Well - absent a state interest sufficient to compel people to undergo such therapy I don't think that is going to happen and I believe that people will increasingly treat it simply as a viable alternative orientation. Even if such a state interest could be demonstrated and was widely accepted by the population I don't wish to put such power in the hands of the state.
Nothing about this article had anything remotely to do with compelling such therapy, so why repeat yourself? No one has even suggested it. Traditional family advocates are not playing an offensive game with the gay lobby, but a defensive one. They want to destroy us, not the other way around. Are we clear on that?
The reason this article is needed is not because anyone wants to force them to do anything, but because the gay lobby has tried:
to deny that recovery is possible,
to prevent recovery events from taking place, and
to exclude the testimony of ex-gays from any policy decisions.
posted on 07/07/2009 10:51:04 AM PDT
by Albion Wilde
(If ten percent is good enough for Jesus, it ought to be good enough for Uncle Sam. --Ray Stevens)
To: Albion Wilde
You are absolutely correct. The “counselors” that “specialize” with LGTB issues will give a very cursory “let’s explore why you feel this way” and then it’s off to the races. It’s all about making sure the person getting therapy can affirm and justify their “alternative orientation”. Big time agendas in place.
To: Albion Wilde
I'm sorry if I still wasn't clear. I'll try to be explicit: I don't believe anybody here was suggesting that such therapy could be forced on anybody. Never said it and never believed it. I was responding to a specific question in a previous comment about not extending special rights and protections to homosexuals based on the fact that it is a choice.
It would seem to me that if the state rightfully denies rights and protections based on a choice it would be because it disapproves of that choice in some fashion. If the state disapproves and the choice deserves no protection why shouldn't/wouldn't the state step in and interfere with the choice to begin with? Isn't that exactly the sort of grubbing and interference that states always grab for?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson