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

[CopticChristian]

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.

Ringil,

I am Catholic as are you…are you not adherent?

 

[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,

If you believe that there is a 20% success rate with AA then you did not read anything provided and your opinion differs with experts in the field. As I said your opinions are suspect at best.

 

[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,

I understand that you believe I am on the fringe. This is true. One of my colleagues that I respect, have spent some time with and will probably spend time with in the future as a mentor is Steve Lankton, MSW…found here…he is on the fringes too…

lankton.com/

Fringes are good

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I am always stunned to see the argument that it was a mental disorder in the 1970’s and changed out of political correctness. That fails to take in to account, oh everything that we’ve learned in the last 50 years. That argument ignores the study, the research, the brain scans, the surveys, etc. It ignores the fact that many things in the DSM have been changed as we learn more. Anyone who makes that argument clearly has no idea what the field of psychology looked like in 1970 vs. now. I’ll just say it wasn’t pretty. And of course it ignores the fact that the APA didn’t just take it out of the DSM, but that many independent medical, psychological, and psychiatric organizations in many countries all over the world started viewing homosexuality very differently in response to independent, peer reviewed studies. (Which we already covered aren’t being taken in to account either.)

These programs have a high suicide rate and worsen depression. It’s been shown over and over again. I fail to understand how it’s anything but responsible to ban them for children.

And on the subject of AA those stats don’t take in to account that the vast majority of people there are court ordered, and AA (or any program) won’t work unless the person wants to be there to get better. And I am going to take the opinion of Ringil the social worker over someone who just makes up opinions.

 

[ringil]

Ringil,

I understand that you believe I am on the fringe. This is true. One of my colleagues that I respect, have spent some time with and will probably spend time with in the future as a mentor is Steve Lankton, MSW…found here…he is on the fringes too…

lankton.com/

Fringes are good

Well I checked out Mr. Lankton’s site and he certainly has a noteworthy personal story and great clinical training and experience.

I didn’t see anything related to Reparative Therapy or anything related to efforts to even treat homosexuality. At the top of the page he lists target issues he has experience with and, surely, he would list issues of sexual orientation if it were a specialty for him.

In fact, there is a specific, certification available for licensed therapists in word with LBGT folks.

As an LCSW I guarantee you that he is not engaging in efforts to work with folks to “change” their sexual orientation. If he is, this would be unethical, but looking at his credentials, I would tend to believe that he would not do so.

in addition, you are basically going to continue with the rude tone right?

 

[interestedman]

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 agree with this. These therapies have been shown to be harmful and children are forced into them by their fundamentalist parents.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am always stunned to see the argument that it was a mental disorder in the 1970’s and changed out of political correctness. That fails to take in to account, oh everything that we’ve learned in the last 50 years. That argument ignores the study, the research, the brain scans, the surveys, etc. It ignores the fact that many things in the DSM have been changed as we learn more. Anyone who makes that argument clearly has no idea what the field of psychology looked like in 1970 vs. now. I’ll just say it wasn’t pretty. And of course it ignores the fact that the APA didn’t just take it out of the DSM, but that many independent medical, psychological, and psychiatric organizations in many countries all over the world started viewing homosexuality very differently in response to independent, peer reviewed studies. (Which we already covered aren’t being taken in to account either.)

These programs have a high suicide rate and worsen depression. It’s been shown over and over again. I fail to understand how it’s anything but responsible to ban them for children.

And on the subject of AA those stats don’t take in to account that the vast majority of people there are court ordered, and AA (or any program) won’t work unless the person wants to be there to get better. And I am going to take the opinion of Ringil the social worker over someone who just makes up opinions.

Blue,

So you haven’t yet proved that the AMA dictates policy.

You have a different understanding of the Gay Psychiatrists that altered the DSM.

You discount any counter opinion.

You discount Reid Hester suggesting I am making up opinions.

Any opinion that is counter to yours is made up?

FYI in court an expert opinion is based on Knowledge, training, experience and and understanding of available literature. FYI something is probably true when you can state with confidence that there is a 51% preponderance based on the aforementioned that it is supported and is an opinion.

My opinions stand as supported.

 

[interestedman]

I am always stunned to see the argument that it was a mental disorder in the 1970’s and changed out of political correctness. That fails to take in to account, oh everything that we’ve learned in the last 50 years. That argument ignores the study, the research, the brain scans, the surveys, etc. It ignores the fact that many things in the DSM have been changed as we learn more. Anyone who makes that argument clearly has no idea what the field of psychology looked like in 1970 vs. now. I’ll just say it wasn’t pretty. And of course it ignores the fact that the APA didn’t just take it out of the DSM, but that many independent medical, psychological, and psychiatric organizations in many countries all over the world started viewing homosexuality very differently in response to independent, peer reviewed studies. (Which we already covered aren’t being taken in to account either.)

These programs have a high suicide rate and worsen depression. It’s been shown over and over again. I fail to understand how it’s anything but responsible to ban them for children.

And on the subject of AA those stats don’t take in to account that the vast majority of people there are court ordered, and AA (or any program) won’t work unless the person wants to be there to get better. And I am going to take the opinion of Ringil the social worker over someone who just makes up opinions.

The funniest part about this whole thread is that the Catholic Church doesn’t even support these conversion therapies. So why are fundamentalist Catholics supporting it?

 

[ringil]

I And I am going to take the opinion of Ringil the social worker over someone who just makes up opinions.

Well thanks, it’s kind of hard to keep up this back and forth when I am being insulted.

 

[ringil]

The funniest part about this whole thread is that the Catholic Church doesn’t even support these conversion therapies. So why are fundamentalist Catholics supporting it?

Yeah, pretty odd right? Well, there is no such thing as “fundamentalist Catholics”. I’d say there are certainly Catholics who have been influenced by some fundamentalist Christians- especially in the US.

By and large, the folks pushing this garbage are low-church Protestants. Nearly all of the counselors and “centers” doing this stuff state explicitly that they are christian and their approach is Christ-centered. Some of them like the one down the street form me, must sign some kind of agreement that they will utilize a therapeutic process “focussed on the Gospels”. No bone is made about it.

On the other hand the OVERWHELMING majority of therapists, even those self-identifying as Catholic are not going to be using any type of reparative therapy.

 

[epan]

Epan,

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

There are medical practices which are illegal. I am not in favor of making them so, unless they are clearly harmful.

There are sometimes grey areas though. A good example is circumcision. Most pediatric societies discourage it, because it provides no medical benefit, and it is mutilation. As a general rule, unnecessary surgery is frowned upon by medical professionals. Balanced against that, is the cultural impetus for some religious groups. People tend to be very positional on this topic. It is a matter of perspective.

Then you throw in the rights of the parents to impart their religion on their child, vs the right of the boy not to have his body altered surgically without his consent.

This may be one of those things also, where those who support “conversion therapy” feel very strongly about its value and importance in certain circumstances, while those who are opposed to it, also feel very strongly.

 

[Corki]

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.

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.

You just said the same thing I did. Non-professional groups that might work with teens to overcome unwanted same-sex attraction would be ok but if the teen sought actual professional help, he/she would be out of luck. Even Christian therapists would be in danger of violating this law just by upholding Christian principles - most Christian therapists include prayer as part of therapy but your post seems to indicate that such prayer would only be allowed if it was not done as part of therapy but by other groups.

Again, this just proves that no one is really interested in the well-being of these teens. If they were, wouldn’t they want them to get help from real professionals?

 

[CopticChristian]

Yeah, pretty odd right? Well, there is no such thing as “fundamentalist Catholics”. I’d say there are certainly Catholics who have been influenced by some fundamentalist Christians- especially in the US.

By and large, the folks pushing this garbage are low-church Protestants. Nearly all of the counselors and “centers” doing this stuff state explicitly that they are christian and their approach is Christ-centered. Some of them like the one down the street form me, must sign some kind of agreement that they will utilize a therapeutic process “focussed on the Gospels”. No bone is made about it.

On the other hand the OVERWHELMING majority of therapists, even those self-identifying as Catholic are not going to be using any type of reparative therapy.

Ringil,

Here is the problem. You are a reporter. You are not a thinker.

Steve Jobs
Albert Einstien
Freud
Jung
Paul Brand
Salk
and others were on the fringes…they did not accept the status quo…

While at UCSF I was told if all I wanted to learn was the status quo to go elsewhere. If I wanted to learn the status quo but also learn how to think and be innovative then I was in the right place.

Your opinions are nothing more than reporting what the status quo is. So what. Reparative therapy may be the wrong approach…it just means that there may be another approach. I don’t know. Some believe in it however to discount reparative therapy as akin to any therapy means that you are not in favor of innovation.

The Church has revealed so much and does not just accept the status quo. Consider the issue of Protestants then and Protestants now. You would be calling all Protestants heretics if you accepted the status quo of then but that isn’t true.

Your opinions are not opinions they are just what the status quo is and offer nothing in the way of insight, innovation, inquiry that is the hallmark of the fringe that bring to the forefront things that the status quo accepts into the status quo once the innovation is brought forth. The status quo does nothing of the sort. The fringe does.

Thank you for the compliment of believing that I am innovative.

 

[CopticChristian]

There are medical practices which are illegal. I am not in favor of making them so, unless they are clearly harmful.

There are sometimes grey areas though. A good example is circumcision. Most pediatric societies discourage it, because it provides no medical benefit, and it is mutilation. As a general rule, unnecessary surgery is frowned upon by medical professionals. Balanced against that, is the cultural impetus for some religious groups. People tend to be very positional on this topic. It is a matter of perspective.

Then you throw in the rights of the parents to impart their religion on their child, vs the right of the boy not to have his body altered surgically without his consent.

This may be one of those things also, where those who support “conversion therapy” feel very strongly about its value and importance in certain circumstances, while those who are opposed to it, also feel very strongly.

Epan,

Here is the problem. This assumes that every teen troubled by their sexuality has to accept that if they choose to seek help to change then there will be no help. This is wrong. The notion of outlawing a practice presupposes that a teen with a problem has no choice since homosexual psychiatrists are pushing to have this accepted as fixed. This is truly sad. This is not in the best interest of a child.

 

[Bradski]

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.

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

You just said the same thing I did.

Not exactly. You said…

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

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

 

[pnewton]

Once again, we see something once though unthinkable being made into law. Yet there will still be the defenders of this that insist there is no homosexual agenda. It is not enough that they are left alone. They want to make us make more homosexual people.

 

[CopticChristian]

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

Bradski,

whose name is not Brad…this is going to Court…and it is opposed…

narth.com/2011/02/the-california-association-of-marriage-and-family-therapists-camft-rejects-ethics-proposal-to-ban-reorientation-therapies/

The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) Rejects Ethics Proposal to Ban Reorientation Therapies.

gay.americablog.com/2012/10/narth-to-take-ca-pray-away-the-gay-bill-to-court.html

NARTH, the National Association of Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (an anti-gay “cure” group), and the Liberty Counsel (the fundamentalist project of the Liberty University School of Law) will be challenging the law in court.

This will be disputed in the courts and it will be a topic of discussion in the future. It isn’t over yet…good luck with your humor.

 

[Bradski]

This will be disputed in the courts and it will be a topic of discussion in the future. It isn’t over yet…good luck with your humor.

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

 

[CopticChristian]

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

Bradski,

whose name is not brad…no…my opinions are mine. I am no lawyer however I am not sure what the legal issues are. There may be something about the rights of children, the rights of parents and certainly the right to impose and restrict the practice of therapy involved. I can imagine that there will be lots on that.

My suspicion is that this may be a long drawn out battle with ultimately the outcome being that there is no way to deny the right to access to something that someone believes is helpful.

If someone voluntarily chooses to have access to something then it is difficult to deny that right.

As long as someone believes it is helpful there will be a fight and to deny the right to have access will be the bitter pill to swallow to allow it within certain parameters…

Let’s agree that there is a gay agenda as this bill is backed by the LGBT group…did someone say gay agenda?

 

[Bradski]

no

'nuff said.