Conversion therapy to be allowed

[Aruntraveller]

Another promise reneged on. How do you define and recognise who is a "non-vulnerable adult"?


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/29/conversion-therapy-to-be-restricted-but-not-banned-in-proposed-bill

[Anchorman]

I think the practice is odious.
However, if a person, after examination by a completely independent psychiatric consultant wishes to undergo this, I can't see why we should ban it, as long as the process is strictly supervised by independent sources.

[Aruntraveller]

Absolutely not. The only people who would want conversion therapy are people who are already damaged by family/church/societal pressure.

How do you ensure independence?

Trust Liz Truss to set it up? Do me a favour.

It should be banned.

As to the promise broken. Here's what some twat said last year:

Boris Johnson said the practice was "absolutely abhorrent" and "has no place in this country".

Why has that changed in just over a year?

[Nearly Sane]

I think the practice is odious.
However, if a person, after examination by a completely independent psychiatric consultant wishes to undergo this, I can't see why we should ban it, as long as the process is strictly supervised by independent sources.

Because by allowing it, it says that it is acceptable, and that homosexuality can be rationally to be seen as bad.

[Aruntraveller]

Because by allowing it, it says that it is acceptable, and that homosexuality can be rationally to be seen as bad.

Indeed.

I also find it useful to reverse the idea. Would you allow conversion therapy for heterosexuals who wish to become gay?

It is all about how we view homosexuality as intrinsically inferior to heterosexuality.

[Anchorman]

Because by allowing it, it says that it is acceptable, and that homosexuality can be rationally to be seen as bad.

   


However, if, after assessment by an independent, medically qualified expert, a person, unlikely as it seems, still wishes to undergo this process - under supervision - do we have the right to deny them?

[Nearly Sane]

   


However, if, after assessment by an independent, medically qualified expert, a person, unlikely as it seems, still wishes to undergo this process - under supervision - do we have the right to deny them?

Society has a right to determine what it thinks is good practice, and that may well be in conflict with an individual's wishes.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed.

I also find it useful to reverse the idea. Would you allow conversion therapy for heterosexuals who wish to become gay?

It is all about how we view homosexuality as intrinsically inferior to heterosexuality.

Add to that that it isn't clear that it works, and seems to have deleterious effects.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Society has a right to determine what it thinks is good practice, and that may well be in conflict with an individual's wishes.

I would say society has the means and the numbers to determine what it thinks is good practice.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the practice is odious.
However, if a person, after examination by a completely independent psychiatric consultant wishes to undergo this, I can't see why we should ban it, as long as the process is strictly supervised by independent sources.

I'm thinking this is the same argument used for assisted dying. Wither those opposing this yet supporting that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think we will have to watch whether humanist and atheist groups will use any legislation here to criminalise prayer and christian pastoral ministry in their inimitable scattergun manner and then claim levelling up.

[Aruntraveller]

I do though suspect humanist and atheist groups will use any legislation here to criminalise prayer and christian pastoral ministry in their inimitable scattergun manner and then claim levelling up.

If you approve of conversion therapy but prefer to call it prayer and Christian pastoral ministry why don't you just say so?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think we will have to watch whether humanist and atheist groups will use any legislation here to criminalise prayer and christian pastoral ministry in their inimitable scattergun manner and then claim levelling up.

I think that any therapy must accept as a starting point that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are valid, and indeed equally valid. Therefore the purpose is to support the individual to determine and be comfortable with whichever orientation that they have.

That's the problem - the gay conversation, and pray the gay away approach does not come to the situation from a position of neutrality and is, therefore, biased from the outset and it is therefore difficult to see how engaging in a biased therapy can be in the individual's best interest.

Regarding consent, well for that to be valid the choice must not be coerced or pressurised - as the interviewee on this morning's Today programme made clear (having suffered herself) there is huge coercion and pressure from some religious groups to undergo no neutral therapy. So this is deeply unethical in two major respects.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you approve of conversion therapy but prefer to call it prayer and Christian pastoral ministry why don't you just say so?

I have looked at accounts of conversion therapy and find the context and the so called guarantees redolent of prosperity and word faith theology so to me it looks decidely dodgy and I have read accounts from people who I consider faithful christians who have refused it.

That not withstanding I have on this message board kept company with secularists for whom, to me, the driving motivation has been the extinction through legislation and exploitation of LGBT issues for atheistic and secular purposes, of public Christianity of any sort.

[ProfessorDavey]

That not withstanding I have on this message board kept company with secularists for whom, to me, the driving motivation has been the extinction through legislation and exploitation of LGBT issues for atheistic and secular purposes, of public Christianity of any sort.

Yawn, record stuck in a groove.

But actually isn't the whole point that these hugely damaging conversion therapies are conducted as private matters, so not actually a demonstration of public Christianity at all. Objections are in no way akin to secular objections to, for example, state funding of faith schools or places of religious worship being completely exempt from business rates.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yawn, record stuck in a groove.

But actually isn't the whole point that these hugely damaging conversion therapies are conducted as private matters, so not actually a demonstration of public Christianity at all. Objections are in no way akin to secular objections to, for example, state funding of faith schools or places of religious worship being completely exempt from business rates.

Business rates should be charged on business premises. I don't know what you think that has got to do with Worship, congregation , charitable and community work.

State funding of faith schools? An arrangement recognising the non state foundation of these schools and that the sites were subject to the nationalisation of property, I would imagine. No doubt there will be some bonfire of church involvement of the schools in the near future leaving somesad Humanists scrabblingabout finding another cause to hide their true intent.

[ProfessorDavey]

Business rates should be charged on business premises.

Perhaps so, but that sin't how the system works - business rates apply to all (see exceptions below) non residential properties, regardless of whether used for for-profit or not-for-profit (e.g. charitable, community purposes). All properties (see exceptions below) are assessed by the Valuation Office Agency periodically for a 'rateable value' and this used to determine business rates paid. If the property (see exceptions below) is used by a charity is then they are entitled to a reduction of 80% in the business rates paid.

EXCEPTION - all places of worship are completely exempt - they are not even on the Valuation Office Agency list so organisations running out of these buildings pay zero business rates. So if you run a charity operating out of an office building you pay 20% of total business rates, if you run it out of a place of worship you pay zero.

And actually it is worse than that - if you operate a commercial operation (e.g. a cafe, or a gift shop) within a largely charitable organisation building, e.g. a museum, you will pay full business rates on the space occupied by that shop or cafe. But as places of worship aren't even on the VOA list if you set up a gift shop or cafe within a church, you pay zero.

I don't know what you think that has got to do with Worship, congregation , charitable and community work.

See above and maybe you'll learn a little more about the special privileges that religion benefits from.

[Outrider]

Business rates should be charged on business premises. I don't know what you think that has got to do with Worship, congregation , charitable and community work.

Charities can claim up to 80% of business rates back, after demonstrating that work at the premises is wholly dedicated to charity work (scaled back for partial application) whilst the Church of England is wholly exempt by default, regardless of the actual use of the building.

State funding of faith schools? An arrangement recognising the non state foundation of these schools and that the sites were subject to the nationalisation of property, I would imagine.

An arrangement limiting some areas to religious indoctrination of their children because a secular option is not available.

No doubt there will be some bonfire of church involvement of the schools in the near future...

We can but hope - with any luck Northern Ireland will be hit first, where it's worst affected.

[... leaving some sad Humanists scrabbling about finding another cause to hide their true intent.

Equitable educational opportunities aren't a worthy cause? What is it that you presume their 'True Intent'^TM to be?

O.

[jeremyp]

I also find it useful to reverse the idea. Would you allow conversion therapy for heterosexuals who wish to become gay?

Yes, why not?

I don't think that the problems of conversion therapy stem from the idea of changing ones sexuality. The problems are that it doesn't work and it does more harm than good.

I will grant the fact that nobody is seriously suggesting to allow conversion therapy to turn heterosexuals into homosexuals is good evidence that the motives of those people who want to do conversion therapy are homophobic.

[splashscuba]

Indeed.

I also find it useful to reverse the idea. Would you allow conversion therapy for heterosexuals who wish to become gay?

It is all about how we view homosexuality as intrinsically inferior to heterosexuality.

This

[Aruntraveller]

Final confirmation that after all the promises, after Johnson said it is an abhorrent practice that has no place in this country, it is going to be allowed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60947028

Never, ever trust a fucking Tory.

[Nearly Sane]

Final confirmation that after all the promises, after Johnson said it is an abhorrent practice that has no place in this country, it is going to be allowed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60947028

Never, ever trust a fucking Tory.

I think the story has been updated since you posted it, and it's still not really clear what is happening.

[Aruntraveller]

I think the story has been updated since you posted it, and it's still not really clear what is happening.

Yes. Caught something on the news this morning.

Ban will go ahead for LGB conversion therapy - but not for T. At least that's what I took away from it.

My flurry of e-mails to Liz Truss and others was what done it.