• 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!

100% unregulated conversion therapy for consenting adults

whateverdude said:
It is though. If I wanna drink bleach is that not my right?
Click to expand...

if you told someone you intended to kill yourself with bleach they could have you committed, so no

for my part, i believe there's a huge difference in tolerating self harm by those with an untreatable mental illness, such as long term depression, and people with internal homophobia which has been inflicted by our culture and can be alleviated
 
chromium said:
if you told someone you intended to kill yourself with bleach they could have you committed, so no
Click to expand...

Well I think that's a massive violation of my rights

chromium said:
for my part, i believe there's a huge difference in tolerating self harm by those with an untreatable mental illness, such as long term depression, and people with internal homophobia which has been inflicted by our culture and can be alleviated
Click to expand...

Yea, but why should they?
I'd rather use them for human experimentation
 
whateverdude said:
Well I think that's a massive violation of my rights



Yea, but why should they?
I'd rather use them for human experimentation
Click to expand...

Well.. you can think anything you want. However, rights are not without limit. What people think, and what actually is are two different things.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well.. you can think anything you want. However, rights are not without limit. What people think, and what actually is are two different things.
Click to expand...

I believe rights ought to have limits.
My right to swing my fist ends where another's face begins.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is one limit
Click to expand...

Who is the government, if not God itself, to tell me what to do with my own personal life/body when nobody is effected but me?
If you cannot turn water to wine and resurrect the dead, you have no right to dictate things that pertain to me and me alone
 
whateverdude said:
Who is the government, if not God itself, to tell me what to do with my own personal life/body when nobody is effected but me?
If you cannot turn water to wine and resurrect the dead, you have no right to dictate things that pertain to me and me alone
Click to expand...

There is no one answer for that, since there are many kinds of government. Part of is it the institution that looks at what the needs of society are, and balances it with the needs of the individual. If you think it is too much, then, well, find another society.
 
RAMOSS said:
There is no one answer for that, since there are many kinds of government. Part of is it the institution that looks at what the needs of society are, and balances it with the needs of the individual. If you think it is too much, then, well, find another society.
Click to expand...

"Part of is it the institution that looks at what the needs of society are, and balances it with the needs of the individual."

I believe in that.
However, we're talking about something that's 100% on the individual and has 0 effect on society
 
whateverdude said:
"Part of is it the institution that looks at what the needs of society are, and balances it with the needs of the individual."

I believe in that.
However, we're talking about something that's 100% on the individual and has 0 effect on society
Click to expand...

YOu can believe anything you what. However, the collective opinion of society might not agree with your assessment.
 
RAMOSS said:
YOu can believe anything you what. However, the collective opinion of society might not agree with your assessment.
Click to expand...

Yea, that's the problem with democracy.
It's one thing to limit individual rights when it effects others. But it's tyranny to do it when nobody is actually harmed. Democracy is a tyrannical system with no regards for rights where the majority acts as dictators to the minority.
They say democracy leads to tyranny, and they're wrong. Democracy is tyranny
 
whateverdude said:
Yea, that's the problem with democracy.
It's one thing to limit individual rights when it effects others. But it's tyranny to do it when nobody is actually harmed. Democracy is a tyrannical system with no regards for rights where the majority acts as dictators to the minority.
They say democracy leads to tyranny, and they're wrong. Democracy is tyranny
Click to expand...

Democrasy is the worse form of government, except for all the other forms. Anarchy just plan sucks.
 
RAMOSS said:
Democrasy is the worse form of government, except for all the other forms. Anarchy just plan sucks.
Click to expand...

Anarchism is indeed an ideology based in theory and is incapable of practice.
Democracy is preferable to a oligarchy or monarchy, but a constitutional republic guarantees rights like free speech or freedom of religion that would be much harder to manage in a democracy where 51% of people have the power to oppress, silence and deny rights to whomever they see fit.
Socrates was put to death under a democracy.
And I don't think the system has changed all that much since his days. This is why the founding fathers choice a representative republic rather than a direct democracy.
 
Unit1917 said:
i dont think preventing unnecessary injury is a violation of personal liberty.
Click to expand...

It is of course is a violation of personal liberty. Just because an action will result personal injury doesn't mean it should be banned. If the action can never negatively impact anyone else there is no reason to not allow it.
 
For the most part I agree with you. If an adult wants to attend gay conversion therapy, they should be allowed to. But this part:

whateverdude said:
If I wanted to start a clinic that pours boiling water over gay people and shock them and beat them it should be legal if they've agreed to it and they're adults
Click to expand...

I don't think is going to fly. I don't think you can legally give someone permission to commit assault and attempted murder on them and have that actually absolve them of any consequences for those acts. I imagine it's somewhat similar to the issue of doctor-assisted suicide. With the exception being that those people are actually trained medical professionals, and the people operating the gay conversion therapy establishments likely wouldn't be, and so would be even less likely to avoid punishment.
 
whateverdude said:
In my opinoin, not only should it be legal, but it should be unregulated other than banning it for those under.
i think we need a federal ban on conversion therapy for those under 18.

But i think if you're an adult it should be 100% unregulated.

If I wanted to start a clinic that pours boiling water over gay people and shock them and beat them it should be legal if they've agreed to it and they're adults
Click to expand...

I don't think it can be banned for adults. I may not be able to be called therapy but that's just a name.
 
The OP brought forth an argument concerning individual freedom, or specifically as the Ron Paul crowd likes to call it, health freedom; the idea that a consenting adult should be able to do whatever he wants, including in regards to his choices of health.
Pardon, but I think it's nonesense. Government regulates what can best be described as racket; queer practitioners selling "natural medicine" under the pretext that it actually works are earning money for nothing.
But the most vigourous crackdown goes towards "treatment" that is demonstrably harmful. Would you allow people to sell "alternative medicines" containing birthwort, a plant that has been proven to cause rapid kidney failure and bladder cancer, despite it being used to aid childbirth in many areas of the world over thousands of years? I wouldn't. "Therapy" that is harmful should not be legal. The exact same thing may be said for "conversion therapy". It's been demonstrated to be completely ineffective and, more importantly, psychologically damaging to patients. Thus it should not be allowed for people at any age.
The "religious freedom" argument also falls flat. I personally oppose all legal exceptions made on behalf of a citizen's religious belief and believe that "Religious Freedom Restoration" legislation should be repealed both in regards to the federal government and the states, but even when using RFRA's test regarding such exemptions, these can be granted only if the government cannot find a compelling interest to not give an exemption. Clearly, it is a government's vested interest in protecting the citizens' psychological well-being, so there is no "religious freedom" argument to be made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom