Comments on: Why I oppose the ‘Don’t Say Ex-Gay’ bill

By: Donny D.

Donny D. — Sat, 05 May 2012 12:08:37 +0000

On May 1, Timothy posted this it:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/01/43984
announcing that he’s taking a break due to the “very personal in nature and very hurtful” criticism aimed at him lately.

Comments are off in that post, but Timothy, I can only hope that you treat yourself well and come back if and when you’re ready, and not before.

I’m tired of the intolerance in our community, including the political intolerance.

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Thu, 03 May 2012 04:08:19 +0000

I would also add that another reason to Rob’s comment about why I allow Timothy to publish what he likes. In addition to what Rob said, it is also because when the day comes that this blog becomes an echo chamber of just my thoughts and opinions is the day it become too boring for me to continue keeping it going.

If people never want to be confronted with a thought that they don’t agree with, then this blog is not for them. Nor is it for me.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Thu, 03 May 2012 02:14:32 +0000

Straightgrandmother said “I will be delighted if this bill passes because it will crimp that [insert vulgarity here] Nicolosi of poaching young tender youth.”.

Timothy said “I will be delighted if this bill passes because it will crimp that [insert vulgarity here] Nicolosi…

This is exactly what this bill is about.”

No, Timothy, that is not exactly what this bill is about. You dishonestly truncated Straightgrandmother’s comment to create the false impression that for her it was about attacking Nicolosi rather than what she really said which was that it was about keeping Nicolosi from harming youth.

By: Rob Tisinai

Rob Tisinai — Thu, 03 May 2012 02:00:35 +0000

justme: Perhaps the reason Jim allows Timothy to publish what he likes is that Timothy has a strong history of insightful and well-analyzed posts that involve careful thought, extensive research, and a great investment of well-spent time, and Jim knows that such work would disappear if he abandoned the principle of free inquiry in favor of enforcing some sort of party line.

By: chiMaxx

chiMaxx — Tue, 01 May 2012 06:40:47 +0000

Timothy:

The laws in every state heavily restrict what can be done to or with a minor. In California, it is illegal to perform a body piercing on a minor (excepting ears) except in the presence of or with the *notarized* permission of a parent, and it is illegal to tattoo a person under 18 even with a parent’s permission (Cal. Penal Code §653). How is this law substantially different from the tattooing law? There is evidence that doing something to minors is harmful to them and so the state prohibits it for minors but allows adults to choose as they will.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:28:04 +0000

Apologies in advance for the flippant comment, but I think the real shocker about this story is that a legislature is engaging in evidence-based law-making. WTF IS GOING ON?

By: iDavid

iDavid — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:16:26 +0000

Ah, the “freedom” to harm. That sounds like the luxury Christians have by not being sued for mental/emotional sexually abusive atrocities (i.e. Exodus) perpetrated on our youth. Thank god at least govt has the balls to step in at least partially.
I of course respect your right of insight Timothy, but I would certainly be happy w both of us at the poles w coffee in hand waiting to see who wins. Somehow I think you would be buying the coffee. But then, I’m just another opinion. LoL

By: Eastside Jim

Eastside Jim — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:54:13 +0000

Most states have laws preventing minors from making decisions that are potentially harmful. Most people would say that the gov’t is doing the right thing preventing minors from buying tobacco and alcohol among other things.

I don’t see any difference with those laws and this law for minors.

If you select this therapy, and are of age, then it should be researched/studied but not prohibited.

By: Andrewb

Andrewb — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:21:35 +0000

Tim, obviously I disagree vigorously with you.

But I’m also joining Reed in celebrating your contrarian spirit.

Never stop challenging everyone here to at least stop and explain their opinions and review their rationalizations.

I may disagree with someone I respect, but I can’t respect someone who isn’t at least being reflective. Parrots suck.

Here’s to being no one’s parrot.

Cheers!

By: Gerald

Gerald — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:47:10 +0000

Timothy: Apparently both you and Thomas Sowell have reading comprehension problems. The very parts of the “gay history” law you quote in that previous article contradict Sowell’s and your apparent claim that the teaching of early California history has to include “gay history”. It does no such thing. Indeed, the specific clause in the very sentence that includes LGBT refers to including it as part of a study of contemporary issues, not early California history. That would place it more correctly in 11th or 12th grade, not 4th grade.

As to the “might negatively reflect” clause, you and Sowell apparently don’t comprehend the meaning of the phrases “on the basis of” or “because of”. These phrases have specific legal meanings that have already been adjudicated, and simply mean that a teacher or book cannot negatively reflect on someone or some group simply “on the basis of” or “because of” their race, or gender, or sexual orientation, etc. I’m sorry that this simple and straightforward concept is so difficult for you to grasp, but you’ve really got to stop relying on it as evidence for your other claims if you can’t properly use it to support others.