LGBT bill to ban therapy for youth on sexual orientation issues is stalled in Mass.

Eye color is a poor comparison, because it is proven to be genetically determined. Also because it's inconsequential to a person's actions.

After 68 pages and almost 700 posts in the thread, often the conversation evolves from the original topic.

 

funny how you define it as "fraudulant" when it comes to gay.... but the you are fine with that same therapy when a doctor does the same type of therapy for other things.


Do you have an issue with Dr. Drew using therapy to help those with drug, alcohol, or sex issues? if you don't, then you can't have a problem if Dr. Drew also included gay sex under his umbrella of therapies.....

you only define it as "fraudulant" when it goes against your politics I notice.

 

That's the real truth about their opposition.

 

I do not call it fraudulent, the various medical agencies and researchers in this field do.

Alcoholism, sex addiction and drug addiction present a clear and present danger to the individual.
Homosexuality, alone, does not.

Do you believe licensed medical professionals should be allowed under state law to preform therapy on children that is not endorsed by any governing medical association and has been shown to be highly ineffective while also eliciting increased depression, anxiety, fear, and suicide attempts?

Why is it so difficult for you to answer this simple question which is at the heart of the bill proposed in the original post?

 

All I am asking is a rational look at this practice by you and Jarvis, I am posting valid medical information to substantiate my claims - which are ignored. I welcome evidance either of you have to the contrary.

 

Asinine post.

When Medical and Psychological associations come out unanimously against subjecting children to an untested
therapy or procedure, then I am against said procedure. The fact that you are OK with subjecting children to
untested psychological experiments is very disturbing.

 

medicine mixed with politics is still politics......


it's not politically correct to say gay can be fixed and you risk your medical practice and license for suggesting it..... so there are doctors who get bullied out from offering their services they may want to deal with because it's career suicide. Please refer to a climatologist who dares to suggest that man's influence on global climate change is negligible.... he is ran out of the field as a fraud who was bought off by big oil. Meanwhile, now he is out of a job, career, he still has bills to pay..... So how many scientists just stay quiet so they don't lose everything they worked hard for?

same applies here. Just because those with an agenda are vocal and loud and shout down their naysayers with terms like "you're a bigot that shouldn't ever practice medicine again" doesn't mean it's really fraudulant....

 

unanimously..... right there... your argument is crap.... if it was really UNANIMOUS.... you wouldn't have to be on here supporting a law that makes such actions, illegal, would you. If it was really unanimous, there would be no doctor willing to partake. Kinda like leaching. We don't need an anti-leaching law because no doctor would ever suggest that anymore because it was a disproven technique.

but since there are doctors out there that don't believe it's fraudulent... and there are cases where it has worked... as linked in this thread... the agenda driven's first step is to try and shame people into agreeing with them (ie - "you are a bigot if you don't believe that gay is born"), step 2 is to make opposition illegal....

 

I have said numerous times, there are genetics at play... just like the effiminate father who had twins that were both, very effeminate grwoing up. One is gay, one is a hetero pastor. They are both still very effeminate... (genetics playing a huge part in that).... the outcomes of that genetic predisposition are not.....

 

You ignore all medical evidence against the practice (after denting that any exists) and believe that there is a vast conspiracy against medical dissension as reasoning why you cannot provide any medical evidence. That's really your argument? Really?

You have no justification for this discretted therapy on children but want to allow it because of your dislike of homosexuals. Which is fine, just don't pretend there is some other motive.

 

they also haven't found an autism gene either..... but they are still looking to find a way to prevent it, even though there is nothing "wrong" with Autism....

 

No homosexual gene has been verified, that is your opinion.
Even assuming you are correct - that it is genetic - that would disprove the effectiveness of therapy.

 

A quote from this paper best describes the intentions of the mainstream psychiatric community.

"The mainstream view in psychology and psychiatry is that people who are troubled about their homosexual orientation have internalized society's prejudice against homosexuality, and that the appropriate task of a therapist is to help them to overcome those prejudices and to lead a happy and satisfying life as a gay man or lesbian."

http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_changing.html


This is a blatant admission of bias.

- - - Updated - - -

See my above post.

- - - Updated - - -

Correct. There is nothing wrong with many "birth defects" (they'll never accept it as such). The problem is specific human actions that lead to specific consequences.

 

Several months ago, I took over an hour picking apart the article at the end of the link. The poster (the same poster) did not respond.

He posted the same link in another thread and I copied and pasted my retort. The poster did not respond.

"Am I now exclusively heterosexual, some people ask? Most of the time, yes. But for most people there are periods where sexuality can be quite fluid."

Yea, that's a straight guy right there! This "treatment" obviously worked just great.......

 

but it hasn't been verified as a gay gene... you said it yourself, it's not conclusive.


so until it is conclusive... there is no reason to make it any more illegal than Dr Drew's other therapies for other sexual disorders.


To go back to the Autism analogy.... while nothing is wrong with it, the issues that occur because of autism, are a problem, and people don't have to hate autistic people in order to push for a correction in the behaviors, and eventually, a way to prevent it prior to birth.

Whether or not we agree with gay being "wrong" or not.... there are plenty of negative issues that arise from being gay.... increased suicide, increased chance of STD's... etc..... so I hope we can actually FIND and VERIFY the gay gene... because that's the first step in allowing parents who don't want those issues to be burdened upon their children, a way to prevent it.


Just because we can't fix "AUTISM" with therapy, we can help the situation for the kids and parents affected by it until the cure is found.

 

It's actually amazing the amount of information they will ignore to affirm their beliefs.
I guess we are the stupid ones for expecting rational discourse on the topic from several here.

 

Exactly, and even though I want a cure to autism, doesn't mean I hate them, or want to deny them other rights such as living and employment, or educational opportunities. I have an Autism endorsement on my teaching certificate..... I have 1 Aspergers child in my class day currently. Kids want to make fun of him because of his odd, sometimes annoying behaviors and very monotone delivery of whatever he blurts out. And while I support finding a cure to autism, that doesn't mean I ever allow picking on his differences to occur in class or at school.


People think because I don't think gay is right, or that gay is environment based decision..... means that I hate them or would allow real rights violations to occur because they are gay.

I want to single out the gay gene, just like the autism gene, so it can be corrected prior to it becoming an issue in life.

 

The fact that the therapy is ineffective and causes harm separates it from other therapies.

Simply being gay does not cause any negative issues

Caused by intolerance, hate and people wanting to "cure them"

Caused by unsafe sex

Except repreave therapy does more harm than good

 

Repost:


A quote from this paper best describes the intentions of the mainstream psychiatric community.

"The mainstream view in psychology and psychiatry is that people who are troubled about their homosexual orientation have internalized society's prejudice against homosexuality, and that the appropriate task of a therapist is to help them to overcome those prejudices and to lead a happy and satisfying life as a gay man or lesbian."

http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/H..._changing.html


This is a blatant admission of bias.

 

Yes that's it, the entire medical community is biased in favor of homosexuality.
It's a huge conspiracy to make everyone gay.

You might have a case if one or two associations dissented but every one of the the 22 mental health and medical associations in the United States agree conversion therapy is invalid and does harm. They agree homosexuality is not a disorder and cannot be cured.

Do you have any piece of substantive proof that conversion therapy works and does not cause damage. If you do not - what are you basing your narritive from besides your dislike of homosexuals?

 

If you start any study with the premise that people should enjoy a homosexual life; you cannot come to any other conclusion about reparative therapy than it being harmful.

 

it does... increased suicide is an issue... which is why I support preventing bullying..... but I'm realistic that this is not a perfect world and no matter what.... it's going to happen. It doesn't excuse it... but it will always be there.... and if that can be stopped at the source (by fixing the mythological gay gene prior to birth), then I'm all for that.

people have unsafe hetero sex too.... but yet, gay sex still leads the way in new cases of HIV and other STDs. So it's just, overall, a riskier lifestyle, still.

You keep changing the qualifying term for which kind of therapy you don't support. I don't support all therapy for gay fixing.... I absolutely don't support physical or negative reinforced types of therapy. Quit trying to distract and being intellectually dishonest with that.

I support the exact same kind of therapy techniques like DR. Drew offers for other sex addictions. He doesn't have a 100% success rate either and some have committed suicide or died as a direct result of their choices even during his therapy.... but that's on the individual... not because Dr. Drew guilted them into it.

Do you support what Dr. Drew does? I'm not saying, do you support what he does on national TV because he can make money doing it on MTV/VH1..... ie - cashing in on their illnesses, but in general, do you support that type of therapy?

 

The studies did not start with that premise, they concluded with it

 

I have not once changed my view. You are the one that cannot answer a simple question because it unravels your entire argument.

I am not educated enough on the practices of Dr Drew so I cannot make an endorsement or a rejection of his methods. If his therapy results in increased risked factors and a zero to infinitesimal success rate then no - I would not support it. If he uses valid medical practices that result in the desired outcome of the individual with minimal damage done then I support it. Hell even if it isn't medically supported and it benifits the patients life then I support it.

The therapies you are equating this to have medically sound foundations with a moderate success rate. Conversion therapy has neither

 

No, they started with it.