Against The Law In California To Obtain Ssa Therapy!

[Didacus]

Snipet:

 

Court gags licensed California therapists Upholds ban on help for minors who want to overcome same-sex attraction

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/court-censors-licensed-california-therapists/#MjgrRADKavprro5v.99

 

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/court-censors-licensed-california-therapists/

 

I have a hard time believe this article.

 

Also the progression demonstrated by the laws passed in the last few years...  Have things really gotten THAT bad in California?

 

 

This is all gone beyond simply calling for equality or respect, this is now reaching to the point of wanting to encourage SSA and its lifestyle to the point where everyone would practice it.  Why would anyone want everyone to be homosexual anyway?  I mean, what could possibly motivate such unsupportable ideologies?

Edited August 31, 2013 by Didacus

[Gabriela]

A belief in overpopulation, which, if you live in California...

 

I vote to reverse urbanization. Ruralization all the way.

 

Joking aside (I wasn't really joking, but ANYWAY), I think maybe this arises out of the view that the law should reflect public sentiment. If we allow therapists to treat people who don't want to be homosexual, we're acknowledging that there's something sensible in not wanting to be homosexual. We're allowing both the patient and the therapist to say that homosexuality is undesirable (even though it really only says that it's undesirable for this particular person). And of course, if some person suffering from SSA has an "irrational desire" to be heterosexual, what should they do? See a therapist.

 

No, it doesn't make sense. But that's liberal politics for you. Patient rights? Patients are just wards of the state (health system). So don't worry: If the state (health system) tells you it's ok to be homosexual, you should just toss that irrational desire to be heterosexual right out the window. You don't need a therapist at all. (That would cost the taxpayers too much money, anyway.)

 

(BTW: Did you know obesity has its advantages, too? It's totally ok to be obese. Obese people don't really need doctors.

 

Hell, none of us really needs a doctor. They're not worth what you pay 'em. Let's just open emergency rooms everywhere for the people with spikes through their heads. The rest of us'll be fine.)

Edited August 31, 2013 by curiousing

[Didacus]

(snip)

 

Hell, none of us really needs a doctor. They're not worth what you pay 'em. Let's just open emergency rooms everywhere for the people with spikes through their heads. The rest of us'll be fine.)

 

LOL

I like that...

[4588686]

A belief in overpopulation, which, if you live in California...

 

I vote to reverse urbanization. Ruralization all the way.

 

Joking aside (I wasn't really joking, but ANYWAY), I think maybe this arises out of the view that the law should reflect public sentiment. If we allow therapists to treat people who don't want to be homosexual, we're acknowledging that there's something sensible in not wanting to be homosexual. We're allowing both the patient and the therapist to say that homosexuality is undesirable (even though it really only says that it's undesirable for this particular person). And of course, if some person suffering from SSA has an "irrational desire" to be heterosexual, what should they do? See a therapist.

 

No, it doesn't make sense. But that's liberal politics for you. Patient rights? Patients are just wards of the state (health system). So don't worry: If the state (health system) tells you it's ok to be homosexual, you should just toss that irrational desire to be heterosexual right out the window. You don't need a therapist at all. (That would cost the taxpayers too much money, anyway.)

 

(BTW: Did you know obesity has its advantages, too? It's totally ok to be obese. Obese people don't really need doctors.

 

Hell, none of us really needs a doctor. They're not worth what you pay 'em. Let's just open emergency rooms everywhere for the people with spikes through their heads. The rest of us'll be fine.)

 

 

We do not have a state health care system.  

 

The state is banning reparative therapy for minors because such therapy is abusive.  If adults want to ungay themselves they are free to do so, however.  

[Gabriela]

We do not have a state health care system.  

 

The state is banning reparative therapy for minors because such therapy is abusive.  If adults want to ungay themselves they are free to do so, however.  

 

It's coming. Wait for it...

 

What counts as "abuse" is socially determined. And I think Didacus' point is that what our society has determined to be "abusive" in this case is outrageous. If the patient wants it, let him have it. Would we allow a heterosexual who wants to become homosexual to go to therapy for that? Or would that be "abusive"?

[Basilisa Marie]

I really believe that any form of "pray the gay away" is incredibly harmful and not productive. Instead we need to encourage young people who feel serious same-sex attraction to accept it as part of who they are, and to live the call to chastity appropriately.  Our sexual attraction is rooted in our brain chemistry, you can't just "will" to become someone you're not.  The catechism tells us what we DO with our sexuality is what matters.  

[4588686]

It's coming. Wait for it...

 

What counts as "abuse" is socially determined. And I think Didacus' point is that what our society has determined to be "abusive" in this case is outrageous. If the patient wants it, let him have it. Would we allow a heterosexual who wants to become homosexual to go to therapy for that? Or would that be "abusive"?

 

 

Hopefully, but until then the claim that we have a state health care system is false.  

 

If an adult patient wants it he or she can have it.  The APA has documented why they consider this 'treatment' abusive so the state has banned it for minors.  Minors also can't use Jameson Irish Whiskey to treat the hiccups.  

[Basilisa Marie]

It's coming. Wait for it...

 

What counts as "abuse" is socially determined. And I think Didacus' point is that what our society has determined to be "abusive" in this case is outrageous. If the patient wants it, let him have it. Would we allow a heterosexual who wants to become homosexual to go to therapy for that? Or would that be "abusive"?

 

This is about minors, not adults. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

It seems like this is an attempt to prevent parents from pressuring their children into therapy before they're old enough to understand their sexuality and make such a decision on their own. I'm not sure I can agree with Cali on this. If a sixteen year old Christian with non-Christian parents wants to attempt to ungay him or herself, I don't know how these prevantative measures are helpful. I understand that some believe children aren't old enough to make such a decision on their own. In that case, does California also ban sex changes for minors?

Edited September 1, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Ice_nine]

Hopefully, but until then the claim that we have a state health care system is false.  

 

If an adult patient wants it he or she can have it.  The APA has documented why they consider this 'treatment' abusive so the state has banned it for minors.  Minors also can't use Jameson Irish Whiskey to treat the hiccups.  

 

I'd be interested to see the research that drew them to this conclusion, and also what type of reparative therapy we're talking about. Obviously watching gay porn while getting electrical shocks (this has been done) is bad, but helping a child deal with unwanted sexual feelings using more sane techniques (CBT, verbal therapies) is not necessarily insane. Something that psychologists are required (by APA ethical standards) is to let the patients define their values and their goals, and not to use their influence to force their worldview onto their patients. It's a little tricky with minors, but I think it's reasonable that teenagers have a say in the goals of their therapy.

 

With that said clinical research is really hairy not only because of the politics involved but because of the insane amount of variables involved and the discrepancy that arises between statistical/scientific significance and meaningful clinical change. One of the big problems is that paitents' outcome is much more closely correlated with the quality of the therapist, and not the therapy itself. Obviously the type of therapy matters but the research suggests it's not the most component.

[Gabriela]

Hopefully, but until then the claim that we have a state health care system is false.  If you read closely, you'll see the sarcasm.

 

If an adult patient wants it he or she can have it.  The APA has documented why they consider this 'treatment' abusive so the state has banned it for minors.  Minors also can't use Jameson Irish Whiskey to treat the hiccups. See CatholicsAreKewl's post. The APA changes its mind all the time about what is/is not "abnormal", because what's "abnormal" depends on what most of society is like. My point about "abuse" being socially determined stands. In fact, it's made stronger by your citing of a social institution.

 

[Basilisa Marie]

So if I beat the heck out of my boyfriend, that's only considered abuse because society says so? Or, rather, it's not considered abusive because he's a man and therefore stronger than me and society thinks only men can be perpetrators of domestic abuse? 

 

Abuse isn't just a social construct. 

[MissyP89]

Gov. Christie here in NJ also banned "conversion therapy" a few weeks ago. I was glad to hear the news and glad California is on board.

Why? Because trying to force yourself to think, act or live as a heterosexual when you're not isn't just counterproductive, but it's also damaging.

 

The Church calls us to live out our sexuality in a healthy way that's integrated with the rest of who we are. That doesn't mean change our orientation, or try to suppress or ignore same-sex attraction, which is what this kind of therapy attempts to achieve. This kind of therapy flies in the face of what our faith teaches about how to live with SSA and how others with SSA should be treated.

 

 

I really believe that any form of "pray the gay away" is incredibly harmful and not productive. Instead we need to encourage young people who feel serious same-sex attraction to accept it as part of who they are, and to live the call to chastity appropriately.  Our sexual attraction is rooted in our brain chemistry, you can't just "will" to become someone you're not.  The catechism tells us what we DO with our sexuality is what matters.  

 

 

Yes.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Gov. Christie here in NJ also banned "conversion therapy" a few weeks ago. I was glad to hear the news and glad California is on board.

Why? Because trying to force yourself to think, act or live as a heterosexual when you're not isn't just counterproductive, but it's also damaging.

 

The Church calls us to live out our sexuality in a healthy way that's integrated with the rest of who we are. That doesn't mean change our orientation, or try to suppress or ignore same-sex attraction, which is what this kind of therapy attempts to achieve. This kind of therapy flies in the face of what our faith teaches about how to live with SSA and how others with SSA should be treated.

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

Even if it's helpful to 0% of people 100% of the time, why would the government need to ban it? There's a bunch of useless therapies/medicines that are used as alternatives to real treatment (leading some, like Steve Jobs, to get sicker and eventually die). Are we going to ban those too? I get the point that toddlers and 10 year olds shouldn't be trying to change their sexual orientation. I get that young people can be easily influenced by people in suits. I still can't get myself to agree with banning a form of therapy for minors who are seeking it. I feel there are other ways of dealing with this.

Edited September 1, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[4588686]

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