Law to protect people from anti-gay therapy

[Doctor Eliza]

Interesting and thanks for the reflection. I really don't know enough about it, so I wondered if things like suppressing feelings would be involved in exploration.

Of course the philosophy should be for clients to come to their own conclusions. Outside of a specific conversion intervention, it sounds like there are folks who do therapy involving exploring sexuality and identity, and I have a hard time believing that the therapist's own biases might not influence their guidance to some extent. So as to Dr. E's point that therapists shouldn't be involved with this arena period, I disagree, because I think there is a place for this type of therapy. I just think it is important to be consistent about how we apply our values, particularly when it comes to limiting service provision.

Please be clear. I have in no way suggested that therapists should not be involved in sexual identity exploration. That is an extremely valuable area of psychotherapy. I do not believe that therapists have any place in attempting to convert.

Dr. E

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[crim84]

Yeah I know that there are some folks out there who hold that belief. I guess my own bias is evident in that my bisexual friends don't seem to feel that way at all - and did share with me the difficulty they felt due to the ambivalence and thoughts/feelings towards both men and women. Neither of those women that I know probably would be the types to seek therapy though. It is just that I never meet those people saying it is a sin.

I grew up in the Bible Belt (Georgia) so I guess my experience was more conservative.

 

[crim84]

I don't argue against that SOME religious communities make homosexuality out to be a sin. But do we have to deteriorate our own thoughts to an either/or level? As professionals, I don't see how we can completely stay out of sexuality, as you previously noted. I also don't see how operationalizing the differences between conversion and "exploration" is problematic for the sake of professional discussion.

Pragma, it IS problematic because of how conversion therapy is used MOST of the time. You have valid points for a perfect world where a large number of people are seeking sexuality exploration, but those aren't the types of people seeking conversion therapy. The ones seeking conversion therapy are people who are going to be hurt from it, so that's why people are against it.

 

[Pragma]

Please be clear. I have in no way suggested that therapists should not be involved in sexual identity exploration. That is an extremely valuable area of psychotherapy. I do not believe that therapists have any place in attempting to convert.

Dr. E

Okay - it was this part earlier where I took that. I obviously take your word for what you do believe.

A person who is bisexual or homosexual and only wants to live a heterosexual lifestyle is welcome to do so regardless of what anyone else would like to tell them to do. The issue comes in when we start examining the role of psychologists in carrying out this decision. It is not the place of psychologists to provide services in this arena. If someone feels that it is unacceptable to act on their homosexual feelings, then they should seek the counsel of a religious leader.

I think we all agree that conversion therapy, as it currently is, is probably not a good idea for people. But I think sexual identity exploration (including gay to straight questions) are perfectly fair game for therapy. As that is currently practiced, it seems to me that people often look to their psychologists for advice in therapy on making decisions about their sexuality. I was pointing out that I think psychologists play a bigger role already in this arena than folks are giving credit for - and I don't see how providing guidance for someone who thinks they might be straight is any different.

I am less inclined to restrict peoples' free choice than some others on this thread. People have cited the literature suggesting that the therapy can be harmful. IMO, the questions of a) is it ethical for a psychologist to provide such services still and b) should something that has a probability of being harmful be outlawed are two COMPELTELY different things. Outlawing something that people freely choose is not something I am generally behind.

Also, no one has answered the question about what the threshold for "harm" is for us to outlaw a therapy. It seems to me that if you are going to apply this logic to this highly politicized case, then you should apply it to other potentially harmful therapies as well. Otherwise, you are being hypocritical.

I found an interesting list of potentially harmful therapies just via a google search. Can we outlaw these as well?

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-co...-Psychological-Treatments-That-Cause-Harm.pdf

Edit: Oh and the rest of the article is fabulous by the way. I hadn't read it before.

 

[KillerDiller]

Also, no one has answered the question about what the threshold for "harm" is for us to outlaw a therapy. It seems to me that if you are going to apply this logic to this highly politicized case, then you should apply it to other potentially harmful therapies as well. Otherwise, you are being hypocritical.

Agreed. I don't see why the same principle shouldn't apply to other therapies. I'm inclined to agree with Ollie's previously stated views on this issue. I don't think that legislation of therapeutic techniques is the ideal way to go. However, our profession has done a horrible job of policing itself. APA has published a list of preferred ESTs, but there are no professional penalties for not learning these and no penalties conferred on institutions that do not teach these. The hurdles to licensure don't have any checks on what therapy a person practices or how grounded in reality it is. Consequently, if the choice is between legislation and the free-for-all we currently have, I'll take legislation. If the choice is between legislation and more strict policing of our own ethics, then the latter is preferable. I'd definitely be in favor of an FDA-type of set-up for psychological treatments.

So, I guess my answer to the above question is yes, for other therapies that are harmful, we should probably see some legislation against them. I'd be in favor of making rebirthing therapy illegal (if it isn't already).

As for what the criteria is for harm, that's a great question. Is past life regression or the uncovering of "repressed" memories harmful enough? I think there is evidence that it is, though perhaps more would be needed.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

Okay, I could have been more clear. By "arena" I specifically meant a person who knows him or herself to be gay (or straight) and live a life inconsistent with what they know to be true.

Dr. E

 

[Pragma]

As for what the criteria is for harm, that's a great question. Is past life regression or the uncovering of "repressed" memories harmful enough? I think there is evidence that it is, though perhaps more would be needed.

It's actually listed in the article I posted

 

[crim84]

Agreed. I don't see why the same principle shouldn't apply to other therapies. I'm inclined to agree with Ollie's previously stated views on this issue. I don't think that legislation of therapeutic techniques is the ideal way to go. However, our profession has done a horrible job of policing itself. APA has published a list of preferred ESTs, but there are no professional penalties for not learning these and no penalties conferred on institutions that do not teach these. The hurdles to licensure don't have any checks on what therapy a person practices or how grounded in reality it is. Consequently, if the choice is between legislation and the free-for-all we currently have, I'll take legislation. If the choice is between legislation and more strict policing of our own ethics, then the latter is preferable. I'd definitely be in favor of an FDA-type of set-up for psychological treatments.

So, I guess my answer to the above question is yes, for other therapies that are harmful, we should probably see some legislation against them. I'd be in favor of making rebirthing therapy illegal (if it isn't already).

As for what the criteria is for harm, that's a great question. Is past life regression or the uncovering of "repressed" memories harmful enough? I think there is evidence that it is, though perhaps more would be needed.

I agree completely. You spelled this out so well.

 

[KillerDiller]

It's actually listed in the article I posted

Wait. You expect me to actually click on links and...read stuff?

 

[Pragma]

Wait. You expect me to actually click on links and...read stuff?

I get annoyed sometimes when people post papers - but this is a really good one

Oh and they cover rebirthing too...

 

[cara susanna]

Haha, we've read that in a lot of my classes. Love it.

 

[wigflip]

Hopefully I won't regret opening this one up again, but for those interested in the outcome of the conversion therapy ban bill in CA:

Gov Jerry Brown recently signed it. I thought this was cause for celebration until an Equality California rep told me that opponents are acting fast to overturn the ban (I was in an Internet-free zone for a few days). CNN confirms that multiple lawsuits are underway:

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-10-01/...ntation-anxiety-and-self-destructive-behavior

 

[Qwerk]

Hopefully I won't regret opening this one up again, but for those interested in the outcome of the conversion therapy ban bill in CA:

Gov Jerry Brown recently signed it. I thought this was cause for celebration until an Equality California rep told me that opponents are acting fast to overturn the ban (I was in an Internet-free zone for a few days). CNN confirms that multiple lawsuits are underway:

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-10-01/...ntation-anxiety-and-self-destructive-behavior

I was glad to hear the news, but I keep wondering how they're going to enforce it. It's not like there are cops patrolling clinics. Since the victims of this treatment are minors (and probably don't know their rights), I imagine there's a strong possibility that it will continue to happen and go unreported.

 

[Goobernut]

I was glad to hear the news, but I keep wondering how they're going to enforce it. It's not like there are cops patrolling clinics. Since the victims of this treatment are minors (and probably don't know their rights), I imagine there's a strong possibility that it will continue to happen and go unreported.

I think there would have to be a lot of education to inform school counselors & key personnel that works with adolescents and children that those types of therapy are actually illegal so they know to even report it. Perhaps instead of cops patrolling the clinics we can have them calling to check suspicious yellow pages ads? Har har

 

[psychRA]

I was glad to hear the news, but I keep wondering how they're going to enforce it. It's not like there are cops patrolling clinics. Since the victims of this treatment are minors (and probably don't know their rights), I imagine there's a strong possibility that it will continue to happen and go unreported.

I wonder about this as well. Since authorities can't just roll into a clinician's office and ask to scrutinize their patient files (rightfully so!), I'm not sure how this is going to be enforced. If "conversion therapy" for minors is illegal, will practitioners just repackage it with a less obvious name? Then there's the fact that, unless you're physically in the session, you have no way to know what type of therapy is actually being delivered. Will parents seek out a clinician who legally provides conversion therapy to adults, and who fully intends to deliver conversion therapy to the child, but is willing to document it in the record as supportive therapy?

Now, with any given law, there are people who will find a way around it, so I'm not saying that the fact that a law is difficult to enforce means that we shouldn't bother to have a law in place.

I should state that I am 100% against conversion therapy. It doesn't work, and can be harmful. However, like others in this thread, I worry that having legislation in place regarding specific therapies sets a worrisome precedent. If anything, I'd be more in favor of tightening existing regulations to limit woefully undertrained clinicians from flooding the field.

 

[roubs]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/gay-conversion-and-the-first-amendment/265905/

A federal judge put the law on hold pending evaluation of whether it violates the first amendment.

He cited a recent APA report that said "there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. ... Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE."

 

[MBellows]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/gay-conversion-and-the-first-amendment/265905/

A federal judge put the law on hold pending evaluation of whether it violates the first amendment.

There's a strong lack of scientific evidence that waterboarding would cause direct harm in a therapeutic context. Perhaps that should be on the table too.

 

[KillerDiller]

There's a strong lack of scientific evidence that waterboarding would cause direct harm in a therapeutic context. Perhaps that should be on the table too.

I agree. I definitely think "may not be likely to cause harm" should be the bar the field strives for.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

There's a strong lack of scientific evidence that waterboarding would cause direct harm in a therapeutic context. Perhaps that should be on the table too.

 

[MBellows]

I take it you've had a borderline client?

 

[wigflip]

Thanks for the update, roubs.

Of possible interest to those following this thread:

Just heard bigwig historian Martin Duberman promoting his new book the other day and the radio host also mentioned Duberman's Cures: A Gay Man's Odyssey, a "classic memoir of growing up gay in pre-Stonewall America. The tale of his desperate struggle to 'cure' himself of his homosexuality through psychotherapy is utterly frank and deeply moving. But Cures is more than one man's story; it's the vivid, witty account of a generation, of changing times, shifting social attitudes, and the rising tide of protest against received wisdom. For this tenth anniversary edition, Duberman has written a substantial new afterword that updates both his personal history and the ongoing struggle for a more just society."
http://books.google.com/books/about/Cures.html?id=4RyUDdyZCdsC

It wasn't on my radar before, but it's on my library list now!

 

[roubs]

Credited judicial ruling yesterday against prohibiting reparative therapy, sorry guys. This is freedom of speech and it is a moral issue. And no imprimatur of APA can ultimately change that fact. Nor can CA politics, or the politics of any other state for that matter. But I know the tide is against me, and I'm ok with that.

You may have missed that the judge cited APA in his ruling as evidence in support of why it was a possible freedom of speech violation.

 

[MBellows]

Credited judicial ruling yesterday against prohibiting reparative therapy, sorry guys. This is freedom of speech and it is a moral issue. And no imprimatur of APA can ultimately change that fact. Nor can CA politics, or the politics of any other state for that matter. But I know the tide is against me, and I'm ok with that.

As long as people are medicalizing psychotherapy and subjecting practitioners to medical regulations, then the government has absolute control over what kinds of procedures can be done in the state.

As for it being a moral issue, so is stoning your daughter for wearing a tank-top, but that's not allowed either.

 

[Pragma]

wigflip, meet psychcyclepsi

There's about a 50% chance that the posts from this poster will be deleted by said poster in the near future.

 

[MBellows]

No, the govt does not have absolute control--for one thing, you need to specify which govt before making that claim (state or federal), and also it is impt to recognize the degree to which ppl actually influence govt and not just vice versa.

In terms of your second comment, that is a red herring and completely unrelated to the topic. Stoning someone (killing someone for different beliefs) is more akin to what the psych world does to those who disagree with the idea that homosexuality is an immutable (identity) trait rather than pathology; it is not something that ppl who disagree with that and want to lead those into a more natural path push on those who don't want it. For the most part anyway. These are people who want to change and who in fact can--although there is a cost and great difficulty, just like with any truly great change that comes with willingness to correct misdirected instincts.

Yes, that is exactly the point. Therapy has a great potential for harm, and those who have equated pro-gay agendas with "scientific fact" (which is always dubious BTW, especially when it has to do with moral questions--just look at Nazi Germany and the Jews re: high quality experimentation with skin) have in fact caused great harm to the many ppl who have divorced believing that homosexuality was their identity and to the children who suffered the less than adequate (in all reality) parenting of two pseudo-married partners of the same sex. There is a reality here, and ultimately it is not subject to PCness, regardless of what the 93% think, or the 99% of psych PhDs have mindlessly accepted as "scientifically" true.

wigflip, meet psychcyclepsi

There's about a 50% chance that the posts from this poster will be deleted by said poster in the near future.

From what I recall (it's rather late) quoted posts don't change with edits.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

Do you really believe this hateful crap you are spewing or is this just to get a rise out of people?

 

[ResearchGirlie]

Ahh, the wisdom of ResearchGirl from her Ivory tower joins the fore... Unfortunately, it is you who mistakenly imputes hatred to wisdom.

Ah yes. I knew the apologies you sent out last week were too good to be true.

 

[Goobernut]

Ah yes. I knew the apologies you sent out last week were too good to be true.

Did you see where he said, "I apparently can't delete my account so I thought I'd make good use of it."

I think he likes the attention, even if its negative

 

[roubs]

Yes, that is exactly the point. Therapy has a great potential for harm, and those who have equated pro-gay agendas with "scientific fact" (which is always dubious BTW, especially when it has to do with moral questions--just look at Nazi Germany and the Jews re: high quality experimentation with skin) have in fact caused great harm to the many ppl who have divorced believing that homosexuality was their identity and to the children who suffered the less than adequate (in all reality) parenting of two pseudo-married partners of the same sex. There is a reality here, and ultimately it is not subject to PCness, regardless of what the 93% think, or the 99% of psych PhDs have mindlessly accepted as "scientifically" true.

I just want to clarify, did you compare a person defending the scientific consensus that being gay not pathological to Nazi medical experimentation on the Jews? Can you please expand on how the near 40 year history of de-pathologizing gay identity caused great harm? As I understand it, you blame the scientific and medical community for de-pathologizing gay people because it has contributed to the changing of people's attitudes toward gay people, in the direction of becoming accepting of their civil rights, relationships and potential to raise a family (which you believe causes children to be damaged by gay parents?). Is that about right?

I'm also really curious as to what a person with your opinions in 2012 thinks should be the consequences of what you think of as a gay 'lifestyle choice'. Should gay people be evicted if their landlord thinks they are gross? Should their boss be able to fire them for being an abomination? Should gay women have their natural born children taken away from them to prevent them from being damaged by the gay lifestyle? And since you decry scientific evidence, what evidence to you rely on that convinces you that you are right and the scientific consensus is wrong?

 

[wigflip]

I was skimming along and got hung up on this--completely missed the Nazi business until I got to roubs' measured, incisive response.

Stoning someone (killing someone for different beliefs) is more akin to what the psych world does to those who disagree with the idea that homosexuality is an immutable (identity) trait rather than pathology; it is not something that ppl who disagree with that and want to lead those into a more natural path push on those who don't want it. For the most part anyway. These are people who want to change and who in fact can--although there is a cost and great difficulty, just like with any truly great change that comes with willingness to correct misdirected instincts.

As with previous threads, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere productive.

Psychcyclepsi, if you are still considering doctoral study in psych, I do hope you articulate your dearly held beliefs during the interview process.

Or maybe you'll switch disciplines--perhaps Mark Regnerus is looking for a new RA?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: Given that this is hot-button topic, I wanted to pre-emptively request that we all remain as professional and respectful in our replies as possible. We all know that it's quite possible to healthily debate viewpoints with which disagree, and we all also know that this can occasionally be difficult if we fire off responses in the heat of the moment.

I personally find it helpful that if I'm discussing a topic that elicits a strong emotional response to first type up the reply, walk away from the computer for 10-15 minutes, re-read what I've written, and then decide if it's appropriate to post.

Thank you.

 

[roubs]

I was skimming along and got hung up on this--completely missed the Nazi business until I got to roubs' measured, incisive response.



As with previous threads, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere productive.

Thanks for the kudos, though I respectfully quibble with your statement that this discussion is going nowhere productive.

I think it's useful for both sides to think about the zero-sum game that is being set up when people who equate gay rights with 'special rights' put forward the idea that they are being oppressed.

Take the example of a landlord-tenant relationship. If an evangelical landlord finds out or realizes that two "roommates" are more of a Bert & Ernie type that never seem to move on and find the right girl, he might be disturbed to think about how the sin of sodom is being committed on his property. He might even feel "implicated" in it a bit . At this point he has to decide whether the disturbing thoughts in his head or the knowledge that he may be abetting sin justify him telling his tenants that they need to find another place. He might feel daily discomfort at seeing the tenant or thinking about the situation. This is a situation in which the law and therefore society has to decide whether to ask the landlord to restructure his thoughts or ask the tenants to leave when a landlord is disgusted by them. If the landlord is completely unwilling to adjust his prior beliefs, he'll probably feel oppressed by the gays for the rest of his life. I think those on the pro-gay rights side often want to tell the landlord that his discomfort is wrong instead of focusing on the actions, which often sets off the endless back and forth.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

:troll:

 

[MBellows]

Take the example of a landlord-tenant relationship. If an evangelical landlord finds out or realizes that two "roommates" are more of a Bert & Ernie type that never seem to move on and find the right girl, he might be disturbed to think about how the sin of sodom is being committed on his property. He might even feel "implicated" in it a bit . At this point he has to decide whether the disturbing thoughts in his head or the knowledge that he may be abetting sin justify him telling his tenants that they need to find another place. He might feel daily discomfort at seeing the tenant or thinking about the situation. This is a situation in which the law and therefore society has to decide whether to ask the landlord to restructure his thoughts or ask the tenants to leave when a landlord is disgusted by them. If the landlord is completely unwilling to adjust his prior beliefs, he'll probably feel oppressed by the gays for the rest of his life. I think those on the pro-gay rights side often want to tell the landlord that his discomfort is wrong instead of focusing on the actions, which often sets off the endless back and forth.

Would you use the same line if the tenants were disabled (being around people with disabilities can be uncomfortable to some people), "of a different race" than the landlord, or were of a different political party? Or perhaps because the landlord hates the color yellow and they happen to like wearing that color?

 

[roubs]

Would you use the same line if the tenants were disabled (being around people with disabilities can be uncomfortable to some people), "of a different race" than the landlord, or were of a different political party? Or perhaps because the landlord hates the color yellow and they happen to like wearing that color?

Which line?

 

[wigflip]

I think it's useful for both sides to think about the zero-sum game that is being set up when people who equate gay rights with 'special rights' put forward the idea that they are being oppressed.

Take the example of a landlord-tenant relationship. If an evangelical landlord finds out or realizes that two "roommates" are more of a Bert & Ernie type that never seem to move on and find the right girl, he might be disturbed to think about how the sin of sodom is being committed on his property. He might even feel "implicated" in it a bit . At this point he has to decide whether the disturbing thoughts in his head or the knowledge that he may be abetting sin justify him telling his tenants that they need to find another place. He might feel daily discomfort at seeing the tenant or thinking about the situation. This is a situation in which the law and therefore society has to decide whether to ask the landlord to restructure his thoughts or ask the tenants to leave when a landlord is disgusted by them. If the landlord is completely unwilling to adjust his prior beliefs, he'll probably feel oppressed by the gays for the rest of his life. I think those on the pro-gay rights side often want to tell the landlord that his discomfort is wrong instead of focusing on the actions, which often sets off the endless back and forth.

I think if what you are saying here is:

a. Even ideologies which many might view as ugly or bigoted have an internal logic, and understanding that logic is more strategically valuable than simply labeling and dismissing those who subscribe to it

and

b. In civil society we have a duty to provide legal remedies for those who experience social category-based discrimination so that privately held beliefs aren't enacted such that they contribute to structural inequalities

then I agree.

 

[Pragma]

I think if what you are saying here is:

a. Even ideologies which many might view as ugly or bigoted have an internal logic, and understanding that logic is more strategically valuable than simply labeling and dismissing those who subscribe to it

and

b. In civil society we have a duty to provide legal remedies for those who experience social category-based discrimination so that privately held beliefs aren't enacted such that they contribute to structural inequalities

then I agree.

Now that's what I call a synopsis!

 

[roubs]

I think if what you are saying here is:

a. Even ideologies which many might view as ugly or bigoted have an internal logic, and understanding that logic is more strategically valuable than simply labeling and dismissing those who subscribe to it

and

b. In civil society we have a duty to provide legal remedies for those who experience social category-based discrimination so that privately held beliefs aren't enacted such that they contribute to structural inequalities

then I agree.

Yes, thanks for summing up what I was trying to illustrate by example

 

[MBellows]

Yes, thanks for summing up what I was trying to illustrate by example

It was probably just my pre-coffee drinking/dogwalking haze, but I read that entirely wrong this morning. I'd have to agree then, we do need to understand and work with those internal dialogs. Perhaps we'll see a xenophobia specific Dx someday and develop an EBP for helping people cope.

 

[wigflip]

It was probably just my pre-coffee drinking/dogwalking haze, but I read that entirely wrong this morning. I'd have to agree then, we do need to understand and work with those internal dialogs. Perhaps we'll see a xenophobia specific Dx someday and develop an EBP for helping people cope.

I don't know why, but this gave me a good chuckle. I like the idea that a person just can't get his/her head straight until that dog gets walked.

 

[roubs]

I don't know why, but this gave me a good chuckle. I like the idea that a person just can't get his/her head straight until that dog gets walked.

It's highly correlated with the person getting walked.

 

[MBellows]

It's highly correlated with the person getting walked.

That's pretty much it.

 

[Pragma]

In terms of the "natural" comment, yes, sex has more of a function than just procreation in that it represents a bond between people and not simply a biological mandate to pass on genes IMO, but in terms of basic function of sex--only speaking biologically currently--that is also a component of sex. I realize that not all homosexual sex consists of the following, but I think it is rather common sense to see that there is nothing inherently natural (i.e. that it is not a naturally and well-directed instinct) for a man to stick his ---- in another guy's --- or for women to spend their sex lives dildoing each other because it feels good and they are more comfortable with people of the same sex. I don't mean to say that descriptively it is not natural as in not occuring frequently in other species in nature--because I know it does, but similarly there can be many forms of what is ultimately pathology in various species. So by natural, I use the term in more of a functional fitness (and to some extent normative sense) rather than in a purely descriptive sense.

I'm sorry - I appreciate your attempt at having more of a professional discourse - but your descriptions here (i.e., dildoing each other) have me a little curious as to where you get your information about what goes on in these, to use your terms, "not well-directed" relationships. I hope that you recognize that you are making a strong value judgment yourself here (in the same way you are accusing others of doing in the first place).

I have no problem with this behavior in that it shouldn't be held against such people in the workplace or in schools or in rentals (just as any unrelated personal choices to meeting the obligations of work etc shouldn't be used to disqualify someone), and I believed that people engaging in this need to be respected, but I strongly disagree that everyone must agree that this behavior is in fact natural and right and that anyone who thinks (with good reason) otherwise is simply being hateful. That is not a fair critique. Ultimately will not likely agree on this by any means, and I expect further ridicule and accusations, but perhaps some will see that I am not just talking out of my --- here, in the least.

If you think that everyone within the field of psychology holds these beliefs, you are sadly mistaken. There is a wide spectrum and you are really making it black and white. Heck, the intro psychology textbook I used for the past couple of years didn't even make statements close to this, and said the jury is still out on genetics vs. socioenvironmental variables associated with these variables. The fact is that there is a lot that we still don't know empirically. Not all psychologists I know seem to consider homosexuality natural and right.

But that argument is completely different than the one people are having about basic human rights. I think that is why you are getting the flack here (along with some pretty tasteless and offensive statements involving Nazi comparisons).

On another note, I am not trolling here, so the feed the troll gif etc is really uncalled for. However, I could have been more polite in some of my comments and I am editing those out accordingly and apologize for them (i.e. "not having humility to accept apology", "past curfew" etc).

It sure seems like it when you do, and you come off as quite antagonistic. I am sure you recognize your own pattern here in recent weeks.

 

[Qwerk]

These social costs are especially evident where a member of an existing family (one of the parents) puts their own sexual feelings or desires or drive ahead of meeting the needs of the children in the family by leaving to fulfill such sexual drives.

You mention social/mental harms, but you don't elaborate. Is this the only potential harm you can think of? This type of relationship is usually caused by the "treatment" you recommend, and would pretty much be solved if gays weren't influenced to pursue straight relationships to begin with.

 

[KillerDiller]

There are social costs, and these are not just due to the rejection and shaming of homosexuals--although that is a problem in itself (the homosexual movement seems to think all of the costs are due to shaming-type consequences and repression, rather than any of them being inherent to same-sex sexual activities). These social costs are especially evident where a member of an existing family (one of the parents) puts their own sexual feelings or desires or drive ahead of meeting the needs of the children in the family by leaving to fulfill such sexual drives.

I appreciate your statements about there being a need to preserve people's rights. Like Qwerk, I'm also curious if you can think of other social costs. Your above example is not specific to individuals who are homosexual. Many heterosexual individuals also seek sexual relationships outside of marriage. You're right, it can hurt the children when parents cheat or get divorced. However, I'm not aware of any research that shows that children are hurt less when parents agree to stay in a relationship simply for the sake of staying. I'm also not aware of any work that shows that children are hurt more when the extramarital partner is of the same gender as their parent.

 

[Qwerk]

However, I'm not aware of any research that shows that children are hurt less when parents agree to stay in a relationship simply for the sake of staying.

A little off-topic, but I can remember reading at least one study that provided evidence that the unhappiness of children of divorced parents starts well before the divorce itself -- in other words, that it's largely due to parents' marital conflict and not specifically divorce. Wish I had a citation.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I have tons to do this next week (and tonight) so I don't plan to respond further to this thread.

Does anyone else hear the choirs of angels singing?

 

[wigflip]

Does anyone else hear the choirs on angels singing?

+1

I'm feeling much more "natural" already.

 

[wigflip]

I have tons to do this next week (and tonight) so I don't plan to respond further to this thread.

Seems like you found some time to squeeze in just one more post.

 

[MBellows]

You are very dismissive, but the reality is that there are harms. I have already addressed the "natural' comments as not being necessary to my thesis or main points.

I think that is good insofar as it keeps ppl from being discriminated against for personal choices and issues, but I think it is bad insofar as it legitimizes that which is ultimately misdirected behavior (however hard to redirect).

Just curious, what are your personal feelings on "heterosexual" sodomy?