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

[MillCreek]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/05/texas-gop-conversion-therapy_n_5454875.html

http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2014/06/first-draft-of-state-gop-2014-platform-has-revamped-planks-on-immigration-homosexuality/

The party sez: We are for small government, but think there should be a law preventing any restrictions on reparative therapy to enable people to escape from the homosexual lifestyle.  Hmmm.

[RevDisk]

Gun folks look at me funny when I mention that Republicans are just as anti-freedom as Democrats. Just because they're committed to harassing a different sector of freedom doesn't make 'em any less anti-freedom.

[Ron]

We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin.

I see no issue with this statement. Do we need to grant special privileges to those who have same sex proclivities?

we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

So this is wrong because of why? Because some folks don't like religion and need the government to officially give them the legal tools to harass religious institutions and religious people?

We recognize the legitimacy and value of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment to patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.

While I'm not sure about the value of reparitive therapy some folks, even a tiny minority of gay folks want to keep that option available. Using government coercion to limit folks from having access is wrong why? The italicized portion unnecessary supports the therapy IMHO. Simply acknowledging it and protecting it from the leftist moralizers use of the government bludgeon would have been sufficient.

[RevDisk]

Are they endorsing use of rape, murder, arson, and rape so long as it's due to faith, conviction or traditional values?

Someone give Hedley Lamarr a call.   

[KD5NRH]

Are they endorsing use of rape, murder, arson, and rape so long as it's due to faith, conviction or traditional values?

Someone give Hedley Lamarr a call.

Christ Himself stampeded cattle on multiple occasions, once even indoors.  Maybe that will be the new straight protest method at gay pride parades.

[Fly320s]

Are they endorsing use of rape, murder, arson, and rape so long as it's due to faith, conviction or traditional values?

Someone give Hedley Lamarr a call.   

Sure, assault, murder, and destruction of private property are exactly the same as not approving the homosexual lifestyle.

[roo_ster]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/05/texas-gop-conversion-therapy_n_5454875.html

http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2014/06/first-draft-of-state-gop-2014-platform-has-revamped-planks-on-immigration-homosexuality/

The party sez: We are for small government, but think there should be a law preventing any restrictions on reparative therapy to enable people to escape from the homosexual lifestyle.  Hmmm.

Gun folks look at me funny when I mention that Republicans are just as anti-freedom as Democrats. Just because they're committed to harassing a different sector of freedom doesn't make 'em any less anti-freedom.

Yeah, y'all are a bit confused.  Restricting reparative therapy is the gov't intrusion.  Were the GOP to insist (via force of law) on reparative therapy for the light in the loafers crowd, you would have a point.  As it is, you have a soup sandwich, not an argument.

Outlawing such therapy makes as much sense as outlawing Alcoholics Anonymous or drug treatment programs(1). 

     Addiction Homosexuality is a complex but treatable disease that affects brain function and behavior.
    No single treatment is appropriate for everyone.
    Treatment needs to be readily available.
    Effective treatment attends to multiple needs of the individual, not just his or her drug abuse homosexuality.
    Remaining in treatment for an adequate period of time is critical.
    Counseling—individual and/or group—and other behavioral therapies are the most commonly used forms of drug abuse reparative treatment.
    Medications are an important element of treatment for many patients, especially when combined with counseling and other behavioral therapies.
    An individual's treatment and services plan must be assessed continually and modified as necessary to ensure that it meets his or her changing needs.
    Many drug–addicted homosexual individuals also have other mental disorders.
    Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective.
    Drug use Homosexuality during treatment must be monitored continuously, as lapses during treatment do occur.
    Treatment programs should assess patients for the presence of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B and C, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases as well as provide targeted risk–reduction counseling to help patients modify or change behaviors that place them at risk of contracting or spreading infectious diseases.

 

OTOH, addiction and homosexuality both cause damage to the individual and those around them.  And gov't regularly imposes drug/alcohol treatment in both criminal cases and in cases where they see the person as a danger to themselves and others (involuntary commitment to a mental health/addiction facility and such). 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

Deaths: An estimated 15,529 people with an AIDS diagnosis died in 2010...

http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes...

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?




(1) Obviously Betty Ford was a human monster.

[MillCreek]

Oooh! In before the lock after someone suggests government-imposed therapy for gays!  For the children and families, you know.

[cordex]

Rev and MillCreek,
Do you believe that it should in fact be illegal for a homosexual to seek reparative therapy, or for reparative therapy to be offered?  Ignoring, for the moment the likelihood of success of such therapy and the likely very small number of people who would be interested in it.  I'm not seeing how opposing government interference in consensual therapy is Republican statism.

I'm not arguing that Republicans as a whole are paragons of freedom and supporters of liberty, but I think you guys might be reading into the platform a bit more than was actually said.

[MillCreek]

^^^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.

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.

[cordex]

^^^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 equally irritate all sides of the political spectrum.

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 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.

Seems fair to me, but that being the case I'm not seeing where the actions their platform calls for are in opposition to your own views on the matter.  Nor is it hypocritically supportive of Big Government as you seem to imply in your original post.

[Balog]

Gun folks look at me funny when I mention that Republicans are just as anti-freedom as Democrats. Just because they're committed to harassing a different sector of freedom doesn't make 'em any less anti-freedom.

I agree with that statement. This story is in no way an example of that.

"Those damn Republicans want to keep the government from restricting certain medical procedures? What statists!!!" 

[Fitz]

I agree with that statement. This story is in no way an example of that.

"Those damn Republicans want to keep the government from restricting certain medical procedures? What statists!!!" 

This. In spades.

Some of y'all are exhibiting some pretty terrible logic

[Balog]

This. In spades.

Some of y'all are exhibiting some pretty terrible logic

A surprising number of folks lose any ability to reason coherently when the subject involves sex in general and homosexuality specifically.

[MillCreek]

A surprising number of folks lose any ability to reason coherently when the subject involves sex in general and homosexuality specifically.

Exactly.  From the San Antonio newspaper link above:

Delegates have stripped language from the party’s plank on homosexuality that says: “we affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God.”

Clearly these people were not reasoning coherently when this language was inserted into the party platform.

[Perd Hapley]

This. In spades.

Some of y'all are exhibiting some pretty terrible logic

Yes, and why do some seem amused by the notion of prayer, or other means of helping folk to overcome the temptation toward sexual sin? In your bleak world is there no hope, or what would you advise?

[RevDisk]

Rev and MillCreek,
Do you believe that it should in fact be illegal for a homosexual to seek reparative therapy, or for reparative therapy to be offered?  Ignoring, for the moment the likelihood of success of such therapy and the likely very small number of people who would be interested in it.  I'm not seeing how opposing government interference in consensual therapy is Republican statism.

I'm not arguing that Republicans as a whole are paragons of freedom and supporters of liberty, but I think you guys might be reading into the platform a bit more than was actually said.

I was talking about the one rather ambiguous line in the middle.

Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. We recognize the legitimacy and value of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment to patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.

It's either badly phrased, which I hope is the case, or suggestive of supporting criminal activity of anyone that opposes homosexuality. I do apologize is the Blazing Saddles reference/joke was not adequately obvious as satire.

I would be upset if folks decided that politicians wanted to outlaw a type of therapy that folks willingly wanted to partake. I'd argue there are some substantial ethical concerns if the folks were being involuntarily treated, however. That's not covered either, which is smart on the GOP's part. That'd be my first question. In light of this platform, what is the official Texas GOP position on involuntary psychological treatment of homosexuals?


This isn't an idle concern.

It has been the goal of more than a few people to eradicate hell camps within the CONUS. They are often facilities run by quacks, sadists or charlatans for "troubled teens". It's not unknown for there to be fatalities involved as the 'counselors' are often untrained or poorly trained. Alternatively some people with questionable mental status gravitate to the work as it allows an extremely high level of authoritarian control, with little to no oversight, over youths and teenagers. Unsurprisingly, there's a good number of physical or sexual assaults. And fatalities.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20843_6-shocking-realities-secret-troubled-teen-industry.html
http://helpatanycost.com/
http://prospect.org/article/why-jesus-not-regulator

While I'm hardly a hardcore LGBTwhatever activist, I have ethical qualms about religious hell camps designed to isolate and 'reprogram' minors without any form of oversight, regulation or professional standards. They have existed for children that were 'troubled' (misbehaving), made independent or 'incorrect' religious or moral choices, homosexual or drug use. You won't think that one would treat minors with meth addition, agnosticism or homosexuality with the same program, but there are facilities that do. In case you think I'm out of my goard, google Lester Roloff, Victory Christian Academy, New Beginnings, etc.

Sounds like someone with pull wants to restart the Texas network, which has been shut down or driven overseas.

Fun times. Strings could tell you in detail about the sexual abuse that happens at such facilities. Joccasse would tell you about the mental control and conditioning. I know others that could detail the financial networks and the less reputable side-line activities of such camps.

[roo_ster]

Oooh! In before the lock after someone suggests government-imposed therapy for gays!  For the children and families, you know.

Well, if you support gov't-imposed therapy for alcoholics and addicts, why not for whose pathological behaviors produce similar or worse externalities?

Oddly enough, here is where I landed:
1. I do not support gov't-imposed therapy for homosexuals.
2. Homosexuality has similar or worse externalities than alcoholism.
3. If not for homosexuality, than not for alcoholism, either.
4. Same deal for those substances targeted by the WoSD.

OTOH, I would support public health information and messaging campaigns similar to those against the use of tobacco/alcohol/illicit drugs.  Do we, as a nation, care so little for the health of homosexuals and those harmed by their actions that we would rank them below drunks and smokers? 

[charby]

Oddly enough, here is where I landed:
1. I do not support gov't-imposed therapy for homosexuals.
2. Homosexuality has similar or worse externalities than alcoholism.
3. If not for homosexuality, than not for alcoholism, either.
4. Same deal for those substances targeted by the WoSD.

I am quite confused by the bolded text.

[MillCreek]

Wow. For someone to say that homosexuality has similar or worse externalities than alcoholism.   I don't know of many bicyclists killed by someone driving gay, to cite one example near and dear to my heart.

[cordex]

I was talking about the one rather ambiguous line in the middle.

It's either badly phrased, which I hope is the case, or suggestive of supporting criminal activity of anyone that opposes homosexuality. 

Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Poorly worded, sure, but I took this as expressing opposition to the people who sue a baker who refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, or whatever.  I didn't take it that they were trying to protect anti-gay lynchings.

I do apologize is the Blazing Saddles reference/joke was not adequately obvious as satire.

My response was directed at your first post which - while completely accurate as a general rule - did not seem to apply in this case.

I would be upset if folks decided that politicians wanted to outlaw a type of therapy that folks willingly wanted to partake. I'd argue there are some substantial ethical concerns if the folks were being involuntarily treated, however. That's not covered either, which is smart on the GOP's part. That'd be my first question. In light of this platform, what is the official Texas GOP position on involuntary psychological treatment of homosexuals?

Sure, involuntary "treatment" of homosexuality is a Bad Thing under most circumstances.  That said, it is kind of a leap to go from "don't outlaw this" to "BECAUSE WE PLAN TO SHOVE IT DOWN YOUR THROAT!"

As to "hell camps", I don't doubt that there are some evil places doing evil things out there.  Where such camps utilize, encourage or tolerate torture, sexual assault, murder, neglect and other criminal behavior they should of course be held responsible.

However, when it comes to parents trying to unGay their kids (or convict them of a particular faith, or get them off drugs, or teach them to be communist, or whatever), regardless of the efficacy of their strategies or my personal feelings about the end goal, so long as they don't resort to otherwise criminal behavior I'm not generally inclined to champion government intervention.  If they cross that line, then that's another story.

[JN01]

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.

If a child is confused about his sexuality, why does it always have to default to "not heterosexual"?

[roo_ster]

I am quite confused by the bolded text.

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

Easiest measure is dead bodies, as those are pretty easy to count. 

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.

I linked and quoted some data upthread:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

Deaths: An estimated 15,529 people with an AIDS diagnosis died in 2010...

http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes...

These stats in no way capture the totality of the two pathologies, but they to give an idea as to both the size of the problem and the relative severity (alcohol abuse vs homosexuality). 

Wow. For someone to say that homosexuality has similar or worse externalities than alcoholism.

Means they are not innumerate.  The test of Life has a math component. 

Besides, are deaths due to AIDS somehow less worth preventing than motor-vehicle (or bicyclist) deaths due to alcohol abuse?  That is pretty harsh, even if you are not likely to be at risk your own self.

[MillCreek]

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?

[Perd Hapley]

The party sez: We are for small government, but think there should be a law preventing any restrictions...

Ya know, the second amendment is a law meant to prevent restrictions.