Should Conversion Therapy Be Outlawed?

[Kraylandia]

Got a source or something to back that up? There's plenty of adults out there that are just foolish. They'll do, so just let them.

You need a source to deduce that rational human beings wouldn't avoid mental/physical damage for no reward?

Sorry it's 4 AM, just realised how stupid that sounded. Ignore that, everyone.

[Noraika]

but conversion therapy never gets a warning attached. Its been disproven as a fraud. Parents send their kids to it and adults are made to think it will work. It doesn't. What is wrong with banning it?

Oh my fucking god. That's why it's up to the fucking adult with full mental capacity to look into it first. We're talking about voluntary "therapy" here not the forced crap. So stop comparing it.

Even adults with full mental capacity should be blocked from choosing on several areas of their life. The people don't know what is best for them typically speaking.

We should have the established institutions for mental health. Everything outside of it should be barred from adults and children alike.

[Kraylandia]

Oh my fucking god. That's why it's up to the fucking adult with full mental capacity to look into it first. We're talking about voluntary "therapy" here not the forced crap. So stop comparing it.

Even adults with full mental capacity should be blocked from choosing on several areas of their life. The people don't know what is best for them typically speaking.

We should have the established institutions for mental health. Everything outside of it should be barred from adults and children alike.

No, they shouldn't.

[Occupied Deutschland]

its a violation of your freedom. You have the right to run a buisness, even if it is shady as fuck and doesnt work. If you put a warning on it, then they should be allowed. that doesnt mean they are good. and on the kids thing, that is child abuse, so parents get arrested, but your buisness goes on.

No you do not. For instance you do not get to sell "medicine" as medicine unless allowed by the FDA even if you announce it does not work on the bottle.

'Nutreceutical' as a label would tend to disagree with this assessment. As would broad categories of 'alternative medicine' in general. The FDA does not, for instance, do anything to regulate acupuncture needles, 'aromatherapy' chemicals/scents, and a wealth of products peddled as cure-alls and various treatments or outright cures for diseases.

Again that is not true. Therapy is in the end a medical science and is biology, thus therapies should be regulated under similar rules to other medical fields. After all therapy is supposed to deal with things like psychology, which is still highly regulated.

Yet many such instances of therapy are NOT regulated under the auspices of any medical watchdog. Hence why AA, NA, and the various other 'group therapy' or 'class' sessions for substance abuse, anger, or domestic abuse victims and others aren't covered under 'medical' concerns.
As well they shouldn't be. Because people are considerably more complex than the pills the FDA (rather poorly) evaluates.
Even then, if one wished to under your comparison to pharmaceuticals and such, gay conversion therapy is merely the equivalent of choosing 'alternative medicine' as a solution. Something which is allowed (despite its danger to individuals health).
Because people are given sovereignty over their own bodies, for better or worse.

[Jorliefstreiken]

Oh my fucking god. That's why it's up to the fucking adult with full mental capacity to look into it first. We're talking about voluntary "therapy" here not the forced crap. So stop comparing it.

Even adults with full mental capacity should be blocked from choosing on several areas of their life. The people don't know what is best for them typically speaking.

We should have the established institutions for mental health. Everything outside of it should be barred from adults and children alike.

umm no. you literally just described command statesz when you you said they shouldnt be able to choose.

[Xeng He]

Considering that no one in their right mind would do the therapy in the full knowledge that it is fraud and dangerous what's the difference between that and just banning it?

No one who really knew would, perhaps, but willful ignorance, even in the face of good evidence, is a thing. Those people are not being misled, and so can be said to be freely choosing. I think there are certain "safety course" type deals that could dole out information.

[San Lumen]

Considering that no one in their right mind would do the therapy in the full knowledge that it is fraud and dangerous what's the difference between that and just banning it?

No one who really knew would, perhaps, but willful ignorance, even in the face of good evidence, is a thing. Those people are not being misled, and so can be said to be freely choosing. I think there are certain "safety course" type deals that could dole out information.

What's wrong with just outright banning it?

[Xeng He]

What's wrong with just outright banning it?

It's an infringement on people's rights to live out their beliefs, and on the off-chance someone does benefit from it, we'd be taking something special from them.

[Kraylandia]

No one who really knew would, perhaps, but willful ignorance, even in the face of good evidence, is a thing. Those people are not being misled, and so can be said to be freely choosing. I think there are certain "safety course" type deals that could dole out information.

What's wrong with just outright banning it?

Freedom of choice, we've been over this.

[San Lumen]

What's wrong with just outright banning it?

Freedom of choice, we've been over this.

So if i wanted to use lead paint in my house i should be allowed to? the government was wrong to outlaw it?

[Kraylandia]

Freedom of choice, we've been over this.

So if i wanted to use lead paint in my house i should be allowed to? the government was wrong to outlaw it?

I personally couldn't care less what you used on your house. But if it harms others, then the government is probably right to regulate it in some way. This "therapy" only harms the individual that chose to take part in it.

[New Aeyariss]

I do believe that it seriously SHOULD NOT be banned, as long as it does not involve any harmful actions such as castration or electroshocks.

Otherwise, I support (the therapy) it as long as it is done under free choice of person that is undergoing therapy.

[Neutraligon]

No you do not. For instance you do not get to sell "medicine" as medicine unless allowed by the FDA even if you announce it does not work on the bottle.

'Nutreceutical' as a label would tend to disagree with this assessment. As would broad categories of 'alternative medicine' in general. The FDA does not, for instance, do anything to regulate acupuncture needles, 'aromatherapy' chemicals/scents, and a wealth of products peddled as cure-alls and various treatments or outright cures for diseases.

Again that is not true. Therapy is in the end a medical science and is biology, thus therapies should be regulated under similar rules to other medical fields. After all therapy is supposed to deal with things like psychology, which is still highly regulated.

Yet many such instances of therapy are NOT regulated under the auspices of any medical watchdog. Hence why AA, NA, and the various other 'group therapy' or 'class' sessions for substance abuse, anger, or domestic abuse victims and others aren't covered under 'medical' concerns.
As well they shouldn't be. Because people are considerably more complex than the pills the FDA (rather poorly) evaluates.
Even then, if one wished to under your comparison to pharmaceuticals and such, gay conversion therapy is merely the equivalent of choosing 'alternative medicine' as a solution. Something which is allowed (despite its danger to individuals health).
Because people are given sovereignty over their own bodies, for better or worse.

Because they do not actual claim to cure anything. Oh and accupuncture needles are covered as devices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatio ... ted_States

Alternative medicines are regulated though not as strictly as those claiming to actually cure things. For instance dietary supplements like the one you mentioned are classified as food and thus not as heavily regulated as long as they do not claim to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease. It is however regulated. That is not the claim made by those who do conversion therapy. They claim to cure homosexuality and thus would fall under the more heavy regulations. In the US in order to be perform therapy you are required to have a license as controlled by the individual state. http://counsellingresource.com/lib/ther ... licensure/

Thus if they claim to be doing therapy they must be licensed in the state. If they claim to be curing or treating something, they are covered by the FDA. Which now makes me wonder exactly what they are claiming that they can bypass these laws.

[San Lumen]

So if i wanted to use lead paint in my house i should be allowed to? the government was wrong to outlaw it?

I personally couldn't care less what you used on your house. But if it harms others, then the government is probably right to regulate it in some way. This "therapy" only harms the individual that chose to take part in it.

You said earlier "it is authoritarian to ban something that is harmful" Now your contradicting yourself. Sometimes people under 18 are forced into by their parents. So we should ban minors from being forced into it but not ban it completely?

[Xeng He]

So if i wanted to use lead paint in my house i should be allowed to? the government was wrong to outlaw it?

The government was right to outlaw it, because the potential dangers are much more direct (to the ecosystem).

The potential dangers to people besides the users of (some) conversion therapy are the result of an abuse of the system and should be treated differently.

[Kraylandia]

I personally couldn't care less what you used on your house. But if it harms others, then the government is probably right to regulate it in some way. This "therapy" only harms the individual that chose to take part in it.

You said earlier "it is authoritarian to ban something that is harmful" Now your contradicting yourself. Sometimes people under 18 are forced into by their parents. So we should ban minors from being forced into it but not ban it completely?

Lead paint is a slightly different story, and regarding the whole under eighteen thing, that's why it should be illegal for minors. 18+ and over and should always be consensual. Banning this "therapy" is bad.

[Adab]

Let conversion therapy go on, so that everyone, no matter what they think about LGBTs, will see just how useless it is.

[Kraylandia]

Let conversion therapy go on, so that everyone, no matter what they think about LGBTs, will see just how useless it is.

Precisely this, let it go on as long as it isn't forced. Voluntary should be allowed.

[Great Nepal]

Yes for the same reason drugs that cause harm are banned. If it is not banned then they need to not only reveal that this is not supported by doctors or psychologists, that those two professions in general feel it harmful, and they need to outline the possible negative repercussions the same way current drugs need to. They cannot advertise this as a medical procedure or they are committing fraud.

In that case there's no need to ban conversion therapy in particular, bring a lawsuit on charges of fraud by failure to disclose, and anyone who feel they have been duped because of this can bring civil action against those practicing it.

[Grenartia]

If they consent, its okay. IF THE ADULT CONSENTS, IT'S HIS PROBLEM, NOT SOCIETIES.

The problem with that, is that you have no idea if the consent is truly informed or non-coerced.

[Great Nepal]

If they consent, its okay. IF THE ADULT CONSENTS, IT'S HIS PROBLEM, NOT SOCIETIES.

The problem with that, is that you have no idea if the consent is truly informed or non-coerced.

So is the case with everything else - how do you know if someone consenting to a contract is informed or cohered? Does that mean we ban contracts all together?

[Threlizdun]

If they consent, its okay. IF THE ADULT CONSENTS, IT'S HIS PROBLEM, NOT SOCIETIES.

The problem with that, is that you have no idea if the consent is truly informed or non-coerced.

Alcohol remains legal despite the fact that plenty of people are coerced into consuming alcohol. We cannot ban something just because it is possible to be coerced into it, because that applies to almost everything. It should be banned for children and the mentally handicapped, and for adults it should still be required to state that it has no science to back it up and list the harmful side effects of it, just as we make tobacco companies do. We can make it a pariah without making it illegal.

[Grenartia]

The problem with that, is that you have no idea if the consent is truly informed or non-coerced.

So is the case with everything else - 1. how do you know if someone consenting to a contract is informed or cohered? 2. Does that mean we ban contracts all together?

1. Ask questions about the person's knowledge of things, and ask if they're doing it of their own free will (and make sure to state the answer will be kept confidential).

2. No. However, in this case, the likelihood of abuse and the potential for detruction mean that extra precautions are required. Just because Sulfuric acid and water are both liquids, doesn't mean you should handle the former exactly how you'd handle the latter.

[Grenartia]

That's not a use. Name a real use, that's actually beneficial for the recipient, and to the country as a whole.

Mentally stable individuals.

In that case, you should be all for banning it, since you're much more likely go go into conversion therapy mentally stable and leave mentally unstable than the other way around.

[Tevehas]

Then we would have to outlaw holistic medicine as well.

It's not like the government is forcing people to undergo it.