Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in the LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion Thread
.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:53:59 PM
Well, seeing as "parents" tend to force their children into this, there's the right of said children not to be abused.
Now we just have to contend with the "yer takin away mah religious freedoms" mob. The same ones that won't let the government do anything about the bullying epidemic.
edited 29th Apr '16 5:48:17 AM by Morgikit
The person who enters "conversion therapy" feeling guilty and conflicted about their sexuality is not to blame, necessarily, but the parent who sends their child into such therapy to "pray the gay out of them" should be criminally prosecuted and forfeit their custody rights.
Either way, the therapy itself should be banned because it is proven to be harmful and to have no benefit. In other words, give it the same consideration that we would any other medical procedure.
edited 29th Apr '16 6:18:56 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Would you apply that standard to homeopathy or faith healing, as long as it's adults who are doing the homeopathy etc and not their kids?
I should really emphasize, I'm not saying paternalism is wrong.
edited 29th Apr '16 6:22:48 AM by garridob
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.![]()
![]()
Absolutely. Those have no medical benefit and carry significant risk of harm through negligence. Now, again, you can't (nor should you) stop someone from praying for themselves or their loved ones, nor can you prosecute them if they don't voluntarily go to the hospital. But we do have plenty of precedent for temporarily restricting someone's freedom by providing medical treatment when they are seriously ill.
Edit: Speaking personally, if you, as an adult with legal agency, decide that God's going to cure your strep throat and refuse medical treatment, you're an idiot who probably deserves to be removed from the gene pool — but that ignores the fact that you were probably indoctrinated to believe that way, and may not necessarily be mentally competent to make the decision. Erring towards the benefit of the doubt, we should give you medical care and then worry about your feelings.
A person who, as a business, advertises the provision of homeopathic or faith-healing services in lieu of professional medical care should be barred from doing so and/or prosecuted, just as a person who offers any fraudulent or knowingly harmful service. Again, it's about context. If you sell someone essence of cauliflower in a bottle as a novelty, it's not inherently a problem. However, if you market it as treating or curing a disease, even by implication, you're committing fraud. If you back your way into it by making a big deal about how modern medicine is a scam, you are a lying asshole who should go to jail.
Back to the topic: conversion therapy in any shape or form is inherently fraudulent, because it purports to "cure" or transform a gay individual into a straight one, something that is not medically possible (as far as we know). It conveys the implication, not supported by medical literature, that homosexuality is an illness or defect that can or should be cured. Moreover, it violates the Hippocratic Oath by inflicting harm (physical or psychological) in the course of a phony treatment.
edited 29th Apr '16 6:36:40 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Not illegal, because that is patently absurd. (How do you prosecute a successful attempt?) A person who attempts to kill themselves, who does not meet the criteria for voluntary euthanasia (an incurable and unconscionably painful illness, for example), should be presumed not to be of sound mind and can have their legal rights superseded for the sake of providing crucial treatment.
Interesting; I did not know that. Imminent self-harm should be probable cause for police intervention even if it's not explicitly a crime, though.
edited 29th Apr '16 6:47:54 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Fighteer,
Suicide is illegal. I'm not sure there's a clear way to separate this from euthanasia, which I also think should be legal. I know the legal hurdle for euthanasia is incurable diseases, but I'm not sure that's good enough. What if you're incurably depressed, for example? (Exactly what happened to David Foster Wallace, btw.)
In other words, I think we should be very careful limiting adults' rights to do stupid things. Especially since our own ability to be "certain" of the "truth" is so limited.
So, on topic, it seems to me that paternalism can be justified for homosexuals wanting to undergo therapy, but it is still necessarily paternalistic.
edited 29th Apr '16 6:58:28 AM by garridob
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.As noted, suicide is illegal not because we want to throw people in jail for it, but so that law enforcement has the authority to intervene and suspend your legal rights in order to treat you. The simple fact is that a person who is sufficiently depressed may find a way to kill themselves regardless of our attempts to stop them, but that doesn't mean we should de facto permit it.
The distinction between "allowing adults to do stupid things" and "preventing suicide" is valid, if somewhat fuzzy. One might argue that skydiving is a stupid thing, but we recognize the distinction between "extreme sports", which despite their name are conducted with safety equipment, and self-harming behavior that conveys no social or entertainment value. For example, we don't permit bloodsports even if those are technically voluntary, and if you want to run a skydiving or bungee jumping business, you must obey safety regulations.
You use "paternalism" like a buzzword. I don't do buzzwords. Let's discuss specifics, m'kay?
edited 29th Apr '16 7:01:54 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Which is really stupid and is not practiced today, as I understand it. The one exception I can think of is insurance payouts, because it's too easy to commit fraud by taking out a policy on yourself and then drinking a gallon of bleach.
Paternalism : the attitude or actions of a person, organization, etc., that protects people and gives them what they need but does not give them any responsibility or freedom of choice
This is what Merriam Webster says. ^
I'm not saying it's bad, once again. But I am saying it's dangerous. Maybe we do need to protect homosexuals from themselves, but it's always a trade off. One reason I don't like paternalism (or the v-word) is that minorities are often most at risk and thus most eligible for paternalistic solutions. And well, the trade off is responsibility and freedom of choice.
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples."Society is going to beat you up, torment you, tell you that your existence is sinful, so if you don't feel like putting up with that, you can kill yourself and we won't argue." What the actual fuck?
edited 29th Apr '16 7:17:34 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Banning adult homosexuals from seeking gay conversion therapy would seem to meet the standard for paternalism. Ie, taking away the right to make bad choices.
Once again, I'm not saying that this paternalism is wrong. I'm saying it's a judgment call based on how much paternalism you're comfortable with.
edited 29th Apr '16 7:24:38 AM by garridob
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.![]()
And again, you throw around "paternalism" like it's some kind of axiomatic negative. "It's paternalistic, but it's okay in this case." That's a statement with no semantic value. You aren't trying to persuade a crowd of voters in this forum.
edited 29th Apr '16 7:24:39 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Is there a meaningful distinction? Most gays who want this sort of thing already leave the country to get it, at least that's what the rationalwiki article earlier said.
Fighteer, I explicitly said paternalism is NOT an axiomatic negative. I'm sorry if this disturbs you.
edited 29th Apr '16 7:31:11 AM by garridob
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.Any gay who's so miserable that he would search out a conversion therapist would find one. You could make that kind of therapy illegal, but he'd probably still look for it.
I never considered conversion therapy for myself. I thought I'd either just grow out of it, or become accustomed to it. I never grew out of it, so I just sort of float with it.
I suppose the better choice would be to tell them that It's Okay To Be Gay, but you couldn't get me to vouch for it considering my awful luck with guys.
edited 29th Apr '16 7:31:43 AM by Keybreak
You gotta believe me when I scare you away, all that I wish for is that you would stay

More broadly, there are many "choices" people can make that we can and should prevent because they carry a high risk of harm and no observable benefit. Conversion therapy, homeopathy, faith healing, abuse of hard drugs, jumping off buildings, etc. That is not to say that we should make them criminal offenses, unless one attempts to force or induce someone else to do them.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"