Texas GOP endorses therapy for Gays

[Ragman]

Now the Texas GOP is calling for therapy the turn gay people into straight people.

Ya know, these people are the ones that need help, serious help!

Texas GOP advances 'reparative therapy' for gays

 

[davekc]

Complete waste of time. And then they wonder why they struggle to win elections on a national level. A whole lot of things to worry and devote attention to, and this isn't it.

 

[WanderngFool]

It's been tried before and it didn't work out very well.

Christian right leader George Rekers takes vacation with "rent boy" | Miami New Times

 

[cheri1122]

There is absolutely zero credible evidence that such "therapy" works, and a landslide of evidence that it doesn't, and in fact, causes more damage [in the form of substance abuse & suicide], and it is opposed by every recognized expert in the field of human sexuality, but Texas GOPs prefer to heed the Tea Party. I quote:
The therapy language was inserted at the urging of Cathie Adams of Dallas, leader of the influential tea party group Texas Eagle Forum and a onetime chairwoman of the Texas Republican Party.
Adams, whose group backed tea party outsiders who dominated Texas Republican primary races this year, said she simply promoted language proposed by a man she said was helped by such therapy, which has been defended by some smaller groups, including the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
"He knows what he's talking about. He is one of those who has benefited," Adams said.

How do people like this have any credibility at all?! SMH.

 

[RLENT]

LOL ... ahh yes: wing-nut-in-chief Cathie Adams ...

How do people like this have any credibility at all?! SMH.

Who says they do ?

BTW, you ain't seen the half of it:

HINDUS BUDDHISTS AND OTHER MUSLIMS
2:13 PM AUGUST 8, 2013

WHAT'S BRINGING ON THE APOCALYPSE THIS WEEK? HOW ABOUT IMMIGRATION REFORM?

by DOKTOR ZOOM

Just in case plain old hating Messicans wasn’t enough reason to oppose immigration reform, Texas wingnut extraordinaire Cathie Adams, the former state GOP chair and current president of Texas [begin strikethru] Schlafly Rangers [end strikethru] Eagle Forum, has found a new reason: on something called "End Times Radio" last week, she explained that the Senate’s immigration bill legislates the Mark of the Beast, and will bring about the End Times. Leaving aside the question of why that's something Christianists want to delay — after all, it will get Jebus back here sooner — it feels like wingnuts are finding impending signs of the Apocalypse about as often as the House votes to kill Obamacare (which may or may not require you to have an RFID chip implanted in your butt, too).

So far, Adams has been a minor-league wingnut, but she's got big dreams, and big ideas. There was her warning last December that smoking the marijuana will fry your brain and turn you into Barack Obama, and her more recent endorsement of the theory that Grover Norquist is a sekrit Muslim, and now we have her discovery of Devil Marks in immigration reform, because the Senate bill includes a requirement for "biometric scanning":

"And, of course, we know in biblical prophecy that that is the End Times," Adams said of the initiative. "That is going to be the brand either on our foreheads or on the back of our hands. That is demonic through and through. That is End Times prophecy. There is no question about that."

​

As HuffPo points out, what Adams calls "biometric scanning" is actually a measure that "would require all non-U.S. citizens to be fingerprinted when leaving the U.S. through the country’s 30 busiest airports," but sure, fingerprints are totally biometric.

In a further explosion of derp, Adams also worried that the Senate’s immigration bill would promote "sharia law" by flooding America with scary refugees

"from Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist cultures [who] are not here because they love America but because they are fleeing countries, and yet, what kind of culture are they bringing here? They want sharia law, just like what they left that was causing them to be persecuted."
​

We aren’t sure whether to run screaming or adopt her as a mascot.

[RightWingWatch / HuffPo]

What’s Bringing On The Apocalypse This Week? How About Immigration Reform?

This lady was the Chair of Texas State GOP ... think about that for a minute ...

Yessiree ... give us some of that old-timey Buddhist and Hindu Sharia !

I vote: ... mascot ...

 

[cheri1122]

With that last line, RLENT totally wins the internet this week.

It pretty much confirms the truth of one of my favorite posters [the wall kind, not the internet kind], which is a photo of a Stetson on top of a pair of Tony Llama boots, with the caption: "A Texan with the s##t kicked out of him"
I'm seriously wondering if I'll live long enough to see Texas admit how wrong they are, on so many things.

 

[asjssl]

Can therapy turn them gay?? Because you didn't choose to be straight.. just is ..who you are..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Ragman]

With that last line, RLENT totally wins the internet this week.

It pretty much confirms the truth of one of my favorite posters [the wall kind, not the internet kind], which is a photo of a Stetson on top of a pair of Tony Llama boots, with the caption: "A Texan with the s##t kicked out of him"
I'm seriously wondering if I'll live long enough to see Texas admit how wrong they are, on so many things.

 

[WanderngFool]

I'm seriously wondering if I'll live long enough to see Texas admit how wrong they are, on so many things.

You might have to wait until they secede.

Or at least until global warming turns the whole state into a dust bowl and they decide that being part of the UNITED States isn't such a bad deal after all.

 

[muttly]

Setting the Record Straight on 'Gay Conversion' Therapy for Minors

 

[Humble2drive]

Setting the Record Straight on 'Gay Conversion' Therapy for Minors

An opinion article from The Christian Post is hardly the final word on " setting the record straight".
Referencing an article with this extreme amount of bias in basically useless. Another member could easily post an article with the opposite conclusion and the tit for tat could go on forever.

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Conversion_therapy.html

 

[muttly]

An opinion article from The Christian Post is hardly the final word on " setting the record straight".
Referencing an article with this extreme amount of bias in basically useless. Another member could easily post an article with the opposite conclusion and the tit for tat could go on forever.

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Conversion_therapy.html

Did you even read the article or did you skip over it like other opinion articles in this thread such as by Doktor Doom? I posted an article with a different perspective than the comments so far in the thread. It was meant to further the discussion about this topic and raised some interesting points about the therapy. If you want to ban all opinion articles from this forum,good luck with that.

 

[Humble2drive]

Did you even read the article or did you skip over it like other opinion articles in this thread such as by Doktor Doom? I posted an article with a different perspective than the comments so far in the thread. It was meant to further the discussion about this topic and raised some interesting points about the therapy. If you want to ban all opinion articles from this forum,good luck with that.

Of course I read the article, that is how I determined that it was a very biased opinion piece. Why would you assume differently?

I never mentioned banning any opinion articles. It is puzzling how you reach certain conclusions.
In this case you posted an article entitled "Setting the Record Straight" which means:

"to tell the true facts that have not been accurately reported"
set the record straight - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

However it turned out to be just another opinion piece in disguise.
I pointed it out because I have a strong hunch that you believed it consisted of actual facts and was actually setting the record straight.
Many people who have a strong opinion about something search for an article that agrees with that opinion and immediately accept it as true and accurate.

BTW - Your article stated: "there have been no outcome-based studies published in peer-reviewed journals that have followed minors undergoing SOCE therapy. "

Here is one that evaluated 1612 people who went through the therapy:

42% reported that their change-oriented therapy was "not at all effective," and 37% found it to be moderately to severely harmful.

Sexual Orientation Change Efforts through... [J Sex Marital Ther. 2014] - PubMed - NCBI

Just sayin.

 

[Turtle]

Trying to make a serious case in favor of conversion therapy is right up there with someone trying to make a serious case that NAMBLA is a civic charity organization that benefits children. It's pure agenda-driven fantasy.

 

[muttly]

Of course I read the article, that is how I determined that it was a very biased opinion piece. Why would you assume differently?

I never mentioned banning any opinion articles. It is puzzling how you reach certain conclusions.
In this case you posted an article entitled "Setting the Record Straight" which means:



However it turned out to be just another opinion piece in disguise.
I pointed it out because I have a strong hunch that you believed it consisted of actual facts and was actually setting the record straight.
Many people who have a strong opinion about something search for an article that agrees with that opinion and immediately accept it as true and accurate.

BTW - Your article stated: "there have been no outcome-based studies published in peer-reviewed journals that have followed minors undergoing SOCE therapy. "

Here is one that evaluated 1612 people who went through the therapy:



Just sayin.

Your hunch was wrong. I didn't even comment on it. I don't have a strong opinion about this either way . More questions than anything. Is the therapy actually 'dangerous' or is it being politicized by certain groups? It seems like it is politically incorrect to believe that someone isn't born gay. Is the therapy being demonized(no religious reference intended)because it goes against the politically correct notion that everyone is born gay? Are politicians,psychological organizations, Judges etc succumbing to political pressure to agree with these groups to ban altogether this therapy? At least two states I think,have banned this therapy so far. Whether the therapy is actually 'dangerous' or not is still debatable. Thank you for the link. By the way, the article I linked was from March 13 2014 . In the article it states:
To date, there have been no outcome-based studies...
Your article is from May. So the article wasn't inaccurate regarding that point .

 

[Humble2drive]

By the way, the article I linked was from March 13 2014 . In the article it states:
To date, there have been no outcome-based studies...
Your article is from May. So the article wasn't inaccurate regarding that point .

I realized this. The lesson was that when you post an older article it is a good idea to check current information to see if it remains to be true. In this case it wasn't.
The research study should help answer many of the questions you pose.

I will trust you that my hunch was wrong and apologize. Don't take it personally, after all I have no idea who you are.*

 

[cheri1122]

You might have to wait until they secede. .

I've lived in Texas, and their belief is that the rest of us can damwell secede from THEM, lol.

Or at least until global warming turns the whole state into a dust bowl and they decide that being part of the UNITED States isn't such a bad deal after all.[/QUOTE]

Climate change didn't cause the depression era dust bowl, stupid farming/ranching/business practices did, and Texas is all for being 'business friendly', so it could very easily happen again, in our lifetime.

 

[cheri1122]

Your hunch was wrong. I didn't even comment on it. I don't have a strong opinion about this either way . More questions than anything. Is the therapy actually 'dangerous' or is it being politicized by certain groups? It seems like it is politically incorrect to believe that someone isn't born gay. Is the therapy being demonized(no religious reference intended)because it goes against the politically correct notion that everyone is born gay? Are politicians,psychological organizations, Judges etc succumbing to political pressure to agree with these groups to ban altogether this therapy? At least two states I think,have banned this therapy so far. Whether the therapy is actually 'dangerous' or not is still debatable. Thank you for the link. By the way, the article I linked was from March 13 2014 . In the article it states:
To date, there have been no outcome-based studies...
Your article is from May. So the article wasn't inaccurate regarding that point .

It's "politically incorrect" to believe that someone isn't born gay?
That's a pretty facile way to defend a belief that goes against the collected knowledge of science, research, and [most important] gay people themselves. It's not politically incorrect to believe someone chooses to be gay, it's just plain incorrect, period.
Gay people, almost without exception, will tell you that they knew they were different, before they were old enough to know anything about sex. And almost without exception, they will also tell you that they didn't want to be different, once they learned, because it meant shame and scorn for them, whether from their own religious beliefs or others', and that's what 'conversion therapy' is all about. It's not based on science, but religious beliefs, and the only thing politics has to do with it is that people insist upon putting their religious beliefs into the political arena, where they don't belong.
Is gay conversion harmful? Far more so than trying to force lefthanders to use their right hand, or forcing Navajo speakers to forget their native language, or any other attempt to force an individual to be like 'everyone else', [the 'witches' the Puritans burned at the stake, for example] yes, it is. Because sex is not just a biological imperative, it's a large part of most peoples' happiness in life.
It's forcing religious beliefs and attitudes upon others, and that is immoral.
Also, it doesn't work, in the long run, because eventually, the truth will out.

 

[muttly]

It's "politically incorrect" to believe that someone isn't born gay?
That's a pretty facile way to defend a belief that goes against the collected knowledge of science, research, and [most important] gay people themselves. It's not politically incorrect to believe someone chooses to be gay, it's just plain incorrect, period.
Gay people, almost without exception, will tell you that they knew they were different, before they were old enough to know anything about sex. And almost without exception, they will also tell you that they didn't want to be different, once they learned, because it meant shame and scorn for them, whether from their own religious beliefs or others', and that's what 'conversion therapy' is all about. It's not based on science, but religious beliefs, and the only thing politics has to do with it is that people insist upon putting their religious beliefs into the political arena, where they don't belong.
Is gay conversion harmful? Far more so than trying to force lefthanders to use their right hand, or forcing Navajo speakers to forget their native language, or any other attempt to force an individual to be like 'everyone else', [the 'witches' the Puritans burned at the stake, for example] yes, it is. Because sex is not just a biological imperative, it's a large part of most peoples' happiness in life.
It's forcing religious beliefs and attitudes upon others, and that is immoral.
Also, it doesn't work, in the long run, because eventually, the truth will out.

Yep , politically incorrect to assert that people aren't born gay. How do explain Deblasio's wife's 'conversion'?
There are plenty of examples of people who were heterosexuals most of their life who decided to become gay or bisexual and vise a versa . By the way , the Texas platform regarding conversion therapy doesn't force therapy on anyone. It is only to prohibit the BAN of this therapy that is used by those who seek it voluntarily on their own.

 

[LDB]

It's "politically incorrect" to believe that someone isn't born gay?
That's a pretty facile way to defend a belief that goes against the collected knowledge of science, research, and [most important] gay people themselves. It's not politically incorrect to believe someone chooses to be gay, it's just plain incorrect, period.
Gay people, almost without exception, will tell you that they knew they were different, before they were old enough to know anything about sex. And almost without exception, they will also tell you that they didn't want to be different, once they learned, because it meant shame and scorn for them, whether from their own religious beliefs or others', and that's what 'conversion therapy' is all about. It's not based on science, but religious beliefs, and the only thing politics has to do with it is that people insist upon putting their religious beliefs into the political arena, where they don't belong.
Is gay conversion harmful? Far more so than trying to force lefthanders to use their right hand, or forcing Navajo speakers to forget their native language, or any other attempt to force an individual to be like 'everyone else', [the 'witches' the Puritans burned at the stake, for example] yes, it is. Because sex is not just a biological imperative, it's a large part of most peoples' happiness in life.
It's forcing religious beliefs and attitudes upon others, and that is immoral.
Also, it doesn't work, in the long run, because eventually, the truth will out.

Is the above maybe supposed to say

It's "politically incorrect" to believe that someone isn't born gay?

That's a pretty facile way to defend a belief that goes against the collected knowledge of science, research, and [most important] gay people themselves. It's not politically incorrect to believe someone chooses to be gay, it's just plain incorrect, period.

Gay people, almost without exception, will tell you that they knew they were different, before they were old enough to know anything about sex. And almost without exception, they will also tell you that they didn't want to be different, once they learned, because it meant shame and scorn for them, whether from their own religious beliefs or others', and that's what 'conversion therapy' is all about. It's not based on science, but religious beliefs, and the only thing politics has to do with it is that people insist upon putting their religious beliefs into the political arena, where they don't belong.

Is gay conversion harmful? Far more so than trying to force lefthanders to use their right hand, or forcing Navajo speakers to forget their native language, or any other attempt to force an individual to be like 'everyone else', [the 'witches' the Puritans burned at the stake, for example] yes, it is. Because sex is not just a biological imperative, it's a large part of most peoples' happiness in life.

It's forcing religious beliefs and attitudes upon others, and that is immoral. Also, it doesn't work, in the long run, because eventually, the truth will out.

in a much more readable paragraph fashion?