Why "Conversion Therapy" Should Be Illegal

[Idolater]

I remember hearing about just such a study quite a while back, I'm afraid it been too long for me to find the reference. The study took an unbiased looked at the history and doctrines of Christian churches to determine which could claim a historical link to Christ himself. The conclusion was the Catholic Church and the Mormons were the only ones who could make that claim. Some Eastern Orthodox churches might argue the point.

I agree with that study. It's tough to side with the Mormons when you compare them with just about any other tradition, but especially with the Catholics. Mormonism builds on the Church like how the Church builds on Judaism. The difference between the two is the significance of Christ's Resurrection, because if that is nonfiction, then it's clearly the Catholic Church, and if it's fiction, then it doesn't even matter, because 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV!

 

[Idolater]

So lovemeorhateme was and is sick?

Yes. It's not a moral thing. It's also not something the Apostles knew. The objective immorality of the acts remains unchanged, regardless of its psychological genesis.

 

[Idolater]

your prejudice

What prejudice?

 

[Idolater]

Interesting and I may come back to it when I'm not on my handheld. I learned a lot about Catholic dogma and catechism, stuff like that from trad and zippy. They were very informative and I valued their participation. Not sure if you knew them.

I like/liked them both. I got a kick out of Trad's latest avatar. Trad's got 'spunk,' which, in times of war usually's recognized as heroism. Zippy was/is convinced that Catholicism is the only way human beings can achieve true freedom, whether or not you believe in God.

this is the 1st time that I've used my speech recognition software so I'm gonna try it before I press send but who knows what its going to look like.

Looks like it worked out OK. :thumb:

 

[Idolater]

When I was a teenager, my parents tried to put me through conversion therapy. I was also made to attend a couple of “exorcisms” to deal with my “obvious” demonic possession. I can certainly attest to it not working for me. I’ve met many others who also attest to it not working for them.

If an adult wishes to give such therapy a try, well I’ve got no problem with that. But it should never be forced on anyone.

It should never be forced 'upon' anyone.

Here's brass tacks. The Church won't serve Holy Communion to people known to be invalidly married, whether they be those married after civil divorce, whose previous marriage has not been annulled, or those married to spouses of their same sex. But, the Church does not counsel to seek civil divorce in such case, only to live in continence. This is because she understands that even null civil marriage serves an important structural role in stable society.

 

[Idolater]

don't all churches believe themselves to be the best representatives of Christ's flock?

Most ecclesial communities' traditions have to fill in the gap between the Apostles and the Reformation with a story about corruption of some sort, in order to justify themselves in the light of history. And they do.

 

[Idolater]

What a bizarre and silly thing to say. This thread isn't about curtailing liberty, it's about why quackery should be (and thankfully is being) stopped.

:AMR:

How is that not curtailing liberty? It doesn't matter if it's quackery, or who says that it's quackery. If you're telling someone they can't do something, with their stuff, with their people, with their family, then that's curtailing liberty, aka tyranny. You can argue you're protecting the right of children, but what kind of right is that? Is it the same right that the Chinese 'recognize,' where they outlaw Christians from teaching their kids about Christ? Because that's not a real right. That's made up, Democrat male cattle feces.

 

[Idolater]

Would you consider it "abnormal" of a person of a same-sex attraction who expressed not wanting to have that attraction for no other reason than their simply not wanting to have that attraction?

I mean, what's good for the goose, is also good for the gander, is it not?

For if it is okay in your book for someone of a same-sex attraction to have the right to live said attraction out, it should also be okay in your book for those who do not want to have that same attraction to seek help out of said attraction - and by your same measure for those who are fine with their same sex attraction - your obvious measure - "be what ever sex attraction you desire being - no questions asked."

Nobody has a right to rape someone, good point.

 

[Idolater]

Yes, but the purpose was to find churches that could claim to be directly linked to Christ himself and the church following that he left behind. There was likely quite a few before the Catholic church suppressed all the others early in its history. Now only they remain except the Mormons who base a claim based on Christ appearing in North America. The rest are largely branches off of the Catholic Church.

That about all I know about it though like I say some of the older Eastern Orthodox churches would dispute the claim. Not that it matters much to me, I was brought up in fundamentalist traditions including educations on the Catholic church traditions and structure was influenced by the Roman Empire. And we all know the problems with the Mormon claims. So to me, there is no church with a valid claim to be descended from the first church.

Largely correct. You need to ask the Orthodox though, do you still believe there is a patriarchy in Rome? They believe the Catholic Church is another Orthodox church, just a wayward one. So they have to conclude that Catholics are welcome into their communion, even though Orthodox cannot licitly receive Holy Communion in Catholic Mass. So therefore, the Orthodox Churches de facto testify that the Catholic Church is the 'catholic' Church spoken of in the Creed.

 

[Idolater]

They should seek out medically sound treatments to help them with that.

That insurance covers like any other medically sound treatments. :up:

 

[Arthur Brain]

How is that not curtailing liberty? It doesn't matter if it's quackery, or who says that it's quackery. If you're telling someone they can't do something, with their stuff, with their people, with their family, then that's curtailing liberty, aka tyranny. You can argue you're protecting the right of children, but what kind of right is that? Is it the same right that the Chinese 'recognize,' where they outlaw Christians from teaching their kids about Christ? Because that's not a real right. That's made up, Democrat male cattle feces.

Do you think a parent should have the right to abuse their children? Now if you give the only sane answer of "no", then extend that out as to whether institutions should be allowed to operate with practices that do just that. The only sane answer to that once again is "no". It is not "tyranny" or "curtailing liberty" to put a stop to places that harm the wellbeing and health of children. If an adult wants to seek out some quack or moonshine practice then they have that right, but no way should kids be forced into it.

 

[Danoh]

Nobody has a right to rape someone, good point.

While I agree with you that no one has such a right, that was not...what I was asking AB about.

My question was whether or not he believes that someone not wanting their same sex attraction has a right to seek help out of it.

A right which AB has already agreed with, in his second reply to me on that question.

 

[ok doser]

How is that not curtailing liberty? It doesn't matter if it's quackery, or who says that it's quackery. If you're telling someone they can't do something, with their stuff, with their people, with their family, then that's curtailing liberty, aka tyranny. You can argue you're protecting the right of children, but what kind of right is that? Is it the same right that the Chinese 'recognize,' where they outlaw Christians from teaching their kids about Christ? Because that's not a real right. That's made up, Democrat male cattle feces.

Once the state claims ownership of your children, they can train them to be good little liberal/democratic robots

 

[ok doser]

Do you think a parent should have the right to abuse their children?

of course the only sane answer to that question is no

but who gets to decide what constitutes abuse?

The Amish up here use the rod, so i'm told. You'd never know it, because their children are perfectly well behaved in public. But if a SJW saw an Amish (or anyone else) applying the rod to their child, in correction, they'd record it, post it on Facebook and in minutes the whole world* would be calling for the incarceration (or worse) of the parent.




*correction - that retarded half of the whole world who lives for social media storms

 

[ok doser]

btw artie - when you write the bolded part, it should be setting off alarm bells in your head:

Do you think a parent should have the right to abuse their children? Now if you give the only sane answer of "no", then extend that out as to whether institutions should be allowed to operate with practices that do just that. The only sane answer to that once again is "no". It is not "tyranny" or "curtailing liberty" to put a stop to places that harm the wellbeing and health of children. If an adult wants to seek out some quack or moonshine practice then they have that right, but no way should kids be forced into it.

extrapolation from a basepoint is perfectly valid, but if your original data is not perfect, the further out you extrapolate, the more askew you get

 

[ok doser]

Nobody has a right to rape someone...

awwww

 

[MrDante]

Yes. It's not a moral thing. It's also not something the Apostles knew. The objective immorality of the acts remains unchanged, regardless of its psychological genesis.

can you be heterosexual without committing "acts"???

 

[MrDante]

How is that not curtailing liberty? It doesn't matter if it's quackery, or who says that it's quackery. If you're telling someone they can't do something, with their stuff, with their people, with their family, then that's curtailing liberty, aka tyranny. You can argue you're protecting the right of children, but what kind of right is that? Is it the same right that the Chinese 'recognize,' where they outlaw Christians from teaching their kids about Christ? Because that's not a real right. That's made up, Democrat male cattle feces.

protecting children from harm is now tyranny? :first:

 

[ok doser]

protecting children from harm is....

a parent's responsibility, not the government's


and a responsible parent recognizes that a child's embrace of perversion is harmful

 

[MrDante]

a parent's responsibility, not the government's


and a responsible parent recognizes that a child's embrace of perversion is harmful

a mainstay of reparative therapy involves forced nudity of the "problem child" Children are forced to remove all clothing during both individual and group therapy sessions. this nudity is considered therapeutic and the child with the "troubled relationship" is encouraged to engage in “cuddling” with their father. If the father is unavailable then a the reparative therapist acts as a substitute. - Ref: Shidlo, A.; Schroeder, M.; Drescher, J. eds. Sexual conversion therapy: ethical, clinical, and research perspectives 2011

the only perverts are the therapists that push this sort of abuse and the people who defend these sickos.