Gay Conversion Therapy

[Jazzy]

A draft of the Texas Republican Party's new platform embraces gay conversion therapy, arguing that it is a viable option for "patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle."

The Texas GOP convention kicks off Thursday, and one of the tasks of delegates is rewriting the party's platform.

The current document, adopted in 2012, sharply condemns equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. There are multiple sections dealing with the issue, including language that reads: "We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans."

According to a draft of the new platform obtained by the San Antonio Express-News/Houston Chronicle, that language is gone. It still, however, contains a section criticizing homosexuality:

Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. We recognize the legitimacy and value of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment to patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.

The platform also contains sections endorsing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Source

Do you agree or disagree with the Texas Republican Party's new platform? (Please state why you agree or disagree).

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Disagree, maybe someone should invent "Idiot Conversion Therapy" and the members of the Texas Republican Party can enroll themselves into THAT program.

 

[DrLeftover]

I disagree with expanding the power of government at any level to sending people to "re-education" as was done in the nineteen thirties to "correct" the ideology of those that disagreed with the party in power.

Today we're going to "convert" gays. Who'll be out of favor and sent to be "fixed" next?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

I disagree with expanding the power of government at any level to sending people to "re-education" as was done in the nineteen thirties to "correct" the ideology of those that disagreed with the party in power.

Today we're going to "convert" gays. Who'll be out of favor and sent to be "fixed" next?

Ditto!

If a private person wants to start a business to treat being gay for people who dont want to be under free will then good for them. Other then that I am disappointed with Texas that is one the most free states in our crappy union that they would have this.

I find the gay, bisexual and whatever life style disgusting but its none of my business and have no desire to change what they want to do. I find trans-gender complete baloney but whatever its none of my business at the end of the day. Leave me alone on my life style choices and I will leave others alone on theres.

 

[Sinon]

I would question the whole "ordained by God" thing, considering there's supposed to be a separation of church and state. God can suck eggs, anything religiously-biased should be kept well-removed of politics. These people should stop hiding behind religion and just say "no, we're afraid of getting fucked in the ass by the gays".

Defence of marriage? I already made a post elsewhere on Off Topix where I pointed out that it's straight people ruining marriage, not gay people. If we can't marry to begin with, how are we ruining it?

Then again, it's Texas. The state that advocated the execution of the mentally retarded. So I'm not at all surprised. Maybe they should start executing their politicians.

 

[DrLeftover]

Funny how Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton, can "hide behind religion" to push their agendas and nobody can disagree without being branded a Hater.

Remember Mr. Obama's minister?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix-AMYos0Js

So how can you curse one side for 'hiding behind religion' and ignore the other side unless, perchance, you are a hypocrite as well.

 

[Sinon]

Remember Mr. Obama's minister?

Never heard of him.

So how can you curse one side for 'hiding behind religion' and ignore the other side unless, perchance, you are a hypocrite as well.

I'll curse anyone using religion as an excuse to preach personal hatred. Even moreso if they hold a political position or are otherwise able to reach a wider audience than your common-or-garden priest. The holier-than-thou attitude gets old when you consider that the majority of religious people are probably going to wind up in whatever form of hell exists in their religion because they don't follow said religion to a t.

 

[DrLeftover]

Perhaps a point of clarification.

The infamous "separation of church and state" is NOT in the US Constitution.

The only part of the document that discusses religion is 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.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

The clause prohibits the Federal Government from declaring a State Religion, or stopping the citizens from practicing theirs. Period.

The "Separation" language comes from the Constitution of the State of Virginia and several letters back and forth between several founding fathers including Jefferson and Madison.

Also of note is the fact that all of the above is a totally alien concept to those that live under Islamic Law: Sharia.

The STATE has an official religion, and they will tell you which kind of Muslim you will be, and that's that.

 

[FourPart]

If Homosexuality goes against God's ordinance, and is a matter of being a conscious choice to be evil, then how come it's common to the rest of the Animal Kingdom as well?

As this item specifies, this fact felled the Sodomy laws in Texas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

 

[DrLeftover]

I'm sorry Fourpart.

Did you READ the Wikipedia page you cited?

The middle of the second paragraph destroys about half of the argument you raised it in support of.

Simon Levay introduced the further caveat that "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

If Homosexuality goes against God's ordinance, and is a matter of being a conscious choice to be evil, then how come it's common to the rest of the Animal Kingdom as well?

As this item specifies, this fact felled the Sodomy laws in Texas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Please dont waste your time with wikipedia. Its trash for any reliable info and most will dismiss it in any forum doing debating or politics.

 

[DrLeftover]

Several years ago, I was a registered editor of Wikipedia.

I quit when they began allowing certain others post links and references in violation of their posted policies and disallowing others from doing the same thing.

And, I'm quite all right with not having been part of it since then.