California Bill Would Ban 'Sexual Orientation' Psychotherapy

Are you defending the state making medical decisions instead of leaving them between the doctor and patient?

My quote clearly stated that I don't think the government should get involved here, despite the idiocy of the therapy.

You have a problem with this law specifically, but you seem to think that the concept is permissible, which is why I asked the question. After all, you did say a step to far, unless someone else put that in your post and highlighted it.

I don't know how you arrived at that:

I just don't like the idea of government legislating morality, because in the future these sorts of precedents could be used for less favorable purposes.

The "step" too far is banning this sort of activity from taking place. Despite how much I think the activity/procedure is wrong for society, and harmful to society, banning it is a step too far.
 
by Ben Shapiro
April 26, 2012
BREITBART: BIG GOVERNMENT


Parents could not enroll their children in psychotherapy with regard to sexual behavior, and children and teens could not give their consent to such psychotherapy. Children and teens can get an abortion without parental consent, but they apparently cannot consent to “sexual orientation” psychotherapy.

READ MORE

____________

California statists are poised to assault parental authority and moral conscious again. . . .

aside from the fact your nonsense came from breitbart, so i wouldn't believe it if it came with a sworn statement, good for california if its true.

kids shouldn't be tortured by pretend psychologists who think their sexual orientation can be changed.

:thup:

as for your abortion comment... i love the pretend small government types who hate any rules unless they apply to sexuality.
 
Last edited:
Are you defending the state making medical decisions instead of leaving them between the doctor and patient?

Reparative therapy is not a medically accepted procedure and has been deemed harmful by medical and scientific experts.

California is not the only place seeking to ban reparative therapy.


British Medical Association labels gay conversion therapy harmful, discredited | Secular News Daily
Following a year-long undercover investigation by a reporter, the British Medical Association has determined that “gay conversion therapy” is not therapy, is more harmful to patients than helpful, and should be banned.

Do you see it as one sided, or dealing with real therapy, even if it has no effect on orientation?

Is faith healing real therapy? Do astrologists really predicit the future? Some people seem to think so.

I frankly don't see how any government can ban any of these practices outright but at least reparative therapy should be officially relegated to the category it really is: quack science.
 
Although I think psychotherapy for gay people is weird, cultish, run by paranoid bigotted nutbag fanatics who are worthless individuals, and just plain wrong, I think banning the whole thing alltogether may be a step too far.

The bill would not ban sexual orientation therapy. It would ban sexual orientation therapy for minors.

The headline in the OP link and the OP title are both extremely misleading. I don't know if the topic starter did it deliberately, but I believe the writer of the article headline was deliberately misleading.

Bill text
 
Last edited:
Although I think psychotherapy for gay people is weird, cultish, run by paranoid bigotted nutbag fanatics who are worthless individuals, and just plain wrong, I think banning the whole thing alltogether may be a step too far.

I don’t think that parents should be allowed to “force” their children into gay psychotherapy, but if the kid is 17 – for instance – and really wants to do this (for whatever the hell reason), I say that should be up to him/her.

Are you defending the state making medical decisions instead of leaving them between the doctor and patient?

Reparative therapy is not a medically accepted procedure and has been deemed harmful by medical and scientific experts.

California is not the only place seeking to ban reparative therapy.


British Medical Association labels gay conversion therapy harmful, discredited | Secular News Daily
Following a year-long undercover investigation by a reporter, the British Medical Association has determined that “gay conversion therapy” is not therapy, is more harmful to patients than helpful, and should be banned.

Do you have some kind of point, or do you just think throwing around articles makes you look smart? I know plenty of anti abortion types who can throw around articles that show harmful affects of abortions, and can actually point to living survivors of the practice. If you support the government interfering in medical decisions one way, you must either always support it because, in general, the government makes better decisions than individuals, or you must admit you are a partisan hack who likes to pick which laws to support based on nothing more than what you think is right.
 
My quote clearly stated that I don't think the government should get involved here, despite the idiocy of the therapy.

You have a problem with this law specifically, but you seem to think that the concept is permissible, which is why I asked the question. After all, you did say a step to far, unless someone else put that in your post and highlighted it.

I don't know how you arrived at that:

I just don't like the idea of government legislating morality, because in the future these sorts of precedents could be used for less favorable purposes.

The "step" too far is banning this sort of activity from taking place. Despite how much I think the activity/procedure is wrong for society, and harmful to society, banning it is a step too far.

It isn't a step to far, the step to far was taken decades ago when the government started making decisions that were good for people.
 
"Do no harm". It is the fundamental principle of the healing arts. Imagine, as a heterosexual, your parents forcing you to undergo psychotherapy or even counseling with a Rabbbi, Pastor or Priest wherein your urges toward the opposite sex are questioned by those in authority?

Huh? Given that human sexuality and reproduction is undisputedly heterosexual, persons of commonsense would not be involved in any such thing. That's the sort of thing that PC leftists would go for.

For example: Glee Celebrates Gender Rejection

Your analogy is silly and presupposes that a moral, philosophical and/or political opinion is scientific.

Regardless of one's personal opinion/morality, we should all be apalled by this sort of tyranny.

Are you really as dumb as your response suggests?
 
by Ben Shapiro
April 26, 2012
BREITBART: BIG GOVERNMENT


Parents could not enroll their children in psychotherapy with regard to sexual behavior, and children and teens could not give their consent to such psychotherapy. Children and teens can get an abortion without parental consent, but they apparently cannot consent to “sexual orientation” psychotherapy.

READ MORE

____________

California statists are poised to assault parental authority and moral conscious again. . . .

aside from the fact your nonsense came from breitbart, so i wouldn't believe it if it came with a sworn statement, good for california if its true.

kids shouldn't be tortured by pretend psychologists who think their sexual orientation can be changed.

:thup:

as for your abortion comment... i love the pretend small government types who hate any rules unless they apply to sexuality.

You want a different source?

An obviously left leaning one so you can balance out Brietbart,

CA Considers Bill Banning Ex-Gay Therapy / Queerty

A local radio station.

California bill could outlaw sex conversion therapy | 89.3 KPCC

I can keep going, it is an actual law, and it is making headlines in California.

Good to know that you support government interference in a doctor patient relationship and in the medical decisions of the parents. I will remember that the next time you start ranting about abortion laws.
 
Although I think psychotherapy for gay people is weird, cultish, run by paranoid bigotted nutbag fanatics who are worthless individuals, and just plain wrong, I think banning the whole thing alltogether may be a step too far.

The bill would not ban sexual orientation therapy. It would ban sexual orientation therapy for minors.

The headline in the OP link and the OP title are both extremely misleading. I don't know if the topic starter did it deliberately, but I believe the writer of the article headline was deliberately misleading.

Bill text

Interesting. Yes, I did not read into the bill specifically that much, but the article sure steered clear of noting any specifics about the bill. This was, as you say, probably an attempt to make it sound more apocalyptic and dramatic.

I still though, don't think it's a role for the government to ban it altogether. Just my opinion on the concept of "less is more". I generally only like the government interfering in cases of absolute necessity, and not sure if I see it here.

For instance, I don't like the Klu Klux Klan, but would never want the government to make it illegal for Klan parents to teach their children Klan Doctrine. To do so is treading down a dangerous, unconstitutional road, that infringes on free speech and freedom in general.

But as you may have gathered, I'm wholly against this sort of backwards atrocity personally (gay homophobic psychotherapy rehab), and would never subject my kids or anyone I love to this humiliation.
 
Last edited:
Reparative therapy is not a medically accepted procedure and has been deemed harmful by medical and scientific experts.

California is not the only place seeking to ban reparative therapy.


British Medical Association labels gay conversion therapy harmful, discredited | Secular News Daily
Following a year-long undercover investigation by a reporter, the British Medical Association has determined that “gay conversion therapy” is not therapy, is more harmful to patients than helpful, and should be banned.

Do you see it as one sided, or dealing with real therapy, even if it has no effect on orientation?

Is faith healing real therapy? Do astrologists really predicit the future? Some people seem to think so.

I frankly don't see how any government can ban any of these practices outright but at least reparative therapy should be officially relegated to the category it really is: quack science.

Faith healing is legal in California. In fact, it is actually paid for by your tax dollars. If you think it is bunk why don't you stop the government from paying for it?
 
It's a touchy subject. In this case, I'd say no government intervention.

But should there be limits on what parents can or cannot do to their children?

". . . do to their children . . ."?

I know that homosexual behavior violates divine law; you're opinion about that is of no importance to me. That does not mean, however, that the Fall did not detrimentally affect every aspect of the human condition, including this or that genetic proclivity with regard to sexual desire, behavior or orientation. As in any other genetically driven affliction subject to environmental factors or not--such as diabetes, retardation, cerebral palsy--sane people do not conclude that those born with a proclivity to sexually violate others or to sexually desire children is not pathological. Understand the analogy; it has nothing to do with legal consent. What adult homosexuals do among themselves is none of my concern, so let's not waste time on that. My analogy strictly applies to genetically or environmentally acquired pathologies.

You don't believe homosexuality to be pathological. Fine. But I do, and natural and constitutional law holds that your opinion does not override my parental authority with regard to the religious upbringing of my children. We have a term that entails the sort of thing these leftists thugs are attempting to pull off in California: Fascism.

But in answer to your question: of course parents may not abuse their children, which necessarily entails governmentally enforced limitations of parental authority. And the state may not abuse them by depriving them of their parent's authority to love and protect them, which necessarily entails constitutionally enforced limitations to governmental power. Parents governed by Judeo-Christianity's moral system of thought will not abuse their children. Neither will governments informed by the socio-political ramifications of the same and, consequently, the tenets of natural law.

This legislative initiative and the thugs behind it are guided by neither.
 
Last edited:
It's a touchy subject. In this case, I'd say no government intervention.

But should there be limits on what parents can or cannot do to their children?
". . . do to their children . . ."?

I know that homosexual behavior violates divine law; you're opinion about that is of no importance to me. That does not mean, however, that the Fall did not detrimentally affect every aspect of the human condition, including this or that genetic proclivity with regard to sexual desire, behavior or orientation. As in any other genetically driven affliction subject to environmental factors or not--such as diabetes, retardation, cerebral palsy--sane people do not conclude that those born with a proclivity to sexually violate others or to sexually desire children is not pathological. Understand the analogy; it has nothing to do with legal consent. What adult homosexuals do among themselves is none of my concern, so let's not waste time on that. My analogy strictly applies to genetically or environmentally acquired pathologies.

You don't believe homosexuality to be pathological. Fine. But I do, and natural and constitutional law holds that your opinion does not override my parental authority with regard to the religious upbringing of my children. We have a term that entails the sort of thing these leftists thugs are attempting to pull off in California: Fascism.

But in answer to your question: of course parents may not abuse their children, which necessarily entails governmentally enforced limitations of parental authority. And the state may not abuse them by depriving them of their parent's authority to love and protect them, which necessarily entails constitutionally enforced limitations to governmental power. Parents governed by Judeo-Christianity's moral system of thought will not abuse their children. Neither will governments informed by the socio-political ramifications of the same and, consequently, the tenets of natural law.

This legislative initiative and the thugs behind it are guided by neither.

In cases of child abuse, as you state, the government should step in and make such practices illegal. For some people, this sort of treatment falls under that category, and therefore would require the government to intervene. Although humiliating and wrong, I don’t consider this a form of “child abuse” as I would perhaps locking a child in a closet for 8 weeks.

Personally, I see this sort of therapy (as I mentioned earlier) akin to a Klansmen teaching his son that all black people are subhuman. Do I disagree with that sort of teaching personally? 100%. But do I want the government to prevent parents from teaching their children their beliefs, no matter how ridiculous and backwards they might be? No, because to inhibit free speech would be much more detrimental to society than shutting down a few moronic nutbags.

Looks like we have different opinions on homophobic gay rehab, but at least we can agree that freedom and free speech should not be inhibited in this instance.
.
.
.
 
Last edited:
It's a touchy subject. In this case, I'd say no government intervention.

But should there be limits on what parents can or cannot do to their children?

". . . do to their children . . ."?

I know that homosexual behavior violates divine law; you're opinion about that is of no importance to me. That does not mean, however, that the Fall did not detrimentally affect every aspect of the human condition, including this or that genetic proclivity with regard to sexual desire, behavior or orientation. As in any other genetically driven affliction subject to environmental factors or not--such as diabetes, retardation, cerebral palsy--sane people do not conclude that those born with a proclivity to sexually violate others or to sexually desire children is not pathological. Understand the analogy; it has nothing to do with legal consent. What adult homosexuals do among themselves is none of my concern, so let's not waste time on that. My analogy strictly applies to genetically or environmentally acquired pathologies.

You don't believe homosexuality to be pathological. Fine. But I do, and natural and constitutional law holds that your opinion does not override my parental authority with regard to the religious upbringing of my children. We have a term that entails the sort of thing these leftists thugs are attempting to pull off in California: Fascism.

But in answer to your question: of course parents may not abuse their children, which necessarily entails governmentally enforced limitations of parental authority. And the state may not abuse them by depriving them of their parent's authority to love and protect them, which necessarily entails constitutionally enforced limitations to governmental power. Parents governed by Judeo-Christianity's moral system of thought will not abuse their children. Neither will governments informed by the socio-political ramifications of the same and, consequently, the tenets of natural law.

This legislative initiative and the thugs behind it are guided by neither.

In cases of child abuse, as you state, the government should step in and make such practices illegal. For some people, this sort of treatment falls under that category, and therefore would require the government to intervene. Although humiliating and wrong, I don’t consider this a form of “child abuse” as I would perhaps locking a child in a closet for 8 weeks.

Personally, I see this sort of therapy (as I mentioned earlier) akin to a Klansmen teaching his son that all black people are subhuman. Do I disagree with that sort of teaching personally? 100%. But do I want the government to prevent parents from teaching their children their beliefs, no matter how ridiculous and backwards they might be? No, because to inhibit free speech would be much more detrimental to society than shutting down a few moronic nutbags.

Looks like we have different opinions on homophobic gay rehab, but at least we can agree that freedom and free speech should not be inhibited in this instance.
.
.
.

Yes. On that we agree.
 
Last edited:
If I wrote a book called "The Successes in the History of Psychotherapy in California",

it would be a short book.
 
Last edited:
*Clarification*

In the above I wrote "Given that human sexuality and reproduction is undisputedly heterosexual, persons of commonsense would not be involved in any such thing."

What I mean is that human sexuality, in terms of physiology and biological reproduction is heterosexual, not necessarily in terms of psychology.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Although I think psychotherapy for gay people is weird, cultish, run by paranoid bigotted nutbag fanatics who are worthless individuals, and just plain wrong, I think banning the whole thing alltogether may be a step too far.

I don’t think that parents should be allowed to “force” their children into gay psychotherapy, but if the kid is 17 – for instance – and really wants to do this (for whatever the hell reason), I say that should be up to him/her.

Are you defending the state making medical decisions instead of leaving them between the doctor and patient?

Reparative therapy is not a medically accepted procedure and has been deemed harmful by medical and scientific experts.

California is not the only place seeking to ban reparative therapy.


British Medical Association labels gay conversion therapy harmful, discredited | Secular News Daily
Following a year-long undercover investigation by a reporter, the British Medical Association has determined that “gay conversion therapy” is not therapy, is more harmful to patients than helpful, and should be banned.

Ah! The tyranny of the self-annointed "experts" that would think to nullify natural and constitutional law, strangers imposing their morality on others in the name of their academic credentials, another cynical attack on the First Amendment launched by the "tolerant".
 
Are you defending the state making medical decisions instead of leaving them between the doctor and patient?

Reparative therapy is not a medically accepted procedure and has been deemed harmful by medical and scientific experts.

California is not the only place seeking to ban reparative therapy.


British Medical Association labels gay conversion therapy harmful, discredited | Secular News Daily
Following a year-long undercover investigation by a reporter, the British Medical Association has determined that “gay conversion therapy” is not therapy, is more harmful to patients than helpful, and should be banned.

Ah! The tyranny of the self-annointed "experts" that would think to nullify natural and constitutional law, strangers imposing their morality on others in the name of their academic credentials, another cynical attack on the First Amendment launched by the "tolerant".

I would think it was decades of experience and study in the field which would determine whether one was an expert, as opposed to those who really know nothing about the subject who think they can definitively comment.
 
Reparative therapy is not a medically accepted procedure and has been deemed harmful by medical and scientific experts.

California is not the only place seeking to ban reparative therapy.


British Medical Association labels gay conversion therapy harmful, discredited | Secular News Daily
Following a year-long undercover investigation by a reporter, the British Medical Association has determined that “gay conversion therapy” is not therapy, is more harmful to patients than helpful, and should be banned.

Ah! The tyranny of the self-annointed "experts" that would think to nullify natural and constitutional law, strangers imposing their morality on others in the name of their academic credentials, another cynical attack on the First Amendment launched by the "tolerant".

I would think it was decades of experience and study in the field which would determine whether one was an expert, as opposed to those who really know nothing about the subject who think they can definitively comment.

What if the person has decades of experience at being wrong, is he still an expert?
 

Forum List

Back
Top