Is "conversion or reparative" therapy ever ok?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miketdobbs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hope all is going well for you Codex
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
So I see this as a direct attack on a person’s right to seek help with sinful behavior, for those who follow a mainstream religion that still speaks of sin.
Click to expand...
But conversion therapy seeks to “cure” homosexuality. LGBTQ people don’t need any cure; in fact, no such cure exists.

Far too many Catholics conflate being gay with the choice have sex as a homosexual. Being gay is not a sin, so “conversion” therapy is unnecessary and not evidence-based.

Conversion therapy is different from, say, a Catholic support network that helps LGBTQ individuals live according to Church teaching.
 
Isn’t it illogical to insist on people’s right to change sex but refuse them the right to change sexuality?
 
pnewton said:
We allow those who seek help for sexual attraction to minors get help
Click to expand...
Pedophilia is not the same as being attracted to members of the same sex. Minors cannot legally consent, someone who is attracted to other members of the same sex that are of age aren’t equivalent in this regard. Conversion therapy has no credibility and there’s a reason it’s considered junk science.
 
OnAJourney said:
Pedophilia is not the same as being attracted to members of the same sex.
Click to expand...
I was thinking of a moral and psychological reason. I know there are other differences. But you are right to bring up the legal and political differences. We have moved politically to a place that respects the rights of all consenting adults, so I do not know why that same consent would not apply to some sort of therapy. It may be junk science, but there is no real science either way, that is, no control group, no accounting for other factors, no blind testing, etc. This is true of most of what is considered science in regard to gender and sexual orientation.

My concern is that, by the numbers, the population of LGTB people is growing, something that should not be possible considering that reproduction is not possible through homosexuality. More interestingly, it is growing substantially more in younger people. So my skepticism of this orientation always being something one is born with is not without data. This data must be accounted for. If gay orientation is a matter of biology, this data makes no sense. I see no other option except there being some other thing that accounts for this increase and age discrepancy. Calling it the “gay agenda” is too simplistic. Maybe it is a culture of counter-culture. The point is, if there is some non-biological factor at work that affects this trend, I am hesitant of legislating any non-biological factor that might counter it. That does sound like an agenda.

Oh, and minors do consent to sex all the time, legally, which is why we have such a problem with teenage pregnancy. Would that it were true and it was illegal for anyone under 18 to have sex.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
We have moved politically to a place that respects the rights of all consenting adults, so I do not know why that same consent would not apply to some sort of therapy.
Click to expand...
As I understand the potential legislation, it does not restrict the ability of adults to use whatever therapy they wish, it only restricts the use of it on minors, who cannot always withhold consent if parents insist.
 
Perhaps some compromise will be worked out that is more reasonable. There is also the part in there about there being no payment. If no one would be paid for any sort of gender therapy, including gender reassignment, would that be acceptable? A level field is a moral field, the Golden Rule thing.
 
pnewton said:
Perhaps some compromise will be worked out that is more reasonable
Click to expand...
Again, as I understand it, the intent is to protect minors from being forced into a therapy that has been shown to be not only ineffective at its stated purpose, but actively harmful in many cases. What is the more reasonable compromise here? And I don’t think payment or no payment is the issue.
 
Removing the payment part would be one compromise. Setting a lower age that just “child” and requiring consent of the teenager would be another. Besides, almost no therapy works with any problem when there is not consent.
 
Last edited:
Okay, remove the possibility of payment. How many people would then provide the therapy? Problem solved.

Teenagers (at least those under 18 in the US) are not legally capable of consenting or withholding consent except for specific narrow exceptions provided for in relevant law.

This particular therapy has been shown repeatedly not to work even with a consenting, actively willing, and motivated patient.
 
You asked for possible compromises. I assume you know the definition of the word.

I did not say remove the possibility of payment. I said remove the payment part (from the bill), allowing payment. What I do not understand is why, if there is no gay agenda, do so many want to interject the force of law into this issue?
 
pnewton said:
why, if there is no gay agenda, do so many want to interject the force of law into this issue?
Click to expand...
To protect minors from being forced into an ineffective and potentially harmful junk therapy. As has been said before.
 
whatistrue said:
To protect minors from being forced into an ineffective and potentially harmful junk therapy.
Click to expand...
Is that data that this therapy has been harmful? I know the suicide rate among LGBT teens is a lot higher than normal. Besides, I specifically said I thought they should be old enough to consent, not be forced. I know more about forced substance abuse therapy, and that seldom works as well.
 
JMMJ said:
I agree with the ban. I also agree with banning the sale of snake oil, for all of the same reasons.
Click to expand...
My belief right there.

All indications are, conversion therapy doesn’t work, and the parents paying for it are not getting their money’s worth; they’re not getting the professional service they think they are.

I might go along with conversion therapy for consenting adults who are fully informed that it might not work.
Miketdobbs said:
So for example, it wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine a priest facing prosecution or some kind of penalty for preaching (from the pulpit) about the immorality of homosexual acts? This new legislation could argue that he was trying to persuade or pressure people into changing their “sexual attraction or behaviour”? First scenario I thought of. I sure there are a lot.
Click to expand...
In the U.S. we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It’s most unlikely that it would be applied to the pastor of a small town church preaching to his flock.

Also in the U.S., states that have banned conversion therapy have applied the ban only to licensed health care professionals. Not religious leaders.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Is that data that this therapy has been harmful?
Click to expand...
Yes, readily available with a quick search. It is not universally harmful to every single individual, but significant psychological damage has been inflicted in some cases.
pnewton said:
Besides, I specifically said I thought they should be old enough to consent,
Click to expand...
Then why the issue with this potential law? As I understand it, and have said explicitly so before, it only eliminates its use on minors.
 
How to you figure? Is there something in this law forcing LGBTQ people to have sex? Will choosing abstinence be illegal?
pnewton said:
Is that data that this therapy has been harmful?
Click to expand...
In mental health, as well as in medicine, the burden of proof is on the party promoting an intervention. Can you provide some links showing an evidence-basis for conversion therapy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top