ebartl

At first Fuchida had no regrets about Pearl Harbor

Hey Patrick, take it easy man. The headline was my idea and it presupposes none of the things you are imagining. It actually presupposes nothing. It asks a question based on the text of the bill at issue. The text of the bill specifically bans the sale of counseling services that would help a person seeking a change from gay to straight. It does not also specify a ban against the sale of services helping someone transition from straight to gay, thus the question, "Does sexual orientation change go only one way?" It's a very objective title in response to the bill. A perfectly relevant response to the question could be "there is no such thing as sexual orientation change" and you made that point. Say you are correct, then again, why doesn't the bill specifically ban sexual orientation change efforts in both directions? Why ban it in only one direction? A partisan talking point headline on one side would be "California's 'must stay gay' bill" or on the other side, "the ban on psychological torture bill." The article and the reasons presented from the side opposing the bill have nothing to do with children, camps, physical or sexual torture, or the way people are born. I'm not disinterested in people's experiences. I'm very interested in them. This particular article is about a particular bill that decides whether adults can choose to spend their money for counseling services to help with a change they want. An earlier version of the bill would have also banned the sale of books dealing with the same subject. I presented both sides of the issue. One side says the bill protects lgbt people from a fraudulent business practice. The other side says the bill violates the right of lgbt adults to spend their money as they choose and seek changes they want. The bill has now been dropped entirely. One thing you stated is quite outrageous. Describing the therapy consenting adults seek out for themselves as "psychological torture" seems to be a stretch, but I gave that viewpoint the benefit of the doubt and quoted Wiener's opinion on that. But it's pure fantasy to say this bill was banning the "sexual torture of children." Are you saying without this bill it's legal in California to sexually torture children? Of course sexually torturing children is already illegal. Of course none of the legislators or activists who opposed this bill support sexual torture of children. Such a horrible thing has nothing to do with this story. I can't believe the Reader would publish such a reckless and obviously false characterization.
— September 13, 2018 11:19 a.m.

Let’s Be Friends

Subscribe for local event alerts, concerts tickets, promotions and more from the San Diego Reader

Close