Federal Judge: Parents Have No Right To Ex-Gay Therapy For Their Kids

  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Aug 04, 2014 5:21 PM GMT
    Federal Judge: Parents Have No Right To Ex-Gay Therapy For Their Kids


    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/federal_judge_parents_have_no_right_to_ex_gay_therapy_for_their_kids
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14310

    Aug 05, 2014 2:15 AM GMT

    While I strongly condemn these horrendous ex-gay therapies, I do think this federal judge might have overstepped his legal bounds by stripping parents of their right to raise their children even if the parents are doing the wrong things. Instead of forcing conservative parents to avoid these dangerous ex-gay therapies, we should try to reach out, educate, and inform these parents why these ex-gay therapies are a costly and deadly scam.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2014 2:29 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    While I strongly condemn these horrendous ex-gay therapies, I do think this federal judge might have overstepped his legal bounds by stripping parents of their right to raise their children even if the parents are doing the wrong things. Instead of forcing conservative parents to avoid these dangerous ex-gay therapies, we should try to reach out, educate, and inform these parents why these ex-gay therapies are a costly and deadly scam.

    How closely did you read the article and the decision? The judge is a female, not a male.

    Second, the claim that this was a free speech or religious freedom case was nonsense. What if a parent takes a seriously ill child to a voodoo priest for health care, instead of to conventional health care practitioners? What if they deny any kind of health care, based on religious grounds? There is Federal case law already dealing with these cases.

    Gay reparative therapy is also voodoo medicine, and children should be protected against it. If you want to educate conservative parents, telling them their attempted use of reparative therapy is nutty and illegal should be eye-opening enough. And if it's not, maybe child protective services should step in.
  • Darwin1122

    Posts: 36

    Aug 05, 2014 11:58 PM GMT
    Right on track there Art_Deco
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14310

    Aug 06, 2014 12:35 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    roadbikeRob said
    While I strongly condemn these horrendous ex-gay therapies, I do think this federal judge might have overstepped his legal bounds by stripping parents of their right to raise their children even if the parents are doing the wrong things. Instead of forcing conservative parents to avoid these dangerous ex-gay therapies, we should try to reach out, educate, and inform these parents why these ex-gay therapies are a costly and deadly scam.

    How closely did you read the article and the decision? The judge is a female, not a male.

    Second, the claim that this was a free speech or religious freedom case was nonsense. What if a parent takes a seriously ill child to a voodoo priest for health care, instead of to conventional health care practitioners? What if they deny any kind of health care, based on religious grounds? There is Federal case law already dealing with these cases.

    Gay reparative therapy is also voodoo medicine, and children should be protected against it. If you want to educate conservative parents, telling them their attempted use of reparative therapy is nutty and illegal should be eye-opening enough. And if it's not, maybe child protective services should step in.
    You sound ridiculous, what does the judge's gender have to do with this issue, obviously nothing. While I strongly agree that these reparative therapies are extremely dangerous and should be strongly condemned and discouraged, the bottom line unfortunately is that the parents do have a right to raise their children as they see fit even if the parents are stupid and wrong. I would love to see these ex-gay therapies banned but I would much rather see that done on the legislative branch and not the judicial branch.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2014 12:53 AM GMT
    Like most rights, parental rights have limits.
    Jehovahs Witnesses refuse to get blood transfusions because of a wacky interpretation of the bible. They occasionally die for lack of a blood transfusion.
    However, if a Jehovahs Witness' child needs one they have to have against the parents wishes.
    The reasoning is that an adult can risk their own life for their religion but they can't make that decision for someone else.
    You cannot harm your child in the name of your religion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2014 1:25 AM GMT
    Wyndahoi saidLike most rights, parental rights have limits.
    Jehovahs Witnesses refuse to get blood transfusions because of a wacky interpretation of the bible. They occasionally die for lack of a blood transfusion.
    However, if a Jehovahs Witness' child needs one they have to have against the parents wishes.
    The reasoning is that an adult can risk their own life for their religion but they can't make that decision for someone else.
    You cannot harm your child in the name of your religion.


    google the stuff on Christian Science. I think the law is that a court can intervene by order, but up until then, endangering--more or less--a child by religious reason is not considered neglect. Double check me on that but I think that's how it works. Real sick.

    So while this ruling might not overstep, it does seem a further step in a better direction for the welfare of children. We'll see how it plays out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2014 1:28 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    Art_Deco said
    roadbikeRob said
    While I strongly condemn these horrendous ex-gay therapies, I do think this federal judge might have overstepped his legal bounds by stripping parents of their right to raise their children even if the parents are doing the wrong things. Instead of forcing conservative parents to avoid these dangerous ex-gay therapies, we should try to reach out, educate, and inform these parents why these ex-gay therapies are a costly and deadly scam.

    How closely did you read the article and the decision? The judge is a female, not a male.

    Second, the claim that this was a free speech or religious freedom case was nonsense. What if a parent takes a seriously ill child to a voodoo priest for health care, instead of to conventional health care practitioners? What if they deny any kind of health care, based on religious grounds? There is Federal case law already dealing with these cases.

    Gay reparative therapy is also voodoo medicine, and children should be protected against it. If you want to educate conservative parents, telling them their attempted use of reparative therapy is nutty and illegal should be eye-opening enough. And if it's not, maybe child protective services should step in.
    You sound ridiculous, what does the judge's gender have to do with this issue, obviously nothing. While I strongly agree that these reparative therapies are extremely dangerous and should be strongly condemned and discouraged, the bottom line unfortunately is that the parents do have a right to raise their children as they see fit even if the parents are stupid and wrong. I would love to see these ex-gay therapies banned but I would much rather see that done on the legislative branch and not the judicial branch.


    It was done through the legislative branch, this is just a federal judge upholding the state law as constitutional.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2014 1:36 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    Art_Deco said
    How closely did you read the article and the decision? The judge is a female, not a male.

    You sound ridiculous, what does the judge's gender have to do with this issue, obviously nothing.

    With the ruling, nothing. With your credibility in commenting upon it erroneously, everything.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14310

    Aug 06, 2014 1:42 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    roadbikeRob said
    Art_Deco said
    How closely did you read the article and the decision? The judge is a female, not a male.

    You sound ridiculous, what does the judge's gender have to do with this issue, obviously nothing.

    With the ruling, nothing. With your credibility in commenting upon it erroneously, everything.
    You have no legitimate right criticizing my credibility. I know what I am talking about and there was nothing erroneous about what I said. You know everyone is rightfully entitled to an opinion whether or not you agree with it. You definitely need to check yourself.