California governor OKs ban on gay conversion therapy, calling it 'quackery'

[pnewton]

So let’s agree to accept whatever the court decides, shall we? I’m willing to do that. Are you?

Like Roe v. Wade?

Oh, I am sorry. No choice when it comes to healing or religious values, only choice when it comes to killing.

 

[Bradski]

Like Roe v. Wade? Oh, I am sorry. No choice when it comes to healing or religious values, only choice when it comes to killing.

If someone proposes that something is harmful, it would be a good idea to ask someone with expertise in the area to confirm or reject that proposal. If the expert says it is indeed harmful, it wouldn’t be wise to reject the judgement.

You might, if you were so inclined, seek a second opinion from another expert. If they agreed that yes,it was harmful, then you’d be foolish to ignore both decisions.

You might, if you were really concerned, seek a third and even fourth expert opinion. If they agreed with the first two, then you’d be crazy to deny the conclusion.

If everyone with any professional expertise in the country stated quite clearly and unambiguously that it was harmful and you chose to ignore all the advice, then you are just being perverse.

 

[CopticChristian]

'nuff said.

Brad,

You edit me and then quote me…sounds like an agenda.

 

[CopticChristian]

[Sarcam mode on]You could be right. It could be that every organisation on the planet that has expertise in this matter has been influenced by gay psychiatrists. How could I be so blind as to not see that![/Sarcam mode off]

Not exactly. You said…

And as I pointed out, it doesn’t include prayer groups.

Brad,

You need help with management of your emotions. You may want to consult with a social worker or therapist.

 

[Bradski]

Brad,

You edit me and then quote me…sounds like an agenda.

Ah. 'Scuse me Coptic. My mistake.

 

[CopticChristian]

If someone proposes that something is harmful, it would be a good idea to ask someone with expertise in the area to confirm or reject that proposal. If the expert says it is indeed harmful, it wouldn’t be wise to reject the judgement.

You might, if you were so inclined, seek a second opinion from another expert. If they agreed that yes,it was harmful, then you’d be foolish to ignore both decisions.

You might, if you were really concerned, seek a third and even fourth expert opinion. If they agreed with the first two, then you’d be crazy to deny the conclusion.

If everyone with any professional expertise in the country stated quite clearly and unambiguously that it was harmful and you chose to ignore all the advice, then you are just being perverse.

Brad,

You have no clue what it is like dealing with patient problems. I have had to deal with people that obtained second, third and fourth opinions…and before you knew they had no idea what their problem was, since they were seeking opinions on their own.

The best opinions are procured from the person you get the opinion from. Whenever anyone tells me that they got a secon opinion on their own it usually meant that all the information was not available for that opinion and invariably that opinion was less than helpful.

The best opinions were when the request was made and all the information was made available to the opinion producer and dialogue took place.

It is common for the uneducated, ignorant to go seeking opinions and getting conflicting opinions and hardly ever a consensus unless you choose those referred by the LGBT groups that all have the same opinion.

 

[Bradski]

You have no clue what it is like dealing with patient problems. I have had to deal with people that obtained second, third and fourth opinions…

I’m not sure what relevance this has to my post. I’m suggesting that if every reputable organisation with expertise in the matter in hand has reached unanimous agreement on said matter, then it is perverse to continually reject what they say.

It is common for the uneducated, ignorant to go seeking opinions and getting conflicting opinions and hardly ever a consensus unless you choose those referred by the LGBT groups that all have the same opinion.

I’m uneducated in the matter of psychiatry. I am ignorant of the methods they use to make decisions in regard to matters of sexuality. I’d say that the majority of us are in that position, including, unless you have some formal training, yourself. So we have to rely on expert advice when we need to make decisions about matters.

In this case, in regard to ‘gay therapy’, it would appear that every organisation with recognised levels of expertise, not just in the US but in other countries as well, are unanimous in their agreement that it is harmful. Are you suggesting that I should simply ignore what they say because…well, because you think they’re wrong?

Could you list the organisations that have convinced you that all the ones listed earlier are wrong? We could check them against each other.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

If someone proposes that something is harmful, it would be a good idea to ask someone with expertise in the area to confirm or reject that proposal. If the expert says it is indeed harmful, it wouldn’t be wise to reject the judgement.

Don’t we first have to establish that the experts are impartial? Would we also have to establish a baseline for the conduct at issue. What about the case of a 17 year old son of a gay man who wants to enter therapy that will cause him to reexamine his perception of his own sexual orientation? Any therapist who offers counsel to this young man in California is now subject to discipline for unethical behavior. I think that’s a far cry from the sort of conduct that the sponsors of the bill intended to prevent.

I also think that despite the questionable nature of “reparative therapy” (and I think that there are many different types), the law was clearly part of an ongoing agenda to marginalize those who believe that homosexual acts are disordered, based upon their sincerely held religious beliefs. The message is clear, and chilling.

Peace,
Robert

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not sure what relevance this has to my post. I’m suggesting that if every reputable organisation with expertise in the matter in hand has reached unanimous agreement on said matter, then it is perverse to continually reject what they say.

I’m uneducated in the matter of psychiatry. I am ignorant of the methods they use to make decisions in regard to matters of sexuality. I’d say that the majority of us are in that position, including, unless you have some formal training, yourself. So we have to rely on expert advice when we need to make decisions about matters.

In this case, in regard to ‘gay therapy’, it would appear that every organisation with recognised levels of expertise, not just in the US but in other countries as well, are unanimous in their agreement that it is harmful. Are you suggesting that I should simply ignore what they say because…well, because you think they’re wrong?

Could you list the organisations that have convinced you that all the ones listed earlier are wrong? We could check them against each other.

Brad,

You have made a faulty assumption. That assumption is that these organizations speak beyond the borders of their building. I can tell you that no Physician in his right mind leans on these organizations for guidelines to practice. They have their purpose but certainly not to direct care.

I believe we are still waiting for BlueEyedLady to prove that the AMA dictates care.

You have assumed a faulty paradigm believing that there is this organization and that organization that are listed in the California Bill means much of anything except a list of organizations.

NARTH is an organization and the California marriage and counselors is an organization but they don’t direct my thoughts either.

What you don’t know can hurt you.

 

[CopticChristian]

Don’t we first have to establish that the experts are impartial? Would we also have to establish a baseline for the conduct at issue. What about the case of a 17 year old son of a gay man who wants to enter therapy that will cause him to reexamine his perception of his own sexual orientation? Any therapist who offers counsel to this young man in California is now subject to discipline for unethical behavior. I think that’s a far cry from the sort of conduct that the sponsors of the bill intended to prevent.

I also think that despite the questionable nature of “reparative therapy” (and I think that there are many different types), the law was clearly part of an ongoing agenda to marginalize those who believe that homosexual acts are disordered, based upon their sincerely held religious beliefs. The message is clear, and chilling.

Peace,
Robert

Robert,

It is thought provoking when you consider the cries against…

legistlating morality

however

legislating immorality is OK

This, in my opinion, is the LGBT groups trying to legistlate any attempt to prevent any youngster from questioning that they are troubled. If you are gay you are gay. It is fixed and the law says so. There is no way out. Accept it, we said so. It is an attempt to legislate fixed behavior and that is all it is.

If the LGBT truly believed it was fixed they would go their merry way and let it be what it is. It is like Gamaliel telling the other jews about Christianity…if it is of God…then let it be…if it is not of God…then it will fizzle…

Let us not forget about the Athiestic evolutionists. If evolution proves that the LGBT behavior is fixed it will become self evident…hardly the case would you not agree…

The LGBT are the equivalent of the Protestants legislating Protestant thought at inception of the so called Reformation and we know where that went…the LGBT will legislate themselves into a mire of confusion without leadership and as they do cause disruption and the truth will prevail. You cannot legislate thinking.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not sure what relevance this has to my post. I’m suggesting that if every reputable organisation with expertise in the matter in hand has reached unanimous agreement on said matter, then it is perverse to continually reject what they say.

I’m uneducated in the matter of psychiatry. I am ignorant of the methods they use to make decisions in regard to matters of sexuality. I’d say that the majority of us are in that position, including, unless you have some formal training, yourself. So we have to rely on expert advice when we need to make decisions about matters.

In this case, in regard to ‘gay therapy’, it would appear that every organisation with recognised levels of expertise, not just in the US but in other countries as well, are unanimous in their agreement that it is harmful. Are you suggesting that I should simply ignore what they say because…well, because you think they’re wrong?

Could you list the organisations that have convinced you that all the ones listed earlier are wrong? We could check them against each other.

Brad,

Reputable? Credible? Wow…are you for real?

foxnews.com/health/2012/02/21/american-psychiatric-association-scam/

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is in danger of losing the little credibility it still enjoys.

video.foxnews.com/v/1454499369001/is-the-american-psychiatric-association-losing-credibility/?playlist_id=157835

Is The American Psychiatric Association losing credibility?

counseling.org/PressRoom/NewsReleases.aspx?AGuid=315a280b-4d0b-48af-9421-1f7d3f01b4b7

WORLD’S LARGEST COUNSELING ORGANIZATION OPPOSES SOME REVISIONS TO MAIN DIAGNOSTIC TOOL USED IN MENTAL HEALTH
Controversial Revisions to DSM and Lack of Open Process, Scientific Rigor Cited

In general, ACA is concerned that many of the proposed revisions will promote inaccurate diagnoses, diagnostic inflation, and the prescribing of unnecessary and potentially harmful medication.

One of the major areas of concern for professional counselors is the proposed definition of mental disorders. The language suggested implies that all mental disorders have a biological component.

amazon.com/president-specialtys-credibility-Psychiatric-Association/dp/B000BROXTG

New APA president vows to restore specialty’s credibility.(American Psychiatric Association): An article from: Clinical Psychiatry News

 

[Bradski]

Don’t we first have to establish that the experts are impartial?

If you think that all the organisations quoted are not impartial, then I’d be pleased to hear about it. Maybe we can also look at the impartiality of organisations that disagree with them. We can then judge to which experts we should listen.

You have made a faulty assumption. That assumption is that these organizations speak beyond the borders of their building.

There’s me thinking that if I wanted expert opinion on gay therapy, I’d ask the American Psychological Association. Or maybe the American Psychiatric Association. Perhaps the American School Counselor Association or the American Academy of Pediatrics.

If not then maybe the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs or the The National Association of Social Workers. If they weren’t available I might try the The American Counseling Association Governing Council and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry or maybe the Pan American Health Organization.

I’d probably ask them if they were now, or had ever been, pressured by any person, group or groups associated with homosexuality. Just to make sure that they were impartial, you understand. And to keep Rob happy.

NARTH is an organization and the California marriage and counselors is an organization but they don’t direct my thoughts either.

So who should I use to give me the other side or the story? I have all these recognised professional experts saying it’s harmful and the only people that I can find who disagree are specifically Christian organisations such as NARTH. And as Christians generally think homosexuality is an abomination, their views might not be entirely unbiased.

Again, what has led you to believe that the ten or so professional bodies noted above (plus many others overseas) are wrong? Where is the evidence that has persuaded you?

 

[Aphrodite_Chain]

Good job, California.

Antiscientific torturing of youngsters their “parents” subject them to in accordance with antihumane and degenerative doctrines invented by primitive shamans several thousands years ago which leads to suicides, depression , anxiety, self-hatred and other things must be stopped.

Government must protect youg americans from religiously tainted individuals who value their imaginary friend more than the life of their own flesh and blood.

Good job and thank you.

NARTH

is a lair of religious sharlatans who wage war against Nature, Science,Reason, Reality and Humanity. This organization must be disbanded and criminally investigated by law enforcement agencies for all their malpractice

A concerned mother of two

 

[CopticChristian]

If you think that all the organisations quoted are not impartial, then I’d be pleased to hear about it. Maybe we can also look at the impartiality of organisations that disagree with them. We can then judge to which experts we should listen.

There’s me thinking that if I wanted expert opinion on gay therapy, I’d ask the American Psychological Association. Or maybe the American Psychiatric Association. Perhaps the American School Counselor Association or the American Academy of Pediatrics.

If not then maybe the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs or the The National Association of Social Workers. If they weren’t available I might try the The American Counseling Association Governing Council and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry or maybe the Pan American Health Organization.

I’d probably ask them if they were now, or had ever been, pressured by any person, group or groups associated with homosexuality. Just to make sure that they were impartial, you understand. And to keep Rob happy.

So who should I use to give me the other side or the story? I have all these recognised professional experts saying it’s harmful and the only people that I can find who disagree are specifically Christian organisations such as NARTH. And as Christians generally think homosexuality is an abomination, their views might not be entirely unbiased.

Again, what has led you to believe that the ten or so professional bodies noted above (plus many others overseas) are wrong? Where is the evidence that has persuaded you?

Brad,

Caveat Emptor.

Independent thinking and not relying on organizations to do my thinking.

 

[CopticChristian]

Good job, California.

Antiscientific torturing of youngsters their “parents” subject them to in accordance with antihumane and degenerative doctrines invented by primitive shamans several thousands years ago which leads to suicides, depression , anxiety, self-hatred and other things must be stopped.

Government must protect youg americans from religiously tainted individuals who value their imaginary friend more than the life of their own flesh and blood.

Good job and thank you.

is a lair of religious sharlatans who wage war against Nature, Science,Reason, Reality and Humanity. This organization must be disbanded and criminally investigated by law enforcement agencies for all their malpractice

A concerned mother of two

Aph,

and in your prior post you state this?

Scientifically and medically speaking sexual orientation is not a disorder in any way.And in accordance with Nature itself.
There is nothing to be cured at all.
Are they going to cure jewishness then?The lefhanded?

What is your scientific background and medical background that allows you to state this or are you parroting information you believe to be scientific and medical fact?

 

[CopticChristian]

If you think that all the organisations quoted are not impartial, then I’d be pleased to hear about it. Maybe we can also look at the impartiality of organisations that disagree with them. We can then judge to which experts we should listen.

There’s me thinking that if I wanted expert opinion on gay therapy, I’d ask the American Psychological Association. Or maybe the American Psychiatric Association. Perhaps the American School Counselor Association or the American Academy of Pediatrics.

If not then maybe the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs or the The National Association of Social Workers. If they weren’t available I might try the The American Counseling Association Governing Council and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry or maybe the Pan American Health Organization.

I’d probably ask them if they were now, or had ever been, pressured by any person, group or groups associated with homosexuality. Just to make sure that they were impartial, you understand. And to keep Rob happy.

So who should I use to give me the other side or the story? I have all these recognised professional experts saying it’s harmful and the only people that I can find who disagree are specifically Christian organisations such as NARTH. And as Christians generally think homosexuality is an abomination, their views might not be entirely unbiased.

Again, what has led you to believe that the ten or so professional bodies noted above (plus many others overseas) are wrong? Where is the evidence that has persuaded you?

Brad,

I can’t convince you of anything other than to investigate and think for yourself.

SMART concerning addiction “You are not your behavior”…this is the tenant. Ok…so if this is true and you are not your behavior then how can you define any behavior as an identity.

Whenever I read anything about sexual orientation and see this lie…as you know it was homosexual psychiatrists that removed homosexuality from the DSM…

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness.

You can find the truth here…

thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/81-words

So anything you read that has the aforementioned lie should cause concern about anything else that is being read in an article about this topic. One lie…the rest is lies. So what if everyone followed suit. They accepted the lie too.

If you know and understand that the established medical groups promote addiction as disease and you know that is a lie then you now know that there are campaigns by the medical associations to cause you to believe and accept things that aren’t true. These are powerful organizations that people unkowingly accept as guardians of truth and they lie.

So once you understand that they lie and are trying to cause you to accept a lie you have to start weighing information on your own and asking yourself questions that make sense.

That is the start of the journey…

Behavior science. We can change our behavior, manage our emotions, sadness, anger, whatever you pick and you see a therapist for this…with the one exception…passion…are you kidding me…passion is fixed…

We all have minds that take in the world and store information and all we have in our minds is stored information and imagination. Imagined reality is ever as real as reality. The basis for changing behavior is using both of those and if you put a road block in and say with one exception then you have to ask…Why?

Why can I change any behavior, why can I change any action I choose with the exception of one…then you have to ask yourself…

How does our mind work? What model of the mind is predictable and makes sense? You have to be able to get to this point and then you can start filtering information and making sense out of all this stuff.

Your mind, my mind works the same. We all take in information and filter it with deletion, distortion and generalization. This is a starting point. Once you understand this you can almost read minds by looking at how people write and understand their inherent bias…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Brad,

I can’t convince you of anything other than to investigate and think for yourself.

SMART concerning addiction “You are not your behavior”…this is the tenant. Ok…so if this is true and you are not your behavior then how can you define any behavior as an identity.

Whenever I read anything about sexual orientation and see this lie…as you know it was homosexual psychiatrists that removed homosexuality from the DSM…

You can find the truth here…

thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/81-words

So anything you read that has the aforementioned lie should cause concern about anything else that is being read in an article about this topic. One lie…the rest is lies. So what if everyone followed suit. They accepted the lie too.

If you know and understand that the established medical groups promote addiction as disease and you know that is a lie then you now know that there are campaigns by the medical associations to cause you to believe and accept things that aren’t true. These are powerful organizations that people unkowingly accept as guardians of truth and they lie.

So once you understand that they lie and are trying to cause you to accept a lie you have to start weighing information on your own and asking yourself questions that make sense.

That is the start of the journey…

Behavior science. We can change our behavior, manage our emotions, sadness, anger, whatever you pick and you see a therapist for this…with the one exception…passion…are you kidding me…passion is fixed…

We all have minds that take in the world and store information and all we have in our minds is stored information and imagination. Imagined reality is ever as real as reality. The basis for changing behavior is using both of those and if you put a road block in and say with one exception then you have to ask…Why?

Why can I change any behavior, why can I change any action I choose with the exception of one…then you have to ask yourself…

How does our mind work? What model of the mind is predictable and makes sense? You have to be able to get to this point and then you can start filtering information and making sense out of all this stuff.

Your mind, my mind works the same. We all take in information and filter it with deletion, distortion and generalization. This is a starting point. Once you understand this you can almost read minds by looking at how people write and understand their inherent bias…

Excellent debate Coptic. If I ever need help I want you in my corner. You should have been a philosopher.

 

[CopticChristian]

Excellent debate Coptic. If I ever need help I want you in my corner. You should have been a philosopher.

Linusthe,

The first suggestion I have for you is to understand that what you want is the truth in your corner. Seek the truth first.

Next understand that when you seek the truth and present the truth you have all you need in your corner.

and lastly understand that this is a problem based on beliefs and beliefs are hard to change. The entire issue of those that want to impose their beliefs through legislation will realize that they will in time fail…as those that oppose indoctrination will resist…

here is another area they have not thought of…

jonahweb.org/index.php

Desperate Teenager Doesn’t Want to Be Gay By: Neil in Florida
I have grown light years from the first E-mail I sent asking for help. My counselor not only worked with me on a weekly basis but he also gave me regular homework to complete between our sessions. I have learned the lessons he so diligently provided and I applied the concepts I learned into everyday living. I have conquered social fears that I had; I have challenged irrational thoughts which for a time (too long) stood unchallenged; I have regained my manhood which feels just great.

as long as one person believes that they can change then the entire argument that you can’t change is dead.

You can’t legislate the ability to want to change.

 

[ivebeenshown]

There is some agenda… people too insecure to come to terms with the fact that they have a disorder. We are all disordered in one way or another.

 

[CopticChristian]

There is some agenda… people too insecure to come to terms with the fact that they have a disorder. We are all disordered in one way or another.

IBS,

I appreciate your thoughts…

I agree that there is an agenda.

When you generalize and say “people too insecure” you are generalizing and judging and this I would suggest should be explained. What people? How do you know these people? Where did you get this information about these people?

Next how did you come to believe that insecurity was the issue?

I agree that it is fact that humanity is disordered and the question would be to what degree for which there really is no answer except to say that those that surface so disordered to have consequences are more disordered than most.