I'm sorry, but don't you liberals like to say what someone does with their own body is between them and their doctor when it comes to abortion. So why isn't this the the same way. If a 16 year old girl wants and aborition and has parental permission, she can get an abortion. But, if the same 16 year old girl wants to try to solve her conflict between her religious beliefs and her sexual orientation with her parents permission, then that's illegal.

And before the rest of you want to attack me, I do not think that you can go to therapy and convert into not being gay. My point is, however, you cannot mandate that in some cases of health, the decision be left open to only the doctor and the patient, but in other cases, have the government put itself inbetween the patient and doctor.

Therapy is not the same as someone claiming they can cure your "gayness".

STLMike, it wold be easier to cure someone of religion or politics. Those are choices.

And of course a sixteen year old is going to make her own choice, not the one she is being pressured into by family, church, or peers. Don't you remember what it was like to be a scared kid?

But no 16 year old was ever pressured into having an abortion by her parents, peers, church and regretted it, right.

But 16 year olds are allowed to have an abortion if their parents agree. How is this any different?

Mike, it's also therapy that is NOT sought out by kids but is force on the kid by the parents. It's been proven harmful and ineffectual "therapy" and is NOT accepted by the APA.

This debate is not about abortion, Mike. This is about forcing teens into a process of bogus treatment to cure them of something which is natural to them and for which treatment in fact causes damage instead of curing it.

The "abortion" argument is flawed. You guys are still looking at homosexuality as if it is something to be cured, or gotten rid of.

Wow, you all need reading comprehension lessons. Again, do I think this type of therapy works? No. But should it be my place, or the place of the state, or anyone else for that matter to tell someone they cannot do it. That was my point.

I know abortion is not the topic here. But it is relevant in that those that support abortion say that its a medical decision, not a moral one, that should be left between a Dr. and a patient. If someone also see this as a medical issue, not a moral one, should they not have the same right to pursue the medical treatment they see fit. This type of treatment is only being outlawed for those under 16. Those over 18 can seek if if they want. This law blatantly makes the assumption no one under the age of 18 can make their own decisions or think for themselves. That is simply not the case.

STLMIke - Again, do I think this type of therapy works.

That's curious given that the largest "ex-gay therapy" group, Exodus International, has admitted that it doesn't work and is harmful.

STLMike: This bill covers therapists licensed by the state. Resolving religious conflicts seems to be the job of religious clerics, who are not licensed by the state. Trying to conform to religious dogma is not a matter for mental-health treatment. Failing to conform to religious dogma is not an indication that someone has a mental-health problem.

This is all about money and the money being made by these quack, fringe "therapists". These right wing religious fanatics make a living selling this gay cure snake oil and now the state has made their type of psychological abuse illegal. These crazily hypocritical conservatives simply want government involved in promoting THEIR religious and moral agenda. Its the same old story: Yeah, these conservatives want a small government, small enough to fit in your bedroom and hide under your bed. If some parents decide to outsource family discipline say, and take their children to be beaten by some cleric or religious figure, is that OK ? Hey if parents want to hire out the abuse of their children, then what?...that's their right?? I don't think so!!

Bluelake - These right wing religious fanatics make a living selling this gay cure snake oil and now the state has made their type of psychological abuse illegal.

One point - people who aren't licensed mental health therapists can still engage in this practice. It's really a religious practice anyway and has never been considered legitimate therapy.

STLMike

Or pressured into keeping the baby. If you look at an issue, look at Both sides, not just yours.

Just BEGINNING to think that? You should be ashamed of yourself. Don't you remember Dan Quayle?

A minor in the State of CA does NOT have to have permission of her parents to have an abortion, or to keep her child, or to have her parents notified of her pregnancy unless they obtain a signed release from said minor. Like it or not, when a girl becomes pregnant, she is considered an adult in matters of her healthcare decisions. Oh, and by the way STLmike, I was a single father with sole physical custody and no child support because my girlfriend wanted her baby, and then didn't because she felt that she was too young to "handle" it. (And before you go there, I never was on assistance, welfare or food stamps. I met my responsibilites and exceeded them!)

STLMIke -

But, if the same 16 year old girl wants to try to solve her conflict between her religious beliefs and her sexual orientation with her parents permission, then that's illegal.

If the 16-year-old wants to discuss her conflicts with a therapist who is open-minded, concerned with the welfare and best interests of the 16-year-old, and not intent on advancing their own agenda, they are always free and welcome to do so.

The PROBLEM is that the people (almost always right-wing anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-choice, RePUG religious conservatives) seeking to provide the so-called "therapy", have no interest in that 16-year-old's best interests, if the 16-year-old discovers he or she is gay. The so-called "therapists" are there to advance their own religiously-based anti-gay agenda.

A 16-year-old seldom has her own innate religious beliefs; those are implanted in him or her by adults. What that 16-year-old DOES have is an innate sexual orientation, and one that cannot and will not be "changed" or "altered" or "reversed" by so-called "therapists".

A medical person has an obligation above all else to "First, do no harm". The damage these psychotic religiously-based "therapists" do to conflicted young minds who are already potentially suffering hate and rejection from their own families and friends, is incalculable.

The so-called 'therapists" clearly are biased and have a religiously-based agenda, one that is grievously harmful to their young, anguished patients.

The therapist is not supposed to be there to advance any agenda at all.

The therapist is not there to tell the patient that "being gay is 'harmful' to you" (it isn't, at all).

The therapist, rather, is there to help the patient to come to their own personal understanding. The therapist has to accept whatever outcome that patient comes up with on their own, provided it is not physically violent or harmful to the patient or others. The therapist has to stand by, accept the outcome, let the chips fall where they may.

Where that same 16 year old girl wants to try to solve her conflict between her religious beliefs and her sexual orientation, the therapist has to accept the reality that "religious beliefs" have to lose to sexual orientation.

But, if the same 16 year old girl wants to try to solve her conflict between her religious beliefs and her sexual orientation with her parents permission, then that's illegal.

Actually STLMike, the therapy needed in this situation would not be to change her innate sexual orientation but rather to change her chosen religious beliefs.

Socially liberal fiscally moderate Democrat here.

I have to say that Mike, on the surface, has a valid point. There is a seemingly hypocritical feeling to the notion of banning "gay cure" therapy vs. allowing abortion for teenagers from a parental perspective. Having said that, I reconcile that difference by looking at the permanancy issue from the INDIVIDUAL'S perspective. The act of having an abortion is a temporary situation that "might" have a few long-term consequences including regret. The act of performing "gay cure" therapy is both immediate AND long term with documented cases from "cured heterosexuals" that they still struggle with homosexual urges. In short, the abortion situation is short term "cure" and the lady moves on though some will occasionally have regrets. The gay cure situation actually doesn't seem to make one heterosexual so much as learn how to deny one's homosexuality and, as such, isn't really a cure at all plus there are unknown factors regarding how much psychological damage may have been inflicted.

It may sound like I'm advocating FOR abortion and AGAINST "gay cure" therapy. The truth is that I oppose both abortion and "gay cures". I simply point out that the abortion might be much less destructive and therefore the two situations are not equal for comparison.

STLMIke--you might want to read the bill. This bill forbids PARENTS from placing their children in a specific gay-conversion therapy program and therapists from forcing said abusive program onto children. The therapy is banned because it has no grounding in science.

The banned therapy involves documenting and physically punishing children every time they do something "gay"--isolating them from all persons who encourage them to act "gay"--and subjecting them to humiliation and verbal abuse for not converting and instead "choosing" to remain "gay."

Do you remember the little boy who was sent to California recently--radically underweight, having been withdrawn from school and made to do "disciplinary" exercises daily? That's "ex-gay" therapy. Beating children daily is "ex-gay" therapy. Shrieking epithets at children and threatening them with damnation daily is "ex-gay" therapy.

That is, it's kind of hard to tell "ex-gay" therapy apart from "abuse." All the parent needs is a "medical professional" to endorse it, to terrify the child into saying that s/he is participating "voluntarily," and some of the worst abuse you can imagine suddenly becomes "legal." It is a very specific form of abusive behavior that has been banned. People who are Islamic are also banned from having a doctor do a clitoridectomy, whether or not the child "asks for it." Not everything can be done in the name of religion.

That being said, this law also very specifically allows therapists to engage in dialogue (what they call a "talk cure") with adolescents who are struggling with their sexuality and very specifically allows therapists to discourage adolescents from expressing their sexuality by becoming openly homosexual. The law also does not prohibit adults from choosing to subject themselves to the kind of torture that is this specific form of ex-gay therapy if they so choose.

Most states have a parental notification law in place for girls seeking an abortion. While it might not be in place for 16-year-olds in some places, that's because 16-year-olds in those places typically are over the age of consent. On the other hand, this same 16-year-old cannot join the military, cannot drink alcohol, cannot get a tattoo, and can't see an NC-17 movie (though not that long ago, 12-year-olds could get married). So, your parallel here is foolish. In matters of sexual activity, children are considered autonomous at a certain point because sexual activity is a perfectly normal part of life (rather like eating, drinking, and going potty) and adolescents have a habit of experimenting (though I don't think that they should); in terms of making other decisions, they are still considered children with parents who are responsible for their well-being. This is the way it has been for a while now--it's not as though liberals suddenly invented exceptions.

Again, try reading the law. It doesn't actually exclude the things you think it excludes. It only excludes this one specific sort of therapy, which is abusive. It does not exclude teaching children coping mechanisms and walking them through the ramifications of choosing to act on homosexual desires when they know that this will cut them off from their entire families as well as the community that they grew up in. It might be in the best interests of teens to learn to be celibate and silent on their sexuality until they are old enough to cut the apron strings and make their own decisions.

Try making sure that you actually understand a law before you pop off about it.

Meghan-2348751 - Shrekk, you're a moron, Mike obviously stated he DOESN'T believe it works. His answer to "do I think this type of therapy works" was NO.

You're right, I misread STLMIke's comment.....perhaps because the rest of his comment was so off-base.

Do I believe this kind of therapy is effective? Maybe, maybe not...it probably depends on how you define effective and how it's all conducted. Do I believe some applications could be abusive or lend themselves to abuse? Sure. But a blanket prohibition? How do you even define or know what's prohibited under this statute and what isn't?

It would seem to me that everyone involved would have to concede that sexual attraction and sexual orientation are a real grey area. How do we even define sexual orientation or go about defining it? I daresay everybody will have stray thoughts or sexual fantasies that would never go further. Does one thought make you "gay", or a hundred? A thousand? Wouldn't it seem to be some kind of a spectrum, where some people by nature would never even think of certain fantasies and others would be at a loss to keep from fantasizing? All kinds of factors can play into all of that, and trying to draw lines legally would inherently result in all kinds of questionable and absurd results. Should we pigeonhole people and define them by perceived sexual orientation, decide for them that they're going to be a certain way for the rest of their life and they have no control over it? Of course not.

The mind and heart are a very tender area, especially in adolescence. It would seem very odd to me if people who can change in so many ways over time and be affected by so much would be absolutely immutable in terms of sexual attraction. It would seem to me that people find their feelings, their triggers, their predilections changing over time or with different thoughts or experience. How we process things is as critical as the thoughts that occur to us in the first place. Now, certainly, some impulses or predilections--especially when it comes to sex--are incredibly powerful and can tend to dominate a person's thinking and behavior, especially once a person starts acting on those impulses or predilections. Certain people are, perhaps, more inclined by nature and experience to develop or indulge certain predilections than others, or to develop them more strongly. But who are we to judge all that when it comes to others? This law requires mental health providers to be exactly that arrogant and make such evaluations and distinctions in such a grey area. The only way they could avoid running afoul of this law is either to validate wherever these issues might arise and proceed as if they're immutable or not to do any counseling or discussion at all in this area, regardless of what therapeutic benefits it could potentially have. All of which would be absurd and run counter to any reasonable and realistic conception of sexuality and attraction.

What about religious leaders? If they try to counsel with a teen regarding these kinds of issues and aren't sufficiently supportive of a homosexual or other such lifestyle, even at the teen's request, will they be prosecuted or lose their professional credentials or even their own children over charges of "child abuse?" If the law forces them to refuse counseling to teens, aren't they effectively being silenced and denied free exercise of religion and the right to express and live in accordance with their religious beliefs? If they are given some kind of religious exemption, won't people complain about them--perhaps without any particular qualifications--being allowed to do what qualified mental health professionals aren't? Would making such distinctions bar any mental health practitioner from acting as a religious and spiritual leader, or make him or her totally ineffective in any religious leadership role they were in? Wouldn't that run afoul of the ministerial exception as affirmed in Hosanna-Tabor? Would some teens and some parents be discouraged from seeking any professional counseling at all because no counselor could offer any help or guidance consistent with their beliefs? For all the quackery out there, isn't it possible that a teen struggling with his or her sexuality could have plans and desires for his or her life that aren't consistent with a LGBT lifestyle? This law would not allow any teen any professional comfort and support in such dreams and plans. I'll grant that parents would be more likely to be urging counseling than the teen in many cases and that there are a whole lot of people out there who would do a really shoddy job of this kind of counseling. Teens at that age, as likely as not, just plain confused, trying to figure out themselves what's going on in them. But painting everyone with the same brush and criminalizing any counseling that doesn't promote the LGBT lifestyle seems to me to be going way beyond what our federal constitution allows.

As a matter of law, this statute seems to me a legal disaster waiting to happen. As a matter of public policy, it's pernicious, dangerous, and could only have limited utility. How prevalent do people think this is, anyway? It would seem to me that any situations that raise flags of abuse the government should respond to could be addressed under other statutes and be handled case-by-case without any need for a statute like this.

@ Lamarquise thank you for the thoughtful and concise post. You raise many issues that many prefer to overlook in their push for their agenda, one way or the other. Laws of this nature will inherently be the cause of future issues when defnieing when the law is actually broken and thus punishable.

The fact is that a very small percentage, about 3% based on recent studies, are trying to control the remaining 97% of this country! The homosexual alliances are forcing their own beliefs on many religious groups and more conservative non-religious. This is not the first situation that these individuals have forced their agenda on others, and will not be the last! In certain California schools "gender confused" children have been given the right to use the other gender's rest rooms and even showers!

Why do our liberal representatives throughout this country treat the massive majority of citizens like they have absolutely no rights over raising their own children? There are schools which allow underaged, girls to be brought to abortion clinics to have serious medical procedures without their parent's knowledge! Liberals always have thought that they know better, and now they will do whatever they wish because they "care" and are obviously the smartest in any room! (Please understand the extremely hight levels of sarcasm and contempt that are oozing from my keyboard)!

BTW, I have absolutely nothing against any individual because they are gay! I have several gay friends and they are absolutely against many of the ridiculous over-reaches that the militant homosexual lobby have been trying to get away with! They believe that families are the basis to all societies and they want the same protection for heterosexual families as they want for their own!

I agree Dan,

And look where we are as a nation. A moral sewage getting wider and wider. But libs hate truth. They can get mad, but conservatives are not allowed to discuss reasonably their opinions.

Simply put, these evil quacks that fail at brain washing these children and it leads to the children committing suicide should then be held accountable to the state for second degree murder/manslaughter for aiding and abetting the child to murder themselves and the parents should also be able to sue the quack for wrongful death fo any undisclosed amount the jury decides to award them.

Oh Dwight...lets see...conservatives: why is it they are the ones that kill doctors at abortion clinics or shoot up people because of their neo nazi, extreme conservative beliefs??? SO full of hate you people are....so many think liberals want to convert or pollute....scared much? yes, I know this is the extreme fringe but do you like to be grouped into that extreme category? And many liberals are not extreme...but you group all of them together with your comment....the TRUTH? You conservatives are the most out-of-touch people living in a bubble I have ever seen....Truth cannot penetrate your extreme views, your religious out-of-touch views....your anti-women views, your anti-gay views....this is 2012 conservatives, wake up.

Can we focus on the real issue of this law here and discuss things rationally rather than throwing around a lot of accusations? Please.

STLMIke

Wow, you all need reading comprehension lessons. Again, do I think this type of therapy works? No. But should it be my place, or the place of the state, or anyone else for that matter to tell someone they cannot do it. That was my point.

You are right: it is not your place, or the place of the state, or anyone else to tell someone they cannot participate in this nonsense after they become adults. When people reach of the age of consensual majority, they can submit themselves to whatever quackery they want. But minors cannot be, and that's the law. Parents with moral objections to medical treatments are not allowed to withhold them from their children. The pray-the-gay-away "therapy" (or whatever method is used) has been proven to be medically harmful, and therefore parents may not avail of it for their minor children.

Is this law necessary to address that harm? I'd respectfully suggest that it isn't, and that a therapy doesn't necessarily have to support the LGBT lifestyle to be therapeutic and helpful. Can we be sure that a similarly vulnerable population has less incidence of harm without a specific kind of therapy, and how do we legally define that kind of counseling without dragging in other methods or whatever that may be legitimate and helpful? I'd suggest that this is far too murky an area to be sure enough of causation to make people criminals over it, and that it would be an exercise in futility to try to define prohibited counseling methods or techniques justly.

Lamarquise - Is this law necessary to address that harm?

The direct "harm" is that it's a religious practice not a recognized legitimate psychological therapy.

Every relevant medical society considers it malpractice, ineffective and potentially harmful, and now the CA professional licensing board has caught up to that fact. We don't let psychiatrists exorcise demons for the same reason.

Your favorite witch doctor at your church is still free to practice this nonsense on your kids, perform exorcisms, etc.

I think that these "cures" are pure BS as well, but I also believe that parents, not the government, should have the right to chose the "care" their children receive. Government should bug out of these personal decisions, however wrong-headed they may be.

Expat...well how about we cure Lesbianism in teenage girls by having men rape them until they decide they enjoy it? As long as the parent says that's okay, it's fine by you, right?

PJI is backed by Dobson and Focus on the Family, the DC-based extremist right wing group.

First thing. A law should not be judged upon its intended effect but rather its unintended consequences that effect a small group of people. You can't simply pass a popular law and trust that the intentions were good so the law will not have problems. Patrick, we'll use your numbers and say for a moment that 6% of gay people are gay due to molestation. This type of law infringes upon their rights to make medical decisions.

Trying to protect the majority of people that are harmed by an action while infringing upon the small group that is helped by the action goes against many of the protections set up to make sure the majority cannot remove various rights from a minority group. A person under the age of 18 yet in the teenager years should not be treated as a possession by either side of this debate. This type of decision should be left to them. You can't protect those pressured into deciding to go through this therapy by removing rights from others that want to go through such therapy. This is true even if there are only a small number of individuals who want to go through such therapy.

Second thing for everyone. Stop thinking of sexual orientation as a binary function. It's not you're gay or you're straight. There is a spectrum of sexuality as evidenced by the multitude of individuals who are attracted to both sexes to varying degrees. So, statements such as "a person can/can't choose to be gay" are rather pointless because it depends upon the person to which you are applying the statement. There are both straight and gay individuals that can't choose to be straight or gay because they fall to far on one side of this spectrum. There are however, other individuals in the middle of the spectrum that have decided to be one or the other. I had a friend in this category that was initially gay but decided (in his own words) that "gay men were too needy for him so he's switching to women". As I recall he's still happily married to one.

So, when making statements regarding this point, please make them properly and say things such as "a person has an innate sexual attraction to either members of the opposite sex and/or members of the same sex that is difficult if not impossible to change for most people". Being gay/straight has the connotation that you sleep with members of the same/opposite sex. Sexual attraction is an innate characteristic that does not always line up with behavior. My friend would be defined as straight regardless of his innate sexual attraction due to his current behavior. So, saying he couldn't choose to be gay (with gay meaning sleeping with a member of the same sex) would be incorrect or at least confusing terminology.

doggysaywhat - Stop thinking of sexual orientation as a binary function. It's not you're gay or you're straight. There is a spectrum of sexuality as evidenced by the multitude of individuals who are attracted to both sexes to varying degrees.

True, but that doesn't make this quackery legitimate or any less harmful.

STLMikey, you're also missing another BIG thing in the bill. It only applies to LICENSED THERAPISTS. Unfortunately the religious quacks can still provide the illegitimate "therapy" as long as they are not licensed. So there you have it. Your answer to having the ability to instill quackery into children's minds is preserved but you can't do it if your licensed by the state. So you can't say that the "cure" you homophobes offer is medically sound. Which it isn't at all.

Dwight... you claim to know the Bible (a flawwed term in and of itself since there are dozens of versions) and then talk about "context".

First of all, directions on how to dash disobedient children's heads against the rocks as sanctioned by the God of Abraham is IN the Bible. (Most versions, anyway - including the most often quoted King James). There is no "context" out of which to mis-quote it.

The concept of indentured servitude ("slavery") is addressed a few times by (the alleged) Christ. His comments seem to both condemn AND support the institution of slavery - an answer one might expect from a polititian of the day (or today!). During the American Civil War, BOTH sides were quoting verses from the SAME BIBLE to prop up their opposing positions.

Guess what? You can find a passage in the Bible to support almost anything you want. Handling venemous snakes, refusing medical attention, abusing your children or animals if it pleases you, lying, stealing, killing, beheading....whatever you want. So let's toss that worthless book out of this debate right off the bat.

Did I say "debate"? Sorry. What I meant to say was our discussion where me and my side will offer logic, reason, scientific fact and common sense. And without your precious, contradictory "Bible", you and your side offer...what, exactly? Here, let me help you with that: Hate, prejudice, ignorance, falsehoods, outright lies, human stubbornness, brainwashing, threats and all manner of nonsense. Oh, wait...that's what you have to offer WITH your "Bible" too...how convenient!

If I am a "lefty", then I am very VERY proud of it if you clowns are the alternative.

Skrekk the point is not whether the action is harmful to most but whether you are allowed to take away a right from a small group to protect a larger group. If another legal action can be taken that does not infringe upon the rights of the smaller group, that option should be chosen. For most, this type of therapy will be harmful and should not be performed. However, there are testimonials from other individuals that say this therapy has helped them. Even if those individuals are small in number, if the law passed takes away their rights, it's a bad law regardless of the intention towards the majority. This is even more true when there are other means to pass such laws without infringing upon the rights of the smaller group.

If the intention is to prevent teenagers from being forced by parents to undergo therapy they do not want, then a better law would be one in which medical rights were more in the hands of the teenager then the parent. To take it one step further, the law could be made such that the success rate, side effects, etc. are explained to the individual by non-biased medical personnel. This type of law would be as effective as the current one in preventing forced therapy but not infringe upon the rights of the smaller group that wants to undergo such therapy.

Secondly. There are many things which would be defined as quackery and quite possibly harmful. Many forms of alternative medicine would fall under this category. However, they are still allowed because individuals have various rights to make medical decisions. Even bad ones. Teenagers should also be afforded similar rights instead of being thought of as property of the parent or state.

This type of therapy is simply child abuse and anyone defending it is defending parents who would beat their children as well. Psychological damage is just as bad as physical, I would know. My parents did both.

And actually, the psychological damage is something that has taken far longer for me to heal.

Seriously though - would any of you be arguing that it would be ok for parents to beat their children in a way that leaves permanent damage?

doggysaywhat - the point is not whether the action is harmful to most but whether you are allowed to take away a right from a small group to protect a larger group. If another legal action can be taken that does not infringe upon the rights of the smaller group, that option should be chosen.

That's complete nonsense and irrelevant. The issue here is one of medical standards and malpractice. Every relevant medical association considers this to be malpractice, ineffective, and harmful. The state has an obligation to have its licensed practitioners comply with established medical standards.

You're still free to take your kid to your local witch doctor to exorcise the gay demon, but a psychiatrist can't pray away the gay or practice exorcism and expect to keep his license. "Ex-gay therapy" is a religious practice, not medical science.

I'm still waiting for people to prove and provide evidence that this is damaging...more damaging than the other "reasonable" or "accepted" alternatives. All I'm hearing so far is allegations. Can the damage be tied to the therapy as opposed to this complex dilemma and this particularly vulnerable group of kids? If so, how? Sometimes facing up to issues is naturally a whole lot more painful than ignoring them or just giving in at the first hint of temptation. I'm not making excuses for parents or "therapists" who can't handle these issues and show a pattern of cruel and demeaning behavior towards kids. As I said, I think those cases could be handled through other statutes or legal means. I think the more typical case is of well-meaning but clumsy parents who are extremely distressed and looking for anything to latch on to in relieving their own immediate pain. (I don't think it helps that any time people talk about these issues, the slightest hint of same-sex attraction is equated with "practicing or soon to be practicing homosexual.") They want an immediate fix, a fix their own religious doctrine should teach them comes in God's own time and according to his will, not ours. But we shouldn't cry child abuse at the slightest hint of stress or pressure on the child, either. How much pressure do other parents put on kids to achieve at school, or in sports or music or other activities, or take other steps? Is California going to declare all that criminal child abuse too?

How do we even know that the behavior sanctioned by the law is the same studied in whatever evidence people relied on in concluding that whatever therapy practices were truly damaging as opposed to mainly painful? How do we know the law isn't overly broad to try to catch everything, like most criminal statutes? How is there any assurance that others who, even if they aren't doing any good, at least aren't doing any serious harm, wouldn't be sanctioned for the excesses of a few kooks? Even so, I ask again how this statute is an appropriate or constitutional way of addressing the problem?

I never claimed that it was medical science, nor have I ever defended the practice as having a high or even moderate success rate. Additionally, if this was an issue regarding malpractice, it would have applied to every individual as opposed to simply teenagers. It does not. A psychiatrist can apply such therapy at 18 and up without any effect upon their license. So, one can't really claim this law is about medical practices.

Secondly, the point above is quite relevant because this law has its roots in the very action stated above. Protect a majority group by removing rights from a minority one. The under 18 aspect was put in because it would be more likely to pass as compared to a law that extended to the whole population.

Thirdly, you just proved an initial point brought up by someone above regarding religious practices. Are licensed therapist allowed to engage in a religious practice? Are teenagers allowed to participate in a religious practice? If it's a religious practice then there would be a level of protection against governmental interference as long as all individuals participated willingly.

Finally, you just demonstrated a very important point which I didn't cover. The effectiveness of such laws. An additional measure of a law should be its effectiveness in achieving a set goal. As written this law is completely useless in achieving any other goal then making the initial writers of the law and voters feel good. As you stated, this type of therapy can still be performed under the name of a religious practice. If a parent is going to have their teenage undergo this therapy, having it performed by a psychiatrist or a priest won't make much of a difference. Hence, all this law does is waste money in its creation, implementation, and legal suits that arise due to it. These measures would again indicate that the law is a bad one.

You might as well pass a law that limits a man to one wife. Oh, what? They did? Nevermind.

If it were up to conservatives, we would still be bleeding patients to cure all their ills.

Doggy,

Exactly who's rights are getting taken away? The parents can still use this practice, just not with state licensed officials. Current state licensed officials can still practice, this they just have to turn in their licensure and practice it out of the home or a church. Parents can still force this on their children through themselves or their churches.

They AREN'T outlawing the PRACTICE. It's like phrenology. People can still practice Phrenology, just not in a state licensed medical capacity.

Furthermore, if the government has a compelling reason, they CAN make laws that limit the rights of one group. That's why Christians can "spare the rod and spoil the child" and Muslims can't stone women to death, and all the other crazy religious, fundementalist, nut jobs can't do their fundementalist nut job, things.

This kind of "therapy" is CHILD ABUSE. PERIOD.

It's done by schiesters who have no training at all.

Why would anyone want to block the ban?? CRAZY.

Bart Conner - Why would anyone want to block the ban?? CRAZY.

Apparently some of the nuts at NARTH sell their snake oil in California. One of the lawsuits was brought by such a quack.

Personally I hope these cases go to trial because the bigots never fare well when their junk science is reviewed by a court. Usually it happens the way it did in Prop h8, where they failed to even present a case and their chief witness actually testified in favor of marriage equality. But usually it goes down like it did in the Florida gay adoption case when George (RentBoy) Rekers of NARTH was put on the stand......and was subsequently laughed out of the courtroom.

For Sarah, the parents rights are not what is in question here but the teenagers rights. If a teenager elects to undergo this type of therapy for whatever reasons, this law will interfere with that. Now, there may only be a handful of such individuals in all of California. But, this type of law still restricts their medical choices. This law attempts to protect teenagers from being forced to undergo this therapy by their parents. But it does so in a very inefficient fashion that intrudes upon the rights of a smaller group. As you just stated, this practice is not outlawed. So, this law has failed to achieve any sort of goal other then costing money to create and defend it against all sorts of lawsuits.

As I stated above, a law that gave teenager more medical rights would have accomplished a similar if not greater level of success and not had the unintended consequence of intruding upon the rights of the smaller group.

After I'm back I'll address the point regarding spare the rod and spoil the child.

Doggy,

Wow, can you comprehend what you read at all??? You know, simply saying "this does this" or "this does that", doesn't make it true. You have to SHOW that, with credible evidence.

If a teenager elects to undergo this type of therapy for whatever reasons, this law will interfere with that

Again, they're not banning the practice. A teenager can seek it out from whatever source, NOT LICENSED through the state, they want to.

. But, this type of law still restricts their medical choices

This isn't medicine, it's religion, and they are free to undergo it in churches or homes.

This law attempts to protect teenagers from being forced to undergo this therapy by their parents.

No it doesn't, seeing as parents can still force their children to go through this. This law legislates what, STATE LICENSED, medical professionals can do.

The parents can still send them, the teenagers can still seek it out. Your position is weak, at best.

I guess, in order to understand this, you'd have to have passed both Civics 101 and a basic science course. I highly doubt you've done either.

After I'm back I'll address the point regarding spare the rod and spoil the child.

Don't bother, as I'm guessing it will be as illogical as the rest of what you've said.

Sarah, I've had numerous ethics courses as their required for doctoral studies. They're also required for Caltech physics graduates. I've also published as first author in credible scientific journals. Trying to insult qualifications of someone you're arguing against demonstrates an inability to understand their argument or an inability to provide a counterpoint to their argument. When you do such things, it only diminishes your position.

Perhaps you should read some of my previous postings on other subjects to get a better idea of my knowledge base.

Now, back to the argument. You demonstrate the very point I've argued in a previous post. The ineffectiveness of this law. This law doesn't outlaw the practice therefore it doesn't accomplish any sort of meaningful goal. If you have some number of people that will force children to go through this procedure, you can still have that same number go through this procedure and it's now called a religious ritual. A far more effective law would be one in which teenagers were afforded more rights then they currently have. So then what does this law ultimately accomplish? You can't actually practice medicine without a license so the purpose of deciding what a licenses medical professional can do is to restrict that procedure from being performed by a non medical professional or to stop that procedure all together. I highly doubt that a clergy member would be any more successful then a medical professional with this theory so the purpose of preventing a medical practitioner from performing it would be to stop the practice.

Secondly, as I said before, the law must be judged on the very points you claim are weak because those points are the ones that ultimately cause damage later on. There have been numerous laws passed with good intentions that ultimately caused severe harm for a small group of people. Sex offender registration laws are a perfect example of this seeing as urinating in public can put you on such lists. An important point has been made previously that this law could very well be applied to a therapist dealing with an individual who has been molested and has sexual identity issues. It's those cases for which this law must be judged.

Thirdly, regarding your point of showing. It is the job of those writing the law or those attempting to change something or restrict something to demonstrate both why it is needed and how it can be done to avoid intrusion upon various rights. This includes the rights of a teenager and the rights of the medical practitioner. Applying partial restrictions towards obtaining a procedure intrudes upon individual rights in the same way that forcing a person to undergo such procedures intrudes upon their rights. It's falls upon those writing the law to demonstrate how this doesn't partially intrude upon such rights. This law could very well find itself upon the doors of the supreme court and they could apply similar levels of rigor as they do with laws which attempt to restrict access to abortions or marriage rights. They would weigh personal freedoms against a states right.

This argument you are using "they can still obtain the procedure" is the exact same argument applied to marriage restriction laws, abortion laws, and others. Their justification for passing such laws is that they don't outlaw the procedure, they simply legislate licensing in their state. If that is the basis of your argument, it's as weak as those above.

Now, finally for the spare the rod and spoil the child. Those really apply to individuals that are younger than teenagers. Individuals younger then teenager or those before puberty don't have as developed a mind as a teenager. Hence it is more appropriate to restrict actions. A child will protest against eating vegetables as well as getting hit without a full understanding of their rights. Hence governmental intrusion in that area is acceptable to prevent abuse. However, when dealing with a teenager, their cognitive abilities allow them to have a better understanding of procedures, actions, and their rights. So, by simply applying some restriction on a procedure or forcing someone that procedure you infringe upon their rights.

With regards to stoning, in those cases individuals that don't want to be stoned are having their rights infringed upon. Religious rights do not extend towards removal of rights of another individual. That is the whole basis of arguments against allowing all forms of religious freedom.

doggysaywhat

For Sarah, the parents rights are not what is in question here but the teenagers rights. If a teenager elects to undergo this type of therapy for whatever reasons, this law will interfere with that. Now, there may only be a handful of such individuals in all of California. But, this type of law still restricts their medical choices.

It's because a minor teenager cannot give consent to a dangerous and ineffective and damaging "medical" procedure that has been established as being non-medical by the medical community. If a gay teenager really wants to try and change his/her innate sexual orientation (which he/she can't), then that teenager can wait until the age of majority. A few more years won't "hurt." "Reparative therapy" is not a "medical" choice. It's quackery. No minor should be allowed to participate in it. Adults can do whatever stupid thing they want; minors cannot.

But Jerry that's the exact point I'm bringing up about minors. A person at the age of 18 has no more ability to understand the consequences of their actions then when they were 17. There isn't a switch that flips on to make them suddenly have the mental capacity of an adult. Hence, restrictions placed upon them can have the consequence of removing rights that they should be entitled to.

And again, you make the very important point of effectiveness of laws. If the person can decide to undergo such therapy at the age of 18, what has this law accomplished? All it seems to have done is provide legal roadblocks for a small group of minors without actually solving any problem. One of the reasons for it to be considered a bad law.

Furthermore, minors can actually give consent for medical procedures. Many medical practitioners will not perform various procedures if it is against the minors will.

Here is a rather useful article that discusses some of the rights of minors when it comes to medical procedures.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/4/gr030404.html

There is a rather useful section concerning a "mature minor rule" which basically gives minors the right to consent to various procedures without parental consent.

Doggy,

If you're actually getting a Doctorate, then why are you referring to this as MEDICINE and TREATMENT, seeing as all CREDIBLE studies have shown that it isn't. You would be laughed out of any doctorate program.

You do realize that the government has ALREADY shown that this causes harm and isn't science, right???

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html

http://www.counseling.org/PressRoom/NewsReleases.aspx?AGuid=b68aba97-2f08-40c2-a400-0630765f72f4

Even the guy who came up with it, admits it...

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/science/120518/dr-robert-spitzer-retracts-gay-cure-reparative-therapy-study

There's the government's reason. If the credible evidence has shown it to be faux science, that actually does more harm, then good, and the state gives out the licenses, the state has a compelling reason to make sure they're giving them to people who practice medicine that helps, not faux science harms, seeing as the state also has an interest in keeping the citizenry healthy.

You should also, then be able to tell the difference between a Licensed Medical Professional, and a parent. Again, I've noticed, all you did was post your position, and NOT A SINGLE AUTHORITY. You've yet to show, substantively and not just through assertion, how rights are being limited.

Let's try this, if you can do this, you may have a point about how rights are limited here... Quote where this law, bans teens from undergoing voluntarily, or being forced into this type of treatment. Quote where it tells parents they can't force their kids into it. Then quote, where it says you can't practice this type of therapy, via a church or a practice, without a state license. In fact, quote where this is banned at all.

It's really not that hard. If you're working on a PhD, you should be able to grasp this.

This argument you are using "they can still obtain the procedure" is the exact same argument applied to marriage restriction laws, abortion laws, and others. Their justification for passing such laws is that they don't outlaw the procedure, they simply legislate licensing in their state. If that is the basis of your argument, it's as weak as those above.

Seriously? And you really want us to believe you're getting a Doctorate? You're missing the the fact that A: This is dealing with state licences, not civil rights and B: There is proven harm here, where there isn't in any of your other examples.

The rest of your post about stoning and sparing, is NOTHING BUT YOUR OPINION. Well, in actuality, ALL of your post in nothing but your opinion.

It seems, you have no authority, to make your case with.

For Sarah. What you've missed is that state licensing is one of the various means by which states can restrict certain rights. We can take abortion for example and the various restriction placed upon licensing. It has for all intents and purposes removed the ability to obtain a procedure within certain states. So yes, it does become a civil rights issue because it makes attaining something difficult or out of reach. That same argument you used for state licensing is the exact same one used in the abortion case, the marriage case, and many other cases which end up in front of the supreme court. Many of these have been shot down even though the argument has been that it's a states rights or a states licensing issue. Recently, voting ID laws are coming under similar scrutiny. It has been shown in various cases that states do not have the ability to remove certain rights and call it a states rights issue.

If you had bothered to actually read my posts you would have seen that I never stated that this procedure didn't cause harm in most cases. That's simply one of the many measures by which to judge a law. In fact, my post primarily focused upon how this law doesn't actually prevent harm because it doesn't fully restrict the procedure. It does place roadblocks towards attaining it for a small group of people. These types of laws are methods by which states attempt to restrict a procedure that they can't fully outlaw. It's actually a very underhanded approach by the state to remove something without actually making it illegal.

I'm well aware of the studies that have shown this procedure to be poor in efficacy and often results in harm. However, there are many activities which cause harm and they are not similarly restricted. Read below about 3 or 4 groups down for a discussion regarding homeopathy and alternative medicines which does have proven harm when they are used instead of medical practices aimed at treating a disease.

This becomes a question of whether the state is allowed to create barriers towards an activity and whether those barriers should be changed for minors which do demonstrate mental capacity of adults in many cases. I would suggest reading my above posts regarding the "Mature minor doctrine". You can also read about it on Wikipedia if you like. In many cases minors have the ability to make such decisions at the same level as an adult. That is not my opinion, but an established legal precedent based upon the very points I mentioned above regarding mental capacity. I don't believe that you're actually reading or digesting my posts because if you did, you would not have call that legal precedent an opinion.

Finally, no Sarah... it is not an opinion that an individual that is stoned against their will is having their rights infringed upon. It's also not an opinion that restricting such actions at a state/federal level is protecting the rights of an individual... The right to life in this case.

If you believe those are opinions instead of the basis of many of our laws...I would strongly suggest that you take a constitutional history course.

Doggy,

That same argument you used for state licensing is the exact same one used in the abortion case, the marriage case, and many other cases which end up in front of the supreme court

It has been shown in various cases that states do not have the ability to remove certain rights and call it a states rights issue.

Yes, and none of those have had compelling reasons for the government to pull the license, or intrude. This does, again, it's been proven harmful and not science or medicine.

This: Reason.

Those: No reason.

Do you see the difference? You can only claim this is similar, if A: You can prove that this isn't quack science, and that it IS actual medicine that does good, thereby the government has no reason to intrude. Or B: You can show that there IS a reason for the government to intrude in your examples.

If you had bothered to actually read my posts you would have seen that I never stated that this procedure didn't cause harm in most cases. That's simply one of the many measures by which to judge a law. In fact, my post primarily focused upon how this law doesn't actually prevent harm because it doesn't fully restrict the procedure. It does place roadblocks towards attaining it for a small group of people. These types of laws are methods by which states attempt to restrict a procedure that they can't fully outlaw. It's actually a very underhanded approach by the state to remove something without actually making it illegal.

That entire paragraph, is completely contradictory, to your position.

If you had bothered to actually read my posts you would have seen that I never stated that this procedure didn't cause harm in most cases.

Well there you go, you just admitted, that the government has a reason to be concerned with this, since they license people who may practice it and it causes harm in most cases. That the state has shown it isn't medicine, and they give out the medical licenses.

In fact, my post primarily focused upon how this law doesn't actually prevent harm because it doesn't fully restrict the procedure.

So, you admit, that teenagers and parents still have access to this "therapy", right???

Let's put it together, shall we.

So, if you admit that the state has a reason...

If you had bothered to actually read my posts you would have seen that I never stated that this procedure didn't cause harm in most cases.

And the kids/parents/churches still have access...

In fact, my post primarily focused upon how this law doesn't actually prevent harm because it doesn't fully restrict the procedure.

Who's rights, are again being infringed on?

So, our mature minor doctrine...

The mature minor doctrine is a statutory, regulatory, or common law policy accepting that an unemancipated minorpatient may possess the maturity to choose or reject a particular health caretreatment, sometimes without the knowledge or agreement of parents, and should be permitted to do so.^[1] It is now generally considered a form of patients rights; formerly, the Mature Minor Rule was largely seen as protecting health care providers from criminal and civil claims by parents of minors at least 15 years of age.^[2]

^{Has, what to do, with whether this is credible science, and whether the state has a reason to not license it??? Seeing, as YOU have admitted that this law DOESN'T ban the the practice in general, your mature minors, can still choose to undergo it.}

^{That has NOTHING to do with whether, this is credible science and should be licensed by the state.}

^{P.S. Precedent deals with CASE LAW, not statutes. What were you saying about a course on the Constitution?}

Oh, and Doggy, using more words, doesn't make you any smarter sounding. Anyone who takes the time to read through all that tripe, can see how illogical it is. Stop PLAYING doctorate student. You'd be laughed out in a heartbeat.

Sarah trying to sound insulting doesn't actually win you points in an argument. As a matter of fact it weakens your position when trying to convince someone of another view or on the fence regarding the position. Those activities in an argument only gain you brownie points with those that already agree with you. They don't gain you much support of those with opposing views or those that haven't made a decision. You simply sound petulant to those groups.

To answer your question of whose rights are being infringed upon, the 16-17 year old that wants such a therapy and now has various restrictions placed upon obtaining it from certain people. Those rights are the ones being infringed. Their rights to participate in an activity that does not harm anyone else but possibly them. Your claim that their rights are not being infringed upon is invalid because partial restrictions are infringement regardless of how small they seem to you. They are not small to those they effect. You have not addressed this issue other then to claim it's not infringement. That same specious argument is used all the time to restrict access to various activities and only holds weight to those that already agree with your argument. Even if the activity causes harm in most cases, it's still restriction of an individuals rights. If the potential harm is centered on only the individual that decides to participate in the activity and they're well aware of the risks, then governmental intrusion isn't warranted even if that intrusion is through partial restrictions and not full restrictions.

With regards to point A and B. The government already does not intrude in various activities which are quackery and potentially harmful. From below, homeopathy and alternative medicine are similarly quack science and do cause harm in many cases. This isn't restricted in the sense that it's against the law for a medical professional to participate in them. It's not endorsed by the FDA. For B, the examples of alternative medicines are cause for concern due to the harm they can potentially cause. Specifically in regards to cancer treatments.

Furthermore, you have just admitted that the law doesn't ban the practice so again, if the law doesn't appear to do anything useful, what was the purpose in the first place? If it was to dictate what was supported by the state as a valid medical procedure, then the state could have simply added it to a list of procedures not supported by science and not considered medical and avoided the lawsuits that have already arisen. So one of these two things are happening. Either the law is pretty much pointless except for costing money to deal with lawsuits or it actively inhibits an ability to perform an action. Both of which have problems. So, which is it?

Now, for the mature minors point. The mature minors doctrine is based the idea that minors have some ability to make decisions for themselves. It simply applied in medical matters because those were the cases that arose. Do you believe they do not apply to non-medical matters? If so, then the parent could force their child to do just about anything under the guise of not being a medical matter. If however, a minor has the ability to make certain decisions for themselves, this applies to decisions for which you disagree with them. It also applies to decisions for which the majority disagrees. Especially if the decision only has the potential to harm them.

With regard to your contradiction statement. The paragraph was in no way contradictory with my position. The fact that you believe that implies you didn't understand my position in the first place. The law as is does not restrict the procedure entirely so it fails on the protective aspect. It makes it more difficult for a minority group to participate in an activity so it fails on the aspect of not infringing upon the minority groups rights. These things are true regardless of whether or not the practice is harmful of scientifically sound. We allow people to participate in harmful activities that are not scientifically sound as long as they are aware of the risks and of sound mind. My argument is that various teenager should also be afforded such rights because their mental development is nearly identical at the age of 17 or 18. Government stepping into to restrict such things should be done far more carefully. It should be avoided entirely when an alternative law can be written.

Finally, one thing to be aware of in doctoral studies in the sciences is that you must become very familiar with an opposing viewpoint. This is mainly because your thesis committee will take those positions with regards to your research. An ability to analyze an argument, break it down into pieces, and address each point instead of simply calling it illogical is extremely important to your committee. An example of you doing such things would be to address the issue of alternative medicines not being restricted in a similar fashion even though they are still quackery and can be very harmful. An example of me doing this is to address your argument of non-infringement. I did so by demonstrating how restricting access to a therapy or treatment in even a small way can infringe upon individual rights.

To answer your question of whose rights are being infringed upon, the 16-17 year old that wants such a therapy and now has various restrictions placed upon obtaining it from certain people.

Age of legal consent. Don't like it, lobby to lower it (joining the pedophiles).

Oh, hey, I lumped somebody in with pedophiles who doesn't belong. Now I know what the homophobes feel like all the time.

By the way...argumentum verbosum ring any bells?

Doggy,

Seriously, this isn't that hard.

So, you're basically saying that, the state should HAVE to license, every kind of quackery, for convenience sake, to emancipated minors that might want to undergo, said quackery? Even though not licensing said quackery, doesn't ban the practice. Said quackery is knowingly harmful. Said quackery is NOT medicine.

(Quick aside... Did you see how I was able to say that in LESS then 500 words?)

It's only a restriction of rights, if the right to partake in it is restricted. This has nothing to do with restricting the practice, seeing as they didn't restrict the practice. This has to do with state licenses. Every place a kid can receive this therapy, can remain open, they just aren't licensed by the state.

Furthermore, your comparisons to abortion and marriage are AGAIN, off point, seeing as those are civil rights issues. State licensing of medical professionals, does not involve civil rights. Doctors don't have a civil right to a state license.

The kid has a civil right to their religion and to a lesser extent privacy, but again, they're not banning this practice.

For the love of Pete. This isn't about what the kid can do, because the kid, can still do it. All this does, is say that the state doesn't consider it medicine. That's it.

Seriously, if you're a doctorate candidate, I'm Glenda the Good Witch.

For Allswell. Yes I do believe and have advocated that teenagers should be afforded more rights. If you don't believe that, I could just as easily lump you in with parents that believe their children are objects and beat or kill them when they do something contrary to the parents wishes.

For Sarah. No I'm pointing out how the state doesn't license every kind of quackery nor pass laws on harmful forms of quackery with regards to minors. So, what is the reasons for targeting this form of quackery. The reasons you gave previously are applicable to quackery that is currently not on a state governments radar.

Where we disagree is that you don't believe that a small interference or hindrance of various forms are a restrictions of rights. I believe that they are. Especially when the restriction is placed upon an activity that only has the possibility of negatively effecting the person that chooses to participate. If you were negatively effected by a law that placed any form of hindrance on an activity you were participating in willingly, it would most certainly feel like a restriction of your rights. The comparisons to marriage etc. are valid because such activities only effect those participating in them. Other activities that also only effect those participating in them should have protections against restrictions from the government.

If this laws intent was to define what is a medical procedure, it would have listed it as a non-medical procedure and required a notice of the possible side effects and the procedures efficacy. It would not have placed additional restrictions upon those participating in it. If a therapists decided that a particular alternative medicine diet was a good thing for their cancer patient, that would not be illegal despite the fact that such a diet can lead to severe harm for the patient with little chance of curing their cancer. It could be construed as malpractice if the therapist didn't disclose the true possibility of success. However, if the patient requests it and is a willing participant, then it wouldn't be malpractice. So, again.... this law goes further then what you claim.

Finally, the reason my posts are lengthy is that I actually address each point you have made in your argument. I also answer most of the questions you asked. You have not done the same for many of my points and questions to you.

Doggy,

You didn't answer my question, that is the crux of your argument...

So, you're basically saying that, the state should HAVE to license, every kind of quackery, for convenience sake, to emancipated minors that might want to undergo, said quackery? Even though not licensing said quackery, doesn't ban the practice. Said quackery is knowingly harmful. Said quackery is NOT medicine. And every place that practices said quackery, can remain in practice.

What if minors want to undergo, "bleeding out the demons"? Should the state have to license those that practice that?

If a therapists decided that a particular alternative medicine diet was a good thing for their cancer patient, that would not be illegal despite the fact that such a diet can lead to severe harm for the patient with little chance of curing their cancer

Cancer is recognized by the medical community as a disease. Homosexuality is not. Therefore, medical practices and licenses are applicable. Secondly, there are A LOT of treatments, for A LOT of diseases, that you can't receive in the states, because of medical licensing.

Where we disagree is that you don't believe that a small interference or hindrance of various forms are a restrictions of rights

Except you haven't shown any restriction. Every place that practices this, can still practice it. The state just doesn't recognize it as "medical". That's the ONLY difference.

Your examples of different forms of "quackery" are off point. Alternative medical licenses, aren't the same as medical licenses. Furthermore, you keep saying this. Show me some evidence, of state licensed quackery, shown beyond a doubt to be harmful and have no basis in medicine/science, and focus on something that ISN'T some form of medical disease or condition.

The comparisons to marriage etc. are valid because such activities only effect those participating in them

Wrong again. This is so off point, it's laughable. First, marriage is a civil right, which means government scrutiny is increased.

Second, this would be on point, if you were discussing, WHO THE STATE GIVES LICENSES TO, TO PERFORM MARRIAGE IN ITS NAME. Marriage restrictions, go to who can/can't participate in marriage. That would be similar to if they banned this practice all together, telling people they couldn't do something. This is similar to who the states license as Justices of the Peace, and what their duties are as state licensed professionals.

If a minor is aware of the consequence and probability of success, then they should be allowed to undergo bleeding out of demons as it is there choice. The state should not be allowed to restrict individuals with a medical license from participating in the activity. The state can refuse to support the activity as a medical practice but this law goes beyond that by applying a legal punishment in a case where a person with a license participates. If a therapist applied alternative medicine they would not receive the same legal punishments. The case would be considered possible malpractice but be judged individually. The types of laws that outright ban something severely inhibit the ability to judge things on a case by case basis.

Every place that practices this cannot continue to practice it without fear of governmental intrusion. If a licensed medical professional decides to practice it, they can suffer legal consequences. That is partial restriction. If they were to continue to practice such things, but call them a religious ceremony, they could still be punished by a prosecutor that decides they want make a point. You're claiming that's not a restriction. It is most definitely a restriction. It is also a partial restriction upon who a teenager may receive this treatment from. Again, these partial restrictions are dismissed by you because the teenager can go elsewhere. Individuals effected by this do not feel that these partial restrictions should be dismissed as easily as you do.

This again leads to the point of effectiveness of this law which you have not addressed. Is the purpose to prevent a harmful treatment, or is it to define what is a medical procedure. If it was to prevent a harmful treatment, then the law fails miserably. If it was to define a medical procedure, it could have been done in a way that would not have created lawsuits nor had the possibility of creating legal issues for individuals participating in an activity where every person has voluntarily consented.

With regards to marriage. Just because something is not currently considered a civil right by the government does not mean it should not be considered a right. This is why the points regarding marriage etc. are valid. Marriage to an individual of a different race wasn't always a civil right. It was recognized that interference in an activity between two consenting individuals was a bad thing. Drug use among other things also falls under this category but is still currently restricted. Both of these activities and others mentioned previously can be done in such a way that only have the potential to harm those participating. Governmental interference for those activities is wrong because it is the governments job to protect individuals from unwanted activities. Far more care must be taken when a governmental body decides it is going to protect it's citizens from making their own decisions that do not effect anyone but them. Incidentally, that same argument of something not being a civil right has been used before in cases where a governing body wished to intrude. A right to privacy is another example of where it may not be considered a civil right. However, if that right were to be taken away or partially infringed upon because it's not a civil right, I doubt that distinction would matter to those effected by it.

There are many forms of quackery where the state doesn't place similar restrictions on who can participate such as alternative medicine that can result in severe harm. Picking and choosing which ones to ban based upon political leanings is a bad way to decide such matters. It is far better to current measures in place to determine if the medical professional is guilty of malpractice. As I stated before, a blanket ban goes beyond this and removes much of the ability to judge things on a case by case basis as is done in other forms of harmful quackery. Stating that all this law does is to define what is quackery from medical science is understating the laws effect.

This distinction you have for whether it's considered a disease is irrelevant to an individual who does consider it a disease and wishes to change that aspect about themselves. It's their life so it's their choice even if they are in the minority opinion regarding that aspect or their opinion is not scientifically sound. Interference in that choice in even small ways is government overstepping its authority. Much of the time people are perfectly fine with a government doing this because they are not directly effected by it. My concern is for those that are directly effected by it when they are performing an activity that does not effect anyone outside of those that choose to participate. This applies to not just this instance but many of the other instances I've mentioned previously. Stating that it's not interference because they can still receive the treatment elsewhere will not reduce the amount of infringement that those individual feel is being done to them. So, again, such laws should be made in ways that will not create those forms of infringement. This holds for activities that effect only those that are willing participants and of sound mind.

Teenagers also fall under this category because emancipation being at an age of 18 doesn't make much sense from a mental aspect or a biological one. There are many individuals under the age of 18 which have more reasoning ability when compared to those above. This law doesn't make that distinction. If this law would have been written in the form of restricting this procedure for an individual who has not demonstrated the mental capacity and reasoning ability of an adult, I would not have many of these issues with it. The same reasons for which this law would not be passed for adults should also apply to minors which demonstrate the cognitive abilities of adults.

You still haven't addressed several of my points. I'm at least making an effort to address your points and questions. Disagreement with my responses to your argument doesn't exempt you from having to counter various points I've made. If you'd like, I can list these points for you to make it easier.

Oh, and to answer your post.

Show me some evidence, of state licensed quackery, shown beyond a doubt to be harmful and have no basis in medicine/science, and focus on something that ISN'T some form of medical disease or condition.

Sexual reorientation therapy for an individual 18 years of age or above would qualify.

For Allswell. Yes I do believe and have advocated that teenagers should be afforded more rights. If you don't believe that, I could just as easily lump you in with parents that believe their children are objects and beat or kill them when they do something contrary to the parents wishes.

I don't, until teenagers start demonstrating some form of general intelligence and common sense.

This distinction you have for whether it's considered a disease is irrelevant to an individual who does consider it a disease and wishes to change that aspect about themselves.

They can wish to change that aspect all they want, the truth is it can't be changed. The treatment they should be seeking is to deal with that fact and learn to live a happy, productive life.

For Mike. That isn't your decision to make, it's theirs.

For Allswell. Many teenagers do demonstrate that form of general intelligence far more then those above the age of 18. Those are the ones which should be afforded more rights.

For Allswell. Many teenagers do demonstrate that form of general intelligence far more then those above the age of 18. Those are the ones which should be afforded more rights.

Can you test for and prove this? IQ has been shown to not be enough to determine one's ability to make reasoned decisions.

Until you've a test that meets scientific standards of success rates, age is the only factor that can safely determine ability via averages.

Judges make distinctions all the time as to whether or not a minor has the mental ability of an adult and can understand such actions. It's done in cases of emancipation from parents, it's done in medical decisions, and it's done in refusal of treatment.

Age 18 doesn't meet scientific standards as a measure of when a teenager is able to comprehend their choices. Science would put this as a gradual process starting from puberty and most likely ending at some point when the brain finishes developing around the age of 25. Teenagers go from not having adults rights to suddenly having all of them at a particular age without regards to the ability of the individual to understand their actions or consequences of them. This creates two problems in that a person who does not have that understanding gets those rights and a person who may have that understanding is denied those rights.

Luckily in this day and age, most parents love their children unconditionally. Religious extremists and their racist, homophobic adherents seem to be one of the last hold outs. What would Jesus have done?

Discuss-

If my children are gay, they're gay. Does this mean I love them less? No. Does this mean that I would want to "cure" them? No. Mostly because the people who are against these therapies believe two things: one, they don't work, and two, there is nothing to "cure".

My kid is gay. Do I want him to live this lifestyle? No. Is reparitive therapy a way to go if he were younger ?

Maybe.

I personally would not do it, but I think it should be up to the parents, not the state.

davsie

First of all -- Your kid is not living a "lifestyle". Your kid is living his LIFE. There's a crucial difference. He didn't choose this life. it chose him.

Secondly, if you think so-called "reparative therapy" might have worked on him, I suggest that you talk to some of the people who were forced to suffer through it, and see what they have to say about it. I think you will get some pretty strong opinions about it.

Finally, maybe you should ask your kid how he would have felt about it. I suspect that he will tell you he respects you and loves you a whole lot more for not putting him through thaat.

I personally would not do it, but I think it should be up to the parents, not the state.

Kind of like letting parents decide whether or not to use a car seat?

Davsie, Mike raises an excellent point. Do you think the state has any legitimate interest in protecting children's welfare? If I wanted to sell my daughters as prostitutes, should I be able to? I mean, you might not do this, but who are you - or the state - to say what I should do? Right? (and god forbid the state should impinge on my right to economic conduct as I see fit!)

More and more, I am struck by a disturbing moral relativism that gets smuggled in by way of these 'freedom' agendas, often at the hands of supposed, so-called Christians. Davsie provides the worst kind of example: "I wouldn't do it, but who am I to say what others should do?" That's philosophy 101, buddy.

Kind of like letting parents decide whether or not to use a car seat?

More like whether to leave a kid alone in a hot car.

davsie

My kid is gay. Do I want him to live this lifestyle? No. Is reparitive therapy a way to go if he were younger ?

Maybe.

You do realize that one of the central cores of "reparative therapy" is blaming the parents for "making" their kids gay. If you had submitted your child to that mental abuse, you would had to have been prepared to say you're the reason for his homosexuality.

I love my children, period, no matter who or what they are. And they know it.

It is funny how people think being gay is a choice. If you think that is the case, please share with us the time you considered whether or not to be gay and instead decided to be heterosexual and your reasons for making that choice.

Remember, this stems from the same people espousing "Legitimate Rape".

Like Scientology perhaps?

The witch doctor of your favorite cult is still free to engage in this religious practice, but licensed mental health providers can no longer engage in what is widely considered malpractice.

For the same reason you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, Freedom of Speech is not freedom from the responsibility of what is said. This therapy causes far more damage than it will ever claim to heal.

Denny Crane, Esq. - I have not read the bill, but I suspect that it may be challenged as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech (that of the therapist).

Should licensed psychiatrists also be allowed to perform exorcisms and be reimbursed by insurance companies for that religious practice?

Maybe you should actually read the bill.

A person who is a licensed psychiatrist can certainly choose to perform an "exorcism" as can you or I. But, you can't charge for it. The government's right to restrict speech varies depending upon a number of factors, including whether it is public or commercial speech. As recognized by SandD, one cannot create a "clear and present danger" by yelling "fire" in a theatre. The conservatives challenging the ruling will likely argue that the therapy does not create a clear and present danger, despite the claims that it can produce harm. Public speech is protected to the extent that you can say things that could be construed as causing harm. You can promote ideas that many would consider harmful. The First Amendment protects you. On the other hand, Commercial speech can be regulated to a much greater degree, which is why tobacco companies can no longer say that smoking is good for you, as they did in the 1940's. That is why a law that forbids therapists from charging money for bogus sexual orientation therapy is more likely to survive a constitutional challenge than one that merely bans the practice. The latter is a content-based restriction on free speech, subject to a higher level of scrutiny than a restriction upon commercial speech.

Denny Crane, Esq.A person who is a licensed psychiatrist can certainly choose to perform an "exorcism" as can you or I. But, you can't charge for it.

Which is precisely my point. It's a religious practice, not legitimate therapy. And note that a licensed psychiatrist who engaged in exorcisms would very likely be dropped by professional associations like the APA.

The conservatives challenging the ruling will likely argue that the therapy does not create a clear and present danger, despite the claims that it can produce harm.

It's considered malpractice by every relevant medical society. The state licensing board is just now catching up to that fact, and if you engage in that practice after January 1st it'll be treated as malpractice.

In reality there were probably no licensed mental health therapists in CA who were doing this anyway. Most of the practitioners are like Marcus Bachmann and hold no professional license at all. All this law really does is remove the patina of legitimacy from the practice, and treat it as the religious ritual it really is.

skrekk--it is also a "religious ritual" that can be prosecuted as abuse now. In the past, the parents and therapist could hide behind the claim that they had to be "cruel to be kind." Now, the cruelty can be punished like any kind of cruelty that the parents justify with religious beliefs.

One also is not allowed to do honor killings. It's a pretty simple principle.

Bean@home - it is also a "religious ritual" that can be prosecuted as abuse now.

I wish that were true, but it's not. This law doesn't impact anyone who isn't a licensed mental-health provider.

If Marcus Bachmann lived in California he could still sell his snake oil since he isn't actually a licensed therapist.

Stand and Deliver - Yelling fire is not and never has been a free speech issue. Yelling Fire in a theater is a matter of public safety not free speech. A person is legally allowed to own a gun and to fire said gun. But they are not allowed to fire said gun in a crowded room because of teh potential threat of public safety.

Get it? People wonder why our Constitution means nothing anymore? Because too many people just have no idea what rights they actually have vs those they just want to pretend they have.

What other religious practices would you like to peddle as legitimate mental health therapy? Witch dunking? Exorcism?

And what concerns? That parents force a "therapy" that has been proven to be harmful and ineffectual? A "therapy" that is NOT approved by the APA and other psychological associations? Religious beliefs do not equal therapy and does not meet therapeutic conditions. Just like we don't allow snake oil to be peddled as therapy, nor should we allow this kind of harmful psychological abuse to be forced onto minor teenagers because of their parents religious beliefs.

I'm going to start a religion. I'm going to take advantage of the tax-exempt status of said religion. I'm going to take gay kids and poison them slowly with arsenic because arsenic is said to turn gay kids hetero. Sure some will die but some will be "cured." Of course, they really aren't cured but they say so because they are in such physical pain that they'll say anything to make it stop. Is that OK with you, Mr. Pacific Injustice? Because that is what so-called restorative therapy is, according to the reports I've read. It causes such emotional pain that some kids commit suicide and others lie. But that's OK, too, Mr. Pacific Injustice, because those kids aren't gay any longer?

This is not free speech. These are children who are being forced to undergo dangerous brainwashing all in the name of religion. What happened to tolerance, if not acceptance of our differences. A gay child never hurt anyone. Your so-called therapists do.

I read my post and was afraid that some crazy will think that arsenic cures the gay. It does, by poisoning them. Don't poison your kids whether by arsenic or "reparative therapy."

Your post is hogwash and not a good analogy.

Actually her post was spot on.

davsie--go look up what goes on in "ex-gay" therapy. It is torture--daily torture--some of it psychological and some of it physical.

This analogy is spot on.

But, yes, that's an analogy, it's satire, and I really would hope that nobody is dumb enough to think that arsenic "cures the gay." It would be a one-way route to jail for a long, long time.

Unless the government can prove harm, then it should be allowed.

expatdownunda - Unless the government can prove harm, then it should be allowed.

That's not the way it works in the US. If you're marketing a medicine or therapy, some degree of efficacy must be demonstrated. Moreover, every relevant medical society considers "ex-gay therapy" to be malpractice and unethical.

We don't allow psychiatrists to perform exorcisms either.

That's not true. Homeopathy is an example of a therapy that hasn't demonstrated efficacy in scientific studies but is still allowed to be sold as remedies, medicines, and cures for various ailments. In fact, there are many loopholes for homeopathic remedies which reduces the restrictions placed upon them by the FDA. This is also the case with other alternative medicines that claim to cure cancer, increase lifespan, etc. These do not demonstrate efficacy but they're still allowed to be sold and marketed as a therapy.

doggysaywhat - That's not true. Homeopathy is an example of a therapy that hasn't demonstrated efficacy in scientific studies but is still allowed to be sold as remedies, medicines, and cures for various ailments.

Homeopathists are generally not licensed or regulated by the state and generally not covered by insurance. California also doesn't regulate "therapists" who realign your chakras with crystals.

The part you seem to be missing is that this law doesn't ban "ex-gay therapy", it only prevents licensed mental health therapists from engaging in that malpractice.

doggysaywhat,

Those homeopathic remedies also must state somewhere on their packages that "*These statements have not been approved by the FDA."

Essentially, that's what this law is doing. It's stating that you can still practice this "therapy", you just can't do it as a licensed therapist.

It's going one step further then putting something on a package. It's restricting the ability to perform the activity without the loss of a license. This would be similar to prohibiting a pharmacy from stocking it or a health practitioner from engaging in the activity without losing their license. If it were to be similar to homeopathy or alternative medicines, the law would have required the therapist to explain the lack of efficacy of the treatment before therapy.

If a therapists decides to realign your chakras with crystals it will not cost them their license. That's where this law takes further steps then what is done for other alternative medicines without efficacy and the potential to harm.

Although I don't know if any licensed therapist would use crystals to realign chakras, if one did, it would be harmless. The ACA and other medical groups have stated that "gay therapy" can be harmful.

That's the difference.

For hambone. Not always true unfortunately. In many cases of alternative medicine, actual procedures that have a chance of fighting a disease are ignored. A good example is using alternative medicine or special diets to cure cancer instead of seeking treatments such as chemotherapy or surgery. Such actions can lead to death of the individual or severe complications for dealing with the cancerous growth. Taking homeopathic medicines instead of those designed to treat an illness can be extremely harmful.

How it works in America? What does an appeal to authority have to do with what is right!???? If it does no harm then the parents SHOULD decide NOT the government. This is a moral issue not a legal issue!

Taking homeopathic medicines instead of those designed to treat an illness can be extremely harmful.

...did you just kill these gay-cure practices? I think so!

If it does no harm then the parents SHOULD decide NOT the government.

Gay-cure has proven harm in almost every case.

I've never said that gay-cure practices have good success rates. They have horrid success rates and often result in harm. The issue is whether an individual can choose to participate in the activity despite being made aware of the harm and success rate. Similar therapies are extremely harmful but are not restricted as they are in this case.

Neither parents nor the government should be allowed to make this decision if the person they are deciding for has the mental capacity to understand the decision and its consequences. We allow many adults to make such decisions for themselves but a teenager who has the mental capacity of an adult has to wait for an arbitrary age before they are given that ability. They should be afforded more rights, not less. This would solve both issues by allowing teenagers who do not want this procedure to prevent their parents from forcing it upon them in any way while still allowing any teenager who wants this therapy to obtain it from whoever they desire without governmental interference.

Also, with regards to harm from gay-cure therapies. It doesn't cause harm in all cases just most. You can get a success rate from that value and inform people of it. If they still choose to participate despite the very low success right and the high chance of harm, that's their choice to make. Not yours, and in the case of a teenager capable of the reasoning ability of an adult, not the parents, nor the state.

in the case of a teenager capable of the reasoning ability of an adult

And you have a test capable of proving this reasoning ability? Most teenagers are bloody stupid and lacking in both common sense and any form of experience. That is reason enough to use age as a barrier.

Teenagers also don't magically become any more intelligent or acquire greater reasoning ability upon turning 18. So, picking a particular age as a hard cutoff is a bad idea. It also doesn't matter if most teenagers are bloody stupid because you are lumping in the group that is not bloody stupid.

Many judgements are made as to whether a teenager has the reasoning ability of an adult. This is done all the time in medical matters. A teenager can get judged to have enough common sense to reject a procedure, have privacy regarding a procedure, and in some cases be completely emancipated from their parents. Those same types of tests can be applied in this area as well.

Teenagers also don't magically become any more intelligent or acquire greater reasoning ability upon turning 18. So, picking a particular age as a hard cutoff is a bad idea.

Yet, it has to be done. There is no way to test true individual ability to reason, so scientific evidence of typical brain development is the only way to go.

It also doesn't matter if most teenagers are bloody stupid because you are lumping in the group that is not bloody stupid.

So? Making one smart decision doesn't guarantee they'll make more.

allswell, it's best to administer the cure at a young age to prevent the mind from going down that long dark tunnel you so profoundly enjoy. You seem so hell bent on total gay domination and all us straight and normal people are the wrong. AIDS came from the almighty as a sign that being homo is wrong.

AIDS came from the almighty as a sign that being homo is wrong.

Because facts need to be spoken anytime misinformation is repeated...

AIDs originally formed as SIDs (Simian Immuno Deficiency), a disease in primates in Africa. Over time, a collection of differing instances of SIDs (like AIDs, not all instances of the virus are genetically identical) combined and mutated to a version transmissible to humans. At this point in history, it was common for bushmeat to be sold as food (bushmeat is primate meat). However, researchers now believe the more likely cause for the initial infection was the practice of cultivating the polio vaccine (which was a live vaccine for the time), in bushmeat; as a result, many instances of the vaccine were likely infected.

In Africa, AIDs is primarily passed along by heterosexuals. This is due to many factors: rape as a weapon during conflicts and belief practices that claimed sex could cure diseases (including AIDs) are two of the main ones. It took several years for the disease to pass into the United States in both people and illegally imported bushmeat. Lack of knowledge about the disease's existence and transmission led to its more rapid spread in the homosexual community, due to the thought of the time (which persists today among some groups both hetero/homosexual) that condoms were only for the prevention of pregnancy (anal/oral sex of course not causing pregnancy to start).

Ain't education grand? Someday you'll have one too, Scott.

Mumbo Jumbo. That's the excuse nearly all gays make. It's from dirty, filthy intercourse in the wrong place by men on men, with men and sorts. So I guess "allswell" that ends well. Hope you don't get it, aids, but then that's your choice.

Mumbo Jumbo

You've claimed to have a medical degree, and you don't know the history of a disease like this?

Wow. The place you graduated from, did it have a trailer hitch?

HAHAHHAAHHAAHAHA!!!

"Liberals legislating life again"?? HAHAHA, oh good Lord, that's hilarious!! Liberals, the party who want to prevent the religious right from redefining being a person as a) a corporation, and b) a single celled organism, the party who want to prevent the religious right from forcing women to undergo unwanted and unnecessary insertion of medical apparatus into their vaginas, the party who want to prevent the religious right from forcing everyone who doesn't believe in their extremist version of Christianity to live by their moral code...? Liberals are the one legislating life??

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh you are a comedian!!

Get the foil you will need it soon they will read your thoughts!

Once again, the liberals are always right! They cannot be wrong, and if they are wrong it is obviously someone else's fault (probably Bush's!) Just because it is your belief does not make it EVERYONE's! I believe that what two (or more) consenting adults do in their free time is their business, but, you cannot believe that you should be judge, jury and executioner against a family who believes that they are doing the best for THEIR children, (not the states children)! The hypocrisy of the liberals today knows no bounds! Being a liberal means never having to say you are wrong! The same individuals who want the freedom to live their own lives cannot bear to let anyone who doesn't share their own beliefs to live their own!

Dan, perhaps if you had actually read the bill, you would seem a bit more intelligent (but I doubt it). Parents are still free to inflict this torture on their children via their churches or other places of worship; however, no state-licensed health professionals are allowed to engage in this quackery.

Right, and if a teen is confused or stressed or depressed, he or she should absolutely be in official, properly trained psychological counseling/therapy. And once that teen is old enough if he or she still feels unhappy about being gay, and not just about dealing with the effects of being gay from a close-minded society or family or peers or whatever, he or she is entirely free to go off to as much gay curing as they want no matter how harmful it may be to them.

Alas1--yes, and this is why you should read the bill. It specifically allows teens to talk to therapists, and even allows the therapists to discourage homosexual actions. It simply bans a particular kind of conversion therapy as it is practiced by some hocus-pocus individuals.

They used to do lobotomies on a regular basis, they used to sterilize people involuntarily, and now they cannot. This is a discredited therapy that is proven to do great harm--the specific therapy and its practices are outlawed.

Yes, please read the law.

Thanks for the clarification! When I was a younger I one of my friends got up in his church and declared he was gay and wanted "help" to combat his sin. So what did they do, they hooked him up with this "Church lady" who was about 15 years older. All she did for the 3 years they were married was beat the poor guy and told him to repent. Not good therapy.

I'm guessing you would not be interested in living under the arm of the Taliban, correct? Why then do you think people who do not share your beliefs should be forced to live by them? What's the difference, except their version of God vs yours?

RandyEK - These are their children; not the States; and most certainly not the LGBT SS's.

Homophobic parents who are Jesus freaks are still free to exorcise the gay demon from their children, but they'll just have to have their voodoo priest do it rather than a licensed psychologist.

Randy, does it trouble you that even Exodus International has denounced "ex-gay therapy" as ineffective and harmful? It looks like even your buddies there think you're an ignorant bigot.

Have you ever though it hasn't proven to be harmful because many of those who have undergone this waste might have committed suicide? Your statement is without merit or thought ..just like the therapy you protect.

I have no interest in living under the arm of horde of decadent elites seeking to impose their secular religion on all that question its omnipotence.

This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins. Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.

Benjamin Franklin

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

Martin Luther King

The new California law is unjust in that it seeks to place the State and the LGBT SS between parents and their children - the parents children; not the States, or the LGBT SS

The therapy in question has not been proved to be harmful;

Wrong. It has been proven harmful. In some cases it even leads to suicide.

"Wrong. It has been proven harmful. In some cases it even leads to suicide."

Wrong. It is suspected of being a motivating factor; it has never been proved. Much like many believe people are predisposed to masturbate against same gendered companions, but it has never been proved.

RandyEK--the people who have attempted suicide because of "it" tell us that they attempted suicide because of "it." Some people who have committed suicide have spoken to people beforehand about considering suicide because of "it" and have left notes behind saying that "it" was one cause.

No one can prove motivation beyond any doubt whatsoever with human beings--everything is always just "suspected." If you want to doubt stuff, then you can doubt it--but out of courtesy, you must also doubt every single other thing.

For example--you must doubt that it is "natural" for people of opposite sexes to masturbate against one another until the male partner's ejaculate enters the female partner's receptive organs and pregnancy occurs. There's no proof of that, either.

While animals "do it"--animals also engage in same-sex copulation. Sorry--there's no proof of opposite sex behaviors being natural, either. Golly, but you live in an uncertain world in which the center will not hold. That's got to be uncomfortable.

Your drivel carries no weight and amounts to nothing more than theoretical abnormalities; easily dismissed in any court of law.

If the therapy in question has proved to lead to injury; and/or death, it should have been declared illegal at all levels in every State, but all you have is suspicion, here-say, and conjecture; no facts whatsoever.

Parental rights trump your ridiculous argument and this law will be overturned.

The problem with Martin Luther King Sr. and Jr. and any religious zealot (not all religious people, just the zealots) is that they firmly believe they have the only correct version of natural law/eternal law/god's law. Between the various additions and subtractions of gospels and the denouncement of the KJV by the Vatican, I wouldn't trust a modern bible one iota. I learned orthodox greek and am very glad I did so. You'll find the catholic church has lied to you for over 1600 years about many issues and how the bible pertains to them. They are not the greatest scholars in the world, and they now believe their own lies. It's sickening.

RandyK, there are over 250 publications by the APA, the French Institution for psychiatric study, and even the chinese. This stuff is damaging! There is proof out the wazoo! It's electro shock therapy and pain being administered when a minor physically reacts to homosexual pornography. It's illegal in a lot of ways already!

This is another version of "Global Warming"! A few "scientists" put out their beliefs that "something" is causing an issue. Without true data to back up their assertions they will do whatever they need to do to back up their beliefs! Anyone who does not fall into their narrow belief system are then call "deniers" or "religious zealots" depending on whatever garbage they are spewing at the time. Shame on all individuals, liberal or conservative, gay or straight, who believe that everyone should do only as they believe!

Randy,

You never gave me that legal authority, for the government imposing the religion of your choosing on us. Remember you said this...

RandyEK

The first Amendment to the Bill of Rights which affords religion strict scrutiny protection; whereas sexual depravity is afforded the same rational basis review afforded all bottom feeders.

The three class' afforded immutability recognition under the U.S. Constitution, in order of importance:

1. Religion
2. Race
3. Gender

Masturbating against like gendered companions does not even warrant an honorable mention.

Each case study came over one hundred years after the fact by the first liberal dominated court beginning in the early 1950's. All of societies current Ill's can be attributed to these opinions of appointed attorneys legislating from the bench - you conveniently left out those cases that contradict your assertions.

The 1st Amendment establishes religions governing standing in that it forbids government involvement in religion by recognizing it as immutable. The sexual depravity you pimp does not even warrant an honorable mention; to the extent that it was a criminal offense up until the early 1970's throughout most of the United States.

The 9th Amendment does not trump the 1st Amendment; and would not exist if there were not a 1st in the first place.

Freedom of religion trumps the State and is protected by the laws of nature and natures God.

And I responded with this...

Your 1st Amendment has a little something called the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

See...

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 , 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson , 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins , 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale , 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp , 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas , 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman , 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham , 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree , 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard , 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU , 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman , 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

So, that 1st Amendment, is what decrees religion HAS NO legal or governing standing. You can practice it, but you CAN'T govern with it.

Furthermore, homosexual activity, any consensual sexual activity is protected under the 9th Amendment, and the IMPLIED RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

You see, we have many more protections, then just those regarding our religion, race, or gender.

So...

Masturbating against like gendered companions does not even warrant an honorable mention.

Unless you're doing it in public, it SURE ENOUGH DOES.

So try again. The 1st Amendment as an authority for state sanctioned religion, quite clearly, FAILS.

Each case study came over one hundred years after the fact by the first liberal dominated court beginning in the early 1950's

Your opinion of the ideological leaning of any given court, gives your opinion standing, because???

All of societies current Ill's can be attributed to these opinions of appointed attorneys legislating from the bench

Please, show me some CREDIBLE STATISTICAL evidence of that, which also has legal authority.

you conveniently left out those cases that contradict your assertions.

Which are? And of course any you may post, are still good law, right? If I were to look them up in Shepard's, they'd still have standing?

The 1st Amendment establishes religions governing standing in that it forbids government involvement in religion by recognizing it as immutable

Oh my God, you got something right! So please show how homosexuality, violates that premise. Of course, using credible evidence and law in good standing as your authority.

The sexual depravity you pimp does not even warrant an honorable mention; to the extent that it was a criminal offense up until the early 1970's throughout most of the United States.

Did you miss the word, "until" in there? News flash, it's AFTER 1970.

The 9th Amendment does not trump the 1st Amendment; and would not exist if there were not a 1st in the first place.

Authority, in good legal standing for that?

Freedom of religion trumps the State and is protected by the laws of nature and natures God.

Because??? Because you say so??? Where's your authority? Oh, and by the way, until you answer the rest of those questions, the laws of nature and nature's God, still have no standing.

I noticed you didn't provide a single defense or case, with any authority, other then your say so. And, your "say so" is not a legal or governing authority.

JUST LIKE YOUR RELIGION.

And then you never answered????

Ooooh, and don't forget these...

Thomas Jefferson

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object."
..........To W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
..........Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802

And

John Adams

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
..........To F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
..........To Thomas Jefferson

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine."
..........To John Taylor

And

James Madison

"Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
..........James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
..........James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

And...

Benjamin Franklin

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
..........Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-- Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

"As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity."

Now, find me that governing, legal authority that allows for government to impose religion on us.

Sarah-3043284, absolutely MAGNIFICENT responses! Thank you on behalf of all of us.

P.S. Randy

Um, MLK Jr was a PREACHER. I don't think anyone's shocked or amazed that he said things about God.

Octane,

Thanks!

But they can prevent parents from getting reimbursed by insurance companies for religious rituals.

No, we can't cure stupid, but you bet your ass I can send them to jail for it!! Nobody is curing me of ANYTHING I don't need curing for, and if they try then they will be exposed, and if they CHARGE for the service, then they'll pay the piper, in the pokey!!

You can keep "therapists" from advertising it and conning payments out of homophobic parents who then willing participate in the abuse of their own children and justify it by calling it "scientific."

Will they still do it? Yes. Laws against murder don't prevent murder. They just punish it.

The therapists can go to jail; the parents can lose custody of their children; the children can be protected. It's a good law.

I've come to believe there is minimal or no thinking and/or logic within the conservative mind. This is but one more sad example.

You forgot the /s

Yes, I would agree that the desire to inflict reparative therapy on children (and enjoying every minute of the torture) is a perversion and a sickness. I don't know that it can be cured, but it sure as heck can be punished.

Electroshock therapy is kind compared to reparative therapy. You might want to look it up.

If anyone gets their jollies out of thinking about doing a "Clockwork Orange" on gay children, methinks that it might be a good idea to contact an actual licensed therapist for help.

Your expressed religous bigotry is duly noted.

Doesn't matter if it IS church-based. Quackery is STILL quackery, and the Government is fully entitled to protect its Citizens from such. That's why you don't see "Electric Baths" around any more.

IMHO, the Government should pull the License of any "Dr." engaged in "Reparative Therapy".

So now pointing out bigotry and hate is considered bigotry itself according to Randy. That's rich.

Randy also cannot show how any of this is "religious bigotry". NO ONE'S religious beliefs or practices are being denied.

It's the rights new thing. Trying to turn the tables and call us the hateful ones. Pathetic and it won't work.

This cartoon perfectly explains where Randy is coming from:

http://s1172.photobucket.com/albums/r563/dmillerparker/?action=view&current=glbt-religious-freedom.jpg

Thx skrekk, I shared that one on FB.

One unlicensed student, one psychiatrist, and one broke a$$ attorney? Really?

One can't practice at all, and the other one, if engaging in conversion therapy, are already blatantly in violation of the ethical code to which he/she are held as a practitioner. That leaves him/her wide open for malpractice suits. I say, sue his/her butts, bring him/her up on ethics violations, and shut him/her the hell up. As for the student: probably will never be able to pass the ethics portion of the licensure exam anyway. No worries with that one.