California now has a law forbidding therapy to those under 18 seeking change in sexual orientation–well, not exactly–at least based on what I’ve read. It’s against therapy trying to change gay kids into straight.
But what about turning straight kids into gay? If a 13-year-old boy who has a friend or two who are gay and want him to experiment, and he does, and gets confused about the direction his newly-aroused sexual appetite is going (is it still straight, or gay, or is it bi?)–can he get counseling? Can the counselor help him work through any misgivings to gay sex? Only as long as it is gay? But say a young man is raised by two gays, and as a teenager, thinking perhaps he is not like his “parents,” can he talk to a counselor to help him find out if he can be straight? And–since these things are so fluid–the orientation spectrum–who’s to say which orientation a person has according to the law?Should California issue gay orientation identification cards so no one inadvertently breaks the law?
Now, for the sharia: This reminds me of Islam and sharia: You may convert from Christianity to Islam (and we will help you do this and indeed provide negative incentives for remaining Christian, such as second-class citizenship
The Arrow Of Orientation (to loosely borrow an idea from physics) can only fly one direction in the universe of the homosexual orthodox. Once a homosexual orientation has been declared (and, it is assumed, acted upon), going towards heterosexuality makes as much sense as an arrow leaving the target and flying back to the bowstring.
The arrow of sin (to loosely borrow an idea from Scripture) can only fly in one direction, once it is loosed from the bow (acted upon), unless some supernatural power intervenes and wipes away arrow, bow and target as if they had never existed in the (former) archer’s life.
Fact: some reparative therapists, including NARTH’s Joseph Nicolosi, have admitted to using pornography as a tool in this therapy.
Whether they provide this to minors is unknown, but it doesn’t reflect highly on the moral validity of their therapy, does it?
Fact: one of the largest proponents of the one of the largest reparative therapy organizations in the US (Dr George Rekers of Narth) was discovered coming home from a European vacation with a young man he met off a gay escort site (allegedly). As such, one must question both the scientific validity of this therapy as well as the honesty of those trying to push it on others.
Fact: many of these “ex-gays” who insist they have been successfully “de-gayed” later change their stories. Regarding a film “I Do Exist” which profiled one of these men, Warren Throckmorton states: “I can tell you that Noe Gutierrez has since I Do Exist identified as a gay Christian and does not believe his change was lasting. He has expressed regret about his involvement.”
Fact: reparative therapy has proven harmful to numerous people, even those who sought it out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-J5T6wsnEQ).
It’s snake oil, pure and simple.
That being said, I think this law is an overreach, particularly in its denial of access to youth who are not under compulsion to enter into this therapy. Our society is filled with questionable means of emotional and physical “help” (I’m thinking crystal therapy … even acupuncture?), but profiting off the credulity of a gullible public is the American way, is it not?
But isn’t transgender counseling essentially counseling to change one’s orientation? After all, if a man who is attracted to women undergoes a sex change, hasn’t the surgery changed a heterosexual into a lesbian? So, suppose a student seeks counseling to change his gender, but not the object of his desire, isn’t that equivalent to counseling for change of one’s sexual orientation?
Excellent question, “Thomas Aquinas”. It’s OK to *physically alter one’s gender*, but not one’s sexual orientation? Surely the first is more radical than the second?
Is behavior and thought really so immutable, but the body is so pliable?
Clearly one kind of intervention to remedy gender and desire alignment problems is allowed. Why should other avenues be prohibited? What about research into other avenues? Is even that precluded? Why?
So, a confused person enters therapy to deal with his confusion, and finally concludes that he is straight …
Is the the therapist legally liable? Does it depend on what modes of therapy were used? Does it depend on what was discussed? On how it was discussed?
If the Bible is correct about the nature of Man, then our sexual nature is fixed by divine design. If we depart from that nature, we may be doing so under the influence of circumstances outside our full control, but no sexual behavior (as opposed to inclination) is imposed on us without our consent in one form or another (short of, say, rape or abuse situations). I may greatly desire to rob banks, because my nature is inclined to greed, but I can refrain if I choose to. If I greatly desire to have sex with another man, I can still refrain if I choose to. And I can, if I choose to, either refrain from homosexual sex or choose to try to establish a relationship with a woman that would be in accord with God’s intent for my life.
If our sexual nature is not as the Bible describes it, however, then anything else is both possible and permissible.
Since I am a Christian, I believe the former is correct and the latter view is incorrect. As the Roman Catholic Church puts it, homosexuality is a “disordered attraction” outside the bounds of God’s created order.
If you are not a Christian, however, your results may vary.
For something relevant: Google First Scandal. When you get there, go to the top of the page and click on “Welcome University…” Please note: this website you reach will be deleted on November 1, 2012.