BrokeLoser
Diamond Member
Strangely enough, I have a bit of history with the gay community. My older brother was gay and was an early victim of the Aids epidemic. Between my brother coming out in 1985 and the subsequent loss of him, I've paid a lot of attention to the subject. I'm by no means a psychology professional but I have yet to see any evidence that being gay is a defect. The "nature vs nurture" argument continues but I have never seen any evidence that suggests any form of therapy can change anything. The harm aspect is self evident, especially for a child. The simple fact that who they are is worthy of intervention can't be good.I'm curious. How would you have it proven to you that the treatments aren't harmless? What if failure to offer such treatment is the greater harm? Concern for children is all very well but unless there is actual proof (we have not seen any) that these treatments are harmful it is up to the parents.I tend to agree with not liking the govt prohibiting people from seeking their choice of treatment, I will, however, draw the line with children. With children you'd have to prove to me that there is no harm and thus far the consensus is that such "treatments" aren't even remotely harmless. The threat of harm to the child versus the benefit to, I'm guessing the parents, iIs just too much, IMHO.This isn't "protecting kids". It's denying people access to treatment. It is taking away their choice.
You mention a "consensus" that the treatments are not harmless- specifically who/what has made that determination?
The same argument could be made for almost any ‘condition’ a child may have. Children with ADHD or autism to name a couple may not have a clue of their condition. It’s the responsibility of parents to address these conditions....no good parent waits for their child to say....”I need to see a doctor”...that’s just plain crazy.