You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
California says no to such therapies and protects young people.
So when the government bans "pray away the gay" it's called "courageous", but when the government wants to ban gay marriage, it's oppressive. I see how this works now! No wonder it's called Gay "Pride".
dittohead - It's not that simple. The state is banning snake oil salesman, you know, ones that want to sell you beachfront property in the Mojave, earthquake insurance, or a lower radiator hose on a '88 Porsche 911 (it's an air-cooled motor). While my new state (recently moved to Irvine in SoCal) is screwed up to the hilt, they are right on this one.
@dittohead: the common pattern is that homosexuality is biological, not a deviant choice, and so gays deserve all the same rights and privileges that the State confers on everyone else. Pretty simple, and very obvious, actually.
The best way to counter negative speech is through more speech, not limiting the conversation. Shouldn't this be left to the minor and his/her parents? Not the state. As one voting no on the marriage amendment, this only serves to appear to be governmental overreach, in any area it doesn't need to go.
how do you ban someone talking?
"So when the government bans "pray away the gay" it's called "courageous".........actually "pray away the gay" borders on fraud and malpractice. What's next...drilling into somebody's skull to let the evil spirits out?
"More recently, Exodus International, long dubbed a "pray away the gay" evangelical Christian group, also distanced itself from counseling "cures" for homosexuality. That change in stance is significant and shows evolving opinions in even religiously conservative groups.".........At least these religious groups are beginning to see the light that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed. If gay people are to have a loving and deeply-committed relationship in their lifetime it will be with someone of the same-gender. Allowing them the same social, legal, and financial benefits as heterosexual couples is the humane thing to do.
Is it possible for two heterosexual parents who recognize the demonstrated health and emotional risks of the gay life-style to come to a reasoned conclusion that they don't want their son or daughter to be subjected to such risks? Concerned parents rightly assist their children in making the correct choices in other areas: while no one here denies that it is the right of an adult to drink from time to time, no concerned parent would allow a 16-year-old who is showing signs of alcohol addiction to continue the behavior and would have no qualms about employing therapy to forestall it. This is not an all-or-nothing issue, folks.
About as realistic as pray away your skin color.
When religious groups change their minds they admit that God was wrong in the first place. I've been through this before. In 1968 I was sent to Vietnam to kill a commie for Christ. By 1972 many of the churches were saying that the Vietnam war was immoral. God has 20/20 foresight. He's never wrong. I've come to the conclusion that humans create god in their own image.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks