"Ex-gay"

[ccharles000]

Do you think groups that try to make people "ex-gay" should be illegal?

[Ian David]

1. Discredited, non-accredited, and not funded by tax dollars, yes. Illegal? No.

What they do is abhorrent, cruel and ignorant, but if people volunteer for it, then it shouldn't be illegal.

However, it SHOULD be illegal for parents to subject their children under the age of 18 to this against their will.

[terrya]

2. "Ex-gay" groups are a form of abuse used on children by their parents.

Yes, they should be illegal, imo.

[marylanddem]

3. An interesting question.

My daughter is a lesbian & that's part of who she is. I hate and despise homophobia. There are all kinds of crazy "groups" out there - like the Republican party - that the world would be better off without. But unless they are doing illegal acts (such as forcibly detaining people to try to "undo" their gayness) I don't know how you could legally ban them.

[marmar]

4. That's a tough one.....Everyone is entitled to their free thought and expression....

....but these ex-gay groups are like a eugenics movement. Extermination without the gas chambers. (Although I doubt whether any of them accomplish their goal, other than convincing people to at least to say publicly that they're not gay.)

[organic]

7. Attempting To Perform The Impossible

There is no such thing as an "ex-gay". Except in the pathetically delusional minds of some homosexuals who refuse to acknowledge their own true sexuality due to fear & intimidation from a narrow-minded, ostracizing prejudiced society.

So, what is it called when a person or a group promises (and in some cases takes money for those promises) to do something or provide a service that they can't possibly accomplish?

Hmmmmm? :think: Oh, yeah. Criminal. Yeah, that's it: Criminal. "Taking money under fall pretenses", "Ponzi scheme", etc. I'm sure any 3rd grade lawyer could have a field day w/that one.

[El Pinko]

5. Of course not.

It's very important that people have the right to define for themselves what their sexuality is. If that means they want some religious snake-oil salesman to try to get rid of the gay, that is their prerogative.

Hopefully, in time, the stigma of being gay will be reduced enough that nobody would ever want to be "cured" of it in the first place.

The only exception is in the case of a minor when a parent forces them to go to "ex-gay" treatment or whatever. I consider that to be a form of abuse.

But adults have the right to subject themselves to a pointless religious mindfuck it that's their bag, IMO.

[BlueButGlad2]

6. not tough at all

No, there is no way they should be illegal. This is not the sort of thing that should be legislated. Gay marraige Yes, and ex-gay teaching Yes. keep government regulation out of this.

[rosesaylavee]

8. I think eventually it will go the way of electric shock therapy.

It is not based on any science. I personally would like it to be illegal as it causes great harm to people and their families but making it so just might energize the nuts who support this activity.

Unfortunately, it will be have systematically discredited over a period of time.

:(

[20score]

9. Hell no. There are a lot of very stupid and crazy things people do,

but making something like this illegal would open up the door to government intervening in religion. Also, into anything some people might deem a waste of time, or slightly harmful. Damn, nothing would be safe from legislation.

It's a ludicrous practice, but at least it gave us a laugh when Ted Haggard went into "rehab."

[mondo joe]

10. No, but it should be illegal to force anyone (including minors) to attempt "conversion therapy".

It doesn't do anything but harm people. But it shouldn't be illegal for people to choose to do it to themselves.

[robcon]

11. Illegal??? What, have we forgotten the first amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People can assemble into groups for any legal purpose.

[Lyric]

12. Illegal for anyone under the age of 18, yes. Illegal for consenting adults, no.

They should be treated like porn, booze, tobacco, and gambling--ID at the door, or no admittance for minors. I also think you should have to undergo psychiatric evaluation before getting involved, but that's just me.

[tomg]

20. I love the idea of treating it like

porn, tobacco and gambling. I took out booze for the reason of age. Seriously, you are dead right on this.

[Stop Cornyn]

13. Illegal? Why? They are idiots, to be sure, but it seems more like those misguided techers who try to

force left-handed children to use their hand instead: http://www.drspock.com/faq/0,1511,7565,00.html

It's a stupid behavior motivated by erroneous suppositions, but criminalizing the practice seems wrong.

[TrogL]

14. for practicing medicine without a license

They are attempting to practice psychology (if badly) and hence need to be certified.

[slackmaster]

16. Without a concrete example it is not possible to make such a definitive statement

Any particular organization may or may not be crossing the line into practicing something without a license.

[ccharles000]

18. good point.

[slackmaster]

15. No. Fuck no.

Outlawing that kind of thing would be authoritarian and unconstitutional.

Why does this kind of question even get asked on a supposedly enlightened, progressive board?

[Curtland1015]

17. Yeah, this.

I hate the idea of groups like this, and I sure as hell disagree with them, but they have every right as Americans to do what they do and we would be terrible hypocrites if we tried to silence them.

[Maven]

19. Oh bullshit.

And this is not the first time I've seen you defend antigay bigotry btw.

We outlaw all SORTS of activities that are deemed ABUSIVE to children. This is one of them. Open your fucking eyes.

[Curtland1015]

21. Who said anything about children? (NT)

[endthewar]

22. These groups shouldn't be outlawed

and this is borderline a no-brainer. Some churches preach about how homosexuality is a sin, and therefore people make this choice and should stop "sinning". I don't think the government should step into every Christian church that uses a book called The Bible and monitor what they're saying about homosexuality.

[Maven]

28. Excuse me, this has nothing to do with SPEECH.

These are programs that parents surrender their kids to to be "treated." The kids have no choice, they can't leave and many of them end up committing suicide.

Preach all you want, don't psychologically abuse children.

The "free speech" angle is RW sophistry.

[endthewar]

30. So you're in favor of government stepping into Christian churches?

Come on, be up front and state your position and your solution. Should the Bible be banned since it teaches that homosexuality is a sin and is an evil that people choose to partake in? Do you seriously think elected officials will take that stance?

[Maven]

31. Again this has NOTHING to do with SPEECH.

Preach whatever hateful nonsense you want in church.

When you take MINORS into your care and psychologically abuse them using tactics that are condemned by the psychological and psychiatric establishment, you should STOPPED, no matter what the source of your ideology is. Yes, even if it's the Bible. :eyes:

Why don't you tell us what YOUR agenda is, since your apparently such a Bible scholar and are apparently here to defend religious persecution of gays and lesbians?

[endthewar]

32. So parents should be barred from taking their children to Christian churches?

:crazy:

I've already stated my stance. They shouldn't be outlawed. If you are in favor of outlawing them, please spell out what kind of law you would propose and how you would enforce it. :hi:

Look, it's not like I'm unsympathetic to your viewpoint. It's just that I don't think that outlawing "ex-gay" groups is a feasible solution. The law would have so many loopholes that Froot Loops might sue it for copyright infringement. :rofl:

[Maven]

35. Again it has NOTHING to do with going to church

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

These are programs where kids are admitted, held and "treated."

Why don't you educate yourself about these charlatans and the harm they do rather than spending your time defending religious intolerance.

Or read this statement by the APA:

“For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversation therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2006/08/apa-releases-st/

Or go to a site like this one:

http://www.beyondexgay.com/

And learn about people who consider themselves SURVIVORS of the psychological abuse these people inflict.

It is absolutely wrong, it is abusive and it destroys lives. If you are a misguided adult and choose to submit yourself to this damage, that's your problem. However MINORS should not be subjected to this abuse.

[endthewar]

37. Perhaps the poll was poorly worded?

Back at ya bud. :rofl:





:rofl:

[Maven]

38. Lemme guess, you did it for the lulz?

:hi:

[endthewar]

39. Why do you hate gay people?

:rofl:

[tomg]

24. I think the problem is in the way the

question is written. I voted no, possibly without thinking carefully about who such groups target. Had it said should this be outlawed for people under 18 ( I would make it higher, but. . .) Yes, Yes, - that is child abuse, pure and simple and, frankly must involve the same kind of legal penalties that would be imposed on any adult who is sexually, psychologically or physically ( or in this case all three) abusive.

So it could simply be a case of poorly worded question. :hi:

[Maven]

29. I think you're right.

Obviously adults have a right to participate in any sort of mindfuck they choose.

But programs that target parents and children must be stopped.

[tomg]

33. A couple of my dearest relatives

consciously chose not to go there as a choice and are PFlag instead. Until this thread came up, I never really thought about these programs as child abuse. Had they chosen the other, they would truly have believed they were doing the right thing. I am thankful they are left evangelicals.

[SmokingJacket]

27. Right on.

However, I do think that CHILDREN should not be subjected to it.

Adults should be allowed to participate in whatever harmless-to-others activities they wish.

[johnaries]

23. No, just laughed-at. nt

[Flubadubya]

25. Other: Naw -- just DISCREDITED!

:grr::puke:

[Unvanguard]

26. Yes, because their role is essentially fraudulent and manipulative. n/t

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

34. I thought you were talking about this guy

http://www.bettybowers.com/ray1.html

[qwlauren35]

36. Not too different than "Cult-Deprogramming?"

If a group's tactics include physical assault, then they should be sued.

But otherwise, I'd sue whoever sic'ed them on me. I don't think they just walk up to random strangers...

[libertad]

40. I don't think it is possible to "reprogram" someone, but I don't

think it should be illegal. There would be too much regulation involved. It would be impossible to police it.