Conversion Therapy Legislation seeks to ban genuine ministry.

[Carl Emerson]

they didn't ask about conversion therapy or anything like it. The question asked was: "If a person is unsure about their sexual orientation or gender identity, should they be able to seek counselling support to determine their own direction in how they identify?”

Conversion therapy is NOT about individuals determining anything it is about attempts to actively change or suppress a person's orientation.

Well tell our politicians that...

That is precisely what they have made it about.

 

[PloverWing]

I agree with @seeking.IAM and @SilverBear here. The specific questions in the survey tell me nothing about approval or disapproval of conversion therapy.

Instead of asking "If a person is unsure about their sexual orientation or gender identity, should they be able to seek counselling support to determine their own direction in how they identify?", a better question would be: "If a person dislikes their sexual orientation or gender identity, should a counsellor be permitted to perform therapies designed to change their sexual orientation or gender identity?" Or, "If a parent dislikes the sexual orientation or gender identity of their child, should they be permitted to take them to a counsellor who will try to change their sexual orientation or gender identity?" Questions like that would be a better measure of the respondents' view of the proposed legislation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Another heads up on this...

In New Zealand proposals to make it illegal to minister to folks with gender confusion.

Criminalising parents... again!

On the whole, and assuming that the bill is and only is what it says it is and only promotes this on a legal level, I don't have much of a problem with it.

In its interpretative section, where it denotes what it constitutes as "Conversion Therapy," there is the caveat that it does not prohibit "... any therapeutic intervention that is neutral with regard to sexual orientation..." And with this aspect of the definition's interpretation, I think there is room for Christian therapy.

Only when this aspect may be removed at some future point will it truly become a bill that could be seen to be fully 'imposing' itself upon Christians or any and all social influence that Christians may deem they should promote in reference to various sexual identity issues.

Of course, I leave the door WIDE open to the possibility that I could be completely wrong in this cursory assessment, especially since laws sometimes have a way of bleeding out their inherent ideological nuances into even newer laws or legal articulations over the course of time ...

 

[Carl Emerson]

On the whole, and assuming that the bill is and only is what it says it is and only promotes this on a legal level, I don't have much of a problem with it.

In its interpretative section, where it denotes what it constitutes as "Conversion Therapy," there is the caveat that it does not prohibit "... any therapeutic intervention that is neutral with regard to sexual orientation..." And with this aspect of the definition's interpretation, I think there is room for Christian therapy.

Only when this aspect may be removed at some future point will it truly become a bill that could be seen as fully 'imposing' itself upon Christians or any and all social influence that Christians may deem they should promote in reference to various sexual identity issues.

Of course, I leave the door WIDE open to the possibility that I could be completely wrong in this cursory assessment, especially since laws sometimes have a way of bleeding out their inherent ideological nuances into even newer laws or legal articulations over the course of time ...

You raise an interesting point.

The problem we have is that a biblical world view is not neutral in regard to sexual orientation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You raise an interesting point.

The problem we have is that a biblical world view is not neutral in regard to sexual orientation.

You have a point, but I think this point should be qualified, brother Carl.

In my understanding, while the biblical position on same-sex sexual interactions isn't an ideologically neutral one and we're obviously not to approve of those interactions as a normative type of human relationship, I still think the legal side of our Christian view on this issue is meant to be somewhat neutral, or at least it should be where instances express themselves at the level of deep and ongoing psychological stress. In those instances, care, compassion, love, insight and understanding need to be a part of how we respond to and 'treat' individuals who are challenged by same-sex orientation. As recent history shows, the church has failed all too often in this regard.

On the other hand, this isn't to say that where practical politics comes into play as they relate to what goes on in the home between parents and their own children who express sexual dysphoria we should simply accept all measures that are developed and then arbitrated by various legislative powers. But let's make sure we're putting into force the grace, mercy, love and compassion of Jesus BEFORE getting defensive about legal rulings that are made to also protect people from negligence and abuses by parents who don't have the sense to love their children as the Lord would want us to.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes I appreciate your cautions, however in our country the Parliament is loaded with quite aggressive LGBTQetc, who are typically anti God, anti Church and want to criminalise folk who don't agree with their world view. They tend to ram bills through the chamber with little reference to prevailing opinion.

Greens call for ban on gay conversion therapy

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes I appreciate your cautions, however in our country the Parliament is loaded with quite aggressive LGBTQetc, who are typically anti God, anti Church and want to criminalise folk who don't agree with their world view. They tend to ram bills through the chamber with little reference to prevailing opinion.

Greens call for ban on gay conversion therapy

I understand, Carl. We have some similar changes taking place here in the U.S., but since we're divided up into so many states and political factions, developments proceed a little differently:

List of U.S. jurisdictions banning conversion therapy - Wikipedia

 

[Carl Emerson]

I know that this will broaden the topic but this news item is related to the same drive to present transitioning to be sacrosanct and not to be criticised.
========================
A British psychotherapist whose university banned him from studying cases of people who have surgery to reverse gender reassignment is taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights

The U.K. charity Christian Concern outlined the case of James Caspian, 61, a counselor with 10 years of experience in therapy for transgender people.

The dispute with Bath Spa University began in 2017. Represented by the Christian Legal Center, Caspian argues his freedom to pursue legitimate academic research has been breached and that he was targeted with discrimination.

"I have been faced with no alternative but to take this case to Europe. Too much is at stake for academic freedom and for hundreds, if not thousands, of young people who are saying that they are being harmed and often silenced by a rigid view that has become a kind of transgender ideology and permits no discussion," Caspian said in a statement released by his lawyers.

"My preliminary research had revealed a growing controversial schism in transgender politics and inpatient experiences which greatly concerned me and confirmed the need for this research. Some of the people I spoke to said they were too traumatized to speak about their experiences, which proved it was even more important to research the issue, not less."

Between 2007 and 2017, Caspian worked with patients who were medically transitioning, or considering medically transitioning, their gender. In 2013, he "began to see an alarming trend that patients were getting younger and there was a surge in the numbers of young women presenting with complex mental health issues," Christian Concern said.

A growing number of patients "were regretting their transitions and surgery and wanted to detransition."

He proposed, as part of a master's degree program, to do research. Among his discoveries was that on the World Professional Association of Transgender Health internet forums any comment about detransitioning was immediately censored.

Nevertheless, his proposal, titled "An examination of the experiences of people who have undergone Reverse Gender Re-assignment surgery," initially was approved by the university's ethics sub-committee. Later, however, it was summarily rejected.

He was told by the university, according to Christian Concern, his potentially "politically incorrect" piece of research carries a risk to the university. University officers were concerned that criticism of him on social media "may not be confined to the researcher but may involve the university."

"This needs to be assessed by the University Ethics Committee," the university said.

"Working on a less ethically complex piece of research to complete the Masters would be more appropriate."

Christian Concern said: "No other substantive difference existed between the proposal that Mr. Caspian had earlier had accepted and the re-submitted proposal which was rejected."

Caspian said: "If a university – a place for the exchange of ideas, discussion, dissent, questioning, research and critical thinking – is unable to tolerate the risk of criticism, where then are left the most basic tenets of academic and intellectual freedom of enquiry? The implications for a democratic society of the suppression of information and discussion are deeply worrying"

Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: "Over the past decade there has been a 3,000% spike in young girls and women being referred to Gender Identity Clinics. This is a phenomenon taking place in every Western nation with many regretting the life changing decisions they subsequently make. Why? That was the question James Caspian wanted to research.

"Yet in the current climate, anyone who attempts to research, explain and answer these questions is denounced and silenced. This is because the truth and the harm being done to many young people is devastating."
=======================

So with these trends you can see why I am concerned that Pastroral care for those regretting transition should not be banned under the guise of it being under the umbrella of 'conversion therapy' but this is currently happening in New Zealand in right front of our eyes.

What really needs to be challenged is the 'politically correct' claim that transgender ideology should not be challenged.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Sanity at last...

This news item just released discloses Government advice is not to ban 'Conversion therapy' for many of the reasons I raised on this thread.

Ministry of Health Advised No Ban on ‘Conversion Therapy’ | Family First NZ