December 4, 2012

"Federal District Judge Enjoins California's Law Prohibiting Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy."

Senior District Judge William Shubb wrote that "a mental health provider’s pursuit of SOCE is guided by the provider’s or patient’s views of homosexuality, [so] it is difficult, if not impossible, to view the conduct of performing SOCE as anything but integrally intertwined with viewpoints, messages, and expression about homosexuality."

Free speech, an American tradition, inconvenient, as ever, to lawmakers who think they know better than the people who insist on talking about things.

84 comments:

bagoh20 said...

Why are all the threats to free speech from the left? In fact the bill of rights is almost exclusively threatened by the left. What happened to them? No wonder they don't like the label "liberal" - it doesn't fit them at all.

Ann Althouse said...

The left used to put free speech in the center of their beliefs. I remember those days. But there was a seismic shift over principles of diversity and inclusiveness. If I was investigating how it happened, I would begin with this case.

edutcher said...

Free speech?

Saying, "No", to the Dan Savage crowd?

What's next, Christmas displays on public property?

EDH said...

In First Amendment jurisprudence, can one judge's "underinclusiveness" be another judge's "narrowly tailored"?

Tim said...

I'm not a clinician, but an educated guess suggests "Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy" is clinically bogus.

However, this ruling seems correct.

Marshal said...

Ann Althouse said...
The left used to put free speech in the center of their beliefs. I remember those days. But there was a seismic shift over principles of diversity and inclusiveness. If I was investigating how it happened, I would begin with this case.


I think you're looking for a deep explanation when the answer is simple. Free speech was a core belief when they were outsiders. Now that they control the bureaucracies free speech limits their ability to enforce their vision. The left's environment changed, and they responded by changing their principles.

mccullough said...

Marshal,

I think you're right. Many on the left wanted power. Now that they have it, they don't want their authority questioned. They want the Ministry of Truth.

madAsHell said...

Does SOCT involve lots of sex with women??

I remember someone tried starting a "Church of Venus", and saying that paying women for sex was part of the religion.

Maybe somebody has figured out that SOCT is covered under Obama care.

Life is good here in Washington. We have reefers, food stamps...and now government sponsored pussy!!!

WooHOOOO!!!

ndspinelli said...

Well, you can still "Pray out the Gay."

Pogo said...

Change it to "Gender Orientation Conversion Therapy" and everything's fine because, unlike sexual orientation, it's 100% nurture.

Science!

Pogo said...

GOCT: No, no, no. You're a guy.

That's not where that thing goes, silly.

The Farmer said...

If I was investigating how it happened, I would begin with this case.

I was just a kid, but we lived not too far from Skokie and I recall the prevailing opinion to be that letting the assholes march was the right thing to do.

The racial makeup of Skokie has changed a lot since then. I think there are probably more Indians living there now than Jews.

Patrick said...

Marshal and McCullough are correct. The left was never interested in free speech. They are interested in power. The ya are not interested in diversity, they are interested in enforcing political correctness.

Bob Boyd said...

Liberals have lost their party to the Progressives. Most liberals are so excited to see their party in power they don't even realize its not their party anymore.
"Under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, Wilson's administration shut down newspapers and magazines at an astounding pace. Indeed, any criticism of the government, even in your own home, could earn you a prison sentence. One man was brought to trial for explaining in his own home why he didn't want to buy Liberty Bonds.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0205/p09s01-coop.html

William said...

This therapy seems no more ineffectual and certainly less extreme than Chaz Bono's surgery....People seek their own salvation, and some beliefs are self fulfilling.

rhhardin said...

It's not clinical unless you're lying down.

bagoh20 said...

I agree with the power explanation. The liberals turned out to be just normal human beings with no special love of freedom when they became the ones with the power to limit it. The shift by the liberals - who's entire philosophy was erased by power should be a clear lesson on why changing the constitution and how it is interpreted is very serious business. Supreme Court Justice should be the least demanding job in the legal field. Every test is open book. The answers are right there in the text.

EMD said...

I'm not a clinician, but an educated guess suggests "Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy" is clinically bogus.

Of course it is.

But people engage in bogus therapies all the time, via their free will.

Shouting Thomas said...

Butters, as we all know, was bi-curious.

The therapy did not work.

And, Althouse... Thank you for everything you do! (See earlier post.)

Posted via my iPad from the exercise cycle at the gym! I can argue with assholes from anywhere!

Tim said...

"But people engage in bogus therapies all the time, via their free will."

Right.

And they are absolutely free to do so, and should remain free to do so.

Just as they are free to destroy their nation with their votes for government that cannibalizes America's future.

I just want smarter citizens.

Cue the paraphrase of Rumsfeld...

Shouting Thomas said...

And, you want to see bogus therapists?

We have every kind of crackpot therapist you can imagine in Woodstock!

Come on down!

Marshal said...

bagoh20 said...
The shift by the liberals - who's entire philosophy was erased by power should be a clear lesson on why changing the constitution and how it is interpreted is very serious business.


Power corrupts. I follow institutional evolution for this very reason. The most interesting facet to me is how helpless those who try to maintain standards are. I'm sure there are many liberals in the system who would stop it if they could, dozens even. But they can't without risking their own future by appearing politically unreliable. And most know this so they don't even try.

Consider the professor's case. She shares the vast majority of the left's beliefs. As far as I know there are three main deviations: she's honest, she believes fiscal reality places some limits on what government can accomplish, and she believes national security is a real priority. And this is enough not only for her to be considered unreliable, but branded as an "other" and by some considered an enemy.

And we're at this point a few decades after the left first began their march. This happened so fast I don't even want to use the term evolution to describe it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I just want smarter citizens.

Then we had better concentrate on taking the public education system back from the indoctrination of the progressives. The dumbing down of our schools since the 60's and the unions taking over is criminal.

It may take a generation to turn the tide. It is really probably too late, though. Idiots teaching idiots.

chrisnavin.com said...

Robert Bork said it began with the SDS for the new Left.

I like the explanation that principles go by the wayside once someone's in power. Things change...

Some religious folks I know see a long slide away from the moral doctrines of the church into hedonism.

Some see a slide into Continental philosophy and all the "studies" now on the backs of postmoderism, relativism, nihilism etc.

Some libertarians say they are the classical liberals, of free minds and free markets.

I'm sure there are some liberals not happy with the groupthink, who'd want fiscal responsibility because they're old school.

But here's the New School. Joe Biden's Scranton working man union thing is now Barack Obama's community organizer, in bed with feminists (the personal is political) and union thing.

The State gets bigger every day. Liberty is really under threat in many cases.

Levi Starks said...

When your goal is as lofty as the lefty's,
That is to fundamentally change the nature of the human race in a way that will make us nicer and more caring, and equitable than even the God of the Bible could have imagined, yet with the total absence of that God, sacrifices must be made.
We'll thank them for it later.....
Trust me.

sonicfrog said...

This therapy seems no more ineffectual and certainly less extreme than Chaz Bono's surgery....People seek their own salvation, and some beliefs are self fulfilling.

Actually, that's not the case you should compare this to. Chaz was an adult when he / she decided to have this surgery. The better example is this type of case.

Even here though, there are key differences. They don't just perform the procedure on you if you walk through the door and hand them some money. There is an intensive screen process you have to go through to make sure this is right for you before a cut to the skin is ever made. And, unlike gay reparative therapy, this does what it says it's going to do. This actually works. You do end up being the outer sex, as much as can be achieved at the moment.

Kirby Olson said...

"Enjoins" seems to be one of those weird words that cuts both ways like "sanctions." You can get sanctioned which means that you can do something or you can't depending on which meaning was meant.

tr.v. en·joined, en·join·ing, en·joins. 1. To direct or impose with authority and emphasis. 2. To prohibit or forbid.

As I read this I couldn't figure out if it was meaning one or meaning two, but I think this law prohibits the prohibition of sexual orientation conversion since it's a question of the liberty of the therapist to do so?

Carnifex said...

I'm just a stupid rube who didn't vote for the jug earred asshole, so not only the head line, but the link was incomprehensible. I take it the judge is ruling that it's against the law to cure queers?

What ever. Since the Dread Traitor Roberts has ruled from the Supreme Bench that the words written in a statute really don't mean anything, I don't see where any of you can say dick about anything. The judge is the final arbiter of reality in this world, not the people living in it.

No decision ruled by any judge shall ever again be questioned!!

Get that through your heads. We no longer live in a Republic...we live in a theocracy, with the "JUDGE" being our new god.

So let it be spoken, so let it be done.

R. Chatt said...

It's not a matter of simply being ineffectual and a waste of money -- the conversion therapy is shown to be psychologically damaging and emotionally harmful to young people. It's one thing to have parents who are destructive to a young person's well being, it's quite another to have a socially licensed professional do it. That's unconscionable in a civilized society.

You may disagree with sex reassignment but that is done not to fulfill the wishes of the parent, but to help the person who receives the therapy.

In the case of sexual orientation conversion therapy the mental health profession has dealt with this issue for a long time and determined that it is not effective or beneficial and in fact it is harmful.

Chip S. said...

That video was chilling.

On the basis of evidence that would barely pass muster in a HS debate, 2/3 of the CA Senate voted dispassionately to rule on clinical efficacy and trample individual freedom in the bargain.

I don't know whether it's more disturbing to think that these legislators view themselves as enlightened rulers of the unenlightened masses or as faithful representatives of their constituents.

Chip S. said...

@carnifex, you might consider a new avatar.

Tim said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"I just want smarter citizens.

Then we had better concentrate on taking the public education system back from the indoctrination of the progressives. The dumbing down of our schools since the 60's and the unions taking over is criminal.

It may take a generation to turn the tide. It is really probably too late, though. Idiots teaching idiots."


I concur on all points.

And yes, it most very likely is too late.

Tim said...

"I don't know whether it's more disturbing to think that these legislators view themselves as enlightened rulers of the unenlightened masses or as faithful representatives of their constituents."

Why not both?

They are not mutually exclusive choices.

TMink said...

Presenting problems and agendas that people have brought to me as a therapist.

Make my son more butch.
Make the aliens stop their space ship maneuvers in the front lawn at night.
Make my wife stop drinking.
Make my son stop being gay.
Help me get disability for my ADHD.
Tell my HR department that I am too stressed out to come to work.
Help me take my son from his father.
Make my wife enjoy anal sex.
Get me more Xanax or I will kick your ass (told to my by a 4'11" soccer mom. Church of Christ.)

Those are the easiest to recall. Now most of the people I see come with problems that are easier or even possible to address, but some folks want the impossible. And they usually want it quickly to boot!

If their request is reasonable, if it is possible given human nature to accomplish, I try to help. If I figure I can't help or they are asking for something that will likely never happen, I tell them that and offer a referral to someone who might be able to help better than I.

So people ask for interesting things of therapists every week.

Trey

TMink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter said...

The judge deems voluntary "sexual orientation conversion therapy" to be both harmful and ineffective, but a A Wisconsin inmate who sued state prison officials for the right to sex-change surgery has gone back to [federal]court, apparently in an attempt to force the state to pay for a "sex change."

http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/181866311.html

These are, of course, different courts. And the Wisconsin inmate has not (yet0 prevailed.

But how many judges do you suppose exist who would both ban voluntary therapy to alter one's sexual orientation (or perhaps expression of same) and support forcing the state to pay for the inmates sex change?

Alex said...

My guess is the Constitution is more of a guiding document. Our actual free speech & gun rights depend on the actual mood of the people at any one moment in time.

Alex said...

R. Chatt - you will not find many takers in here. Basically 90% Fundies.

whoresoftheinternet said...

And I'll bet you morons think this will last. Look at that hypocrite, easy Annie A., thinking that the 1st Amendment "saves" the day here.

We all know left-wingers will shred the constitution to get what they want (see: Obamacare). This will go down, and those who dare question the left-wing-protected classes will be "re--educated" in the proper camps. Permanently.

And remember, Easy Annie A. the Hypocrite, YOU caused this.

Dave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...

I'm pretty shocked!

Pragmatist said...

So long as it is not mandatory, who cares? Free speech went down the list of priorities when the idea that "texts" held hidden coded elements of racism and sexism and a few more isms. So I guess it would begin about the time "post modern" became a fad.

Pragmatist said...

And for those that like to hyperventilate about the "other side"... the Right hates free speech as much as the Left. they both hate speech they do not agree with.

Alex said...

You do not have a right to be socially approved. You can exercise your speech, but prepare for the repercussions.

Dave said...

"Althouse said - Free speech, an American tradition, inconvenient, as ever, to lawmakers who think they know better than the people who insist on talking about things."

No one's "free speech" rights are threatened - you can still express all the ill-informed b.s. you want to e.g., "and then there was BENGAHZI!" BUT - the state has the right AND the obligation to regulate health care providers and insurance carriers. Or didn't it occur to you that those "cure the gay" shrinks would be getting paid through health insurance for damaging rather than helping. ALthouse - where's your PFLAG membership card?

gerry said...

I'm not a clinician, but an educated guess suggests "Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy" is clinically bogus.

Freud was science for quite a while, I recall. So was Marx, right?

Marshal said...

Pragmatist said...
And for those that like to hyperventilate about the "other side"... the Right hates free speech as much as the Left. they both hate speech they do not agree with.


Even if this were true instead of the evidenceless talking point it is, so what? If the right is ever again in a position to threaten free speech I'll be sure to criticize their efforts. The left's actual assualt on free speech doesn't compare to an entirely theoretical possibility from the right. The comparison makes so little sense one must conclude the intent is to distract from the issues and allow the left to hide its actions from its more insipid members.

Carl said...

Come. The left has been perfectly consistent. They have supported free speech for leftist causes forever, and will continue to do so. They supported the right of people to march against the war in Vietnam, and in protest of Richard Nixon's heavy-handed fascism -- and forty years later they supported the right of people to march against the war in Iraq and in protest of George W. Bush's heavy-handed fascism. We can be confident they will always support the right of people to march against wars being conducted by Republican Presidents, and in protest of the heavy-handed fascism of conservatives.

If what you mean is that leftists have ever, or will ever, support free speech for viewpoints they dislike or think badly misguided -- ha ha, what are you smoking? The essence of the left is that ends always justify means, you can't make a utopian omelet without breaking a few niggling individual liberty eggs, and a fetish for moral consistency is just the hobgoblin of constrainted, conservative, probably homophobic minds.

To eschew nasty means even though they might lead to highly desirable ends is a conservative stance, and always will be. You could readily define conservatism by that level of respect for practical constraints. That's why conservatives don't think all children can be above average, it's necessary to have prisons and allow citizens to carry weapons, the budget should be balanced even if it has to be done "on the backs of the poor", not every poor person is deserving of having someone else pay for his dinner, insulin or fractured tibia, and not every old person without savings should be freed from having to eat cat food or work until he drops.

If you believe the world is perfectable, so long as we have the courage to abandon squeamishness about the methods, you are a leftist.

jr565 said...

Marshal wrote:
Power corrupts. I follow institutional evolution for this very reason. The most interesting facet to me is how helpless those who try to maintain standards are. I'm sure there are many liberals in the system who would stop it if they could, dozens even. But they can't without risking their own future by appearing politically unreliable. And most know this so they don't even try.

I think another issue is tht liberalism changed. Classicsl liberalism is different than modern day liberalism. Modern day liberalism is post communism communism and communism/socialism doesn't care about free speech
It probably shifted in the late 60's early 70's and since socialists took over the schools have been indoctrinating kids in this newer (or rather older) brand of socialism which has become modern day liberalism.
And I would argue that conservatives of today are the classical liberals.
Who stands for free speech principles? conservatives. Who stands for color blindness and not defining everyone by race or sex? conservatives.
Modern day liberals are actually a throwback to commies of the 20's. they just don't call their socialism socialism.

But it is.

Carl said...

Or didn't it occur to you that those "cure the gay" shrinks would be getting paid through health insurance for damaging rather than helping.

It probably did not occur to her, for the obvious reason that it is very unlkely to be true. I have never heard of an insurance company actually willing to pay for "conversion therapy." Have you?

And if they don't, as seems likely, then what business is it of the state to interfere in transcations between willing patient and willing provider?

Say...you aren't one of those who think the state should stick it's nose into the transactions a woman should have with her provider, about her pregnancy, are you?

Pogo said...

"the budget should be balanced even if it has to be done "on the backs of the poor", not every poor person is deserving of having someone else pay for his dinner, insulin or fractured tibia, and not every old person without savings should be freed from having to eat cat food or work until he drops."

Not conservatism anywhere I've read, but a a leftist view of conservatism.

The remainder of your post was pretty much true.

Smilin' Jack said...

In the case of sexual orientation conversion therapy the mental health profession has dealt with this issue for a long time and determined that it is not effective or beneficial and in fact it is harmful.

But if it can prevent even one gay from spending eternity in Hell, or, more importantly, from annoying me in what is supposed to be a "straight" bar, I think it is well worth trying.

EMD said...

The impetus for the ban seems to rely mostly on parents forcing minors into therapy that is seen as "damaging."

This changes the willing patient dynamic, but I don't know what is the domain of the parent and what is not anymore.

R. Chatt said...

Because this is more about religious beliefs and personal prejudices than science, what is best for the health of the patient, or freedom of speech.

For instance, what about requiring doctors to give ultrasounds to women before abortions? - "Twenty states regulate some aspect of ultrasound exams, including requiring abortion providers to give women the option to view the image or listen to the fetal heartbeat if an ultrasound is performed.

Similar legislation is pending in 11 other states. If all of the measures pass, more than half of the states will have laws governing ultrasound exams before abortions." http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/27/news/nation/more-states-moving-to-require-ultrasound-before-abortion/

YoungHegelian said...

@RChatt,

Because this is more about religious beliefs and personal prejudices than science,

Oh, you mean those things, unlike science, which are explicitly protected items of free speech in the 1st Amendment? Those things?

As for science, please don't come here and peddle the nostrum that gay rights advocates have science on their side. We've beat that topic to death, and I'm afraid that shit won't flush around here.

There are many reasons both ethical & religious to support some notion of gay rights. But, science has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Alex said...

The the Constitution stipulate which kinds of free speech are legitimate? Meaning fact-based vs religious?

YoungHegelian said...

@Alex,

No, Alex, it singles out religious speech for special protection.

Or did you miss that part?

Like the part you missed about not knowing the difference between Catholics, mainstream Protestants, and "fundies".

I've got news for you, Alex. There's maybe one "fundie" on this board.

But you wouldn't know that being a Commie atheist. Because if all commies are atheists all atheists are commies, right? That's your logic, Alex.

AEH said...

Are the constitution and bill of rights supposed to be viewed as the Bible--applicable in all times and not to be changed--or like the Pirate's Code--merely guidelines. State constitutions can be overthrown and redrafted. Is this the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party?

Jim Howard said...

Don't forget that the First Amendment does not cover any Youtube videos that might enrage a Muslim 'fundie' by mocking, or even questioning anything to do with Islam.

Making such a video is a jail-able offensive in Obama's America.

In Obama's America only Christianists may be mocked or offended.

hdhouse said...

I suppose in some twisted way this is a free speech issue. I'd prefer it to be about pseudo science and malpractice and nothing to do about speech but shit what do I know.

kentuckyliz said...

Some people do seek out therapy for the treatment of undesired homosexual ideation. The treatment success is the same as treatment for other problems: a third, a third, a third.

There are mental health professionals who object to the imposition of the ban because it requires them NOT to act in the best interests of their clients, respecting the client's self-direction.

YoungHegelian said...

@hdhouse,

I suppose in some twisted way this is a free speech issue.

That seems to be what the judge thought, hd, so those of us on this board who take that tack aren't going against the wind.

For once.

James said...

Ann,

You are soooo right about this. Before I say anything else, I consider ALL talk therapy-as-medical-treatment to be a scam and shouldn't be covered medical insurance.

However, I can get therapy for loving too much, loving too little, or just being indescribably unhappy. I can get therapy because I feel like a woman in a man's body.

So here's a question (I swear I'm not trolling) what if I believe I was born gay, but that I am a straight man trapped in a gay man's body? Shouldn't I be able to get "treatment" for that?

Methadras said...

bagoh20 said...

Why are all the threats to free speech from the left? In fact the bill of rights is almost exclusively threatened by the left. What happened to them? No wonder they don't like the label "liberal" - it doesn't fit them at all.


Because leftists are fascists, socialists, marxists, and communists. All want to totalitarian control of everything in some form or fashion, speech in particular, guns secondary to that. Because if speech fails, then guns are the last resort of an armed populace to overthrow those particular shackles. However, we are told that the left is the champion of all that is good and great. It doesn't take much to dig underneath that lie to see the truth of it in reality.

However, considering who voted for Urkel, I fear that those days are over. The moron vote is sticking to its guns.

Ann Althouse said...

"Or didn't it occur to you that those "cure the gay" shrinks would be getting paid through health insurance for damaging rather than helping"

It would be different if the state were only saying we won't pay for it.

Chuck66 said...

AA....as many center-righters have said, today's "conservatives", are actually liberals (classical definition). See Jewish state's right to exsist, trying to reduce the unborn's abortion rate, right of a community to decide its standards (say, Christmas trees vs Madison's Atheist hate groups).

Remember, recently 3 UW system schools have lost lawsuits because they descriminate against Christians (Madison, of course, and Eau Claire and Superior). And the issues weren't even close. Any true liberal predicted that the schools would loose the lawsuits.

R. Chatt said...

@YoungHegelian The video you linked (She Blinded me with Science) actually ridicules therapy as quackery, but you choose to defend subjecting children to that very same quackery as freedom of speech? That's odd.

The science I refer to is simply the compilation of data which indicates that sexual orientation conversion therapy doesn't work and in fact causes bad side effects in many cases.

Mark said...

the state has the right AND the obligation to regulate health care providers and insurance carriers.

I'd love to know what part of the Constitution defines that right and obligation.

And then you double-down by pointing out that the "cure the gay" shrinks will be paid by insurance companies, which are conveniently being co-opted by the State, which can claim "cost effectiveness" as justification for what are in reality social policy decisions.

FWIW, I think SOCT (or SOCE, whatever) probably wastes a lot of time and money while increasing misery, but it wouldn't be my problem at all if the Government weren't meddling around in the issue. And if I could actually buy insurance policies myself, instead of being herded into plans not-of-my-choice by those oh-so-helpful regulations, I could chose plans that don't cover bullshit and that would subsequently be cheaper.

And yes, I want a pony too.

YoungHegelian said...

@RChatt,

The science I refer to is simply the compilation of data which indicates that sexual orientation conversion therapy doesn't work and in fact causes bad side effects in many cases.

Many, if not most, therapies don't work. I mean, jeez, how effective really are common psycho-pharmaceuticals like anti-depressants? The stats there aren't exactly glowing either, and they have bad side effects like teenagers offing themselves during treatment.

My point is that, for gays rights advocates to point to reparative therapy and say "this doesn't work, and it's so bad we need to ban it" is not, as you might wish to think objective science. It's cherry-picking the fact that psychiatric treatments just often don't have good results.

I'm sure that some gay kid who has to undergo reparative treatment against his will will come out the worse for it. But for an adult who wants to change his orientation, what are you saying:

"Nu-uhh! F=ma, E=mc2, and you're stuck with sucking cock for the rest of your days."

Yeah, right. How scientific, not to mention, charitable of you.

R. Chatt said...

Well, I'm all for people deciding for themselves what sexual orientation they want. This is from an interview with an ex-gay therapist/minister (http://josephnicolosi.com/living-in-harmony-with-ones/) :

JN: I agree. Why do you think the gay movement been so successful in taking over our culture?

GO: I think it’s because as a culture, we want to please people. We’re in the “microwave age”—we want everything to be fixed quickly and with little effort, but pursuing heterosexuality is not for the faint-hearted. For a man who’s struggled with same-sex attractions, it’s hard work.

JN: Yes. As a therapist, too, I can tell you it’s hard work.

GO: And people don’t want to work hard.

JN: What were the deciding factors in your own decision to leave homosexuality?

GO: I wanted what most everybody wants—I wanted family, security. I wanted to grow old together with somebody that I was committed to. I wanted children, a house, a job, and a picket fence, all of those things—the American dream. And I couldn’t have that with homosexuality."

Is it hard work for the heterosexual men here at this blog, presumably mainstream, to be sexually attracted to women -- or is that sexual attraction to women, ewwww, you guys have had to work on?

What if gay men and women could just have a normal life, the American dream, with someone they were easily attracted to? Isn't that the point?

YoungHegelian said...

@R Chatt

It's not hard work for me to want to eat & keep my food down. It's even more natural for me than wanting pussy.

Anorexics & bulimics don't see it that way. Sometimes, people have a mental struggle to do what should come naturally.

What the guy in the interview wants, he wants. And they're sane things to want! He also may have moral or religious qualms about his orientation, and wants to get in line with those directives, too.

You say: "shouldn't we make it easy for gays to live a life like that?" Like what, adopting other people's kids, or using surrogates? I'm sorry, it's not the same, and this guy knows it.

Chip S. said...

@RChatt, It would be helpful if you'd provide links to some of the studies you allude to. All I've found in a cursory search is methodological criticisms of studies claiming success for this sort of thing.

rcocean said...

Free speech aside, how is anyone hurt if a Homosexual wants to "cure" himself?

Also, the law seems to rooted in the belief that sexuality is completely genetic (unlike sex roles or Intelligence) and therefore not changeable by therapy.

R. Chatt said...

@Young Hegelian Missing the point, or deliberately changing the subject to obfuscate the point? Do you have to work at your sexual attraction, assuming you are heterosexual? But to use your analogy, anorexics & bulimics don't have a problem with eating or with food. They have deeper emotional problems which express themselves self destructively in eating, binging and purging. This was a big issue concerning homosexuals -- is gayness the result of a mental or emotional illness or can people be emotionally and psychologically happy and healthy and gay? That has been categorically answered, yes. The conversation between two ex-gay men demonstrates a wackiness, IMO, despite their socially acceptable lifestyles.

See: The Lies and Dangers of Reparative Therapy

Chip S. said...

@RChatt, that's one of the first things I found.

It doesn't point to any clinical trials that show SOCT to be harmful.

The obvious criticism of any field study of a procedure like this is that you're not going to be able to overcome selection bias among the people seeking treatment.

But that's not the same thing as providing evidence that it's harmful. Neither are the anecdotes cited by advocates of the legislation.

IMO you're arguing for an unacceptably low bar to set for legislation like this.

Mark said...

can people be emotionally and psychologically happy and healthy and gay?

Absolutely. And they can be miserable and antisocial and down-right psychotic too, just like straight people.

On the off-chance that some of those might find some relief from those problems through whatever kind of therapy, who are we to get in their way?

There is no one right answer. And that's where top-down solutions screw it consistently. Fort Bragg included. (Reference to an earlier Althouse.)

R. Chatt said...

The preponderance of evidence doesn't point to success in changing sexual orientation. It's not recommended by people who deal with this subject intensively as trained professionals. Perhaps a better solution from the legislature, rather than banning this type of therapy, might have been a mandatory disclosure agreement outlining the dangers and objections from the various mental health organizations; kind of what you sign before any medical procedures. Informed consent.

Chip S. said...

Informed consent.

That seems reasonable.

Phil 3:14 said...

And don't get me started on immunizations and autism epidemic.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

@ chrisnavin.com

"Robert Bork said it began with the SDS for the new Left." The Rag was a leftist paper at UT (Austin). At the first editorial meeting in fall 1968, the editor said in regard to reporting that 'you really couldn't see objective facts; so you reported with what was helpful from a political standpoint.' And that's kind of where we've gone. Then of course not to agree with the flash viewpoint is to be out of line.





chrisnavin.com said...

It's gone fairly deep into our institutions, and for a while I vainly hoped it would go away. Then, I thought maybe it's better to focus on what liberalism could be as I understood it...resisting its totalitarian impulses, not seeking endlessly to expand the State and continue the rationalist project over here with top down ideas and people to put them in.

Some deep thinking has been done by some modern day more 'liberal' philosophers, but technocracy, bureaucracy, scientism in many cases, Darwinian planning of the economy, humanism etc are products of many liberal strands of thought,e ven many deep ones.

I think we'll be seeing much more of them in the future.

That's I suspect where many modern liberals will be going, as they drift in and out of political power.

leslyn said...

Michelle Bachman must be clapping her hands over this decision. That funny little palm-to-palm clap that won't damage her nails.

TMink said...

kentuckyliz wrote: "There are mental health professionals who object to the imposition of the ban because it requires them NOT to act in the best interests of their clients, respecting the client's self-direction."

Indeed, and well said. There are two large divisions of psychotherapists: Some therapists are so smart that they know how you and I should live and what choices we should make and how we should think. They oppose this type of therapy as it does not coincide with their values.

Then there are people like me who are schooled in how people change and we work for our patients to get the results that they ask for. We are not so smart. But we try to help our patients about issues and in ways that they ask us to help them, because it is their life after all, and not ours.

But the research shows that our patients actually get better faster and more reliably than the really smart therapists mentioned above.

Trey

TMink said...

"Many, if not most, therapies don't work."

Actually, that is not what the outcome research shows. The average effect size for any psychotherapy is around .6. The average effect size for antidepressant medication is less at around .5, though more recent research is placing it much smaller at .25. I blame the lower, more recent score on the overprescribing anti-depressants for psychological problems that are not neurochemically responsive to antidepressants.

But therapy works better than medicine at providing improvements to people, if you believe the science. 8)

Trey