A new California Bill would protect patients under the age of 18 from being subjected to harmful therapies that are known to be inaffective at changing sexual orientation. You can read more and the bill itself by clicking the link above. For those who do seek this type of aversion therapy, they would also require that you sign a consent form saying that you understand that your sexual orientation is not a mental disorder and that attempting to change said orientation could be harmful to your mental health. From what I’ve read, I support it. What do you think?
Open marriage in the media. Thanks to K&J for the heads up. A couple in Massachusetts made the poly news this week talking about their open marriage. The article brings light to some of the innocence of young children, and reminds us that things are only so god damn complicated and confusing because we’ve been taught to think of them as complicated and confusing. The article goes into ethics, communication, and openness as well as how the open marriage has made them happier and healthier as a couple. The children comment a few times saying that they don’t find it strange, their family isn’t really different from any other family, and that they understand that their parents date outside of their marriage. Very simply, there isn’t much to explain. It is what it is.
The President of Gambia has made some remarks on homosexuality after aid from other countries was threatened. While obviously disturbing those who support and fight for equality, he does make an interesting remark halfway down the page.
[...]every country, every society, every culture has its own natural dos and dont’s.”
It brings up an old, and interesting point. If we see something as inherently wrong, does that give us the right to push our views and values on others? Where is the line drawn, and is there one? Can we support without interfering? Is there any way to support without interfering? And when we see something that we do believe is inherently wrong, should we interfere with another cultures “natural dos and donts” – ? What makes those things “natural” to begin with? What sorts of “natural dos and donts” do we have in America?
Thoughts.
If another culture was cannibalistic, we would interfere. So, the real question is where do we draw the line? At what level does it tip our collective “we have to step in”.
It’s sort of like people that see my Darwin-fish shirt, and feel the need to convert me to their flavor of Christianity, even though we just met in line at the grocery store checkout.
I think it comes down to who is it hurting? I am in the UK so our cultural beliefs are slightly different to even those in the US in some ways. If consenting adults choose to live their lives in ways different to ours why do we have the right to interfere? If their is coersion or it is a practise which is harmful which they carry on through ignorance then that is different. Hundreds of years ago we accepted girls marrying age 12 or 13 nowlife expectancy is longer children are allowed to remain children for longer allowing them to grow up in their own time healthier both mentally and physically. Maybe the problem isn’t so much about when we step in as how we step in. At times I think we are like parents scolding naughty children ‘you must do this or stop this because we say so’ rather than educating as to the reasons why certain practises are not healthy.