What started gay conversion therapy?

[frobert]

But there are a lot of therapists would would *not *work towards an acoomodstion such as chastity, because the whole idea seems to be that persons suffering from SSA are somehow atomically different throughout and needs to embrace their sexuality, and of course the general idea in society is that people pretty much ought to have sex and a decision or recommendation in favor of chastity is cruel and deprivational (you mean they would be for idden tk express their love their entire life!?!?!?!).

I should have worded that better: if a therapist were to diagnose the attractions of a minor patient to be the result of trauma, or even just a phase… would the therapist then be doing something illegal if he or she moved the patient in a new direction?

First, sexual orientation and attraction are not cut and dry. As I said before there is a lot fluidity within sexual orientations. People can be exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual and everything in between. What causes dysfunction is when a person is unable to accept the way they are. There are many people on this forum who identify themselves as homosexual yet remain chase. A good therapist would have no problem with his/her patient choosing to do so and would help them with that goal because therapy is person centered not (preset) goal centered.

In your last sentence you come close to what a therapist does. Diagnosis is necessary and the patient must understand the diagnosis and explore with the therapist of what he/she is capable of. Conversion therapy is not therapy because the therapist has a preset opinion or he/she would not call themselves a conversion therapist. Caveat emptor

That said there are many good therapists that help their patients explore what they are capable of doing and help them reach their goals.

 

[St_Francis]

Before the Fall they would have assuredly lined up, but after the Fall they may not necessarily line up as a consequence of Original Sin.

And are we not called to do what we can to reduce the consequences of Original Sin? Isn’t a deviation from what we are supposed to be something to be worked on rather than something to be applauded? Is it really a good idea to facilitate mortally sinful activity on the grounds that it is the result of OS?

Check how many of the founders of Exodus stayed permanently heterosexual.

Can you link to a study about that?

And why should we take the results of only one group? And why should we take seriously the results of a non-Catholic group?

The more severe the gender dysphoria the more likely they are to stay that way…

GID is a separate problem from SSA, and this thread is about SSA (“What started gay conversion therapy?”) so I do not know why you keep bringing in GID.

I have never advocated anyone taking their children to counselors to affirm being sexually active gay people.

How many counselors advocate counseling which encourages chastity?

Parents forcing children into reparative therapy has hurt many people. Reparative therapy for GID hasn’t been shown to help people identify with their sexual assignment at birth.

Now what are we talking about? We have been talking about conversion therapy. As it turns out, the term conversion therapy covers a multitude of approaches, including some physically invasive activities which we prohibit when applied to our enemies in war. Now you are talking about reparative therapy instead. What is reparative therapy? Is it the same as conversion therapy? Do we have two equally meaningless terms?

Here is a comment from the APA Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation and Change Efforts:

Therefore be it resolved that the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are **normal and positive variations of human sexuality **regardless of sexual orientation identity;

So, having thus mandated this (based on what? one might ask), how much research is going to happen which does not fall into line on what this says? How much research will be done into the idea that earlier sexual abuse contributes to the formation of SSA? Or that high amounts of estrogen in the water? Or any number of things?

And how can therapy which counsels chastity be acceptable to people who believe this? Much less any attempt to look into possibilities for change among at least some who suffer from SSA?

If they are trying to treat the sexual abuse then that is fine, the legal problem arises when counselors try to treat sexuality or being transgender as a mental illness.

I thought it was when they tried to change the patient from homosexual to heterosexual?

I have seen many cases of people say they were saved and then after some time going right back to “the gay lifestyle” and admit the therapy never helped them, see Exodus.

There are also many people who engaged in or suffered from SSA for a time in their lives, but these are discounted *because *they “successfully changed.”

From here: Individuals who return to a straight life after changing their sexual behavior due to a trauma such as rape were likely not gay in the first place. They merely engaged in homosexual behaviors.
Now, this article has a lot of other deficiencies, but this is a fallacy (No True Scotsman). They are saying that if the person changes, they weren’t homosexual to begin with, thus defining out of consideration those who do change from one to the other.

This also denies the really high incidence of past sexual abuse among those who have SSA.

 

[St_Francis]

First, sexual orientation and attraction are not cut and dry. As I said before there is a lot fluidity within sexual orientations. People can be exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual and everything in between. **What causes dysfunction is when a person is unable to accept the way they are. **There are many people on this forum who identify themselves as homosexual yet remain chase. A good therapist would have no problem with his/her patient choosing to do so and would help them with that goal because therapy is person centered not (preset) goal centered.

I can see that non-acceptance of oneself can cause problems in that then the person is not dealing with reality, doesn’t know where the starting point of sorting things out would be… but I think that the APA also puts into the same boat acceptance of one’s *having *SSA but rejecting it. I guess what I am saying is that the APA, et al, have a specific vision of LGB issues which totally ignores or even denies things like the sinful nature of the activity desired, the physically harmful nature of that activity, the general instability of relationships, as well as the fact that there is a whole sort of area existing among at least men with SSA which does not really have more than a negligible correspondence in the non-SSA part of society.

In your last sentence you come close to what a therapist does. Diagnosis is necessary and the patient must understand the diagnosis and explore with the therapist of what he/she is capable of. Conversion therapy is not therapy because the therapist has a preset opinion or he/she would not call themselves a conversion therapist. Caveat emptor

I don’t know… it seems like a lot of regular counselors also have their own ideas. Like, “They’re gonna do it anyway, let’s at least make sure they don’t get pregnant,” as they put a 13- or 14-year-old on injectible long-term abc. I read several pages of APA material on LGB teens, and first, they seemed to be all for affirming the teen and somehow getting the parents to become “more affirming.” There just seemed to be an overall air of what we think is right is correct.

And when I think about how kids on drugs are treated, it’s very strange. A lot of it is due to the fact that the APA sees SSA as normal, and drug use as abnormal. The former has no particular health issues, the latter is hugely problematic. But most of all, it doesn’t seem that parents are being “encouraged” to become more affirming with their drug-addicted children like they are with their children with SSA.

That said there are many good therapists that help their patients explore what they are capable of doing and help them reach their goals.

Sometimes I think I’ve only known of the ones who are really… weird.

 

[Thorolfr]

I guess what I am saying is that the APA, et al, have a specific vision of LGB issues which totally ignores or even denies things like the sinful nature of the activity desired, the physically harmful nature of that activity, the general instability of relationships, as well as the fact that there is a whole sort of area existing among at least men with SSA which does not really have more than a negligible correspondence in the non-SSA part of society.

Should the APA be in the position of talking about sin? Isn’t that something that should be left to religion? It would seem to be outside the competence of psychiatrists to talk about sin and which religion would they use to make such a determination? In what way is gay sex physically harmful? As to your claim about the “instability of relationships,” I know many same-sex couples who have been together for decades.

 

[Rau]

Here is a comment from the APA Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation and Change Efforts:
*Therefore be it resolved that the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity.*Given that the mechanisms that govern/determine sexual attraction are not fully understood, I find the above statement extraordinary. How is the inconsistency of desire/object and body/bodily function explained? Doesn’t matter?

 

[St_Francis]

Should the APA be in the position of talking about sin?Isn’t that something that should be left to religion? It would seem to be outside the competence of psychiatrists to talk about sin and which religion would they use to make such a determination?

Well, yes. Does sin objectively exist? Yes. Does it affect us? Yes. Sure, there ars disagreements about what constitutes sin, but a lot of thise disagreements stem from a denial of sin and the replacement of sin with a truncated “if (in my eyes) it hurts someone else physically…”

In what way is gay sex physically harmful?

Are you sure you want to know? Link here.

As to your claim about the “instability of relationships,” I know many same-sex couples who have been together for decades.

And I have known many who are unable to sustain a relationship. So what?

Quite possibly you know those who have maintained decades-long relationships. But do you also know the many who do not have long-term relationships? By which I mean, in one town, say there are 1,000 homosexuals. 50 have decades-long committed relationships. A larger percentage of the rest are hanging out in places you don’t go and they have no interest in the type of social life you are involved in. So yes, just as the staff if the NYT apocryphally has no acquaintance with any Republicans, you might not have met homosexuals who do not have decades-long relationships.

(The article I linked above apparently also has information about this.)

 

[Thorolfr]

Well, yes. Does sin objectively exist? Yes. Does it affect us? Yes. Sure, there ars disagreements about what constitutes sin, but a lot of thise disagreements stem from a denial of sin and the replacement of sin with a truncated “if (in my eyes) it hurts someone else physically…”

So, for example, should a psychiatrist tell his/her patient, “It is a sin to eat pork.” To which the patient might respond, “How do you know it’s a sin?” The psychiatrist then might respond, “Well, I’m a Muslim and Muslims believe that it’s a sin to eat pork.” To which the patient might respond, “But I’m not a Muslim, I’m Christian, and Christians think it’s not a sin to eat pork.”

So who is right, the psychiatrist or the patient? Or maybe the psychiatrist should just stick to psychiatry.

 

[frobert]

I can see that non-acceptance of oneself can cause problems in that then the person is not dealing with reality, doesn’t know where the starting point of sorting things out would be… but I think that the APA also puts into the same boat acceptance of one’s *having *SSA but rejecting it. I guess what I am saying is that the APA, et al, have a specific vision of LGB issues which totally ignores or even denies things like the sinful nature of the activity desired, the physically harmful nature of that activity, the general instability of relationships, as well as the fact that there is a whole sort of area existing among at least men with SSA which does not really have more than a negligible correspondence in the non-SSA part of society.

I don’t know… it seems like a lot of regular counselors also have their own ideas. Like, “They’re gonna do it anyway, let’s at least make sure they don’t get pregnant,” as they put a 13- or 14-year-old on injectible long-term abc. I read several pages of APA material on LGB teens, and first, they seemed to be all for affirming the teen and somehow getting the parents to become “more affirming.” There just seemed to be an overall air of what we think is right is correct.

Therapists who act in that way are are the mirror image of conversion therapists. Both put their opinion ahead of the patient’s need.

And when I think about how kids on drugs are treated, it’s very strange. A lot of it is due to the fact that the APA sees SSA as normal, and drug use as abnormal. The former has no particular health issues, the latter is hugely problematic. But most of all, it doesn’t seem that parents are being “encouraged” to become more affirming with their drug-addicted children like they are with their children with SSA.

Sometimes I think I’ve only known of the ones who are really… weird.

I can understand your concerns and believe me I know a lot of weird therapists.There are good mental health professionals and not so good ones just as there are good and not so good in all professions. Its not a **** shoot though because you can ask a therapist about his training, education, experience and what his general approach to patients are. You can also ask if his/her work is under supervision which acts as a control to keep the therapist focused.

Addictions are not abnormal in fact there is more genetic evidence for addictions than for homosexuality. Regardless of what one believes is normal or abnormal if it causing them to be dysfunctional they should seek help. A therapist should welcome a patient’s spirituality and belief system to utilize it in a positive way to help the patient.

 

[frobert]

So, for example, should a psychiatrist tell his/her patient, “It is a sin to eat pork.” To which the patient might respond, “How do you know it’s a sin?” The psychiatrist then might respond, “Well, I’m a Muslim and Muslims believe that it’s a sin to eat pork.” To which the patient might respond, “But I’m not a Muslim, I’m Christian, and Christians think it’s not a sin to eat pork.”

So who is right, the psychiatrist or the patient? Or maybe the psychiatrist should just stick to psychiatry.

In fairness though if a patient brings up sin the therapist should encourage him/her to express their thoughts on how the sin may be effecting them.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

This is how you started out this part of our conversation:

Perhaps you can see how I thought you were kind of ignoring people who might feel differently about their lives or who might actually be called to marriage.

While it is completely true that the religious life and dedicating oneself solely to God is indeed a higher calling, not all are called to that, and in fact, the majority are not called to that. We cannot talk about general trends in terms of special cases; we must take all into account.

Not all celibates are religious (such as monks, nuns, priests, etc.). To get someone to pursue a lesser good over a greater good to satisfy society is a terrible idea in my opinion. Why should we persuade people to settle for the lesser good over the greater good?

And are we not called to do what we can to reduce the consequences of Original Sin? Isn’t a deviation from what we are supposed to be something to be worked on rather than something to be applauded? Is it really a good idea to facilitate mortally sinful activity on the grounds that it is the result of OS?

Certainly we should try to harmonize the body and the soul.

Can you link to a study about that?

And why should we take the results of only one group? And why should we take seriously the results of a non-Catholic group?

Many of them went back to “the gay lifestyle” and admitted that reparative therapy had never worked, that they lied to themselves and to others.

GID is a separate problem from SSA, and this thread is about SSA (“What started gay conversion therapy?”) so I do not know why you keep bringing in GID.

You mentioned Gender Dysmorphia.

How many counselors advocate counseling which encourages chastity?

Depends on the background

Now what are we talking about? We have been talking about conversion therapy. As it turns out, the term conversion therapy covers a multitude of approaches, including some physically invasive activities which we prohibit when applied to our enemies in war. Now you are talking about reparative therapy instead. What is reparative therapy? Is it the same as conversion therapy? Do we have two equally meaningless terms?

Reparative therapy is a type of counseling where people conform their memories to a set narrative typically one about the father being distant and the mother smothering even if their memories don’t support such a narrative and they are told they must do it if they want to get better which fosters distrust and blame from the patient towards the parents even if said problems never existed.

Here is a comment from the APA Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation and Change Efforts:

Therefore be it resolved that the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are **normal and positive variations of human sexuality **regardless of sexual orientation identity;

So, having thus mandated this (based on what? one might ask), how much research is going to happen which does not fall into line on what this says? How much research will be done into the idea that earlier sexual abuse contributes to the formation of SSA? Or that high amounts of estrogen in the water? Or any number of things?

And how can therapy which counsels chastity be acceptable to people who believe this? Much less any attempt to look into possibilities for change among at least some who suffer from SSA?

The estrogenic cause would actually not be a psychology thing

I thought it was when they tried to change the patient from homosexual to heterosexual?

If it weren’t a mental illness why would they try to convert the patient?

There are also many people who engaged in or suffered from SSA for a time in their lives, but these are discounted *because *they “successfully changed.”

From here: Individuals who return to a straight life after changing their sexual behavior due to a trauma such as rape were likely not gay in the first place. They merely engaged in homosexual behaviors.
Now, this article has a lot of other deficiencies, but this is a fallacy (No True Scotsman). They are saying that if the person changes, they weren’t homosexual to begin with, thus defining out of consideration those who do change from one to the other.

This also denies the really high incidence of past sexual abuse among those who have SSA.

They did say were likely not as opposed to were not.

 

[St_Francis]

So, for example, should a psychiatrist tell his/her patient, “It is a sin to eat pork.” To which the patient might respond, “How do you know it’s a sin?” The psychiatrist then might respond, “Well, I’m a Muslim and Muslims believe that it’s a sin to eat pork.” To which the patient might respond, “But I’m not a Muslim, I’m Christian, and Christians think it’s not a sin to eat pork.”

So who is right, the psychiatrist or the patient? Or maybe the psychiatrist should just stick to psychiatry.

Stick to psychiatry?

Some people have a problem with their ankle: This causes the knee joint to move in an off-center sort of way, so they have pain in their knee.s The problem is in the ankle, but the pain is in their knees.

If the doctor were to look at the knee and describe everything that is happening in it, what good would it do unless he mentioned the ankle? If he didn’t believe in ankles, he wouldn’t take them into consideration when he looked at the knee. How much good would this do the patient?

So how much good can all these councelors and psychologists and psychiatrists do for the psyche if they ignore the existence of much which goes to make up the psyche?

 

[St_Francis]

Therapists who act in that way are are the mirror image of conversion therapists. Both put their opinion ahead of the patient’s need.

But only one is being considered for prohibition.

I can understand your concerns and believe me I know a lot of weird therapists.There are good mental health professionals and not so good ones just as there are good and not so good in all professions. Its not a **** shoot though because you can ask a therapist about his training, education, experience and what his general approach to patients are. You can also ask if his/her work is under supervision which acts as a control to keep the therapist focused.

Addictions are not abnormal in fact there is more genetic evidence for addictions than for homosexuality. Regardless of what one believes is normal or abnormal if it causing them to be dysfunctional they should seek help. A therapist should welcome a patient’s spirituality and belief system to utilize it in a positive way to help the patient.

What do normal and abnormal mean in that case? To me, normal vision is within the range that one can function without glasses, but that doesn’t mean that the need to wear glasses is not genetic.

(Just to clarify, I brought in addiction because some of what the APA was describing as ought-to-be illegal conversion therapy seemed quite similar to what they do with substance-abusing adolescents, and no one seems to object to rehabs.)

 

[frobert]

But only one is being considered for prohibition.

Life isn’t fair but unfairness not preclude that there are many ethical health professionals.

What do normal and abnormal mean in that case? To me, normal vision is within the range that one can function without glasses, but that doesn’t mean that the need to wear glasses is not genetic.

Whether something is normal or not is a value judgement which does not matter for treatment, it is the dysfunction that needs to be dealt with. I could have poor vision due to genetics, an injury or something else but if I can correct it with medical help I will.

(Just to clarify, I brought in addiction because some of what the APA was describing as ought-to-be illegal conversion therapy seemed quite similar to what they do with substance-abusing adolescents, and no one seems to object to rehabs.)

I was a an addictions specialist who did not believe in rehab except in rare instances. The medical professions are rift with misconceptions about what an addiction is. I can go into reasons of why that is but the basic reason in the US is political. Fortunately, that is changing thanks to the work of Dr. William Miller and others with motivational interviewing and the acceptance of medications like naltrexone and acamprosate which combat alcohol cravings and possibly other types of addictive cravings. For the record I believe AA and 12 step programs are valuable for many people but not for everyone.

 

[St_Francis]

Joie_de_Vivre:
Not all celibates are religious (such as monks, nuns, priests, etc.).
Yes, I put that badly.

To get someone to pursue a lesser good over a greater good to satisfy society is a terrible idea in my opinion. Why should we persuade people to settle for the lesser good over the greater good?

Some people are not called to the religious or celibate life; they are called to marriage. What are we to make of that? Surely that the highest good is to follow God’s will for oneself.

If a person is called to marriage, then that person is not “settling for a lesser good;” he is pursuing God’s will for him.

…Many of them went back to “the gay lifestyle” and admitted that reparative therapy had never worked, that they lied to themselves and to others.

So, on the one hand you suggest that no one should be encouraged to marry, but on the other, you think that doing nothing about people engaging in the “gay lifestyle” is fine.

Certainly we should try to harmonize the body and the soul.

I have no problem with the idea of accepting that some people have temptations against in one direction and others have similar temptations in another direction. I have a problem with a therapeutical environment which encourages the acting out of these temptations in either direction, and “affirming” and considering “normal” characteristics which may not be permanent or set in stone.

…Depends on the background

Well surely you must think that all of them should advocate chastity for all who are not married?

Reparative therapy is a type of counseling where people conform their memories to a set narrative typically one about the father being distant and the mother smothering even if their memories don’t support such a narrative and they are told they must do it if they want to get better which fosters distrust and blame from the patient towards the parents even if said problems never existed.

Are you saying because *one *group of people following *one *type of therapy were not helped, that *all *conversion therapy should be legally prohibited to minors?

The estrogenic cause would actually not be a psychology thing

So should it be entirely ignored by counselors? If estrogen in the water is a possible cause of psychological differences, should we just ignore that because it’s not psychology? And if the estrogenic cause were shown to be true, should it continue to be ignored by counselors because it’s not psychology?

If it weren’t a mental illness why would they try to convert the patient?

So *any *consideration of SSA as a mental illness would be prohibited to minors? It would become the law that minors would be treated in such a way as to exclude the possibility of change?

They did say were likely not as opposed to were not.
Of course they did. They have to cover themselves too.

 

[Rau]

…I have a problem with a therapeutical environment which encourages…considering “normal”, characteristics which may not be permanent or set in stone.

The permanence or otherwise is not necessarily central to “normality”, no matter how that word is understood. The larger problem for me is the limited meaning the APA appear to attach to the word “normal”. If they simply asserted that homosexuality is not a condition that can be changed or reversed by psychological treatment, that would be fine. We already know that persons with SSA can and do live perfectly successful lives - and that fact, combined with the absence of a psychological treatment, seems to be sufficient for the APA to deem SSA as “normal”. But somehow, the elephant in the room - the incongruity between body and sexual desire - is utterly overlooked, and declared a “normal variation”, despite a complete inability to explain how sexual orientation arises at all in the first place. It’s like taking a position on the intricacies of space travel without an understanding of the relevant physics. It is so unscientific as to be breathtaking.

 

[Thorolfr]

There is a new article in today’s edition of the British newspaper The Guardian about “conversion therapy”:

When his father’s attempts to beat the gay feelings out of him failed, 11-year-old Sam Brinton was sent for conversion therapy.

“I was told I was the only gay left in the world, that the government had killed all the gay children, that I had Aids, that God hated me – a horrifying battery of lies which I had no reason not to believe because these were the people that were supposed to be helping me,” Brinton said.

Then came the physical torture: forcing his hands into ice while showing him pictures of men touching men, wrapping his hands in coils that heated up painfully when he saw images of men hugging, showing him gay porn and giving him electric shocks.

Several suicide attempts later, Brinton, the son of Southern Baptist missionaries, realised he had only one viable option if he wanted to carry on living.

“In the end I had to lie and say I was cured just to get out of it,” he said.

Brinton doubts he will ever completely be free of the trauma. “I’m definitely still processing. The hard part is because it happened long ago a lot of it is mentally associated into my cognition. Therefore every single time I shake a man’s hand or get a hug I’ll have a small amount of shock hit me.

“It’s not that bad any more, but I will probably bear the mental torture marks of conversion therapy for the rest of my life.

“The hardest part was that I was trying so hard to change. Every night I was praying with every ounce of my body, trying to figure out a way to actually change so that the pain would stop. You definitely think that something’s wrong with you and that if you try hard enough you can beat it.”

theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/11/survivors-crusade-conversion-therapy-ban-pray-gay-away

 

[frobert]

There is a new article in today’s edition of the British newspaper The Guardian about “conversion therapy”:

theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/11/survivors-crusade-conversion-therapy-ban-pray-gay-away

Thanks for the link. What happened to the young man is what I would predict would happen when therapy is goal focused instead of patient focused. I.e, “If I can’t change then something is wrong with me.” It’s a self-fulling prophesy.

 

[St_Francis]

There is a new article in today’s edition of the British newspaper The Guardian about “conversion therapy”:

theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/11/survivors-crusade-conversion-therapy-ban-pray-gay-away

Well, I know that for a time, long ago, stuff like that was considered therapeutic, and I woukd have no problem banning that sort of thing at all. I had no idea that there were still people who did that sort of thing.

But what I would like to see instead of banning something under a really broad umbrella term like that which really kind of criminalizes even the idea that people with SSA can or might change, is to say warn against unregulated “counseling centers,” (I’ve heard or read bad stuff about other types of adolescent “treatment centers”) maybe figuring out some way to monitor them for physical abuse like that, and totally forbid physically abusive methods of “counseling” altogether, which quite honest ly should have been done long ago.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Yes, I put that badly.

Yes, yes you did.

Some people are not called to the religious or celibate life; they are called to marriage. What are we to make of that? Surely that the highest good is to follow God’s will for oneself.

If a person is called to marriage, then that person is not “settling for a lesser good;” he is pursuing God’s will for him.

Please find something Catholic and older than 200 years that discusses marriage as a calling. Your pickings are pretty slim if not nonexistent.

So, on the one hand you suggest that no one should be encouraged to marry, but on the other, you think that doing nothing about people engaging in the “gay lifestyle” is fine.

No, I think they should be encouraged in the pursuit of chastity.

I have no problem with the idea of accepting that some people have temptations against in one direction and others have similar temptations in another direction. I have a problem with a therapeutical environment which encourages the acting out of these temptations in either direction, and “affirming” and considering “normal” characteristics which may not be permanent or set in stone.

By the teenage years it pretty much is set in stone and to have the transition and support them is the best solution statistically for their well-being.

Well surely you must think that all of them should advocate chastity for all who are not married?

Of course.

Are you saying because *one *group of people following *one *type of therapy were not helped, that *all *conversion therapy should be legally prohibited to minors?

Because many groups of people following many different therapies and because many of them have resulted in preventable death of people there should be legal safeguards preventing children from being coerced into it.

So should it be entirely ignored by counselors? If estrogen in the water is a possible cause of psychological differences, should we just ignore that because it’s not psychology? And if the estrogenic cause were shown to be true, should it continue to be ignored by counselors because it’s not psychology?

It is a hard science research question if estrogens in the water are causing it.

So *any *consideration of SSA as a mental illness would be prohibited to minors? It would become the law that minors would be treated in such a way as to exclude the possibility of change?

It is to protect the welfare of minors, this stuff has seriously hurt a lot of kids.

Of course they did. They have to cover themselves too.

Perhaps.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, yes you did.

Please find something Catholic and older than 200 years that discusses marriage as a calling. Your pickings are pretty slim if not nonexistent.

Genesis 9:7: Go forth and multiply.

St Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life: “It is an error, or rather a heresy, to wish to banish the devout life from the regiment of soldiers, the mechanic’s shop, the court of princes, or the home of married people…” St Francis de Sales was revered for his patience and beneficence to others. Pope Pius X description of his thinking in this area, altho more recent than your standards would admit, is more concise than quoting multiple, less exalted sources:

I understand what you are talking about, and I even know that any but the religious life are not properly called vocations.

However, I also know that the result of the attitude you are discussing was for a long time the idea that those who were not professed religous were somewhaf beneath holiness

No, I think they should be encouraged in the pursuit of chastity.

By the teenage years it pretty much is set in stone and to have the transition and support them is the best solution statistically for their well-being.

Of course.

Because many groups of people following many different therapies and because many of them have resulted in preventable death of people there should be legal safeguards preventing children from being coerced into it.

It is a hard science research question if estrogens in the water are causing it.

It is to protect the welfare of minors, this stuff has seriously hurt a lot of kids.

Perhaps.