David Pickup, a licensed family therapist in California and Texas, said in an interview on Wednesday that the president and gay rights advocates were purposely misconstruing the work that he and others do. He said that minors should never be forced into therapy, but he insisted that being gay was often brought about by serious emotional problems or sexual abuse.
“We believe that change is still possible. People go to therapy because they can change, because it really does work,” Mr. Pickup said. “We help people grow into their authentic selves.”
Mr. Pickup said he and others were actively lobbying against the proposed state bans, and he urged Mr. Obama to “wake up and understand the rights of people who he doesn’t know anything about and need his help and need his compassion.”
Well, literally thousands and thousands of people have gone through authentic reparative therapy. The majority come out satisfied with the treatment. Approximately a third are very satisfied. They don't consider themselves as having been harmed by the treatment but rather helped. Many lives have been completely turned around in very dramatic ways. Lives have been quite literally saved. People with unwanted same-sex attraction, some due to abuse, sometimes begin the therapy because they are at their wits end and even suicidal.
So, here we have a huge push on to get people falsely imagining that there's only some dark side to such therapy.
Look, the reparative therapists make no secret of the fact that therapy can stir up strong emotions and be unsettling, but that's true for non-reparative psychological and psychiatric treatments. It's common knowledge in those fields. Someone undergoing reparative therapy may have been stressed more than usual and might quit prematurely as a result and feel harmed. That though is zero reason to ban the treatment for everyone any more than it would be reason to ban all therapies where people become stressed by the progress while working through issues.
The boy who considered himself a girl in a boy's body and took the name Leelah Alcorn was not treated by a licensed reparative therapist. Such therapists are trained not to force the treatment on anyone. They instruct parents that only youths who are personally motivated and desirous of the treatment without any coercion are truly suitable clients.
Anyway, it's rather fascistic to deny individuals the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want help with diminishing or eliminating same-sex attraction. Who is anyone to tell such people, children and/or adults, that they can't be allowed to do what will do exactly that (diminish or in some cases, eliminate)? Who is Barack Obama to tell the American people that reparative therapy is evil and doesn't work and is more dangerous than other therapies he isn't calling to be banned? Honestly, he's very ignorant on the subject, as are the vast majority of people.
The NYT article mentions NARTH. NARTH has openly called for more and better research studies into homosexuality. NARTH has called upon the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association to conduct studies with NARTH so that biases and errors in design and methodology can be reduced and hopefully completely eliminated. Those associations have so far refused.
I am confident that they have refused because they have been politicized by homosexual activists who put their ideology before scientific integrity. Of course, they could prove me wrong (at least going forward) by undertaking the joint research.
The American Psychological Association admits that sexual identity is a fluid thing. They admit it changes. Why they push that it isn't possible to do intentionally with the aid of a licensed psychologist and without harm just makes no sense without unscientific ideology entering the picture.
I personally know people who have gone through the therapy who swear by it. They literally thank God for it. What kind of people would deny them that, liberals, civil libertarians? Hardly.
Now, consider the child who is repeatedly homosexually gang raped and who then and only then becomes confused about his sexual orientation where he was clearly heterosexual in his own mind before that. How in the world can any civilized nation or state block that boy from getting help with overcoming that confusion and with restoring himself to his heterosexual condition? How can any law be moral that would force that child to endure even years without any such help?
Years to a child are as decades to someone my age. Inflicting such pain and suffering on traumatized children by reason of legally enforced neglect is sheer evil.I thoroughly repudiate Barack Obama's position on this. It is a rotten position based upon a pack of lies being spread by a one-sided group of people with an ideological, anti-science agenda that is vastly more dangerous and harmful than reparative therapy could ever be.
Shame on them. I fully support the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity, and so should you.
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)