Should groups have the right to promote "gay cures"?

[kenny]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42974961

A row has broken out over the screening of a film that advocates therapy to "cure" people from being gay.

Christian group Core Issues Trust had hired a screen at Vue Piccadilly, London, to show the film "Voices of the Silenced" on Thursday.

The documentary tells the stories of 15 people "emerging out of homosexual lifestyles" and aims to "preserve and promote teachings on sexual ethics".

But Vue cancelled the booking after the event drew criticism.

• I was sent for 'gay cure'
• Push to ban 'gay conversion therapy'
• 'Gay cure' group's advert banned
• 'Pray the gay away'

According to Vue, Core Issues Trust - which made the film - first reserved the space at the end of November as a "personal booking".

The film was received by the cinema on 22 January, but when a press release was sent to the company on Tuesday it decided to "review the intentions of the event."

A spokeswoman for the cinema said: "While it is not our intention to censor content, in some instances, where we feel an activity is in direct contradiction to Vue's values, a decision will be made to refrain from allowing a private event to go ahead."

Core Issues Trust is now seeking advice from lawyers, and told the BBC it had 126 people attending the event from across the UK and other countries, including the Netherlands.

'Unwanted feelings'
The group promotes "change-oriented processes" for "relationally and sexually damaged and wounded adults who seek wholeness".

It describes itself on its website as "a spiritual home... for believers and seekers who struggle with issues of sexual brokenness, including homosexuality".

Mike Davidson, who leads Core Issues Trust, told the BBC the film was not about a "gay cure" but "the rights of individuals to access help and support for unwanted homosexual feelings".

'Can't be cured'
Members of the LGBT community say the organisation's teachings are "unethical".

A spokesperson for campaign group Stonewall said: "It's disappointing that Vue Piccadilly would consider screening a documentary about so-called 'conversion therapy'.

"LGBT people aren't ill. Being gay, lesbian, bi or trans is not something that should be 'cured' or changed.

"This unethical and degrading practice has been condemned by all major UK health organisations. It's shocking that Vue Piccadilly initially viewed this as a suitable film to screen."

Pink News launched a petition to get the screening cancelled after one of its former journalists received an invite.

It said Vue had a "duty to ensure that material such as this is not shown on its screens" and that LGBT staff could "unwittingly be disturbed by the content".

 

[cmd2014]

Kenny,

Perhaps what might be more effective would be to counterbalance these claims with experts from the other side citing verifiable scientific evidence that these "cures" are ineffective and harmful. Ideally this would occur across all modalities including and perhaps most importantly the internet. Otherwise what you will find (as with all other fringe health-related beliefs such as the idea that vaccines cause autism, aluminum causes Alzheimer's, microwaves cause cancer, marijuana cures cancer, and other internet based myths that simply will not die) is that those who believe this stuff will only see one side of the issue on the sites that they visit and the tv channels that they watch, thus firming up their belief that this is reasonable and mainstream, and causing them to send their children to be victimized by this damaging practice.

 

[baby monster]

Inane on so many levels. Presenting gay "cures" even though those methods have been debunked for many years; censoring a movie because someone might be disturbed by its ideas or content. Back to USSR.

 

[TooPatient]

I don't want to select because I don't like either answer. Neither feels fully correct to me. (And i don't presume to have an answer.)

On the one hand, I am disgusted by the idea of "curing" people. Seriously!? Yuck. What is this? The dark ages?

On the other hand, I support people having the right to say things I don't agree with. ( And my having the right to speak against them!) That extends to even my most core values. Censoring people leads to very dangerous situations. Far more effective to let people speak and others speak against. Plus businesses having the right to refuse to show such things if they choose. (Including defending showing/not to other people in their community)

ETA: in case there is any doubt, I find the idea of that "film" disgusting. I would not go see it and would not give my business to a place that chose to show it.

 

[tkyasx78]

Gay cures WTF!

 

[missy]

NOOOOOOO. I cannot believe we are still discussing this in 2018!!! Makes me so MAD.
Inane to use @baby monster's word and Insane. And freaking ridiculous and wrong and just on so many levels NOT OK.

 

[monarch64]

It’s totally fine as long as groups exist to cure “The Stupid.”

 

[Tekate]

It get's so tiring to read about 'gay' cures. To ban them would be impossible since we have Freedom of Speech and I support this. We need to start cures for people who think there is something wrong with being gay.

 

[TooPatient]

It’s totally fine as long as groups exist to cure “The Stupid.”

Perfect!
Every ticket holder would, of course, be granted automatic membership.

 

[kenny]

I totally see the free speech side of this.

But ...
Is it okay to yell FIRE in a crowded theater?
How bout making and showing films about how to groom and molest kids?
How bout promoting female circumcision?

For millennia religions have told us gay is bad, unnatural, against God.
It's bad enough that many church members embrace this. (Obviously not all, no broad brush here.) ... But 'Gay is bad' became so pervasive around the world that it has creeped into secular culture and even politics and law, harming and denying civil rights to innocents.

When innocents are harmed when is it time to question freedom of hate speech?

 

[Matata]

When innocents are harmed it's time to question freedom of speech.

I feel that way about a lot of things afforded by free speech but even on my most liberal out-in-left-field of another universe days, I recognize that opinion as being a slippery sloped whoop ass can 'o worms.

 

[kenny]

Yeah, I concede this is a free speech thing.

Still, kudos to the private theater refusing to show the hate film.
Businesses can decide what they want to do.

They can show hate films (disguised as morality for the pathetic folks who must find dishonest ways to feel superior) on the TV screens at Chick fill-A, and Hobby Lobby, throughout the Bible Belt ... and people with brains can boycott those businesses.

 

[doberman]

I wasn't aware that being gay was a disease. There sure are a lot of unhealthy people walking around.

Seriously though, I see some parallels between these people and anti-vax advocates.

 

[lyra]

I answered No, but I know that won't happen, like many other hate related issues. I wish the world worked differently.

 

[telephone89]

I support the right for them to promote it.
I don't support the right to force anyone (minor or adult) to attend. However if one felt moved by this documentary and wanted to attend, then sure. My issue falls more into forcing (mainly) children to attend cure camps.

 

[tyty333]

While I find the subject of the film ridiculous ("curing gayness"), I dont feel the right or need to censor. They'd probably end up showing the video to a theater full of empty seats.

"While it is not our intention to censor content, in some instances, where we feel an activity is in direct contradiction to Vue's values, a decision will be made to refrain from allowing a private event to go ahead."

So now are the film makers going to sue the theater and we're going to have the flip side of the wedding cake lawsuit?

 

[missy]

I don’t know. I think of this as a hate thing. It’s not ok to protest a group of people based on hate and to me this is what it is.
But then again I feel strongly about the prolifers protesting my rights to do with my body what I choose to do. Pisses me off. Do what you want to do in the bedroom and re baby making and I’ll do what I want to do. And leave us the heck alone.

(Oops there I go again using the p word. )


How about we do what we want with our private lives and you mind your own business. Live and let live and leave me alone with self righteous bs. Please. There you go. Another p word.

 

[AGBF]

I feel that way about a lot of things afforded by free speech but even on my most liberal out-in-left-field of another universe days, I recognize that opinion as being a slippery sloped whoop ass can 'o worms.

I was right with you before I read this, but you have a way with words.

 

[denverappraiser]

No, they should not. They also do not have the right to sell poisonous snake oils that are harmful to the recipient under the claim of curing something. First, do no harm.

 

[Arkteia]

They should not promote it. There may be a film about the history of psychiatry, starting with old “therapies” (where we started) such as lobotomy and conversion therapy, and ending with modern views (that homosexuality is neither an illness nor a choice - where we are now). In fact, as homosexuality is not even in DSM-V, a film promoting conversion therapy is deeply unscientific.

Antivaxxers, while I don’t support nor understand them, at least proceed from human emotions. Mostly these are parents of autistic kids, and the parents are exhausted, hopeless, grabbing at straws. I think the movement is toxic (we shall end up with smallpox again if we allow it to persist), but at least, on the human side, I can empathize with their pain.

Conversion therapy is based on religion, no, just one line written three thousand years ago. Enough.

 

[AGBF]

Has anyone else seen this? Dare I say that I found it delightful?

"The 2018 Winter Olympics officially opened on Friday but the first bit of drama has already boiled over: a three-way dispute between Adam Rippon, the first openly gay American man to qualify to compete in the Winter Games; Mike Pence, the conservative vice president and longtime opponent of gay rights; and the newspaper USA Today.

As controversies go, this one seems to have it all. Mr. Rippon, a charismatic 28-year-old figure skater, newly minted gay icon and social media darling, criticized Mr. Pence for his opposition to gay rights and long-rumored support of conversion therapy, a discredited practice that proponents claim can make gay people straight. Mr. Rippon also declined an invitation to meet with Mr. Pence before the Games, his agent said."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/sports/pence-rippon-olympics.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=4&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/sports/pence-rippon-olympics.html&eventName=Watching-article-click

 

[kenny]

Isn't it wonderful these conversations at these levels are even happening?

Equality will win ... eventually.

 

[arkieb1]

I'm pretty sure right wing Christian groups would be up in arms if I were to make or show a film, or hire a movie theatre in a conservative US city that was all about using conversion therapy converting good Christian children over to radical satanism. Not that I would ever do that but I'm using that as an example.

We aren't in the 18th century any more we shouldn't feel the need to convert anyone to anything, and making a movie all about that, it almost reeks of a hate movie IMHO. I'm all for free speech but not at the expense of allowing discrimination and perpetrating stupid ideas and hatred.

 

[MissStepcut]

So to me, as a lawyer who mostly deals with pharma clients, it comes down to whether it’s being framed as a medical treatment or not.

It is illegal to sell bee pollen as a cure to cancer because it does not work. If you read some FDA warning letters you will see a robust discussion of what is a medical claim and whether it’s been substantiated. Gay “cures” are not effective and to my mind should not be marketed as such.

I don’t think there’s an analogy in FGM because that is promoting a crime. I also don’t think there’s an analogy in yelling “fire” in a crowded theater for much more complicated reasons.

My husband’s former boss, a wonderful (and incidentally liberal) appellate judge, ultimately came down on the side of free speech, despite personally finding this practice abhorrent. I still don’t agree with her unless it is solely packaged as ministry with no claims of efficacy, but I do have to respect the competing line of reasoning.

 

[Tekate]

Thank you for your thoughts. Gave me food for thought. Is it legal or right? I suppose it's legal due to free speech, it's wrong though, hurtful and debilitating for young people. Your insight is very much appreciated by me.

So to me, as a lawyer who mostly deals with pharma clients, it comes down to whether it’s being framed as a medical treatment or not.

It is illegal to sell bee pollen as a cure to cancer because it does not work. If you read some FDA warning letters you will see a robust discussion of what is a medical claim and whether it’s been substantiated. Gay “cures” are not effective and to my mind should not be marketed as such.

I don’t think there’s an analogy in FGM because that is promoting a crime. I also don’t think there’s an analogy in yelling “fire” in a crowded theater for much more complicated reasons.

My husband’s former boss, a wonderful (and incidentally liberal) appellate judge, ultimately came down on the side of free speech, despite personally finding this practice abhorrent. I still don’t agree with her unless it is solely packaged as ministry with no claims of efficacy, but I do have to respect the competing line of reasoning.

 

[missy]

Is it legal or right?

Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical or moral.

I so wish the law worked that way @Tekate.

 

[MissStepcut]

Even if something isn't "right" or "good," that's not reason enough to my mind to ban something. If everyone participating were consenting adults fully informed as to efficacy, I wouldn't devote any more time to worrying about it. As an analogy, I don't think infidelity is right or good, but I'm not about to advocate for the government to step in some way to regulate it.

But since the participating minors aren't really consenting at all, it's something we have to really grapple with.