[ReformedBeckite]

II wonder if the real reason behind the resolution being presented is to not be in conflict with States banning conversion therapy and things like it. If the denomination allows it but the liberal States condemn it by law it could bring the liberal police state down hard on the denomination in those Churches that are in liberal States and open up a whole bunch of worms/problems per say legally with those liberal homosexual loving anti-Christian States. It would be easier to ban conversion therapy within the denomination and continue the conversion therapy outside of the denomination legally without denominational strings so as to not bring the denomination in conflict with the liberal States which I’m sure many liberal politicians would love to shut down churches for not compiling with the liberal obscure laws. Basically the resolution protects the liability of the denomination money wise down the road.

[metmom]

I think you didn’t read it right.

I don’t think they are banning conversion therapy.

They are rejecting the bans by the states on conversion therapy.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Your comment confuses me. Do you think the SBC is banning converion therapy? It's just the opposite: they're protesting the various State bans on conversion therapy.

Note, however,that the term "conversion therapy" is controversial. I would not use this term, because it is taken (by some LGBT's and their allies) to mean some program of alleged "treatments" like ECT whose efficacy is dubious.