I left the following comments over on this article: "Legislation would crack down on 'gay conversion therapy'":
State rep. Marko Liias, D-Edmonds claims, "Studies have shown that these practices have no basis in science or medicine...." What studies? I've followed this issue closely and have seen no such studies. In fact, reparative therapist bemoan the absents of studies. They complain that the APA's (American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association) have refused the reparative therapists' requests that joint, unbiased studies actually finally be conducted.
The studies to which Liias may be referring are studies that have been fraught with methodological problems. The same criticism has been leveled at the studies cited by NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) in support of SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts). Contrary to the APA's though, NARTH has been honest about the methodological weaknesses of older research. That's one of the reasons NARTH has formally called for more researched, research not grounded in political ideology and political correctness but rather pure social/behavioral science.
Anyway, the main problem with California's SB 1172 is the fact that children, especially boys, who are heterosexual and are homosexually molested, even raped, sometimes repeatedly, are often physically and mentally conditioned into same-sex attraction/arousal. The statistical significance is there. It is causal. SB 1172 seeks to make it against the law for those children to obtain the help of state-licensed mental-health practitioners to reverse that conditioning. SB 1172 is one sided, designed only to "protect" homosexuality, not children in general.
Think about the harm done leaving such children without the help they want and need. Think about how evil it is to tell those children that even though they were heterosexual before the abuse, they have no alternative but to embrace homosexuality foisted upon them. Think about the potential for self-harm, even suicide. Don't forget the high rates of STD's (including HIV/AIDS) associated with homosex as well.
There is a whole host of problems associated with homosex that the homosexual activists seek to keep covered up, seek to censor, seek to even make illegal to discuss as some sort of "hate speech" or the like.
Molestation is also not the only vector for homosexuality to enter into a child's psyche and take over.
Lastly, authentic reparative therapist have successfully treated thousands and thousands of clients. Change is not only possible, it happens all the time. If it has been so damaging, why have so many patients left so satisfied? Where were all of the formal complaints before this wave of seeking legislation to ban RT and other forms of SOCE? In addition, almost all psychological treatment can increase anxiety. It's common knowledge. It would be patently wrong to outlaw successful therapy based upon that some people left treatment prematurely or were subjected to forms of SOCE that are not advocated by NARTH for instance.
Don't let the homosexual activists get away with falsely claiming that the NARTH Practice Guidelines, for one, allow physical or mental punishment or any coercion or non-consensual aversion therapies, such as drugs to make one vomit, etc. The homosexual activists seek to lump everyone in SOCE together (licensed and unlicensed) as if everyone is practicing identically.
Check it out and do full reporting on this issue. Visit the NARTH website and read extensively. Contact them to do interviews with you. Don't be afraid. Don't allow yourselves to be bullied by loud, coarse, name-calling homosexual activists who seek to intimidate, drown out, wear down, change the subject, ignore science while claiming the other side is anti-science, etc.
Thank you for allowing me to post this comment. Many places on the Internet won't allow it.
Why does my comment above say "Anonymous said: February 15, 2013 at 9:29 PM"? I entered my email, name, and website and even had to log into WordPress.com to post.
My name as entered is Tom Usher.
My website as entered is http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/blog
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)