Why "Conversion Therapy" Should Be Illegal

[Lon]

Well obviously they weren't sexual at such an age for me either but all the attractions and crushes I had from that age until the following onset of adolescence and beyond were for the opposite sex. Puberty simply took the innate heterosexual wiring to the next obvious step. Would it really bother you if orientation is hard set for people before puberty? You downplay the way you saw girls differently to boys at six IMO. You seem to want to reduce it to something other than what it most probably was. As an adult, when I've had conversations with friends and peers on the occasion the subject comes up I've yet to talk with one who thought they choose their attraction. Granted, the vast majority are straight but it's very simplistic to think that all those who have a different orientation to heterosexuality come from broken homes. That's reaching to say the least. There are plenty who'd tell you that they knew where their attractions were as young as the ages of you and I and come from stable family backgrounds.

As I stated, my step-nephews and step niece would say they were 'born' that way, but I KNOW differently. All three of them were abused. IOW, there is a learned response though not one of them remembers. Ellen DeGeneres was the same: Raped by a stepfather. She too says such didn't cause or effect her. In Ellen's case, she had a crush on a boy before this happened. Because I see them as victims, I have a lot more compassion for them, but I'd have an incredibly hard time ever believing someone is 'born' this way. In EVERY case, I've seen abusive parents and/or a sexual abuse. No exceptions. I know of none. As I said, even my niece and nephews don't realize or recognize the abuse. A wicked man molested them in daycare and messed them up for life. That is NOT normal, Aurthur! It is sick and it is wrong to think otherwise or allow any of my kids to pass off their horrible abuse as anything normal. I hurt for them. There is no 'normal' about it in all of their cases, and as I've said, I presently know of NO exception to the rule: All abused and confused sexually. I've seen far too many of them hurting themselves in drugs and other poor behaviors, all friends, family, and even those who I've met casually. Can any amount of therapy work? Only if one wants that kind of therapy. We all have to face our own demons and deal with them. Nobody can do this for us. We have to want such. An intervention could help, of caring family and close friends. I'd say 'perhaps' such in a therapy session could be of effect. Any intervention done with a family member about anything seen damaging, yet and always relies on the willingness of the person to undergo therapy, counseling and treatment.

Let me play your way for a moment: Even 'if' someone is 'born this way' (which I very much doubt), there is a VERY disproportionate group of them that are involved in harmful behaviors including and besides their sexual activity. There is a genuine need for therapy intervention, just as with heterosexuals (or whatever). I'd imagine at that point, you are against 'conversion' therapy, not just therapy. I'm fairly sure ALL homosexuality is an expression of harm done to children, however.

 

[Arthur Brain]

As I stated, my step-nephews and step niece would say they were 'born' that way, but I KNOW differently. All three of them were abused. IOW, there is a learned response though not one of them remembers. Ellen DeGeneres was the same: Raped by a stepfather. She too says such didn't cause or effect her. In Ellen's case, she had a crush on a boy before this happened. Because I see them as victims, I have a lot more compassion for them, but I'd have an incredibly hard time ever believing someone is 'born' this way. In EVERY case, I've seen abusive parents and/or a sexual abuse. No exceptions. I know of none. As I said, even my niece and nephews don't realize or recognize the abuse. A wicked man molested them in daycare and messed them up for life. That is NOT normal, Aurthur! It is sick and it is wrong to think otherwise or allow any of my kids to pass off their horrible abuse as anything normal. I hurt for them. There is no 'normal' about it in all of their cases, and as I've said, I presently know of NO exception to the rule: All abused and confused sexually. I've seen far too many of them hurting themselves in drugs and other poor behaviors, all friends, family, and even those who I've met casually. Can any amount of therapy work? Only if one wants that kind of therapy. We all have to face our own demons and deal with them. Nobody can do this for us. We have to want such. An intervention could help, of caring family and close friends. I'd say 'perhaps' such in a therapy session could be of effect. Any intervention done with a family member about anything seen damaging, yet and always relies on the willingness of the person to undergo therapy, counseling and treatment.

Let me play your way for a moment: Even 'if' someone is 'born this way' (which I very much doubt), there is a VERY disproportionate group of them that are involved in harmful behaviors including and besides their sexual activity. There is a genuine need for therapy intervention, just as with heterosexuals (or whatever). I'd imagine at that point, you are against 'conversion' therapy, not just therapy. I'm fairly sure ALL homosexuality is an expression of harm done to children, however.

Lon, if you're that adamant that any orientation outside of heterosexuality is "made" through abuse or some other factor then there's little reasoning with you. You'll just have to ignore the plethora of people who identify as just being that way with no abuse or unstable family background.

 

[Lon]

Lon, if you're that adamant that any orientation outside of heterosexuality is "made" through abuse or some other factor then there's little reasoning with you. You'll just have to ignore the plethora of people who identify as just being that way with no abuse or unstable family background.

As I said, in EVERY case I'm aware of, and yes, I know a GOOD many, there was/is abuse going on. NO exceptions. That said, this topic is about 'conversion' therapy. In most cases, as you've stated, I think it doesn't work, nor do interventions, if the subject is firm they don't want it (for whatever reason). I think its an important point. -Lon

 

[Stripe]

The text is from the link Idolater posted to the Vatican, the Catechism of the Catholic Church - the Sixth Commandment.

Uh, OK. :idunno:

Ew.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Danoh]

As I said, in EVERY case I'm aware of, and yes, I know a GOOD many, there was/is abuse going on. NO exceptions. That said, this topic is about 'conversion' therapy. In most cases, as you've stated, I think it doesn't work, nor do interventions, if the subject is firm they don't want it (for whatever reason). I think its an important point. -Lon

You are both failing to ask 'what might be several examples of an exception to my finding?'

This kind of a question allows a fuller, much more well rounded understanding of a thing - in all areas of life.

 

[Idolater]

The text is from the link Idolater posted to the Vatican, the Catechism of the Catholic Church - the Sixth Commandment.

And it's all good in there, what the Church's authorized teaching is, in the moral matter of homosexual acts; and the like, by extension. The Church is wooden literal interpretation of, and honor for the scriptures. And still manages to emphasize to Christians/Catholics how to love LGBT people, even if they're habitually deliberately unchaste.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Eh, don't expect too much in the way of compassion, respect, sensitivity and understanding from Stripe. Or logic for that matter. He's also not a catholic so he won't care about the catechism. What you can expect from Stripe is dumb little drive by posts such as "It's not okay to be gay" and the like. Hardly worth bothering with...

Yes I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls or poke thier cages. *laughs*

Did find it amusing though that he was 'ew'ing comments by people opposed to Homosexuality which really said nothing more than we should treat them politely while we telling them they are going hell.

 

[Idolater]

You are both failing to ask 'what might be several examples of an exception to my finding?'

This kind of a question allows a fuller, much more well rounded understanding of a thing - in all areas of life.

That's a discipline I've practiced. Here's one on Church.

I postulated that there exists a movement of Christians today who are doing 'church' exactly the way Jesus wants them to. My finding is Catholic. Here are the several examples of exceptions: One of the Orthodox churches (they aren't all one body, they're in communion with each other, but they are each independent organizations), or all the Orthodox churches (one or the other, not both), or Protestantism in some form.

That is all. By Protestantism I mean rejection of Rome as pastoral headquarters, and the popes as supreme pastors with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals, when teaching 'ex cathedra,' or in Peter's own name ('from [Peter's] chair/seat').

This charism is exercised rarely now. There have been two times in the last 200 years. The authorized infallible teachings of the Church are perfect.

 

[Idolater]

Yes I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls or poke thier cages. *laughs*

Did find it amusing though that he was 'ew'ing comments by people opposed to Homosexuality which really said nothing more than we should treat them politely while we telling them they are going hell.

The only people going to hell are those who do not believe in Christ, and all of them. I know plenty of LGBT Christians who are NOT going to hell.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

The only people going to hell are those who do not believe in Christ, and all of them. I know plenty of LGBT Christians who are NOT going to hell.

Sorry, a bit of overembellishment there. You are correct, essentially the statement is to treat them politely.

 

[Idolater]

As I said, in EVERY case I'm aware of, and yes, I know a GOOD many, there was/is abuse going on. NO exceptions. That said, this topic is about 'conversion' therapy. In most cases, as you've stated, I think it doesn't work, nor do interventions, if the subject is firm they don't want it (for whatever reason). I think its an important point. -Lon

This link is still good.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300

 

[Danoh]

That's a discipline I've practiced. Here's one on Church.

I postulated that there exists a movement of Christians today who are doing 'church' exactly the way Jesus wants them to. My finding is Catholic. Here are the several examples of exceptions: One of the Orthodox churches (they aren't all one body, they're in communion with each other, but they are each independent organizations), or all the Orthodox churches (one or the other, not both), or Protestantism in some form.

That is all. By Protestantism I mean rejection of Rome as pastoral headquarters, and the popes as supreme pastors with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals, when teaching 'ex cathedra,' or in Peter's own name ('from [Peter's] chair/seat').

This charism is exercised rarely now. There have been two times in the last 200 years. The authorized infallible teachings of the Church are perfect.

No, yours is actually an example of having failed to properly apply the principle I have been going on about.

It is clear that all you did was apply it within your vacuum.

Back to the drawing board, Doc.

 

[Idolater]

No, yours is actually an example of having failed to properly apply the principle I have been going on about.

It is clear that all you did was apply it within your vacuum.

Back to the drawing board, Doc.

You're just asserting. That in no way addresses what I wrote, and I did in fact follow your exact prescription. The only alternative that you can execute at this point is to show where there was some form of 'church' that I did not consider, as an example of an exception; but you can't do that, because I didn't miss anything. Dispensationalism is form of Protestantism, unless you'd like to argue otherwise, but it'd be probably pointless since I laid out explicitly what I mean by 'Protestant/Protestantism,' and Dispensationalism IS A Protestantism.

 

[Arthur Brain]

As I said, in EVERY case I'm aware of, and yes, I know a GOOD many, there was/is abuse going on. NO exceptions. That said, this topic is about 'conversion' therapy. In most cases, as you've stated, I think it doesn't work, nor do interventions, if the subject is firm they don't want it (for whatever reason). I think its an important point. -Lon

Well, there's the flip side to your experiences and in cases of abuse you still claim are happening, what's being done about it? I won't dispute that abuse can result in trauma and harmful effects on the psyche, that is obvious but it simply isn't the root cause of homo or bisexuality and if you think it does then you're condemning every parent or family relative of playing some harmful role in their having a son/daughter, nephew/niece etc if they're gay. I think you need to ponder on that a moment and consider the ramifications of what you seem to suggest.

Ironically it would seem to be Christian, conservative parents who are so strung out at the prospect of their children being gay to the point of trying to get them "cured" in "therapy centers". Yet these uphold traditional family values so what's going on there? Years ago (and I'll qualify this by saying that my dad has mellowed a LOT on the subject since) my dad threatened to disown me if it transpired I ever did hard drugs or was a homosexual. He had nothing to worry about (apart from an ill advised foray with LSD) but would you consider that type of remark to be loving or reasonable? Some kids have to deal with hiding their homosexuality because of attitudes like that.

As to the latter, there's simply no credible evidence that it works.

 

[Danoh]

You're just asserting. That in no way addresses what I wrote, and I did in fact follow your exact prescription. The only alternative that you can execute at this point is to show where there was some form of 'church' that I did not consider, as an example of an exception; but you can't do that, because I didn't miss anything. Dispensationalism is form of Protestantism, unless you'd like to argue otherwise, but it'd be probably pointless since I laid out explicitly what I mean by 'Protestant/Protestantism,' and Dispensationalism IS A Protestantism.

In the interest of not further derailing AB's thread, I've said what I had to say to you.

Take it up elsewhere on here.

Perhaps on this thread herein below, where I had mentioned to you, your failure in your attempt to prove what is actually a Doctrine based on far more than merely a passage of Scripture or two but that you have greatly mis-fired in, in your attempting to prove your error valid via your parsing, and a poor parsing at that, of just two words in one passage alone.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?129892-What-is-God-s-first-creation&p=5251384#post5251384

I'll not be responding any further to you, on your obvious mis-fire over there, on this thread over here in the Politics forum.

 

[Ktoyou]

The only people going to hell are those who do not believe in Christ, and all of them. I know plenty of LGBT Christians who are NOT going to hell.

I think more BLT Christians are not going to Hell.

 

[Danoh]

Well, there's the flip side to your experiences and in cases of abuse you still claim are happening, what's being done about it? I won't dispute that abuse can result in trauma and harmful effects on the psyche, that is obvious but it simply isn't the root cause of homo or bisexuality and if you think it does then you're condemning every parent or family relative of playing some harmful role in their having a son/daughter, nephew/niece etc if they're gay. I think you need to ponder on that a moment and consider the ramifications of what you seem to suggest.

Ironically it would seem to be Christian, conservative parents who are so strung out at the prospect of their children being gay to the point of trying to get them "cured" in "therapy centers". Yet these uphold traditional family values so what's going on there? Years ago (and I'll qualify this by saying that my dad has mellowed a LOT on the subject since) my dad threatened to disown me if it transpired I ever did hard drugs or was a homosexual. He had nothing to worry about (apart from an ill advised foray with LSD) but would you consider that type of remark to be loving or reasonable? Some kids have to deal with hiding their homosexuality because of attitudes like that.

As to the latter, there's simply no credible evidence that it works.

You're both looking at these issues from within a less than much more well rounded frame of reference.

Thus, each your respective false-positive.

Heck, you yourself, AB, have just proven your above paradigm and its resulting compulsion, are the result of a significantly impacting negative emotional event from your past.

Not that that proves Lon right, either.

For one of you is basically asserting that being born blind means that "being born that way proves that it is normal."

While the other of you two is basically asserting that "being blind is always due to an external, significantly impacting negative event."

See, there is ever a need to test for...the things that differ.

In other words, you have both failed to measure each your conclusion from within a rigorous asking of a question like ' what might be an example of where what I am concluding might not be the case?'

Absent of having asked oneself that kind of a question, rigorously, one is bound to end up at one or another extreme "one size fits all."

As you are both very well aware: there is often no reasoning with such.

 

[Idolater]

I think more BLT Christians are not going to Hell.

It seems that gluttony is a light sin, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls it one of the 'capital sins,' but doesn't specify it as grave matter, at least not to my knowledge.

BLTs are yummy.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You're both looking at these issues from within a less than much more well rounded frame of reference.

Thus, each your respective false-positive.

Heck, you yourself, AB, have just proven your above paradigm and its resulting compulsion, are the result of a significantly impacting negative emotional event from your past.

Not that that proves Lon right, either.

For one of you is basically asserting that being born blind means that "being born that way proves that it is normal."

While the other of you two is basically asserting that "being blind is always due to an external, significantly impacting negative event."

See, there is ever a need to test for...the things that differ.

In other words, you have both failed to measure each your conclusion from within a rigorous asking of a question like ' what might be an example of where what I am concluding might not be the case?'

Absent of having asked oneself that kind of a question, rigorously, one is bound to end up at one or another extreme "one size fits all."

As you are both very well aware: there is often no reasoning with such.

It wasn't "significantly impacting" and I should have underlined that more, not that it would have altered anything even it had. Already knew which way my attractions lay and I was well past puberty at that point anyway. My dad said that once and once only and it was more something said in the heat of argument than a sincere threat, just to clear that up. For other people though, it isn't and what it must be and has been like for children who know they're not straight and either having to hide that or be forced into "therapy" due to zealous parents would be crappy to say the least.

See, I'm not arguing that negative factors and traumas such as abuse etc don't have a significant, negative effect on a child's development and psyche. To argue from a position that all or most homosexuals and bisexuals are "made" is one that simply can't be maintained however. Sometimes an unreasonable position has to be called what it is.

 

[Danoh]

It wasn't "significantly impacting" and I should have underlined that more, not that it would have altered anything even it had. Already knew which way my attractions lay and I was well past puberty at that point anyway. My dad said that once and once only and it was more something said in the heat of argument than a sincere threat, just to clear that up. For other people though, it isn't and what it must be and has been like for children who know they're not straight and either having to hide that or be forced into "therapy" due to zealous parents would be crappy to say the least.

See, I'm not arguing that negative factors and traumas such as abuse etc don't have a significant, negative effect on a child's development and psyche. To argue from a position that all or most homosexuals and bisexuals are "made" is one that simply can't be maintained however. Sometimes an unreasonable position has to be called what it is.

Thing is, you are both arguing from within a "one size fits all" position.

Each based on the limitations of the particular lens from which you are each looking out at things from.

From an obvious failure to have rigorously asked ' what might be a counter-counter to my conclusion, that I may have possibly failed to search out?'

Case in point, regarding a discrepency I find in your view: one sees a same kind of a discrepancy in the supposed eyewitness of two direct students of some famous teacher whose teachings they now each assert the other has greatly misinterpreted.

This, although both assert "I was there, I know different..."

In other words, your assertion that one who was there knows what's what, is as slightly full of holes as the assertion that one would have to run around, say, with Trump, in order to know what drives the man.

Fact is, many a science of the patterns of man and or of their impact (Archeology, Anthropology, even Geology, and so on) all prove the very opposite.

All prove that such things are more a matter of where one is looking out at a thing from, even more so, than actually having been there.

You might take offense to having this pointed out to you...personally...I find my above to often be that difference that often makes the difference... between a much more well rounded approach or science...and a pseudo-science.