'Sexual-conversion' bans disregard free speech and LGBT patients' choi

[Tottrop]

washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/sexual-conversion-bans-disregard-free-speech-and-lgbt-patients-choices

For example, under the ban that was proposed in California, I could treat a heterosexual person with a pornography addiction without government interference. However, if a gay man came to me with the same addiction, I’d be forced to turn him away because his attractions happen to be homosexual. Ironically, this would mean turning my clients away based on their sexual orientation, a violation of their 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

I believe that the sexual orientation of men is fixed. But I do believe the orientation of women can be fluid in some cases.

Would be nice to live is a clear and perfect world where all orientations are unchangeable, but that's just not the case, especially for some women. Also what about gender fluidity. Man on Monday, full woman in Tuesday, back to full man on Wednesday. This has been clinically observed.

Also what about a gay guy who experiments with girls. Or some fooling around between young heteros. If they need a little councelling to clarify their feelings, should this really be illegal?

Remember the wise old saying: do not throw the baby out with the bath water. In complex areas, with many shades and conditions, is a categorical and outright ban across the board best for ALL? Of course not!

 

[topdog]

Sexual orientation being fixed and being able to choose to alter one's sexual orientation are two different things. Just because over one's lifetime attraction changes does not mean that attraction is under our control and we can change at will.

Conversion therapy assumes that changing the gender to whom I am attracted is the same as choosing to stop smoking or learning to play the piano. But that's not where sexual orientation lives in the brain. The attraction is involuntary - even in people who are fluid.

That's why this therapy is damaging - you are trying to gain control over a part of the brain/personality that you can't directly control and damaging the person in the process.

 

[Tottrop]

Sexual orientation being fixed and being able to choose to alter one's sexual orientation are two different things. Just because over one's lifetime attraction changes does not mean that attraction is under our control and we can change at will.

Conversion therapy assumes that changing the gender to whom I am attracted is the same as choosing to stop smoking or learning to play the piano. But that's not where sexual orientation lives in the brain. The attraction is involuntary - even in people who are fluid.

That's why this therapy is damaging - you are trying to gain control over a part of the brain/personality that you can't directly control and damaging the person in the process.

Not as clear-cut for women. We males tend to imagine they are the same as us. But I do believe their sexual orientations are more fluid. Taboo to talk about it? I guess in every new 'enlightened' age their are new taboos. But that is only my opinion. Let's get back to the issues raised by the psychologist in the article.

For example, under the ban that was proposed in California, I could treat a heterosexual person with a pornography addiction without government interference. However, if a gay man came to me with the same addiction, I’d be forced to turn him away because his attractions happen to be homosexual.


Not good.