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

[pnewton]

Sorry, my error. Canon 1083. vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3Y.HTM

Those are impediments to marriage, world wide. When I was speaking of culture, I was thinking primarily of Western culture. If there is anywhere in the world that might permit such a marriage, that is where the age is set. In another canon it mentions on must not be barred by law. Yet all of this is marriage, not sex outside of marriage or homosexuality. I think it it time to go back to the topic.

 

[ringil]

Coptic the bishops have said nothing on this and Nicolsi isnt a theologian he can’t speak for the Church.

And the more you fight the gay identity the more you will alienate and lose people like me who support traditional marriage and the family.

You’re losing out on a whole group of allies and witnesses to the gay community by opposing something as petty as an identity.

And did you not see the fact I don’t live “gay lifestyle.”

As long as you are living chastely I can’t see any problem with you simply wanting to use a term “gay”.

I am pretty sure Rome has never spoken on such a thing.

Don’t begin to think that what you read on CAF is the official Church because it is not.

I suppose it goes without saying that I would recommend you get back to your neighborhood Priest pronto. More than likely he’s not going to be giving you the kinds of lines you read from some posters here.

God Bless You!

 

[CopticChristian]

As long as you are living chastely I can’t see any problem with you simply wanting to use a term “gay”.

I am pretty sure Rome has never spoken on such a thing.

Don’t begin to think that what you read on CAF is the official Church because it is not.

I suppose it goes without saying that I would recommend you get back to your neighborhood Priest pronto. More than likely he’s not going to be giving you the kinds of lines you read from some posters here.

God Bless You!

Ringil,

Of course there is no problem with using the word however it leads to ambiguity with what is meant in context of what one believes. If there is no agreement then the word may mean many different things to different people and then there is a need to explain. Use the word, identify with the word and be ready to explain…if that is what someone wants then go for it…check out a homosexual view…here…

uranianpsych.org/articles/Individuation.pdf

Any new consideration of homosexual personhood must start with the recognition that gay people insist on being seen in their own terms. For example, from a contemporary gay viewpoint, being gay means taking up the right for oneself to experience and identify with a homosexual erotic orientation
of the personality, and to build culture and community on that basis. Thus, the word gay refers

not merely to the sexual orientation of the individuals or groups of individuals… [but] to the purposeful self-definition of these
individuals and groups who see their homosexuality as an inherently
positive phenomenon, who actively oppose the political, social, and
legal oppression of homosexuality, and who have as a conscious
social aim the formation of a supportive, progressive and visible
community within a larger social context. (Hopcke, 1988, p. 77n)

From a gay perspective, being gay is primarily a matter of having a gay-identified ego, and not one of sexuality per se (Cass, 1979, 1984; D. Clark, 1977; Coleman, 1988; Minton and McDonald, 1984). Sexuality in gays, rather, serves the healthful and appropriate development of the personality and ego, just as it does for persons whose libido is heterosexually organized (Kelsey and Kelsey, 1986; Laughlin, 1982). The gay ego’s search for meaning in a homosexual organization of the personality it the principal inner concern of growthful psyche in gay people.

Every person should know that being ambiguous or creating less than clarity in communication as to who they are in the context of this conversation will invite criticism and questions. If that is what someone is looking for then that is what they should do.

A Protestant convert to the Catholic Faith…may apply the monikor…as follows…

I am a Born Again, Mormon Catholic, if that was their journey and if they want to continually speak about what preceeded their conversion, then that is what they do and this will continually invite conversation and discussion. If that is what is wanted then that is what they should do.

Once a child of God, in the family of God…see what love the Father in heaven has, He calls us Children of God and so we are…all children…In the Church we are all Catholic regardless of how we got here…

If you just want to be a child of God and journey on to the Father…then leave your life behind…for you are a new creation…not what you were, what you are…

This advice is based on Squat…

 

[Bradski]

ROf course there is no problem with using the word however it leads to ambiguity with what is meant in context of what one believes.

I think you’re right here. People use the word Catholic and it leads to ambiguity with what is meant in context of what one believes.

It seems to mean different things to different people.

 

[Kevin_B]

Kevin

You are saying that there is a controversial modality that changes them for life. Do you believe that? If you do then you believe that there is hope for change. If you believe that there is hope for change and then say it is linked to suicide where is it you get this data? Are you informed as to what causes suicides in this population?

Of course it changes them for life. Taking a left handed child and forcing them to use their right hand changes them for life as well. It converts them to a righty. But it is also unhealthy. It changes who God intended for them to be.

Likewise, it is not healthy to try to change sexual orientation. The catechism clearly states that God called homosexuals to be celibate, not that he calls them to become heterosexual. The catechism is also very clear that homosexuality refers to RELATIONS, not attraction.

Here is a study that NARTH did to try and prove conversion therapy did not increase suicides, but in fact proceed the exact opposite. Oops! When even the researchers you pay off to obtain a certain outcome fail, your stance is pretty much trashed IMHO
wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/26/narth-report-suicide-attempts-increase-during-sexual-orientation-change-therapy/

 

[Bradski]

Here is a study that NARTH did to try and prove conversion therapy did not increase uicides, but in fact proceed the exact opposite.

Does that mean there is now no organisation **at all **with a reputable argumnent that says that conversion thereapy is not harmfull?

 

[ringil]

Does that mean there is now no organisation **at all **with a reputable argumnent that says that conversion thereapy is not harmfull?

No, there is no such organization.

All licensing bodies of Psychiatry, Psychology, Social Work, and Marriage and Family Therapy prohibit efforts to “change” an individuals sexual orientation.

Insurance companies will not pay for any therapy designed to “change” sexual orientation.

The hundreds of Catholic Social Service agencies and the hundreds of Catholic priest practicing as licensed professionals would not be utilizing “strategies” from conversion, reparative, or whatever they are calling it.

 

[CopticChristian]

Does that mean there is now no organisation **at all **with a reputable argumnent that says that conversion thereapy is not harmfull?

Brad,

No, No, No…it means that the importance of the organizations is subject to discussion.

The court proceedings in California will go as follows…

AMA, Social Workers, Pediatrics and any group other than the American Psychiatric Association will be asked.

You speak for the AMA. Yes I do. Wel then you have a position on Homosexual behavior. Yes I do. Let me ask you this…did you have a position prior to the change in the DSM. Well no. Did you base your position on the policy of the American Psychiatric Association. Well, yes.

American Psychiatric Association. Can you tell us what the DSM is…brief history. Is it true that the DSM did register Homosexuality as a disorder. Well, yes. Can you explain how the DSM took that out…Ok…have you heard of this segment here…

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

Would you agree that the reporting here is accurate? Would you explain what science was used by the American Psychiatric Association to include Homosexuality in the DSM and then compare and contrast that with the science that was used to remove Homosexuality from the DSM…

 

[CopticChristian]

No, there is no such organization.

All licensing bodies of Psychiatry, Psychology, Social Work, and Marriage and Family Therapy prohibit efforts to “change” an individuals sexual orientation.

Insurance companies will not pay for any therapy designed to “change” sexual orientation.

The hundreds of Catholic Social Service agencies and the hundreds of Catholic priest practicing as licensed professionals would not be utilizing “strategies” from conversion, reparative, or whatever they are calling it.

Ringil,

Who cares what organizations endorse anything. I don’t.

All the licensing bodies will be subject to scrutiny in the courts as to how it is they banned a psychotherapy modality and will have to compare and contrast that with the history of all banned psychotherapy modalities. Their prohibition will be altered to include…

Anyone that seeks help should get it.

Anyone not wanting help should avoid it.

Who cares what insurance companies pay for. They don’t pay for lots of things that people want but insurance does not cover. This is not relevant to anything.

 

[CopticChristian]

**Of course it changes them for life. Taking a left handed child and forcing them to use their right hand changes them for life as well. It converts them to a righty. But it is also unhealthy. It changes who God intended for them to be. **
Likewise, it is not healthy to try to change sexual orientation. The catechism clearly states that God called homosexuals to be celibate, not that he calls them to become heterosexual. The catechism is also very clear that homosexuality refers to RELATIONS, not attraction.

Here is a study that NARTH did to try and prove conversion therapy did not increase suicides, but in fact proceed the exact opposite. Oops! When even the researchers you pay off to obtain a certain outcome fail, your stance is pretty much trashed IMHO
wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/26/narth-report-suicide-attempts-increase-during-sexual-orientation-change-therapy/

Kevin,

As an Agnostic Catholic that has a scientific reason for believing everything you believe your beliefs are incredulous.

So you are a disciple of epigenitics handedness/homosexuality believing that they are linked. Fantasy, not fact.

There is no correlation in fact other than theory and perhaps a few anectdotal postings that handedness and homosexuality have any relationship. Fantasy, not fact.

You know the mind of God and what God intends?

What are you proposing for someone that does not want same sex attraction and asks for help to change, nothing?

I am not going to review studies with you…the courts will be reviewing all the studies…

 

[CopticChristian]

Does that mean there is now no organisation **at all **with a reputable argumnent that says that conversion thereapy is not harmfull?

Brad,

Of course not. This means that there is no reputable organization that has not been tainted by the decision of the American Psychiatric Association to remove Homosexuality from the DSM. The arguments exist and whether or not they are reputable is open to discussion by those that view the issues. The reputable nature of the organizations and the arguments will be elements to be viewed in the Courts.

 

[pnewton]

Oops! When even the researchers you pay off to obtain a certain outcome fail, your stance is pretty much trashed IMHO
wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/26/narth-report-suicide-attempts-increase-during-sexual-orientation-change-therapy/

This really proves nothing, if you look into the article. He readily admits it is his own opinion. It does point out that science is seldom blind. I mean, a NARTH reasearch paper should be suspect just because true research does no mix with agends. Throckmorton’s criticism is quite justified. But in the end, nothing is proved except the unreliability of statistics, especially when they are only compiled by someone wanting to prove something one way or another. I do not trust NARTH to be unbiases, I do not trust any politician from California to not be unbiased in the opposite direction.

 

[Bill_Martin]

“We don’t like it, therefore government.”

 

[CopticChristian]

Why would any Catholic support conversion therapy? The Catholic church agrees that people are created homosexual, and that the actions, not the attraction, is the sin.

Therefore, “converting” a homosexual cues no sin and changes the person from what god created them to be. Seems incredibly sinful to me.

Also, minors cannot consent to many things, sexual activity for instance. Why should they be allowed to consent to a highly controversial practice that will fundamentally change them for life, and had been linked to numerous suicides?

Kevin,

Your Agnostic Catholic beliefs are in contradistinction fo fact, controversy and the Catholic Church.

 

[CopticChristian]

“We don’t like it, therefore government.”

Bill,

Ringil suggested Wikipedia as a source…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association

In the early 1970s, activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year. A category of “sexual orientation disturbance” was introduced in its place in 1974, and then replaced in the 1980 DSM-III with Ego-dystonic sexual orientation. That was removed in 1987.

This was the science behind the change in the DSM. Gay activists.

lgbtqnation.com/2012/08/california-assembly-passes-landmark-bill-to-protect-lgbt-youth-from-reparative-therapy/

– The California Assembly on Tuesday voted 52 to 21 in favor of a bill that will protect LGBT youth from treatments by mental health practitioners who falsely claim to be able change their sexual orientation or gender expression.

Authored by Senator Ted Lieu, Senate Bill 1172 is co-sponsored by Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Gaylesta, Mental Health America of Northern California, Lambda Legal, and the Courage Campaign.

The Bill in California was prompted by Gay activists…

metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/10/complaint-filed-against-illinois-social-workers-ex.html

Complaint Filed Against Illinois Social Worker’s “Ex-Gay” Therapy

Sun added that it was no coincidence that the complaint was filed on the same day LGBT people celebrate National Coming Out Day.

“National Coming Out Day was established in order to promote a safe world for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals to live truthfully and openly,” Sun said. “This is in sharp contrast to the lies and bigotry peddled by the conversion therapy movement. We are happy that we can expose the movement and allow this day to truly reflect what it was established to do – support LGBT people.”

According to the complaint, the state has the right to suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a license if the board discovers unethical conduct. Moreover, Illinois law prohibits counselors from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

These cases will be springing up across the country…

truthwinsout.org/tag/ex-gay/

BREAKING: Pennsylvania Rep. Introduces Bill to Ban Reparative Therapy

It all originated with Science? No, Gay actistis…

That is a FACT…ala newton…

 

[Bradski]

This means that there is no reputable organization that has not been tainted by the decision of the American Psychiatric Association to remove Homosexuality from the DSM.

Yep. Including all the Chinese ones as we saw earlier.

Coptic, your arguments used to hang by the thinnest of threads and that thread broke a long time ago. Maybe you haven’t noticed.

When you try to show that someone supports your view and you are shown to be wrong, then that person has apparently been led astray by gay activists and the homosexual agenda. If an organisation confirms what we all know, then that organisation has been infiltrated by the homosexualists.

If all organisations agree, then they have ALL been tainted. If you try to show that other countries agree with you and you are proved to be incorrect, then you simply ignore it. When the courts state quite unequivocally that you are wrong then you will find some excuse to reject their findings.

You are literally living in denial.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yep. Including all the Chinese ones as we saw earlier.

Coptic, your arguments used to hang by the thinnest of threads and that thread broke a long time ago. Maybe you haven’t noticed.

When you try to show that someone supports your view and you are shown to be wrong, then that person has apparently been led astray by gay activists and the homosexual agenda. If an organisation confirms what we all know, then that organisation has been infiltrated by the homosexualists.

If all organisations agree, then they have ALL been tainted. If you try to show that other countries agree with you and you are proved to be incorrect, then you simply ignore it. When the courts state quite unequivocally that you are wrong then you will find some excuse to reject their findings.

You are literally living in denial.

Brad,

Let me predict the future for you.

The Courts are being asked to definitively agree and accept and declare that sexual orientation is fixed. This will never happen.

My experience in court, reading forensics, testifying, being deposed, expert witness work and work with attorneys is my basis for telling you this. Courts are never going to agree with the notion that homosexuality is fixed behavior.

There is a difference of opinion that will never say with 100% certainty that sexual orientation is fixed.

I appreciate your lack of understanding, allegiance to societies.

The relevance to the AMA and its opinions are only matters for uninformed consumers.

scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/2009/06/17/ama-slides-into-irrelevancy/

While membership has shrunk since the 1980s, the group still
describes itself as the “house of medicine” with a membership of about
236,000 physicians from a wide swath of specialties– but 30% of them
are students, who don’t pay dues, and only about 50% are practicing
physicians.

I’m a very severe critic of what AMA has
done. And it’s worth noting that AMA membership has dropped
from some 90 percent of doctors when I started out a half-century ago,
and now about a third of America’s doctors do belong.

The AMA does not speak for all Physicians, since not all Physicians belong to the AMA. Their opinions are reflective of a minority of Physicians.

In any case, it is clear the the AMA is waning in influence.
They are at risk of becoming marginalized. In a
way, it is like what is happening to the RNC. The membership
is declining. The members who are left, are those who are
most extreme in their positions. As they become relatively
more extreme, they become less relevant, easier to ignore.

I’ve not been a member of the AMA for a long time, maybe 15 years.
I still get a lot of mailings and emails from them, exhorting
me to join again. Sometimes they offer me a special deal,
half-price for a six-month membership. Cripes, they think I’m
smart enough to be a doctor, but not smart enough to do arithmetic.
But the most common pitch is that they would represent me in
Washington DC. My suspicion is that it is the political
iinfluence that persuades many MDs to join.

I don’t belong to the AMA, never have, never will, they speak for relatively no one that I know of. Medical Schools do not incorporate the opinions of the AMA in training, JAMA is a good journal to read now and again, however the only people that tout the prestige of the AMA are those that don’t know any better.

Good luck…that is a Fact…

 

[Bradski]

The Courts are being asked to definitively agree and accept and declare that sexual orientation is fixed.

I’m not sure to which courts you are referring. There’s a case in California which is trying to overturn a law which: ‘only applies to licensed therapists, not ministers or lay people who counsel teens to resist same-sex attractions’. cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57524679/christian-group-files-suit-to-stop-gay-therapy-ban/

I’m not aware of one where they are ‘being asked to definitively agree and accept and declare that sexual orientation is fixed’.

You wouldn’t be setting up a straw man, would you, Coptic?

 

[Kevin_B]

I never said homosexuality and left handedness can be compared. I just said they have one thing in common: one can attempt to change both at an early age. If that statement is incorrect, I would love to hear how.

Also, I suggest you read “on the pastoral care of homosexuals”, where cardinal ratzinger said “The particular inclination of homosexual people is not a sin…”

The church says homosexual inclination is a disorder, but do you know what that term means? It does not mean a psychological disorder, it means “non-compliance with the divine design of man”. Homosexuality cannot be cured any more than coveting your neighbors house can be cured.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not sure to which courts you are referring. There’s a case in California which is trying to overturn a law which: ‘only applies to licensed therapists, not ministers or lay people who counsel teens to resist same-sex attractions’. cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57524679/christian-group-files-suit-to-stop-gay-therapy-ban/

I’m not aware of one where they are ‘being asked to definitively agree and accept and declare that sexual orientation is fixed’.

You wouldn’t be setting up a straw man, would you, Coptic?

Brad,

Let me help you. The attempt is to ban Pscyhologist/Therapists from interferring in the lives of people up to age 18 to change sexual orientation.

What is it you think that the basis of the argument is going to be?

The reason for attempting to ban this is because the LGBT group want everyone to think and believe that sexual orientation is fixed.

You want to believe and have accepted the rouse as to the dangers. Oh my God. The dangers. The heart of the matter is that the ban is because sexual orientation is fixed, or is it?

If sexual orientation as fixed is in dispute then this leaves the door open for the therapists to argue that banning a therapy for unfixed behavior has a place and cannot be banned.

If sexual orientation is fixed then the horrors and the dangers of imposing this therapy on a fixed behavior becomes the horror that it supposedly is.

Do you understand the basis of the attempt to ban this therapy?