End of Gay Conversion Therapy?

[+ quoththeraven]

There's a case in New Jersey where Orthodox Jewish young men who were subjected to conversion therapy to "make them straight" have sued the organization providing such services (Jews Offering New Alternatives For Healing, or JONAH) under state consumer fraud law, which, among other things, outlaws offering services that don't work by representing that they do work. The judge has already ruled that JONAH can't argue that homosexuality is a disorder and can't present its proposed expert witnesses.

 

JONAH could also be found liable under the portion of the law outlawing unconscionable commercial conduct, which its therapy, with its emphasis on undressing in front of other participants and counselors, use of anti-gay slurs, and sexually-charge touching. How anyone could think any of this would "cure" gay behavior is beyond me; in addition to traumatizing those being "treated," if anything it would seem to reinforce such behavior.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/02/new_jersey_gay_conversion_therapy_case_blocked_expert_testimony_could_be.html

[bigvalboy]

Interesting article QTR...

 

"That is, Levin and his fellow victims are suing them for being quacks. Downing assured Levin he could cure his homosexuality. Now Levin is suing to prove that assurance was a lie. And if he wins, gay conversion therapists around the country could find their jobs at risk."

 

One can only hope.

[+ honcho]

Embracing my curmudgeonliness, I'm wondering if the case (which looks slam-dunk for the plaintiffs) would only technically stop Conversion providers in the state of New Jersey (but have a chilling effect everwhere else)?

[+ quoththeraven]

Embracing my curmudgeonliness, I'm wondering if the case (which looks slam-dunk for the plaintiffs) would only technically stop Conversion providers in the state of New Jersey (but have a chilling effect everwhere else)?

 

It's true that any finding of culpability would only apply and be effective in New Jersey and that another such organization, if sued, could dig its heels in and insist on full litigation (probably not to trial, though); this one, however, would be unable to contest liability in another case. (Technically called estoppel and meant to make the courts more efficient by preventing relitigation of a claim already squarely presented.) Depending on the wording of the state statute and local evidence rulings, though, the result is likely to the same. It certainly helps tip the scales toward liability and would drive up malpractice premiums if they have insurance, which is doubtful.

[+ quoththeraven]

More from the Guardian:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/11/new-jersey-judges-rules-gay-conversion-therapy-is-consumer

 

The article also notes that as of 2013, NJ banned from engaging in conversion therapy with patients under the age of 18.

[marylander1940]

[video=youtube;L-Nph8R4Q_4]

[wisconsinguy]

I've already been converted!

[bigvalboy]

[video=youtube;L-Nph8R4Q_4]

 

 

Excellent Marylander....The fact that he survived the therapy, and was able to forgive his father, and himself is amazing to me. There is such strength in forgiveness. It is truly a blessing.

[marylander1940]

Excellent Marylander....The fact that he survived the therapy, and was able to forgive his father, and himself is amazing to me. There is such strength in forgiveness. It is truly a blessing.

 

May I suggest psychological treatment for this hypocrite instead?

 

[video=youtube;q2nK1sskUG4]

[TruHart1]

An enthusiastic convert

 

I've already been converted!

 

A more enthusiastic convert than yourself would be difficult to find WG2!

 

Of course it helped for you to have your conversion therapy supervised by the excellent RGM! I'd let him convert me anytime!!!

 

TruHart1

[uwsman2]

The NJ statute bans licensed health care professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors. That's all. It does not apply to non-licensed practitioners, such as religious counselors. I believe JONAH presents itself as a religious outfit, and the law would not apply if their "patients" are over 18.

[+ dutchmuch]

Good. Now parents can't torture their kids.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is calling for an end to psychiatric therapy treatments aimed at changing the sexual orientation or gender identity of gay, lesbian and transgender youth.

 

The move comes in response to an online petition posted on the White House website following the death of 17-year-old Leelah Alcorn. The transgender teen committed suicide in December and left behind writings mentioning religious therapy.

 

In a statement late Wednesday, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrettsaid the administration supports banning so-called conversion therapy treatments for minors.

[+ Gar1eth]

Unfortunately, Colorado just failed to pass a bill banning conversion therapy for minors. It was passed in the Democratic controlled House and killed in the Republican controlled Senate.

 

Gman

[instudiocity]

The only way one can argue against 'reparative therapy' is if one argues against all psychotherapy.

 

Remember the father of psychotherapy died of Jaw and Throat cancers while never giving up sucking on big cigars.

[AdamSmith]

The only way one can argue against 'reparative therapy' is if one argues against all psychotherapy.

 

Welllll...can't one argue against Mengele-type practices without arguing against all of medicine? (Disclosure: Speaking as one who spent five very helpful, I think, years on the couch.)

[marylander1940]

the law was inspired by what happened to Leelah Alcorn

 

http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/my-death-needs-to-mean-something-transgender-teens-suicide.102181/#post-940291

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Leelah_Alcorn

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/09/obama-backs-ban-on-conversion-therapy-for-gay-transgender-youth/

 

[anotherjohnindupont]

The only way one can argue against 'reparative therapy' is if one argues against all psychotherapy.

 

Remember the father of psychotherapy died of Jaw and Throat cancers while never giving up sucking on big cigars.

 

maybe he couldn't handle his own and the kitchenmaybe he couldn't handle his own addiction.

[+ Gar1eth]

The only way one can argue against 'reparative therapy' is if one argues against all psychotherapy

 

If this isn't a joke/sarcasm of some type, then I'll have to disagree with you. And I'll go out on a limb and say that a majority of people on the Forum probably agree with me.

 

Gman

[instudiocity]

In a statement late Wednesday, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrettsaid the administration supports banning so-called conversion therapy treatments for minors.

Gotta love the hair-splitting... Banning minors from therapy but not those who have attained their majority.

 

So government supercedes parents of children, but adults are in their own...

 

Yeah, government owns the children.

[+ Gar1eth]

Gotta love the hair-splitting... Banning minors from therapy but not those who have attained their majority.

 

So government supercedes parents of children, but adults are in their own...

 

Yeah, government owns the children.

 

 

No, this is right and proper. In the same fashion that government can make a parent submit their child for chemotherapy if the child has cancer and the parents' religion is against chemotherapy. The state has a vested interest in the welfare of the child or there wouldn't be laws against child abuse. So as conversion therapy is pretty much unproven and thought by most experts to do harm, it's proper for government to outlaw it for minors. On the other hand in some cases adults are allowed to do what they want as they are considered to have the capacity for abstract thought. For example, if the parent in the above example was 18 or older and had cancer, the government would allow them to treat the cancer with prayer even if it was known the cancer had a 95% cure rate with standard chemotherapy.

 

Gman

[mike carey]

No, this is right and proper. In the same fashion that government can make a parent submit their child for chemotherapy if the child has cancer and the parents' religion is against chemotherapy. The state has a vested interest in the welfare of the child or there wouldn't be laws against child abuse. So as conversion therapy is pretty much unproven and thought by most experts to do harm, it's proper for government to outlaw it for minors. On the other hand in some cases adults are allowed to do what they want as they are considered to have the capacity for

 

+1

[+ FreshFluff]

I, too, would also prohibit such therapy for minors, who may not have a choice in the matter. Society provides all sorts of special protections for minors for that reason.

 

As for adults, in the US, we allow various forms of alternative medicine (chiropractors, homeopathy, magnet therapy, etc.) that have been shown to be ineffective and, in some cases, dangerous

 

A quick Google on conversion therapy will turn up a ton of information about how ineffective and psychologically damaging it can be. If an adult wants to seek it out anyway, why should the government stop him/her from doing so?

[AdamSmith]

(Disclosure: Speaking as one who spent five very helpful, I think, years on the couch.)

 

P.S. Although I do hold with my idol Harold Bloom when he says, "I take it that a successful therapy is an oxymoron."

 

[instudiocity]

No, this is right and proper. In the same fashion that government can make a parent submit their child for chemotherapy if the child has cancer and the parents' religion is against chemotherapy. The state has a vested interest in the welfare of the child or there wouldn't be laws against child abuse. So as conversion therapy is pretty much unproven and thought by most experts to do harm, it's proper for government to outlaw it for minors. On the other hand in some cases adults are allowed to do what they want as they are considered to have the capacity for abstract thought. For example, if the parent in the above example was 18 or older and had cancer, the government would allow them to treat the cancer with prayer even if it was known the cancer had a 95% cure rate with standard chemotherapy.

 

Gman

We disagree. OK,I still think Valarie Jarret's suggestion that government protect children from the decisions of a parent is REPREHENSIBLE.

[AdamSmith]

We disagree. OK,I still think Valarie Jarret's suggestion that government protect children from the decisions of a parent is REPREHENSIBLE.

 

Does your view extend to allowing physical abuse of children by a parent?

 

If not, then where -- and on what principle -- do you draw that line?

 

I should make clear I don't ask that rhetorically, or combatively. Just that law-making inevitably has to get into the weeds of exactly this kind of detail.