Should parents who try to "change" their kid's sexual orientation be prosecuted for child abuse?

[ruggerson]

Poll question: Should parents who try to "change" their kid's sexual orientation be prosecuted for child abuse?

Should it be illegal for parents to use religious "conversion therapy" on their GLBT children?

[LeftyMom]

1. It should be grounds for loss of custody, certainly.

Prosecuted? I don't know about that, I think mostly the parents are dumb enough to believe their pastors and the assholes who sell the degaying therapy/camps/whatever, and last I checked being a complete fucking moron who got scammed wasn't a criminal offense. But the people doing the "therapy" should be, for sure.

[aikoaiko]

2. yes, whether it be religious based or secular based "conversion therapy".

I wish the American Psychology Association would condemn the practice. Last I looked, their position was weak.

[MuseRider]

3. Absolutely!

No question. It is not like they make them go in for an appendectomy if their appendix is inflamed. Medical treatment is necessary, ramming religion as an attempt to change someone who is who they are is just cruel. Religion is a choice, homophobia is a choice, being gay is not a choice.

[bluestateguy]

4. I knew someone whose parents send him to a camp when he was 17

To help him "leave the lifestyle".

He ran away from the camp after one day.

[Mind_your_head]

5. Absolutely No. Trying to prosecute parents for trying to change their beliefs

would be analgous to trying to change a kids sexual orientation.

It would be rude, crude, violate their freedoms (to think/be what they want).

No. Just No.

[Bluebear]

6. "Beliefs" do not equal "orientation", No. Just no.

[Mind_your_head]

7. Beliefs - taught since birth - can be just as strong as "orientations"

...unbreakable, in fact.

[Bluebear]

9. "taught since birth" and "innate since birth" are NOT one and the same.

[riderinthestorm]

10. Some parents "believe" they need to beat the shit out of their kids cuz the bible says to.

In fact, children die because their parents fervently "believe" that's the way to instill "obedience". Should we continue to allow them to do that just cause they "believe" that?

Sexual orientation is innate, we already know that. So why would you possibly condone parents who would mentally, physically and psychologically abuse their gay child?

[Cerridwen]

11. When did you decide you were heterosexual?

Cuz I'm damned sure you're not lesbian or gay with that set of quotation marks.

[Zoeisright]

37. BULL. SHIT.

God, what dumb statements. I think the board you should belong to is to the right. WAY right.

[donco6]

53. That's so false, it's laughable.

I was taught from birth to be Catholic. And I was born gay. Guess which one I still am?

[saltpoint]

54. People can change their approach to abstract concepts like "God" or

what constitutes "being good," and so forth. Behavioral science documents significant, sometimes dramatic changes of affect, mood, temperament, and behaviors across a wide spectrum of all cultures.

Sexual identity is inviolate and is not subject to 'correction,' by therapeutic means because that path pre-supposes that one sexual orientation is wrong and another is right. And that is elementally false.

[Cerridwen]

8. No one said anything about parents changing beliefs.

Just that they don't get to brutalize their children in the name of said "beliefs."

[Mind_your_head]

15. The OP's question is/was,,,,,

Should parents who try to "change" their kid's sexual orientation be prosecuted for child abuse?

My answer is "NO".

Should parents try to change their kid's sexual orientation?

My answer is "NO".

[Cerridwen]

18. Included in the OP was

"Should it be illegal for parents to use religious "conversion therapy" on their GLBT children?"

I believe that should have been part of what you replied to given the edit time of the OP versus your post time.

Do you understand what "conversion therapy" is? Is it a form of child abuse, i.e. brutalization? If it is, should it be prosecuted as such?

[riderinthestorm]

19. So what do you think should happen to parents who do try to "change"

their kids' sexual orientation?

Nothing?

Cause the standard techniques employed by those who do "try" to do such a thing definitely are abusive.

[Cleobulus]

13. So you condone child abuse as long as its part of a religious belief?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[DURHAM D]

32. And a big AMEN to that. nt

[Rhythm]

43. +1,000,000

[Zoeisright]

36. How incredibly stupid.

Religious freedom means freedom to WORSHIP. It does not mean freedom to torture another human being.

Do you have any logical reasoning skills AT ALL???


Didn't think so.

[Starry Messenger]

45. lulz

So if a parent suffocates their kid to death trying to exorcise his "demons" that would be OK with you? Because that's basically what you're condoning here. And yes, that's based on a true story.

[Unvanguard]

12. YES, YES, YES.

It is only on good days that I don't think "ex-gay" organizations should be just banned entirely.

[TexasObserver]

14. Yes. It's abuse.

Parents can believe whatever they want to believe, but we draw the line at conduct. They can believe it's ok to beat a child with a belt, but we say "no, your religious beliefs don't allow you to abuse kids in OUR society." They can believe it's OK to marry their 13 year old niece, but we say "no, we decide these things, not you."

The child's rights, as defined by our society, trump the parents' right to impose their religion on the child through abusive conduct.

[dsc]

16. I voted other

I think if the kid really wants the therapy and the parents just support it, and that would be hard to see as the kid is dependent upon the parents, then probably not. If the parents force the kid though, and I think that is the usual case, then I think prosecution may well be warrented.

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. But if the kid "wants" that sort of therapy

Wouldn't it be because the parents have deluded him/her into believing that being gay is "wrong" and needs to be "corrected"?

Which I would consider abusive, to fuck with a kid's head like that.

[dsc]

23. maybe, maybe not

kids can be more religious than their parents. I had intended to go to that kind of therapy behind my parent's back only not doing so when the insurance refused to pay. Fortunately when I told them about myself they didn't suggest that therapy. Though, I think in most cases it would be hard to seperate a kids desire to go from the parent's desire that the kid go.

[Bluebear]

24. The child would "want" the therapy because his parents tell him he's an abomination, likely

:(

[anonymous171]

17. Is sexual orientation biologically determined or socialized?

[Bluebear]

20. That's your first thought, eh?

[Cerridwen]

22. If it's socialized, I have two cousins who should be wearing brown

shirts and marching in lock-step rather than wearing lavender and helping to organize/plan Mardi Gras.

Of course, that's just personal experience and not data.

[anonymous171]

25. I agree with your reasoning though. Also, if it was socialized, then these camps would actually work

Along with all of the other "ex-gay" programs ("work" being defined as having a 95% success rate.)

[Cerridwen]

30. *sigh* If you thought that was "reasoning" I have to work on my snark.

[Sebastian Doyle]

26. Does it fucking matter?

Although to answer your question, you might want to ask Mary Cheney, Candace Gingrich, Jamiel Terry, Maya Keyes, or any other gay offspring of a right wing conservative family about that, ;)

[dsc]

28. actually Candace isn't the offspring of right wingers but the sister of one

I think Newt's parents were Democrats believe it or not.

[Sebastian Doyle]

33. I seem to remember Connie Chung interviewing Newt's mom back in the 90's

She was a mean old right wing Clinton hater, from what I remember. Even called Hillary a "bitch" on camera, I think.

[saltpoint]

41. This observer doesn't give a good goddam for that argument.

I don't care if it's environmental or biophysical, or both.

It is elemental and therefore it is inviolate.

The conditions of identity predate and IMO transcend rigid hierarchies of conduct and behavioral control by parents, policemen, and theologists.

For parents or anyone else to respond as inflexible, my-way-or-else authoritarians "impose(s) a rigid myth on what we know to be various and strange" and beautiful, to rip off Gore Vidal, writing in his breath-taking novel, JULIAN.

[Lyric]

44. Is religion biologically determined or socialized?

:shrug:

[anonymous171]

51. It's socialized. But that wasn't my question. nt

[iris27]

27. Their religious freedom means they're free to go to religious 'conversion therapy'

themselves if they're gay. Not to force their child.

[Lyric]

29. It depends.

There are orders of magnitude. For example:

Fundie Parents A are shocked to find out that their son has a boyfriend. They sit down with him and try to convince him that he can "change" if he just prays hard enough. He tells them that although he loves them, his beliefs are different. He's proud of who he is and does not believe that he can change. They argue about it off and on for weeks, and his parents pointedly leave religious literature on the subject lying around the house. However, the boy steadfastly ignores it. They have a couple of blow-ups, but nothing violent, and the parents can see that no progress is being made. However, they feel that outside intervention would not be appropriate. Dismayed, his parents eventually give up. They tell him that so long as he never brings a boyfriend into their home, they intend to drop the subject. The relationship ends up strained but still functional at a basic level.

Fundie Parents B are shocked to find out that their daughter has a girlfriend. They panic and go to their pastor, who recommends a "special boot camp" for gay teens in a remote location. They inform her that she's leaving, ship her off, and refuse any contact with her until she is "cured." She's physically and sexually abused at the camp, and her parents refuse to believe her when she calls home begging for help. Eventually she develops severe, long-lasting psychological trauma from the experience, leading to years and years of therapy to try and restore her sense of self-worth. She no longer has any relationship at all with her parents, and attempts suicide twice before finally healing enough to feel like she can love and trust someone again.

Now technically, both sets of parents tried to use religion and coercion to "convert" their gay teen to heterosexuality. However, most of us will agree that the "A" set of parents did less overall damage to their child than the "B" set of parents. If we create a law that says using religion to try and force a conversion from gay to straight is child abuse, then BOTH sets of parents are guilty. However, if we draw no distinctions between the two and punish the "A" type parents exactly the same way as we punish the "B" type parents, then there's no motivation at all for ANY fundie parents to practice even a little bit of restraint. If they're going to be charged with child abuse for "A" type actions, then why bother? Why not just jump straight to the more-horrifying "B" type actions, and subject your child to endless rounds of physical and sexual abuse? The punishment is the same either way, right?

We already recognize this principle in our legal system. It's why we don't have blanket laws against "stealing"--we have laws that punish theft based on how much is stolen. If we punished all theft the same way, then thieves would have no reason to restrain themselves at all. They might as well rob a bank every time, because stealing a lesser amount of cash from a convenience store would bring the same punishment. If the risks are the same for big crimes as they are for smaller crimes, why not just go for the "big" hit and get more bang for their buck, so to speak?

Now, this is not to say that I think the "A" type parents are GOOD. Far from it! In the more serious cases resembling this tactic, I definitely think at least a temporary removal of the teen, some social worker intervention/supervision for the parents, and some mandatory education about the reality of being gay (as opposed to the fundie religious fiction about gays) would certainly be in order--I'd personally mandate that they attend PFLAG meetings in order to be exposed to other parents who have accepted their gay children. I'd also say that if they relapse and pressure their gay kid again after the intervention, permanent removal of the minor and even a misdemeanor charge would be totally appropriate. However, I don't think they deserve to be punished on the same level as the type "B" parents. THOSE assholes (the ones who place their kids into the hands of psychotic strangers, preachers, camp leaders, etc.) need to have ALL their kids taken away and spend some time in prison, because that IS child abuse.

And not only the parents--the people who run those camps and programs need to be in prison, too. They deliberately prey on emotional, irrational, terrified parents and their kids, and they inflict massive amounts of emotional, physical, and sexual trauma--the kind that takes decades to heal, if ever. Parents can eventually be brought around to "see the light," so to speak--not all, but some. However, the people running those torture programs are NOT likely to rehabilitate. In my mind, they're sex offenders who can't ever be trusted to be around children ever again.

Hope that made sense.

/someone who was lucky enough to have a mildly type "A" Mom who came around and embraced my personhood and partner within 6 months of my "coming out."

[Cleobulus]

31. People's religious freedom ends when another person's rights are violated...

This is a very basic tradition in jurisprudence in the United States. Even parents aren't exempt from it, to be honest I think "ex-gay" organizations that accept minors should be closed down, and the so called "therapists" in these organizations prosecuted for child abuse, along with the parents of said children.

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. Put this in your pipe and smoke it.

I used to feel guilty over this until my gay daughter told me the guilt was unfounded. My daughter went to private Christian school until she was a freshman in high school. In my heart, I knew she was gay from about the time she was five. My ex-wife did too, and we came close to taking her out many times. She absolutely refused to allow us to take her out of the private school though even when we couldn't afford it. She loved the place. Even today, now that she's out and proud and being the person she is, she goes back twice a week to visit the kids she grew up with (who have a study group). Everyone there knows she's gay and they always have.

Even though they're supposed to be a "bible study" group, they aren't... and everyone knows it. That doesn't keep them from having a key to the parking lot gate and a key to the conference room though. Actually, the Pastor trusts my Allison with it. They help each other with homework, confide in each other, and generally help each other out with life issues.

She asked me after coming out what caused us to put her in a Christian school. I explained that it started because it was only four doors from ours, and her mom and I both worked full time. So, it was our choice for daycare. The reason we made that choice was because there were about twenty other kids there her age, which at the time was two. When she turned school age, the decision to keep her in school there was easy because it wasn't much more expensive than daycare, and it was where her friends were; kids she had known from her first memories. I asked if she was mad at us for that, and she told me that that she wouldn't trade the experience for anything in the world. They've ALWAYS been tolerant of her sexual orientation, no one has ever been judgmental, and she was actually appreciative of the way we reasoned it out. Her bible, which was a gift from the school staff and is rainbow colored (crayon, felt-tip, and water colors), dog-eared, and grafittied like no other I've ever seen, is one of her favorite things.

I'm not a religious person myself per se, but I don't share the hatred of organized religion that lots of DU'ers do because my closest experience with it, which comes from a Nazarene church by the way, has been nothing but positive. For 16 years, they have treated my daughter as one of their own, and everyone from the Pastor to the Secretary have secured treasured places in her heart. I'm told that no less than 20 people associated with that church have asked her for tickets to attend her graduation. She didn't get good grades after starting high school, but there were other issues in the mix than her thoughts about schoolwork.

Big sigh... YES, I think it's child abuse for parents to use religion as an excuse to attempt to "change" the sexual orientation of their child. But, understand where I am coming from... I don't hate all organized religion. It's been a part of my gay Daughter's life since she can remember; she's gay and she doesn't hate it, so I have no reason to.

Now, a word about how I feel in regards to the education she got. Every school year, the state brought trailers to her school and took the students off campus to test them. When I went to school in CA, it was called CTBS, or California Testing for Basic Skills. I don't know what it's called now, but when we got her printouts from the state I was more than happy because around the sixth grade, her test scores said she read at college level and her other scores were near college level. For me, the reading and comprehension was most important.

Wow, I got windy here didn't I. Suffice to say that I voted YES in the poll.

[Zoeisright]

35. Religious freedom my ass.

Religious freedom means freedom to WORSHIP. NOT to torture other people.

Good god.

[Cleobulus]

38. I'm appalled that at least 9 people condone torturing children. n/t

[Betty Karlson]

40. They don't necessarilly condone it.

There is still a large opportunity to amend the situation while upholding the full freedom of religion. If asked, they should produce proposition to that end. (They just found the "other" option not representative of this position, because the "no" option mentioned their concern regarding the freedom of religion.)

[Betty Karlson]

39. Only in cases of lasting damage.

In which case not only the parents but the "conversion therapists" would be liable for prosecution.

But there should be no precedent against parents who invite the local minister to have a talk with their son/ daughter. - Even if I would probably not approve of the content of that talk.

The danger of setting a precedent for wanton accusations and/ or religious prosecution is great with this proposition. Rather than making into a separate law, have you considerd expanding current laws against child abuse to be expanded (the laws on lasting mental damage need an update anyway)?

[Bluebear]

47. When do we ascertain the "lasting damage"??

[Betty Karlson]

52. Child abuse laws have good definitions of "lasting damage".

I invite you to see if these definitions nee an update.

But as I said, the current child abuse laws provide a good enough framework for expansion into protection against mental abuse by conversion therapists.

[cali]

42. this isn' specific enought. If by trying to change the kid's sexual orientation

you mean a parent saying I wish you were hetero, just trying dating members of the opposite sex, no of course that parent shouldn't be prosecuted for child abuse. If you mean the parent sends the kid off to one of those awful camps for changing sexual orientation, than I think there's a case to be made- but then you'd also have to prosecute parents for sending kids to some of the awful camps to make them good little law abiding citizens who get good grades and don't smoke pot.

[sohndrsmith]

46. What an odd question. Rather than offer a response, I'm curious

about why any parent would ever ask - much less demand - such a thing....

YICK!

How old is the kid in question, again? Three? Eighteen? How long has he/she been openly "out", or is his/her orientation an assumption on the parent's part? Holy heck. There is no way to see these parents as anything but perverted and massively lacking any sense of parental skill and/or nurturing.

My dad was gay. I am not. Big whoop.

As a licensed psychologist, the idea of using "conversion therapy" in order to reinforce his sexual orientation onto me would have been nothing short of idiotic, or more accurately: abusive. Orientation notwithstanding - forcing one's child into any alien, unnatural sexual lifestyle (for them) is extremely twisted under any circumstance. It's just sick.

Any parent who contemplates "conversion therapy", (feebly couched as "religious" ) needs intensive bigotry detoxification - STAT. Using the religion excuse is a pure bloody cop-out and everyone past toddlerhood can understand that.

Why is the whole idea so horrific? Because the parent who considers doing such egregious, abusive harm to their child (deliberately or ignorantly) additionally compounds the injury because they're basically saying to their son or daughter, "You're flawed!", "You're broken!", "You're not as good as we are - we're 'normal'!", " You're bad/wrong/faulty/hurting USl"... and perhaps worst of all: "You need to be 'fixed', 'corrected', 'made normal' ". Good freakin' grief...

I have never and will never understand anyone who expects others to change according to what they deem to be acceptable. If ever there were an example of destructive insanity, this would be it.

[alphafemale]

55. That was my thought. If a gay couple were found to be trying to change their childs sexual idenity

through coersive methods, all hell would break loose and it would be a scandelous story. People everywhere would gossip about it.

Nancy Grace's nostils would freaking explode.

I can't imagine such a thing ever happening though. These imagined parents would know full well the torture they were inflicting. And they would also know how impossible the desired outcome was to attain.

[Edweird]

48. Yes. I think it is psychological as well as emotional abuse.

If some masochist of legal age feels the urge to inflict it on himself, then have at it. But let your kids be who they are.

[petronius]

49. Parents have been prosecuted for denying medical care to children, or

attempting dangerous treatments, on the basis of religion, correct? Why should this be any different?

Although personally I would prefer lesser interventions first - counseling, supervision, loss of custody - before moving to the prosecution stage...

[Echo In Light]

50. I'd have to say yes