Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Blue Velvet, Apr 8, 2015.
Some would like to try and convince you that both parties are the same. They're not.
Yes ! It certainly should be a no brainer. Even my Shrink many moons ago, told my employers that I was a well adjusted "young" man and to leave well enough alone. I was told to resign anyway.
I really don't think it's as black and white as you're making it. There are plenty of conservatives who don't agree with this extreme view of conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is more of a extreme religious idea then a general conservative one.
This is great news.
I'm to the right side of moderate on a lot of things. I was raised in a family that practiced region (albeit Judaism). I accept LGBT people and firmly believe they are entitled to the same rights as anyone else. Even if I was against the LGBT lifestyle, I think I would still have to denounce "conversion therapy".
Let people be who they are. I work in Mental Health. I laugh that this article referred to these conversion practices as "psychiatric therapies". Many LGBT people often deal with great identity crisis at some point. Adding this "therapy" can only do harm in a person accepting who they are. The worst thing you can do to a healthy person is break their identity. I don't understand why people (cough super right-wing Christians) care so much about other people's beliefs and identities. How would they like it if someone sent them to anti-christian therapy?
I don't think all conservatives/Republicans agree with conversion. Any doctor who can properly balance scientific findings with his religious beliefs should easily realize the consequences of such an unethical treatment.
I agree with both the sentiment, and the science, behind this. I think its pretty well documented that so-called "gay conversion" therapies are only highly ineffectual, they can also be extremely damaging - especially to young people.
What concerns me, however, is how such a law could be crafted in a way that didn't fall foul of the First Amendment. If a parent wishes to send their underage child to a religious counselor who teaches, among other things, that homosexuality is a sin - then I think any law that restricted or banned that would be seen as an infringement on people's right to practice religion.
For adults who wished to attend gay conversion therapy, the issue becomes even more murky. In that sort of case I think the best you could hope for is a FTC statement that advertising such therapies as "effective" is false advertising; and possibly a statement from various psychiatric professional bodies saying the practice was harmful to a person's psyche - as well as being ineffective.
The United States is, by and large, a nation that grants a great deal of freedom to individuals as both consumers and providers of products and services that are of questionable (to say the least) efficacy. But absent a clear public interest in preventing danger or physical harm to individuals, our Government's right to restrict that activity is - and ought to remain - limited.
What are you talking about? There are crazies on both sides that I'm sure think this is good. Any normal person would know this is plain nutty. I hadn't even heard of this "therapy" until a few years ago.
Does the Republican Party support a ban on these practices?
Certainly not the Christian Conservative wing of the GOP. They champion the therapy.
Isn't that the majority of the party?
Extreme religious because instead of blaming individuals for bad choices, religions would then have to ask themselves why God created people this way and realize that the objection comes not from God, but from the human origins of The Bible. Personally I believe souls would require no gender although I have no idea what's involved in soul procreation.
Sure, but if you drew a Venn diagram of Democrats and Republicans, and then included people who believe in gay conversion therapy, where do you think that circle would land?
Confused. The OP is quick to suggest this is a party-specific, party-exclusive issue. So now we are talking about Democrats versus Republicans.
Was this not simply a comment made by Obama? Does that mean all Democrats agree with the comment, and all Republicans are against the comment? When Obama pushes drone strikes, does that mean all Democrats agree, and all Republicans are against? When Obama has Bin Laden rubbed out, does that mean all Democrats agree with him, and all Republicans are against him?
How about this - Obama just came out, in my opinion, on the right side of this particular issue. Good for him. Good for us.
Remember, the Obama who was elected President the first go around - who represented Democrats - was anti-gay marriage.
In his book, David Axelrod has said that the because
At one point, Obama told the audience at the Saddleback Presidential Forum:
And, during an interview on MTV:
However, a year earlier he also said:
And, by May 2012 he said:
The President has said that his views "evolved" but he never carried the same rhetorical force that a candidate like Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback did. With this in mind, it's important to note the differences between a candidate and their party.
Democrats could push Obama forward because while he personally may not have believed in gay marriage, his party had more credibility on the issue and it became clear that candidate Obama would consider strong domestic partnerships.
Meanwhile, Republicans have less credibility on the issue because they've pushed forward candidates like Rick Santorum or Huckabee who once said:
Sen. John McCain who ultimately lost the election to Obama attempted to straddle the issue, arguing that people should be able to enter into legal contracts but that marriage was a between a man and a woman.
I appreciate your extensive quotes. But I'm not sure if you are saying that my quote - that Obama was against gay marriage the first go around - is wrong.
Source a quote that you think illustrates your claim and let's take a look at it.
No, it is just a convoluted way of making an excuse for Obama's stance. Sort of like saying that Harry Reid just "really exaggerated" when he said Romney didn't file a tax return for 10 years before the last presidential election.
Calling Obama "anti-gay marriage" ignores his complicated and obviously calculated understanding of the issue. This is especially true when compared to the views of other candidates like Huckabee or McCain.
Not really. That's why I included Axelrod's quote. Obama altered his stance to ensure votes from black churches.
I'm not offering an excuse, Obama as a state senator and Obama as President in 2012 had the same views, which differed from Obama the 2008 presidential candidate.
I ran a Google search just now - "obama gay marriage" - and picked the first hit. It is an article from Time.
Does this satisfy your claim illustration request, or does this merely demonstrate that Obama was not against un-gay marriage before he wasn't, again?
Is it any wonder why people don't trust politicians?
That's a totally fair point, but people get the politicians they deserve. If we allowed candidates to be honest and forthright, we'd also have to be willing to parse complicated answers.
But, as everyone seems increasingly unable to look past basic soundbites (notice every time someone bitches about the Media, they're always talking about cable news) while moving away from print journalism, where substances and context are easier to digest.
Even a minor gaffe, like Obama's "57 states" comment, becomes a cudgel.
I can totally understand someone making a careless mistake like saying there are 57 states.
However, his stance on gay marriage was calculated to win votes. If what Axelrod is saying is true, then Obama was just repeatedly flat out lying to the people. And yet, no one seems to want to hold politicians accountable for the lies they spew.
I sometimes get the impression that people (such as yourself) think I ask for sources because I don't believe they exist, but that's not the case. I often ask for sources to gain a better understanding how one is formulating their opinion.
Thanks for providing the source. I'll try to give it proper consideration later this evening.
I believe this is true. The president needs to represent all the people, and he didn't want that one issue to carve into his popularity. So he presented a side that could appeal more broadly to the electorate.
He's probably the only presidential candidate to ever do that.
Dude. I said I believed that was his true motivation.
It was a calculated political move ... something every presidential candidate has engaged in since forever.
Good. That destructive practice is already banned in California and New Jersey. It should be noted though that our Republican governor was the one who signed the ban into law in NJ.