Judge blocks ban on gay 'conversion' therapy

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Judge blocks ban on gay 'conversion' therapy


latimesblogs.latimes.com

U.S. District Judge William Shubb ruled that the new law, SB 1172, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown earlier this year, may inhibit the 1st Amendment rights of therapists who oppose homosexuality.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
WTF??????

A shrink's right to freedom of speech trumps the rights of people to not be pressured into taking quack "therapy"??

I guess ther is a minor ray of non-gloom in this in that it is a temporary injunction:


The judge signed a temporary injunction that prohibits the state from enforcing the ban, the first of its kind in the nation, against the three plaintiffs in the suit pending trial.


& personally I hope the substantive trial throws it out once and for all!

latimesblogs.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


What pressure???
Do gays not have the right to counseling if they desire it? Whose rights are you saying violated?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dakota1s2
 





Whose rights are you saying violated? (sic)


It's in the title of the thread



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dakota1s2
 


Anyone who thinks that "gay conversion therapy" is a valid technique has obviously been pressured because of all the BS that accompanies it.

sure you can waste your money all you like - as long as there is truth in advertising!



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieJesus
 


So what's in the thread? Who's rights are being violated? Anti-Gays????



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by dakota1s2
 


Anyone who thinks that "gay conversion therapy" is a valid technique has obviously been pressured because of all the BS that accompanies it.

sure you can waste your money all you like - as long as there is truth in advertising!


Why make such an inane statement? Where's the obvious pressure???



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Honestly the only reason i think it should be banned is because from what i've gathered. The thing is a brainwashing scam.
If it wasn't for that it would be as ridiculous as forcing the Boy scouts to let in gays.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dakota1s2
 

I think he is making the assumption that the only places these programs are in place and promoted to is through religious institutes. So if you've been hearing your whole life that what you feel, god considers wrong. You might feel a tiny bit(sarcasm) of pressure. I think that is what he means. And i completely agree with him on that.
edit on 4-12-2012 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
This is absolutely ridiculous. It doesn't matter whether or not a therapist is opposed to homosexuality. What does matter is that all research says that kind of therapy causes damage. We don't practice trepanation anymore because it is ineffective and dangerous. If any doctor was caught practicing it they would be charged with malpractice at the very least. So why do these quack's get a buy when their "therapy" is also ineffective and dangerous?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dakota1s2

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by dakota1s2
 


Anyone who thinks that "gay conversion therapy" is a valid technique has obviously been pressured because of all the BS that accompanies it.

sure you can waste your money all you like - as long as there is truth in advertising!


Why make such an inane statement?


Because
1/ it is not inane, and
2/ it is true.

Happy to help you deny ignorance on that point.



Where's the obvious pressure???


so now the pressure has to be "obvious"?? shifting hte goal posts shouldnt' be quite so obvious!!


But since you ask - from the link -


The former clients said they were emotionally scarred by false promises of inner transformation and humiliating techniques that included stripping naked in front of the counselor and beating effigies of their mothers. They paid thousands of dollars in fees over time, they said, only to be told that the lack of change in their sexual feelings was their own fault.


and

An industry of “reparative therapy” clinics and men’s weekend retreats has drawn thousands of teenagers and adults who hope to rid themselves of homosexual urges, whether because of religious beliefs or family pressures.


Again - happpy to have improved you knowledge in this area
edit on 4-12-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
This is belongs in the past in the dark ages. And has caused significant harm, not only to those who willingly went along, but to those forced into by their families and dependents/youths.

It was made illegal for a reason. What judge would ever have the right to block the ban of this.

That's like saying "waterboarding" shouldn't be illegal because it takes away the constitutional right of CIA members to choose this way of interrogating if they prefer it.
edit on 4-12-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


WTF??????

A shrink's right to freedom of speech trumps the rights of people to not be pressured into taking quack "therapy"??

I guess ther is a minor ray of non-gloom in this in that it is a temporary injunction:


The judge signed a temporary injunction that prohibits the state from enforcing the ban, the first of its kind in the nation, against the three plaintiffs in the suit pending trial.


& personally I hope the substantive trial throws it out once and for all!

What if they WANT reparitive therapy? they can't get it because you don't believe in it.

latimesblogs.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Some people have been helped by it.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Hillarie
 


The same could be said for lobotomies. That doesn't change the fact that for most people who receive the treatment it is ineffective and harmful.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
There seems to be a lot going on here it is kind of confusing. I understand the ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors, but dont understand how that is a violation of a therapists rights. It doesn't mean a therapist cant disagree or dislike homosexuals, it just means they cant force a patient to undergo conversion therapy. I dont believe therapists are supposed to be forcing any therapy to begin with. I believe if a homosexual truly wants this type of therapy they should be allowed to get it. The problem with that is where do you draw the line between truly wanting it and being coerced or coaxed into it, especially when the patient is a minor.

I assume this is being done to eventually get a supreme court ruling and getting a higher court decision that cant be challenged or something. Not a surprise to see the person making the claim is a preacher, which is funny considering a couple of other active threads here.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
This is belongs in the past in the dark ages. And has caused significant harm, not only to those who willingly went along, but to those forced into by their families and dependents/youths.

It was made illegal for a reason. What judge would ever have the right to block the ban of this.

That's like saying "waterboarding" shouldn't be illegal because it takes away the constitutional right of CIA members to choose this way of interrogating if they prefer it.
edit on 4-12-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)


Wow, you said something concise, coherent and correct.

(sorry, I kid.)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

First I think we should take a look at the bill itself....
SB 1172


This bill would prohibit a mental health provider, as defined, from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts, as defined, with a patient under 18 years of age. The bill would provide that any sexual orientation change efforts attempted on a patient under 18 years of age by a mental health provider shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall subject the provider to discipline by the provider’s licensing entity.

..and further down in the bill


865.1.
Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age.
865.2.
Any sexual orientation change efforts attempted on a patient under 18 years of age by a mental health provider shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall subject a mental health provider to discipline by the licensing entity for that mental health provider.

You can use the link above for the full text.
We recognize that those under 18, in most cases, do not always have the knowledge or life experience to make potential life changing decisions. This law was designed to protect those minors from procedures that have been determined to have been harmful. It also appears that it is directed more towards school counselors. These are people that were not specifically picked by parents and the position they hold was designed to be one of support. This does not prevent adults from choosing this type of therapy it only makes it illegal to use such therapy on a minor. The bill itself also appears to present proof of the type of damage this type of sexual orientation therapy.
The judge is now blocking what I feel is a necessary step to protect minors from undo harm and his reasoning seems flawed in the light of the actual text of the bill. People are certainly free to express opinions but I'm not sure this specific type of therapy is appropriate for minors. If you had a son or daughter that was under the age of 18, maybe even as young as 10 or 11, would you want someone you didn't hire and didn't know advising your child? Even subjecting them to humiliating and questionable therapy tactics?
Judges are supposed to be impartial and this ruling doesn't seem impartial to me.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Myth024
 


I disagree, I think the judge that is temporarily lifting the ban is doing the right thing. The reason I say that is by lifting the ban for now and bringing it to another decision they will be able to finally do the real right thing and make sure the original ban sticks for good. I believe they are doing it with the intention of eventually getting the ban to be permanent sooner than later. Regardless if the ban was lifted now or 6 months from now eventually someone would have challenged it, and in doing so now they can make it so it can't be challenged again.

This is just my supposition though. I think it is all legalese manuevering, but with the best outcome ultimately in mind. That being the original ban reinstated permanently.

How many times can I repeat myself? I am guy who repeats himself too many times.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Hillarie
 


Just curious..... if a shrink that convinced you they could turn you gay, do you think it would work.





top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join