Against The Law In California To Obtain Ssa Therapy!

[Papist]

But the therapy itself,if applied correctly, not through such scumbags...is it harmful.   If a doctor prescribes chemotherapy when in fact I do not need it (this causes harm), do I know believe proplr should not receive chemotherapy?

[Aloysius]

well there are tons of testimonials out there of people who were harmed by such therapy, plenty of examples of suicides, etc, I don't know which ones are specific to NARTH but I have seen it referenced by people who talk about their experiences.... and of course those scumbag examples are illustrative of how supposedly ex-gay people are very often repressed and end up doing very bad things as outlets of their repression.  the therapy is based on complete junk science, the techniques are manipulative and wrong, and by no means should anyone ever EVER send their impressionable children to it.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

well there are tons of testimonials out there of people who were harmed by such therapy, plenty of examples of suicides, etc, I don't know which ones are specific to NARTH but I have seen it referenced by people who talk about their experiences.... and of course those scumbag examples are illustrative of how supposedly ex-gay people are very often repressed and end up doing very bad things as outlets of their repression.  the therapy is based on complete junk science, the techniques are manipulative and wrong, and by no means should anyone ever EVER send their impressionable children to it.

 

Hmm, but this issue becomes less clear cut when we consider Christian churches (including some Catholic ones) that claim gay expressions of love are unnatural and being gay is a choice. While undergoing a gay conversion treatment would have negative psychological effects on a child, wouldn't being indoctrinated with anti-gay theology be much worse? Shouldn't we also ban minor attendance at certain churches as well?  I don't see how we can ban one and not the other.

 

Edited September 4, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Aloysius]

I haven't really expressed much opinion as to whether the law is right, except to say that it's already generally accepted that psychological treatment is subject to regulation like this so we shouldn't single out opposition to this particular case of regulating what kinds of psychological practices are allowed.

 

I believe that there is a healthy direction of chastity and support people with same sex attraction can go in, I think organizations like CourageRC are great for this--it's about support and love and being open and honest in trying to live the Church's sexual teachings.  I do not believe the Church's sexual teachings are in any way psychologically harmful, I oppose the medicalizing and psychologizing about homosexual sin--if your son became an atheist, you wouldn't take him to a psychologist.  if your son stole some money from your wife's purse, you wouldn't take him to a psychologist.  if you caught your son fooling around with his girlfriend while he wasn't married, you wouldn't take him to a psychologist.  we raise our children teaching them to approach these kinds of things as sins that they should avoid and repent about and try to better themselves around, we acknowledge that everyone sins and teach them that there is mercy and love available when they sin, and placing the idea of homosexual sex in that context of sin and mercy is entirely acceptable and good.

 

I'll say it again: dogmatic gay determinism is also bad (and it's particular to modern post-Christian society, and paradoxically IMO has actually been unintentionally caused by Christianity in society in some ways), its dominance in society leads children to absolutize experiences of same sex attraction during development.  an open and supportive network of loving people that do not accept gay determinism but also do not pressure some kind of medicalized approach/cure therapy, a network including spiritual directors, confessors, friends and family, that help encourage lives of chastity, is an absolutely good thing.

[Didacus]

Hmm, but this issue becomes less clear cut when we consider Christian churches (including some Catholic ones) that claim gay expressions of love are unnatural and being gay is a choice. While undergoing a gay conversion treatment would have negative psychological effects on a child, wouldn't being indoctrinated with anti-gay theology be much worse? Shouldn't we also ban minor attendance at certain churches as well?  I don't see how we can ban one and not the other.

 

 

Hmm, but this issue becomes less clear cut when we consider Christian churches (including some Catholic ones) that claim acting on gay tendencies or impulses gay expressions of love are unnatural and acting on gay tendencies or impulses being gay is a choice.

 

 

Fixed that for you!

:farmer: 

 

[Didacus]

 

(snip - see above)

 

While undergoing a gay conversion treatment would have negative psychological effects on a child, wouldn't being indoctrinated with anti-gay theology be much worse? Shouldn't we also ban minor attendance at certain churches as well?  I don't see how we can ban one and not the other.

 

 

Based on what you point ouot above, it should be against the law for any parent to teach the CCC to their children until they are adults.  How quaint.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I haven't really expressed much opinion as to whether the law is right, except to say that it's already generally accepted that psychological treatment is subject to regulation like this so we shouldn't single out opposition to this particular case of regulating what kinds of psychological practices are allowed.

 

Good point. Since it's already regulated, my argument wouldn't make much sense unless I was arguing for it to be unregulated.

 

 

I believe that there is a healthy direction of chastity and support people with same sex attraction can go in,

No matter how subtly the Catholic Church puts it, telling gay people that their sexual attraction is a cross they have to carry the rest of their lives is bound to have negative psychological effects on children. I can think of some personal examples where this was the case. 

 

I think organizations like CourageRC are great for this--it's about support and love and being open and honest in trying to live the Church's sexual teachings.  I do not believe the Church's sexual teachings are in any way psychologically harmful,

I disagree. The teachings might not be psychologically harmful in all cases, but neither is this crazy conversion therapy.

 

 

I oppose the medicalizing and psychologizing about homosexual sin--if your son became an atheist, you wouldn't take him to a psychologist.  if your son stole some money from your wife's purse, you wouldn't take him to a psychologist.  if you caught your son fooling around with his girlfriend while he wasn't married, you wouldn't take him to a psychologist.  we raise our children teaching them to approach these kinds of things as sins that they should avoid and repent about and try to better themselves around, we acknowledge that everyone sins and teach them that there is mercy and love available when they sin, and placing the idea of homosexual sex in that context of sin and mercy is entirely acceptable and good.

 

Let's play with this idea. This paragraph compares homosexual "sin", which includes any sexual act committed by a gay person, to unmarried tomfoolery, isolated incidents of theft, and non-belief. The examples you listed can become cases where I might consider taking my child to a psychologist. For example, I would scold my child if I caught him stealing from aunt Sahar's purse. If it happened enough times that it started becoming apparent that he was somehow naturally inclined to steal, then I would take him to a psychologist. In the same way, I wouldn't mind if my son was messing around with his gf. But if he couldn't go a few hours without having sex with his girlfriend and it seemed like he was addicted to sex, I would consider taking him to a psychologist. If your child did not believe in God (this example doesn't match as well as the others you provided), I imagine that wouldn't be too concerning.  However, hypothetically speaking, if there was unquestionable proof of God's existence and your child still refused to believe in him, you might begin to wonder whether you should take him to a psychologist. In these three cases, it appears that there is a marked difference in the way the child's brain is working compared to how it should be working.

If we go by the same logic for homosexual "sin", one isolated gay act wouldn't concern you as a parent. However, if you consider homosexual acts to be sinful and unordinary, you should be concerned if you notice a very strong "inclination" towards gay acts that seems to indicate differences in how your child's brain is working compared to how it should be working. As much as I don't agree with Didacus, he seems to be the most logically consistent. Just saying.

Edited September 4, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Based on what you point ouot above, it should be against the law for any parent to teach the CCC to their children until they are adults.  How quaint.

 

I think you misread my post.

[Didacus]

(snip)

 

 an open and supportive network of loving people that do not accept gay determinism but also do not pressure some kind of medicalized approach/cure therapy, a network including spiritual directors, confessors, friends and family, that help encourage lives of chastity, is an absolutely good thing.

 

The only problem I have with your content Aloysius, and that never did I intend (onr believe I have inferred) that the minor should be pressured into being medicalized or in taking part of the therapy.  This aspect has been entirely adn sumarily assumed.

[Didacus]

I think you misread my post.

 

 

(snip)

No matter how subtly the Catholic Church puts it, telling gay people that their sexual attraction is a cross they have to carry the rest of their lives is bound to have negative psychological effects on children. I can think of some personal examples where this was the case. 
(snip)

 

 

Kinda the same theme up there... 

<bound to have negative psychological effects...> based on the CCC...

 

Please help me understand what it is that I misread?

 

 

(snip)

 

As much as I don't agree with Didacus, he seems to be the most logically consistent. Just saying.

 

I am no better than anyone here... nor do I pretend to be.

:cry:

 

 

This conversation is NOT about convincing one another - (at least not to me) - but about exchanging a few thoughts and giving ourselves some materialto reflect.  We do seem to have many <failures to communicate> in this thread in my opinion... but that's just part of the game.... right?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Kinda the same theme up there... 

<bound to have negative psychological effects...> based on the CCC...

 

Please help me understand what it is that I misread?

 

 

 

I am no better than anyone here... nor do I pretend to be.

:cry:

 

 

This conversation is NOT about convincing one another - (at least not to me) - but about exchanging a few thoughts and giving ourselves some materialto reflect.  We do seem to have many <failures to communicate> in this thread in my opinion... but that's just part of the game.... right?

 

 

We kinda share the same position for different reasons. I believe the majority Christian position on human sexuality is potentially harmful to children, but I'm not sure that banning attendence at certain churches or banning gay conversion therapy is the way to go about dealing with this.

Edited September 4, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Didacus]

I believe we share the same position for different reasons. I don't agree with the Church's teaching's on human sexuality but I also don't agree with banning this sort of therapy.

 

Oh... I see...

Sorry about that - I get confused easy.  And what's most amazing about that is that I do it mostly all by myself.  I don't need anyone's help in order to be confused.

:cold:

[Aloysius]

actually this is a pretty strange set of positions where I overlap with catholicsarekewl to some extent (being against conversion therapy), catholicsarekewl overlaps with didacus to some extent (the legal question), and didacus overlaps with me to some extent (affirming that homosexual activity is sinful).  :wacko: easy to get confused ;)

 

catholicsarekewl, in all of those examples you escalate the sin described to the point where one could say they were problematically addicted.  yes, if they're addicted to stealing, a psychologist could help.  if they're addicted to sex, a psychologist could help.  if they're addicted to gay sex, a psychologist could help.  basically, in any instance where you would take your child to a psychologist for their heterosexual activities, you could consider taking your child to a psychologist if it was homosexual activity.  but generally, other than that, it should be dealt with through the lens of sinfulness and mercy.

 

the problem is that you seem unwilling to acknowledge any other cultural context for homosexual inclinations other than gay determinism.  I think the instances when a healthy attitude from a Catholic perspective comes to manifest as harmful is one: because it comes to conflict so deeply with the hegemony of gay determinism in the broader culture and two: because within the Catholic perspective that hegemony of gay determinism is still playing out, so that the person is made to feel huge shame and identity crises when they end up falling into homosexual sin, which definitely makes the ability to engage healthily with an economy of reconciliation and mercy very difficult.

[Papist]

well there are tons of testimonials out there of people who were harmed by such therapy, plenty of examples of suicides, etc, I don't know which ones are specific to NARTH but I have seen it referenced by people who talk about their experiences.... and of course those scumbag examples are illustrative of how supposedly ex-gay people are very often repressed and end up doing very bad things as outlets of their repression.  the therapy is based on complete junk science, the techniques are manipulative and wrong, and by no means should anyone ever EVER send their impressionable children to it.

 

Can you provide how you came to this conclusion? 

[Aloysius]

by looking at the 'studies' they put out, and by talking to people I know who have been subjected to it.  there is certainly a good argument against homosexuality as "genetic" because in reality, I believe, it's hormonal and chemical complexly combined with development and culture, but their arguments in favor of very generic ideas of development about failing to socialize with one's own sex early in life, about 'not fitting in' and 'distant fathers' and 'overbearing mothers'... sometimes broadening out to just some generic talk of 'anger issues'--these broad explanations are like a horoscope for people who are desperately searching for some answer that could get rid of their homosexuality, they're totally unconvincing and I've witnessed first hand how they operate in friends' lives.

 

it's psychological quackery, and I think people who support it, if the same standards and explanations were being applied to anything else they would stand with me to call it quackery, but since people perceive it as a good avenue to defend the Church's sexual teachings, they turn a blind eye to the emptiness of it.  seriously, the way these psychological causations are suggested to people is like a cold read from a psychic... nearly everyone can point to some issue with their parents, nearly everyone can point to some feelings of alienation in their youth, and to twist these things as explanatory models for people totally twists up their lives.