Brazil legalises ‘gay cure’ therapy, saying homosexuality is a ‘disease’

[Economy 52,861]

1 minute ago, uo111 said:

I could ask someone to murder me too. I could murder myself.

This isn't liberal vs conservative and it's disturbing that you don't see that. This is humane vs inhumane.

Oh but it is. Liberals have opinions on ethics they try to force in everyones throats and just wanna ban anything they dont agree with

 

PS: i dont agree with these programs btw. On top of that theres no evidence they work

 

My point tho was ppl should have the freedom to decide for themselves with their own beliefs if they wanna seek some "therapy".

 

Dont encourage it, but dont ban it either. If u do u are FORCING ur standards on those ppl

 

Some ppl are religious etc. Disagreeing with their beliefs or what they do does not give anyone the right to tell them they cant do something with their own bodies (provided they dont hurt others in the process)

[Lumi 3,512]

Just now, Economy said:

Unless the government is funding it or advertizing it they are not supporting it

 

1

Yes, we both know that... Sadly, most of the people in Southamerica don't think the same way.

Ok, you can have your gay "conversion therapy" but the government MUST tell people that there's only religion and not science behind it. I think that's very important. You can have Homeopathy and you can smoke as much as you want, but you have to be warned.

+ I also consider myself "moderate" but some things, just like gay therapy, it's beyond politics.

[uo111 5,282]

Just now, Economy said:

Oh but it is. Liberals have opinions on ethics they try to force in everyones throats and just wanna ban anything they dont agree with

 

PS: i dont agree with these programs btw. On top of that theres no evidence they work

 

My point tho was ppl should have the freedom to decide for themselves with their own beliefs if they wanna seek some "therapy".

 

Dont encourage it, but dont ban it either. If u do u are FORCING ur standards on those ppl

 

Some ppl are religious etc. Disagreeing with their beliefs or what they do does not give anyone the right to tell them they cant do something with their own bodies (provided they dont hurt others in the process)

I get the feeling you define yourself as libertarian. The problem with your argument is that it's self contradictory.

Gay conversion "therapy" requires someone to harm someone else. So if you do not think it is okay for someone to harm someone else, then you should be against it no matter what.

And if you think it's fine for people to harm other people, well then what's wrong with murder exactly?

[Economy 52,861]

3 minutes ago, uo111 said:

I get the feeling you define yourself as libertarian. The problem with your argument is that it's self contradictory.

Gay conversion "therapy" requires someone to harm someone else. So if you do not think it is okay for someone to harm someone else, then you should be against it no matter what.

And if you think it's fine for people to harm other people, well then what's wrong with murder exactly?

By ur argument those who sell cigarrets or or provide homeopathy services with no scientific proof they work are just as guilty then and should equally be as banned.

 

How many ppl skip chemotherapy because they tried "natural" crap that has nothing but hype behind it with no real proof?

 

The difference here is that its mental instead of physical health. And because its a sensitive subject, suddenly opinions are more strongly debated

 

I dont agree with these therapies. But if u take away the right of people for making their own decisions on this matter, then it would be hypocritical to not also ban every other thing that harms i dividuals, and there are many things that do. Yet those dont get as heated in arguments

 

PS: I do think libertarian probably describes my ideas the best. But not in everything necessairily. Economically im still more left than libertarians tho definitely more right than Democrats

[Economy 52,861]

10 minutes ago, Jorget said:

Yes, we both know that... Sadly, most of the people in Southamerica don't think the same way.

Ok, you can have your gay "conversion therapy" but the government MUST tell people that there's only religion and not science behind it. I think that's very important. You can have Homeopathy and you can smoke as much as you want, but you have to be warned.

+ I also consider myself "moderate" but some things, just like gay therapy, it's beyond politics.

Sure i agree with that... but leave the option for ppl who have specific beliefs

 

like i said to the other user... if u do not ban other stuff thats harmful ppl do by choice (like smoking) this is no different

 

only difference is that its mental not physical health

 

Again, i emphasize i dont agree with these treatments. But i also think its wrong to force moral ethics on individuals who dont have same view

 

Liberals do not like it when Conservatives refuse to give them new freedoms... Liberals are no better if they yank them away regardless of how right u might think u are

 

Again as a moderate, my views on these things is a little more broadbased than most of GGD. I like to consider all views not just my own

 

My opinion would be different if the government was encouraging it or even worse forcing it...

 

But its just there. Just like stupid alternative treatments that wont cure ur cancer and harm you by taking you away from real treatments are also there. It is not banned, its peoples choice to make their own stupid decisions

[uo111 5,282]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

By ur argument those who sell cigarrets or or provide homeopathy services with no scientific proof they work are just as guilty then and should equally be as banned.

 

How many ppl skip chemotherapy because they tried "natural" crap that has nothing but hype behind it with no real proof?

 

The difference here is that its mental instead of physical health. And because its a sensitive subject, suddenly opinions are more strongly debated

 

I dont agree with these therapies. But if u take away the right of people for making their own decisions on this matter, then it would be hypocritical to not also ban every other thing that harms i dividuals, and there are many things that do. Yet those dont get as heated in arguments

 

PS: I do think libertarian probably describes my ideas the best. But not in everything necessairily. Economically im still more left than libertarians tho definitely more right than Democrats

Of course cigarettes should be banned. The only argument for not banning cigarettes is "asdfaasgasdf I cansdfasdgajsodododd what aiav wnanats." Seriously?

Homeopathy does not do harm and people do not have to treat their illnesses if they do not want to. But allow companies to sell addictive poison and allowing churches to target and harm gay people? Are you for real?

That's not moderate, that's insane.

 

 

[Economy 52,861]

10 minutes ago, uo111 said:

Of course cigarettes should be banned. The only argument for not banning cigarettes is "asdfaasgasdf I cansdfasdgajsodododd what aiav wnanats." Seriously?

Homeopathy does not do harm and people do not have to treat their illnesses if they do not want to. But allow companies to sell addictive poison and allowing churches to target and harm gay people? Are you for real?

That's not moderate, that's insane.

 

 

Oh but it so can

 

Maybe not directly in itself. But many people forego real treatments that work because they are made to believe homeopathy works too with less side effects...

 

These people are misled by exagerated claims from natural doctors and supplement/herbal companies that stretch the truth on how much effect their stuff really has and sometimes there isnt even real proof for some claims.

 

I dont think stuff like this is any different in Principal

 

PS: i agree with the cigarrets then. That would make it less hypocritical

 

cuz targetting some harmful things and not others shows a biasess to ones own beliefs of ethics. Thats the point im making across

[Lextyr97 20,796]

11 hours ago, Plus said:

and I used to think Brazil is one of the gayest countries in the world and one of the most accepting toward gays , Guess I was wrong. 

I'm Brazilian and I thought the same

[tellemhone 2,817]

38 minutes ago, Economy said:

Oh but it is. Liberals have opinions on ethics they try to force in everyones throats and just wanna ban anything they dont agree with

 

PS: i dont agree with these programs btw. On top of that theres no evidence they work

 

My point tho was ppl should have the freedom to decide for themselves with their own beliefs if they wanna seek some "therapy".

 

Dont encourage it, but dont ban it either. If u do u are FORCING ur standards on those ppl

 

Some ppl are religious etc. Disagreeing with their beliefs or what they do does not give anyone the right to tell them they cant do something with their own bodies (provided they dont hurt others in the process)

9

Wouldn't this allow parents to do force their kids through it?

[Xoxo Adriana 15,040]

who is this "judge", we'll see who the real judge is by the end of this fvckery

[uo111 5,282]

Just now, Economy said:

Oh but it so can

 

Maybe not directly in itself. But many people forego real treatments that work because they are made to believe homeopathy works too with less side effects...

 

These people are misled by exagerated claims from natural doctors and supplement/herbal companies that stretch the truth on how much effect their stuff really has and sometimes there isnt even real proof for some claims.

 

I dont think stuff like this is any different in Principal

 

PS: i agree with ththat cigarrets then

Well, I think that laws need to be passed to limit what they can say and not allow homeopaths to encourage patients to forgo modern medicine because of the harm associated with that. Homeopaths should be required to refer people to actual physicians for anything beyond sniffles.

But homeopathic medicines should literally just be water by definition, so it shouldn't hurt people to take it. The unfortunate truth when it comes to homeopathic "medicine" is that people are stupid and only better educational systems can help that. If a healthcare professional tells a patient that their magic water won't work, they will just stop going to see that healthcare professional, which doesn't help anyone. As long as their magic water isn't harming them directly, it's hard to justify an outright ban.

[Economy 52,861]

9 minutes ago, tellemhone said:

Wouldn't this allow parents to do force their kids through it?

Yes. I did list that as the one major downside

 

If anything the freedom could remain without this issue by imposing age restrictions

[Economy 52,861]

1 minute ago, uo111 said:

Well, I think that laws need to be passed to limit what they can say and not allow homeopaths to encourage patients to forgo modern medicine because of the harm associated with that. Homeopaths should be required to refer people to actual physicians for anything beyond sniffles.

But homeopathic medicines should literally just be water by definition, so it shouldn't hurt people to take it. The unfortunate truth when it comes to homeopathic "medicine" is that people are stupid and only better educational systems can help that. If a healthcare professional tells a patient that their magic water won't work, they will just stop going to see that healthcare professional, which doesn't help anyone. As long as their magic water isn't harming them directly, it's hard to justify an outright ban.

If that is accomplished, then im fine with it

 

I knew someone personally who forewent real treatments and he deteriorated real fast because of it

 

In his case it was ALS which has no cure and its not even fully understood... but we do have drugs that slow down the progression and make symptoms more manegeable at least for a time

 

He and his wife read this book on avoiding toxins and these herbs the natural doctor recomended etc and didnt do real treatments...

 

Lets just say he deteriorated far more quickly and worse than the average ALS patient! 

 

I wasnt able to convince him tho. He was only 60 when he died  

[uo111 5,282]

3 minutes ago, Economy said:

If that is accomplished, then im fine with it

 

I knew someone personally who forewent real treatments and he deteriorated real fast because of it

 

In his case it was ALS which has no cure and its not even fully understood... but we do have drugs that slow down the progression and make symptoms more manegeable at least for a time

 

He and his wife read this book on avoiding toxins and these herbs the natural doctor recomended etc and didnt do real treatments...

 

Lets just say he deteriorated far more quickly and worse than the average ALS patient! 

 

I wasnt able to convince him tho. He was only 60 when he died  

I'm so sorry. ALS is so hard to go through for the afflicted and everyone who loves them.

[REALITY 80,166]

Brazil has a very open LGBTQ+ community, but often times, places with the most communities are in places where homosexuality, and just identifying with the LGBTQ+ community in general, are often seen as the most taboo. It's because they don't have any other outlet to express themselves and if they're going to be who they are, they're going to be as open about it as possible, because that's how proud they are.

This breaks my heart, though. It just shows you how much more advancing we need to do to help continue the fight for LGBTQ+ people. It's sad that it's become such a taboo thing, and that a lot of people don't take it seriously.