Against The Law In California To Obtain Ssa Therapy!

[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.

[Era Might]

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.

 

I'm uncomfortable with this view of homosexuality as a "condition" that can be "cured." This is not like a physical disease where to "cure" is a straightforward task: to kill cancer cells, or to fix some broken biological function. I think homosexuality is just part of the broader phenomenon of things like love, relationship, etc. One of the humane aspects of Catholic spirituality is that it assumes human nature and redirects it. A hot-blooded person like St. Ignatius, who otherwise would direct his nature to war and vainglory, can direct it within the "Company of Jesus." A person like Matt Talbot, a wounded alcoholic, can redirect that woundedness to the poor and to asceticism. A humble peasant girl like Joan of Arc, in a world where women don't have much social status, can stand up and claim an unordinary or extraordinary political mission.

 

To become become "Saint" Augustine does not require Augustine to be cured, in a medical sense, of his passions, though it does require him to be converted, that is, in the literal sense of convert, to turn his passions around, to redirect them.

 

The language of "conversion therapy" seems strange to me because the premise is not really to "convert" in that literal sense, but to suppress or to transform. I don't think human emotions and passions can be reduced to a kind of biological task like curing an illness.

 

Should bad therapy be banned? I don't know, but I think it should be banned on the basis of manipulative practice, not on the basis of limitations on a therapist's ability to treat a particular aspect of human nature.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Era Might

[80fiik]

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. 

 

I logged in after a couple month long hiatus to say I agree with this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

[Didacus]

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

 

Hypothetically speaking Hasan, if such a pill was available, and a gay-person wanted to have access to such a pill; would you prevent them from it?

(lingo about cure nad others terms aside, I'll admit I took a bad choice of terms on that last post)

[4588686]

Hypothetically speaking Hasan, if such a pill was available, and a gay-person wanted to have access to such a pill; would you prevent them from it?

(lingo about cure nad others terms aside, I'll admit I took a bad choice of terms on that last post)

 

 

No.  

[Didacus]

If there was the possibility for homosexuals, through therapy, of living and essentially becoming heterosexual and they wanted to undergo such therapy; would you ban this therapy?

Edited September 3, 2013 by Didacus