Comments on: Three Things You Should Consider About CA’s Proposed Ex-Gay Therapy Curbs

By: Donny D.

Donny D. — Tue, 01 May 2012 05:19:04 +0000

Andrew wrote,

At least we don’t apply standards of “proof of membership” in our community.

Well actually, yeah, we do. Too many lesbians and gay men do this to bisexual people. And too many LGB people question whether transgender/transexual people really belong in the same community with (cisgender) LGBs.

And for at least the last 20 years, left of center LGBT people too often have wielded a political purity test against conservative LGBT people as well as libertarian ones.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:24:13 +0000

Palmer, you’ve never seen “funny” until you’ve seen a comparatively small, historically oppressed community go at it. At least we don’t apply standards of “proof of membership” in our community. Can you imagine the horror of that picture gallery?

By: Ian

Ian — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:27:53 +0000

Here are some of the things that are not banned and they are harmful:
1.Religion – do i need an example?
2.Tobacco
3.Guns – why not use tasers/tranquilizers?

I would have agreed to allowing SOCE to take place as ‘religious counseling session’ if the family were shown videos of the harms that could be done, just like what one would have to go through when getting an abortion.

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:09:54 +0000

How about this? Those parents who refused to listen to sound medical or psychiatric advice, and instead relied on ‘faith healing’ so to speak, and their child incurred serious harm, were subject to criminal action. Depending on what harm was caused.
Parents have just as much of an obligation NOT to harm their children as medical and psychiatric professionals do.

The onus here, is on the parents, if not the ‘spiritual’ advisor as long as said parents ARE informed that such faith healing has the potential of the opposite effect.

I think it’s just as fair to put out such warnings, they are extremely important. And NOT just a matter of OPINION, but sound professional expertise.

I can only think of one case of where when a mother went to her Mormon pastor about what to do with her 14 year old son being gay, he flipped her mother bear switch.
Rather than have her son, who SHE knew was sweet, funny, talented and especially very funny, and crazy about his family…she wasn’t about to let a minister tell her that her son was an evil agent of the devil and doomed to contract AIDS.
That her son was already lost to the wiles of the Dark One and she should consider putting him a Mormon based, conversion institution.
Which is what the minister told her MUST be done.

They aren’t so fire and brimstone these days. But it’s not like the agenda isn’t the same.

I think serious warnings for parents and others is warranted. Definitely.
And showing what the tragic outcomes have been when forcing young people to bend to the will of such things.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:32:46 +0000

Timothy said “And as to your comment about ‘religious-based “therapy”’, the reason you have to put it in quotes is because that is the only way your claim is true: if it is not therapy at all.”.

It’s not therapy at all – all major mental and physical health organizations have stated that and any unbiased rational intelligent person can see that as well.

By: liquid

liquid — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:37:41 +0000

It may not exactly be a moral decision, but it’s close. I used ultrasound guidance because the primary argument of those opposed to it is “that’s not how i’ve always done it, and i’m a doctor dammit, don’t tell me how to do m job!” The congruence seemed apparent-a regulation to prevent professionals from causing undue harm in their patients because of their “preferential beliefs”.

By: Palmer

Palmer — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 04:52:26 +0000

And I thought Republican infighting was funny.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:39:08 +0000

However, I am fairly certain that there is not a segment of the population for whom this is a moral decision and for whom all other forms of treatment are unacceptable.

Not long ago, you could have said the same of gays who committed suicide after the humiliation of being outted.

And yes, you DON’T know anything about “ultrasound for non-emergent central line placement”. Because you’re not qualified or trained. Because you would cause more harm if you attempted the procedure than could ever be offset by the remote possibility of your untrained success.

You know, like some unqualified, untrained person mucking about in the brain of a child using techniques debunked by the rest of your profession as “harmful”.

That’s kind of the point.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:34:57 +0000

Tim: let me be clear – ex-gay “therapy” isn’t “therapy” – it’s a political movement.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:55:57 +0000

liquid

I know nothing about “ultrasound guidance for non-emergent central line placement”.

However, I am fairly certain that there is not a segment of the population for whom this is a moral decision and for whom all other forms of treatment are unacceptable. If, however, that is the case, I would suggest that the more dangerous treatment is preferable to no treatment.

Although there are certainly those who say that the religious or ideological objections of others are of no concern and that laws should be passed which endorse my view and prohibit all others. You will not find me among them on this or any other bill. Even if it impacts ultrasound guidance for non-emergent central line placement, whatever the hell that may be.