The Church speaks up on SSM again

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The love and respect you have for your children as individuals...is huge.  I so respect you.

Thanks Jeanne.  Does that mean you won't be the one calling child protective services on me for allowing my children to be in the Mormon church?  

[ERMD]

59 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I can't imagine how supporting SSM is destroying anyone's soul.  I don't see how gay people marrying civilly is going to destroy someone's soul.  I'd argue the opposite, in fact. 

"The greatest trick the Devil every pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

---Roger "Verbal" Kint, The Usual Suspects

 

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks Jeanne.  Does that mean you won't be the one calling child protective services on me for allowing my children to be in the Mormon church?  

No..I won't be calling...I would love you to teach a parenting class!

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, ERMD said:

"The greatest trick the Devil every pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

---Roger "Verbal" Kint, The Usual Suspects

 

I don't know.  it seems like a pretty good trick to get people to think it's good to preach intolerance and discrimination on the excuse of religion.  Seeing how religion has been the source of so much hate on this issue, the devil is laughing his heart out. 

[ERMD]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know.  it seems like a pretty good trick to get people to think it's good to preach intolerance and discrimination on the excuse of religion.  Seeing how religion has been the source of so much hate on this issue, the devil is laughing his heart out. 

If you think the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are preaching intolerance and discrimination, then I'm afraid the joke's on you.

 

[kllindley]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

A teen doesn't want to have homosexual sex, even though he/she is gay, and a therapist can't work with or talk to such a teen?

This is correct.  Exact verbiage of the bill: "Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age." And "This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."  

 

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ok so which several states are we talking about

 California, New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois and Washington, D.C. 

 

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

hm...well, I'm interested to look into these cases.  Any links? 

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/04/16625/

 

[stemelbow]

38 minutes ago, ERMD said:

If you think the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are preaching intolerance and discrimination, then I'm afraid the joke's on you.

 

What do you mean?  Does the FP not teach that we should not tolerate SSM?  Does the FP not teach that we should discriminate against gay couples who wish to get married civilly? 

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, kllindley said:

This is correct.  Exact verbiage of the bill: "Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age." And "This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."  

 

 California, New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois and Washington, D.C. 

 

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/04/16625/

 

Thanks for the info Kllindley.  I'm going to spend more time thinking on this. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

You obviously can not defend a church who believes it is necessary to try and take away someone's civil rights.  

You obviously can not defend a church who prohibits the baptism of children because of the sins of their parents.

You obviously can not defend a church who believes in discrimination

You obviously can not defend a church that has adopted Satan's plan of forcing others to obey your beliefs by law rather than free agency.

So you post your collection of posters.  What other options does a Mormon have.  I get it.

LOL, the LDS Church doesn't need to be defended -- it isn't taking away any civil rights. As for your other points, they are just more polemics without merit (please refer back to the puh-lease poster). I'd rather discuss the OP (please refer back to the kitty poster).

I guess I'll reiterate that the article and the "space" link advocate for a system that facilitates human connectedness in an expanding society, which human connectedness is the hallmark of spirituality and the highest aim of religion. This is why new rights and especially their related laws must take take the protection of religious freedom into account. Those who are excessively focused on law as the means to protect themselves tend to degrade human connectedness and the need to protect the religious freedom that promotes it.

[ERMD]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What do you mean?  Does the FP not teach that we should not tolerate SSM?  Does the FP not teach that we should discriminate against gay couples who wish to get married civilly? 

Doctrine and Covenants 1:31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

 32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

 33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Edited July 7, 2016 by ERMD

[CV75]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Okay, there's probably some room for concern.  But let's not be unreasonable in expressing that concern.  we certainly could use a world where religious schools can say, "hey we want our students to live by our teachings" and no one get concerned about it.  But we also need to live in a world where a religion doesn't try and influence others to take or keep civil rights from law abiding citizens. 

That's the red herring. It is unreasonable to say the LDS Church is trying to take or keep civil rights that have been granted from anyone when it is up for debate whether something such as ssm should become a civil right in jurisdictions where it isn't a right.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It feels like the church is more concerned about politically carving out the space it is comfortable with than focusing on the most pressing moral issues in the world. They want a space where they are both free to dictate how they may discriminate against others and how others may NOT discriminate against them. It's a rational position for an organization, but it's not a moral one.

It seems like you're confusing legal discrimination, which the Church is not committing, with asserting her right to discuss and debate legislation as an expression of religious freedom that happens to run contrary to your "recognition and understanding" -- in other words, your own sense of discrimination -- of what you think is the right thing to do.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

This is correct.  Exact verbiage of the bill: "Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age." And "This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/04/16625/

 

I read through your link to the Witherspoon Institute article, but I didn't see the text of bill as you quoted in the first paragraph, above...

Can you clarify where that verbiage is from...? 

[Johnnie Cake]

22 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Doctrine and Covenants 1:31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

 32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

 33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

"What many call sin is not sin" - Joseph Smith

[Danzo]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Discrimination is all about relationship to others, and fairness.  

There's the rub, by change the defination of discrimination to only "things that people do that are not fair" instead of the dictionary definition "to recognize a distinction"  You turn the word into a negative label

"You can't do X because its discrimination "

"Why is it discrimination? Because it think it is unfair and bad"

"But you do Y, isn't that discrimination?,  Its not because I don't think it is unfair or a bad thing"

 

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Danzo

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

the LDS Church and its members are free to "Believe" anything they want to...however...where they cross the line is when they take steps to make others NOT of their faith also beholden to the same Beliefs that they hold dear and sacred through the enactment of laws.

The church has a history of imposing its beliefs on non-adherents, Utah's bizarre alcohol laws and the well know involvement of the church in stopping medical marijuana in the state of Utah come to mind.  Its involvement in Prop 8 in California and its efforts to impose its views on SSM in Hawaii and Arizona and now Australia.

No one can be forced to appreciate LDS beliefs, and the passage of law by an LDS-influenced jurisdiction/community isn't intended to do that. According to the "space" link, laws can be an outgrowth of human connecteness, but in any case cannot substitute human connectedness.

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

While the church has every right to free speech and is free to  introduce its beliefs into the market place of competing ideas of societal change...when society pushes back on these efforts or out right rejects them, for the church to then claim alarm or concern for society imposing consequences due to their efforts seems rather naive on the part of the church.  No one has imposed restriction on the church or its members to believe anything they desire...but what this news release is complaining  about is that the church is challenged because it placed its ideas into the market place of ideas, society heard its arguments and has rejected them. The Church continues to fight a battle and a war that they've lost and they refuse to recognize this...no wonder they feel challenged.

The structure of the laws can impede religious freedom, and people do try to marginalize the role of religion in formulating people's views and voice as to what constitutes appropriate legislation. Religious expression goes far beyond believing whatever you want to, and posts like this demonstrate the denial or the ignorance of that fact.

The rest of your post is just plain ol'

 

[california boy]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

LOL, the LDS Church doesn't need to be defended -- it isn't taking away any civil rights. As for your other points, they are just more polemics without merit (please refer back to the puh-lease poster). I'd rather discuss the OP (please refer back to the kitty poster).

I guess I'll reiterate that the article and the "space" link advocate for a system that facilitates human connectedness in an expanding society, which human connectedness is the hallmark of spirituality and the highest aim of religion. This is why new rights and especially their related laws must take take the protection of religious freedom into account. Those who are excessively focused on law as the means to protect themselves tend to degrade human connectedness and the need to protect the religious freedom that promotes it.

Yet you still can not answer a single one of the statements I made because there are all indefensible.  Of course you have no answers.  Neither do I.  

You obviously can not defend a church who believes it is necessary to try and take away someone's civil rights.  

You obviously can not defend a church who prohibits the baptism of children because of the sins of their parents.

You obviously can not defend a church who believes in discrimination

You obviously can not defend a church that has adopted Satan's plan of forcing others to obey your beliefs by law rather than free agency.

[california boy]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That's the red herring. It is unreasonable to say the LDS Church is trying to take or keep civil rights that have been granted from anyone when it is up for debate whether something such as ssm should become a civil right in jurisdictions where it isn't a right.

How anyone could possible make such a statement now when virtually every single district and federal court that heard the case for gay marriage determined it was a civil right protected by the 14th amendment.  And this includes the Supreme Court of the United States.  This even includes federal judges that were Mormon who declared that gay couples civil rights were being violated.  Seriously?  You still think it is open to debate that the church is actively trying to prevent the civil rights of gay couples?  If every single federal, district and Supreme Court in the United States agreed that gay couples civil rights were being violated, what WOULD it take to convince you that the church is working to take away gay couples civil rights?

[Daniel2]

Not sure why, but I've written three posts in response to Kllindley, and none have gone through.

For now, I will just say I believe most of his post is inaccurate and not reflective of the facts about bans on conversion and reparative therapies for underage minors, the most vulnerable portions of the LGBT population, and most deserving of protection from alleged therapies shown to be not only false, but damaging and increasing the levels of suicidal thoughts and behaviors when promoted outcomes prove to be unattainable.

Those interested in finding out the facts about the JONAH case may wish to check out the following two sources:

JONAH, the Largest Jewish Gay Conversion Therapy Organization, Takes its Last Breath (from Newsweek)

Ex-Utahn’s journey from Mormon counseling to ‘abusive’ reparative therapy and, ultimately, a happy gay marriage (from the SLT, given that one of the plaintiffs in the JONAH case was a former Mormon, BYU graduate, and LDS RM).

That being said, I actually respect and support Kllindley's ability and decision to enter into a mixed-orientation marriage, and as an adult, his therapist has every legal right to encourage him in that endeavor. 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Daniel2

[kllindley]

34 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I read through your link to the Witherspoon Institute article, but I didn't see the text of bill as you quoted in the first paragraph, above...

Can you clarify where that verbiage is from...? 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1172

 

And I quoted the toned down language that was actually passed.  The original defined SOCE as any therapy: "altering the sexual or romantic desires, attractions, or conduct of a person toward people of the same sex so that the desire, attraction, or conduct is eliminated or reduced or might instead be directed toward people of a different sex. "

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet you still can not answer a single one of the statements I made because there are all indefensible.  Of course you have no answers.  Neither do I.  

You obviously can not defend a church who believes it is necessary to try and take away someone's civil rights.  

You obviously can not defend a church who prohibits the baptism of children because of the sins of their parents.

You obviously can not defend a church who believes in discrimination

You obviously can not defend a church that has adopted Satan's plan of forcing others to obey your beliefs by law rather than free agency.

No, I don't answer those statements because they are meaningless polemics reflecting a biased lack of ability to dialog.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1172

 

And I quoted the toned down language that was actually passed.  The original defined SOCE as any therapy: "altering the sexual or romantic desires, attractions, or conduct of a person toward people of the same sex so that the desire, attraction, or conduct is eliminated or reduced or might instead be directed toward people of a different sex. "

Thank you for providing the source.  I think it's actually worth sharing the entirety of the passed Bill's final language, to put into context the portion that you cited:

Quote

SB 1172, Lieu. Sexual orientation change efforts.

Existing law provides for licensing and regulation of various professions in the healing arts, including physicians and surgeons, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, educational psychologists, clinical social workers, and licensed professional clinical counselors.

This bill would prohibit a mental health provider, as defined, from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts, as defined, with a patient under 18 years of age. The bill would provide that any sexual orientation change efforts attempted on a patient under 18 years of age by a mental health provider shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall subject the provider to discipline by the provider’s licensing entity.

The bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

 The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) Being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming. The major professional associations of mental health practitioners and researchers in the United States have recognized this fact for nearly 40 years.

(b) The American Psychological Association convened a Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. The task force conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts, and issued a report in 2009. The task force concluded that sexual orientation change efforts can pose critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, including confusion, depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social withdrawal, suicidality, substance abuse, stress, disappointment, self-blame, decreased self-esteem and authenticity to others, increased self-hatred, hostility and blame toward parents, feelings of anger and betrayal, loss of friends and potential romantic partners, problems in sexual and emotional intimacy, sexual dysfunction, high-risk sexual behaviors, a feeling of being dehumanized and untrue to self, a loss of faith, and a sense of having wasted time and resources.

(c) The American Psychological Association issued a resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts in 2009, which states: “[T]he [American Psychological Association] advises parents, guardians, young people, and their families to avoid sexual orientation change efforts that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and to seek psychotherapy, social support, and educational services that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support, and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth.”

(d) The American Psychiatric Association published a position statement in March of 2000 in which it stated:

“Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or ‘repair’ homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of ‘cures’ are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, ‘reparative’ therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.

The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.”

(e) The American School Counselor Association’s position statement on professional school counselors and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth states: “It is not the role of the professional school counselor to attempt to change a student’s sexual orientation/gender identity but instead to provide support to LGBTQ students to promote student achievement and personal well-being. Recognizing that sexual orientation is not an illness and does not require treatment, professional school counselors may provide individual student planning or responsive services to LGBTQ students to promote self-acceptance, deal with social acceptance, understand issues related to coming out, including issues that families may face when a student goes through this process and identify appropriate community resources.”

(f) The American Academy of Pediatrics in 1993 published an article in its journal, Pediatrics, stating: “Therapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”

(g) The American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs prepared a report in 1994 in which it stated: “Aversion therapy (a behavioral or medical intervention which pairs unwanted behavior, in this case, homosexual behavior, with unpleasant sensations or aversive consequences) is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians. Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become comfortable with their sexual orientation and understand the societal response to it.”

(h) The National Association of Social Workers prepared a 1997 policy statement in which it stated: “Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrates that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and, in fact, they may be harmful.”

(i) The American Counseling Association Governing Council issued a position statement in April of 1999, and in it the council states: “We oppose ‘the promotion of “reparative therapy” as a “cure” for individuals who are homosexual.’”

(j) The American Psychoanalytic Association issued a position statement in June 2012 on attempts to change sexual orientation, gender, identity, or gender expression, and in it the association states: “As with any societal prejudice, bias against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism through the internalization of such prejudice.

Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’ ‘repair,’ change or shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized attitudes.”

(k) The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in 2012 published an article in its journal, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, stating: “Clinicians should be aware that there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be altered through therapy, and that attempts to do so may be harmful. There is no empirical evidence adult homosexuality can be prevented if gender nonconforming children are influenced to be more gender conforming. Indeed, there is no medically valid basis for attempting to prevent homosexuality, which is not an illness. On the contrary, such efforts may encourage family rejection and undermine self-esteem, connectedness and caring, important protective factors against suicidal ideation and attempts. Given that there is no evidence that efforts to alter sexual orientation are effective, beneficial or necessary, and the possibility that they carry the risk of significant harm, such interventions are contraindicated.”

(l) The Pan American Health Organization, a regional office of the World Health Organization, issued a statement in May of 2012 and in it the organization states: “These supposed conversion therapies constitute a violation of the ethical principles of health care and violate human rights that are protected by international and regional agreements.” The organization also noted that reparative therapies “lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.”

(m) Minors who experience family rejection based on their sexual orientation face especially serious health risks. In one study, lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide, 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression, 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs, and 3.4 times more likely to report having engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse compared with peers from families that reported no or low levels of family rejection. This is documented by Caitlin Ryan et al. in their article entitled Family Rejection as a Predictor of Negative Health Outcomes in White and Latino Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young Adults (2009) 123 Pediatrics 346.

(n) California has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, and in protecting its minors against exposure to serious harms caused by sexual orientation change efforts.

(o) Nothing in this act is intended to prevent a minor who is 12 years of age or older from consenting to any mental health treatment or counseling services, consistent with Section 124260 of the Health and Safety Code, other than sexual orientation change efforts as defined in this act.

SEC. 2.

 Article 15 (commencing with Section 865) is added to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, to read:

Article  15. Sexual Orientation Change Efforts

 

865.

 For the purposes of this article, the following terms   shall have the following meanings:

(a) “Mental health provider” means a physician and surgeon specializing in the practice of psychiatry, a psychologist, a psychological assistant, intern, or trainee, a licensed marriage and family therapist, a registered marriage and family therapist, intern, or trainee, a licensed educational psychologist, a credentialed school psychologist, a licensed clinical social worker, an associate clinical social worker, a licensed professional clinical counselor, a registered clinical counselor, intern, or trainee, or any other person designated as a mental health professional under California law or regulation.

(b) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

(2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation.

 

865.1.

 Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age.

 

865.2.

 Any sexual orientation change efforts attempted on a patient under 18 years of age by a mental health provider shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall subject a mental health provider to discipline by the licensing entity for that mental health provider.

Very fact-based, and very enlightening with regards to the numerous studies, data, and positions by all the major Mental Health organizations on behalf of protecting and preserving the lives of our youth.

As it stands, the bill seems not only reasonable, but a model that the rest of the nation should undertake, as well, to protect our nation's youth--particularly in Utah, where the suicide rate has almost tripled since 2008 and is now the leading cause of death among teenagers.  Just last week, four gay UT teens committed suicide.  I had the unfortunate experience of attending the funeral for one.  It was devastating.  Something needs to change...  Kudos to states like California, New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois and Washington, D.C. for proactively putting the lives of their teens ahead of any religious ideology about sexual orientation.

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Daniel2

[Jeanne]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, I don't answer those statements because they are meaningless polemics reflecting a biased lack of ability to dialog.

That is a long sentence just to say you really don't have any real good answers.

[USU78]

On 7/6/2016 at 11:50 AM, hope_for_things said:

If you believe that remaining true to doctrine, is tied to the discriminatory practices you listed above, then yes, I agree.  

I don't find any necessary links between staying true to doctrine and the above examples of minor changes that some people will have to adjust to now that SSM is legal.  

Time to open up the re-education facilities.  I wonder if there's room in Sugarhouse for one.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

--particularly in Utah, where the suicide rate has almost tripled since 2008 and is now the leading cause of death among teenagers.  

 

Can you provide a reference for 

1. the suicide rate in Utah being triple that 2008.

2. Suicide being the leading cause of death among teenagers being suicide.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Danzo