Oklahoma proposes first ever bill to protect gay-conversion therapy

[GFR7]

I think it's a matter of choice. I hope more bills like this will be proposed and will pass muster.

It is not homophobic to allow those who may want to work through and go beyond same sex attraction to have access to such therapy. Testimonials abound that show that for some - not all; I said some - people, conversion therapy works.

Gay rights advocates have made significant progress in the fight to discredit and ultimately ban conversion therapy, a practice that claims to "cure" gay people. The mainstream medical community is united in its view that the therapy is both ineffective and potentially harmful. So far, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., have passed laws banning licensed therapists from subjecting minors to such treatment.

Here comes the backlash.

Last week, Oklahoma state Rep. Sally Kern (R), who once claimed that homosexuality was "more dangerous" than terrorism, introduced the Freedom to Obtain Conversion Therapy Act, a bill that would ensure adults and children can undergo conversion therapy "without interference by the state."

The bill, which was introduced along with more than a dozen other anti-gay proposals, appears to be the first in the country to protect conversion therapy -- although the Texas Republican Party endorsed the therapy in its party platform last summer. The measure also stands out because mental health counselors in Oklahoma are free to offer conversion therapy now.

"[The bill] gives people the choice, parents the opportunity, to take their children for some counseling if they’re struggling with same-sex attraction," Kern said, according to Oklahoma's News Channel 4. She did not respond to a request for comment from The Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/30/gay-cure-law_n_6573710.html

 

[oatmeal]

Of course it works for those who want it to.

Sin can be overcome

 

[GFR7]

Of course it works for those who want it to.

Sin can be overcome

Indeed.

But even for people for which the concept of "sin" never even enters the equation: Persons who are secular atheists who might want to seel therapy which allows them to go beyond same sex attraction (especially for bisexuals, who want traditional marriage and procreation and don't want this other intrusion in their lives).

It need not be the overcoming of "sin" for some people: Just unwanted attraction.

 

[TracerBullet]

I think it's a matter of choice. I hope more bills like this will be proposed and will pass muster.

It is not homophobic to allow those who may want to work through and go beyond same sex attraction to have access to such therapy. Testimonials abound that show that for some - not all; I said some - people, conversion therapy works.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/30/gay-cure-law_n_6573710.html

Do you care in the least that this "therapy" is ineffective and activly harmful?

 

[GFR7]

Do you care in the least that this "therapy" is ineffective and activly harmful?

It has been so for those for whom it was clearly the wrong medicine... this is where choice comes in.

There are many testimonials from ex-gays for whom this therapy was welcome and effective.

This does NOT discount those whom were harmed by it: A I said, choice and not having anything forced on one.

 

[TracerBullet]

It has been so for those for whom it was clearly the wrong medicine... this is where choice comes in.

There are many testimonials from ex-gays for whom this therapy was welcome and effective.

There are plenty of testimonials form people who have been abudcted by UFO's.

This does NOT discount those whom were harmed by it: A I said, choice and not having anything forced on one.

Do these ex-gay "therapists" inform those making the choice that they cannot show what they do is in any way effective?


Do these ex-gay "therapists" inform those making the choice that there is no evidence to support the theoritical foundation for this "therapy"

Do these ex-gay "therapists" inform those making the choice about the emotional and spiritual damage reparive therapy is known to casue?

Do these ex-gay "therapists" inform those making the choice that they largely target children?

Do these ex-gay "therapists" inform those making the choice about the physically and emotionally abusive methods that will be employed?


No one can make a choicde if hey arn't provided the information needed to make a choice.

 

[GFR7]

There are plenty of testimonials form people who have been abudcted by UFO's.



Do these ex-gay "therapists" inform those making the choice that they cannot show what they do is in any way effective?


Do these ex-gay "therapists" inform those making the choice that there is no evidence to support the theoritical foundation for this "therapy"

Do these ex-gay "therapists" inform those making the choice about the emotional and spiritual damage reparive therapy is known to casue?

Do these ex-gay "therapists" inform those making the choice that they largely target children?

Do these ex-gay "therapists" inform those making the choice about the physically and emotionally abusive methods that will be employed?


No one can make a choicde if hey arn't provided the information needed to make a choice.

How about just a regular therapist, helping you work on some unwanted desires? Like a therapist working through a man' s desire to stop viewing porn (some people have no wish to stop viewing it).

 

[TracerBullet]

How about just a regular therapist, helping you work on some unwanted desires? Like a therapist working through a man' s desire to stop viewing porn (some people have no wish to stop viewing it).

A regular therapist would inform his/her client about they therapy they will engage in. A real theroapist would not lie to their client about the effectivness or the content of their sessions. A real therpaist would not engage in physical and meotional abuse.

 

[GFR7]

A regular therapist would inform his/her client about they therapy they will engage in. A real theroapist would not lie to their client about the effectivness or the content of their sessions. A real therpaist would not engage in physical and meotional abuse.

OK, then it should be left to real therapists and for those clients only, who request it. Simple. Does the ban on conversion therapy still allow qualified therapists to help in this manner?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

If we proclaimed there is nothing wrong with drugs or alcohol in any manner or circumstance, then rehab would be severely less efficient.

This is a perfect example of the masquerades liberals utilize- of course sexual conversion therapy is going to not be very efficient, it will be the same thing with bestiality the day libs start preaching about how it's nobody's business if men marry their horses.

 

[TracerBullet]

OK, then it should be left to real therapists and for those clients only, who request it. Simple. Does the ban on conversion therapy still allow qualified therapists to help in this manner?

Qualified therapists don't engage in this becasue it is harmful.

There are a lot of things baned in the realm of medicine becuase they are harmful or ineffective. There is a reason no physician practices bloodletting.

Right now you are putting politics ahead of the well being of people, largely children.

 

[TracerBullet]

If we proclaimed there is nothing wrong with drugs or alcohol in any manner or circumstance, then rehab would be severely less efficient.

This is a perfect example of the masquerades liberals utilize- of course sexual conversion therapy is going to not be very efficient, it will be the same thing with bestiality the day libs start preaching about how it's nobody's business if men marry their horses.

Have you considered seeing a qualified counselor to help you deal with your obsession with fetishes?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Why atheists claim to support homosexuality:

1. Because nobody should be able to tell two people they can't be together.

The actual reason why atheists support homosexuality:

1. Because it's against organized religion.

 

[GFR7]

Qualified therapists don't engage in this becasue it is harmful.

There are a lot of things baned in the realm of medicine becuase they are harmful or ineffective. There is a reason no physician practices bloodletting.

Right now you are putting politics ahead of the well being of people, largely children.

Well, I don't want to do that. What of the many people who claim they are ex-gay?

 

[TracerBullet]

Why atheists claim to support homosexuality:

1. Because nobody should be able to tell two people they can't be together.

The actual reason why atheists support homosexuality:

1. Because it's against organized religion.

"supporting homosexuality" is like supporitng green eyes. It's a meaningless statement.
WHat millions of people of all religions do is support equality and civil rights. Why do you hate equality?

 

[TracerBullet]

Well, I don't want to do that. What of the many people who claim they are ex-gay?

How many of these people are children who realized that the best wyay to stop the abuse they were being subjected to by their "therapist" and their families was to just lie and say that they are ex-gay?

When Robert Spitzer tried to actually study ex-gays he couldn’t find any.

That aside, try asking those saying that they are ex-gay if they are 1. heterosexual and 2. Happy.

When you start asking things like that you usually get a response of nonsense phrases like “struggling with homosexual thoughts”.


It all goes back to the point that reparative therapy isn’t therapy at all and is based on a political ideology rather than the well-being of actual people.

This reparative stuff has been around for over forty years now but still lacks not only evidence of its effectiveness or its efficacy but it lacks any evidence for its foundational premises.

Worse, those who practice can’t even define their terms. They cannot say exactly how they are determining who is gay in the first place and who is bisexual. They can’t define what a successful outcome of their therapy. They can’t (or won’t) produce statistics about their practice. How many adults actually seek this out? What is those individuals baseline orientation? How long does therapy last? What is the dropout rate? What is the “success” rate? How functional are these people at the end of therapy?

Then there is the question of follow up studies. There are none. Now ask why is there no follow up.

 

[GFR7]

How many of these people are children who realized that the best wyay to stop the abuse they were being subjected to by their "therapist" and their families was to just lie and say that they are ex-gay?

When Robert Spitzer tried to actually study ex-gays he couldn’t find any.

That aside, try asking those saying that they are ex-gay if they are 1. heterosexual and 2. Happy.

When you start asking things like that you usually get a response of nonsense phrases like “struggling with homosexual thoughts”.


It all goes back to the point that reparative therapy isn’t therapy at all and is based on a political ideology rather than the well-being of actual people.

This reparative stuff has been around for over forty years now but still lacks not only evidence of its effectiveness or its efficacy but it lacks any evidence for its foundational premises.

Worse, those who practice can’t even define their terms. They cannot say exactly how they are determining who is gay in the first place and who is bisexual. They can’t define what a successful outcome of their therapy. They can’t (or won’t) produce statistics about their practice. How many adults actually seek this out? What is those individuals baseline orientation? How long does therapy last? What is the dropout rate? What is the “success” rate? How functional are these people at the end of therapy?

Then there is the question of follow up studies. There are none. Now ask why is there no follow up.

OK :think: .................

 

[PureX]

It has been so for those for whom it was clearly the wrong medicine... this is where choice comes in.

There are many testimonials from ex-gays for whom this therapy was welcome and effective.

This does NOT discount those whom were harmed by it: A I said, choice and not having anything forced on one.

But this is about children, so it is being forced on them. That's why this practice has been disallowed in the first place.

At some point there has to be limits set as to what parents can force their children to endure. And how far they can go in neglecting their physical and psychological health.

I'm all for choice, but even among consenting adults, there has to be limits. And in this case, with children, we need to be even more restrictive.

 

[GFR7]

But this is about children, so it is being forced on them. That's why this practice has been disallowed in the first place.

At some point there has to be limits set as to what parents can force their children to endure. And how far they can go in neglecting their physical and psychological health.

I'm all for choice, but even among consenting adults, there has to be limits. And in this case, with children, we need to be even more restrictive.

Alrighty..... :think:

 

[musterion]

People are free to take their kids to acupuncturists, astrologers, aroma therapy, hug therapy, psychologists, psychiatrists, aura readers and crystal-twirling nitwits if they want to, as well as jack up their progeny on psychotropics, whether other people think they do any good or not. People should likewise be free to take their kids to this if they choose, and especially if the kids has expressed the desire to go (which has happened). If you disagree with that, you are a hypocrite and probably queer yourself. In any case you're definitely no friend of liberty.