Delaware bans Conversion Therapy

[Geneviev]

It's a good start, but why should licensed medical professionals be allowed to practice this quackery on adults?

---

If sexual orientation is such a simple "choice", why does someone who doesn't want to be gay have to go through the whole conversion process anyway?

When it's the children of good, upstanding, strictly socially conservative Christian families, they didn't choose to be gay. No, they were brainwashed by the liberal media. These degenerate Hollywood celebrities are shoving the gay agenda down people's throats and taking away parents' free choice to keep their kids straight.

It's not just Hollywood. Cartoons, other people (atheists particularly), and demons really cause that, at least according to my family.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Finally
That shitss literally torture

[Arkhane]

Wonderful, now if they can nip child HRT in the bud before it becomes mainstream, it'll be complete.

[Geneviev]

Wonderful, now if they can nip child HRT in the bud before it becomes mainstream, it'll be complete.

That would ruin it for me, so no. Cause if I have to go to another country or something that would be stupid.

[Vassenor]

Wonderful, now if they can nip child HRT in the bud before it becomes mainstream, it'll be complete.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Who said it was only wrong when LGBT people are the victims? I’m all for LGBT rights and want to
see this stuff banned regardless. It’s barbaric, regardless of who’s being targeted.

What I find immensely amusing, however, is that you seem incapable of saying “this is a barbaric practice and I’m happy it’s been outlawed in some small way.”
You seem incapable of going “good for the LGBT teens and children who won’t be subjected to this cruel practice in Delaware.”

It’s obvious you believe both of those statements. Your posts admit this sort of “therapy” is wrong, and so it stands to reason you believe it ought to be illegal to use it on LGBT children.

And yet, as I said on the previous page of this thread, you’re one of the ones unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to “agree with the libs” is forcing you to be angry and combative, calling LGBT people “corrupt to the core” and constructing strawmen to tear down.
All because saying “I’m happy LGBT youth don’t need to go through this in Delaware” is beyond you.

I’ll admit my stance is unnecessarily combative, and while it is good that LGBT folk won’t have to deal with it it does not help the dozens of other people who will. My concern is that this will give the impression that harmful behavior changing aversion therapies are simply not an issue, that they’ve been dealt with and aren’t a public concern anymore. And I can’t bring myself to feel happy for Delaware LGBT youth who aren’t going through this when I see other people condemned to suffer a similar fate, and the fact that the media and mainstream LGBT groups ignore their plight, as if conversion therapy were just a gay issue, feels like a kick in the face. I stand by my statement that the LGBT movement is corrupt, mainstream gay activist groups often behave in extremely dubious ways and are just as sectarian and extreme as the religious fanatics they insist on battling, though that’s a topic for another conversation.

So, your argument basically is:

1) it is good that LGBT folk won’t have to deal with it
2) it does not help the dozens of other people
3) this will give the impression that harmful behavior changing aversion therapies are simply not an issue
4) And therefore, it should not have been banned?

[Crylante]

Good news. Congrats Delaware.

[Dawlat-i-Aliya]

I’ll admit my stance is unnecessarily combative, and while it is good that LGBT folk won’t have to deal with it it does not help the dozens of other people who will. My concern is that this will give the impression that harmful behavior changing aversion therapies are simply not an issue, that they’ve been dealt with and aren’t a public concern anymore. And I can’t bring myself to feel happy for Delaware LGBT youth who aren’t going through this when I see other people condemned to suffer a similar fate, and the fact that the media and mainstream LGBT groups ignore their plight, as if conversion therapy were just a gay issue, feels like a kick in the face. I stand by my statement that the LGBT movement is corrupt, mainstream gay activist groups often behave in extremely dubious ways and are just as sectarian and extreme as the religious fanatics they insist on battling, though that’s a topic for another conversation.

So, your argument basically is:

1) it is good that LGBT folk won’t have to deal with it
2) it does not help the dozens of other people
3) this will give the impression that harmful behavior changing aversion therapies are simply not an issue
4) And therefore, it should not have been banned?

It’s not a huge advancement, that LGBT youth likely make up a minority of those who recieve this kind of treatment (though I don’t think there have been any studies into this, it doesn’t do much to help most victims. While I don’t believe that any of these therapies should in and of themselves be outright banned, I do think that it should be illegal for unlicensed so called professionals to use these techniques, it should never be involuntary with enough precautions in place to ensure that informed consent was obtained. Furthermore, the rhetoric spouted by the gay conversion bunch should be sanctioned harshly by the American Psychological Association, more so than it is, it’s abuse of power for a therapist to implicitly suggest that being gay is some inferior state that a person should rid themselves of. If anything, I believe that gay activist opponents of conversion therapy don’t go far enough and don’t acknowledge other victims.

[Auzkhia]

Wonderful, now if they can nip child HRT in the bud before it becomes mainstream, it'll be complete.

They don't give children HRT, they get puberty blockers instead. No doctors even the most trans affirming ones, give children hormones because HRT is supposed to reverse and inverse the hormonal structure in adults, whom already experienced puberty. And puberty blockers stop their affects when they stop taking them.

And letting trans kids be themselves isn't child abuse.

[Geneviev]

So, your argument basically is:

1) it is good that LGBT folk won’t have to deal with it
2) it does not help the dozens of other people
3) this will give the impression that harmful behavior changing aversion therapies are simply not an issue
4) And therefore, it should not have been banned?

It’s not a huge advancement, that LGBT youth likely make up a minority of those who recieve this kind of treatment (though I don’t think there have been any studies into this, it doesn’t do much to help most victims. While I don’t believe that any of these therapies should in and of themselves be outright banned, I do think that it should be illegal for unlicensed so called professionals to use these techniques, it should never be involuntary with enough precautions in place to ensure that informed consent was obtained. Furthermore, the rhetoric spouted by the gay conversion bunch should be sanctioned harshly by the American Psychological Association, more so than it is, it’s abuse of power for a therapist to implicitly suggest that being gay is some inferior state that a person should rid themselves of. If anything, I believe that gay activist opponents of conversion therapy don’t go far enough and don’t acknowledge other victims.

I've never heard of anyone other than LGBTQ people being forced into conversion therapy.

[USS Monitor]

Kids weren't tortured to rid them of autism.

Ever heard of ABA? Historically, electrocution and beating was used as a tool to rid them of aberrant behaviour. Just as in some forms of conversion therapy, aversion techniques were applied by electrocuting or inducing nausea in the victim when he is sexually aroused by male bodies, the same was used to prevent kids from rocking, flapping their hands or engaging in otherwise benign behavior to train the autism out of them. This therapy is still used, and though electrocuting victims isn’t as common anymore the principle of using discipline to train a person to be a certain way and abandon forms of behavior others deem ‘unnatural’ remains a staple of treating kids with mental problems like Autism.

Kids are actually forced into it by their parents.

If you don't see the suffering of your fellow humans as an issue worth taking up, the problems lies with you. The difference between using therapy to help someone with a mental disorder and someone with another sexuality should be obvious. One is trying to help someone, the other is trying to force someone into conformity. Hell, using these techniques on people with a mental disorder should be seen as immoral.

I do see it as an issue, I just don’t see it as a gay only issue. I’ll say it again, why is aversion therapy wrong when gay people are the victims? Why is it okay to do that kind of thing to children with disabilities? You do know that ABA is actually banned in the UK, why? Because it’s cruel, unleashing physical suffering on a child to stop them from doing something as harmless as rocking is as unjustifiable as a unleashing physical suffering on a person for being aroused at images of men. It’s torture either way, and in both cases the aim is to change a person involuntarily because what they happen to do offends moral authorities.

It's intellectually dishonest to bring up historical practices -- some of which are banned, have fallen out of favor for being unnecessarily cruel, etc. -- and then ask, "Why is this OK, but conversion therapy is wrong?"

The fact that the techniques you cited are banned in the UK means other people weren't OK with them. But then you make this argument that ignores that.

[Dawlat-i-Aliya]

It’s not a huge advancement, that LGBT youth likely make up a minority of those who recieve this kind of treatment (though I don’t think there have been any studies into this, it doesn’t do much to help most victims. While I don’t believe that any of these therapies should in and of themselves be outright banned, I do think that it should be illegal for unlicensed so called professionals to use these techniques, it should never be involuntary with enough precautions in place to ensure that informed consent was obtained. Furthermore, the rhetoric spouted by the gay conversion bunch should be sanctioned harshly by the American Psychological Association, more so than it is, it’s abuse of power for a therapist to implicitly suggest that being gay is some inferior state that a person should rid themselves of. If anything, I believe that gay activist opponents of conversion therapy don’t go far enough and don’t acknowledge other victims.

I've never heard of anyone other than LGBTQ people being forced into conversion therapy.

Conversion therapy is a catch all term used to refer to a bunch of thereapeautic techniques aimed at converting ‘sex deviants’ into heterosexuals. Mid 20th century behaviorism, a school within psychology that believed all aspects of human personality are learned through conditioning, spawned a series of behavioural therapies aimed at correcting aberrant behavior. Aversion therapy, a technique often used in conversion therapy, involves getting a person to associate pain with something to get them to behave a certain way. So for homosexuals, the victim is exposed to gay pornography, then shocked with low current electricity so that they unlearn their sexual attraction to members of the same sex. Now, that same formula is used to treat all kinds of things, in the 70s people often paid for this therapy to reduce their perceived addiction to fast food, but it’s also was used involuntarily for children with developmental disabilities or other oddities. It’s commonly used to treat autism, where it’s referred to as ABA. Now, while the use of electrocution is not as common as it once was, the principle of ‘make a person suffer to force them to behave a certain way’ remains essentially the same. Of course, children with autism cannot consent because they cannot speak, which makes this form of treatment controversial, nevertheless it’s the most common treatment autism despite being banned in a number of countries. This is just one example, aversion therapy is used in a variety of situations, often involuntarily, and it does tend to leave psychological scars on those that are forced to undergo it.

[Frievolk]

Wait, there are states that haven't banned that yet?

[San Lumen]

Wait, there are states that haven't banned that yet?

Only 14 have. If you include the District of Columbia which is not a state its 15.

[Vozh]

I've never heard of anyone other than LGBTQ people being forced into conversion therapy.

Conversion therapy is a catch all term used to refer to a bunch of thereapeautic techniques aimed at converting ‘sex deviants’ into heterosexuals. Mid 20th century behaviorism, a school within psychology that believed all aspects of human personality are learned through conditioning, spawned a series of behavioural therapies aimed at correcting aberrant behavior. Aversion therapy, a technique often used in conversion therapy, involves getting a person to associate pain with something to get them to behave a certain way. So for homosexuals, the victim is exposed to gay pornography, then shocked with low current electricity so that they unlearn their sexual attraction to members of the same sex. Now, that same formula is used to treat all kinds of things, in the 70s people often paid for this therapy to reduce their perceived addiction to fast food, but it’s also was used involuntarily for children with developmental disabilities or other oddities. It’s commonly used to treat autism, where it’s referred to as ABA. Now, while the use of electrocution is not as common as it once was, the principle of ‘make a person suffer to force them to behave a certain way’ remains essentially the same. Of course, children with autism cannot consent because they cannot speak, which makes this form of treatment controversial, nevertheless it’s the most common treatment autism despite being banned in a number of countries. This is just one example, aversion therapy is used in a variety of situations, often involuntarily, and it does tend to leave psychological scars on those that are forced to undergo it.

Holy shit, I have no idea where you're getting any of this from.

Only the most severely autistic are mute. Most people with autism are perfectly capable of speaking.

ABA does not utilize pain or stress in order to disincentivise a given behaviour. Instead, a child will be reinforced when they exhibit a desired behaviour. So a child who sits quietly will be rewarded with a chocolate or toy, while a child who is tantruming will not.

[Geneviev]

I've never heard of anyone other than LGBTQ people being forced into conversion therapy.

Conversion therapy is a catch all term used to refer to a bunch of thereapeautic techniques aimed at converting ‘sex deviants’ into heterosexuals. Mid 20th century behaviorism, a school within psychology that believed all aspects of human personality are learned through conditioning, spawned a series of behavioural therapies aimed at correcting aberrant behavior. Aversion therapy, a technique often used in conversion therapy, involves getting a person to associate pain with something to get them to behave a certain way. So for homosexuals, the victim is exposed to gay pornography, then shocked with low current electricity so that they unlearn their sexual attraction to members of the same sex. Now, that same formula is used to treat all kinds of things, in the 70s people often paid for this therapy to reduce their perceived addiction to fast food, but it’s also was used involuntarily for children with developmental disabilities or other oddities. It’s commonly used to treat autism, where it’s referred to as ABA. Now, while the use of electrocution is not as common as it once was, the principle of ‘make a person suffer to force them to behave a certain way’ remains essentially the same. Of course, children with autism cannot consent because they cannot speak, which makes this form of treatment controversial, nevertheless it’s the most common treatment autism despite being banned in a number of countries. This is just one example, aversion therapy is used in a variety of situations, often involuntarily, and it does tend to leave psychological scars on those that are forced to undergo it.

I was never electrocuted to treat it and I don't know anyone who has. And a lot of children with autism can speak. I can speak.

Anyways, even if this was used for people other than those who are LGBT, it isn't anymore and that's the point. It became a gay issue because that's pretty much all it's used for now.

[Prydania]

I stand by my statement that the LGBT movement is corrupt, mainstream gay activist groups often behave in extremely dubious ways and are just as sectarian and extreme as the religious fanatics they insist on battling, though that’s a topic for another conversation.

Oh it’s very much relevant, as this “LGBT corruption” is fuelling your argument.

Look. I’ve been involved in the LGBT rights movement since uni. I worked with my uni’s LGBT activist alliance to reach out to the community’s religious institutions in what was a very respectful and very productive conference on building bridges between faith based organizations and the LGBT community.
I was an active member of LGBTory, a wing of the Conservative Party of Canada focused on LGBT rights and issues.

Now you might be thinking “religion? Conservative politics? Not something you see LGBT groups traditionally aligned with!”
And yet that’s what I was a part of. Alongside a number of other lovely, idealistic people.

So this idea that the LGBT movement is somehow fanatical and sectarian is utterly false. The fact that you parade it as truth tells me your knowledge of the LGBT Rights movement is very baseline.

LGBT peoples are a diverse bunch. We can be right or left wing, theistic, atheistic, or agnostic. Some of us like sports others don’t. And so on and so forth.
Ultimately anyone who campaigns for LGBT rights only wants one thing; a better and more equal world for LGBT peoples.

There’s nothing corrupt or divisive or sectarian about that. And you’d see that if your knowledge of the LGBT Rights movement wasn’t so stereotypically limited.

[San Lumen]

Conversion therapy is a catch all term used to refer to a bunch of thereapeautic techniques aimed at converting ‘sex deviants’ into heterosexuals. Mid 20th century behaviorism, a school within psychology that believed all aspects of human personality are learned through conditioning, spawned a series of behavioural therapies aimed at correcting aberrant behavior. Aversion therapy, a technique often used in conversion therapy, involves getting a person to associate pain with something to get them to behave a certain way. So for homosexuals, the victim is exposed to gay pornography, then shocked with low current electricity so that they unlearn their sexual attraction to members of the same sex. Now, that same formula is used to treat all kinds of things, in the 70s people often paid for this therapy to reduce their perceived addiction to fast food, but it’s also was used involuntarily for children with developmental disabilities or other oddities. It’s commonly used to treat autism, where it’s referred to as ABA. Now, while the use of electrocution is not as common as it once was, the principle of ‘make a person suffer to force them to behave a certain way’ remains essentially the same. Of course, children with autism cannot consent because they cannot speak, which makes this form of treatment controversial, nevertheless it’s the most common treatment autism despite being banned in a number of countries. This is just one example, aversion therapy is used in a variety of situations, often involuntarily, and it does tend to leave psychological scars on those that are forced to undergo it.

I was never electrocuted to treat it and I don't know anyone who has. And a lot of children with autism can speak. I can speak.

Anyways, even if this was used for people other than those who are LGBT, it isn't anymore and that's the point. It became a gay issue because that's pretty much all it's used for now.

Electrocution is a technique. It might not be common but it is done.

[Senkaku]

It's a good start, but why should licensed medical professionals be allowed to practice this quackery on adults?

Because you can't ban adults from believing quacks, unfortunately.

I stand by my statement that the LGBT movement is corrupt, mainstream gay activist groups often behave in extremely dubious ways and are just as sectarian and extreme as the religious fanatics they insist on battling, though that’s a topic for another conversation.

Oh it’s very much relevant, as this “LGBT corruption” is fuelling your argument.

Look. I’ve been involved in the LGBT rights movement since uni. I worked with my uni’s LGBT activist alliance to reach out to the community’s religious institutions in what was a very respectful and very productive conference on building bridges between faith based organizations and the LGBT community.
I was an active member of LGBTory, a wing of the Conservative Party of Canada focused on LGBT rights and issues.

Now you might be thinking “religion? Conservative politics? Not something you see LGBT groups traditionally aligned with!”
And yet that’s what I was a part of. Alongside a number of other lovely, idealistic people.

So this idea that the LGBT movement is somehow fanatical and sectarian is utterly false. The fact that you parade it as truth tells me your knowledge of the LGBT Rights movement is very baseline.

LGBT peoples are a diverse bunch. We can be right or left wing, theistic, atheistic, or agnostic. Some of us like sports others don’t. And so on and so forth.
Ultimately anyone who campaigns for LGBT rights only wants one thing; a better and more equal world for LGBT peoples.

There’s nothing corrupt or divisive or sectarian about that. And you’d see that if your knowledge of the LGBT Rights movement wasn’t so stereotypically limited.

And frankly, even if the LGBT movement were the kind of "militant gay agenda" that people on the far right like to portray it as- how does this have any impact on this bill? You oppose a bill that accomplishes a good thing and protects human rights on the grounds that you don't approve of some of the people advocating for it?

[San Lumen]

It's a good start, but why should licensed medical professionals be allowed to practice this quackery on adults?

Because you can't ban adults from believing quacks, unfortunately.

Oh it’s very much relevant, as this “LGBT corruption” is fuelling your argument.

Look. I’ve been involved in the LGBT rights movement since uni. I worked with my uni’s LGBT activist alliance to reach out to the community’s religious institutions in what was a very respectful and very productive conference on building bridges between faith based organizations and the LGBT community.
I was an active member of LGBTory, a wing of the Conservative Party of Canada focused on LGBT rights and issues.

Now you might be thinking “religion? Conservative politics? Not something you see LGBT groups traditionally aligned with!”
And yet that’s what I was a part of. Alongside a number of other lovely, idealistic people.

So this idea that the LGBT movement is somehow fanatical and sectarian is utterly false. The fact that you parade it as truth tells me your knowledge of the LGBT Rights movement is very baseline.

LGBT peoples are a diverse bunch. We can be right or left wing, theistic, atheistic, or agnostic. Some of us like sports others don’t. And so on and so forth.
Ultimately anyone who campaigns for LGBT rights only wants one thing; a better and more equal world for LGBT peoples.

There’s nothing corrupt or divisive or sectarian about that. And you’d see that if your knowledge of the LGBT Rights movement wasn’t so stereotypically limited.

And frankly, even if the LGBT movement were the kind of "militant gay agenda" that people on the far right like to portray it as- how does this have any impact on this bill? You oppose a bill that accomplishes a good thing and protects human rights on the grounds that you don't approve of some of the people advocating for it?

You could just outlaw conversion therapy for all

[Senkaku]

This is just one example, aversion therapy is used in a variety of situations, often involuntarily, and it does tend to leave psychological scars on those that are forced to undergo it.

So why would you oppose even a partial restriction on it?

[Page]

It's a good start, but why should licensed medical professionals be allowed to practice this quackery on adults?

---

If sexual orientation is such a simple "choice", why does someone who doesn't want to be gay have to go through the whole conversion process anyway?

When it's the children of good, upstanding, strictly socially conservative Christian families, they didn't choose to be gay. No, they were brainwashed by the liberal media. These degenerate Hollywood celebrities are shoving the gay agenda down people's throats and taking away parents' free choice to keep their kids straight.

I am conflicted about whether conversion therapy for adults should be allowed. No form of conversion therapy for minors should ever be tolerated, but if a consenting adult wants to pay someone to try to change their orientation, who am I to say no? It's stupid, but people have the right to do stupid things. Then on the other hand, conversion therapy is fraud, it's basically the same as selling someone a rock for $500 and claiming that the rock will make you immortal. I would say that those offering adult conversion therapy shouldn't be allowed to make fraudulent claims, but if someone still wants to proceed, in principle I think they have the right.

[Prydania]

And frankly, even if the LGBT movement were the kind of "militant gay agenda" that people on the far right like to portray it as- how does this have any impact on this bill? You oppose a bill that accomplishes a good thing and protects human rights on the grounds that you don't approve of some of the people advocating for it?

Yeah, it’s really an interesting, sad, and amusing phenomenon in this thread. Conservatives who agree that this stuff should be banned just can’t bring themselves to say “good on Delaware making it illegal to torture LGBT youth.”

Of course these people believe that this ban is a net positive, and even (begrudgingly) admit it in their posts.
They just can’t do it without being dismissive or angry because they’ve been conditioned by the far right to be instinctively hostile to the idea of “gay rights” as a thing “the libs” want.

[Geneviev]

Because you can't ban adults from believing quacks, unfortunately.


And frankly, even if the LGBT movement were the kind of "militant gay agenda" that people on the far right like to portray it as- how does this have any impact on this bill? You oppose a bill that accomplishes a good thing and protects human rights on the grounds that you don't approve of some of the people advocating for it?

You could just outlaw conversion therapy for all

The best they can do is just not let people who practise conversion therapy be licensed.

[Senkaku]

And frankly, even if the LGBT movement were the kind of "militant gay agenda" that people on the far right like to portray it as- how does this have any impact on this bill? You oppose a bill that accomplishes a good thing and protects human rights on the grounds that you don't approve of some of the people advocating for it?

Yeah, it’s really an interesting, sad, and amusing phenomenon in this thread. Conservatives who agree that this stuff should be banned just can’t bring themselves to say “good on Delaware making it illegal to torturing LGBT youth.”

Of course these people believe that this ban is a net positive, and even (begrudgingly) admit it in their posts.
They just can’t do it without being dismissive or angry because they’ve been conditioned by the far right to be instinctively hostile to the idea of “gay rights” as a thing “the libs” want.

Hardly a phenomenon unique to this thread, or even to NSG. It is funny though.