Judge says 'Pray Gay Away' NOT HARMFUL to youth & has blocked California’s ban on gay conversion.
Judge William Shubb ruled that the First Amendment rights of psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals who engage in “reparative” or “conversion” therapy overrule any concerns that such practices are harmful to young people.
“Even if SB 1172 is characterized as primarily aimed at regulating conduct, it also extends to forms of (conversion therapy) that utilize speech and, at a minimum, regulates conduct that has an incidental effect on speech,” Judge Shubb wrote in his judgement.
He also dismissed claims that such therapies can put young gay people at risk of suicide or depression saying that such claims are from “questionable and scientifically incomplete studies.”
|by Anonymous||reply 68||12/04/2012|
He clearly doesn't understand the application of psychological therapies and the world "malpractice." Unbelievable.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||12/04/2012|
He's limited his ruling to the three people involved in the lawsuit.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||12/04/2012|
How can he even call it "therapy" if those that run the programs are salesmen and not licensed professionals?
|by Anonymous||reply 5||12/04/2012|
He's basically saying that the whole of psychotherapy and medical therapy should be practised without regulation or standards of any kind. Or is he just making this special ruling for the treatment of homosexuals? These therapies aren't even experimental, they're a complete failure. When people are moved to kill themselves I think that qualifies as the complete opposite of success.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||12/04/2012|
I don't see why they should be prevented from reparative/conversion therapy. I'm as liberal and accepting as they come, but I can accept that not every sexually confused teen is truly gay. There might be psychological factors at play that, if dealt with through this type of therapy, can help the kid learn that he's inherently straight. Not everyone magically comes from a place where homosexuality is accepted. Think about the potential suicides and rejection of those kids who don't have access to therapy to work out their issues. This therapy should be an option for them. We are living in confusing times.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||12/04/2012|
There's a difference between helping someone confused find their orientation and getting someone to go EX-gay. As in denying their orientation, not finding it. BIG difference.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||12/04/2012|
The OP has mislead you. That is not what the judge did. He temporarily blocked the law ONLY for 3 specific therapists that had sued. Only until he can hear the case and determine it'[s merits. There are also others cases being heard in Northern California. The judge made no ruling, overturned nothing. Get the facts before you spread distortions.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||12/04/2012|
R7, I'm straight but I read the summaries of what goes on at all of those places and it would have really traumatized me. Are you aware of the prevalence of M/F molestation in fundie households, the backwards view and resulting fear mentality relating to all forms of affection and sexuality, and the extremely rigid thinking that alone results in terrible stress on all kids? Would you want naturally shy or awkward children confined with NOT licensed professionals to be humiliated?
Better to send a needy child to a REAL child psychologist who's dealt with hundreds of young students, and can correctly diagnose any issues. Usually the parents are then brought in; they're the source of most problems.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||12/04/2012|
[quote] He temporarily blocked the law ONLY for 3 specific therapists that had sued.
That is one too many
|by Anonymous||reply 11||12/04/2012|
I am surprised that the board or union all shrinks, therapists, and counselors belong to hasn't officially denounced gay conversion therapy and crossed off the list of the things their members are allowed to offer or practice.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||12/04/2012|
Welcome to the United Hates of America!
|by Anonymous||reply 13||12/04/2012|
If psychotherapy is "speech" protected by the First Amendment, there can be no regulation of it by state licensing boards. Absurd.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||12/04/2012|
All one needs to do is apply the term "black" to the terminology used by the charlatan bigots and the court, and one readily sees the harm done with such homophobia.
Eradicate the gays? It's hate speech and hate action.
Free speech? Again, apply the switch and you tell me.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||12/04/2012|
It is the correct decision. If such therapy is so unhealthy and detrimental, why don't the licensing psychotherapy associations revoke the licenses of professional engaging in it? It is certainly controversial, but controversy should not make something illegal. The state has no business telling parents they can't pursue certain treatment for their kids, even if the treatment is opposed on political or social grounds by some. If you don't believe in this therapy, then don't pursue it. Those who do believe in it have a right to pursue it.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||12/04/2012|
You don't have to be licensed to engage in "reparative" therapy.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||12/04/2012|
The therapist filed a law suit giving them the legal right to be heard. That is all the judge has done. He has to follow points of law in all cases or they will be overturned. It is just that simple.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||12/04/2012|
R18=ignoramus. The judge did not have to grant a preliminary injunction.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||12/04/2012|
He's probably gay or has a gay relative.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||12/04/2012|
What bullshit. They can say anything they want as private citizens. They just can't use a discredited and false technique as licensed professionals. The Judge has no leg to stand on.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||12/04/2012|
I don't have a cock in this fight, but people have a right to free speech. Sorry if it upsets gays, however you're not the only ones that have rights. If people believe they can be changed and want to be changed that's their business. It's your business if you don't want to be changed as well. Be a little tolerant.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||12/04/2012|
[R19] are you calling someone who does understand laws ignoramus? LOL ok
|by Anonymous||reply 23||12/04/2012|
The American courts are stacked with Jesus freaks.
So much for justice integrity.......
|by Anonymous||reply 24||12/04/2012|
[quote]I don't have a cock in this fight, but people have a right to free speech.
Child abuse doesn't get free speech, Freeper.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||12/04/2012|
F&F for OP not posting a link.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||12/04/2012|
There's nothing wrong with being a homosexual, but if someone wants to attempt to change or repress their feelings through therapy, that's their business. Not all of us come from a loving, supportive place where homosexuality is accepted. And "reparative therapy" hasn't been discredited. A good many licensed, respective therapists believe it can be effective. There is literature saying that it CAN be effective in certain cases. There is also antidotal evidence.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||12/04/2012|
Here come the anti-gay Christo-Fascists....R27
|by Anonymous||reply 28||12/04/2012|
Fascists? I would think it is rather fascist to want to make it illegal for someone to avail themselves of therapy and treatment that they think will assist them to live in complicity with their religious beliefs or worldview. It's called freedom.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||12/04/2012|
Wow anti-gay hate is alive and well on DL today. What terrible people.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||12/04/2012|
[quote] There is also antidotal evidence.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||12/04/2012|
Activist conservative Bush appointee.....not surprising.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||12/04/2012|
[quote] There is also antidotal evidence.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||12/04/2012|
Antidotal? You mean like when I get poisoned they give me an antidote?
|by Anonymous||reply 34||12/04/2012|
God, you can really tell how infested this board has become with straight people.
The American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the American Academy of Physician Assistants have all said they disagree with the practice of ex-gay conversation therapy.
This bill does not ban ADULTS who want chose to undergo this procedure, what it does is give precious protection to kids who often times are FORCED by their fundie parents to try to "fix them being gay". That is why this law is in place, it is the only protection kids have in that circumstance.
Please read some testitomonials of kids who have been forced to undergo this ex-gay theraphy by their parents. It will make you cry. I can't believe how many people have come out of the woodwork to try to defend this.
And every kid who is sexually confused for some reason might not be gay, so what does that have to do this bill? This bill is just saying that you can't use "gay reparative therapy" on kids. It has nothing to do with helping people through sexual abuse or other problems.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||12/04/2012|
So if you ban this therapy, now the parents will reject outright the poor little homosexual boy because they have nowhere to turn to try and change him. All the parents' hope evaporates. At least the little homosexual boy can pretend to be into the therapy canin order to buy some time until he reaches 17 or 18 and leaves home for college. Now the little homosexual boy doesn't have that safety net, and there will be potential suicides with this as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||12/04/2012|
R36 the parents have rejected him already by trying to 'change' him.
Best for the kid to get out of that environment and into a specialty shelter for GLBT youth.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||12/04/2012|
My God. Datalounge is now filled with homophobes. When did this happen? And why? Why would a bunch of gay-hating assholes come to this site and post?
Read R27 and tell me something isn't deeply wrong here.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||12/04/2012|
Truth4Time is a Religious Right Group that has been infiltrating this forum for years.
All those posts are from members of Truth4Time
|by Anonymous||reply 39||12/04/2012|
F&F the shit-stirring troll at R27.
If you have ANY evidence to support your homophobic claims, R27, post them.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||12/04/2012|
R27 is a member of Truth4Time. A Religious Right Group that has been infiltrating this forum for year
|by Anonymous||reply 41||12/04/2012|
The American justice system is a Kangaroo Court run by Jesus Freaks. Case Closed.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||12/04/2012|
Just because you disagree with a certain form of therapy doesn't mean that it should be illegal.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||12/04/2012|
Why would I a gay man pay to post on Datalounge when the moderator allows blatantly homophobic people to freely spew their anti-gay venom here.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||12/04/2012|
[quote][[R19]] are you calling someone who does understand laws ignoramus? LOL ok
Of course not. I'm calling you an ignoramus.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||12/04/2012|
[R44] Love of conflict, someone to bicker with, small insular outlooks on life. The site is about being a bitch in case you didn't know. Read the fine print.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||12/04/2012|
[quote] the moderator allows blatantly homophobic people to freely spew their anti-gay venom here.
How can they monitor who pays for a subscription?
|by Anonymous||reply 47||12/04/2012|
[quote] Just because you disagree with a certain form of therapy doesn't mean that it should be illegal.
We are not saying we disagree. We are saying it doesn't work and is harmful to young people.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||12/04/2012|
[quote]And "reparative therapy" hasn't been discredited.
Actually, yes, it has, repeatedly. There is no doubt on this, which is why all of the professional mental health organizations are opposed.
[quote]A good many licensed, respective therapists believe it can be effective.
I think the word you were looking for is "respected" and no, they're not. Anyone using a long-discredited "therapy" that has a significant chance of damaging the people you're "helping" is, by definition, not "respected."
[quote]There is literature saying that it CAN be effective in certain cases.
Actually, no, there's not. Not peer-reviewed and respected. It remains on the fringes because it has long since been discredited.
[quote]There is also antidotal evidence.
Antidotal [sic] evidence is worthless when considering scientific issues.
You really should stop posting here. All you've accomplished so far is making yourself look like a complete fool.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||12/04/2012|
Fuck off back under your bridge, r49 aka Paul aka "Dear Heart" troll.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||12/04/2012|
R43, I'm straight and I am adamantly against any form of scam, particularly those that prey on the vulnerable. Since there is no proof that this so called "therapy" even works at all, the fact that it is referred to as "therapy" is fraudulent and a scourge on legitimate medically supervised treatment.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||12/04/2012|
So let's see if I have this right: Child abuse is not grounds to remove a child from a home as long as the abuse is entirely verbal?
This is a case about a conflict of rights: Free speech (if you want to ignore the state's authority to regulate professionals) vs. the right of a child to grow up free from psychological abuse. It can't be resolved by invoking one right and ignoring the other.
If you don't believe forced reparative therapy is child abuse, you will not see this conflict. However, the people of the State of California do have the right to set the standards for what the state considers abuse.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||12/04/2012|
Another brillant American jurist.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||12/04/2012|
You do realize that not everyone is born into culture where homosexuality is easily accepted. Many people with same-sex attractions don't want to live a gay life because it goes against their grain. It might be more compassionate to give them hope (that may or may not be false...the jury is out on that) that change is possible, rather than forcing them to live a life that they personally find vile. Now that's a recipe for depression and suicidal behavior. PLease don't get me wrong. I'm a dyed in the wool liberal who believes in live and let live, but I also realize that not everyone is equipped to deal with the psychological and emotional consequences of admitting to being a homosexual.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||12/04/2012|
And nobody is equipped to deal with people selling lies R54 and calling it medicine. Christian Scientists cannot prevent other people from giving medical care to their children, and psychiatrists should not be able to take money from people pressing a cure with a 100% failure rate.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||12/04/2012|
[quote]. Many people with same-sex attractions don't want to live a gay life because it goes against their grain.
Actually, it's their opinion about homosexuality that goes against their grain. Their grain is gay. And unlike their sexual orientation, their opinion can be changed.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||12/04/2012|
Backs to freepsville with you, R50 (jerk).
|by Anonymous||reply 57||12/04/2012|
R54 you are blatantly ignoring the fact that this bill does not actually ban the practice of gay reparative therapy, it bans it for children.
What they are saying is if an adult wants that for themselves that is one thing, but you can't force a child to undergo it possibly against their will.
Please don't try to change the argument.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||12/04/2012|
WTF is going on with Datalounge? Get the hell out of here!!! You think you're going to convince us you're right? Well think again!
Regular DLers, just keep hitting F&F on these Fascist Freepers and hope that the webmaster isn't asleep at the wheel.
Fuck you and fuck your religion, which has caused more harm and death and misery in world history than gay people ever could have dreamed to cause.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||12/04/2012|
They can say what they believe and we can disagree with them, R59. There's no need to get hysterical. It's not like they're posting empty hate speech.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||12/04/2012|
[quote]Fuck off back under your bridge, [R49] aka Paul aka "Dear Heart" troll
ROFL.... Is this really the best you can do, dear? Sucks to be you.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||12/04/2012|
[quote] It might be more compassionate to give them hope
It is never "compassionate" to give someone false hope. It is damaging.
[quote](that may or may not be false...the jury is out on that) that change is possible,
Sorry, but the jury is not "out" on that; it has been conclusively shown, time and time again, that such "therapy" simply does not work.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||12/04/2012|
R52, Sadly in most cities child abuse must be EXTREME before a child is removed. Why do you think so many kids are injured and killed by their relatives? Psychological and emotional abuse is far more difficult to verify.
R54, So if a child is brainwashed into believing that living a gay lifestyle will send him straight to Hell, and goes along with an abusive parent who sends him for "therapy" with unlicensed salesmen, that has a 0% success rate, instead of a legitimate child psychologist that will actually work to improve his self-esteem, you really believe that the former is not a scam?
|by Anonymous||reply 63||12/04/2012|
I knew a girl named Rosa and she was so snotty. One day I told her to shut the fuck up and she was all like, "Well I never." She went to H/R and tried to get me fried, so I had my girlfriend beat her up.
She was out for two weeks with a broken leg and I told her, those were the best two weeks of my life, so I had my girlfriend break her leg again and she was out another two weeks.
She then tried to have me arrested so I paid a homeless guy to acid her.
Let's just say the bitch learned to shut up.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||12/04/2012|
r63, it depends upon what you mean by "success rate?" would you ban churches from counseling kids or adult congregants to remain celibate and abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage and support groups geared toward doing that too? what is considered therapy, since many churches and religious organizations run counseling that advise same-sex oriented people and youth to remain celibate? does therapy that is aimed at getting these youth to be celibate run afoul of this law?
|by Anonymous||reply 65||12/04/2012|
R65, How many thousands of dollars do those "sessions" cost? Do they require kids to discuss very private sexual fantasies and masturbation practices? Is physical touching required? Would a very sensitive child, who may already be the victim of some form of abuse, be made to feel bad about himself? Are you aware that kids may just be reacting to some form of hidden addiction or violence or neglect or stress between the parents?
Does the child have the option to see a licensed child psychologist instead? Or is that out of the question because again, usually conflict between the parents or other siblings may be brought out into the open?
|by Anonymous||reply 66||12/04/2012|
2nd judge refuses to block ban on sexual-orientation 'conversion' therapy
[quote] The day after a federal judge cast doubt on a new state law banning sexual-orientation therapy for minors, a second judge issued a ruling upholding it.
[quote] According to Lynda Gledhill, a spokeswoman for the California attorney general, the ban on sexual-orientation therapy will take effect Jan. 1 as scheduled for everyone except two therapists and an aspiring therapist who sued to keep the ban from taking effect.
[quote] On Monday, U.S. District Judge William Shubb ruled that the law may inhibit the 1st Amendment rights of therapists who oppose homosexuality. He issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing the ban, the first of its kind in the nation, against the three plaintiffs pending a broader ruling on its merits.
[quote] "The reality is those three individuals are not subject to the law, so [the initial ruling] is very narrow," Gledhill said.
[quote] In Tuesday’s ruling, in a case brought by opponents asserting that the law violates free-speech, religious and parental rights, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller said the Legislature and governor had enough grounds to enact such a law, given that multiple mental health groups, including the American Psychological Assn., have discredited the therapy.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||12/04/2012|
i wonder how big was the bribe? ah the good old church and scam artists,selling indulgences since 1BC one trick pony.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||12/04/2012|