Breaking Current Event California Makes Elective Reparative Therapy Illegal

This does not appear to be what the law says. As quoted:

"“Sexual orientation change efforts” means practices by mental health providers that seek to change orientation or reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions, feelings, or behaviors because those attractions, feelings, or behaviors are directed toward persons of a particular sex or both sexes."

In other words, efforts to change or reduce sexual or romantic attractions, feelings, or behaviors CAN be allowed, as long as they're not being done BECAUSE that orientation is for a particular sex. So, if they can demonstrate that a compulsion is the result of molestation, and the efforts made BECAUSE of a desire to fix the damaged caused by that molestation, this would not be specifically prohibited. Also allowed would be efforts to reduce or control compulsive and addictive behavior, considered inappropriately excessive... regardless of which sex it is towards.

Attempts to change an orientation strictly for the sake of changing it would be prohibited by the law of course, which you would object to as well, but providing treatment for compulsions resulting from molestation would not be prohibited.

I'm curious if there's any verified evidence of children under the age of 18 "successfully" being treated for homosexuality. Presumably if it hasn't been illegal to this point and it's so much more effective, you'd see evidence, yes?

 

Absolute bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

This thread might make sense if you had even the slightest clue what so-called reparative therapy actually is.

 

Amen!!

 

They have nothing to show that any "sexual orientation change efforts" are "quack treatments".

 

She said nothing about reparative therapy. And this legislation prohibits anything they view to be "sexual orientation change efforts".

 

Whatever you want to call it, it is bogus science.

 

According to whom? You, a layman?

Then I guess women's reproductive services are also "bogus science" in equal weight according to John Boehner and the gang? You cannot see the draconian edge to your own fringe insanity but you'd be the first to scream foul play if Boeher suddenly decided to substitute a political agenda for medical science..

If a child was suicidal for want to be rid of his unwanted homosexual compulsions stemming from PTSD from being serial-molested by a same-gendered perp, you would be OK with that collateral damage. Imagine your therapist being mandated to tell you that loud sounds of crashing metal were "OK" and "you should embrace them" after you experienced being in a horrible car wreck that left you mangled for life?

You might consider suicide if you could never escape those sounds..

 

Well, they've had all of human history, in particular the last 100 years in the development of mental health practices to demonstrate its effectiveness as more than a "bogus science". Have they demonstrated successful reparative therapy of homosexual children, or are you just defending it out of principle?

 

100s of gay boys have been surgically altered into heterosexual women. And the legislation doesnt only address what is called reparative therapy and instead prohibits any therapy that would be viewed as efforts to change sexual orientation.

And individuals successfully change their sexual orientation everyday without therapy. Just now in california, minors cant be given any treatment to help them bring about that change.

 

Except the official statements of every known professional mental health provider organization. And exhaustive clinical research showing such therapies cause harm to the individuals, even suicidal tendencies.

But other than that, nothing at all...

How about according to every mental health provider's organization in the United States:

Mainstream health organizations critical of conversion therapy include the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the American Academy of Physician Assistants.

All of their positions on the issue are linked from the wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

If those organizations called women's reproductive services "bogus science," you might have a point.

There is absolutely nothing in the California law preventing therapy to victims of child molesters. Absolutely nothing. Obviously, you can't be bothered to read the bill text, probably because you're too busy with your obsession about Harvey Milk.

 

It opposes efforts that are motivated strictly because of the orientation towards one sex or the other, not therapy regarding sexual orientation in general, particularly when it's not motivated strictly by the gender of attraction.

I will agree that the law should be very very careful in its wording so that any topic or therapy about sexuality becomes too dangerous or murky for any therapist to participate in, even if it's not motivated by attempts to change orientation. The text of the law has been modified several times to give therapists more wiggle room and security around the issue, and more may be necessary. Unintended consequences of ambiguous laws are a legitimate concern.

No success has been demonstrated in "changing" sexual orientation among exclusive homosexuals. The only thing accomplished was the promotion of celibacy, or the suppression of homosexuality among bisexuals. Perhaps people, children in particular, should be allowed treatment that promotes celibacy, but this is a completely different question than methods that claim to change someone's sexual orientation all together.

 

Made up nonsense. They made statements about specific therapies used in the past. NOT any efforts to change sexual orientation

 

No, it makes it illegal, regardless of motivations.

And no one but you has said anything about "exclusive homosexuals". I would imagine the most frequent case is a bisexual, in a committed relationship with someone of the opposite sex, seeking to alter their orientation to a heterosexual one.

 

Of course, many of the objections are related to the notion that the orientation needs to change in the first place, and having this reenforced by psychological professionals is damaging regardless of the methodology used. Even in terms of modern methods, none are demonstrated to do anything more than promote celibacy, if they could demonstrate anything at all with lack of scientific rigor. Changes in sexual orientation are yet to be demonstrated.

 

not according to the text of the law.

So you agree, there is absolutely 0, zilch, nada, nothing of evidence demonstrating that non-bisexual homosexuals have been "converted" to heterosexuality, in childhood or adulthood?

That this is only about bisexuals?

The most frequent case among children is one in a committed relationship with someone of the opposite sex? I find that unlikely. The more likely scenario is a kid, fearful and guilty of their attractions due to the social and religious stigmas that they are sensitive to, being reenforced by professionals offering "treatment".

 

Nosense. Happens all the time. Sexual orientations are chosen by people everyday. You people can rationalize that they were or are repressing their true orientation but there is no scientific evidence of this. Other than asking a person what their sexual orientation is, their is no way to identify it.

 

Really- when did you chose your sexual orientation?

Personally, I have always been heterosexual and really wasn't given a choice in the matter. I just am not sexually attracted to men.

 

It's not that difficult. Strap a string to the guys penis and see if he responds to homosexual stimuli with measurable growth. Monitor the sections of the brain that are active during arousal in response to homosexual stimuli. Or just ask the person if they have a decrease or elimination of attractions, as opposed to if the attractions are still there but behavior controlled. Which is exactly what they've done, and there has been no demonstration of conversion therapy working to promote anything but celibacy & repression.

 

From the co-founder of NARTH:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/15/AR2005081501022_2.html?sub=AR

Like usual, the reports of success are notoriously ambiguous. You go to the NARTH home page, and you'll be hard-pressed to find anything resembling a report of success rates. But the co-founder did provide us with the above, slightly ambiguous report of results... If the measure of success is the conversion from a homosexual to heterosexual, 100% of his participants "may still have gay sex", have same-sex desires that are "not necessarily gone" or had no change at all.

This ambiguous reporting and omission of more complete data is a hallmark of reports on such therapies, making them impossible to evaluate as anything but suspicious in their omissions.

 

These guys don't do long term follow ups, they never have.

They are nothing but bible thumping voodoo medicine quacks. But the church just loves them.

Sexual orientation may be completely genetic, but untill we have the technology to discover that, the most credible work I've seen indicates that sexual orientation is not a choice.

 

I said it happens all the time and did not allege it had ever happened to me.

And I have always been heterosexual. Most people have a natural instinct that compells a very strong attraction to the opposite sex. And most of the others, culture instills in them an attraction to the opposite sex. And many of those remaining are making choices.


Kinsey, of course, famously argued that “The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats” (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948, p. 639) and that same-sex and other-sex desires varied along a continuous
dimension. More recently, this point of view has been articulated by researchers emphasizing the flexible, socially constructed nature of human sexuality (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1990; Golden, 1987; Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 1995; Rust, 1992, 1993). As Paul (1985) succintly summarized, “There is far more variability and
fluidity in many people’s sexual patterns than theoretical notions tend to allow, suggesting that researchers have imparted an artificial consistency to an inchoate sexual universe” (p. 21).
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/dev-4415.pdf

The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT

 

This legislation isnt about NARTH and they dont have a monopoly on "sexual orientation change efforts". One doesnt need to treat homosexual orientation as a mental disorder in order to change orientation.

 

You're right, NARTH is just the most reputable and well reported among them. The rest have an even more severe lack of data, reporting and disclosure to make any claims of success. I guess I can't say they aren't successful if they don't report anything. But if that's the standard we're going for, then I'd just like to let you know I've invented cold fusion and I'll sell it to ya for 1000 bucks. Trust me.

I'd be entertained to see a conversion therapy authority that presents homosexuality as a "normal variation in human sexuality that we change for the fun of it."

 

No NARTH would be the LEAST reputable, which of course is why you selected them.

 

The APA and other organizations relate the BEST science (to date) on the matter.

Organizations like NARTH (includes those quack-like outfits, who think homosexuality can be 'switched' to heterosexuality) ought to be ignored period.