Against The Law In California To Obtain Ssa Therapy!

[Aloysius]

regardless of one's view on nature vs. nurture in homosexuality, most things that call themselves "conversion therapy"--especially the ones that are employed to teach teenagers--are absolutely abusive and harmful and should be entirely avoided, and by no means should we defend them.  perhaps an argument could be made about whether or not to illegalize them, but I find it entirely arguable that it could be considered child abuse--at least the disgusting kinds of "conversion therapy" that are most common.

 

there are possible respectable Christian psychological approaches that help people work through their issues in general with a psychologist who allows them the possibility that their attractions might change, open to helping them explore that as a possibility, but does not pressure it, allowing them to explore their potential future lives with the possibilities of chastity or eventually evolving orientations for Christians who so desire such things.  but that's really not what is generally being talked about when you reference conversion therapy approaches--you're usually talking about the people that prey upon fundie parents who basically want to bible-thump the gay away and end up screwing up a lot of people.

 

to sincerely advance the Christian sexual ethic in society, we need to repudiate any kinds of abusive therapies, and come up with understanding avenues to be available for people that offer an alternative from the you-were-born-this-way determinism without festering the harmful and abusive approaches.  generally both sides of the politically charged debates over homosexuality are harmful to young people growing up who experience homosexual attractions... what is needed is an alternative that can help open up avenues for the many people with SSA who do not want to accept the gay-determinism that is dogmatic in our culture but without creating damaging repressiveness.

[Aloysius]

regardless of one's view on nature vs. nurture in homosexuality, most things that call themselves "conversion therapy"--especially the ones that are employed to teach teenagers--are absolutely abusive and harmful and should be entirely avoided, and by no means should we defend them.  perhaps an argument could be made about whether or not to illegalize them, but I find it entirely arguable that it could be considered child abuse--at least the disgusting kinds of "conversion therapy" that are most common.

 

there are possible respectable Christian psychological approaches that help people work through their issues in general with a psychologist who allows them the possibility that their attractions might change, open to helping them explore that as a possibility, but does not pressure it, allowing them to explore their potential future lives with the possibilities of chastity or eventually evolving orientations for Christians who so desire such things.  but that's really not what is generally being talked about when you reference conversion therapy approaches--you're usually talking about the people that prey upon fundie parents who basically want to bible-thump the gay away and end up screwing up a lot of people.

 

to sincerely advance the Christian sexual ethic in society, we need to repudiate any kinds of abusive therapies, and come up with understanding avenues to be available for people that offer an alternative from the you-were-born-this-way determinism without festering the harmful and abusive approaches.  generally both sides of the politically charged debates over homosexuality are harmful to young people growing up who experience homosexual attractions... what is needed is an alternative that can help open up avenues for the many people with SSA who do not want to accept the gay-determinism that is dogmatic in our culture but without creating damaging repressiveness.

[Didacus]

As for being born gay, this page I think explains things very well:

 

http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Born_Gay%253F

 

There is NO DOUBT that homosexual tendencies can indeed change - that has always been the belief for over 150years up until the APA made a POLITICAL decision to say that gay was no longer considered abnormal.

See the videos embedded in the page, I think the doctor in those videos explains this very well as also, and furthermore has practical proof of the success to cure SSA.

[Aloysius]

That link just deals with the tired old arguments as to whether there is a "gay gene", which is pretty irrelevant for actual people who experience homosexual attractions, as either way the predisposition to same sex attraction almost certainly has a chemical basis in most people that experience same sex attraction (though by no means do all people who experience same sex attraction all have the same causes), and if there is no gene that makes one predisposed to it (which is not certain), it is very likely that events determining the development of brain chemistry in the womb lead to homosexual attractions later in life.  which would of course explain no 100% commonality among twins but still a higher rate of both twins being gay than the rate of gay people in the general population.

 

 As regards the psychological explanations... while I haven't had a chance to watch them, the thing is, so many people throw out wild and inconsistent generalized statements to blame same sex attraction on some series of events as if it could be categorized so simply.  It can't be, and most of those generalizations full of a wide array of people's issues, that people often politically latch onto, are like horoscopes for people with same sex attraction--they are able to fit themselves into this generically described set of symptoms.  Now, I think it is absolutely wrong to fail to account for events during one's development as being a part the reasons one has developed same sex attraction... but these things are unique, and the generic causes often given in talks by expert psychologists, I very much think are fortune-cookie nostradamus horoscope statements that draw people in who are desperately looking for some explanation.  you know, they had a bad relationship with their father, or anger issues, or their socialization growing up was stunted, some traumatic experience, failure to make enough friends of the same sex when they were younger, et cetera et cetera... they're things that are generic enough, and easily applicable to anyone whose hormonal makeup did lead to them acting differently than their peers, that they draw people in.

 

It should be noted that not everyone who develops same sex attraction is the same.  there is a broad spectrum, from people who have only experienced some same sex attraction as a phase in their lives, to people who have always only had deep seated same sex attraction exclusively, with no attraction to the opposite sex, and many people in between.  often people on the lighter end of the spectrum who eventually develop attraction to the opposite sex feel far too free to declare themselves success stories... but honest psychologists who have a Christian perspective should acknowledge that while some people might develop opposite sex attraction over the course of working out all sorts of things in their lives and finding out what they want, not everyone can.  the worst thing you can do is go to someone like that and tell them that if they just do x, y, and z therapy they can magically overcome same sex attraction--that kind of thing has severely damaged lives.  allowing people to be open to other possibilities in the course of therapy or spiritual direction can be a good thing, but trying to impose heterosexuality through psychological techniques has been shown to be pretty harmful to people in the long run.  I would urge people NOT to support things like that.

 

the Christian approach should invite and promote fulfilling avenues of chastity, while allowing the exploration of other possibilities but by no means attempting psycho-techniques to impose or force one into a certain kind of mold.  not everyone can healthily develop heterosexual attractions, and actively trying to develop heterosexual attractions tends to lead to psychologically unhealthy states that end up damaging lives.

[Didacus]

It tghink it would be worth while you watch the videos.

[Aloysius]

watched the first video for ya, the man seems sincere enough, but getting to his explanation, it is exactly what I expected (bad relationship with the father, domineering mother, bad peer relationships, sexual abuse, etc)... I personally know quite a few people who were taken in by explanations like these for a while, but eventually realized they had been fitting the pieces together from their lives out of a desperate hope for some kind of medical explanation, but that it was actually totally inconsistent, based on their experiences I always compare these kinds of explanations to horoscopes... I can't judge this guy's particular techniques, but the explanation he offers of the causes of homosexuality is not at all convincing... it's the kind of thing that draws in a certain kind of homosexual (and I don't deny that some of those factors may be involved, but he puts way too much stock in it as a clear-cut causal relationship and the evidence he refers to I think is pretty junky science, actually, having seen a bit of these studies myself)

 

the point about acknowledging homosexuals with sincere desires for change is an important one, one which gay-determinism activists are far too often dismissive of, or attribute that desire to family pressures or peer pressure and fail to acknowledge individuals can have their own agency in desiring something different... I am very much against gay-born-this-way determinism pressure on people who experience same sex sexual attraction, but the other side of the coin is the every-homosexual-can-change-their-orientation because we've got a medical cause and cure pressure that is also pretty horribly wrong and has resulted in many examples of hurt and damaged lives.

 

at one point he says we need to hear more of the ex-gay stories, and that's a point when I cringed the most.  NO, we most certainly do NOT need to hear more ex-gay stories.  If people do develop and grow past their same sex attractions, the absolute worst thing they could do for themselves, their wives, their families is to stand up as some kind of ex-gay poster boy trying to declare that every single person with same sex attraction can have the exact same experience as they have had--because no, not everyone has the same experience with same sex attraction, and also there's a reason there's a stereotype about those people being closeted--the more people tend to talk publicly about how ex-gay they are, very often that represents a person who's continually trying to convince themselves about it.  many public ex-gay figures have ended up going back into homosexuality leaving behind shattered lives because they were all too quick to capitalize on some precarious changes in their lives and become political poster-boys for the ex-gay movement.  anyone who does find themselves on a journey in which they find themselves able to develop heterosexual attractions and heterosexual relationships, in my opinion, is much better off emphasizing for themselves the profoundly personal nature of that journey and should by no means assume that everyone else who has same sex attraction would be able to experience that journey in the same way, and turning that profoundly personal experience into a public political statement is the best way to screw it up I think.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

It's not that it's not helpful. it's that it's harmful. Teenagers can get access to this hackery. They just have to wait until they are 18

Should we ban every bogus potentially harmful treatment? Mental trauma is one thing, people like Warhol and jobs dying because of their trust in the promises of dodgey alternative medicine is another.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I go off and beat myself all the time. Some claim it's self-abuse. But I disagree. I think it's the only way I can make myself hard enough to surmount the many challenges life presents.

So many ban-worthy jokes I can make off of this post. I need to stop phatmassing at bars

[Gabriela]

Tell me more about your libertarianism.  

 

Exactly how do you see "it's an injustice to ban people from seeking treatment" as inconsistent with libertarianism? It's an argument for less government legislation of people's activities.  :think2: 

[4588686]

Exactly how do you see "it's an injustice to ban people from seeking treatment" as inconsistent with libertarianism? It's an argument for less government legislation of people's activities.  :think2: 

 

 

Well, it's certainly not inconsistent with the bastardized libertarianism that has existed in the US for the last few decades, which is really just neofudalism.  It is, however, inconsistent with the ideals of human liberation since you want to perpetuate individuals, in this case children, being shackled to illusions and oppressive fabrications (i.e. religion).  Less abstractly, as others have noted, these programs are abusive and cruel.  They take children who have nothing wrong with them, except that some fairy tale disproves, and teaches them to view their sexuality as evil or wrong.  

 

Doller doller bill, ya'll

[Basilisa Marie]

The behaviors that we call abuse are not social constructs, which is all your example illustrates. But what we consider abuse and not abuse is socially determined, which your example also illustrates. Back in the day, if a man beat his wife, it was not considered "abuse". These days, if a woman beats her husband, it's not considered "abuse" by some because they hold to the (IMO erroneous) conception that only men can abuse their spouses.

 

Thanks for making my point. :-)

 

Yeah, uh, abuse is still abuse even if society doesn't recognize it.  THAT is my point.  The points you make about abuse sound like abuse isn't ever something that can be considered objectively evil, because the definition changes all the time.  

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Well, it's certainly not inconsistent with the bastardized libertarianism that has existed in the US for the last few decades, which is really just neofudalism.  It is, however, inconsistent with the ideals of human liberation since you want to perpetuate individuals, in this case children, being shackled to illusions and oppressive fabrications (i.e. religion).  Less abstractly, as others have noted, these programs are abusive and cruel.  They take children who have nothing wrong with them, except that some fairy tale disproves, and teaches them to view their sexuality as evil or wrong.  

 

Doller doller bill, ya'll

 

I know two people whose parents attempted to "treat" their gayness. I understand that parents wrongfully pressure/guilt children into trying to reject their sexual orientation. It's nothing less than child abuse. While parent's shouldn't be allowed to force their children into seeking such therapy, I don't think we can conclude that every minor interested in such "treatment" is being pressured by her/his parents to do so. Even if the treatment causes harm in all cases, I can't see how California can ban this sort of therapy and still allow minors to seek out other bogus therapies/medicines that could eventually harm them. 

[4588686]

 and still allow minors to seek out other bogus therapies/medicines that could eventually harm them. 

 

 

Like what?

 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Like what?

 

Any bogus treatment is potentially harmful, even something as innocent as a homeopathic otc. Allowing children to buy into such bs at an early age isn't any more safe. People actually die because of this shiz.

Edited September 1, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Aloysius]

btw, I think that people who support conversion therapy in the abstract are well-intentioned, but if you knew anyone who had been truly harmed by it you might change your mind.  if you know someone who has found it beneficial to them, there is certainly such a possibility--but that doesn't mean that the practice is universally effective or universally beneficial, and there are many many instances of it being shown to be definitely harmful.  I am not suggesting that embracing the gay lifestyle is better for people, just that this is not the proper direction for people who do wish to live their lives according to the Church's sexual ethic.  I think a far better approach than medicalizing the issue of this particular type of sexual sin is for people to have good spiritual directors, good confessors, and strong support networks of "disinterested friendships" as the CCC puts it.  organizations like Courage RC are leaps and bounds better for people than organizations like NARTH or, formerly, Exodus International.

 

NB: NARTH is better, though, than organizations like Exodus International as they do acknowledge that there are people who cannot change their orientations and I think, therefore, they allow for that possibility in their therapy, though I am not sure of that, and that wasn't the tone I got from the guy in the video Didacus posted even though he's from NARTH, though admittedly due to my slow internet connection I could only watch the first video so maybe he goes into that?

 

anyway, it's been long ago conceded in our society that psychological practices must be licensed according to government regulations.  while many of us have a political theory that disagrees with that idea and would prefer a more voluntaryist approach, I don't think it really helps to single out this particular instance of regulating psychological treatment... things like shock therapy can also be illegal when done not according to proper regulation.

[Era Might]

What exactly does this therapy consist of? There shouldn't be a need to ban some category of human nature from therapy in order to legislate against manipulative practice.

[Didacus]

Can anyone point out to examples of people harmed by NARTH's therapy?

 

 

Of what is obvious, SSA can be treated and even cured.  Why would we remove this possibility from anyone?

My thought is that even if there was a magical pill that could cure 100% of SSA, pro-gays would still lobby against it, because it is admitting their condition is not the desirable condition.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Didacus

[4588686]

Can anyone point out to examples of people harmed by NARTH's therapy?

 

 

Of what is obvious, SSA can be treated and even cured.  Why would we remove this possibility from anyone?

My thought is that even if there was a magical pill that could cure 100% of SSA, pro-gays would still lobby against it, because it is admitting their condition is not the desirable condition.

 

They should lobby against all such totalitarian proposals.  There isn't anything wrong with being gay.  

[Ice_nine]

They should lobby against all such totalitarian proposals.  There isn't anything wrong with being gay.  

 

well calling it totalitarian would be a little dramatic unless people were forced to take the hypothetical pill.

 

 

As a bit of an aside, are you familiar at all with Deaf culture? There are many deaf and hearing impaired people who don't want treatments and surgeries to "cure" their deafness and they take great offense at the idea that their condition is an impairment/imperfection/sickness whatever. Go to a Deaf club and talk about how great the cochlear implant is and you're likely going to (accidentally or not) piss off a lot of people.

 

But still there are parents of deaf children, and deaf children themselves, who elect to undergo these treatments and who try to assimilate into the hearing world as best as possible. They don't care about belonging to deaf culture, they'd rather hear, and they see being deaf as something undesirable. I'm sure those people who find great meaning and support within the deaf community recoil at such ideas and the people who hold them, but in this age where "choice" is the holiest birthright who are they or anyone else to bar individuals from seeking such treatments? Even if they come with considerable risks? (cochlear implants have medical risks as you might expect).

 

 

Deaf people don't have the numbers and allies that the gay community has, and the world at large is mostly ignorant of deaf culture (whereas the LGBT community is "here and queer and so on,") but I think there are some interesting parallels otherwise. The world at large believes deafness is undesirable and something that prevents full enjoyment of life so the minority would never be taken seriously if they set out to ban all medical practices and research to help "cure" this "problem." They'd be taken even less seriously if they whined about it being "totalitarian." ;)

[Aloysius]

it's not "obvious" that "SSA can be cured".  talking about the possibility that someone could develop out of it like a "cure" is dangerous and incorrect.  medicalizing this particular attraction to sin like it's a disease is very wrong in my opinion.  it is certainly true that some people have been able to transition from SSA to heterosexual attraction, and it's possible that some of the people that go to these therapies succeeded, though there are a large number of testimonies from people who have said that as a result of these therapies they were deeply closeted and repressed which eventually blew up in their faces and ended up ruining lives.

 

for those who do develop/transition out of homosexual attractions, I would strongly suggest that they were not "cured" of a "disease" like the junk-science of these therapists suggest.

 

honestly, you could find many ex-ex-gay testimonials, I don't know if there are any specifically related to NARTH.  the people I know personally, I'm not sure if the people that damaged them were associated with NARTH or someone else, but I do know that the techniques are usually pretty similar.  a big part of it is the horoscope treatment exploring anger issues, childhood socialization issues, etc, giving them something to latch onto as a "reason" for their same sex attraction, etc.