• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

California becomes first state to ban 'gay cure' therapy for children

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eric C

Member
Good for California.

Amazing. Only ten years ago such therapy was recognized by the AMA and now a state has already banned it.

Let's all give ourselves a good pat on the back.

I'm reminded of an article I read a while ago about one mans experience with the EX GAY therapy. It's almost shocking how just 10-15 years ago, ex-gay therapy was ALMOST starting to become casually accepted in the media without real criticism.


My So-Called Ex-Gay Life
Early in my freshman year of high school, I came home to find my mom sitting on her bed, crying. She had snooped through my e-mail and discovered a message in which I confessed to having a crush on a male classmate.

“Are you gay?” she asked. I blurted out that I was.

“I knew it, ever since you were a little boy.”

Her resignation didn’t last long. My mom is a problem solver, and the next day she handed me a stack of papers she had printed out from the Internet about reorientation, or “ex-gay,” therapy. I threw them away. I said I didn’t see how talking about myself in a therapist’s office was going to make me stop liking guys. My mother responded by asking whether I wanted a family, then posed a hypothetical: “If there were a pill you could take that would make you straight, would you take it?”

I admitted that life would be easier if such a pill existed. I hadn’t thought about how my infatuation with boys would play out over the course of my life. In fact, I had always imagined myself middle-aged, married to a woman, and having a son and daughter—didn’t everyone want some version of that?

“The gay lifestyle is very lonely,” she said.

She told me about Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, a clinical psychologist in California who was then president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), the country’s largest organization for practitioners of ex-gay therapy. She said Nicolosi had treated hundreds of people who were now able to live “normal” lives.

...

On July 13, 1998—the same year I started therapy—a full-page ad appeared in The New York Times featuring a beaming woman with a diamond engagement ring and wedding band. “I’m proof that the truth can set you free,” she proclaimed. The woman, Anne Paulk, said that molestation during adolescence led her to homosexuality, but that she had been healed through the power of Jesus Christ. The $600,000 ad campaign—sponsored by 15 religious-right organizations, including the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the American Family Association—ran for several weeks in such publications as The Washington Post, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times. Robert Knight of the Family Research Council called it “the Normandy landing in the culture war.”

...

With few voices to challenge the testimonials, reporters transmitted them as revelation. Newsweek ran a sympathetic cover story on change therapy, and national and regional papers published ex-gays’ accounts. My mother might not have so easily found information about ex-gay therapy had the Christian right not planted this stake in the culture war.

in the late 1990s and early 2000s, ex-gay therapy enjoyed a legitimacy it hadn’t since the APA removed homosexuality from its diagnostic manual. Exodus had 83 chapters in 34 states. Its president, Alan Chambers, claimed in 2004 that he knew “tens of thousands of people who have successfully changed their sexual orientation.” Nicolosi appeared often on programs like Oprah, 20/20, and Larry King Live. Whether or not the Christian right’s alliance with the ex-gay movement had constituted a D-Day in the culture wars, it had successfully challenged the prevailing idea that the best choice for gay people was to accept themselves.
 

A.E Suggs

Member
This is why critical thinking skills are so essential in a democratic society. The US is in dire need of education reform.

Yes it is but they've been trying for years and it just seems like things are getting worst than better when it comes to education. I myself don't really have a good idea on how they can go about that.
 

Orayn

Member
Yes it is but they've been trying for years and it just seems like things are getting worst than better when it comes to education. I myself don't really have a good idea on how they can go about that.

Start by reforming math and science standards so we're not so far behind the rest of the world. Also, stop Republicans from messing with the curriculum.
 
That they do is not a justification for allowing them to continue. This legislation is pretty narrow, too.

This is not a hunt for justification so please be careful when interpolating. I always question whether the best way to affect social change is through legislation rather than education. Sometimes the answer is both but I think it would ideal if the latter was the only one necessary. The people making these lays are infinitely more versed on the issue than I am, I’m sure. I just think there's a healthy track record of how "good intentions" have always backfired. I hope this works out for the best.
 
This is not a hunt for justification so please be careful when interpolating. I always question whether the best way to affect social change is through legislation rather than education. Sometimes the answer is both but I think it would ideal if the latter was the only one necessary. The people making these lays are infinitely more versed on the issue than I am, I’m sure. I just think there's a healthy track record of how "good intentions" have always backfired. I hope this works out for the best.

When it comes to issue like this, forcing people to change their ways is the best outcome. Without forceful legislation full civil rights wouldn't have happened for another 20 years at the very least. When it comes to psychology it is extremely hard to change someone's beliefs they've held for most of their lives.
 

Escape Goat

Member
This is not a hunt for justification so please be careful when interpolating. I always question whether the best way to affect social change is through legislation rather than education. Sometimes the answer is both but I think it would ideal if the latter was the only one necessary. The people making these lays are infinitely more versed on the issue than I am, I’m sure. I just think there's a healthy track record of how "good intentions" have always backfired. I hope this works out for the best.

This isn't about social change. Its about protecting people, often times children, from harmful "therapy".
 
When it comes to issue like this, forcing people to change their ways is the best outcome. Without forceful legislation full civil rights wouldn't have happened for another 20 years at the very least. When it comes to psychology it is extremely hard to change someone's beliefs they've held for most of their lives.

I said all that with the history of US and race relations in mind. I'm not against legislation completely but my distrust of government has been running deep lately. I almost have a cynical perspective that I can't take anything at face value and laws are passed with the express intent to control. I admire this law because it grants more freedom to a cross-section of society on the face of it but it makes me worried that the reasoning of why people should do the right thing here is because it's the law. I can rattle off about 4 dozen other things that are generally good that people do because it’s the law. Perhaps that's more of an indictment on our human nature than it is an unknown force trying to move chess pieces around but when I think of the things that have made it through that is creating this class-based society we live in all in the name of the common good, I question things a little. If this is a well written law, we hopefully won't see an egregious use of it in the coming years. I guess at this point, I'm just riffing. Thanks for hearing me out.
 

Dead Man

Member
This is not a hunt for justification so please be careful when interpolating. I always question whether the best way to affect social change is through legislation rather than education. Sometimes the answer is both but I think it would ideal if the latter was the only one necessary. The people making these lays are infinitely more versed on the issue than I am, I’m sure. I just think there's a healthy track record of how "good intentions" have always backfired. I hope this works out for the best.

Often social change is best effected by education. That is something I agree with you on. When it comes to protection of those at risk though, legislation is often needed to have an immediate effect on those who are vulnerable. If 'gay cure' programmes didn't lead to increased suicide rates and risk taking behaviour I would probably agree with you, but when kids are being placed in those situations then I don't think it is worth waiting for the elements of society that inflict that to catch up with the rest of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom