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!
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)