Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gray

Mormon church won’t oppose gay conversion therapy ban

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm so glad this law was passed in Utah today and the church was in favor of it as well!! No more conversion therapy allowed for underage people. And Utah is the 16th state to pass it!

Quoting myself to add an article from Deseret News, which mentions the hope that this will curb suicides. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900056650/will-utah-be-the-16th-state-to-ban-conversion-therapy-for-gay-teens.html

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I am more concerned with unlicensed individuals attempting homegrown conversion therapy given the reputation of it among most professionals.  I wonder if the  bill addresses that issue.

Also curious about how it would address pedophiles (not those who have molested children, just those attracted to them) given it states therapy should be neutral towards sexual orientation.

Quote

The bill defines conversion therapy as "any practice or treatment that seeks to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of a patient or client." The definition includes mental health therapy that attempts to "change, eliminate or reduce behaviors, expressions, attractions or feelings related to a patient or client's sexual orientation or gender identity."

The definition does not include therapy that "addresses unlawful, unsafe, premarital or extramarital sexual activities in a manner that is neutral with respect to sexual orientation."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Calm said:

I am more concerned with unlicensed individuals attempting homegrown conversion therapy given the reputation of it among most professionals.  I wonder if the  bill addresses that issue.

Also curious about how it would address pedophiles (not those who have molested children, just those attracted to them) given it states therapy should be neutral towards sexual orientation.

 

Mostly I find homosexuals are deeply offended by the comparison but I do understand the logic. 

Edited by MustardSeed

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Mostly I find homosexuals are deeply offended by the comparison but I do understand the logic. 

I am not comparing homosexuals or heterosexuals or trans with pedophiles at all here.  I am simply asking how the law would apply to that form of sexual orientation...or is there a problem you see with calling pedophilia a sexual orientation?

There are sexual orientations that are classified as disorders and others that are not.  I am wondering if the law takes into account the different categories.

Think of a liquor law that is meant to regulate treatment of customers in restaurants and their rights to be served, but is worded so there might be a problem with refusing a drunk who wanders in off the street.  Am I drawing any equivalency between the drunk and the typical sober customers in your view or just wondering if the law differentiates between types of customers?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not comparing homosexuals or heterosexuals or trans with pedophiles at all here.  I am simply asking how the law would apply to that form of sexual orientation...or is there a problem you see with calling pedophilia a sexual orientation?

There are sexual orientations that are classified as disorders and others that are not.  I am wondering if the law takes into account the different categories.

Well one of them is a criminal offense (if acted on) and the other one is not, so I would think there is a difference here regarding the law.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Quoting myself to add an article from Deseret News, which mentions the hope that this will curb suicides. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900056650/will-utah-be-the-16th-state-to-ban-conversion-therapy-for-gay-teens.html

Thanks for posting this, Tacenda!  

(The comments are interesting to read through too :) )

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, california boy said:

I want to remind you that there is no recordable claim of revelation is attached to ANY of the policies and practices the church dishes out to its gay members.  Yet once again members are lead to believe that church policies towards gays comes from God.

Yes, the Church is led by God. I guess we will agree to disagree.

The Family Proclamation To The World

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Yes, the Church is led by God. I guess we will agree to disagree.

The Family Proclamation To The World

Ah yes.  The Family Proclamation.  Developed by a law firm and never proclaimed a revelation from the prophet that "received" it.  And that is your proof of a revelation.  It kind of sums up my proof as well.  Those that need a revelation from God have it.  Even when those who are suppose to receive revelation don't claim it as such.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not comparing homosexuals or heterosexuals or trans with pedophiles at all here.  I am simply asking how the law would apply to that form of sexual orientation...or is there a problem you see with calling pedophilia a sexual orientation?

As far as the law is concerned, Congress and State authorities will take the issue and then classify (legislate) by making laws. SSM is not a crime but is legal, then there is criminal laws, each with different elements, such as sexuall assault, molestation, child endangerment, child abuse...

 

Quote

There are sexual orientations that are classified as disorders and others that are not.  

I believe you are correct. (my forte is History and Law). I am sure you know much more about this than I do.

 

Quote

I am wondering if the law takes into account the different categories.

Yes it does. For example; Assault and Battery both require intent, however, Assault there is no need for a contact (think mental, "he scared me, I thought I was gonna die"). For Battery a contact must be made (think physical, either human to human or human to baseball bat to human).

 

Quote

Think of a liquor law that is meant to regulate treatment of customers in restaurants and their rights to be served, but is worded so there might be a problem with refusing a drunk who wanders in off the street.  Am I drawing any equivalency between the drunk and the typical sober customers in your view or just wondering if the law differentiates between types of customers?

Yes, very good question. These are called Dram Laws, they will vary in severity and wording. Bottomline, those who serve liquor to an already intoxicated person may be liable for the harm that person does while intoxicated.

Edited by Anijen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Calm said:

I am more concerned with unlicensed individuals attempting homegrown conversion therapy given the reputation of it among most professionals.  I wonder if the  bill addresses that issue.

Also curious about how it would address pedophiles (not those who have molested children, just those attracted to them) given it states therapy should be neutral towards sexual orientation.

 

There needs to be a crackdown on a lot of homegrown therapy and addiction clinics. There is almost no oversight or regulation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Ah yes.  The Family Proclamation.  Developed by a law firm and never proclaimed a revelation from the prophet that "received" it.  

The history of the Proclamation you post is correct. However, you undermine its declaration of revealed doctrine contained within.

Revealed Doctrine:

  • Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
  • All human beings are created in the image of God.
  • Gender is an essential characteristics of human identity before, during, and after life on earth.
  • The family is ordained of God and central to God's plan.
  • As a beloved spirit son or daughter of Heavenly Parents, each person has a divine nature and destiny.
  • In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan.
  • Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.
  • God will hold parents accountable for the way in which they fulfill responsibilities to their families.
  • Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
Quote

And that is your proof of a revelation.

I never offered it as proof of revelation.

I offered The Proclamation of the Family to the World to show the Church is led by God. I also offered it because it specifically addresses marriage between a man and a woman and gender does not change (no matter what gender we are attracted to). I neither have to give proof nor could I on this issue. You can harp on the church, all the evils it has done, corrupted leaders, lack of revelation (revelation you would not accept anyway) all you want. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not have to change to accommodate your views (nor will it). 

 

Quote

 It kind of sums up my proof as well.  Those that need a revelation from God have it.  Even when those who are suppose to receive revelation don't claim it as such.

Your summation of proof is not proof, it is opinion.

 

Besides, I do not believe you would accept how we can come to the knowledge of truth. President Dallin H. Oaks said; 

Quote

 A testimony of the gospel is a personal witness borne to our souls by the Holy Ghost that certain facts of eternal significance are true and that we know them to be true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Anijen said:

The history of the Proclamation you post is correct. However, you undermine its declaration of revealed doctrine contained within.

Revealed Doctrine:

  • Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.

A careful reading of “The Proclamation” shows that while it clearly is an affirmation of God’s approval (the word it uses is “ordained”) of marriage between “a man and a woman,” it’s authors obviously had to be very careful to avoid suggesting God had historically or could ever again additionally condone alternate forms of marriage. 

As an alternate illustration of the word “ordains”: just because the FDA “ordains” (or approves/authorizes) chicken as a healthy form of protein doesn’t mean chicken is or will ever be the ONLY source of protein the FDA can or will ordain, or that chicken is a universally-beneficial protein that EVERYONE can or should consume. 

In the same vein, the fact that God generally “ordains” marriage “between a man and a woman” doesn’t mean God can’t ordain marriage “between a man and more than one woman” (see what I did there? ;) ), or between a white woman and a black man, or other forms of marriage for smaller subsets of his children as a whole that previously were banned.  Obviously, monogamous marriage was once condemned by some prophets, and Interracial marriage was also entirely prohibited and even banned from then temple, but ultimately was radically embraced even after previous prophets unequivocally condemned the practice (Brigham Young’s comment that the act of marriage betweeen a mixed-race couple was “dearth on the spot” comes to mind).

In short, a lot of people read meaning into The Proclamation that isn’t actually there, and the wording is and had to be vague, considering the LDS church’s own history and beliefs that there will be both monogamous, interracial and even some plural marriages—and perhaps other as-yet-unrevealed forms?—in the eternities.

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'd say what was done to these young men is not just "frowned upon today".  Maybe just drop this line of reasoning as it's about as ineffective as you can be.  Christ would have never physically harmed the youth of the church.....never....no matter what year it was.

But I agree with kllindley.  Time to move on as this has been discussed and from what I can tell, no one condones what was done.

I think you are missing the point because you are using a double standard. Times change and methods change, even with Jesus Christ Himself. To drop that line of reasoning is to remain as ineffective as you are in speculating what Christ would or would have done – especially for the sake of polemics and rhetoric, whether He (in His mortal lifetime) or His servants (a few decades ago) were in line with the current human understanding by doing what they did, and censuring the use of outdated norms as leverage to personally malign those that used them in good faith. That seems to have been the points being made; is this why it is now so convenient for you to move on?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well one of them is a criminal offense (if acted on) and the other one is not, so I would think there is a difference here regarding the law.

I would assume so, but the one part quoted seems to indicate that all approaches to sexual orientation itself should be neutral by professionals iirc.  I am curious if anyone has read the bill where it indicates differently.

Thanks Anijen, hopefully I will come across a specific example of how this works out plus I will have enough concentration power to read it for myself (the colder winter seems to have turned off my brain more than usual).  The way laws get played out interests me on occasion and this is one of them.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would assume so, but the one part quoted seems to indicate that all approaches to sexual orientation itself should be neutral by professionals iirc.  I am curious if anyone has read the bill where it indicates differently.

I agree.  Hopefully someone will weigh in who has read it and who knows more details regarding that question.  I'd like to know too....

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  Hopefully someone will weigh in who has read it and who knows more details regarding that question.  I'd like to know too....

Oh good, I was starting to think it was a dumb question with an obvious answer.  :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Oh good, I was starting to think it was a dumb question with an obvious answer.  :)

Conversion therapy" does not mean a practice or treatment that does not seek to
193     change a patient or client's sexual orientation or gender identity, including mental health
194     therapy that:
195          (A) is neutral with respect to sexual orientation or gender identity;
196          (B) provides assistance to a patient or client undergoing gender transition;
197          (C) provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a patient or client;
198          (D) facilitates a patient or client's ability to cope, social support, and identity
199     exploration and development;
200          (E) addresses unlawful, unsafe, premarital, or extramarital sexual activities in a manner
201     that is neutral with respect to sexual orientation; or
202          (F) discusses with a patient or client the patient or client's moral or religious beliefs or
203     practices.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, provoman said:

Conversion therapy" does not mean a practice or treatment that does not seek to
193     change a patient or client's sexual orientation or gender identity, including mental health
194     therapy that:
195          (A) is neutral with respect to sexual orientation or gender identity;
196          (B) provides assistance to a patient or client undergoing gender transition;
197          (C) provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a patient or client;
198          (D) facilitates a patient or client's ability to cope, social support, and identity
199     exploration and development;
200          (E) addresses unlawful, unsafe, premarital, or extramarital sexual activities in a manner
201     that is neutral with respect to sexual orientation; or
202          (F) discusses with a patient or client the patient or client's moral or religious beliefs or
203     practices.

Thank you for providing the fuller context of the "neutral with respect to sexual orientation" clause.

Which appears (201) to imply orientation is seen as always neutral even when behaviour is unlawful or unsafe without defining what that orientation is (unless this is elsewhere in the law).  Since there are many orientations and some may be only expressed in unlawful behaviour (I am thinking of pedophilia primarily, but necrophilia could be another orientation in the disorder category), I would think it would be acceptable for therapy to attempt to change such harmful if acted upon orientations if possible.  Even if not currently possible, research could be looking into methods of doing so....but if it is illegal to attempt to change any form of orientation, not seeing how professional research could be done.

Parking link for bill here to read later:

https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/hbillint/HB0399.htm

A search on "orientation" indicates it is not defined in the bill or any limits on types of orientations that one must treat as neutral are included.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

A careful reading of “The Proclamation” shows that while it clearly is an affirmation of God’s approval (the word it uses is “ordained”) of marriage between “a man and a woman,”

Thanks Daniel, for the in depth reply. I agree with basically everything you wrote. The one thing that is a bit fuzzy is how you define "ordained." Although I can accept your definition just as easily. My purpose for posting from the Proclamation is to show the doctrine within has revelatory origins.

Using the word ordained as "approved" or "authorized" as you have posted is fine with me. The words; approved and authorized have in them the express meaning of being done by someone with authority, i.e. being authorized by, being approved by... The Proclamation in its very first sentence states; "...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of [approved by, authorized by] God." The Proclamation goes on to focus on the family and issues relating to such were commanded from God. The entire text of the Proclamation is written in a context that speak in simple language of understanding that it is from God. Being from God means; From God to us, or in other words, we are being revealed something anytime it comes from God to us.

 

Quote

...it’s authors obviously had to be very careful to avoid suggesting God had historically or could ever again additionally condone alternate forms of marriage.

 I agree. He can do whatever He chooses. God can add, change, alter his rules for marriage. If the Church comes out and changes the law that marriage is not only between a man and a woman but for the same gender and goes on and these changes becomes approval for SSM in the temple, it would definitely be vis-a-vie from God to His prophet. the point is, it will be done through revelation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The state certainly belongs right there, inserting itself between the mentally ill and their therapists.

Ridiculous, especially since such legislation presupposes morality is the proximate cause of suicidal ideation and acting out by the mentally ill.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, USU78 said:

 ...the mentally ill...

Hmmm “Hchou keep using dat word again..... I dona think it means chwat chou think it means....” 

;)

 

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

Hmmm “Hhchou keep using dat word again..... I dunna think it means chwat chou think it means....” 

;)

 

You're not remotely funny.

People who kill themselves are, almost exclusively, mentally ill, n'est-ce pas?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, USU78 said:

 

People who kill themselves are, almost exclusively, mentally ill, n'est-ce pas?

Therapy is however used by a much broader base than those who are suicidal.  

I do get concerned when lawmakers create broad and vague laws relating to medical and psychological practices (I don't like broad and vague laws in general, but these two areas affect me personally and significantly in every aspect of my life these days).  It also seems a strange priority to insist on mind numbing standards for professionals while using a light hand on the nonprofessional doing the same thing...though I am not sure, to be honest, how one should legislate things like energy healing and homeopathic remedies or how one could oversee just giving advice (I hand out tons of medical advice as friends know I have been paying attention for decades, I would love to have a reference that kept me from making mistakes and crossing the lines; I try to supervise myself by always double checking research)

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, USU78 said:

You're not remotely funny.

People who kill themselves are, almost exclusively, mentally ill, n'est-ce pas?

Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention. Studies have consistently shown those who undergo conversion/reparative therapies, which is what this bill bans, are MORE likely to commit suicide—not less. This bill seeks to end damaging non-medically-sound practices by licensed professionals that lead to increased suicides. Hardly “standing between the mentally ill and their therapists”—in fact, it advances mental health and diminishes practices leading to increases suicide. 

You ARE right about one thing, though... When I pause to recall the many years of your posting here on the board (mis)characterizing homosexuality, slandering gays and lesbians as “suffering from S.S.A.D.” (what you deemed “Same-Sex-Attraction-Diaorder”) and your accompanying horribalizations of our relationships and families, I probably shouldn’t be making light of your actual positions. 

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...