Gay Patriot Header Image

Chris Christie bans reparative therapy for minors

Via Bloomberg:

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican…said that homosexuality is inborn and not a sin…as he signed a bill banning therapy that tries to change a minor’s sexual orientation. Christie said such efforts pose “critical health risks including, but not limited to, depression, substance abuse, social withdrawal, decreased self-esteem and suicidal thoughts.”

“Exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate,” Christie, 50, said today in the statement.

The question is whether this is an entirely good thing.

I love it (don’t we all!) that Christie told his constituents the truth about New Jersey’s budget mess, which he inherited from Wall Street rip-off artist and Democrat, Jon Corzine. But some of Christie’s other positions suggest a Big Government, authoritarian streak in him. Perhaps this is one.

Low as my opinion of reparative therapy is, some people (probably a small minority, when we’re talking about men) can change their orientation if they want to, and none of us have the moral right to stop them from getting assistance.

Minors do need a higher standard of protection, but that’s why they have parents. So, either way, I’m not sure this should be Chris Christie’s (or government’s) decision.

At the very least, the “age of consent” for gay sex and reparative therapy ought to be the same. A teenager who is viewed legally as old enough to make his own decisions about sex, should be old enough to make his own decisions about what therapy he may want.

UPDATE: Apologies to Kurt for ‘topping’ his excellent post; I wrote this one in a hurry, without checking the blog first as I should have. Having said that, the issue I’m raising here is the liberty of the one who (rightly or wrongly) may seek reparative therapy. The individual has a right to pursue the life she thinks is best, even when Chris Christie (or gay activists, or anyone else) thinks it’s a mistake.

Share

76 Comments

  1. Christie never was a conservative, and it was the little matter of not breaking the law than made him act fiscally conservative. Those of us who are gun owners and were paying attention knew then he was not a conservative, from his stance on our tools nor if one looked, even fiscally and if he could get away with continuing the rotten budgets would gladly do so.

    Comment by JP Kalishek — August 20, 2013 @ 11:12 am - August 20, 2013

  2. I am told Christie is the only Republican who can beat Hillary. I am told this mainly by Democrats who want Hillary to win.

    Comment by V the K — August 20, 2013 @ 12:32 pm - August 20, 2013

  3. In New Jersey the age of consent is 18, when you’re no longer a minor.

    And if a parent and near-adult child are so-determined, there’s still the “good Federalist” option of seeking treatment in New York or Pennsylvania anyway. And in most cases the reputable health professionals consulting would be in NYC or Philly anyway…the new law protects against the amateurs, the extremists, and the quacks.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — August 20, 2013 @ 12:52 pm - August 20, 2013

  4. Not that Wiki is always right, but it claims that NJ’s age of consent is sort of two-tier, 16 or 18 depending on who is the other person involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#New_Jersey

    I favor 18 as the right legal age. But again: If a 16-year old can legally consent to sex, then he or she should be able to consent to reparative therapy (if that’s what he/she really wants).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 20, 2013 @ 12:56 pm - August 20, 2013

  5. The purpose of the legislation is to protect minors from aggressive parents. From that POV, I think it is a good thing. There may be some merit to reparative therapy, but there is a lot of harm that can come from the brainwashing and harassment that sometimes masquerades as therapy.

    Likewise, I am leery about the now fashionable trend of accommodating very young trans children. I know that some trans are solid in their identities at young ages, but I fear that aggressive parents may be leading their children in that direction.

    Both, I think, should be go-slow decisions. Let the situation mature and be sure the subject knows what he or she is doing.

    Comment by Mannie — August 20, 2013 @ 1:18 pm - August 20, 2013

  6. The purpose of the legislation is to protect minors from aggressive parents.

    That may be. Most violations of freedom have a ‘protective’ intent (or, at least are sold that way). And yet they remain violations of freedom.

    There may be some merit to reparative therapy

    Only when (1) the person truly, and on their own, wants to change; (2) the therapist is well-trained; and (3) the person is part of that minority (and I do think it an especially tiny minority, where men are concerned) whose sexuality happens to be plastic.

    I have a pretty low opinion of reparative therapy. I just don’t think it’s government’s place to forbid those who may want it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 20, 2013 @ 1:24 pm - August 20, 2013

  7. A few memes are colliding here. In no particular order:

    1) Jeff, you’re somewhat muddling our collective distaste of the “Nanny state” with the State’s obligation to protect “Minors.” Check that, reading it again, your initial post was spot on, though your “Update” kinda hijacks Christie’s position (This law protects the welfare of minors, a duty with which the State has been charged) to promote a different debate about the role of the State to dictate the behavior of emancipated adults. Apples and sousaphones.

    2)

    Christie never was a conservative, and it was the little matter of not breaking the law than made him act fiscally conservative. Those of us who are gun owners and were paying attention knew then he was not a conservative, from his stance on our tools nor if one looked, even fiscally and if he could get away with continuing the rotten budgets would gladly do so.

    Comment by JP Kalishek — August 20, 2013 @ 11:12 am – August 20, 2013

    Hmm, I guess another way of saying that is that he is kinda like a Democrat with a functioning Superego: he is able to control his selfish impulses long enough to actually govern now and then.

    Those outside the Garden State may not know that as of Friday afternoon, Governor Christie has actively empowered the state’s criminals to continue to rob convenience stores and gas stations with a legally acquired $10,000 firearm which shoots $5 bullets. On a more serious note, he surprisingly (to me) shot down (npi) the state Democrats’ omnibus NY-SAFE-style gun control bill — the bill that was the centerpiece of the legislators’ “Confiscate confiscate confiscate” agenda (as caught on open mic).

    Have no illusion, this does not mean that Mr Christie is in any way supportive of the gun rights of his citizens, but merely is one more sign that he thinks the White House is in his future (he was cooked if he had signed it).

    Comment by Sathar — August 20, 2013 @ 1:52 pm - August 20, 2013

  8. Christie IMO is more of a liberal with a pragmatic and realistic consideration of budgetary issues and why a state can’t promise everything because the revenue is finite.

    His social policies are very liberal (IMO more liberal than southern democrats).

    As for reparative therapy-personally I don’t like it for children/teens and think it is junk science for adults but if an adult is determined to pay for it then I and not sold on it being unethical much like I view some therapies for children with autism junk but not unethical.

    Comment by Just Me — August 20, 2013 @ 2:07 pm - August 20, 2013

  9. (This law protects the welfare of minors

    I’m talking about minors who are old enough (says the law) to meaningfully consent to sex. Like I said: If a 16-year old can legally consent to sex, then he or she should be able to consent to reparative therapy, providing in both cases that the consent is genuine (unforced). See comment #4.

    If the new law is about protecting kids from therapeutic abuses: but didn’t New Jersey already have laws protecting kids from that? So, it must not really be about that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 20, 2013 @ 2:16 pm - August 20, 2013

  10. I think *most* therapy is junk science and often harmful. That said, singling out one form of therapy seems to be a rather dangerous thing for the state to do. A large number of liberals believe it is wrong and psychological harmful for parents to have their children participate in organized religion. Could the same “reasoning” be applied to a ban on that as well?

    Comment by V the K — August 20, 2013 @ 3:51 pm - August 20, 2013

  11. V, fair point.

    As to my own point: I’d be happy to entertain an argument that reparative therapy, as such, must always/inherently violate the rights of any 16-17 year old who otherwise wants it and consents to it. But I don’t see anyone making such an argument. I have a feeling that it could be applied, with equal logic, against the 16-17 year old wanting and consenting to some sexual relationship. So that gay lefties, at least some of whom may not only defend teenage sex but even feel entitled to participate in it, would never want to make such an argument.

    I can live with the reparative therapy “age of consent” being 18 – but then, the other should be 18 also.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 20, 2013 @ 4:31 pm - August 20, 2013

  12. My opinion on gay conversion therapy isn’t very strong. It’s an area which I’m not generally interested in. Apparently Christie signed it into law at the behest of the AMA saying that the practice potentially comes causes health hazards. Though Rush Limbaugh had a zing point when talking about saying so does also pornography or television. So when thinking about it, I’m not sure Christie did the best thing when signing it. Though he already lost my support a long time ago when the Obama hug came along. So there wasn’t any support lost with me when signing it cause that support was already gone. I’d imagine it would have huge impact negatively with traditionalists in the 2016 IA caucuses.

    Comment by Jonathan Gillispie — August 20, 2013 @ 4:35 pm - August 20, 2013

  13. The president of the now-defunct “ex-gay” organization, Exodus International, has been married to a woman for nearly 16 years. But he rejects labeling himself straight, bisexual, gay, or even “ex-gay,” noting that “while my life has changed dramatically, my same-sex attraction hasn’t.” In an interview in which he once again apologized for the damage he admits his group did to many people, Alan Chambers, who for 12 years led the 37-year-old group which promised to “cure” homosexuality, stopped short of saying someone shouldn’t try to control or deny sexual desires for the sake of religious convictions, while rejecting the therapeutic aspects of so-called “reparative therapy,” especially for minors.

    “There’s no better way to do it than an apology for the people who were hurt,” Chambers said in an interview with me on SiriusXM Progress, a little over a month after his public apology and the stunning announcement that the group would shut down its “ex-gay” program. “Exodus should have just stayed as a support system for people who were looking for an alternative to gay life. I think the therapeutic aspect of it, not to mention the short stint we had in the political world on this, really did a disservice.” (Scroll down to listen to the interview)

    Chambers said he believed the therapies do damage to people and that minors should not be put through them even as adults should still have the choice.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/04/alan-chambers-exodus-international-_n_3696750.html

    Comment by rusty — August 20, 2013 @ 5:34 pm - August 20, 2013

  14. Minors do need a higher standard of protection, but that’s why they have parents. So, either way, I’m not sure this should be Chris Christie’s (or government’s) decision.

    The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that it’s the parents they frequently need protection from. I’d rather see this therapy blocked and someone who wants it of their own choice as an adult having to go elsewhere than kids who are often cowed by a powerful and psychologically terrifying parent “consenting” under what turn out to be extremely dubious circumstances. That’s my opinion as a medical professional. Primum non nocere.

    Comment by perturbed — August 20, 2013 @ 7:03 pm - August 20, 2013

  15. The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that it’s the parents they frequently need protection from.

    This attitude is basically a license for the state to abuse children.

    Comment by V the K — August 20, 2013 @ 9:04 pm - August 20, 2013

  16. I do wish folks would stop calling this crap “therapy.”

    It is NOT science, it is NOT theraputic, it is NOT helpful. Telling a young, scared, vulnerable person that they are sick simply for having same-sex attration IS harmful and needs to be stopped.

    Adults can do whatever they want; but, Christie signed into law banning this junk from minors (actually, the NJ state legislature did this, they had enough votes so that it would be law with or without Christie’s signature anyway)

    Comment by Charles — August 20, 2013 @ 9:40 pm - August 20, 2013

  17. “Aversion therapy”, in which young children are exposed to nude strangers, explicit and/or softcore pornography, and other such things while being subject to pain-inducing medication, electroshocks, and the like is a barbaric practice of child abuse that no parent should be able to force upon their children. The fact that there’s a religious justification here is irrelevant. The fact that this practice used to be common is irrelevant.

    Children are human beings separate from their parents and have powerful individual rights. They used to be sent to coal mines to work themselves to death, street sides to engage in prostitution, and so on because their mothers and fathers (often times, sadly, parents that were devoutly Christian) ordered them to. The fact that we don’t view children as parental property anymore is a central fact of, thank Christ, living in modern civilization.

    The logic that parents should be able to expose their children to physical abuse in so-called ‘conversation therapy’ camps (the scientific fact of what they are doing in these camps is technically “aversion therapy”, not different from other “classical conditioning” such as hitting dogs when they hear a bell so that they fear bells) because God supposedly said so would also justify things like this:

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pa-faith-healing-dad-loses-bid-end-murder-19894604

    Not to mention:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/honor-killing-victim-killed-brother-cops-article-1.1332901

    Or:

    http://www.nospank.net/fortune.htm

    The father quoted in one of these stories going “What do you mean I can’t beat my child? I’m a Christian.” says it all. As a believer in Jesus Christ myself, it boils my blood to see people citing His name to send children to places that are designed to abuse them. If we’re talking about adults, then, as a consequence of living in a free society, you should be allowed to self-harm. But, as a parent, you damn well can’t consent in the place of your kids to force things on them. What Christie is doing is a great thing, and anyone who thinks otherwise should ponder Matthew 19:14 for a moment.

    Comment by SwiperTheFox — August 20, 2013 @ 10:38 pm - August 20, 2013

  18. Of course, the hilarity is that these nannies out to ban reparative therapy as harmful seemingly have nothing to say about the HIV rate among young gay people being twice that of sub-Saharan Africa.

    So let’s recap; it is a crime to tell a kid not to have gay sex, but it’s not one to infect him with HIV.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 21, 2013 @ 12:48 am - August 21, 2013

  19. Has it ever occurred to people like North Dallas Thirty that child abuse is ‘always a bad thing’?

    And that it’s every little bit as immoral and wrong for a Christian conservative parent to beat the living daylights out of their kids in a “conversion therapy” camp as it is for a 20-something guy to be predatorily picking off young teens with the support of ignorant left-wing parents that don’t monitor what their kids do?

    God… there can be such a thing as being a responsible person in the political sane middle.

    Comment by SwiperTheFox — August 21, 2013 @ 3:09 am - August 21, 2013

  20. Do you have any scientific proof this works? I’ve seen nothing but people falling out of the lifestyle later or just becoming celibate. When you claim things like, “It helps some people,” you are giving hope to parents who may end up thinking this small chance is justification enough to put their child against their will in a mentally harmful institution that is completely condemned by respectable science.

    Comment by Tim in MT — August 21, 2013 @ 4:41 am - August 21, 2013

  21. Telling a young, scared, vulnerable person that they are sick strong and wonderful simply for having same-sex attration wanting to cross-dress and have their genitals mutilated IS harmful and needs to be stopped.

    FIFY

    Comment by V the K — August 21, 2013 @ 6:06 am - August 21, 2013

  22. OK, Fine, Charles and Tim, let’s just assume all parents are harmful and incompetent and put the State in charge of all parenting. For the State is all that is good. The State shall be entrusted with all parental responsibility. The State is infallible. All glory to the infallible State that knows so much better than All Parents what is in the best interest of children.

    Parents suck. All glory to the State. Got it.

    Comment by V the K — August 21, 2013 @ 6:09 am - August 21, 2013

  23. For man decades, I have been preaching that abortion should be settled at the state level. H-mmmm.

    I am sort of on the side of Christie. As governor, he signed a bill. I don’t know anything of the bill or how it played out in the state legislature during its creation, but it seems kosher to me.

    For all intents and purposes, Christie is not my chosen candidate. However, if he signed a bill that went through the proper process, I don’t hold that against him.

    So far as “reparative therapy” is concerned, I am naturally suspicious of any therapy which implies a magic bullet.

    Time and again on this site I read about parents who are ashamed of their gay child and who treat them badly. In the world of child abuse, I wonder if parents abusing their gay children is disproportionate to parents who abuse their non-gay children. Then I realize that I really don’t know what constitutes child abuse. The long-gone Levi insisted that parents taking a child to church constituted child abuse. Full disclosure: my kids got three hard whacks on the butt for major infractions.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 21, 2013 @ 8:53 am - August 21, 2013

  24. How many times have I heard the fascist left say something like, “Parenting should require a license,” or “You should have to have a background check before you become a parent.” It’s truly frightening the degree to which the left wants to use the state to impose their values and morality on everyone else.

    Comment by V the K — August 21, 2013 @ 9:10 am - August 21, 2013

  25. Ghey left demonizes parents; makes hero out of lesbian rapist. Yeah, let’s let ‘these people’ over rule the parents, because they are obviously “hateful and bigoted” for not letting their 14 year old have a sexual relationship with an adult lesbian stalker.

    Comment by V the K — August 21, 2013 @ 9:16 am - August 21, 2013

  26. “If you can play the gay card, you immediately trigger knee-jerk support from the liberal media and homosexual activists anxious to topple any and all rules regarding sex.”

    Yep.

    Comment by V the K — August 21, 2013 @ 9:18 am - August 21, 2013

  27. @ILoveCapitalism

    The purpose of the legislation is to protect minors from aggressive parents.

    That may be. Most violations of freedom have a ‘protective’ intent (or, at least are sold that way). And yet they remain violations of freedom.

    We have a conflict of freedoms, here; conflict between the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit, and the rigt of the child to be free from abuse. I believe, but admit to having no real evidence for, most reparative therapy is ordered by parents over the objections of their gay children. It is difficult to resist the brainwashing that can accompany such “therapy.” The minor child has very little freedom to resist overly aggressive parents, who can apply tremendous emotional and even physical pressure. This can be akin to a POW situation.

    There may be some merit to reparative therapy

    Only when (1) the person truly, and on their own, wants to change; (2) the therapist is well-trained; and (3) the person is part of that minority (and I do think it an especially tiny minority, where men are concerned) whose sexuality happens to be plastic.

    Amen to all your points. I think we are in pretty much in agreement on its “merits.”

    I am particularly concerned about your Point 1. Coerced consent isn’t consent. There is a much broader avenue for coercion than there is in the realm of sexual relations. Parental pressure can be particularly cruel.

    Comment by Mannie — August 21, 2013 @ 9:31 am - August 21, 2013

  28. He just signed the bill. He didn’t campaign for it. It’s a good move. He’s running for president in 2016, and we don’t want libs to attack him for being “anti-gay.” This bill restricts almost no one’s rights. As you noted, very few people can actually change their sexuality. Plus, it only applies to minors, so it actually helps some people by not making their parents force them into doing it.

    Comment by Mitch — August 21, 2013 @ 10:02 am - August 21, 2013

  29. OK, Fine, Charles and Tim, let’s just assume all parents are harmful and incompetent and put the State in charge of all parenting.

    A lot of parents aren’t harmful and incompetent. Why put the state in charge? The issue is that some parents shame their children for their sexuality (in the case of gay therapy), and that can hurt the child.

    Comment by Mitch — August 21, 2013 @ 10:04 am - August 21, 2013

  30. Mannie @ #27:

    The minor child has very little freedom to resist overly aggressive parents, who can apply tremendous emotional and even physical pressure. This can be akin to a POW situation.

    Whew!

    There are plenty of cases where children have been taken into protective custody by the state that would “seemingly” justify the action taken by the state. But this is one complex mess of a problem for sane people to try to figure out. Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court is not a place where the record is made public so that the yentas can second guess the decisions on the home version of “The View.”

    I applied tremendous emotional pressure on my kids to wear their head gear to make the braces work on their teeth. They would have readily agreed that they were POW’s.

    I make this facetious point to make a point. Is the Amish kid being abused by the Amish strictures? Is the possibly gay child being abused by parents who push him into a structure of other possibly gay children? At what point is parenting the business of the state?

    Not to paint with a broad brush, but among state social workers there are some super stars, but the mediocre ones can screw up a one car funeral.

    A good local court system for these issues is the best we can hope for. If the child is removed from the home, we, the people, have another concern with competent fostering sponsored by the state. It is not a simple problem in any of its phases.

    Can you imagine the state ordering Reparative Therapy? Can you image the state taking away a child because of Reparative Therapy? In either case, if you can imagine the case, please state the reasoning.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 21, 2013 @ 10:06 am - August 21, 2013

  31. Has it ever occurred to people like North Dallas Thirty that child abuse is ‘always a bad thing’?

    No.

    Because, as V the K pointed out, the same people who are shrieking about the evils of reparative therapy are endorsing and supporting this.

    And that it’s every little bit as immoral and wrong for a Christian conservative parent to beat the living daylights out of their kids in a “conversion therapy” camp as it is for a 20-something guy to be predatorily picking off young teens with the support of ignorant left-wing parents that don’t monitor what their kids do?

    The difference, of course, being that you shriek at and demand laws be passed to punish the Christian parents while spinning and blathering and making excuses for the 20-something guy and the ignorant left-wingers.

    If you want to ban reparative therapy as harmful to children, ban promiscuous and unprotected gay sex and make the type of left-wing parental neglect you pretend to oppose a felony.

    You can’t and you won’t. So what that makes clear is that you’re a bigot who doesn’t care about children’s welfare and just wants to use the power of the state to abuse and punish Christians. You are using children as human shields to carry out your hate and bigotry against Christians as exemplified by your belief that all Christians are child-abusers.

    God… there can be such a thing as being a responsible person in the political sane middle.

    Comment by SwiperTheFox — August 21, 2013 @ 3:09 am – August 21, 2013

    Yes there can. You are not it.

    The political “sane middle” would treat both sides equally. You and your fellow bigots do nothing but bash Christians and parents. You maliciously lie and call all Christians child abusers, you claim that all Christians want to murder gays, and you do nothing but lie, lie, lie and slander decent people all day long while you promote and support child rapists like Kaitlyn Hunt as gay and lesbian heroes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 21, 2013 @ 11:45 am - August 21, 2013

  32. Can you imagine the state ordering Reparative Therapy? Can you image the state taking away a child because of Reparative Therapy? In either case, if you can imagine the case, please state the reasoning. – Comment by heliotrope — August 21, 2013 @ 10:06 am – August 21, 2013

    I am back a bit early. The answer to your question above is absolutely no to the first question and in certain cases I would think that it would be appropriate in the latter. Reparative therapy is pure quackery. The child would be better off he or she would run away from home, if the state did not intervene in some manner.

    I just have to tell this story. When I was committed for my major depression breakdown on June 7, 2007 my first roommate was a 21 year old gay man/child. He should no signs of any maturity at all. David had a gay lib flag hanging on his side of the room. He had never finished high school. And, he was obviously a deeply troubled young man. He had been in and out of the mental hospital numerous times. He was seeing my psychiatrist who was using electric shock therapy on him. When I got there someone said to me no one gets along with him and you might want request another roommate. I declined. I was just too damn curious to talk to this young man. What I found out was that he been somewhat disowned by his family. And, that he was in the hospital this time because he had climbed onto the top of a tall building in the metro area which I live and dialed 911 and told the operator that he was going to jump. Also, he said that he had an older brother who had gone to my college and was now in the military. His grandparents had paid his brother’s college education.

    I got along with David just fine, even though I was told by others that in the middle of the night Thomas was throwing fits in my room slamming metal lockers. Well, I was taking the drug Ambien and nothing could wake me from an Ambien sleep.

    The routine for electric shock therapy was that they would come get David and some others on my wing around 4am in the morning. And, then take them to the hospital where my psychiatrist would perform the procedure. They would inject a drug that would paralyze their bodies and then my psychiatrist would give them the mild shock to their brains. One of the side effects of the procedure is short term memory loss.

    Finally the day came and David was dismissed. Someone in his family in Tennessee said that he would take him in on one condition ….. that he would have to tone down the Gay Lib routine. They took him to the bus station and put him a bus.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 21, 2013 @ 12:47 pm - August 21, 2013

  33. SC.Swampfox,

    Anecdotes are useful, but they usually make it into our view of “reality” when they stir empathy or recall a similar experience in our lives. That, however, does not constitute general “reality.” I hope I can make this clear.

    My father died when I was 13 and it had a tremendous effect on my life. However, my “reality” was also bolstered by a strong family bond, other “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” and further good fortune and discoveries of founts of strength. I can not paste my “reality” into someone else’s scrapbook of life events.

    It is useful to learn from our experiences, but we must be cautious about generalizing our unique experiences.

    The “therapy” your past room mate received was at the hands of some one who, hopefully, was seeking “first, to do no harm.” We can’t know that. Furthermore, your past room mate may have had a world of unknown or undiscovered problems.

    Being a general optimist, I am glad that someone was willing to attempt to deal with the known world of problems he was bringing into their lives.

    You are who you are and from my perspective, there is no shame to being gay. Realistically, there are those who will seek you out only because you are gay and there are those who will shun you only because you are gay.

    You are, in my view, a fellow person who happens to be gay. My love for you and interest in your person is not based in any way, shape or manner by your sexual orientation. I believe there are a great many people like me in your universe. You just need to trust them.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 21, 2013 @ 1:16 pm - August 21, 2013

  34. The “therapy” your past room mate received was at the hands of some one who, hopefully, was seeking “first, to do no harm.” We can’t know that. Furthermore, your past room mate may have had a world of unknown or undiscovered problems. – Heliotrope

    Heliotrope, the therapy was administered to my roommate by my psychiatrist, whom I have gotten to very well over the last 6 years. He lives by the motto, do no harm. He has stopped sending patients to any mental hospitals. He now only sees patients in his office. The reason being is that those who are now admitted don’t pay and the bean counters are forcing psychiatrists to get patients on some medication and get them out the door. Because of hard times state and federal funding for psychriatic care is drying up.

    I am sorry for the loss of your father at the age of 13. My psychiatrist lost his father around the age you lost your father. His father died from a heart attack. But the idiot still smokes.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 21, 2013 @ 1:48 pm - August 21, 2013

  35. Does anyone have a link to what Charles Krauthammer and Gregg Guttfield, my two favorite talking heads on Fox News, have to say about Christie signing this legislation?

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 21, 2013 @ 1:52 pm - August 21, 2013

  36. One thing forgotten in all this kerfluffle is that parents are legally responsible for a child’s actions until that child becomes an adult under the rules of law. This means that parents can and will be incarcerated and/or fined for what the child does. So, if you are legally responsible for the actions of another, shouldn’t it follow that you should have some control over that persons actions.

    Comment by Juan — August 21, 2013 @ 3:38 pm - August 21, 2013

  37. One thing forgotten in all this kerfluffle is that parents are legally responsible for a child’s actions until that child becomes an adult under the rules of law. This means that parents can and will be incarcerated and/or fined for what the child does. So, if you are legally responsible for the actions of another, shouldn’t it follow that you should have some control over that persons actions. – Comment by Juan — August 21, 2013 @ 3:38 pm – August 21, 2013

    Juan let me pose this question. Some parents are presented with a happy, gay child. They don’t want a gay child. So the idiot parents force the child to see a voodoo reparative therapist to get a straight child. The once happy gay child commits suicide because of what happens in reparative therapy. Are the parents responsible for murder?

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 21, 2013 @ 4:46 pm - August 21, 2013

  38. Just a reminder for us here – this law does NOT outlaw sending a child to a therapist because of problems he or she is having in adjusting to being gay. It just means the abuse of trying to “fix” them from being gay are outlawed. A “therapy” which according to ALL main-stream therapists and their organizations does no good and often causes harm, including suicide.

    Nor does this law have ANY direct impact on adult “conversion therapy.”

    And some are going to argue that this ban is a bad thing or a slippery slope to government take-over of parental controls? There are certainly bigger fish to fry in this Obamanation – and this ain’t one of them.

    Comment by Charles — August 21, 2013 @ 5:15 pm - August 21, 2013

  39. Well, NorthDallasThirty:

    a)I’m a Christian [more or less]* happily adopted (!) by Roman Catholic parents.

    b)Unlike their friends and family that they have / had had, they applied the Matthew 19:14 principles in their own lives and never laid a hand on me or my not-adopted siblings (the fact that they were / are Catholic and not Protestant fundamentalists probably is a big part of this).

    c)If you actually look at my comments on other websites, you’d see that I support people such as the Other McCain in exposing child-creeper gay leftists and I hate them every little bit as much as you do. And, yes, I’d like to see laws against parental abuse applied in all 50 states– whether the parent is a leftist atheist feeding their kids drugs or a right-wing fundamentalist beating their kids with baseballs bats doesn’t matter to me. Child safety is child safety.

    So you can keep spewing out your same old, same old garbage, but it sure as hell doesn’t apply to me. Good day.

    [*Not sure if I agree with notions such as the trinity, when it seems to me that if anything like a God exists He would be one being and not subdivided. And the notion of God creating new Gods strikes me as nonsensical. If you accept the notion of one singular God, then his representative on earth should be just another part of Him-- rather than some new God created on the spot. The argument that God the Father and God the Son are but two hands of the same one being kind of makes sense, but it's not quite rational. Still, this is a long, detailed conversation not relevant to here. Point is I'm never going to be an orthodox person but so what.]

    Comment by SwiperTheFox — August 21, 2013 @ 6:56 pm - August 21, 2013

  40. Gosh, I sure hope none of my other parenting runs afoul of what Charles and the all-wise, all-knowing Government of New Jersey think I should be allowed to practice.

    “Hi, what are you in prison for? I raped and murdered an old woman and mutilated her corpse.”
    “I tried to get psychological help for my daughter who didn’t want to be lesbian.”

    Comment by V the K — August 21, 2013 @ 8:48 pm - August 21, 2013

  41. V the K: “I tried to get psychological help for my daughter who didn’t want to be lesbian.”

    This law doesn’t ban psychological help – it bans “conversion therapy.” There is a difference, the first is a science the later is not.

    Comment by Charles — August 21, 2013 @ 10:00 pm - August 21, 2013

  42. Well, Charles, since you know what’s best for everyone, I guess we should all bow to your wishes.

    Comment by V the K — August 21, 2013 @ 10:25 pm - August 21, 2013

  43. b)Unlike their friends and family that they have / had had, they applied the Matthew 19:14 principles in their own lives and never laid a hand on me or my not-adopted siblings (the fact that they were / are Catholic and not Protestant fundamentalists probably is a big part of this).

    Comment by SwiperTheFox — August 21, 2013 @ 6:56 pm – August 21, 2013

    We must be using a different Bible, because Matthew 19:14 in mine does not say to teach the little children that all Protestant fundamentalists — presuming that you could even define what a “Protestant fundamentalist” is in any historical, theological, or doctrinal sense — are evil child abusers who beat their children.

    And thus my point stands. Your interest is not in child welfare; it’s in using the power of the state to abuse and punish those you deem “Protestant fundamentalists”. You are using children as human shields to carry out your hate and bigotry against “Protestant fundamentalists” as exemplified by your malicious lie that all “Protestant fundamentalists” are child-abusers.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 22, 2013 @ 1:39 am - August 22, 2013

  44. Juan let me pose this question. Some parents are presented with a happy, gay child. They don’t want a gay child. So the idiot parents force the child to see a voodoo reparative therapist to get a straight child. The once happy gay child commits suicide because of what happens in reparative therapy. Are the parents responsible for murder?

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 21, 2013 @ 4:46 pm – August 21, 2013

    So are your parents responsible for your attempts to kill yourself, Swampfox?

    Had you succeeded, would they be murderers?

    I don’t like theoreticals. Let’s have you come right out and say that you are in no way responsible for your actions and that it’s your parents’ fault that you tried to kill yourself.

    What you are doing is playing emotional games. If you want to condemn suicides, blast the bigot Obama Party and the LGBT community that is screaming about reparative therapy causing suicides while themselves actively and openly telling gay and lesbian people to vote Obama or kill themselves.

    You demand piety dances from others. I want to see some from you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 22, 2013 @ 1:46 am - August 22, 2013

  45. What you are doing is playing emotional games.

    This, “Think of the children! OMG, won’t someone think of the children!” ploy in order to justify an expansion of the state’s power over individuals is offensive.

    Yeah, some people think ‘reparative therapy’ is harmful, so the state should deny people that choice. Chancellor Bloomberg thinks soda is harmful, so the state outlaws that. How are these things any different in terms of individuals using the power of the state to force everyone else to adopt their personal preferences?

    “Think of the children!” is the cry of the modern Fascist.

    Comment by V the K — August 22, 2013 @ 5:26 am - August 22, 2013

  46. ND30, no my parents would have not been responsible for my suicide in 2007. I would have.

    For the record unlike most who are admitted for to psychiatric hospitals, I paid all my bills out my own pocket. I bought insurance. In fact it is call Golden Rule. I knew that I would have to see psychiatrists for the rest of my life from time to time, but I never thought I would suffer from major depression on the scale that I suffered from April to June 7, 2007 before I entered the hospital. I chose not to check the box on my insurance form. Therefore I was not covered for psychiatric care, which included hospitalizations. I have money. I’m a one percenter.

    As I said in my post about my first visit to a psychiatrist in 1969 both my Father and the psychiatrist were deeply concerned that I was going to harm myself because of my anxiety and depression. I made a promise to them that I wouldn’t. I kept my promise.

    Now answer this question, why in the past ……… and even now, do so many gays and lesbians have to pack up and move to gay friendly enclaves, such as San Francisco, New York, Key West, etc.? You live in San Francisco. Were you born there or did you feel like you had to pack and move to the gay capital of the United States?

    Now you can proceed with your usual ranting. As I said before. You just can’t help yourself.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 22, 2013 @ 6:37 am - August 22, 2013

  47. ND30, let me clarify my statement that I am a one percenter. I could never afford to live in San Francisco. My income does not put me anywhere near “that” group of one percenters. My net worth puts me in the one percenter group, even when I remove the value my modest house and the value of the 246 acres of land that I live.

    Both my Father, who was a doctor, and Mother grew up in the Great Depression. And, we were all taught to save from day one of my lives. In fact they opened savings accounts for all five of their children when we each turned around 10. Any money we earned we were instructed to put that earned money in those saving accounts. They paid all of our expenses until we all graduated from college. We were all sent off to private colleges and they paid the full tuition, books, room and board.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 22, 2013 @ 7:38 am - August 22, 2013

  48. And it seems that LGBT community hero and activist Kaitlyn Hunt is using the Charles/SwiperTheFox/SC.Swampfox “logic” to justify her actions.

    Graves also claimed the alleged victim, now 15, didn’t intend for this to become such a high-profile legal saga.

    “It looks as though we have an alleged victim who doesn’t agree with how things are being handled by the State, her parents or their attorney,” she said. “She has felt compelled to do what she thought was the only thing to save Kaitlyn from the State and her parents and that was to reach out and let Kaitlyn know this was not her idea or what she wants. I am totally cognizant that she is a minor.”

    Graves continued on the alleged victim.

    “Her opinion is ignored by the State, interrogated by the Sheriff’s Department, taken to a church that labels being gay a sin, has the Bible thrown at her, all of her thing in her room boxed up and taken from her, is apparently hit by her parents, and clearly yelled at for lying by her father in the presence of Detective Shepherd at the school in a subsequent interview. How could she not be confused, scared and feel as though this is all her fault and no one is listening? She already tried to speak to Kaitlyn’s mother Kelley who shut her down. So she turns to the only person who could (possibly) understand in her eyes and a person she clearly does not want to see hurt and that is Kaitlyn. She wants to try to save her and in doing so she just causes the walls to continue to tumble down.”

    Are you proud of the fact that your bigotry against Christians is being used to enable and play PR for a lesbian who sexually molests underage minors and breaks court orders?

    Are you proud of the fact that the parents who enable the predatory lesbian’s behavior are the ones the LGBT community and media are cheering, while the parents of the fourteen-year-old who the lesbian molested are demonized?

    Are you proud of the fact that the gay and lesbian community is screaming that fourteen-year-olds can consent to sex and that parents who object to then doing so are homophobic?

    Are you proud of the fact that the LGBT community is making it clear that if you do not consent to your child having sex with gays and lesbians regardless of the situation and circumstance, you are an abusive and bad parent?

    Well, of course you are. That’s what the Stonewall Riots were all about, wasn’t it? The “right” of LGBT to have sex with underage minors and then blame and demonize the child’s parents? Too bad you don’t have New Jersey’s law in place in Florida so you could make sure than no therapist anywhere tells the fourteen-year-old anything other than to give in and do whatever the predatory lesbian says and ensures that the child knows her parents are evil, bigoted “Protestant fundamentalists” who should be stripped of their parenting rights for getting in the way of her having lesbian sex in school bathrooms.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 22, 2013 @ 8:57 am - August 22, 2013

  49. Now answer this question, why in the past ……… and even now, do so many gays and lesbians have to pack up and move to gay friendly enclaves, such as San Francisco, New York, Key West, etc.? You live in San Francisco. Were you born there or did you feel like you had to pack and move to the gay capital of the United States?

    Now you can proceed with your usual ranting. As I said before. You just can’t help yourself.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 22, 2013 @ 6:37 am – August 22, 2013

    That’s easy, Swampfox.

    Like you, the vast majority of gays and lesbians have internalized the propaganda of the gay community that a) everyone hates them and b) they must band with other gays and support everything they do to avoid being rounded up and sent to the gas chambers by those evil Christians and Republicans.

    It is classic cult brainwashing, with the intent of both subsuming an individual’s identity to the group and then exploiting that to amass personal power. It is not a surprise, and likely not a coincidence, that Harvey Milk and the other leaders of the LGBT community were admirers, supporters, and defenders of People’s Temple leader Jim Jones.

    And they have managed to create their own personal Jonestown.

    San Francisco is a horrific mess. One of every twenty-eight residents is on the city payroll, at an average salary of $92,000, the highest rate of any US city outside of Washington, DC — and it takes upward of a year to get permits to replace windows. The city’s new public library was built with a state of the art seismic moat to protect against earthquake damage — which now has to be dug up and rebuilt because city engineers never anticipated an open space below ground in an area that is a former marsh and just barely above sea level would have moisture accumulation and grow mold. An estimated forty percent of the city’s rental property is vacant and off the rental market because, given the choice between “tenant protection” laws that impose rent control, make you legally liable for tenants missing utility payments, and essentially create a six month delay for evicting even a tenant who is delinquent on rent AND vandalizing the building, plus requiring you to pay them six months rent to leave, it costs you more to rent it. The school system is godawful, public services reek, and the only way the city survives is by selling water to LA (while hiking residents’ water bills) and taxing the crap out of tourists.

    But hey, Bradley Manning had the largest contingent in the Pride Parade and the endorsement of the Board of Supervisors, so it’s all OK, right?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 22, 2013 @ 9:37 am - August 22, 2013

  50. [...] the person is part of that minority (and I do think it an especially tiny minority, where men are concerned) whose sexuality happens to be plastic.

    Is that like a sexual attraction to sex toys or something?

    (I think you meant elastic.)

    Comment by RSG — August 22, 2013 @ 9:52 am - August 22, 2013

  51. plas·tic (plstk)
    adj.
    1. Capable of being shaped or formed: plastic material such as clay.

    5. Easily influenced; impressionable.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 22, 2013 @ 10:01 am - August 22, 2013

  52. This theme about the sexual orientation worries of a teen and that teen’s subsequent encounter with “gay mentoring” and/or “abusive parenting” and/or “Bible thumpers” keeps coming back on this site. Some commenters in the past carried it into teen suicide so often that I branded it: “waving the bloody shirt.”

    I am beginning to believe that the agenda here is for the state to step in and do “reparative therapy” on the parents and the kid’s the peer group and to ban all social forces that may trouble the teen further. In fact, I believe that is well underway by many zealous amateurs deciding how to present the cultural side of sex “education.”

    Gays make up about 3% of the population. What percentage of gays have this troubled teen burden? Certainly, it is important to try to help as many people as possible with their coping needs, but we have to be realistic. Those three teens who shot the Australian athlete out for a jog are a real challenge in the troubled teen department. (The parallel being about troubled teens as a category, not sexual orientation as the source of the trouble.)

    Beyond the period of being a troubled teen, it would seem that a certain emotional maturity would settle in as the gay adult takes stock of himself and figures out how to blaze his own trail in life. However, plenty of adults who are not gay do drugs, drink to excess, have rotten relationships, commit crimes, suffer mental problems or just sit around being shiftless. So those adults can’t use sexual orientation as a “cause” of their problems. However, they could all attack fundamentalist Christians for seemingly tsk-tsking at them.

    The bottom line, as I understand it, is that source of same sex orientation is still pretty much unknown. So, fooling around with it is on a best guess basis. That means, to me, that there will be a lot of failure and that those gays who suffer from identity problems are in for a long haul and likely to be disappointed in sorting out the problems that are unique to them.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 22, 2013 @ 10:28 am - August 22, 2013

  53. I’m talking about minors who are old enough (says the law) to meaningfully consent to sex. Like I said: If a 16-year old can legally consent to sex, then he or she should be able to consent to reparative therapy, providing in both cases that the consent is genuine (unforced).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 20, 2013 @ 2:16 pm – August 20, 2013

    First off, you’re confusing a biological function with the equivalent of a medical procedure. Could you consent to a sexual act at sixteen? I’m pretty sure I could have—I know I certainly wanted to.

    But that is far different than being able to consent to a medical or psychological procedure. Aside from the ability to properly process all the necessary information needed for informed consent (risks, outcomes, etc), there’s a growing body of evidence that the human brain is not fully formed until around age 25. It is one of the bases for the prohibition of capital punishment for juvenile offenders. Assuming that is universal, then it would also suggest there isn’t literally the mental capacity to make such a decision. (This doesn’t even get into the issue of ‘genuine (unforced)’ consent, which others have adequately addressed.)

    Should sixteen-year-olds be able to get an abortion, if that’s “what they really want”? How about plastic surgery? A circumcision or clitoridectomy? To further extrapolate in the LGBTQXYZ realm, should sixteen-year-olds be able to consent to lopping off their breasts (if female) or penis & testes (if male) simply because they are convinced they are transgendered? [I say 'no' on the latter, even if it is clear they have had gender identity issues from an early age.] Hell, in many states, those under 18 can’t even get a tattoo without a signed parental consent form.

    Then there’s the propriety of the therapy technique itself, which as others have properly noted, is dubious at best and inherently abusive at worse. But, as also has been said, if you’re an adult then committing self-harm should be your right in a free society. That also assumes you have attained the wherewithal to make an informed decision on such issues.

    Comment by RSG — August 22, 2013 @ 10:28 am - August 22, 2013

  54. Does anyone have a link to what Charles Krauthammer and Gregg Guttfield, my two favorite talking heads on Fox News, have to say about Christie signing this legislation?

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 21, 2013 @ 1:52 pm – August 21, 2013

    Greg is on vacation this week (though still an active Tweeter); and I would also love to know what Dr Krauthammer thinks about it, being a former psychiatrist himself. If I can find out, I will post.

    Comment by RSG — August 22, 2013 @ 10:35 am - August 22, 2013

  55. First off, you’re confusing a biological function with the equivalent of a medical procedure.

    No, I’m aware of the differences, thank you. You tell yourself that I must be confused about it, just because you don’t like what I have to say.

    [consenting to a sexual relationship] is far different than being able to consent to a medical or psychological procedure. Aside from the ability to properly process all the necessary information needed for informed consent (risks, outcomes, etc), there’s a growing body of evidence that the human brain is not fully formed until around age 25.

    No it isn’t; the two decisions involve similar complexity, lack of real information about what could be coming, and degrees of impact (or potential danger). You have, in effect, just made a good argument for raising the age of consent to 25. (Which is not something I advocate.)

    Should sixteen-year-olds be able to get an abortion, if that’s “what they really want”? How about plastic surgery?

    I haven’t said that they should. Perhaps you missed the conditional in my sentence that you quoted (the “If”).

    Then there’s the propriety of the therapy technique itself, which as others have properly noted, is dubious at best and inherently abusive at worse.

    “Inherently” abusive? Be specific. I have a feeling that you might only mean abuses that were already illegal, under current law.

    What if the therapy involves no such abuses? Why should it be illegal, then? It still might be ineffective or ill-advised, but…. Illegal? Really? You want government to have that much ‘say’ over what people can or can’t attempt, in pursuit of their own happiness?

    (And before you say, but we’re talking about minors here not about adults; then my answer to that again would be, “I’m talking about minors who are old enough (says the law) to meaningfully consent to sex”, minors whom the law already treats as near-adults, in the area of sexuality.)

    I don’t think this NJ law is about protecting kids. I think it’s about a political culture that looks for every excuse (large or tiny) to extend government’s power a little more; and about a Gay Left lobby that wants to show off its power, by making it illegal for a parent to help his kid even just to explore the possibility of *not* being gay.

    I remain opposed to parents pushing or forcing their kids into reparative therapy. Consent, or the Freedom to Choose, is what I’m all about.

    Not that a child’s choices should be unlimited – but again, IF the law views the kid as competent to make his own sexual decisions, then the law should view him as equally competent to make his own sexual therapy decisions.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 22, 2013 @ 10:46 am - August 22, 2013

  56. ND30, you avoided answering my direct question, did you move San Francisco or were you born there?

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 22, 2013 @ 10:51 am - August 22, 2013

  57. Greg is on vacation this week (though still an active Tweeter); and I would also love to know what Dr Krauthammer thinks about it, being a former psychiatrist himself. If I can find out, I will post. – Comment by RSG — August 22, 2013 @ 10:35 am – August 22, 2013

    Thanks, I have have even tried to find out what Glenn Reynolds has to say about this legislation. I am a big fan of his blog and respect his opinion on nearly everything.

    In South Carolina a teenager can only get a tattoo if he or she has the permission of their parents. I know this only because a school teacher told me that a middle school student showed up one day after a vacation with a tattoo. The school was required by state law to call child services to investigate.

    I also believe that your post @53 is the best so far on this thread.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 22, 2013 @ 12:24 pm - August 22, 2013

  58. ND30, you avoided answering my direct question, did you move San Francisco or were you born there?

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 22, 2013 @ 10:51 am – August 22, 2013

    That wasn’t your question, Swampfox. This was.

    You live in San Francisco. Were you born there or did you feel like you had to pack and move to the gay capital of the United States?

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 22, 2013 @ 6:37 am – August 22, 2013

    And the correct answer to that is neither. The real reason is much more straightforward.

    And before you ask, it wasn’t my choice. It was a matter of my career and life being much more transplantable than my partner’s was. But after thirty years here, even my New York-born, votes-Democrat-by-habit partner is open to the idea of moving back to the red states that so terrify 98% of the LGBT community here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 22, 2013 @ 5:42 pm - August 22, 2013

  59. You avoided answering why you lived in San Francisco, plain and simple. I assume you moved to New York and met your New York native partner there? If so, I should have asked why you started off living in the second gay capital of the United States, New York. And, I am making an assumption that you moved from New York to San Francisco. Darn, I am making way too many assumptions.

    If you are so unhappy in San Francisco, and I would be, I would suggest that you both pack up and move. Congratulations on with being with your partner for so long. You are welcome to move to South Carolina. The cost of living is much less, but isn’t nearly as gay friendly as San Francisco or New York. Three areas are fairly gay friendly in South Carolina. Greenville, where Bruce lives. Charleston, where I was born and lived the first five year of my life. And, the Columbia area.

    I look forward to the day that gays and lesbians no longer have to move to gay friendly areas in order to live their lives peacefully. But, we both know that is not going to happen in our lifetimes.

    May you live a long and happy life.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 22, 2013 @ 8:05 pm - August 22, 2013

  60. Oops, I failed to click on your hyperlink “The real question is not so easy”. Feel free to reprimand me and fill in the blanks as from where did you move back in 2005. Congratulations on your eight year relationship with your New York born Democrat voting partner. Straighten out that darn gay bigot! Gee, you have me calling someone a gay bigot. Let’s all live life with a little bit of humor. Life is one big soap opera. At the age of 62 absolutely nothing amazes me anymore.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 22, 2013 @ 8:32 pm - August 22, 2013

  61. To me this is a freedom issue and overstep and overreaction by Christie. I neither t agree once gay always gay nor a lot o so called therapy, but being a Reformed Christian what is imposable with men is possible in Christ. Now if I had a child who come to the saving knowledge in Christ and want to get good biblical counseling (Exodus International need not to apply) it not up to the Gay patriot or Christie to decide for us.

    Comment by Scatcatpdx — August 22, 2013 @ 9:44 pm - August 22, 2013

  62. I asked it here, and I have to ask it again here:

    Would all of you people that support an absolute, uncompromising right of parents to raise their kids be fine with a father sleeping with his daughter, say? Or what about refusing to feed their children? What about Muslim fundamentalist parents saying “don’t make me ‘honor’ kill you?”

    Are you really going to set up a line where parents have 100% control over their children with no sense of their being any line or limit?

    I would call myself an “absolute” defender of, say, free speech in modern society, but there’s no contradiction between that and saying that you can’t sell someone peanut butter crammed with salmonella that you say is fine, say. Same for being a defender of parental rights in general but setting up a line when it comes to Moms and Dads that are actively harming their children with malice, knowing exactly what they’re doing.

    Comment by SwiperTheFox — August 23, 2013 @ 10:48 am - August 23, 2013

  63. One of the worst ironies here is the NorthDallasThirty people and the FreeKate people are exactly the same in one fundamental area– both of them believe that adults are allowed to force sexual activity upon children.

    I hardly care that that the NorthDallasThirty people are fine with forcing children into “aversion therapy” camps to be exposed to pornography, stripped nude, made to touch their bodies sexually and touch others, and so on because God wills it– and all this will supposedly ‘convert’ those children– while the FreeKate people are fine with horny weirdo teens forcing children to sexually submit to them for sex.

    Either way, it’s creeps me out. Is it really such a big deal to say that children have a right to be children without parents and other adults making them do sexual things? And that there should be laws for that?

    Comment by SwiperTheFox — August 23, 2013 @ 10:54 am - August 23, 2013

  64. Tangental.

    State supreme court forces gay filmmaker to film conception rites of ‘breeders’ in violaiton of his faith.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 23, 2013 @ 11:56 am - August 23, 2013

  65. Notice the dishonest arguments of the bigot SwiperTheFox.

    If you don’t support bans on reparative therapy, you support incest.

    If you don’t support bans on reparative therapy, you support starving children.

    If you don’t support bans on reparative therapy, you support honor killings.

    If you don’t support bans on reparative therapy, you “force children into “aversion therapy” camps to be exposed to pornography, stripped nude, made to touch their bodies sexually and touch others, and so on because God wills it”.

    These are all flat-out lies. They are nothing but an attempt to demonize, bully, and brutalize people into doing what the bigot says by namecalling.

    And what they show is that there are no facts for this. There is just pure irrational hate and bigotry on the part of SwiperTheFox, as exemplified by SwiperTheFox’s statement that all “Protestant fundamentalists” are child abusers.

    What we have to realize is that people like SwiperTheFox do not understand that liberty means not only that you can do things that other people like, but that they can do things that you don’t like.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 23, 2013 @ 12:43 pm - August 23, 2013

  66. liberty means not only that you can do things that other people like, but that they can do things that you don’t like.

    Amen to that!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 23, 2013 @ 5:14 pm - August 23, 2013

  67. The song “Same Love” is playing these days on WNOK in Columbia, SC.

    Oh, the world is filled with so many bigots, bigots, bigots……

    Here is a link to the songs Video and lyrics.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 23, 2013 @ 6:52 pm - August 23, 2013

  68. Oops, here is the link to the Video and lyrics of the song:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQngzapK5dM

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 23, 2013 @ 6:53 pm - August 23, 2013

  69. SwiperTheDipstick @ #62:

    Would all of you people that support an absolute, uncompromising right of parents to raise their kids be fine with …..

    Mr. SwiperTheDipstick: Please name the people on this site who support an absolute, uncompromising right of parents …… to do whatever those parents can dream up such as child prostitution, porn flicks, slavery, or planting IED’s at the daycare center. [Or, planting IUD's in the daycare center mistress.]

    Thank you.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 23, 2013 @ 8:22 pm - August 23, 2013

  70. The song “Same Love” is playing these days on WNOK in Columbia, SC.

    Oh, the world is filled with so many bigots, bigots, bigots……

    Here is a link to the songs Video and lyrics.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 23, 2013 @ 6:52 pm – August 23, 2013

    Yup.

    Which is hilarious, because the artist endorses and supports murdering Christians and conservatives and telling people to kill themselves.

    So he’s a bigot. And a malicious liar and hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 23, 2013 @ 9:17 pm - August 23, 2013

  71. No, ND30, you are condemning everyone on the left for the words of a few.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 23, 2013 @ 10:08 pm - August 23, 2013

  72. Mr. SwiperTheDipstick? Heliotrope, I didn’t think you would result to name calling. Let’s attempt to keep this discussion civil.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 23, 2013 @ 10:17 pm - August 23, 2013

  73. SC.Swampfox,

    Our definitions of “civility” are at variance. The commenter wrote an ignorant and bombastic question embedded in a low intelligence charge.

    To wit: “Would all of you people that support an absolute, uncompromising right of parents to raise their kids be fine with …….”

    It doesn’t matter what follows that supercilious opening because the questioner has already quashed any possibility of either logic coming into play or civility.

    In my ancient life, that makes the person a dipstick. A dipstick is a convenience for measuring how low the oil is in your motor. In this commenter’s case, judging by the pompous, imperious nature of forming a loaded question (have you stopped beating your wife?) which is the fallacy of “Plurium Interrogationum” in formal logic, he is certainly a dipstick and perhaps very low on oil.

    Any incivility on my part is the problem of calling it as I see it. Call it overbearing truth. Call it unclassy. Call it fed up. Call it uncivil if you see it as that way.

    Why is it permissible to call someone uncivil without specifying why you are doing so?

    I am a patient and largely velvet gloved person. But that does not mean that I have to suffer fools gladly. The man came here to make a comment that, supposedly, is worth considering. He should get in touch with his ability to ask a “civil” question before he churns out a stacked deck of tacit innuendo and fallacy of logic.

    Perhaps I should have engaged in some guiding foreplay before I whacked him.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 24, 2013 @ 9:40 am - August 24, 2013

  74. Heliotrope, your comment at excellent @73. Well done. That’s the old Heliotrope I know.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 24, 2013 @ 11:59 am - August 24, 2013

  75. or planting IED’s at the daycare center. [Or, planting IUD's in the daycare center mistress.]

    I have heard calls at work where someone calls in for “IED benefits” when they mean IUD.

    “I’d like to know if having an IED implanted is a covered expence, we don’t want kids right now.”
    “I’ll check, but I think that might be a bit drastic…”

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 26, 2013 @ 7:27 am - August 26, 2013

  76. Just what is your freaking problem, Jeffy baby?

    [Jeff adds: The commentor's URL suggests that he comes from the "Sadly, No" world. I hope he's not typical of what goes on there, because he has mis-spelled his own handle (from other info, he meant "Cerberus"). And he seems to find something objectionable in this post's defense of human freedom, but can't tell us what it is.]

    Comment by Ceberus — September 1, 2013 @ 4:51 am - September 1, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.