Vote out all the liberal nut-jobs before they destroy the USA

You can' make sense of the liberal mind because they have only nonsense.

You rock I_am_Orlando! 👍

I recommend you don't assume that God is evil. I assure you He is not.

Good Christians are more rational than someone who believes that everyone who disagrees with him is delusional, that it is perfectly moral to indoctrinate young children with evil agendas, and that our infinitely good creator is somehow evil.

And if you still think that Christians are irrational and delusional, does that mean that you oppose what they stand for (morality, unconditional love and forgiveness)?

I agreed all the way up to "I recommend you don't assume God is", I also agreed with the statement 'I assure you He is not".

Who says liberals and conservatives can't agree on anything?..

Did Joe Biden type that nonsensical comment?

Yes, that's how important you are, Joe Biden is personally responding to your comments on a meme site.

If anything, having creepy dementia Joe Biden respond to my comments would make me feel less important.

"There are children living in same-sex households."

And it should not be that way. Homosexuals should only be allowed to adopt teenagers.

"Your god. I don't believe in or worship it. It's not my god."

He, not "it", is our God, not "god", no matter whether you worship Him or not. He created you, so He is your God.

"Good, then you know I'm right :)"

No, quite the opposite. I read the Bible, so then I know that you are wrong :)

"God made the choice to flood the world."

God had to flood the world because it had grown too wicked. And if you read the Bible, then you would know that God also promised never to flood the earth like that again. Had He not flooded the earth, then you would not be able to live in this world as we know it. You should be grateful to our creator and saviour. Insulting Him is a terrible thing to do. That is no better than satanism. Are you a satanist?

"God killed babies (according to the Bible)"

That is false. And I have copied and pasted the following from my previous comment, since you seem to be copying and pasting your previous arguments, despite the fact they have already been dismantled by me countless times:

Please, for goodness sakes, do not make me explain this to you yet again! How many times do I need to repeat myself?! And how many times will you repeat the same cretinous argument after I have already dismantled it?! This is growing increasingly irritating. Here we go again:

It was the sin of Man and Satan that caused these deaths, not God. Had Man not been so sinful, such a thing would never have happened. God is infinitely good. And God gave man free will because He is infinitely good. The free will of man is responsible for original sin. God cannot be held responsible for the terrible things the free will of man caused, because had He not granted them free will, God would not have been infinitely good.

Got it? Now please do not bring this up again. I am fed up of explaining this to you after you repeatedly use the same arguments.

"It seems he can't be held responsible for his own actions, either."

What on earth?! Not at all! Quite the opposite! God is responsible for everything He has done, and everything He has done is good.

" Would you be OK with it if an area was populated mostly by Muslims and they passed a law that said no Christians are allowed to adopt any children because of harmful brainwashing?"

I must say, if I were in an area with a high Muslim population, I would not be too surprised if that happened. I live in an area with a dominant Muslim population right now.

"Then a Muslim could say the same thing to you about Allah being your God :)"

They would not be too far off, because Allah is also an Abrahamic God :)

"Ahhh, so he had to. He had no choice in the matter. Interesting."

You're weird.

"I'm not grateful for genocide."

Then you should tell that to satan and those wicked men who caused that genocide. And since you hate genocide so much, then surely you would also oppose abortion?

"No, but I agree with some of their teachings."

Okay, now I have seen enough. Octavia_Melody has admitted to agreeing with satanism. Why am I not surprised? Your logic always has been twisted. I am beginning to forget why I am bothering to continue debating with a stubborn extremist.

If I pull weeds out of my garden on my property, am I a horrible person that deserves jail time? I mean, I'm killing the weeds.

"You have no set moral standard, so how can you speak on what is right and what isn't?"

What on earth makes you assume that?

What is your moral standard then, if not religion? My guess would be society's version of morality, which is anything but set.

1)
"Does morality come from God?
For morality to come from God, God would have to exist. Since we are still waiting for a god’s existence to be demonstrated, this entire argument is moot. We could end the argument there, and tell theists to come back when they can show at least one god is not a figment of overactive imaginations. However, to explore the argument, we can assume a hypothetical god does exist and see where that takes us.

First, we should ask how God knows what is moral. Plato wrote a dialogue in which Socrates asks Euthyphro “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” This is known as the Euthyphro dilemma.

If God is merely an agent advocating some universal morality, then morality exists independently of God and, given enough time, humans could discover it through reasoning. In this case, we would not need God—the only role for God would be to help speed up the process of discovery. God would be unnecessary.

On the other hand, if something is moral because God commands it, and for no other reason, then morality is arbitrary. We would be unable to reason our way to such a morality because it would not be based on reason. Furthermore, God could change his mind at any time, and reverse earlier moral commands. In this case, God would be necessary for morality, but morality would not be objective, it would be wholly subjective.

This logic leads us to the conclusion that God cannot be the author of objective morality. If there is objective morality, God would be a spectator to it—just as we are. And theists who argue that God is the source of objective morality must be wrong.

Some theists do not attempt to claim that divine morality is objective. Instead, they accept that God’s morality is inherently subjective and arbitrary, but there are fatal problems with this position too. The first problem is we have to decide which god we should take our morality from (more properly, which god and which religion). This is not a trivial problem."

Not a bad deflection from my apparently true assumption, but not the best I've seen.

You make the error that God is like any other person. He's not. He's a perfect eternal being. You don't have faith in that. I do. You do however have faith in whatever you believe in regards to the start of the universe and the purpose of life.

3)
"Followers of large, world religions might console themselves that a billion or more people share their morality, and that must account for something. But it does not. For a start, truth is not a democracy. The fact that many people accept an idea does not make it true. It is not even true that followers of any particular religion share the same morality. For example, there are some 2.2 billion Christians, yet we could write a long list of moral issues on which Christians take divergent views (despite all believing in the same god and all reading, more or less, the same scriptures). Just three issues will make the point: abortion, the treatment of gay people and the role of women in the church.

There is only one fair conclusion here; if you truly attempt to take your morality from a god, you have no idea whether your actions are moral or not. You are swimming in a sea of confusion and moral uncertainty. Quite honestly, you are lost."- AtheistAlliance.org

Once again, the assumption is that God is a normal person subject to change.

And that assumption is incorrect.

"I believe in only one God, and the Bible is His perfect set standard"

If you want to believe something because you found it written on a piece of paper, that's absolutely fine, it doesn't mean it has any objective truth or validity though. It doesn't mean you are morally superior or get a say in what other people do in their spare time. Your belief is not special.

My standard is set, even if you don't agree with it. That alone sets it apart from a non religious person's sense of morality.

I didn't say I was morally superior. My standard is.

2)
Let’s say we have a few hundred gods to choose from and a few thousand religions. Look at them all, and you will find a core of common moral commands, but there are disagreements even within the core commands. For example, all religions outlaw killing humans but they all have exceptions where killing is permitted, and the exceptions vary between religions. For example, the god of Abraham permitted killing gay people, and the Aztec sun god permitted killing young girls in acts of sacrifice.

Move beyond the core moral commands that relate to homicide, theft, and assault, and into areas such as marriage, the treatment of children and sexual behavior, and the discrepancies between religions become enormous.
How then, should you choose a god and a religion from which to source your morality? You could try to find a god that exists and a religion that is true, but there is no known way to determine these things, so whatever you decide will be necessarily arbitrary. In fact, most people resign themselves to making an arbitrary decision by simply following the god and religion their families follow.

If you accept that a god’s moral commands are necessarily arbitrary, one option is not open to you—you cannot examine the moral commands of different gods and choose the one that makes sense to you because when morality is arbitrary, your moral intuitions are rendered worthless.

Theists who say their morality comes from God face an unpalatable conclusion. They must either accept that they follow an arbitrary morality from an arbitrary god and an arbitrary religion, or they must accept that their god is not necessary for humans to understand morality. There is worse to come.

I believe in only one God, and the Bible is His perfect set standard.

"Not a bad deflection from my apparently true assumption, but not the best I've seen."

It wasn't a deflection, it was a comprehensive explanation as to how your religion doesn't give you moral superiority.

I asked about your moral standard. You deflected it to mine. Just own the deflection man.

Failing is your specialty.
You've struggled to defend banning church services, You are defensive of a claim against liberals, While making claims against conservative Christians, Like the raging hypocrite you are. And you never bothered to address the burning and looting of a church. You couldn't defend it, so you use the tool of your weak debating skills... Whataboutism to deflect, Hoping no one would notice.

I always notice it. Whataboutism and deflection is all you have.

"I don't assume he's evil. I've concluded he's evil based on what the Bible says about him."

Then you read the Bible incorrectly.

"I never said that"

Yes you did. You called every religious person delusional. That is for 85% of the earth population.

"I never said that either"

You support allowing homosexuality on young children's shows.

"If you think drowning children and allowing for rape and slavery is "infinitely good", I can't help you."

Then it sure is a good thing that I do not think that is "infinitely good", and neither do any Christians, or God himself.

"I oppose harmful teachings and beliefs, I don't oppose good teachings."

Then you would support Christianity, and oppose homosexual indoctrination.

"Then you would support Christianity, and oppose homosexual indoctrination."

Where is the evidence that demonstrating same-sex relationships makes children gay? If I've misunderstood and that's not what you're claiming, please explain what you mean by 'homosexual indoctrination'.

When did I say that "demonstrating same-sex relationships makes children gay"?

"are you now saying that you don't think demonstrating same-sex relationships in front of children can make them gay?"

"When did I say that? I did not accept or deny it. Quit assuming things."

I am merely trying to understand what you are so concerned about.
Do you have a problem with same-sex relationships being demonstrated in front of children? If so, why?

Young children are far too young to be exposed to something unnatural like homosexuality, and nobody should be indoctrinated with the homosexual agenda. Minors should learn about homosexuality the same time they should learn about sex: when they are teenagers.

"Sexual intercourse is designed by God as an act between a man and a woman that creates a child. Homosexuality is a crime against nature. Some animals are indeed weird and homosexual, but that does make homosexuality moral or correct. Humans are not animals. We are above that (or at least most people are)."

Sexual intercourse was not designed by anybody, it's part of the process of evolution.
We have evolved to bang.
What crime do you think homosexuality is committing?
Is it the crime of not making babies?
NOT EVERYONE WANTS BABIES TOBY.
I'm starting to get the idea from you that you have this fantasy about babies, everywhere, Millions of babies.
I mentioned animals because it's a good example of homosexuality outside of humans, you can't argue that it's some corrupt, sinful human behavior because animals do it.
Humans are animals, that's just basic science.

"Sexual intercourse was not designed by anybody"

God: am I a joke to you?

"What crime do you think homosexuality is committing?"

A crime against God, nature, and basic morality.

"NOT EVERYONE WANTS BABIES TOBY."

Looks like somebody's triggered. Perhaps I touched a nerve lol 😂

"I'm starting to get the idea from you that you have this fantasy about babies, everywhere, Millions of babies."

And is there a problem with loving human life? Do you support abortion by any chance? Abortion supporters hate babies, just like you. And since you deny the existence of our all powerful and all good creator and saviour, and insult a religion that teaches peace, love and forgiveness, I imagine that loving children must be difficult for you to understand. You are no better than the satanist Octavia_Melody.

"Humans are animals, that's just basic science."

Humans are not animals. Humans were created by God in his image. And since you claim to have science on your side, let me ask you: do you support abortion and transgenderism?

"Sexual intercourse was not designed by anybody"

"God: am I a joke to you?"

"You think you're a god now or that you can speak for a god?"

No. You seem to be the one making that mistake here.

You comment as your 'God' but then claim not to speak for him. Eh?

In what way is it unnatural? You're aware that some percentage of animals are gay, right? It's a thing in nature...it's natural.

"In what way is it unnatural? You're aware that some percentage of animals are gay, right? It's a thing in nature...it's natural."

Sexual intercourse is designed by God as an act between a man and a woman that creates a child. Homosexuality is a crime against nature. Some animals are indeed weird and homosexual, but that does make homosexuality moral or correct. Humans are not animals. We are above that (or at least most people are).

"Sexual intercourse was not designed by anybody"

God: am I a joke to you?

"What crime do you think homosexuality is committing?"

A crime against God, nature, and basic morality.

"NOT EVERYONE WANTS BABIES TOBY."

Looks like somebody's triggered. Perhaps I touched a nerve lol 😂"

You think you're a god now or that you can speak for a god?
The concept of god is not a joke, although it can be, it's a theological concept and means different things to different people.

Yes, but *what* crime?

Haha! You think I'm triggered because I shouted? I did it for comic effect. I don't have emotional hang ups regarding babies, there's nothing to be triggered about.

"You think you're a god now or that you can speak for a god?"

No. You seem to be the one making that mistake here.

"Yes, but *what* crime?"

The act of homosexuality. Duh.

"Haha! You think I'm triggered because I shouted? I did it for comic effect. I don't have emotional hang ups regarding babies, there's nothing to be triggered about."

When you're humiliated by your previous comment you wrote while enraged so you claim that it was done for "comic effect".

Me-"Sexual intercourse was not designed by anybody"

You-"God: am I a joke to you?"

Me-"You think you're a god now or that you can speak for a god?"

You-No. You seem to be the one making that mistake here.

Me-You comment as your 'God' but then claim not to speak for him. Eh?"

You-"Eh"

Haha, I didn't think you'd have a sensible response, if you post as your god but then claim not to be speaking for him (what a ridiculous idea that a creator would be male!) then you are the one making a joke of your own god.

Are you sure that I'm the one lacking in sensible responses here?

Hah! Answering the question with a question.

Is there anything wrong with that? You are the one who cannot answer questions here.

Are you ignoring the bit where I said " If I've misunderstood and that's not what you're claiming, please explain what you mean by homosexual indoctrination"?

Are you ignoring the bit where I asked where I said that "demonstrating same-sex relationships makes children gay"?

I didn't say that you said it, you implied it which is why I checked whether or not that's what you meant, obviously. So are you now saying that you don't think demonstrating same-sex relationships in front of children can make them gay?

If that's the case, what exactly is your issue with children seeing same-sex relationships?

"are you now saying that you don't think demonstrating same-sex relationships in front of children can make them gay?"

When did I say that? I did not accept or deny it. Quit assuming things.

"I read exactly what it says."

And fail spectacularly to understand what it means.

"You claimed that I said anyone who disagrees with me is delusional. I never said that."

Yes you did.

"Yes, because it's a valid and relevant issue."

That is no excuse for letting it belong in a young children's show. Teenagers can learn about this issue when they are old enough, but not young children.

"Your god allows for rape and slavery."

What do you mean "your"? It think you meant "our". And "God" is spelt with a capital "G".

"Read the Bible."

I have. Many times. You are the one who needs to read the bible here.

"I can provide the verses if you'd like. And the Bible says god flooded the world and drowned almost everyone, including children and babies. The Bible's words, not mine."

Please, for goodness sakes, do not make me explain this to you yet again! How many times do I need to repeat myself?! And how many times will you repeat the same cretinous argument after I have already dismantled it?! This is growing increasingly irritating. Here we go again:

It was the sin of Man and Satan that caused these deaths, not God. Had Man not been so sinful, such a thing would never have happened. God is infinitely good. And God gave man free will because He is infinitely good. The free will of man is responsible for original sin. God cannot be held responsible for the terrible things the free will of man caused, because had He not granted them free will, God would not have been infinitely good.

Got it? Now please do not bring this up again. I am fed up of explaining this to you after you repeatedly use the same arguments.

Evil agendas? Like indoctrinating them with the concept of original sin and all that sick nonsense?

How is teaching children about the dangers of sin "sick nonsense", but indoctrinating children with the terrible sin of homosexuality perfectly fine?

Because 'sin' is a subjective concept from an ancient book written by mysogynistic men, it's not an objectively real thing. To make a child feel guilty for no reason is harmful and cruel.
People can be moral and kind and forgiving without doing it from a sense of guilt.

The fact that some people are homosexual is an objectively real thing, you can rail against it all you want but it isn't going anywhere.
There always has been homosexuality, there always will be homosexuality, there is nothing harmful or wrong about it.
There's honestly no reason why you need to concern yourself with how other people have sex, it has no impact on you.

People are either gay or they are not, people don't suddenly become gay or become straight. Making someone feel like a sick monster for fancying certain people and convincing them that they are wrong and must change to be accepted by people is not curing them.

How other people have sex is not your concern, seriously.

If you are the Christian you claim to be and if you practice the unconditional love that you mentioned earlier, you would just accept people regardless of their sexuality and stop panicking about something you can't change.

Shaming people for their sexuality causes nothing but harm.

"Because 'sin' is a subjective concept from an ancient book"

A book being ancient does not make it wrong.

"mysogynistic men"

Gross enough of the newspeak words.

"To make a child feel guilty for no reason is harmful and cruel."

For no reason? If a child has done something wrong, he/she should not feel proud about it. That is harmful and cruel.

"The fact that some people are homosexual is an objectively real thing, you can rail against it all you want but it isn't going anywhere."

We can get rid of it through conversion therapy.

"There always has been homosexuality, there always will be homosexuality, there is nothing harmful or wrong about it."

Homosexuality is wrong and harmful. The Bible clearly states that it is a sin.

"people don't suddenly become gay or become straight."

Then explain conversion therapy and cured former homosexuals. https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vi9f3i9uojR5/

"How other people have sex is not your concern, seriously."

I agree that it is not the concern of the government, but I find it hard to stand by when there is a way I can help prevent people from harming their souls through sinful acts.

"If you are the Christian you claim to be and if you practice the unconditional love that you mentioned earlier"

If someone committed mass murders, would you except them for who they are?

"stop panicking about something you can't change."

I would not say I am panicking. Also, you can cure homosexuality. https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vi9f3i9uojR5/

"Shaming people for their sexuality causes nothing but harm."

No, allowing people to continue practicing sinful acts and harming their soul causes nothing but harm.

misogynist (n.)
"a woman-hater, one who has an aversion to women in general," 1610s, from Greek misogynēs "woman-hater" (see misogyny).

Newspeak? How old *are* you exactly?!

A book being ancient does not make it right.

"To make a child feel guilty for no reason is harmful and cruel."

"For no reason? If a child has done something wrong, he/she should not feel proud about it. That is harmful and cruel."

Original sin is not something the child has done.

An old book saying homosexuality is bad does not mean it's bad, it's blinkered, ignorant and cruel of you to refuse to update your perspective when you know your current one harms people.

I already covered 'conversion therapy', shaming/bullying someone into living a lie is not a cure.

"I agree that it is not the concern of the government, but I find it hard to stand by when there is a way I can help prevent people from harming their souls through sinful acts"

Those acts are only sinful according to you, not them.
Sin and souls are subjective concepts not objective ones, whether or not someone has a soul is debatable, whether or not they have feelings is not.

So they may be harming their souls but you are definitely harming their mental health.

They don't want your attempts to save them.

Maybe focus your Christian efforts on things that don't cause harm?

"Shaming people for their sexuality causes nothing but harm."

"No, allowing people to continue practicing sinful acts and harming their soul causes nothing but harm.

It absolutely does cause harm, the blood of every single person that has taken their own life or self-harmed because they have been shamed or abused for being gay is on the hands of every single person that has shamed or abused anyone for being gay.

"A book being ancient does not make it right."

When did I say that book being ancient makes it right?

"Original sin is not something the child has done."

Original sin is something satan caused Adam and Eve to do. That is why baptism is necessary.

"An old book saying homosexuality is bad does not mean it's bad, it's blinkered, ignorant and cruel of you to refuse to update your perspective when you know your current one harms people."

Update my perspective?! What are you, one of the thought police?! And I do not "know" that my perspective is harming people. I am trying to help people.

"I already covered 'conversion therapy', shaming/bullying someone into living a lie is not a cure."

Conversion therapy is not bullying.

"Those acts are only sinful according to you, not them."

Which is why I believe homosexuality between consenting adults should be legal, but not shoved into the faces of young children.

"So they may be harming their souls but you are definitely harming their mental health."

How am I harming anybody's mental health? Did I hurt your itty bitty feewings?

"They don't want your attempts to save them."

Except the people who voluntarily agree to conversion therapy, but okay.

"Maybe focus your Christian efforts on things that don't cause harm?"

How does conversion therapy cause harm? I am focusing my efforts on things that prevent harm.

"It absolutely does cause harm, the blood of every single person that has taken their own life or self-harmed because they have been shamed or abused for being gay is on the hands of every single person that has shamed or abused anyone for being gay."

So if someone takes mental health therapy, but commits suicide shortly afterwards, is blood on the hands of the therapist who tried to help?

"If conversion therapy did inflict harm, then how come people voluntarily take part in it, and many come out cured, and praise the practice. So yes, there is a double standard from you"

I already answered this. When someone is shamed and criticised by family, peers and their church and knows that the only way to be accepted by the people they love is to live in denial then it's hardly surprising that they do although it's sad and shameful that they are treated so abhorrently by people who claim to love them.

I appreciate that their families think they are doing the right thing because they have listened to the religious scare-mongering and think that their child is at some sort of risk. It's really sad that they don't understand that that isn't the case and they could just love and accept their child for who they naturally are instead or trying to force them to change.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vi9f3i9uojR5/

You have no set moral standard, so how can you speak on what is right and what isn't?

"It absolutely does cause harm, the blood of every single person that has taken their own life or self-harmed because they have been shamed or abused for being gay is on the hands of every single person that has shamed or abused anyone for being gay."

"So if someone takes mental health therapy, but commits suicide shortly afterwards, is blood on the hands of the therapist who tried to help?"

Wow. You just compared your 'help' to that of a mental health therapist. Your 'help' consists of telling people that they are committing a sin and that their relationship is both less valid than a heterosexual relationship and that it's not appropriate for it to be demonstrated in front of children, that's not therapy dude.

Also, people don't 'commit' suicide, it's no longer a crime; thankfully some people have not been against updating their ideas.

People 'agreeing' to 'conversion therapy' are doing it because other people are telling them that their sexuality is wrong and shameful.

"Your 'help' consists of telling people that they are committing a sin and that their relationship is both less valid than a heterosexual relationship and that it's not appropriate for it to be demonstrated in front of children"

Indeed. Correct. That is therapy, "dude".

"Also, people don't 'commit' suicide, it's no longer a crime; thankfully some people have not been against updating their ideas."

Now you're just intentionally slowing this discussion down. Let's say he "killed himself", then. Does that make it the fault of the therapist. Actually give an answer this time and quit dancing around the question.

"People 'agreeing' to 'conversion therapy' are doing it because other people are telling them that their sexuality is wrong and shameful."

And quite rightly so.

"Your 'help' consists of telling people that they are committing a sin and that their relationship is both less valid than a heterosexual relationship and that it's not appropriate for it to be demonstrated in front of children"

Indeed. Correct. That is therapy, "dude".

"Also, people don't 'commit' suicide, it's no longer a crime; thankfully some people have not been against updating their ideas."

Now you're just intentionally slowing this discussion down. Let's say he "killed himself", then. Does that make it the fault of the therapist. Actually give an answer this time and quit dancing around the question.

"People 'agreeing' to 'conversion therapy' are doing it because other people are telling them that their sexuality is wrong and shameful."

And quite rightly so."

Dancing around the question? Not at all, there's nothing to dance around.

A qualified therapist not being able to save someone from the harm that people with your kind of attitude have caused is on you and people like you, not the therapist.

Much like, if you stab someone and a doctor doesn't manage to save them, we wouldn't say that the doctor killed them.

"A qualified therapist not being able to save someone from the harm that people with your kind of attitude have caused is on you and people like you, not the therapist."

My "attitude" does not cause people harm.

"Much like, if you stab someone and a doctor doesn't manage to save them, we wouldn't say that the doctor killed them."

So if a therapist failing to save his patient from suicide, and a doctor failing to save his patient from a stab wound is not their fault, why is it suddenly the fault of a conversion therapist if the patient commits suicide? Can you not see your double standard here?

"So if a therapist failing to save his patient from suicide, and a doctor failing to save his patient from a stab wound is not their fault, why is it suddenly the fault of a conversion therapist if the patient commits suicide? Can you not see your double standard here?"

Neither the doctor nor the mh therapist are inflicting harm, a person telling someone that their sexuality is unacceptable is.
So no, there's no double standard.

"Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of trying to change an individual's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual using psychological or spiritual interventions. There is no reliable evidence that sexual orientation can be changed and medical institutions warn that conversion therapy practices are ineffective and potentially harmful. Medical, scientific, and government organizations in the United States and United Kingdom have expressed concern over the validity, efficacy and ethics of conversion therapy. Various jurisdictions around the world have passed laws against conversion therapy."

"Neither the doctor nor the mh therapist are inflicting harm, a person telling someone that their sexuality is unacceptable is."

If conversion therapy did inflict harm, then how come people voluntarily take part in it, and many come out cured, and praise the practice. So yes, there is a double standard from you.

Conversion therapy, also known as reparative therapy or Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE), consists of counseling or treatment to change someone's sexual attraction from homosexuality to heterosexuality. In 2019, New York City repealed its politically motivated ban on this, just two years after trying to prohibit it. The Bible and Christian faith are powerful methods of becoming a heterosexual. Because ex-homosexuals exist, this helps explain why homosexual activists have sought laws prohibiting conversion therapy in many states, and liberal California, Oregon, New Jersey, Illinois and the District of Columbia have banned this therapy for minors. But on February 24, 2015, an Oklahoma House committee passed a bill to protect the right to conversion therapy, and the therapy remains fully lawful in the vast majority of the United States. Liberal Dem Governor Andrew Cuomo has tried to ban it for minors by issuing an unusual executive order in New York. The successful approaches are aided by a change in someone's activities, such as sports, to an elimination of the animosity that someone might be harboring, such as anger towards his father. Conversion to Christianity and regular attendance at church can help; Paul referenced converts from homosexuality to Christianity in the New Testament. Aversion therapy, by which someone is averted from an unwanted activity or attraction by associating it with something mildly unpleasant, is an additional approach.

Wow, they've downvoted you for pointing out that we don't actually agree with a meme that claims we agree with it.

And they argue that we are the ones with a narrative to support!

Where does it say all liberals? You're very defensive, I wonder why.

Oh look, Octavia's favorite tool...

Here's my Whataboutism to show what a hypocrite Octavia is.

Also, do you think muslims are more rational, with their magic book and sky man?

Octavia's head explodes in 3.2.1