There is the tiny technicality that this "therapy" is a fraud, never works, always fails. This yet another effort by religious nuts (Muslims and Christians) to do as much damage as they can to people they don't like.
This "gay mafia" is as nonsensical as all of the other ridiculous fabrications that religious conservatives live by. Not to forget the real Mafia, though (you remember them: gambling, prostitution, racketeering, drugs, murder and general mayhem), who are (devout) Christians.
Gosh, this same-sex marriage thing is getting more like the heterosexual version all the time. I put my foot down at the polygamous stuff (too Biblical) and the twenty-four hour straight celebrity kind, though. I don't know how they stand it.
Arizona's bill, and like bills across the country, have two important innovations over the exemptions for religious belief and/or practice already present in all human rights legislation. Firstly, no proof in text or practice would be required to demonstrate that the discriminatory action actually resulted from religious belief, or occurred in the context of a religious practice. Instead, these new bills only require that the discriminator "firmly held" the belief, (however idiotic or recently fabricated). Secondly, these bills extend the exemption to businesses (as opposed to the previous requirement that it be a religious institution or school), so that they made it possible to have a religious gas station, or drugstore, or anything. On the other hand, these bills have the grace that they would authorise refusal of service or employment, or firing, or eviction against anyone at all, such as against religious conservatives and George Will, on the basis of a firmly held belief that they are vain, arrogant, malicious, and wilfully ignorant, or whatever else you wanted. Not good for a more civil society, of course, but evidently that is not their concern.
Surely, the main problem with these "therapies" is that they don't work. Isn't there a limit on advertising outright fraud?
Another way to neutralize marriage would be to take it out of the hands of the churches, so that it doesn't have to conform to whatever is their dogma at the moment (or else!), and make it a civil institution, defined and enacted by the government. Oh wait, that's that way it is now! Paul and his fellow religious nuts need to accept that they cannot impose their (patently ridiculous) beliefs on everyone else.
The bad news is that the Roman church still considers itself entitled to tell everyone else what to do, and to demand that the law impose their idiotic beliefs on everybody. The good news is that modern secular governments do not permit the church its traditional responses to difference: torture and mass murder.
Just because it is part of some religious dogma doesn't save it from being stupid, malicious, wrong, and bigoted. In fact, those things seem to go with religion very nicely. Religion is evidence to the fact that people are capable of believing anything at all. What a joke that this clown calls himself "Christian". How strange that religious fanatics also demand that we respect them and their idiotic assertions, when obviously no respect is due. Still, better than the old days; modern secular govenments do not permit the Roman church its traditional responses to difference: torture and mass murder.
In the case of a public figure, making public statements, the difference is that the direct insult is to a much larger number of people, so, yes, it is. However, I was saying that claiming the insult is based on religious convictions does not exempt it from ethical condemnation (nor does it make it any less obnoxious, stupid, or wrong). The faith defence does have the positive advantage, however, in demonstrating the evils of the faith.
Being religious doesn't disqualify you from being a bigot or your beliefs being irrational, malicious, ignorant hatred. Conservative Christians, over the centuries, demonised and massacred millions of Jews and homosexuals and everybody else who believed differently. It may be that all religion is not bigotry, but Cameron's certainly is, and it is despicable. And, obviously, his claim that his comments were somehow distorted, is a lie.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Brainchild