Obama to Denounce "Conversion Therapy"

[Torie]

It's all so particularly bizarre now, since being gay out there, is really not that difficult at all, outside some of the more culturally "impaired" areas of the Fruited Plain. Back when being gay meant a life of hell in a nation of bigots when it came to gay people, out of ignorance and/or because it was socially accepted to be a bigot, are, thank heavens gone, thanks to gays with guts. But at least in the recent dark ages, I can see how out of decent human concern, one might try to see if the gay guy could find a path out of a bigoted hell. Not now. Now, it's well - just repulsive. Hopefully fundamentalist Christians, and others, get the memo soon. You are not being Christian, you are being bigots, and should know better now. Thanks for listening.

[DC Al Fine]

Now, it's well - just repulsive. Hopefully fundamentalist Christians, and others, get the memo soon. You are not being Christian, you are being bigots, and should know better now. Thanks for listening.

Moreover such treatments represent a thoroughly unchristian view of man, since they completely ignore original sin. Even if you are against gay marriage, homosexuality is a cross to bear, not a trait to change.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Right, because the type of people who believe this crap works and is necessary are definitely going to change their minds after hearing Obama denounce it.  I predict a bounce in support for the practice!

And I'm sure the First Amendment will be cited to protect the rights of people or groups to psychologically torture children anyway.

Medical malpractice is not protected by the First Amendment. Yes, I know, you already knew that.

There isn't a clear line as to what constitutes "conversion" therapy and what doesn't, so you could have the courts defining what is and isn't allowed to be talked about in a way that goes beyond traditional malpractice law.
Is there anything currently stopping malpractice suits to be brought against abusive conversion therapy practices?

[t_host1]

Right, because the type of people who believe this crap works and is necessary are definitely going to change their minds after hearing Obama denounce it.  I predict a bounce in support for the practice!

And I'm sure the First Amendment will be cited to protect the rights of people or groups to psychologically torture children anyway.

Medical malpractice is not protected by the First Amendment. Yes, I know, you already knew that.

There isn't a clear line as to what constitutes "conversion" therapy and what doesn't, so you could have the courts defining what is and isn't allowed to be talked about in a way that goes beyond traditional malpractice law.
Is there anything currently stopping malpractice suits to be brought against abusive conversion therapy practices?

 yep, it is called the "truth", facts of life. That is why Obama must denounce it; keeping the confusion of who the bigots are "a" tactic to divide. Therefore, no way in hell is he going to use his money to defeat his objective. The same doctrine as the Benghazi story, which also exposed Hillary as the underling with no backup.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Right, because the type of people who believe this crap works and is necessary are definitely going to change their minds after hearing Obama denounce it.  I predict a bounce in support for the practice!

And I'm sure the First Amendment will be cited to protect the rights of people or groups to psychologically torture children anyway.

Medical malpractice is not protected by the First Amendment. Yes, I know, you already knew that.

There isn't a clear line as to what constitutes "conversion" therapy and what doesn't, so you could have the courts defining what is and isn't allowed to be talked about in a way that goes beyond traditional malpractice law.
Is there anything currently stopping malpractice suits to be brought against abusive conversion therapy practices?

 yep, it is called the "truth", facts of life. That is why Obama must denounce it; keeping the confusion of who the bigots are "a" tactic to divide. Therefore, no way in hell is he going to use his money to defeat his objective. The same doctrine as the Benghazi story, which also exposed Hillary as the underling with no backup.

Get help... Please.

[t_host1]

Right, because the type of people who believe this crap works and is necessary are definitely going to change their minds after hearing Obama denounce it.  I predict a bounce in support for the practice!

And I'm sure the First Amendment will be cited to protect the rights of people or groups to psychologically torture children anyway.

Medical malpractice is not protected by the First Amendment. Yes, I know, you already knew that.

There isn't a clear line as to what constitutes "conversion" therapy and what doesn't, so you could have the courts defining what is and isn't allowed to be talked about in a way that goes beyond traditional malpractice law.
Is there anything currently stopping malpractice suits to be brought against abusive conversion therapy practices?

 yep, it is called the "truth", facts of life. That is why Obama must denounce it; keeping the confusion of who the bigots are "a" tactic to divide. Therefore, no way in hell is he going to use his money to defeat his objective. The same doctrine as the Benghazi story, which also exposed Hillary as the underling with no backup.

Get help... Please.

Conversion therapy I suppose?

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Right, because the type of people who believe this crap works and is necessary are definitely going to change their minds after hearing Obama denounce it.  I predict a bounce in support for the practice!

And I'm sure the First Amendment will be cited to protect the rights of people or groups to psychologically torture children anyway.

Medical malpractice is not protected by the First Amendment. Yes, I know, you already knew that.

There isn't a clear line as to what constitutes "conversion" therapy and what doesn't, so you could have the courts defining what is and isn't allowed to be talked about in a way that goes beyond traditional malpractice law.
Is there anything currently stopping malpractice suits to be brought against abusive conversion therapy practices?

 yep, it is called the "truth", facts of life. That is why Obama must denounce it; keeping the confusion of who the bigots are "a" tactic to divide. Therefore, no way in hell is he going to use his money to defeat his objective. The same doctrine as the Benghazi story, which also exposed Hillary as the underling with no backup.

Get help... Please.

Conversion therapy I suppose?

jao

[Torie]

Right, because the type of people who believe this crap works and is necessary are definitely going to change their minds after hearing Obama denounce it.  I predict a bounce in support for the practice!

And I'm sure the First Amendment will be cited to protect the rights of people or groups to psychologically torture children anyway.

Medical malpractice is not protected by the First Amendment. Yes, I know, you already knew that.

There isn't a clear line as to what constitutes "conversion" therapy and what doesn't, so you could have the courts defining what is and isn't allowed to be talked about in a way that goes beyond traditional malpractice law.
Is there anything currently stopping malpractice suits to be brought against abusive conversion therapy practices?

I looked it up on
Wiki, and found the below FWIW:

There have been few, if any, medical malpractice lawsuits filed on the basis of conversion therapy. Laura A. Gans suggested in an article published in The Boston University Public Interest Law Journal that this is due to an "historic reluctance of consumers of mental health services to sue their care givers" and "the difficulty associated with establishing the elements of... causation and harm... given the intangible nature of psychological matters." Gans also suggested that a tort cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress might be sustainable against therapists who use conversion therapy on patients who specifically say that his or her anxiety does not arise from his or her sexuality.

Another concern is unwilling patients, particularly children, being forced into SOCE. Children experience significant pressure to conform with sexual norms, particularly from their peers, and often lack adequate legal protection from coercive treatment.[74]

In 2005, Love In Action, an ex-gay ministry based in Memphis, was investigated by the Tennessee Department of Health and the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities for providing counseling and mental health care without a license, and for treating adolescents without their consent. There have been reports that teenagers have been forcibly treated with conversion therapy on other occasions.[97][98][99] Several legal researchers argue that parents who force their children into aggressive conversion therapy programs are committing child abuse under various state statutes.[100][101]

[t_host1]

 

 So, is Obama denouncing child abuse or “the conversation” the fee to speak?

 If it is child abuse, then where is the % of confusion between mom & dad education and the institutional governance education? % would need to be established for proper payout.

 If it is the fee to speak, then what % of confusion would be of the certified, acclaimed, proclaimed or lived conversation?

[Landslide Lyndon]

 

 So, is Obama denouncing child abuse or “the conversation” the fee to speak?

 If it is child abuse, then where is the % of confusion between mom & dad education and the institutional governance education? % would need to be established for proper payout.

 If it is the fee to speak, then what % of confusion would be of the certified, acclaimed, proclaimed or lived conversation?

Now, who can argue with that?

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

 

 So, is Obama denouncing child abuse or “the conversation” the fee to speak?

 If it is child abuse, then where is the % of confusion between mom & dad education and the institutional governance education? % would need to be established for proper payout.

 If it is the fee to speak, then what % of confusion would be of the certified, acclaimed, proclaimed or lived conversation?

jao, the path of righteousness

[Ban my account ffs!]

Right, because the type of people who believe this crap works and is necessary are definitely going to change their minds after hearing Obama denounce it.  I predict a bounce in support for the practice!

Problem, action, solution.