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

[lerapt78]

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?”

I agree completely that there are plenty of issues besides abortion to be solved. The reason I brought that up as a comparative analogy was to remark on the how the state partitions its “concerns” so very conveniently in favor of anything that desires to take influence away from religious groups, or any group that happens to think homosexuality is a disorder, for that matter. I happen to think hypocrisy is counter-productive as well.

But if I’m mistaken about the anti-religious slant to this, I’d appreciate some cold-hard evidence (not socially-liberal opinion) to back these claims before I support the right of the government to meddle in this affair at all:

“The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation,” the association says.

They can agree all they want on the issue, but an opinion does not automatically give the goverment free license to ban people who are seeking to help these kids. (You see here, both sides are claiming to want to “help” these children. Maybe they’re both right, or maybe they’re both wrong - but only one of them (the traditionally conservative one) has had legal action taken against it)

 

[lerapt78]

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.

True. There are homosexual support groups that encourage teens to have sex as they please, and simply stress the need for “safer sex” (condoms). However, it is a biological fact (not the American Psychiatric Association’s mere opinion ), that male-male anal sex is far riskier for the transmission of STDs than is male-female vaginal sex. So in this instance, wouldn’t it be the pro-homosexual groups who are promoting the more health-damaging lifestyle?

 

[Corki]

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.

But it’s not illegal for a parent to buy a NC-17 video and watch it with the kids. It’s not a banned activity; its restricted. This law in California makes it impossible for teens under 18 to have access to a certain kind of therapy; it’s a ban. And it’s not about the therapy being quackery - if that was the goal, lots of therapy would be banned. It’s not about the harm to teens either - there are lots of things, including compteting therapy and counseling that are just as harmful to teens as this therapy may be. It’s targetted only at therapy that does not endorse the “gay” agenda.

And every report I have read has stated that the law prohibits any therapy that seeks to change a person’s orientation. That would include any prayer or support groups that seek to encourage a person to seek only ordered sexual experiences and not to give in to homosexual urges.

 

[Bradski]

And it’s not about the therapy being quackery - if that was the goal, lots of therapy would be banned.

No, it’s about practices that the following organisations – the experts in the field have found to be harmful. Those organisations are listed in the bill and include:

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American School Counselor Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs, the The National Association of Social Workers, the The American Counseling Association Governing Council, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the Pan American Health Organization.

And every report I have read has stated that the law prohibits any therapy that seeks to change a person’s orientation. That would include any prayer or support groups that seek to encourage a person to seek only ordered sexual experiences and not to give in to homosexual urges.

Well maybe you should read the bill instead of reports. It’s not difficult to find: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1172

It says: ‘This bill would prohibit a mental health provider, as defined, from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts…’

So its only mental heath providers, which means:

‘a physician and surgeon specializing in the practice of psychiatry, a psychologist, a psychological assistant, intern, or trainee, a licensed marriage and family therapist, a registered marriage and family therapist, intern, or trainee, a licensed educational psychologist, a credentialed school psychologist, a licensed clinical social worker, an associate clinical social worker, a licensed professional clinical counselor, a registered clinical counselor, intern, or trainee, or any other person designated as a mental health professional under California law or regulation.’

Don’t see prayer groups mentioned. You could start a help group yourself if you wanted.

 

[CopticChristian]

Looks like the beginning of the end of this practice:

cnn.com/2012/10/01/us/california-gay-therapy-ban/index.html

Epan,

Not really…a Life Coach, A hypnotherapist, a minister and other unlicensed practitioners can practice this just by changing a few terms…

It is not therapy
It is coaching…no law says you can’t coach

It is not gay conversion
It is the challenge of life issues

It is not sexuality
It is morality and spiritual guidance

You can’t legislate away change or enact a law that lies about homosexuality expecting everyone to swallow the pill. The American Psychiatric Association has no credibility.

(a) Being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming. The major professional associations of mental health practitioners and researchers in the United States have recognized this fact for nearly 40 years.

(g) The American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs prepared a report in 1994 in which it stated: “Aversion therapy (a behavioral or medical intervention which pairs unwanted behavior, in this case, homosexual behavior, with unpleasant sensations or aversive consequences) is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians. Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become comfortable with their sexual orientation and understand the societal response to it.”

I have never belonged to the above organization and it has no relevance to what I think and believe. I would never join and have little regard for it.

I don’t accept this opinion as referenced by any of those organizations that are listed. I have no respect for many of those professional associations and these associations do not dictate the practice of medicine. This law will be challenged.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I don’t accept this opinion as referenced by any of those organizations that are listed. I have no respect for many of those professional associations and these associations do not dictate the practice of medicine. This law will be challenged.

Actually the AMA does dictate the practice of medicine. And the APA dictates the work of psychologists. In fact, both of those set out the ethical standards that their professionals must adhere to to be licenced.

Excuse me and the rest of secular society for accepting the opinion of all of these independent scientific organizations over yours that you don’t accept it because you don’t want it to be true.

It has been documented repeatedly that those gay conversion therapies are harmful. Until you can provide scientific, peer reviewed evidence to the contrary than the only responsible thing for society to do is protect kids from them.

 

[Holly3278]

I am really not sure where I stand on this issue. I really see same sex attraction as a sort of mental illness since it is objectively disordered and I say this as someone who has temptations toward members of the same sex (as well as members of the opposite sex). Of course, I could be wrong about this but at this time I think that removing homosexuality from the DSM back in the 1970s was the wrong thing to do.

On the other hand I really do not believe that a person who has same sex temptations can quit having them without God’s grace and even then I believe that sometimes the temptations will return. I guess if there was any solid scientific research published in peer reviewed journals that proves that same sex temptations can be treated then I would not have a problem with people voluntary undergoing such therapy. However, I really don’t think that any such therapies that currently exist are effective and may some times be harmful.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t accept this opinion as referenced by any of those organizations that are listed.

So you have some evidence that is counter to the opinion of all the major organisations with any expertise in these matters, not just in the US but the rest of the civilised world?

 

[epan]

I am really not sure where I stand on this issue. I really see same sex attraction as a sort of mental illness since it is objectively disordered and I say this as someone who has temptations toward members of the same sex (as well as members of the opposite sex). Of course, I could be wrong about this but at this time I think that removing homosexuality from the DSM back in the 1970s was the wrong thing to do.

On the other hand I really do not believe that a person who has same sex temptations can quit having them without God’s grace and even then I believe that sometimes the temptations will return. I guess if there was any solid scientific research published in peer reviewed journals that proves that same sex temptations can be treated then I would not have a problem with people voluntary undergoing such therapy. However, I really don’t think that any such therapies that currently exist are effective and may some times be harmful.

I have rather mixed feelings about this bill.

1. “Conversion Therapy” has been found to be at least ineffective, and at worst harmful, by both APA’s. These are the professional groups which set professional standards for psychologists and psychiatrists. Their opinion is strong enough on the matter, that they have censured members who engage in the practice. That is a clear opinion.
2. Psychotherapy can be of great assistance in helping a person to come to terms with these sorts of issues. If a person is in psychological conflict with religious views and sexual impulses in opposition, then I can see how an impartial third party, who is an ally, and a professional could be of great help. If that help were given ethically, and the patient ended up with a different sexual orientation or attraction profile (if this is possible), then that might be a happy outcome. On the other hand, if it is not possible to change sexual orientation, then I would think that the therapy would be more focused on reconciling the two opposing impulses (to religious belief, and to sexual attraction), in a way that would bring some relief to the patient.
3. If, indeed, “conversion therapy” is quackery, then it does become a consumer protection issue, particularly for children. But I don’t think that it would rise to the level of being legally banned for adults. I would think that a responsible therapist would discuss the low success rates for this sort of goal, and the very high recidivism rates that are reported, so that the patient is not defrauded. I could easily see the failure to disclose such facts resulting in civil litigation for fraud, possibly breach of contract, and maybe malpractice. I would expect any responsible psychotherapist to exercise full disclosure, so the patient could provide informed consent to undergo treatment, and to part with his or her money.

I guess my conclusion is that if the overwhelming consensus of professionals in the field condemn the practice, then minors should be protected. I did discuss this with an older gay male whom I know, who happens to come from a wealthy conservative Catholic family. He was subjected to several years of psychotherapy with the intent of changing his sexual orientation, as a kid. His take on it is, that it is an excellent idea to ban such practices. His first hand experience was that it was damaging to him psychologically to endure what he did, at the hands of a therapist who claimed success in changing people in this area.

However, with adults, as long as they are informed that most professionals disavow the practice, and that the success rates are abysmally low, at best. Then I don’t see why the practice should be banned. Maybe some professionals here can tell us how it is actually damaging to an adult. If it is indeed a dangerous practice, then it should be banned.

 

[CopticChristian]

**Actually the AMA does dictate the practice of medicine. ** And the APA dictates the work of psychologists. In fact, both of those set out the ethical standards that their professionals must adhere to to be licenced.

Excuse me and the rest of secular society for accepting the opinion of all of these independent scientific organizations over yours that you don’t accept it because you don’t want it to be true.

It has been documented repeatedly that those gay conversion therapies are harmful. Until you can provide scientific, peer reviewed evidence to the contrary than the only responsible thing for society to do is protect kids from them.

Blue,

You are wrong. It does not dictate anything. What planet do you live on?

The AMA is primarily non-surgeon physicians that do not set policy. They have opinions just like the American College of Surgeons.

 

[CopticChristian]

So you have some evidence that is counter to the opinion of all the major organisations with any expertise in these matters, not just in the US but the rest of the civilised world?

Bradski,

Whose name is not Brad. The evidence that the DSM changed because of Homosexual psychiatrists is evidence enough. These organizations do not set policy. You and others want to jump on board and believe that they have clout, Ok.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have rather mixed feelings about this bill.

1. “Conversion Therapy” has been found to be at least ineffective, and at worst harmful, by both APA’s. These are the professional groups which set professional standards for psychologists and psychiatrists. Their opinion is strong enough on the matter, that they have censured members who engage in the practice. That is a clear opinion.
2. Psychotherapy can be of great assistance in helping a person to come to terms with these sorts of issues. If a person is in psychological conflict with religious views and sexual impulses in opposition, then I can see how an impartial third party, who is an ally, and a professional could be of great help. If that help were given ethically, and the patient ended up with a different sexual orientation or attraction profile (if this is possible), then that might be a happy outcome. On the other hand, if it is not possible to change sexual orientation, then I would think that the therapy would be more focused on reconciling the two opposing impulses (to religious belief, and to sexual attraction), in a way that would bring some relief to the patient.
3. If, indeed, “conversion therapy” is quackery, then it does become a consumer protection issue, particularly for children. But I don’t think that it would rise to the level of being legally banned for adults. I would think that a responsible therapist would discuss the low success rates for this sort of goal, and the very high recidivism rates that are reported, so that the patient is not defrauded. I could easily see the failure to disclose such facts resulting in civil litigation for fraud, possibly breach of contract, and maybe malpractice. I would expect any responsible psychotherapist to exercise full disclosure, so the patient could provide informed consent to undergo treatment, and to part with his or her money.

I guess my conclusion is that if the overwhelming consensus of professionals in the field condemn the practice, then minors should be protected. I did discuss this with an older gay male whom I know, who happens to come from a wealthy conservative Catholic family. He was subjected to several years of psychotherapy with the intent of changing his sexual orientation, as a kid. His take on it is, that it is an excellent idea to ban such practices. His first hand experience was that it was damaging to him psychologically to endure what he did, at the hands of a therapist who claimed success in changing people in this area.

However, with adults, as long as they are informed that most professionals disavow the practice, and that the success rates are abysmally low, at best. Then I don’t see why the practice should be banned. Maybe some professionals here can tell us how it is actually damaging to an adult. If it is indeed a dangerous practice, then it should be banned.

Epan,

I want to see where everyone stands when this is challenged in court and the law is discussed concerning differeing opinions.

 

[CopticChristian]

**Actually the AMA does dictate the practice of medicine. ** And the APA dictates the work of psychologists. In fact, both of those set out the ethical standards that their professionals must adhere to to be licenced.

Excuse me and the rest of secular society for accepting the opinion of all of these independent scientific organizations over yours that you don’t accept it because you don’t want it to be true.

It has been documented repeatedly that those gay conversion therapies are harmful. Until you can provide scientific, peer reviewed evidence to the contrary than the only responsible thing for society to do is protect kids from them.

Blue,

I said previously you are wrong. Here is the AMA website. Show me anyplace you can find that says that the AMA dictates the practice of medicine. I will help you out a little. Start here with the mission. A mission statement. That is not dictation.

ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-mission.page?

Everyone should realize that there is a split in the understanding of addiction as disease and not disease.

There are those that, in my opinion wrongly, accept addiction as disease and they are the 12 step religion of AA and all the rehab centers that tout that philosophy.

There are those that, in my opinion correctly, deny addiction as disease and they are places like St. Gregory, St. Jude and others…

What you will see is those in the community that accept the party line and those that don’t. No one will dicate that anyone accept addiction as disease.

No one will dictate this notion as you see here with this law what anyone believes about homosexuals. Homosexuals will try but it will be met with the same fate as the addiction as disease and those that don’t accept it.

Stand by while you form your allegiance and realize that this is not a battle that can be won and everyone will read the California law as I did…and say well there you have it…the matter is settled…not it is not…the body of the law is nonsense regardless of who supports it. As long as NARTH and others exist it will be a dispute.

Prepare for the dispute.

 

[ringil]

There are those that, in my opinion wrongly, accept addiction as disease and they are the 12 step religion of AA and all the rehab centers that tout that philosophy.

There are those that, in my opinion correctly, deny addiction as disease and they are places like St. Gregory, St. Jude and others…

.

Just as an aside as it really isn’t the OP but most rehab programs and even current successful AA members aren’t stressing what has been called the “disease model”. I believe you are presenting a picture of a more static field when this isn’t the case.

The best rehab centers and addictions counselors out there are blending different approaches and are using what works for the individual. If the particular client seems to mesh personally with the disease model that is what the clinician will use.

The field has developed. It’s not all AA/NA or nothing nowadays. Still the 12 steps have as good a track record as the other approaches and has proven immensely helpful for some so it is indeed still a common approach.

 

[CopticChristian]

Just as an aside as it really isn’t the OP but most rehab programs and even current successful AA members aren’t stressing what has been called the “disease model”. I believe you are presenting a picture of a more static field when this isn’t the case.

The best rehab centers and addictions counselors out there are blending different approaches and are using what works for the individual. If the particular client seems to mesh personally with the disease model that is what the clinician will use.

The field has developed. It’s not all AA/NA or nothing nowadays. Still the 12 steps have as good a track record as the other approaches and has proven immensely helpful for some so it is indeed still a common approach.

Ringil,

I am presenting a controversial area that you want to call static. I agree that the AA/disease model of AA is static as it has not changed and has not progressed. It is stuck in the steps. The book is the book.

The best rehab centers? Which ones are those?

The 12 steps have a miserable track record with no proven studies that the success is anything close to better than spontaneous recovery. Provide one study that proves otherwise. It doesn’t exist. Your statement that suggests a good track record is opinion, based on no study, and who knows where your opinion comes from. This causes me and should cause others to question all your opinions. I suggest you provide a series of studies proving this opinion and until you do you have no credibility.

This is nonsense. The disease model is all or none. You either accept you have a disease or you don’t. You can’t be a little bit pregnant. You can’t have sort of a Cancer. You can’t kind of have pneumonia. You do a diservice to the practice of medicine for the general audience. There is no meshing.

The point of bringing this up is it is a field that has a difference of opinion and here we see that there is a difference of opinion. There is no dictating.

You are of the opinion as stated on other threads that gay is gay and I say you are wrong. You have an inherent bias and that causes you to lose credibility in any discussion I find you in. You do not look at both sides of the coin.

You are a social worker and you speak for social workers. You don’t speak for any physician. You wrongly present views that many may accept as the standard. They are the standard for you and perhaps social workers. Please don’t try to state opinions that may be construed as authoratative as anything other than a social worker voicing an opinion as a social worker.

Let me help you on your journey of a corrected opinion…

J Addict Dis. 2009; 28(2): 145–157.
doi: 10.1080/10550880902772464PMCID: PMC2746426
NIHMSID: NIHMS143522
Alcoholics Anonymous Effectiveness: Faith Meets Science
Lee Ann Kaskutas, Dr.P.H.

Research on the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is controversial and is subject to widely divergent interpretations.
At the heart of the debate is the quality of the evidence. AA critics have argued that AA is a cult that relies on God as the mechanism of action [11], and that rigorous experimental studies are necessary in order to convince them of AA’s effectiveness. Their concern is well-founded. As will be evident from this review, experimental studies represent the weakest of the available evidence.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;(3):CD005032.
Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence.
Ferri M, Amato L, Davoli M.
SourceAgency of Public Health, Project Unit: EBM and Models of Health Assistance, Via di Santa Costanza 53, Rome, Italy 00198.

AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS:** No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA** or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems. One large study focused on the prognostic factors associated with interventions that were assumed to be successful rather than on the effectiveness of interventions themselves, so more efficacy studies are needed.

 

[CopticChristian]

Just as an aside as it really isn’t the OP but most rehab programs and even current successful AA members aren’t stressing what has been called the “disease model”. I believe you are presenting a picture of a more static field when this isn’t the case.

The best rehab centers and addictions counselors out there are blending different approaches and are using what works for the individual. If the particular client seems to mesh personally with the disease model that is what the clinician will use.

The field has developed. It’s not all AA/NA or nothing nowadays. Still the 12 steps have as good a track record as the other approaches and has proven immensely helpful for some so it is indeed still a common approach.

Ringil,

After you exhaust your time trying to prove your erroneous opinion of the effectiveness of AA and the track record look here…the track record for the 12 steps is ranked 37/38…

You may want to look at the work of Reid Hester found here…

I would imagine you would agree he has satisfactory credentials

behaviortherapy.com/rkhvita.pdf

then click on his link on behavior therapy found here

behaviortherapy.com/

then half way down the page on what works found here

behaviortherapy.com/whatworks.htm

Brief interventions
Motivational enhancement
GABA agonist (Acamprosate)
Community Reinforcement
Self-change manual (Bibliotherapy)
Opiate antagonist (Naltrexone)
Behavioral self-control training

and then if you want to believe it is a disease then look at the ranking of the disease model approach and the effectiveness down at number
37 & 38…

In other words having your doctor tell you, hey you better cut back on your drinking, lets get some liver tests and we will talk next week…is the most effective

Motivational enhancement is next best

Community reinforcement is 3rd
Self Change is 4th
Behavior self control training is 5th

Community reinforcement is when your family is involved and tells you that you might consider changing your behavior

Your opinion on the track record needs to be substantiated and until then I suggest you qualify your opinion with facts on any issue.

So with respect to the OP the issue is not a dead issue, not a resolved issue, it needs further discussion, debate and court challenges…Jerry Brown does not dictate the practice of medicine nor do those organizations listed and certainly not you…

and since we are on a CAF…I am going with this…

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures.** Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained**. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[ringil]

Ringil,

I am presenting a controversial area that you want to call static. I agree that the AA/disease model of AA is static as it has not changed and has not progressed. It is stuck in the steps. The book is the book.

The best rehab centers? Which ones are those?

The 12 steps have a miserable track record with no proven studies that the success is anything close to better than spontaneous recovery. Provide one study that proves otherwise. It doesn’t exist. Your statement that suggests a good track record is opinion, based on no study, and who knows where your opinion comes from. This causes me and should cause others to question all your opinions. I suggest you provide a series of studies proving this opinion and until you do you have no credibility.

This is nonsense. The disease model is all or none. You either accept you have a disease or you don’t. You can’t be a little bit pregnant. You can’t have sort of a Cancer. You can’t kind of have pneumonia. You do a diservice to the practice of medicine for the general audience. There is no meshing.

The point of bringing this up is it is a field that has a difference of opinion and here we see that there is a difference of opinion. There is no dictating.

You are of the opinion as stated on other threads that gay is gay and I say you are wrong. You have an inherent bias and that causes you to lose credibility in any discussion I find you in. You do not look at both sides of the coin.

You are a social worker and you speak for social workers. You don’t speak for any physician. You wrongly present views that many may accept as the standard. They are the standard for you and perhaps social workers. Please don’t try to state opinions that may be construed as authoratative as anything other than a social worker voicing an opinion as a social worker.

Let me help you on your journey of a corrected opinion…

J Addict Dis. 2009; 28(2): 145–157.
doi: 10.1080/10550880902772464PMCID: PMC2746426
NIHMSID: NIHMS143522
Alcoholics Anonymous Effectiveness: Faith Meets Science
Lee Ann Kaskutas, Dr.P.H.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;(3):CD005032.
Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence.
Ferri M, Amato L, Davoli M.
SourceAgency of Public Health, Project Unit: EBM and Models of Health Assistance, Via di Santa Costanza 53, Rome, Italy 00198.

Your tone is rude and unhelpful. I believe there is a breadth of opinions on the treatment of addictions and the track record for 12 step programs and other programs is around %20. Medications like opiate agonists and conventional therapy can, and some say should be used along with those who go the 12-step direction.

Certainly I don’t speak for physicians as I am not a doctor. I don’t believe I have attempted to . I present some of the current thoughts on addictions treatment- though I would be the first to say it is not a clinical emphasis.

You give some valid opinions of addictions and the controversies inherent in treating them. Current top-tier journal i addiction do indeed delve into the questions of treatment modalities.

Your thoughts on homosexuality are fringe and wrong, however.

Unlike the valid questions and research surrounding the dynamics of addictions, the question of “changing a sexual orientation” has no traction in the established mental health community.

Can you lay off the snarkiness. It’s off-putting.

 

[CopticChristian]

Your tone is rude and unhelpful.

Ringil,

Your opinions are unfounded and not helpful.

 

[ringil]

Ringil,

Your opinions are unfounded and not helpful.

I believe your opinions on homosexuality are odd, fringe, and completely colored by your adherence to Catholicism but I’m not taking such a nasty tone with you.

I also added to my post above.

 

[CopticChristian]

Your tone is rude and unhelpful. I believe there is a breadth of opinions on the treatment of addictions and the track record for 12 step programs and other programs is around %20. Medications like opiate agonists and conventional therapy can, and some say should be used along with those who go the 12-step direction.

Certainly I don’t speak for physicians as I am not a doctor. I don’t believe I have attempted to . I present some of the current thoughts on addictions treatment- though I would be the first to say it is not a clinical emphasis.

You give some valid opinions of addictions and the controversies inherent in treating them. Current top-tier journal i addiction do indeed delve into the questions of treatment modalities.

**Your thoughts on homosexuality are fringe and wrong, however. **
Unlike the valid questions and research surrounding the dynamics of addictions, the question of “changing a sexual orientation” has no traction in the established mental health community.

Can you lay off the snarkiness. It’s off-putting.

Ringil,

Then we have a difference of opinion.