I am really impressed with California right now.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I don't know any background. Has it been a major issue? Numerous suicides, as the article suggests?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My state rocks!
[ October 02, 2012, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I like how the ultra conservative Pacific Justice Institute takes this up as an issue of "freedom." Never mind the freedom of children from being brainwashed.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Conservatives in Maryland fought the banning of parents smoking in their cars with children for the same reasons, invasion of privacy. Apparently conservatives think children's rights ends at birth.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I don't know any background. Has it been a major issue? Numerous suicides, as the article suggests?
More than you'd think. not just kids, either--adults have a staggeringly high suicide rate after going through "conversion therapy."
Suicides among gay teens are 2-3 times as high as those in their straight counterparts, and a lot of it has to do with how they're treated by others for the orientation. It's a sad thing.
I'll see if I can find numbers this week, if you like. Some of my professors might know more.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It needs to be noted that this only applies to state certified professional therapists, and that is a demographic that has already almost entirely (if not entirely) abandoned this practice at the recommendation of pretty much every reputable board and study pertaining to the practice.
It doesn't apply at all to the conversion camps and the religious foundations that will abduct teenagers and spirit them away to a locked-down facility inside or outside of the country. It's nice to have the procedure outlawed, but it's only really being outlawed among state licensed professionals, and this is not really a group that was going to be doing it anymore anyway. The quacks who need no sort of state certification will keep right at it (from life coaches to psychotherapists) but it is encouraging to see that they will be pressured by an additional layer of illegitimacy.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:More than you'd think. not just kids, either--adults have a staggeringly high suicide rate after going through "conversion therapy."
While I don't doubt that the treatment contributes to these suicides, I wonder if these studies controlled for background. I imagine the rate of suicide among gays raised in socially conservative households must be fairly high in the first place.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I doubt you'd have a sample left if you controlled for that factor. How many people do you think subscribe to "conversion therapy," when they aren't from a socially conservative household? Much less the number of suicides?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
prejudice and discrimination and people calling you hideously derogatory names if they find out you are gay certainly doesn't end at the household; you will be able to find plenty who subscribed to conversion therapy, pushed from church urgings and societal discriminatory presences that were not family-based.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
So. Hypothetically. If your particular religion--that may or may not be the LDS Church--thought homosexuality was sinful, and as such could be repented of, would that (voluntary) repentance process violate this law?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by 777: So. Hypothetically. If your particular religion--that may or may not be the LDS Church--thought homosexuality was sinful, and as such could be repented of, would that (voluntary) repentance process violate this law?
quote:It needs to be noted that this only applies to state certified professional therapists
you can still send your hypothetical may or may not be mormon child to faith\narth degayers or pretty much anyone who is not a state certified therapist.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by 777: So. Hypothetically. If your particular religion--that may or may not be the LDS Church--thought homosexuality was sinful, and as such could be repented of, would that (voluntary) repentance process violate this law?
Not if that repentence process does not involve board certified health professionals.
Pretty sure God does not care to become board certified.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
Ah. I didn't see the qualifying statement. Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I don't know any background. Has it been a major issue? Numerous suicides, as the article suggests?
More than you'd think. not just kids, either--adults have a staggeringly high suicide rate after going through "conversion therapy."
Suicides among gay teens are 2-3 times as high as those in their straight counterparts, and a lot of it has to do with how they're treated by others for the orientation. It's a sad thing.
I'll see if I can find numbers this week, if you like. Some of my professors might know more.
Not that I don't think "curing" gays is absurd or simply cruel. Just pure curiostiy.
Sometimes I just think that way too many things are being banned. I agree that such "therapy" is counter-effective and weird. But still.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
A certification worth the paper it is printed on is going to involve mandatory non-practice of certifiably terrible nonscientific practices.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Conservatives in Maryland fought the banning of parents smoking in their cars with children for the same reasons, invasion of privacy. Apparently conservatives think children's rights ends at birth.
I am not a neo-con, not even close. But this bothers me a bit, and for the same reasons. There are some things the government needs to stay out of, and my car is one of them. They already legislate too much crap, and have their hands in too many pies as it is.
And I am not only NOT a smoker, I have never smoked, and am a nurse, so I am fully aware of some of the dangers.
Posted by dansigal (Member # 12661) on :
I'm not per se supporting a ban on smoking with children in the car, because I don't really know much about the health studies and all that, but let's just assume it's found to be extremely unhealthy for the child involved. What does it being "your car" have anything to do with it? If it's harmful to a child, then its HARMFUL TO A CHILD. End of discussion. Period. Exclamation point.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I sympathize with your viewpoint here. I just think these are really not issues that can be equivocated in any useful way. The ethical arguments for or against banning smoking in a car (when there is significant doubt as to the degree of harm it may cause others, though little doubt that a risk exists), versus banning a proven to be bogus form of "therapy," are so different as to not belong in the same realm.
One is based an assessment of risks that can be argued over. The other is a little more black and white: conversion therapy is bogus, and bogus therapies represent dangers to children, and opportunities for swindlers to steal your money and possibly do serious damage.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
So let me get this straight. Whether or not ciggarette smoke is harmful is up for debate, while "pray the gay away" is scientifically and wholly disproven?
I hate to play devil's advocate and give ammo to anyone who would be support a system that terrorizes a person into hating themselves and feeling shame for what is natural. But so long as there are "post-gays" the people who are so delusional as to think psychological torture will save thier childs soul will have a valid(ish) argument. Tobbacco smoke on the other is never okay.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
In my opinion, the moment you bring prayer into it science goes out the window.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, I disagree AH. These are just not equivalent issues- that's all. As I said, the *degree* of harm represented by tobacco smoke is a matter of some controversy. Studies that claim to have proven significant harm have not consistently done so- so I'm willing to entertain an argument that it is outside the reasonable purview of the government to ban its use in some situations (such as in private residences and cars).
On the other hand, in the case "degayification," the burden of proof is on the practitioners themselves to prove the treatment as being efficacious and not harmful, and they have not done so. So you have two very different burdens of proof here: to convince me to ban smoking, I would need proof of the significance of the dangers and the efficacy of the ban in curtailing the dangers. Smoking is not a medical treatment- it's a vice. People do it understanding that there is some danger, so the degree of danger is what is in question (so for instance, if studies established that the cancer risk of second-hand smoke was significantly above the margin of error, that would be a point in favor of a ban- studies have not established this yet, and those that have claimed to don't, iirc) (second parenthetical: this issue is unrelated to studies on smoking, which has been proven to be significantly dangerous to health). In the case of degayification, I would need to see proof that it works and is safe before allowing it. It is something claiming to be a therapy, and claiming to have some efficacy in the treatment of an illness. That illness is not recognized as even existing, and the treatment for such an ailment has not been proven safe or effective. That's why these cases are so different.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Smoking is also something that one does to oneself, not to another person, and second-hand smoke is a side-effect of that. That makes the privacy argument more credible, I think.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Conservatives in Maryland fought the banning of parents smoking in their cars with children for the same reasons, invasion of privacy. Apparently conservatives think children's rights ends at birth.
Meh. At least they don't think they end before birth. Just sayin'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I hate to play devil's advocate and give ammo to anyone who would be support a system that terrorizes a person into hating themselves and feeling shame for what is natural. But so long as there are "post-gays" the people who are so delusional as to think psychological torture will save thier childs soul will have a valid(ish) argument.
If the argument is "here is a group of people who say that their sexual alignment was cured!" then, it's not a valid(ish) argument at all, it's a plural of anecdote.
You could — and this is absolutely serious, too, even without relying on the christian science group — find more people who are assured that prayer solved their cancer.