Lieu said he got the idea for the bill after seeing a television special last fall about adults who had gone through this kind of therapy as children. He said he was struck by their description of traumatic experiences, confusion, depression and suicidal thoughts.
"The attack on parental rights is exactly the whole point of the bill because we don't want to let parents harm their children," he said. "For example, the government will not allow parents to let their kids to smoke cigarettes. We also won't have parents let their children consume alcohol at a bar or restaurant.
"We have these laws to stop parents from hurting their kids. Preventive therapy hurts children, so this bill allows us to stop parents from hurting their children."
Parental rights is something that resonates with parents. California state Senator Lieu though thinks that the situation is analogous to parents refusing medical treatment for their children who then suffer and sometimes needlessly die. The problem with his position is that he has to ignore the many people who show great benefits in their lives during and after SOC (Sexual-Orientation Change) treatments and counseling. Some children do heal without medical or other such interventions, but RT (Reparative Therapy) and the like is not the same as parents simply believing that God will always heal without any other actions on the part of any humans. RT is active intervention.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that God can't, or hasn't, healed by the huge faith of the believer. I do believe the Gospel accounts for one. What I'm doing here though is removing the false premises of Senator Lieu.
RT needs to be moved from alternative healing to mainstream.
"Harm" needs to be defined. Lieu must be required to provide a definition that he will then also be required to defend to the end or change. Surgery is certainly invasive, and the patient can be greatly harmed if he or she gets up in the middle of it and walks out because he or she feels uncomfortable. Surgery doesn't always work, and most patients are told of the risks. Some children die on the operating table for a variety of reasons including that the surgery was too late. Should surgery be band on all children in the absence of sufficient faith in God?
Most importantly, will this "no harm" standard be applied to pro-homosexuality cases where the therapist counseled the client to accept homosexuality and then that client went on to commit suicide? Who will prove cause and effect of RT with "harm"?
The burden of proof is on the accusers, and the standards must be applied equally to all mental-health therapies.
"Lieu said he got the idea for the bill after seeing a television special last fall about adults who had gone through this kind of therapy as children. He said he was struck by their description of traumatic experiences, confusion, depression and suicidal thoughts." The problem here for any intelligent person concerns the root cause for the "confusion, depression and suicidal thoughts." How has Senator Lieu proven that there was no such confusion, depression and suicidal thoughts before? More so, how has he proven that homosexuality itself is not less healthy, all other things being equal, than non-homosexuality? It is my understanding after much reading on the subject on all sides of the issue that homosexuality is in fact an inferior life style when physical and mental health are gauged and that such is the case even in societies that are homosexual-affirming, such as the Netherlands.
Since that is the case, parents harm their children via neglecting raising them to be heterosexual versus homosexual. They harm them thereby.
It is interesting to note here that one of the basic premises of RT concerning homosexual males is the very frequent pattern of the distant, neglectful father.Why should anyone be force to accept men sodomizing each other when that one knows that much of it stems from fatherly neglect and distance and motherly smothering and sometimes homosexual rape? Youths who had zero homosexual attraction who were homosexually raped end up with unwanted SSA (Same-Sex Attraction) as a direct result. How in the world can Senator Lieu or anyone else, such as James Guay, the California licensed marriage and family therapist mentioned in the linked article, defend that the parents of such a child would be barred by law from taking that child to California Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, for instance, for treatments to diminish or, as is the case about a third of the time (per Dr. Nicolosi), eliminate SSA? It would be the height of harmful, criminally so in my view, for parents to abandon their child in his hour of such huge need.
So, Senator Lieu and therapist James Guay, I openly challenge both of you to come right here to this blog post and to enter your comments defending against all that I've said here.
Also, for those who can see through Lieu's huge errors and the unconstitutionality of his bill (SB-1172), let me state here what I had previously suggested in private. Parents of children with unwanted SSA need to step up and make direct contact with RT providers to make clear that they are prepared to challenge SB-1172 in the courts if that bill becomes law in California.
Contact Matthew B. McReynolds, Staff Attorney, Pacific Justice Institute. Let me know too. You can also support NARTH. That link to NARTH (The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) will show you NARTH's position vis-a-vis "harm."
Peace and truth!