california boy Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 7 hours ago, kllindley said: I'm going to have to ask for a CFR on this claim. Because I have read the bill several times and don't see any definition of "sexual orientation." What is the limiting principle defined by the law? CFR for a definition of sexual orientation? I didn't claim the bill had a definition of sexual orientation in it. Nor do I think sexual orientation needs a definition. It is a commonly understood term. I honestly don't understand your question. What I did claim and what the bill does is ban profiting from reparative therapy.
california boy Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, kllindley said: I think another CFR is needed. Where in the bill does it say that people can still seek counseling regarding lifestyle and behavioral choices? Does the bill limit sexual orientation to attractions only? Does it talk about measuring sexual orientation change? What about moving say from a 5 to a 4 on the Kinsey scale? The Kinsey Scale is a generally accepted measure of sexual orientation. Wouldn't moving from a 5 to a 4 be a change in sexual orientation? Does the bill state that the only fraudulent activity is claiming a change from gay to straight? Can a practitioner just change the language to claim change from gay to bisexual? If the bill is so clearly written you won't have any trouble pointing to the parts that answer those questions. This is a consumer protection bill that prevents fraudulently profiting from promises of changing one's sexual orientation. It says nothing about seeking counseling regarding lifestyle and behavioral choices. I think the burden is on you to show that it prohibits such counseling. The ONLY thing prohibited in this bill is profiting from promises to change one' sexual orientation. This law is triggered as soon as the therapist (or any other type of counseling) claims to be able to change a person's sexual orientation. Let's say a person is gay and he goes to a therapist and tells the therapist that he wants to be straight. There is nothing in this law that prevents the therapist from working with the patient over these issues. The only thing this bill does is prevent the therapist from telling the person that with enough therapy, he can become straight. That is the consumer fraud. He can't promise to do that. And for good reason. OK so lets say. the person is bisexual. Once again the therapist can not make claims that they can change his attraction to exclusively straight or gay. But again, there is noting in this bill that prevents a therapist from helping the individual DEAL with his attractions. As soon as the therapist profits from making a promise that they can move the patient from a 6 to a 10, he has broken the law. "I can't change your sexual orientation, but I can counsel you in how to deal with that orientation better." That is the direction a therapist should take. That type of counseling is not prohibited anywhere in the bill. Reread the bill. See if you can find any place in the bill where such counseling is prohibited. "I can change your orientation with enough therapy and money." That would be against the law. Does anyone believe that these organizations are supporting a bill that discourages therapy for anyone that is gay? The American Psychological Association The American Psychological Association The American Psychiatric Association (e) The American Academy of Pediatrics The American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs The National Association of Social Workers The American Counseling Association Governing Council i The American School Counselor Association (j) The American Psychoanalytic Association The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry The Pan American Health Organization, The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) The American College of Physicians The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the United States Department of Health and Human Services Edited May 9, 2018 by california boy
california boy Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 Maybe I could explain this more from my own personal experience. When I first came out to my family, of course the first thing they thought I should do is seek a therapist that could change my orientation. So I agreed to do that. The therapist we sought out was Dave Mattheson. He is an LDS therapist in Los Angeles area that cowrote the Evergreen manual. There seemed to be no other therapist that would be more qualified for me to meet with. In desperate hope to change from being gay to straight, I flew down to LA twice a month and meet with him for 3 hours. I would say that is a pretty strong commitment. He asked me about my family relationships, my parents, how I deal with a lot of issues, how I dealt with being gay. I found these sessions to be extremely helpful. Together we worked through a lot of personal issues. Some I didn't even realize I had. Some seemed just normal to me because that is how I was raised. I really. learned a lot about myself. From this experience, I actually think that most people would probably benefit from this kind of counseling. Once we worked through all of these issues, then he told me that we were going to start on the reparative therapy part. So he had me stand up, imagine a big hole and to yell with all of my anger for being gay. I told him that I really didn't feel anger about being gay. But I did it anyway. I yelled. But it was just a performance. I was doing it only because he wanted me to. I felt none of the anger or hate within me for being gay. I told him I was just yelling. He said to keep doing it. So for another month, I would fly down to LA and pretend there was this big hole and yell at the top of my voice. After a while, it just seemed stupid. The seasons ended. The therapy was helpful. The promise of if I just got angry enough and yelled loud enough into a pretend hole then I would no longer be gay WAS THE FRAUD PART. How many times did I need to yell into this pretend hole before I was no longer gay. The answer is FOREVER. 1
Stargazer Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 13 hours ago, california boy said: This bill is a consumer protection bill. If it could be proven that sexual orientation could be changed, then of course it could be challenged in the courts. Because the basis of this bill is that no scientific studies have ever shown that sexual orientation can be changed. Read the bill. They address this issue. I'll take your word for it, CB! 1
webbles Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 6 hours ago, california boy said: Does anyone believe that these organizations are supporting a bill that discourages therapy for anyone that is gay? The American Psychological Association The American Psychological Association The American Psychiatric Association (e) The American Academy of Pediatrics The American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs The National Association of Social Workers The American Counseling Association Governing Council i The American School Counselor Association (j) The American Psychoanalytic Association The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry The Pan American Health Organization, The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) The American College of Physicians The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the United States Department of Health and Human Services Those organizations were quoted as a reason for why the bill is needed. None of their quotes are in support of the bill since they all happened years ago. Now, they may actually have given a quote recently that they support the bill but the statements from them in the bill is solely about banning "reparative therapy" (as you've mentioned).
webbles Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 If you want to read the actual bill and see how it actually affects the existing laws, you can do it at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2943 The blue text is the new text. There is no text removed from the bill. Specifically, the new text is just: In SEC. 2. Section 1761 of the Civil Code: (i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices 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. and in SEC. 3. Section 1770 of the Civil Code: (28) Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.
california boy Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 Each if their statements are clearly in support of this bill. We certainly would have heard about any pushback from any of these organizations if they did not fully support the bill.
kllindley Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 7 hours ago, california boy said: Maybe I could explain this more from my own personal experience. When I first came out to my family, of course the first thing they thought I should do is seek a therapist that could change my orientation. So I agreed to do that. The therapist we sought out was Dave Mattheson. He is an LDS therapist in Los Angeles area that cowrote the Evergreen manual. There seemed to be no other therapist that would be more qualified for me to meet with. In desperate hope to change from being gay to straight, I flew down to LA twice a month and meet with him for 3 hours. I would say that is a pretty strong commitment. He asked me about my family relationships, my parents, how I deal with a lot of issues, how I dealt with being gay. I found these sessions to be extremely helpful. Together we worked through a lot of personal issues. Some I didn't even realize I had. Some seemed just normal to me because that is how I was raised. I really. learned a lot about myself. From this experience, I actually think that most people would probably benefit from this kind of counseling. Once we worked through all of these issues, then he told me that we were going to start on the reparative therapy part. So he had me stand up, imagine a big hole and to yell with all of my anger for being gay. I told him that I really didn't feel anger about being gay. But I did it anyway. I yelled. But it was just a performance. I was doing it only because he wanted me to. I felt none of the anger or hate within me for being gay. I told him I was just yelling. He said to keep doing it. So for another month, I would fly down to LA and pretend there was this big hole and yell at the top of my voice. After a while, it just seemed stupid. The seasons ended. The therapy was helpful. The promise of if I just got angry enough and yelled loud enough into a pretend hole then I would no longer be gay WAS THE FRAUD PART. How many times did I need to yell into this pretend hole before I was no longer gay. The answer is FOREVER. CB, I'm not arguing with this at all. I hope that nothing in my posts has given the impression that I don't believe you or appreciate the challenges and difficulty you went through. One of the things about you story that stands out to me is that if you met with Dave Matheson in California, that would have been very early in his career when he was working with Nicolosi. I'm grateful that by the time I got to work with Dave, he had moved away from much of Nicolosi's approach, including the claim that therapy could provide or should promote change from gay to straight. I will respond to the issues on the current bill in discussion, but I want to be very clear that I personally believe we are pretty much on the same page when it comes to what we think should happen regarding therapy.
Daniel2 Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 16 hours ago, cinepro said: As a straight man, I can tell you that I would never refer to myself as "experiencing opposite-sex attraction" because that phrasing implies that the orientation could change or go away. While this is obviously the intent when referring to SSA, I find the idea laughable when applied to myself. Luckily, the attractions gay and lesbian people feel are fundamentally different, so the different terminology is appropriate when applied to them. I'm not sure I understand your last sentence above... can you elaborate on how "the attractions gay and lesbian people feel are fundamentally different" than those felt by straight people...? (or was that tongue-in-cheek? lol).
Gray Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 11 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: I'm not sure I understand your last sentence above... can you elaborate on how "the attractions gay and lesbian people feel are fundamentally different" than those felt by straight people...? (or was that tongue-in-cheek? lol). Pretty sure that was sarcasm.
kllindley Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 7 hours ago, california boy said: CFR for a definition of sexual orientation? I didn't claim the bill had a definition of sexual orientation in it. Nor do I think sexual orientation needs a definition. It is a commonly understood term. I honestly don't understand your question. What I did claim and what the bill does is ban profiting from reparative therapy. You stated that the bill was clear. I don't think that the text is at all clear. Especially because the way that consumer protection law works is that someone who feels like they were defrauded brings a suit against the defrauder. The judge and jury (if applicable) have to interpret the claims of the suit against the text of the law. That is why commonly understood terms are defined in law. Quote Sexual orientation: A component of identity that includes a person’s sexual and emotional attraction to another person and the behavior and/or social affiliation that may result from this attraction (https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf) Here is an APA definition of sexual orientation that includes attraction and the behavior that may result from the attraction. According to this definition, any attempt to help a person hange their sexual behavior would be an attempt to change sexual orientation. 7 hours ago, california boy said: This is a consumer protection bill that prevents fraudulently profiting from promises of changing one's sexual orientation. It says nothing about seeking counseling regarding lifestyle and behavioral choices. I think the burden is on you to show that it prohibits such counseling. The ONLY thing prohibited in this bill is profiting from promises to change one' sexual orientation. This law is triggered as soon as the therapist (or any other type of counseling) claims to be able to change a person's sexual orientation. Let's say a person is gay and he goes to a therapist and tells the therapist that he wants to be straight. There is nothing in this law that prevents the therapist from working with the patient over these issues. The only thing this bill does is prevent the therapist from telling the person that with enough therapy, he can become straight. That is the consumer fraud. He can't promise to do that. And for good reason. OK so lets say. the person is bisexual. Once again the therapist can not make claims that they can change his attraction to exclusively straight or gay. But again, there is noting in this bill that prevents a therapist from helping the individual DEAL with his attractions. As soon as the therapist profits from making a promise that they can move the patient from a 6 to a 10, he has broken the law. "I can't change your sexual orientation, but I can counsel you in how to deal with that orientation better." That is the direction a therapist should take. That type of counseling is not prohibited anywhere in the bill. Reread the bill. See if you can find any place in the bill where such counseling is prohibited. "I can change your orientation with enough therapy and money." That would be against the law. Actually, I have to ask whether you have read the bill. It says nothing about promising to change sexual orientation. It specifically prohibits "advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts." Nothing in there about promising to change orientation. Also as quoted below, the law as currently written, would prohibit any effort to change behavior (like stopping having sexual relationships with same-sex partners.) It also adds the term feelings. So if that bisexual person wanted to feel less compelled to engage in sexual behaviors with the same sex, that would also be prohibited. Or if he wants to reduce the feeling of having to have a male partner in order to be happy, that would also be prohibited. Can you really not see how that language could easily be construed broadly to cover more than what you are claiming? ******And I want to be cleat that I support a law that would do what you say this one should do******** 1 hour ago, webbles said: If you want to read the actual bill and see how it actually affects the existing laws, you can do it at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2943 The blue text is the new text. There is no text removed from the bill. Specifically, the new text is just: In SEC. 2. Section 1761 of the Civil Code: (i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices 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. and in SEC. 3. Section 1770 of the Civil Code: (28) Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.
kllindley Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 15 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: Luckily, the attractions gay and lesbian people feel are fundamentally different, so the different terminology is appropriate when applied to them. I also read it as sarcastic. Which is unfortunate. It seems to convey the message that such a belief is not even worthy of respect. While many people obviously disagree with the belief that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of same-sex and gender-complimentary attractions, millions of people around the world believe that there is a difference. That doesn't mean that those millions should marginalize or demean people who do not agree with them. But to publicly hold their sincerely held beliefs in contempt seems counterproductive.
webbles Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 5 hours ago, california boy said: Each if their statements are clearly in support of this bill. We certainly would have heard about any pushback from any of these organizations if they did not fully support the bill. Their statements are in support of banning reparative therapy and similar. That is not the same thing as being "clearly in support of this bill". Now, you are right there is no pushback (that I can find) and that is probably because this bill will definitely ban reparative therapy and similar things. But I think where kllindley and others are going is that this bill goes above and beyond just banning reparative therapy. So, their statements actually don't help or hurt your statements or his statements since they aren't talking about the bill and whether or not it is going to far. 1
webbles Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 3 hours ago, kllindley said: This includes efforts to change ... gender expressions I know the discussion has been mainly about how this affects same-sex but I just saw the part about "gender expressions" and I wonder if you could construe that to mean that camps or therapy sessions to help a man come to understand their "feminine" side (be more emotional, cry more, etc) would now be illegal. Because those are definitely trying to change the "gender expression" of the person. Or what about therapy sessions to help women gain more "masculine" features?
Daniel2 Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, kllindley said: I also read it as sarcastic. Which is unfortunate. It seems to convey the message that such a belief is not even worthy of respect. While many people obviously disagree with the belief that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of same-sex and gender-complimentary attractions, millions of people around the world believe that there is a difference. That doesn't mean that those millions should marginalize or demean people who do not agree with them. But to publicly hold their sincerely held beliefs in contempt seems counterproductive. Hey, Kllindley, Based on the context of our conversation and your response above, I'm curious: from the context of the nature (i.e. the determinative factors and/or immutability of sexual orientation) as related to conversion/reparative therapies that have been discussed in this thread, do you believe the attractions of gay and/or lesbian individuals are fundamentally different from the attractions of straight individuals? If so, can you elaborate how you believe the nature of straights’ attractions are different than the nature of gays’ and lesbians’ attractions? Edited May 9, 2018 by Daniel2
california boy Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, webbles said: Their statements are in support of banning reparative therapy and similar. That is not the same thing as being "clearly in support of this bill". Now, you are right there is no pushback (that I can find) and that is probably because this bill will definitely ban reparative therapy and similar things. But I think where kllindley and others are going is that this bill goes above and beyond just banning reparative therapy. So, their statements actually don't help or hurt your statements or his statements since they aren't talking about the bill and whether or not it is going to far. I see his point. Thanks Edited May 9, 2018 by california boy
california boy Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 6 hours ago, kllindley said: CB, I'm not arguing with this at all. I hope that nothing in my posts has given the impression that I don't believe you or appreciate the challenges and difficulty you went through. One of the things about you story that stands out to me is that if you met with Dave Matheson in California, that would have been very early in his career when he was working with Nicolosi. I'm grateful that by the time I got to work with Dave, he had moved away from much of Nicolosi's approach, including the claim that therapy could provide or should promote change from gay to straight. I will respond to the issues on the current bill in discussion, but I want to be very clear that I personally believe we are pretty much on the same page when it comes to what we think should happen regarding therapy. Good to know that Matheson moved away from the whole reparative therapy concept. I didn't follow his career after that.
california boy Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 5 hours ago, kllindley said: You stated that the bill was clear. I don't think that the text is at all clear. Especially because the way that consumer protection law works is that someone who feels like they were defrauded brings a suit against the defrauder. The judge and jury (if applicable) have to interpret the claims of the suit against the text of the law. That is why commonly understood terms are defined in law. Here is an APA definition of sexual orientation that includes attraction and the behavior that may result from the attraction. According to this definition, any attempt to help a person hange their sexual behavior would be an attempt to change sexual orientation. I can see your point. Changing sexual orientation is quite different than controlling behavior. I think the reason this was included in the bill is because of the predatory practices of some to control behavior by promising to change sexual orientation. 5 hours ago, kllindley said: Actually, I have to ask whether you have read the bill. It says nothing about promising to change sexual orientation. It specifically prohibits "advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts." Nothing in there about promising to change orientation. I am confused by your statement here. "engaging in sexual orientation change efforts". is promising to change orientation. Not seeing the difference. 5 hours ago, kllindley said: Also as quoted below, the law as currently written, would prohibit any effort to change behavior (like stopping having sexual relationships with same-sex partners.) It also adds the term feelings. So if that bisexual person wanted to feel less compelled to engage in sexual behaviors with the same sex, that would also be prohibited. Or if he wants to reduce the feeling of having to have a male partner in order to be happy, that would also be prohibited. Can you really not see how that language could easily be construed broadly to cover more than what you are claiming? ******And I want to be cleat that I support a law that would do what you say this one should do******** Yes I can. Perhaps if the changing behavior was taken out of the bill, it would more closely address the issue that it is trying to address.
provoman Posted May 10, 2018 Author Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) On 5/8/2018 at 6:19 PM, california boy said: You aren't getting it. Read the bill. You can promote a straight lifestyle. That is not what this bill is about. The bill does one thing. It specifically prevents someone from making money by promising a gay person they can become straight. It says nothing about helping a gay person live a straight lifestyle. They just can't make claims that they will no longer be gay. This is also not true. A person can seek counseling concerning their previous homosexual lifestyle and adjust to a heterosexual lifestyle. What the counseling can not do is promise the gay person that they will no longer be gay. That is what reparative therapy is. That is the fraudulent promise that cannot be made. Read the bill. The bill says nothing about a lesbian choosing to marry a man. Did the church make a promise that she would no longer be gay? You are misrepresenting the bill have you read the bill? Section 28 reads: Quote (28) Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual. The bills says nothing about promise. The bill makes efforts illegal. AB 2943 Quote " (i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices 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 . Based on the law, a person who previously was in a homosexual relationship is PROHIBITED from counseling EFFORTS to "reduce sexual or romantic attraction OR feelings" toward individuals of the same sex. Based on the law at person with sexual attraction towards the same-sex, who does not to experience that attraction, is PROHIBITED from counseling EFFORTS to reduce that same sex attraction. So nothing about a promise. Edited May 10, 2018 by provoman
kllindley Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 5 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Hey, Kllindley, Based on the context of our conversation and your response above, I'm curious: from the context of the nature (i.e. the determinative factors and/or immutability of sexual orientation) as related to conversion/reparative therapies that have been discussed in this thread, do you believe the attractions of gay and/or lesbian individuals are fundamentally different from the attractions of straight individuals? If so, can you elaborate how you believe the nature of straights’ attractions are different than the nature of gays’ and lesbians’ attractions? Honestly, I'm not sure I feel safe enough in this forum to fully explain my personal beliefs about the issue. But in the context of our previous conversations, I'm going to be vulnerable and answer to the best of my ability. I do believe, as purely a matter of faith and personal experience, that the heterosexual attractions are inherently different from homosexual attractions. Whether that difference should be labeled as fundamental, depends on what aspect of attraction is determined to be fundamental. I really haven't given much thought, nor do I feel the need, to make that determination. It seems that different individuals would likely place different value on different aspects of their experience. For me personally and theologically, that difference is rooted in the complimentarily of the sexes. It is my belief that there is a Spiritual dimension to our existence, and that within the makeup of that spiritual component is a capacity to achieve a Fullness of Exaltation that requires the Union of male and female. Therefore, in a teleological sense heterosexual attraction is inherently different because it facilitates that eternal potential. With those assumptions I also find it likely that the spirit is intrinsically heterosexually oriented and that any mortal homosexual attractions are the result of a fallen world. I know that's not popular and some people will find it very easy to be offended or respond hatefully to those beliefs. However, In a secular, pluralistic society, I think it is naive and even offensive for anyone with that (or a similar) belief system to expect any special preference be given to said belief system. In the context of the world we do live in, I feel it would be highly inappropriate to suggest that heterosexual attractions are more real than or in any way superior to homosexual attractions. To do so would be to insist that my personal, spiritual experience be given priority over the shared empirical experience all humans share. From all the data I have seen, there appears to be no measurable difference between the nature and development of heterosexual and homosexual attractions. Both seem to evolve from a complex interaction of biological and environmental factors. Same-sex relationships seem to be every bit as capable of fostering love, commitment, and other qualities as heterosexual relationships. With this understanding, I feel compelled to treat all people and relationships with equal dignity, even as I personally believe there is an ineffable difference. 1
california boy Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 4 hours ago, provoman said: You are misrepresenting the bill have you read the bill? Section 28 reads: The bills says nothing about promise. The bill makes efforts illegal. AB 2943 . Based on the law, a person who previously was in a homosexual relationship is PROHIBITED from counseling EFFORTS to "reduce sexual or romantic attraction OR feelings" toward individuals of the same sex. Based on the law at person with sexual attraction towards the same-sex, who does not to experience that attraction, is PROHIBITED from counseling EFFORTS to reduce that same sex attraction. So nothing about a promise. And how have I misrepresented the bill. Yes the bill is a consumer protection bill that prohibits profiting from efforts to change sexual orientation. A therapist can not engage in efforts to change sexual orientation because such a change is not something that can happen. That is in fact the whole point of the bill. These efforts don't work. This is not a healthy practice. It can severely harm a person to think that a professional can help him in an effort to change his sexual orientation. That is what reparative therapy is. And that is what has been proven to be fraudulent by every single one of these organizations. And that is what has never been scientifically proven to work. Now I am going to ask of you read the bill and the reason for it. Quote (b) The American Psychological Association convened the 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, stating: “[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, stating: “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 Academy of Pediatrics published an article in 1993 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.” (f) The American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs prepared a report in 1994 1994, stating: “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.” (g) The National Association of Social Workers prepared a 1997 policy statement, stating: “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.” (h) The American Counseling Association Governing Council issued a position statement in April of 1999, stating: “We oppose ‘the promotion of “reparative therapy” as a “cure” for individuals who are homosexual.’” (i) The American School Counselor Association issued a position statement in 2014, stating: “It is not the role of the professional school counselor to attempt to change a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Professional school counselors do not support efforts by licensed mental health professionals to change a student’s sexual orientation or gender as these practices have been proven ineffective and harmful.” (j) The American Psychoanalytic Association issued a position statement in June 2012 on attempts to change sexual orientation, gender, identity, or gender expression, stating: “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 published an article in 2012 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, stating: “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) The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) issued a statement in 2014 stating: “same sex orientation is not a mental disorder and we oppos e any ‘reparative’ or conversion therapy that seeks to ‘change’ or ‘fix’ a person’s sexual orientation. AASECT does not believe that sexual orientation is something that needs to be ‘fixed’ or ‘changed.’ The rationale behind this position is the following: Reparative therapy, for minors, in particular, is often forced or nonconsensual. Reparative therapy has been proven harmful to minors. There is no scientific evidence supporting the success of these interventions. Reparative therapy is grounded in the idea that nonheterosexual orientation is ‘disordered.’ Reparative therapy has been shown to be a negative predictor of psychotherapeutic benefit.” (n) The American College of Physicians wrote a position paper in 2015, stating: “The College opposes the use of ‘conversion,’ ‘reorientation,’ or ‘reparative’ therapy for the treatment of LGBT persons. . . . Available research does not support the use of reparative therapy as an effective method in the treatment of LGBT persons. Evidence shows that the practice may actually cause emotional or physical harm to LGBT individuals, particularly adolescents or young persons.” (o) In October 2015, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the United States Department of Health and Human Services issued a report titled “Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth.” The report found that “nterventions aimed at a fixed outcome, such as gender conformity or heterosexual orientation, including those aimed at changing gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation are coercive, can be harmful, and should not be part of behavioral health treatment.” This is why efforts to change sexual orientation is fraudulent. 1
provoman Posted May 10, 2018 Author Posted May 10, 2018 7 hours ago, california boy said: And how have I misrepresented the bill. Yes the bill is a consumer protection bill that prohibits profiting from efforts to change sexual orientation. A therapist can not engage in efforts to change sexual orientation because such a change is not something that can happen. That is in fact the whole point of the bill. These efforts don't work. This is not a healthy practice. It can severely harm a person to think that a professional can help him in an effort to change his sexual orientation. That is what reparative therapy is. And that is what has been proven to be fraudulent by every single one of these organizations. And that is what has never been scientifically proven to work. Now I am going to ask of you read the bill and the reason for it. This is why efforts to change sexual orientation is fraudulent. you have repeatedly used the word "PROMISE", that is your misrepresentation. The bill is not about making a promise in exchange for money. The bill makes it illegal to even try - effort - inexchange for money.
california boy Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 41 minutes ago, provoman said: you have repeatedly used the word "PROMISE", that is your misrepresentation. The bill is not about making a promise in exchange for money. The bill makes it illegal to even try - effort - inexchange for money. Thank you for the correction.
Daniel2 Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, kllindley said: Honestly, I'm not sure I feel safe enough in this forum to fully explain my personal beliefs about the issue. But in the context of our previous conversations, I'm going to be vulnerable and answer to the best of my ability. I do believe, as purely a matter of faith and personal experience, that the heterosexual attractions are inherently different from homosexual attractions. Whether that difference should be labeled as fundamental, depends on what aspect of attraction is determined to be fundamental. I really haven't given much thought, nor do I feel the need, to make that determination. It seems that different individuals would likely place different value on different aspects of their experience. For me personally and theologically, that difference is rooted in the complimentarily of the sexes. It is my belief that there is a Spiritual dimension to our existence, and that within the makeup of that spiritual component is a capacity to achieve a Fullness of Exaltation that requires the Union of male and female. Therefore, in a teleological sense heterosexual attraction is inherently different because it facilitates that eternal potential. With those assumptions I also find it likely that the spirit is intrinsically heterosexually oriented and that any mortal homosexual attractions are the result of a fallen world. I know that's not popular and some people will find it very easy to be offended or respond hatefully to those beliefs. However, In a secular, pluralistic society, I think it is naive and even offensive for anyone with that (or a similar) belief system to expect any special preference be given to said belief system. In the context of the world we do live in, I feel it would be highly inappropriate to suggest that heterosexual attractions are more real than or in any way superior to homosexual attractions. To do so would be to insist that my personal, spiritual experience be given priority over the shared empirical experience all humans share. From all the data I have seen, there appears to be no measurable difference between the nature and development of heterosexual and homosexual attractions. Both seem to evolve from a complex interaction of biological and environmental factors. Same-sex relationships seem to be every bit as capable of fostering love, commitment, and other qualities as heterosexual relationships. With this understanding, I feel compelled to treat all people and relationships with equal dignity, even as I personally believe there is an ineffable difference. Thanks so much for sharing all of the above, Kllindley. I appreciate your extension of good faith, and am both sorry and saddened that you had to pause in questioning the safety of this board. I hope I haven't contributed to that concern, but if I have, I'd love to hear feedback on how to better contribute in ensuring we all can feel comfortable in sharing our thoughts here as a safe forum to do so. I can appreciate, understand, and also fully support your and all of our abilities and freedoms to approach the philosophical/spiritual nature of homosexuality according to the dictates of our own conscience and belief. It wasn't my intention to call that into question earlier, so I appreciate you elaborating in explaining the differences by which you approach the nature of attraction from a philosophical/belief-based paradigm vs. an empirical/secular approach. As far as your approach to balancing your own personally-held religious beliefs vs. how you feel attractions should be treated in the public square, as well as your acknowledgement that from all data available thus far, there appears to be no measurable differences between the nature, development, and capabilities of heterosexual and homosexual attractions and relationships--as well as a personal conviction to treat all people and relationships with equal dignity--you not only have my agreement, but also my deepest respect. Thank you again for going out on a limb, being vulnerable, and sharing. And if you ever run for President, can I be your VP? lol Daniel Edited May 10, 2018 by Daniel2
kllindley Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Thanks so much for sharing all of the above, Kllindley. I appreciate your extension of good faith, and am both sorry and saddened that you had to pause in questioning the safety of this board. I hope I haven't contributed to that concern, but if I have, I'd love to hear feedback on how to better contribute in ensuring we all can feel comfortable in sharing our thoughts here as a safe forum to do so. I can appreciate, understand, and also fully support your and all of our abilities and freedoms to approach the philosophical/spiritual nature of homosexuality according to the dictates of our own conscience and belief. It wasn't my intention to call that into question earlier, so I appreciate you elaborating in explaining the differences by which you approach the nature of attraction from a philosophical/belief-based paradigm vs. an empirical/secular approach. As far as your approach to balancing your own personally-held religious beliefs vs. how you feel attractions should be treated in the public square, as well as your acknowledgement that from all data available thus far, there appears to be no measurable differences between the nature, development, and capabilities of heterosexual and homosexual attractions and relationships--as well as a personal conviction to treat all people and relationships with equal dignity--you not only have my agreement, but also my deepest respect. Thank you again for going out on a limb, being vulnerable, and sharing. And if you ever run for President, can I be your VP? lol Daniel Thank you. It wasn't anything you have done. I just know this forum is public and I'm not completely anonymous here. And I know personally several professionals who have been targeted for both general harassment and attacks on their licences for expressing politically unpopular attitudes. I know the vast majority of LGBT folks just want to live their lives and have no desire to ruin anyone else's life. But it is my sad experience that in the current social climate, public religious behaviors and beliefs are rarely respected, and do invite significant risk of reprisal. Thank you first for the personal respect and positive regard you have shown me. And secondly, For the example you provide of what constructive, safe dialogue looks like. I certainly don't have a think enough skin for politics! But thank you for the compliment.
Recommended Posts