California Bans Therapies to 'Cure' Gay Minors

[Claire Diviner]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/us/california-bans-therapies-to-cure-gay-minors.html?hp&_r=0

California has become the first state to ban the use for minors of disputed therapies to “overcome” homosexuality, a step hailed by gay rights groups across the country that say the therapies have caused dangerous emotional harm to gay and lesbian teenagers.

“This bill bans nonscientific ‘therapies’ that have driven young people to depression and suicide,” Gov. Jerry Brown said in a statement on Saturday after he signed the bill into law. “These practices have no basis in science or medicine, and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.”

The law, which is to take effect on Jan. 1, states that no “mental health provider” shall provide minors with therapy intended to change their sexual orientation, including efforts to “change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

The law was sponsored by State Senator Ted W. Lieu and supported by a long list of medical and psychological societies, as well by state and national advocates for gay rights. Also speaking up for the ban were former patients who described emotional scars they said they were left with after being pushed into the therapy by their parents and finding that they could not change their sexual orientation or did not want to.

But some therapists and conservative religious leaders who promote methods that they say can reduce homosexual desire have condemned the new law as a violation of free choice. They say that it will harm young people who want to fight homosexual attractions on religious or other grounds and warn that it will lead more people to seek help from untrained amateurs.

The use of harsh aversion techniques, like electric shock or nausea-inducing drugs, to combat homosexual desires has largely disappeared. But during the last three decades, some psychologists have refined a theory of “reparative therapy,” which ties homosexual desires to emotional wounds in early childhood and, in some cases, to early sexual abuse.

These therapists say that with proper treatment, thousands of patients have succeeded in reducing their homosexual attraction and in enhancing heterosexual desire, though most therapists acknowledge that total “cures” are rare. But their methods have come under growing attack from gays who say the therapy has led to guilt, hopelessness and anger.

Reparative therapists, a small minority within the mental health profession, united in 1992 in the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality, based in Encino, Calif. The group did not immediately comment on the new California law, but its leaders have previously attacked the legislation as based on politics, not science, and said they would consider challenging it in court as an unjustified intrusion into professional practice.

One licensed family therapist and member of the association, David H. Pickup of Glendale, Calif., said in a recent interview that the ban would cause harm to many who want and need the therapy.

“If boys have been sexually abused and homosexual feelings that are not authentic later come up, we have to tell them no, we can’t help you,” Mr. Pickup said.

Gay and lesbian leaders, along with major scientific groups, reject such theories outright and say there is no scientific evidence that inner sexual attractions can be altered.

“Reparative therapy is junk science being used to justify religious beliefs,” said Wayne Besen, the director of Truth Wins Out, a gay advocacy group.

The California law is a milestone, but only a first step, Mr. Besen said, because the ideas in reparative therapy have been widely adopted by church ministries and others promoting the idea that homosexual urges can be banished.

Legislators in New Jersey and a few other states have discussed introducing similar bills to ban the use of the therapy for minors, Mr. Besen said.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I feel this is a welcome step, in my opinion.

 

[theeboredone]

I don't like this law at all...

Believe whichever side you want, I was watching CNN when one of the doctors or representative was being interviewed. Assuming he is to be believed, he claimed that even though parents bring their child in to be "fixed", it is a client/doctor relationship, and if the client does not want to be "fixed", then there is nothing the doctor can do about it. Therefore, what he was saying was that clients who come in WANT to be fixed. This guy also said they are planning to sue the state in regards to this issue anyways.

Secondly, there is contradicting research out there against whether or not homosexuality is something that is developed. Plenty of case studies where homosexual men and women suddenly lose interest in the same sex and end up going straight. So whether or not this "gay gene" exists, and how much prevalence it has through a person's life and if it can be altered is remained to be determined. This is not something that is clear cut. Otherwise, twin studies would show both go gay rather than one not. It's still a mystery.

I don't support this law one bit. Even if the treatments are regarded as "unscientific", then I'm guessing hypnotic or Freudian clinics should also be banned, right? Now, if you pass a law requiring the treatments become more ETHICAL, that's another story, and I'm completely in support of that. When it comes to Psychology, it's a tricky "science" and does not always fit into the realm of the science we normally think of. Not everything is numbers and measurements. Even things like Behavioral therapy have so many variables involved. It's not as simple as "If I do this, then this will happen" sort of deal.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Show me some of that research boy.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I don't like this law at all...

Believe whichever side you want, I was watching CNN when one of the doctors or representative was being interviewed. Assuming he is to be believed, he claimed that even though parents bring their child in to be "fixed", it is a client/doctor relationship, and if the client does not want to be "fixed", then there is nothing the doctor can do about it. Therefore, what he was saying was that clients who come in WANT to be fixed. This guy also said they are planning to sue the state in regards to this issue anyways.

Secondly, there is contradicting research out there against whether or not homosexuality is something that is developed. Plenty of case studies where homosexual men and women suddenly lose interest in the same sex and end up going straight. So whether or not this "gay gene" exists, and how much prevalence it has through a person's life and if it can be altered is remained to be determined. This is not something that is clear cut. Otherwise, twin studies would show both go gay rather than one not. It's still a mystery.

I don't support this law one bit. Even if the treatments are regarded as "unscientific", then I'm guessing hypnotic or Freudian clinics should also be banned, right? Now, if you pass a law requiring the treatments become more ETHICAL, that's another story, and I'm completely in support of that. When it comes to Psychology, it's a tricky "science" and does not always fit into the realm of the science we normally think of. Not everything is numbers and measurements. Even things like Behavioral therapy have so many variables involved. It's not as simple as "If I do this, then this will happen" sort of deal.

Except, no reason exists why homosexual people would need 'treatment' in the first place.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

How is the law not good?

First off, a lot of the clients either A) possibly don't really want to do this but were guilted into it from their parents poisoning their minds and/or B) threatened to have to do it or go to hell etc. The harm these types of practices, correct me if I'm wrong, which I've heard otherwise, is pretty substantial.

Secondly, if we are to say that people aren't "born this way", we must assume that they are born, still, or possessing, the causality to produce such attractions. Psychology may not be measurements, but there indeed variables and causes. This kind of therapy is not only of a perverse nature in what it is attacking, but it is extremely counter-intuitive, hence the total cures being "rare". The confusion, difficulty, and misunderstanding of how psychology works is dangerous all by itself.

Hypnosis and "Freudian clinics" at the very least have a psychological and ethical standard to which it is adhering to.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Except, no reason exists why homosexual people would need 'treatment' in the first place.

Well, if someone feels they need treatment for homosexuality what reason is there to deny it?

If they want to go through the treatment they should

 

[theeboredone]

Show me some of that research boy.

Sure. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the actual research itself, but you can gain some idea from the abstracts or titles what the research implies. Also, after learning a few things myself, it's amazing how the media spun one study into this whole belief that you can be born gay.

Spoiler

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10213693?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10328731?dopt=Abstract

http://open.salon.com/blog/djohn/2009/05/12/american_psychological_association_no_gay_gene (APA stating that there is no gay gene)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html (Look through the idea of a gay gene)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c52_1332882030&comments=1 (This is essentially criticism on the study by Hamer that got the "gay gene" out into the public)

http://www.narth.com/docs/bornway.html (consensus of what I believe based on several studies)

So no, you are not "born" gay. You might be more prone to it just like how you can have a genetic factor that can make you more prone to alcoholism or drug addiction. However, it's not 100% true yet that there is a gay gene. I will stick with saying there might be elements to it though.

Except, no reason exists why homosexual people would need 'treatment' in the first place.

Okay? That is your personal belief. I agree with Pscyho. If someone chooses to go straight, and is having trouble doing it on his own. You can get treatment for it. This is why I have a problem with Cali banning it. Like I said, I don't agree with any unethical treatments, but to ban it also because it's "unscientific" is the weakest crap I've heard given how many other "unscientific" treatments exist these days.

How is the law not good?

Read my earlier post or this one.

First off, a lot of the clients either A) possibly don't really want to do this but were guilted into it from their parents poisoning their minds and/or B) threatened to have to do it or go to hell etc. The harm these types of practices, correct me if I'm wrong, which I've heard otherwise, is pretty substantial.

Keyword, A LOT. NOT ALL.

Like I said, on CNN, the guy being interviewed said it's up to the client. If he is pressured socially, that's not the fault of the doctor. However, there are still clients that do come in who want to change, because they want too. He also claimed their treatments are "ethical" from a health perspective. I personally do not believe him, but given they are suing the state, we'll see where that goes.

Secondly, if we are to say that people aren't "born this way", we must assume that they are born, still, or possessing, the causality to produce such attractions. Psychology may not be measurements, but there indeed variables and causes. This kind of therapy is not only of a perverse nature in what it is attacking, but it is extremely counter-intuitive, hence the total cures being "rare". The confusion, difficulty, and misunderstanding of how psychology works is dangerous all by itself.

Yes, just like how people are born with a predisposition to alcoholism, pedophilia, and among other things. The only difference is that people will differ in labeling "homosexuality" as being a disease. I personally do not think it's a "disease", but does that mean a treatment should not exist for it? I will say it again, so long it's ethical, there should be no problem with it. That bill is contradicting itself so hard, it's just California proving it's stereotype of being overly liberal.

 

[Teran]

I think this bill is the right call if only because these are minors, let them decide on their own. Pretty much all of the patients here are undoubtedly children if ****wad parents.

Also trust me, even if sexuality isn't set in stone from birth and genetics, something happens somewhere to anchor it, because trust me if anything I was born to be straight, so much so that I still try to seduce women regardless.

 

[Froggy]

I'm against this. If I were a teenagers and hated my homosexual desires then I should have the right to seek help for it. Yeah, the therapy might not work but it really can't hurt either.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

It can't hurt? Now that is definitely not true. You can **** up your entirely life thinking you're straight when you're as queer as queer can be.

 

[theeboredone]

That's implying there is nothing you can do about your homosexuality. Once you're born with it/obtain it in life, it's over, and that's it.

That's as shallow as saying genetics play no role, or that therapy is 100% success or something.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well, no, that actually doesn't imply that. It implies that it can hurt you, which Froggy was saying the opposite, to which I was disagreeing with.

 

[theeboredone]

You're right, I missed the "can".

...

Change your font color. xP

 

[Holder of the Heel]

People always tell that to me. T___T Smash Boards people are so MEAN!


I'll think about it, I guess. This is the first time someone complained about this one.

 

[theeboredone]

I was just messing with you. I can see it clearly. I just missed the "can" in general. I guess it also depends on what sort of skin you have set up on SWF.