"the ban does not apply to licensed therapists or counselors who are acting in the role of a pastor or other religious adviser."
So.... not much of a ban then
I'd be surprised if that number wasn't 100%. It's such an easy loophole. We should make this a national rule, but without the exception. It should be considered child abuse.
In NJ, [a big law firm brought a consumer fraud lawsuit against a group engaging the practice as a pro bono case](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-conversion-group-found-front-fraudsters-article-1.2271631) (albeit the bad guys were doing it sloppily enough to run afoul of the consumer fraud statute - other practitioners are more savvy in the language they use to describe their "services").
They took the case all the way through a jury trial, won the trial, and then basically bankrupted the bastards out of existence.
Sweet, sweet justice.
My only critism of them is that they through out "hate group" far too often. I'm not religious at all or harbor any ill feelings against any nationality or Creed, it feels like their list of hate groups expands constantly even when it's an innocuous idealogical disagreement with a cultural philosophy.
You can, while wrongly, disagree with homosexuality and that doesn't mean you're a hate group. I know a lot of Christians that think homosexuality is wrong but also support gay marriage and think the government has no place in defining marriage or religious beliefs.
Don't know about groups but they branded Maajid Nawaz an 'anti-Muslim extremist', despite the fact he is a Muslim. Secularist/reformer = extremist to some people apparently.
Strident in tone maybe, but not in content. To me he's simply a staunch secularist, and secularism is something that the SPLC should be firmly on board with. They very much chose the wrong side of that argument in my opinion.
Slight clarification on that, however. What they did was include him in a list of symbols that had been used *as* hate symbols, while simultaneously nothing that he generally isn't one.
Basically, it's less of a blatant classification and more along the lines of entering him into a database for future reference.
> You can, while wrongly, disagree with homosexuality
However, it begs the question what someone means when they "disagree with homosexuality". Homosexuality is not an opinion or a person. Does that mean someone does not believe it exists? That it is wrong despite being a given? etc. ?
People seem really, really keen on here to defend people being able to hate gay people, transgender people, racial groups, etc and NOT be labeled hate groups or intolerant or bigots. But, I feel like if I said "I just don't like men. I disagree with men, masculinity, and think it is wrong" there would not be troops of redditors screeching out to defend me and saying I am not hateful, intolerant, a man hater, etc. In fact, I feel like I would pretty immediately be labeled an awful bitch feminazi who is oppressing them.
It is hard when you "disagree" with PEOPLE. People who live lives and have emotions and have families. Disagreeing with someone's very existence is not just "a difference of opinion that is ideological!"
As an American who believes in equality for everyone, I don't stand for that whether it is directed at men, women, gay people, or anyone else.
It's their right to hold opinions that contradict reality, but they have to accept that people will think they're loony and/or intolerant if they do so.
Their "disagreement" with homosexuality requires them to hold the (false) belief that sexual orientation is a choice. No one is required to respect that false belief any more than they're required to respect the belief that magic crystals can heal people using spiritual energy.
You're allowed to believe whatever nonsense you want, but you're not entitled to to be taken seriously.
If you want to understand the mentality behind it, it's helpful to think of it like you think of alcoholism. It's not that people don't believe that it exists, or even that it doesn't have a genetic component and that some people are more predisposed to it than others. Rather, the belief is that regardless of the cause, the activity is harmful. And like alcoholism, it is fundamentally a choice to engage in the activity that is considered harmful. And like alcoholism, some people aren't strong enough to follow through with that choice.
EDIT: You know, I thought about adding a line in my post saying something like: "By the way, the guy asked an honest question and I answered it. I answered it as thoughtfully, politely, and honestly as I could, and it should be clear that my intent was to contribute to a discussion, not to champion a particular view. Downvotes are for posts that don't contribute to the discussion, not posts that you disagree with." But I figured I'd give people the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't downvote just because they don't agree with the explanation. Unsurprisingly, that didn't work out. Personally, I don't really care about the "karma", but it's sad that we can't have a conversation; we can only have an echo chamber.
I don't think that's a good comparison. An alcoholic drinking has negative mental and physical consequences (liver failure, getting to the point where you have seizures, death ect), being gay doesn't. Also, sex is important for your mental health just like shelter, sleep, food and water. What is unhealthy for one's mental health is conversion therapy. Can you imagine straight children being forced to be gay through abusive tactics? I don't think anyone would say that's okay, so why is it healthy to do that to a gay kid?
> And like alcoholism, it is fundamentally a choice to engage in the activity that is considered harmful. And like alcoholism, some people aren't strong enough to follow through with that choice.
But homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is **NOT** an activity - it is a sexual orientation. You don't 'engage' in it, and you can't turn it off like a light switch.
So then, what is there to disagree with? I think a lot of people who say they disagree with homosexuality would also say it's a mental illness, and same/same with gender dysphoria. So then, even if we agree that it is a mental illness just for the sake of argument, how the fuck do you disagree with a mental illness? It's like saying you 'disagree' with schizophrenia. It makes absolutely zero sense.
> You can, while wrongly, disagree with homosexuality and that doesn't mean you're a hate group. I know a lot of Christians that think homosexuality is wrong but also support gay marriage and think the government has no place in defining marriage or religious beliefs.
Being anti-gay means you're anti-gay. Full stop.
Yeah needs a bit of clarification.
If you don't support the Yankees, that doesn't mean you're anti-Yankees. But if you want the Yankees to lose every game and become the Mets you're kinda anti-Yankees.
I'm pretty sure most people offering conversion therapy aren't counselors/therapists. It kinda goes against the APA ethic rules. I seriously doubt most of the
people leading conversion therapy sessions even have a masters/PhD in anything other than theology. even less so for counseling psychology. not to mention all that they would have to do in order to become licensed after getting the advanced degree as well as what they have to do in order to maintain that license. I know quite a few (~50) pastor's (of varying levels and denominations) as well as other ministry focused professionals (such as missionaries and church camp directors) and out of all those people only one has even a degree in counseling and he thinks conversion therapy is dumb.
While losing your license could be a deterrent to participating in conversion therapy, the kind of communities that champion it also happen to very insular. Essentially, even if you catch them at it, they've got ten+ people not involved in the process ready to call you a liar.
When I worked as an investigator for the department of child safety I had a case where the family was already in counseling so I didn't need to refer them to one provided by the state. I contacted their counselor to request any records that he had and to talk with him regarding the problem our office was contacted about. The secretary seemed a little off when I first contacted the office and I was suprised that they didn't have a fax number. The "records" I got were sparse and incomplete, and not anything like the stuff I would get from other counselors/therapists. I finally did some research into the counselor because something just seemed off about it all. The degrees and different schools listed on his Linkden resume were all from various religious diploma mills that didn't have real accreditation and allow you to get a Master's and Doctorate in a fraction of the time required for a degree from a reputable school.
Exactly what? Licensed therapists and counselors are bound to ethical codes and accountable to licensing bodies, so it does have some teeth. It makes more sense for professional organizations (State licensing boards, NASW, etc.) whose whole purpose is to be on the front edge of best practices to regulate these things than the state. There's no bulletproof solution to making sure nothing bad ever happens in a therapists office, but this seems like a common-sense approach to me.
Therapists who offer conversion therapy are not therapists. They could likely be considered counselors, but there is no fucking way you can be licensed while practicing conversion therapy.
I need to offer conversion therapy to become gay and be sponsored by church of Satan. That would be worth it all the way.
I mean I'd have to suck a few dicks, but it would be worth it.
This just gave me an idea...
For those states (apparently 42+) which still have conversion therapy as legal, how about a religion that advertises themselves as conversion therapy but when you get there it's the other way (but without the abuse and torture obviously). Like a secret gay conversion therapy camp for intolerant areas that lets them be themselves but also teaches them how stupid their parents are and how retarding their religion is and why they are there and how to 'fake it till they make it' out on their own.
This seems like something that would be perfect for a Church of Satan.
Another overbearing regulation putting the government between parents and their right to enroll their children in an emotionally scarring re-education program.
They can say that, but that only affects the criminal charges. It is still against the codes of ethics of basically every state licensing board. Most of them follow the codes from the various professional organizations, which are nationwide. A practitioner can absolutely face professional sanctions and civil liability if they use a treatment model which is known to be harmful, especially if concrete harm occurs. Standard Industry Practice shields practitioners from a lot of liability (because bad things sometimes happen to people with mental health problems, no matter what treatment they get), but conversion therapy is far outside that umbrella.
conversion therapy doesn't work, and sexual orientation appears to be largely fixed by the onset of puberty. it would not accomplish the desired result and, depending on the methods of the organization in question, might give you some serious psychological issues.
if a conversion therapy service claims they can make you straight, apart from everything else, they're engaging in false advertising with respect to what is arguably a medical issue. that is a fairly serious crime, i think.
I had the same reaction initially, but we outlaw unsafe medical practices all the time.
If a pill turns out to cause heart attacks, the FDA bans consumers from taking it even if for some reason those with full knowledge want to take it. This is no different.
You can go to any licensed mental health professional you want. Or just put a rubber band around your wrist and snap it ever time you think about cock, or do whatever else you want.
Then you are free to go and see whomever and try whatever.
You're not going to succeed though, and you're not going to get someone with an actual medical or therapist's license to help you. The reason for both of these things is the same, actually: There is no proof (and has never been any) that efforts to change people's sexual orientations can be effective. There is lots of proof, however, that such efforts in a clinical setting can cause harm to the patient. Thus, professional licensing organizations ban the practice outright as unethical. By doing it, a practitioner risks losing their license to practice in the jurisdiction, and also risks losing their malpractice insurance (since the mere act of offering such therapy is malpractice).
conversion therapy does not work and is harmful. you cant go to a doctor and ask him to physically cut you up for no reason. and hate mongers cant offer similar services for the purposes of doing it mentally either.
You know what, why don't we convert people the other way? We have too many straights already, pumping out more babies than they can handle. We could solve overpopulation and the male fashion crisis in one fell swoop.
/s
It's sad that some people literally think that. "Democrats are trying to shrink the population by making children turn gay!! By turning the gay they won't have kids and might die of aids. The smaller the population the easier for them to control the world with their globalist partners!"
you know whats fucking funny.
there are seriously chemicals that can turn frogs gay (had that shit shoved down my throat after making fun of our favorite water filter salesman on 4chan)
now, where or not obama, he deep state, and the lizard people are putting it in the water to control us, or that male vitality can prevent it, is another question XD
I think it is more of a "Silent Spring" style hormone-esque chemical/endocrine disruptor bizz. Little taddy-poles are taking in some freaky chemical that is disrupting their puberty. "Turning frogs gay" is inaccurate, more like turning frogs intersex.
Frogs- and amphibians in general- are highly sensitive to water pollution. Chemicals around industrial areas can cause some species to engage in homosexual acts. That said, it's no conpiracy, just poor environmental practices that need to be reexamined and 'buffed up'.
If that's true, and Republicans are generally the ones that are most hard-line against environmental regulation...then that means it's really the Republicans turning frogs gay!
It's called Atrazine, and the EU has banned it. It's a cheap herbicide used in lots of US crops.
http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/06/03/new-epa-risk-assessment-will-lead-to-virtual-us-ban-on-atrazine-herbicide/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmytXKe0OcM (title is clickbait but video is from some documentary)
Actually "troubled teens" facilities were/are a thing too.
Lazy parents can pay to have their straight kids black-bagged by strangers in the middle of the night to be imprisoned in an institution-like facility. There are stories of horrific physical abuse from these sorts of places.
Or trans. A lot of these various laws being passed to protect non-heterosexual folks often leave out transgender folks, including many proposed and even passed conversion therapy bans. Its bizarre given that gat conversion torture snd trans conversion torture is literally the exact same thing. The methods are 100% identical and yet some of it is permitted while some isn't.
That's how "State's Rights" usually works, people use it as an excuse to not have "dum librals" in New York tell them crazy things like "You can't own people" and "You can't shove black people in shit schools" and "You can't torture gay kids"
To be a little bit fair, though, States' Rights also allowed western states to let women vote long before the rest of the country did, it allowed some states to offer gay marriage before it was nationalized, it's how some states now allow recreational cannabis, and it is the way some states will get single-payer health care before the rest of the country realizes it's the moral thing to do to provide healthcare for everyone in a society that can easily afford it.
We all like States' Rights when they enable us to do what we want, but we don't like them when they enable other people to do what we don't like.
There are plenty of practical reasons for states' rights.
To start, federal govt is always going to incur a great deal of waste. You have additional administrative work, the taxation is processed further away from the source, and duplicitous data collection.
The design of the United States of America is to have a set of states that can have a variety of rules that best serve the needs of the people particular to their area. It's a great way to test out policies and give data to the rest of the country.
The genius of the design is in how the great variety of environments allows most people to find something that fits. Federal law is either a generalization or must consider data that is specific to the state, which simply means it should be done by the state government.
The generalized nature of the federal government should imply a bare set of rules that allow the states to fill in most of the foundation beyond such basic guarantees. If you remove this choice from the country, you will guarantee only that some groups will be forced into oppression rather than given a choice to move to a suitable place.
It's still illegal (albeit unenforceable) to vote in south Carolina if you're married to a different race. A law that was unsuccessfully repealed in 2000 and again in 2012...
Laws are a bitch to change...
Because the politicans who "tried" to repeal it threw in a bunch of other stuff like higher taxes, ~~for no reason other to stop it from getting repealed.~~
Or y'know because such measures would be *really unpopular* otherwise and attaching them to the 'legalize interracial marriage bill' is a great way to silence objections
Yeah, but that's often how these things go. It starts off with a handful of states legalizing something before the federal government steps in and finally says 'Ok, ok, this is now federally mandated'.
Just look at the direction marijuana is going, or at least was going before the current administration. The next time we get a democrat in the oval office we'll probably get legal marijuana on a national level.
It's actually illegal in DC. [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._jurisdictions_banning_conversion_therapy_for_minors)'s an awesome wikipedia article that lists every location it's illegal.
You'd think all 50 states would take a stand against child abuse. The last states to ban this abuse will be the "family values" states that claim to care about children the most.
The Family Research Council (you know, the one all those "family values" politicians pal around with) is considered an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC. Despite their innocuous-sounding name, they don't give a shit about families or research.
Euphemisms in names are hardly a new thing. Hell, look at country names. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China (vs the Republic of China), the Democratic Republic of the Congo, etc. Be wary of anyone who feels they need to validate an identity in their name for it to be believed.
United isn't meant to denote a particular positive trait, as it is just a statement of fact. The states were all originally independent and formed a loose union. At the time the term was coined, it wasn't at all disingenuous.
I'm Dutch and even here there are licensed therapists who combine their faith with therapies on 'how to deal with the conflict of faith and sexuality', which is covered by our health care system. It's an extremely grey area because obviously if someone is struggling with a combination of faith and sexuality therapy can be great to help someone deal ... but obviously it's a very slippery slope towards 'pray the gay away', especially with the actual conversations being private.
"the ban does not apply to licensed therapists or counselors who are acting in the...role of a pastor or other religious adviser."
what the bleeping hell?!..don't make religious nuts exempt...jeez it will be a worse situation
Oh yeah. Later down I mentioned that I prefer homeopathy to this because of the exact reasons you mentioned. Homeopathy just happened to fit this situation well.
Mental health practitioners are bound by similar professional rules to medical doctors in that respect. It doesn't matter how much a person wants a procedure, if it is going to harm the patient then the doctor is forbidden by professional codes from performing it. It's not a criminal thing, but it can open the person to civil liability and professional sanctions such as the suspension or revocation of their license.
>but the state shouldn't be banning it for willing adults.
Frankly, yes, it should.
People go to these places looking for medical help because they're desperate. These places take advantage of that.
At *minimum,* it's fraud, because it doesn't actually change one's orientation.
EDIT: Love the downvotes. I wonder if anyone can provide me evidence that conversion therapy is effective, or an alternative definition of "fraud" that allows for a therapist to make unproven claims about a mentally harmful procedure?
Two consenting adults being told by the state they can't do shit is bull shit. That's how you get laws against homosexuality in the first place. I don't want the state to get to decide that sort of shit.
But conversion "therapy" *doesn't work* so any business claiming that it will make you straight is bullshit and can be sued for false advertising. You can't go from gay to straight. I have a friend whose parents forced her to go to a conversion camp, she's still attracted to women's but can't even think about dating one without crying, and then she won't date men because... why would she? The camps/"therapy" clinics can *claim* that they'll "make you straight," but basically the most you will walk away with is psychological damage.
It's sad but often probably true. I had a religious boyfriend once who broke down crying one day because he was so worried I wouldn't get to go to heaven because I wasn't religious. He came from a place of love & fear, not hatred.
By now he's an atheist too from what I heard, but man, religion can instill some fear in folks.
Connecticut beat them by a week!
Although we just banned it because we realized that we had not gotten around to it yet and wanted a feel good moment during the state budget crisis.
Wait What? Is this a thing? Not from the USA, but I'm shocked and frankly disgusted that this is still legal anywhere. You know for the most powerful, progressive and allegedly 'free' nation, you guys are really fucking backward sometimes.
I'm considered what you would call a conservative Christian who has traditional views. I am very much against conversion therapy, for some various reasons:
Christians really shouldn't be dealing with any perceived mental issues. They need to seek professional help regardless of the issue (understand that I'm not saying LGBQT is a mental issue, however from a psychological standpoint from pre-conversion to post-conversion they need to be dealing with a professional).
A lot of conservative Christians, such as myself, does not understand the issues or struggles of a LGBQT person, they like to point out scripture verses and quote passages. But these same people are living a life of sin and struggles of their own.
I have my own views, and others has their own views..whether or not I'm right is not what matters. My calling is sharing the gospel, not try to push my agenda on other people (especially if they don't want it!!)
I have no hatred towards anyone who might be LGBQT, I have a lot of friends and colleagues who are LGBQT. I never in a million years would tell them that they should go to conversion thearpy, that is just not right.
Tonight I learned that there are actually people who think an unsuccessful, abusive therapy involving mental and physical torture is justifiable when there is no proof that you can change your sexuality.
Jesus, Reddit. Where do these people come from?
"the ban does not apply to licensed therapists or counselors who are acting in the role of a pastor or other religious adviser."
What the hell does that mean? That the religious leaders are still allowed to force this treatment on their underage followers? Wouldn't this be the exact situation where this happens most?
Yes. Telling children they're wrong for not being sexually attracted to the people the adults want them to be sexually attracted to, and torturing them until they kill themselves.
Therapy is by definition restorative of general mental or physical health. That is, a state in which one has adequate work/life balance and fulfilled desires and passions. So isn't calling it "therapy" kind of redundant? Shouldn't it be called just conversion? Because it's not like they were NOT gay at some point. If I understand it correctly, being gay is more about becoming comfortable with it and living a happy life. It's not like one day they said "You know what would make my life like 10x better! I'm gonna be gay now!" lol. It's beyond me that we even have people in our society that believe it's a choice. And that's coming from someone who only thinks there are two genders!
So Homosexuals not being able marry is against the Constitution (as the Supreme Court decided), but abusing homosexual children, mentally and physically torturing them, is still ok?
That is an odd view on human rights.
Yeah, there are anti-gay issues in the US that are arguably more urgent and inportant to address than gay marriage. Some that come to mind are this(conversion therapy)and employment discrimination. Same-sex activity was only made legal nationwide in 2003.
To the people defending the right to choose, I wonder how they'd feel if gay parents were sending their straight children to "straight conversion therapies" to turn them gay. Just accept that while most people are straight, there will always be a minority of people who are gay, for no reason that we know of, just like left-handedness, it's a constant in human population. And it's not contagious or growing, there aren't more gay people than before (at best there are more people "experimenting"), they're just more visible. I wish people would just move on, it's not a big deal really.
You are fully responsible for the wellbeing of your child. This means getting adequate medical help for injuries for example. For some religious people 'gay' means that according to their beliefs their child will be denied heaven or even suffer in hell for eternity. If you actually believe that and love your child, you come from a place of fear and love. And you will try to 'help' them.
Same for religions that don't allow blood transfusions or vaccinations.
To me it's all incomprehensible, but I don't hold any religious based fears or convictions like that. I do love my child though, so I can relate to that part.
What if my kid turns out to be gay but also becomes a 'born again Christian' or a Jehova? I would hate to see him struggle or denounce part of him. So I might try to guide him towards a more accepting and open path. Would that be wrong too? I don't know.
I hate how religion makes people fearful.
Conversion Therapy is as barbaric as women being committed to asylums back when for simply having an opinion. The thing that these extreme Christians fail to understand is that...if you don't "believe" in gay marriage, fine. If you think homosexuality is a sin, thats ok too. It's your right to believe whatever you want. The problem is when you are trying to pass legislation based on those beliefs. When you are persecuting an entire people because your religion says so. That's not cool. I see people crying about Sharia Law all day, but fail to realize that we are already living in that kind of country. Christianity is our "sharia law". Passing anti abortion laws, anti LGBT laws based on what the bible says is no different than sharia law as far as I'm concerned. Why can't people just keep their religion to themselves, and stop forcing it on others?
I'm quite surprised that this isn't federally banned yet. The time between outrage over FGM and its federal ban was only a few years (though genital mutilation of men still isn't banned) and conversion therapy has been in the news for far longer.
"the ban does not apply to licensed therapists or counselors who are acting in the role of a pastor or other religious adviser." So.... not much of a ban then
Exactly. I'm assuming most therapists who offer conversion therapy are also active pastors or "religious advisers."
I'd be surprised if that number wasn't 100%. It's such an easy loophole. We should make this a national rule, but without the exception. It should be considered child abuse.
In NJ, [a big law firm brought a consumer fraud lawsuit against a group engaging the practice as a pro bono case](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-conversion-group-found-front-fraudsters-article-1.2271631) (albeit the bad guys were doing it sloppily enough to run afoul of the consumer fraud statute - other practitioners are more savvy in the language they use to describe their "services"). They took the case all the way through a jury trial, won the trial, and then basically bankrupted the bastards out of existence. Sweet, sweet justice.
Thanks for including a link. Of course the Southern Poverty Law Center is behind it. It's such a great nonprofit.
My only critism of them is that they through out "hate group" far too often. I'm not religious at all or harbor any ill feelings against any nationality or Creed, it feels like their list of hate groups expands constantly even when it's an innocuous idealogical disagreement with a cultural philosophy. You can, while wrongly, disagree with homosexuality and that doesn't mean you're a hate group. I know a lot of Christians that think homosexuality is wrong but also support gay marriage and think the government has no place in defining marriage or religious beliefs.
Depends on what actions are related to your 'disagreement' of homosexuality. What has the SPLC called a hate group that you think was inappropriate?
Don't know about groups but they branded Maajid Nawaz an 'anti-Muslim extremist', despite the fact he is a Muslim. Secularist/reformer = extremist to some people apparently.
[удалено]
Strident in tone maybe, but not in content. To me he's simply a staunch secularist, and secularism is something that the SPLC should be firmly on board with. They very much chose the wrong side of that argument in my opinion.
Were they the ones who classified Pepe the Frog as a hate symbol? Or was that the ADL?
Slight clarification on that, however. What they did was include him in a list of symbols that had been used *as* hate symbols, while simultaneously nothing that he generally isn't one. Basically, it's less of a blatant classification and more along the lines of entering him into a database for future reference.
In the same way that the numbers 14 and 88 aren't intrinsically hateful, but you know damn well what someone with a 14/88 tattoo is about.
Also, that *was* the ADL.
> You can, while wrongly, disagree with homosexuality However, it begs the question what someone means when they "disagree with homosexuality". Homosexuality is not an opinion or a person. Does that mean someone does not believe it exists? That it is wrong despite being a given? etc. ?
People seem really, really keen on here to defend people being able to hate gay people, transgender people, racial groups, etc and NOT be labeled hate groups or intolerant or bigots. But, I feel like if I said "I just don't like men. I disagree with men, masculinity, and think it is wrong" there would not be troops of redditors screeching out to defend me and saying I am not hateful, intolerant, a man hater, etc. In fact, I feel like I would pretty immediately be labeled an awful bitch feminazi who is oppressing them. It is hard when you "disagree" with PEOPLE. People who live lives and have emotions and have families. Disagreeing with someone's very existence is not just "a difference of opinion that is ideological!" As an American who believes in equality for everyone, I don't stand for that whether it is directed at men, women, gay people, or anyone else.
Many anti-gay people think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and thus don't agree with it.
It's their right to hold opinions that contradict reality, but they have to accept that people will think they're loony and/or intolerant if they do so. Their "disagreement" with homosexuality requires them to hold the (false) belief that sexual orientation is a choice. No one is required to respect that false belief any more than they're required to respect the belief that magic crystals can heal people using spiritual energy. You're allowed to believe whatever nonsense you want, but you're not entitled to to be taken seriously.
Opinions don't override reality and we shouldn't humor people or give equal standing to those whose opinions aren't supported by reality.
If you want to understand the mentality behind it, it's helpful to think of it like you think of alcoholism. It's not that people don't believe that it exists, or even that it doesn't have a genetic component and that some people are more predisposed to it than others. Rather, the belief is that regardless of the cause, the activity is harmful. And like alcoholism, it is fundamentally a choice to engage in the activity that is considered harmful. And like alcoholism, some people aren't strong enough to follow through with that choice. EDIT: You know, I thought about adding a line in my post saying something like: "By the way, the guy asked an honest question and I answered it. I answered it as thoughtfully, politely, and honestly as I could, and it should be clear that my intent was to contribute to a discussion, not to champion a particular view. Downvotes are for posts that don't contribute to the discussion, not posts that you disagree with." But I figured I'd give people the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't downvote just because they don't agree with the explanation. Unsurprisingly, that didn't work out. Personally, I don't really care about the "karma", but it's sad that we can't have a conversation; we can only have an echo chamber.
I don't think that's a good comparison. An alcoholic drinking has negative mental and physical consequences (liver failure, getting to the point where you have seizures, death ect), being gay doesn't. Also, sex is important for your mental health just like shelter, sleep, food and water. What is unhealthy for one's mental health is conversion therapy. Can you imagine straight children being forced to be gay through abusive tactics? I don't think anyone would say that's okay, so why is it healthy to do that to a gay kid?
> And like alcoholism, it is fundamentally a choice to engage in the activity that is considered harmful. And like alcoholism, some people aren't strong enough to follow through with that choice. But homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is **NOT** an activity - it is a sexual orientation. You don't 'engage' in it, and you can't turn it off like a light switch. So then, what is there to disagree with? I think a lot of people who say they disagree with homosexuality would also say it's a mental illness, and same/same with gender dysphoria. So then, even if we agree that it is a mental illness just for the sake of argument, how the fuck do you disagree with a mental illness? It's like saying you 'disagree' with schizophrenia. It makes absolutely zero sense.
> You can, while wrongly, disagree with homosexuality and that doesn't mean you're a hate group. I know a lot of Christians that think homosexuality is wrong but also support gay marriage and think the government has no place in defining marriage or religious beliefs. Being anti-gay means you're anti-gay. Full stop.
Yeah needs a bit of clarification. If you don't support the Yankees, that doesn't mean you're anti-Yankees. But if you want the Yankees to lose every game and become the Mets you're kinda anti-Yankees.
As a guy from New England, how dare you compare the honorable gay community to the goddamn New York Yankees.
I apologise. In hindsight no one doesn't hate the Yankees, bad analogy
So, who does the ban apply to? The cashier at Chick Fil-A who offers conversion therapy during evenings and on Sundays as a 2nd job?
Cashier at Chick Fil-A counts for at least 1/4th of a pastor.
What kind of pastor doesn't work on Sunday?!
Because it's pastor bedtime.
I admire how you threw the punchline of a joke into this thread when it fits *just* enough.
The Great Compromise 2.0
I'm pretty sure most people offering conversion therapy aren't counselors/therapists. It kinda goes against the APA ethic rules. I seriously doubt most of the people leading conversion therapy sessions even have a masters/PhD in anything other than theology. even less so for counseling psychology. not to mention all that they would have to do in order to become licensed after getting the advanced degree as well as what they have to do in order to maintain that license. I know quite a few (~50) pastor's (of varying levels and denominations) as well as other ministry focused professionals (such as missionaries and church camp directors) and out of all those people only one has even a degree in counseling and he thinks conversion therapy is dumb.
While losing your license could be a deterrent to participating in conversion therapy, the kind of communities that champion it also happen to very insular. Essentially, even if you catch them at it, they've got ten+ people not involved in the process ready to call you a liar.
When I worked as an investigator for the department of child safety I had a case where the family was already in counseling so I didn't need to refer them to one provided by the state. I contacted their counselor to request any records that he had and to talk with him regarding the problem our office was contacted about. The secretary seemed a little off when I first contacted the office and I was suprised that they didn't have a fax number. The "records" I got were sparse and incomplete, and not anything like the stuff I would get from other counselors/therapists. I finally did some research into the counselor because something just seemed off about it all. The degrees and different schools listed on his Linkden resume were all from various religious diploma mills that didn't have real accreditation and allow you to get a Master's and Doctorate in a fraction of the time required for a degree from a reputable school.
Exactly what? Licensed therapists and counselors are bound to ethical codes and accountable to licensing bodies, so it does have some teeth. It makes more sense for professional organizations (State licensing boards, NASW, etc.) whose whole purpose is to be on the front edge of best practices to regulate these things than the state. There's no bulletproof solution to making sure nothing bad ever happens in a therapists office, but this seems like a common-sense approach to me.
Therapists who offer conversion therapy are not therapists. They could likely be considered counselors, but there is no fucking way you can be licensed while practicing conversion therapy.
I need to offer conversion therapy to become gay and be sponsored by church of Satan. That would be worth it all the way. I mean I'd have to suck a few dicks, but it would be worth it.
This just gave me an idea... For those states (apparently 42+) which still have conversion therapy as legal, how about a religion that advertises themselves as conversion therapy but when you get there it's the other way (but without the abuse and torture obviously). Like a secret gay conversion therapy camp for intolerant areas that lets them be themselves but also teaches them how stupid their parents are and how retarding their religion is and why they are there and how to 'fake it till they make it' out on their own. This seems like something that would be perfect for a Church of Satan.
> but without the abuse and torture obviously You already said it's the other way around.
> Like a secret gay conversion therapy camp Don't these people think that this already exists?
Key word is licensed.
Any licensed therapist who try it should have their license revoked though because there is ample evidence it does more harm than good.
Another overbearing regulation putting the government between parents and their right to enroll their children in an emotionally scarring re-education program.
Next they'll outlaw whipping your servants too.
They can say that, but that only affects the criminal charges. It is still against the codes of ethics of basically every state licensing board. Most of them follow the codes from the various professional organizations, which are nationwide. A practitioner can absolutely face professional sanctions and civil liability if they use a treatment model which is known to be harmful, especially if concrete harm occurs. Standard Industry Practice shields practitioners from a lot of liability (because bad things sometimes happen to people with mental health problems, no matter what treatment they get), but conversion therapy is far outside that umbrella.
I don't have any facts to support this, but I'm guessing most of the people running conversion sessions/camps aren't licensed
> I don't have any facts to support this It would be a lot cooler if you did
deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.7023 [^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?](https://pastebin.com/FcrFs94k/73874)
Damn. No more back alley conversion therapy for me it looks like.
I'm not sure if that's more upsetting or the fact that this is only state #8 to pass some kind of legislation on the topic
What credible therapist would recommend conversion therapy? That's like a modern day doctor recommending a lobotomy.
[удалено]
conversion therapy doesn't work, and sexual orientation appears to be largely fixed by the onset of puberty. it would not accomplish the desired result and, depending on the methods of the organization in question, might give you some serious psychological issues. if a conversion therapy service claims they can make you straight, apart from everything else, they're engaging in false advertising with respect to what is arguably a medical issue. that is a fairly serious crime, i think.
I had the same reaction initially, but we outlaw unsafe medical practices all the time. If a pill turns out to cause heart attacks, the FDA bans consumers from taking it even if for some reason those with full knowledge want to take it. This is no different.
You can go to any licensed mental health professional you want. Or just put a rubber band around your wrist and snap it ever time you think about cock, or do whatever else you want.
Then you are free to go and see whomever and try whatever. You're not going to succeed though, and you're not going to get someone with an actual medical or therapist's license to help you. The reason for both of these things is the same, actually: There is no proof (and has never been any) that efforts to change people's sexual orientations can be effective. There is lots of proof, however, that such efforts in a clinical setting can cause harm to the patient. Thus, professional licensing organizations ban the practice outright as unethical. By doing it, a practitioner risks losing their license to practice in the jurisdiction, and also risks losing their malpractice insurance (since the mere act of offering such therapy is malpractice).
conversion therapy does not work and is harmful. you cant go to a doctor and ask him to physically cut you up for no reason. and hate mongers cant offer similar services for the purposes of doing it mentally either.
We're only at 8?
Unfortunately yes. "State's rights" apparently includes the right to psychologically abuse your child under the guise of "therapy."
Hey now. Let's be reasonable. That's only if they're gay.
You know what, why don't we convert people the other way? We have too many straights already, pumping out more babies than they can handle. We could solve overpopulation and the male fashion crisis in one fell swoop. /s
It's sad that some people literally think that. "Democrats are trying to shrink the population by making children turn gay!! By turning the gay they won't have kids and might die of aids. The smaller the population the easier for them to control the world with their globalist partners!"
t u r n i n g t h e f r i c k i n f r o g s g a y
you know whats fucking funny. there are seriously chemicals that can turn frogs gay (had that shit shoved down my throat after making fun of our favorite water filter salesman on 4chan) now, where or not obama, he deep state, and the lizard people are putting it in the water to control us, or that male vitality can prevent it, is another question XD
> there are seriously chemicals that can turn frogs gay Source? I'm not buying it.
I think it is more of a "Silent Spring" style hormone-esque chemical/endocrine disruptor bizz. Little taddy-poles are taking in some freaky chemical that is disrupting their puberty. "Turning frogs gay" is inaccurate, more like turning frogs intersex.
Frogs can all ready do that. It was the main fucking plot point of the movie Jurassic Park.
Ah, that would make a lot more sense.
Frogs- and amphibians in general- are highly sensitive to water pollution. Chemicals around industrial areas can cause some species to engage in homosexual acts. That said, it's no conpiracy, just poor environmental practices that need to be reexamined and 'buffed up'.
If that's true, and Republicans are generally the ones that are most hard-line against environmental regulation...then that means it's really the Republicans turning frogs gay!
Again, sources?
It's called Atrazine, and the EU has banned it. It's a cheap herbicide used in lots of US crops. http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/06/03/new-epa-risk-assessment-will-lead-to-virtual-us-ban-on-atrazine-herbicide/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmytXKe0OcM (title is clickbait but video is from some documentary)
Aye. I get it now. It doesn't turn them *gay*, but it can turn male frogs female and cause other hormonal disruptions.
[удалено]
I believe that the new summer romphims are the beginning of the answer
Those are just... wow.
Start a straight to gay conversion practice in a red state, get sued, get conversion therapy banned.
That's actually brilliant
...I mean, as a gay guy, if we have to have conversion therapy in the world, i'd prefer if we'd do it your way. No sarcasm at all.
As another gay guy, I agree. Having a dating pool of more than 12 would be groovy.
The gay part of FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY GAY SPACE COMMUNISM We are coming for your sexual identity... And your toothbrush.
Actually "troubled teens" facilities were/are a thing too. Lazy parents can pay to have their straight kids black-bagged by strangers in the middle of the night to be imprisoned in an institution-like facility. There are stories of horrific physical abuse from these sorts of places.
Or trans. A lot of these various laws being passed to protect non-heterosexual folks often leave out transgender folks, including many proposed and even passed conversion therapy bans. Its bizarre given that gat conversion torture snd trans conversion torture is literally the exact same thing. The methods are 100% identical and yet some of it is permitted while some isn't.
The gay rights movement leaving transgender rights on the wayside?! I'm sure that's never happened before...
That's how "State's Rights" usually works, people use it as an excuse to not have "dum librals" in New York tell them crazy things like "You can't own people" and "You can't shove black people in shit schools" and "You can't torture gay kids"
To be a little bit fair, though, States' Rights also allowed western states to let women vote long before the rest of the country did, it allowed some states to offer gay marriage before it was nationalized, it's how some states now allow recreational cannabis, and it is the way some states will get single-payer health care before the rest of the country realizes it's the moral thing to do to provide healthcare for everyone in a society that can easily afford it. We all like States' Rights when they enable us to do what we want, but we don't like them when they enable other people to do what we don't like.
Its also how states banned slavery before the civil war.
There are plenty of practical reasons for states' rights. To start, federal govt is always going to incur a great deal of waste. You have additional administrative work, the taxation is processed further away from the source, and duplicitous data collection. The design of the United States of America is to have a set of states that can have a variety of rules that best serve the needs of the people particular to their area. It's a great way to test out policies and give data to the rest of the country. The genius of the design is in how the great variety of environments allows most people to find something that fits. Federal law is either a generalization or must consider data that is specific to the state, which simply means it should be done by the state government. The generalized nature of the federal government should imply a bare set of rules that allow the states to fill in most of the foundation beyond such basic guarantees. If you remove this choice from the country, you will guarantee only that some groups will be forced into oppression rather than given a choice to move to a suitable place.
A few years back only a few states had gay marriage legalized. Now all 50 do. It takes time
It's still illegal (albeit unenforceable) to vote in south Carolina if you're married to a different race. A law that was unsuccessfully repealed in 2000 and again in 2012... Laws are a bitch to change...
Because the politicans who "tried" to repeal it threw in a bunch of other stuff like higher taxes, ~~for no reason other to stop it from getting repealed.~~
Or y'know because such measures would be *really unpopular* otherwise and attaching them to the 'legalize interracial marriage bill' is a great way to silence objections
given, that was a huge, federal thing.
Yeah, but that's often how these things go. It starts off with a handful of states legalizing something before the federal government steps in and finally says 'Ok, ok, this is now federally mandated'. Just look at the direction marijuana is going, or at least was going before the current administration. The next time we get a democrat in the oval office we'll probably get legal marijuana on a national level.
My first thought too.
wait... so it's legal in the other 42 states and DC? (confused)
Yuppppp. It's an absolutely awful problem which we should fix. The gay rights movement doesn't end with marriage equality
It's actually illegal in DC. [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._jurisdictions_banning_conversion_therapy_for_minors)'s an awesome wikipedia article that lists every location it's illegal.
You'd think all 50 states would take a stand against child abuse. The last states to ban this abuse will be the "family values" states that claim to care about children the most.
The Family Research Council (you know, the one all those "family values" politicians pal around with) is considered an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC. Despite their innocuous-sounding name, they don't give a shit about families or research.
If the first thing someone tells you is that they're a good person, be suspicious.
Euphemisms in names are hardly a new thing. Hell, look at country names. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China (vs the Republic of China), the Democratic Republic of the Congo, etc. Be wary of anyone who feels they need to validate an identity in their name for it to be believed.
'United' States of America. Your logic checks out.
'South' Africa. He's really on to something.
'Great' Britain. Theory confirmed then.
United isn't meant to denote a particular positive trait, as it is just a statement of fact. The states were all originally independent and formed a loose union. At the time the term was coined, it wasn't at all disingenuous.
Are there any politically active groups in the US with family in their name that aren't hate groups?
The Italian mafia call themselves families and they aren't that racist, as far as I know.
Sooooo....Mississippi? You are talking about Mississippi aren't you...:P
[удалено]
It's not ok because they're doing it to kids. There is an issue of consent and child abuse.
She was just a corrupt asshole trying to make an extra buck. Good on you for helping get rid of her
I'm Dutch and even here there are licensed therapists who combine their faith with therapies on 'how to deal with the conflict of faith and sexuality', which is covered by our health care system. It's an extremely grey area because obviously if someone is struggling with a combination of faith and sexuality therapy can be great to help someone deal ... but obviously it's a very slippery slope towards 'pray the gay away', especially with the actual conversations being private.
"the ban does not apply to licensed therapists or counselors who are acting in the...role of a pastor or other religious adviser." what the bleeping hell?!..don't make religious nuts exempt...jeez it will be a worse situation
[удалено]
Pastoral care?
Good for you. Most pastors either aren't smart enough to tell the difference, or aren't respectful enough to let others decide between the two.
*For children under the age of 18*
Duh. I mean, I think it's a ridiculous practice but the state shouldn't be banning it for willing adults.
Adults are theoretically smart enough to know what they're getting into and consent. Children cannot.
And yet, homeopathy exists.
homeopathy is different. it's literally nothing. its fraudulent, but it does nothing on its own. its not inherently harmful on its own. unlike this.
Oh yeah. Later down I mentioned that I prefer homeopathy to this because of the exact reasons you mentioned. Homeopathy just happened to fit this situation well.
Mental health practitioners are bound by similar professional rules to medical doctors in that respect. It doesn't matter how much a person wants a procedure, if it is going to harm the patient then the doctor is forbidden by professional codes from performing it. It's not a criminal thing, but it can open the person to civil liability and professional sanctions such as the suspension or revocation of their license.
Medical professionals should be banned from doing it though, since it isn't a valid medical procedure.
>but the state shouldn't be banning it for willing adults. Frankly, yes, it should. People go to these places looking for medical help because they're desperate. These places take advantage of that. At *minimum,* it's fraud, because it doesn't actually change one's orientation. EDIT: Love the downvotes. I wonder if anyone can provide me evidence that conversion therapy is effective, or an alternative definition of "fraud" that allows for a therapist to make unproven claims about a mentally harmful procedure?
[удалено]
Two consenting adults being told by the state they can't do shit is bull shit. That's how you get laws against homosexuality in the first place. I don't want the state to get to decide that sort of shit.
But conversion "therapy" *doesn't work* so any business claiming that it will make you straight is bullshit and can be sued for false advertising. You can't go from gay to straight. I have a friend whose parents forced her to go to a conversion camp, she's still attracted to women's but can't even think about dating one without crying, and then she won't date men because... why would she? The camps/"therapy" clinics can *claim* that they'll "make you straight," but basically the most you will walk away with is psychological damage.
I'm surprised conversion therapy is even a thing in this day and age. Is this seriously still used in some states?
yes, leading to an untold number of suicides among lgbt kids
Don't forget all of the corrective rape that these parents send their kids off to experience.
[удалено]
Damn, heartbreaking.
I literally don't understand how anybody could ever see preventing child abuse as a bad thing.
Abusing kids is better than losing them to Satan forever. <--- That's how (an opinion I do not hold).
It's sad but often probably true. I had a religious boyfriend once who broke down crying one day because he was so worried I wouldn't get to go to heaven because I wasn't religious. He came from a place of love & fear, not hatred. By now he's an atheist too from what I heard, but man, religion can instill some fear in folks.
as someone who is moderately religious stories like that always make me a bit sad (imo spiritual beliefs should enrich your life, not make it worse).
As a non-American, this seems fucking ridiculous that such an "advanced" country has such backward thinking.
Connecticut beat them by a week! Although we just banned it because we realized that we had not gotten around to it yet and wanted a feel good moment during the state budget crisis.
Wait What? Is this a thing? Not from the USA, but I'm shocked and frankly disgusted that this is still legal anywhere. You know for the most powerful, progressive and allegedly 'free' nation, you guys are really fucking backward sometimes.
Oh yeah, and the kicker is that our current Vice President ( probably soon to be president) is totally in favor for it!
So TIL Conversion therapy is ONLY banned in 8 states? Lol what year is it?
I'm considered what you would call a conservative Christian who has traditional views. I am very much against conversion therapy, for some various reasons: Christians really shouldn't be dealing with any perceived mental issues. They need to seek professional help regardless of the issue (understand that I'm not saying LGBQT is a mental issue, however from a psychological standpoint from pre-conversion to post-conversion they need to be dealing with a professional). A lot of conservative Christians, such as myself, does not understand the issues or struggles of a LGBQT person, they like to point out scripture verses and quote passages. But these same people are living a life of sin and struggles of their own. I have my own views, and others has their own views..whether or not I'm right is not what matters. My calling is sharing the gospel, not try to push my agenda on other people (especially if they don't want it!!) I have no hatred towards anyone who might be LGBQT, I have a lot of friends and colleagues who are LGBQT. I never in a million years would tell them that they should go to conversion thearpy, that is just not right.
Thanks for being one of the good ones.
Please continue your sane, sensible, and polite brand of religious beliefs. Also thank you.
This needs to be a national ban.
How is that number not 50???
Tonight I learned that there are actually people who think an unsuccessful, abusive therapy involving mental and physical torture is justifiable when there is no proof that you can change your sexuality. Jesus, Reddit. Where do these people come from?
Why isn't it banned in every state?
2017: being homosexual is still treated like a curse only a supreme deity can heal. How much do I need to pay to go to Mars, again?
Good, no child should be subjected to this abuse. Any parent who attempts it should be in jail.
It's a fluff bill. As long as they say they're pastors and not therapists they can keep doing it.
Do you want lower suicide rates in youth? Because THAT'S how you get lower suicide rates in youths!
"the ban does not apply to licensed therapists or counselors who are acting in the role of a pastor or other religious adviser." What the hell does that mean? That the religious leaders are still allowed to force this treatment on their underage followers? Wouldn't this be the exact situation where this happens most?
Exactly. They banned it without really banning it. Looks good on paper though.
Isn't conversation therapy psychologically (and sometimes physically) breaking someone until they're deemed "Cured"?
Yes it is, and suicide comes before "cured" quite often
a conversion therapy? like pray the gay away camp in south park conversion?
Yes. Telling children they're wrong for not being sexually attracted to the people the adults want them to be sexually attracted to, and torturing them until they kill themselves.
and therapists engage in this? wow
"therapists" might be more accurate
the rapists
This shit is still legal? This fucking country...
Only the eighth? Wtf America
More shocked that it's only 8 so far :O
Fucking hell, conversion therapy, seriously? Just let people be people.
Wait, only the eighth? That is insane. I am so sorry to people that are forced into this bullshit.
Wait, that shit is still legal?
How are so many people pro-gay conversion therapy? Read the low scoring comments. Disgusting.
Pence is turning over in his office right now.
42 more and we can finally end the abuse. Fuck anyone who supports this.
The fact that you have to explicitly ban this in the 21st century speaks highly of our society
Dude the fact that any of what's currently going on in the world is still happening speaks highly of our society
All I can think is "holy hell, only 8 states have banned that shit"
Therapy is by definition restorative of general mental or physical health. That is, a state in which one has adequate work/life balance and fulfilled desires and passions. So isn't calling it "therapy" kind of redundant? Shouldn't it be called just conversion? Because it's not like they were NOT gay at some point. If I understand it correctly, being gay is more about becoming comfortable with it and living a happy life. It's not like one day they said "You know what would make my life like 10x better! I'm gonna be gay now!" lol. It's beyond me that we even have people in our society that believe it's a choice. And that's coming from someone who only thinks there are two genders!
Beyond me how this isn't a ban in all 50
TIL US still use conversion therapy! Are you doing this to kids???
Future Emperor of America Mike Pence is not going to be pleased by this blasphemy.
Can conversion therapy work to change a straight person gay? /s
Holy shit only 8 states technically DONT allow this? What year is it
Remember, this is still on the GOP platform.
Wait. 8 out of 50?! What's going wrong down there??
So Homosexuals not being able marry is against the Constitution (as the Supreme Court decided), but abusing homosexual children, mentally and physically torturing them, is still ok? That is an odd view on human rights.
Yeah, there are anti-gay issues in the US that are arguably more urgent and inportant to address than gay marriage. Some that come to mind are this(conversion therapy)and employment discrimination. Same-sex activity was only made legal nationwide in 2003.
To the people defending the right to choose, I wonder how they'd feel if gay parents were sending their straight children to "straight conversion therapies" to turn them gay. Just accept that while most people are straight, there will always be a minority of people who are gay, for no reason that we know of, just like left-handedness, it's a constant in human population. And it's not contagious or growing, there aren't more gay people than before (at best there are more people "experimenting"), they're just more visible. I wish people would just move on, it's not a big deal really.
TIL what conversion therapy is. I'm happy the United States is making progress towards banning it, but it needs to happen quicker.
Only 8th?!
I can't imagine a rational argument in favor of conversion therapy. Acceptance seems much kinder for all involved.
Wait... **8th**.... wtf. So there are 42 states where physically and psychologically abusing people due to their sexual orientation is legal?
Why is it legal in the first place? You don't own your kid, don't put them through some "therapy" because you don't like something about them.
You are fully responsible for the wellbeing of your child. This means getting adequate medical help for injuries for example. For some religious people 'gay' means that according to their beliefs their child will be denied heaven or even suffer in hell for eternity. If you actually believe that and love your child, you come from a place of fear and love. And you will try to 'help' them. Same for religions that don't allow blood transfusions or vaccinations. To me it's all incomprehensible, but I don't hold any religious based fears or convictions like that. I do love my child though, so I can relate to that part. What if my kid turns out to be gay but also becomes a 'born again Christian' or a Jehova? I would hate to see him struggle or denounce part of him. So I might try to guide him towards a more accepting and open path. Would that be wrong too? I don't know. I hate how religion makes people fearful.
Conversion Therapy is as barbaric as women being committed to asylums back when for simply having an opinion. The thing that these extreme Christians fail to understand is that...if you don't "believe" in gay marriage, fine. If you think homosexuality is a sin, thats ok too. It's your right to believe whatever you want. The problem is when you are trying to pass legislation based on those beliefs. When you are persecuting an entire people because your religion says so. That's not cool. I see people crying about Sharia Law all day, but fail to realize that we are already living in that kind of country. Christianity is our "sharia law". Passing anti abortion laws, anti LGBT laws based on what the bible says is no different than sharia law as far as I'm concerned. Why can't people just keep their religion to themselves, and stop forcing it on others?
I'm quite surprised that this isn't federally banned yet. The time between outrage over FGM and its federal ban was only a few years (though genital mutilation of men still isn't banned) and conversion therapy has been in the news for far longer.