Comments:California passes law banning gay-to-straight therapy
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Comments from feedback form - "The article is straight to the..." | 0 | 03:51, 16 October 2012 |
| Comments from feedback form - "This is good for others who ar..." | 0 | 21:20, 15 October 2012 |
| Comments from feedback form - "What no dissenting opinion...." | 1 | 17:18, 3 October 2012 |
| Comments from feedback form - "I should have liked more detai..." | 0 | 20:35, 1 October 2012 |
The article is straight to the point and backs up the details with statements from reliable sources. It does, however, contain several grammatical errors (placement of punctuation). It is short and dry. The entire article was formed by stringing one quote after another.
This is good for others who are homo and stop from suicidal. It's who they are and they have the right to be happy like everyone else on this earth. Good Job Gov. Brown for seeing and thinking about others and looking at it in a deeper way how it really is going on of today's world.
What no dissenting opinion....
The article is clear about who said the things it recounts (as required by WN:NPOV). The sources don't mention any vocal opposition at the time of passage; perhaps those who disagree were keeping their heads down. That said, I agree if the article were going to be just a little longer than it is, the thing to add would be some mention of who doesn't consider this kind of therapy harmful bunk. The cited sources say almost nothing about this; afaics there's one sentence in one source.
I should have liked more detail on the "junk-science" comment by Gov. Brown. Even though I agree, readers should know the reasons and definitions to which Brown alluded.