Should Parents Be Prosecuted For Child Abuse If They Try To "Change" Their Kid's Sexual Orientation?

[ruggerson]

Should there be laws protecting children from this kind of adult activity?

(e.g: sending a kid to an "ex-gay" counselor to "change" his/her orientation from gay to straight)




On edit: clarifying as requested

[varkam]

1. No. eom

[ruggerson]

2. So you condone abuse?

no recourse for the kid?

[varkam]

10. Uh...no.

Did you just post this to call people out? You're asking if parents should be prosecuted for trying to change their child's sexual orientation. If you already think a priori that such activity is abuse, and that abuse should be (and is) routinely prosecuted, why he hell are you asking the question? In other words, you haven't made your case that such activity is abuse and so, if anyone disagrees with you, you can't rightfully claim that they support abusing children. That's inflammatory.

For my part, you're going to have to be a bit more specific about what you mean by "changing sexual orientation". If you mean a father trying to make his child more masculine by getting him to play baseball, then I'd say you're off your rocker for wanting to charge that man with a crime. If you mean genital mutilation, then that's obviously abuse and should be prosecuted.

[mzteris]

16. roflmao

so "playing baseball" makes someone masculine?

:rofl:

[varkam]

18. No, I was just using that as an example. eom

[mzteris]

not a very good one, obviously -

seriously - what do you mean, then ?



Would you change your mind if it meant forcing your son to wear a dress so you could "make him gay"?

[varkam]

23. Jesus H. Christ.

Would boxing work better for you? How about buying your boy toy race cars and NASCAR shirts and your little girl Barbies and pretty pink dresses?

The example isn't really the crux of my argument, so I don't know why you're latching onto it. Sorry if I've somehow offended you.

[mzteris]

26. None of those work, really.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Sorry if I'm vexing you by my trying to get you to explain.

If you think dressing a kid a particular way, or making them play with particular toys - MAKES them GAY or STRAIGHT - then you do not have the slightest clue about sexual orientation.

If that is NOT what you think, then you might want to clarify that position.

That's all I'm saying.

:shrug:

If you want people to think you believe the former, when that's not the case, then I guess that'll have to be your burden, not mine. If it is the case, then - well - someone call me when the pizza gets here.

[varkam]

32. I never said I did think that.

See my explanation below.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. And actually not that far out of an example, varkam

When I worked with street kids back in the 1990s, there was a young man who came to the center, one of many who had been thrown out of the house for being gay.

His parents were willing to take him back on one condition: that he join the football team.

Yup, his poor deluded parents thought that playing football would make him straight.

The rest of us--volunteers and staff alike--felt that the parents were crazy, not only because of their complete misunderstanding of sexual orientation but also because the young man was about 5'4" and thin.

[varkam]

35. Shhh...don't tell that to the folks here.

[jmowreader]

63. Wouldn't playing football make him even gayer, if anything?

There are about sixty largish males on a high school football team...all of whom strip naked in front of each other before practice or games and again after them.

I don't know about you, but if I was gay being on the football team would be better than a lifetime subscription to Playgirl.

[cgrindley]

88. Football isn't gay, it's stupid (nt)

[Bluebear]

90. 'even gayer' - as if there are degrees of it.

[mondo joe]

114. There are so may idiotic posts in this thread. This is one of the top 3.

The day, however, is still young.

[donheld]

92. It's too bad he didn't join the football team. He really should have.

Then sleep with the entire team.

[ruggerson]

21. No, just because you don't like the question posed doesn't make it inflammatory

and it was pretty specific.

Should it be against the law for parents to put their kids into "ex-gay" camps or have "ex gay" counselors try to change their sexuality?

Baseball, uh, doesn't really have anything to do with it.

[varkam]

30. Here is what you wrote in the OP:

Should Parents Be Prosecuted For Child Abuse If They Try To "Change" Their Kid's Sexual Orientation?

Should there be laws protecting children from this kind of adult activity?

I don't see "Should it be against the law for parents to put their kids into "ex-gay" camps or have "ex gay" counselors try to change their sexuality?" anywhere in there, so no, your OP was not very specific.

And baseball has very little to do with it. I was using that as an example of something a parent might do if they wanted to make their child more hetereosexual. You can substitute anything that you would like in there, but I used baseball as it is a tradtionally masculine stereotype and also something that a parent might do if they were concerned about the sexual orientation of their child. I'm not saying it's rational, or anything of the sort.

Now, since you've been so kind in telling me what your question is, I'll give you my answer.

I think it's a fine-line, but no I don't think it should be illegal. I don't personally agree with it, and I think the practice is detestable, but I don't think that means that we should lock parents up for doing it. There are lots of things that parents do that I think are detestable (like having their kids in those damn kid sacks so they don't have to touch them) but I don't think should be illegal

[ruggerson]

37. Well, how do we protect the children

if the activity is not made illegal?

[varkam]

40. You still have not made your case that it is abuse.

If think I'm incorrect, then tell me why. Don't just say I am.

[Zhade]

64. Trying to force a child to disown his very nature isn't abuse?

NT!

[varkam]

86. Emotionally I agree, but I'm not sure how it translates into a legal argument eom

[varkam]

95. I would also add that...

"trying to force a child to disown his very nature" is so broad that it becomes useless in determining appropriate statutes for prosecution.

[Cats Against Frist]

97. And the jury's still out on "very nature"

And how can you tell that a pre-pubescent kid is gay? My little brother's pretty straight and he never played sports and loved for me to put make-up on him and call him "Jennifer" when he was young. Sexual orientation is a construct, the strict designations within which are helped along by what seem to be some slight biochemical influence, early eroticization of the same-sex body and the desire to identify and create in-groups. Human sexuality is much more complex than that and is on a continuum. That's pretty much all we really know. Applying the law to this is fairly dicey.

[dbackjon]

133. Sending children to "correct" their sexual orientation

Has long-lasting harmful affects, not the least is the greater tendency for suicide...

But then again, many "Christians" would rather have a dead son than an openly gay son.

[varkam]

144. At the time of my post the OP had not asked the question yet

and so I was unaware that he was referring to "ex-gay" camps.

[mzteris]

7. why do you think that way? n/t

[varkam]

14. The OP is going to have to be more specific.

As I wrote in my other post, it really depends on the specific behavior. If the OP means that anything falling under the umbrella of try to "change" the sexual orientation of the child, then no I don't think that should be abuse. If the OP means forcing the child to watch pornographic movies, sexual abuse, or genital mutilation then it should obviously be prosecuted as abuse.

[mondo joe]

19. I'm not certain you know what "sexual orientation" means.

:shrug:

[varkam]

41. I do. eom

[Moochy]

85. Similar to the Enhanced Interrogations rule?

I see, I guess this attitude flows from the top down eh?

[varkam]

87. Uh...no.

I'm not going to explain further because apparently you're not reading my posts.

[fedupfisherman]

3. No

n/t

[ruggerson]

4. see post #2

n/t

[fedupfisherman]

9. You did not define 'change'

n/t

[ruggerson]

15. Bringing them to an "ex-gay" counselor to "turn" them into heterosexuals

that's what I mean by "change"

[fedupfisherman]

What about the other way around?

Trying to change a heterosexual kid into a homosexual?

[AlCzervik]

42. wow that happens all the time!! Are you Bill O'Reilly?

[ruggerson]

44. That too

But I don't think that occurs with any regularity, if at all. But, yes, this law would cover trying to change a bisexual kid or heterosexual kid, too.

[fedupfisherman]

47. Gotcha

Then I agree with you

[pnwmom]

57. But doesn't this all depend on what the "ex-gay" counselor actually does?

Or tells the parents to do?

For example, if the theory this counselor is working under is that boys wouldn't be gay if their fathers played more games of catch with them, or took them fishing or hiking in the woods, while we know that theory is silly, it's hard to see that it would hurt the kid to get more positive attention from his dad.

On the other hand, those gay camps I've heard about sound abusive, like the other tough love kind of camps I've heard about. I think the camps themselves should be outlawed.

[Zhade]

65. Uh, isn't trying to force a child to change what he fundamentally is abuse?

Let's be clear - the underlying attitude behind trying to change a gay kid into a straight one (which can't work, of course, anymore than one can change their skin color) is that it is wrong to be gay.

That's not an abusive attitude?

[pnwmom]

121. Force is wrong.

Obviously, dragging an unwilling kid into the woods for a hike with Dad would be counter-productive (at best.) But taking more opportunities to have father-son activities together doesn't seem like it would be abusive, even if -- in the father's mind -- he was hoping that spending time together might increase the child's odds of being straight. It's not like it's easy being gay in this world.

And hopefully such a parent, by becoming closer to his son, would be better able to handle his own emotions if it turned out that his son WAS gay.

[ruggerson]

34. ...

[mzteris]

8. do you have a supporting argument? n/t

[mzteris]

5. what do you mean by "change" -

you can't really "change" them, you know.

But it could be abuse if they - er - abuse them in the process of trying to get them to change.

Belittling. Threatening. "Camps". stuff like that - oh yeah. I think it's abuse.

[ruggerson]

12. I mean

should there be legislation outlawing parents from attempting to "change" their kid's sexual orientation. By bringing them to some "ex-gay" counselor or ministry, for example. Should that be outlawed as psychological and/or physical abuse?

[MADem]

55. Best answer in the entire thread--you can't change them!!! nt

[Zhade]

66. Apparently, some here think they can be changed.

They're wrong, of course - it's like trying to change your ethnicity. Can't happen, abusive to try to force.

[varkam]

69. For the record

I think sexuality falls along a continuum. For some people in the "middle" in might be a matter of choice, but I think for the vast majority of us it is something hard-wired.

[Zhade]

72. There is no choice. When did you choose your sexuality?

I'm disappointed in your views on this subject. I thought you knew better than this.

[varkam]

73. I didn't choose mine.

And, as I said, the vast majority of people do not choose their sexuality - whether homosexual or hetereosexual. But I think for certain individuals (such as people who could be termed bisexual) it can be construed as a matter of choice.

Again, I think that it is more useful to think of sexuality as falling along a continuum as opposed to being an either/or sort of thing. I think perhaps you might be misunderstanding my position on the topic, Zhade.

[Zhade]

74. Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, that people *ever* choose their sexual orientation?

Remember, we're talking orientation, not sexual activities.

[varkam]

77. Ah, I see.

No, I don't think at people can choose where they fall along the continuum. But, I think the question is more complication that heterosexual/homosexual. I mean, there are some people who are classified as sexually indiscriminate and, indeed, appear to have no "orientation".

I hope that clarifies things.

And again, just to be clear, I think things like ex-gay camps are morally detestable - but I don't think that translates into criminal prosecution of the parents.

[Zhade]

78. Remember your last sentence the next time you hear of a gay teen killing himself...

...because he was forced into an "ex-gay" camp.

[varkam]

79. Again, I think they are morally detestable.

But again, I don't think that parents should be criminally prosecuted. I think that the camps should be disbanded, however. Plus, I think there are a number of variables that figure into someone committing suicide. I don't think it is wise to boil it down to one or two factors.

Why the hostility from you, Zhade?

[Cats Against Frist]

98. Please don't let some folks muddy your highly cogent argument

"The Gay Lightswitch" is a pretty popular theory, here. Essentialism, of course, has its flaws -- like coming off as a defensive hothead. I understand what you're saying.

[MADem]

89. Carlos Mencia. Dave Chappelle, and Eddie Murphy do fairly well with changing their ethnicity, but it

doesn't last forever, it's done strictly for laughs, and it isn't something the average person should try at home!!!

The thread is based on an unclear premise, certainly.

It seems to have evolved into a debate over those "Drive Out the Gay" Camps, and programs like that idiot Ted Haggard went through.

The courts haven't yet ruled on this issue to my knowledge. I'd wager though, that given the current environment, they'd view those camps as "education"--like summer camp, or math camp, or what have you--and not find for the kids being put through that crap, UNLESS they were physically punished.

I don't think the court has a problem with people trying to brainwash their kids...even if it is stupid and unsuccessful.

Yet, anyway. That might change one day. It's not as though "a good talking to" is going to change the kids, any more than a stern lecture will make that short kid tall. It's just...goofy to even try.

[The Straight Story]

6. Pass the (non microwaved) popcorn

:popcorn:

[ruggerson]

17. Don't get

popcorn lung, whatever the hell that is. :hi:

[DaveJ]

11. Getting in the way of parents' decisions is a...

...slippery slope. Sometimes it seems that people know exactly how to raise other peoples' kids at every turn, to the point that parents might as well give up and turn their kids over to the state.

Anyway, regarding this topic, I don't think any parents want their kids to have any sexual orientation (ie, not have sex) as long as their kids are under the legal age. At that point it's the kids' right to do what they want.

[mondo joe]

20. Sexual orientation does not mean "have sex".

:eyes:

[DaveJ]

36. Oh, it's that simple then?

I would not want my kids having sex or planning on it at a ridiculously young age regardless of their sexual orientation. If a kid overly expresses their sexual desires at a young age, I would not be against it if a parent gets upset. If a parent gets upset because their kid expresses homosexual desires, and condones heterosexual desires, then I would agree that the parent is an ass. But I don't think punishment is warranted based on that fact alone. Some other illegal activity already on the books would have to come into play.

[Zhade]

67. Sexual orientation is about who you're attracted to, even when sex isn't in the picture.

You need to learn that fact before you can even participate productively in the discussion.

[Deja Q]

128. Many people think of it that way.

:(

[ruggerson]

22. well, alot of parents let their kids date

at 15,16,17, etc.

Sexual orientation doesn't mean the kid is going to engage in sex.

[DaveJ]

39. How can you tell the difference?

When your 11 year old goes out with a boy vs a girl? They're going out with friends either way, the way I see it.


Edit: I didn't notice your reference to ages 15-17. It might be unrealistic, but no we do not expect sex to come into play at that age either.

[ruggerson]

45. Yes, but at that age

they "date". Which involves perhaps, kissing, a movie, dinner out with friends, etc.

So, it's clear at that point whether they're dating the opposite sex or the same sex. Or is it your position that no one has a sexuality until they're 21?

[DaveJ]

48. Actually, it sort of is...

My kids are actually step-daughters for only the last 5 years. I mainly go by what my wife thinks. And she does not want them having sex until long after they are gone. We know this is unrealistic. But it is just a state of mind. Personally, I was not thinking about sex when I was in H.S. I may be the only one in the world, so I guess I'm a freak because I was thinking about things like grades and about going to college.

As far as kissing goes, there is a big difference between an innocent kiss and a sexual kiss. I doubt many young kids make-out without an intention to have sex. Maybe I'm wrong.

[ruggerson]

50. The OP is not about sex

it's about orientation.

A 17 year old kid can walk down the stairs and say: "Mom, I'm gay" without ever having ACTED on it.

She asks him "How do you know". He says "I'm attracted to guys, have been since I was first able to understand what being attracted was. I like girls as friends, but I don't find them sexually or romantically attractive."

Should it be illegal for the mother in this scenario to then send the kid to a psychologist for the express purpose of "changing" him from gay to straight?

[DaveJ]

53. My daughters are attracted to boys and I wish they weren't

I swear if there were a psychiatrist in the world who could rid my 17 yr old stepdaughter of her infatuation toward her scumbag BF I would send here there. It has totally screwed up her life. She no longer has any interest in her school work and I'm afraid she won't even graduate high school. I really do not think kids should be thinking about sex at all. Maybe it is the wrong time for me to make an objective judgment on this issue.

[Cats Against Frist]

99. When I was in Junior High

My boy-crazy best friend was always trying to make out with me. As far as I know, in her post-pubescent life, she didn't engage in any "real" sexual activity with women. I would consider her groping me in a tent (brought on by all the sexual heat that is the Barbie Dream House) to be an "innocent" thing.

[libnnc]

13. Yes.

THAT should be a crime.

I have my own reasons for that opinion.

Being threatened with being "sent away to get fixed" is wrong.

[bliss_eternal]

24. Yes. Absolutely.

:thumbsup:

Very interesting question and excellent point, in my opinion. In the sense that our laws of abuse MUST change to include gay children. It also points out what a long way we have to go in this regard.

Our society won't even willingly state that crimes against gays are hate crimes. :crazy: I can't tell you how sad that makes me.

But back to the issue at hand. Wow. How different would our world be, if children weren't punished, belittled, forced to attend those awful camps, shamed w/religion, etc. all for the sake of trying to "take away the gay?" I'd like to believe it would change our society for the better. :)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

31. I liked Sam Seder's name for an ex-gay camp....

He said laughingly on his Sunday Air America show, that he wondered if Larry Craig would be going to an ex-gay camp such as "Butt-Be-Gone or whatever it's called".....


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


SAM, YOU ROCK!!!

[bliss_eternal]

38. I'm not familiar with him.

I don't think his play on words is at all funny.

Gay camps are a very real issue, forced on too many gay youths. Maybe Mr. Seder needs a camp, one to learn tolerance and how not to make the oppressed the punchline of his sick jokes.

[Zhade]

68. My, how unwittingly homophobic of Mr. Seder.

NT!

[Solly Mack]

33. Well said!

[bliss_eternal]

43. Hey....

:hi:
...thanks!

[Solly Mack]

25. I think so

[mondo joe]

28. Yes. It is proven to be futile, and even harmful. NT

[mitchum]

29. Yes, it is decidedly psychological abuse

[bliss_eternal]

46. self delete...

wrong place.

[whoneedstickets]

49. Depends on how genetic you think being gay is....

...its clearly not 100% genetic. Gay twins studies show a much higher incidence of homosexuality among identical twin brothers (i.e. genetically identical matches) of gay men, but it is not 100% (52% of identical, 22% of fraternal and 11% of unrelated or adopted brothers of gay men are gay -- I guess natural brothers are between 11 and 22%).

See:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE7DD143AF934A25751C1A967958260

So, there is a large genetic component, but its not determinative unless you want to make the claim that the other 48% are living in denial. If genetics aren't determinative and simply probabilistically increase the likelihood, then parental action to reduce this probability isn't abuse (this doesn't mean that the process couldn't still be abusive) but the intention isn't by definition 'trying to foist an unnatural change' (like foot binding).

[bliss_eternal]

51. If a hetero child's parents tried to force them to be gay...

...it would be deemed abuse.

It's abusive to attempt to change a child's inherent orientation.

Besides, what's so great about having a hetero kid, I mean nothing against them or anything...
:P

[ruggerson]

52. Welp, I wondered if all the clamor about

"the children" here recently included concern for gay children.

You know, the ones abused by straight parents.

;-)

[bliss_eternal]

54. To be honest with you ruggerson,

I don't think that the general concern "for the children" includes gay children. I'd like to hope I'm wrong. But sadly, I don't think so. I believe gay children aren't thought about.

People seem to think gays just sprout up as adults or some such silliness. It's a valid question and concern. Gay youths suffer, many in silence. It's wrong.

If I was a different kind of person, I'd terrorize those damned camps the way they terrorize women at clinics. Set fire to them, one and all. They are completely evil in my eyes. No child or gay youth should go through that crap. :grr::mad:

On edit, or I'd build a camp near by, smuggle the kids out and deprogram them.:P
My camp would tell them they are wonderful, beautiful, and perfect just the way they are to god and the universe. To love themselves.

[ruggerson]

56. That's my feeling too

I think there is a whole lot more of awareness needed on these issues.

If I had unlimited resources, I'd move to Nashville or Atlanta and start a group for gay kids that revolved around rescuing them from abusive homes and pushing for legislation against any kind of "ex-gay" adult activity being forced on them.

No one is speaking for these kids right now, and it's a national tragedy.

[DaveJ]

59. Wow that would take a lot of resources

I mean rescuing each kid would probably require around $20K to $40K each per year. I'm trying to earn that much but it's tough. I guess we could make them all wards of the state and then the rich could pay for them to live under state control.

Seriously, I agree with your sentiments. Gay Camps or whatever you call them are stupid. I also thought baseball was stupid. My parents made me play it when I was a kid. Should we outlaw it?

I admit I was miserable when I lived with my parents, I moved out when I was 17 to go to college, and got on with my life.

[gollygee]

112. Do you really think being forced to play baseball is the same

thing as this?

[Solly Mack]

58. You're not wrong

for many people, "for the children" only includes children that fit into their world view (straight, conforming to all the imposed stereotypes of masculine/feminine, etc.) Any child that doesn't fit into that box isn't being considered...such children aren't even seen

[Zhade]

70. Indeed. Think of all those here who rail on about dead soldiers, but forget the Iraqi children.

Fucking hypocrites.

[NMMNG]

139. I'm inclined to agree with you

I don't think that the general concern "for the children" includes gay children.

:-(

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mentalsolstice]

60. My dad is left-handed

They tried to tie his left hand behind his back...it was minimally cruel...

Trying to change sexual orientation (in my view) would be maximally cruel!

[Beerboy]

102. I'm pretty sure it's not the same,

left-handedness and homosexuality. Yeah, there's pressure to be right-handed (I failed) and then your parents know they got a weird one on their hands. My dad's jaw dropped when he saw the chicks I brought home, and mom just rolled her eyes.
Just because your kid is a left-handed artist and all-around general hard-working dude does it necessarily mean he's going to become a GOP U.S. Senator!

[DaveJ]

61. I feel like a broken record

This is my last post on the topic. Parents do a lot of things that screw us up for better or worse. I was seriously traumatized by the fact that my parents made me play baseball. I think that baseball, football, basketball, etc., are horrifyingly detrimental against civilization, and my parents mad me take part in that insanity!!! I think they should be arrested. But since America already has the highest incarceration rate in the world, maybe we should just hold off on thinking of new ways to arrest people.

As far as gay camps go, they seem like a good place for kids to meet other gay kids and feel more comfortable about themselves. I do not think that one adults stands a chance against 2 kids much less a whole battalion of them at a gay camp. Parents are not perfect, they do stupid things, but they pay the bills, as imperfect as they are. Anyone who wants to raise someone else's kids should be ready to pay their bills.

[Zhade]

71. What a heartless message you send!

It's too expensive, so let the kids suffer?

How the fuck do you sleep at night?

[bliss_eternal]

76. Question for you...

...are you SERIOUSLy comparing a parent insisting that you participate in a team sport, to a parent attempting to force a child to be heterosexual?

Think about this...

Parent insisting that a child play team sports versus Parent telling a child that being gay is abnormal and attempting to force heterosexuality on the child.

I'm not trying to minimize the trauma you say you've experienced because you were forced into team sports at all.
I am attempting to show you that it's not really the same thing.

There are many reasons a parent could insist on kids playing team sports. When I was a kid, many parents were encouraged to do so to help kids get exercise, learn sportsmanship, learn to play well with others, etc. It's certainly possible that some parents place children on teams to live out the parent's unrealized hopes and dreams around sports. :shrug:

Is insisting a child do something they absolutely don't enjoy damaging? Yes.It definitely could be. But as one that isn't a parent I honestly can't speak to that. Maybe there are other reasons a parent would do this, that I wouldn't be aware of.

But participation in something with a beginning and end, (season of team sports) isn't the same as telling a child who they are is wrong and trying to change that (gay child to hetero child). We're talking about the essence of someone's identity, and you're comparing that to something one participates in. That's quite different.

Don't know if any of this makes sense for you or not. I hope it does. :)

[UncleSepp]

83. Why is sexual orientation so special?

Sexual orientation is a characteristic of a person, but it isn't a person. Personally, I wouldn't say that being gay is "who I am". I'd say that I prefer men and find them lovable and sexy. I also prefer an orderly but not sterile home and a balance between structure and spontaneity, and I prefer clear and explicit communications over communications rich in subtext.

Trying to change an introvert into an extrovert, a moderately disorderly person into a neat freak, or a dreamer into a hardnosed realist is also futile, but this also happens. Parents tell their children they are wrong for all kinds of reasons. It's sad, but it's unfortunately true. It is just as uncomfortable and unpleasant no matter what the characteristic is: the discomfort experienced depends on how the individual, not the characteristic. Sexual orientation is just not all that special. Personally, I find that the preference for "being gay is WHO I am" over the IMHO more accurate "being gay is HOW I am" to be part of the problem facing the acceptance of gay people by straight people and of us by ourselves.

[Beerboy]

103. Sexual orientation defines a huge part of your waking existence,

yes, it's a characteristic, but one of the most important and essential ones. There's no denying which sex you're attracted to and how that fits into who you are.
Sexual orientation is a huge part of everyone's individual psyche.

[whoneedstickets]

104. The prominence of sexual identity in your self image....

is probably substantially heightened in the gay community. I imagine if you asked a sample of people to list the 5 most important things that define who they are you would find the lists to be full of gender, occupation, social and family roles and religious identities. Sexual orientation would not appear on the list for straights. It would be a much more prominent component (and preoccupation) for homosexuals because it is a defining trait for ingroup-outgroup differentiation.

[UncleSepp]

125. You imagine? Probably?

If you define "the gay community" as being "the set of all people who are gay", then of course sexual orientation becomes the defining characteristic. That's really a stretch for what "community" is.

Just being gay doesn't make you part of "the gay community". Being part of "the gay community" requires action. You've got to go to places where other gay people go, get involved in gay social activities, and keep up on events in the community before you're really a member of "the gay community". You don't just move to a gay neighborhood, shout "I'm Gay!" from your balcony, and bingo, you're in. Not being gay doesn't keep you out of "the gay community", either. Straight people who are involved in the community, from activists to health care workers to restaurant owners to neighborhood "moms", are part of the community. They're all part of the community based on what they do, not based on who they are.

I'd be interested to see someone actually ask a sample of people that question. I'd also be interested to see what would happen if the question were multiple choice instead of a free list, and if "I am attracted to women" and "I am attracted to men" were offered as choices along with a non-optional gender box. I'd imagine that if you gave such a survey to young straight guys in a straight bar, "I am attracted to women" would appear as frequently as "I am attracted to men" would on the surveys of young gay guys in a gay bar. I would suspect that if you gave the survey to straight, middle-aged geeks at a sci fi convention and gay middle-aged geeks at a sci fi convention, you'd get about the same frequency as well. The problem with "sexual orientation" as a survey answer is that the term is usually used when discussing homosexuality, and would net responses from people who are concerned with homosexuality, whether because they're gay or because they strongly oppose homosexuality. "I am attracted to men" or "I am attracted to women" frames the question in a neutral way, which would be more likely to elicit honest responses.

[Solon]

134. Its a difference between being in the majority, and hence "normal" and being in the minority...

I'm left handed, and that is part of how I define myself, simply because I had to deal with a culture of right handedness. Some people actually have NO clue how inconvenient it was to be left handed in this society, even when, while I was growing up, it wasn't nearly as bad as it was for my Grandmother. Pick any immutable characteristic that the majority don't have, and the minority with that characteristic is more likely to identify themselves with it.

This is amplified by how much discrimination the minority are faced with related to that characteristic.

[UncleSepp]

124. I guess I'm not an "everyone"

It's really just not that big of a part of me. A person could know me and understand me very well and not know whether I like men or women, if that person wasn't a potential or actual mate. In non-sexual and non-sexualized interactions, it's irrelevant. In straight male social contexts, my sexual orientation has a secondary effect on the interaction because I am not interested in what the straight men are interested in. I don't interact well when they get off on some tangent about sports, either, because I don't follow sports. To me, the two experiences are the same.

THAT is a primary defining characteristic for me. I am rational about my emotions nearly all of the time, which isn't a good or a bad thing, it's just a thing. It's not a thing I can change, it's a thing that affects all my interactions with all people and all of my decisions. It's fundamentally how I interact with the world and with my own self. As far as I am concerned, sexual orientation is who I do, not who I am.

[otherlander]

140. "Sexual orientation is a huge part of everyone's individual psyche."

Really? You sure about that?

[bliss_eternal]

127. Perhaps...

...you should ask the op. The question regarding abuse in relation to the sexual orientation of a child was his question, not mine.

[Cats Against Frist]

101. There was a period during my junior year of high school

When my mother accused me of being a "nigger lover," after she found a note in my pocket from a black kid at school. Then, she proceeded to tell me that, apparently that was "all I could get" because I was overweight. Lots of times, people are ignorant as fuck -- but I don't think my mom should have gone to jail or have me taken away for it. Yeah, it sucked, but that's kind of part of life -- and age provides perspective on these things. In some ways, the most interesting people I know became that way by overcoming the shackles of ignorant parents in ignorant and stupid communities. Clearly, changing someone's sexual orientation will not work. But, in a sense, even the parents holding an opinion against homosexuality when they have a gay child qualifies as psychological abuse, even if they don't send their kid to a camp. So, there's obviously different shades here. As someone above stated, physical punishment yes, but brainwashing, no. If it were up to me, all religious right-wingers should go to prison for the brainwashing of their kids. Fortunately, I have a sensible side that precludes me from seeing a limited picture.

[bliss_eternal]

126. We disagree.

Because if more children were taken away from parents that were hateful and intolerant of others, the world would be a better place, in my opinion. Children learn what they live. If they live w/people that are flippant about language that demeans others, they don't learn how hurtful it is to others, to respect individuals and their differences or the power of language.

While these issues may not be defined by "the law", doesn't make it any less abusive or more appropriate.

Apparently, you think using that word is ok. Why is that? If you were as sensible as you say you are, you'd realize the inherent insensitivity in using it. But maybe not, considering you say your mother used this word with you.

[Cats Against Frist]

143. I thought about using some stars instead of the word

But I thought better of it. I left my identity politics behind long ago, and I believe PC is for the birds. That word, in fact, though, is the one that rings the most grating and insufferable to my ears. No other word would have even come close to getting the star treatment.

And I'm a critical theorist -- I realize everything.

[bliss_eternal]

146. Translation...

PC is for the birds = I don't care if the words I choose to use are hurtful, cruel, discriminative and intolerant.
PC is for the birds = My need to use shocking words outweighs my ability to be considerate of the concerns of others.

People can make those kinds of assertions all they like, comments about others being too sensitive, and the world becoming too "pc". That's all crap, as far as I'm concerned. It's all an incredibly weak defense mechanism used to make it other's people problem that you choose to toss about vulgar, insensitive language--with no regard for the history of such words.

Given your choice and the other comments you've made in this thread, welcome to bliss's ignore list.
Have fun being offensive.


edited for clarity

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

148. I think you are bring worked (n/m)

[Bluebear]

91. 'This is my last post on the topic.' - well, that's a relief. nt

[fishwax]

119. baseball is bad, so gay camps are no big deal

:crazy:

[NMMNG]

141. Um, these camps aren't social settings

As far as gay camps go, they seem like a good place for kids to meet other gay kids and feel more comfortable about themselves.

The kids aren't sent there to meet other gay kids, feel good about themselves and have a great time. They're sent there to be taught that being gay is evil, shameful and sinful. They're sent there to be "turned straight" via whatever means the adults deem necessary (such as psychological/religious manipulation and even corporal punishment). The kids are forbidden any materials (music, books, magazines, etc.) that are "pro-homosexual" (which in some camps includes anything that's not certain classical music, Christian music, carefully selected textbooks or the Bible) and are not allowed to have any same-sex contact of any kind.

These aren't fun camps.

[Zhade]

62. Yes.

NT!

[tyedyeto]

75. I have known gay parents and never has anyone questioned......

their parenthood. In fact, their children are far more accepting of others than even my own (who are very understanding) of others who may differ from them in lifestyle, politics or other social behaviors.

[UncleSepp]

80. Depends on how it is done.

I do not at all think that sexual orientation can be changed from the outside. It can and sometimes does change over the course of a person's lifetime, but can't be forced. I also feel strongly that parents should accept their children as they are. BUT, parents don't always accept their children as they are. Sexual orientation is just one of the qualities of a child that a parent might reject and try to change.

I see more operating here, though. The motivation of an activity, IMHO, is not something that can be criminalized. Actions can be criminalized. If a parent acts in an abusive manner to a child, from neglect to belittling to physical and sexual abuse, then yes, that behavior should be prosecuted no matter what the motivation for the behavior happens to be. Some of the attempts parents have made to change the sexual orientation of their children do fall clearly into the category of abusive behavior. However, if the attempt to change a child's sexual orientation is limited to behavior that would be non-abusive absent the motivation of changing orientation, I don't think that behavior can be criminalized.

A well-meaning parent who wants to change his or her child's sexual orientation might, for example, send the child to outpatient psychological counseling. A well-meaning parent who wants his or her child to be happy in their newly revealed sexual orientation might *also* send the child to psychological counseling, to help the child deal with the stress and prepare for a healthy life. A parent wanting to change a child's orientation might play matchmaker with "appropriate" dates. So might any parent who is dissatisfied for whatever reasons with his or her child's dating choices. These things are annoying but largely innocent, and not abusive.

A parent who tries to beat the gay out of their kid is guilty of abuse. So is a parent who beats a child for whatever reason, and the parent who beats a child for being gay has not committed a worse offense than the parent who beats a child for being messy. A parent who sends his child away to a camp where the child is humiliated, belittled, and possibly physically abused for being gay is no better and no worse in my opinion than a parent who sends his child to an unscrupulous private mental hospital to be humiliated, belittled, and abused. (This was rather fashionable when I was in high school among insured suburban parents, and several of my friends were shipped off for basically being teenagers.)

The unscrupulous private hospital in a way leads back to the ex-gay counselors: An "ex-gay" counselor is by definition unqualified by being out of step with the APA's current position on homosexuality. Sending a child to a health care provider who is unqualified and does not keep up with current research and standards of care could be neglectful where other providers are available to the parent. However, a whole new can of worms would be opened by pursuing prosecution for abuse on those grounds. A parent who sends his or her child to a spiritual "ex-gay" counselor because that satisfies the parent's deeply held beliefs would be in the same position as a parent who sends his or her child to a spiritual counselor to deal with nightmares from an esoteric point of view due to other deeply held spiritual beliefs, or a parent who sends his or her child to a reiki healer to deal with tension headaches, or any other alternative treatment based on individually held beliefs.

It goes right back to legislating what beliefs are acceptable as motivation for action and what beliefs are not, and I can't get behind that, even when I strongly disagree with whatever the beliefs happen to be.

[Prism]

81. Not even remotely

This is an incredibly slippery slope and I would have many, many questions about this kind of policy.

First we would have to establish what constitutes abuse. Would that be limited solely to sexual orientation? For example, an ex-gay camp might say belittling and hurtful things to a kid as part of the "therapy". Psychological abuse is certainly a form of abuse often ignored in favor of the more easily recognizable physical abuse, but there is a fine, fine line when we're talking about the government coming in and arresting people. If saying disparaging and abusive things to change the way your child behaves is an arrestable offense, we would suddenly have millions of parents in prison.

If we're talking about an attempted change of orientation as a prosecutable offense, why limit yourself to camps? What if a child is being raised Catholic? The Catholic Church certainly isn't keen on homosexuality, and most gay children brought up in it end up with inculcated beliefs that make them think something's wrong with them, that they're sinning, that they need to suppress those urges. I was raised Catholic as were many of my gay friends. Nowadays we joke about the Catholic guilt we had growing up, but under this standard, should my parents have been arrested for sending me to Church and catechism classes? I mean, isn't telling a gay child they're going to hell pretty damn abusive?

Where do you draw that line? I can see many many examples of parental behavior outside of the ex-gay camps that would be ripe for interference once we establish that prosecutable standard.

And that doesn't even address what you would do with the kids. Even if the intentions are good, the idea of social services plucking thousands of gay teenagers from their homes leaves me deeply uncomfortable. I just don't want the government overseeing parenting to the degree you're proposing. If the child is in physical danger, then yes, absolutely. Someone needs to call social services. If a camp is being physically abusive, it needs to be closed down and the owners and counselors prosecuted.

Other than that, no. Look, parents suck, some more than others. And I say that as a gay man who was raised Catholic and had a fairly abusive upbringing. It isn't easy to grow up gay in a family or community that isn't very supportive of it. Now, ten years away from home, I'm ok and well-adjusted. The best thing we can do as gay adults, as people, is to stand ready when kids in those situations leave home. To be there for them, to comfort them, to tell them they're not abnormal, to let them know it's not their fault, to give them unconditional patience and friendship as they work through whatever issues their upbringing inflicted upon them. There are many, many ways we can do that, among them volunteering our time or effort to things like centers for troubled or homeless youth. PFLAG has a variety of resources in that regard.

But to go in and start arresting parents because they're major-league assholes? There aren't enough police in the hemisphere.

[JohnnyLib2]

82. Yes, and that's from a counseling perspective.

The pressure to "change" is a form of sexual harassment; horror stories are plentiful. Without some legislative backing, there is really no whistle to blow in terms of intervention.

The closest parallel I can think of is prosecuting parents in cases of extreme truancy (and that's generally termed parental neglect, not abuse per
se).

Terrific post!

[UncleSepp]

84. From that point, I can see it

It's the action that's abusive. It would be abusive to get that explicitly involved with a straight kid's sex life, too. Thanks!

[cgrindley]

93. There are a great many things parents should be prosecuted for

failure to take children to the dentist
failure to provide them with vaccinations and innoculations
failure to register them in school or teach them in an appropriate way a proper curriculum
failure to provide correct nutrition
failure to control their children's truancy

until a child is an adult, parents should also be liable for their children's criminal acts

too many parents seem to believe that children are either

a) their friends

or

b) their possessions

Instead, parents should realize that they are training the next group of citizens. That parents owe a debt to society and should try to raise children who will contribute rather than take. It's tough being an adult. Parents should take their function as mentors and educators more seriously.

Should parents be prosecuted for taking their children to some whack-job religious anti-gay crusader for mental torture? absolutely. but let's also imprison those parents who take their sick children to fucking holistic healers or fucking reiki treatment or who spend the familiy's money on feng shui or any other stupid shit.

[varkam]

94. You're going to be locking up an awful lot of parents. eom

[gollygee]

110. Delete

an edit in teh OP makes this irrelevant.

[spoony]

120. Why don't you just raise all earth's children

I mean, after you've locked up all their parents for sending them to the wrong school or letting them have a Twinkie.

[cgrindley]

123. they can have a twinkie once in a while

provided they brush after

[Cats Against Frist]

96. No

but only because there's no child abuse laws for raising kids to be right-wing christofascist morons. Or self-centered idiots. Or white trash freaks. Unfortunately, human sexuality is a construct, like everything else. I think it's horrible, of course, that parents would do that, but child abuse laws in that area just increase the presence of the state in areas that, though maybe gray, are much better left to citizens. Slippery slope stuff, you know.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

105. It is

draconian to send a person whose born a certain way to a place to be fixed.

My example:

Back not too long ago, children who showed a preference for using their left hand were punished and forced to use their right hand. They were told all sorts of terrible things about their "preference" --- They were treated differently due to their left handedness. It is and was abuse.

Why would it be any different to treat a child, who is born being attracted to their own gender, to a trip to a crazy assed ex-gay, self loathing jerk to be fixed?

[Marrah_G]

106. Locking people up is not the answer

The answer comes with education and cultural change. Where are you going to house all the parents who have a hard time dealing with their child's sexual preferences? And then where do you house all the children you take from them? Prosecution is not the answer.

[IndianaJones]

107. I would say no. nt.

[Midlodemocrat]

108. I would have to say no. I think a better avenue to take would

be to shut down any 'ex-gay' camp as well as revoke the licensure of any 'professional' who claims to be able to turn someone from homosexual to heterosexual.

Reason being, anyone with half a brain in the counseling, psychotherapy world recognizes that sexual orientation is genetic and cannot be altered any more than eye color. (obviously, contacts don't count)

[gollygee]

109. It's at least emotional abuse but not necessarily criminal depending on the circumstances

I think any time a parent doesn't offer unconditional love that parent is abusing his/her role.

Trying to make a child change who he/she is and using shame in an attempt to change a child is emotional abuse.

And that's at the light end of the spectrum. There could be severe emotional abuse and/or severe physical abuse involved.

Edited to add that not all abuse meets the criminal definition. But parents should take their responsibility very seriously. I wrote about this in another thread - when I was in high school a friend's younger brother committed suicide, and when his room was cleared out his parents discovered he was gay. His parents were very conservative and very religious. I bet they would have talked differently about homosexuality so as to make sure he knew he would be loved and accepted if they had more foresight. I wish more parents were aware that if they speak negatively about gay people, go off about the "gay agenda" and other bullshit like that, etc., in front of their kids and one of their kids is gay, they are causing serious trauma.

Edited again - I think those camps should be illegal and sending someone to a camp like that should IMO be considered within the legal definition of abuse.

You edited your OP while I was writing this. LOL

[noonwitch]

111. It depends on the situation.

Especially with older kids/teens. If the kid doesn't want to be gay, then he should have help finding ways to change his orientation.

A kid shouldn't be forced into counseling, and the therapist should still be mandated to report any abuse or neglect of the kid. If the parent tries to beat the gay out of the kid, or something like that, the counselor should still report it to CPS/the police.

There's no way any kid who hasn't reached puberty should be exposed to that kind of counseling, though. They don't even understand it enough to participate in any meaningful way.

[mainegreen]

113. It is already illegal to abuse or neglect a child. No further laws are needed.

You would merely have to show in court that the parents activity was abuse or neglect.

That's the great thing with a generalized law, as opposed to a specific law; it can change with the times.

[mondo joe]

115. Indeed - but the issue is that these voodoo treatments are not widely understood to

be abusive.

[mainegreen]

116. Then it's time for a prosecutor to set a precedent.

Send a message that this is abuse, much like they did about 10 (?) years ago to parents who refused to give their children necessary medical treatment.

[mondo joe]

117. Agreed. Though I spoke in the affirmative to the OP's question, it was fuly intended

in the context of using existing abuse laws rather than inventing new laws. :-)

[slackmaster]

152. The OP did not specify any particular kind of intervention

Not necessarily any voodoo involved.

[Forkboy]

118. I lean towards "yes" but would like to know the law/s and punishment you had in mind.

I think it qualifies as abuse, but we do already have laws for that.Also, if it is decided it's abuse then what? DSS,foster care? From the experiences a few friends have had through that game I'm not sure if that would be any better for a youth already wondering what the hell is going on.

Interesting OP ruggerson. :thumbsup:

[NaturalHigh]

122. No.

[slackmaster]

130. I believe sexual orientation is often fluid in early childhood and subject to some influence

My answer is No, unless their treatment of the child involves some type of punishment or other behavior that is already defined as abusive.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

145. Christianity is inherently abusive.

Their starting premise is that you are a worthless piece of crap merely because you're breathing. That is emotional abuse. And that the only cure for it is to become one of them, or you're going to hell.

It's a set-up. There is NO original sin, and NO salvation needed.

I don't need to be told what a worthless piece of crap I am and submit to that willingly on Sunday by sitting thru a sermon.

I can make enough mistakes by myself, without being told I've got another mistake on my rap sheet. Christianity is a crooked prosecutor charging you with a crime you did not commit.
They just made it up.

No wonder there are so many self-hating people in extremist religious groups. It makes them passive and accepting of what their preacher tells them. It makes them avoid responsibility for their actions, because they can say God told them to. Even mainstream Christianity holds to the doctrine of original sin and substitutionary atonement, so I would call that abusive as well.

[slackmaster]

151. Wow, that was pretty extemporaneous

I assume Perragrande meant that as a followup to the OP or someone else's reply.

[spoony]

154. It took longer than I initially thought for

some twit to post this. You lot are so fucking predictable!

[MUSTANG_2004]

147. What he said. /nt

[Pithlet]

131. It depends.

I think parents who think they can change their child's sexual orientation are idiots. Whether or not legal action is taken should depend on what exactly is going on. Are they telling their children that they can and/or should change and leaving it at that? No, as stupid and foolish and wrongheaded as that is, I don't know if that rises to the level of abuse. Parents often do say stupid and hurtful things to their kids in their attempt to raise them, but that doesn't always equal legally actionable abuse. I think if they're using abusive measures in their attempts to change them, then they absolutely should be held accountable.

[dbackjon]

132. Definately

[Lone_Star_Dem]

135. Wouldn't it be a great thing if we cold force such parents to stop doing these things?

Sure it would. But I don't think that introducing laws that specifically address the sexuality of a child is the way to go about it.

The fact is that too many parents don't want to think of their children as being sexual at all and would fight such legislation to the death.

The fact that little Sally wants to kiss little Megan is just because they're cute little girls. It has nothing at all to do with her being sexual. The same applies to if little Sally were to want to kiss little Billy. It's cute, but not sexual.

By the time these parents are willing to admit that Sally is sexual it's usually long after she's taken a much more in depth interest in whichever sex it is that she's going to be attracted to. It's usually at this point when these misguided parents go nutty trying to "fix" their precious little baby.

No, I think the proper way to peruse these cases is not to write new laws, but rather to prove that these parents are doing harm to these children on an emotional level and let our current laws prevail.

[Cameron27]

136. Yes, I think so.

It's got to be very disturbing psychological abuse to the kid, who can't possibly be changed.

[terrya]

137. Damn right there should be.

I think 5 years in prison sounds about right. Seriously. You send your kid to some place where they employ "repairative therapy" (aka shock treatments), that's child abuse.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

138. I don't know, can they prosecute for emotional abuse now?

If so, it'd seem to already qualify under existing laws.

[Toasterlad]

142. No. They Should Have Their Kids Taken Away From Them.

If they don't love their kids for who they are, they should be taken away and given to someone who will.

[Bluebear]

149. There ya go. nt

[AnotherGreenWorld]

150. Yes.

[begin_within]

153. How does someone know the sexual orientation of a child?

Doesn't that come later, say at puberty? Can anything a child says or does be considered an accurate indication of what that child's sexual orientation will be after puberty?

[Bluebear]

155. Oh you bet a redneck daddy will think his 6 year old boy is a fruit if he picks up a doll.

The prescription, more baseball, more roughhousing, more name-calling. You know, just to "make a man out of him".

[begin_within]

157. In more ways than one!

[LanternWaste]

156. If, and only if...

If and only if a parent would also be prosecuted under the same statute for attempting to change a left-handed child into a right-handed one.

[gollygee]

159. Out of curiosity

why the connection between the two?

[LanternWaste]

161. Neither is a choice...

Neither is a choice-- as far as know, we're born gay, hetero or somewhere in between; and as far as I know, we're born right handed, left handed or somewhere in between.

If both of them are an inherent part of the Self, then all other things being equal, an outside party attempting to change either one is guilty.

If there are differences between attempting to change either one, I believe it lies only in degrees.

[TrogL]

158. The ex-gay movement has been thorougly discredited

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/orient.html

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

160. Oh C'mon Now.

I know you mean well and I understand your point, but you can't possibly be serious.