Oregon Considers Banning Gay-To-Straight Conversion Therapy For Children

You are who is claiming what Jesus says. Did you just make that up?

 

You dodge yet another question. Seems to be a theme with you.
I claimed nothing about what Jesus said. I said he does love his people and does not nor ever has hated.
So why do you hate? When Jesus doesn't?

 

you haven't proven Christians HATE gays. all you've proven is they DISAGREE.


I disagree that siblings should be included in "marriage equality"...... but I don't hate the siblings who are fighting to expand the definition of marraige so that it includes them.

 

Are you a Christian?

 

I didn't say christians hate. Some do, no doubt. You butted in and the person isn't christian, so he hates gays has nothing to do with christianity.
And he butted in to my response to another.
So all the butting in without knowing anything is getting things out of context.

I did ask why christians can't be more like Jesus and accept people for who they are. And let Jesus and the individual sort out any issues.

 

Officially, yes. I haven't practiced for a few years, but did for many many many years.
I still belong to a church.
I even voted several years ago to make it part of my state constitution to make marriage between a man and a woman. A vote I don't like that I made, now.

 

I question the validity of anyone that claims they are Christians and they hate anyone or group..... but Christian factor aside....


you still aren't proving anyone hates gays because they don't support them.


I don't support polygomy, or siblings marrying.... but I don't hate them for it.

 

When one has no valid reason to disagree with something, it borders on hate or makes it look like hate.

 

there's no such thing as a "luke-warm" Christian.


Christianity is not a sliding scale.... it's like being pregnant.... you either are, or you aren't. Belonging to the church does not mean you are Christian. Some like to be there just to be seen.

 

who defines "valid", you?..... just because you don't find it valid, doesn't mean I agree with that.


do you have a valid reason to not allow polygomy, or incest marraiges? (remember, child bearing ability are not valid reasons accoriding to the SSM movement....)

if you don't support incest marriage, do you hate siblings that try to marry then because you "have no valid reason to object"

 

Attending church doesn't make anyone any more of a christian either.
If one doesn't walk the walk, they are the fake christians the bible warns about.

You live your life on a sliding scale as does everyone else. How far it slides is all that differs.
The bible is real real specific on divorcing and remarrying.

 

Yep, I do. And so do you and others in society. You can claim your worry about insurance rates will increase until you turn blue. But you can't prove it. So I deem it an invalid reason.

None on polygamy. But the gov't has to have a good set of order if they allow it. By order, I mean who is tops in the inheritance line, etc.
What valid reasons are there to prevent polygamy?

Incest? From what I know about incest it can lead to mentally ill offspring. If true, they should not be allowed to marry, or if they do, no offspring.
Child bearing is irrelevant to any marriage. In some cases, should be prohibited, see incest and offspring.

 

reminds me of the old saying, if billy jumped off a bridge, would you? Lemmings will follow other lemmings right off a cliff to their deaths... I don't base my morals, my idealogies based on how many likes a cause gets on facebook.... I base them on my education, my religious beliefs, etc......

Economics 101 proves it, your inability to comprehend why is not my concern.

incest.... wait, I thought gays determined that procreating isn't a valid concern? Can't have it both ways.

plus, you don't know the risk levels in incest are actually lower chance of birth defects than smoking while pregnant, or being pregnant over 40, and yet, you allow women to marry in their 40s, huh? You're basing policy off of your ignorance..... (damn, that reason sounds familiar, too)



you see, you are just as ignorant and bigotted towards another minority group as you claim Christians are towards gays. Why is your subjective line of acceptability the line everyone else has to follow?

 

I agree with the fake Christian part.... no doubt about it.


I have been forgiven for my sin of divorce, though.... I realized it was wrong, and I fixed my life..... so I have no guilt in telling my kids that divorce is still wrong, and when he asks "didn't you get divorced" I will say the same thing to him... "yes, but I'm forgiven" Just because I've sinned in the past does not mean I'm not allowed to teach my children "gay is a sin", even if you don't agree with it. It's opinion based on my faith, just like your opinion is based on the faith that you were born gay.

 

View attachment 38474

I could not have said it better

 

the issue is acknowledging what is a sin and then avoiding it.

You refuse to acknowledge that gay sex is a sin despite the Bible being clear about it.

I know that stealing is a sin and if I did steal, prayed for forgiveness, but then continued to steal, that would be the same as one who continues to have gay sex. You continue the sinful behavior.

 

pretty much irrelevant. Didn't address anything about what I or you think is valid. Nor did I say I base anything on what others think. You made an assumption.

You don't know economics it seems.

Wait, what? What did I say about procreation? Oh yeah, nothing, except I said child bearing is irrelevant to marriage.

What minority group do I not tolerate? Please cite it. Where have I said what is or isn't acceptable to me. For I made a statement, as I know, meaning I am not an expert and if I am wrong about incest than I don't care if they procreate.
So now you completely misunderstood everything I wrote and made up everything and were wrong.

 

Gay is not a sin. Sex outside the rules laid out in the bible is a sin. And any gay person can be forgiven just as you think you have. They will live the same life style as you, except they have sex with the same sex and not the opposite.

And sins are only relevant to most of the Abrahamic religions. For most all others, not at all. So about 1/2 the world is isn't a sin.

 

I don't refuse anything. I merely point out that a gay person having sex is the same as a married 2X or more person having sex is the same sin.
I know what the bible says, I also know that the sin is between each person and Jesus/God. No one else.
Everyone sins everyday. You do the same sin everyday also. You are intolerant everyday.

Now having said all that, those sins apply to only christians and perhaps other abrahamic religions. To others, not a sin at all.
You also lie everyday when you equate gay = pedophile

 

Amen. So be it.

 

I think this issue should be left for the medical psychiatric and psychological associations to decide. If they decide to discipline their membership for engaging in conversion therapy or revoking licenses, its their call not the state of Oregons, because they are best equipped to understand the danger of doing something, or not doing somethins about specific practices in therapy. if they see it as an ethical or professional breach, then it is!

 

That's exactly right and I agree with that.

Which is why I have formed my opinion as such. Because conversion therapy is not supported by any major psychological organization and the "therapy" itself is almost never actually carried out by licensed psychological or psychiatric professionals but rather by church officials or "counselors" who are not formally trained to handle such a delicate psychological treatment.

 

I agree.

However, Oregon could reasonably pass a law prohibiting such as electro-shock and other negative conditioning tactics in therapy to ONLY LICENSED psychiatrists and psychologists and even could outlaw such as electro-shock treatment for kids or anyone. Otherwise, politicians pretending they are better psychiatrists than MD psychiatrists is absurd.

 

There are psychiatrists and psychologists who specialize in patients who are really messed up in terms of gender identity and gender sexuality, often due to extreme abuse particularly in their childhood. Counseling a person having sexual and relationship compulsions that stem from abuse and being psychologically messed up could lead to such therapy being interpreted as gender conversation therapy.

NO psychiatrist is going to risk 20 years or more of education to obtain their MD licenses to the whims of PC zippy pinheads on some government administrative board for which the psychiatrist could lose his career and license via a no trial, no jury administrative board summary PC decree. Leave doctoring to doctors, not the local chapter of the Stonewall's political endorsement committee.

 

American medical and scientific organizations have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful.The advancement of conversion therapy may cause social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation

The potential risks of "reparative therapy" are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone "reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed. Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or "conversion" therapy which is based upon the priori assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.