Christie to sign ban on gay conversion therapy, says homosexuality is not a sin

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Alright for him. He's just finally realized that straight camp doesn't work 99.999999999997% of the time.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Well this will ruin any 2016 chances of his.

You think a majority of the Pubs favor gay conversion "therapy?" 

Stating unequivocally that homosexuality is not a sin is going to get him in trouble in the 2016 primaries. 

Indeed.  The Santorum 2016 ad practically writes itself.

[NewYorkExpress]

Either Christie challenges Mendedez in 2016, or he just retires...

[barfbag]

Either Christie challenges Mendedez in 2016, or he just retires...

Why say that?

[NewYorkExpress]

Either Christie challenges Mendedez in 2016, or he just retires...

Why say that?

he just destroyed his chances at winning a Presidential primary

[Lambsbread]

Either Christie challenges Mendedez in 2016, or he just retires...

Why say that?

He just destroyed his chances at winning a Presidential primary

Did he really? Because I don't think he did:

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Gay conversion therapy is a moronic idea.


Doesn't mean we have to go ban it. Not sure why people seem to think that just because they disagree with something means that they have to go ahead and legislate their ideas to the rest of the state/country.


Stop banning things.

It's psychological abuse... full stop.

Stop being SUCH a self-parody.

[memphis]

Support the law 100%. But I am horrified to hear a sitting gov'r engage in this nonsensical "sin" foolishness. Perhaps he can next tell us his opinions about unicorns.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Either Christie challenges Mendedez in 2016, or he just retires...

Why say that?

He just destroyed his chances at winning a Presidential primary

Did he really? Because I don't think he did:

yep, this won't at all hurt his chances of winning the nomination in 2032.

[bedstuy]

If people really want gay conversion therapy, they can take NJ transit into NYC and see this guy.



It worked for one person at least.

[King]

Gay conversion therapy is a moronic idea.

Doesn't mean we have to go ban it. Not sure why people seem to think that just because they disagree with something means that they have to go ahead and legislate their ideas to the rest of the state/country.

Stop banning things.

What separates the libertarian from the anarchist is the belief that the government should at least exist in order to protect individual liberties.  Actions which harm the freedom of other individuals are still illegal in the libertarian model. This is the morality that makes murder against the law--and this too.

You should be all for banning gay conversion therapy because it inflicts suffering on individuals and infringes their right to live freely.  You are violating your own ideology by not wanting this law.

[Blue3]

The Catholic Church doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin either. Neither do Mormons or many Evangelicals.

Gay sex, on the other hand...

[barfbag]

Either Christie challenges Mendedez in 2016, or he just retires...

Why say that?

he just destroyed his chances at winning a Presidential primary

I like him. He'll be alright. My guys always seem to win the primary. Maybe I'm good luck.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Gay conversion therapy is a moronic idea.

Doesn't mean we have to go ban it. Not sure why people seem to think that just because they disagree with something means that they have to go ahead and legislate their ideas to the rest of the state/country.

Stop banning things.

What separates the libertarian from the anarchist is the belief that the government should at least exist in order to protect individual liberties.  Actions which harm the freedom of other individuals are still illegal in the libertarian model. This is the morality that makes murder against the law--and this too.

You should be all for banning gay conversion therapy because it inflicts suffering on individuals and infringes their right to live freely.  You are violating your own ideology by not wanting this law.

Often times I've noticed (not so much here, but usually during the occasional YouTube and Facebook debates I've engaged in) that the more you talk to libertarians, the more the line appears to blur between that of their ideology and that of anarchism.  Concurrently, the longer I talk to a libertarian/anarchist individual, the more I realize I've probably been talking to a brick wall the entire time.  Quite sad really, because there are plenty of rational, intelligent libertarians I've had the pleasure of debating as well.

[DC Al Fine]

Gay conversion therapy is a moronic idea.

Doesn't mean we have to go ban it. Not sure why people seem to think that just because they disagree with something means that they have to go ahead and legislate their ideas to the rest of the state/country.

Stop banning things.

What separates the libertarian from the anarchist is the belief that the government should at least exist in order to protect individual liberties.  Actions which harm the freedom of other individuals are still illegal in the libertarian model. This is the morality that makes murder against the law--and this too.

You should be all for banning gay conversion therapy because it inflicts suffering on individuals and infringes their right to live freely.  You are violating your own ideology by not wanting this law.

Often times I've noticed (not so much here, but usually during the occasional YouTube and Facebook debates I've engaged in) that the more you talk to libertarians, the more the line appears to blur between that of their ideology and that of anarchism.  Concurrently, the longer I talk to a libertarian/anarchist individual, the more I realize I've probably been talking to a brick wall the entire time.  Quite sad really, because there are plenty of rational, intelligent libertarians I've had the pleasure of debating as well.

I don't know why anyone would subject themselves to that.

[afleitch]

Good. It's psychological harm of the deepest and most disrespectful kind. The very fact that these places exist to feed off the fears of parents who then coerce their child into going there, or leaving scared young people with no choice is disgraceful. Telling young people the fact they feel like sh-t is because they are gay rather than the fact that everyone around them is moronically homophobic and sending them into an environment full of repressed religous queens who all pretend it's working is just pathetic. Pathetic, sad and lonely people run these organisations who all say 'it works look at me!' while they are in the programme and like any quackery or cult, the moment they leave they admit that it was all a load of damaging and often expensive crap.

[TDAS04]

Good. It's psychological harm of the deepest and most disrespectful kind. The very fact that these places exist to feed off the fears of parents who then coerce their child into going there, or leaving scared young people with no choice is disgraceful. Telling young people the fact they feel like sh-t is because they are gay rather than the fact that everyone around them is moronically homophobic and sending them into an environment full of repressed religous queens who all pretend it's working is just pathetic. Pathetic, sad and lonely people run these organisations who all say 'it works look at me!' while they are in the programme and like any quackery or cult, the moment they leave they admit that it was all a load of damaging and often expensive crap.

Exactly.

As for the argument that banning this violates religious freedom, freedom of religion does not cover such idiotic psychological abuse.

[Cryptic]

Gay conversion therapy is a moronic idea.


Doesn't mean we have to go ban it. Not sure why people seem to think that just because they disagree with something means that they have to go ahead and legislate their ideas to the rest of the state/country.


Stop banning things.

Dude, gay conversion therapy is basically psychological torture and manipulation that infringes on the rights and liberty of those subjected to it, almost certainly not by choice as is the case for kids and teens who are forced to go by their parents.  I'd like to think banning this horrid practice is something every sane person regardless of political affiliation can get behind. 

Just cause something is proposed through government doesn't necessarily mean it conflicts with libertarianism.  As a previous poster mentioned, opposing everything government does is more in line with anarchism. 

As the first poster said, credit should be given where credit is do.  Kudos, Christie.

[TNF]

Still awful.

[memphis]

Good. It's psychological harm of the deepest and most disrespectful kind. The very fact that these places exist to feed off the fears of parents who then coerce their child into going there, or leaving scared young people with no choice is disgraceful. Telling young people the fact they feel like sh-t is because they are gay rather than the fact that everyone around them is moronically homophobic and sending them into an environment full of repressed religous queens who all pretend it's working is just pathetic. Pathetic, sad and lonely people run these organisations who all say 'it works look at me!' while they are in the programme and like any quackery or cult, the moment they leave they admit that it was all a load of damaging and often expensive crap.

Exactly.

As for the argument that banning this violates religious freedom, freedom of religion does not cover such idiotic psychological abuse.

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not all religion is as obsessed with sin and rage as the Fundamentalists tend to be.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Good. Religion can't and shouldn't be used as a legally legitimate excuse for this sort of thing, and I say this as somebody who has a generally pretty expansive interpretation of religious freedom.

[DemPGH]

Good move, regardless of his motivations. By 2016 there will be plenty of time to "walk it back." I think he's probably more concerned with shoring up a now almost certain re-election.

There's no way to show efficacy if a practice is banned.  The thing about these types of laws, they don't just ban methods of therapy, some of which are abusive.  They ban aims of therapy - which comes awfully close to the government inserting itself in between the therapist-patient relationship. If the standard is the government is going to ban anything that hasn't been proven to be effective, then the practice of clinical psychology is going to be severely limited.

Like with shock "therapy," lobotomies, and other quasi Medieval practices, right?! Yeah, man, why not!?

You think a majority of the Pubs favor gay conversion "therapy?"  

Sure wouldn't surprise me if a slim majority of GOP primary voters do. But of course that's an overall demographic that I'm not terribly optimistic about. And I would bet that they think it's a "sin," whatever that can mean in the present.

[memphis]

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not all religion is as obsessed with sin and rage as the Fundamentalists tend to be.

The emphasis does vary, but isn't a need for salvation due to man being fundamentally broken universal? I'm thinking more of Western religion, of course. I don't think the word religion applies to lot of Eastern thought.

[afleitch]

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not all religion is as obsessed with sin and rage as the Fundamentalists tend to be.

But American Christianity (and I have to talk in an American context simply as that is pertinent) in general does have a particular problem with non hetero normative expressions of sexual and gender identity. For example on the basic question posed by Pew 'Homosexuality should be accepted by society' is agreed by 71% of those non-affiliated, 84% of minor faiths, 82% of Buddhists, 79% of Jews, Hindus were low on 48% but Christians as a whole could only muster 44% approval. Only Muslims did worse. So it's not necessarily a religious problem (as some faiths outperform those non affiliated) and it doesn't seem to bother American Jews, so what is it about Christianity as a faith in Amer icathat either collectively affirms negative views or attracts those with negative views to it?