mormon judge who ruled that procreation is a rational basis on which to deny same-sex marriage) who is just begging to be overturned...

I actually do think that the therapists should be allowed to offer the "conversion therapy." It is a first amendment issue, though the medical boards should have more say over the practices of doctors than legislatures or judges.

However, I think it should come with a surgeon general's warning, like cigarettes:

"Warning: this is not actual therapy. This is an experimental process that has been completely unproven in most cases. Side effects include: suicidal thoughts, suicide, shunning by peers, low self-esteem, depression, alcoholism, and 30 years of loveless marriage with kids that resent you because you didn't want to be in that situation in the first place."

I actually do think that the therapists should be allowed to offer the "conversion therapy." It is a first amendment issue, though the medical boards should have more say over the practices of doctors than legislatures or judges.

First, this law allows therapists to offer it to those over 18.

Second, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Occupational speech is completely different than free speech.

Under 18 it is possible for parents to essentially force or coerce their child into receiving this therapy. This should never be legal with any therapy that holds such a high rate of abuse and low rate of acceptance.

Who are we to judge if an individual does not want to have certain sexual orientations? We honor the rights of those who were born biological males and want to become/feel they always were female. We tolerate those who are transgendered who want to change. Why should we not respect the rights of those who (arguably) were born gay but for whatever reason do not want to live that way? The reason for the desire to change/correct/eliminate same sex attraction may be religious (a freedom we say we still honor in this country), may be based on social norms the person wishes to adopt, may be purely fanciful or even totally wrong-headed. Usually we hear about the rights of the individual to decide for themselves what they want in their lives. No doctor should abduct a "patient" and force him/her to undergo these treatments, of course, and there is no indication this is happening. We do, however, allow parents to make these decisions on behalf of their children, just as parents have allowed minor children to have gender reassignment surgery in certain cases.

I think there is some inconsistency in the arguments of those who would restrict access to this therapy.

No doctor should abduct a "patient" and force him/her to undergo these treatments, of course, and there is no indication this is happening

There is plenty of indication religious groups and families are.

Who are we to judge if an individual does not want to have certain sexual orientations?

I agree with you completely if we're talking about individuals who are adults. I don't care what they put themselves through. The main purpose of this law is to protect young people from having this therapy forced on them, resulting in life-long mental damage.

If you are speaking about minors, I support a parent's right to seek treatment for his/her child. You or I may feel that certain treatments are wrong, but that is not our call. I think abortion is wrong (unless the mother's life is in danger) but I don't get to have a say in that decision. We should not second- guess parents who make this decision thinking it is in their child's best interest. Lots of treatments and surgeries once thought to be wrong are not only allowed, but approved by the medical community. And of course treatment techniques are refined over time as well.

Seems to me that tolerance in many circumstances is a one-way street.

We're talking about kids, not adults, and they should not be forced into something they cannot truly consent to because their parents hate them for who they are.

Bowen, treatment for what? That's NOT freedom of speech, BTW. That's force. That's force based on a medical practice that has NEVER been cleared as legitimate.

This is our call. It is the call of society and the government to protect children from harm. That's all this is. Protecting kids from harm and from a practice that has shown damaging life-long effects to the mental health of individuals who seek this "therapy".

There is no reason to tolerate the intolerable, and ex-gay lies are just that. Being anti-gay is wrong. Tolerance is not always a two way street. Being gay isn't a disease. You cannot fundamentally change your immutable characteristics no matter how hard you try.

The difference between a transgender oriented person and a homosexual is that the first can be changed surgically and the latter can't. No matter how much a homosexual may "want to change" for whatever reason, they can't change their biological makeup. They can only live a life of total sexual abstinence or live an often not-so-happy sexually heterosexual/bisexual lifestyle (lifestyle being the acting upon the sexual needs in this case.)

They don't hate them David. In fact, it is the exact opposite. If they hated them, they would do nothing. Not taking sides on homosexuality, but if a parent feels a behavior is wrong, it is their responsibility to correct it. You don't have to like it. It's not your child.

Hi Bowen,

Unfortunately, you are not in an argument about abstracts. What you are saying sounds really good until you look at the results, which do exist. The process does not work. The process is harmful. The process leads some of its "graduates" to commit suicide.

Why are you arguing that "doctors" should be allowed to use fake treatment to cause harm just because their false claims (freedom of speech) have led some pore unsatisfied parent to believe there is a way to turn straw into gold? (or rather, "gold into straw")?

We Could call the process, The "SREPFORD CHILDREN"!!

How about this,
If I use my freedom of speech to advertise a process where injections of "ACME Rapid Grow Fertilizer" into young shorter than average children will make them grow taller, do you think the courts should protect my rights to make a buck? The parents rights to force their desire for a taller kid on "their child", even if it may hurt of kill him or her? Or do you think that the courts should protect the rights of the kid?

As an adult, OK, go for it! Buy this pill for a larger sex organ! Bigger muscles, higher IQ.
Remember, the statistics are not in your favor. Every "successful ex homosexual" that I've seen put forward to preach about how this "therapy" has changed their lives makes my "gaydar" swing into the radioactive red zone.

Oh, and please don't forget the suicides. Some times our elders don't know better than God, even when they think they do. The world is much more complex and beautiful than this dogmatic way of thinking allows. Come in out of the dark ages. Its much nicer in the light.

Hi Middle,

Um, so what ever someone else does to "their kids" is OK, and society should just step back and watch the abuse?
Since you seem to be older than 18, I guess you don't have to worry about being locked in a basement or beaten.
How about people who refuse to let their kids have blood transfusions? or heart surgeries?
How about parents who marry their 12 year olds to 60 year olds because they are mature and financially secure?
Heck how about parents who just sell their kids?

I'm so shocked at your attitude about this that I want to send you vibrant images of what you are subscribing to, and to make you own them. You are talking about abuse of minors and disguising it with this "rights of the Parents" smoke screen. SHAME.

allswell -

Actually, I do happen to find this disgusting. Also, I feel that much of this therapy crosses the fine line between delusion and abuse. We do have child abuse laws, and those videotaped "exorcisms" I've seen are definitely abuse, as they are creating an unholy amount of emotional (and psychological) distress in the child for no real reason.

However, a) you have the rights of the parents to raise their children. I know we interject ourselves into this already with abuse and negligence laws, but this is neither (nominally, at least). It is the right of the parents to intervene in their childrens' lives for the good of the child, as they see it. I don't think this kind of therapy INHERENTLY constitutes child abuse (thought most do in practice), so since I'm unsure as to the methods these "doctors" prescribe, I would prefer to leave it to the medical boards. Those boards determine their own memberships, standards of treatment, etc. I'd say kick it to them to utterly refute conversion therapy and then make the disuse of said practice to be a contingency for licensing.

What I really don't like is people legislating health. Health is not something you can put in law, because it's changing too fast. Not too long ago, the DSM classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Had that been put into law, then many gay people would be singing nonsense songs, doped up on lithium in mental health institutions.

Maybe it's a bit more of the libertarian in me waking up, but I like the idea of the medical board handling this much more than the legislature. Once they classify it as abusive, any doctor that attempts this thing will be out on his ass with no license. That's how I think it should be handled. Otherwise, you'll get conservatives in other states declaring being Muslim is a mental disorder, regardless of what the medical boards say. And don't believe for a second there isn't a state with enough stupid people to believe that.

Janstince - However, a) you have the rights of the parents to raise their children.

Parents are still free to subject their children to this abuse but they'll need to use their local voodoo priest or witch doctor to do it, not a state-licensed mental health provider.

This law only says that state-licensed mental health provider cannot perform this malpractice on minors.

I like the idea of the medical board handling this much more than the legislature

That's exactly what happened - the legislature passed a law which gave the medical regulatory board domain over this issue, just like it has domain over thousands of other medical issues.

@allswell,

The third highest reason for kidnapping convictions in the US is for "deprogramming" purposes. This includes not only gays, but Mormons, Wiccans, Jehova's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and others that far right-wing fundamentalist christians do not approve of. This ranks well ahead of kidnapping for ransome which is fifth.

The kidnappers usually get away with it because the deprogrammers usually have the cooperation of the parents, though often under religious pressure, where minors are concerned. Otherwise, deprogrammers, knowligly and deliberately "impoverish" themselves so they cannot be fined or sued for money. Usually that have no taxable income or assests, but draw "expenses" from churches to support themselves, sometimes lavishly.

I fully agree that psychotherapists/psychiatrists should not be allowed to offer "conversion" therapy as a part of their licensed practice. It is just as reasonable to take away their license for doing so as it would be to de-license a physician who prescribed his own worthless home remedies for a serious illness.

If these people want to do their "deprogramming" they need to do it in the church basement, only for consenting adults, and at no charge, as a private citizen. No reputable psychotherapist would ever do something like deprogramming, so in general, legitimate psychiatric practices would not be effected at all.

The third highest reason for kidnapping convictions in the US is for "deprogramming" purposes. This includes not only gays, but Mormons, Wiccans, Jehova's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and others that far right-wing fundamentalist christians do not approve of. This ranks well ahead of kidnapping for ransome which is fifth.

Thanks for the statistics, very interesting.

"Malpractice".... "Force"... "Danger to youths".... The rhetoric is in full swing and trying to "force" freedoms is the goal. The family is free to seek treatment if they want... any of you guys can Google an pull out the websites that "agree" that this is "wrong' But for every one you pull out I can pull out one that says that it not only works but successful. The REAL story is Gays and those that support their agenda are VERY prejudiced against Ex-LeGiBiTs. They say they are brainwashed or was "never really gay"... it is so strong that they are COMPLETELY silence and ostracized by the left... I've never seen such venom leveled at a unjustly, vilified group.

They are not concerned for the well being of the youth. Cali has passed laws for gay "sensitivity" in grade school and this is a extension of it. If it was 'crackpot' science then why fight against it. If its a small percentage then what is the problem?.... because it works. It is seen as a threat the same way as heterosexual marriage was "aimed at disenfranchising gays". Here is my proof:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/magazine/my-ex-gay-friend.html?pagewanted=all

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=117465&page=1#.UL5EmWewWgc

I want everyone to not pay attention to the articles themselves but pay attention to what is said about Ex Gays.... This has and will always be the truth... The Gays can't look themselves in the mirror... instead they look to each other... because, sadly.. that's all they have.

Flame77_7 - "Malpractice".... "Force"... "Danger to youths".... The rhetoric is in full swing and trying to "force" freedoms is the goal.

The rhetoric is completely accurate. This practice is no different from exorcism, and we don't let state-licensed mental health providers perform exorcisms or other such malpractice on their patients.

"Ex-gay therapy" is a religious practice, not a medical practice, and it's condemned by every single relevant credible medical association from the AMA to the APA.

But for every one you pull out I can pull out one that says that it not only works but successful.

And yet most every case that is claimed successful reverts before the end of their life, claiming mental trauma caused them to lie about being cured.

If it was 'crackpot' science then why fight against it. If its a small percentage then what is the problem?

Because it harms. Don't claim a logical fallacy as validity.

If these people want to do their "deprogramming" they need to do it in the church basement, only for consenting adults, and at no charge, as a private citizen

Gay conversion therapy by cult psychiatrists should be called PROGRAMMING... and I agree, if the ANTI_GAY want to program others, they should stick to consenting adults, and not FORCE ANTI_GAY PROGRAMMING AGENDA onto homosexuals, especially children who might just be curious and not gay, and now you make a homosexual out of them by programming...

GAYS DON"T HAVE AN AGENDA... that MYTH came from the CHRISTIANS HATE AGENDA.. they are the ones with lists... documents.. coverting others to their aberannt idol worship and cannibalististic drinking of Christs blood wine and eating christ cracker flesh.. now that's an agenda...

Let's bring back frontal lobotomies. The government was all for them back in the day. It was the rage.

skrekk -

So you're telling me that the health board/committee/whatever for California did not have the power to regulate and ban this practice from licensed practice before this law? If they can't regulate which practices doctors use to treat what, then what the @!$%# are they doing in the first place?

If California explicitly needed a law to ban this, it would seem they put no authority behind their authorities, and that's kind of sad when it comes to medicine, at least. What I was getting at before was that I thought there was no need for a law, that the medical oversight board could simply ban the process (with all the scientific data that has been accrued over the years) as an antiquated and superstitious idea that threatens the emotional well-being of the child, and that if you start passing laws determining how you treat patients for what illness, then nobody will get treated who does not have a prescribed illness because doctors would be sued for malpractice if they did anything but follow the absolute letter of the law. And, as medicine is advancing at a much more rapid pace than law can keep up, well, you do the math, but there would soon be millions of dead folk hanging around, and few to bury them.

Janstince - So you're telling me that the health board/committee/whatever for California did not have the power to regulate and ban this practice from licensed practice before this law?

Correct. Otherwise this abusive practice would have been stopped long ago since no credible professional organization supports it. I suggest you read the law - it primarily provides instruction to the state licensing board. It's now simply one among many discredited practices which will be considered malpractice.

Remember, it's the state legislature (and executive) which provides instruction to any licensing board.

Any therapy is not a matter of free speech... if I say that I can set bones, and it is my freedom of speech that I can do this, I should not have a right to set bones. No matter whether a person agrees or disagrees with the gay lifestyle, there is a serious danger of suicide in those who become more confused about themselves, and it is the patients, not the doctors, who should be served and protected. They are victims of these doctors, but unfortunately, there is no victims' rights in the Constitution.

Elizabeth -

I agree that therapy is not a matter of freedom of speech. However, religion is, and since the child is a minor, it's the parents' religious views that matter. Do I like it? No. But then again, I don't want some goddist getting into government and declaring that I have to take my kids to church, either.

I don't like this practice at all. If we could outlaw exorcisms without trampling the first amendment, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, these are done at the behest of the parents, and the children, as minors, do not have the authority to countermand their parents. When it crosses into abuse, that's up to the people nearby or close friends or doctors (if it's physical and they witness it) to report to the police. Unless it does cross that line, though, we have to respect the wishes of the parents until the kid is 18. Then the parents don't matter at all.

That is what these religious freaks fail to accept ProFreedom.

It's probably the old electric shock therapy with a few beatings.

I was trying to edit my comment and ran out of time on the edit. I was editing to say that that was why I left "organized religion" decades ago. I grew up Methodist, later became a member of the UCC for a while, before I realized that my local congregation was too far from the principles of the national organization and its acceptance of gay individuals...after all it was one of the fist denominations to ordain gay ministers. In my 68 years of life (over 48 years out of the closet), I have seen so much hatred within the general population towards members of the gay community. Parents ostracize their gay children, often threatening their lives while kicking them out of the home. Peers torment them constantly (just look at all of the cases in just the past couple of years that have made national headlines.) This age of 24/7 social media is making the situation even worse. It is time that all humans accept the fact that God (or whatever supreme b`eing you might believe in) created all of us as equals. It is only mankind itself that defies the laws of Mother Nature. Homosexuality is as much a reality of Mother Nature as heterosexuality, and exists in many, if not most species in the universe. It is NOT A CHOICE, as I stated above.

Would you be ok with therapy for someone with homosexual orientation but who felt that it was somehow wrong or immoral where the therapy would attempt to make the individual more comfortable about his/her sexuality? Could it not be said that this internal conflict was something the person was born with and that no therapist should seek to change that?

If one can be made straight then it seems to suggest a straight could be made gay as well.

Actually, most of the religious rite does believe this. That's one reason they oppose SSM, because it will convert the youth of America to homosexuality.

They call it the "Gay Agenda" and it's coming to a town near you!

melis-a said:

It's probably the old electric shock therapy with a few beatings.

In its most extreme form, yes, it' aversion therapy.

A child would be forced to watch gay porn; if there is a physical reaction to the visual stimuli, electroshock is applied o the genitalia in order to associate 'gay' with 'pain' and introduce a subconscious aversion to 'gay' because it produces pain.

If an adult wants to try this because they don' want to be gay or lesbian, they are perfectly welcome to it, my blessing, let me know how that woks for you.

If a parent wants to force a child into this it should be considered sexual and emotional abuse.

anti_trust,

The real brainwashing is coming from the gay community. It has come to pass that we must agree with everything they want, or be deemed bigots. Of course we can't have an intelligent conversation about our differences, because once the difference is identified, the name calling starts (i.e. religious freaks). Would it be acceptable to you if we go back to more colorful names such as queer and fag? Afterall, you set the standard. What name should I call you by?

It has come to pass that we must agree with everything they want, or be deemed bigots.

Well when all they want is equal protection under the law and for you to stay out of their business, than yes, to deny them that would make you a bigot. Specifically because you have zero interest in their private lives and they're doing you, and everyone, no harm.

You can call me by any name you want to and I will simply ignore it. Anyone who tries to force their views on someone else is a bigot. I'm not trying to force my views on anyone, nor are any other members of the gay community. We are only trying to get you to accept that we have the same right to live our lives as we choose, just as you have the right to live your life. We have the same constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as I've posted in other comments here. THAT is what too many anti-gay people fail to accept. And anyone who is anti-anything is a bigot on that issue when they refuse to accept the other individual's First Amendment rights...that thin line between where my rights begin and your rights end. And I do NOT consider queer or fag or faggot to be "colorful" expressions, any more than I do Kike, the "n" word or any other derogatory term.

in the middle-2260511 - The real brainwashing is coming from the gay community. It has come to pass that we must agree with everything they want, or be deemed bigots

You definitely do sound like a bigot.

in the middle -

So, wait, is there some law I'm not aware of that keeps you from spouting your ignorant, backwards, and, yes, bigotted views in public? Has the Phelps clan been arrested for holding signs that says "God Hates Fags"? Where is this mythical land that you speak of, and do you know any trains running there where one might purchase a ticket?

The idea is not to get you to not call names, though that would be really nice. But, you know, freedom of speech and all that claptrap. No, the idea is not to make you "accepting" of homosexuality. The idea is to remove FROM LAW the discrimination against homosexuals.

It always cracks me up that you bigots keep saying things like "you called me a bigot," or "why can't we have a 'calm', 'intelligent' conversation about this without name-calling and potty-mouths?" Like the imposition on you to put up with bad language over a people being denied their rights is too much to handle. My suggestion, either cave to every interest in the "Gay Agenda," like those equality measures, and STFU, or you can get called a bigot. There's no legal ramification to this, there's no person who can fire you for it (unless you call a customer a fag, or something equally stupid and insulting), and there's nobody going to come in the night to take your family away and reprogram them to all be gay. That's your shtick, not ours.

We want everyone to be equal in the eyes of the law. That's it. If gay people want to get married to each other, let them. It doesn't destroy marriage (a civil matter, not a religious one), it doesn't invalidate all the straight marriages, hell, it does a lot for orphans who can be adopted by gay couples to be raised in a loving home. Every metric used to evaluate families has shown that lesbians actually make the best parents, and that gay couples have the same rates of retention and failure as straight couples, and nobody in New York or Massachussetts or New Hampshire or Iowa or anywhere else has had the government come and tell them they need to get remarried because now marriage is something new.

Honestly, you're like the bullies in the schoolyard that start whining and crying when the little kids stand up to them and call them out on their bull@!$%#. You cry for a while, scream that you're being persecuted (which shows you have no @!$%#ing clue what that word even means), claim that black is white, up is down, and the little kids are the real bullies. Then, when people stop paying attention to you, you either start acting out in inappropriate ways, or you consider the matter settled in your favor and refuse to even consider the facts of the situation.

Frankly, I don't even know what to do with you people anymore, other than rhetorically slapping you upside the head every chance I get.

Sexual orientation cannot be altered any more than eye color or left-handedness can.

If parents cannot adjust to discovering their child is gay, it is the parents who need counseling, not the child.

Ed Poko

I just reported your post you do not call people names because they think different than you.

You are the f-o-o-l, Ed if you truly believe that members of the gay community are wrong in simply wanting all of the same rights as you. That is what the Constitution is all about. We are NOT trying to "force" our lifestyle (which is NOT a choice) upon you or anyone else. All we want is to be able to live our lives the same as you. You and those like you do want to FORCE your way of life and your religious beliefs upon us. That is what this forced "conversion" therapy is all about...forcing young people to accept and live the heterosexual lifestyle, even though it is counter to their natural DNA/psyche. And that is why the CA legislature passed the law banning such therapy. It is the constitution right of that young person to live the life they were born with.

BTW, the up vote you received was an accident. I was trying to hit "reply" and the mouse was over the up button instead. There is no way that I would have ever given you an up vote.

anti-trust proponent All your doing is adding to the problem, it will never end this way. Its best to just let the post be now until nbcnews deletes it.

melis-a, it will never end no matter what discussion we have here on Newsvine. And it is my right to express my views on what we members of the gay community believe and are asking others to accept about us. That is simply what I was responding to, along with Ed's calling you a f-o-o-l. As others, especially those who are members of the mental health community, have posted here, my homosexuality is NOT a disorder, any more than heterosexuality is. Anyone who tries to force us to change, especially anyone under the age of 18, should be held criminally liable for the destruction of that young person's life. That is what I was commenting about, and it was not meant just for Ed, but for everyone who does not want to grant us members of the homosexual community the same rights guaranteed to them by the US Constitution...the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But you use a hateful way of expressing it. Why do you need to force someone you do not even know to be like you?

Please explain what was hateful in my stating the truth about the position of so many members of the religious right? I was actually defending you and your comments from what Ed posted.

I saw no hatred in antitrusts posts. Plus I'm thinking Ed deserves any hate that anti does have for him. If I was gay I would hate him and consider him my enemy after reading post #4.1.

In fact, I can tell you right now as an atheist, I hate his @!$%#ing guts. Him and everybody who thinks like him is my enemy and deserves ZERO respect and that is how much they will get from most of us!

Sorry Melis-a,

I'm with my Aunty Anti on this one. Try and change "gay" in this conversation with the word "Jew" or "Black" or
"woman" or, if we were in Rome a few centuries ago "Christian". This is a discussion about human rights, and if you feel that you already have your rights, and that everyone else should just wait for their happiness to "trickle down", well then I think you deserve almost as much scorn as Anti trust heaped on ED Poko.

The world is full of good people who do nothing when called to task. I think you have to chose a side.

The irony is that given your comment above, the judge ruled in a way you would like (blocking the ban on these "therapies").

He did not make a new law. He ruled that the previous law was, probably, unconstitutional, and in need of review. Isn't true liberty, the right of a person who wants reparative counseling concerning being a homosexual, be given the right to have that counseling. Amazing, Melis-a, you talking about Evangelicals....wanting to change who people are.....The liberals have changed the name of "baby" to "fetus,"......the liberals have changed what we have held as a law since becoming a nation, concerning the rights of gays/lesbians.....the liberals have changed the meaning of separation of church and state.....the liberals have changed the meaning of Christmas and Thanksgiving.....and you are talking about Evangelicals changing things......you have been thoroughly endoctrinated by the left-wing of our country. Oh.....forgot about the recent changes in 2 states, concerning pot......evangelicals wanting control......yeah,,,,,for sure.

Isn't true liberty, the right of a person who wants reparative counseling concerning being a homosexual, be given the right to have that counseling.

They still can. The law only stopped parents from forcing their kid's into the "therapy". The individual could seek out the therapy on their own at any time after they hit 18.

The liberals have changed the name of "baby" to "fetus,"......

False. These scientific terms existed prior to the whole abortion debate, and are objective chriteria for distinguishing a baby from a fetus.

the liberals have changed what we have held as a law since becoming a nation, concerning the rights of gays/lesbians.....

Just like many other social issues... like slavery, women's rights to vote, segregation, ect.

the liberals have changed the meaning of separation of church and state.....

Ummm, no we haven't. In fact modern understanding is closer to what the founding fathers envisioned than the bastardization and co-mingling we saw in the 50s.

the liberals have changed the meaning of Christmas and Thanksgiving.....

I think that was Macy's fault.

hikeinmts why bring me into this post it's not my post, and I reported Ed Poke's poke to me for the name calling in it but he has a right to say his beliefs on here just as I do or anyone else if you don't like read the next post.

Amen to that EngEsq, hehe.

The liberals have changed the name of "baby" to "fetus,"

Actually, that'd be science that changed that. Cause its scientifically correct.

the liberals have changed what we have held as a law since becoming a nation, concerning the rights of gays/lesbians

And that's societal evolution, much the same way we've changed the rights of African Americans and women (or did you forget the rights they held as law since we became a nation?).

the liberals have changed the meaning of separation of church and state

Not really. Go read some works of the Founding Fathers sometime.

the liberals have changed the meaning of Christmas and Thanksgiving

1) Christmas was originally a pagan rite. Christians were the ones to change its meaning.

2) Thanksgiving is about giving thanks. That hasn't changed.

forgot about the recent changes in 2 states, concerning pot

What's this got to do with anything? How do you even know its liberals doing it?

You're a walking encyclopedia. Happy holidays.

Scott-921969 That's not so bad, I mean you could have said "Dictionary" :)

@EngEsq

So you are ok with denying help to a minor who wants gender reassignment? Just checking. Did you know that children as young as 8 years old are being treated? I am just curious as to how you base your argument for discrimination?

A baby can be a fetus. Like you are an American and a Human. The two are not mutually exclusive. Fetus simply specifies a developmental period and location.

So you are ok with denying help to a minor who wants gender reassignment?

And this has what to do with anything?

A baby can be a fetus.

Scientifically and biologically, no. A baby is the state of being post-birth. A fetus is pre-birth. You are using the layman's term and trying to compare it to a scientific term; that never works, and is completely disingenuous.

I don't agree with the judge, but I certainly don't agree that he has overstepped his bounds. This is why we have judges - to interpret the laws and rule on what is and is not constitutional. Obviously there will be more appeals and hearings in this case to determine the final ruling.

Joe, personally, I think a child who wants gender reassignment should get hormone retardation medications delaying their puberty. This allows them to delay any changes that make gender reassignment more difficult. Then, once the child is older and presumably more mature, they can make the decision in an informed manner.

In the same way, if a teen seeks out this kind of "pray-the-gay-away therapy" then I think they should be allowed to get it (in contrast to the law). I do not think anyone should ever be forced into it however.

And a baby is a colloquial term, whereas fetus is a scientific one. The argument is that the word's meaning had been somehow manipulated. This is incorrect. Rather the more accurate and specific term is used.

@EngEsq

You just said that children that wanted to seek therapy to modify their sexual behavior had to wait till they are 18. I see that you were simply stating the law. I see that law as discriminatory if you allow for gender reassignment therapy but don't allow for sexual orientation therapy. I understand there can be parental pressure but if the child wants it I don't they they should be denied.

You are right that baby is not a scientific definition ( ATTN allswell). That being said they are both correct where fetus is simply a more precise clinical definition. That being said, fetus is a rather cold and sterile definition as it does not impart any visions of child crawling, smiling or laughing. This is part of the reason the term is used.

fetus is a rather cold and sterile definition as it does not impart any visions of child crawling, smiling or laughing.

Probably because no fetus has ever done any of those things.

Discriminatory, Joe? Discrimination of what? Homophobia? I don't think so. Homophobia is a negative, is a choice, and isn't a fundamental human characteristic, unlike being gay and trans.

That being said, fetus is a rather cold and sterile definition as it does not impart any visions of child crawling, smiling or laughing.

As hambone stated, that would be because a fetus cannot do any of that, whereas a baby (medically defined as a "newborn; infant child") can.

@hambone

Are you missing the point on purpose?

@David

Yes, David, the correct word would be discriminatory. Since you don't really seem to understand the concept I will explain it in very simple terms.

A human born with male genitalia is a male by definition. Sometimes they have the hardware but don't associate with their sex. They are allowed to change. They are allowed to start the process and therapy before they are 18.

A human born with an attraction to the same sex may not be comfortable with this predisposition. They, like the gender reassignment candidate, should also be allowed therapy if they so desire.

If you only deny one group the right to change something then you are practicing discrimination.

Hi Joe,

The problem is that while gender reassignment works and there are tons of folks that have travelled from one gender to the other, "Sexual orientation reprograming" does not work. In fact it has been proven to be very harmful. Your argument is like saying that since its legal to sell diet pills that though dangerous actually work, it should also be legal to sell a potion that claims it will make you taller smarter change your "race" and give you a free automatic noise job. Oh and the potion has never worked but does have side effects like low self esteem, depression and suicide.

If you still want to try this, well go for it, but like cigarettes, I think you should be forewarned.

Kids should not be put in a program that has such a dismal (100% failure) record.

@allswell

Not really true. A baby or more specifically a human fetus has developed "feelings" by around 24-28 weeks. A baby can smile in the womb. While he/she may not be smiling because they are happy they most definitely have the ability to make the gesture.

You seem hell bent on trying to prove that you are right about the whole fetus/baby argument. Try this...

Is a Mustang GT also a Ford ?

Is a Dalmatian not a dog?

@maninjapan78

I hear your argument but you are overstating your case. American medical and scientific organizations have expressed concern over conversion therapy and some consider it potentially harmful. I fully understand that if a person enters this therapy under duress there will be damage.

I also wouldn't expect this therapy to change their actual thoughts but would only assist in modifying their behaviors.

That being said I don't know that entering therapy in order to cope with sexual orientation is really that big a deal. As I have said many people seek therapy to stay in a relationship for the benefit of children. Many people seek therapy to deal with body image even though they may not be unhealthy.

Just because you don't agree with the reasons for doing something doesn't give you the right to prevent that person from doing so.

I do understand that many people are forced into this but I also understand that homosexuality is a graduated scale, not an all or nothing switch. If people would like to change themselves, in manners that are not unhealthy, then they should be allowed that right.

Once again, Joe, your argument would have validity if you made the comparison of "is a fetus a human". Based on DNA, it is. But that's about it, medically and scientifically. A fetus is more akin to the definition of a parasite (it takes nourishment and provides nothing in return). Idly, emotional stimuli are not included in any part of the definition of parasite, so don't try that avenue.

Regardless, your argument is for naught; the definitions have never changed because you are still trying to compare the medical/scientific use of a term vs the common-language use of another.

HI Joe,

Well you might want to think that

this therapy to change their actual thoughts but would only assist in modifying their behaviors.

but, there is no data to support that there is any chance of that happening.

Your argument is kind of like arguing with a driver who is trying to get to NYC by heading west from Chicago.
All of the positive thinking in the world just ain't gonna make it happen.

If you want to drive off the proverbial cliff, have a nice trip, see you next fall.

But please let you kids get out of the car first.

Just sayin'

@allswell

Based on DNA? Uhhh what else would you base it off Einstein?

Your understanding of the term parasite is pathetic. You do realize that since they are the same f'n species it precludes the term parasite?

Right so calling a dog "a dog" is wrong. A Dalmatian isn't really a dog it is Canis lupus familiaris.

OK, so where is the straight to gay therapy, Joe? If being gay is a "graduated scale", what does that make being straight?

Back again Joe,

For some people "orientation" is a "gradual thing", we call them late bloomers. For others it is a "graduated thing".
We call these people be-sexuals.

For something to be a true therapy, it should be based on some sort of research. and there should be some suggestion that there is the possibility of "progress". All studies on this subject say that "self hate" is about the surest outcome from these "programs".

If you want to spend your life trying to turn your lead into gold. Have at it.
If you want to spend your life trying to turn your dog into a cat. Please leave the animal alone.
If you want to your life trying to create perfect heterosexual Aryan children, someone already tried that; and they failed back then too.

Hi Joe,

I'm back again. Um, when you say people, if you mean consenting adults, then we are on the same page.
But even then, I think that folks who are considering this should know that it is not backed up by any studies, there have been no real studies except those that show this to be harmful, and that the medical community has labeled this quackery.

Like other practices that are un safe, unsuccessful, unnecessary and dangerous, (try and get a full labial circumcision (for esthetic reasons) at an American hospital (you can even claim that it is for religious reasons), doctors should not be allowed to perform these "programs" under the banner of "legitimate medicine or therapy" , because "legitimate" it is not .

Once again, Causing great harm to a child only to please the ego of the parent is just plain wrong. The studies show what this sort of therapy does. Why are you fighting for it?

Based on DNA? Uhhh what else would you base it off Einstein?

Did you miss where you called a Mustang GT a Ford? Do cars have DNA?

Your understanding of the term parasite is pathetic. You do realize that since they are the same f'n species it precludes the term parasite?

Actually, it does not. Parasite: "something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return" and "an organism living in, with, or on another organism in".

So yes, it fits the definition of a parasite to a T. In addition, the death of the fetus can cause the death of the carrier (as evidenced in Ireland very, very recently).

Right so calling a dog "a dog" is wrong. A Dalmatian isn't really a dog it is Canis lupus familiaris.

Rather poor attempt to muddy the waters, really.

You see, both of your examples are not related to the fetus/baby comparison for one reason: they're subsets, not equivalencies. A Mustang GT is a type of Ford, a Dalmatian is a type of dog. A fetus is not a type of baby, nor the inverse.

A Mustang GT is a Ford, a Dalmatian is a dog. A fetus is a baby.

Tell me that a Mustang is not a Ford.

Tell me that a Dalmatian is not a dog.

You are already told me that a fetus is not a baby.

@maninjapan78

if you are a ok with providing therapy to minors that are unhappy with their body parts but are not ok with providing therapy to minors that are unhappy with their predisposition to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex then you are exhibiting discrimination.

If you want to your life trying to create perfect heterosexual Aryan children, someone already tried that; and they failed back then too.

I am not the one trying to tell people what they can't do. You will have to look in the mirror for that.

A Mustang GT is a Ford, a Dalmatian is a dog. A fetus is a baby.

Tell me

As stated, both are types. That you cannot form the difference in your mind is indicative of willful ignorance. You are making equivalency statements, but such statements only work if they are reversible, "a dog is a Dalmatian", for instance. While this statement can be true in a particular instance, it does not hold blanket truth. However, "a Dalmatian is a dog", when stated as subset, holds true in all cases.

You are already told me that a fetus is not a baby.

Indeed. Yet you appear unable to grasp the concept. When both are applied as medical terms, they are not equivalent. Even the standard, non-medical definitions do not allow for equivalency.

HI Joe,

I know that I wrote much of the same thing below, but I'm not great at keeping up.
Therapy for kids with orientation issues is fine in theory I guess. But said "therapy"
does not exist. And by the way, neither does a disease for said "therapy" to work on.

If being "American born" really bugs someone, we can train you to dress, walk and speak differently.
But A) being "American born" is not a disease so the treatment of it should not be considered medicine. and B) even if one could be taught to pass as "other",
they still would be "American born" . Well unless we are talking about new borns. But you said that the child "wanted" this "treatment" so new borns are off the table (so to speak).

So, at best this type of "program" is behavior training or acting lessons. At worst it is brain washing.
What it is not is a legitimate form of "therapy".

No, I did not say they were equivalent.

No, they do not need to be reversible.

3 is a prime number... no it can't be because all prime numbers are not 3.

There is no logic in your logic.

Honestly I am done with you as there is very little point in trying to discuss anything with you on a rational bases.

Therapy for kids with orientation issues is fine in theory I guess. But said "therapy"
does not exist. And by the way, neither does a disease for said "therapy" to work on.

See 8.16 and see if that helps at all.

Joe,

You appear to be using the word baby to try for an emotional reaction. So, for the sake of argument, a fetus is an unborn baby. However, a fetus is not a person until it is viable outside the womb. Until then, as allswell stated, it is nothing more than a parasite.

a chassis is not a mustang, a fetus is not a baby, but a mustang is a ford, and a baby is a human..

successful gender re-assignment therpy, instead of mental conversion is proof that gay conversion therapy is a quack attempt at parents unhappy with the child they produced.. nothing wrong with gays..

gay conversion therapy should be called anti-gay PROGRAMMING by cultists, that need to indoctrinate and control those who they find contemptous. without merit...

Joe: A human born with an attraction to the same sex may not be comfortable with this predisposition.

There is only one reason a human would be uncomfortable with their orientation - societal pressures. Parents who submit their children to conversion therapy do so because they feel their child will benefit from being "socially acceptable". The parents may wish for something that cannot happen but, instead, they are putting their children through a process that will most likely diminish the bond they would otherwise enjoy from accepting and supporting their child.
Think of this:
Are there heterosexual people that feel a need for conversion therapy because they wish that they were born gay?
Are there bisexual people that wish they were born with no sexual attraction? (if it weren't for pressure to think so)

You appear to be using the word baby to try for an emotional reaction. So, for the sake of argument, a fetus is an unborn baby. However, a fetus is not a person until it is viable outside the womb. Until then, as allswell stated, it is nothing more than a parasite.

No I was saying that some use the term fetus in order to eliminate an emotional response just as some use it to elicit one.

A mammalian fetus does not fall with in the guidelines of a parasite. In order to qualify as a parasite it would have to be a different species, it would have to damage the host (female mammals are actually designed to reproduce, it is what they are for outside something super natural), it would also not be of any benefit to the host. Most species consider propagation a benefit.

successful gender re-assignment therpy, instead of mental conversion is proof that gay conversion therapy is a quack attempt at parents unhappy with the child they produced.. nothing wrong with gays..

If you are speaking from a biological point of view then they would be viewed as defective. Kind of like seedless grapes. I very much enjoy them but they would die out without human farming.

If you are speaking from Judeo-Christian view then practicing homosexuals would be wrong.

Other than those two you are right.

Dan

There is only one reason a human would be uncomfortable with their orientation - societal pressures.

Only one? I think you missed a rather big one. It would make it much harder to have children. Not that I don't disagree with you first reason but it is not the only reason.

Joe,

Many fetuses have caused harm to the mother. Read up on Savita Halappanavar.

And they are parasites. Sorry, but that is the case. That may be an evolutionary step, but you must understand how inefficient evolution can be sometimes.

Wow... Hard to compete on a left leaning blog... (But what did I expect?.... Equity?... Nah!)..

Some body listed nationality... here is the problem with the "Its' (Gay) not a choice." argument:

Nationality is Where you are born... Now you can Immigrate to the US and have "dual" citizenship or you could of had Parents here that are "German" and be a "German-American" and you may be an "American" with German descent. It does not change no matter what you "decide".

Race is what you are... If your Black.. (don't get upset... I'm using stereotype to make a point) you can dance like White people, talk like White people, eat what they eat and live how they live.. but Your skin color will not change no matter what you "decide".

Sexuality IS a choice. If you want the same sex as a sexual partner... that is a decision... NOTHING changes Genetically.. Your born a boy... take a genetic sample.. and hello your a boy. Now to be fair... Doctors have studied Homosexuality (that support the same) and have come to a momentous conclusion.... THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GAY AND STRAIT except how they THINK..

Now you can argue that ... I was born "thinking" this way" or "feeling this way" but aside from BRAIN chemistry it is totally by what he or she "decide".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/22/AR2008062201994.html

For Dan. It doesn't matter though what their reasoning is. The key point of the discussion is whether or not you or others have the right to tell them they can't seek that therapy from who they choose. You may be thinking of those that are forced into such therapy by their parents, but you are neglecting the small group of minors that want to undergo such therapy. It doesn't matter what their reasons are. If they are of sound mind and body, made aware of the success rate, the side effects, and alternatives to this therapy, then it's their choice to make.

This law doesn't actually prevent the action that you are describing, "Parent forcing their child to undergo such therapy". It only says that it can't be performed by a licensed therapist. So, in essence all this law really does is change the group that parents find to force their children into such therapy and place restrictions on the small group that doesn't want restrictions placed upon who can they can receive the therapy from.

A mammalian fetus does not fall with in the guidelines of a parasite. In order to qualify as a parasite it would have to be a different species

Difference of species is in no biological definition of parasite.

Sexuality IS a choice. If you want the same sex as a sexual partner... that is a decision.

You are quite obviously unable to differentiate between sexual attraction (sexuality) and sexual activity (the physical act of sex).

Please come back once you can demonstrate you understand this very basic premise.

Here is the cool thing about communication.... a message that is understood is complete... now If I clumsily presented my argument.. you could grade me on style or if not understood you can ask for clarification... but seeing how you avoid simply answering the "desire to have sex" questions sir it appears you are:

A. Truly do not know where I',m coming from. To this my apologies... or

B. Resort to "very basic" insult because of lack of substance. I thing the latter.

You are attempting to claim sexuality as being the choice of who you pick to sleep with. This is false. Sexuality is the subconscious attraction to a gender. It is not chosen. All you chose is whether to act upon it (both homosexual and heterosexual).

What's more, your brain study does nothing to support your contention of choice.

William, at one time there were no organizations that supported gay behavior as normal, either. The positions, for right or wrong, evolved over time.

And yet, there was no valid reason for the anti-gay view, Bowen. There is much evidence supporting the condemnation of ex-gay nonsense.

HI Bowen,

Sometimes we need to back away from an issue and listen to what we ourselves are saying.

Your arguments are well written and polite, but you are talking theory as if there has never been an actual person that has gone through this sort of situation. Your arguments remind me of college friends who were sold, hook line and sinker on a gentleman named Mao. I think his first name was "Chairman". Everything sounded great in theory, but look at what it did to the people.

You appear to be arguing that since medicine has refuted the idea that homosexuality is a disease, some how it will some day come around to embrace the concept of a "cure" is well, step back and look at it. It doesn't even make sense.

To suggest that its OK to perform dangerous unnecessary experiments on Kids, to cure a disease that like "being left handed", has been acknowledged into the universe of acceptable "normal" human behaviour possibility. Well, are you going to teach tall people to slouch? Or smart people to act dumb? or Beautiful people to maim themselves? Or people you find un attractive to hate them selves? This is not healthy, and you are talking about kids.

I was raised a Christian, and I still hold my beliefs, but what you and these folks are promoting goes a long way to explain why so many people believe that religion is the root of all evil. Didn't Hitler do stuff like this to kids?

Exactly right. In fact what the judge suggests would open the door to all sorts of quackery being performed by state-licensed medical providers, such as exorcism.

In the end this law will be upheld even if this particular judge doesn't understand that there already are limits to free speech when it comes to medical malpractice and state licensing.

Homosexuality is NOT a behavior. That is why it is NOT a disorder and hasn't been for decades within the APA or the entire mental health field. Get over it. Homosexuality IS just like eye color, hair color, handedness,etc. We are born that way.

Homosexuality is not an all or nothing behavior. There are a fair number of people that are ambivalent on who they have sex with. Alcoholics and people with anger control issues modify their behavior to conform with societal laws. Since being homosexual tends to limit child and other options there is a very real reason why people may want to suppress certain behaviors.

For instance many married men don't get as much sex as they would like but they don't go out and have sex with other women. They stay in a relationship where they don't get everything they want for the benefit of their children.

This really isn't that hard. People make sacrifices for things they feel are more important.

Sexual orientation is not a behaviour. I could go celibate tomorrow... but I'll always find women sexually attractive.

Homosexuality is not an all or nothing behavior.

It's not a "behavior" at all; one can be homosexual -- or heterosexual, or bisexual -- without ever having sex.

@EngEsg - You are nitpicking. I will rephrase and say that homosexuality is associated with certain behaviors. The largest behavior associated with homosexuality is engaging in sexual activities with members of your own sex.

Are you ok with that?

Joe,

By rephrasing, you make a factual statement, but then destroy your original premise:

Behaviour vs. eye color....poor analogy!

They stay in a relationship where they don't get everything they want for the benefit of their children.

You're using a logical fallacy. This does not take into considering the millions who have no children, or don't want children.

@hambone

No idea what you are talking about. I think neither do you.

Please explain what you believe to be my premise.

@allswell

You are assuming far too much. You should read what I have written and not what you assume I mean.

Where are you pulling this "millions" from.

Logical fallacy? Please explain.

Um, Joe,

You could just as easily turn your argument around and aim it at heterosexuals. Oh, uh I think you already did that. So what is your point. That being gay is a bad career move? I think we all got that. Ever hear of a "closet queen?" But the "career blues" are not unique to homosexuals. Black people, short people, physically challenged people, women; name your minority. We all share the "Gee I wish I fit the "golden boy" mold.

Some try, and even succeed in passing. I haven't seen it yet either, but I hear that "Yentil" is a pretty interesting film. By the way, I've had this conversation with a few people that actually were "passing". Not everyone can. Not everyone wants to. No one should have to. I may be reading too much into your arguments (and I have to admit, I don't really get what your premise is) but, if you are happy living your life, then go for it. Just don't brain wash kids into living a lie.

BTW (I think hambone got you mixed up with the post at the top of this vine)

Where are you pulling this "millions" from.

Census extrapolation.

~19% of married couples have no children under the age of 18 (est: 22,561,313).

~45% of all persons surveyed were married (est: 55,519,648).

That means almost half of all married couples (and this is US only data) have no dependent children.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_DP02&prodType=table

Logical fallacy? Please explain.

Affirming the Consequent (example: "If people have the flu, they cough. Torres is coughing. Therefore, Torres has the flu").

@maninjapan78

You could just as easily turn your argument around and aim it at heterosexuals.

Thank you for stating the obvious. You are 100% correct, I have no problem with this.

So what is your point. That being gay is a bad career move?

No. Unless you career move is having lots of kids in a family. Actually gays are less accepted in some areas and that could impact one's life. That however was not my point.

I may be reading too much into your arguments (and I have to admit, I don't really get what your premise is) but, if you are happy living your life, then go for it. Just don't brain wash kids into living a lie.

My point is that people change certain behaviors to obtain certain things. People might even change their physical appearance in order to satisfy certain desires. To deny therapy to somebody that wants alter or control a behavior is wrong unless it affects the well being of that person.

HI Joe,

I guess the core of my disagreement with you is that you keep saying "therapy", as if it exists.
It does not. The "partitioners" in this case are viewed as Charlatans by their peers. There is no documentation to even suggest that this is anything less than harmful. (that is to say, the "treatment" or "therapy" has already been shown to "effect the well being of" people, negatively.

For your argument to stand, you must first present a viable "therapy". Otherwise we are talking about the Easter Bunny, Big Foot, Irish "little people" or Japanese river demons. It might be convenient if these things existed, but like the "therapy" in this article and court case, they don't exist.

You and I could sit here and make up a "therapy". But I find this morally corrupt, and I would like to believe that you would too.

HI Jo, I'm back again,

As to the behavior altering, I have lived in other countries and even passed as native. But I have always been an American, and will always be my parents child. Once I lost a finger in and while waiting to see if my body would accept it's re-attachment, I learned to write with my other hand. I still can do more with my "spare hand" than most, but my "hard wiring" did not change.

A dog can be taught to walk on his hind legs, and a human can be made to crawl. That doesn't mean that this is how we should raise our children, to fight their nature, to try and un-do their hard wiring. At best your arguments still comes back to either making everyone, bi-sexual, or striving to fit some ideal "mold" in order to have a better life?

The closet is all you'll get for your troubles. The therapy is a hoax.

Maninjapan-78

I will have to tell you that I do not have much faith in psychiatry. It is one of the least understood sciences that has a bad tendency to rely on medication that it doesn't fully understand.

That being said many people go to therapists to learn coping methods and how to deal with life's challenges. How to deal with the death of a parent. How to get over an abusive parent. How to deal with the loss of a job.

I am not implying that therapy would "cure" a homosexual anymore than therapy will cure an alcoholic (pardon my use of a negative behavior but it makes my point). The therapy would allow a young individual the opportunity to discuss his or her problems and hopefully avoid self destructive behavior.

I am not saying that this should be the norm but it SHOULD be available to those that so desire it.

A dog can be taught to walk on his hind legs, and a human can be made to crawl. That doesn't mean that this is how we should raise our children, to fight their nature, to try and un-do their hard wiring.

We are not born with huge muscles but some people would prefer to spend countless hours in the gym creating their ideal body image. I wouldn't think to raise all children in this manner nor would I tell a child they couldn't work out.

This is the problem I see.

I child born a male but who identifies a female can get help/therapy to change or cope.

A child born a homosexual but doesn't want to be can't get help/therapy to cope.

Once again I know we are talking about a very small group of people but I don't think it is ok to discriminate because it is only a small group.

Your left handed right handed analogy struck a nerve. If a child was left handed I would not ask him to change, it wouldn't even occur to me. If the same child asked for help in learning to use their right hand would you deny that child?

HI Joe,

The "therapy" that you are speaking of is not to help a child to cope.
That therapy already exists and is very common. What the "program" under consideration here is doing,
is in fact, suggesting that they will cure homosexuality.

Following your example, grief councilling is not the same as helping someone to believe that their parent is still alive when they are not. One is dealing with the truth. The other denies the truth while encouraging the individual to create and believe in a more desirable fantasy, that will sooner or later collapse and leave them even worse off than if they had dealt with their reality.

(get married have a kid or two them find yourself living a lie and looking for a same sex lover)
(Bye the way, lots of people do things that they think are strategically the right thing instead of following their hearts. This is not just a "gay" thing. but for gay kids, who already suicide at higher rates than other kids, this is not a cure for their woes, this is the core of the cause. This is teaching that not only are they not loved by others, but that they should not love them selves. This is not a good plan.

There is nothing wrong in teaching a child to survive. If you are headed into a certain neighborhood or religious community were gay people get killed, don't wear your pink shirt. We have renamed "the talk", the "Trevor Martin Rap". Black boys shouldn't wear hoodies, and gay kids should not wear pink. But that is survival. We all speak with our peers in one voice, and to our superiors in another. This is called role playing. It is a part of life. I pity anyone who confuses this with life.

Uhhhh let me do this

Following your example, Dissociative Identity Disorder therapy is not the same as helping someone to believe that they are the opposite sex when they are not. One is dealing with the truth. The other denies the truth while encouraging the individual to create and believe in a more desirable fantasy,

You are a boy... I know you wish you were a girl, deal with it. Wow... harsh.

You clearly have a made some huge assumptions as to the type of therapy I am talking about. As I have said before it is not something that is going to be "cured". Most of the therapy you are talking about shouldn't happen.

To deny therapy to somebody that wants alter or control a behavior is wrong unless it affects the well being of that person.

so, wouldn't it also be wrong to FORCE Therapy onto somebody that DOESN'T want to alter that behaviour?? especially when it's only an ATTRACTION and NOT EVEN A BEHAVIOUR!! ???

or are you a hypocrit.?? as this law prevents parents from FORCING THERAPY. by The Rapists onto their child...

OK, well then why are you writing in this vine, most of my gay friends (in NYC anyway) go to see shrinks just like everyone else. The article is about three specific "practitioners" if you are not talking about them, then who an what are you talking about?

By the way, I don't know who you are quoting in the above post

Following your example, Dissociative Identity Disorder therapy is not the same as helping someone to believe that they are the opposite sex when they are not.

but I didn't writ that.

As to the "Boy / Girl wish stuff"; excuse me but, what are you talking about? There is a world of difference between being gay and being trans gender. LGBT is a group of minorities that share some issues. Kind of like Blacks and Jews, so they / we try and find power and support in numbers.

If you think that the "therapy" in the article "shouldn't happen" then I think that I may not be the only participant here that missed that. Straight kids go to therapists, so why shouldn't gay kids go? Unless the therapist has an agenda like conversion.

Wow, I wish I hadn't had meetings all day. There was so much fun comments on here today that I couldn't respond to!

Joe, my post above was directed to skippy, who called Lori's analogy poor. Skippy can't seem to understand that sexual orientation, and behaviours are different from one another.

Sorry Joe,

What I meant to say was that by changing from SKIPPER's statement from

"Behaviour vs. eye color....poor analogy!"

to

homosexuality is associated with certain behaviors.

You destroyed SKIPPER's premise, which was that homosexuality is a behavior.

Sorry, when you said you were going to rephrase, I thought you rephrasing your own statement and didn't notice that you were not the OP.

so, wouldn't it also be wrong to FORCE Therapy onto somebody that DOESN'T want to alter that behaviour?? especially when it's only an ATTRACTION and NOT EVEN A BEHAVIOUR!! ???

Yes. Did you see somewhere where I said differently?

or are you a hypocrit.?? as this law prevents parents from FORCING THERAPY. by The Rapists onto their child...

I am a hypocrit? How so?

Actually the law prevents medical professionals from attempting to help patients modify behevior until they are 18. If a young person decided they did not want to be gay then they cannot be counceled for until they become 18. It wouldn't matter if the patient wanted it or not. However, if a minor suffers from Gender Identity Disorder then they could be treated.

To me this is discrimination.

maninjapan78

OK, well then why are you writing in this vine, most of my gay friends (in NYC anyway) go to see shrinks just like everyone else. The article is about three specific "practitioners" if you are not talking about them, then who an what are you talking about?

The article is about a law. The law applies to all medical professionals who would council patients not just 3 practitioners.

As to the "Boy / Girl wish stuff";

I thought I had been pretty clear that if people who suffer from gender identity disorder can receive therapy at age 8 then it would be discriminatory to deny that same right to people who "suffer" from homosexuality. Just as all people born male do not wish to be male so to do some homosexuals not wish to be.

Ok... first. Many of you need to actually read the law in question. This law doesn't ban an individual from being forced into this therapy. This law doesn't ban a parent from forcing their child to undergo such therapy, it only prevents them from receiving it from a licensed therapist. There is nothing that stops them from receiving it from someone else that is not a licensed therapist.

This was a horrible law from the start and here's why.

What is the goal of the law? Prevent a minor from being forced against their will into this therapy by their parent? Many seem to think that was the intention. Many also seem to believe that's what the law does. It doesn't actually prevent this as stated above. People even refer to this law as the "Protect our Kids Law".

Goal of law.... failed.

Consequences of law: Small group that wants to undergo the therapy has restriction upon who they can receive it from. It doesn't matter if you believe it works, believe it should be done, or believe that it has horrendous side effects. As long as the individual is of sound mind and made aware of the low success rate, possible success rate, and alternatives, then it's their right to make that medical decision. Not yours, not the courts, and not their parents.

This distinction of 18YO is rather stupid seeing as a 16 or 17 YO is often just as capable of making such decisions as when they turn 18. By not recognizing this, you allow parents to force that 16-17 YO to undergo this therapy. However, by recognizing that, you must also allow the same individual the right to undergo that therapy if they decide they want it. Even if you disagree with their decision.

This law would have been far more effective if it would have simply given teenagers more rights with regards to procedure performed on them. As it stands, it doesn't really do much good and opens itself up to lawsuits.

HI Doggy,

Thanks for the in-depth info. As usual, the conversations here have drifted.

I think you will be hard pressed to find a perfect law. Especially when you are dealing with the parent child relationship. On the one hand, One could compare these prohibitive laws to abortion or drug laws and say that all that they achieve is to push the practice under ground where who knows what the kids will be subjected to.

The other argument is that with out laws that at least question the validity of these practices, people might be more willing to support them. Even the posts on this vine have shown this. "Dr. X says it works so I'll believe the 'medical professional'". I'm sure Eugenics sounded like a good idea at the time. Working to change the way gay people including children who think they may be or who appear to be "gay" are treated is a process. there is no single law that is going to be a cure all. The civil rights process for is still a work in "process".

doggysaywhat - This was a horrible law from the start and here's why.

What is the goal of the law? Prevent a minor from being forced against their will into this therapy by their parent?

The goal was to prevent a harmful and ineffective practice from being imposed on minors by state-licensed practitioners, and having it be considered legitimate therapy. This bill strips whatever shred of legitimacy that voodoo might have had.

Parents are still free to abuse their kids in this manner but they can't do it with the help of a licensed mental health provider.

For man, I would agree that various laws are not perfect. This is why they should be scrutinized far more then they are before passed. I can think of several improvements to this law which would actually accomplish something such as giving more rights to minors with regards to this procedure. You can also question the validity of such practices be requiring a general consent where the individual is made aware of the success rate, side effects, and that this practice doesn't have a medical basis. I would agree that forcing it underground is likely to have more detrimental effects with regards to what they're subjected to. This is a large problem with this type of law. The practice is still legal but now you don't even have a licensed therapist performing it. You'll have it done by a priest or members of a prayer group. If this practice is going to be done, it's better done with someone with a shred of training as opposed to who is going to be doing it with this law in place.

For skrekk. It doesn't matter to those that are performing it if it's considered a legitimate therapy because they believe that it is. They can also have it done by another person now such as a priest. This was basically a law that only accomplishing making people feel good that disagree with the practice. You haven't protected anyone. What you did was place that happy feeling of snubbing a group you disagree with above the welfare of the individuals you claim you want to protect. They can still be subjected to this procedure, they can still have all of the same horrible effects, they can still commit suicide as a result of this practice.... They just can't have it done by a licensed therapist.

If people that pushed this law actually cared about individuals negatively affected by this practice and not about feeling their oats, they would have set up the law in such as way as to allow those forced into the procedure under the guise of a religious practice to say no.

I think the mindset of such individuals is best shown by your last statement. Parents are allowed to abuse their children, they just can't have a licensed therapist help them. Child is still abused. But you feel better because a state licensed therapist didn't help. Seems rather messed up doesn't it.

And fortunately he only blocked the law for these 3 individuals. The law otherwise still stands and will ultimately be upheld.

Yeah....I'm sure verbal abuse against a patient is exercising their right to freedom of speech. Just like sacrificing a person is one's right to exercise their freedom of religion as well. Nevermind the whole murder thing.

I saw a recent quote that said something to the effect that it was 2% (to promote same-sex marriage by explaining that it is such a small percentage). It is disappointing that the media is hopelessly obsessed. It's as if they are really on board with this agenda and won't let anyone think for themselves.

I wouldn't say you're wrong, it's perfectly acceptable to have personal feelings towards something. As long as you are tolerant, and somewhat respectful, you can believe and feel however you want.

What I do have an issue is when rights are denied to 10% of US citizens. According to Wikipedia, and somewhat ironically, Texas makes up roughly 10% of the US population. What if I said that US citizens that live in Texas were not going to be given the same rights as the rest of the nation? What if it was 10% of US citizens from a specific ethnic background? What if it was 10% of US citizens who practiced a specific religion? What if it was the estimated 10% of US citizens who use "1234" as their ATM PIN? Play with the percentages however you want, but the idea is the same.

You can feel however you want towards those individuals or groups provided you are tolerant and respectful (how a bank reacts to someone with 1234 as their ATM PIN may be different). The reason that we hear so much about gay rights right now is that they don't have the same rights as the other 90%. When that happens, I'm willing to bet that gay supporters will be more than happy to just live their lives, and we'll only hear from them in the event of discrimination.

I say we give homosexuals the same rights, and let private groups like the Boy Scouts and churches be inclusive, or exclusive as they deem appropriate.

It doesn't matter the percentage, it is still against everything this country stands for to deny everyone the same rights.

Raddave, and D,

I'm with you. Hasn't our country already been through the "minority" thing before? Do we have to pull up what happened in Germany when the majority decided that there problems of society originated with their minorities?

Ironically, even heterosexual white folk are a lot more diverse than they give yourselves credit for.
And besides, we all came out of Africa anyway. As to the Gender stuff. People who grew up Gay in America,
Especially in "religious" communities know what kind of hell "programs" like this are promoting.
Hate yourself, join a monastery or just leave so we don't have to acknowledge that the world may be more diverse than we choose to believe.

TanManTexas - My thoughts are that we expend a great deal of time on a subject that affects less than 10% of the population.

Oddly enough it tends to be classes of persons which aren't the majority which suffer irrational discrimination in our society.

Strange that you think that's OK.

So why don't you climb into that closet and not have to worry about it.

Sorry Park,

but the closets are not empty.
A lot of the loudest gay bashers are closet queens with something to prove.
Think of all of those TV preachers. I fail to see how people join these cults.
Speaking about wanting everyone to be like them.

You got that right Guy. People forget that very thin line in the First Amendment between where one person's rights begin and another person's rights end. The judge was totally erroneous in that temporary injunction ruling as far as I'm concerned. Part of the problem with American law, etc. is that we believe that anyone under a certain age has NO RIGHTS guaranteed to them by the Constitution, and that is to me what this judge's ruling is reinforcing. Why do parents have the right to dictate that their gay child MUST change the sexuality they were born with? It is something that can't be changed, no matter how you physically and/or mentally abuse that child. Where are the child abuse laws in this ruling? Under-age forced therapy is child abuse by both the parents and the therapists.

The Golden Rule exists in many other religions along with the Judeo-Christian religion. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Maybe we should force these parents to undergo forced conversion therapy to change their heterosexuality.

anti-trust proponent That would make us no better then. Although we would still be forcing people to do something against their own will for something they have no control of, although for nicer results but at least to me its still a form of taking away your liberty and freedom.

My reverse action comment was meant to show the idiocy of such forced therapy. NO forced therapy especially for a minor is right, and that is the point I was making. But I often wonder how the parents would react if they actually went through the same therapy they were forcing on their child. Often these parents have no real understanding of what the conversion therapy is. They only know that they can't accept their child being a homosexual and they want it changed, right or wrong.

I went through therapy twice as an adult trying to accept or change my homosexuality, with none of the idiocy of this conversion therapy. I was married for one day shy of 16 years trying to live up to society's expectations. It nearly destroyed me and my wife emotionally before we called it quits. That is why I am so adamantly against any of this forced conversion therapy. Homosexuality is NOT something that can be changed, no matter how much the individual might want to change or others might want to force upon that individual. And it is not something that can be changed surgically either (except for those whose sexual direction is the opposite sex and go through transsexual conversion...and THAT MUST be that individual's choice also.)

There are a lot of people who feel like they are being manipulated to bow down to views that are against their religion. We are talking about forcing people to think the same, and that's not American. The whole Chic-fil-A thing showed a great intolerance on one side. In fact, the media seems to spin/feed this intolerance, not Christians.

Donna,

Of course you're right. Christians have never protested anything that went against their beliefs, nor have they ever tried to change (or convert) anyone. If there is one group that abides by the old live-and-let-live adage, it would be christians.

For instance, christians would never dream of having their morality forced on any group of Americans who don't share that morality!

I think we should all modify our behavior to mirror that of all those super-tolerant christians!

Did I lay it on too thick?

Donna, your point has no validity. No one ever said that the owners of Chic-fil-A had to accept homosexuality. The problem arose because they have given millions to organizations that practice what the article is talking about. And, has spent millions to try to deny citizens in this country the same rights enjoyed by everyone else.

Joe,

Except that no one is asking anyone to change their views on homosexuality. That's not what this case is about. It's about licensed medical professionals peddling something that not only has been shown to be ineffective, but down right harmful. It's a breach of fiduciary duty to practice this under the guise of "medicine".

A doctor can disagree with homosexuality all he/she wants, but that doesn't mean they can practice faux medicine.

Folks who "do" animals....are they born that way?

Paraphilias have no linkage to genetic or pre-natal influences under any current scientific studies. Sexualities do.

more states voted against than for!

So the same would've been for interracial marriage, and women voting, and ending slavery...

Having the same rights and benefits given to heterosexuals is NOT wanting special privileges. We simply want the same rights and benefits granted to you by the US Constitution.

Just as soon as animals have legal capacity for informed consent, I'll begin fighting for your right to beastiality. Until then, your SOL. Sorry.

I agree that's what should happen, but it won't. The law gives very wide berth to parents in regards to religious practice, almost up to the point where a child's life is endangered.

And it should be noted that "ex-gay therapy" is a religious practice just like exorcism, and thus not a medical practice. Parents are free to have their voodoo priest perform it on their kids, but they just can't use a state-licensed mental health provider to do it.

If you don't want to be gay, then don't engage in homosexual practices. It's not hard.

Again, you are confusing orientation with behavior. One can be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual without having sex.

THAT'S not hard.

There is a huge difference between the "stink" over gay marriage and being homosexual. Acting on that sexuality is like acting on heterosexual "needs". Denying your body's sexual needs isn't really that easy to do for some people, even though you seem to think so. But homosexuality is much more than sexual acts, just as heterosexuality is much more than sexual acts. It is the very core of a person's life.

So you're saying that people are defined by their sexual needs? Am I wrong in thinking that our society might just be sick if this is the 'core?' There is so much more to life, but every popular movie, show, and book seems to be a big come-on for sex. How is this making our society better to feed on this 24/7?

How is it making it worse?

Did you even read (comprehend) my comment. I said that sexual acts are NOT the core of a person's being, whether homosexual or heterosexual ( I don't actually like the comparison terms gay/straight, because what makes a heterosexual "straight.") Maybe the fact that I said "It" rather than "homosexuality" caused your confusion???

Indigo-Rage - If you don't want to be gay, then don't engage in homosexual practices.

That's a profoundly ignorant comment.

That's a profoundly ignorant comment.

And that's a profoundly useless one. Your opinion is of no value to me.

And as for exercising a little self-control... look, I hate to break it to you, but no matter what the media has spoon fed you for all these years, sexual contact is NOT a need. You will not die without it. You might get pretty damned bored and frustrated, but trust me, you will not die.

Air, that's a need. You will die without air.

Food is a need. You will die without food.

Water is a need. You will die without water.

Shelter from the elements is a need. You will die if left exposed to the elements.

Sex is a want. It can be an overwhelming want, and a biological imperative - as we are, as a species, driven to procreate - or in the case of homosexuals, attempt to procreate, though it will never happen.

But wants, any wants, any desires, can be controlled, supressed, and overcome. And it's not really all that hard. It just takes discipline and self-control. And if you can't control yourself, then you need professional help.

Now, do I think some team of shrinks can "talk the gay away"? No. Not any more than a group of priests can "pray the gay away". The only person, THE ONLY person, who can manifest this sort of change in themselves is the person them self.

---

Erin: Behavior follows orientation. If one is oriented a particular way, one will tend to behave in manner in keeping with that behavior. Long-term changes in behavior can bring about changes in orientation.

Here's a non-sexual example:

Dan has an orientation for obesity. He eats when he's bored. He eats when he's depressed. He eats when it's meal time. He eats when he's watching TV. He considers walking to the fridge exercise.

His behavior is trending to obesity.

If he changes that behavior - by filling his idle time when he would be bored and eating, with putting together jigsaw puzzles, talking to friends when he feels down, taking time away from the TV to take his dog for a walk, will he be obese? Most likely not. In fact, by changing his behaviors, his body's metabolism is likely to increase, causing him to loose weight instead of gain it. But this is a decision he must come to of his own accord, and he must choose to change his behaviors if he wants to have a chance at altering his orientation.

HI Indigo,

I guess I'm coming in in the middle if this, but my question is, Why?

Why should people "suppress" their urges and desires? Well that is when they are hurting no one,
and when these acts are taking place between consenting adults. I taught in a kindergarten where we actually forced left handed kids to use their right hands to eat and write. Just because someone else thought this was better for them.

I agree with everything that you've written. They do this stuff in North Korea, and we call it brain washing.
If you are just arguing theory for the sake of arguing, then please realize that there folks that have had very bad experiences in reality with what you are discussing in abstract.

Sorry, but you may "want" with all your heart to be as talented as your brother, or as smart as your sister, of as straight as either of them. I don't know what "chance of altering" orientation you are talking about. But where are your examples of success stories? THis stuff does not work.

If you've transformed yourself from gay to straight, then let us know how that's working out for you. If not, please don't belittle real problems that you (perhaps) know nothing about because you do not have to deal with them.

The answer to "Why" is because the "they" in this case, desire to make a fundamental change. I'm certainly not advocating changes like this to conform to The Moral Majority, or what is Socially Acceptable, or because it's fun to fundamentally alter who a person is. As for success stories - I have a very good, close friend of many, many years, who "came out" some 15 years ago. This didn't matter to me - he was still the same person I'd always known. But after about 5 years, he found himself even more miserable. Many others he'd considered friends now wanted nothing to do with him, he was fired from where he worked by a screaming homophobic boss, and he wanted to change himself.

Two weeks ago he married a woman he has been dating for about 3 years, and in his own words: "I have no want or desire to suck a d--k, or even see a d--k. I love [his now wife], and she's all I want."

It was a very difficult process for him - he had to distance himself from a lifestyle he'd fully embraced, from places and events he'd enjoyed, and to look deep inside himself and find what he really wanted to be, and to be happy with being what he was becoming.

"Brainwashing" was not involved, unless one can "brainwash" one's self. Self-control, on the other hand - is what won out, that, and support from people who really cared about his happiness.

Indigo-Rage - Behavior follows orientation. If one is oriented a particular way, one will tend to behave in manner in keeping with that behavior.

Correct.

Long-term changes in behavior can bring about changes in orientation.

Wrong. As far as sexual orientation is concerned there's zero support in the research for your assertion.

HI Rage, Sorry to be late getting back, I live in another time zone.

OK,
I don't know your friend, and I'd wager that he's still kind of confused. Choosing to be straight, and get married because your homophobic boss fired you does not sound too romantic to me. But then again there are bi-sexuals, and yes most people are in that "shades of grey" zone, but I doubt a 99% gay person would be anymore satisfied in a straight marriage than a 99% straight person would be in a gay marriage.

Um, yes you can brain wash your self. People do it all the time. We convince ourselves of what we can and can't do, who does and doesn't love us and the list goes on. Call it positive thinking if you like, but psyching your self to give a great presentation is the same process that you go through before you walk across a bed of hot coals. The opposite end of this process is of course "denial" as in "I'm not so over-weight". or "I'll pay it back next month" , or "I'll just have one last drink. I can handle it."

Do people "settle for less" yep! There's even a song about it.

"If you can't be with the one you love, Baby, love the one your with!"

Unfortunately, this tends to fall apart a lot, so most "tuned in parents" tend to steer their daughters away from "sensitive caring young men".

I'm told that being bi-sexual is like being attracted to blondes as well as brunettes. The temptation is greater because the pool is bigger, but those who stray will stray even if they are attracted to only tall left-handed red-heads with Peruvian accents and big big feet.

To push your point though, some say being black is harder than being gay. Should they try and pass too?
Is there a "therapy" to help people change from the group with the highest death by homicide rate to a safer group? say make a 15 year old inner city black boy become a 55 year old sub-urban white woman? Now that would increase his survival chances. But, his / her career options would be limited by gender. Maybe he should become Mit Romney! If he can changing race, (and sexual orientation) religion should be no big deal.

I think your are justifying survival tactics that minorities have been using since the dawn of time. 'Play what ever role you need to to survive'. It doesn't mean that Jesse Owens was Hispanic, or that Jews that passed as gentiles in Nazi Germany ceased to be Jews, or that Gay people (ever hear of Rock Hudson) who marry are no longer straight (on "Glee" Santana called it "growing a beard") magically become straight. Call it survival, and I think we should be fighting to make it less necessary, not to empower people who want to traumatize their kids.

Oops I meant to type,

or that Gay people (ever hear of Rock Hudson) who marry are no longer GAY. Sorry Rock.

"Brainwashing" was not involved, unless one can "brainwash" one's self

Self-delusion is a known psychological fact.

You have provided nothing to support your contention. Sexual attraction is a subconscious and uncontrollable attribute. The only controllable thing is acting on it. And who gives a flying @!$%# on that?

The only controllable thing is acting on it.

At least somebody gets it - or at least part of it. Taking control of one's actions is what this really is all about. By controlling one's actions, one can, in fact, make changes to one's core being. Other accepted forms of therapy, such as Anger Management, work on this same principle. By changing how one acts - talking to someone rather than throwing something at them, one becomes a more calm and rational person, rather than a raging beast.

And yes, I'm aware of Rock Hudson, as well as plenty of others far less famous, who were gay and opposite-sex married, as well as at least one Congressperson who left a wife and children to enjoy his gayness as well.

But this is a very different case - someone who, after considerable self-analysis and soul-searching, said deep inside, "I am not gay, I don't want to be gay, but I don't know how to stop.", much the reverse of those who have lived, or tried to live a heterosexual lifestyle - especially those who do so because it is expected of them, or reenforced upon them (overbearing, right-wing religiously fanatical anti-homosexual parents ring any bells here?) and are miserable living a lie until they finally do "come out" and embrace their gay-ness.

But I can't help but shake the feeling this particular group is will deny that the opposite could EVER possibly happen - that someone could ever suspect they might be gay, might give the "other side" a try, and find out "Nope, that's not me."

But this is a very different case - someone who, after considerable self-analysis and soul-searching, said deep inside, "I am not gay, I don't want to be gay, but I don't know how to stop."

Considering no viable science supports the ability to actually change innate sexual orientation, you're pissing up a rope. More anecdotal evidence supports the idea that those who do appear to change were heterosexual to begin with and merely acted homosexual out of some misplaced psychological reaction. Needless to say, these are in the tiny minority.

Considering I've held back considerably here, my patience is reaching its limit.

More anecdotal evidence supports the idea that those who do appear to change were heterosexual to begin with and merely acted homosexual out of some misplaced psychological reaction.

I would venture to say, this is likely the case with my friend as mentioned above. However, he is the sort of person who does not simply "try" or "test" things - he puts 200% in to anything, so if was "merely acting homosexual", he'd have put 200% effort into it - and likely convinced himself that he was.

But let's talk science a minute... we don't have any viable science to support what defines someone's orientation either. We've got "It might be genetic", and "It might be a physical difference in the brain", and we've got "It might be hormonal"... science doesn't really know either.

And it's probably for the best - if we could detect a "gay gene" or some other factor that would clearly indicate "Your baby is going to be gay" we'd see a spike in research to "treat" this condition, a spike in abortions (especially among the more right-leaning) a huge outcry from the gay community, and a lot of social backlash.

For me, as I've said many, many, many times - I don't care what a person's orientation is, it doesn't affect me in any way - and in most cases, I don't WANT to know what a person's orientation is either.

I have my own theory as to what causes individuals to be homosexual - a type of "natural selection" to remove some trait - perhaps a "lethal gene" from the gene pool, since no homosexual pairing can produce offspring.

If you're not familiar with the "lethal gene" concept - here's a real short explanation.

As a hobby, I raise chinchillas. Certain colors (notably white) cannot be bred together. Any white x white pairing will result only in dead offspring. The gene for white is a lethal gene. To breed white chins, white must be paired with something else.

It is entirely possible something similar exists within humans - some combination of traits that would result in only stillbirths, so a disposition to homosexuality is nature's way of removing this lethal factor from the species, for the benefit of the species.

Again, looking at chins, whites bred to, say greys, would produce a Gw x Gw genome, with offspring being GG, Gw, Gw, ww (lethal - stillborn). (Also hyper-simplified to make the point).

If this same "Gw" factor were to exist in the human species, and allowed to propagate unchecked, it wouldn't take long before very little of the human race were capable of producing viable (live) offspring.

And again, I'm vastly simplifying genetics here, I'm not a genetic researcher, and I can't offer any definitive proof - especially since it's very frowned on to gather human specimens, force them to breed and study the results - and would be at least four times as bad to try the same set of experiments with a bunch of homosexuals (the bit-ching alone would be unbareable ;-) ), but it does seem a logical conclusion - that some factor, number of factors, or combination of factors, in a person's genetic makeup makes them unsuitable for heterosexual breeding.

Yes, I am more than aware of cases where Person A and Person B were married, with normal children for X number of years, until Person A said "Sorry person B, I'm gay-in-love-with Person C, here's your divorce papers". This doesn't disprove my theory, in only suggests that Person B in this case, lacked whatever gene or combination was necessary to trigger that lethal factor.

Likewise, I am aware of situations similar to the above, but with supporting facts, Persons A and B have tried and tried and tried to have children, and B has miscarried 4 times, had a stillbirth twice, and lost another to SIDS hours after birth, and after a few miserable, childless years, "came out" and told Person A "Look I like you, but I love Person C".

In the end, we really don't know, all we can do is speculate. I happen to like my theory. It makes sense, and it demonstrates nature is not unfeeling - knowing the human creature is a social creature, it finds ways for people to still be able to share in all the things all others share in, just in a different way. And I suspect, if my theory could be proven, it could actually help "the cause" - if folks could see the homosexual community in a positive light - keeping the human race viable for generations to come.

Of course, I fully expect a lot of flak back, especially from the msn boardies - no offense, but by and large y'all tend to be hotheads, denser than plutonium, or only read what you want to hear.

I'll admit to being a bit hotheaded with my "pissing up a rope" comment. I regretted it later, but edit limits and all.

While we have no solid proof of genetic components, we have a lot of evidence of it. There is also a growing area of research that contends pre-natal environment (womb) factors play a part in determining sexuality; these also determine other factors we call genetic, because it changes how the genes interact. Hopefully more studies will be done on this, as it could be very enlightening on gene interactions as influenced by developmental environment.

I admit I had not heard of the "lethal gene" concept before, but it sounds very strange from a biological standpoint. As you explain it, it is a recessive gene with dominant traits (it manifests even when paired with its opposite).

When you mention trying a scientific rigorous study on breeding of genetics, there have been a few which have shown that children born of homosexuals (usually via artificial insemination) are no more likely to be homosexual than those of heterosexual parents. Now, this does not take into consideration the sexuality (or at least was not focused enough to control) of the other party. The problem there is just the sheer dearth of donors, and that sexuality isn't required information.

I'm not one to hold grudges, and understand edit limits all too well - no hard feelings.

And I will stress again, how over-simplified my example is - genetics is vastly more complex a subject than space here allows, and the lethal factor goes well beyond a simple Dominate/Recessive pairing, but it's close enough for a simple explanation.

As for children born of homosexual parents (via AS), and as I pointed out, we don't even know if there IS a lethal factor in human genetics, because there is still SO much we don't know about human genetics yet, but it is certainly possible, as we have discovered this in other species.

Here are just a couple short references to lethal gene factors as they apply to other species:

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/glossary=lethalgene0

http://theagricos.com/genetics/gene/lethal-genes/

And again, this would be terribly frowned upon to study in humans - not to mention illegal, outside of purely theorhetical research, that proving the existence of a human lethal factor might prove to be nearly impossible.

And as you mentioned, sexual orientation is not required donor information, and size of donor pools is considerably large - though it is again, entirely possible that this factor does exist in humans, which might explain why some IVF's "don't take", or develop unforeseen complications, resulting in stillbirths, miscarriages, and could well explain Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) - something that remains a medical mystery.

And I agree, further research in this area is warranted, as it could go a very long way to improving the human condition, but as I said, it's very tricky, sensitive area of research, bordering on eugenics, or seen as "playing god" to the less enlightened.

And I agree, further research in this area is warranted, as it could go a very long way to improving the human condition, but as I said, it's very tricky, sensitive area of research, bordering on eugenics, or seen as "playing god" to the less enlightened.

This is the risk with all genetic research. Once an undesirable gene is identified, someone somewhere will want the ability to predetermine it in the womb to "control" it.

Here's a little more on the subject of lethal genes, this as it pertains to breast cancer:

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/dec/17-lethal-gene-emerged-ancient-palestine#.UMI1i2f-18E

And the more terrifying side - weaponization of lethal factors:

http://www.sunshine-project.org/bwintro/gebw.html

If a gene, pairing or sequence can be identified, it can be weaponized, and that's just bad for everyone.

Of course, in more civilized use, such genetic manipulations could also ensure things like:

eliminating ailments like Tay-Sachs, Microcephely, Sickle-cell anemia, countless other undesirable genetic defects - but at the same time as well, the danger of abuse exists, such as eliminating things such as red hair, green eyes, black skin... all genetic traits naturally evolved as part of the human genome, to ensure survival where necessary. Who is ultimately to decide what traits are "desirable" or "undesirable"? Certainly I'd think we could all agree that a trait that causes death is not desirable, whereas other factors are purely cosmetic.

Ahh.. people... gotta love 'em.

There is no proof, only theory, that he was married to Mary Magdalen. Find the Rosetta Stone on that and then you can start chirping about this unrelated topic all you want.

And why don't you tell us how you know what gay people do or don't do to young boys...

Actually Tim, if it is a theory, then there is proof that it occured.

Check the child abuse figures for yourself: The statistically most likely (88%) persons to abuse children is: White, Christian, heterosexual, males on alcohol. Homosexual abusers are so rare they do not appear in the statistics.

melis-a - Its just as stupid for me to say ""Does it mean Jesus was gay himself since he was always with 12 men, never a word of him sleeping with or marrying Mary?

Actually there are many theologians who think your Jesus was gay. There's a reason he was really fond of John, and ordered his mother to treat him as a member of the family.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably