• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we ban conversion therapy for minors?

Should we ban gay conversion therapy on minors?


  • Total voters
    95
Status
Not open for further replies.
For children, I don't have a problem with banning it. For adults, no. You cannot ban stupid decisions.

That's something that parents ought to decide.
 
That's something that parents ought to decide.
Incorrect. Parents should not be able to force children to do things that will cause them harm.
 
That's something that parents ought to decide.

The society have an interest in not allowing minors to be harm so to the degree it can be shown that force effects to change sex drives of children can harm those children the society have a right to interfere with such treatments.
 
There's no evidence by any scientific measure that it works, and it has even been demonstrated to be traumatizing and dangerous. Even the Russian government which is embedded with homophobia has ruled that conversion therapy is not effect. So they've reverted to jailing and torturing gay people instead :roll:

It should absolutely be banned for minors. Their identities are still developing and that kind of traumatic therapy can mess them up for life.

Adults are autonomous and they can do what they want, no matter how delusional.

There's nothing normal about Gay Bowel Syndrome.

An obsolete and derogatory term that nobody uses anymore, but I realize you'll grasp at straws to justify your hatred.
 
There are currently 9 states which ban gay conversion therapy on minors as of 6/9/17. There are also 19 other cities including DC banning conversion therapy.
View attachment 67218641

There are also pending bills in Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin this year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._jurisdictions_banning_conversion_therapy_for_minors

Hell yes it should be.
 
Incorrect. Parents should not be able to force children to do things that will cause them harm.

Getting therapy to try to change your sexual orientation isn't harmful. Certain techniques that involve physical pain may be harmful, but you're not really painting an accurate picture of the field.
 
An obsolete and derogatory term that nobody uses anymore, but I realize you'll grasp at straws to justify your hatred.

If only nice words made the symptoms go away.
 
It's a mental dysfunction.

Consider this.

Would you advocate conversion therapy for men...to convince them that they were actually women?

For women to convince them they were actually men?

"Of course not," you would probably argue, that is their natural biological state.

Yet in biology one can find men and women with XXY, XYY, XXYY chromosomal patterns which have physiological effects on the individual.

The science is still out on genetic origins of homosexuality:

Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers.
Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers - LA Times

There is also the idea that hormones absorbed at birth might play a role:

The hormonal theory of sexuality holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation that emerges later in the adult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

The point is that homosexuality is just as determined as being male or female, and assuming that it is just a mental disorder that can be cured holds little water in today's scientific community.
 
If only nice words made the symptoms go away.

What do symptoms have to do with people having the autonomous right to decide who they want to love and have sex with?

Every orientation contracts STIs. Mind your own business.
 
Yes. It's nothing but abuse.
 
Off hand it seems to be a misdirection of the sex drive.

No big deal but stopping adults from seeking treatment for themselves seem wrong.
Well, in face of all the other treatments that "adults" seek for themselves, I see your point. Even where I disagree with your previous premise.

Nevertheless there's plenty of other voodoo science that adult people seek and that we don't ban.

Where the buck stops with me is ramming it (absolutely no pun intended) down the throats of kids. And that's what this poll appears to be about.
 
What do symptoms have to do with people having the autonomous right to decide who they want to love and have sex with?

Every orientation contracts STIs. Mind your own business.

Monogamous heterosexual sex does not contract STD's.
 
I voted yes; however, I would be very worried about how such laws would be interpreted and would want a very strict definition attached to any bill. I’d vote yes because there are many adults & children who report "conversion therapy" as traumatic with zero to little benefit; there is clear motive for it to still be practiced, and I have not seen any credible evidence showing it “works” in which case we might consider strict regulation instead of a ban, and I mention regulation as although I personally see little difference if myself or one of my family was homosexual; that is far from true for everyone. I also would add I think homosexuality is a “category of behaviour”(demographic) that has and does get targeted for violence and needs to have laws protective in nature, I mention this as strongly believe in as few laws as is reasonable.

My concerns are exactly what I hint at when I talk about regulation over a ban. There are homosexual children who are not comfortable to the point of suicide as they are and who do not respond to just being told its alright to homosexual. Any person has the right to and help with an attempt to change their psychology for the better [feeling good in themselves; changing a behaviour/attraction/trait/ect.) even if goes against a strong norm, which in this case I am referring to the growing social positivity to homosexuality as a minority culture within our own. I worry for kids which by such a law would be forced into programs and treatments which ignore their chosen issue of concern and the noted mental health declines that have been seen following this approach including suicide. And before, people talk about religiosity; you’d be shock at how traumatic removal of someone from their values norms can be and how common these feelings are even among those in very liberal secular social circles.

I only wish I had more faith in our law makers because honestly a policy promise of this by someone would likely ring more red flags than supportive enthusiasm despite it being very important and being something which is actively hurting children :-|
 
Of course it should be banned for minors. It's child abuse, plain and simple.
 
I voted yes; however, I would be very worried about how such laws would be interpreted and would want a very strict definition attached to any bill. I’d vote yes because there are many adults & children who report "conversion therapy" as traumatic with zero to little benefit; there is clear motive for it to still be practiced, and I have not seen any credible evidence showing it “works” in which case we might consider strict regulation instead of a ban, and I mention regulation as although I personally see little difference if myself or one of my family was homosexual; that is far from true for everyone. I also would add I think homosexuality is a “category of behaviour”(demographic) that has and does get targeted for violence and needs to have laws protective in nature, I mention this as strongly believe in as few laws as is reasonable.

My concerns are exactly what I hint at when I talk about regulation over a ban. There are homosexual children who are not comfortable to the point of suicide as they are and who do not respond to just being told its alright to homosexual. Any person has the right to and help with an attempt to change their psychology for the better [feeling good in themselves; changing a behaviour/attraction/trait/ect.) even if goes against a strong norm, which in this case I am referring to the growing social positivity to homosexuality as a minority culture within our own. I worry for kids which by such a law would be forced into programs and treatments which ignore their chosen issue of concern and the noted mental health declines that have been seen following this approach including suicide. And before, people talk about religiosity; you’d be shock at how traumatic removal of someone from their values norms can be and how common these feelings are even among those in very liberal secular social circles.

I only wish I had more faith in our law makers because honestly a policy promise of this by someone would likely ring more red flags than supportive enthusiasm despite it being very important and being something which is actively hurting children :-|

I think the discomfort you are mentioning is due to the fact that they are afraid of the social stigmatization that comes from folks like phattonez, as he has so eloquently represented himself in this thread. The right approach is to ensure that people feel supported in being who they are. I can't think of any modern psychological theories that advocate trying to change who you are to fit into perceived societal norms, other than so called gay conversion therapy. I believe you are legitimately concerned for these kids, but denying who you are, let alone allowing someone else tell you to deny who you are, is never a healthy approach.
 
I voted yes; however, I would be very worried about how such laws would be interpreted and would want a very strict definition attached to any bill. I’d vote yes because there are many adults & children who report "conversion therapy" as traumatic with zero to little benefit; there is clear motive for it to still be practiced, and I have not seen any credible evidence showing it “works” in which case we might consider strict regulation instead of a ban, and I mention regulation as although I personally see little difference if myself or one of my family was homosexual; that is far from true for everyone. I also would add I think homosexuality is a “category of behaviour”(demographic) that has and does get targeted for violence and needs to have laws protective in nature, I mention this as strongly believe in as few laws as is reasonable.

My concerns are exactly what I hint at when I talk about regulation over a ban. There are homosexual children who are not comfortable to the point of suicide as they are and who do not respond to just being told its alright to homosexual. Any person has the right to and help with an attempt to change their psychology for the better [feeling good in themselves; changing a behaviour/attraction/trait/ect.) even if goes against a strong norm, which in this case I am referring to the growing social positivity to homosexuality as a minority culture within our own. I worry for kids which by such a law would be forced into programs and treatments which ignore their chosen issue of concern and the noted mental health declines that have been seen following this approach including suicide. And before, people talk about religiosity; you’d be shock at how traumatic removal of someone from their values norms can be and how common these feelings are even among those in very liberal secular social circles.

I only wish I had more faith in our law makers because honestly a policy promise of this by someone would likely ring more red flags than supportive enthusiasm despite it being very important and being something which is actively hurting children :-|

Your concern seems convoluted. I agree that "gay" and "gay culture" are separate things than being a homosexual. Just because you're into the same sex doesn't mean you want to identify as gay with all the trimmings. Identity politics projected onto children, regardless of where they are coming from, can be harmful.

But where you're off base is when you talk about changing the psychology of children. Being homosexual is not psychological. It's not a matter of changing one's mind. It's a hard wired drive, whether or not one acts upon it. We don't help homosexual children by trying to reprogram them, we help them to come to terms with being homosexual in a society that often has trouble accepting them.

And more often than not, conversion therapy is not about what children want, but what their parents and their religious communities want. If it were really about the welfare of children, then we would be examining their true natures and helping them be who they really are, as God created them. Let's stop beating around the bush. Conversion therapy is an invention of evangelical Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong. They can't outright torture gay people anymore like they do in Saudi Arabia and Russia, so they just go the pseudoscience route. These people are psychopaths, not scientists, and they should not be granted access to "treating" children. Not with their track record of pedophilia, closet homosexuality, and criminal behavior like embezzlement.

The fact that the world treats homosexuals poorly sometimes is not a reason to give homosexuals conversion therapy. That's like saying if you're a victim of racism then you might as well get gene therapy to turn you white. I would much rather deal with my child being homosexual even if it's challenging for me, than toss them to the evangelical dogs who are totally self-interested in promoting Christianity in the most twisted, unloving ways.

:doh
 
Last edited:
A big hell yeah!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom