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

  • Thread starter Thread starter epan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just 20 years ago homosexuality was a mental illness. It’s not fair to say that it isn’t an illness but then say pedophilia is. They are the same thing at their core. Not because of who is involved. But because both are disordered and abnormal. Neither benefit the human species or society in any way whatsoever. The hypocrisy in this country and western europe is so astounding. Christ is gonna monkey pound these countries into oblivion when He comes back for being so sinful. I just pray I’m not caught up in it lol.
 
But isn’t the real issue whether this “therapy” (as a practice, separate from the underlying moral issue) in fact works?
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
But isn’t the real issue whether this “therapy” (as a practice, separate from the underlying moral issue) in fact works?
Click to expand...
This issue isn’t so much if it works, as if a person choses to use it. This legislation prevents a person from seeking such treatment even if it is their choice and if they think it will help them. It’s a ludicrous and one-sided decision that is not only unconstitutional, but also downright moronic.

By this same logic, California should ban homeopathic and new-age medicine, because there’s no viable proof that it works.

This is just more ******** (noun) from ****-happy (verb) liberal secularists who reject God and hope to foist their rejection on the general populous.

(self-censored, fill in the blank mad-lib, enjoy)

Hopefully someone with a brain and a soul will step in and repeal this nonsense, but since it’s California, I highly doubt it.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
But isn’t the real issue whether this “therapy” (as a practice, separate from the underlying moral issue) in fact works?
Click to expand...
Not really, a lot of practitioners in the field are quacks that make more damage then good and they are allowed to practice anyway. Also psychology is not really a science and that is because it is very difficult to setup an unbiased metric for what works and does not work.
 
Cristiano said:
Not really, a lot of practitioners in the field are quacks that make more damage then good and they are allowed to practice anyway. Also psychology is not really a science and that is because it is very difficult to setup an unbiased metric for what works and does not work.
Click to expand...
THIS!
 
What irks me about these articles is they give paragraphs and paragraphs to one kid who had a horrifying experience, and yet they don’t even make an attempt to present the perspective of someone who has been helped. Presumably some people have been helped or people like Nicolosi would be out of business.
 
I wonder if people think that this form of therapy is worse than the recovered memory therapy especially the one done through hypnosis or the use of drugs.:rolleyes:
 
epan said:
Looks like the beginning of the end of this practice:

cnn.com/2012/10/01/us/california-gay-therapy-ban/index.html
Click to expand...
Wow. The double-standard is clear. If you want to live an alternative lifestyle, and engage in all sorts of deviant sexual conduct that places you at risk of psychological and physical injury, well anything goes, as long as it is between two “consenting” adults!

BUT if you suffer from same-sex attraction and want to sit down and talk with someone who thinks you may be able to overcome those feelings in therapy, well, that’s now “illegal” because you might feel bad about yourself if you do? In other words, California now says, “You’re gay… just accept it and be happy about it.”

:banghead:

What a crazy world we live in!

Peace,
Robert
 
I would just like to point out that those over 18 can still seek this out for themselves. This just protects minors from being thrust in to something that has repeatedly been shown to be not just ineffective, but damaging and dangerous.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
But isn’t the real issue whether this “therapy” (as a practice, separate from the underlying moral issue) in fact works?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t unless the person has some trauma that sent them into that way of living. For instance, a man who was sexually abused by his mother prefers to be with men because being with women causes traumatic memories/problems.

One thing I learned in being a mental health therapist, if you don’t believe you have a problem or need to change, you’re wasting your time.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
I would just like to point out that those over 18 can still seek this out for themselves. This just protects minors from being thrust in to something that has repeatedly been shown to be not just ineffective, but damaging and dangerous.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t just protect minors from being forced into this kind of treatment. It makes it illegal to provide the treatment to minors even if they request it. The wording is pretty vague too. Almost any therapy that includes a prayer element or that allows for the possibility that the inclinations can be overcome could be challenged.

So, if a teen is not joyously happy that he/she is a homosexual, no help at all for him/her. Just wait it out. Yeah, that’s real helpful (not).
 
BlueEyedLady said:
I would just like to point out that those over 18 can still seek this out for themselves. This just protects minors from being thrust in to something that has repeatedly been shown to be not just ineffective, but damaging and dangerous.
Click to expand...
That happens daily to California minors through the school system, but nobody is fighting it.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
I would just like to point out that those over 18 can still seek this out for themselves. This just protects minors from being thrust in to something that has repeatedly been shown to be not just ineffective, but damaging and dangerous.
Click to expand...
How are they “thrust” into this?:confused:

It seems strange that they are worried about the potential damage being done to minors in *this *instance, yet the potential psychological harm caused by young female minors seeking abortion is unconcerning to them. (Many times desperate underage girls are thrust and pressured into abortion clinics by the biological fathers who want nothing to do with responsibility, yet the state of California allows them this opportunity.)
 
lerapt78 said:
How are they “thrust” into this?

It seems strange that they are worried about the potential damage being done to minors in *this *instance, yet the potential psychological harm caused by young female minors seeking abortion is unconcerning to them. (Many times desperate underage girls are thrust and pressured into abortion clinics by the biological fathers who want nothing to do with responsibility, yet the state of California allows them this opportunity.)
Click to expand...
WOW
can’t believe anyone hasn’t brought this up ,and its so obvious!thanks. :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :tiphat: :tiphat:
 
april32010 said:
WOW
can’t believe anyone hasn’t brought this up ,and its so obvious!thanks. :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :tiphat: :tiphat:
Click to expand...
Wow, I even got a standing ovation - you just made my day! 🙂
 
lerapt78 said:
How are they “thrust” into this?:confused:

It seems strange that they are worried about the potential damage being done to minors in *this *instance, yet the potential psychological harm caused by young female minors seeking abortion is unconcerning to them. (Many times desperate underage girls are thrust and pressured into abortion clinics by the biological fathers who want nothing to do with responsibility, yet the state of California allows them this opportunity.)
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

That attitude is really annoying and counter productive. Why is it that so many people think that as long as abortion is legal no other issues should be solved? You see this on discussions of war, the death penalty, animal rights, healthcare, etc. “We are working to solve X issue that gas been a problem for many people for a long time” is so often responded to with “I can’t believe anyone would bother working on X when there is abortion!”. That is just so wrong, counterproductive, and distracting. Not everything needs to be turned in to “Well what about abortion?”
 
Corki said:
It doesn’t just protect minors from being forced into this kind of treatment. It makes it illegal to provide the treatment to minors even if they request it. The wording is pretty vague too. Almost any therapy that includes a prayer element or that allows for the possibility that the inclinations can be overcome could be challenged.

So, if a teen is not joyously happy that he/she is a homosexual, no help at all for him/her. Just wait it out. Yeah, that’s real helpful (not).
Click to expand...
It is illegal to sell a teen a movie ticket to an NC-17 movie even if he wants to go and his parents are on board. Why? Because over and over again that material has been shown to be harmful, and even if the kid and parents are on board it is worth overriding their decision because they are wrong. Same thing here. This protects kids from being coerced by parents, or anyone in to a dangerous and damaging situation.

And no, despite the sensationalism this does not ban all religious help. Just the programs that are dedicated to changing a person’s sexual orientation. Support and prayer groups are still ok, and even a catholic group that focused on chastity would be fine.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
I would just like to point out that those over 18 can still seek this out for themselves. This just protects minors from being thrust in to something that has repeatedly been shown to be not just ineffective, but damaging and dangerous.
Click to expand...
What’s curious is that the opposite is not true. If the idea is to prevent teens from being thrust into therapy that is potentially damaging and dangerous, then is it not also the case that a therapist who affirms dangerous and illicit sexual conduct is similarly presenting the teen with potentially damaging and dangerous counsel and advice? The problem is that there are differing points of view regarding homosexual conduct, but the only tolerated view seems to be the permissive lifestyle approach, despite the fact that evidence points out dangers in that lifestyle as well.

What if the state of Texas passed a law limiting therapeutic treatment of teens struggling with homosexual issues to treat with reparative therapy experts, on the grounds that counseling a teen to engage in homosexual relationships at a young age has been found to lead to long-term physical and mental health issues (e.g. shortened lifepan, long term health problems, substance and physical abuse, etc.). Would the ACLU not hit the roof over such a restriction? Should people not have the right to choose who they think is the best therapist for their minor child, to del with the issue?

The constitutional implications of stifling one point of view are apparent here, don’t you think?

Peace,
Robert
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top