Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Laws Banning Gay Conversion Therapy

rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 10:10:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do laws that ban gay conversion therapy also ban therapy that helps gay people remain celibate if that is what they want? Or do these laws only ban therapy that tries to make gay people straight? Would they ban therapy that acknowledges gay people cannot become straight, but tries to make them be happy if they marry someone of the opposite sex willing to marry a gay person? In the US these laws have only addressed conversion therapy for minors but in some other countries (like Brazil) I think they are for everyone.

I am gay and proud, but if a gay person wants to remain celibate or marry a person of the opposite sex after telling them that they are gay, I feel they are free to do it. I don't think I could do either and I don't want to do either, but everyone's sex drive is different. No gay person should be forced or coerced to be celibate or marry someone of the opposite sex but if they freely want to do so, why can't they have counseling to help them?

What is harmful, dishonest, and wrong is therapy that tells gay people that they can stop being attracted to the same sex and start being attracted to the opposite sex. The scientific community has a clear consensus that such gay to straight conversion therapy is ineffective and makes the patient suffer greatly.

I am not sure if it is the American Psychological or Psychiatric Association that did this but it recently changed its guidelines to allow members to counsel gay people who wished to remain celibate for religious reasons about how to do so (while being honest with the patient about how difficult celibacy is). This does not represent a return to treating homosexuality as a disease, which ended decades ago for these associations.

More difficult is the issue of a marriage of a gay person to a straight person (or of two gay people of the opposite sex), where everyone is honest about their sexual orientation going into the marriage. Sometimes sex is not that important in what people are looking for in a relationship.

I am also unsure about whether celibacy-aiding or marrying the opposite sex while openly gay-aiding therapy should be allowed for minors. Minors are often pushed by their parents to do what they fun socially and morally acceptable so their consent for such therapy might be hampered. Any therapist should need to check the the therapy is what the teenager really wants and be willing to offer therapy to help the minor be actively gay if that is what the minor wants. But the minor might lie about s/he really wants in order to please his/her parents, or may not know what s/he wants. I am not sure what the law should be regarding this.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 10:17:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's not really a "consensus" at it being ineffective, but rather at it being pointless and that the people who promote it usually peddling false psychology around it. I don't see why this is impossible (most scientific studies show how homosexuality is partly nature partly nurture), especially bearing in mind the things we can convince people of with the right use of positive and negative behaviourism tactics.

The more important point that you touched upon I think is that the people usually who take part are coerced into essentially going through brainwashing (not just into being heterosexual but almost always also into the denomination of Christianity or religion being peddled as well), and usually done for the wrong reasons - appeasement of family or the idea that being sexually attracted to the same sex is evil.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 3:58:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I do not support Gay Conversion Therapy, but it should not be outlawed.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 9:22:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think laws against such a therapy are inhumane, and politically driven. Though gays like to argue that it's harmful, the only harm is actually the fact that it refutes their argument that being gay is not a choice. Simple fact is that there are cases of the therapy being successful, and if that is the case then it is worth exploring. No, it may not work in all cases, but no form of medication or therapy DOES work in all cases. To simply shut off the possibility of someone being helped by such a therapy is inhumane and absolutely ridiculous.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 11:33:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I definitely don't think such laws are inhumane or whatever. I think there should be laws preventing such therapy-providers from deceiving/lying to customers (so that they can't say they have turned people straight but rather customers have self-reported as being straight, if that were a tactic, for example). However, that should apply to all business. Beyond that, individuals have a right to do as they wish--including go through conversion therapy, should they choose.

However, because I'm supportive of mature minor doctrines, parents should never be allowed to force their teenage son/daughter/"mature minor" into going through conversion therapy.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 11:36:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
GCT is a very broad issue. There are some places that actually try to help homosexuals who personally do not want to be gay, and there are others that focus on trying to beat homosexuality out of them (much like left-handedness however many decades ago). There is nothing wrong with not being satisfied with who or what you are sexually attracted to (or not attracted to).

No one would say that if a woman was no longer sexually attracted to her husband and she went to a relationship councilor to try to get her sexual attraction back on course to what her head wanted, that she shouldn't.

This is also something that should be researched and expanded upon (which is hard to do when you make it illegal), is it can be used (albeit forcefully) in some criminal rehabilitation, namely with pedophiles, and possibly with some rapists.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 11:36:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 11:33:37 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I definitely don't think such laws are inhumane or whatever. I think there should be laws preventing such therapy-providers from deceiving/lying to customers (so that they can't say they have turned people straight but rather customers have self-reported as being straight, if that were a tactic, for example). However, that should apply to all business. Beyond that, individuals have a right to do as they wish--including go through conversion therapy, should they choose.

However, because I'm supportive of mature minor doctrines, parents should never be allowed to force their teenage son/daughter/"mature minor" into going through conversion therapy.

What if they heavily coerce them? "You go or you're out of the house" is an event I can see happening repeatedly, especially with the precedence of disowning of children who are gay by the evangelist community "gay converstion therapy" panders to.

In theory, I'd agree it is acceptable, though ridiculously strange and nonsensically irrational. In practice, I see it as a legitimiser of forcing beliefs onto people who do not share them - namely homophobes and evangelists proselytising onto homosexuals.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 11:42:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, here's a thought experiment:

If someone trains you from birth to hate homosexuals, and you yourself are homosexual. This person lives in a community which hates homosexuals. They start to self-harm, and contemplate suicide.

Okay, in fairness, it's not a thought experiment but more an almost certain example of a case that has happened in history. Wittgenstein is a famous philosopher who both struggled living with homosexuality in a community which hated it and hated it himself. Wilde and Turing and Fry similarly have had problems around this issue. Those who are still indoctrinated in these beliefs I feel real sympathy for.

I'd say their freedom is inhibited. They are stuck in the bondage of their community's and parent's cultural ropes, and are not free from external restraint; they are not free to pursue self-mastery. This problem is severe enough to put up real questions about whether GCT should be allowed, because it is people like these who are its customers: we are essentially supporting an industry which promotes intolerance and restricts freedom. The free market is only free when people make informed rational decisions, yet the decision to buy these therapies is almost universally done from an emotive irrational hatred of oneself.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 11:51:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 11:42:33 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Also, here's a thought experiment:

If someone trains you from birth to hate homosexuals, and you yourself are homosexual. This person lives in a community which hates homosexuals. They start to self-harm, and contemplate suicide.

Okay, in fairness, it's not a thought experiment but more an almost certain example of a case that has happened in history. Wittgenstein is a famous philosopher who both struggled living with homosexuality in a community which hated it and hated it himself. Wilde and Turing and Fry similarly have had problems around this issue. Those who are still indoctrinated in these beliefs I feel real sympathy for.

I'd say their freedom is inhibited. They are stuck in the bondage of their community's and parent's cultural ropes, and are not free from external restraint; they are not free to pursue self-mastery. This problem is severe enough to put up real questions about whether GCT should be allowed, because it is people like these who are its customers: we are essentially supporting an industry which promotes intolerance and restricts freedom. The free market is only free when people make informed rational decisions, yet the decision to buy these therapies is almost universally done from an emotive irrational hatred of oneself.

I understand your concerns, that I share too. However, the issues you present are much broader issues that do not depend on GCT. The problem here is that those are issues of individuals' certain specific beliefs. And, although you and I both agree that homosexuality is perfectly fine, the fact does remain that those people legitimately believe that homosexuality is not perfectly fine, but is rather wrong, evil, immoral, etc. And, at the end of the day, such attitudes are things which we neither can legislate on, nor things that we should ethically be allowed to legislate on--in essence, you can't illegalize an attitude. The only way to eradicate such attitudes is through collective, private effort to educate and help.

That's why I would argue that GCT still shouldn't be illegalized, regardless of what it may assist. Ultimately, whether or not GCT is legal or illegal won't change how a homophobe treats his/her homosexual child. We can legislate against child abuse that results from such homophobic attitudes, and we can legislate against businesses that are openly abusive to children. However, as Ore_Ele said, GCT is an extremely broad set of therapies. If a person doesn't accept his/her homosexuality, there should be nothing to stop them from seeking help to change it, even if we think it's impossible, or that it shouldn't be changed. The only thing that can ultimately be done, as I said, is take the abusive acts out of the system. We can't take away the attitudes, which seems to be what your concerns are largely concerned with.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 12:06:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree with DN, that it shouldn't be illegal. If there are therapies that have proven themselves to work, then one should have the right to decide if he wants to avail himself of that therapy. Making it illegal is just like making sex changes and hormone therapy illegal, or elective plastic surgery. No one should have the right to tell that person that he has to suffer with something that he wants to be rid of, if there are effective treatments for it.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 12:10:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gay conversion therapy raises a series of ethical issues, and I'll chart them out as best I can. I just woke up, so the coffee hasn't had time to kick in yet... but alas.

If sexual identity is something that can be changed, then GCT is something that is at least theoretically permissible -which is to say that there exists some potentiality to change the attraction people have to other people. If sexual identity is static, then GCT is something both not theoretically permissible and a false or misleading service offered to the public -which is to imply that those who offer GCT are selling snake oil.

There is abounding research that sexual identity cannot be changed, and that has been the official position of virtually every recognized medical authority since the late 1970s to early 1980s. There is no solid (solid, being the key word here) evidence that even those who have endured various GCTs actually changed their sexual sexual identity. There are "success stories" in which case people were either (1) not fully homosexual to begin with and only changed their behavior, (2) where homosexuals cease to admit attraction or (3) some other process of "normalization" where exercises produced ostensible results in subjects but nothing other than observation can confirm.

So, what that means is that those offering GCT are falsely advertising a product at the expense of the general public because no regulator has made their practice illegal as of yet; it is worth mentioning that I would consider GCT to be equivalent to the equivalent of patent medicines.

I'll post on the ethics of the methodology of various GCT's later on.
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 12:25:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 11:51:46 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/22/2013 11:42:33 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Also, here's a thought experiment:

If someone trains you from birth to hate homosexuals, and you yourself are homosexual. This person lives in a community which hates homosexuals. They start to self-harm, and contemplate suicide.

Okay, in fairness, it's not a thought experiment but more an almost certain example of a case that has happened in history. Wittgenstein is a famous philosopher who both struggled living with homosexuality in a community which hated it and hated it himself. Wilde and Turing and Fry similarly have had problems around this issue. Those who are still indoctrinated in these beliefs I feel real sympathy for.

I'd say their freedom is inhibited. They are stuck in the bondage of their community's and parent's cultural ropes, and are not free from external restraint; they are not free to pursue self-mastery. This problem is severe enough to put up real questions about whether GCT should be allowed, because it is people like these who are its customers: we are essentially supporting an industry which promotes intolerance and restricts freedom. The free market is only free when people make informed rational decisions, yet the decision to buy these therapies is almost universally done from an emotive irrational hatred of oneself.

I understand your concerns, that I share too. However, the issues you present are much broader issues that do not depend on GCT. The problem here is that those are issues of individuals' certain specific beliefs. ... at the end of the day, such attitudes are things which we neither can legislate on, nor things that we should ethically be allowed to legislate on--in essence, you can't illegalize an attitude. The only way to eradicate such attitudes is through collective, private effort to educate and help.

That's why I would argue that GCT still shouldn't be illegalized, regardless of what it may assist. Ultimately, whether or not GCT is legal or illegal won't change how a homophobe treats his/her homosexual child. We can legislate against child abuse that results from such homophobic attitudes, and we can legislate against businesses that are openly abusive to children. However, as Ore_Ele said, GCT is an extremely broad set of therapies. If a person doesn't accept his/her homosexuality, there should be nothing to stop them from seeking help to change it, even if we think it's impossible, or that it shouldn't be changed. The only thing that can ultimately be done, as I said, is take the abusive acts out of the system. We can't take away the attitudes, which seems to be what your concerns are largely concerned with.

Well firstly I'd like to point out we can and do illegalise attitudes. We illegalise attitudes that say you can commit FGM. We criminalise attitudes that say the law of the nation you live does not bind you (whether it are muslim extremists only adhering to Sharia or Christian evangelists like Kent Hovind). What we ought to do is criminalise any attitude which challenges the principles of foundational equality, formal equality, and the liberty of others - I think this point becomes more justified.

Secondly, I question whether "collective private effort" is what is needed. If by private you mean non-governmental, I challenge that strongly: the government has a mandate to protect the freedom of all individuals, which includes those whose freedom has already been infringed upon by other collective, private efforts - namely that of the evangelist/homophobic community. The protection of freedom does not stop when indoctrination is finished, but instead we have a moral imperative to revert it.

Notice how all of this addresses the individual being the victim. As you've right said, and I agree with you here, banning GCT will not and does not change the minds of those who sell it, nor does it stop those who willingly take part, nor does it stop those who coerce and force others. However, it does help stop them from getting GCT. Other policies need to be put in conjunction with GCT in order to rehabilitate those who are harmed by collectivist groups enforcing their culture and imposing it onto other people irrationally, but the key part is in conjunction, in my mind.

In short, I think our major disagreement is whether you can legislate on attitudes and their consequences. I think we can legislate on attitudes which infringe on liberty and foundational and formal equality, and we do so by counteracting the consequences and promoting education in reason and these well-founded values of a democratic, Western state.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 12:28:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 12:10:35 PM, YYW wrote:
Gay conversion therapy raises a series of ethical issues, and I'll chart them out as best I can. I just woke up, so the coffee hasn't had time to kick in yet... but alas.

If sexual identity is something that can be changed, then GCT is something that is at least theoretically permissible -which is to say that there exists some potentiality to change the attraction people have to other people. If sexual identity is static, then GCT is something both not theoretically permissible and a false or misleading service offered to the public -which is to imply that those who offer GCT are selling snake oil.

There is abounding research that sexual identity cannot be changed, and that has been the official position of virtually every recognized medical authority since the late 1970s to early 1980s. There is no solid (solid, being the key word here) evidence that even those who have endured various GCTs actually changed their sexual sexual identity. There are "success stories" in which case people were either (1) not fully homosexual to begin with and only changed their behavior, (2) where homosexuals cease to admit attraction or (3) some other process of "normalization" where exercises produced ostensible results in subjects but nothing other than observation can confirm.

So, what that means is that those offering GCT are falsely advertising a product at the expense of the general public because no regulator has made their practice illegal as of yet; it is worth mentioning that I would consider GCT to be equivalent to the equivalent of patent medicines.

I'll post on the ethics of the methodology of various GCT's later on.

You forgot that only information from Christian evangelicals and groups biased against homosexuality and gay marriage fairly and objectively present the facts (at least according to medic). Redo your research and you'll see the falsity of your claims.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 12:43:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@YYW, I'd say that (a priori) GCT works a bit like those smoking groups*: when it works, it's because there's a group around you helping you to make that change, and it is positive reinforcement. I don't think there's any reason why you can't change it - it is at its core a preference (though a unique and important one), so it can theoretically be changed. I'd like to hear your input on the methodology, though, and I think you're right that a lot of the methodologies lack scientific evidence behind it to accredit these groups as working. And to test out my hypothesis requires negative and positive reinforcement on the level surpassing Little Albert, and so certainly on an ethical standard shouldn't be done.

*This excludes the GCT (and technically smoking groups) where they beat you up until you're not smoking/homosexual anymore. Or burn you. Or exorcise you. etc.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 12:48:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 12:10:35 PM, YYW wrote:
Gay conversion therapy raises a series of ethical issues, and I'll chart them out as best I can. I just woke up, so the coffee hasn't had time to kick in yet... but alas.

If sexual identity is something that can be changed, then GCT is something that is at least theoretically permissible -which is to say that there exists some potentiality to change the attraction people have to other people. If sexual identity is static, then GCT is something both not theoretically permissible and a false or misleading service offered to the public -which is to imply that those who offer GCT are selling snake oil.

There is abounding research that sexual identity cannot be changed, and that has been the official position of virtually every recognized medical authority since the late 1970s to early 1980s. There is no solid (solid, being the key word here) evidence that even those who have endured various GCTs actually changed their sexual sexual identity.

http://www.tandfonline.com...

Sorry, but sexual identity changes for a lot of people as they grow and mature. Any researcher that says it is stagnant and never changes is ignorant. That is different from saying it is a choice, but it is far from stagnant.

There are "success stories" in which case people were either (1) not fully homosexual to begin with and only changed their behavior, (2) where homosexuals cease to admit attraction or (3) some other process of "normalization" where exercises produced ostensible results in subjects but nothing other than observation can confirm.

How can you confirm whether their sexual desires have actually changed or if they are faking it? Also, can you provide examples?


So, what that means is that those offering GCT are falsely advertising a product at the expense of the general public because no regulator has made their practice illegal as of yet; it is worth mentioning that I would consider GCT to be equivalent to the equivalent of patent medicines.

I'll post on the ethics of the methodology of various GCT's later on.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 1:23:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the biggest reason driving the ban is that GCT, or reparative therapy, or whatever it's decided to be called, is generally quackery. In many cases it's not performed by trained doctors or anything along those lines, but rather various preachers with no training.

Is there any peer-reviewed research showing any effectiveness to the treatment whatsoever?

The success stories are often anecdotal or, to use a medic term, "just-so"; and even one of the driving forces behind the "ex-gay" movement starting in the seventies, John Smid, came out as saying nobody actually changes their orientation including himself.

http://thinkprogress.org...

In light of this, and in light of the fact that it's generally ineffective and has been around for 40 years yet has no actual evidence of effectiveness and lack of harm, yet is also known to cause harm, I see no real problem in banning it from a state-regulation standpoint.

And remember that the ban I'm aware of doesn't ban it, per se, they prevent "state-licensed mental health practitioners" from performing it, on minors. If you're willing to give up your license for this quackery, you can do so and you can continue doing it under a lay umbrella, giving religiously abusive parents the ability to exercise that freedom.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 2:47:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am unfamiliar with these laws, so I will respond generically.

I can see a law being justified, if and only if it protects minors. By this I mean the therapy would be illegal to administer on minors, unless it was obvious the child wants to be there. One could say their parents are causing undue harm akin to child abuse. However, that is a slippery slope, as a lot of parenting tactics could also be viewed as child abuse (up to and including taking away a cell phone).

Outside of the minor thing, there is no reason this should be illegal. The fact that it doesn't work is irrelavent, as many therapies don't work, and chances are, like most therapies, the success stories are from people that actually wanted to change. I see this as no different that Alcoholics Anonymous, or any of the other talk therapies out there, including anger management.

As far as medical professionals losing their licenses, this is too far, IMO. There are plenty of people who sign on/associate themselves with "fads". Think of doctors who tote the south beach diet, or those that suggest eastern healing methods. How many suggest the efficacy of AA for drunk drivers, yet it doesn't seem to do much good.
Caveat emptor, with your doctors.
My work here is, finally, done.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:35:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So now the very same people who purport to stand up for the rights of homosexuals now deny them "their choice" to consider conversion therapy.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:52:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:35:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
So now the very same people who purport to stand up for the rights of homosexuals now deny them "their choice" to consider conversion therapy.

In the case of minors only.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:52:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 2:47:57 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I am unfamiliar with these laws, so I will respond generically.

I can see a law being justified, if and only if it protects minors. By this I mean the therapy would be illegal to administer on minors, unless it was obvious the child wants to be there. One could say their parents are causing undue harm akin to child abuse. However, that is a slippery slope, as a lot of parenting tactics could also be viewed as child abuse (up to and including taking away a cell phone).

Outside of the minor thing, there is no reason this should be illegal. The fact that it doesn't work is irrelavent, as many therapies don't work, and chances are, like most therapies, the success stories are from people that actually wanted to change. I see this as no different that Alcoholics Anonymous, or any of the other talk therapies out there, including anger management.

As far as medical professionals losing their licenses, this is too far, IMO. There are plenty of people who sign on/associate themselves with "fads". Think of doctors who tote the south beach diet, or those that suggest eastern healing methods. How many suggest the efficacy of AA for drunk drivers, yet it doesn't seem to do much good.
Caveat emptor, with your doctors.

Children should not be subject to harmful fads. The law addresses only minors, AFAIK.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:09:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 4:52:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 2:47:57 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I am unfamiliar with these laws, so I will respond generically.

I can see a law being justified, if and only if it protects minors. By this I mean the therapy would be illegal to administer on minors, unless it was obvious the child wants to be there. One could say their parents are causing undue harm akin to child abuse. However, that is a slippery slope, as a lot of parenting tactics could also be viewed as child abuse (up to and including taking away a cell phone).

Outside of the minor thing, there is no reason this should be illegal. The fact that it doesn't work is irrelavent, as many therapies don't work, and chances are, like most therapies, the success stories are from people that actually wanted to change. I see this as no different that Alcoholics Anonymous, or any of the other talk therapies out there, including anger management.

As far as medical professionals losing their licenses, this is too far, IMO. There are plenty of people who sign on/associate themselves with "fads". Think of doctors who tote the south beach diet, or those that suggest eastern healing methods. How many suggest the efficacy of AA for drunk drivers, yet it doesn't seem to do much good.
Caveat emptor, with your doctors.

Children should not be subject to harmful fads. The law addresses only minors, AFAIK.

We're not talking about tarot cards or psychic readings here. We're talking about family counseling for instance, that has shown to produce the desired outcome for patients who went through it.

Secondly, that is a matter of parental authority, just as a child's medical decisions are made by the parents, so should the parents be in the best position to know their child and what is best for him.

Third, what are the actual damages that are caused by this "harmful" therapy that works for some people?? Some medicines can cause fatal anaphylactic reactions in some people, so should we outlaw that therapy even though it helps some people??
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:16:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:09:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
We're not talking about tarot cards or psychic readings here.

We aren't? Oh, so there's evidence that this works?

We're talking about family counseling for instance, that has shown to produce the desired outcome for patients who went through it.

A bold claim! Have any evidence for that? Because, when one of the former LEADERS of the movement says it doesn't work, and I have seen no evidence that it does, I find the claim that it does work more and more dubious.


Secondly, that is a matter of parental authority, just as a child's medical decisions are made by the parents, so should the parents be in the best position to know their child and what is best for him.

I know, right? So, you'd defend any abuse so long as the parent asserted their "authority"? Circumferential burns? Well, the kid needed discipline, and the boiling water was the way the parent chose do exercise their authority!

Third, what are the actual damages that are caused by this "harmful" therapy that works for some people?? Some medicines can cause fatal anaphylactic reactions in some people, so should we outlaw that therapy even though it helps some people??

I'll go ahead and wait for evidence that it helps. If you can show that, I wager the same studies would show harm, because that's usually how it works. The only study I actually know of didn't use a great representative sample, so while it showed overwhelmingly greater harm than any possible good, the advert for participants was biased.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:17:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:35:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
So now the very same people who purport to stand up for the rights of homosexuals now deny them "their choice" to consider conversion therapy.

It's not the rational choice of a meth addict to sell his arm to pay for more meth. I stand for the liberty of the individual to have self-mastery. The rights are not purely negative. It's like saying the mad man ought to be allowed to self harm rather than be given treatment.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:22:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:09:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 4:52:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 2:47:57 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I am unfamiliar with these laws, so I will respond generically.

I can see a law being justified, if and only if it protects minors. By this I mean the therapy would be illegal to administer on minors, unless it was obvious the child wants to be there. One could say their parents are causing undue harm akin to child abuse. However, that is a slippery slope, as a lot of parenting tactics could also be viewed as child abuse (up to and including taking away a cell phone).

Outside of the minor thing, there is no reason this should be illegal. The fact that it doesn't work is irrelavent, as many therapies don't work, and chances are, like most therapies, the success stories are from people that actually wanted to change. I see this as no different that Alcoholics Anonymous, or any of the other talk therapies out there, including anger management.

As far as medical professionals losing their licenses, this is too far, IMO. There are plenty of people who sign on/associate themselves with "fads". Think of doctors who tote the south beach diet, or those that suggest eastern healing methods. How many suggest the efficacy of AA for drunk drivers, yet it doesn't seem to do much good.
Caveat emptor, with your doctors.

Children should not be subject to harmful fads. The law addresses only minors, AFAIK.

We're not talking about tarot cards or psychic readings here. We're talking about family counseling for instance, that has shown to produce the desired outcome for patients who went through it.

Source? Also, how exactly was the desired outcome measured?

Secondly, that is a matter of parental authority, just as a child's medical decisions are made by the parents, so should the parents be in the best position to know their child and what is best for him.

Could not disagree more. Many places have mature minor doctrines that allow a child to accept or refuse medical treatment even if it goes against the parents' wishes. And rightly so. Parents don't reign supreme. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Third, what are the actual damages that are caused by this "harmful" therapy that works for some people?? Some medicines can cause fatal anaphylactic reactions in some people, so should we outlaw that therapy even though it helps some people??

Again, how are we measuring whether it works or not? Further, and remember I wasn't saying it should be outlawed, it is still definitely harmful on the whole. What you call counselling essentially teaches people to reject an entirely harmless aspect of themselves, which creates an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance, decimated sense of worth and self-esteem, and overall self hatred as a result of the struggle between thinking that they themselves are somehow bad and the fact that they still have the attractions.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:23:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:16:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 5:09:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
We're not talking about tarot cards or psychic readings here.

We aren't? Oh, so there's evidence that this works?

Here is the testimony of one individual.

http://www.witnessfortheworld.org...

We're talking about family counseling for instance, that has shown to produce the desired outcome for patients who went through it.

A bold claim! Have any evidence for that? Because, when one of the former LEADERS of the movement says it doesn't work, and I have seen no evidence that it does, I find the claim that it does work more and more dubious.

I don't mean this in a rude way, but it doesn't matter whether you believe change can happen, what matters is what the patient experiences. Obviously, some forms of therapy are not going to be effective, while some do produce positive results, so to say that because someone says his way of dealing with it didn't work, is not reflective of other types of therapy.

Secondly, that is a matter of parental authority, just as a child's medical decisions are made by the parents, so should the parents be in the best position to know their child and what is best for him.

I know, right? So, you'd defend any abuse so long as the parent asserted their "authority"? Circumferential burns? Well, the kid needed discipline, and the boiling water was the way the parent chose do exercise their authority!

Please don't resort to this level of ridiculousness. In the first place, I've yet to see any evidence of this alleged "harm" that is caused.

Third, what are the actual damages that are caused by this "harmful" therapy that works for some people?? Some medicines can cause fatal anaphylactic reactions in some people, so should we outlaw that therapy even though it helps some people??

I'll go ahead and wait for evidence that it helps. If you can show that, I wager the same studies would show harm, because that's usually how it works. The only study I actually know of didn't use a great representative sample, so while it showed overwhelmingly greater harm than any possible good, the advert for participants was biased.

Here's a book by an ex-homosexual. You just keep saying "harm". What is "harm"?? What are the damages that make this not worth allowing, as an option for those who choose to try it??

http://www.amazon.com...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 6:32:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 6:23:42 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 5:16:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/22/2013 5:09:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
We're not talking about tarot cards or psychic readings here.

We aren't? Oh, so there's evidence that this works?

Here is the testimony of one individual.

http://www.witnessfortheworld.org...


That's one individual, with no actual science, who changed without any therapy. That is not in any way, shape, or form evidence for the efficacy of a treatment he didn't receive.

We're talking about family counseling for instance, that has shown to produce the desired outcome for patients who went through it.

A bold claim! Have any evidence for that? Because, when one of the former LEADERS of the movement says it doesn't work, and I have seen no evidence that it does, I find the claim that it does work more and more dubious.

I don't mean this in a rude way, but it doesn't matter whether you believe change can happen, what matters is what the patient experiences.

Okay? The best "evidence" you've given so far is someone who didn't receive any treatment whatsoever. So I don't mean this in a rude way, but stop saying something works without any evidence. Anecdotal's bad enough, but all you've given is unrelated anecdotal.

Obviously, some forms of therapy are not going to be effective, while some do produce positive results, so to say that because someone says his way of dealing with it didn't work, is not reflective of other types of therapy.

And some therapies don't work whatsoever.


Secondly, that is a matter of parental authority, just as a child's medical decisions are made by the parents, so should the parents be in the best position to know their child and what is best for him.

I know, right? So, you'd defend any abuse so long as the parent asserted their "authority"? Circumferential burns? Well, the kid needed discipline, and the boiling water was the way the parent chose do exercise their authority!

Please don't resort to this level of ridiculousness. In the first place, I've yet to see any evidence of this alleged "harm" that is caused.

What's the difference, and where's the line? I'm not being ridiculous, I'm pointing out that the "parental authority" argument holds no merit whatsoever if we agree there's harm and no benefit. If there's benefit and no harm, I would already be agreeing with you. But as of now I see no benefit, and only harm.

As to "evidence":

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Again, that study is not fantastic. But then, it's far better than anecdotal and unrelated evidence.


Third, what are the actual damages that are caused by this "harmful" therapy that works for some people?? Some medicines can cause fatal anaphylactic reactions in some people, so should we outlaw that therapy even though it helps some people??

I'll go ahead and wait for evidence that it helps. If you can show that, I wager the same studies would show harm, because that's usually how it works. The only study I actually know of didn't use a great representative sample, so while it showed overwhelmingly greater harm than any possible good, the advert for participants was biased.

Here's a book by an ex-homosexual. You just keep saying "harm". What is "harm"?? What are the damages that make this not worth allowing, as an option for those who choose to try it??

http://www.amazon.com...

That book's Amazon description says nothing about Conversion therapy.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 9:26:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 12:48:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/22/2013 12:10:35 PM, YYW wrote:
Gay conversion therapy raises a series of ethical issues, and I'll chart them out as best I can. I just woke up, so the coffee hasn't had time to kick in yet... but alas.

If sexual identity is something that can be changed, then GCT is something that is at least theoretically permissible -which is to say that there exists some potentiality to change the attraction people have to other people. If sexual identity is static, then GCT is something both not theoretically permissible and a false or misleading service offered to the public -which is to imply that those who offer GCT are selling snake oil.

There is abounding research that sexual identity cannot be changed, and that has been the official position of virtually every recognized medical authority since the late 1970s to early 1980s. There is no solid (solid, being the key word here) evidence that even those who have endured various GCTs actually changed their sexual sexual identity.

http://www.tandfonline.com...

Sorry, but sexual identity changes for a lot of people as they grow and mature.

Indeed it can change, but that sexuality is fluid does not mean that external influences can affect it.

Any researcher that says it is stagnant and never changes is ignorant.

Well, let's not jump to bold conclusions, Ore_Ele. There is a compelling research that sexual identity is formed completely by age 7. I don't personally buy into that (because there is equally compelling evidence to suggest that this isn't the case), but the jury remains out. (As it stands though, I'm skeptical of the entire concept of sexual identity -but that's another argument for another day).

That is different from saying it is a choice, but it is far from stagnant.

You are correct; but recognize that to say that sexuality is not stagnant is not to say that external stimuli (of any kind) can affect sexual identity.

There are "success stories" in which case people were either (1) not fully homosexual to begin with and only changed their behavior, (2) where homosexuals cease to admit attraction or (3) some other process of "normalization" where exercises produced ostensible results in subjects but nothing other than observation can confirm.

How can you confirm whether their sexual desires have actually changed or if they are faking it? Also, can you provide examples?

So, let's make a clear distinction between sexual desire and sexual identity. A behavior may or may not indicate an identity, and while same sex attraction is necessary for someone to be homosexual, it is not sufficient. And I would personally argue that ANY "success" story should be treated with extreme suspicion, for all the reasons you seem to be suggesting. There is no evidence to suggest that sexual identity can be changed (that is not to say that it it is stagnant -of that I want to be explicitly clear), meaning that external stimuli isn't going to stop a dude from liking dudes.

I thought by putting quotations around "success stories" (as such) would indicate the degree to which I was skeptical of their actually being what they purport to be -but given that you're not the only one who didn't see it that way tells me that I should have been more explicit. As it stands, there exists no evidence to suggest that "therapy" of any kind actually can change a person's sexual identity. "Therapy" (if you could call operant conditioning therapy) may suppress sexual preference, but people are -to put it colloquially- "born that way" despite the idiotic protests of some evangelical Christians.

So, what that means is that those offering GCT are falsely advertising a product at the expense of the general public because no regulator has made their practice illegal as of yet; it is worth mentioning that I would consider GCT to be equivalent to the equivalent of patent medicines.

I'll post on the ethics of the methodology of various GCT's later on.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 9:34:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 12:43:46 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
@YYW, I'd say that (a priori) GCT works a bit like those smoking groups*:

A man wanting to be romantically involved with men is not like an addiction to nicotine.

when it works, it's because there's a group around you helping you to make that change, and it is positive reinforcement.

Suppression is not cure. It is suppression.

I don't think there's any reason why you can't change it - it is at its core a preference (though a unique and important one), so it can theoretically be changed.

Sexual identity is not a preference.

I'd like to hear your input on the methodology, though, and I think you're right that a lot of the methodologies lack scientific evidence behind it to accredit these groups as working.

Psychologists from the late 1950s up until the 1970s administered electroconvulsive shocks to homosexuals (primarily men) when they were shown gay erotica/porn. The theory was that by connecting a negative stimulus with homosexual feelings (which were thought to be evoked by showing gay men gay porn), "homosexual urges" could be suppressed. Recognize that suppression is not a "change" of sexual identity. The overwhelming majority of these efforts were unsuccessful, which led to a change in the way homosexuality is regarded by the field of mental health.

Religious lunatics -and there is simply no other way to describe them- think that the gay can be prayed away. It can't. There is no 12 step program that makes a person not a queer, and while a person may choose not to pursue a relationship or sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex, a discontinuity of homosexual sexual expression does not indicate that sexual identity has been changed. This is really all the evangelicals do -they shame LGBT people into living lies. It's disgusting.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 9:39:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 12:28:41 PM, Enji wrote:
At 6/22/2013 12:10:35 PM, YYW wrote:
So, what that means is that those offering GCT are falsely advertising a product at the expense of the general public because no regulator has made their practice illegal as of yet; it is worth mentioning that I would consider GCT to be equivalent to the equivalent of patent medicines.

I'll post on the ethics of the methodology of various GCT's later on.

You forgot that only information from Christian evangelicals and groups biased against homosexuality and gay marriage fairly and objectively present the facts (at least according to medic). Redo your research and you'll see the falsity of your claims.

lol
Tsar of DDO