Hacker News Reader

Comment by chillwaves | Hacker News Reader

> While running for Congress, Indiana governor Mike Pence called for state funding for "institutions" working to enable people to "change their sexual behavior."

https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-t...

View on HN

From the link:

  Mike Pence once supported the use of federal funding to treat people "seeking to change their sexual behavior."

That seems like a great thing to fund. Looks like our current vice president seems interested in helping those who seek help.

Just in case anyone is reading this comment and they think that "conversion therapy" isn't equivalent to torturing individuals I suggest the following op-ed from the NYT about a man who suffered through the process:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/gay-conversion-th...

Except the reality is that the clients of those straightening camps are often the parents of gay kids, not adults.

There is plenty of data on this.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but it seems this therapy is forced upon children (another commenter linked an article who experienced this at age 14). That seems wrong to me, and at the very, very least not something we should be funding at the federal level.

In fact, there could be some parallels here to federal funding for abortions. Many conservatives feel this procedure is morally wrong as strongly as others might feel about gay conversion therapy. I can see why they would be similarly upset about federal funding for clinics that perform them, although I don't necessarily agree with their final position.

Sounds like a false equivalence re: abortion.

There is science behind viability of a fetus for example that is used to determine guidelines and there is science behind behavioral therapy that disagrees with sexual conversion therapy.

On one side, you have people at least attempting science and rational thought, on the other side you literal magic thinking (religion) as the rationale, the two are not equal.

They're certainly not like for like, and the principles behind what make them acceptable or not are totally different. I don't expect to convince anyone of anything except that, whatever side of the aisle you fall upon, please try to have a little more empathy for those on the other.

Not that I think "gay conversion" is effective (maybe at the margins), but as society we do seem to beleive that others sexual orientations can be changed via incarceration.

Pretty sure the orientation is not the problem, it is the victimization of minors, which is an action -- not a thought or a feeling.

I think it's less "changing their sexual orientation" and more "keeping them away from those who can't defend themselves."

Why can't both things be bad?

I am replying to myself since I am fascinated by the other three responses. None of them are responding to what I actually wrote and all of them are responding to what they think I wrote. All of them are wrong in guessing what I think I wrote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com