California law bans gay teen 'conversion' therapy

[nehalem256]

Do you have scientific evidence to show that it isn't? I'm still waiting for it.

I believe that there is a large amount of evidence showing the heritableness of eye color.

Although really no one cares.

You simply diverting from your inability to show that being gay is not a choice. Especially sad as I post evidence showing it is no inherited.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I saw my neighbor gut a deer once. He really looked like he knew what he was doing. I think I'll let him take a swing at transplanting a lung into my kid.

I can do that, right? He's MY kid, after all.

Cool story. But as has been stated, this law isn't going to stop those who practice therapy without a license. Nice try though.

Still no answer to my question? How about different questions?

Who is the law going to stop practicing the therapy? "Licensed" therapists? Who is licensed to perform this therapy?

 

[alzan]

So they CAN choose to be heterosexual then right?



Well we could for instance look at identical twins. How many identical twins do you know who have different eye color?

Now as for twin stuides and homoseuxality

I'm not sure how you got that from

How is it eviscerated? Lots of people of different sexual orientations want to pass on their and their partners traits, genetic lineage, etc.

When genetic traits are passed to offspring there is no choice involved.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I believe that there is a large amount of evidence showing the heritableness of eye color.

That's great. Where is it?

Although really no one cares.

You simply diverting from your inability to show that being gay is not a choice.

If you can't show that being green eyed is not a choice, how can you expect anyone to show that being gay is not a choice?

A related question: Are you right or left handed? Do you remember when you chose which hand would be more dominant? What about your dominant eye? Do you know which of your eyes is dominant? You do know that one of your eyes is more dominant than the other, right? Is that a choice? Do you remember choosing which eye would be the dominant one? Do you have scientific evidence that it isn't a choice?

Please, do enlighten me, since you appear to be the expert on chosen human characteristics.

Especially sad as I post evidence showing it is no inherited.

No you didn't.

 

[Emos]

It is a primal instinct, but so is a gay man's instinct to be with men. A gay man would no more enjoy sex with a woman than you would enjoy sex with a man, and they can no more refrain from an interest in men than you can refrain from an interest in women.



"Somehow" is an apt description. They have to desperately twist and distort their mind in order to end up that way. Even reading the accounts of current ex-gays who claim to have a happy life, you get this creepy Stepford Wives feel from them, like they've had a significant part of their nature lobotomized (because they have). The vast majority of people who go through this "treatment", however, don't come out that way.

I know it was a different, less tolerant era then, but my father was a closeted gay who married an unsuspecting straight woman and wound up having a child...it did not "cure" him of his orientation as the divorce happened when I was six. Even though I guess I'm thankful to be here because of that arrangement it did cause a lot of misery for both my father and mother and I have profound sadness that he had to live most of his life living a lie and not being able to be himself. May regret sharing my personal info but its relevant to the conversation I think...

 

[nehalem256]

That's great. Where is it?



If you can't show that being green eyed is not a choice, how can you expect anyone to show that being gay is not a choice?

Well for one you could show it was inheritable. But since that is largely not true.

A related question: Are you right or left handed? Do you remember when you chose which hand would be more dominant? What about your dominant eye? Do you know which of your eyes is dominant? You do know that one of your eyes is more dominant than the other, right? Is that a choice? Do you remember choosing which eye would be the dominant one? Do you have scientific evidence that it isn't a choice?

Please, do enlighten me, since you appear to be the expert on chosen human characteristics.


No you didn't.

How is any of this relevant? No one cares.

You made a claim that has no evidence to back it up. And are in fact supporting laws based on this unsubstantiated claim. A claim that if anything appears to be contradicted by the evidence.

 

[zsdersw]

Sexual attraction to the same gender is not a choice.

It is present in nature, consistently, and has been present in humanity, consistently, throughout history.

What each of us does with that attraction is the only thing we can really choose. The relationships we pursue, casual and otherwise, are the choices. The sexual attraction that drives those choices is not itself a choice.

Attempting to "cure" an attraction is a spectacularly ridiculous thing for anyone to pursue, for themselves or their children... but I say let them try to pursue it. I enjoy seeing stupid people have to deal with the negative consequences of their stupid decisions. Any attempt to ban them from pursuing "conversion therapy" would threaten my enjoyment in watching them fail.

As far as the choice of having homosexual sex or a homosexual long-term committed relationship, there exists no concern on the part of the government, at any level, that outweighs the individual's right as an adult to engage in those activities with other willing adults. Period.

 

[mikeymikec]

Please, enlighten us, since you seem to have all the answers. How much of the population would you say is homosexual?

Ooh, defensive! Well, doing some googling suggests that 2% would be the lowest estimate, 10% seems to be a common estimate, 20% being the highest.

Personally I would say 10% sounds about right. If I went to say London and picked 100 adults at random, I would expect about 10% to be homosexual, and I would be really surprised if only 5% were. I would also guess that if I picked 100 adults between 16-40 from the same place, it would go up to about 15-20%.

Of course there'll be quite a large regional variation, particularly in areas where even in the 20th Century, gay people still ran the risk of being strung up or imprisoned for it, or at least ran the risk of losing their livelihood or the support of their family. This would also seriously affect any statistics gathering.

 

[zsdersw]

Ooh, defensive! Well, doing some googling suggests that 2% would be the lowest estimate, 10% seems to be a common estimate, 20% being the highest.

Personally I would say 10% sounds about right. If I went to say London and picked 100 adults at random, I would expect about 10% to be homosexual, and I would be really surprised if only 5% were. I would also guess that if I picked 100 adults between 16-40 from the same place, it would go up to about 15-20%.

Of course there'll be quite a large regional variation, particularly in areas where even in the 20th Century, gay people still ran the risk of being strung up or imprisoned for it, or at least ran the risk of losing their livelihood or the support of their family. This would also seriously affect any statistics gathering.

The percentage of people who have some level of homosexual attraction is undoubtedly higher than the percentage of people who engage in homosexual activity.

The percentage of people who self-identify as homosexual is somewhere in between.

 

[nehalem256]

Ooh, defensive! Well, doing some googling suggests that 2% would be the lowest estimate, 10% seems to be a common estimate, 20% being the highest.

Personally I would say 10% sounds about right. If I went to say London and picked 100 adults at random, I would expect about 10% to be homosexual, and I would be really surprised if only 5% were. I would also guess that if I picked 100 adults between 16-40 from the same place, it would go up to about 15-20%.

Of course there'll be quite a large regional variation, particularly in areas where even in the 20th Century, gay people still ran the risk of being strung up or imprisoned for it, or at least ran the risk of losing their livelihood or the support of their family. This would also seriously affect any statistics gathering.

I believe it was something like

2% gay
2% bi-sexual

And perhaps 10% if you are going by a "one-drop" rule counting anyone whoever had a homosexual experience as gay.

 

[alzan]

I know it was a different, less tolerant era then, but my father was a closeted gay who married an unsuspecting straight woman and wound up having a child...it did not "cure" him of his orientation as the divorce happened when I was six. Even though I guess I'm thankful to be here because of that arrangement it did cause a lot of misery for both my father and mother and I have profound sadness that he had to live most of his life living a lie and not being able to be himself. May regret sharing my personal info but its relevant to the conversation I think...

Thanks for sharing. Anecdotal evidence is valuable in that it provides starting points for for researchers, professional or amateur. Your story and stories told to me by others, from the parent side as well as the child's show that there is personal grief and confusion that comes with "living the lie." And that's mostly from the relatively small geographical region in which I live. Not to mention that these are reported; there are likely many more that will never be known.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well for one you could show it was inheritable.

Ok, let's see it, then. Show me.

But since that is largely not true.

I'm sure you don't have many complete thoughts, but at least try to write complete sentences, okay?

How is any of this relevant?

How isn't it relevant? Do you think that that right or left handedness, or right or left eye dominance is a choice? Do you think that we might find patterns of disparity among twins similar to those patterns abstracted from the research you cited?

No one cares.

It surprises me very little that you aren't particularly interested in discussing analogues that threaten your arguments.

You made a claim that has no evidence to back it up.

Which claim is that?

And are in fact supporting laws based on this unsubstantiated claim.

Show me the claim I made, and then show me that the law is in fact based on that claim. It is my claim that you cannot do that.

A claim that if anything appears to be contradicted by the evidence.

The evidence is inconclusive.

 

[Emos]

Thanks for sharing. Anecdotal evidence is valuable in that it provides starting points for for researchers, professional or amateur. Your story and stories told to me by others, from the parent side as well as the child's show that there is personal grief and confusion that comes with "living the lie." And that's mostly from the relatively small geographical region in which I live. Not to mention that these are reported; there are likely many more that will never be known.

Thanks. I'm still a bit rattled inside that I posted this for all the world to see but what what the hell it's no longer something to be ashamed of. I think this experience is what leads me to be very much a "try to walk a mile in another mans moccasins" type of guy when it comes to analyzing social issues before I make a judgement call...

 

[zinfamous]

Telling parents what they should or shouldn't do with their children really backs up your ideology on free will and their freedom to choose.

they could always send their gay teens to get a lobotomy to cure the gay. you know...just another treatment for mental illness.


oh wait, they can't do that, because it's well, you know quackery.

just like this "treatment."

I'm somewhat divided on this, but I lean more towards the precedent we have in this country of outlawing unsound and harmful medical practices, which is exactly what this "conversion therapy" is. sometimes, we need to protect the innocent from the dumb retardery of their ignorant parents

 

[Yreka]

I know it was a different, less tolerant era then, but my father was a closeted gay who married an unsuspecting straight woman and wound up having a child...it did not "cure" him of his orientation as the divorce happened when I was six. Even though I guess I'm thankful to be here because of that arrangement it did cause a lot of misery for both my father and mother and I have profound sadness that he had to live most of his life living a lie and not being able to be himself. May regret sharing my personal info but its relevant to the conversation I think...

I remember, back in my early 20's listening to Howard Stern, he said something on topic that really clicked with me.

They were discussing some gay rights issue that was in the news, I don't even remember what it was. In a sort of appeal to straight parents, his point was basically "Would you want a gay man marrying your daughter? I wouldn't..." He wasn't saying it in a negative way, he was talking about not wanting his daughters or their children to have to go through the misery you describe. Further, creating this environment of shame forces the 10% who are homosexual into this situation.

After hearing the same arguments overandoverandoverandover, I had never really thought about it in that way. It just made sense (in a selfish sort of way)

 

[Emos]

I remember, back in my early 20's listening to Howard Stern, he said something on topic that really clicked with me.

They were discussing some gay rights issue that was in the news, I don't even remember what it was. In a sort of appeal to straight parents, his point was basically "Would you want a gay man marrying your daughter? I wouldn't..." He wasn't saying it in a negative way, he was talking about not wanting his daughters or their children to have to go through the misery you describe. Further, creating this environment of shame forces the 10% or whatever into this situation.

After hearing the tired arguments on both sides overandoverandoverandover, I had never really thought about it in that way. It just made sense.

Hey Now! Come to think about it, I recall him having that conservation way back then. I makes perfect sense to me having lived thru it but I guess it's an angle not very many people thought off. I mean, what about the woman's happiness going thru a relationship where the guy may genuinely care about her as a friend in his mind but only tolerates her sexually if that? Granted the late 60s was a different era so hopefully this situation doesn't happen too much anymore.

 

[Jaskalas]

So this is about protecting children from bigots?

I like to default against the government doing anything, but this is a tough one. I'm sure if I was more familiar on the subject I might make a decision on the law itself, but right now I just don't know.

In general we should protect folks from a religious inquisition into their sex life. However, since we're likely talking children and dependents this would be about solving an identity crisis. Which I cannot possibly relate to or understand how to best resolve.

Perhaps these therapies were taking the wrong approach, doing more harm by telling people they aren't really who they are. That'd be terrible. I can appreciate the case to step in and end this practice.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cool story. But as has been stated, this law isn't going to stop those who practice therapy without a license. Nice try though.

What story? I asked a question. What is the answer?

Still no answer to my question? How about different questions?

Who is the law going to stop practicing the therapy? "Licensed" therapists? Who is licensed to perform this therapy?

Biffy? Why can't I let my neighbor attempt to graft a wolverine to my son's buttocks? Isn't he MY kid?

 

[surfsatwerk]

Biffy? Why can't I let my neighbor attempt to graft a wolverine to my son's buttocks? Isn't he MY kid?

This sounds like a great idea. Will discuss this with my neighbor asap. Thank god I don't live in Nannyfornia.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This sounds like a great idea. Will discuss this with my neighbor asap. Thank god I don't live in Nannyfornia.

If we decided to graft wild and violent carnivores to the bodies of young children and call it "gay reparative therapy" these conservatives would be all for it, I'm sure.

Come back, Biffy. Tell me how you'd be okay with me determining autonomously and unilaterally how the doctors "treat" my child.

 

[surfsatwerk]

If we decided to graft wild and violent carnivores to the bodies of young children and call it "gay reparative therapy" these conservatives would be all for it, I'm sure.

Come back, Biffy. Tell me how you'd be okay with me determining autonomously and unilaterally how the doctors "treat" my child.

Fact: Wolverines attached to a child's ass prevents underage sexual activity.

 

[mikeymikec]

they could always send their gay teens to get a lobotomy to cure the gay. you know...just another treatment for mental illness.

You're missing the point as far as these parents are concerned, they want a "normal" child as a result. You know, take out the "bad" bits, leave the bits they don't object to behind... it's all very normal and understanding and nurturing of the son/daughter's emerging personality.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Fact: Wolverines attached to a child's ass prevents underage sexual activity.

No sex at all = no gay sex. See? The therapy works!

 

[alzan]

Fact: Wolverines attached to a child's ass prevents underage sexual activity.

Probably prevents most mature sexual activity as well. There are a few pervs that would interpret the playful but very real bites from a wolverine as foreplay. Maybe Hugh Jackman could weigh in on this subtopic.

 

[xBiffx]

Still no answer to my question? How about different questions?

Who is the law going to stop practicing the therapy? "Licensed" therapists? Who is licensed to perform this therapy?

You want to let the dear dresser perform lung surgery on your child, go ahead. Its probably not smart or advisable if you did but you wouldn't be breaking a law if you did.

It shouldn't really concern you what other people want to do with their children. What should concern you is the state telling you what you can and cannot do with yours.

The problem here isn't the therapy or medical treatment. Its people trying to insert their social agenda into the medical practice and in between a doctor and their patient. The law isn't going to stop anything, its just political grandstanding to force a stance on a social issue, not a medical one.