Conversion therapy for children

[Horus]

If so, why?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

H*** no

[Santander]

If this means what conversion therapy generally means (pray away the gay kind of nonsense), of course not.

[Bomster]

How could you possibly vote yes on this??

[Battista Minola 1616]

I believe OP is making a gigantic (and horrible) strawman, but just in case I am going to summon the "blue avatar" we are all but certain he's referring to, so we can hear it from him:

[Ancestral Republican]

No for children or adults. (sane, rational)

[John Dule]

Obviously not. If a consenting adult really wants to do it, that's their prerogative, but I'd still recommend against it.

[Del Tachi]

I have never expressed an opinion on the morality/efficacy of conversion therapy.  My only point was that *if sexual orientation is physiologically or environmentally determined, then (in theory) these factors could be manipulated to change someone's sexual orientation (i.e., conversion therapy.)  Liberals' belief that you can't change someone's sexual orientation because they're "born this way" cannot be reconciled with a belief that sexual orientation is a biologically-determined human characteristic. 

That being said, the issue with ordinances like the one recently struck down in Florida is a redundant set of regulations that cannot be applied fairly.  State boards are already responsible for licensing practitioners, regulating when drugs can be prescribed/dispensed, and investigating claims of dangerous or improper counseling techniques.  Legislating that techniques and practices otherwise allowed cannot be used in an effort to change someone's sexual orientation represents a non-neutral regulation of speech, and is thus unconstitutional as the appellate court found.

No one, including children, can claim a right to be "protected" from simple religious (or non-religious) teaching or counseling that same-sex attraction or behavior is sinful or immoral.

[John Dule]

No one, including children, can claim a right to be "protected" from simple religious (or non-religious) teaching or counseling that same-sex attraction or behavior is sinful or immoral.

They absolutely can.

[TDAS04]

No, I don't support child abuse.

[AGA]

Is the question asking if it should be legal or if I personally support it?

[James Ericson]

Conversion therapy is torture and should be illegal to use on anyone.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No one, including children, can claim a right to be "protected" from simple religious (or non-religious) teaching or counseling that same-sex attraction or behavior is sinful or immoral.

That clause "or behavior" is doing a lot of work in this sentence, which would read as a much more extreme sentiment without it. Not even the Ratzinger-era CDF attempted to argue that being attracted to someone of the same sex was a sin. That idea is bigoted--and, yes, when imposed on a minor, abusive--culture war wingnuttery, plain and simple.

[Horus]

It's good to see 91% of Atlas doesn't support state sanctioned child abuse.

It is becoming abundantly clear however that we need to evacuate and house all black Mississippians and wall off the state immediately after.

[John Dule]

It's good to see 91% of Atlas doesn't support state sanctioned child abuse.

It is becoming abundantly clear however that we need to evacuate and house all black Mississippians and wall off the state immediately after.

This comment went from 0 to 60 in two sentences flat.

[Kingpoleon]

That being said, the issue with ordinances like the one recently struck down in Florida is a redundant set of regulations that cannot be applied fairly.  State boards are already responsible for licensing practitioners, regulating when drugs can be prescribed/dispensed, and investigating claims of dangerous or improper counseling techniques.  Legislating that techniques and practices otherwise allowed cannot be used in an effort to change someone's sexual orientation represents a non-neutral regulation of speech, and is thus unconstitutional as the appellate court found.

A non-neutral regulation of speech is absolutely allowed. You can prohibit it on the basis of harm, which has always been upheld as a compelling state interest.

No one, including children, can claim a right to be "protected" from simple religious (or non-religious) teaching or counseling that same-sex attraction or behavior is sinful or immoral.

I think you and I diverge here because you have a much more conservative view of children here than I do.

I’m not saying children should be seized if their parents teach them that homosexuality is sinful or immoral. I’m saying that for their parents to be allowed to have a professional use clinically precise techniques to convince their child of this as well is dangerous and immediately harmful - particularly since the sole reason to attempt to convince their child of this so radically is because their child has same sex tendencies.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

I’m assuming this is talking about praying/whipping the gay away as opposed to supporting trans kids?

If so, no.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I’m assuming this is talking about praying/whipping the gay away as opposed to supporting trans kids?

Who refers to supporting trans kids as "conversion therapy"?!

[Santander]

It's good to see 91% of Atlas doesn't support state sanctioned child abuse.

It is becoming abundantly clear however that we need to evacuate and house all black Mississippians and wall off the state immediately after.

Because voting Democrat means you must have such enlightened views on social issues.

[Goldwater]

I’m assuming this is talking about praying/whipping the gay away as opposed to supporting trans kids?

Who refers to supporting trans kids as "conversion therapy"?!

Maybe they mixed up the word "conversion" with the word "transition"?

[Del Tachi]

No one, including children, can claim a right to be "protected" from simple religious (or non-religious) teaching or counseling that same-sex attraction or behavior is sinful or immoral.

That clause "or behavior" is doing a lot of work in this sentence, which would read as a much more extreme sentiment without it. Not even the Ratzinger-era CDF attempted to argue that being attracted to someone of the same sex was a sin.

To be clear, I don't believe that loving, monogamous same-sex relationships are sinful.

Likewise, I certainly don't believe that same-sex attraction (or any other type of attraction) could ever be sinful.  

However, this is (somewhat) an almost perfect demonstration of the point I've been trying to make re: my issue with sexual orientation as a concept.  Whom you're simply *attracted to can only take on significance if it's some immutable characteristic permanently operating at the sub-conscious, psychosexual level a "scientific" theory of sexual orientation demands.  I don't think that makes any sense.  People are not sexual all the time.  It's not like anyone is attracted to all males (females) all the time.  It is really no more significant that people are persistently and consistently attracted to certain genders than it is they may be attracted to people of certain ethnicities, hair colors or any other physical attribute.  Sexual orientation is Freudian, inanimate genital sex object supremacy that's taken on such a life only because activists use it to scientifically argue being gay isn't a choice.  It's time we moved past it.  We don't need it anymore.  

This whole tirade is relevant in this thread because conversion therapy requires the conceptualization of sexual orientation as the way people experience and express their sexuality.  In order to "reorient" somebody they must first be "oriented."  What if (shocking idea incoming) we just regarded people's sexual activity as a personal choice due a certain amount of respect?  would we even have conversion therapy, then?  

That idea is bigoted--and, yes, when imposed on a minor, abusive--culture war wingnuttery, plain and simple.

People can raise their children to be racists, Black separatists, vegetarians or Marxists and the First Amendment's freedom of speech protects them (even if any of these ideas may be, as you say, culture war wingnuttery.)  Religious education for your kids is probably even doubly protected by the Constitution, thanks to the Free Exercise clause.  Any legal recourse you propose to this problem is infinitely worse than the problem and cannot be applied in a fair, content-neutral fashion.

[Del Tachi]

No one, including children, can claim a right to be "protected" from simple religious (or non-religious) teaching or counseling that same-sex attraction or behavior is sinful or immoral.

I think you and I diverge here because you have a much more conservative view of children here than I do.

I’m not saying children should be seized if their parents teach them that homosexuality is sinful or immoral. I’m saying that for their parents to be allowed to have a professional use clinically precise techniques to convince their child of this as well is dangerous and immediately harmful - particularly since the sole reason to attempt to convince their child of this so radically is because their child has same sex tendencies.

I agree with you that the state is allowed to enforce laws protecting children (and even non-informed adults) from dangerous or unproven clinical techniques.  Every state already does this by licensing therapists, controlling the dispensation of drugs/other substances, and investigating allegations of misconduct or abuse. 

The issue with the Florida ordinances was that they categorically prohibited an otherwise allowable and mostly unregulated form of therapy (CBT or "talk" therapy) for use in any effort to change a minor person's sexual orientation.  More problematically, these same ordinances allowed such strategies if they were being used to affirm a child's sexual orientation or gender identity.  You cannot argue these prohibited strategies are "immediately harmful" to children when the only thing that differentiates them from allowed ones are the content of the speech.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

I’m assuming this is talking about praying/whipping the gay away as opposed to supporting trans kids?

Who refers to supporting trans kids as "conversion therapy"?!

Maybe they mixed up the word "conversion" with the word "transition"?

It struck me as something that could get confused, given that ruling in the UK the other day.