The U.S federal government should ban licensed professionals from practicing ex gay “therapy” on minors

[edwest2]

Well I don’t know. I mean if someone told me they had a cure for this. And I wanted that cure. I’d want that cure to be available. But first we have to be willing to admit it’s not a normal way of thinking. We’d have to admit that it’s disordered. A problem with the wiring. Or with the way things get interpreted. Or maybe with some later patterning. I don’t know. But we’d have to admit something. In order to justify studying it further. In order to think about whether there’s such a thing as a cure.

I mean we’re cool with admitting that adults who lust after children have a disorder. And people who fall in love with barnyard animals have a real problem. And someone who wants to marry a pillow has issues. But SSA is not part of that spectrum? Just magically not in any way related? I mean I’ve got the strongest desire to reach out for someone in a way that defies all reason. Why is that normal?

I mean what I don’t like is the idea that we somehow have to pretend that something like this is somehow off the table. That we can’t dig into it. Like we would for any other brain-altering condition. I hate the political nice-ness that comes at the expense of scientific honesty. I mean you’re an atheist. What do you think about that? Are you thinking this kind of stuff should be up for rational discussion? Or is it fair to expect it should be blocked by emotions?

I don’t know. I think we need to watch how this stuff’s played for sure. There’s no point in screaming names at people. But we don’t do that anyway. I just don’t think we should make everything so touchy. Just say that it’s a different patterning of thought if we want. Say there’s evidence that these patterns can be changed. Show the evidence for that. Study that. But honestly. Don’t outlaw science. That’s always the wrong approach. Keep thinking. Keep searching. Keep finding truths. Let’s go guys. Let’s do that the right way.

I mean I’d like to know the answers to this too. I’m maybe on a different ride here. But that doesn’t mean that I suddenly find it better to pretend than to face the truth. I’ve got a heart and soul in this. I care about where this leaves me. And I resent blunt thinking. When we need to stay sharp.

Peace.

-Trident

Honesty IS the issue here. If I believe I have psychological problems (whatever they are), and I do, why not have the right to get help, even if I’m a minor? I don’t get that. If others tell me, “No, that’s not a psychological problem,” that still doesn’t change my personal distress and I should be able to get help.

Ed

 

[Trident_H]

Honesty IS the issue here. If I believe I have psychological problems (whatever they are), and I do, why not have the right to get help, even if I’m a minor? I don’t get that. If others tell me, “No, that’s not a psychological problem,” that still doesn’t change my personal distress and I should be able to get help.

Ed

Exactly right, my friend. Exactly right.

 

[Jake21]

Well put.

This issue parallels climate change: those doing the research and promoting the results seem to have a prior commitment to those results,and it get peer-reviewed by people with the same agenda. This may be the death of science in our civilization. Those not in agreement are then vilified and classed as wing-nuts and extremists and in the pocket of some theoretically unsavory group.

We need to be very careful of accepting evidence and concluding that it is “valid scientific evidence” researched by “experts”. In this particular field, there really aren’t that many people to study to come to decent conclusions, and when someone extracts a conclusion from the data it often seems to be overstated.

And why should the federal government be involved? That can be a cure worse than the disease. Our federal system provides room for states to tailor the situation to their state.

I don’t think there is enough evidence either way, so restraint is the best course. The imposition of an unjustified ideology would be worse.

The APA is a major professional watchdog of psychology. They cite methodologically valid studies and have professionals judge the validity of psychological studies. I think the APA has an excellent track record when it comes to homosexuality. People who reject that claim mention the fact that he APA cites studies about homosexual partners raising children that have small non representative samples that have potential for bias. The studies that the APA cites acknowledges these limitations. Just because these studies have these limitations does not mean that there completely discredited.

Are we really going to claim that EVERY SINGLE child of homosexual partners that reported results that were extremely similar to heterosexual partners was biased or dishonest when these multiple studies were conducted throughout the decades?

If we combine that point with the fact that males are capable of being nurturing and caring like women are typically viewed to be, and females are capable of being bold and tough like men are typically viewed to be, we are left with a solid case that kids of homosexual partners will not have decent sized differences when compared to kids of heterosexual partners. The difference that people take note of is the way these aspects of parenting are carried out by males and females, but I don’t Intuitively see that as having a decent sized effect on children’s wellbeing. As long as both people that are of the same sex sufficiently carry out those aspects toward their children, then I don’t see how it will have much of a negative effect on the children of homosexual partners.

 

[St_Francis]

Would you mind telling me some examples of reparative therapy that don’t involve the slightest amount of shaming or something absurd like the example I provided? I’m willing to bet that if the federal government were to ban therapy that used methods similar to the example I provided or shamed its patients, then therapy that tried to change people’s sexual orientation would be almost nonexistent.

It’s not my job to tell you that. You have made an assertion: therapies which attempt to change the sexual orientation of the patient should be made illegal.

It is your job to explain why that is. Why should there be a legal ban? Why should therapies which have a particular goal be the ones made illegal? Why should we not instead ban certain acts?

 

[Jake21]

It’s not my job to tell you that. You have made an assertion: therapies which attempt to change the sexual orientation of the patient should be made illegal.

It is your job to explain why that is. Why should there be a legal ban? Why should therapies which have a particular goal be the ones made illegal? Why should we not instead ban certain *acts? *

I’ll admit that you actually make a good point in saying that we should ban certain acts. This is because banning certin acts like shaming and similar methods to the example I provided will go beyond reparative therapy. I just intuitively believe that banning certain acts like that will make reparative therapy almost nonexistent

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ll admit that you actually make a good point in saying that we should ban certain acts. This is because banning certin acts like shaming and similar methods to the example I provided will go beyond reparative therapy. I just intuitively believe that banning certain acts like that will make reparative therapy almost nonexistent

Whatever happened to your lauding the science against “this forum” and the “Family Research Council?” You now want to pit your “intuitive beliefs” against the intuitive beliefs of others?

Shouldn’t we let the science completely resolve the issue of whether any reparative therapies at all exist to help those who want them?

Why an outright ban based upon “intuitive beliefs” or unresolved and inconclusive scientific findings?

 

[Jake21]

Whatever happened to your lauding the science against “this forum” and the “Family Research Council?” You now want to pit your “intuitive beliefs” against the intuitive beliefs of others?

Shouldn’t we let the science completely resolve the issue of whether any reparative therapies at all exist to help those who want them?

Why an outright ban based upon “intuitive beliefs” or unresolved and inconclusive scientific findings?

I don’t support banning reparative therapy based on my intuition or inconclusive scientific findings. All I’m saying is that I intuitively believe a federal law banning therapy that shames its patients or has methods similar to the example I provided would put a nail in the coffin for reparative therapy.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Well I don’t know. I mean if someone told me they had a cure for this. And I wanted that cure. I’d want that cure to be available. But first we have to be willing to admit it’s not a normal way of thinking. We’d have to admit that it’s disordered. A problem with the wiring. Or with the way things get interpreted. Or maybe with some later patterning. I don’t know. But we’d have to admit something. In order to justify studying it further. In order to think about whether there’s such a thing as a cure.

I mean we’re cool with admitting that adults who lust after children have a disorder. And people who fall in love with barnyard animals have a real problem. And someone who wants to marry a pillow has issues. But SSA is not part of that spectrum? Just magically not in any way related? I mean I’ve got the strongest desire to reach out for someone in a way that defies all reason. Why is that normal?

I mean what I don’t like is the idea that we somehow have to pretend that something like this is somehow off the table. That we can’t dig into it. Like we would for any other brain-altering condition. I hate the political nice-ness that comes at the expense of scientific honesty. I mean you’re an atheist. What do you think about that? Are you thinking this kind of stuff should be up for rational discussion? Or is it fair to expect it should be blocked by emotions?

I don’t know. I think we need to watch how this stuff’s played for sure. There’s no point in screaming names at people. But we don’t do that anyway. I just don’t think we should make everything so touchy. Just say that it’s a different patterning of thought if we want. Say there’s evidence that these patterns can be changed. Show the evidence for that. Study that. But honestly. Don’t outlaw science. That’s always the wrong approach. Keep thinking. Keep searching. Keep finding truths. Let’s go guys. Let’s do that the right way.

I mean I’d like to know the answers to this too. I’m maybe on a different ride here. But that doesn’t mean that I suddenly find it better to pretend than to face the truth. I’ve got a heart and soul in this. I care about where this leaves me. And I resent blunt thinking. When we need to stay sharp.

Peace.

-Trident

What if they didn’t actually have a cure and their “cure” was likely to result in people committing suicide?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ll admit that you actually make a good point in saying that we should ban certain acts. This is because banning certin acts like shaming and similar methods to the example I provided will go beyond reparative therapy. I just intuitively believe that banning certain acts like that will make reparative therapy almost nonexistent

Well, your intuitions notwithstanding, you would still need to make the case that reparative therapy necessarily involves “certain acts like shaming and similar methods.” Would that be true in all cases of reparative therapy including, say, personality disorders? Are reparative therapies intrinsically bad in all cases, even where homosexual tendancies are not involved? These therapies are just bad by their very nature? Is that the point you are making?

If not, then how do your “intuitions” reconcile the fact that reparative therapies may be effective with other kinds of issues, just not homosexuality, in principle?

 

[Peter_Plato]

What if they didn’t actually have a cure and their “cure” was likely to result in people committing suicide?

How likely?

There are current chemical therapies prescribed for depression or personality disorders that have some likelihood of resulting in suicide. Will you, to be consistent, advocate for banning those therapies if the incidence of suicide is comparable? Neither is it clear that such therapies actually result in a “cure” for the condition being addressed.

Should psychotherapeutic drugs be banned if suicide rates are comparable and no definite cures can be proved?

 

[Trident_H]

What if they didn’t actually have a cure and their “cure” was likely to result in people committing suicide?

That’s not a cure then. Obviously. The point is not to stop trying though. I mean the first cures for a lot of things were false starts. But we didn’t usually give up. We kept trying. So why stop the science in this? For political reasons?

 

[jonathan_hili]

People can claim that the American Psychological Association is ideologically infiltrated and pressured all they want. The individuals who claim that are unaware that the APA is a professional organization that conducts and sites methodologically valid studies on homosexuality. This forum and the hilarious junk science organizations like the Family Research Council on the other hand, do not conduct or site methodologically valid studies.
The consistently methodologically valid APA have validly concluded that there are several methodological problems with the studies that claim ex gay “therapy” changed people’s perceived sexual orientation.

76crimes.com/ex-gay-therapy-what-reputable-experts-have-to-say/

Licensed theorists who practice this on minors can be prosecuted in a handful of states because they ban this “therapy” for minors. I hope to see the federal government ban this practice for minors in order to protect the vulnerable minors that are pressured or forced by religiously conservative parents to go through this potentially dangerous “therapy” that is not supported by valid scientific evidence.

I agree that such therapy for a minor is highly problematic, especially since “perceived sexual orientation” means very little in the long run. It may very well do more harm and good. Would you agree that such therapy and surgery should also be banned when parents, psychologists, etc. attempt to alter the gender and gender behaviour of a child?

 

[St_Francis]

What if they didn’t actually have a cure and their “cure” was likely to result in people committing suicide?

Since people afflicted with SSA are more likely to commit suicide anyway, how do we know it is the “cure” which causes the suicide?

This is an interesting article which summarizes the results of several European studies on homosexuals. It’s a little hard to read because it is a google translation from Italian.

One of the most surprising findings was that “married” homosexuals have the highest suicide rate of all, so maybe the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples should be resumed.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ll admit that you actually make a good point in saying that we should ban certain acts. This is because banning certin acts like shaming and similar methods to the example I provided will go beyond reparative therapy. I just intuitively believe that banning certain acts like that will make reparative therapy almost nonexistent

So how about the “reparative therapies” being proposed by researchers to, for example, “treat” belief in God and negative attitudes towards immigrants?

stream.org/scientists-claim-zapping-brains-with-magnets-can-treat-belief-in-god/
soundcloud.com/the-eric-metaxas-show/dr-william-matt-briggs
…starting at about 22:09 on the timecode.

Now, clearly these reparative therapies do not use “shaming or similar methods,” just magnets, but why would we take seriously any therapies that seek to change beliefs not based upon the truth of those beliefs, but purely on manipulation?

According to William Briggs these kinds of studies and research are legion.

Could you next start a thread decrying the kind of nonsense that passes for psychology and psychological research these days? Perhaps then we’ll know you are being fair-minded and exhaustive in your assessment of psychological research and government funding programs relative to ideas expressed on CAF and by promoters of reparative therapies for homosexuality.

A further question might be asked…

If you have no problem with these techniques being used vis a vis beliefs in God or immigration, why would you have any issue at all with them being used to treat, say, homosexuality, I mean, given that they DON’T involve shaming and the like?

 

[Brendan]

I am wondering why a whole facet of behavioral science should be shut down.

I agree that if methods are not effective, then they should not be used. But does it follow that the topic should not be researched at all?

I would understand if the purpose ( not the means) of the research was unethical, but is that what is being claimed. That the attempt to change sexual orientation itself is unethical, and thus should be outlawed? Or it is just the particular methods used.

If it is simply the methods, then are can other methods be tried?

 

[styrgwillidar]

I am wondering why a whole facet of behavioral science should be shut down.

I agree that if methods are not effective, then they should not be used. But does it follow that the topic should not be researched at all?

I would understand if the purpose ( not the means) of the research was unethical, but is that what is being claimed. That the attempt to change sexual orientation itself is unethical, and thus should be outlawed? Or it is just the particular methods used.

If it is simply the methods, then are can other methods be tried?

I think what confuses me is-- a person is unhappy with their sexuality, even to the point of believing they’re not in the correct body. If they desire to change their body to suit their mental state to live the life they desire-- that’s seems to be ok.

But if they desire to change/reconcile their mental state/sexuality to be at peace and compatible with their body and the life they desire to live-- that’s supposed to be wrong?

 

[edwest2]

I think what confuses me is-- a person is unhappy with their sexuality, even to the point of believing they’re not in the correct body. If they desire to change their body to suit their mental state to live the life they desire-- that’s seems to be ok.

But if they desire to change/reconcile their mental state/sexuality to be at peace and compatible with their body and the life they desire to live-- that’s supposed to be wrong?

That’s the issue. The rights of parents to seek any sort of help for their children should not be taken away by law. And a good point was made about others deciding what can and cannot be researched or studied.

Ed

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

How likely?

There are current chemical therapies prescribed for depression or personality disorders that have some likelihood of resulting in suicide. Will you, to be consistent, advocate for banning those therapies if the incidence of suicide is comparable? Neither is it clear that such therapies actually result in a “cure” for the condition being addressed.

Should psychotherapeutic drugs be banned if suicide rates are comparable and no definite cures can be proved?

On the whole those drugs help far more people than they harm, “reparative therapy” does not.

That’s not a cure then. Obviously. The point is not to stop trying though. I mean the first cures for a lot of things were false starts. But we didn’t usually give up. We kept trying. So why stop the science in this? For political reasons?

So what if exposing prisoners to infectious agents and then vivisecting them as they manifest symptoms is completely unethical, for Science!

Since people afflicted with SSA are more likely to commit suicide anyway, how do we know it is the “cure” which causes the suicide?

This is an interesting article which summarizes the results of several European studies on homosexuals. It’s a little hard to read because it is a google translation from Italian.

One of the most surprising findings was that “married” homosexuals have the highest suicide rate of all, so maybe the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples should be resumed.

In the US military abuse of people perceived to be homosexual was rampant because the abusers would just accuse them of being gay and then they’d be kicked out of the military so it is unsurprising they’d be more likely to suicidal. I can’t tell if the number is about gay people in opposite sex marriages.

I think what confuses me is-- a person is unhappy with their sexuality, even to the point of believing they’re not in the correct body. If they desire to change their body to suit their mental state to live the life they desire-- that’s seems to be ok.

But if they desire to change/reconcile their mental state/sexuality to be at peace and compatible with their body and the life they desire to live-- that’s supposed to be wrong?

gender≠sexuality

 

[ringil]

I guess the government could “outlaw” reparative “therapy”.

I guess I don’t see the need because no licensing bodies (Psychiatry, Psychology, Social Work, Marriage and Family Counseling, Counseling) permit professionals to use it anyway.

If a licensed professional (like myself) knew of another professional practicing reparative therapy they would be ethically bound to report that clinician or face disciplinary action themselves.

It is unethical to engage in any type of “therapy” designed to “change” a persons sexual orientation.

 

[bobballen_18]

Jake, you’re making a sweeping generalization about reparative therapy for homosexually oriented people. You’re just assuming that all reparative therapy is bad because “it involves shaming” and it seems to me you believe that all reparative therapy involves similar incidents such as the “hitting the pillow imagining it is your mother” thing.

Come on now. Isn’t it possible that if reparative therapy is done correctly, it simply calls to mind the fact that no one is perfect, not even parents, and that parents can make mistakes? And that even if they did not intend for certain things to happen in their relationships between their children, these developments nonetheless happened? Do you think we live in a perfect world?

What if that is all that this “shaming” you speak of is? I can concede that some therapists have failed to carry out their mission in the correct manner. I will not believe for one second, though, that this “shaming” is the goal of the reparative therapist. You need to read this article:

josephnicolosi.com/collection/what-is-reparative-therapy

In short, I believe you are just fixated on a false idea of “shaming” and are therefore basing your claim that all reparative therapy should be banned on false ideas. Perhaps a misunderstanding.

Remember, I’m not claiming that every reparative therapist carries out the therapy with the patient perfectly, and that, as with probably a lot of treatment in the mental/psychological field, there is the possibility of error in the treatment. Consider at least the possibility that any perceived “error” with the treatment of the individual is not a flaw with the actual ideas, but with how the ideas are carried out.

I’m also not trying to claim that even this idea of reparative therapy as laid out by Dr. Nicolosi is perfect, though I think, at the very least, there is a lot of merit to his ideas based on his wealth of experience with reparative therapy. I am only claiming that this type of therapy need not be outlawed, and that further research on things such as “reparative therapy” needs to be allowed; rather, only if specific actions (“shaming the client” would have to be specifically defined, and proved to have been actual “shaming”) are proven to be harmful, should they be considered for being outlawed, and only if the same practices aren’t working at all for other clients. And I don’t mean harmful for a handful of patients - I mean harmful for a significant number of patients, again, while also being proven to have NOT been helpful for a significant number of people.

I could go on and on about this, so I better stop there.