Support NeoGAF

[Protein]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/06/05/3445234/texas-republican-platform-ex-gay/

Earlier this week, the Dallas Voice reported that the Texas Republican Party had stripped language from its platform that claimed that “homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family,” but the Houston Chronicle now reports that the language has been replaced with a different kind of condemnation.


According to a first draft the Chronicle obtained, the Texas GOP will now endorse ex-gay therapy for “patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle”:

Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin.

Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. We recognize the legitimacy and value of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment to patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.


The inclusion of ex-gay therapy is likely a response to laws passed in California and New Jersey and proposed in several other states banning the harmful treatment for minors. A consensus of social scientists have rejected efforts to try to manipulate a person’s sexual orientation, having found no legitimacy to its effectiveness. Survivors of the treatment have overwhelmingly described it as harmful, having caused them shame, emotional harm, self-hate, suicidal ideation, and nervous breakdowns. Of those who said they experienced harm, 84 percent said they are still affected by their past experiences with ex-gay therapy today.

In addition, the platform supports “the enforcement of the State and Federal Defense of Marriage Act,” even though the Supreme Court ruled last year that the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s ban on the federal government recognizing same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. It also opposes forcing any adoption or foster care agency to place children with same-sex couples, any employment nondiscrimination protections that would “coerce religious business owners to violate their own beliefs by affirming what they consider to be sinful and sexually immoral behavior,” and the “assault on marriage by judicial activists.”

I hate my state sometimes.

 

[SolsticeZero]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/06/05/3445234/texas-republican-platform-ex-gay/



I hate my state sometimes.

You and me both, brother. It ain't easy being a more liberal person in the South. Thankfully, I live in Houston, which is a pretty liberal city.

 

[Foffy]

How do people so ignorant, so hateful in principle get into some major position of power?

 

[Stinkles]

How do people so ignorant, so hateful in principle get into some major position of power?

If you change the adjectives to cynical, manipulative and amoral, it makes more sense.

 

[Ahasverus]

Someone wake me up.

 

[SteveWinwood]

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

[PhoenixDark]

But remember, both parties are the exact same!

...

 

[perfectchaos007]

You and me both, brother. It ain't easy being a more liberal person in the South. Thankfully, I live in Houston, which is a pretty liberal city.

The mayor of Houston is a lesbian. I hope she addresses this new "platform" appropriately.

 

[Protein]

You and me both, brother. It ain't easy being a more liberal person in the South. Thankfully, I live in Houston, which is a pretty liberal city.

Most of the major Texas cities are liberal-leaning, in fact.

 

[Jedeye Sniv]

How do people so ignorant, so hateful in principle get into some major position of power?

Because the people who vote for them are ignorant and hateful too.

 

[Ourobolus]

*checks his calendar*

Yep. Didn't actually travel back in time. What the hell?

 

[Kai Dracon]

How do people so ignorant, so hateful in principle get into some major position of power?

If you change the adjectives to cynical, manipulative and amoral, it makes more sense.

The cynical, manipulative, and amoral easily gain the vote of the ignorant and hateful.

 

[KingGondo]

Most of the major Texas cities are liberal-leaning, in fact.

It will be glorious when Texas turns purple.

 

[Mononoke]

It's insane how much this party wants to lose their support. Even on a scumbag politician level (that only cares about keeping their jobs), surely the party must realize they have to adapt and reform the party for a population that is drastically changing. In the past both parties did this when it was heeded (hence why both are so different today).

Yeah I get there is hateful people out there, but they are becoming the minority rather quickly and will no longer be enough to win.

 

[Protein]

It's insane how much this party wants to lose their support. Even on a scumbag politician level (that only cares about keeping their jobs), surely the party must realize they have to adapt and reform the party for a population that is drastically changing. In the past both parties did this when it was heeded (hence why both are so different today).

One can only hope that they continue to kick, scream, and double-down on the bigotry because it will only accelerate their demise as a legitimate party.

 

[Ahasverus]

I wonder what they think about the "family destruction" in scandinavia..

 

[Wilsongt]

It's insane how much this party wants to lose their support. Even on a scumbag politician level (that only cares about keeping their jobs), surely the party must realize they have to adapt and reform the party for a population that is drastically changing. In the past both parties did this when it was heeded (hence why both are so different today).

Yeah I get there is hateful people out there, but they are becoming the minority rather quickly and will no longer be enough to win.

The vocal minority are able to rally the blissfully ignorant majority, though. Those who just straight ticket vote Republican or who are deeply conservative and Christian will vote for them no matter how stupid they are.

Just look at the people who voted in Ted Cruz.

 

[Brian Griffin]

Keep digging that grave GOP.

 

[Somnid]

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

Apparently not, you are creating all sorts of special statuses for homosexuals by not giving them the same rights.

 

[Kai Dracon]

The vocal minority are able to rally the blissfully ignorant majority, though. Those who just straight ticket vote Republican or who are deeply conservative and Christian will vote for them no matter how stupid they are.

Just look at the people who voted in Ted Cruz.

I've heard it said the GOP is has greatly benefited from the fact that conservative Christians will vote for whoever, in their eyes, is pious. Such a voter may consider politicians corrupt liars and in that sense sees both sides as the same. At that point the only difference is who, at the end of the day, believes in God.

Because the religion says everyone is a sinner. So as long as the lying political scumbag goes through the motions of being mega-evangelical, one can at least show solidarity with God when voting.

 

[Ourobolus]

I'm skeptical about the value of "ex-gay therapy", but if someone WANTS to enroll in it, why shouldn't we let them? If someone wants to change their sexuality for whatever reason, what reason does the government have to compel them not to?

Seems like a private matter.

Because most counselors wouldn't approve of the therapy as a "solution" to homosexuality. It does considerable harm to the individuals who go through it. In an ideal situation, they shouldn't even be able to seek out the therapy, because it shouldn't exist.

 

[dabig2]

Well, according to the article, they only endorse it for people who are "seeking" it, so this isn't quite as sensational as the thread title makes it sound.



I'm skeptical about the value of "ex-gay therapy", but if someone WANTS to enroll in it, why shouldn't we let them? If someone wants to change their sexuality for whatever reason, what reason does the government have to compel them not to?

Seems like a private matter.

Probably because a good percentage of kids/teens who enroll in these programs are forced to either outright by their parents/community or they're ridiculed and harassed by same said people to the point where they feel they need to enroll in this ridiculous shit to stop the abuse.

 

[FiggyCal]

Well, according to the article, they only endorse it for people who are "seeking" it, so this isn't quite as sensational as the thread title makes it sound.



I'm skeptical about the value of "ex-gay therapy", but if someone WANTS to enroll in it, why shouldn't we let them? If someone wants to change their sexuality for whatever reason, what reason does the government have to compel them not to?

Seems like a private matter.

I was once okay with it also. But I read about stories of teens getting sent to these gay therapy places. Stories that usually involve abuse (emotionally and physically) and the practice has been linked to higher rates of depression and suicidal thoughts in people who go through it. I'm okay if you're an adult and want to do it, but then why is the emphasis put on converting "the gays", or curing them, when it should be on acceptance by the public?

 

[Ahasverus]

This is an upfront attack on their citizens and their freedom. Who could anyone not see that?

 

[InsaneZero]

Well, according to the article, they only endorse it for people who are "seeking" it, so this isn't quite as sensational as the thread title makes it sound.



I'm skeptical about the value of "ex-gay therapy", but if someone WANTS to enroll in it, why shouldn't we let them? If someone wants to change their sexuality for whatever reason, what reason does the government have to compel them not to?

Seems like a private matter.

Because sexuality is not a simple matter of choice and that attempting to change it may do more damage than learning to accept it.

 

[Ahasverus]

Well, according to the article, they only endorse it for people who are "seeking" it, so this isn't quite as sensational as the thread title makes it sound.

I'm skeptical about the value of "ex-gay therapy", but if someone WANTS to enroll in it, why shouldn't we let them? If someone wants to change their sexuality for whatever reason, what reason does the government have to compel them not to?

Seems like a private matter.

Go ahead. Try to become gay. We'll wait here.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

The vocal minority are able to rally the blissfully ignorant majority, though. Those who just straight ticket vote Republican or who are deeply conservative and Christian will vote for them no matter how stupid they are.

Just look at the people who voted in Ted Cruz.

I was sitting around a table of about 7 of my fellow employees who are extremely conservative and "only vote for the person with the R next to 'em". (I'm not making that up, it's an actual quote.)

Anyway, I mentioned in passing something about Mitt Romney being Mormon (nothing negative, just a statement), and their eyes lit up like Christmas trees. "HE IS!? I WOULD HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR HIM HAD I KNOWN THAT!"

I just shook my head in disbelief. They had no clue who they were voting for.

 

[speculawyer]

Well, according to the article, they only endorse it for people who are "seeking" it, so this isn't quite as sensational as the thread title makes it sound.

I dunno . . .

Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples.

If you are saying that homosexuality is 'not . . . acceptable' then aren't you essentially advocating for it?


But . . . they are at least moving in the right direction . . . they took out the 'tearing the fabric of society' language.

 

[Leunam]

I'm skeptical about the value of "ex-gay therapy", but if someone WANTS to enroll in it, why shouldn't we let them? If someone wants to change their sexuality for whatever reason, what reason does the government have to compel them not to?

Seems like a private matter.

Making ex-gay therapy seem like a viable path makes it seem like homosexuality is a disease that needs to be treated and it plants a seed of doubt in the minds of young people who are in a difficult place in their self-discovery. It's extremely harmful.

 

[Omegasquash]

Keep digging that grave GOP.

Indeed. Would have been smarter for them to just remove language surrounding sexuality altogether. Keeping anything about it in just demonstrates that yes, they still do have a problem with it. They're just saying it a different way and are too stupid to realize that people reading it aren't as stupid as the Texas GOP thinks.

 

[anarckitty]

I was sitting around a table of about 7 of my fellow employees who are extremely conservative and "only vote for the person with the R next to 'em". (I'm not making that up, it's an actual quote.)

Anyway, I mentioned in passing something about Mitt Romney being Mormon (nothing negative, just a statement), and their eyes lit up like Christmas trees. "HE IS!? I WOULD HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR HIM HAD I KNOWN THAT!"

I just shook my head in disbelief. They had no clue who they were voting for.

To be fair, the other side of the coin had no clue who they were voting for too. A shit ton of Americans have no idea who the vice president is either.

As for Ex-Gay Therapy, I find this very sad. I don't believe gay people have a choice to not be gay. I think it was a True Life episode that I watched one time where a guy was going to therapy to not be gay anymore. It was one of the most depressing things I've ever seen. I just wanted to give the guy a big hug.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Past the mention of (discredited) ex-gay therapy, the even bigger problem with the statement is that it goes on to paint gay people as 100% vile in completely unambiguous terms. It's the greatest hits of the bible belt's favorite band, Billy Bigot And the Gay Scare.

- homosexuality is not innate but merely a lifestyle.

- those seeking healthy living should want to 'escape' being gay

- the party advocates refusing to recognize homosexuality in anything other than a negative social context.

- not just marriage, but the all-encompassing concept of family should not include gays, because gay relationships are not valid human relationships.

- if religious people are forced to acknowledge the existence of the homosexual leper in public, that individual's freedom of religion is being actively oppressed.

- children are better off parentless than brought into the presence of the deviant homosexual person.

It portrays the Texas GOP foundation as one of pure unbridled animosity towards gay people.

 

[Arkos]

Yesssss. Keep digging. What damned idiots, the way they shoot themselves in the foot is just further proof of how ignorant they are of reality.

 

[Crayons]

Well, according to the article, they only endorse it for people who are "seeking" it, so this isn't quite as sensational as the thread title makes it sound.



I'm skeptical about the value of "ex-gay therapy", but if someone WANTS to enroll in it, why shouldn't we let them? If someone wants to change their sexuality for whatever reason, what reason does the government have to compel them not to?

Seems like a private matter.

It's not OK for people to be electrocuted until their dick doesn't get hard looking at another man.

 

[Cyan]

Well, according to the article, they only endorse it for people who are "seeking" it, so this isn't quite as sensational as the thread title makes it sound.



I'm skeptical about the value of "ex-gay therapy", but if someone WANTS to enroll in it, why shouldn't we let them? If someone wants to change their sexuality for whatever reason, what reason does the government have to compel them not to?

Seems like a private matter.

... this is not a libertarian-style "get big gub'mint out of my private decisions," this is outright endorsement:

We recognize the legitimacy and value of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment to patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle.

This incredibly harmful and damaging "treatment" is being recognized as legitimate and valuable. And it doesn't exactly take a lot of reading between the lines to see "seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle" as a pretty strong suggestion that this is the correct course of action.

 

[DedValve]

Well, according to the article, they only endorse it for people who are "seeking" it, so this isn't quite as sensational as the thread title makes it sound.



I'm skeptical about the value of "ex-gay therapy", but if someone WANTS to enroll in it, why shouldn't we let them? If someone wants to change their sexuality for whatever reason, what reason does the government have to compel them not to?

Seems like a private matter.

You can't change sexuality, you can't "cure" homosexuality. You can at best, repress it through physical and mental torment and that will cause far more emotional and psychological problems than it will "help" the person.


"Therapy" makes it sound like there is something to be fixed when there is nothing wrong at all, and the methods involved revolves around breaking a person to where they can barely function sexually.

 

[Paskil]

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

I love this sentence. This really displays the bigotry in the party platform. This was the exact logic for Jim Crow and other discriminatory law and behavior.

"We don't like homosexuals because the tradition is to not like homosexuals."

 

[Wilsongt]

I love this sentence. This really displays the bigotry in the party platform. This was the exact logic for Jim Crow and other discriminatory law and behavior.

"We don't like homosexuals because the tradition is to not like homosexuals."

I would love for someone to sit down with an ultra conservative and ask them what they feel is "traditional" for everything.

 

[The Librarian]

Well, obviously the Texas Republican Party can't take a sensible position.

 

[Paskil]

I would love for someone to sit down with an ultra conservative and ask them what they feel is "traditional" for everything.

Yup. That's not even bringing in the "special rights" bit. They aren't looking for special rights

Spoiler

you fucking cunts

, they simply want the same rights as anyone else.

jackiechan.png

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Well, according to the article, they only endorse it for people who are "seeking" it, so this isn't quite as sensational as the thread title makes it sound.

It's only an issue in the first place because many of those 'seeking' it are parents trying to convert their kids from gay to straight. The consensus is that such therapy is harmful to kids so boiling the endorsement down to 'fix your gay kids' is hardly sensationalist.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Most of the major Texas cities are liberal-leaning, in fact.

I wonder why.

Spoiler

I know the answer

These people are fucking insane and out of touch with reality. I have no time to argue to convince people that their belief system is more in line with radical Islam than mainstream.

 

[Tenumi]

I would say this is surprising, but that'd be a lie.

It's such a shame that people are going to have to be drug kicking and screaming into the present.

 

[Ourobolus]

I would love for someone to sit down with an ultra conservative and ask them what they feel is "traditional" for everything.

 

[SolsticeZero]

It will be glorious when Texas turns purple.

I wait for that day. I really do.

 

[devilhawk]

You can't change sexuality, you can't "cure" homosexuality. You can at best, repress it through physical and mental torment and that will cause far more emotional and psychological problems than it will "help" the person.


"Therapy" makes it sound like there is something to be fixed when there is nothing wrong at all, and the methods involved revolves around breaking a person to where they can barely function sexually.

If the genetics or epigenetics of sexuality is realized and a way to alter it is found, who are you to tell someone they can't change their sexuality? Be it changed in whatever direction. Obviously excluding minors here.

 

[Protein]

I would love for someone to sit down with an ultra conservative and ask them what they feel is "traditional" for everything.

Probably little Timmy and Johnny out in the front yard playing cowboys and 'Injuns', a Latino man in the backyard tending to the garden at 10 cents an hour, and the missus off in the kitchen. She gets outta line, a good slap on the ass will set her straight. All while Mr. Johnson reclines on his chair smoking his pipe while reading the newspaper about a black man being executed for smoking marijuana.

 

[psylah]

If the genetics or epigenetics of sexuality is realized and a way to alter it is found, who are you to tell someone they can't change their sexuality? Be it changed in whatever direction. Obviously excluding minors here.

You're talking about a scientific breakthrough that hasn't happened. If it was possible to modify yourself genetically, then I'm sure he would be fine with that.

But until then, subjecting someone to psychological trauma in order to "correct" something that is a genetic trait is an incredibly misguided thing to do.

 

[mr2xxx]

Progress at least in some fucked up way. Gays went from everything that is wrong with the country to people that need help. Maybe in another 20 years these people can recognize what other states have already.

 

[Chezzymann]

Worst part is when I show my disapproval of things like this on my facebook (I live in Texas), there's people who actually think being gay is wrong and they start shitting on me for not respecting other people's opinions.