Texas GOP party platform: You can pray the gay away!

[Firethorn]

Having not done any research, I do not know if reparative therapy is considered a valid therapeutic approach or quackery.  If a particular therapist and patient believe it may be helpful, is not dangerous to the patient and worth a try, I say go for it.  The healthcare system, through professional discipline, already has a mechanism to deal with things that are considered quackery, and I generally do not believe more laws are needed in this area.

It's quackery, and I think the plank is intended to force the healthcare system to ignore that quackery, sort of like forcing healthcare to cover acupuncture and homeopathy.  RevDisk put it far better than I could, but the general results I found was that with 'reparative therapy' the chance of death* is higher than the chance you'll get a straight individual out of it.  Given that being homosexual isn't a fatal disease, I'd be extremely hesitant to have anybody go through something more likely to kill them than to fix the 'problem'.

*Suicide, direct abuse, and there has even been cases of death due to dehydration.  One 'therapist' really liked sweat lodges as his 'treatment'.  To the point of locking people into saunas for multiple hour periods.

However, when it comes to parents trying to unGay their kids

No legitimate treatment has been developed to change somebody's sexual orientation.  The 'best' that has been done is push people into repressing/hiding it, with the side effect of a massive increase in suicides.

If the argument that reparative therapy is wrong/harmful to children because it forces them to deny what they are, then why isn't "gender re-assignment" attacked also?  If you are born with dangly bits and the DNA to match, surgically altering yourself to resemble a girl is denial as well.

Gay brains are different.  The brains of transgender people tend to be more similar to the sex they identify as than to the body they have. 

Now it gets complicated.  We're a LOT better with plastic surgery(make the outer match the inner) than we are at brain surgery(make the inner match the outer).

The damage and/or consequences not to self, but the damage caused to others when one indulges in pathological behavior.

I have a problem with considering homosexuality as 'pathological'.  What harm does it do to the individual/others that isn't imposed by our own society?

For those who drink, the easiest measure is alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths.  For those who practice homosexuality, the easiest measure is AIDS-related deaths.

...So the world loves lesbians?  Besides, once the transmission vectors for AIDS became known infection rates dropped for gay people to the point that HIV infects far more heterosexual people today.

[brimic]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.htm
lolz

[Scout26]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.htm
lolz

Linky no worky.  But I did find this:

Transmission Category   Cumulative Estimated Number of AIDS Diagnoses, Through 2010^a
                                        Adult and Adolescent Males   Adult and Adolescent Females            Total
Male-to-male sexual contact   555,032                                        NA                            555,032
Injection drug use           187,938                                         89,800                            277,738
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use   80,902         NA                              80,902
Heterosexual contact^b          77,521                                     136,675                             214,196
Other^c                             11,975                                         6,427                             18,402


^aFrom the beginning of the epidemic through 2011.
^bHeterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
^cIncludes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.

On the face of it, it would appear that homosexual contact and/or injection drug use (illegal I'm presuming) puts one at the highest risk of AIDS, with over 75%-80% of all cases from those activities,  One does have to wonder about the heterosexual transmissions.  How many we the result of prior drug use/homosexual activity from the male partner.

[gunsmith]

speaking as an AA member in good and bad standing depending on where I'm outstanding 

I am kind of tired of the courts sending drunk drivers to my meetings ....

in Reno we have a few gay dudes and a few lesbians ( in the meetings ) too - man i would love to raise a ruckus by comparing addiction to homosexuality ....
they get special elevated status and the liberals hang on their every word as if minority status automatically qualifies you for sainthood 

it was my understanding that straight sex is less dangerous than gay sex are we sure that study isn't flawed?

[Firethorn]

it was my understanding that straight sex is less dangerous than gay sex are we sure that study isn't flawed?

Gay male sex is the most dangerous because of torn membranes and such.
Then Heterosexual relations
Finally, lesbians have the lowest STD rate going.

[MillCreek]

We have a HIV clinic, in the sense that we provide the space and staff, and the local medical school provides the physicians to run it.  From my casual conversations with the staff, and not any review of the patient rosters or any other research, I get the sense that in this area at least, most of the new HIV infections are coming from injectable drug use.  Sexual transmission is still a factor, both gay and straight, but it does not seem to be the top of the list. 

I also know that with the new drug regimens, AIDS is now essentially a chronic condition that can be managed, like diabetes, and patients now have pretty much a normal life expectancy.  This causes the providers some grief in that many people at risk for HIV now have the sense that taking precautions (safe sex or safe injection practices) is now no longer necessary since AIDS does not kill you any more.  I have also heard that one explanation for the uptick in STI in the older population is the erectile dysfunction drugs: Grandpa can now get it up and both he and Grandma are out having fun.

[cordex]

No legitimate treatment has been developed to change somebody's sexual orientation.  The 'best' that has been done is push people into repressing/hiding it, with the side effect of a massive increase in suicides.

I never suggested it was a good idea or effective.   That said, given the highly politicized nature of this debate on both sides, I also have to question the biases and legitimacy of studies surrounding sexual identity.

The subject bears some more study, but intuitively I have concerns about parenting decisions (even those I disagree with) being made by government.

[JN01]

The studies on the alleged physiological differences between straight and gay/other people don't appear to be conclusive.

Regardless if a person is born with certain predilections or if they are learned, they choose whether or not to engage in them.

It is hard to imagine how anyone could be aroused by certain acts (pedophilia, beastiality, being defecated on, masochism, etc), but it apparently comes naturally to some.  Those that are criminal in nature may result in incarceration and society attempts to rehabilitate the offender from their deviant behavior. Others non-criminal acts may even be generally accepted by society (promiscuity, homosexuality), yet some people choose to restrain their natural instincts for various reasons, perhaps religious belief or not wishing to damage a relationship by cheating on a spouse, for example.

Some people seem to be born with a propensity for addictions, yet many successfully undergo treatment to modify their behavior (including sex addiction).

It seems that any kind of weird behavior/thought process/belief system is supposed to be accepted as "normal", EXCEPT those who want to change/repress their same sex attractions.  I respect everyone's right to be what they want to, though I reserve my right to consider them a freak or sleazeball.  Those who choose to undergo reparative therapy should be afforded the same respect, LGBT agenda be damned.

[gunsmith]

The studies on the alleged physiological differences between straight and gay/other people don't appear to be conclusive.

Regardless if a person is born with certain predilections or if they are learned, they choose whether or not to engage in them.

It is hard to imagine how anyone could be aroused by certain acts (pedophilia, beastiality, being defecated on, masochism, etc), but it apparently comes naturally to some.  Those that are criminal in nature may result in incarceration and society attempts to rehabilitate the offender from their deviant behavior. Others non-criminal acts may even be generally accepted by society (promiscuity, homosexuality), yet some people choose to restrain their natural instincts for various reasons, perhaps religious belief or not wishing to damage a relationship by cheating on a spouse, for example.

Some people seem to be born with a propensity for addictions, yet many successfully undergo treatment to modify their behavior (including sex addiction).

It seems that any kind of weird behavior/thought process/belief system is supposed to be accepted as "normal", EXCEPT those who want to change/repress their same sex attractions.  I respect everyone's right to be what they want to, though I reserve my right to consider them a freak or sleazeball.  Those who choose to undergo reparative therapy should be afforded the same respect, LGBT agenda be damned.

  I can't help but agree.

I have a very addictive personality - I have managed to rid my self of some pretty awful addictions through prayer and hard work and honesty .
I think that most young folks currently are being done a disservice - and bet that they see this modern worship of gay and think its the easy way to be accepted and instead of questioning their instincts believe its easier to act on them ...

Cigarettes were an easy way for me to conform as a teen, quitting was incredibly difficult ....

A teen in SF or even a red state area like Reno can easily be fooled into thinking he/she is gay when really they just like being affectionate   
An inebriated teen seeking affection may end up in bed with the same gender and believe that it was meant to be that way that they're wired different and they will have that quickly reinforced by liberals in school/media ....

In NYC I saw some kids that were just learning about life outside of home and saw how they decided they were gay - its like they were preyed upon by gays and turned - just like pimps will prey on young women and turn them into prostitutes ...

A 16 yr old I knew really wasn't gay - he was seduced by gays because they had food/place to live/drugs/alcohol/marijuana and this kid was basically living in the park after being kicked out of his home .... I bet he would have ended up straight if he had a normal childhood instead of having to fend for himself at 16 after not being taught any thing at home to prepare him for adult hood

[Firethorn]

I bet he would have ended up straight if he had a normal childhood instead of having to fend for himself at 16 after not being taught any thing at home to prepare him for adult hood

I happen to think people fall more along a spectrum than anything else.  As such, you have the people who know they're gay from when they're 5ish, and there are those that, like you say, it's pretty much optional even as an adult.  It's just that there are social pressures against being bisexual, ones even stronger than just 'being gay'.

As for the 16 year old, well, that's the same sort of thing that happens to a lot of 'gay' people who cover it up and deny it in order to appear normal to society.

[MillCreek]

Not to mention that in gunsmith's story, I wonder how often the older predatory people turn out to be heterosexual pedophiles.

[Hawkmoon]

^^^Working in healthcare as I do, I am not a major fan of using the law to impose the political flavor of the day on what should be shared decision-making on healthcare issues between provider and patient.  Unless a very compelling clinical argument, based on the reputable medical consensus, can be made that a particular health intervention is so dangerous or lacking in clinical benefit that it should be outlawed.  So from that standpoint, I do not advocate for laws to ban things like reparative therapy or the ability of providers to ask about firearms in the home, to pick examples designed to equally irritate all sides of the political spectrum.

Isn't that exactly what the new platform position is?

Having not done any research, I do not know if reparative therapy is considered a valid therapeutic approach or quackery.

Both. The answer depends on who you ask.

[Scout26]

Not to mention that in gunsmith's story, I wonder how often the older predatory people turn out to be heterosexual pedophiles.

If they are older men preying on young boys, then by definition, they would be homosexual pedophiles.   

[MillCreek]

If they are older men preying on young boys, then by definition, they would be homosexual pedophiles.  

Not necessarily.  These links explains some of the issues surrounding that very question.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/blog1.html

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

As with most of the research on this issue, done by both the left and the right, concerns over political bias come into play.

[gunsmith]

Finally, lesbians have the lowest STD rate going.

Really??!!

Thats hot!

[roo_ster]

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

The CDC says there are approximately 88,000 alcohol-related deaths per year.  Other than your HIV deaths statistic, which as I am sure you know is not limited only to gay people, what other gay death numbers do you have insofar as they compare to alcohol?

Harm to self by one's actions is a definite concern.  It is painful to watch friends/family destroying themselves by inches and unpleasant to see even strangers doing themselves in if one has any sympathy.  But, practically, it is of much less moment relative to when those actions harm a third party.   And as a public health problem, self-harm hardly justifies intrusive gov't measures such as involuntary treatment regimen. 

Odd you only pick at the HIV-related death CDC statistic.  For my own part, I see neither as definitive, but as broad indicators of absolute and relative severity.  For example, how many of the alcohol-related vehicle deaths were ascribed to folk with BAC in the neighborhood of 0.08?  We have seen in previous discussions that:
1. Such BAC impairment is similar to impairment caused by having children in the car, eating while driving, or having a conversation (with someone in the car or on a cell phone).
2. LEOs have difficulty properly detecting impairment at those BAC levels without the use of Breath/blood analysis (IOW, by mere observation).

It boils down to, "Are  10,000+/- deaths of others enough to justify involuntary treatment?"  Does it much matter if the deaths are inflicted on non-drunks or those not yet infected with HIV?

scout26 linked to data showing the proportions of means of transmission.

It's quackery...

No legitimate treatment has been developed to change somebody's sexual orientation...

Besides, once the transmission vectors for AIDS became known infection rates dropped for gay people to the point that HIV infects far more heterosexual people today.

Legitimacy != efficacy.  Legitimacy is a subjective judgement while efficacy can be measured objectively.  Putin may not be the legitimate ruler of the Crimean Peninsula, but he is the effective ruler, determinations of legitimacy be damned.

Take a gander at the efficacy of drug/alcohol/tobacco treatment programs.  Not inspiring.  But drug/alc/tobacco cessation programs are "legitimate."  Were I a betting man, I would bet that programs designed to cease homosexual behavior are about as effective.  All are trying to do the same thing: alter complex human behavior that the subject finds pleasurable and continues to engage in despite the consequences.  Those who try to cease drug/alcohol/tobacco abuse are fortunate in that contemporary society actively supports cessation, but those who try to cease homosexual behavior are engaging in "quackery."

Your last point is belied by the data.  Heterosexual AIDS was always a minority and if one excludes IV-drug-using heterosexuals, the proportion gets even smaller.

We have a HIV clinic, in the sense that we provide the space and staff, and the local medical school provides the physicians to run it.  From my casual conversations with the staff, and not any review of the patient rosters or any other research, I get the sense that in this area at least, most of the new HIV infections are coming from injectable drug use.  Sexual transmission is still a factor, both gay and straight, but it does not seem to be the top of the list. 

I also know that with the new drug regimens, AIDS is now essentially a chronic condition that can be managed, like diabetes, and patients now have pretty much a normal life expectancy. This causes the providers some grief in that many people at risk for HIV now have the sense that taking precautions (safe sex or safe injection practices) is now no longer necessary since AIDS does not kill you any more.  I have also heard that one explanation for the uptick in STI in the older population is the erectile dysfunction drugs: Grandpa can now get it up and both he and Grandma are out having fun.

That bolded part is somewhat misleading. 

WRT AIDS treatment you have some variability as to response:
1. Those who respond to the meds indefinitely and can tolerate the side effects.  They live as you wrote.
2. Those who respond to the meds but can not tolerate the side effects.  They die early.
3. Those for whom the meds are initially effective, but then are less effective.  They die early.
4. Those who respond to the meds indefinitely and can tolerate the side effects...but either the meds or the HIV or some other mechanism slowly gives them dementia way out of proportion to the general population.  They die early, because it is hard to stay employed and have good health insurance with dementia.

My wife sees a lot of #2-#4.  And even for those in category #1, it is not all wine & roses.  Some get what cancer patients around here call "chemo-brain" where the meds have deleterious effects on cognitive processes.  Some cancer patients get over it if they survive the cancer, some don't.  AIDS patients do not have the luxury of stopping treatment after what is killing them itself has been killed.

Not necessarily.  These links explains some of the issues surrounding that very question.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/blog1.html

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

As with most of the research on this issue, done by both the left and the right, concerns over political bias come into play.

The desperation to re-define what can be measured into what they wish were so is strong with these links.  If the hand-waving could be harnessed, I would expect T. Boone Pickens to lobby gov't to subsidize building electricity-generating windmills next to their offices.

Propensity of those who practice male homosexuality to also practice pedophilia, going by measurable actions, is roughly 8x-9x relative to those who practice heterosexuality.  Ran the numbers in previous threads if you want numbers and possible variations on the input parameters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").[2] It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements.

"Bob is not a drunk driver, despite his predilection to drive after consuming substantial amounts of alcohol.  Categorizing him by his actions is not legitimate because <insert hand-waving here>."

Also similar to the claim that there have been no truly marxist gov'ts, so marxist gov't can not be said to have failed and devolved into totalitarian murder-regimes.

[roo_ster]

Also, the question still stands:

Is it reasonable for gov't to mandate alcohol treatment for alcoholics that hurt others, from a practical/pragmatic perspective?  If "YES," are you willing to extend such to other activities with similar or greater externalities?

[MillCreek]

The Texas GOP is not only focused on the gays.  Other areas of concern include the election of Senators, evolution, implanting RFID chips into people and vaccination: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/5-craziest-planks-draft-texas-gop-platform-ban-morning-after-pill-ending-direct-election-sen

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1182339/temporary-platform-committee-report.pdf

I am certain you can cherry-pick similar wacky items out of any platform in any state, however.  There is also much in the platform to admire.

[Perd Hapley]

The Texas GOP is not only focused on the gays.  Other areas of concern include the election of Senators, evolution, implanting RFID chips into people and vaccination: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/5-craziest-planks-draft-texas-gop-platform-ban-morning-after-pill-ending-direct-election-sen

When they think that returning to the original method of choosing Senators is top-five crazy, that tells you an awful lot about that web site, and how accurate a source they may be.

At this point, any time a leftist describes something as crazy or extreme, I'm ready to vote for it, sight unseen.

[Scout26]

Having fully read the website, I can state that I pretty much agree with everything they dislike.

And getting back to the thread title. 

I know several people* that have accepted JC as their savior and turned their lives around.   Could not those that wish to avoid or reform their lives use prayer to avoid those temptations?

Finally, have there not been high profile people (policritters, mainly) that have gone and sought treatment for "Sex Addicition"?  If that treatment is viable and worthwhile for heterosexuals, then why would it not be for homosexuals?


Just pondering those questions here on a Sunday afternoon.


*Wheaton is known for the number of churches. In fact, there are more Churches per capita in Wheaton, then anywhere else.  Also, given that Wheaton College is the home of the Billy Graham center, that should tell you everything you need to know about the number of Christians, especially Evangelical Christians that live in this little 'burb. 

[lee n. field]

I know several people* that have accepted JC as their savior and turned their lives around.   Could not those that wish to avoid or reform their lives use prayer to avoid those temptations?

Finally, have there not been high profile people (policritters, mainly) that have gone and sought treatment for "Sex Addicition"?  If that treatment is viable and worthwhile for heterosexuals, then why would it not be for homosexuals?


Just pondering those questions here on a Sunday afternoon.

On the subject,  Rosaria Butterfield Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert.  She was as entrenched in the gay world as it's possible to be.  A tenured academic in "gender studies" (IIRC).  And then became Christian and left it all.  It was traumatic, and broke everything.  "I lost everything but the dog."

Anyway, she's very articulate, well worth a read, and doesn't think much of "repairative therapy".

[Jamisjockey]

Behavior modification because it "hurts someone else".....Yeah, that could never  have unintended consequences.....

[Firethorn]

Legitimacy != efficacy.  Legitimacy is a subjective judgement while efficacy can be measured objectively.  Putin may not be the legitimate ruler of the Crimean Peninsula, but he is the effective ruler, determinations of legitimacy be damned.

You make a good point here.  Perhaps I choose the word poorly.  On the other hand I don't think efficacy is the right one either.  Said programs have thus far proven to be quite dangerous.

I know drug treatment programs have a horrible success rate, but you're a lot more likely to die if you keep abusing them.  Outside of some quack programs, you're unlikely to die because of one.  If you're so badly off that you need intense medical care to quit, the lesser intervention programs won't take you.

All are trying to do the same thing: alter complex human behavior that the subject finds pleasurable and continues to engage in despite the consequences.

It's my understanding that in most cases drug users in intervention programs no longer find taking the drugs pleasurable; they take them to avoid withdrawal.  I think it's an important distinction.  Of course, assuming that your habit isn't leading to disproportionate harm, my policy is to let you continue it as a matter of personal freedom.  I don't recommend abusing drugs, certainly, but in the name of freedom I think it should be your right.  That right runs out when it negatively impacts others, of course.

Those who try to cease drug/alcohol/tobacco abuse are fortunate in that contemporary society actively supports cessation, but those who try to cease homosexual behavior are engaging in "quackery."

The programs I've read about aren't trying to merely stop homosexual behavior.  They actually try to turn you straight.  Worse, they're ineffective at 'all of the above'.  I call them 'quackery' because their success rate is lower(approximately 0%), than the suicide rate(various figures, mostly double-digits) as a result.

Your last point is belied by the data.  Heterosexual AIDS was always a minority and if one excludes IV-drug-using heterosexuals, the proportion gets even smaller.

Had a thought - part of the problem with HIV transmission is that homosexual men tend towards a lot of partners.  Wouldn't encouraging/enabling them to get married, with the implied fidelity, reduce the spread?

[roo_ster]

You make a good point here.  Perhaps I choose the word poorly.  On the other hand I don't think efficacy is the right one either.  Said programs have thus far proven to be quite dangerous.

I know drug treatment programs have a horrible success rate, but you're a lot more likely to die if you keep abusing them.  Outside of some quack programs, you're unlikely to die because of one.  If you're so badly off that you need intense medical care to quit, the lesser intervention programs won't take you.

Lotsa folk use drugs/alcohol for decades before dying of the effects.  And nowadays, a lot of folks who practice homosexuality also last decades after contracting AIDS with the help of AIDS treatments.  Some very careful homosexual men do not contract AIDS at all.  (Of course, the premise is destructive pathological behavior, not moderation.)  Rather than the "one hit and you're an addict" propaganda I got in school, I suspect more of a continuum of drug users.  Some super-destructive, others less so.  From the outside, it all looks like more or less destructive/pathological behavior and difficult to say, "drug/alcohol use bad, homosexuality good." 

It's my understanding that in most cases drug users in intervention programs no longer find taking the drugs pleasurable; they take them to avoid withdrawal.  I think it's an important distinction.  Of course, assuming that your habit isn't leading to disproportionate harm, my policy is to let you continue it as a matter of personal freedom.  I don't recommend abusing drugs, certainly, but in the name of freedom I think it should be your right.  That right runs out when it negatively impacts others, of course.

Maybe so.  A lot of the drunks, addicts, and homosexuals I have known want their pleasure and &^%$-all for the consequences.  They like it, they want it, and the rest of us can go to hell. 

The programs I've read about aren't trying to merely stop homosexual behavior.  They actually try to turn you straight.  Worse, they're ineffective at 'all of the above'.  I call them 'quackery' because their success rate is lower(approximately 0%), than the suicide rate(various figures, mostly double-digits) as a result.

I would suggest that the particular population from which they draw their candidates is already prone to suicide and other self-destructive behavior.  Sort of like the "Another mass-murderer on anti-depressants or another mind-altering Rx!"  What came first, the crazy or the Rx?  In the days of easy Rx meds, someone serious warped is likely to have gotten some sort of diagnosis and drugs.

All the programs for which I have met counselors & such ran them more like divorce/marriage counseling than some sort of freakish camp.  I am at a loss as to how these very mild and sympathetic folks could drive people to Suicideville if they were not already taking up residence there.

Had a thought - part of the problem with HIV transmission is that homosexual men tend towards a lot of partners.  Wouldn't encouraging/enabling them to get married, with the implied fidelity, reduce the spread?

Yeah, not so much.  Many plan for open marriages.  The drive for gay marriage is more a drive for Fabulous Gay Weddings with enforced approval by all. 

[MillCreek]

An interesting quote from the Butterfield book:

She said: “Rosaria, if people in my church really believed that gay people could be transformed by Christ, they wouldn’t talk about us or pray about us in the hateful way that they do.” Christian reader, is this what people say about you when they hear you talk and pray? Do your prayers rise no higher than your prejudice?