LGBTQ+ Rights and America

I am not advocating for unsafe methods. I have previously given rules what I believe should be enacted for conversion therapies, but I shall repeat now them:

1. Informed consent, with an age of consent sort of thing similar to sex.
2. Safely and humanely done.
3. Peer reviewed tests into the treatments effectiveness with results that are required to be told for informed consent.
4. No restrictions on what orientations the treatment will be used on either by those implementing it or legislating it, so no one can turn someone away for wanting to become gay rather than wanting to become straight.

My point actually is that if they were sticking to generally applied, already existing, ethical constraints within the field they would already not be able to practice, and we actually have better methods to hand when it comes to counselling, the efficacy of which is, however, still undergoing evaluation in this particular field.

They're getting around the rules and muddying the water horribly using out-dated and discredited means, and I loathe that, as those very restrictions on those methods are there for incredibly good reasons. We don not need to collect evidence on how disastrous some of their methods are with a case-by-case study, as it is already known and has been demonstrated, repeatedly.

Ergo: shut the whole lot down, and stick to other means of counselling, letting only those who volunteer the now-accepted way (including full disclosure) for experiments have a go. Full stop.

That was what I was getting at. The means are in place, and this ban will, with luck, shut down the quacks. Or, at least, make 'em quack quieter.

edited 9th Oct '12 5:42:17 AM by Euodiachloris

Ah, I see. My problem with laws legislating against conversion therapy is that they're like using a rifle to pop a blister. Sure, I want the blister gone, but it's going to take a lot with it. If we can find a therapy that would fulfil the four requirements I stated, I see no reason to stop it. I do see a reason to stop the current techniques, and think we should stop them. However, we shouldn't stop them with a blanket ban on conversion therapy.

Why do you even need new laws? Do you guys not have laws against false advertising? Child abuse? Unlicensed practise of 'medicine'?

Indeed. We could merely find any number of laws that apply to these sorts of situations, and apply them, rather than making a new law.

Thinking about it part of the problem could be gathering enough legal evidence. After all how many people come out of being forcefully subjected to conversion therapy in a good enough state to go to the police and start pressing charges? (honest question).

We already have something proven safe and tested to be successful in all those areas:

Self Identity and Individualized traditional therapy. Polarstern could explain this better than me so PM her about it.

But basically it's just like traditional therapy in form, except they center on first helping the individual recognize their existing traits: physical, mental, and emotional, then address what the person doesn't like, why, and then prepare a specific treatment plan to attack the full scope of te problem.

For example: Someone thinks they are ugly because they are fat. The therapist will help them identify other positive traits about themselves, as well as why they think they are ugly. It could be this person is a compulsive eater to handle their depression from years of bullying. Or they could be eating so their body fat is a deterant from attention should they have been abused as a child.

So, the therapist will try to walk them through this process and begin to help heal their pain and get them to a healthy place before they set them up with a personal trainer and a dietician.

Again, it's not just about solving the problem of being fat, it's understanding why that person feels that way and helping them reach a healthy state so they can solve their full health problems, not just one element.

And that is the sort of therapy that should be used for people who are unhappy that they're gay or lesbian. Therapy that identifies the underlying issue. Not just something that tries to quick fix one issue without dealing with anything else.

Sally Ride died early "because she was gay", according to the Family Research Institute.

Apparently being a lesbian makes you more likely to develop cancer.

edited 10th Oct '12 2:45:06 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

well, abortions give you breast cancer too. In short Not being an obedient, heterosexual married woman who stays at home in the kitchen will kill you of cancer.

It says a lot that my first reaction to that wasn't "Huh, wtf?" but "Sally Ride was a lesbian?" I want to say this shocks me but it really doesn't.

Attempting to exploit the death of a true American pioneer to further an agenda of lies and ignorance. They have sunk to a new low. Reprehensible. Utterly reprehensible. Who do the FRI think they are? They've never done anything to contribute to the well-being of humanity or advancement of knowledge, and they choose to target their bigotry on an actual hero? Frak. Them.

edited 10th Oct '12 2:52:21 PM by Lawyerdude

My dad died a month before Ride did, of pancreatic cancer. I guess my dad was a lesbian? If I ever meet one of these people, I think I'll do to them what Buzz Aldrin did to that moon landing skeptic.

It's right here. Right Wing Watch linked directly to the FRI site in their article.

Yep. That they did. There's a reason that they're called a hate group. Because they lie and slander and incite violence to disenfranchise a minority.

@Starship: Yeah, they'll do that in both cases. Sally Ride did a lot of cool things...but she was gay, so those cool things don't count. Gay kids kill themselves a lot...but they're gay, so who cares?

This is why I'm a liberal, an atheist and kinda pissed off.

edited 14th Oct '12 11:59:08 PM by drunkscriblerian

You're an atheist liberal because of the behavior of a handful of extremists?

I think he's an atheist liberal in response to the thinking those extremists embody.

I also started to give up on religion and become a liberal atheist in part because of the beliefs and behavior of Christians as well. Basically my thought process went, "If this is what Christians are like, then I want no part of that." And over the last few years, every time I started to think that Christianity might have something to it, I would turn on the TV or read something new, and I'd veer right away from it again.

In the political sense, I could not be a member of a religion that would require me to cast a vote against my own conscience and judgment, and I will not be a member of an organization that espouses beliefs that I find to be morally objectionable.

The title of this article is a little off the mark, but only a little: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/15/1011491/boy-scouts-grouped-gay-leaders-child-molesters/

Basically, the Boy Scouts keep files on people who they have under investigation or who they have ousted from the organization due to moral failings, which include molestation and homosexuality. The organization could oust someone for homosexuality.