Should Conversion Therapy Be Banned Nation Wide?

The thought police in the People's Republic of California think so.
https://reason.com/blog/2017/05/02/democrats-push-for-national-ban-on-lgbt
No poll, give answer in your post @garamet.

Ye[/

You wouldn't dare poll WFers, would you?

So did the thought police on the US Supreme Court.

Nice edit, FF.

My first thought was that it should be legal for consenting adults who want to submit to it. And sure enough, the article concerns specifically minors, which the OP conveniently neglected to note. Nice straw man, @Federal Farmer.

Yep.
It's torture, dead stop.

So a consenting adult can't make up their own mind?

Let us know when you get there!

Your choice of language in the OP suggests you think this is a good idea. Why?

No, his language suggests he views it that adults should have the choice - like Mobius said, a post with which you agreed.

Poor attempt to troll the lad, Garamet - I think you're just searching too hard for your next Kirk1Adm. Maybe take a break.

I agreed with Mobius pointing out that FF misread the article. You're the poor troll.

Suuure you did

"I know you are but what am I"? Bravo, another triumph

For minors? Absolutely illegal. I also think anyone caught forcing their child to have such "therapy" to be arrested on grounds of child abuse. As for adults, that's more difficult. Having been on that side of the Christian fence, my first reaction is a resounding "Yes! Ban that shit!" but at the same time, people should be free to make their own decisions. I just know how vile and manipulative it is, and how like torture it really is, as @Diacanu says.

I don't think it's a good idea, but I don't think it should be banned. As for minors, at what age is there informed consent? I don't think parents should force their kids to do it, but maybe the teenager could choose?

Telling me what I really mean again, Miss Cleo?

Thank you for a thoughtful answer, but you've hit on the crux of the problem. For one thing, there’s absolutely no scientific validation for the process and, for another, as practiced it’s not about a minor making the choice, but about the parents (who are footing the bill) coercing the kid into getting this “treatment.”

Letting people make bad choices is a grey area, and everyone seems to know it, even those that don't admit it.
Technically, woman are free to get into a relationship with a wife beater, but everyone says they'd break a guy's neck to did that to their sister/cousin/aunt/etc.
Technically, you're free to become a heroin junkie, but parents do everything to talk their kids out of it.
Technically, women are free to ride the stripper pole, but everyone understand you're a shit parent if it happens.
If a friend of mine thinks the essence of their being is a disease that needs to be tortured away like quitting smoking before nicotine treatment, I'm gonna argue 'til I'm blue in the face.
Cuz...cuz fucking no.

Wouldn't conversion therapy be a form of thought policework? I mean, if they really think homosexuality is all in their heads, and they want them to not think that way, then forcing them to change their thought through conversion therapy is punishments for their thoughts.

So, banning conversion therapy is banning thought police.

Now, I'm sure our resident homophobes will try to turn that around, and say gayness is a choice, but again....fuckin' no.

The only reason they think that, is God can't make mistakes, and they need to believe in their God, so it has to be the person's fault.
To that, I can only say...tough shit for you.
We know how humans work, we've studied the brain, there's no such thing as a ramrod straight guy that's "turned gay".
Doesn't happen.
It's not a thing.

It should be the norm for sodomite children.

^

You called it!

The problem is, he isn't funny at all. He's a deranged psychopath who would torture children in a futile attempt to purge his own natural tendencies.

I see two issues.

The juvenile/consent issue has already been brought up, but what about medical licensure?

In no way is this a legitimate medical therapy, so should it be allowed to labeled as such? What about, 'First, do no harm?'

The mental health profession was highjacked by liberal politics decades ago, so it's no surprise that political activists within the profession would push for something like this. Problem is, it violates the most basic tenants of psychological care.

Therapists are supposed to be non-judgmental, they aren't supposed to impose their values on their clients. The client guides the therapy, not the counselor.

So if a client walks in and says he/she wants to discuss a desire to rid themselves of homosexual feelings & urges, the therapist has two choices:

1. Accept the client for who they are and where they are in life, and allow them to discuss their personal struggles with same-sex issues in a non-judgmental fashion, even if it means allowing the client to explore the possibility of "changing" their sexual orientation and living a heterosexual life, no matter how much that may offend your political sensibilities, OR

2. Tell the client up front that you can not ethically work with them because your professional orientation is not to help clients rid themselves of homosexuality, but rather aid them in fully accepting their same-sex desires.

It kinda reminds me of a case study I participated in once. A shrill young counselor-in-training who fancied herself a righteous feminist talked about how her female client had entered therapy to address behavior that was causing distress. This female client was frequently visiting seedy bars, picking up random men for one-night stands. Sometimes she insisted the man use protection, sometimes she didn't. She had been doing this for awhile and had a long string of meaningless sexual encounters. She knew that her behavior was high-risk, that she was endangering her health & safety (since she never knew anything about the men she took back to her apartment).

So, the shrill young feminist counselor-in-training was asked to conceptualize this case for the class, and I remember her loudly proclaiming that the problem was that the female had internalized negative societal messages about female sexuality, and that she would feel much better if only she could learn to accept herself as an empowered modern woman who was allowed to have as many sexual partners as she wanted. The real culprit for her feelings of depression and self-loathing was hopelessly antiquated notions of morality. As a empowered modern woman, she should cast off these useless notions of morality and thumb her nose at traditional social mores. Only then could she learn to embrace the concept of guiltless "free love."

Of course, I caused a stir by daring to suggest that the focus of the therapy, at least initially, should have been to acknowledge her admission that her behavior was causing her to experience feelings of depression and self-loathing (not to mention placing her health & safety at risk), and that the counselor should begin to help the client explore what was motivating her to engage in this behavior despite the negative feelings associated with it. Need for attention? Deep-seated daddy issues? History of sexual abuse leading to compulsion for self-destructive sexual acting out?

But no, in the eyes of the bubble-headed angry righteous feminist counselor-in-training, it was all about pushing a feminist sociopolitical agenda.

I'm sure you can imagine the reaction I got by daring to speak my mind.

I honestly feel the same way about those "scared straight" programs where the parents essentially pay for these companies to come kidnap their kid and ship them off to some "boot camp" type place that essentially tortures them as well.

Same could be said for AA, honestly. What's appalling about AA is that in some places a court can actually order someone to attend what is actually a religious program.

As much as I detest that book you people accuse Me of writing:

Ezekiel 16: 49-50: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

According to this, I allegedly destroyed Sodom because they were a bunch prideful, gluttonous, slothful, greedy people. Nothing in there about not sticking to the list of "approved" sex acts. Well, there is that "committed abomination" part which is pretty vague, and it could be sexual, but it could also be any of the other hundred thousand things the Bible says I don't like. Several specific behaviors are listed, but let's ignore them and assume this was all about butt sex, because that makes perfect sense.

As for My stance on "approved" sex acts: I really don't care what you people do with your genitals, mouths, and anuses. If you want to put mouths on peepees or peepees in butts, we don't teach that here, but give it a go.

As for Me allegedly destroying Sodom and Gomorrah: Sometimes fire and brimstone rain from the heavens, sometimes cities get in the way of said fire and brimstone, and sometimes people get turned into salt when they turn back and look at stuff. Doesn't mean I was involved.

Here is the issue. Suppose they go through conversion and it is successful. Precisely,upon whom, do these feks think they are going to turn them loose against?

Fuck you.
Dayton's more of a Christian than you are, and that's saying a lot.

I agree. I'm just laughing at his predictability. He even beat TLS to the punch. Mention anything to do with homosexuality, and those two boys are right on top of it, so to speak.

I am not surprised that @Federal Farmer and @Ron Paul support torturing kids.