New Jersey to ban gay conversion treatments

[shadowhive]

You just don't get it do you? You said you don't want a Police state...but you are apparently fine with the Nanny state.

It is not the job of the state to steal a parents rights to raise their child as they see fit to be productive parts of society...but apparently to some of you, the concept of being a productive part of society is a great unknown mystery.

So what then? The state steals the child away and puts it into the corrupt for profit foster care system?...kinda similar to the modern for profit prison system if you ask me. The foster care system has been proven to suck...it often puts children into more abusive and neglectful circumstances that what they were kidnapped and stolen from.

But by all means, please continue to worship and praise at the alter of the state.

If a parent beats up, strarves or sexually abuses their child, what happens? Government agencies intervene and take the child away and no one cpomplains about that being a 'nanny state'. The well being of the child comes first and yes, the government has to get involved sometimes to ensure that in such situations.

I do agree the foster care system needs an overhaul. In some places it seems to work, in others it seems to have severely gone wrong. So yes, I agree something needs to be done to make the system better for those involved.

I'm not worshipping anything. However, I am concerned with children being forced into therapy that doesn't work, simple as that. But like you've proven, all you care about it money.

[shadowhive]

I didn't have children in mind with my original post, and agree that forcing such treatment on children would be an acceptable thing to prohibit.

Most medical treatments have to be approved by the appropriate agency as safe and effective; I think this is enough protection. If the treatment offered really is "torture" as claimed, it would not be safe. I doubt that. That it is not effective is more problematic, and should be demonstrated to prevent fraud.

A complete ban, however, is excessive.

Well the bill in question bans conversion therapy being used against children under 18, not adults.

The American Psychooogical Association, which is the appropriate agency here, has said time and again the conversion therapy doesn't work and that it shoud be condeemned. That hasn't stopped the therapy's being offered one bt, which shows that the government needs to get invlved to do so.

From the abc news article about it:

The Republican governor also said the health risks of trying to change a child's sexual orientation, as identified by the American Psychological Association, outweigh concerns over the government setting limits on parental choice.

"Government should tread carefully into this area," he said in the note, "and I do so here reluctantly."

"However, I also believe that on the issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards," Christie said, citing a litany of potential ill effects of trying to change sexual orientation, including depression and suicide. "I believe that exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate."

From the same article, this is what the therapy has entailed

The idea of conversion therapy is an old one that has increasingly drawn criticism for its methods. Last year, four gay men sued a Jersey City group for fraud, saying its program included making them strip naked and attack effigies of their mothers with baseball bats

Lawmakers heard horror stories from some during hearings on the ban, including Brielle Goldani of Toms River, who testified she underwent electric shocks and was given drugs to induce vomiting after being sent to an Ohio camp at age 14 to become straight.

Edited August 20, 2013 by shadowhive

[Frank Merton]

A ban disallowing such treatment on children makes sense; a person should have reached maturity so they can make their own judgement on what they want.

[Jeremiah65]

Nah...no parent ever knew what was best for their child...we should all just pop out babies and hand them over to the state immediately...their gleaming record on education stands as a beacon of how well that shiz works out...

Whatever...go ahead and before the omnipotent and omniscient power of the almighty state...

[Agent0range]

What world do you live in that everyone is capable of caring for a child? You talk about how stupid people are less than 10 posts ago, then you go and defend every parent in the United States. The fact is, PEOPLE ARE STUPID. Some people should not be allowed to make decisions involving children at all.

And please, please answer some questions for me. I have read so many of your posts completely bashing the United States and the government. What do you as a person do to make anything better besides complaining on an internet forum for half of your life? What are you doing to change things? Do you think your life would be better somewhere else? If so, why don't you test that theory?

Edited August 20, 2013 by Agent0range

[Jeremiah65]

I legally vote...I volunteer...I participate in commerce as a productive part of society....

what do you do to make the world your vision of Utopia?

I do not believe in dependence on the State for anything. If you call that bashing...fine...whatever you need to tell yourself is fine with me.

I believe in personal freedom and responsibility. You do good things and you reap the rewards, you do bad things you suffer the consequences...I do not need or want the state involved in that equation.

Edit to add....

I am not going anywhere as this country is based on the principles I hold most high. It's the bleeding heart government dependents that need to leave...I think North Korea would be perfect for the State lovers.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[Kowalski]

What world do you live in that everyone is capable of caring for a child? You talk about how stupid people are less than 10 posts ago, then you go and defend every parent in the United States. The fact is, PEOPLE ARE STUPID. Some people should not be allowed to make decisions involving children at all.

And please, please answer some questions for me. I have read so many of your posts completely bashing the United States and the government. What do you as a person do to make anything better besides complaining on an internet forum for half of your life? What are you doing to change things? Do you think your life would be better somewhere else? If so, why don't you test that theory?

Who died and made you "der Fuhrer?"

[Agent0range]

Who died and made you "der Fuhrer?"

NEWSFLASH!! 99% of the countries in the world has laws protecting the welfare of children. This is nothing new, and it will never go away. But hey, you are probably really interesting because you go against the norms of the world..or at least that is what you are going for, right?

[Jeremiah65]

You, like another above, are entirely missing the point...

I cannot state the obvious any more than I have. He thinks my position is all about the money and you think I want children beaten to death and chained...

Your knee jerk to the extremes shows me that common sense is not in you and you have no idea who I am...you know nothing but what I choose to reveal on a forum board. You shuld prob take a couple steps back and regroup...your bleeding heart is dripping all over the pages...

Edited August 20, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[Odin11]

Who died and made you "der Fuhrer?"

Godwin's law. You lose.

[shadowhive]

You, like another above, are entirely missing the point...

I cannot state the obvious any more than I have. He thinks my position is all about the money and you think I want children beaten to death and chained...

Your knee jerk to the extremes shows me that common sense is not in you and you have no idea who I am...you know nothing but what I choose to reveal on a forum board. You shuld prob take a couple steps back and regroup...your bleeding heart is dripping all over the pages...

The 'obvious' being that you don't care about the welfare of children. That if someone is willing to pay for their child to be tortured then that service should be offered and that any attempt to stop it is the big bad government' getting involved. Oh and that anyone that actually gives a damn about these kids is some 'bleeding heart'.

I really hope you don't have kids, since you obviously don't give a damn about their welfare besides a 'parent knows best' and anything should be done to them for a price.

[shadowhive]

NEWSFLASH!! 99% of the countries in the world has laws protecting the welfare of children. This is nothing new, and it will never go away. But hey, you are probably really interesting because you go against the norms of the world..or at least that is what you are going for, right?

Honestly, I don't get what these people have against this law. it's obviously designed with the welfare of children in mind, to protect them from an abusive and ineffective 'treatment', that professionals in the field condemn. And yet that all takes a backseat simply because it's the government getting involved. I don't get that mentality at all.

[Odin11]

You, like another above, are entirely missing the point...

I cannot state the obvious any more than I have. He thinks my position is all about the money and you think I want children beaten to death and chained...

Your knee jerk to the extremes shows me that common sense is not in you and you have no idea who I am...you know nothing but what I choose to reveal on a forum board. You shuld prob take a couple steps back and regroup...your bleeding heart is dripping all over the pages...

I think they all get your point; it’s just that you’re so wrapped up in your ideology that it’s warped your mind, even the smallest things look extreme to you now. Why else would you be against a law protecting children from known abuse?

[Jeremiah65]

You are so clever and smug aren't you? I do not have to explain anything to some kid on the internet who thinks he has it all figured out.

Suffice to say...I know what I am talking about and you do not. How many productive members of society have you brought into this world oh wise and benevolent one?

You are so wrong...I cannot help but laugh at you..

Oh so-so clever and all knowing...such a perfect ward and example of the state controlled education system.

[Jeremiah65]

I am against the state involvement in this...period. I am against anyone that willingly opens the door for state domination...I will fight tooth and nail...especially on election day

[Odin11]

Honestly, I don't get what these people have against this law. it's obviously designed with the welfare of children in mind, to protect them from an abusive and ineffective 'treatment', that professionals in the field condemn. And yet that all takes a backseat simply because it's the government getting involved. I don't get that mentality at all.

It's most likely because of what the law stops, and who the "treatment" is for. That's why they're against this law.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Odin11

[shadowhive]

It's most likely because of what the law stops, and who the "treatment" is for that they're against the law.

True. And, judging from his mentality, because someone is being paid to abuse these kids.

[shadowhive]

I am against the state involvement in this...period. I am against anyone that willingly opens the door for state domination...I will fight tooth and nail...especially on election day

It is not state domination. It is about (gasp) protecting vulnerable children from being harmed.

What we have here is a 'treatment' that doesn't work. It has harmful side effects (which make people less productive members of society). And currently, kids are being abused as part of their 'treatment'.

What is so objectionable about stopping that? Where is the 'state domination' there? Really this law is very simple, with simple and sensible goals: protecting children from harm. Yet you act like it's installing a dictatorship. Honestly, get a grip.

Edited August 20, 2013 by shadowhive

[Jeremiah65]

Again, you are totally missing the point.

I digress. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

I never said I was for "torturing" or hurting anyone...let me try one last time...I don't know why I am bothering but....

This is something for families to work out. You do not know each and every circumstance. Perhaps a teenager has become confused...perhaps their worldview has been upset by no choice or fault of their own. You are ready for the state to take care of them...how can the state know a child better than their parents?

You see evil and malice in my opinion that the state needs to butt out of family relationships...fine...whatever.

Do you think the state should decide what a woman can do with her body as well? How about what you choose to put in your body? It seems the left/liberals and progressives hate it when it comes to that but are perfectly ok with interfering in very personal family matters when it comes down to issues of homosexuality. I don't get the hypocrisy here...you are either for state domination or against it. I happen to be against it.

For the smug...I happen to have raised 3 daughters. One is an EMT, married and has a child of her own now...that makes me a grandpa. Another is working on her masters in linguistics and my youngest is getting ready to start her junior year in forensics. I think I am quite a capable, kind and understanding parent...had my daughters chose to be homosexual, I would have been totally fine with that. Sexual preference is of absolute no concern to me. I do however take issue with the State getting involved. You say torture...I am yet to see any evidence of that...it sounds like counseling to me...and I see no harm if a parent or guardian thinks it is something that needs to happen. I do see a problem when the state forbids it.

Does that make you understand my "greedy, money grubbing and torture loving" position? (Note sarcasm)

[ShadowSot]

So what I am getting from people in this thread is that children are owned entirely by their parents, and anything done to these children by their parents is fine, even if by doing so they impact the child's health and ability to succesfully interact with society.

[shadowhive]

Again, you are totally missing the point.

I digress. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

I never said I was for "torturing" or hurting anyone...let me try one last time...I don't know why I am bothering but....

This is something for families to work out. You do not know each and every circumstance. Perhaps a teenager has become confused...perhaps their worldview has been upset by no choice or fault of their own. You are ready for the state to take care of them...how can the state know a child better than their parents?

You see evil and malice in my opinion that the state needs to butt out of family relationships...fine...whatever.

I see evil and malice because it's there. Parrents that submit the child to these therapies don't care about their child, they ust want to force teir child to be what they see as normal.

Should the state be involved in family relationships? No, not in general. BUT when the parent is abusing their child, then the state should intervene. Why? Because (gasp) parents do not always know best. Some abuse their children physically, sexually and mentally. These people should not get away with their actions. They should be bought to justice.

Same here. A parent submits their child to abuse and psychological torture? Then they should be held into account for it. Not dissmissed because 'parents know best'. That arguement wouldn't work for over forms of abuse and it doesn't work here.

Do you think the state should decide what a woman can do with her body as well? How about what you choose to put in your body? It seems the left/liberals and progressives hate it when it comes to that but are perfectly ok with interfering in very personal family matters when it comes down to issues of homosexuality. I don't get the hypocrisy here...you are either for state domination or against it. I happen to be against it.

No I don't think the state should be involved in those things. But this issue isn't about those things, it's about children being abused and being submitted to something that doesn't work and is damaging. Simple as that.

For the smug...I happen to have raised 3 daughters. One is an EMT, married and has a child of her own now...that makes me a grandpa. Another is working on her masters in linguistics and my youngest is getting ready to start her junior year in forensics. I think I am quite a capable, kind and understanding parent...had my daughters chose to be homosexual, I would have been totally fine with that. Sexual preference is of absolute no concern to me. I do however take issue with the State getting involved. You say torture...I am yet to see any evidence of that...it sounds like counseling to me...and I see no harm if a parent or guardian thinks it is something that needs to happen. I do see a problem when the state forbids it.

Does that make you understand my "greedy, money grubbing and torture loving" position? (Note sarcasm)

Just because you have raised 3 daughters does not change one bit the attitude that you have displayed here, which has been money grabbing and not caring a jot about a child's welfare simply because that child is gay and the parents don't approve. A child that is gay does not deserve mistreatment because of their orientation. Full stop. Doesn't matter if the parents want it, or if they pay for it, it's wrong, it's harmful and it doesn't work.

All you've done there is change your arguement away from money to make it about 'parental choice', which doesn't change the fact that the 'treatment' does not work and causes detrimental results. Basically your arguement now is that parents should have the choice to do something that provably harms their own child, which still makes no sense and still shows 0 care for the child involved.

[Bavarian Raven]

Godwin's law. You lose.

Konrad's Law. Those who use Godwin's law have no intelligent rebuttal and therefore have lost the argument.

Cheers.

[Frank Merton]

Serves me right not getting all the details before going off half-hat. I thought that the proposal was to ban all sex-orientation-change work, but it turns out that the ban only applies to children. To me that is sensible: parents do not have any right to decide their child's sexual orientation any more than their sex or their religion, even though obviously plenty of parents (quite sinfully in my opinion) do, in cooperation with their church, indoctrinate children, and abortion of girl foetuses is common in much of the world.

There are some things that should wait for until the child has matured.

[Odin11]

Konrad's Law. Those who use Godwin's law have no intelligent rebuttal and therefore have lost the argument.

Cheers.

Odin's Law. Those that compare trifle happenings to the horror of Nazism have zero intelligence what so ever. And therefore have no argument worth rebuttal.

As someone who has relatives that have lived through the horrors of that time, I’m getting really tried of people trivializing what happened with false comparisons.

[shadowhive]

Serves me right not getting all the details before going off half-hat. I thought that the proposal was to ban all sex-orientation-change work, but it turns out that the ban only applies to children. To me that is sensible: parents do not have any right to decide their child's sexual orientation any more than their sex or their religion, even though obviously plenty of parents (quite sinfully in my opinion) do, in cooperation with their church, indoctrinate children, and abortion of girl foetuses is common in much of the world.

There are some things that should wait for until the child has matured.

Yeah, you probably shoulda done some checking first

This bill's intention is obvious, to protect vulnerable people from this practice. That, to me is quite sensible and reasonable. A parent doesn't decide their kid's sexual orientation and, as such, should have absolutely no control over it. (Especially since such control is impossible.)

However, I don't see why it shouldn't be a full ban, for adult as well. After all adult can be vulnerable as well and religious grooups can be extremely manipulative with gay people. The same risks also apply to adults a much as children (that such 'treatment' can lead to depression and suicide as well as self loathing and all kinds of other things). Plus of course, the simple fact that it doesn't work. As such, an outright ban seems pretty sensible as well.