California bill that could BAN THE BIBLE advances

It is not illegal to encourage homosexual behavior in children

please give an example how someone can "encourage" homosexual behavior in children (that does not apply to heterosexual behavior as well).

There is considerable debate over whether or not the procedures work or if they are a form of quackery that does more harm than good.

well that's incorrect as well - read the bill for a change , you'll see there's no "considerable" debate:

(b) The American Psychological Association convened the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. The task force conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts and issued a report in 2009. The task force concluded that sexual orientation change efforts can pose critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, including confusion, depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social withdrawal, suicidality, substance abuse, stress, disappointment, self-blame, decreased self-esteem and authenticity to others, increased self-hatred, hostility and blame toward parents, feelings of anger and betrayal, loss of friends and potential romantic partners, problems in sexual and emotional intimacy, sexual dysfunction, high-risk sexual behaviors, a feeling of being dehumanized and untrue to self, a loss of faith, and a sense of having wasted time and resources.

(c) The American Psychological Association issued a resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts in 2009, stating: “[T]he [American Psychological Association] advises parents, guardians, young people, and their families to avoid sexual orientation change efforts that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and to seek psychotherapy, social support, and educational services that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support, and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth.”

(d) The American Psychiatric Association published a position statement in March of 2000, stating:

“Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or ‘repair’ homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of ‘cures’ are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, ‘reparative’ therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.

Meanwhile, other forms of quackery and butchery remain perfectly legal in California, such as sex-change operations which merely change a person's outward appearance without changing their DNA where their physical gender is hard-coded into every cell of their body.

Name change doesn't change the fact that this is still a lie.  This bill in no way will ban the bible.  

well I read the article at the link , reread the bill, no where does I see that it pertains to someone who is voluntarily seeking counciling with an ordained member of the clergy , or a licd therapist from going any direction the discussion leads , those disgussions are protected under certain privilege and unaffected by this law , what I do see is it keeps lay members of a congregation from prostulizing , or attempting to coerce someone against their will because of the congregation or a members beliefs.

 I will agree with lady above , different title , different article , but same bullshit pack of lies being presented , albeit , only this one says it COULD happen .

might want to realize something else , we here at NT are NOT your congregation to preach to.

AND here is a suggestion , why not take all these articles /op-eds , write your own original article, and list these as reference materials for where you got your info from?

Off topic [ph]

Aside from the fact that 25 million copies of the Bible are sold in the USA every year, 3 million a year in California, and isn't mentioned in the ( as yet, unsigned by the Governor) legislation,

the First Amendment will prevail.

If it were challenged in court, it would probably contend with  the Harry Potter series as the number one most challenged book in the courts /s.

Basically the same type of subject matter.

Seems far right wing fascism is favored here. Guess I'll find somewhere else to go.

Questions. So what if a man, that has identified as a man his entire life, truly desires to identify as a woman, and seeks counseling for that purpose? Or, what if a woman has a shift in her romantic attractions or feelings towards men, and seeks advice or counseling with a purpose of developing or facilitating an attraction for women?

This bill would, possibly, make such counseling illegal. 

1770.

 (a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:

(28) Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.

(i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

(2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation.

I have a few problems with the proposed legislation here. One, it's lumped into a consumer protection act, and haphazardly at that. Two, the purpose is to prevent "conversion" therapy, or other methods intended to promote conformity with societal norms, but it captures the opposite too. Three, this is a clear case of "the state knows better than the individual." If a person wants and deliberately seeks out such counseling or therapy, it will not be available. This is akin to a ban on the consumption of all raw or undercooked meats. If I like a medium rare burger, I should be able to eat one, topped with unpasteurized cheese, and served with a nice glass of raw milk. 

I have a few problems with the proposed legislation here. One, it's lumped into a consumer protection act, and haphazardly at that.

"Conversion therapy" is fraudulent and harmful, that's why it's in the consumer protection act.     So you can still get your gay or straight demons exorcised but no one can charge you for that kinky business.

There's a separate law which prohibits state-licensed therapists from harming children by torturing them with this quackery.    Parents are still free to force their kids to be tortured by the witch doctor at their favorite House of Superstition.

But, you're glossing over the real statement there Skrekk, which is the fact that it states a purpose but goes way beyond the stated purpose. 

Second to that, why should the legislature decide what kind of therapy a person can and cannot seek out? I understand this creates a private right of action for unfair practices, but the effect is obviously to chill any person from providing any service, in turn preventing someone from seeking out such a thing if they so desire. 

As for the attachment to a consumer protection act, this isn't selling coastline property in Arizona. I reviewed a couple of studies. Terms like "may be" or "can be" appear throughout. Again, consuming raw or undercooked meat may be harmful. Unfair or deceptive practice? No. And, I can't say that this is either. I have a friend who was formerly a lesbian. She went through some form of therapy to arrive at where she is, which is happy. I loved her before, and still love her. Why would I support a piece of legislation that would potentially have prevented her from actively seeking something she desired? I can't speak to the efficacy of the practice in all situations, but apparently my friend had a good experience. That said, I'm sure there are methods that do result in ethical violations. However, to categorize all methods as unfair or deceptive seems to far a stretch.

It seems goofy to claim that the practice is unfair or deceptive, and not propose some form of criminal prohibition against it. Instead, it's lumped in with price swapping, price gouging, misrepresentation as to the origin of goods or services, etc. If they wanted to incorporate some language about the practice in the Act, why not limit it to representations concerning the effectiveness of or guaranteeing the outcome of such practice. 

It seems goofy to claim that the practice is unfair or deceptive, and not propose some form of criminal prohibition against it.

????    It's civil fraud and thus subject to substantial fines.    Some other states like NJ also treat it that way and have even adjudicated the issue.   If you're suggesting there should be criminal penalties for those who try to sell this snake oil, I agree.

.

Unfair or deceptive practice? No. And, I can't say that this is either. I have a friend who was formerly a lesbian. She went through some form of therapy to arrive at where she is, which is happy. I loved her before, and still love her. Why would I support a piece of legislation that would potentially have prevented her from actively seeking something she desired?

Sounds like she's either bisexual or went through an exploratory phase like many teens do.   This bill doesn't prevent therapists from helping a person sort out their sexual orientation, it merely prohibits anyone from offering a commercial service to "change" a person's sexual orientation.    Not only is there no credible evidence to indicate that such a thing is even possible but there's a great deal of evidence that attempts to do so (no matter how futile) are psychologically harmful and significantly increase the risk of suicide.

By the way one of the groups which engaged in this fraudulent and harmful practice and which was fined and ordered by a court to close its business and cease offering such fraudulent services, JONAH, has recently been found to have secretly continued their practice.    I suspect those greedy and dishonest bigots will go to prison this time, hopefully for a very, very long time.

qz

Fortunately in California the worst offender in the country, NARTH, has effectively shut down after its loony and bigoted founder recently croaked.    His demise basically shut down that hate group.......and note that these really are hate groups since all of these practices are also involved in lobbying against the civil rights of LGBT folks.

newrepublic

.

In any event it's very good to see the courts and the states finally cracking down on this harmful quackery.    Also note that challenges to these kinds of bills have been repeatedly upheld by the courts.     Personally I think these bills should go much further and prevent parents, superstitious cults or anyone else from performing this quackery on a child.    In that context it's nothing more than child abuse.

That's what I'm saying. If they want to make it criminal, actually make it criminal. The fact that they threw it in with unfair and deceptive practices to me seems odd. Not a total prohibition, a person could still engage in such practice, but would be subject to civil suit, which may or may not result in an award of damages, or the collection of any such award. If it found its way into the criminal code, I'm certain the legislature could find a way to provide for some damages, which could be collected by the DA. To me, attachment to the CPA is a backdoor prohibition, because they just don't have enough to say its criminal.

And, as far as I know, she wasn't bi or going through a teen phase. When I met her, she was late 20s, had been in a lesbian relationship for a number of years, and was for a number of years beyond our acquaintance, maintaining the same relationship the entire time. I suppose I could pick her brain, but, candidly, it never occurred to me to bother. I'll say this, she is the only person I know that has made that turn. I know several that have gone from straight relationships, an uncle being one. Never occurred to me to pick his brain either. 

At the end of the day, I can't say what is or is not damaging, or potentially damaging, about any particular method. I just know that I have a friend that sought out and apparently succeeded in the search. To that end, I can't dismiss all methods as unfair or deceptive. 

To me, attachment to the CPA is a backdoor prohibition, because they just don't have enough to say its criminal.

Most state regulation of medical malpractice isn't criminal, in most cases a practitioner would just just lose their license to practice or be fined.    This change to the law simply extends that prohibition on fraud to cover anyone who charges a fee for this quackery, ie not just state-licensed therapists.    And that's appropriate because most of these quacks aren't actually licensed.

.

I'll say this, she is the only person I know that has made that turn. I know several that have gone from straight relationships, an uncle being one. Never occurred to me to pick his brain either. 

The odds are almost certain that none of the people you know actually changed their orientation given that there's zero scientific support to indicate that such a thing is possible, absent a traumatic brain injury.

.

At the end of the day, I can't say what is or is not damaging, or potentially damaging, about any particular method. I just know that I have a friend that sought out and apparently succeeded in the search. To that end, I can't dismiss all methods as unfair or deceptive.

Too bad that no medical organization agrees with you, eh?   In fact not even the largest practitioner of this quackery agrees with you......before Exodus International closed shop their president admitted that none of their victims actually changed their orientation.    He also apologized for the people his organization had driven to suicide.

Yeah, the way this is was set out, I wouldn't put it in with medmal either. I don't know Cals criminal code, but I'd venture a guess that there is already a penal code provision concerning unlicensed practice, or practice of unlawful techniques. Medmal is negligence. Intentional commission of an unlawful act isn't negligence. 

This bill intends to make clear that sexual orientation change efforts are an unlawful practice...

The legislature says that it is unlawful. Thus, anyone treating a patient in attempt to change sexual orientation is intentionally committing an unlawful act. The consumer protection act sets out acts that make otherwise lawful consumer transactions unlawful, such as overpricing, bait and switch, representing you have authority to sell something when you don't, not disclosing material info about goods or services, etc. Basically, it does its job, it covers all transactions where shady stuff was undertaken during an otherwise lawful transaction. Then, at #28, you get the sex orientation change efforts. Nothing about the transaction is lawful, according to the bill. That's goofy. It's misplaced. California is saying it is unlawful to do this, period. Don't stick it in a provision covering circumstances where otherwise lawful transactions go bad. This is supposedly unlawful from the word go. Again, intentional commission of an unlawful act is a crime most everywhere else. 

You're last point is the heart of the matter, and the reason for the staunch defense of the placement of this thing in the CPA. It's a predisposed orientation. Therefore, any "change" is false. So any evidence showing changes in orientation should be discounted, as its a scientific impossibility. Right? That's the real fear here. Discovery that orientation can change. Maybe not even discovery, but an acknowledgement. And, we can't have that.

If that is the case, and assuming the goofy placement of this in the CPA is sound, they didn't go far enough. Pedophiles should be covered under this too, right?

Medmal is negligence. Intentional commission of an unlawful act isn't negligence. 

Presumably a state-licensed practitioner who engaged in this debunked practice would be legally exposed under both laws - first as medical malpractice then as consumer fraud.......much like selling Laetrile treatments as a cure for cancer despite the fact that the only known effective use for the substance is to induce acute cyanide poisoning.

.

The legislature says that it is unlawful. Thus, anyone treating a patient in attempt to change sexual orientation is intentionally committing an unlawful act.

That's correct, at least when a fee is being charged to harm someone in that manner.   It's consumer fraud regardless of whether the con artist is a state-licensed health care practitioner or a used car salesman who sells quackery on the side.    What matters under this law is that the "mark" is being charged a fee.    So if you're not a licensed health care practitioner and you're not charging for this quackery you're still free to engage in this con despite the fact that it's ineffective and likely to induce depression or suicide.

.

You're last point is the heart of the matter, and the reason for the staunch defense of the placement of this thing in the CPA. It's a predisposed orientation. Therefore, any "change" is false. So any evidence showing changes in orientation should be discounted, as its a scientific impossibility. Right?

Wrong.   Many decades of research by real clinical psychologists and various attempts by real quacks like Socarides, Nicolosi, Cameron, Bachmann, Rekers and JONAH have provided no indication whatsoever that these superstitious practices have any benefit much less the purported outcome.    In fact the research shows that these superstitious practices can be quite harmful indeed.    But while this law won't prevent honest researchers from investigating the issue I'm not sure why anyone would do so.   It's like trying to change tall people into short people by hacking off their legs......what would be the point?    Or like trying to change brown-eyed people into blue-eyed people despite a significant risk of blindness.   Plus any researchers who do conduct experiments will be subject to informed consent laws and will need to fully inform test subjects of the known and potential risks of the experiment, like suicide......and then they'll need to submit their research to peer review.

Of course the scam artists who currently engage in this debunked and discredited superstitious practice would never choose to fully inform their victims.

.

Pedophiles should be covered under this too, right?

I'm not sure why you'd say that other than the fact that homophobic bigots tend to associate homosexuality with pedophilia, despite the fact that there's a negative correlation between the two and the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are married men who self-identify as straight.     So what was your motive for making such a moronic and out of context comment......are you claiming that pedophiles are engaged in consumer fraud?

.

It's fundamentally just a practice rooted in the anti-gay superstitions of twisted sects like the RCC, LDS and SBC.    Perhaps your confusion on the issue comes from your presumption that there's a scientific basis for this superstitious and harmful quackery.   There never has been any, at least none which has survived peer review.   In fact the only legitimate researcher who ever had any "positive" results retracted his claims many years ago (they weren't peer reviewed anyway) and apologized for the harm which his erroneous claims had caused and for how his research had been misused and misquoted by anti-LGBT groups like NARTH to harm gay and transgender folks.    I suggest you read this article since it's a good discussion of the issue.....the last paragraph somewhat supports your view:

slate

So what was your motive for making such a moronic and out of context comment......are you claiming that pedophiles are engaged in consumer fraud

I have no motive, and moronic and out of context it is not. I read some of the research backing the laundry list of claims made, setting forth the policy of the amendment. That reading put me onto a couple of studies on treatment of pedophilia. According to those, pedophilia, like homosexuality, cannot be "cured." Impulses and urges can be controlled, but the frank studies made no bones about a cure. 

If that is true, then any attempt to cure pedophilia should fall in the same basket of quackery, should it not? If a person seeks counseling to cure pedophilia, then I suppose, going by the same logic set out in the amendment, said person should be protected by the CPA, same as anyone from the LGBT community. 

If that is true, then any attempt to cure pedophilia should fall in the same basket of quackery, should it not? If a person seeks counseling to cure pedophilia, then I suppose, going by the same logic set out in the amendment, said person should be protected by the CPA, same as anyone from the LGBT community.

Is being gay harmful to oneself or to others?

Does counseling for a paraphilia like pedophilia induce depression or suicide?

If not then your comparison is both moronic and plainly motivated by irrational homophobia.     But feel free to get your gay demons exorcised by your pedophile priest......as long as he doesn't charge you for the service then there's no crime.

I'm no psychologist, and don't purport to be well read in any of these areas. (or even partially read) Regardless, the discussion has side tracked a bit. I still believe, if California wants to protect its citizens from these practices, a stand alone Act would serve better. Adding this to the CPA is still a bit odd to me. 

Perhaps a separate law would be better but then you end up with many, many individual laws all covering the same underlying kind of corrupt practice of consumer fraud.    Also there's already a separate law which treats this as medical malpractice when minors and a licensed practitioner are involved.    The intent of the new bill is to extend that to cover all instances of "service for fee" regardless of the age of the victim or the identity of the perp.

Note that consumer fraud is exactly why the courts in NJ found JONAH liable for the financial and psychological harm they caused, even though the practice wasn't explicitly prohibited in NJ at the time of the events in question.     Too bad these con artists simply turned around and continued the business under a new name but with the same address and same phone number, but I suspect they'll regret doing that.

en.wikipedia

Because straights can turn gay but it can never happen the other way around.

Heterosexual people don't turn gay because they were never heterosexual to begin with. Gay, bi, Les people cannot become heterosexual if they were ever actually LGB because it cannot happen due to the fact that t it would require the change of a physical structure of the brain. 

Exodus International apologized and admitted that reparative therapy was a dangerous fraud when they closed.

"I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced. I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn't change," Chambers said.

"I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents," he added. "I am sorry that there were times I didn't stand up to people publicly 'on my side' who called you names like sodomite -- or worse."

The group's "conversion therapy" was based on the belief that people are not born gay, but rather choose to act on same-sex inclinations, making it a "condition" that could be "cured."

In a 2009 report, the American Psychological Association concluded that "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation."

 The bible cannot possibly be banned because that action would violate both religious clauses of the 1st Amendment. The fact that it would be physically possible to ban the Bible in the US is irrelevant to this paranoid.  California would have to close every Christian church in California and then go house to house to confisacate every bible, which is both unconstitutional and impossible.

A federal appeals court judge would set this law aside if that ever happened.

How is this law bad when it doesn't ban the bible?

At this weekend’s Freedom March, people who have been set free from such alternative lifestyles by Christ will gather in Washington, D.C.'s National Sylvan Theater, where they will fellowship, share stories and participate in group worship.

What happened to the thread that you created on this same subject? Did you delete it? 

How can you possibly be cured of being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender when even Exodus says that reparative therapy is dangerous and ineffectual?  You can no more change your sexual orientation or gender identity by prayer than you can change your DNA or eye color by prayer. Prayer doesn't accomplish anything, except making the person praying feel better.  We have explained this to you and others over and over but still, you make the same incorrect claims because you refuse to accept facts.

Who is threatening the rights of LGBT people, other than social conservatives such as yourself?

Well, one of the guys who survived the massacre was instrumental in organizing it.....a gay.  So, I guess you can change.

Well, one of the guys who survived the massacre was instrumental in organizing it.....a gay.

Medical science says that you cannot change your sexual orientation. He is repressing something as a coping mechanism or just delusional. 

There is not a problem with being gay. The problem is the religious people who try to put a guilt trip on others because of their ignorance and their religious bigotry.  A person certainly can change their religious views with education or psychotherapy.

Medical science says that you cannot change your sexual orientation. He is repressing something as a coping mechanism or just delusional.

Very true. Some religious bigots who think they know better than everyone else can certainly attempt to inject their religious laws into secular law contrary to the constitution and force celibacy by preventing any sexual contact or forcing heterosexual actions on everyone, heck they could force people to only have sex with animals if they want to break the law, but there is zero evidence of any person going from being attracted to the same gender to then being truly attracted to opposite sex genders. There is only evidence of some people choosing not to act on their own desires which is fine, and no liberals is forcing anyone to act on their desires. Like some choose not to act on their desire to eat an entire gallon of ice cream in one sitting, no one is forcing you to eat ice cream at all, but you can't attempt to ban ice cream sales just to diminish your own temptations.

In the case of the California law, it's not saying someone can't choose to try and get over their homosexual desires if that's what they wish, you just can't try and force conversion therapy on someone under 18 or claim any therapy you offer can actually change gender attraction which has been debunked, just like you can't offer a bogus therapy where you claim singing to balding persons heads can restore hair growth or doing some intricate dance will cure people of acne. It's essentially just a truth in advertising law and a protection for children under 18 from being forced by their parents to undergo a debunked therapy.

" When consumers see or hear an  advertisement , whether it's on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal  law  says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence."

ftc

In the case of the California law, it's not saying someone can't choose to try and get over their homosexual desires if that's what they wish, you just can't try and force conversion therapy on someone under 18 or claim any therapy you offer can actually change gender attraction which has been debunked, just like you can't offer a bogus therapy where you claim singing to balding persons heads can restore hair growth or doing some intricate dance will cure people of acne. It's essentially just a truth in advertising law and a protection for children under 18 from being forced by their parents to undergo a debunked therapy.

Hopefully, any medical insurance is prohibited from covering this dangerous religious quackery. I was forced to attend a religious-based therapy for depression by my insurance carrier in the late 1980s because it was cheaper than the proper medical therapy. I went to 2 sessions and then wrote a nasty letter to the company and they relented and paid for the proper medical care.

Well, medical science could be wrong.

And medical science could be, and likely is, right. So on what basis do you dismiss what medical science says? Simply because you think it could be wrong? Do you hold that same standard to other areas of medical science?

Well, medical science could be wrong.

They aren't wrong because the basic concept of science is that it's self-correcting. If they were wrong there would be evidence to support your relgious belief in less than 40 years, but that hasn't happened.

For the same reason they think it could be right.

yes

Wow, so if medical science offered you a treatment for a condition, even one backed by evidence based research, you would hesitate to accept it simply because you think science could be wrong? Ever consider it is you who is wrong?

The difference is, "they" usually back themselves up with evidence based research. Not mere conjecture.

Not at all.  I didn't get off a turnip truck. But, treatments and diagnoses have been known to be wrong.

I didn't get off a turnip truck.

An odd expression.

But, treatments and diagnoses have been known to be wrong.

Sure, but that's usually due to human error on the doctor's part, not the science. The science is usually sound until there is evidence to suggest otherwise. A statement of they "could be wrong" is meaningless unless there is actual evidence to support such a conclusion.

The science is usually sound until there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

So like just about everything,  the science is valid until it isn't .Wow! 

Gay Conversion Therapy was never ever science. It was religious mumbo jumbo that caused great harm...

It was about a political rally in Washington DC so it wasn’t moved to the religion section either.

I was the first person to reply to that thread. I later checked back to see if anyone had said anything and it had vanished like a chocolate cake at the White House.

Well, medical science could be wrong.

And you could be an alien from planet Uranus sent here to enslave mankind subjecting them to "endless" anal probes. But that's pretty far fetched, as is science being totally on the wrong track. Now they might not have 100% of the facts in this case, but they are are far closer to truth than any ancient farmers almanac like the bible.

Science goes to where the evidence leads, including determining whether something is valid or invalid. 

secular methods of dealing with same sex attractions

Please enlighten me, what are those methods ?

Because advancing the Christian solution to same sex attractions is considered proselytizing here so only secular methods of dealing with same sex attractions are allowed to be discussed here.

Sounds like the same kind of "Christian solution" as the exorcism of demons and other imaginary creatures.    Perhaps that's why there are no actual "secular methods" of advancing your anti-gay superstitions?

Please enlighten me, what are those methods ?

I'd also like to know about this secular method to same-sex attractions. Id likes to know why secular methods to deal with SS attractions are necessary. What is the goal of these secular methods? 

Who exactly is being harmed because two people of the same physical gender are a romantic couple?

Because advancing the Christian solution to same sex attractions is considered proselytizing here so only secular methods of dealing with same sex attractions are allowed to be discussed here.

This supposed Christian solution is quackery for a self-created problem that does not concern you or anyone else who isn't LGBT.  Why do you seek to inject yourself into the lives of other people? 

Maybe the solution is for bigoted people to mind their own business and stop thinking about what other people do in their own private bedrooms.

advancing the Christian solution to same sex attractions is considered proselytizing here so only secular methods of dealing with same sex attractions are allowed to be discussed here

Is there anyone here trying to proselytize or convert you to a gay life style? Is anyone trying to tell you being gay is the best way to live and so you need to change from being heterosexual and if you don't you're risking damnation? If not, then maybe you trying to do the opposite isn't acceptable. Why not just practice your religion in your own life and stop worrying about what others are doing in their bedrooms? If other people are telling you they are gay and they've always been gay and they are happy being gay, why do you believe you need to change them or convert them to your personal view or religious beliefs? It seems like the majority of the tension and frustration Christians exhibit is from their attempts to push their views on others and being rejected when they do so. It seems like if some Christians don't get others to agree and validate their faith then their faith and/or pride is somehow damaged, which to me says more about them than the people they're trying to convert.

Because if we advance this point of view about overcoming homosexuality we’ll be be accused of proselytizing rather than offering an alternative to the gay life style.

I'd accuse you of promoting quackery first, as one does not overcome homosexuality. Just as one doesn't overcome heterosexuality. And citing your biblical nonsense or god as the means to do so is proselytizing! And who are you to judge someone's "lifestyle" or think they need to change?

At this weekend’s Freedom March, people who have been set free from such alternative lifestyles by Christ will gather in Washington, D.C.'s National Sylvan Theater, where they will fellowship, share stories and participate in group worship.

Yep, all 'dozens' of them...

Freedom March,

That is just sad, even for bigots.

patheos

So did you turn gay? Is that what you're saying?

I have a few problems with the proposed legislation here.

Perhaps if you reviewed section 2 which you quoted in your own post it would clear things up for you. Your scenario is rendered moot. 

Off Topic "BF"

Off Topic "BF"

Off Topic "BF"

Off Topic "BF"

I don't see why.  Both Marijuana and the Bible are NOT banned in California.

Who is BF ?

Badfish

So he is now a mod?

He is. I also want to put it out there, that if there are other members who are interested in being on the mod team, please write me. 

He is.

Huh?  ??

BF is a Mod? ??  

Get a hold of yourself, Raven.  He only requires a one-time payment of $1,000.00 (sent to his commissary account at Yipee Ki Yay State Prison), and he will ignore your spicier comments.

BF a mod!!! Holy covfefe.

BF a mod!!!

That certainly explains the influx of NT members checking into psych wards everywhere.

Holy covfefe.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

BF is a Mod? ??

Yeah, because The News Talkers, "Is a Democracy". /S...

Get a hold of yourself, Raven.  He only requires a one-time payment of $1,000.00 (sent to his commissary account at Yipee Ki Yay State Prison), and he will ignore your spicier comments.

Whew!!!!  Thanks for the heads up. Although, I don't make a habit of posting my spicier moments on the internet.   

"I don't see why.  Both Marijuana and the Bible are NOT banned in California"

Maybe a moderator should be a bit more moderate.

Comment removed for gross generalizations [ph]

Given your rather derogatory and superstitious comments about gays I wouldn't be surprised if the mods delete your comment, but I won't flag it.        Deleted, skirting {SP}

Seems odd every time you say " but I won't flag it" the comment is suddenly removed.

You sound quite paranoid.

You know, I was kind of hoping that the Catholic Church had more dignity than to engage in this kind of silliness.

"They're gonna outlaw the bible!" That's a mighty big load of grass after its passed through a horse's digestive tract.

The worst sort of fear mongering. Like yelling, "FiRE", untrue misleading inflammatory dangerous...

I'm embarrassed that I have yet to come up with a scam like this one to lighten thumper wallets.

Of course you can't get a good scam, they're all taken.

There's some guy passing out little packets of "Sacred (or holy) Spring Water" on T.V. that if you drink it I guess suddenly checks will appear in the mail, often from a employer or your fatal disease is now healed.

The water is "free" but I'm sure they get lots of info from you and hidden costs like shipping and handling and after that they'll call you every day for donations or to sell you more miracle products (tm).

LOL

Maybe tell you later you need the now expensive holy water every day, or god will get mad and take it all back AND be mad at you forever. Who knows how far they'll push the scam.

Selling a bible for thousands of dollars as the cure for any number of biblical ailments was a good scam while it lasted.