Michelle Bachmann under fire for controversial reparative theraphy

This thread has inspired me. I am establishing a clinic to offer reparative therapy to cure those who wish to escape the heterosexual lifestyle.xaos

I think this statement really speaks to their ridiculousness of their program.

[QUOTE="xaos"]This thread has inspired me. I am establishing a clinic to offer reparative therapy to cure those who wish to escape the heterosexual lifestyle.GreySeal9

I think this statement really speaks to their ridiculousness of their program.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="xaos"]This thread has inspired me. I am establishing a clinic to offer reparative therapy to cure those who wish to escape the heterosexual lifestyle.xaos

I think this statement really speaks to their ridiculousness of their program.

:lol:

People are crazy if they think they can change someones orientation. It's something hardwired and makes up a part of who you are.

Maybe we should create a therapy for bachmann and her husband, teach things like how to not to discuise your bigorties as religion and how to not take your sexual frustrations on others, and

What's ironic is that her husband is so incredibly gay himself, at least based on his mannerisms and quotes.

He once said something along the lines of "just because you want to or think of doing something, doesn't mean you should". Its not like straight people have to constantly convince themselves to not be gay so he definitely has got to be at least a little bit gay.

Of course this makes it all the more fun to hate Bachmann for the stupidity she spews, but whatever.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]It's fine to have opinion but when you push your opinion as the only right one...that's where it gets a bit off track. As I have not studied this treatment....I'm not going to state whether it will or won't. I doubt it does....but again as I've said I've not studied the case histories. Perhaps it might give piece of mind to individuals not accepting of their sexuality if they find there is no "cure". Might make them accept themselves....no?

LJS9502_basic

From what I've read of case studies, "ex-gay" therapy tends to traumatize patients by repeatedly telling them that they are sick and what they are doing is evil, and forcibly cause them to repress their sexuality in order to be accepted and normal. Almost every medical institution rejects this therapy due to the harm it can cause.

Instead, therapy helping them to accept who they are and that they aren't "sick" is far more helpful.

Yeah, you're right, no opinion is "fact", but some do have much a much stronger basis then others and therefore are argued as such.

Freedom of speech.

This thread has inspired me. I am establishing a clinic to offer reparative therapy to cure those who wish to escape the heterosexual lifestyle.xaos

I think this statement really speaks to their ridiculousness of their program.

Just remember that folks volunteering to walk through the door and pay for this service are not being dragged in from the street and forced to undergo this procedure.

Just remember that folks volunteering to walk through the door and pay for this service are not being dragged in from the street and forced to undergo this procedure.

Protoford

That is not being disputed. That, however, does not mean that one cannot critisize the service itself.

Good. Now she wont get elected.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

From what I've read of case studies, "ex-gay" therapy tends to traumatize patients by repeatedly telling them that they are sick and what they are doing is evil, and forcibly cause them to repress their sexuality in order to be accepted and normal. Almost every medical institution rejects this therapy due to the harm it can cause.

Instead, therapy helping them to accept who they are and that they aren't "sick" is far more helpful.

Yeah, you're right, no opinion is "fact", but some do have much a much stronger basis then others and therefore are argued as such.

Teenaged

Freedom of speech.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yes but since it's up to the individual to choose their life's course....does anyone have the right to tell them their opinion in invalid?

LJS9502_basic

Freedom of speech.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Uh yes why wouldnt they have the right to tell them their opinion is invalid?

Freedom of speech.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Freedom of Speech pertains to the government....not individuals nor private entities.LJS9502_basic

Certainly they have the right to tell them their choice is invalid. They don't have the right to interfere with their pursuit of that choice though. Sometimes when someone uses the word "tell" in that way, they are referring to that sort of authoritarian intervention rather than just the exercise of free speech.

Certainly they have the right to tell them their choice is invalid. They don't have the right to interfere with their pursuit of that choice though. Sometimes when someone uses the word "tell" in that way, they are referring to that sort of authoritarian intervention rather than just the exercise of free speech.

m0zart

But nobody in this thread is even coming close to advocating interfering with their pursuit of the choice.

Nobody even neccesarily said gays that choose the service have invalid opinions. People are just critisizing this service becaus they don't believe it is a good thing for several reasons.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

Certainly they have the right to tell them their choice is invalid. They don't have the right to interfere with their pursuit of that choice though. Sometimes when someone uses the word "tell" in that way, they are referring to that sort of authoritarian intervention rather than just the exercise of free speech.

GreySeal9

But nobody in this thread is even coming close to advocating interfering with their pursuit of the choice. So that is irrelevant.

It's relevant to what I think is being misunderstood here in the recent part of the argument. I simply think that's where "telling" was referring to the command to intervene, not the exercise of free speech.

Certainly they have the right to tell them their choice is invalid. They don't have the right to interfere with their pursuit of that choice though. Sometimes when someone uses the word "tell" in that way, they are referring to that sort of authoritarian intervention rather than just the exercise of free speech.

m0zart

If they dont like the way someone gives them advice they can stop talking to them.

Either way, they have the right (either legally or colloquially) to say what they want to that person.

The moto "its their own life" that keeps circulating doesnt mean that a person knows what is best for them. One could say thats the very reason why most of the times we want to advise people; because we feel we may know better what would be best for them (and of course along with the probable motivation to just defend our personal ideologies).

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

Certainly they have the right to tell them their choice is invalid. They don't have the right to interfere with their pursuit of that choice though. Sometimes when someone uses the word "tell" in that way, they are referring to that sort of authoritarian intervention rather than just the exercise of free speech.

m0zart

But nobody in this thread is even coming close to advocating interfering with their pursuit of the choice. So that is irrelevant.

It's relevant to what I think is being misunderstood here in the recent part of the argument. I simply think that's where "telling" was referring to the command to intervene, not the exercise of free speech.

But nobody said anything about intervening, so it wouldn't make sense to argue about "rights" in that regard. Why would somebody be referring to that when nobody has said anything about intervention?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]You talked about the "right" to tell them their opinion is invalid. And they have that right. *shrugs*

Teenaged

Ridiculous...

Certainly they have the right to tell them their choice is invalid. They don't have the right to interfere with their pursuit of that choice though. Sometimes when someone uses the word "tell" in that way, they are referring to that sort of authoritarian intervention rather than just the exercise of free speech.

m0zart

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]So they do have that right? Gotcha.

xaos

Haha, exactly my reaction.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You know it was used as a "right" per constitutional. *shrugs*LJS9502_basic

Would you kindly stick to the topic you started (about who has the right to tell them their opinion is invalid) or will we go in circles?

So, do they or do they not have the right to tell them that their opinion is invalid?

Expression of opinion between individuals is relevant to freedom of speech, unless you want to specify what you mean by "right", in stead of being vague.

Even if its an authoritarian intervention, it still doesnt really hinder the person.

If they dont like the way someone gives them advice they can stop talking to them.

Either way, they have the right (either legally or colloquially) to say what they want to that person.

The moto "its their own life" that keeps circulating doesnt mean that a person knows what is best for them. One could say thats the very reason why most of the times we want to advise people; because we feel we may know better what would be best for them (and of course along with the probable motivation to just defend our personal ideologies).

Teenaged

No, not even if it's authoritarian intervention. You are no longer advising at that point, you are prohibiting. If that individual is able to stop talking to someone and be done with it, then authoritarian intervention isn't really involved anymore.

A lot of people don't know what's best for them, but they are still in the best position to make that decision, compared to most others. I would hope that in this day and age a homosexual would feel free to pursue his life without worrying about what other people think about his orientation, but that's just advice and hope. If he's insistent on seeking alternate routes, I don't believe it's someone else's privilege to insist otherwise, at least beyond verbal insistance.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You want to stay on what was actually posted or are you going to straw man the argument more?LJS9502_basic

Would you kindly stick to the topic you started (about who has the right to tell them their opinion is invalid) or will we go in circles?

So, do they or do they not have the right to tell them that their opinion is invalid?

Expression of opinion between individuals is relevant to freedom of speech, unless you want to specify what you mean by "right", in stead of being vague.

I am interested in having a constructive dialogue and vagueness doesnt help. But to each their own.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Thats what I did.

Would you kindly stick to the topic you started (about who has the right to tell them their opinion is invalid) or will we go in circles?

So, do they or do they not have the right to tell them that their opinion is invalid?

Expression of opinion between individuals is relevant to freedom of speech, unless you want to specify what you mean by "right", in stead of being vague.

Teenaged

I am interested in having a constructive dialogue and vagueness doesnt help. But to each their own.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You want to stay on what was actually posted or are you going to straw man the argument more?LJS9502_basic

Would you kindly stick to the topic you started (about who has the right to tell them their opinion is invalid) or will we go in circles?

So, do they or do they not have the right to tell them that their opinion is invalid?

Expression of opinion between individuals is relevant to freedom of speech, unless you want to specify what you mean by "right", in stead of being vague.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Even if its an authoritarian intervention, it still doesnt really hinder the person.

If they dont like the way someone gives them advice they can stop talking to them.

Either way, they have the right (either legally or colloquially) to say what they want to that person.

The moto "its their own life" that keeps circulating doesnt mean that a person knows what is best for them. One could say thats the very reason why most of the times we want to advise people; because we feel we may know better what would be best for them (and of course along with the probable motivation to just defend our personal ideologies).

m0zart

No, not even if it's authoritarian intervention. You are no longer advising at that point, you are prohibiting. If that individual is able to stop talking to someone and be done with it, then authoritarian intervention isn't really involved anymore.

A lot of people don't know what's best for them, but they are still in the best position to make that decision, compared to most others. I would hope that in this day and age a homosexual would feel free to pursue his life without worrying about what other people think about his orientation, but that's just advice and hope. If he's insistent on seeking alternate routes, I don't believe it's someone else's privilege to insist otherwise, at least beyond verbal insistance.

I disagree. Some times (rare as they may be) some people are not in the best position to make that decision. And I am willing to bet some of those cases are cases of homosexual people who are lead to believe they have to cure their orientation. However supporting that some people are not in the best position to decide for themselves does not necessarily imply interference beyond verbal insistance.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Thats what I did.

Would you kindly stick to the topic you started (about who has the right to tell them their opinion is invalid) or will we go in circles?

So, do they or do they not have the right to tell them that their opinion is invalid?

Expression of opinion between individuals is relevant to freedom of speech, unless you want to specify what you mean by "right", in stead of being vague.

Teenaged

I am interested in having a constructive dialogue and vagueness doesnt help. But to each their own.

No offense to you Teenaged because you made a valid point about freedom of speech (one does indeed have the right to say certain opinions are invalid), but I don't even see the point of this debate.

Nobody said anything about any kind of authoritarian intervention. Nobody said gays don't have the choice to participate in the Bachmann program. People were just critisizing the program itself, which they are perfectly entitled to do. So this discussion of rights is completely off topic (though that's not your fault).

And if a gay person asked me if I think this therapy was a good idea, I would say no, I think it's a terrible idea. They still have the right to make their own decision regardless of what I say.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I'm not getting pulled into one of your semantics arguments. LJS9502_basic

I am interested in having a constructive dialogue and vagueness doesnt help. But to each their own.

Perhaps they tried to make out of it what they could because they were afraid they might offend you or whatever.

However, I consider the best way to go is to ask for clarification. Are you afraid to clarify? :?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I'm not getting pulled into one of your semantics arguments. GreySeal9

I am interested in having a constructive dialogue and vagueness doesnt help. But to each their own.

No offense to you Teenaged because you made a valid point about freedom of speech (one does indeed have the right to say certain opinions are invalid), but I don't even see the point of this debate.

Nobody said anything about any kind of authoritarian intervention. Nobody said gays don't have the choice to participate in the Bachmann program. People were just critisizing the program itself, which they are perfectly entitled to do. So this discussion of rights is completely off topic (though that's not your fault).

And if a gay person asked me if I think this therapy was a good idea, I would no, I think it's a terrible idea. They still have the right to make their own decision regardless of what I say.

Thats why I want him to specify what he means. Until he does he will still appear relevant to some while he is not.

What exactly does this therapy entail anyways? I dont think you can make someone ungay.

This can be adequately portrayed by the X-men, the stand movie, where rogue goes and gets de-mutanized. Was being a mutant really a disease or a bad thing? I would say no.

What exactly does this therapy entail anyways? I dont think you can make someone ungay.

sonicare

They just "help" them live a straight or at least "not-gay" life, ie restrict their emotions and instincts, kinda like being a monk or something lol

I could be wrong.

What exactly does this therapy entail anyways? I dont think you can make someone ungay.

sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

What exactly does this therapy entail anyways? I dont think you can make someone ungay.

They just "help" them live a straight or at least "not-gay" life, ie restrict their emotions and instincts, kinda like being a monk or something lol

I could be wrong.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

What exactly does this therapy entail anyways? I dont think you can make someone ungay.

sonicare

They just "help" them live a straight or at least "not-gay" life, ie restrict their emotions and instincts, kinda like being a monk or something lol

I could be wrong.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

What exactly does this therapy entail anyways? I dont think you can make someone ungay.

Teenaged

They just "help" them live a straight or at least "not-gay" life, ie restrict their emotions and instincts, kinda like being a monk or something lol

I could be wrong.

There have been people in the program that say that they were told the program would make the straight. That's why this is such a controversial issue.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

What exactly does this therapy entail anyways? I dont think you can make someone ungay.

They just "help" them live a straight or at least "not-gay" life, ie restrict their emotions and instincts, kinda like being a monk or something lol

I could be wrong.

There have been people in the program that say that they were told the program would make the straight. That's why this is such a controversial issue.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]From the little I know, the programs themselves dont profess to be able to turn gay people straight.

They just "help" them live a straight or at least "not-gay" life, ie restrict their emotions and instincts, kinda like being a monk or something lol

I could be wrong.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]From the little I know, the programs themselves dont profess to be able to turn gay people straight.

They just "help" them live a straight or at least "not-gay" life, ie restrict their emotions and instincts, kinda like being a monk or something lol

I could be wrong.

sonicare

There have been people in the program that say that they were told the program would make the straight. That's why this is such a controversial issue.

:lol:

I think you should e-mail that to Michelle Bachmann with the tagline "Here is some effective damage control for you!"

What exactly does this therapy entail anyways? I dont think you can make someone ungay.

sonicare

A lot of it is aversion therapy. In the good ole' days that meant stuff like electroshock treatment and inducing nausea. Now it's become more "humane", and they just try to scare the gay out you. Of course even when you become "repaired" you're still gay

One person who was subject to this repartive therapy described his new, ex-gay life as if he was "bleeding out of [his] eyeballs."

That pic reminds me of clockwork orange. lol.

Wouldnt prohibiting mean to actively try to prevent that person from making a choice with actions in stead of words? Such prohibition without actions is only effective in relationships between parents and children, where one's opinion is most of the times a rule for the children to obey. If its simply between two friends or two strangers, strongly opposing an opinion or an intended action isnt actually prohibiting anyone.Teenaged

Right, but I think that's what was meant by "telling". It's obvious that someone has the right to voice an objection, even to a complete stranger (though that's not wise to do so), so I don't believe that was the intent. Ordering someone to do something with a threat ofphysical interventionstarts off verbal.You're "telling" someone. Parents don't usually just tell their kids. They give rules and apply punishments when they are broken. They are warning as well as demanding. They are forcing kids to behave a certain way. Governments and their citizens have a similar relationship, though usually for different reasons (political expedience vs. parental love).

I disagree. Some times (rare as they may be) some people are not in the best position to make that decision. And I am willing to bet some of those cases are cases of homosexual people who are lead to believe they have to cure their orientation. However supporting that some people are not in the best position to decide for themselves does not necessarily imply interference beyond verbal insistance.Teenaged

It would need to be a very rare case for me to believe an exception could be made. I would have to see that someone had shown himself to be working at reduced faculties, suffering from some sort of mental deficiency, or showing an intent to act on the rights of others without their consent. Simply saying "I don't want to be gay and seeking out help from those that agree with that position isn't enough. Basically, I don't think we can define our entire basis for intervention (or any other justification based on ethics) on the possibility of an emergency situation arising.

I wasn't in here to intervene (har har). And I didn't see the full history of the thread either. I just saw the ass-end of the argument and it piqued my interest.