"Reparative Therapy" for Gays

[muggsy]

"Marriage" is a religious sacrament. The only reason the government ever got involved was to prevent you from marrying your siblings or other close relatives so you wouldn't give birth to "idiots" (since there are a hell of a lot of idiots around that whole plan might not be working so well but that's another subject.) I think the government ought to go back to that very simple concept.

I know a few gay and lesbian couples who, except for the PRIVATE activity in their bedrooms, are perfectly normal, productive, educated better than usual, wealthier than usual, churchgoing, well adjusted, nice people. They don't flaunt the fact that they're gay nor have they ever tried to get me to participate...which I wouldn't because I'm happily heterosexual.

Two of the couples I know have adopted children who are normal and well adjusted and excel in school. One of their sons has a girlfriend, the others are too young but I guess their proclivity to "raise their children gay" isn't working properly.

I can't think of a single logical reason why they shouldn't be married. They're more "moral" and much better members of society than a lot of hetero couples I know.

Anybody remember when it was against the law for interracial couples to marry? It wasn't that long ago...up to 1997. The reasons interracial marriage was prohibited...it was considered immoral, it violated religious belief, it was sick, disgusting, and wrong. Pretty much the same reasons as those thrown up against same sex marriage.

Sadly funny to me that a lot of the people who protest the loudest about gay marriage are the ones who equally loudly profess their Christianity. Last I knew the Christian religion promoted tolerance, love, and inclusion. That must be only for Sundays before noon. Just sayin'

OK folks...back to Kahr firearms.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. The sin is committing homosexual acts. Not being homosexual. If being homosexual is a choice it isn't a good one. If it's a genetic defect we should strive to find a cure. If you think that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable alternative life style then you should have no problem encouraging your children to experiment with it. Likewise drugs. Wake up libertarians.

[berettabone]

I tried to stay out............................my wife teaches dance, and in this art form like any other, you will find many gays and lesbians. Before I knew my wife, I didn't have very much interaction with either. Since then, I have met many. 2 weeks ago, we went to the birthday party of a gay male and his partner. They were the only gay people there. The rest of the people I knew were all straight, and there were about 50 of them. They fed and welcomed everybody. This wasn't the first time we attended. I have been to at least 30 parties of theirs and always had a good time. Point being, do I think that they should be able to marry? Not sure about that one. Do I think that being gay is "normal"? No. These people have always treated me with respect, so I do so in return, even though I may not believe in what they are doing. They also know that I carry and never make or have made a big deal out of it, so I figure, we're even

[skiflydive]

Love the sinner, hate the sin. The sin is committing homosexual acts. Not being homosexual. If being homosexual is a choice it isn't a good one. If it's a genetic defect we should strive to find a cure. If you think that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable alternative life style then you should have no problem encouraging your children to experiment with it. Likewise drugs. Wake up libertarians.

The second sentence is sort of silly, Muggs. Since committing homosexual acts is the definition of being homosexual, how would one be homosexual if they hadn't committed homosexual acts? Thinking oneself to be homosexual doesn't make one homosexual.

Fourth sentence is only your judgement. Pretty sure you're not qualified to judge. The Bible speaks to that as well. If it's just your opinion, well, we know you have lots of those.

Pretty sure it's not a genetic defect and I don't think even you could dredge up credible science that says it is. That being the case it doesn't need a cure.

I wouldn't "encourage them to experiment" but on the other hand if one of them told me they were gay I wouldn't love them one iota less and I certainly wouldn't tell them they're immoral or sick or defective...or try to cure them.

Homosexuality occurs in other species too. Most notably in dolphins and some of the apes. Do you judge them immoral too?

I'm well aware that homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible but I'm convinced it predates the Bible or it wouldn't have been addressed there.

[Bob T]

"Marriage" is a religious sacrament. The only reason the government ever got involved was to prevent you from marrying your siblings or other close relatives so you wouldn't give birth to "idiots" (since there are a hell of a lot of idiots around that whole plan might not be working so well but that's another subject.) I think the government ought to go back to that very simple concept.

I know a few gay and lesbian couples who, except for the PRIVATE activity in their bedrooms, are perfectly normal, productive, educated better than usual, wealthier than usual, churchgoing, well adjusted, nice people. They don't flaunt the fact that they're gay nor have they ever tried to get me to participate...which I wouldn't because I'm happily heterosexual.

Two of the couples I know have adopted children who are normal and well adjusted and excel in school. One of their sons has a girlfriend, the others are too young but I guess their proclivity to "raise their children gay" isn't working properly.

I can't think of a single logical reason why they shouldn't be married. They're more "moral" and much better members of society than a lot of hetero couples I know.

Anybody remember when it was against the law for interracial couples to marry? It wasn't that long ago...up to 1997. The reasons interracial marriage was prohibited...it was considered immoral, it violated religious belief, it was sick, disgusting, and wrong. Pretty much the same reasons as those thrown up against same sex marriage.

Sadly funny to me that a lot of the people who protest the loudest about gay marriage are the ones who equally loudly profess their Christianity. Last I knew the Christian religion promoted tolerance, love, and inclusion. That must be only for Sundays before noon. Just sayin'

OK folks...back to Kahr firearms.

Nicely said...and it is what I believe.

This is what I hate about our firewall at work. Post last night, go to bed, go to work and miss all the conversation....

[Bob T]

Love the sinner, hate the sin. The sin is committing homosexual acts. Not being homosexual. If being homosexual is a choice it isn't a good one. If it's a genetic defect we should strive to find a cure. If you think that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable alternative life style then you should have no problem encouraging your children to experiment with it. Likewise drugs. Wake up libertarians.

Well, that's all nice and all, but since I don't believe in any sort of god, I really don't believe it is a sin...

[b4uqzme]

"Marriage" is a religious sacrament...
I can't think of a single logical reason why they shouldn't be married...

Just one: If a certain church feels that it is against their beliefs to condone same sex marriage, then they should not be required to do so. Some churches forbid inter-racial and even inter-faith marriages and they should be FREE to continue. Counter point: if a certain church feels they can recognize same sex marriage, then gay and lesbian couples should go to them for their religious needs.

I will admit to only one belief myself: I believe in freedom. Freedom to do what you wish, to agree, to disagree, to do things I disagree with, to sin...so long as you hurt no other. I also feel we should all have the freedom to change our minds and to endeavor to change others' minds.

Separate the term "marriage" from the legal benefits of a civil union...please.

[skiflydive]

Just one: If a certain church feels that it is against their beliefs to condone same sex marriage, then they should not be required to do so. Some churches forbid inter-racial and even inter-faith marriages and they should be FREE to continue. Counter point: if a certain church feels they can recognize same sex marriage, then gay and lesbian couples should go to them for their religious needs.

I will admit to only one belief myself: I believe in freedom. Freedom to do what you wish, to agree, to disagree, to do things I disagree with, to sin...so long as you hurt no other. I also feel we should all have the freedom to change our minds and to endeavor to change others' minds.

Separate the term "marriage" from the legal benefits of a civil union...please.

Ditto

[DavidS]

Separate "religion" from the politics and political process - please.

[Bob T]

Well it's been fun, but it is bedtime for this old guy...wake up at 04:20am, and a firewall at work that doesn't let me visit firearm related sites....

See ya all tomorrow at 4pm...

[muggsy]

The second sentence is sort of silly, Muggs. Since committing homosexual acts is the definition of being homosexual, how would one be homosexual if they hadn't committed homosexual acts? Thinking oneself to be homosexual doesn't make one homosexual.

Fourth sentence is only your judgement. Pretty sure you're not qualified to judge. The Bible speaks to that as well. If it's just your opinion, well, we know you have lots of those.

Pretty sure it's not a genetic defect and I don't think even you could dredge up credible science that says it is. That being the case it doesn't need a cure.

I wouldn't "encourage them to experiment" but on the other hand if one of them told me they were gay I wouldn't love them one iota less and I certainly wouldn't tell them they're immoral or sick or defective...or try to cure them.

Homosexuality occurs in other species too. Most notably in dolphins and some of the apes. Do you judge them immoral too?

I'm well aware that homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible but I'm convinced it predates the Bible or it wouldn't have been addressed there.

One can be a homosexual and not act upon those homosexual urges. People who aren't homosexuals can engage in homosexual acts. Animals don't have a soul and aren't be judged as humans are judged. If there is nothing wrong with homosexuality why wouldn't one encourage their children to experiment with homosexuality. After all it's a perfectly acceptable alternative life style, isn't it? Hell, if you and your wife died there wouldn't be anything wrong with your children being adopted and raised by a gay couple would there? You're an accepting human being. Maybe we should all get together and form a daisy chain. After all there is no God and therefore no morality.

[muggsy]

Please check my post. I did not say it was mandatory. I posed a "what if?".

What if those who endorse "reparative therapy" come into power. It is not much of a leap for a platform plank to be authored into a law and make it mandatory. They would if they could. I would never trust a politician not to do such a thing.

The point being: What group would next need "reparative therapy" to cure their misguided ways? Muslims? Catholics? Women?

There was no "what if " in the republican statement. Your premise is faulty. Conservative republicans believe in less government interference in our lives. It's the liberals who want to control your every action and thought. I smell a troll, David S.

[DavidS]

There was no "what if " in the republican statement. Your premise is faulty. Conservative republicans believe in less government interference in our lives. It's the liberals who want to control your every action and thought. I smell a troll, David S.

Wish you had not called me out by name. I was not going to comment any further on the original topic of reparative therapy.
I think you misunderstood me, maybe my authoring skills leave something to be desired.
I did not say the republican statement said "what if". I said that I posed a "what if". Here is the complete posting (italics and bold added by me):

Originally Posted by muggsy View Post
I didn't see or hear anything in the platform that said that the therapy was mandatory. As a liberal, don't you believe in choice David S?

Please check my post. I did not say it was mandatory. I posed a "what if?".
What if those who endorse "reparative therapy" come into power. It is not much of a leap for a platform plank to be authored into a law and make it mandatory. They would if they could. I would never trust a politician not to do such a thing.
The point being: What group would next need "reparative therapy" to cure their misguided ways? Muslims? Catholics? Women?

[DavidS]

Thanks, Muggsy.

[tv_racin_fan]

The problem I have with "same sex" marriage is they have/had to change the definition or add something to it to make it seem legit. As I have said before I am all for getting the govt out of "marriage" and instituting a civil union for the benefits of "marriage" then letting the couple and their church decide the marriage issue. I do not agree with just changing the definitions of words or for that matter their pronunciations.

[berettabone]

Well, that's all nice and all, but since I don't believe in any sort of god, I really don't believe it is a sin...

Ditto............................................. .....................