MustardSeed Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said: I am not sure. If parents and youth are in agreement to do it, then I don't think the state has a compelling interest to forbid it. I have a hard time with the above scenario. 1
MustardSeed Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 19 minutes ago, california boy said: Of course the Church is going to oppose Reparative Therapy. Why wouldn't they? Church leaders certainly know more about mental health issues than Of course the Church is going to oppose Reparative Therapy Why wouldn't they? Church leaders certainly think they know more about mental health issues than the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others—have issued public statements opposing the use of conversion therapy because it is harmful and ineffective. Just as a small perhaps useless piece of info, Dr Wendy Watson was immersed in the psych field as a licensed MFT for decades before marrying the president. I like to believe she provides very useful insight.
Jake Starkey Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: I have a hard time with the above scenario. I admit that it is a stretch.
california boy Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: If, as the Church’s news release states, the proposed rule fails to protect religious beliefs, that is reason enough for the Church to weigh in on this or any other matter. So basically it is more important that the Church protect its religious beliefs over the numerous professional organizations that have warned about the severe harm reparative therapy can cause. And just what religious beliefs are threatened that is more important than preventing serious harm that reparative therapy can cause in adolescence youth? 1
CV75 Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 1 minute ago, california boy said: So basically it is more important that the Church protect its religious beliefs over the numerous professional organizations that have warned about the severe harm reparative therapy can cause. And just what religious beliefs are threatened that is more important than preventing serious harm that reparative therapy can cause in adolescence youth? It is to protect everyone's freedom of religious expression, which includes obtaining goods and services not everyone agrees with on religious or moral grounds, and not forcing anyone to provide or not provide them. 3
carbon dioxide Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 11 hours ago, Calm said: Fraudulent practices making inaccurate claims....do you think such should be banned? For example, if a person claims to be able to cure heart disease with a pill, do you think any oversight should be given by law? Should a bank be able to claim to take and protect your money and then use it for whatever they want because people can choose to use the bank, but are not forced to in any way? I think the government should not interfere in the choices that we make as long as it does not infringe on the liberty of another. Inaccurate claims should not be banned. They can be flagged as inaccurate. Its the responsibility of citizens to educate themselves. Not have government come in and made decisions for them. People should be allowed to take whatever pills they want. However a bank should not use your money in ways without your permission or knowledge of. At least you should be insured against any misuse of it.
carbon dioxide Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: I haven't read the proposal, isn't it where if older than 18 they have the right to do whatever they want, but under 18, parents or ? can't force their LGBTQ children to have conversion therapy? I would tend to think that even those who think conversion therapy works that even they believe the person in question needs to want to do it for it to be successful. You can't force anyone to change their behavior while they are kicking and screaming. This is especially true for teenagers. 1
Calm Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 2 hours ago, provoman said: I had a Teacher who prohibited Students from watching a School sponsored program because some of the School sponsored content discussed STDs, she turned off the broadcast and said we did not need to hear what was being discussed. It seemed clear she morally objected to the content and took it upon herself to "save" us students from the horrors of the discussion. There was a teacher in my son's Kansas elementary school that taught her grade sixers about how to use condoms against school policy. There will always be people thinking they know better than the community. Sometimes they may, sometimes not so much.
kllindley Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: What happened to the proposal back in March that everyone including the Church seemed to agree was not objectionable? I thought this was done months ago? Edit: Oh, found it. A committee stripped the bill down to only ban extreme conversion therapy and it all broke down. Someone should really find out if someone on that committee makes money off of conversion therapy somehow. No. As worded the ban is extreme. I said that from the beginning. After the hearing, it became clear how the law would be used to prevent any change even related to sexual orientation or gender identity. It prohibited talk therapy from helping a 17 year old cease homosexual behaviors even if that is what he wanted to do. That is not "conversion therapy" except in the broadest sense of the word. Were proponents of the bill willing to engage in ANY dialogue or compromise to protect the religious rights of the wanting to live in harmony with their beliefs? (Spoiler alert: Nope.) 1
kllindley Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 2 hours ago, MustardSeed said: its not illegal to go to therapy and say “I’m having sexual thoughts about one gender but prefer to be oriented another way.” It’s not illegal to work with said client and address aid clients goals. It isn't right now. It would be under the proposed rule. PS: Joe Kort is really pretty awesome and gets it. 1
kllindley Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 3 hours ago, provoman said: Do you have a side by side comparison? An article I read said the proposed rule was similar. (I have not read in an article that the proposed rule is word for word identical.) I don't right now. I'll withdraw the word for word claim and go along with similar. It still prevents attempts to change not only orientation but also behaviors.
kllindley Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 2 hours ago, california boy said: Of course the Church is going to oppose Reparative Therapy. Why wouldn't they? Church leaders certainly know more about mental health issues than Of course the Church is going to oppose Reparative Therapy Why wouldn't they? Church leaders certainly think they know more about mental health issues than the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others—have issued public statements opposing the use of conversion therapy because it is harmful and ineffective. American Professional organizations that have issued statements opposing reparative therapy American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry American Academy of Pediatrics American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy American College of Physicians American Counseling Association American Medical Association American Psychiatric Association American Psychological Association American Academy of Family Physicians American Academy of Nursing American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists American Counseling Association American Medical Student Association American Psychoanalytic Association National Association of Social Workers The Professional School Counselor and LGBT Youth The Association of LGBTQ Psychiatrists Clinical Social Work Association Why would the Church listen to these professional organizations. And how many of those organizations define "conversion therapy" the same way the proposed rule does? 1
kllindley Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, california boy said: So basically it is more important that the Church protect its religious beliefs over the numerous professional organizations that have warned about the severe harm reparative therapy can cause. And just what religious beliefs are threatened that is more important than preventing serious harm that reparative therapy can cause in adolescence youth? How about that youth's right to determine how he or she wants to live their own life? Do you have data supporting the safety of telling religious youth that they can never change any thoughts or behaviors related to their sexual orientation or gender identity. That their only options are to leave their faith or be miserable? Is that what you mean by protecting youth? 3
juliann Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 2 hours ago, california boy said: Of course the Church is going to oppose Reparative Therapy. Why wouldn't they? Church leaders certainly know more about mental health issues than Of course the Church is going to oppose Reparative Therapy Why wouldn't they? Church leaders certainly think they know more about mental health issues than the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others—have issued public statements opposing the use of conversion therapy because it is harmful and ineffective. Do you have a direct quote from church officials supporting "conversion therapy?" I think it is possible to disagree with the language in a bill without disagreeing with the principle behind it. Activists push for even young children to begin drugs to alter their gender. My concern is that a bill without careful language would prohibit parents from getting adequate therapy to assure the child was making an informed choice. 3
2BizE Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 Would a bishop working with a youth to fast and pray the gay away be included in this ban?
phaedrus ut Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 Once again the church is taking a defensive position defending antiquated and hurtful religious practices. It's action like this that are accelerating the exodus from the church. The real problem for me is the moral issue of causing harm to gay members of the church including a increase in youth suicide. My conscience won't allow me to remain silent on this issue. Phaedrus 1
Jeanne Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 If the church is really opposing, I really sick at heart...I thought they had gone past this somehow.
Calm Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: The real problem for me is the moral issue of causing harm to gay members of the church including a increase in youth suicide. https://qsaltlake.com/news/2018/12/06/utah-research-on-faith-related-suicide/ Quote “There’s no data to show that, period,” says Michael Staley, who works in the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner and is the first person who would know, since he leads an effort to collect, compile and analyze suicide information from around the state. He conducts that research at the behest of the Utah Legislature. “We are working to get that data,” he says. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2016 that LGBT youth die by suicide at double the rate of their non-LGBT peers, Staley says data specific to Utah so far doesn’t validate the sexuality-religion narrative. “The people who are driving that narrative are going to be disappointed,” Staley says, while at the same time recognizing that “theoretically, it makes sense.” https://www.deseret.com/2019/5/7/20672662/guest-opinion-the-church-and-lgbt-youth-suicide-inaccurate-claims-may-do-more-harm-than-good 3
Popular Post juliann Posted October 16, 2019 Popular Post Posted October 16, 2019 I am not shy about disagreeing with the church on occasion, but I am still not seeing an endorsement of conversion therapy. Perhaps the best source is the church statement rather than the Trib: Quote The Church has released the following statement in connection with comments filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Family Services regarding a proposed professional licensing rule governing sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts. The Church hopes that those who experience same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria find compassion and understanding from family members, Church leaders and members, and professional counselors. The Church denounces any abusive professional practice or treatment. We teach the right of individuals to self-determination and the right of parents to guide the development of their children. We also believe faith-based perspectives have an important and ethically appropriate role in professional counseling. As detailed in the comments submitted by Family Services, the Church is concerned that the proposed professional licensing rule is ambiguous in key areas and overreaches in others. For example, it fails to protect individual religious beliefs and does not account for important realities of gender identity in the development of children. We therefore oppose the proposed rule in its current form and respectfully request that it be appropriately amended to address the concerns raised in Family Services’ comments, or that Utah’s lawmakers provide statutory guidance on this important issue. They want concerns addressed or statutory guidance. How in the sam hill is anyone getting support of converstion therapy from this?? 7
Popular Post smac97 Posted October 16, 2019 Popular Post Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) On 10/15/2019 at 10:53 PM, kllindley said: There are significant problems work the rule as written. It is too broad and as written would allow censure of therapists who even try to help say a bisexual youth stop an unwanted sexual behavior. I can't help but wonder if the overbreadth of the proposed rule was intended as a feature, not a bug. By larding up the proposal with obviously problematic elements (such as the risk you note above), its proponents know it will provoke a response from the Church. They can then turn to reliably pliant media outlets to make sensationalized (and fairly misleading) claims about how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "opposes" a ban on "conversion therapy." By way of illustration, let's take a look at the headlines: Salt Lake Tribune: LDS Church opposes proposed Utah rule that would ban ‘conversion therapy’ MySanAntonio.com: Mormon church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban Oil City News: LDS CHURCH AGAINST PROPOSED UTAH BAN ON ‘CONVERSION THERAPY’ CBS News: Mormon Church urges Utah not to bar "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ minors ABC4 News: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes rule that would ban conversion therapy KJZZ: LDS Church releases statement opposing proposed conversion therapy ban Fox13 News: LDS Church raises objections to proposed rule banning conversion therapy on LGBTQ children in Utah {EDIT TO ADD} The Guardian: Mormon church strikes blow against Utah ban on conversion therapy {EDIT TO ADD} Longview News-Journal: Mormon church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban {EDIT TO ADD} Jackson Hole News Guide: Mormon church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban {EDIT TO ADD} The Alpena News: Mormon church opposes LGBTQ ‘conversion therapy’ ban {EDIT TO ADD} The Columbian: Latter-day Saints oppose Utah LGBTQ ‘conversion therapy’ ban {EDIT TO ADD} Gephart Daily: LDS Church opposes ban of conversion therapy for LGBTQ youths {EDIT TO ADD} Texarkana Gazette: Mormon church opposes 'conversion therapy' ban {EDIT TO ADD} GV Wire: Mormon Church Opposes Utah LGBTQ ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban {EDIT TO ADD} Daily Miner: LDS church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban {EDIT TO ADD} KNPR: Mormon Church Opposes Utah LGBTQ 'Conversion Therapy' Ban Meanwhile, here's the coverage from The Deseret News: Quote SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints again denounced abusive forms of conversion therapy on Tuesday but also announced its opposition to the proposed Utah licensing rule that would ban those therapies, calling it too broad and ambiguous. The rule should be amended or dropped in favor of a legislative solution, the church said both in a statement and in a 13-page letter from the church’s counseling services arm, Latter-day Saints Family Services, to the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing. “Although well intentioned, the proposed rule as written will strongly dissuade many responsible therapists from providing much-needed therapy to minors,” the letter said. “That is especially true of therapists whose counseling respects the religious identity and faith perspectives of Latter-day Saints and members of other faith communities with biblically informed beliefs about gender and sexuality.” ... Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender support organizations like Equality Utah backed HB399 last February because it would have made it illegal for licensed therapists and health professionals to attempt to change or “fix” a child’s or teen’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill was modeled on laws passed in 16 other states. One of the bill’s chief goals was to reduce youth suicide in Utah. Before the bill came to a vote, a heavily criticized substitute bill replaced it. Equality Utah director Troy Williams resigned from the governor’s suicide prevention task force in protest. Williams has supported the proposed rule. The Family Services letter released Tuesday shows that the church preferred HB399 to the proposed rule. “It is abundantly clear that the Legislature is competent to address this issue,” the letter said. “HB399, supported by Equality Utah and other progressive influencers, made an important and responsible contribution to this discussion and received substantial support from legislators. While the bill’s definition of conversion therapy, which largely tracked definitions in other states’ statutes, was broad, the bill’s safe harbor provisions were real and protected a number of legitimate practices not intended to change sexual orientation or gender identity. “ ... In June, Herbert issued his directive to the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing to create the proposed rule, which can go into effect without legislative oversight or approval. “Family Services believes the proposed rule falls short and should be withdrawn to allow the Legislature to address these challenging issues,” the letter from the church organization said. “Alternatively, the proposed rule should be amended to accommodate the concerns discussed above.” ... Family Services’ concerns include a belief that the rule relies on a false premise that there is professional consensus about the rule’s broad definition of conversion therapy, according to the letter. The proposed rule “fails to account for important realities of gender identity development in children, it would undermine the right of clients to self-determination and the right of parents to guide the development of their children and it ignores the important and ethically appropriate role of faith-based perspectives in counseling,” the Family Services letter said. The letter addressed sexual orientation and gender identity. “Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to ‘repair,’ ‘convert’ or ‘change’ sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual,” the letter stated. “Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction.” Let's review that last bit again: "'“Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert" or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual,' the letter stated. 'Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction.'" Will a casual reader of any of the above-bulleted news items glean this point from the headlines? Or even from the articles themselves? Probably not, since the article from The Deseret News is the only one that bothers to quote this portion of the Church's letter. Reason 5,613 to take a very cautious approach news coverage these days pertaining to conservative religious groups. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 17, 2019 by smac97 6
smac97 Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 2 hours ago, california boy said: So basically it is more important that the Church protect its religious beliefs over the numerous professional organizations that have warned about the severe harm reparative therapy can cause. And just what religious beliefs are threatened that is more important than preventing serious harm that reparative therapy can cause in adolescence youth? From the Church's letter: "'“Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert" or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual,' the letter stated. 'Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction.'" What part of this statement, if any, do you find problematic? Thanks, -Smac 1
phaedrus ut Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 29 minutes ago, Calm said: https://qsaltlake.com/news/2018/12/06/utah-research-on-faith-related-suicide/ https://www.deseret.com/2019/5/7/20672662/guest-opinion-the-church-and-lgbt-youth-suicide-inaccurate-claims-may-do-more-harm-than-good I'll pass your links along to my neighbor who's gay son killed himself after being outed. Hopefully it'll provide him some comfort. Phaedrus
RevTestament Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 14 minutes ago, smac97 said: I can't help but wonder if the overbreadth of the proposed rule was intended as a feature, not a bug. By larding up the proposal with obviously problematic elements (such as the risk you note above), its proponents know it will provoke a response from the Church. They can then turn to reliably pliant media outlets to make sensationalized (and fairly misleading) claims about how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "opposes" a ban on "conversion therapy." By way of illustration, let's take a look at the headlines: Salt Lake Tribune: LDS Church opposes proposed Utah rule that would ban ‘conversion therapy’ MySanAntonio.com: Mormon church opposes Utah LGBTQ conversion therapy ban Oil City News: LDS CHURCH AGAINST PROPOSED UTAH BAN ON ‘CONVERSION THERAPY’ CBS News: Mormon Church urges Utah not to bar "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ minors ABC4 News: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes rule that would ban conversion therapy KJZZ: LDS Church releases statement opposing proposed conversion therapy ban Fox13 News: LDS Church raises objections to proposed rule banning conversion therapy on LGBTQ children in Utah Meanwhile, here's the coverage from The Deseret News: Let's review that last bit again: "'“Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to "repair," "convert" or "change" sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual,' the letter stated. 'Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion and other analogous therapies are both ineffective and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction.'" Will a casual reader of any of the above-bulleted news items glean this point from the headlines? Or even from the articles themselves? Probably not, since the article from The Deseret News is the only news source that bothers to quote this portion of the Church's letter. Reason 5,613 to take a very cautious approach news coverage these days pertaining to conservative religious groups. Thanks, -Smac Unfortunately, the news is not about the facts anymore. I hardly ever bother to tune in because to tune in is often to be misled... it is sad this has happened, but I think it is about controlling the political scene. 1
The Nehor Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, kllindley said: No. As worded the ban is extreme. I said that from the beginning. After the hearing, it became clear how the law would be used to prevent any change even related to sexual orientation or gender identity. It prohibited talk therapy from helping a 17 year old cease homosexual behaviors even if that is what he wanted to do. That is not "conversion therapy" except in the broadest sense of the word. Were proponents of the bill willing to engage in ANY dialogue or compromise to protect the religious rights of the wanting to live in harmony with their beliefs? (Spoiler alert: Nope.) I was talking about the wording of a previous bill from early this year that the church did not oppose and pretty much everyone agreed on, not the current one. That one was ruined in committee by some dolt who watered down the bill to only cover extreme conversion therapies. If anyone wants to complain about the legality of these places you should figure out who that dolt is and makes sure he or she never gets elected again. Edited October 16, 2019 by The Nehor
Thinking Posted October 16, 2019 Posted October 16, 2019 14 hours ago, InCognitus said: Where is the study that came up with that percentage? 15 hours ago, kllindley said: What studies? Just quoting the article.
Recommended Posts