California Is The First State To Ban Reparative Therapy On Those Under The Age Of 18

[ForbiddenFruit]

http://usnews.nbcnew...r-children?lite

Updated at 12:34 p.m. ET: California has become the first state in the nation to ban therapy that tries to turn gay teens straight.

Gov. Jerry Brown announced Sunday that he has signed Senate Bill 1172, which prohibits children under age 18 from undergoing “sexual orientation change efforts.

[Princess_Sheri]

it's about time.

[DailyDi]

Long overdue

[puffybedwetter]

The 3x car tax was the straw that broke my back for me.

[DailyDi]

If we can get that law passed here, I will be glad to have some of my taxes go toward enforcing it. Not everything is about the money.

[puffybedwetter]

It's all about the money especially if the working class floats the bill! In this case the money saved from those program cuts can be applied to enforcing the law. Which I doubt it will be violated. Then again it is California were talking about.

[Diapered Jason]

Fine, but as a CA resident, what's that going to cost me in taxes? There are no free no laws out here! Don't bother arguing this if you don't live and pay taxes in the state of California. If you do live in California and have to pay taxes here, than I welcome your explaination of how enforcement of this law by paying the salaries of police officers and other state employees won't cost me anything as a taxpayer.

Hahaha, this is really silly to me. I would not worry too much about a common sense law that is relatively easy to enforce. It is not like there is going to be some underground reparative therapy gangs fighting over territory for control, lol. For once, the money is going to where it should be, and with your state's budget, it will probably be negligible regardless. After all, your state is overran by stupid ballot initiatives, like requiring porn actors to wear condoms and various other stupid crap like that and you are trying to be frugal about the first thing coming your way that should be done?

[musicaddict]

Hahaha, this is really silly to me. I would not worry too much about a common sense law that is relatively easy to enforce. It is not like there is going to be some underground reparative therapy gangs fighting over territory for control, lol. For once, the money is going to where it should be, and with your state's budget, it will probably be negligible regardless. After all, your state is overran by stupid ballot initiatives, like requiring porn actors to wear condoms and various other stupid crap like that and you are trying to be frugal about the first thing coming your way that should be done?

Quoted for Truth by a CA Native and Resident.

(Edited by admin) - and you're complaining about something that should have been done a long time ago? I have been blessed to grow up in an open minded family that had always made clear sexual orientation, race, religion (provided it isn't dangerous to others), so on and so forth, don't matter - being a good person does. Not everyone is so lucky.

[AbriForm]

I have no problem with banning dangerous treatments, but this law I fear will harm research into sexual orientation, and scare people away from therapy that truly need real therapy.

I think this could have been better handled through mandates by child care services, rather than heavy-handed legislation. I've read the bill, I think it causes more confusion than help.

Accepting sexual orientation is long overdue, but this law does little to help those that have sexual orientation distress. In fact, I think it hurts people in that boat.

[ForbiddenFruit]

Fine, but as a CA resident, what's that going to cost me in taxes? There are no free no laws out here! Don't bother arguing this if you don't live and pay taxes in the state of California. If you do live in California and have to pay taxes here, than I welcome your explaination of how enforcement of this law by paying the salaries of police officers and other state employees won't cost me anything as a taxpayer.

Were you asking that question when your taxes paid (and continue to pay) for grants towards reparative therapy clinics like the Bachmanns'? Did you complain in the same way at the introduction of every single law which does not make a direct benefit to you? Let me borrow your logic. "Don't bother arguing this if you aren't someone who could have been forced into reparative therapy."

The idea that the first thing you talk about after the banning of electroshock aversion therapy on children performed by those who should know better that leaves them in serious emotional distress is how much it costs to you fiscally (answer: the same as every-fucking-body else in Cali, newsflash: gay people pay taxes towards your privileges too) speaks volumes to your character.

I have no problem with banning dangerous treatments, but this law I fear will harm research into sexual orientation, and scare people away from therapy that truly need real therapy.

I think this could have been better handled through mandates by child care services, rather than heavy-handed legislation. I've read the bill, I think it causes more confusion than help.

Accepting sexual orientation is long overdue, but this law does little to help those that have sexual orientation distress. In fact, I think it hurts people in that boat.

Could I ask you to clarify a little? I don't think I follow.

Research - I'm probably in the minority-within-a-minority here, but I don't see much good in researching sexual orientation. If we prove it's not a choice (which common fucking sense already proves), the people who are assholes still aren't going to listen. If we find out how it can be changed once solidified, do we really want to do that? If we can detect it in the womb, I bet a ton of Good Christians^TM would suddenly change their view on abortion

Rather, it's more that the onus seems to be on them to wake the fuck up and realise that being confused for several years alongside living with the pressure to fulfil expectations you can't is bad enough.

Legistlation / childcare - Yeah. Couldn't agree more, but if you think about it, I guess this could be seen as a step towards that, and looking at seriously controversial treatments on an individual with only the consent of parents. Could go either way, but we'll see.

Hurting those with orientation distresss - could you expand, sorry? I can see how it does little to nothing to provide more positive, reality-based options to people, but I don't see how they're 'hurt' from being at less risk of aversion therapy and flat-out abuse. I'm guessing you're seeing it as how others will scream 'special rights' et al, or am I misreading?

[AbriForm]

Could I ask you to clarify a little? I don't think I follow.

Research - I'm probably in the minority-within-a-minority here, but I don't see much good in researching sexual orientation. If we prove it's not a choice (which common fucking sense already proves), the people who are assholes still aren't going to listen. If we find out how it can be changed once solidified, do we really want to do that? If we can detect it in the womb, I bet a ton of Good Christians^TM would suddenly change their view on abortion

Rather, it's more that the onus seems to be on them to wake the fuck up and realise that being confused for several years alongside living with the pressure to fulfil expectations you can't is bad enough.

Legistlation / childcare - Yeah. Couldn't agree more, but if you think about it, I guess this could be seen as a step towards that, and looking at seriously controversial treatments on an individual with only the consent of parents. Could go either way, but we'll see.

Hurting those with orientation distresss - could you expand, sorry? I can see how it does little to nothing to provide more positive, reality-based options to people, but I don't see how they're 'hurt' from being at less risk of aversion therapy and flat-out abuse. I'm guessing you're seeing it as how others will scream 'special rights' et al, or am I misreading?

Researching why sexual orientation forms is important to treating a broad range of conditions. First, and probably foremost are those who have sexual orientation distress (aka ego-distonic sexual orientation, while no longer listed in the DSM-IV was reclassified as other general sexual disorders to avoid the dispute).

To be blunt, I'm one of those people. My sexual orientation is generally screwed up and fluctuates regularly. It would be nice to figure out why some people have this, because people like me sure don't like having it. It's not that we don't accept it, it's that we don't like it. We have every right to not want to feel like crap because our sexual orientation fluctuates routinely. Ego-distonic sexual orientation has no treatment, because, none of the treatments out there work.

Same with people that want to change their sexual orientation. Many do. Some in the LGBT community dislike that some people do want to change their orientation. To be clear, I agree with the APA that no known treatment out there affects sexual orientation in a statistically significant way. And, I agree many of the forms of conversion therapy are harmful and should not be attempted. But, banning all efforts to research and improve upon that in children, is just as shameful as classifying homosexuality as a disease. It subjects those that want to change their orientation as evil, or somehow misguided.

I do not accept your premise that sexual orientation cannot be changed, nor does the APA. The APA (like me) simply believes that to-date, research is inconclusive, and more research is warranted, on both adults and children.

[ForbiddenFruit]

Ah, I see a bit more clearly now - well in that case, I agree, but the research should become more focused towards things that are closer to disorders, and affirmitive treatments thereof.

We'll have to see if this does open a slippery slope to cease research, but I doubt that will be the case (at least, I hope not). Thanks for clarifying.

[AbriForm]

Sad thing is, it's already had a chilling effect. You won't see one study proposed out here on SOCE (sexual orientation change efforts) that involves children at all. While that probably should continue with adults first, much as with gender-orientation, children are in a much better position to sort such issues out. I wish I had therapy a decade ago when I was a teenager...

Worse, the lengths this bill goes to will probably lead to its undoing. You can bet the religious zealots that want to pursue aversive SOCE will be running to the courts complaining that the bill is flawed because it goes too far, lacking exemptions for religious and moral grounds.

A much better bill would have banned the techniques themselves that are harmful, such as shock therapy and other barbaric measures. Now even counseling a child on sexual orientation confusion is a dangerous topic for a therapist.

[Bettypooh]

Listen up everyone.

I have just removed several posts here that were not relevant to the OP. I also edited out non-relevant parts in another. Please take general discussions to another forum and use this one only for specifically LGBTQI relevant discussions. Please do not hijack threads here either, respond to the OP's line of thought and other responses to it. Refrain from posting comments on issues spoken of that are not directly related to the OP's topic- if you have such comments make a new post in a forum appropriate for that topic.

Infractions of these site-wide rules may be more tolerated in other forums, but they will not be tolerated here. Thank you for understanding

Bettypooh

Moderator

[Eir]

Researching why sexual orientation forms is important to treating a broad range of conditions. First, and probably foremost are those who have sexual orientation distress (aka ego-distonic sexual orientation, while no longer listed in the DSM-IV was reclassified as other general sexual disorders to avoid the dispute).

To be blunt, I'm one of those people. My sexual orientation is generally screwed up and fluctuates regularly. It would be nice to figure out why some people have this, because people like me sure don't like having it. It's not that we don't accept it, it's that we don't like it. We have every right to not want to feel like crap because our sexual orientation fluctuates routinely. Ego-distonic sexual orientation has no treatment, because, none of the treatments out there work.

Same with people that want to change their sexual orientation. Many do. The LGBT community generally dislikes that some people do want to change their orientation. To be clear, I agree with the APA that no known treatment out there affects sexual orientation in a statistically significant way. And, I agree many of the forms of conversion therapy are harmful and should not be attempted. But, banning all efforts to research and improve upon that in children, is just as shameful as classifying homosexuality as a disease. It subjects those that want to change their orientation as evil, or somehow misguided.

I do not accept your premise that sexual orientation cannot be changed, nor does the APA. The APA (like me) simply believes that to-date, research is inconclusive, and more research is warranted, on both adults and children.

Researching why sexual orientation forms is important to treating a broad range of conditions. First, and probably foremost are those who have sexual orientation distress (aka ego-distonic sexual orientation, while no longer listed in the DSM-IV was reclassified as other general sexual disorders to avoid the dispute).

To be blunt, I'm one of those people. My sexual orientation is generally screwed up and fluctuates regularly. It would be nice to figure out why some people have this, because people like me sure don't like having it. It's not that we don't accept it, it's that we don't like it. We have every right to not want to feel like crap because our sexual orientation fluctuates routinely. Ego-distonic sexual orientation has no treatment, because, none of the treatments out there work.

Same with people that want to change their sexual orientation. Many do. The LGBT community generally dislikes that some people do want to change their orientation. To be clear, I agree with the APA that no known treatment out there affects sexual orientation in a statistically significant way. And, I agree many of the forms of conversion therapy are harmful and should not be attempted. But, banning all efforts to research and improve upon that in children, is just as shameful as classifying homosexuality as a disease. It subjects those that want to change their orientation as evil, or somehow misguided.

I do not accept your premise that sexual orientation cannot be changed, nor does the APA. The APA (like me) simply believes that to-date, research is inconclusive, and more research is warranted, on both adults and children.

My kind Sir, you appear to be forgetting the the fact, conveniently or otherwise that children can be forced into conversion therapy, and other dubious practices through their parents. I do think y'all deserve to know I am coming from a redeemed Christian perspective. I believe that all sin is between the individual and God (read private and no one else's business). A clever chap once said that the Puritan's version of hell is a place where they are forced to mind their own business. I am a redeemed Christian, because for me, the highest spiritual authority is my Liege Lord, Jesus Christ, plus nobody. The minister around the corner is also directly under Christ just as I am. His interpretation and walk with Christ are not better than mine, they are different. The divine light which comes from the indwelling is a torch which reveals one's true path. I have a huge problem with how the church handles the gay issue. The bible says that homosexuality is a sin. Addiction is also considered a sin, although no one would want to be around the typical pastor before s/he has had their morning joe. Let's be blunt. In the Christian view, the offer of salvation is open to everyone. (everyone means everyone) The church has done a horrible job of challenging the cultural hatred of homosexuals in general. There really is no excuse to leave the cultural hatred of one group unchallenged (just because) a religious text says is guilty of a particular sin. I have known enough Christian guys to know it is very common to struggle with sins such as promiscuity, marital cheating, lust, masterbation, internet pornography, (all of which are in the sexual area of sin, homosexuality SHOULD in any Christian perspective, be another sin in the same group). Why is one sexual sin so taboo, that all evidence of it must be suppressed, that all who struggle with that sin must be kicked out of the church, that parents would disown their own children over? This is blatant discrimination because one class of 'sinners' are singled out for punishment, while the rest are excused. This is every bit as unnacceptable as a cop deciding that murder is okay, larceny is fine, kidnapping is acceptable, yet any form of

criminal mischief is punishable by death. If the secular world does not selectively enforce crime, then why should the Church selectively label sin, and its severity?

1. All sin is between man and God. 2. It is blatantly wrong to single out one offending class while dismissing others. 3. Just because a religious text says a class of people is guilty of a sin does not give the Christian permission to ignore cultural hatred and bigotry.

[Eir]

And to clarify, I am not a fan of legalistic thinking, but I did find it neccessary to highlight certain absurdities. I believe that Christians should treat not just sin, but anything even remotely debatable as a private matter between man and God. The sole exception is where the individual invites correction. Secondly, Chrstians should trust the divine light. Because the Holy Spirit indwells the believer, there is no need for a rule book, or a sin list, he will show you what is in his will, and what is outside of it, you will feel what is right for you, and what is wrong for you. Interpretation of both the bible and personal revelations is by definition a personal matter. My interpretation of the bible is right for me, Calvin's interpretation of the bible was right for him, Luther's interpretation of the bible was right for him. Your interpretation of the bible is right for you, the spirit lives inside of you, and shows you what he wants to show you.

[AbriForm]

Terryfighter,

I clearly said that I oppose conversion therapies that are harmful, and forcing a child into conversion therapy certainly is harmful, regardless of what technique is used. Child welfare / social services could easily be allowed to evaluate if that is occurring, as happens with several other situations in California today... sans heavy-handed (and IMO, flawed) legislation.

I would remind you, however, that those who are seeking (without pressure from outsiders) to pursue SOCE are now the ones being bigoted by some in the LGBT community. Certainly not a majority, but a minority loud enough to make them a separate class worth protecting, no different than those that seek SRS today.

[ForbiddenFruit]

Your first thought boiled down to "How much will it cost me to protect fags?" So, yes, I can make judgements on your character, as you just did with me. Where my taxes go has nothing to do with it.

[Eir]

Terryfighter,

I clearly said that I oppose conversion therapies that are harmful, and forcing a child into conversion therapy certainly is harmful, regardless of what technique is used. Child welfare / social services could easily be allowed to evaluate if that is occurring, as happens with several other situations in California today... sans heavy-handed (and IMO, flawed) legislation.

I would remind you, however, that those who are seeking (without pressure from outsiders) to pursue SOCE are now the ones being bigoted by some in the LGBT community. Certainly not a majority, but a minority loud enough to make them a separate class worth protecting, no different than those that seek SRS today.

Whoa, my bad. I read your post too quickly and reacted too quickly.