Texas GOP adopts platform supporting gay - conversion therapy

I post this, not because it's any great surprise that Republicans aren't sympathetic to the gay "lifestyle," but that they would endorse a practice rejected by every major health organization in the country, if not the world. Sure, it will please their base and guarantee all the Baptists vote for them, but was there any doubt of that anyway?

And for those who will immediately pounce on this thread as an example of my flip-flopping, let me state clearly - I do not believe you can talk someone out of same-sex attraction. I don't believe you can condition someone to be attracted to the opposite sex, no matter how many hours of straight porn you force a gay to watch. You can chemically castrate men to kill their sex drive, but that isn't changing their sexual orientation. I don't know what the equivalent would be for women.

No, my objections stem from the imposition on people of faith of the gay mafia agenda. The movement to redefine disagreement with homosexual behavior based on religious grounds as "bigotry" or "hate speech." Our cultural obsession with the sexual deviation of 2-3% of the population. The GLAAD-fascist move to punish the nonbelievers by seeing them lose their jobs.

But by all means, if a confused and conflicted gay wants to talk to a therapist about being gay and how that's impacted his/her life, let them. If the gay wants to say some prayers in the hope that vagina will begin to look as appetizing as dick, well, it's a free country. I don't believe it will work, but let them try if that's how they're moved.

But why do people go to therapy for "the gay"? Because of their society telling them they're sick. Most of America has moved out of the Victorian age this decade.

The GOP is doubling down on stupid here and are only locking up their eventual demise with this horseshit.

Exactly. This is the GOP strategy right now:



They'd be smart to play forward, adopting a newer strategy where you can have a smaller government, and more freedom, but instead, they embrace the 1950s pseudo-patriotism as if it's Gospel.

Just one more example of why permitting government to have any say over anyone's private life is an exercise in fundamental stupidity. (Edited for accuracy.)

an opposition to legislating doctrine is not the same as an opposition to the existence of doctrine.

I agree. It's not doctrine I'm in defiance of -- it's the legislation of it. What's the rallying cry for any legislation? "For the greater good!"

Why is it always the smaller number of people who think they alone know what's in the interest of the greater good? How does that make sense in their minds?

Well, the answer to that is simple: They're insane. Politicians, regulators, bureaucrats, and all their ilk are, as evidenced by their chosen field of endeavor, deranged. Certainly no less so than their prototypes: the clergyman, the imam, the guru, and before even them the witch doctor with his feather-ornamented shit-scented stick.

And just as these narcissistic charlatans have always existed, so too have the stinking, bipedal herd animals who gave them a perfectly moist, rank culture in which to grow their corrupt little cabals. The kind of people who think that "Government should do something about" are the same kind who believe "If God is willing, then..." Dupes who are too fearful and too stupid to steer the course of their own lives.

But anyway, Republicans. Because nothing treats cancer like irradiating only half of the tumor.

The first lady of New York City seems to have managed a change in sexual orientation just fine.

She's very likely bi, and came to terms with her sexuality on her own, not by being forced into "conversion therapy."

What garamet said.

Also,

IIRC years before marrying her husband she penned an article about being "Proud to be a Lesbian".

Now that does not sound bisexual to me. And regardless of how they "came to terms" with her sexuality, it is just more proof that a person CHOOSES who (or what) they will have sex with. Which ultimately makes it all a choice.

And not all choices are to be honored and/or respected.

Link, please.

At any rate, it doesn't negate the point G was making about anti gay camps being a viable treatment. Folks like her that claim to be gay then marry the opposite sex are either rare flukes or closeted bisexuals.

Do you understand what bi is?

One again, there is zero proof or evidence of that offered.

What we do have is written material by her regarding being a lesbian. Now, I know I'm not an expert on deviant sexuality, but isn't there a difference between "lesbian" and "bisexual"?

You still haven't provided a link to this "proud to be gay" article you said she was interviewed for.

Or, you can just take a photo of the chicken coop you pulled that out of.

This is from the wikipedia entry on Chirlane McCray.

McCray met Bill de Blasio in 1991, when they both worked at New York City Hall for Mayor David Dinkins.[3][10] At the time, de Blasio was an aide to a deputy mayor and McCray was a speechwriter. McCray and de Blasio were married in 1994 in Prospect Park, Brooklyn.[3][15] Asked about her sexuality, McCray has stated that she hates "labels".[16] In 2012, when asked about her 1979 essay, she commented: "In the 1970s, I identified as a lesbian and wrote about it. In 1991, I met the love of my life, married him."[17]

McCray and de Blasio have a daughter and a son and live in Park Slope, Brooklyn.[3][10] They plan to move into Gracie Mansion.[2]

Sorry. She wrote an article called "I Am A Lesbian" not "Proud To Be A Lesbian". You can look it up on wikipedia yourself. A distinction without a difference.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/bil...fluidity_of_love_and_the_political_spotlight/

Interestingly enough, McCray herself rejects the label "bisexual".

So out of 313.9 million people, you hyperfocus on the one individual you think proves your point. (You mention her every time the subject comes up.) Ever hear the expression "the exception proves the rule"?

I've heard it and I've used it before. Yet I've never heard a good explanation has to exactly what it means.

You want another example, how about actress Anne Heche?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Heche

And there are not so famous people Garamet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...tted-lesbian-happily-married-mother-four.html

And I would wager there are many more out there who will not admit it as the current politically correct orthodoxy would consider it heresy (at best).

More from the New York Times, not exactly a citadel of social conservatism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/u...-that-homosexuality-cant-be-changed.html?_r=0

Still not seeing anything about state-sponsored reconditioning there...

You're ignoring the overall issue. The issue is that sexual conduct ultimately is a choice people make. As a choice, at least to me, it is not something that the government or society has any obligation to protect or honor.

No it's not.

Actually this thread reminds me of the time I chose to be white.

The overall issue is that you'd probably be happier living in Iran or Saudi.

Oh please Garamet. Just because Islam and Christianity share a couple of value beliefs in no way remotely makes them equivalent or indicates that people would prefer living in an Islamic state.

You'd prefer to live in a theocracy. You have to start somewhere. It's either that or the Vatican, and they pretty much follow Italian law. Which would be worse for you, being a Muslim or a Catholic?

I don't like either one Garamet.

If 90% of Americans were practicing Protestants (go to church regularly kind) and almost all members of Congress, almost all the Supreme Court and federal judges were..........the United States would not look much different from an individual rights perspective than it does now.

I

If that's what you think, then you need to find something else to complain about.