I think Kincaid is arguing that the harms supposedly caused by reparative therapy (I think they do exist, but more on that later) do not warrant this level of legislative interference in the mental health profession. Especially since the mental health profession seems to be divided on how helpful the law will be as it is written. It’s a good argument.

Parents do a lot of perfectly legal things that cause children long-term harm. For example, forcing children to pursue a life that meets parents expectations and goals instead of allowing a child to pursue his or her own goals is very often harmful. Constantly putting down a child and destroying their self esteem on a regular basis is extremely harmful, but sadly common in households. But should there be LAWS passed against such parental practices? And what good would these laws do?

What kind of precedent would it set? Faith healing is perfectly legal as well. That’s quackery too. Faith healing makes me sick and think there’s a special spot in hell for charlatans who use it to scam people (not all faith healers are scammers, they actually falsely believe in their powers, but some certainly are deliberately deceiving people).

But if you start to ban faith healing, what other doctrines and religious practices are we going to ban? Perhaps we should also ban churches that preach the personally transformative power of prayer, since science hasn’t proven the existence of a Holy Spirit, and to promote such things is just quackery.

Kincaid claims that the studies do not show conclusively that there is harm in reparative therapy. I actually disagree. The Shidloe and Schroeder study did not claim that reparative therapy WILL cause harm, but that it CAN cause harm. Which is true, because the study documented the kinds of harm that it can cause. But do these harms warrant an entire body of law that inserts the State Legislature into the mental health profession? Wouldn’t it be better for the mental health profession to debate the topic and then set ethical standards?

And Kincaid also points out, rightly, that many children are not necessarily kicking and screaming not to go to these therapies. They, too, may accept the argument that they are sinful. Not all Christian teens are Zack from the LIA debacle.

Now we can talk about parental pressure, social pressure, homophobia in society, etc. But these are SOCIAL and POLITICAL questions that may not necessarily be solved or adequately dealt with by this bill.

Kincaid (I know I’m speaking for him when he can speak for himself)possibly believes that it would be better to deal with these problems through education, activism and public campaigns against reparative therapy instead of a law, which is a specific way of dealing with the problem.

Let me also add that I am often appalled at the dearth of affirmative pastoral counseling resources for LGBT teens and newly coming out LGBTs. We don’t just need SECULAR counselors, we need PASTORAL COUNSELING as well. But usually the needs of religious gays are on the backburner of LGBT politics.

And yes, “WE” (love the scare quotes) do know exactly how destructive trying to change a person’s sexuality is.

My problem is very clearly explained. Incidentally, it has nothing to do with snake handlers. And while “We” may KNOW all sorts of things, the APA task force did not agree with what “We” KNOW.

Damn, does that make me an apologist for the American Psychological Association? Oh drats!

Other forms of therapy are not so connected to political action based SOLELY on this single feature of sexuality.
Clinical approaches require accurate and confirmed diagnosis in order to optimize success.
Attacking homosexuality is a wrongful diagnosis to begin with. Therefore, NARTH’s therapy would be wrongful to use,RISKING negative outcomes.

Again, they are helping to create the pathology they profit from. What other profession is allowed to do that legally and ethically?
So why should ex gay therapy get a pass at all?

SOCE does not exist in a vacuum. It’s a key element in the relentless campaign to assure that gay people “know their place” by feeling inferior, ashamed, ostracized, and lonely, and will thus desperately seek a change that will never happen. It’s a win/win for the campaigners: They get to feel superior, righteous, and powerful, while enjoying the peace of mind that comes with “knowing” that change is not only possible, but that it’s the fault of the gay person if it’s not achieved.

We KNOW coercive psycho-therapy is damaging, but hell, wrap it up in “the name of God” and to hell with the consequences!

This law DOES NOT stop parents from harming their kids with threats of hell and damnation, it just doesn’t allow LICENSED practitioners to do it. SO WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM?

Former Baptist pastor, Seminary/College instructor-Baptist and AG [And yes I remember clearly, have their sermons and teachings describing the Bible as being against integration as a plot of Satan and Communism etc.]

If you read this and disagree ask yourself why a kid of 12 to 16 “chooses” to be gay and kill themself or try to kill themself because they are? Your true sexual orientation was not a choice and neither is theirs.