Chris Christie Signs Bill Banning Gay 'Conversion' Therapy

[CaptainCourtesy]

Actually, there are studies and they don't all come from right wing sources. - Can Childhood Sexual Abuse Cause Homosexuality? - Born Gay - ProCon.org

I'd actually say that there is substantial evidence that sexual abuse can and sometimes does result in coping behavior of a sexual nature. While this may not be the same thing as someone who realizes their homosexuality through a normal childhood it also shouldn't simply be dismissed and treatment should certainly be allowed.

Someone who engages in homosexual activities due to child abuse needs to be treated for PTSD, depression, and other psychological disorders. Once THOSE things are treated, only then will one's sexual orientation be determined. There is a difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This legislation, which essentially says a psychologist or psychiatrist may never explore or dispute a minor's self declared sexual orientation means it all but impossible to spot sexual abuse or addressing the cures for it.

This is absurd and as one who works in the field and works nearly exclusively with minors, I can tell you that in no way does this limit my ability to explore a minor's self declared sexual orientation nor does it make it impossible for me to spot sexual abuse. Truly, you do not know what you are talking about. Firstly, one NEVER disputes one's declared sexual orientation. One discusses and explores it, helping a client to come to terms with what their orientations is. Standard psychotherapy 101. Nextly, spotting sexual abuse requires asking the right questions and making the right observations, but again NEVER is about making that claim towards a client.

In NO WAY does this legislation affect the things you mentioned. Not at all.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

That is a definite example of why this is a bad law, particularly since little Jimmy likely is not going to initially tell of the abuse aspect of it. In fact, little Jimmy might say he is gay to avoid conflict when he is not.

And, so a GOOD therapist knows how to explore this and discover what is really happening withOUT disputing what little Jimmy is claiming. I've certainly done this a few times.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I find it hard to see how banning a presumably voluntary course of therapy, even if it is somewhat controversial, is within the proper bounds of governmental authority.

Not voluntary when parents place minors with conversion therapists.

 

[joG]

New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie on Monday signed a Bill that bans therapists from providing a service to minors that aims to change their sexual orientation.

Generally I don't believe that government has any business getting in the middle of something like this, but I see the quacks and far right religious nuts who push garbage like this for what they are - a threat to the health of young people.

Here's the Yahoo article: http://news.yahoo.com/chris-christie-signs-bill-banning-'gay-conversion-therapy'--163725130.html




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~Robert Green Ingersoll




"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan

I tend to agree. The government does get involved in things I think it should not. Of course somebody seems to think it should get involved, or it would not.

So how do we determine where it should get involved?

 

[chromium]

:shrug:

I figure if a 15yo wants to do this, and his parents are okay with it, I don't really see it as the State's business. Ditto faith healing, and whatever else, as long as it is voluntary on the part of the patient and agreed to by the parents of the minor.

In essence the State is saying, "Even if you WANT to try this therapy and your parents agree to it, we FORBID you from trying it even if you believe it will benefit you."


Doesn't really work for me, but whatever.

If a 15yo volunteers for therapy to become homo, you will be ok with that? I suspect you're injecting your own biases into "treatment" that every peer reviewed study I've seen has concluded doesn't work.

Kids don't always know what's good for them. At that age, coercion from parents/priests will make the kid say yeah, he "volunteered" for this. Not to mention why bother? If it doesn't work, as with any other ineffective treatment, it's *pointless*. Even the "ex gay" groups like EI are throwing in the towel. These bans send an important message that trying to 'cure' homosexuality can only result in harm.

 

[shrubnose]

I tend to agree. The government does get involved in things I think it should not. Of course somebody seems to think it should get involved, or it would not.

So how do we determine where it should get involved?

If it benefits me, in any way at all it should get involved. Otherwise, it should keep its big nose out of my business.

 

[joG]

If it benefits me, in any way at all it should get involved. Otherwise, it should keep its big nose out of my business.

That's worth fightig for!

 

[AliHajiSheik]

The whole thing is kind of confusing. So if someone is born gay but the parents want them to be straight, they can't change that, but if you are born a boy and want to be a girl, parents can get surgery.

 

[joko104]

This is absurd and as one who works in the field and works nearly exclusively with minors, I can tell you that in no way does this limit my ability to explore a minor's self declared sexual orientation nor does it make it impossible for me to spot sexual abuse. Truly, you do not know what you are talking about. Firstly, one NEVER disputes one's declared sexual orientation. One discusses and explores it, helping a client to come to terms with what their orientations is. Standard psychotherapy 101. Nextly, spotting sexual abuse requires asking the right questions and making the right observations, but again NEVER is about making that claim towards a client.

In NO WAY does this legislation affect the things you mentioned. Not at all.

From what I understand you don't have a PhD or MD plus the license then at risk. While there are psychologists that will take any $100+ per hour who comes in the door, psychiatrists that accept and are experienced/specifically trained to deal with severe abuse cases are few and far between.

What I posted does apply to the California law - with this all obviously "in my opinion." I have yet to find the actual text for the New Jersey law so I am more addressing it along the lines of the California legislation. I did look some for it. Instead, all I come up with is editorials.

Where you and I possibly would logger-head jam is on the questions of 1.) whether everything can be discovered, solved and addressed/cured merely by discussion and 2.) how much assertive authority should/must be exercised in some instances.

There is another curious question. How much does the abusing "gay conversation therapy" occur by licensed psychologists and psychiatrists?

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

The whole thing is kind of confusing. So if someone is born gay but the parents want them to be straight, they can't change that, but if you are born a boy and want to be a girl, parents can get surgery.

You'd be hard pressed to find a surgeon willing to operate on a minor in terms of changing their sex. On top of the whole requirement of 1 to 2 yrs living as the opposite and HRT in addition to the therapy required as well.

 

[VanceMack]

This is pretty much much ado about nothing. Most therapists dont/wont conduct conversion therapy, DO work with kids regarding GID, and doesnt stop pastoral counselors from hosting conversion therapy.

I think it would be really cool if both sides left kids the **** alone and let them be kids without forcing them into a role or identity.

 

[soot]

I figure if a 15yo wants to do this, and his parents are okay with it, I don't really see it as the State's business. Ditto faith healing, and whatever else, as long as it is voluntary on the part of the patient and agreed to by the parents of the minor.

My concern with this whole issue is that conversion therapy is essentially a medical treatment (along the vein of psychotherapy and/or psycological counseling).

But the folks administering the treatment aren't necessarially trained in psychology (or any field of medicine), the entire field is a hodge-podge of catch-as-catch-can techniques and theories as different from each other as the individual practitioners, there's no oversight by any type of regulatory authority or professional membership organization, as such there are no credentials either available or necessary, and nobody involved in either providing or receiving these treatments has been able to demonstrate so much as a moderate degree of effectiveness.

In light of all that my concern doesn't stem so much from the fact that "homosexuality" is involved in the mix of this pseudo-medical mess, it relates more to the fact that I wouldn't want any sort of (nominal) disease/disorder/illness/abnormality treated in such Wild West fashion.

Especially not when we have very well established, "official" medical professions dedicated to dealing with and treating the sort of "problems" that conversion therapy purports to address.

Of course, the fact that pretty much all of the medical community considers these therapies to be nonsense, charlatanism, and chicanery on the level of snake oil sales kinda precludes formal medical involvment in converting "queers".

Now, if the "gay conversion therapy" industry would get it's **** together, come under one roof, require formal medical training, establish standards of practice and treatment, police itself, conduct respectable scientific studies and publish them in peer-reviewed journals, and demonstrate a modicum of effectivness in treating homosexuality that isn't vastly overshadowed by the reports of damage and harm coming out of those very same studies, in essense become "professional", then I would have a very difficult time being opposed to it.

But as it stands I could very easily hang a shingle over my front door this evening claiming that I can convert peoples gay fairy-quuen kids into strapping manly-man captains of the football team and then concoct all manner of voodoo and nonsense as treatment and I'd essentially be on the same page as the folks currently working in the field and about as experienced as many of them.

I think it's the government's place to step in and tell me "no dude, you can't do that" the same way they'd tell me "no dude, you can design skyscrapers, or perform surgery, or manage peoples' retirement plans, or practice law" until you get the appropriate training and licenses.

 

[brothern]

Those Associations historically go with whatever is the popular enlightened or cultural stance. For decades, even centuries, and until recently the Association of Psychiatrists declared it FACT that homosexuality was a severe mental disease. Now that the social winds among academia have changed, so have they.

Few of any of those professionals ever deal with sexual orientation issues or child abuse issues. That is a very narrow range of practices. In short, most have no experience in those areas whatsoever. Moreover, the practices they oppose are those done by religious organizations, which the law does not change.

However, you did get the slogan right.

You make two false claims. First that "those Associations historically go with whatever is the popular enlightened or cultural stance," which is untrue. The American Psychiatric Association removed the mental disease classification of homosexuality in 1973. That was when three quarters of Americans still believed homosexuality was immoral. The only gay psychologist that could be convinced to testify in 1972 when the APA was debating the delisting actually wore a bag over his head to protect his identity.

Second claim, "few of any of those professionals ever deal with sexual orientation issues or child abuse issues." Psychiatrists, psychologists, pediatricians and physicians are the medical professionals that evaluate, diagnose, treat and study behavior and mental processes. Exactly who do you think deals with sexual orientation issues if not these professionals?

 

[Gaius46]

Not voluntary when parents place minors with conversion therapists.

But we - rightfully - grant parents the right to make decisions for their children.

I don't know much about "conversion therapy" though it certainly sounds like snake oil to me. However when government usurps the parental role it makes me very nervous.

 

[joko104]

The text is here:

A3371

 

[The Baron]

Ok please someone answer with documentation. Is there a gay gene? Because I don't know.

No. There is no gay gene. Studies that claim to have found one turned out to be fraudulent or proved the opposite of what they intended.

 

[The Baron]

I would guess if it can be demonstrated as being harmful to the mental health of the children, it would be within the bounds of government to protect the child.

There's a lot of truth to it.

There is no evidence that it is harmful.

 

[The Baron]

Even if the children participated voluntarily, the state should seek to discourage and prevent demonstrably harmful practices from being administered, especially in the case of minors. Parental rights should not extend past the bounds of reason and in this case, mental and physical health.

What is your evidence that conversion therapy is harmful (hint: it isn't).

 

[Slyfox696]

There is no evidence that it is harmful.

I would argue that lying to a child to "cure" him of something which cannot really be cured could be considered harmful.

 

[StillBallin75]

What is your evidence that conversion therapy is harmful (hint: it isn't).

The evidence lies in people who have gone through the treatment and have said that it was harmful.

 

[The Baron]

I would argue that lying to a child to "cure" him of something which cannot really be cured could be considered harmful.

And yet people have been "cured". This is where your argument fails.

 

[Slyfox696]

And yet people have been "cured". This is where your argument fails.

Right. Of course they have.

 

[The Baron]

The evidence lies in people who have gone through the treatment and have said that it was harmful.

Actually the "evidence" is from some shrink with a God complex (I forget this idiot's name) that--without any evidence, studies, proof, etc.--stated in a speech that it was harmful and people ran with the idea that it was harmful ever since. A rather large study by Yarhouse & Jones proved that conversion therapy is not harmful.

In fact, those involved with the study stated that even if the therapy was ineffective the treatment they recieved was helpful in other areas of their lives.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

Actually the "evidence" is from some shrink with a God complex (I forget this idiot's name) that--without any evidence, studies, proof, etc.--stated in a speech that it was harmful and people ran with the idea that it was harmful ever since. A rather large study by Yarhouse & Jones proved that conversion therapy is not harmful.

In fact, those involved with the study stated that even if the therapy was ineffective the treatment they recieved was helpful in other areas of their lives.

Yeah... no.
From the study:
"These results do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some. The results do not prove that no one is harmed by the attempt to change, but rather that the attempt does not appear to be harmful on average or inherently harmful. The authors urge caution in projecting success rates from these findings, as they are likely overly optimistic estimates of anticipated success. Further, it was clear that “conversion” to heterosexual adaptation was a complex phenomenon."