Why do liberals hate freedom?

[Ariux]

You can't cure someone of being gay. It's not a disease and it has no "cure". Reparative therapy hurts people, it doesn't help them.

There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of “reparative therapy” as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation, nor is it included in the APA’s Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders. More importantly, altering sexual orientation is not an appropriate goal of psychiatric treatment. Some may seek conversion to heterosexuality because of the difficulties that they encounter as a member of a stigmatized group. Clinical experience indicates that those who have integrated their sexual orientation into a positive sense of self-function at a healthier psychological level than those who have not. “Gay affirmative psychotherapy” may be helpful in the coming out process, fostering a positive psychological development and overcoming the effects of stigmatization. A position statement adopted by the Board in December 1998 said:

"The American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder, or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/ her homosexual orientation.”​

Sexual Orientation

What principle shows that queers can't be cured? We know attraction is not fixed. We don't know of any deterministic biological cause of homosexuality. What about the people who claim to be "ex-gay", other than dismissing them out-of-hand? What about people who become homosexual later in life?

Peer reviewers in modern psychology magazines would never publish an article that suggests there may be effective treatments for homosexuals. Even if a most high quality study was produced showing homosexuals can be cured, the peers would reject the publication of that study on the grounds that "altering sexual orientation is not an appropriate goal of psychiatric treatment." Such a study wouldn't get funding in the first place.

The failure of some conversion programs may be all about technique, and not because of some reason of immutable attraction. I would be amazed if effeminate Evangelicals and ex-queers I've seen on TV behind some conversion programs could be very effective at curing homosexuals.

It's not honest to dismiss a desire not to be queer simply a a result of social stigma. There's more social support than stigma for being a shit-packer, these days. What is the foundation for claiming that people would want to change to avoid social stigma? Other sexual perverts, except maybe pedophiles (for reasons of harming children, not reasons of social stigma), have no interest in changing their fetishes, no matter how socially stigmatizing. Guys who like to watch girls crush animals, guys who like to have sex with animals, etc. just don't advertise it, but they're not wanting to change. Faggots could simply join other perverts in the closet and avoid social stigma.

And, what the fuck business of yours, or any shithead liberal, why someone wants to change? So what if they want to change for reasons of social stigma. But, maybe they want to change because of their personal religion? Maybe they want to change because they want to have children with someone they love? Maybe they want to change because gay bars are so full of faggots.

You're full of shit.

 

[Pheonixops]

California may ban gay teen 'conversion' therapy - Yahoo! News


Representatives of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality on Tuesday called the bill a piece of social engineering masquerading as a solution to a clinical problem.

"Any therapist worth his salt knows that homosexual feelings commonly occur in victims as a result of abuses," he said. "I ought to know because I was one of those boys."


liberals, why do you hate freedom and the rights of parents?

Even when professionals tell you you're wrong and will do harm, you don't give a fuck.

That's a pretty silly premise and an inaccurate blanket statement. That's a California issue, not a Liberal issue. I bet that line by line, this Liberal (me) is MUCH MORE in favor of FREEDOM than most of your and you so-called "conservatives" and republicans.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

California may ban gay teen 'conversion' therapy - Yahoo! News


Representatives of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality on Tuesday called the bill a piece of social engineering masquerading as a solution to a clinical problem.

"Any therapist worth his salt knows that homosexual feelings commonly occur in victims as a result of abuses," he said. "I ought to know because I was one of those boys."


liberals, why do you hate freedom and the rights of parents?

Even when professionals tell you you're wrong and will do harm, you don't give a fuck.

Really? Saying something as hyperbolic as "Why do liberals hate freedom?" because of this bill is like someone asking "Why do conservatives hate sex?" because they don't approve of pre-marital sex or "Why do conservatives hate the Earth?" when they attempt loosen regulations on pollution.

And the Representative of NARTH quoted in the OP uses an anecdote to support his or her position which allows them to blame their "homosexual feelings" on someone else. Not very scientific or self-aware.

Parents don't have a right to harm their children. Sorry. And I don't mean spankings, either.

 

[rdean]

California may ban gay teen 'conversion' therapy - Yahoo! News


Representatives of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality on Tuesday called the bill a piece of social engineering masquerading as a solution to a clinical problem.

"Any therapist worth his salt knows that homosexual feelings commonly occur in victims as a result of abuses," he said. "I ought to know because I was one of those boys."


liberals, why do you hate freedom and the rights of parents?

Even when professionals tell you you're wrong and will do harm, you don't give a fuck.

Really? Saying something as hyperbolic as "Why do liberals hate freedom?" because of this bill is like someone asking "Why do conservatives hate sex?" because they don't approve of pre-marital sex or "Why do conservatives hate the Earth?" when they attempt loosen regulations on pollution.

And the Representative of NARTH quoted in the OP uses an anecdote to support his or her position which allows them to blame their "homosexual feelings" on someone else. Not very scientific or self-aware.

Parents don't have a right to harm their children. Sorry. And I don't mean spankings, either.

Scientific has nothing to do with Republicans. And versa vica.

 

[PardonMyNerdity]

Those parents (a single mom?) raising that boy in a girl's room and giving him fingernail polish should be shot for child abuse. They're teaching him to be a faggot. His older brother probably played roughly with him, as a toddler, so he chose to play with toys his brother didn't like so he'd be left alone. And, his incompetent excuse for a mother decided he was a fag, so she started promoting it.

So...single moms can't be good parents?

Typical Republican.

Also...what does single motherhood have to do with a child turning out homosexual?

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's not liberals who want police women's vaginas.

yeeahh

Just free speech
right to privacy
right to bear arms
right to raise your kids
right to self bargin at work
right to buy or not products

and so on and so forth....

Uh, do you have examples?

At least you admit Republicans want to police women's vaginas.

correct, I'm honest and you are not, or you're dumber than I thought.

Just free speech hate speech laws, support of net neutrality
right to privacy obamacare and, now, The Patriot Act
right to bear arms I shouldn't have to explain this
right to raise your kids This thread is my proof
right to self bargin at work You're against me getting a raise when others won't. unions
right to buy or not products obamacare


But I'm sure you have an excuse that makes your anti-freedom ways ok, b/c they are different somehow.

 

[Two Thumbs]

California may ban gay teen 'conversion' therapy - Yahoo! News


Representatives of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality on Tuesday called the bill a piece of social engineering masquerading as a solution to a clinical problem.

"Any therapist worth his salt knows that homosexual feelings commonly occur in victims as a result of abuses," he said. "I ought to know because I was one of those boys."


liberals, why do you hate freedom and the rights of parents?

Even when professionals tell you you're wrong and will do harm, you don't give a fuck.

That's a pretty silly premise and an inaccurate blanket statement. That's a California issue, not a Liberal issue. I bet that line by line, this Liberal (me) is MUCH MORE in favor of FREEDOM than most of your and you so-called "conservatives" and republicans.

wrong

CA is the root of liberalsm, second only to NYC.

If it passes there, it will go state too state. Anyone that opposes it will be declaring war on whatever fantasy idea you have.

 

[Two Thumbs]

California may ban gay teen 'conversion' therapy - Yahoo! News


Representatives of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality on Tuesday called the bill a piece of social engineering masquerading as a solution to a clinical problem.

"Any therapist worth his salt knows that homosexual feelings commonly occur in victims as a result of abuses," he said. "I ought to know because I was one of those boys."


liberals, why do you hate freedom and the rights of parents?

Even when professionals tell you you're wrong and will do harm, you don't give a fuck.

Really? Saying something as hyperbolic as "Why do liberals hate freedom?" because of this bill is like someone asking "Why do conservatives hate sex?" because they don't approve of pre-marital sex or "Why do conservatives hate the Earth?" when they attempt loosen regulations on pollution.

And the Representative of NARTH quoted in the OP uses an anecdote to support his or her position which allows them to blame their "homosexual feelings" on someone else. Not very scientific or self-aware.

Parents don't have a right to harm their children. Sorry. And I don't mean spankings, either.

we have been accused of that

sooo

your point is pointless

 

[Chris]

Like the freedom to marry who you want to?

Like a women's freedom of choice?

Like freedom from gun violence?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Like the freedom to marry who you want to?

Like a women's freedom of choice?

Like freedom from gun violence?

Sucks don't it.

The religious right is following your lead now

and it pisses you off


So why don't you stop?

oh and, freedom from gun violence is fucking retarded.

 

[francoHFW]

GOP- wrong side of History, FOREVER. ok since 1865.

 

[Two Thumbs]

GOP- wrong side of History, FOREVER. ok since 1865.

Liberals, hating the Constitution since the 1930's.


But thanks for being man enough to avoid the subject and not tell me I'm wrong.

 

[BDBoop]

GOP- wrong side of History, FOREVER. ok since 1865.

Liberals, hating the Constitution since the 1930's.


But thanks for being man enough to avoid the subject and not tell me I'm wrong.

Republicans: Defending the Indefensible since June 17, 1972.

 

[francoHFW]

LOL. Wrong again, dupe. The Constitution is timeless. But times change, especially since the frontier disappeared and Pubs keep destroying the economy...

 

[rhian]

Should "therapists" have the "freedom" to continue to perform lobotomies and shock treatments? Should the FDA be able to ban drugs that are harmful to people?

Reparative therapy (which has a less than 2% success rate) causes much more harm than good. I'm glad to see California banning such a dangerous practice.

I guess you must be in favour of banning cosmetic surgery too then?

I guess so too.

 

[Two Thumbs]

LOL. Wrong again, dupe. The Constitution is timeless. But times change, especially since the frontier disappeared and Pubs keep destroying the economy...

The dems have held the purse strings since 2006.

I'd explain what that means, but you're a hack, and will lie to make your point.

Dems hate the Constitution, if the didn't, they would not have so many laws taking freedoms away.

I suggest you all take time and think about it, and realize you cheer every time to take freedom away.

 

[Two Thumbs]

GOP- wrong side of History, FOREVER. ok since 1865.

Liberals, hating the Constitution since the 1930's.


But thanks for being man enough to avoid the subject and not tell me I'm wrong.

Republicans: Defending the Indefensible since June 17, 1972.

Nixon?

who's defending Nixon?

seriously bad come back.

 

[koshergrl]

Should "therapists" have the "freedom" to continue to perform lobotomies and shock treatments? Should the FDA be able to ban drugs that are harmful to people?

Reparative therapy (which has a less than 2% success rate) causes much more harm than good. I'm glad to see California banning such a dangerous practice.

Clinging to Kinsey, eh?

Shock treatments are still performed.

Lobotomies were actually quite effective...and will probably come back into favor once the liberals completely remove our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion, euthanasia, and lobotomies...I can see you lining people up now.

But being good students of Kinsey, you see no value in learning about homosexuality, or even child sexual abuse, because you value those behaviors more than you value children themselves. Your one and only focus is to increase depravity, and reduce accountability for it.

So you aren't interested in any treatments that could potentially remove a child's homosexual urges, or tell us something about how behavior and sexual orientation intersect...

 

[koshergrl]

And I'd like to see the evidence that it's "dangerous". Cite and link please.

 

[koshergrl]

Never mind, I found it.

The APA, that wonderful organization that embraced sex abuse of myriad children as "research", has proclaimed it's "harmful" to allow people to attempt to change their sexual orientation.

Kinsey would be proud. He was fond of homosexuals, and liked people vulnerable and sexually confused. They were the subjects of his "studies".