Yet another attack on the LGBT community in the name of “religious freedom.” If you want to be a counselor, you should be willing to treat the patient in front of you without attempting to force your morals on them.
It is good to see lawmakers standing up against the homosexual agenda that is being forced on the American people. I support any legislation that stems the tide of the secular assault on Christian beliefs and morals.
Counselor: “What brings you in today?”
Teen: “I’m thinking about killing myself.”
Counselor: “Why are you having these thoughts?”
Teen: “Because my parents disowned me and kicked me out.”
Counselor: “I’m sorry to hear that. Tell me what happened.”
Teen: “I came out to my parents and they told me I am going to hell, and they kicked me out onto the street.”
Counselor: “Oh, you’re gay? I’m sorry, but your parents are right, you are going to hell. Also, I will not be able to help you.”
From the article the law apparently just says you can turn away a patient and not have legal liabilities. That seems like basic freedom of association to me. I admit this is a dead freedom in the US, but some like me still value it.
I take issue with your claim about forcing morals on clients. That is exactly what counseling is. Any counseling. Not actually forcing of course but presenting them as a standard to be worked towards. If there are no morals there is no counseling. Such a counseling business is a fraud.
First, no medical provider should be permitted to turn away a patient in distress… For any reason. And no, counseling has nothing to do with the provider’s morals or religious beliefs. A counselor needs to be able to tailor their counseling to the needs of the patient.
Why shouldn’t they be able to turn away patients? Is it wrong or immoral?
Counseling means giving advice. This is predicated on the idea the counselor has some particular insight. Counseling obviously would be tailored to the patient but if the patient has a disorder that is a moral judgment made by the counselor. If counseling is just affirmation of the client then I would say that is nice work if you can get it.
Of course it is wrong to turn away a patient in distress. And making a diagnosis is not a moral judgement. It is a judgement made using medical training and objective signs and symptoms. Mental health diagnoses are made using the DSM. The counseling provided by mental healthcare professionals does not require the counselor to empart their personal beliefs.
And stop right there. As soon as your standard of diagnosis is a book whose contents are determined by popular vote, you lose all claim to being objective. Guess what: Psychiatrists, therapists, and counselors who tell patients homosexual activity is normal and healthy are just as guilty of making “moral judgments” as those who would tell a patent that such activity is abnormal and unhealthy.
If attraction to a person of the same sex is not a pathology, kindly explain what makes it different from attraction to inanimate objects, animals, or children of either sex.
To forestall the most obvious objection: Attraction to a member of the opposite sex serves the biological imperative to reproduce - something which requires both sexes.
Making a diagnosis is a moral judgment in so far as the judgment is about right or wrong behavior or mental states. The DSM is just an aggregation of personal beliefs. I can’t imagine anyone selecting a professional and not caring about his personal beliefs especially as they relate to the particular issue. Expert opinions are personal beliefs. If they weren’t then everyone or no one would be an expert. The idea that professionals are perfectly exchangeable commodities seems really odd to me.
I returned to the church four weeks ago, but I do not agree with the church’s teaching on homosexuality. I do not support hatred in the name of God. I have gay family members and dear friends who have suffered persecution because of their sexuality. I love them and will never turn my back on them as I believe God created them in his image and wishes for them happy and productive lives.
Not agreeing with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is a slippery slope. How can we accept one immoral sexual behavior, in this case homosexuality, but not polygamy or pedophilia or bestiality or incest? Giving ground does nothing but leave you vulnerable to being called out as a hypocrite. This is why the “gay marriage” decision by the Supreme Court is panicking people. If this decision was about “civil rights” or not passing judgment, then who are we to deny the “civil rights” of pedophiles and polygamists or to pass judgment on them?
Of course we love them, and we obviously don’t hate them. We still don’t have to accept their lifestyle and we should try to help them change. We can’t lie to them and say that what they’re doing is okay. That’s a huge disservice to them and to ourselves.
Do you think Jesus thought that way? I don’t think counselors force anything but they do bring up alternatives.
I know one counselor who is treating 2 lesbians and they say they are trying to have a sacramental marriage. He had them look in the bible to see what a sacramental marriage was and it is a man and a women.
Some are sad when they try to put a round peg in a square hole.
The slippery slope argument is such a vapid one. And comparing gay people to pedophiles is disgusting. A mental health provider needs to be able to treat people with different beliefs. If they aren’t capable of doing that, then they need a new profession. It is entirely possible to treat a patient without proselytizing. A perfect example would be the straight unmarried mother who is seeking mental health care because she is having trouble dealing with her baby’s father leaving her. This is something that every mental healthcare provider will encounter at some point. But why don’t we see counsellors refusing to care for those patients?
That’s not what the bill is about, your smarter than this.
This bill is about allowing therapists the right to decide what kind of practice they have, and what kind of issues they help people with.
For example, I have a therapist and when I was looking for one, I had one major requirement - the therapist had to be a practing Catholic in line with the magisterium. So I found someone from catholictherapists.com
I wanted a therapist who shares my world view. The last thing I would have wanted was a therapist or counselor who is an atheist or thinks that divorce, masturbation, abortion, swinging, etc are healthy behaviors/options.
I found a Catholic therapist because my therapist was able to join a website where he can advertise his faith to people who are looking for that.
In regards to people who are engaged in and enjoy homosexual acts: wouldn’t they be best served by someone who shares their world view? If a gay man, who is happy being gay and wants to continue having gay sex, sees a therapist he would be better off with one who supports his lifestyle?
The truth is that the law not only protects the conscience rights of the therapist, but it also helps the homosexual find a therapist who best suites their needs and worldview.