Oklahoma proposes first ever bill to protect gay-conversion therapy

[Rusha]

Okay, it's not 100% true, just 99.99%

I agree ... using generalizations is 99% laziness.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

I agree ... using generalizations is 99% laziness.

This is the argument you are proposing, in an irrelevant example:

I say that it's a fact that a certain door is blue.
You say it's false because of the doorknob.

And going on and on about it because you can't come up with a good argument to suffice for what I posted.
Blowing a bunch of hot air.

 

[Rusha]

This is the argument you are proposing,

Water is wet.
Snow is cold.
Lava is hot.

I didn't need to say generally.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Did you know that the trice married adulterer known as Newt Gingrich is Catholic?

Funny how you make a comparison to adultery and homosexuality but don't actually treat homosexuality to any degree you would treat adultery in discussion. Therefore, it is an indirect admittance to hypocrisy.

It's a double-edged argument, people don't even realize it

 

[Rusha]

Funny how you make a comparison to adultery and homosexuality but don't actually treat homosexuality to any degree you would treat adultery in discussion.

They are completely different. Adultery is always wrong.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

They are completely different. Adultery is always wrong.

And when is homosexuality not wrong?

 

[republicanchick]

indeed, when is perversion OK?

sounds like a dum b question

b/c it is .. not dumb but a rhetorical one

 

[TracerBullet]

People are free to take their kids to acupuncturists, astrologers, aroma therapy, hug therapy, psychologists, psychiatrists, aura readers and crystal-twirling nitwits if they want to, as well as jack up their progeny on psychotropics, whether other people think they do any good or not.

The difference is that some of what you list here actually has research showing that it is both effective and safe.

None of what you list actively engages in physical or emotional abuse.

People should likewise be free to take their kids to this if they choose, and especially if the kids has expressed the desire to go (which has happened). If you disagree with that, you are a hypocrite and probably queer yourself. In any case you're definitely no friend of liberty.

Why would any decent informed parent subject their child to something this harmful and this abusive?

 

[Rusha]

And when is homosexuality not wrong?

As often as heterosexuality is not wrong ...

 

[republicanchick]

And what is disturbing is that they reject the feelings and experience of people who had homosexual feelings but did not wish to embrace them. If they are sure of themselves, why be threatened by these people? It reminds me of '80s feminists who would denigrate women who chose to stay home with their children....

yeh, for sure

frankly, a true Christian is not threatened by anything another does unless and until it hurts someone (meaning egregiously hurts...)

I don't really care if someone is... oh, wait... that's not true. I do care when people sin b/c sin leads one to Hell... and I don't want anyone to go to Hell (well, most of the time I don't... )

anyway, where was I?

oh yeh... why people are threatened by... conservatives. I think its b/c they know we are right



++

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

As often as heterosexuality is not wrong ...

Homosexual sex is unnatural and anathema to the very intended nature of man. It is idolatrous, unnatural debauchery- there is no such thing as homosexuality being okay, much unlike heterosexuality. It is no different then having sex with a horse.

Homosexuality and bestiality carried the same punishment and condemned likewise. It's absurd that Christians even exist today defending such things when it wasn't even something of the religious a hundred years ago but the overwhelming majority of mankind which intuitively knew it as the same, brought down from their fathers all the way to the natural, self evident belief of it's transgression.

 

[TracerBullet]

Everything you've just stated is a big giant diversion- you force an assumption that homosexuality is natural and harmless,

All the evidence shows that it is natural. Can you provide actual research showing otherwise?

and then say because it's only decent equality and that I hate it for not concurring.

You fight equality and say horrible things about a minority.
If you were engaging in the same behavior but directed towards African Americans it would be called hate.
If you were engaging in the same behavior but directed towards Jews it would be called hate.
If you were engaging in the same behavior but directed towards the handicapped it would be called hate.

Yet you don't actually know your assumption to be true. In fact, there is more reason and evidence to the contrary despite the hopeless policy of secular bias.

Well lets see this evidence then.

This is why arguments with atheists and liberals get nowhere- it doesn't really matter what the truth is, it's just about attacking proper believers of God and waylaying their beliefs. They are no different then the Amalekites.

Yet you are the one rejecting the evidence and attacking a minority and now you are attacking those that don’t concur.

 

[TracerBullet]

Yep. He assumes as fact that which is only opinion; i.e., propensity for sodomy = eye color. But then, TB has never been nearly as sly and subtle as he likes to think he is. He's actually kinda dim.

Yet every time you are asked for evidence on the topic you put your tail between your legs and run away hurling personal insults to distract anyone watching

 

[kmoney]

It has been so for those for whom it was clearly the wrong medicine... this is where choice comes in.

There are many testimonials from ex-gays for whom this therapy was welcome and effective.

This does NOT discount those whom were harmed by it: A I said, choice and not having anything forced on one.

Choice for adults, fine. But children don't have a choice if their parents force their children to go and I don't think I like that.

 

[TracerBullet]

This is what I thought: That there should be freedom of choice on this matter.........

The freedom to expose your child to abuse?

If there is a quack claiming that exposure to a toxic substance can change your left-handed child into a right handed one should parents have the freedom to expose their child?

If drug companies develop a drug that is claimed to cause weight loss (a claim they can’t substantiate) but will damage the heart of anyone taking it should that pill be on the market?

 

[GFR7]

Choice for adults, fine. But children don't have a choice if their parents force their children to go and I don't think I like that.

OK - even minors should have a choice and a say in it, as it is their therapy.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

All the evidence shows that it is natural.

There is no evidence. It is why the well known cause of the Big Olde Medical Book taking homosexuality off the list of diseases being through base coercion happened- there was nothing to back it up except rank demand.

And that hasn't changed, you have a couple penguins in a zoo and an unproven speculation that the last born tend to be gay out of malnutrition- which funny enough is sort of a malfunction now isn't it. That is, if even that were true.

All evidence shows that liberals lie to themselves and then they lie to other people, and in this day and age a billion liars actually does suffice for truth. See: political correctness.

If aliens came, I would ask them to take me to their planet.

 

[resodko]

All the evidence shows that it is natural.

homosexuality is as "natural" as having sex with children, in that both perversions are seen in nature

 

[TracerBullet]

And what is disturbing is that they reject the feelings and experience of people who had homosexual feelings but did not wish to embrace them.

Untrue (And you know it) Keeping quacks for actively harming people – especially children- isn’t rejecting the feelings of anyone.

If a gay person’s unhappiness then that and the causes for this unhappiness should be addressed and done so for the benefit of the person, not for some political reason.

If they are sure of themselves, why be threatened by these people? It reminds me of '80s feminists who would denigrate women who chose to stay home with their children....

I've already asked you if these ex-gay workers are so sure of themselves why don't they provide statistics about their success/failure rate? Why don't they publish evidence that what they do is effective? Why don't they publish evidence that what they do is safe?

 

[TracerBullet]

.

People don't like the fact that this is pretty much the large majority of 'homosexuality'- there is reality and then there's politically correct, secular naivety. Like the show 'Modern Family' for example, showing the relatively rare event of a well functioning gay couple.

I would ask you for evidence showing that such a family is a rare thing but we all know you don’t have any