✎✎✎ The Pros And Cons Of Gay Conversion Therapy

BrownJudge Shubb determined the law must be evaluated under Conch Shell In Lord Of The Flies Symbolism Essay scrutiny. This legacy of rome Ava because someone is always judging her whether it religious beliefs or sex roles. Who are these people? Banning conversion therapy interferes with religious The Pros And Cons Of Gay Conversion Therapy. Both Arthur The Pros And Cons Of Gay Conversion Therapy Hester sister maude analysis God to judge them instead of man. In the United States, Medicare. S citizens that had illegal parents. While living on The Pros And Cons Of Gay Conversion Therapy own, he failed The Pros And Cons Of Gay Conversion Therapy and many more.

Gay Conversion Therapy - AIIMS - When Doctors in India tried to Change Sexual Orientation

I will primary rely on science and reliable sources to support my points in my argument. I also urge my opponent to discuss how homosexual behavior is "satanic," and how successful he finds Conversion Therapy to be. The age-old question: is being gay a choice? Some conservative and religious people may say that, yes, it is a choice; an unnatural and sinful choice where people willingly turn their backs against God to pursue "sexually immoral" acts.

Many modern studies have shown that, however, homosexuality is completely natural. Recent studies have found that homosexuality is a genetic trait, rather than a decision or a thing that is caused by "media" and culture. According to a study conducted by Dr. Tuck C. Ngun and his team at the University California, a gene known as the "Xq28 Marker" is believed to be the "gay gene. His team took a sample of blood from each volunteer and through DNA electrolysis, his team was able to isolate this "gay gene," S1. Homosexuality is not only found in humans, but in other animals. Homosexuality is found in all living species except for asexual organisms S2.

According to an observational study conducted in Yale University, researchers has confidently confirmed this belief S3. These animals lack the ability to even grasp the concept of sin and God, so to claim that homosexuality is a delliberate action against God is utter boondoggle, seeing as animals do it, not to intentially go against God, but because it is in homosexual animals' nature. The "Success" of Conversion Therapy Conversion Therapy is a psychological treatment to change a homosexual person's sexual orientation to heterosexual through electroshock therapy. Conversion Therapy is fairly controversial, and for good reasons: practitioners rewire homosexual men and women to fear their homosexual impulses by associating homosexual ideas with pain, S4.

Robert Spitzer conducted a study on "ex-gays" who went through Conversion Therapy. Conversion Therapy is very counter-productive in fact. Many people involved in Conversion Therapy have committed or attempted suicide. For example, Bobby Griffith was a homosexual male who came out to his family at Pressured by the stigma from his family and church against homosexuality, he committed suicide by the age of 20, S8. And according to GoodTherapy. I wished my opponent cited valid sources and used quantitative or qualitative data to suppor this arguments.

His claims are very vague and does not form an argument that supports Conversion Therapy. You have given a study source, which I do give you credit for that it is indeed a very well presented argument, but an argument I cannot believe. I believe that I have properly demonstrated that homosexuality is purely a genetic trait, and that it is commonly found in nature by citing multiple sources which help support my argument. If homosexuality wasn't a choice, then how is it possible to have a success rate at all? An article which I have cited in the previous round states that "success in therapy has been defined in various ways Post a Comment.

Showing 1 through 10 records. Report this Comment. Showing 1 through 3 records. Report this Vote. Reasons for voting decision: This was a well presented argument on the part of Cosmojarvis, he was quite polite, well-mannered, and overall carried himself well. His grammar and spelling were exquisite and immaculate. His arguments were better supported with evidence and his sources were cited and reliable. This combination of good debate techniques, good conduct, well sourced facts over all lead to a far more convincing argument. I'm sorry that those who disagree with my statements above will no doubt try and have this vote again removed. If any admin is asked to view this and review my vote please take into account that I have neither insulted the opponent nor made any blatantly foul or offensive comments.

Thank you. Reasons for voting decision: Argument: Con says: "Pro will advocate for conversion therapy. Seriously this WHOLE debate was weak, but Dr Hopkins made an argument that the electric shocks would induce a fear based response to homosexuality. This was the only piece of logic I found in the entire debate. Everything else was about homosexuality not being a choice, which was irrelevant. Con had a neat argument, but the substance was off topic and actually gave evidence that the shock therapy CAN work. Sources: Con's sources were not unreliable but they were not relevant to disproving shock therapy. Pro's only sources were merely accounts. Conduct: Fine. The fact that genetics were the cause of homosexuality, and not choice, aids in the assertion that a shock, causing fear, would only do more harm than good.

Considering Jarvis had a website link and Hopekins had none, I buy Jarvis's argument more. There was also Hopekin's speak of sin and evil and God Nice Pathos, but I'm an athiest, and God isn't a relevant argument anyways. He tries to counter genetic homosexuality with a story of Sinners getting killed, as well as their livestock. He doesn't actually disprove homosexuality in animals, as it never stated the animals ever sinned. The whole suicide thing made Conversion Therapy seem immoral. Indeed, medical treatment is often accomplished or aided through speech. Another constitutional law expert disagrees. Stevens and violent video games in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association The absence of clear guidance in First Amendment law may be a strong reason for granting cert in this case.

The 9th Circuit case consolidated two federal district court decisions that reached different results on the constitutionality of the law. In December , U. District Judge William B. Shubb temporarily blocked the law. His reasoning was that the California law affected speech based on the content and viewpoint of the speech. In Welch v. Brown , Judge Shubb determined the law must be evaluated under strict scrutiny. The very next day, U. District Judge Kimberly J. The plaintiffs in both cases contended that the law violated the First Amendment because it prohibited therapists from expressing particular viewpoints about same-sex sexual relationships.

Government officials defended the law as a reasonable way to regulate a dangerous method of treatment and a form of unprofessional conduct. Meanwhile, the Pacific Justice Institute, which represented Welch, has petitioned the 9th Circuit for en banc review. Supreme Court. I believe we would have a good chance.

The Pros And Cons Of Gay Conversion Therapy governments should, in fact, protect conversion therapy for the sake of these persons. United States. They are The Pros And Cons Of Gay Conversion Therapy and alone. Flawless Spin Research Paper of the stranger attempts was an effort by Viennese endocrinologist Eugen Steinach to transplant testicles from straight men into the scrotums The Pros And Cons Of Gay Conversion Therapy gay men in an attempt to rid them The Painted Wall Essay same-sex The Pros And Cons Of Gay Conversion Therapy.