Not a field day... Just disbelief that these things still happen in this year 1220... sorry 2012

Who even does this anymore. Who would want to. Why would they want to. What is the point.

Michele Bachmann's husband for one.

This therapy has been discredited, so to do it is malpractice. So why are these idiot "therapists" still licensed, and why should their "free speech rights" trump the right of their patients to receive therapy that is NOT malpractice?

Has any of these patients received a polio shot recently? :)

Don't believe the lies of the liberal media and the propaganda of the Gay and Lesbian Organizations. They would say anything to push further their liberal agenda.

Not long ago, they admitted to having pushed the Center for Disease Control into skewing statistics regarding AIDS and homosexual males to hide the fact that AIDS is indeed prevalent amongst the homosexual community.

They have long since lost their credibility and only the gullible liberal believes in it.

Looks like some feel that First Amendment rights only apply to groups like GLBT, Act Up, Outrage!, STAR, Bash Back, Gay Liberation Front, The Lesbian Avengers, Man/Boy Love Association, Barebacker's Society, etc.. The people in the mainstream shouldn't have this protection. It's now only for the protection of those outside the mainstream. Some say the law was only passed because of the influence of the California gay lobby. Any so called "discrediting" was done by people who have a conflict of interest because they are gay activists or so associated.

j70141 in Colorado- You obviously believe that only liberal interest groups have the corner on misinformation or skewing data. Hate to tell you this, but social conservatives have been doing this for a long time. So your argument that they have no credibility is completely self serving on your part to feel good about your own personal decisions.

Pandora6- First Amendment rights have largely been enjoyed by groups like the Family Research Council and National Organization for Marriage have enjoyed First Amendment rights for a long time and their main goal has been to suppress the LGBT community. As a whole, you Sir (or Mam) are a hypocrite. While I agree First Amendment rights should be enjoyed by all, you seem to take issue with any group that "discredits" your beliefs as long as you can "discredit" any other group you feel is worthy.

Question: If gay reparative therapy should be allowed, does that mean you both agree that therapy should be allowed for accepting whom a person is and how to assimilate it into a healthy life? Im going to take a leap here and say that anything that promotes healthy self image of acceptance regarding being LGBT is wrong in the eyes of people who are happy about this decision. Which, in turn, makes these people hypocrites. They are guilty of the exact thing they are screaming about.

Stick with me here as I chart out progress:

If I said I wanted to marry outside my race in 1920 I would be considered crazy by most.

If I said I wanted to marry same sex in 1950, I would be considered crazy by most, incapable of making an informed and consent decision and probably arrested.

If I said in 1980 that I could convert my sex, artificially inseminate a fetus, and even get someone of the opposite sex to carry it, I would have been considered crazy by most and incapable of making an informed decision. Prior to this date it would have been considered impossible by most and you probably would have gotten arrested.

Suppose someone wants to convert and marry their pets, if it were possible, because unlike our same species they are more loyal and have less mal intent and tend to be easier to get along with, and people do love them. Would they be considered crazy and incapable of making an informed decision? Would they be arrested?

I'm an independent and a moderate, and I would like a counter argument to these points. Convince me either way.

Glen - my thoughts are along the lines of so-called 'religious healings'. At what point does a parent's right to 'doctor' their kid become a violation of the kid's rights? We've all read the stories of kids that died because the parents withheld medical treatment on the grounds of religious freedom. But - exactly who's freedom was denied?

As for the 'pets' aspect... I suspect this perspective is all ploy and provocative conjecture with the only 'substance' being your effort to stir the 'crazy' bucket. What is your fascination with bestiality?

National Center for Lesbian Rights legal director Shannon Minter

who wants to bet shannon is shaped like a pear has really short hair and wears sandals with socks.

Glen,

You were spot on until the pets comment. Our pets are not capable of making an informed, rational decision to marry, or have sex, therefore, forcing them into it is wrong.

"'substance' being your effort to stir the 'crazy' bucket."

Your answer was better than I expected. I am going to file this in a time capsule and preserve it in a public place for prosperity the best I can.

So you think this is crazy? So did the people in the 1920 and 1950 example.

I hope I am dead long before we can cross species and genetic traits and breeding or anything like this happens, but it is coming in the next 30 years because it will be quite lucrative. Where is Dr Moreau when you need him?

Glen,

Your post is so inane I'm having a hard time where to start.

First, the "slippery slope" argument does NOT work when you're expanding rights, it only works when you're attempting to limit them. If this weren't true, you could apply any slippery slope to all freedoms. No one has to make a case about why your situation CAN'T or WON'T ever happen, you have to make a case that it shouldn't.

Now, if that's what your looking for, the case why your ridiculous, chain of events won't ever happen, well here you go. If we find a way to convert pets to humans, than once they come of age they'll be capable of informed consent and have legal capacity for such. They'll no longer be pets, they'll be humans, capable of entering contracts.

Glen-1484791, did you run scientifically validated surveys in 1920, 1950, 1980? If not, then you are just expressing an opinion you have made up perhaps based on some fantasy or bias you have. In addition your comments are full of bogus ideas. For example: 1) fetuses are not inseminated, mature females or eggs cells are; 2) interracial mating has occurred since the beginning of human existance e.g.there is now genetic evidence that humans mated with Neanderthals; 3) same sex couples have been living together as partners almost as long e.g. Sappho and Anaktoria in ancient Greece, Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas, etc.; 4) Surgery for transsexualism was pioneered at Johns Hophins Medical Center more that a half century ago and taught to medical students as long ago as the 1960's and 1970's. From what you have written it is absurd to call yourself a "moderate" and I hope you aren't advocating zoophilia.

Not one word about "damn unelected reactionary judges legislating from the bench" ? Now there's a surprise!(sarcasm)

Yeah, that's the sort of joke that has led to the rape of lesbian women on a massive scale. Real cute.

rape of lesbian women on a massive scale?! i call BS...

Toasty has a toasted brain, how on earth do you think that crap up??

As opposed to non-lesbian women, or non-women lesbians?

There has been a common superstition in certain third world countries that the way you cure a woman of being born a lesbian is that you have sex with her. Even if it's against her will.

Try informing yourselves next time. This joke has been tried in real life, and it's led to the mass rape of innocent girls, some of them VERY young. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/13/us-safrica-rape-lesbian-idUSTRE52C3MN20090313
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055289/Corrective-rape-South-Africa-women-attcked-cure-lesbians.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/lesbian-corrective-rape-south-africa

"Corrective rape" is a crime, and that you would just laugh it off is disgusting. I honestly don't know how you can look yourselves in the mirror.

Wow, links about South Africa... what a wonderful and reliable bit of information.

gag

That is..just dumb.We're talking about the US."corrective rape' get outta here

Toasty McGrath, how did you get from discussing a law that restricts the rights of people in California to "corrective rape" in the third world and South Africa. Sounds like you have tangential thought patterns and need to see a therapist.

Maybe if you'd actually read the comment I was responding to...

Well Toasty, I guess you just missed a dose of Zyprexa.

Army - Concerning gay reparative therapy, "To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. " - The American Psychological Association.

Homosexuality is considered a normal part of human sexuality by the following professional mental health associations: The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.

Well, Army, all I can say is that your parents failed to beat the stupid out of THEIR kid.

Army - Homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the DSM in 1973 because of studies (the first of which was in 1957) that showed that there was, "No scientific basis for inferring a predisposition to psychopathology or other maladjustment as intrinsic to homosexuality or bisexuality." Source - American Psychological Association. Political correctness had nothing to do with it. Gays and lesbians had virtually no political influence in the early 1970s.

armyret - comment 4.1 - " I mean seriously think why anyone would think it is normal to shove something up their butt where only crap should come out. And also to lick your own poop off another mans wiener. You think that is normal."

Do you fantasize about that a lot? When you are fantasizing about it, are you typing with only one hand?

Army - Many straight couples have a n a l sex, and many gay couples do not. What is your point?

Can someone tell me again what the percentage is of those that rail the hardest against homosexuality that are actually closeted themselves?

The ignorance out of his mouth is damn near jaw dropping.

Nearly 2000 documented species and counting that participate in homosexuality.

There's a pair of male penguins that adopted an egg a female abandoned and it is now thriving. The same can be said for all the documented species. Including humans.

2000 species that engage in homosexuality? OK, call BS on that too. and I have no issue with homosexuality, just think you are full of sh*t...rasing an egg has nothing to do with sexual intercourse between the same sex, it's raising and abandoned egg...

Army...you are living proof ..Parents should eat their young

"Nearly 2000 documented species and counting that participate in homosexuality"

And a dog will hump your leg.

Whats your point? Is it that homos are closer to animals on the evolutionary scale than normal people?

there are also 2000 documented species that practice cannibalism .... just because animals do it doesn't mean we should

The point is they are desperately grasping at straws to justify their perverted behavior. If a male dog sniffs another male dog's butt, it constitutes "homosexual" behavior. I would think if the dog humping the leg is of the same gender as the humpee, that is homosexual behavior also. :)

" I say beat the Homo out of your child literally." Yeah, Army, that's called child abuse, assault and battery and if you should kill that child while, "beating the homo out him literally," murder. Commit it and you can do your own field research in prison with a three hundrewd pound boyfriend.

Any therapist using this treatment should be sued for malpractice.

Is it that homos are closer to animals on the evolutionary scale than normal people?

Not too sure if I should feel sorry for you or just laugh at you.

Every animal species participates in heterosexual activity too.

What witty retort says you about that?

The point is they are desperately grasping at straws to justify their perverted behavior.

There is nothing to justify, since they are doing nothing wrong -- nor are they "wrong" or "perverted" just by being homosexuals.

Yes they are and now they want to shove that life style in our faces! Its a life choice they made and they need help!

Note to NyMike. After laying the egg, female penguins leave and feed. The male penguin incubates the egg for two months, not because he is homosexual but because he is a penguin. That is normal penguin behavior.

If we want to discuss animals and behavior, humans are the only species that will beat up or kill another one of their kind for being homosexual. Does it matter if a penguin sits on an egg or if an animal bonds and mates with another of the same sex? Not really, no. I don't need my existence substantiated by a consensus of the majority to know I don't like brussel sprouts or a study of herbivores that don't like them to justify that I don't like them. LGBT have had to justify their existence for so long against hatred that we have had to rely on studies and proofs and justifications. And I for one am no longer interested in justifying. I don't need fixed or studied. I don't need validation by a group of people. I do deserve to be treated like every other person in this country and have my family protected the same as any other. I may not agree with divorce. But I'm not going to start a stop all divorce campaign. You want to protect marriage and children? Start in your own house and stop trying to tell me how to run mine!

pmdww2: The things you cite are your own personal opinions and the APA, etc. pronouncements are opinions that were formulated by gay activists/supporters in those organizations. They are not scientific facts. Some people feel distress over homosexual feelings that they have and want to have therapy for it. There shouldn't be a law preventing this. The overwhelming majority of psychological/psychiatric therapy is performed using methods that have not been verified by evidence based medical evaluation. So if laws are formulated that outlaw any therapy that is not scientifically proven, then nobody can get any therapy. If you have a political agenda, don't use it to limit other people's rights.

the APA, etc. pronouncements are opinions that were formulated by gay activists/supporters in those organizations.

WRONG. The APA's findings are based on numerous studies of the subject, most notably by Evelyn Hooker, Estelle B. Freedman, and John C. Gonsiorek, who conducted separate research into the psychology of homosexuality, and whose studies independently confirmed each other. Unless you have peer-reviewed, unbiased, credible research and/or studies that prove otherwise, STFU.

Some people feel distress over homosexual feelings that they have and want to have therapy for it. There shouldn't be a law preventing this.

Obviously reading comprehension is not one of your skills. The law does not prevent adults from getting help from a state-licensed mental health professional for any feelings of "distress" that they may have regarding their sexuality; it only prevents those professionals from "treating" minors under the age of 18 for such "distress," even if the parents force the children to seek such help. Parents are still free to inflict this torture on their children via their clergy, if they wish.

Furthermore, "reparative" or "conversion" therapy has been universally condemned by ALL of the reputable, unbiased, mainstream medical organizations as not only being unsuccessful, but actually causing harm to those who undergo such "therapies".

The overwhelming majority of psychological/psychiatric therapy is performed using methods that have not been verified by evidence based medical evaluation.

You'll have to cite some proof of this, too, or STFU.

ErinNJ. The research you cite is biased and been accused of being fabricated or distorted for political reasons by people who have latent or actual homosexual desires. This is a conflict of interest on their part. The APA's decisions are influenced by gay activists both in the APA and outside it. Most of what you say is nonsense. Propaganda that you have read and are now parroting as factual. Get a life and stop trying to deny people their basic rights to the healthcare of their choice.

Prove your claims, or STFU. If there have been accusations made, or there is a conflict of interest, or if the APA is "influenced by gay activists both in the APA and outside of it," then you should have no trouble citing any relevant data to support that. But you can't, so just STFU.

Why don't YOU get a life and stop trying to deny children their right to live without being mentally abused? You call it "the healthcare of their choice," thus proving your lack of reading comprehension skills -- it's not about children being able to choose whether they undergo therapy; it's about parents who force them into it.

Get over yourself, you ignorant bigot.

What's the point in citing any research on the subject? Your mind, Erin, as well as many other posters in this forum is already made up. You will just call the source bigoted or biased if it doesn't come to a conclusion that concurs with your viewpoint on homosexuality. So, it's pointless.

What's the point in citing any research on the subject?

Translation: you don't have any credible, peer-reviewed, unbiased research that supports your claims.

You're right: it's pointless for you to try to deny rights to others based on your own set of beliefs, which can only guide YOUR life, not everyone else's.

I do, but its wasted on you.

ROFLMAO! Sure, I believe you. /s

ErinNJ. I believe him too because I also have the research. And I agree with him that it would be wasted on you. And using obscenities - as abbreviations or not - doesn't enhance your arguments. It suggests you have trouble controling your anger.

Once again...Erin NJ got em.....way to go Erin...The Vikings won too so it's a double whammy for the team...
And speaking of the Vikings, For all you wondering about gays and wanna bash, Chris Kluwe has some very choice words for you.....
.ERIN...
Merry Christmas...in the 70s here today....sorry to tease...

And FYI...I work in an area that performs ECT therapy for a variety of disorders, NONE of which is homosexuality....and seems pretty cruel to do these things to KIDS...what's next, water boarding?

Mom RN. We can refer ErinNJ over to you and Nurse Ratched so she can get her ECT. Do you do prefrontal lobotomies too? Since you equate talk with a therapist with ECT and waterboarding, you must have unresolved issues too. Merry Christmas.

If you want a lobectomy, let me know, as for Erin and me, we're cool. We don't need any such treatment because we are already dealing with a full deck. You however, I hope Santa brings you a few cards to fill in for those missing from your deck. Maybe that will help you read and understand basic English and scientific research.

Mom RN. Sounds like Nurse Ratched is your BFF or alterego. What scientific research have you done with ECT and waterboarding? Happy New Year and try to be more tolerant of other people in the next year.

Keep in mind that this is a temporary hold on the law until the issue can be examined in more detail, not a complete striking of it.

Right you are, David Mora. So many of the posters here have turned the article into a debate over homophobia vs. homophilia. As I read it, the larger issue emerged: restraint of trade.

If someone willingly contracts a service, i.e., this therapy, in the hope that it will produce the desired result, why should the judiciary involve itself at all? As long as the service is legal, why should anyone have standing to sue or even care? After all, we allow Madame Esmerelda in her flowing scarves and turban to tell our fortunes in her trailer on the outskirts of town. Are her methods and rate of success any more reputable or creditable than gay conversion therapy?

For that matter, consider psychoanalysis, once the fashionable treatment for certain mental disorders and now virtually discredited by practically everyone. Fallen out of favor, yes; banned by law, no. Or (and here I brace myself for a brimstone storm of criticism) religion. I don't know of any denomination prohibited by law because it couldn't prove the validity of Creationism or deliver on its promises of salvation, remission of sin, and eternal life. Even Wiccans and practitioners of voodoo may practice their faith under the protection of the First Amendment, no matter how ineffectual or unpopular they may be.

True, in business we have enacted anti-lemon laws to protect consumers from defective merchandise and/or unscrupulous salesmen. But in the realm of science and medicine we constantly experiment with seemingly crackpot ideas and potential solutions, and, acknowledging our lack of certainty, arrive at them tentatively. It seems to me that those who support the ban on gay conversion therapy do so because they do not see homosexuality as a problem. If others oppose the ban, they do so because they believe that homosexuality results from cultural or social factors, and that such therapy has merit.

Some people think I'm crazy, and would have me committed, others that I am the paragon of reason itself. Where some may see a mild form of OCD, a shrink might diagnose a serious neurosis. Should one or the other (or perhaps both) lose their license for making an incorrect diagnosis? I sought out their opinions willingly, followed their advice. Was I cured? No. But was I duped? No.

The worst conclusion I could draw from such comparative treatments is that our state of knowledge of ourselves remains incomplete - on practically every subject ranging from our minds to our souls to our sexuality. It's all a matter of speculation. And if we base our scientific (or pseudo-scientific) methods and practices on certain desired outcomes - in this case heterosexuality - the science may prove tainted and the conclusions dubious. But deserving prohibition? No. Chalk it up to wishful ignorance, if you like, or simply being human. . .

Eric the Well-Read - So many of the posters here have turned the article into a debate over homophobia vs. homophilia. As I read it, the larger issue emerged: restraint of trade.

Actually the issue is about the regulation of something widely considered to be malpractice, as well as harmful and ineffective.

We don't let psychiatrists perform exorcisms on children for similar reasons.

That's the problem - it's NOT their own free will - it's the parents who are forcing this on their children.

Licensed counselors: 1-1/2

People who want to second guess them: 0-1/2

More will be revealed

Not if they are underage (children and teenagers). If they are 18 and up let them destroy their life but don't let ignorant parents destroy their children's lives.

Ignorant parents? Who should raise children? The State? Maybe we should just let them roam free, like goats.

Well, they're ignorant if they think they can turn their children heterosexuals.

The only way to do that, is to transplant their brain with a heterosexuals.

For Sandy and way2go. People need to actually read what the law does instead of assuming it's their own little version... The law doesn't actually stop this practice from occurring. It simply says that if performed by a licensed therapist, there can be repercussions. If the person performing it is a past instead for example, then this law doesn't do anything.

Second, the issue with regards to various rights isn't the rights of those that are being forced into this procedure, it's with regards to those that desire the procedure but now have roadblocks placed in the way. We've already seen how this law doesn't actually protect the former group, so all it really does it place a burden upon the second. That's where this law fails miserably. The law restricts the rights of a small group that wish to participate in an activity but doesn't protect others from being forced into it. And, I'm referring to the teens here and not the parents. There are a small group of teens that want to undergo such therapy for whatever reasons they have. That should be their right to decide. There is a larger group that is forced into such therapy and that should also be their right to decide. As the law stands it doesn't provide that right to the latter group and attempts to hinder the rights of the former. Hence a bad law from the start.

Wow, maybe now left handed people can be converted to righties.

For Notfiveo. If they want to undergo therapy for that, they're aware of the success rate, side effects, and are of sound mind, then that's their choice.

doggysaywhat - There are a small group of teens that want to undergo such therapy for whatever reasons they have. That should be their right to decide.

Those teens are free to hire their local priest or witch doctor to perform this voodoo, but a state licensed therapist shouldn't be allowed to commit malpractice on a minor.

And how many teens out there want their driver's license at 12 or 13?? And if a kid at 16 or 17 thinks s/he is gay - then how did they get to the conclusion that it is 'bad' or 'wrong'?? Parental responsibility is one thing......manipulation is another.

I don't think there is a parent on the planet who "wants" their kid to be gay. For the most part, i would venture that parental love is virtually unconditional. And, while there are probably some selfish reasons (grandkids, etc), maybe they are able to clearly see that a gay kid will have to endure a lifetime of persecution and denigration - for just being who they are.

Mark440 - For the most part, i would venture that parental love is virtually unconditional.

The gay kids of bible-thumpers can tell you otherwise, especially Mormons and Southern Baptists.

Bigoted parents is the reason the homeless rate for gay teens is so high.

Fair enough,.. We shouldn't force people into any kind of therapy or medical procedure.

pmdww2

we should not inflict this unsafe and unproven therapy on children.

Translation: Parents should have no control over their children.

denver bill 2, no your version.

Translation: Don't torture your kids... Don't allow other people to torture your kids...

If it causes HARM to the children then NO because the parents are UNFIT to manage their children's lives.

For Sheepdog. That's not what this law does. You're still allowed to torture your kids, you're just not allowed to have a licensed therapist do it. The local pastor still can. So, in effect, the law doesn't do what you suggest it does.

sheepdog2566

denver bill 2, no your version.

Translation: Don't torture your kids

Translation: The arm of the government that licenses these counselors should be over-ridden by the arm of the government that agrees with me.

Damn, Jerry! Quit sugar-coating it!

Jerry, It appears that your mother must have made you go to church when you would rather have been somewhere doing drugs. You should have listened to your mother. Eternity is forever.

tiredofthelunacy

Jerry, It appears that your mother must have made you go to church when you would rather have been somewhere doing drugs. You should have listened to your mother. Eternity is forever.

I never did drugs, tired. Even maryjane made me ill (so, yes, I tried that one once, and it made me ill). Believing in some nonexistent goblin is also a drug, one you're on. My mother (and father) tried to make me believe in their hobgoblin and appease it, using all the basic threats from trying to ground me to not letting me use the car. You'll know they are christians by their love, and how they turn the other cheek, and look for the timber in their eye and all that other stuff that christians don't practice. It's all about appeasing spooks through magical voodoo. We finally had it out when I told them that their attempt to make me believe and appease their ghosts was futile and I wouldn't go to their spookhouse (i.e., "church") to engage in superstitious rituals; I called them on their bluff and they caved. I still got to use the car. They cried that I wasn't a stapled-to-a-stick-zombie appeasers, and they continued to perform magical voodoo rituals to get me to "believe," but I and reason and intelligence won. They even had to deny their god. When their shaman would tell their sheeple to "fast," and my parents would, my mom would grill me up a delicious steak. I won, their god lost.

And you're right - eternity is forever. There will always be a materialistic universe, even when this one collapses billions of years from now, because it's a scientific fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed - it can only be changed. The thing is, you and me and all our consciousness will not exist once we flat-line. There will be no heaven or hell for you or me or anyone else; just nothingness. Yet energy will continue and will change. The glories of the material universe are infintesimial; a god's is not. A god is frabrication, the product of a small, frightened mind that makes a god up in its image and likeness. That goes for your god, too. It exists no further than your imagination.

Well, that's their right to decide. Whatever reasons they have, if they're aware of the chances of success, the rate of failure, and the possible side effects, that's their choice to make. Not yours, not the parents, and not the states. The same rights that allow them to say no to such therapy also give them the right to say yes. As it stands, the law doesn't protect those being forced into the therapy and attempts to take away rights from others that wish to undergo it.

If children learn early on that being homosexual is not ok maybe they will turn out normal

Ignorance seems to be bliss among the morons that believe homosexuality is a choice.

No, we do not turn out normal or ok. Actually many of us play a hetero role trying to please church, society and family for 26+ years and end up hurting everyone around us including ourselves. THEN we end up in therapy where most of us find help, healing and encouragement to be who God created us to be---Gay! Fortunately, for the second half of our lives, most of us do "turn out normal," thanks to professional mainstream counselors and therapy.

Ok... again... definitions. Stop thinking of sexuality as a binary function. It's a spectrum. For some it's a choice (bisexual individuals), for others it's not (more extreme end of homosexuality or heterosexuality).

David - comment 10.2, no, that doesn't happen. Swimlynx - comment 10.4, describes what does happen. Why, just look at Armyret's posts and tell me that's not someone who's repressed.

Armyret, comment 4.3, would want to. Oh, wait, you said "Who in their RIGHT MIND . . . ". Never mind.

not so otto, I have to agree with you.

The government needs to stay away from a patient and his/her doctor.

When the patient is there agianst their will, someone must step in.

So true, Cochinon, so true!

just out of curiousity, have they managed to find that elusive sexual orientation gene yet? you know, the one that makes people straight or gay? until they find it, then sexual orientation is nothing but a preference, a choice. and likely formed at a young age. not right, not wrong, only the persons choice. as soon as people admit it, and quit either being ashamed or worried about what others think, the faster we can get on with this stupid mess...

BD-540164, so you are saying that you had to make a choice when you were young?? How is that working out for you?? Did they find the gene for left-handed yet? I know they think they found one that increases the odds but have they found the one that causes it?

When did equal rights become stupid?

Ok...single genes do not dictate the majority of the traits you show. It's a complicated mess of many different genes contributing some effect, hormonal influences during development, environmental effects during developmental stages, and environment effects as the individual grows. This is especially true of complicated social traits. Sexual orientation is likely the result of hormonal influences in the womb along with some genetic effect. So, you will never likely find "The" sexual orientation gene nor will you reach statistical significance to find all of those involved in the process. This does not mean that it's a choice.

To further complicate matters, you must also differential sexual orientation from behavior. There are individuals who are attracted to a particular type of group from abuse as a young person (pedophilia, attraction to father figures, etc.). A boy continuing to have sex with older men may be mistakenly considered homosexual when in fact their behavior is the result of trauma as opposed to sexual orientation. Completely different from an individual born homosexual but because most people only look at behavior, it's improperly categorized as homosexual.

Finally, for some individuals, the behavior is a choice, these individuals are closer to bisexual then heterosexual or homosexual. You should think of sexuality as a spectrum as opposed to one or the other. For others on more extreme ends of this spectrum, the gender they're attracted to isn't a choice or it's an extremely difficult choice to go against their biology.

i'm sorry sheepdog, where did i say that anyone's rights were less than anyone else's or stupid? i'm just not letting you use the "i was born that way" excuse. your choices, whether you can consciously pinpoint the exact moment you made them or not, are nothing more than choices. and many of those choices are developed at a young age and subconscious levels, before you even knew they were "right" or "wrong" or what others opinions about them were...

THere is no such thing as a homosexual, only people who choose to engage in homosexual acts.

Again, there may be "preferences and tendencies", but ultimately it is the individual who chooses to act upon the lustful desires. For centuries, engaging in homosexual acts was seen as hedonistic or simply socially unacceptable. Those (the majority) who maintain that idea are being bullied by those who relish the idea of having sex however with whomever.

We scorn people who have "tendencies" for anger if they beat their spouses or children. We outlaw "consenting adults" who are close blood-relatives from marriage and sex (incest), we regulate marriage laws with age of consent, etc. It is totally legitimate for the society to set up lines in the sand for social behaviors, even if it is "behind closed doors."

Gimmeabreakoradrink

So what should be done when those lines are crossed? Should we throw homosexuals in prison? Should we beat them until they accept the social norm?

"Chooses to act upon the lustful desires" So I can act on lustful desires as long as it's the opposite sex? But I can tell you that I never chose to be heterosexual, I just am. It makes no sense to say it's choice only in terms of homosexuality. I could "choose" to have sex with another man, but I have no desire to do so. A gay man could "choose" to have sex with a female, but will likely have no desire to do so. In both cases, it isn't really a choice if there is no arousal. What about asexuals - who have no desire for either? What do you say of them? What about hermaphrodites?

Double standards. But I think many people want it that way, which is why you have the phony outrage you see on this vine. They want rigid gender roles and expectations. It has little to do with the sex itself, in actuality.

It is only legitimate for lines to be drawn when a behavior has the potential to harm oneself or others. Your first point is valid. Your second point is valid ONLY in terms of bearing children. I could not care otherwise. Your third point is valid, however, it varies. The assumption in one state that an individual is mature enough to consent may not be the case in another. I don't scorn those in the other state. A year or two is hardly a difference.

If the treatment causes harm, then there is cause for the government to step in. If parents are allowing their children to be abused, then someone must stop it. If a doctor is abusing children with the parents' consent, then the doctor and parents should be made to face a judge and jury. When did we start allowing children to be abused just because their parents gave consent??

We have laws to prevent QUACKS from practicing medicine in a manner that HARMS THE PATIENT. It should always be that way. Before we had those laws we had snake oil salesmen peddling poison as cure alls for everything that ailed you.

THANK GOD THE GOVERNMENT GOT BETWEEN THE PATIENT AND THEIR DOCTORS! IF THEY DIDN'T WE WOULD HAVE FAR MORE DEAD OR DAMAGED PEOPLE DUE TO INCOMPETENCE AND QUACKERY!

Children should not be subjected to this dangerous and unproven therapy.

Again... read the actual law. It doesn't prevent children from being subjected to this type of therapy. This law doesn't stop parents from forcing their children to undergo such therapy, it doesn't prevent abuse by stopping this forced therapy. All it does is say the person forcing such therapy can be disciplined if they have a license. If they're a pastor, a friend, etc. then this law has no positive effect.

Half the reason this is a bad law is because it makes people believe that something is actually accomplished and gets them debating something that doesn't really solve a problem. Everyone here seems to think that this law prevents parents from abusing their children.... It doesn't. But, as long as you believe it does, you won't really ever push for any law that might actually accomplish something and bring up an important question as to how many rights a teenager should have to say yes or no to their parents, governmental body, or guardians with regards to medical matters.

And who has determined that this therapy damages children? And who determined what constitutes damage? Probably the queer populace that can't stand not having new perverts. ( I mean converts.)

Yeah, that is right. I get a toaster oven every time somebody "turns" gay. Still waiting on that toaster oven.

Is female genital mutilation ok, then? If parents consent, then the government has no business stopping them from raising their children any way they like?

I know, those whiners seeking to fight child abuse. Imagine the nerve of that...

No, those who are due EQUAL rights under the United States Constitution, will not rest until it's given.

Yeah, I know. You want and, probably, will have your special rights. I was, however, hoping I would be dead before that happened. With any luck, I may get my wish, but it's looking less likely now.

Educate me, what special rights are these? Last time I read the United States Constitution, it said "we the people". It did not say "We the people" unless you are gay.

Hmm... Dying because of gay rights? I think you are the one who should seek therapy.

I don't believe the U.S. Constitution mentions marriage as a right at all. I guess the framers thought some things should be self-evident. Do you really think the writers of the Constitution ever thought equality and/or liberty would ever need to be interpreted to apply to the institution of marriage?

As far as it goes, it should be one of the those things that, since not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, should be a right decided at the state level. The only problem with that is the reciprocity granted to the recognition of marriage because of interstate commerce. Since that is the real issue, I would further argue that DOMA is the stopgap at the Federal level that will surely be declared unconstitutional just because of the fact that marriage is not an enumerated right in the Constitution.

Nevertheless, since DOMA will be struck down and the Special Bill of Gay Rights now being bandied about Congress will probably be passed, you will no longer have to worry about your so-called right as it will be the law of the land soon. A special class of citizens, married homosexuals, will be created that will have the right to stick their penises in anuses, and their dildos in vaginas and also be considered married (whatever that means) and have all the same protections as those traditionally married have at the Federal level (Federal taxes, etc.). States, in turn, will be forced to recognize homosexual acts as grounds for marriage because of reciprocity.

Garyole - You want and, probably, will have your special rights. I was, however, hoping I would be dead before that happened.

The bigots do tend to be elderly.

A special class of citizens, married homosexuals, will be created that will have the right to stick their penises in anuses, and their dildos in vaginas and also be considered married (whatever that means) and have all the same protections as those traditionally married have at the Federal level (Federal taxes, etc.).

Sounds like you've confused sex with marriage, and are operating under the delusion that straights and gays don't engage in similar sexual behavior.

Garyole

Okay, then if that's what you believe. All heterosexual marriages are null and void. However, what you failed to see is Loving Vs Virginia. April 10, 1967 - Supreme court ruling - Marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT.

Lastly, what you are describing is EQUAL rights, not special rights, for everything you just mentioned happens in the heterosexual world does it not? Also, please read Lawrence Vs Texas, 2003 US Supreme Court Ruling. What two consensual adults of the same sex do is not illegal.

P.S 9 States already recognize gay marriage. Stop being so focused on 'gay' sex and focus on what a marriage is about. If it was all about sex, then there would be several heterosexual marriages that would be... over.

IAT, you know better than to bring up Loving v Virginia in a discussion about gay marriage. It automatically makes your point without the need for further discussion, and we all know it's in poor taste to win an argument by using facts and reality.

Yeah, in Loving v. Virginia, the opinion is all about "racial classifications" and how racial misegination laws violate the so-called "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment. The opinion does state that "marriage is a basic civil right." But here, as I stated earlier, the Warren Court does not address homosexual activity as being a basis for marriage, probably because they (as most people wouldn't) never thought of it as a necessary distinction to draw, the act of marriage being a self-evident union of a man and a woman.

So, as I stated before, you will no-doubt get your "basic civil right" to have homosexual acts recognized as a basis for marriage. And, even if the Supreme Court upholds California Prop 8, the whining hoards will try to equate such an opinion with the infamous Dred Scott Decision. So, to placate the whiners, a new makeup of the Supreme Court will eventually overturn that one, too, and the engame will be won by the effete corps of impudent snobs with the help of the natterinig nabobs of negativism, such as yourself and your ilk.

And, to "ItsAboutTime:" I know that homosexual marriage is already allowed in some states. However, if the recognition of marriage as a "basic civil right" is not based on sexual acts, but rather on some undefined vague idea of what "love" is, then we are indeed on a slippery slope based on such definition. As it stands now, you natterers are clammoring for such definition of a "basic civil right" of marriage to include homosexuals wanting to marry each other. One presumes, then, that the definition of marriage is to include anyone who "loves" another, regardless of their gender. Then we have to define the term "love," don't we? Do we have to, once again, go to the Supreme Court for that definition? Or, will we allow it to include anyone and/or everyone?

Garyole - But here, as I stated earlier, the Warren Court does not address homosexual activity as being a basis for marriage

Probably because sex isn't relevant to the legal contract of marriage. Just an FYI, marriage isn't a license for sex.

So, as I stated before, you will no-doubt get your "basic civil right" to have homosexual acts recognized as a basis for marriage.

Apparently you've never heard of Lawrence v Texas. The state doesn't care about your bedroom activities, nor can it.

Sounds like you're really old, Gargoyle, and have a very misguided concept of what marriage is.

However, if the recognition of marriage as a "basic civil right" is not based on sexual acts, but rather on some undefined vague idea of what "love" is, then we are indeed on a slippery slope based on such definition.

Marriage is about property and kinship rights. The state doesn't care if you love your spouse or have sex with them.

What's really funny is that you seem to think that denying marriage to gays will somehow prevent them from having sex. Sounds like you're both ignorant and naive.

Equally funny is that bigots like you used the exact same arguments to argue against mixed-race marriage.

Garyole, the bottom line is that the courts have consistently found that the Loving ruling DOES apply to same-sex marriage (in fact, it has been applied in at least 14 marriage cases in which race was not an issue), and that you bigots are LOSING at every level in the courts -- as you should.

Yes, but that still doesn't answer what will be considered grounds for a "marriage" to be recognized by the state. In order to be considered "married," and thus be granted all those goodies that come in the aftermath, there has to be something on which a "marriage" can be considered to occur, doesn't there? Is it love? What is it, then?

Yeah, I'm really, really, old, ignorant and naive. So educate me, please.

Garyole - Yes, but that still doesn't answer what will be considered grounds for a "marriage" to be recognized by the state. In order to be considered "married," and thus be granted all those goodies that come in the aftermath, there has to be something on which a "marriage" can be considered to occur, doesn't there?

All it requires is two consenting adults, just like every other legal contract.

The state doesn't ask any questions other than that as the reasons for marrying are your business, not the state's.

And as the courts have found, the state simply has no legitimate interest in the race or gender of your spouse. And unfortunately for bigots like you both race and gender are subject to heightened scrutiny by a court. If you want the state to discriminate on either basis you're going to have to find a compelling state interest.

So, marriage is then nothing more than a contract. The argument has been made that the state does have a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as a formalization of the commitment between a man and a woman to love, honor and cherish each other in the interest of providing the family sanctity that would engender the most positive possible environment for children. But, I suspect those arguments mean nothing to the likes of you since you, probably, think that homosexuals can provide the same, or better, environment for raising children, even though it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate in the biologically natural way.

However, because western society has devolved into such a deviant, selfish, evil-possessed culture that cares more about the next pop-icon than about it's children, I suppose this is the natural next step down.

Garyole - So, marriage is then nothing more than a contract. The argument has been made that the state does have a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as a formalization of the commitment between a man and a woman to love, honor and cherish each other in the interest of providing the family sanctity that would engender the most positive possible environment for children.

With that statement you've lost the argument on multiple levels.

First, the moment you use the word "sanctity" as a government motive, you've violated the 1st Amendment.

Second, marriage isn't necessary for people to have kids, nor are kids a requirement for marriage. Sounds like you're very confused about what marriage is, which is primarily about property and kinship rights.

Third, to the extent that marriage does provide legal protections for families, gays and straights have the exact same interest in marriage, as do the children of gays and straights alike. Gays and straights also have the same property rights and kinship interests.

However, because western society has devolved into such a deviant, selfish, evil-possessed culture that cares more about the next pop-icon than about it's children, I suppose this is the natural next step down.

"Evil"? Sounds like more proof that you're trying to use our secular government to unconstitutionally enforce the silly sharia laws of your cult. No wonder you dumb bigots are consistently losing in court.

Your problem Gargoyle is that you think you deserve special rights and privileges while certain other Americans are treated as 2nd-class citizens, and apparently you also want to harm the children of gay couples. You sound like a greedy bigot, no different from the racist Southern Baptists and Mormons of 50 years ago. And just like those racist Christians you want to force everyone to live under your sharia laws.

Yes, evil. I suppose that is nothing more than an outdated concept bound forever to a biblical interpretation in your mind. As long as you hold to your concept that, apparently, denies the existence of evil, then you're just living inside your own head. Good luck with that. I wish you well.

So, marriage is then nothing more than a contract.

That is correct.

But, I suspect those arguments mean nothing to the likes of you since you, probably, think that homosexuals can provide the same, or better, environment for raising children, even though it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate in the biologically natural way.

Homosexuals have been shown to be able to provide a loving, stable environment for children, just as well, if not better than, any heterosexual couple. Besides, procreation is not a requirement for marriage.

However, because western society has devolved into such a deviant, selfish, evil-possessed culture that cares more about the next pop-icon than about it's children, I suppose this is the natural next step down

Merely your opinion.

I suppose that is nothing more than an outdated concept bound forever to a biblical interpretation in your mind.

Yeah, pretty much. Some of us actually have a higher, more optimistic opinion of the world than your brand of dogmatic doom and glom.

As long as you hold to your concept that, apparently, denies the existence of evil, then you're just living inside your own head.

As opposed to your brand of delusions?

but that still doesn't answer what will be considered grounds for a "marriage" to be recognized by the state.

Two consenting adults willing to enter into a legal contract.

Yeah, I'm really, really, old, ignorant and naive. So educate me, please.

Somehow, I doubt you're willing to learn.

the Warren Court does not address homosexual activity as being a basis for marriage, probably because they (as most people wouldn't) never thought of it as a necessary distinction to draw

Sexual activity itself is not a basis for marriage.

Garyole - Yes, evil. I suppose that is nothing more than an outdated concept bound forever to a biblical interpretation in your mind.

Evil is denying some Americans their civil rights, and treating them as 2nd-class citizens.

People like you are evil, no different from David Duke or Bull Connor, and no different from the Southern Baptists who founded their cult on slavery and white supremacy. The only difference is that you believe in "straight supremacy", but so does the KKK.

ErinNJ, the bigotry is all on your part. Your just exhibiting the well known phenomenon of projection.

gordy327, the article was about a judge preventing a law from denying people their right to healthcare of their choice. How did you get from there to same sex marriage? Sounds like you have some agenda you are pushing.

Really, Pandora? Whose rights am I denying? BTW, you still lack any comprehension of what the law is about: it is about the right of children to not be forced into therapy against their will by their parents -- there is no "choice" involved. It is obvious that you also have no clue about what "projection" is; it would be better for you if you stopped using words which are clearly outside the realm of your understanding.

Sounds like YOU are the one with the agenda, as well as comprehension issues. Perhaps someone should read the article to you and explain the big words.

Well ErinNJ, you definitely have an agenda.

Really, Pandora? Since you seem to know all about it, tell me what it is.

No comment.

Pandora6 - gordy327, the article was about a judge preventing a law from denying people their right to healthcare of their choice. How did you get from there to same sex marriage?

Read the thread - Gordy and everyone else got there because the homophobic bigot known as "Gargoyle" took the thread there first.

It seems the dumb bigots are most freaked out by the fact that gays will soon have the exact same rights as they do.

No comment.

Just as I expected.

No, homosexuals will have a special right - to marry someone of the same sex and have such "right" recognized at the state and Federal level. Nevertheless, I've already admitted that the homosexual lobbyists have all but won the battle and will soon have their special right annointed by the SCOTUS. So, no need to carry on here.

You're correct, I did hijack the thread and I apologize for that. But, I didn't expect my comment to get such attention as it really was off-topic. As far as the California state law banning gay conversion therapy goes, the stay by the 9th circuit will not last long. The stay is just a formality that will be soon lifted and the law will be implemented. We wouldn't want those future gays and lesbians being told that sticking their penises into anuses or using dildos for sexual intercourse is not normal sexual activity. Couldn't have that now, could we?

No, homosexuals will have a special right - to marry someone of the same sex and have such "right" recognized at the state and Federal level.

WRONG. Marriage equality means that ANY consenting adult can marry ANY OTHER consenting adult of his/her choosing, regardless of gender. That applies to heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals -- which is what "equality" means, Garyole. Obviously research is not one of your skills, but do try to keep up.

We wouldn't want those future gays and lesbians being told that sticking their penises into anuses or using dildos for sexual intercourse is not normal sexual activity.

Makes one wonder why so many heterosexuals do those things.

No matter how you try to parse it, it is a special right. Gays and lesbians are not now denied any right that I have, or you have. You can currently marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex in any state in the union. You are adding the phrase "regardless of gender" to the existing right. Since the Warren Court opinion in Loving v. Virginia was silent on gender, this opinion has been hijacked by homosexual lobbyists to mean more than was written.

Now, you will have your victory since the SCOTUS will be cornered into the addition of your phrase "regardless of gender," because of public pressure and pop psychology that has made its way into societal norms through the applied legal gymnastics of its practitioners and their lapdogs in the media.

Gays and lesbians are not now denied any right that I have, or you have. You can currently marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex in any state in the union.

That's the same dumb argument the dumb bigots tried to use against interracial marriage in the 1960s, and it is just as dumb now as it was then, and just as unsuccessful. No wonder you bigots are consistently losing in the courts; you still can't come up with any logical rationale to deny equality to gays.

Since the Warren Court opinion in Loving v. Virginia was silent on gender, this opinion has been hijacked by homosexual lobbyists to mean more than was written.

And EVERY court that has heard the argument has agreed. I think their word on this trumps your insignificant, pathetic rants.

Now, you will have your victory since the SCOTUS will be cornered into the addition of your phrase "regardless of gender," because of public pressure and pop psychology that has made its way into societal norms through the applied legal gymnastics of its practitioners and their lapdogs in the media.

WRONG. The Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage because to do otherwise is unconstitutional; that is their only criteria.

BTW, I'm a straight, married woman who supports equality, so I already have the freedom to marry the consenting adult of my choice (and I already did, 30 years ago). It's time that homosexuals, who are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens just like I am, had that same right.

So you say. And, you're right. Denying the so-called "right" to marry any consenting adult will be declared unconstitutional. I'm not arguing that point as the SCOTUS is cornered into doing so. I just hope we don't get more than that, such as incest.

But, the Loving v. Virginia decision was more narrow in scope than you are admitting. It only addressed racial miscegeny laws. How was anyone to know at that time that it would be commandeered by fashionable legal weasels to be applied to homosexuals wanting to be married? At the time, the term "marriage" was a self-evident contract between a male and female human. Even the liberal Warren Court never intended their decision to be extracted and applied to this nonsensical extreme. But, you will get your wish, so why keep on with this rant. Nobody's mind is going to be changed here. I agree, the court's decision trumps my opinions every day and twice on Sunday. So, good luck with your victory, pyrrhic as it is.

Garyole - No, homosexuals will have a special right - to marry someone of the same sex and have such "right" recognized at the state and Federal level.

When your state achieves marriage equality you too will be able to marry the man or woman of your dreams. Sounds like equal rights to me.

In contrast, you're just like the white supremacists - you think you deserve special rights and privileges which should be denied to those you want the government to treat as 2nd-class citizens. No wonder George Will recently said that dumb bigots like you are a dying breed.

It only addressed racial miscegeny laws.

And it has been applied to at least 14 other cases since then -- cases which had nothing to do with miscegenation. It has also been found to apply to same-sex marriage cases -- which also have nothing to do with miscegenation, although the underlying arguments that were used against them are the same.

BTW, how does same-sex marriage affect you?

ErinNJ. I'm not sure how this got to be a discussion of same sex marriage and race, etc. but: First you need to update your ideas on race. Since the Human Genome Project was completed over a decade ago, it has been known that we all have the same ancestors and race is a myth. See: "The Journey of Man" by Dr. Spencer Wells, a Columbia University Professor; "themythofrace.com" by Dr. Thomas Spelsberg, a Mayo Clinic Professor; "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Dr Bryan Sykes, an Oxford University Professor; The Genographic Project run by National Geographic, etc.. Then welcome to the 21st century. Second, you need to lighten up. Your posts sound like rants and suggest you have serious anger problems you need to deal with. Third, if you are so knowledgeable about U.S. Constitutional law that you can predict how the SCOTUS will rule, then you need to be in a position to use that talent rather than posting rants here. Fourth, you say you are straight but the vehemency of your anger suggests latent/closeted homosexual desires or reaction formation. Have you ever talked to a therapist? Good luck with your crusade.

Pandora, whether race is a myth or not is not the question; the fact remains that the Supreme Court did rule on interracial marriage in 1967, and that for many years, miscegenation was illegal in the US. At that time, there was no question about whether race is a myth or not; it was believed that different races exist. Since that ruling does exist, and no rulings about race OR marriage have been published since that time that contradict it, that is the ruling we use to apply the law.

BTW, it has not been definitively proven that race is a "myth"; there are still valid ways of classifying different ethnicities and races based on objective criteria. Human beings are biologically "one race" by virtue of being classified as homo sapiens, but within that classification there are so many subsets of classification that it would be impossible for me to list them all.

I am not basing my prediction on how the Supreme Court will rule on my own expertise; I am basing it mostly on the opinions of legal scholars and their superior expertise, and they have stated that they believe the Court will find in favor of same-sex marriage by a vote of at least 5-4.

Actually, Pandora, you and Garyole are much more likely to be homosexual than I am, according to scientific studies (since you like to quote them so much):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals

http://www.ibtimes.com/homophobes-likely-be-closet-gays-study-finds-434958

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm

This "got to be a discussion of same sex marriage and race" when Garyole brought up the subject, as skrekk indicated. Since you like to read so much, perhaps you could actually read the entire thread before making such inane observations.

ErinNJ. 1) Your reaction shows what a sensitive point this is for you. How do you feel about your sexuality? 2) What qualifications do you have to offer opinions about whether race is a myth or not? I cited my references. Where are yours? 3) Where are the opinions of the "legal scholars" you mention and do you have proof that they are not gay or gay activist sympathizers and therefore have a conflict of interest? 4) BTW I'm not homophobic. How could you possibly make that assumption unless you are only motivated by the agenda you want to push. Some of my best friends are gay. Are you heterophobic? 5) Try to be more tolerant of other people's views and get some therapy for your anger. Merry Christmas!

Pandora6 - Where are the opinions of the "legal scholars" you mention and do you have proof that they are not gay or gay activist sympathizers and therefore have a conflict of interest?

Based on your "logic", black judges shouldn't rule on racial discrimination issues, nor should white judges. Similarly, heterosexual judges shouldn't rule on issues concerning sexual orientation.

Sounds like you don't understand what a conflict of interest is.

BTW I'm not homophobic.

Based on your comments you're either a homophobic bigot or really, really ignorant.

Some of my best friends are gay. Are you heterophobic?

Ah yes.....the "some of my best friends" defense for making bigoted comments.

And FYI, Erin is a straight married woman. She's just not a clueless bigot.

Skrekk. Race is a myth. So your comments are not valid. Sexual orientation is not a myth and there are numerous hate groups representing specific views on sexual orientation. To name just a few: Bash Back, Act Up, OutRage!, STAR, Gay Liberation Front, The Lesbian Avengers, Homosexual Front for Revolutionary Action, the Gay Mafia, etc.. I don't know of any analogous heterosexual groups of any significance. Do you understand what a conflict of interest is or perhaps you feel it would be OK for HAMAS judges to rule on Israeli security issues.

Homophobia is the irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. I have no hatred toward or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. However, your and Erin's comments suggest that you both have an irrational fear and hatred toward heterosexuals and are therefore heterophobic.

A bigot is a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed. From your and Erin's comments and use of pejoratives and obscenities it appears that you fit this definition and are just projecting it onto others to satisfy your hatred. Try being more tolerant of other people's opinions. Happy New Year.

homophobia

noun unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

Still having trouble with doing actual research, I see, Pandora.

However, your and Erin's comments suggest that you both have an irrational fear and hatred toward heterosexuals and are therefore heterophobic.

ROFLMAO! So we're self-hating? Skrekk and I are straight, Pandora. But how like an ignorant bigot to ASSume that we're gay because we support equality!

Try being more tolerant of other people's opinions.

The day I start taking orders from the likes of you is the day that the chicken grow teeth. YOU try to learn a few skills, like doing research.

Erin NJ. My research/definitions come from mainstream sources: e.g. Webster's New World Dictionary. What do yours come from? The problem with your "research" is you pick and choose only the parts that support your prejudices. Then you use it in your intolerant rants that sometimes project your intolerance onto others who happen to disagree with you. What are your skills/training in doing research? From your posts I doubt if you have any valid training. From the overwhelming bias that you present as factual, it is likely that you are just parroting information you read on an extremist website. Your responses are so fanatical and your intolerance of those who disagree is so great that you certainly and unfortunately fulfill the definition of bigot (check your dictionary, if you have one).

From the comments in your posts, I seriously doubt that you (and Skrekk) are strictly heterosexual.

What if I am bisexual and just dislike the hateful way you represent me and my group so that people think we are all zealous bigots that want special treatment - which couldn't be farther from the truth.

Try getting some anger management therapy. It will help you to be more tolerant. It can be one of your New Year's resolutions, Erin. Happy New Year.

Pandora, I'm a librarian -- I do research for a living.

I seriously doubt that you (and Skrekk) are strictly heterosexual.

And I seriously doubt that we care about what you seriously doubt.

Try getting some anger management therapy. It will help you to be more tolerant. It can be one of your New Year's resolutions, Erin.

Try dislodging your head from your ass. It can be one of your New Year's resolutions, bigot.

Erin, I've been a scientist for 40 years. I really do research for a living.

I know you don't care about other people's ideas and opinions. That's the problem you have. You're intolerant and angry. Cut out the pejoratives and get some anger management therapy. Good luck.

I've been a scientist for 40 years. I really do research for a living.

ROFLMAO! You'll pardon me if I find that less than credible.

Cut out the "advice" and pull your head out of your ass.

Another thought I just had, Erin. After you find a good therapist that you can get along with, ask them to explain "reaction formation" to you. I know it is a hard concept to understand and get the real gestalt of, but give it a try. Then give it some thought and see if it fits. Something to work on in the new year. Good luck.

Erin, it is also interesting that you continually make references to heads and asses/rectums. Is this your latent homosexuality showing itself? Just something else you can discuss with the therapist. Repressed conflicts need to be addressed before you can resolve the anger issues. Good luck again.

The true degenerates are people who think everyone who is not like them is wrong.

pmdww2, the true degenerates are those whose brains have devolved into only perceiving things through rainbow tinted glasses, who attack and desire to destroy anyone who disagrees with their view of how things should be, and feel they should be given special rights and treatment because of these views.

What "special rights" are homosexuals asking for, Pandora?

ErinNJ, the thread doesn't mention homosexuals. Heuydoor gunner mentioned "Liberal misfits" and "dope users" and I only mentioned "true degenerates". Your bias and agenda are showing again.

Pandora, the whole article is about homosexuals. Try to keep up.

ErinNJ. Some view the legal issue "the whole article is about" not as about homosexuals per se but about whether the state can at the behest of special interest groups make a law that takes away the rights of the citizens of the state to access the healthcare of their choice. Try to view the issues in an objective manner.

Pandora6 - a law that takes away the rights of the citizens of the state to access the healthcare of their choice

Pandora, you're free to subject your child to whatever voodoo or exorcisms you like at your local cult's temple, but the state has the proper role to prohibit malpractice by state-licensed therapists.

"Ex-gay therapy" isn't healthcare, it's harmful quackery.

Well skrekk, your prejudice is showing again. There are many treatments that some consider to be "quakery": homeopathy, a plethora of alternative and complementary medicine therapies, etc.. But there are no laws against them. There is no valid evidence that the treatments you mention are malpractice so there is no role for the State to play in prohibiting them. You mention "voodoo or exorcisms" as means of treatment for homosexuality. Since you use these terms, does that mean you consider homosexuality as something that is caused by evil spirits or devils? If you do, I would recommend that you see a state licensed therapist immediately. Have a happy New Year.

There are many treatments that some consider to be "quakery"

What's "quakery"?

There is no valid evidence that the treatments you mention are malpractice so there is no role for the State to play in prohibiting them.

So the following information from the APA was something they just pulled out of their asses, as you seem to like doing:

In response to recent public debates about interventions intended to change individuals' sexual orientation, the American Psychological Association created a Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation which reviewed the relevant research literature.

In 2009, the Task Force reported that it found "serious methodological problems in this area of research, such that only a few studies met the minimal standards for evaluating whether psychological treatments, such as efforts to change sexual orientation, are effective" (p. 2).

Based on its review of the studies that met these standards, the Task Force concluded that "[E]nduring change to an individual's sexual orientation is uncommon. The participants in this body of research continued to experience same-sex attractions following SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts] and did not report significant change to other-sex attractions that could be empirically validated, though some showed lessened physiological arousal to all sexual stimuli. Compelling evidence of decreased same-sex sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare. Few studies provided strong evidence that any changes produced in laboratory conditions translated to daily life. Thus, the results of scientifically valid research indicate that it is unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce same-sex attractions or increase other-sex sexual attractions through SOCE" (pp. 2-3).

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html

Because of the aggressive promotion of efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy, a number of medical, health, and mental health professional organizations have issued public statements about the dangers of this approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics advises youth that counseling may be helpful for you if you feel confused about your sexual identity. Avoid any treatments that claim to be able to change a person’s sexual orientation, or treatment ideas that see homosexuality as a sickness.⁸

The American Counseling Association adopted a resolution in 1998 stating that it opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender sexual orientation.9 Further, in April 1999, the ACA Governing Council adopted a position opposing the promotion of “reparative therapy” as a “cure” for individuals who are homosexual.¹⁰

In addition, ACA’s Code of Ethics states:
Counselors use techniques/procedures/modalities that are grounded in theory and/or have an empirical or scientific foundation. Counselors who do not must define the techniques/procedures as “unproven” or “developing” and explain the potential risks and ethical considerations of using such techniques/procedures and take steps to protect clients from possible harm.¹¹

The American Psychiatric Association, in its 2000 position statement on “reparative” therapy, states:
Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or “repair” homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of “cures” are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, “reparative” therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to changeindividuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.

The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or
lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any sychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.¹²

The American Psychological Association, in its 1997 Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, which is also endorsed by the National Association of School Psychologists, states:
That the American Psychological Association opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation and mental health and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs about sexual orientation.¹³

The American School Counselor Association, in its position statement on professional school counselors and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning youth, states: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning (LGBTQ) youth often begin to experience self-identification during their pre-adolescent or adolescent years, as do heterosexual youth. These developmental processes are essential cognitive, emotional and social activities, and although they may have an impact on student development and achievement, they are not a sign of illness, mental disorder or emotional problems nor do they necessarily signify sexual activity. . . .

It is not the role of the professional school counselor to attempt to change a student’s sexual orientation/gender identity but instead to provide support to LGBTQ students to promote student achievement and personal well-being. . . .

Recognizing that sexual orientation is not an illness and does not require treatment, professional school counselors may provide individual student planning or responsive services to LGBTQ students to promote self-acceptance, deal with social acceptance, understand issues related to “coming out,” including issues that families may face when a student goes through this process, and identify appropriate community resources.¹⁴

The National Association of Social Workers, in its policy statement on lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues, states that it
endorses policies in both the public and private sectors that ensure nondiscrimination; that are sensitive to the health and mental health needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people; and that promote an understanding of lesbian, gay, and bisexual cultures. Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes.¹⁵Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful.¹⁶NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy. NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so.¹⁷NASW reaffirms its stance against reparative therapies and treatments designed to change sexual orientation or to refer practitioners or programs that claim to do so.¹⁸

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the-facts.aspx

Stop the spread of hate, bigotry, and stupidity.

Rad - Your hate is sad.

pmdww2. Want to see hate? Check out: Bash Back, Act Up, OutRage!, STAR, The Lesbian Avengers, Homosexual Front for Revolutionary Action, Gay Mafia, LGBT, etc.. And the posters for these articles who call religious people "vermin" who need to "be exterminated". Sure sounds like the National Socialist German Worker's Party to me.

And so pmdww2: "For those who would hunt monsters, be careful that in the process you do not become a monster. For when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." F. Nietzsche

This therapy is in appropriate. With all the anti gay nuts out there and how the media covers stories where equal rights are not granted, some kids may just try heterosexuality to experiment. Sarcasm.

It is simply WRONG to subject children to this kind of therapy period.

If they want to try torture... Then they can wait til they are adults!!

Owell, I guess you're the voice of experience? Tell me, how'd that work out for you?

How is torturing kids acceptable to you??? If you are calling being born that way a myth, then tell me when did you decide to be whatever you are? I know myself I never made a decision about what sex I found attractive... So at what age did you decide what sex you were interested it romanticly???

until they find the gene that determines sexuality, then yes, it is a total myth. i can't tell you the date and time i decided i liked pizza and didn't like hot dogs either. or when i decided red was my favorite color. a stupid rationalization. if you are gay so what? who cares? instead of looking for an "excuse", some sort of absolution, to make it "ok", just be proud of who you are....and f**k everyone else...

Of course the ignorance in your statement is that unlike tasting foods to see if you like them, straight people are not attracted to the same sex and have no desire to try homosexuality to see if they like it or not.

I have heard many testimonies of "gays" who were introduced into the lifestyle as a child by an adult. So how can you say they were born that way? In today's pro-homosexual climate, kids are being encouraged to accept and experiment with the alternate lifestyle, where heterosexual kids a few generations ago would never have even considered doing so, because they were not exposed to it. Don't tell me many are not led into the lifestyle rather than born into it. A few may be born with genetic defects that cause gender confusion, but not nearly as many as are claiming to be.

ignorance, huh? something inspires you to take that first bite, to get you a little taste and see if it is for you. whether it's your parents pushing it in your face, or your friends. have you ever wanted to to try tripe? (cow instestines) if no, why not? what stopped you? just like some will jump out of an airplane, and others wouldn't do it if pushed. until proven otherwise, your sexual preference is a choice. the reasons behind that choice may be a mystery, but it is still just a choice.

Did I say ignorance, sorry I meant uneducated backwoods stupidity. I suppose you are also ignorant of the fact there are many animals that do homosexual acts? Teaching someone to be gay is no different than trying to reach someone to be right handed. My father was beat as a child to write with his right hand, guess what, it didn't work. Dumbass.

Tracy-890855, read about this type of therapy! These kids are tortured. Would you allow your child to have electrical shock therapy to their genitals as therapy? If the therapist said that the treatment was unproven? If a child is left-handed, would you allow them to be tortured in order to make them right-handed??

Tracy, where has the government tried to tell you how to raise your children other then some religious bible punching right wing nut cases?

adrift, did she say anything religious, or are you just looking for an opportunity to name call?

My goal of commenting is certainly not to offend anyone. I mentioned that I am not an expert. I just want to be a parent and make the decisions that I feel is best for my kids. If I feel they need therapy, I want to get them therapy. The mom of the young man that just shot all the students in CT is being bashed for NOT getting her son therapy. If the therapy mentioned in this article includes electric shock, then perhaps electric shock treatment needs to be what is being addressed. I personally thought they did away with that a long time ago (again, not an expert). That would be a legitimate cause. Reading this article, it sounds to me that the fight is to outlaw therapy in general that attempts to encourage kids to be heterosexual.

Well if you think that electric shock treatments are needed to "encourage" kids to be heterosexual... Why would they need to be encouraged? Either they are or they aren't... Personally I wouldn't want my parents to tell someone that it would be okay for electic shock treatments on my genitals... As punishment for me being me and not them...

Tracy, you are asking fair questions. fine lines between what parents should be doing, are allowed to do, and what just ain't right. and that line moves depending on your position. if this therapy is physically painful, i.e. torture, then it sounds like it isn't right. if it is just psychology, then it is questionable. personally, i think sexual orientation is determined at a young age (NO proof of genetic links and they've been trying hard), and by the time they try these "therapies" it is already too late to make any change (NOT saying any sexual orientation is right or wrong). just a waste of time and effort that contributes to these emotional stigmas surrounding sexual orientation...

Itsabouttime for you God haters to stop using the Old Testament for your argument. Christ brought a new dispensation, the Age of Grace instead of Law. Why is that such a hard concept for you atheists to grasp? It really isn't that complicated. Homosexuality is addressed in the New Testament as well as the Old, making it still a sin (unlike eating shellfish), even under Grace. If you are going to argue the Bible, you need to learn about it instead of repeating what you have heard other uneducated ignorants say.

tiredofthelunacy

I've read the bible. It's a great work of fiction that has been written and re written throughout history to control the masses. If you want to follow the bible, that's fine, but do not force your biblical views on me or anyone else. If you want to talk about 'learning' the bible, I suggest you and others learn it as well. For I see more quotes on the OLD testament saying that homosexuality is a sin, but then others saying, the old testament doesn't apply.

P.S. I am no god hater, but I am fed up with people using Christianity to deny people secular rights in the United States of America.

Seems to me Tracy you can't raise kid and are looking for excuses as to why your kid is turning out the way she did. If you don't know what to do if your kid is in the middle of the road then you probably should not be a parent.

You want to spank your kids, spank them, the government wont come to your house and arrest you. If you beat the @!$%# out of them then it's an entirely different matter. The whole thing about the government not "allowing" you to raise them is just some pathetic excuse to justify your own failures.

In my opinion a parent who need to spank his children to keep his authority over them is unfit as a parent. But as there are no prerequisite to being a parent then it's none of my business.

What words of god is that? The ones that says eating shellfish is an abomination? Or how about if your wife dies, or she cannot conceive, you should marry her sister? Or the one where it says I can own slaves, provided they are from another country. Which words of god are they? Please tell us.

P.S. God is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, nor does god make our civil rights, and Christianity is not the national religion. Keep your freedom of religion, but keep it out of our government.

like spelling and using god in a sentence? like "god damn that is a stupid argument."

Andreeigi489 must work for that site. Reported several times in several articles, time to ban this idiot period.

Big Al I reject your theory. You seem like a pretty queer guy who was taught the word of god and yet you're attitude is hardly christian.

Well then, stop already.