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

[fix]

Exactly what, for heavens sake?

If NARTH is the only organisation that is being put up as having views in opposition to all the other associations I listed (eleven to date), then we can start looking at their credentials and make an educated decision as to whom we should trust.

Why is that the standard? They are all types of credentialed misfits that assert all types of things.

Are we good to go with this or do you have anyone else to consider? And I mean anyone else at all, becuase your list is looking pretty skinny at this point.

Battling groups does not prove what is true.

Or is it ‘Exactly’ that some TV doc with a show on Fox has said something derogatory about the APA? I sincerely hope that you have something more than that.

Why is the APA position on this particular topic to be taken as infallible? There are physicians and psychologists that reject the APA position. Just as there are physicians that reject the positions of other academies on different topics.

 

[Bradski]

Battling groups does not prove what is true.

I’m not sure what you mean by that, so let me state what I believe is the best way to find out the truth. That is, whether gay therapy is good for you or not.

On the one hand I have a lot of creditable organisations (some previously listed) that take the position that it has not been shown, as a whole, that therapy does any good and that in many cases it can do harm. This isn’t just the APA and it isn’t just organisations in the US.

Now I don’t intend spending the next ten years getting professionally qualified in psychiatry and/or psychology, developing an expertise in this particular field and running my own tests to make a decision on this. I am going to rely on expert witnesses.

These organisations have been ‘called to the stand’ and they have given their evidence. I have taken that on board. It is now an opportunity for the opposing case to be heard and I am calling for witnesses. To date, only NARTH has been suggested. I’m now waiting to see if there are other suggestions before we start looking at the relative merits of both sides of the argument.

Do you think that is a reasonable way to approach this?

Why is the APA position on this particular topic to be taken as infallible? There are physicians and psychologists that reject the APA position. Just as there are physicians that reject the positions of other academies on different topics.

The APA is just one organisation. There are very many others. In fact, almost all the organisations with expertise in this area throughout the world have publicly stated that that homosexuality is not a disorder. That is not the question at hand - which is therapy. However, it might be safe to say that therapy would not be recommended for someone who didn’t have anything wrong with her.

So if you have any organisations or professional bodies that you’d like to add to the spectacularly short list that we have at present that consider therapy to be a good thing, then please come forward.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not sure what you mean by that, so let me state what I believe is the best way to find out the truth. That is, whether gay therapy is good for you or not.

On the one hand I have a lot of creditable organisations (some previously listed) that take the position that it has not been shown, as a whole, that therapy does any good and that in many cases it can do harm. This isn’t just the APA and it isn’t just organisations in the US.

Now I don’t intend spending the next ten years getting professionally qualified in psychiatry and/or psychology, developing an expertise in this particular field and running my own tests to make a decision on this. I am going to rely on expert witnesses.

These organisations have been ‘called to the stand’ and they have given their evidence. I have taken that on board. It is now an opportunity for the opposing case to be heard and I am calling for witnesses. To date, only NARTH has been suggested. I’m now waiting to see if there are other suggestions before we start looking at the relative merits of both sides of the argument.

Do you think that is a reasonable way to approach this?

The APA is just one organisation. There are very many others. In fact, almost all the organisations with expertise in this area throughout the world have publicly stated that that homosexuality is not a disorder. That is not the question at hand - which is therapy. However, it might be safe to say that therapy would not be recommended for someone who didn’t have anything wrong with her.

So if you have any organisations or professional bodies that you’d like to add to the spectacularly short list that we have at present that consider therapy to be a good thing, then please come forward.

Bradski,

whose name is not Brad. I have asked before and I believe if you provide the list you speak of I can help you understand.

What organizations overseas are you speaking of?

What organizations with expertise are you speaking of?

As a means by which you may find the answer I would provide…trace the history of agreement of these organizations and you will find that they funnel back to the American Psychiatric Association and if that is found to be true, since they have no credibility, based on the issue of homosexuality and the DSM and other history provided by the organization you discredit NARTH…you will discover that if all the organizations did not come to an independent predated opinion as expressed by the APA then all they are doing is parroting the APA and then you have your answer…

You will also find lobbying by the LGBT overseas for the WHO to issue their statements as well. Science? Opinion? or Politics and lobbying.

 

[Bradski]

As a means by which you may find the answer I would provide…trace the history of agreement of these organizations and you will find that they funnel back to the American Psychiatric Association and if that is found to be true, since they have no credibility, based on the issue of homosexuality and the DSM and other history provided by the organization you discredit NARTH…you will discover that if all the organizations did not come to an independent predated opinion as expressed by the APA then all they are doing is parroting the APA and then you have your answer…

You will also find lobbying by the LGBT overseas for the WHO to issue their statements as well. Science? Opinion? or Politics and lobbying.

Well, apart from Coptic suggesting that every organisation with expertise in this area has been directly influenced by the APA (which was itself influenced by the homosexual lobby 40 years ago etc etc), that appears to be it. I’ll note in passing that Coptic supplied no evidence for that suggestion, although he did ask ME to check it out.

Coptic, that’s not the way it works. I’m not going to do your work for you. A suggestion by you that everyone is biased does not refute what they have to say unless you, or anyone you know, has reliable evidence that their opinion has been tainted in some way by association with or pressure from some third party. You have had ample opportunity to bring it to the table. You haven’t and that’s been plain to see for all.

I’ll be blunt. Your evidence is non-existent. Your ‘expert testimony’ is supplied by an organisation that actively promotes cures for homosexuality, thereby confessing to its bias in the first instance. And your argument consists of flaccid accusations of political lobbying, apparently tainting every single professional organisation in Western civilisation.

And with all the time at your disposal to mount a reasonable defence of your position, that’s all you can come up with?

 

[fix]

I’ll be blunt. Your evidence is non-existent. Your ‘expert testimony’ is supplied by an organisation that actively promotes cures for homosexuality, thereby confessing to its bias in the first instance.

Not unlike saying an oncologist is biased against cancer and strives to find a cure. The oncologist starts from a position understanding cancer is pathology.

 

[fix]

I’m not sure what you mean by that, so let me state what I believe is the best way to find out the truth. That is, whether gay therapy is good for you or not.

That depends how one defines good. The parameters chosen matter a great deal.

On the one hand I have a lot of creditable organisations (some previously listed) that take the position that it has not been shown, as a whole, that therapy does any good and that in many cases it can do harm. This isn’t just the APA and it isn’t just organisations in the US.

Those groups are comprised of persons. How those persons arrive at such a conclusion is what this debate us all about.

Now I don’t intend spending the next ten years getting professionally qualified in psychiatry and/or psychology, developing an expertise in this particular field and running my own tests to make a decision on this. I am going to rely on expert witnesses.

Great, the problem is not all experts are equal. Again, that is the debate.

These organisations have been ‘called to the stand’ and they have given their evidence. I have taken that on board. It is now an opportunity for the opposing case to be heard and I am calling for witnesses. To date, only NARTH has been suggested. I’m now waiting to see if there are other suggestions before we start looking at the relative merits of both sides of the argument.

There are non NARTH docs that agree with them.

This is true of other medical matters as well.

The positions taken by groups are not always hard science that everyone accepts.

Do you think that is a reasonable way to approach this?

A reasonable way includes science, clinical skill, experience, and most importantly good judgement.

APA is just one organisation. There are very many others. In fact, almost all the organisations with expertise in this area throughout the world have publicly stated that that homosexuality is not a disorder. That is not the question at hand - which is therapy. However, it might be safe to say that therapy would not be recommended for someone who didn’t have anything wrong with her.

So if you have any organisations or professional bodies that you’d like to add to the spectacularly short list that we have at present that consider therapy to be a good thing, then please come forward.

Almost all organizations support all types of immoral positions and procedures. Does science get exempt from moral reasoning?

 

[Bradski]

There are non NARTH docs that agree with them.

Don’t just say so. List them so we can check their credentials and see how their opinion stacks up against others who disagree.

Almost all organizations support all types of immoral positions and procedures. Does science get exempt from moral reasoning?

No, it doesn’t get exempt because it doesn’t involve itself in morality in the first instance. Science doesn’t involve itself with moral truths. And we’re not talking about morality in any case. If we were, then you could say being gay is immoral and I’d say it wasn’t and we could go our separate ways. We’re talking about whether therapy to ‘cure’ gays is a good thing or not.

And the definition of ‘good’? You’re beginning to sound like Clinton. If it’s ‘good’ then the person will feel better. If not, then they will feel worse. Please don’t suggest that the argument hinges on the definition of those two words.

Let’s face it. I could spend all day listing all the professional organisations throughout the world that don’t think that being gay is a problem. That is, there’s nothing to ‘cure’. You could spend a few seconds typing ‘NARTH’ (unless you want to poke around on web sites that list opinions found in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, but I don’t think you’d really want to use them, would you) . Honestly, what decision could any disinterested person reach based on that?

Stick to the moral question regarding homosexuality, Fix. You can’t be proved wrong there as it’s simply a matter of opinion.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, apart from Coptic suggesting that every organisation with expertise in this area has been directly influenced by the APA (which was itself influenced by the homosexual lobby 40 years ago etc etc), that appears to be it. I’ll note in passing that Coptic supplied no evidence for that suggestion, although he did ask ME to check it out.

Coptic, that’s not the way it works. I’m not going to do your work for you. A suggestion by you that everyone is biased does not refute what they have to say unless you, or anyone you know, has reliable evidence that their opinion has been tainted in some way by association with or pressure from some third party. You have had ample opportunity to bring it to the table. You haven’t and that’s been plain to see for all.

I’ll be blunt. Your evidence is non-existent. Your ‘expert testimony’ is supplied by an organisation that actively promotes cures for homosexuality, thereby confessing to its bias in the first instance. And your argument consists of flaccid accusations of political lobbying, apparently tainting every single professional organisation in Western civilisation.

And with all the time at your disposal to mount a reasonable defence of your position, that’s all you can come up with?

Bradski,

whose name is not Brad. You suggest that organizations have opinions that other should listen to. You are told that those opinions can be traced to the APA and then you want me to prove to you that that is true.

I am Catholic. I say that this is the Church that Christ founded. You tell me no it isn’t and then I make you responsible for disproving my position. You should make me prove my position in order for it to be accepted, that is how it works.

But, since you asked, let me ask you this…

If I can show you that what I say is true, do your work for you, will you concede that these organizations are nothing more than parrots of the APA and in effect have no opinion worth listening to?

 

[Bradski]

If I can show you that what I say is true, do your work for you, will you concede that these organizations are nothing more than parrots of the APA and in effect have no opinion worth listening to?

Do my work for me? This is what you need to do, Coptic.

So let me get this straight so there’s no misunderstanding: you are going to get some evidence that the opinions of some professional organisations that do not consider being gay a problem are not worth listening to.

That’s great. We’ll look at your evidence to see if it’s fair and reasonable and if it is, we’ll discount those organisations from that side of the ledger.

I hope you have a lot of spare time because, as I said, there are an awful lot of them.

 

[CopticChristian]

Do my work for me? This is what you need to do, Coptic.

So let me get this straight so there’s no misunderstanding: you are going to get some evidence that the opinions of some professional organisations that do not consider being gay a problem are not worth listening to.

That’s great. We’ll look at your evidence to see if it’s fair and reasonable and if it is, we’ll discount those organisations from that side of the ledger.

I hope you have a lot of spare time because, as I said, there are an awful lot of them.

Bradski,

whose name is not Brad. I don’t have to prove all of them just one or two, once I do that then the entire paradigm falls apart and the rest is up to you…all I have to do is a little research and make a phone call to the listed organizations…

“Hello, this is Dr. Coptic…I am researching the issue of statements of your organization…I am concerned about the issue of homosexuality…when was it that your organization took a stand…yes…of course I am concerned…thank you…you will put me in touch with who?..direct me where…thank you, of course you can email me or call me…”

 

[CopticChristian]

Do my work for me? This is what you need to do, Coptic.

So let me get this straight so there’s no misunderstanding: you are going to get some evidence that the opinions of some professional organisations that do not consider being gay a problem are not worth listening to.

That’s great. We’ll look at your evidence to see if it’s fair and reasonable and if it is, we’ll discount those organisations from that side of the ledger.

I hope you have a lot of spare time because, as I said, there are an awful lot of them.

Bradski,

Whose name is not Brad…one down two or more to go…

American Academy of Pediatrics…

The DSM removed Homosexuality in 1973, as you know because of Homosexual Psychiatrists…as reported by Alex Spiegel, whose grandfather was a homomsexual psychiatrist and part of the so called science behind removal…no science at all, just lobbying and politicing…

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

(f) The American Academy of Pediatrics in 1993 published an article in its journal, Pediatrics, stating: “Therapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.full

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued its first statement on homosexuality and adolescents in 1983, with a revision in 1993.

This statement below is the lead paragraph from the 1983 statement…

Human sexual orientation most likely exists as a continuum from solely heterosexual to solely homosexual. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association reclassified homosexuality as a sexual orientation or expression and not a mental disorder.12

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/92/4/631.full.pdf

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/72/2/249.abstract

In 1974, the American Psychiatric Association ended its classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, labeling it rather as an alternate choice of sexual expression. This decision was based on the beliefs of the majority that there were insufficient data to label such individuals as being ill and that the deleterious social consequences of the pathologic designation were so grievous as to demand the declassification.1

So the American Academy of Pediatrics had no statement on Homosexuality prior to 1983 and references the American Psychiatric Association changing the DSM in 1973…There was no position on Homosexuality when the DSM prior to 1973 claimed Homosexuality was a mental disorder…

Next…

 

[Bradski]

I don’t have to prove all of them just one or two, once I do that then the entire paradigm falls apart…

I did jury duty a couple of weeks back. I can’t recall the judge telling us that if the evidence of one witness was deemed to be inadmissible, then we were to disregard the evidence of all other witnesses as well. I do remember him saying that we should make our decisions based on the weight of all the evidence put forward. But let’s not jump the gun.

all I have to do is a little research and make a phone call to the listed organizations…

Sounds like you’re heading in the right direction, Doc. Keep me posted.

 

[pnewton]

And the definition of ‘good’? You’re beginning to sound like Clinton. If it’s ‘good’ then the person will feel better. If not, then they will feel worse. Please don’t suggest that the argument hinges on the definition of those two words.

Yet it is true, that what we consider “good” is essential. If two people have two different goals, it is highly unlikely they will agree on the method to obtain goals. What is good is not based on feelings. It is a state of being. Parents have the obligation to strive for the higher good for their children, not just the goal of helping them feel better. Rather, they should help them be better.

However, were I just to go on feelings, since this is subjective, I would point to the most in your face fact that teens who are gay have three times the suicide rate as other teens. Not very “gay” if you ask me. As society becomes more open and acceptable of the homosexual postion, one would think that this would be less of a problem. Yet we are seeing the opposite. Bullying is blamed, yet even that has been addressed and drastically reduced in the last generation.

If society wasn’t so intent on promoting acceptance of homosexuality then it would already be obvious that we have a problem of moral dissonance. We convince people contrary to the moral law and the natural law. We tell people that what is not okay is really okay. There is then no hope. Only the sick can make use of a physician. The Good News that Jesus brought to the world was not, “You’re okay, I’m okay.” Rather it was, “You’re not okay, but that’s okay because I bring hope. You will be okay.” Christ brings hope, which in the long run is far better for the soul than acceptance.

 

[CopticChristian]

I did jury duty a couple of weeks back. I can’t recall the judge telling us that if the evidence of one witness was deemed to be inadmissible, then we were to disregard the evidence of all other witnesses as well. I do remember him saying that we should make our decisions based on the weight of all the evidence put forward. But let’s not jump the gun.

Sounds like you’re heading in the right direction, Doc. Keep me posted.

Bradski,

Whose name is not Brad…

American Academy of Pediatrics parroted the American Psychiatric Association…Next…

The American Medical Association referenced not only the American Psychiatric Association but parroted the American Academy of Pediatrics…

ama-assn.org/meetings/public/annual00/reports/refcome/506.rtf

Whereas, The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973, and the American Psychological Association followed with a similar action two years later; and

Whereas, AMA policy H-160.991[2] states that the “AMA is committed to taking a leadership role in…(d) encouraging physicians to seek out local or national experts in the health care needs of gay men and lesbians so that all physicians will achieve a better understanding of the medical needs of this population; and (e) working with the gay and lesbian community to offer physicians the opportunity to better understand the medical needs of homosexual and bisexual patients”; and

Whereas, Both the American Psychiatric Association and American Academy of Pediatrics have policy statements condemning reparative (conversion) therapy, or emphasize mechanisms to address the issue of societal homophobia, rather than sexual orientation itself; and

Whereas, In 1998 the American Psychiatric Association adopted a concise statement opposing reparative therapy that could be used as a model; therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the American Medical Association oppose any psychiatric treatment, such as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.

Resolutions based on the American Psychiatric Association changing the DSM and issuing statements as a result of homosexual psychiatrists changing the DSM…as seen here…

thisamericanlife.org/radi…e/204/81-words

So much for this country…are you ready for those organizations overseas?

 

[CopticChristian]

I did jury duty a couple of weeks back. I can’t recall the judge telling us that if the evidence of one witness was deemed to be inadmissible, then we were to disregard the evidence of all other witnesses as well. I do remember him saying that we should make our decisions based on the weight of all the evidence put forward. But let’s not jump the gun.

Sounds like you’re heading in the right direction, Doc. Keep me posted.

Bradski,

The American Psychological Association is harder to pin down however you can read between the lines and see what they have done…

NARTH…points out the issues with the APA

narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html

American Psychological Association

Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to “prove” that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed. The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion.

apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/policy/ex-gay.pdf

For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been thathomosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure.

Note that the APA says “for over three decades”…the date of the change of the DSM is 1973…and this statement comes on the heels of the 3 decades since the American Psychitatric Association took homosexuality out of the DSM…

The following is also a discussion of the American Psychological Association that changed it’s opinion…

wnd.com/2009/05/97940/

But he wrote that the changes are substantial, with even a change in the APA’s recommendations for additional information.

“Most intriguing are the recommended resources for further reading. The former brochure referred readers to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), all activist groups,” Byrd wrote. “The current brochure refers readers to the American Psychological Association, Mental Health America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.”

The National Association of Social Workers references the American Psychological Association as its support…

clgs.org/official-statement-concerning-homosexuality-national-association-social-wor

Official Statement Concerning Homosexuality from the National Association of Social Workers

Taken from The American Psychological Association Online Fact Sheet —

So the American Psychological Association points out the 3 decades past, ie since the homosexuals changed the DSM and the National Association of Social Workers parrots the American Psychological Association…all because of 81 little words seen here…

thisamericanlife.org/radi…e/204/81-words

 

[CopticChristian]

I did jury duty a couple of weeks back. I can’t recall the judge telling us that if the evidence of one witness was deemed to be inadmissible, then we were to disregard the evidence of all other witnesses as well. I do remember him saying that we should make our decisions based on the weight of all the evidence put forward. But let’s not jump the gun.

Sounds like you’re heading in the right direction, Doc. Keep me posted.

Bradski,

Whose name is not Brad…overseas…think about that…you want readers to look overseas…

The Homosexual Community proudly states that they Lobbied the WHO…

ilga.org/ilga/en/article/546

On 17 May 1990, the General Assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders. This action served to end more than a century of medical homophobia. The decision of the WHO constitutes a historic date and powerful symbol for members of the LGBT community and we feel that it is only normal that IDAHO be recognised and observed as every other International Day (i.e. International Women’s Day, International Human Rights Day etc).

Fifteen years ago, the International Lesbian and Gay Association was deeply involved in the process of getting the WHO to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. ILGA is therefore strongly committed to commemorating this event by celebrating this first international day against homophobia.

forcechange.com/37302/urge-the-world-health-organization-to-stop-categorizing-transsexual-individuals-as-mentally-ill/

The World Health Organization is currently revising their publication regarding mental illnesses. If enough people reach out to them, they might reconsider their classification of transsexualism as a mental illness. Help transsexual individuals overcome some of the discrimination they face and send the message that it’s perfectly okay to be comfortable in your own body and that society should accept you and respect you regardless of what gender you identify with.

This all comes after the DSM removed Homosexuality because of 81 little words…

Then there is the PAHO…the oldest…touted to have 110 years however not 110 years concerning homosexuality…

Pan American Health Organization

gaystarnews.com/article/gay-%E2%80%98cures%E2%80%99-are-dangerous-says-american-branch-world-health-organization170512

new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6803&Itemid=1926

Click the link

PAHO Position Statement “Cures” for an illness that does not exist

Read the references to the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association and of course the change of the DSM IV

So the organizations overseas were lobbied, after 1973 with the activity of the homosexual psychiatrists changing 81 words and the DSM IV took homosexuality out of the DSM…

Following the removal of the DSM, as a result of the activists and lobbying…the American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association followed suit…parrots

The organizations overseas took your advice and looked overseas with the help of lobbyists from the LGBT community and removed homosexuality from the ICD-9…so much for the WHO and the PAHO…based their opinion on the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association…

and now the issue is in court in the State of California…and those overseas are looking here and not there…all because of 81 little words with the germ of the seed that started on this side of the ocean…found here…

Resolutions based on the American Psychiatric Association changing the DSM and issuing statements as a result of homosexual psychiatrists changing the DSM…as seen here…

thisamericanlife.org/radi…e/204/81-words

Homosexual Activists, Lobbying, and you tout…to those that read…organizations have opinions…and we should listen to them…but where did it start?

When I commenced I asked a question…

If I can show you that what I say is true, do your work for you, will you concede that these organizations are nothing more than parrots of the APA and in effect have no opinion worth listening to?

Ball in your court…concede that you are suggesting we listen to parrots or prove that these organizations have come up with some independent thinking anyone should listen to.

 

[Bradski]

Yet it is true, that what we consider “good” is essential. If two people have two different goals, it is highly unlikely they will agree on the method to obtain goals. What is good is not based on feelings.

So if someone is gay and he goes through therapy and comes out feeling, in his own words, worse, then you would not accept his self diagnosis. Here we have a problem. Because therapy is meant to make people feel better. And it is not for the practioner or a third party to make that decision.

Your scenario seems to run like this: You tell someone that they’re sick. They say they feel fine, but you insist on them having treatment. After the treatment they say they don’t feel fine any more, but you say, no, you’ve been cured.

Doesn’t that sound just a little bit odd to you?

 

[pnewton]

So if someone is gay and he goes through therapy and comes out feeling, in his own words, worse, then you would not accept his self diagnosis. Here we have a problem. Because therapy is meant to make people feel better. And it is not for the practioner or a third party to make that decision.

It is not? Then should we also quit treating autism if the autisitic feels better curled up in a ball? Should we treat people who like having sex with children or let them have sex with children?

Even in a medical setting, sometimes pain is inflicted for long term healing, like re-breaking a nose to set it, or removing skin to graft it else where. The measure of success is functionality or wholeness, not feeling.

Your scenario seems to run like this: You tell someone that they’re sick. They say they feel fine, but you insist on them having treatment. After the treatment they say they don’t feel fine any more, but you say, no, you’ve been cured.

When I went in to have my gall bladder out, I felt okay when I went in. Coming out, I felt terrible. If your point is that adults (who feel okay) should not be asked to do this against their will, then of course I would agree with you.

 

[Bradski]

It is not? Then should we also quit treating autism if the autisitic feels better curled up in a ball? Should we treat people who like having sex with children or let them have sex with children?

Again, there has be something wrong with someone before you can cure it. I don’ t think there’s any dispute that someone with autism has something wrong with them. Likewise someone who prefers sex with children.

If your point is that adults (who feel okay) should not be asked to do this against their will, then of course I would agree with you.

We pretty much agree on this. However, if enough people tell someone that there is something wrong with them, if enough people suggest that what they feel about others of the same sex is perverted and abhorrent, if enough people talk of their sexuality in degrading and demeaning terms, then that person, if they realise that they cannot change what they feel, may well end up having a few psychological problems.

Would you agree with that?

 

[CopticChristian]

So if someone is gay and he goes through therapy and comes out feeling, in his own words, worse, then you would not accept his self diagnosis. Here we have a problem. **Because therapy is meant to make people feel better. **And it is not for the practioner or a third party to make that decision.

Your scenario seems to run like this: You tell someone that they’re sick. They say they feel fine, but you insist on them having treatment. After the treatment they say they don’t feel fine any more, but you say, no, you’ve been cured.

Doesn’t that sound just a little bit odd to you?

Bradski,

Whose name is not Brad, where did you get the idea that therapy is meant to make people feel better?

I am depressed, I am suicidal, I go to therapy, I learn to understand my feelings, I learn not to choose to kill myself, I am still depressed, I don’t feel better.

I am divorced, my wife sells drugs, my children are crying, I lost my job, my debts are mounting, I am confused. I go to therapy, I learn that divorce was the best for me, my children know that it is not their fault, I learn that many people lose their job, I make a plan for my debts, I am no longer confused, I don’t feel good about it but I have insight and understanding. I don’t feel better.

I have low self esteem, people make fun of me, I have anxiety, I have issues related to establishing a relationship with the opposite sex, I feel bad. I go to therapy, I realize that some people are cruel and it is not my fault, my anxiety comes and goes, I learn to plan to have relationships with the opposite sex with no expectation, I feel bad on occasion and that is something I come to understand that is just part of living, I am anxious now and again, and I learn that no life is perfect. Even if I feel bad I can cope. I don’t feel better.

Where did you get your uderstanding of what therapy is supposed to do?