Should We ban Conversion Therapy?

just_sayin

It seems to me that someone has the right to decide what sexual orientation they wish to be regardless of how someone else feels about it.  If someone desires to become heterosexual that is their choice.  If they wish to go through conversion therapy, then, if they are an adult, we should respect their decision.  There is lots of evidence that sexual orientation can change, especially for younger people.  An often repeated claim by those who seek to deny people freedom of choice regarding going to a conversion therapy session is that it is harmful. However, as the Family Research Council has documented 79 studies show that it causes no harm.  

jack

just_sayin said:

It seems to me that someone has the right to decide what sexual orientation they wish to be regardless of how someone else feels about it.

Hello just:

It seems to me that I had NO choice in the matter..  You DID???  When?  At what point in your life did you consider putting another mans penis in your mouth??  It surly must have been intriguing to you..  You must have given it some serious thought. 

Me????  It was NEVER a thought.  It was NEVER a consideration.  I NEVER had to choose between a man or a woman.  So, given that my sexuality is BUILT in, having some kook tell me that I could switch if I wanted to, is totally bonkers and is as offensive as you get. 

excon

just_sayin

jack said:

just_sayin said:

It seems to me that someone has the right to decide what sexual orientation they wish to be regardless of how someone else feels about it.

Hello just:

It seems to me that I had NO choice in the matter..  You DID???  When?  At what point in your life did you consider putting another mans penis in your mouth??  It surly must have been intriguing to you..  You must have given it some serious thought. 

Me????  It was NEVER a thought.  It was NEVER a consideration.  I NEVER had to choose between a man or a woman.  So, given that my sexuality is BUILT in, having some kook tell me that I could switch if I wanted to, is totally bonkers and is as offensive as you get. 

excon

Is sexual orientation fluid?  Here are websites that say it is:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/sexual-fluidity-and-the-diversity-of-sexual-orientation-202203312717

https://healthnews.com/womens-health/sexual-health/sexual-fluidity-why-do-sexual-preferences-change/

From Health News:

Research on the prevalence of sexual fluidity has found that it is most common in women, young people, and people who identify as LGBTQIA+.

A large-scale US-based study found that 26% of adolescent girls and 11% of adolescent boys reported changes in their sexual identity over time, and 31% of adolescent girls and 10% of adolescent boys reported changes in sexual attraction.

Another study examining sexual-minority young adults aged 18–26 found that 64% of women and 52% of men reported a change in their sexual attraction. The study also found that 49% of the women who were sexually fluid changed their sexual identity depending on their sexual attraction, compared to 39% of sexually fluid men. The women who reported being sexually fluid used a range of labels to identify themselves; however, the sexually fluid men usually only labeled themselves completely gay or straight.

I would not advocate for anyone child or adult being forced to attend conversion therapy against their will, however, making a blanket claim conversion therapy should be outlawed seems bigoted to me.  Now if someone identified specific objectionable practices, I might concur with them that those specific practices should be banned, depending on the practice, but to make a blanket statement about all conversion therapy to me is what bigots do.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Barnardot ; @jack ; @just_sayin   

LGBTQ is sexual perversion, it is mental and spiritual illness and it is NOT normalized among those willing to speak the truth and exist in commonsense. Transsexualism is demonically rooted and it's a springboard for physiologically and psychologically mutilating our youth in confusion and demonic deception...a life of regret and sorrow...a Marxist attack on the family. LGBTQ should be stuffed back into the closet and only remembered as a Universal embarrassment and life-lesson learned. 

Barnardot

@just_sayin Well I was thinking more along the lines of conversion therapy for homophobes. For years the catholics in particular have actually made there own go and get such therapy to stop making them homos and thinking about getting it in the rear every 5 minutes. So what I propose is this. Now we know its perfectly normal to be gay why dont we send those ignoramuses to conversion therapy to stop them from hating homos. And when you analize the hole situation in the end they might even come out wanting to be gay them selves. Its sort of like giving them a dose of there own medicine really. 

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

It seems to me that someone has the right to decide what sexual orientation they wish to be regardless of how someone else feels about it.  If someone desires to become heterosexual that is their choice.  If they wish to go through conversion therapy, then, if they are an adult, we should respect their decision.  There is lots of evidence that sexual orientation can change, especially for younger people.  An often repeated claim by those who seek to deny people freedom of choice regarding going to a conversion therapy session is that it is harmful. However, as the Family Research Council has documented 79 studies show that it causes no harm.  

How do you reconcile that with Leviticus 20:13? 

 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

Barnardot

@Factfinder @just_sayin ;How do you reconcile that with Leviticus 20:13? 

He doesn't have to reconcile it at all because we all know that Bible Bashers always cherry pick from the Bible depending on there particular sect and since @just_sayin is a known leftie chocolate speedway rider he is hardy going to cherry pick that quote is he?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

It seems to me that someone has the right to decide what sexual orientation they wish to be regardless of how someone else feels about it.  If someone desires to become heterosexual that is their choice.  If they wish to go through conversion therapy, then, if they are an adult, we should respect their decision.  There is lots of evidence that sexual orientation can change, especially for younger people.  An often repeated claim by those who seek to deny people freedom of choice regarding going to a conversion therapy session is that it is harmful. However, as the Family Research Council has documented 79 studies show that it causes no harm.  

How do you reconcile that with Leviticus 20:13? 

 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

A couple of observations. 

1)  There is a difference in something being a sin, and something being illegal to do in democracy.  Getting drunk or gluttony is a sin, but not illegal to do in a democracy.  While I don't condone everything other people do, I don't feel compelled to keep people from choosing for themselves what to do in a democracy as long as it does not hurt others or impede my rights. The reason I'm leery of using government in this way, is because I don't want government used to compel me to do things that are against my beliefs and restrict my freedoms.

2)  While I would agree that homosexuality is deemed a sin in both the old and New Testament, in the New Testament, which is part of the new covenant, it does not specify death for this sin, in fact Paul says this:

Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,  or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.  Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Since Paul is talking to them and acknowledging that they had committed that sin in the past, they weren't put to death for that sin.  In fact, they were now members of the Corinthian church having repented and been cleansed of their sins.  

@Factfinder, what kind of church did you attend when you were religious?  Did they ever talk about the differences in the new and old covenant with God?

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin Well I was thinking more along the lines of conversion therapy for homophobes. For years the catholics in particular have actually made there own go and get such therapy to stop making them homos and thinking about getting it in the rear every 5 minutes. So what I propose is this. Now we know its perfectly normal to be gay why dont we send those ignoramuses to conversion therapy to stop them from hating homos. And when you analize the hole situation in the end they might even come out wanting to be gay them selves. Its sort of like giving them a dose of there own medicine really. 

If you want to open a business doing that, well you do you.  As long as it is voluntary.

You said homosexuality is 'normal'.  That suggests genetic or biological origins - this has been debunked.  There is no gay gene.  If you mean 'normal' as in accepted by most in US society, then I understand what you mean.  If you mean homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle I would say you are decieving yourself.  The NIH says people practiciing homosexuality are  higher risk for AIDs, substance use, sexually transmitted diseases, cancers, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, anxiety, depression, and suicide as compared to the general population.

If you meant 'normal' in the sense that God approves of homosexual acts, then I would refer you to:

Leviticus 18:22 ~ You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Jude 1:7 ~ Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Romans 1:26-28 ~ For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

I Corinthians 6:9-11 - Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,  or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Mark 10:6-9 ~ But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

jack

just_sayin said:

Is sexual orientation fluid?  Here are websites that say it is:

Hello again, just:

Apparently you DID consider putting a mans d*ck in your mouth..  Du*de!  That is NOT a consideration a heterosexual has..  It just isn't.

excon

just_sayin

jack said:

just_sayin said:

Is sexual orientation fluid?  Here are websites that say it is:

Hello again, just:

Apparently you DID consider putting a mans d*ck in your mouth..  Du*de!  That is NOT a consideration a heterosexual has..  It just isn't.

excon

So tell me Old Man Jack, which makes you more mad - the fact that I gave valid reasons for why conversion therapy should not be banned, or that I used leftist sources to do it?  

Some studies show that 30% of generation Z identify as LGBTQ.  That's obviously a behavioral choice, not genes, OMJ.  Many of them experiment and then decide their sexual orientation.  If they want to be heterosexual, then you should be happy for them and let them go to conversion therapy if they want to.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

It seems to me that someone has the right to decide what sexual orientation they wish to be regardless of how someone else feels about it.  If someone desires to become heterosexual that is their choice.  If they wish to go through conversion therapy, then, if they are an adult, we should respect their decision.  There is lots of evidence that sexual orientation can change, especially for younger people.  An often repeated claim by those who seek to deny people freedom of choice regarding going to a conversion therapy session is that it is harmful. However, as the Family Research Council has documented 79 studies show that it causes no harm.  

How do you reconcile that with Leviticus 20:13? 

 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

A couple of observations. 

1)  There is a difference in something being a sin, and something being illegal to do in democracy.  Getting drunk or gluttony is a sin, but not illegal to do in a democracy.  While I don't condone everything other people do, I don't feel compelled to keep people from choosing for themselves what to do in a democracy as long as it does not hurt others or impede my rights. The reason I'm leery of using government in this way, is because I don't want government used to compel me to do things that are against my beliefs and restrict my freedoms.

2)  While I would agree that homosexuality is deemed a sin in both the old and New Testament, in the New Testament, which is part of the new covenant, it does not specify death for this sin, in fact Paul says this:

Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,  or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.  Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Since Paul is talking to them and acknowledging that they had committed that sin in the past, they weren't put to death for that sin.  In fact, they were now members of the Corinthian church having repented and been cleansed of their sins.  

@Factfinder, what kind of church did you attend when you were religious?  Did they ever talk about the differences in the new and old covenant with God?

I agree in this context with both your points. My question to you wasn't about what you're supposed to do or not do, but more to the point you know by what your book tells you; your god is very much against it. So how do you reconcile voicing an opinion like you did? Again, not referring to the legalist aspects but rather to knowing your position voiced as it was, differs from god's position philosophically, emotionally, and mentally?

I was a Baptist for decades. Very involved in several different ways. Minister of outreach, teacher, board member, usher, and sometimes preacher...and yes it was taught. In general terms the old covenant was one under the law and the new covenant was one of grace. 

just_sayin

@Factfinder
I agree in this context with both your points. My question to you wasn't about what you're supposed to do or not do, but more to the point you know by what your book tells you; your god is very much against it. So how do you reconcile voicing an opinion like you did? Again, not referring to the legalist aspects but rather to knowing your position voiced as it was, differs from god's position philosophically, emotionally, and mentally?

I don't know how my view differs from God's.  I am not in a position to judge people like Him that is for certain.  I don't see homosexuality as some kind of special class of unforgiveable sin.  I would say that it is identified as a sin in both the Old and New Testaments.  I understand that in the Old Covenant it had both an eternal and temporal punishment, because God's plan at that time was for the nation of Israel to be a nation solely under his authority, like a theocracy.  I believe I am to live under the new covenant.  

I was a Baptist for decades. Very involved in several different ways. Minister of outreach, teacher, board member, usher, and sometimes preacher...and yes it was taught. In general terms the old covenant was one under the law and the new covenant was one of grace. 

Thanks for sharing.  I am a volunteer in the elementary age kids church at my church.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

It seems to me that someone has the right to decide what sexual orientation they wish to be regardless of how someone else feels about it.

So would it be fair to say you think they have a right to decide no matter what anyone else thinks, except your god?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

It seems to me that someone has the right to decide what sexual orientation they wish to be regardless of how someone else feels about it.

So would it be fair to say you think they have a right to decide no matter what anyone else thinks, except your god?

I am the creation, not the creator, so I am not anyone's judge.  God allows people the freedom to sin, but He will ultimately be their judge also.  God allows people to make their own choices, but that does not mean there are no consequences for the choices we make.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

It seems to me that someone has the right to decide what sexual orientation they wish to be regardless of how someone else feels about it.

So would it be fair to say you think they have a right to decide no matter what anyone else thinks, except your god?

I am the creation, not the creator, so I am not anyone's judge.  God allows people the freedom to sin, but He will ultimately be their judge also.  God allows people to make their own choices, but that does not mean there are no consequences for the choices we make.

But you agree with your god, right? So it begs the question what's the point of claiming someone has the right to choose when you know inside they do not?

If your god is arbitrator of morals, choices, circumstances, and consequences then it's the same as holding a gun to your head and saying 'your choice' serve me or else. There is no freewill where all the power of compulsion is completely one sided and in use without restriction. A choice under duress is not a choice. 

ZeusAres42

Barnardot said:

This is a very contravercial topic because it gets at the center of the hole debate about queerism as we know it. We all now accept LBGTQ as normal people so should we keep conversation therapy going so that we can treat straight people from thinking being gay is bad.

@Barnardot

Regarding conversion therapy, the critical question is: what evidence supports it? Is it founded on solid science, or does it derive from faulty epistemologies, such as those based on religious beliefs or unfounded assumptions? The overwhelming consensus among healthcare professionals and scientific research is clear—conversion therapy is not only ineffective but also harmful, leading to increased risks of depression, anxiety, and suicidal tendencies among LGBTQ individuals. This practice is condemned by major health organizations worldwide due to its baseless premises and detrimental effects.

With this understanding, my position is straightforward. I maintain respect for all individuals, up until the point they disrespect me. However, my respect does not extend to endorsing or accepting methods and policy prescriptions founded on faulty epistemologies, like conversion therapy. This stance is not about disrespect but about adhering to a principle that values scientific integrity, ethical considerations, and the well-being of individuals over unfounded beliefs or practices.

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

Barnardot said:

This is a very contravercial topic because it gets at the center of the hole debate about queerism as we know it. We all now accept LBGTQ as normal people so should we keep conversation therapy going so that we can treat straight people from thinking being gay is bad.

@Barnardot

Regarding conversion therapy, the critical question is: what evidence supports it? Is it founded on solid science, or does it derive from faulty epistemologies, such as those based on religious beliefs or unfounded assumptions? The overwhelming consensus among healthcare professionals and scientific research is clear—conversion therapy is not only ineffective but also harmful, leading to increased risks of depression, anxiety, and suicidal tendencies among LGBTQ individuals. This practice is condemned by major health organizations worldwide due to its baseless premises and detrimental effects.

With this understanding, my position is straightforward. I maintain respect for all individuals, up until the point they disrespect me. However, my respect does not extend to endorsing or accepting methods and policy prescriptions founded on faulty epistemologies, like conversion therapy. This stance is not about disrespect but about adhering to a principle that values scientific integrity, ethical considerations, and the well-being of individuals over unfounded beliefs or practices.

Zues, you made a claim that the overwhelming consensus among healthcare professionals and scientific research is that it is harmful.  I provided evidence that 79 studies did not find it harmful.  What is your evidence?

Regarding effectiveness, are you saying there is no evidence of effectiveness?  I doubt that.  I think this argument though is like saying we should ban homeopathic medicines because many of them show no benefits. What an adult chooses of their own will to do to themselves seems like a personal decision.

How is this not about your personal bigotry and desire to keep people from being heterosexual?  If you truly think this about 'protecting people from heterosexuality' then offer up the proof that refutes the 79 studies I have pointed out.  

Factfinder

Regardless what 'conversion therapy' is or the way, or the direction it's applied, or not, the people we're talking about once they come out are stigmatized at the end of the day. What can be done to change this aspect? Besides working on our own biases where these matters are concerned?

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

That isn't how the burden of proof works. You're the one claiming that something works. You're the one affirming. But I will show how your argument fails:

Addressing the Evidence of Harm
First, the methodology, quality, and context of the 79 studies cited as evidence that conversion therapy is not harmful must be meticulously scrutinized. Major health organizations, including the American Psychological Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association, have based their overwhelming consensus against conversion therapy on comprehensive reviews of the literature. These organizations have identified significant risks, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. A crucial aspect of this consensus is the recognition of methodological flaws, such as small sample sizes, lack of control groups, and biased reporting in studies supporting conversion therapy.

Effectiveness and Misleading Comparisons
The comparison between conversion therapy and homeopathic medicine is fundamentally misleading (AKA false analogy). Conversion therapy's stakes, involving core aspects of an individual's identity and well-being, are significantly higher than the typically benign consequences of ineffective homeopathic remedies. The healthcare profession's guiding principle, "do no harm," is directly contradicted by providing treatments shown to be harmful and ethically dubious, regardless of the individual's consent.

The Role of Personal Autonomy
While it is true that adults have the right to make personal health decisions, healthcare professionals have a duty to provide evidence-based, ethical care. Offering treatments known to be harmful, under the pretense of consent, flagrantly breaches this obligation. The reliance on empirical evidence and ethical standards in healthcare is indispensable.

Evaluating the Source
The ideological orientation of sources like the Family Research Council (FRC) necessitates a critical examination of their research presentations. The reliability of the studies they cite is contingent on their peer-review status and publication in reputable scientific journals, serving as essential criteria for their credibility.

Methodological Rigor and Consensus
The claim that conversion therapy is harmless, based on 79 studies, demands a detailed evaluation of these studies' methodological rigor. Critical factors, such as sample size, selection bias, and the validity of measurement tools, are fundamental in determining the reliability of their conclusions. The well-documented and substantial risks associated with conversion therapy, as recognized by leading health organizations, form the basis of a strong consensus against its use.

Ethical Considerations and Informed Consent
Conversion therapy not only poses immediate risks but also perpetuates the harmful stigma that LGBTQ identities are flawed or undesirable. This practice contravenes the ethical mandate of healthcare to assist individuals in understanding and accepting their identities. Moreover, genuine informed consent requires patients to be fully aware of the potential risks and benefits, a principle violated by advocating for conversion therapy given its established harms.

Accusations of Bias
Assertions that opposition to conversion therapy stems from a desire to 'keep people from being heterosexual' grossly misrepresent (AKA ad hominem circumstantial/strawman/red herring) the underlying issue. This opposition is founded on an ethical opposition to the unfounded notion that LGBTQ identities require 'curing.' Far from exhibiting bias, this stance is about affirming and protecting the rights of individuals to their identities, free from coercion or harm, and is grounded in a commitment to human rights and the acceptance of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

References and Citations:

• American Psychological Association. (2020). Resolution on Conversion Therapy.
• World Health Organization. (2012). WHO Statement on SOGI Conversion Therapy.
• American Medical Association. (2019). Policy Statement on Conversion Therapy.
• Serovich, J. M., et al. (2008). A systematic review of the research base on sexual reorientation therapies. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34(2), 227-238.

Your Move! I anticipate another either avoidance of the issue or yet another misrepresenation (A notable common trait of yours @just_sayin). 

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

PS: if you are struggling I can steelman your position for a moment and make your own arguments better for you if you want.

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 ;Regarding conversion therapy, the critical question is: what evidence supports it? 

Beats me. All Im proposing is that those horrible bastards who under took that crap on Catholics especially did wrong. So why cant we give them back there own medicine since we all now know that there is nothing wrong with being LBGTQ. And convert those bastards from all that homophobic filth going through there perverted minds.

MayCaesar

I do not think that things like "conversion therapy", chiropractic, acupuncture, et cetera should be banned: people are free to pay a lot of money for something based on extremely scarce evidence of it having any effect. I am a bit puzzled by people wanting to change their sexuality, however: why? Perhaps, as a heterosexual, I do not understand how difficult it is to be homosexual in the world dominated by heterosexuals - but as it seems to me now, if I were into men, the very idea of being into women would feel alien to me, just like right now being into men feels alien to me. It is similar to the old philosophical question of "If you just lost a child and could press a button and not feel the hurt any more, would you press it?" Pressing the button, even if I know that on the other side life is better, feels very unsettling. Perhaps it is intrinsic human irrationality, or something else innate.

I also think that these things should be studied rigorously, rather than swept under the ideological rug. I have always suspected that sexuality is not innate, that it is quite fluid, and it would be nice to have some controlled studies done to see if that is the case. If being hetero- or homosexual is not a product of presence of some "gay gene", but more of a product of environmental factors, then implications are quite interesting. It could be, for example, that in a truly free and prosperous society the number of heterosexual and homosexual people would be approximately the same, much like the number of men and women is the same - however, historically forces survival considerations led virtually all animal species to discourage development of homosexuality, so it never really gained traction.

It could also be the opposite: that homosexuality is, indeed, some biological deviation, some essential mechanism becoming broken. If so, again, it has to be acknowledged. It would not imply that homosexual people are somehow inferior, but it would imply that it is a bug, not a feature. Much like Richard Dawkins, I think that what is true is more important than what is comfortable.

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ;Much like Richard Dawkins, I think that what is true is more important than what is comfortable.

Well this is right. For most people the truth can be pain full and in the case of LBGTQ it is a matter of education and acceptance. I think that the term deviation although technically correct isnt excatly an encouraging word to use in educating homophobics. For that matter we are all deviants because thats the nature of evolution and variation in nature. What Im saying is that the variation of being homosexual is no different from being short or tall or having blue eyes or red hair or having a huge dooley or a small dooley. Show me some one who isnt a deviant and I'll show you Ken or Barbie. But even then if you saw the movie which I reckon was grate you will see that Ken had homo tendencies and Barbie was a little shite. 

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

PS: if you are struggling I can steelman your position fhor a moment and make your own arguments better for you if you want.

HaHaHa.  That was funny.  I have been responding to the resurrection debate.  That one interests me more.  I'll take time to respond to you here though when I have a few minutes - I'll need to lay out issues of what constitutes true harm, the evidence of advocacy over research for some of the groups you mentioned, your bigoted position towards faith based support groups and your bigotry towards heterosexuals - so give me a few minutes.  I'm happy to  respond to your post.  So get your AI ready.  I just don't have the time that you do to post.

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

PS: if you are struggling I can steelman your position fhor a moment and make your own arguments better for you if you want.

HaHaHa.  That was funny.  I have been responding to the resurrection debate.  That one interests me more.  I'll take time to respond to you here though when I have a few minutes - I'll need to lay out issues of what constitutes true harm, the evidence of advocacy over research for some of the groups you mentioned, your bigoted position towards faith based support groups and your bigotry towards heterosexuals - so give me a few minutes.  I'm happy to  respond to your post.  So get your AI ready.  I just don't have the time that you do to post.

I'm looking forward to it. By the way, mentioning an event that was AI-generated is irrelevant to the validity of what has been said. Nice try. I can still help if you want. For your information, I don't need AI to tell me that your fallacies here are ad hominems. I am a heterosexual male, and even if I weren't, what does that have to do with the validity of the arguments presented? As for groups of people, I am not bigoted toward them; I just don't respect a faulty epistemology. There's a big difference! 

ZeusAres42

Barnardot said:

@ZeusAres42 ;Regarding conversion therapy, the critical question is: what evidence supports it? 

Beats me. All Im proposing is that those horrible bastards who under took that crap on Catholics especially did wrong. So why cant we give them back there own medicine since we all now know that there is nothing wrong with being LBGTQ. And convert those bastards from all that homophobic filth going through there perverted minds.

@Barnadot

Probably for the same reasons it never worked for the people of the LGBTQ community.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Barnardot ; There is NOTHING "NORMAL" about the demonically rooted defilement of LGBTQ behavior. Transitioning children into the LIE of transsexualism is child abuse and evidence of a society that is morally and ethically SICK.

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

PS: if you are struggling I can steelman your position for a moment and make your own arguments better for you if you want.

Let's address the the claims your AI made in your previous post.   

First you cited several groups as 'authorities' as if they were objective and had not been shown to be advocates of the LGBTQ+ agenda.  I guess you didn't read the news this week.  A group that heavily influences their decisions WPATH was caught in their email trail to have been intentionally altering and misrepresenting LGBTQQ+ research.  Yep.  They got caught.  But wait... there's more.  The British Medical Journal in Feb 2023 did an investigative article into why the US policy on gender affirming care for minors is so different than most of the countries in Europe.  Their findings were that The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)  and the AAP and the Endocrine Society were intentionally misrepresenting research.  whereas the guides say the research has a low level of certainty the groups used language reserved for research with higher levels of certainty, these 'findings' were then used by the sources you mentioned at the end of your AI generated post, and US policy was made based on them.  

SOCE bans are unconstitutional because they violate a church's right to hold SOCE support groups or ministries,  and further they are not just unjust, they border on fascist because they seek to remove the right of self-determination and choice from the individual.

1 - No one is born gay
This was a lie of the LGBTQ+ movement and its pseudo-science sycophants.  And one of your noted sources said:

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

“Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” American Psychological Association, accessed May 18, 2018, http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx.. ;

Same-sex sexual attractions and behavior occur in the context of a variety of sexual orientations and sexual orientation identities, and for some, sexual orientation identity (i.e., individual or group membership and affiliation, self-labeling) is fluid or has an indefinite outcome.

Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, August 2009), 2, https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf.

Sexual orientation has been shown to be fluid.  If change is natural, then prohibiting efforts for people to change is immoral.  The argument that we must protect LGBTQ+ people from self-change is a bigoted notion that assumes the person wanting to be heterosexual is not that orientation and has no right to pursue that orientation if that is their wish.  

2. Same-sex attractions can be unwanted and cause distress
From the APA (you mentioned them as a credible source) claiming people can have distress related to same-sex attractions

the following populations: children and adolescents who present with distress regarding their sexual orientation, religious individuals in distress regarding their sexual orientation, and adults who present with desires to their change sexual orientation or have undergone therapy to do so.

On the other hand, APA found no data on parents who seek SOCE for their children being manipulative:

Research on Parents’ Concerns About Their Children’s Sexual Orientation We did not find specific research on the characteristics of parents who bring their children to SOCE.

 Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, August 2009), 8, 73, https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf.

3. Some people  benefit from SOCE.

 The APA acknowledged, “Some individuals perceived that they had benefited from SOCE . . .” 

Former participants in SOCE reported diverse evaluations of their experiences: Some individuals perceived that they had benefited from SOCE, . . . [These] individuals reported that SOCE was helpful—for example, it helped them live in a manner consistent with their faith. Some individuals described finding a sense of community through religious SOCE and valued having others with whom they could identify. These effects are similar to those provided by mutual support groups for a range of problems, and the positive benefits reported by participants in SOCE, such as reduction of isolation, alterations in how problems are viewed, and stress reduction, are consistent with the findings of the general mutual support group literature.

 Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, August 2009), 3, https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf.

The former president of the APA said

They generally sought therapy for one of three reasons: to come to grips with their gay identity, to resolve relationship issues or to change their sexual orientation. We would always inform patients in the third group that change was not easily accomplished. With clinical experience, my staff and I learned to assess the probability of change in those who wished to become heterosexual. Of the roughly 18,000 gay and lesbian patients whom we treated over 25 years through Kaiser, I believe that most had satisfactory outcomes. The majority were able to attain a happier and more stable homosexual lifestyle. Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful. I believe that our rate of success with reorientation was relatively high because we were selective in recommending therapeutic change efforts only to those who identified themselves as highly motivated and were clinically assessed as having a high probability of success.

Nicholas A. Cummings, “Sexual reorientation therapy not unethical: Column,” USA Today, July 30, 2013, accessed May 18, 2018, https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/30/sexual-reorientation-therapy-not-unethicalcolumn/2601159/.

4) There is no proof that SOCE is truly harmful.

To show true harm studies would need to show:

• The number of clients who report harm from SOCE exceeds those who report benefits;
• Negative mental and physical health indicators among those who have undergone SOCE exceed those among persons who have undergone alternative “gay-affirming” therapy;
• Negative mental and physical health indicators among those who have undergone SOCE exceed those among persons with same-sex attractions who have had no therapy at all.
• Negative mental and physical health indicators among those who have undergone SOCE exceed those among persons who have had therapy or counseling for other conditions.

Is there evidence of this?  Nope.  Instead, most accusations of 'harm' are antidotal and of low-harm categories.  

Although the recent studies do not provide valid causal evidence of the efficacy of SOCE or of its harm, some recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have been harmed through SOCE . . .just as other recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have benefited from it . . . Summary We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE.

Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, August 2009), 42, https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf.

Finally, a person's right to self-determination should be parament.  Just cause you are a heterosexual bigot and a religious bigot doesn't mean you should dictate to others what they can choose to do of their own.

I took the time to respond to your post as you asked.  If you don't mind, ask your AI to answer this post in the Abiogenesis thread:

My initial post:  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176078/#Comment_176078 ;

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

Okay, let's approach this correctly, without resorting to a mix of AI and human alterations, which is evidently what you're also doing, amusingly and ironically. However, as I've stated, just because something is AI-generated doesn't mean it's invalid; to think so is fallacious.

Now, you've presented a multitude of claims. It would be helpful to address them one at a time. Which one would you like to explore first? Are we discussing the topic of conversion therapy, questioning whether it works and is harmless? The absurd idea that I am bigoted towards heterosexuals, with a hidden political agenda for the LGBTQ community? Or your selective and misinterpretation of literature that leads you to conclude that being gay is a choice?

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

Okay, let's approach this correctly, without resorting to a mix of AI and human alterations, which is evidently what you're also doing, amusingly and ironically. However, as I've stated, just because something is AI-generated doesn't mean it's invalid; to think so is fallacious.

Now, you've presented a multitude of claims. It would be helpful to address them one at a time. Which one would you like to explore first? Are we discussing the topic of conversion therapy, questioning whether it works and is harmless? The absurd idea that I am bigoted towards heterosexuals, with a hidden political agenda for the LGBTQ community? Or your selective and misinterpretation of literature that leads you to conclude that being gay is a choice?

I don't use AI in my debate posts because the results don't have the specificity I'm looking for.  I borrow liberally from other websites though.  For political topics I'll search on about a dozen sites (liberal, conservative, and libertarian sites).  About 10 sites for apologetic topics.  

Laws trying to ban Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE)  are most likely unconstitutional because they infringe on religious institutions rights of free speech and to provide ministry to people according to their faith beliefs.  This is especially true for blanket bans.  And let's be honest, bigotry is what is driving the effort to ban SOCE.  I'm sure the bigotry toward heterosexuals is well meaning bigotry, in that it deems the LGBTQ+ agenda sacred and refuses to accept that people may want to be heterosexual.  But its still bigotry.  

The real crux of the argument is over what harm or benefit is done.  I think there is a lot of bait and switch from your sources on the use of the word 'harm' as it can mean anything from suicide to embarrassment at someone still having some same sex attractions, which the APA said was 'harm'..  What level of 'harm' is acceptable?  What is meant by 'harm'?  How do you weigh harm against benefits and desired outcomes?  Is your idea of 'success' an all or nothing solution, or is some progress a sign of benefit?    

Factfinder

@just_sayin

I don't use AI in my debate posts

Yet you asked for ai help in the abiogenesis thread. Why, if it as you say, you don't use ai help? Why not just spell out your objections to ai posts and be done with it? And as @ZeusAres42 alluded, the logical inferences and facts are not disputed. The content was not specifically addressed by you.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

If you don't mind, ask your AI to answer this post in the Abiogenesis thread:

My initial post:  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176078/#Comment_176078 ;

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Done.

Debates surrounding abiogenesis—the hypothesis that life arose naturally from non-living matter on the early Earth—touch upon deep and complex questions in biology, chemistry, and Earth science. Let's tackle each of your opponent's questions with current scientific understanding, while acknowledging the ongoing nature of research in this area.

1. Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? No, direct observation of life spontaneously arising from non-life (abiogenesis) has not been recorded in modern scientific experiments. This is primarily because the conditions under which life originally emerged on Earth billions of years ago are vastly different from present conditions and difficult to replicate accurately. Moreover, the process may have taken millions of years, a timescale that exceeds practical experimental durations. However, numerous experiments have shown that simple organic molecules, which are the building blocks of life, can form under conditions thought to be similar to early Earth.

2. Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup? The concept of a "primordial soup" suggests an early Earth environment rich in organic compounds that could give rise to life. Experiments such as the famous Miller-Urey experiment have demonstrated that amino acids and other organic molecules can form in conditions thought to mimic the early Earth's atmosphere and oceans. While we don't have a complete picture of how these molecules could assemble into the first living cells, research continues to uncover potential pathways, including the role of hydrothermal vents and mineral surfaces as catalysts.

3. Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life? Experiments simulating early Earth conditions have successfully produced many of the amino acids necessary for life. While not all 20 amino acids have been synthesized in a single experiment, these studies collectively suggest that Earth's early environment could naturally generate the amino acids needed for proteins. The diversity of environments and conditions on early Earth could have supported the formation of a wide range of organic molecules.

4. Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be? The spontaneous formation of polymers from monomers (like amino acids forming proteins) in early Earth conditions remains an area of active research. While direct natural formation of complex polymers in simple puddle-like environments poses challenges, including the need for dehydration synthesis, alternative mechanisms and environments (such as hydrothermal vents, mineral surfaces, or ice) could facilitate polymerization. Experimental and theoretical work continues to explore these possibilities.

5. Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved? The origin of complex biological information (such as that found in DNA and RNA) from simpler molecules is a central question in the study of abiogenesis. Several hypotheses, including the RNA world hypothesis, propose mechanisms by which simple molecules could form self-replicating systems, gradually increasing in complexity. While definitive answers are still forthcoming, there is a growing body of evidence supporting the plausibility of such transitions.

6. Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works? The RNA World Hypothesis, suggesting that early life or life's precursors were based on RNA molecules capable of storing genetic information and catalyzing chemical reactions, is supported by considerable experimental evidence. However, "definitive" evidence that this was the pathway by which life originated is hard to come by due to the historical nature of the event. Research in this area has shown that RNA can perform many life-like functions, but questions remain about how RNA molecules could have formed and replicated in early Earth conditions.

7. Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes? The origin of the genetic code is an area of intense study and debate. Several theories propose natural processes that could lead to the development of the genetic code, including the co-evolution theory and the stereochemical theory, each suggesting different mechanisms for the association between amino acids and nucleotide triplets. While a consensus has not been reached, these theories provide plausible natural pathways for the evolution of the genetic code without requiring guided processes.

In summary, while direct evidence for abiogenesis as it occurred on the early Earth is inherently difficult to obtain, a growing body of experimental and theoretical work supports the plausibility of life arising from non-life through natural processes. Science progresses by proposing hypotheses, testing them, and refining our understanding based on evidence. The questions surrounding the origin of life are among the most challenging in science, partly because they deal with events that happened billions of years ago, and our understanding continues to evolve as new evidence is discovered and new technologies are developed.

The AI is kicking some arses here!

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Won't matter to just_sayin, the fact that science consists of "a growing body of experimental and theoretical work supports the plausibility of life arising from non-life through natural processes" will be dismissed as "science of the gaps" while asserting god the only viable answer. 

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 ;Probably for the same reasons it never worked for the people of the LGBTQ community.  

The thing is that why it didnt work on the LGBTQ is because it was totally wrong and oppressive and destructive. It was only because those revolting Catholic hirearchy were so ignorant and arrogant and deeply homophobic that they hated the idea of a guy ramming his dooly up the chocolate speedway or for that matter two female rubsters. We all know that was totally wrong and all that negative attitude came from those religious bastards who just had a hatred disposition and used the ancient ideas in the Bible to support there horrible ways. Like derrrr it says so in the Bible.

But the reason it would work in converse is that there is totally nothing wrong with being queer and we should tell those perverted priests that like derrr it says so in law and in descent society.        

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

Won't matter to just_sayin, the fact that science consists of "a growing body of experimental and theoretical work supports the plausibility of life arising from non-life through natural processes" will be dismissed as "science of the gaps" while asserting god the only viable answer. 

See, this is one of those things that people do selectively when asserting that some vague claim is true, but they will never do it in more concrete situations. For example, if someone's car suddenly stops starting (I like this sequence of words), they might not know what is wrong with it - but they will hope that the mechanic will find a mechanistic explanation. They will not say, "Oh, I have no explanation for this; it must be Thor's hammer that disabled my car!" But when it comes to the god of their religion, the religious follower will absolutely do that - not with a car, of course, but in more abstract conversations.

This is why I have always disliked the premise behind debates: there is no punchy feedback in them. In actual scientific experiments, you see the result clearly: there is no saying, "Oh, my barometer shows 3,000 Pa, but I really believe that it is 30 Pa". And if you persist and go with it beyond the lab setting, then you might very well get hurt and die when ignoring the feedback coming from nature. But in debates, you can keep making a garbage argument forever and feel good about yourself, and there is no feedback telling you, "You are wrong". Sure, you might suffer a reputation damage in more rational circles - but if you do not spend a lot of time in those circles, then that might not even matter to you.

GiantMan

Can we ban people who use AI to debate for them?