Christie signs bill banning “conversion therapy” for gay kids in New Jersey

posted at 3:21 pm on August 19, 2013 by Allahpundit

Last week he signed a bunch of minor gun-control bills, then vetoed one that would have banned .50-caliber rifles. He vetoed the Democratic bill easing access to medical marijuana for sick kids, but promised he’d sign a new one if they made a few tweaks. Today he’s signing a bill that’ll ban “gay conversion therapy” from being administered to people under 18, but he’s also committing to supporting NJ’s Republican candidate for Senate despite expectations that he’d stay out of the race. Expect three more months of this from Christie — a little for the left to protect his gubernatorial bid and a little for the right to protect his presidential ambitions — and then a tilt towards conservatism once he’s reelected.

As for this, look at it this way: He wasn’t going to win Iowa anyway.

At the outset of this debate, I expressed my concerns about government limiting parental choice on the care and treatment of their own children. I still have those concerns. Government should tread carefully into this area and I do so here reluctantly. I have scrutinized this piece of legislation with that concern in mind.

However, I also believe that on issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards. The American Psychological Association has found that efforts to change sexual orientation can pose critical health risks including, but not limited to, depression, substance abuse, social withdrawal, decreased self-esteem and suicidal thoughts.

I believe that exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate. Based upon this analysis, I sign this bill into law.

His stance on medical marijuana for kids would give parents more control over their child’s treatment, which he probably assumes gives him a little extra leeway to take some control away on this. I’m looking forward to that reply at the debates when Santorum inevitably calls him out for signing this: “Of course I believe parents have a right to make medical decisions for their children. I greenlit weed for them, didn’t I?”

LGBT groups in the state are wondering if this is a sign that Christie will end up supporting gay marriage. Er, no, not for the next three years, at least. He’s already gone as far on this issue as he probably safely can to win a Republican primary: Watch him tell Piers Morgan below in 2011 that he doesn’t think homosexual behavior is sinful and that he thinks gays are born that way. That’s probably what forced his hand in signing today’s bill. He could have vetoed it, I guess, on grounds that his personal opinion is irrelevant and that parents should be free to choose conversion therapy if they wish, but then gay-rights activists would have hammered him with replays of this clip (as well as with what the APA said about health risks from the therapy). He’ll never be the social-con champion anyway, and there are worse fates for a centrist than being attacked on this subject by people to his right during a national primary campaign.

Exit question: Is this constitutional? Don’t be so sure.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

It’s also not lost on me that the negative things you list as being associated with homosexuality like depression,

I didn’t cite depression.

substance abuse and suicide are the exact same things linked to the conversion therapy. Heck, that was why Christie signed the ban! alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Maybe practicing homosexuality is the cause, and conversion therapy is merely a corollary, to such symptoms since the vast majority of homos haven’t ever engaged in the latter and all have engaged in the former.

Occam’s Razor.

So since by your logic it’s homosexuality that causes these things, Gov. Krispee Kreme should therefore ban homosexuality. Or, at the very least, make it a crime to convert someone out of heterosexuality into homosexuality.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Chris Christie is awesome

GW_SS-Delta on August 20, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Any therapy that promotes self-hating is counter-productive and harmful to children.

TimeTraveler on August 20, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Maybe they were designed that way. Credit ‘the designer.’ Good Lt on August 20, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Why do you blame God for anything since you are an atheist. I don’t get it.

When you argue on theistic ground you are going to have to cede ground to those who believe in the Theos of the Bible to establish the rules. You wonder why we don’t blame God for sin, which is what Eve did when Adam blamed her for the fall.

I know you don’t believe in Adam and Eve, but invoking them, even if only in a literary sense, means you have ventured into territory where you are a novice at best, and must allow people familiar with the theology to correct you. So you really should just stay off our lawn.

Notice how far afield you are going to avoid dealing with the thread topic: laws that prohibit the prevention of child sodomy.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Any therapy that promotes self-hating is counter-productive and harmful to children. TimeTraveler on August 20, 2013 at 6:20 PM

I agree. Self-hatred is kind of the sine qua non of sodomists in my experience though.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM

What does “child sodomy” have to do with this thread? I am not following.

GW_SS-Delta on August 20, 2013 at 6:33 PM

For every homosexual vote he thinks he just got, he lost three Conservative votes.

SpiderMike on August 20, 2013 at 5:54 PM

I wasn’t aware that there were that many single-issue voters who cared that much about their right to commit child abuse but I’ll take your word for it.

Not everything is about getting votes; it could be that this is just a principled stand against an abusive procedure and Christie is thinking more about basic human decency than he is about the political calculus, but you’ve touched on an important myth here that I’ve heard repeated ad nauseum on the right when it comes to promoting rights for homosexuals, that being the “gay vote”.

Even if this was political, it’s not just about getting the support of the relatively small percentage of the electorate who are homosexual. Pretty much every gay person out there has friends and family who care about them; a gay person can be born into any family at an incidence rate of 4% that’s one in every 25 people so you’re touching almost everyone. (Can you name 25 family members? If yes and you think none of them are gay then, statistically, someone probably has something they’re not telling you.) The current GOP position involves blatant and baseless discrimination for no good reason, and you’re asking people to support doing that to their child or brother or sister or aunt or uncle or, in the case of HiHo, their cousin or someone else they know and are close to. Now I personally am very committed to a conservative, limited-government ideology so I will overlook the fact that on Election Day I’m voting for discrimination against certain friends I’m close to. Not everyone is an ideological as I am though.

As stories like this become more and more common the GOP’s position becomes increasingly fatal not just because of the votes of gay people, but because of the votes of people who know them.

alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 6:33 PM

What does “child sodomy” have to do with this thread? I am not following. GW_SS-Delta on August 20, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Christie signs bill banning “conversion therapy” for gay kids in New Jersey

Try to keep up.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 6:34 PM

I wasn’t aware that there were that many single-issue voters who cared that much about their right to commit child abuse but I’ll take your word for it. alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 6:33 PM

George Orwell was a prophet.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Can you explain it to me, please? I don’t get the reference.

GW_SS-Delta on August 20, 2013 at 6:39 PM

If it is private or maybe inappropriate to children, you can email me your explanation at dyorsab@yahoo.com

GW_SS-Delta on August 20, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Can you explain it to me, please? I don’t get the reference.
GW_SS-Delta on August 20, 2013 at 6:39 PM

A. Scroll to the top of the page.

B. See the headline of this thread.

C. Scratch your head.

D. Ask an adult to explain it to you.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 6:43 PM

Akzed, do you think being straight is just about having sexual intercourse? ‘Cuz I don’t.

the gay and lesbian community and its leadership
northdallasthirty on August 20, 2013 at 3:36 PM

By the way…who are the “leaders” who were voted in to speak for all us straight folk?

bmmg39 on August 20, 2013 at 6:47 PM

I didn’t cite depression.

You cited suicide rates but didn’t consider depression to be implicit in that? That’s…. interesting. Even if I withdraw that the rest of the point still stands.

Maybe practicing homosexuality is the cause, and conversion therapy is merely a corollary, to such symptoms since the vast majority of homos haven’t ever engaged in the latter and all have engaged in the former.

No, practicing homosexuality is not the cause. Parental rejection is.

Kids who are rejected by their parents because of their sexual orientation are more than eight times more likely to attempt suicide, six times as likely to report high levels of depression, three times more likely to use drugs and three times more likely to be at risk for HIV or another STD.

http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/files/English_Final_Print_Version_Last.pdf

Occam’s Razor.

So since by your logic it’s homosexuality that causes these things,

No, that’s your “logic”.

Gov. Krispee Kreme should therefore ban homosexuality. Or, at the very least, make it a crime to convert someone out of heterosexuality into homosexuality.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM

When it comes to the ideas you cook up on your own it’s garbage in, garbage out with you, isn’t it?

alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 6:50 PM

You’re right; it’s not. Unless the child is gay, in which it is.

bmmg39 on August 20, 2013 at 1:14 PM

A car floating on top of the water isn’t normal…unless it is floating, then it’s perfectly normal. Yeah, ok.

Nutstuyu on August 20, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Akzed, do you think being straight is just about having sexual intercourse? ‘Cuz I don’t. bmmg39 on August 20, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Well, heterosexuality means having sexual relations with someone sexually different than oneself. Homosexuality means having sexual relations with someone of the same sex.

So, if all we are talking about is the definition of the word, then yes. We can’t wait to see what rabbit you’re going to pull outa yer hat here, so please don’t hold us in suspense.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Are you saying that gays have a ‘control’ problem, but heterosexuals somehow don’t?

Good Lt on August 20, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Yes, everyone has control problems. But there’s no reason I have to accept/glorify your control problem above all others.

Nutstuyu on August 20, 2013 at 6:55 PM

The religious community has a much longer and more heinous track record of child abuse throughout human history than the gay community does.

Discuss.

Good Lt on August 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Because you can always prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ghey community was always completely separate from the religious community?

Nutstuyu on August 20, 2013 at 6:57 PM

No, practicing homosexuality is not the cause. Parental rejection is. alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 6:50 PM

It’s always someone else’s fault, huh? What about homo suicides whose deceased parents were members of PFLAG? Any data on them? Maybe making a hash of one’s life, even with parental consent, is just dangerous.

If you’re going to critique my logic, please give us a syllogism that proves I’m wrong. Until then you are just a fool.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Now here’s a question for you – when did you stop beating your wife and child?

Good Lt on August 20, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Easy, right after I got off the train ride from Jupiter.

Nutstuyu on August 20, 2013 at 7:06 PM

There have been no cases of HIV transmissions among lesbians. Not one. Ever. Why are you punishing them for the sins you perceive amongst gay men?

alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM

How can you possibly know or prove that? Are you saying that absolutely 100% of lesbians have never been or will be even the slightest bit bi-sexual?

Nutstuyu on August 20, 2013 at 7:08 PM

There have been no cases of HIV transmissions among lesbians. Not one. Ever. Why are you punishing them for the sins you perceive amongst gay men? alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM

…and exposure to fluids known to transmit HIV i.e. menstrual blood, vaginal secretions. Research from 1992 has shown that while a number of women (81%) believe that safe sex is important, only a few (18.7%) actually practiced it when engaged in sexual activity with other women (Russell et al. 1992). More than a decade later, this continues to be a reality for many lesbians…

He’s a lair by omission.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 7:11 PM

How can you possibly know or prove that? Are you saying that absolutely 100% of lesbians have never been or will be even the slightest bit bi-sexual? Nutstuyu on August 20, 2013 at 7:08 PM

That’s irrelevant. They can catch it -and have caught it- from one another through m3nstrual blood and vahooha secretions.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Well, heterosexuality means having sexual relations with someone sexually different than oneself. Homosexuality means having sexual relations with someone of the same sex.

So, if all we are talking about is the definition of the word, then yes. We can’t wait to see what rabbit you’re going to pull outa yer hat here, so please don’t hold us in suspense.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Wait no longer! I mean, I’ve been straight all my life, and to my knowledge I’ve never partaken of sexual relations at any time…but now, having read this, I guess I must have! (Funny…you’d think a fella would remember a thing like that…)

bmmg39 on August 20, 2013 at 7:25 PM

And your point is…

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Akzed is probably trolling all of us.

GW_SS-Delta on August 20, 2013 at 7:34 PM

How can you possibly know or prove that? Are you saying that absolutely 100% of lesbians have never been or will be even the slightest bit bi-sexual?

Nutstuyu on August 20, 2013 at 7:08 PM

No, I’m saying that as of today to the best of my knowledge the CDC has yet to find a case of a woman giving another woman HIV through the act of them and them alone having sex. There is one example of one woman giving HIV to another but there was a sex toy of some sort involved. Obviously lesbians can contract the disease if they have sex with men who have it but women giving it to each other doesn’t really happen.

alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 7:34 PM

No, I’m saying that as of today to the best of my knowledge the CDC has yet to find a case of a woman giving another woman HIV through the act of them and them alone having sex. alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Female-to-female transmission

While lesbians and WSW are at relatively low risk of HIV infection,
lesbian sex is not risk free. In 2006, the CDC issued a report stating
that there were no confirmed cases of HIV from female-to-female
transmission (CDC, 2006). However, the CDC did acknowledge that there have been several documented cases of women who
have sex with women that have been infected with HIV. One such
individual, a 20-year-old African-American woman, revealed that
while she contracted the HIV virus, she did not have a history
of the typical signs of risk behavior. She had never engaged in
sexual intercourse with a man, did not use injection drugs or other
substances, had no tattoos or piercings and had received no blood
transfusions. Her only partner was a bisexual female who had HIV.
It was concluded that the regular use of sex toys contributed to the
contraction (Ghobrial, 2003). [end]

So the political agency says there were none,m except that there were. Vvginal secretions, m3nstrual blood… those things don’t exist.

HOWEVER, we all know that gay men are the primary transmitters of HIV. Sodomists, that is, those who wallow in other men’s s3m3n and f3c3s – the kind of men that alchemist19 wants to have access to your sons.

And when they are successfully admitted to your boys, and molest them, and confuse them regarding their sexual orientation, he and Gov. Krispee Kreme want to hear nothing of restorative therapy to rid your child of his newfound imposed proclivity.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM

It’s always someone else’s fault, huh?

Probably not always.

What about homo suicides whose deceased parents were members of PFLAG? Any data on them?

I’ve never seen any studies on that but if you’ve got them I’m happy to look at them. I’m sure there have been some though; homophobia can come from a lot places besides their parents. It could be kids at school over even random homophobic idiots on the internet who think they know a lot more than they do and stick to their discredited ideas even after they’ve been proven wrong.

Maybe making a hash of one’s life, even with parental consent, is just dangerous.

To be sure. The thing is since homosexuality is harmless in and of itself, being that way doesn’t make a mess of your life. Bigots and homophobes can make a mess of your life but not just your sexual orientation by itself.

If you’re going to critique my logic,

You bet I am!

please give us a syllogism that proves I’m wrong.

My sardonic destruction of all the wrong things you think hasn’t been enough for you? Okay then just keep talking.

Until then you are just a fool.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 7:04 PM

If a fool is able to kick down your beliefs as easily as I’m doing to yours then that should tell you something about what you believe.

alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 7:52 PM

And your point is…

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 7:30 PM

C. Scratch your head.

D. Ask an adult to explain it to you.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 6:43 PM

bmmg39 on August 20, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Akzed is probably trolling all of us.

GW_SS-Delta on August 20, 2013 at 7:34 PM

I hope so; it would certainly explain a lot but I can’t discount the possibility s/he is real.

alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 8:00 PM

HOWEVER, we all know that gay men are the primary transmitters of HIV. Sodomists, that is, those who wallow in other men’s s3m3n and f3c3s – the kind of men that alchemist19 wants to have access to your sons.

And when they are successfully admitted to your boys, and molest them, and confuse them regarding their sexual orientation, he and Gov. Krispee Kreme want to hear nothing of restorative therapy to rid your child of his newfound imposed proclivity.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Whoa there, child! How did we get from my applauding a ban on an ineffective and harmful “treatment” for something that isn’t really a problem to me wanting to give gay men “access” to anyone’s son? And what kind of “access” do I want to give them? I always find it fascinating when people on the internet know things about me that I didn’t even know myself.

alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 8:05 PM

If a fool is able to kick down your beliefs as easily as I’m doing to yours then that should tell you something about what you believe. alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 7:52 PM

You make a great cheering section for yourself.

Please provide a syllogism, as requested.

Thanks.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 11:03 PM

Did he ban Weight Watchers yet, claiming that gluttony is not sin?

Hening on August 20, 2013 at 11:35 PM

it’s sad that a bill like this has to be signed in to law in the first place. conversion therapy for gay kids??? i can’t imagine what these poor kids had to go through if this was really going on.

kastor on August 21, 2013 at 12:17 AM

In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that you are a telepath, and your fantasies about what I think are uninteresting.

HiHo on August 20, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Don’t worry. No one expects a bigot like you to actually apply your own rules to your fellow gay-sex liberals, and we know you can’t.

northdallasthirty on August 21, 2013 at 12:37 AM

The person you’re arguing with has a long history of arguing in bad faith, and is someone who appears to have some larger issues going on as well. I made the decision a while ago not to respond to them because I was concerned I was making their personal demons worse. Just something to consider.

alchemist19 on August 20, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Actually, it had more to do with your consistently getting your butt kicked in argument and being exposed as an opportunistic bigot who not only was using gay people as an excuse for your repulsive anti-religious hate, but who was also insisting that any gay person who didn’t obey you and do your bidding was mentally ill.

Perhaps you can explain that for us, bigot. You claim to be “protecting” gay and lesbian people, but you scream at them, namecall them, and insist they are mentally ill unless they do exactly what you want them to do and agree with you on everything.

We have a serious case of White Man’s Burden here — and like your Obama Party ancestors, it’s just a cover-up for your attempting to exploit other people for your own selfish purposes.

northdallasthirty on August 21, 2013 at 12:40 AM

If you’re a Republican presidential prospect, and you’re on the same side with Jerry Brown, you messed up somewhere.

Rich Fader on August 21, 2013 at 1:48 AM

You make a great cheering section for yourself.

You appear to be divorced enough from reality that I didn’t think you would be able to read the scoreboard. Looks like I was right! Again! :-)

Please provide a syllogism, as requested.

Thanks.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 11:03 PM

You know, on some level I can sort of admire a glutton for punishment.

You were asking for a syllogism where you were wrong? That’s easy! In fact I already did it but you seem to have missed it so if there are any other low-information commenters out there I will repeat it.

Earlier you said this:

Should it be illegal for parents to provide therapy/counseling/whateveryouwanttocallit to their children when they announce that they are, or are discovered to be, engaged in homosexual acts?

Saying no means that you are fine with their life spans being reduced by 30%, as I noted above.

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 3:03 PM

The last part of what you say is totally wrong.

Average life expectancy in this country is 79 so your 30% off number means engaging in homosexual acts, according to you, will on average take 23.7 years off your life. One of the candidates seeking the Republican nomination for US Senate in Virginia this last go-around made a similar claim, only is was for a paltry 20 year reduction. Politifact investigated those claims based on the evidence he cited and called BS on it.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/07/bob-marshall/bob-marshall-says-homosexual-behavior-cuts-life-ex/

So if that’s what you meant you’re wrong. Homosexuality in and of itself doesn’t reduce a person’s lifespan by 30%.

But there’s also that “as I noted above” I bolded for emphasis in the post of yours I copied. Above that entry you had posted some numbers about how long a person can expect to live if they have contracted HIV. Now we’re talking about things that most definitely does shorten the lifespan of anyone, gay or straight, who has it. Here you quoted an article that shows someone who is HIV positive will die on average 21 years earlier than an HIV negative peer. That 21 years number fits very nicely into that 30% reduction in life expectancy. The thing is though for that 30% reduction in life expectancy to take place a person must contract the HIV virus and this is why your bad syllogism came into play. If this is what you meant by in your quoted post you were saying, in essence “All homosexuals have HIV; having HIV reduces your life expectancy by 30%; therefore engaging in homosexual acts reduces your life expectancy by 30%.” The syllogism is garbage because the major premise is false: not all homosexuals do. In fact, most don’t. So it is not automatic that engaging in homosexual acts reduces your life expectancy at all.

So was is me who proved you wrong or was it Politifact?

alchemist19 on August 21, 2013 at 5:03 AM

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 11:03 PM

And if you could tell me where I said I wanted gay men to have “access” to anyone sons, and what exactly that “access” would be that I want gay men to have then I would appreciate knowing. You talked about it here:

Akzed on August 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM

and it didn’t make any sense so I asked but you never responded so now I’m hoping since you’ve had a chance to sleep on it that something has come to you on the subject.

alchemist19 on August 21, 2013 at 5:07 AM

If you’re a Republican presidential prospect, and you’re on the same side with Jerry Brown, you messed up somewhere.

Rich Fader on August 21, 2013 at 1:48 AM

Are we going to play the “Guilt by Association Game”?! Awesome! Hold on, it’s my turn now. Yes it’s true that Chris Christie and I are both on Jerry Brown’s side on this issue but given the options I would much rather be on Moonbeam’s side than I would be with the Westboro Baptist Church.

alchemist19 on August 21, 2013 at 5:08 AM

This isn’t a religious freedom issue. This will do greater harm. WILL. Christie made the right call here.

I suppose I’ll have to point out the obvious and remind you that your personal anecdote and viewpoint and reliance on an untested, unproven (and unprovable) categorical prediction is a logical dead end.

Every time a double standard is exposed or debunked, lefties come up with an even more egregious double standard. How many organizations, many of them funded directly by the state e.g. educational institutions, have ‘gay or think you might be?’ support centers, counselors, hotlines, etc.? Why is coming out of the closet supposed to come with a fanfare and a party, while declaring there is no closet at all now outlawed?

Boil it all down and it’s more of the same: thought control.

jangle12 on August 21, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Own it, bitches!

Christie just put Marcus and Michele Bachmann out of business in NJ.

[I don't really like Christie at all, (the fat, hypocritical f**k) but Marcus and Michele Bachmann creep the sh*t out of me.]

Marcus far more than Michele.

Meow!

thejackal on August 21, 2013 at 9:15 AM

You were asking for a syllogism where you were wrong? That’s easy! In fact I already did it but you seem to have missed it so if there are any other low-information commenters out there I will repeat it.

But you didn’t.

The syllogism is garbage because the major premise is false: not all homosexuals do. In fact, most don’t. So it is not automatic that engaging in homosexual acts reduces your life expectancy at all. So was is me who proved you wrong or was it Politifact? Alchemist19 on August 21, 2013 at 5:03 AM

You keep using this word syllogism, but I don’t think you know what it means. Therefore, I absolve you from any obligation to provide one to prove me wrong, since your obvious unfamiliarity with logic has been sufficiently demonstrated.

Take it up with the International Journal of Epidemiology:

“In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871.”

Therefore, dissuading boys from buggery extends their lives, and preventing that influence shortens them. One is an act of compassion, and the other is cold, hard, political calculation resulting, on average, in early death.

The Journal is apologetic for having published their findings and given ammo to “homophobes,” who just might use their findings as impetus to help extend the lives of misguided young men. There’s a syllogism waiting to happen. In fact, go look up syllogism so you won’t be similarly embarrassed again.

Akzed on August 21, 2013 at 10:29 AM

You keep using this word syllogism, but I don’t think you know what it means. Therefore, I absolve you from any obligation to provide one to prove me wrong, since your obvious unfamiliarity with logic has been sufficiently demonstrated.

Your struggles with English continue.

I said that you appeared to be using a syllogism (though I never used the word) that employed a false premise but now based on your reply I see that my giving you the benefit of the doubt at not making the obvious error was a mistake. See, I make them too? I have overestimated your intelligence and I was wrong to do that. I’m sorry. I thought your asking me for a syllogism was your attempt to make my job a bit harder; since it’s really easy for me (or anyone else for that matter) to prove that what you think is so baseless and out of touch with the way the world works I thought you create some challenge for me in the way I presented the information that contradicts what you say. “Prove I’m wrong by using a syllogism,” “Demonstrate how incorrect this post is by employing an interpretive dance,” that kind of stuff would at least slow me down a bit.

Now, on to you “point”.

Therefore, dissuading boys from buggery extends their lives, and preventing that influence shortens them. One is an act of compassion, and the other is cold, hard, political calculation resulting, on average, in early death.

The Journal is apologetic for having published their findings and given ammo to “homophobes,” who just might use their findings as impetus to help extend the lives of misguided young men. There’s a syllogism waiting to happen. In fact, go look up syllogism so you won’t be similarly embarrassed again.

Akzed on August 21, 2013 at 10:29 AM

So it was Politifact that proved you wrong! You didn’t actually read the link I posted, did you? And no, that’s a rhetorical question, I know you didn’t read it.

Good Lt tried to dissuade you earlier but since you’re a slow learner I’ll take a crack at it myself.

If you had read the Politifact link you would have seen the following passage in reference to the very same article you cite (What a coincidence!). The “Marshall” you will see reference is the blithering idiot who made the statement that homosexual behavior cuts 20 years off your life.

The report’s authors, in 2001, took exception to conservatives who used their study to condemn the lifestyle of gay and bisexual men. The researchers said circumstances had changed since their study ended in the early 1990s.

“If we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved,” the authors wrote. “Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996.”

The researchers, however, did not conduct a new study on the life expectancy for gay and bisexual men.

We spoke to Julio Montaner, a co-author of the study and director of the British Columbia Center for Excellence in HIV/AIDs. He said Marshall’s statement is a “gross misrepresentation” of the research.

“To use my report to support the notion that gay and bisexual sex is somehow the reason why people die early is misusing the data,” Montaner said.

Montaner noted that his group’s original report was conducted at a time when the HIV epidemic was poorly controlled and treatments were ineffective. Since then, there have been great strides in treating the disease and preventing its spread, Montaner said. In British Columbia, annual diagnoses of new infections have dropped from 900 in the mid-1990s to 300 in recent years, he said. Deaths from HIV also have fallen sharply, he said.

In the United States, figures from the Centers for Disease Control show that the rate of HIV deaths per 100,000 people peaked at 36.3 deaths in 1995 and fell to 2.7 in 2010, the latest year data is available.

So there. You’re misinterpreting outdated data to support your conclusion.

Talking about “life expectancy” in general is, of course, taking an average measure of something where individual cases will vary wildly; some will die very young and some with live far into old age. Even if you were right and there was a 20 year or 30% or whatever size reduction you want to claim there is, recall the study I cited earlier that parental rejection of a child based on their sexual orientation makes them eight times more likely to commit suicide, six times more likely to be severely depressed, and three times more likely to use drugs or contract HIV or some other STD. HIV, drugs, depression, suicide, those are all things that will dramatically shorten your life expectancy. That sounds like the low end of the bell curve that’s doing the most to pull the average down. So Governor Christie was right to sign into law the ban he did. QED

alchemist19 on August 21, 2013 at 1:00 PM

I said that you appeared to be using a syllogism (though I never used the word) that employed a false premise but now based on your reply I see that my giving you the benefit of the doubt at not making the obvious error was a mistake.alchemist19 on August 21, 2013 at 1:00 PM

You were asking for a syllogism where you were wrong? That’s easy! In fact I already did it but you seem to have missed it so if there are any other low-information commenters out there I will repeat it.Alchemist19 on August 21, 2013 at 5:03 AM

Your struggles with English continue. alchemist19 on August 21, 2013 at 1:00 PM

You’re a hee hawing jackass.

Akzed on August 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM

QED? I think you missed a step… I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but I’ll point out that you managed to flip your causality… if Parental rejection, HIV, etc are what directly cause dramatically shortened life expectancy (obviously), you would need to demonstrate that SOCE directly causes Parental rejection, HIV etc. to establish SOCE as an indirect cause, making it “right” to ban. Such causality has not been demonstrated, and would seem absurd as the only parents who would bother with the trouble of SOCE are those that have a strong emotional investment in their child, and SOCE does not magically create HIV infections. That, at least, is why your attempt at a syllogism is being picked apart.

Yes, the official position of the bureaucarats at the top of the APA is that SOCE = bad, but psychology is not physics and their subjective opinion does not exist in a vacuum. There are evidently plenty of licensed therapists who have seen enough positive results to believe it works, else why would banning be necessary to stop something not being practiced?

The root of this entire argument is should the government ban something by making a statistical, but unscientific and subjective assessment of its positive and negative worth, or should that evaluation be left to free individuals to exercise their discretion? Prove an inarguable negative net worth, and THEN it is demonstrated. Skipping that part breaks your logic.

CapnObvious on August 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM

You’re a hee hawing jackass.

Akzed on August 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM

And what appear to be your deeply held personal beliefs are out of line with reality.

Can somebody please find me a worthy opponent? Playing Madden with the difficulty on “Rookie” gets unsatisfying after a while.

alchemist19 on August 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM

CapnObvious on August 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Ask and I shall receive! Awesome!

QED? I think you missed a step… I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but I’ll point out that you managed to flip your causality… if Parental rejection, HIV, etc are what directly cause dramatically shortened life expectancy (obviously), you would need to demonstrate that SOCE directly causes Parental rejection, HIV etc. to establish SOCE as an indirect cause, making it “right” to ban. Such causality has not been demonstrated, and would seem absurd as the only parents who would bother with the trouble of SOCE are those that have a strong emotional investment in their child, and SOCE does not magically create HIV infections. That, at least, is why your attempt at a syllogism is being picked apart.

I’m not making the claim that SOCE “therapy” causes parental rejection, but rather that this alleged treatment is something a rejecting parent might consider which is only going to make the situation worse by increasing feeling the sense of rejection that a child would feel and leading to the adverse effects associated with that. The ban, aside from preventing the abusive acts also sends a clear message to any parents who might be considering such a course of action that it’s probably not going to work and is more likely only going to make the child’s life worse. If that tempers the sense of rejection children feel then that’s a good thing.

Yes, the official position of the bureaucarats at the top of the APA is that SOCE = bad, but psychology is not physics and their subjective opinion does not exist in a vacuum. There are evidently plenty of licensed therapists who have seen enough positive results to believe it works, else why would banning be necessary to stop something not being practiced?

I’m not sure if you intend that why to be a rhetorical question but I will answer it. It is necessary in part because there are people who will hang on to old, outdated, disavowed studies to justify something they want to believe even though it isn’t true.

Like this.

The root of this entire argument is should the government ban something by making a statistical, but unscientific and subjective assessment of its positive and negative worth, or should that evaluation be left to free individuals to exercise their discretion? Prove an inarguable negative net worth, and THEN it is demonstrated. Skipping that part breaks your logic.

I’m not attacking here when I ask this, I just want to try to better understand your position. What to you would constitute an inarguable negative net worth, especially in light of your previous statement about the inherent subjectivity in psychology?

alchemist19 on August 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Ask and I shall receive! Awesome!

I’m assuming you mean “an opponent”… but I don’t view this discussion as adversarial…

I’m not making the claim that SOCE “therapy” causes parental rejection,

I know you’re not. But without that, or some similar logical step, you’re not establishing that SOCE is an “abusive act.”
You’ve listed a bunch of direct causes of child harm, without linking SOCE causally. The APA has mentioned correlations, but has also explicitly said they have not conducted any studies to prove a causal link. Is it not equally likely that indicators of depression, suicidal thoughts, risky behavior, etc., would make a concerned parent more likely to enroll their child in SOCE? Wouldn’t that skew such an uncontrolled sample group?

Just keep in mind that while correlative statistics can be helpful, they should not be mistaken for proof without non-falsifiable corollaries.

this alleged treatment is something a rejecting parent might consider

You’re likely mistaken about what “parental rejection” is in the context that the APA implies it; it’s a severance of emotional attachment and support. Think: “get out of my house, you’re no child of mine,” not merely a disapproval of a behavior or state of mind. Parents can disapprove of alcoholism, but putting their child into AA does not constitute “parental rejection”… quite the opposite, it shows an emotional investment in supporting the child, even if the AA program proves ineffective in that individual case.

there are people who will hang on to old, outdated, disavowed studies to justify something they want to believe even though it isn’t true.

Again, you haven’t shown that SOCE is any of the above because the APA itself hasn’t done any such study. You’re taking their unscientific discontinuance of the treatment based upon statistical correlation as an authoritative proof it was not intended to be. I won’t criticize the APA for exercising an abundance of caution, but a policy position based on anecdotal prudence does not a study make.

It has to be bad because the APA discontinued it, therefore the APA discontinued it because it has to be bad. Your logic here is circular.

I’m not attacking here when I ask this, I just want to try to better understand your position. What to you would constitute an inarguable negative net worth, especially in light of your previous statement about the inherent subjectivity in psychology?

I could similarly ask you what your inarguable positive net worth is for banning, as the above thread merely shows it’s entirely arguable. Why is the burden of proof not on the ones doing the banning? No one’s using force of government to push all kids into a therapy that isn’t fully vetted, and how would one ever expect to vet a therapeutic approach if it’s banned and can’t be directly studied? This is the same argument used by AGW: an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy) implies a No-Real-Scottsman argument (another logical fallacy) implies action for which the ramifications aren’t understood is needed to correct a problem that may not exist.

In analogy form:
IPCC has a position : All “real” scientists must share an identical position : Banning CO2 emissions is reasonable :: APA has a position : All “real” therapists must share an identical position : Banning SOCE is reasonable

You won’t even be able to prove that it had any effect.
We banned SOCE decades ago : Millions of kids didn’t get abused :: We banned CO2 emissions decades ago : The oceans didn’t rise 20 feet

Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying I have any proof SOCE is good, I’m just saying don’t be so quick to jump on a bandwagon to the opposite conclusion without proof just because it fits a preconceived politically correct narrative. The political winds could change tomorrow and homosexuality could once again end up right back in the DSM with other paraphilic disorders.

My position since you asked, is that “bans” need careful consideration, not political grandstanding.

CapnObvious on August 21, 2013 at 6:27 PM

I’m assuming you mean “an opponent”… but I don’t view this discussion as adversarial…

I made my earlier comment about a new opponent before I had read your response and the juxtaposition of that statement with an intelligent response to something I had said made me laugh. I don’t view this as adversarial either; on the contrary, I’m finding it refreshing.

I know you’re not. But without that, or some similar logical step, you’re not establishing that SOCE is an “abusive act.”

You’ve listed a bunch of direct causes of child harm, without linking SOCE causally. The APA has mentioned correlations, but has also explicitly said they have not conducted any studies to prove a causal link. Is it not equally likely that indicators of depression, suicidal thoughts, risky behavior, etc., would make a concerned parent more likely to enroll their child in SOCE? Wouldn’t that skew such an uncontrolled sample group?

Just keep in mind that while correlative statistics can be helpful, they should not be mistaken for proof without non-falsifiable corollaries.

It’s plausible that indications of risky behavior is what leads a parent to seek out SOCE, but when the APA investigated what they say they found that the population that most commonly seeks out SOCE are people with strongly conservative religious views.

Their full report (which I’ll refer back to a few more times later on) can be found here.

You’re likely mistaken about what “parental rejection” is in the context that the APA implies it; it’s a severance of emotional attachment and support. Think: “get out of my house, you’re no child of mine,” not merely a disapproval of a behavior or state of mind. Parents can disapprove of alcoholism, but putting their child into AA does not constitute “parental rejection”… quite the opposite, it shows an emotional investment in supporting the child, even if the AA program proves ineffective in that individual case.

Of course parental rejection can take many forms and be taken to different extremes. And for the record, “parental rejection” is the term used in the study by SFSU I linked to earlier when they reported the adverse effects of it for homosexual children. I’m also aware that some parents might seek out SOCE with the best of intentions but their ignorance of the facts of what their child is going through leads them to seek treatment that is ineffective at best and harmful at the worst.

Again, you haven’t shown that SOCE is any of the above because the APA itself hasn’t done any such study. You’re taking their unscientific discontinuance of the treatment based upon statistical correlation as an authoritative proof it was not intended to be. I won’t criticize the APA for exercising an abundance of caution, but a policy position based on anecdotal prudence does not a study make.

It has to be bad because the APA discontinued it, therefore the APA discontinued it because it has to be bad. Your logic here is circular.

That was directed at the other guy who I know is still out there and who was using the old paper from the International Journal of Epidemiology. That was in reference to his statements about life expectancy in general and not related to SOCE in particular.

Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying I have any proof SOCE is good, I’m just saying don’t be so quick to jump on a bandwagon to the opposite conclusion without proof just because it fits a preconceived politically correct narrative. The political winds could change tomorrow and homosexuality could once again end up right back in the DSM with other paraphilic disorders.

My position since you asked, is that “bans” need careful consideration, not political grandstanding.

CapnObvious on August 21, 2013 at 6:27 PM

I’m didn’t think you were praising SOCE. The APA found it wasn’t totally without benefit for all of the participants either; they point out some people who participated in religious SOCE developed a sense of community and found others whom they could identify with. This, they say, can mitigate some of the harmful aspects of SOCE; however, those same benefits could be achieved with a simple support group without any of the other stuff that comes along with SOCE.

That one positive (which is obtainable from other methods) is counterbalanced by a not-insubstantial body of evidence that this form of treatment is harmful. The APA does say they see evidence in scientifically rigorous studies with negative side effects for some of the participants including “loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality, and anxiety. The high dropout rate in these studies may indicate that some research participants may have experienced these treatments as harmful and discontinued treatment.” To listen to the APA it’s not like it’s a close call on whether or not the risks with the correlations they see outweighing the rewards here. Would it be fair to say you think SOCE is probably bad but hasn’t yet met the threshold for the ban hammer?

As for the claim I’m making an appeal to authority, the truth is we all end up doing that at some point because we’re not all psychologists with the means and expertise to conduct a thorough, scientifically rigorous study on our own. I mean I do know a thing or two about the scientific method so if you want to write up an NIH grant then maybe we can put our heads together and come up with something but even then I don’t think I’ve got the time. We should be absolutely be encouraged to question the findings of any expert, and the thoughts of any professional organization should not be taken as gospel truth just because a professional said it, but if we’re going to cast aspersions we need a sound scientific basis to do it. I can do that on the IPCC all day on the subject of AGW, here I really can’t.

alchemist19 on August 21, 2013 at 10:38 PM

I know … I say this on every “gay” thread ……..

Homosexuality will NEVER … be accepted as a legitimate, alternate state of normality ….. period.

.
But that doesn’t mean it’s ok to treat homosexuals as less than ‘human’, either.

listens2glenn on August 22, 2013 at 1:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5