End of Gay Conversion Therapy?

[instudiocity]

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.

No, I believe there are limits to what a parent can do re: corporal punishment, and emotional abuse. But government as intended by the Founders was to be limited government.

 

Seems like we pass laws based on the extreme example of things that should be illegal. Outlawing reparative therapy for minors lends itself to further outlawing the things parents can do with their children. How about not being able to require your child to attend church, or participating in scouting. Pretty soon you get to the point that government dictates parenting.

[+ FreshFluff]

No, I believe there are limits to what a parent can do re: corporal punishment, and emotional abuse. But government as intended by the Founders was to be limited government.

 

Seems like we pass laws based on the extreme example of things that should be illegal. Outlawing reparative therapy for minors lends itself to further outlawing the things parents can do with their children. How about not being able to require your child to attend church, or participating in scouting. Pretty soon you get to the point that government dictates parenting.

 

But where's the line? Should parents be able to refuse medical care for their kids for religious reasons? Cases like that happen every couple of years or more.

http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/faith-healing-parents-arrested-over-death-of-second-child-130424.htm

 

If reparative therapy has been shown to cause suicide (which attending church and going to boy scouts do not), then IMO, it falls into the same category as the faith healing cases.

[+ Gar1eth]

No, I believe there are limits to what a parent can do re: corporal punishment, and emotional abuse. But government as intended by the Founders was to be limited government.

 

Seems like we pass laws based on the extreme example of things that should be illegal. Outlawing reparative therapy for minors lends itself to further outlawing the things parents can do with their children. How about not being able to require your child to attend church, or participating in scouting. Pretty soon you get to the point that government dictates parenting.

 

We are far removed from the days of the Roman pater familias when the father of the family had the literal power of life and death over his wives and children. Obviously the parents have the first word over what happens to their children unless what the parents want is dangerous to life and limb and mental health. Sometimes the law may make a mistake-however laws against child abuse and the like have been around for an awfully long time. I'm willing to trust that govt isn't going to progress to forbidding parents to take children to church. However once govt does, assuming it's a normal church and not one for example requiring child marriage/sacrifice/etc, I'll be right protesting right beside you. Until that day govt has my vote (as well as a right and a duty) to pass laws that shield the most defenseless among us.

 

Gman

[instudiocity]

If reparative therapy has been shown to cause suicide (which attending church and going to boy scouts do not), then IMO, it falls into the same category as the faith healing cases.

But I fear managing the problem from the extremes. I know 12 people who went through reparative therapy, 1 was 17. Of the 12, 4 are married to women and fathered children and are from all outward appearances living their lives. Ms Jarrett wants to OUTLAW allowing minors to be treated. Who the hell does she and the government think they are to decide for EVERYONE???

[instudiocity]

...Obviously the parents have the first word over what happens to their children unless what the parents want is dangerous to life and limb and mental health. Sometimes the law may make a mistake-however laws against child abuse and the like have been around for an awfully long time. ....

 

Gman

Ms Jarrett wants government to have the first word ... before Reparative Therapy is truly debunked. RT works for some people, and while it may contribute to some suicides, we would have to outlaw everything including breathing to eliminate all the causes of suicide.

 

My RT friends speck very highly of it.

[+ Gar1eth]

But I fear managing the problem from the extremes. I know 12 people who went through reparative therapy, 1 was 17. Of the 12, 4 are married to women and fathered children and are from all outward appearances living their lives. Ms Jarrett wants to OUTLAW allowing minors to be treated. Who the hell does she and the government think they are to decide for EVERYONE???

Is the former 17 year old married? How old were the other 12 when they went through it? Even if it did work- that's the kind of thing that should be decided for oneself-once one reaches the age of majority.

 

My personal feeling is that there may be a slight few it works in just because most things aren't absolutes. Possibly some people's gender attraction is more fluid than others. But you can't make laws on the very odd occurrence. If you tried to do that, no laws would ever be passed because there would always be the one exception.

 

That's very odd that you know 12 unless you are in some kind of professional field. The fact that they have children though is no criteria to base success of reparative therapy on. While it would have been difficult-possibly impossible-for me due to my lack of attraction to women, there are many here on the Forum who have never undergone reparative therapy and who have children from either current or past relationships with women.

 

Gman

[uwsman2]

This morning the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit again rejected a constitutional challenge to the NJ law banning conversion therapy on minors. This lawsuit was brought by a teenage boy and his parents. Out of religious conviction the parents want their son to have conversion therapy and claim their rights are violated as well as his by denying him the opportunity to get it from a licensed health care practitioner in NJ.

[instudiocity]

Is the former 17 year old married? How old were the other 12 when they went through it? Even if it did work- that's the kind of thing that should be decided for oneself-once one reaches the age of majority.

 

My personal feeling is that there may be a slight few it works in just because most things aren't absolutes. Possibly some people's gender attraction is more fluid than others. But you can't make laws on the very odd occurrence. If you tried to do that, no laws would ever be passed because there would always be the one exception.

 

That's very odd that you know 12 unless you are in some kind of professional field. The fact that they have children though is no criteria to base success of reparative therapy on. While it would have been difficult-possibly impossible-for me due to my lack of attraction to women, there are many here on the Forum who have never undergone reparative therapy and who have children from either current or past relationships with women.

 

Gman

Seems you're looking for exceptions rather than the rule.

[+ quoththeraven]

The reason reparative therapy is outlawed for minors is that it's quack science, not because of anti-religion animus. ISC believes, based on his experience/observation, that it's not quack science. However, those who have done studies on it, as well as professional groups in the relevant field (psychology), disagree with that assessment and consider it quack science.

 

It is therefore rational, and constitutionally permissible, for states to outlaw it for minors on the ground that they're not old enough to make that decision and that their parents shouldn't be able to make it for them, much like the child welfare cases pitting medical practice against religious belief. Adults have the freedom, and hopefully the capacity, to make their own choices. Children do not.

 

As for fears about regulation of religious observance, that's a parade of horribles suggestion that doesn't take into account the First Amendment lawsuit someone will file (and win) as soon as it's passed in the very remote likelihood something like that ever got passed.