Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill Monday barring licensed therapists from trying to turn gay teenagers straight, making New Jersey the second state to ban so-called conversion therapy, along with California. The bill passed both houses of the New Jersey Legislature with bipartisan support in June. Assemblyman Tim Eustace, who sponsored the bill and is openly gay, described the therapy as "an insidious form of child abuse." In a note accompanying the bill, Christie said he believes people are born gay and that homosexuality is not a sin. That view is inconsistent with his Catholic faith, which teaches that homosexual acts are sins. The Republican governor also said the health risks of trying to change a child's sexual orientation, as identified by the American Psychological Association, outweigh concerns over the government setting limits on parental choice. "Government should tread carefully into this area," he said in the note, "and I do so here reluctantly." "However, I also believe that on the issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards," Christie said, citing a litany of potential ill effects of trying to change sexual orientation, including depression and suicide. "I believe that exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate." Gay rights activists applauded the ban but pushed for more. "It is our truest hope that the governor will realize, as the majority of the legislature and a super-majority of the pubic have realized, that the best way to ensure lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender youth are protected from the abuse of being ostracized is to provide them with equality," Troy Stevenson, executive director of the state's largest gay rights group, Garden State Equality, said in a statement Christie previously vetoed gay marriage legislation. He has said he supports the state's civil union law, which was enacted to give gay couples the benefits of marriage but not the title.

http://www.charter.net/news/read/category/Top%20News/article/ap-nj_governor_to_sign_ban_on_gay_conversio-ap

this is terrible.

for the millionth time, dont samefag.

>>3 Considering we all know who it is by now, I think that we can stop telling him/her.

On the topic of this thread: I finally agree with Christie, this is a great law.

>>4 I agree with anubis. A great law and a step forward to LGBT equality. Others should follow the example since so many studies have proven that gay marriage and adoption don't have any more negative affects on the family and chil-raising than straight marriages and adoption.

>>3 at the top where you see name it says 🐾BlackFoxNews BFN is a broadcasting network im a reporter for BFN. and if i remember correctly wasn't it YOU who told me to leave my comments on my own thread? so why are you saying im "samefaging?"

>>6 because youre a blasphemous liar.
>>4 so be it.

BFN, is there any specific reason you include a block of blank space in front of your name when you copy + paste it?
It's had me curious for a while now.

This bill is a step in the right direction.

>>8 brah get off that cellphone n go on a real computer that isnt running internet explorer. its a pair of cat paws or some shit.

>>9
I'm running Firefox on a Mac, and it's not visible.

wat

>>10 I'm running Chrome on my school computer and it doesn't work either. It does work when I run Safari on Mac, though.

so what youre telling me is your guises macs suck. Got it. It shows up perfectly fine on my comps, so maybe its just a problem with apple. It could just be an unrecognized symbol

>>7 and your a hypocrite!

>>13 no, you just dont understand the english language.

I don't remember there being a rule against using multiple names on a site that for all intents and purposes supports anonymous posting in the first place. Especially if they aren't trying to sound like a different person.

But I'm also told that this is a known imbecile; just viewing this from a bystander's point of reference, is all. Speaking of objectivity though, I'd like to bring another point of view into the mix:
Is banning this really the right answer?

Sure, these institutions themselves are objectively terrible in that they force a mindset on someone and it could cause trauma. But where do we draw the line on what we are okay with banning? It's a slippery slope once we start expressing the idea that we're okay with censorship, even if we just start with what we don't like.

I feel like this is a problem best solved starting at those who would think to send their children to these camps, but I guess this has already gotten too much momentum to speak otherwise at this point. Might as well roll with what we can get.

>>15 It's already been decided that the state can intervene in a child's treatment if it is hazardous to the child's health. It's the same law that lets the state intervene and get a kid medical treatment even if his parents are against modern medicine and just want to pray for him or something. If an adult wants to go through with a treatment that is hazardous to his or her health he or she can. This is really just taking it a step farther. Because this treatment has been shown to do more harm than good, I don't see a problem with banning it for children. If the kid wants to go through with it when he grows up there's nothing stopping him.

This is all good and fine but.. If we stop the type of people who would send their kids to gay conversion camps from sending their kids to gay conversion camps, what will they do instead? They aren't just going to be like "Oh well, guess we better leave them as they are" they quite possibly might just resort to something worse.

>>17 This is what they're doing now and this is what the government has the power to stop. We can't not do something because something worse might happen. If we refuse to take action because there may be a negative consequence we'll never make any progress.

>>13 is giving me the giggles.

>>18 There is a difference between not being afraid of the consequences ahead and stupidly rushing from the pot to the frying pan. I'm not saying we should do nothing, I'm saying that we should target the route of this problem, the abusive parents. Trimming the leaves off the weeds may appear to do something, in reality, nothing ends until you go for the roots. The Governer is not handling this the right way, and he probably knows it. The Governor is handling this in the way that will gain him the most public support. Because the majority of the populous will just clap him on the back and say "good job! Problem solved." And that is exactly what he is hoping for.

Oh, something good in New Jersey!?

Ah, JK, New Jersey is cool. Anyway, this is good. Those Conversion guys are sick fuckers.

>>16 I don't disagree with the fact that it's harmful for children, nor that the idea is silly no matter what age the patient. And I did say that. But with this in place, it's a step away from banning things like weight loss camps or similar institutions that attendees may or may not be attending on their own free will.

But that's extrapolating perhaps a bit far, and I was more concerned with offering the thought for the sake of discussion. You say as an adult they would be able to choose to go to this sort of therapy if they wished, but would they really after it's been banned?

Damnit. Figures I'd post a thing and forget to address other posts I read.

I agree with >>20 in that this was obviously the most extreme, noticeable move he could've taken to show his stance against what the general public believed to be immoral. It's a little too convenient to not speculate his ulterior motives. But that kind of mindset does more to help the problem grow than solve it.

As others have said, this won't stop homophobic parents from hammering their beliefs in their children, be it forcefully or otherwise - so all this has done is remove some visibility from the problem. Who's going to report about the goings-on within private households, now that the public version is kaput?

How exactly are we supposed to locate the roots now?

I'm just going to leave this here: But I’m a Cheerleader!

With regards to >>23, I definitely see where you are coming from with the visibility. However, the roots you are talking about aren't hidden or in need of location, we already know where they are. They lie with parents passing on beliefs to their children. I think stopping the conversion therapy is less about stopping homophobia and more the government solidifying its position on the issue. You are right, it won't really stop parents from doing almost the exact same thing to their kids. But, if the parents and kids knew the government thought it was wrong, I think that would be enough to change at least some people's minds.

I understand your frustration. Unfortunately, when you get into the realm of what is right and wrong about raising a kid, things get fuzzy fast. This is just how our society works, I suppose. We have little power to take any direct action to make parents be better parents. All we can really do is things like this. Let them know that the government supports gay rights, people around them support gay rights, and you may just convince them.

>>24 I think I may have seen like half of that movie

>>13

End the end pick one fucking name. I don't see how hard that is for you to do?

In the end it's probably not going to do much to those who would go to great lengths to try to rid their children of this, but I think this is more for those who sit on the borderline and aren't really sure. There are probably a good number of those people, so trying to sway those on the fray might do a great deal of good in the end as you start to less the amount out there and it's becomes easier to deal with in the end.

>>27
In the end*

most of you aren't even talking about the subject. and its wrong to brainwash some one into being someone there not.

Wow, that gov. is such a hypocrite. He's a Catholic person but says homosexuality is ok? I wouldn't trust this guy's judgement.

Wow, that gov. is such a hypocrite. He's a Catholic person but says homosexuality is ok? I wouldn't trust this guy's judgement.

Why not? im christian too but that doesnt mean im an extremist who refuses to see anything else either than the laws of the bible and am unable to use my brain to logically think about issues myself.

>>34 Actually, the official Catholic stance on homosexuality is that it is okay to be gay; it's just not okay to act on homosexual urges. So even if Christie was strictly interpreting Catholic doctrine, this act would well within those bounds. So...he's really not being a hypocrite. Even if he was going against Catholic doctrine, you aren't required to believe in every single stance a religion has, you're just supposed to believe in a majority of them.

Note: I am not Catholic and I do not agree with their stance on homosexuality. Being gay is okay and I don't care what gender you decide to sleep with.

Now, on the subject, I think it's great that these programs are being made illegal. Yeah, parents can still try to brainwash their children, but it's pretty hard for them to hurt their children as much as these programs can. The people who run these programs are trained to basically torture these kids. They go way beyond what most parents are willing to personally do to their kids.

----

----

----

SDASDF

asdf

Sleepology you can say no go away all you want but im not going anywhere I have every right to come on this site as you do.

^