November 27, 2014

April 30, 2012


California Bill Would Ban ‘Sexual Orientation’ Psychotherapy

From Brietbart.com

The bill would explicitly move into law the idea that sexual orientation is not a “disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming.” It also suggests that sexual orientation change is impossible, and poses “critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.”

The crux of the legislation is the definition of “sexual orientation change efforts”:

psychotherapy aimed at altering the sexual or romantic desires, attractions, or conduct of a person toward people of the same sex so that the desire, attraction, or conduct is eliminated or reduced or might instead be directed toward people of a different sex. It does not include psychotherapy aimed at altering sexual desires, attractions, or conduct toward minors or relatives or regarding sexual activity with another person without that person’s consent

Interestingly, this audio tape of hearing reveals that the someone is playing fast and loose with the facts.  The opposition testimony begins at approximately 6:25. 


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

8 comments

Would this include ministries within Christian or other religious organizations that offer counsel with the goal of helping someone to overcome same sex attraction? Surely that would be a violation of the first amendment, not that such a thing seems to matter much these days. Well, I guess on a state level, it may be different. But is a state allowed to violate freedom of religion? Also, there are secular counselors who believe same sex attraction can be changed in some people and their rights would be violated, not to mention the rights of the the people who are unhappy with their same sex attraction and want to change.

But of course, the liberals are the inclusive ones who accept diversity and different points of view.  hmmm

[1] Posted by KarenR on 4-30-2012 at 01:01 PM · [top]

Karen, your interpretation of the First Amendment might have held water in the 18th Century, when the slave-holding white men who wrote and ratified it were alive, but we’ve moved far, far past that in today’s progressive society.  So far, in fact, that Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) has introduced a resolution to formally strip Constitutional right from all corporate bodies from sea to shining sea:

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/McGovern

That’s right, companies could be invaded by police, stripped of due process and have their property confiscated at the will of the State, not to mention their speech squelched by the whims of the same.

When fascism comes to America, it’ll be called anti-fascism.

[2] Posted by Jeffersonian on 4-30-2012 at 01:16 PM · [top]

Oh, and aren’t many, if not most, churches formed as corporate bodies?

Think of the implications.

[3] Posted by Jeffersonian on 4-30-2012 at 01:17 PM · [top]

What about hermaphrodites, asexuals, bisexuals, and the transgendered? Are you sure the “T” in LBGT doesn’t stand for trisexual? What about homesually oriented pedophiles? Legislating mental illness treatment and counseling is the ultimate in state control. Be wary, very wary!

[4] Posted by Don+ on 4-30-2012 at 01:29 PM · [top]

The activists think that by removing therapy, people with SSAs can be trapped,  imprisoned and indoctrinated into being like they are. They wish to remove the hope of freedom from a dangerous, sinful lifestyle.

It’s as if a drug cartel managed to push through legislation that outlawed rehab.

I don’t buy that they are doing this because it poses a “critical health risk”. Either this sort of therapy does, or it doesn’t. Since it’s allowed in certain cases, it doesn’t. The people pushing this are beneath contempt.

[5] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 4-30-2012 at 06:19 PM · [top]

The militant homosexual leaders only care about their agenda - which is the full acceptance of homosexual lifestyle, promoted and funded by the taxpayer (that’s you and me) AND the phnishment of those who disagree…because they are very inclusive…or not.

[6] Posted by B. Hunter on 5-1-2012 at 03:12 PM · [top]

Okay…male homosexuality basically leads to AIDS, anal cancer, painful scaring of the anus, depression and suicide…and lawmakers in California want to make it illegal for anyone to help them? Where is their compassion? Where is their heart?

Who is really against homosexual men here?

[7] Posted by All-Is-True on 5-2-2012 at 09:30 PM · [top]

Jeffersonian, #s 2 & 3 -

I can’t tell if you’re being serious, or if you’re “very tongue in very cheek”? 
People often can’t determine if I’m being serious, and it looks like I’m joining them.

[8] Posted by maineiac on 5-12-2012 at 10:29 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.