It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill banning parents from trying to 'cure' gay kids moves forward

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   
There are several categories of people that I know who have went into this type of therapy.

1. The true softies- as in emotionally very sweet people. They want to change- They are dead.

2. The rebels- One friend and I went through this (We are very much alive but, had to go through religious abuse therapy) Have a difficult time trusting any Christian. Caused household instability between parents/child. Feelings of being betrayed by family, religion. I went into this thinking I could change but, at some point viewed it as a mean spirited God that did this to me.

3, The creepy conformist-The guy that goes through this, marries, says he he is heterosexual, picks up men on the side (those that aren't frightened by his bizarre behaviour) . Sometimes they come out but, usually they stick around and make their wives miserable.

4. The opportunist- My friend Randy went into this as a teenager because he didn't know any other gays in his small town and initiated orgies and loved finding virgins with no sexual history. He went into this therapy many times on purpose.


I have never yet met anyone that has went through this conversion therapy and came out a legit heterosexual.




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Many parents feel their child isn't old enough to make good choices, especially about sexuality. They feel the child should grow up a bit before making a choice about it. So they -will- try to cure their boy if he wants to be a girl. It may be subtle like discouraging him from playing with girl toys or watching girl cartoons or similar things. It may not be as hamfisted as forcing him to go to a therapist to cure his girlness, but I can assure you that this has been done before. Gender identity disorder has long been debated about its origins. Is it a mental illness or disorder or is it nature? In the past, children who've had gender identity disorder were "cured". Ultimately, it has the same overtones as those situations where parents might be trying to encourage a gay child to be heterosexual.

It all sounds simple until you have a child who displays these characteristics. Then it's much more difficult because, as a parent, you intuitively do not trust the judgment of your child. Children need parents because they cannot physically or mentally cope with the world yet. Parents know this. So if a boy "comes out" and says he thinks he should be a girl, the parents don't trust it easily. They've seen their boy make stupid choices before and he regretted it and they don't want it to happen again. It's hard to determine when the gender identity disorder is nature or is a mental illness too. I don't think we have a device we can connect to a child's brain to figure out where their gender problems originate. So it all boils down to assuming children are just making another dumb choice.

My point to bringing this up is if it's illegal to attempt to "cure" a gay child then why isn't it illegal to attempt to "cure" a child with gender identity disorder (a.k.a. a boy that wants to be a girl)? If this isn't accounted for in the current bill then it's only a matter of time before it's.

Read about GID here:
en.wikipedia.org...

........
The question of whether to counsel young children to be happy with their biological sex, or to encourage them to continue to exhibit behaviors that do not conform to gender stereotypes—or to explore a transsexual transition—is controversial. Some clinicians report a significant proportion of young children with gender identity disorder no longer have such symptoms later in life.[13] There is an active and growing movement among professionals who treat gender dysphoria in children to refer and prescribe hormones, known as a puberty blocker, to delay the onset of puberty until a child is old enough to make an informed decision on whether hormonal gender reassignment leading to surgical gender reassignment will be in that person's best interest.
........

edit on 24-8-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Making child abuse legal. Great!


How is it possible that in 2012 we still have people in this country who think that being gay is somehow an illness or a choice?

Someone please explain this to me.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
Making child abuse legal. Great!


How is it possible that in 2012 we still have people in this country who think that being gay is somehow an illness or a choice?

Someone please explain this to me.


Let me ask you how it is in 2012 that we have the descendants of Christian forefathers rejecting their Father in Heaven, and thereby neglecting and abandoning their duties to their own families? How is it that these generations are content to think of this as a "civil rights" issue, when the very secret societies all commit sodomy as part of their worship, and yet they can't even fathom the true purpose to warping our morality to serve their own purposes? Open your eyes. Try starting with The Pink Swastika.

Albert Pike, Freemason, "commemorates in sacramental observance this mysterious passion; and while partaking of the raw flesh of the victim, seems to be invigorated by a fresh draught from the fountain of universal life....Hence the significance of the phallus."

No wonder God says that the children will stand up and accuse their parents in this generation. Look it all up, they are so blatant at their symbolism. Dunkin Donuts, Limp Bizkit, Butterfinger, Black Hole Sun..Their "illumination" comes through sodomy. Once you fully grasp that concept, you will fully understand why this move is being made to legislate parents from trying to SAVE their children.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite

It all sounds simple until you have a child who displays these characteristics. Then it's much more difficult because, as a parent, you intuitively do not trust the judgment of your child.


I find your post quite respectful.

However - - I am a gramma - - raising a third generation. I raised mine - helped raise a now 18 year old grandson - - - and am currently helping raise a 12 and 4 year old.

It actually is simple if you don't live in fear. You let the child show you who they are.


Children need parents because they cannot physically or mentally cope with the world yet.


What does that have to do with their birth orientation or trans identity?


So if a boy "comes out" and says he thinks he should be a girl, the parents don't trust it easily. They've seen their boy make stupid choices before and he regretted it and they don't want it to happen again.


I'm confused here. What stupid choices are you referring to?


It's hard to determine when the gender identity disorder is nature or is a mental illness too. I don't think we have a device we can connect to a child's brain to figure out where their gender problems originate.


No it is not hard to determine. Trust the child to know who they are. Why do you call it a problem? The only real problem is a judgmental society.


So it all boils down to assuming children are just making another dumb choice.


Actually - - I'd say it is unaware - - or ignorant parents.


My point to bringing this up is if it's illegal to attempt to "cure" a gay child then why isn't it illegal to attempt to "cure" a child with gender identity disorder (a.k.a. a boy that wants to be a girl)? If this isn't accounted for in the current bill then it's only a matter of time before it's.


It should be. Awareness is not an "on off switch".

Here - - I've got some for you to read:

www.advocate.com...

www.advocate.com...

www.advocate.com...
www.advocate.com...

www.camparanutiq.org...



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by macman
 



Better yet, show me where I said that you beat your children. Go on. Ill wait. You are apparently lost on what was being said.

So go on, backpeddle, deflect, lie. Its all good.


Your statement.............................................
Never mind. Wasted time on your BS is wasted time. You wiggle in and out of BS like a pig roots in crap.
Sure sure then. Sure sure. Back to the I hate Kittens way of debate.

Still waiting on those laws.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by macman
 



Better yet, show me where I said that you beat your children. Go on. Ill wait. You are apparently lost on what was being said.

So go on, backpeddle, deflect, lie. Its all good.


Your statement.............................................
Never mind. Wasted time on your BS is wasted time. You wiggle in and out of BS like a pig roots in crap.
Sure sure then. Sure sure. Back to the I hate Kittens way of debate.

Still waiting on those laws.


Round and round you go. Getting nowhere, going quite slow.

As I said, psychological abuse is covered in ALL domestic abuse laws. If you cant be bothered to look, i cant help you.

Still not admitting that you said you can raise your child HOWEVER you see fit, and no one can say a word about it, I see.


ETA: Here, the government definition of domestic abuse, since its too hard for you to do a google search:

Patterns of behaviour characterised by the misuse of power and control by one person over another who are or have been in an intimate relationship. It can occur in mixed gender relationships and same gender relationships and has profound consequences for the lives of children, individuals, families and communities. It may be physical, sexual, emotional and/or psychological. The latter may include intimidation, harassment, damage to property, threats and financial abuse.[12]



edit on 27-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
It has been my understanding that Jesus commanded two things: To love him with all of your heart, mind and soul and to love your fellow man as yourself.
It has also been my understanding that the Old Testament was written for the Jews.
Of course that's neither here nor there really.

A person does not choose to be heterosexual neither do they choose to be homosexual.

edit on 27-8-2012 by Miri08 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Round and round you go. Getting nowhere, going quite slow.

As I said, psychological abuse is covered in ALL domestic abuse laws. If you cant be bothered to look, i cant help you.

Those are types of "Abuse", but mental and verbal abuse is not defined in any statute, when applied to criminal law. You really have no clue, yet you continue to regurgitate your Google search findings.
Again, please provide ANY statute that defines mental and verbal abuse. You have yet to, because it does not exist. What you provide is off sites that are for woman's rights type services.
You can't be prosecuted for mental or verbal abuse.



Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Still not admitting that you said you can raise your child HOWEVER you see fit, and no one can say a word about it, I see.

Again, beatings does not fall in line with how I raise my kids. Sounds like you are deflecting your own personal issues onto this topic.
Your suggestion is that by not stating I don't beat my kids, it is therefor my policy that I do. Again, back to the I hate kitten train of thought.
I am allowed to raise my kids how I see fit. Things like, religion, right and wrong, politics and so on.
YOU injected the beatings, in an effort to control the argument.
Better read up and practice more on the Alinsky method, as your application of it sucks, but is very transparent.


Originally posted by captaintyinknots
ETA: Here, the government definition of domestic abuse, since its too hard for you to do a google search:

Patterns of behaviour characterised by the misuse of power and control by one person over another who are or have been in an intimate relationship. It can occur in mixed gender relationships and same gender relationships and has profound consequences for the lives of children, individuals, families and communities. It may be physical, sexual, emotional and/or psychological. The latter may include intimidation, harassment, damage to property, threats and financial abuse.[12]


As per what statute and what site? When applied to what, civil law or criminal.

Clearly you are out of your league, and it shows. Funny, as your quote has a couple of very large and simple misspellings. Maybe check you source again.


You have no fundamental idea of how law is applied and used. Backseat law at its worst.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Round and round you go. Getting nowhere, going quite slow.

As I said, psychological abuse is covered in ALL domestic abuse laws. If you cant be bothered to look, i cant help you.

Those are types of "Abuse", but mental and verbal abuse is not defined in any statute, when applied to criminal law. You really have no clue, yet you continue to regurgitate your Google search findings.
Again, please provide ANY statute that defines mental and verbal abuse. You have yet to, because it does not exist. What you provide is off sites that are for woman's rights type services.
You can't be prosecuted for mental or verbal abuse.



Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Still not admitting that you said you can raise your child HOWEVER you see fit, and no one can say a word about it, I see.

Again, beatings does not fall in line with how I raise my kids. Sounds like you are deflecting your own personal issues onto this topic.
Your suggestion is that by not stating I don't beat my kids, it is therefor my policy that I do. Again, back to the I hate kitten train of thought.
I am allowed to raise my kids how I see fit. Things like, religion, right and wrong, politics and so on.
YOU injected the beatings, in an effort to control the argument.
Better read up and practice more on the Alinsky method, as your application of it sucks, but is very transparent.


Originally posted by captaintyinknots
ETA: Here, the government definition of domestic abuse, since its too hard for you to do a google search:

Patterns of behaviour characterised by the misuse of power and control by one person over another who are or have been in an intimate relationship. It can occur in mixed gender relationships and same gender relationships and has profound consequences for the lives of children, individuals, families and communities. It may be physical, sexual, emotional and/or psychological. The latter may include intimidation, harassment, damage to property, threats and financial abuse.[12]


As per what statute and what site? When applied to what, civil law or criminal.

Clearly you are out of your league, and it shows. Funny, as your quote has a couple of very large and simple misspellings. Maybe check you source again.


You have no fundamental idea of how law is applied and used. Backseat law at its worst.


12)Yup, you're right, psychological abuse is totally legal


2)You are continuing to prove that you are either completely lost on the point, or are deflecting. Again, you said that you can raise your child ANY WAY YOU WANT, and nobody can say anything about it. I asked the hypothetical "so that includes beatings, if you see fit?". And you dance around and around. You take it as a personal jab (which, in itself, probably says something). If you can raise your child ANY WAY YOU WANT, would that not include beatings, IF YOU WANT? Why do you continue to dance around it? I NEVER said that you beat your kids. I asked a hypothetical, one which clearly falls into your statement. The fact that you continue to take it as "you are implying that I beat my kids", again, shows that either A)you dont get what a hypothetical is, and are lost on the point; or B)Are deflecting because of personal reasons.

Let me spell out the point for you: YOU CANNOT RAISE YOUR CHILD AS YOU SEE FIT, AND NO ONE HAS ANY SAY IN IT. The beatings example is a PERFECT example of that.

Get it yet?

And you say I'm outta MY league...sheesh

ETA: Here is a good article for you to read. After this, I will not post any more, as you have shrugged off every source I have posted, and expect the same with this:
www.abc.net.au...



edit on 27-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I can raise me kids how I see fit. Like I stated many times before, religion, politics, actions and even views on race. MY CHOICE.
YOU injected beatings, thanks for admitting that, as a hypothetical. Ok then, that is nice.
YOU injected something that is not only outside the norm, but has nothing to do with how I raise my kids. Physical beatings, dependent on the State, is illegal.
Wonder why you put beatings in on this topic. Sounds very much like you have unresolved issue from how you were raised or how you would raise children of your own.


All the sources you provided were bunk. THEY had no legal statutes to speak of. The source you provide before was a quote from an unnamed source. Geez, if I knew it were that easy, i would just make up crap and quote it in terms of an outside website as well.

The last source, is a news article that talks about a possibility to include certain aspects of abuse into the Domestic Violence laws. Do you even read the articles before you post them?

Again, I am still waiting, going on what, 6 days now, to see any Federal, State or Local Statute that defines and outlaws verbal abuse or mental abuse.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


ETA: Here is a good article for you to read. After this, I will not post any more, as you have shrugged off every source I have posted, and expect the same with this:
www.abc.net.au...



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You didn't even read that. That is for Australia.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenRuled
I'm christian. I have no opinion on homosexuality except, God said it's wrong.


So your God speaks for you on everything?

Did he choose the shoes you're wearing? How about the hair style you have now? Do you ask your God for every decision to be made for you or do you have some control over what you think and do every day?

I'm not buying this kind of BS excuse. There are plenty of people who believe in your God and refute the homophobia espoused by your religion.

In addition, I would like to ask (as you seem to follow the Bible on what to think and what to believe) do you currently own any slaves? Have you ever cut your hair? Do you only wear sackcloth? When was the last public stoning you attended?

The Bible says a lot of things, it's very interesting to me how the right-wing homophobes pick out just the one thing to use as a weapon against gay people, when everything else they conveniently ignore because it would make their life much more difficult.
edit on 28-8-2012 by detachedindividual because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
No wonder God says that the children will stand up and accuse their parents in this generation. Look it all up, they are so blatant at their symbolism. Dunkin Donuts, Limp Bizkit, Butterfinger, Black Hole Sun..Their "illumination" comes through sodomy. Once you fully grasp that concept, you will fully understand why this move is being made to legislate parents from trying to SAVE their children.


This generation? Do you know what a generation is? Has God come down in the last twenty years to leave some more little nuggets of BS for people to swallow?

As for all the little "symbols" you offer, I could go back to the 1950's, 60's and 70's and see the same kind of paranoia when the Beetles, Elvis, "flower power" were the "evils" in society. This kind of religiously based rambling is no different to that - and we're all still here!


I would suggest heading outside to see if there's a book burning you could join in with, but I have a feeling you'd be the one organizing it so you'd know.

Is that the voice of Carries mother I can hear?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

As for all the little "symbols" you offer, I could go back to the 1950's, 60's and 70's and see the same kind of paranoia when the Beetles, Elvis, "flower power" were the "evils" in society. This kind of religiously based rambling is no different to that - and we're all still here!


Hey - you could even go back to the decadence of the Waltz.

How dare couples hold each other while dancing. LOL



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
As a gay man who has been through religious attempts of "conversion" I'd obviously say this doesn't work.

It might work for some adults who choose to devote themselves to religion, but mainly these are money-making scams.

However, I'm uneasy about banning things.
This might drive such industries further underground where abuse is even harder to detect, or it might even lead to a proliferation of such camps for American kids in countries with powerful fundamentalist Christian influences, and little to no interest in human rights.

I can already picture the "child-witch finders" and the more demented and enterprising pastors in some African countries lining up to capitalize on concentration camp-like institutions once they see a gap in the market for gullible Americans and their gay kids.

I'd rather keep it legal in the US, but draw certain boundaries, like banning torture such as emetics, electric shocks and "aversion therapy".
I'd also encourage the filming of all therapy sessions to avoid sexual, mental and physical abuse by the "therapists", and a clear understanding that abuse will result in complaints to some controlling body, and lawsuits.

Not a perfect solution, but I wouldn't drive this industry abroad where there is no control.
edit on 28-8-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I can raise me kids how I see fit. Like I stated many times before, religion, politics, actions and even views on race. MY CHOICE.
YOU injected beatings, thanks for admitting that, as a hypothetical. Ok then, that is nice.
YOU injected something that is not only outside the norm, but has nothing to do with how I raise my kids. Physical beatings, dependent on the State, is illegal.
Wonder why you put beatings in on this topic. Sounds very much like you have unresolved issue from how you were raised or how you would raise children of your own.


All the sources you provided were bunk. THEY had no legal statutes to speak of. The source you provide before was a quote from an unnamed source. Geez, if I knew it were that easy, i would just make up crap and quote it in terms of an outside website as well.

The last source, is a news article that talks about a possibility to include certain aspects of abuse into the Domestic Violence laws. Do you even read the articles before you post them?

Again, I am still waiting, going on what, 6 days now, to see any Federal, State or Local Statute that defines and outlaws verbal abuse or mental abuse.





Ignoring your stupid ad hom and insinuations, you are contradicting yourself and you dont even realize it. You say you can raise your kids any way you want, and nobody can say anything about it. Then you follow by admitting that you CANT raise your kids any way you want, as certain things are illegal (which is, afterall, the point of this thread).

I'm not sure whether to laugh at the contradiction or to feel bad for someone that is that thoroughly lost.

Furthermore, as I said before, there is no point in providing any more sources. You wont accept any of them. But to be clear: psychological abuse is defined under domestic abuse. Domestic abuse is highly illegal. Therefore, psychological abuse would be......that's right....ILLEGAL.

I truly shake my head at you.
edit on 28-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


ETA: Here is a good article for you to read. After this, I will not post any more, as you have shrugged off every source I have posted, and expect the same with this:
www.abc.net.au...



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You didn't even read that. That is for Australia.


And again you are caught as the troll that you are. You replied about that source in your previous comment before you even read it. Glad to see that AFTER you replied, you took the time to look though. Test, failed.

Nicely done.

edit on 28-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Ignoring your stupid ad hom and insinuations, you are contradicting yourself and you dont even realize it. You say you can raise your kids any way you want, and nobody can say anything about it. Then you follow by admitting that you CANT raise your kids any way you want, as certain things are illegal (which is, afterall, the point of this thread).

You are so far down your rabbit hole, you can't back out.
Beatings are not part of raising children. Maybe in your sick world it is, but not mine.
Therefor, all logic applied, Yes, yes, I can raise my kids how I see fit, and do not need nor want PEOPLE like you interjecting their distorted view of the world to them.
What ad hominid attacks? What???? Is your fragile ego dented??? Maybe file a Mental abuse charge against me.



Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I'm not sure whether to laugh at the contradiction or to feel bad for someone that is that thoroughly lost.

Probably laugh, as it is funny that your perception is twisted and in knots there Captain.


Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Furthermore, as I said before, there is no point in providing any more sources. You wont accept any of them. But to be clear: psychological abuse is defined under domestic abuse. Domestic abuse is highly illegal. Therefore, psychological abuse would be......that's right....ILLEGAL.

Funny, as you have not submitted any source that states what those laws/statutes are.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

And again you are caught as the troll that you are. You replied about that source in your previous comment before you even read it. Glad to see that AFTER you replied, you took the time to look though. Test, failed.

Nicely done.

edit on 28-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


SO, because I took your link at face value, and did not catch that it was from Australia, and is for Australian Law, I am the Troll? Now I know that you are just full of crap.
Was it some crafty trap you set???

What's next? A link from China about laws, that you try to pitch as proof for your failed attempt at conveying US law???

Sure sure then, sure sure.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join