US Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Ban on Helping Youth Struggling With Homosexuality

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a pastor’s appeal challenging California’s ban on “conversion therapy” and counseling youth to resist romantic desires toward the same sex.

The nine justices did not comment in rejecting the case, which has been battled in the court system for the past five years.

As previously reported, in 2012, as the ban was being contemplated in the legislature, Gov. Jerry Brown remarked that he hoped reparative therapy would be forever heaved into “the dustbin of quackery.” The bill’s author, Democratic Sen. Ted Lieu of Torrance, claimed that counseling and therapy aimed at helping youth turn from the homosexual lifestyle is the equivalent of “psychological child abuse.”

The legislation prohibited any type of  “conversion therapy,” “sexual orientation therapy,” “reparative therapy” or “sexual orientation change efforts,” by licensed therapists and counselors, but did not apply to those who “provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and do not seek to change sexual orientation.”

It pointed to statements from the American School Counselor Association, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and others.

“No one should stand idly by while children are being psychologically abused, and anyone who forces a child to try to change their sexual orientation must understand this is unacceptable,” Lieu wrote in a written statement.

Soon after the bill became law, the Pacific Justice Institute and the Florida-based Liberty Counsel filed suit in hopes of obtaining an injunction against its enforcement. A psychiatrist, a licensed therapist who also oversees a church counseling ministry, and a resident who struggles with same-sex attraction and has been helped by the therapy were all represented in the suit.

  • Connect with Christian News

Plaintiff Donald Welch, who serves at Skyline Wesleyan Church in LaMesa, contended that the law subjects him to potential discipline by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences if he counsels youth in accordance with the Scriptures.

“In his pastoral role, Dr. Welch is prohibited from encouraging, enabling or validating sexual beliefs or behaviors contrary to the teachings of the Church. Dr. Welch’s clientele includes minors who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual and questioning youth,” the lawsuit noted, pointing to conflict between his job as a church counselor and the law.

The Supreme Court declined to take the case in 2014, but PJI won a restraining order in the lower courts that lasted for 18 months until the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunction. PJI then appealed to the Supreme Court in January.

The questions the court was asked to consider included: “May a state bar ministers from inculcating or encouraging certain religious values in youth, when those ministers are also licensed by the state as mental health providers?” and “Are minors’ rights to privacy, autonomy, and self-definition violated by a state’s determination that they may only seek to reduce same-sex attraction on their own or with the assistance of unlicensed individuals, and they may not seek professional help to do so?”

PJI, while expressing disappointment with the court’s refusal, vowed to continue the fight.

“We are deeply disappointed by today’s announcement, because it means young people in California and elsewhere will not be able to get the professional help they seek, due to political correctness,” President Brad Dacus said in a statement on Monday.

“This debate will continue, though, as other states consider similar bans on counselors’ speech, and new court challenges will be filed against such bans,” he continued. “Ultimately, we believe the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning will not stand the test of time, and we are committed to this battle for the long haul.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    So sad. Secular America does not seek the truth or the good. Children need to be educated in the way of the Lord to be moral, humane, and normal. The youth are so into the zombie stuff that next time the SCOTUS will have to deal with cannibalism if they leave alone the uncondional protection of the sexual depravity like this. The Western civilization needs Christianity to raise children properly. Ex-christian is far worse than Pre-christian. Christianity alone provides the truth, light, and life. Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life. John chapter 14.

  • bowie1

    I wonder if that ban would apply to non-professional help.

    • Michael C

      The ban on “therapies” geared toward sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) only applies to medical professionals who are licensed with the state to practice medicine.

      There is no medical or scientific evidence that such therapies are at all effective. “Conversion therapists” rely solely on anecdotal evidence to support their claims. These anecdotes are often recanted later.

      The state ban on SOCE do not apply to unlicensed and religious counselors.

      • prolife5

        anecdotal evidence is not the same high standard as double blind random assigned studies, but it is still “scientific” evidence. And the right of free association in the first amendment still trumps fads and fashions in the sexual revolution. At least it should, if we are still going to be America.

        • Michael C

          …but it is still “scientific” evidence.

          Thank you for the correction.

          I’m not sure what your comment about free association is referring to.

          Homosexuality is not a “fad.”

          • Jason Todd

            You are right: Homosexuality is not a fad. It is a sexually deviant behavior.

        • SFBruce

          Anecdotal evidence can certainly lead to useful research, but on it’s own, it’s usefulness is questionable. A doctor may notice that when he prescribes a certain drug for hypertension, those patients also loose weight. But unless and until that hypothesis is tested under controlled circumstances, it’s still anecdotal evidence, albeit very interesting anecdotal evidence. In short, anecdotal evidence is simply someone’s anecdote, or story. It can be as unscientific as one person’s interpretation of an event or series of events. Something like, “My nephew tried to change his sexual orientation and was successful.” This is simply one person’s story, which isn’t true for most people who attempt such a change. Anecdotal evidence can be dangerous since it’s natural to interpret events in ways that confirm personal biases, hopes and fears.

          • Jason Todd

            And so you are effectively calling thousands of people liars.


          • SFBruce

            Nonsense. What I said is one person’s claim that they’ve changed their sexual orientation is useless in determining the likelihood that others can change theirs. If you think you have solid evidence that “thousands” of gay people have become straight, I be very interested in seeing it.

          • Jason Todd

            Dude, I haven’t seen a comment so blatantly self-contradictory in quite a while.

            I stand by my statement.

          • SFBruce

            What’s self-contradictory? And where is your evidence that “therapy works for those who want it?” If you want to challenge my logic and/or my facts, be my guest, but if all you’ve got are snarky remarks, I’m not interested.

          • Jason Todd

            You should know by now I’m the last person to play games with.

            In your response, the first thing you say is, “Nonsense. ” But a sentence later, you say, “If you think you have solid evidence…”

            In other words, you are saying you aren’t calling them liars, but you are willing to.

            That dog don’t hunt, pal.

            YOU are the one calling thousands of people liars, YOU prove it.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Also, the anecdote needs to be demonstrably correct. Someone saying he changed his sexuality is hardly compelling evidence.

        • Colin Rafferty

          Absolutely the right of free association trumps all. That’s what Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges are all about.

          And if you are choosing to be licensed by the State, you are choosing to abide by their rules.

      • Jason Todd

        No, what’s true is the LGBTQW community doesn’t want anyone to leave the homosexual lifestyle, showing a complete lack of compassion in the name of politics.

        • Michael C

          SOCE “therapies” do not focus on helping people leave the “gay lifestyle.” SOCE “therapies” aren’t focused on simply helping people be celibate. They’re attempting to actually change a person’s core sexual orientation.

          I’m guessing that you’re unwilling to acknowledge this distinction.

          • Jason Todd

            The distinction is people are not happy in that lifestyle and want to leave. People have in fact left.

            The LGBTQW community doesn’t want anyone to leave, and so they have deliberately lied to those who are miserable.

            Therapy works for those who want it. And you just don’t care.

            What matters more to you? Compassion, or the agenda?

            A non-answer can and will be taken for the latter.

          • Michael C

            I am aware that some gay people choose to live a life a celibacy or contrary to their natural attractions with an opposite-sex partner.

            More power to ’em. If that’s what makes them happy, good for them.

            Forcing children who usually aren’t even engaging in any sort of “lifestyle” into harmful and ineffective “counselling” against their will is a different matter entirely.

            This is my last response to you on this thread.

          • Jason Todd

            1) Homosexuality is not natural, has never been natural and will never be natural.

            Reality check: Homosexuals cannot procreate.

            Further, if homosexuality was natural, there’d be no reason to teach it to kids.

            2) EXACTLY! That’s merely one reason I’m against teaching homosexuality to children.

            3) You won’t because once again when one of your intellectual and moral betters puts you on the ropes, forcing you to admit how sick and twisted both you and the LGBTQW agenda is, you run.


          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            Homosexuality is absolutely natural, and has been observed in pretty much every primate, most mammals, and even in birds. There’s a book you should read, “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity” by Bruce Bagemihl. He goes into detail about how natural same-sex attraction is across the entire animal kingdom.

            So a small segment can’t procreate. So what? You may have noticed that despite the existences of homosexuals, asexuals, and persons unable to reproduce for other reason, we have 8 billion people on the planet. The presence of a small, non-reproducing, minority does not affect the viability of the species.

        • Parodyx

          If you are homosexual, what other “lifestyle” is there to live except the homosexual one?

    • Colin Rafferty

      It does not. It applies to state-licensed mental health counselors only. Pastors who are not licensed that way are free to preach and speak as they feel.

  • Amos Moses

    deleted …….. wrong story ……..

  • Colin Rafferty

    Note that this law only applies to state-licensed mental health counselors. It doesn’t stop your pastor from religious counseling.

  • cadcoke5

    The ban is, in essence, a ban upon Christians serving in these professions. Christian colleges also offer degrees in these professions, but those are now useless, if you cannot work in the field. So, to some extent, it is also an attack upon Christian colleges.

    • Colin Rafferty

      It does not ban Christians from those professions. It is the Christians who cannot stop themselves for forcing their beliefs on others that are banning themselves.

      • Amos Moses

        baloney …. no one is forced into therapy ….. except children … by their parents …. which they have every right to do ………….. as parents ……….

        • Colin Rafferty

          We’re talking about people licensed to practice, not people in therapy. Do you even read the comments before you respond?

          • Amos Moses

            this is what you said ………

            “It is the Christians who cannot stop themselves for forcing their beliefs on others that are banning themselves.”

            NO O”N”E IS FORCED ……….. or do you not remember what you wrote ………………

          • Colin Rafferty

            Yes, I’m talking about the therapists. If you want to be licensed, you have to abide by the rules.

            Someone was saying that Christians are being stopped from being therapists, and I was pointing out that they are stopping themselves.

        • Sisyphus

          Parents have every right to force their children into the superstitious cult of their choice, also known as abuse.

        • Michael C

          Parents remain able to abuse their children by subjecting them to these harmful forms of “therapy.” It’s still perfectly legal.

          These laws only prohibit therapists who are licensed with the state to practice medicine. The state has the authority to regulate the medical profession.

          A “counselor” is free to try to help a child “pray away the gay.” They’re just not allowed to call it medicine.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      No, it’s an “attack” on anyone who wants to perform a procedure that does nothing at best and is harmful at worst.

      If gay conversion therapy were proven to work, these bans wouldn’t exist.

      • Sisyphus

        Conversion therapy can be successful in creating a sense of guilt and shame and attempting to enforce control toward a more mediocre norm.

      • cadcoke5

        There are other kinds of unwanted sexual desires that remain legal to counsel a minor about. E.g. a 17 year old with preference for sexual relations with young kids. Such “conversion therapy” are not considered to work, but a therapist is certainly wise to attempt to help this individual out of this sort of thing, and of course, to counsel them about avoiding situation that create temptation for this sin. It may not even be illegal for the 17 year old to be a sexual predator in California, as long as their target is not forcibly raped. But, at least for now, California considers such acts OK to counsel a minor to avoid such. acts.

        The % of those who can successful be counseled against such acts against young kids, is not really a factor in making it legal to do so. A Christian professional should likewise be permitted to counsel a youth to avoid other sexual sins, such as homosexuality.

        • Michael C

          Such “conversion therapy” are not considered to work, but a therapist is certainly wise to attempt to help this individual out of this sort of thing, and of course, to counsel them about avoiding situation that create temptation for this sin.

          This seems to be confusing for everyone here so I’ll do my best to explain it.

          We’re not talking about counselling to help people abstain from any type of behavior.

          This type of “therapy” is not about behavior modification. This type of “therapy” does not focus on helping people remain celibate. This type of “therapy” doesn’t even help “same-sex attracted” people cope with attempting to engage in a romantic relationship with a member of the opposite sex.

          The sole purpose of SOCE is to attempt to alter a person’s core sexual orientation. There’s no hard evidence that this is at all possible.

          • cadcoke5

            First, I’ll mention that we have an individual at my church who counsels sexual offenders who are in jail. And talking to him has given me some incite into some of these issues.

            As for your statement above, I suppose the accounts of former homosexuals does not count for some reason.

            But, I can accept the idea that once a person is deeply involved with any sexual sin, in any of its forms, it is probably very deeply rooted, and may require supernatural intervention for full healing. And this may not occur in most cases. Though, I imagine that early intervention has the best chance of success. It is this early intervention that is prohibited by this law.

            It is this bondage to sin that Christians hope to break. Both the kind of bondage that can leave us under God’s wrath when the final judgment comes, but also the more temporal bondage to sin, that can harm our daily lives (and the lives of others) here on earth.

            Jesus provides immediate release from the first type, upon our placing faith in him, since he took the punishment for sin on our behalf. But, the other type is something he can do, and sometimes does. But,it is not a guarantee during our earthly lives. It seems he wants us to participate in the process of making us like him in character. It is this sort of participation in helping others to live a Godly life, that this legislation makes criminal for a professional counselor.

          • Michael C

            I suppose the accounts of former homosexuals does not count for some reason.

            Anecdotal accounts are what they are. They’re not terribly reliable. There are actually loads of men an women who actually worked in the “ex-gay counseling” racket who have now recanted their previous accounts of change (John Paulk, Alan Chambers, John Smid, Michael Bussee, George Rekers, Darlene Bogle, ect). These people were leaders of the “ex-gay” movement.

            I suppose the accounts of these gay people do not count for some reason.

            It is this bondage to sin… …leave us under God’s wrath… …temporal bondage to sin… …live a Godly life…

            It sure sounds like you’re describing some sort of religious counseling. That’s still totally legal. The ban only applies to the medical profession and minors.

          • cadcoke5

            Michael C said: “It sure sounds like you’re describing some sort of religious counseling.
            That’s still totally legal. The ban only applies to the medical
            profession and minors.”

            Some professionals are actual Christians, who believe that the one who invented sex, is also the source of morality and wisdom about sex. There are also many established professional counseling services that advertise that they do their counseling from a Christian world view. Christians WANT this service and are willing to pay for the services of a professional who has had years of training. Pastors have some of this, but they also have other jobs not related to counseling, and cannot devote 100% of their time and training to counseling.

            The whole LGBT category of legislation (and legislation from the bench) seems to primarily function as a way to attack Christians, and put them out of business.

          • Michael C

            Some professionals are actual Christians

            Most professionals are Christians. And?

            The state does not regulate or license the practice of religion.

            The state does regulate and license the practice of medicine.

            Licensed professionals cannot practice their religion and call it medicine. This is unethical.


          • cadcoke5

            If the government requires medical professionals to practice as though they were atheist, it is the same as the government requiring all medical professionals to start every counseling session with a prayer for their client, in the name of Jesus.
            It is the establishment of atheism, a belief system that the Supreme Court considers a religion, with all its rights and restrictions other religions have.

          • Michael C

            Um what?

            Firstly, while non-religious people are afforded the same rights and freedoms as religious folk, atheism is not considered a religion (just like “not-religious” isn’t a considered a religion).

            Second, just as government does not recognize or license “Christian medicine,” it doesn’t recognize or license “atheist medicine” (whatever that may be) either.

            Licensed medical professionals don’t need to be atheists to avoid mixing their religious beliefs into their professional practices. They can just behave like Christians while practicing medicine. They can’t, however, practice their religion and call it medicine.

            For example, many doctors believe in faith healing. Despite this fact, they cannot charge a patient for the service of faith healing and call it medicine while pointing to their medical license on the wall.

            This conversation has been very frustrating and I’ve come to the realization that, for whatever reason, you’re unable to understand anything I’m saying.

            Because of this sad fact, I will no longer respond to you on this thread. Have a nice weekend.

          • cadcoke5

            “atheism is not considered a religion”
            It is by the court system. Though, “practical atheism” is not, in regards to the establishment clause.

            In regards to practicing one’s faith in a profession. When a professional counselor works with a patient who feels sexually attracted to children, and counsels him on ways to avoid it, he is making a moral judgement. This is the sort of thing that falls into the category of religion.

            The science of conceiving a pedophile is similar to counseling a homosexual person. Neither have shown much success in changing the sexual desires of the patient. But, that is not the issue. The issue is if the desires are right or wrong.

            The counselor working with the pedophile cannot escape his faith in this matter. It is not a science-based decision to counsel the patient against pedophilia.

            “for whatever reason, you’re unable to understand anything I’m saying.” I believe I am disagreeing rather than not understanding. In some cases, i don’t reply to every point you make, so the thread does not get too bogged down with long replies. So, don’t take a lack of response on a point, to be a lack of understanding. But, I think I am understanding your point of view.

          • Oboehner

            “core sexual orientation” – learned behavior.

      • David MacKenzie

        Which is sort of like saying, “If smoking were actually enjoyed, smoking bans wouldn’t exist.” Uh-huh.

        • Michael C

          That’s a really strange analogy. It really doesn’t fit as well as you may believe.

          The purpose of smoking bans is keep smoking out of public spaces.

          …so yes, for their purpose, they do work.

      • Nedd Kareiva

        Wrongo, ambulance quacko. This is all about doing everything to keep propped the three-legged table of the homosexual agenda. Because if people can walk away from the practice, the homosexual movement collapses since the lifestyle is NOT innate but one of choice. Many have walked away, including gospel singer Stephen Bennett, someone I know and personally met (Google him).

        It DOES work. Your refusal to believe that is irrelevant to the truth. Exodus International has documented hundreds, if not thousands, of homos and lesbos who willingly left it. The website may have been disbanded but that does not mean those who testify to leaving didn’t do so. Besides, why would you not want people to walk away from something well documented to greatly shorten people’s lives?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          How did they document them?

          • Oboehner

            Ask George Micheal and Freddie Mercury.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Ask them what? Were they participants in a controlled, double blind study published in a peer reviewed journal?

          • Oboehner

            Now were tossing up the stipulations? Or are we doubting that both Freddie and George are dead?

    • Tangent002

      Christians can work in the field, they just cannot use those “skills” on minors.

  • Reason2012

    Blatant indoctrination – kindergarten children have NO NEED for this perversion – yet they DEMAND they start teaching them this perversion, which proves it’s indoctrination, nothing less.

    Notice the lie of homosexual/transgender activists who use contradictory claims to push their agendas:

    Homosexuality: genetics trump feelings: If a person does not want those feelings anymore, that’s too bad, because in spite of your feelings you can’t change genetic facts, like in this case the genetic fact you’re supposedly homosexual.

    Transgenderism: feelings trump genetics. Don’t want to be a man anymore? That’s fine – ignore genetic facts, like the genetic fact you’re male, and mutilate your body to get in line with the REAL truth: your feelings.

    Behold the lies of the perversion activists – one says genetics trump feelings, the others say feelings trump genetics. Call them out on how they show they’re lying to promote this anti-moral, anti-Christian agenda, treating as criminals anyone who does not pledge their undying support for it. Pass this information on to anyone that’s in a position to rebuke these lies and get this satanic perversion out of our schools.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      This is no more true than any of the other 4,367 times you copied and pasted it. But, since we’re here again, here’s a more accurate explanation (again).

      Homosexuality: You are biologically, demonstrably predisposed to be attracted to the same sex. You know this because you feel it, and if you were subjected to a brain scan, it would show up. There is no known “cure” for homosexuality.

      Gender Dysphoria: You are biologically, demonstrably predisposed to be the gender that does not match your external genitalia. You know this because you feel it, and if you were to undergo a test of your androgen receptors, it would show on the results. There is no known “cure” for gender dysphoria, but we can surgically correct your genitalia to match the gender you are internally.

      • Amos Moses

        “Homosexuality: You are biologically, demonstrably predisposed to be attracted to the same sex.”

        mmmmm ……….. no ……

        “Gender Dysphoria: You are biologically, demonstrably predisposed to be the gender that does not match your external genitalia.”

        mmmmm ……. no ……….

        “feels” do not trump genetics ….. science based on your “feels” is not science ……… there is no surgery to fix the DNA …. which is fixed …… and unchanging …….

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Oh, you’re right. I didn’t consider the foot-stomp argument. All I have are these scientific research papers published in respected, peer-reviewed journals.

          • Amos Moses

            flawed science is not science …… i do not care if it was reviewed or not …… that means nothing as to the truth … and we have discussed this before …… pseudo-science or scientism is not science ….. it is garbage ………

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, we’ve discussed it many times. What you haven’t discussed is what is “flawed” about it, other than the fact that it came to a conclusion you don’t like.

          • Amos Moses

            the ENTIRE process of “peer-review” is absolutely flawed and lacks any meaning whatsoever …… yet you continue to believe it is rock solid when in fact it is gossamer ……

            research is often faked or at least massaged …. it is falsely reported ……… most of the people doing the “reviewing” only come to a conclusion that it “seems right” which is meaningless …………. and you and others ……. not being in the fields you mostly want to quote …… have no freaking idea if it is correct or not …….. but you come on this forum and state it is fact when the people doing the reviewing CANT DO THAT ………..

            worthless …….absolutely worthless as to any truth whatsoever ………….

            has not one thing to do with your or my liking it ……….. has to do with MEASURING it against the truth ….. science is not the truth unless it is measures up to the truth …………. and almost all of what you are want to quote …… DOES NOT ……….

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, then, since you’re so much smarter than people who read scientific journals, why don’t you go through a a study and tell me where the flaws are?

          • Amos Moses

            i do not have to go through it point by point ….. the entire accepted peer reviewed process is flawed ….. it was NEVER part of science or the scientific method ….. it was reject by many when it first began ….. and you … as a supposed attorney …… have no idea if the study is accurate or not ….. but you come here and say “this study says….. ” ………. and you think it has any validity when it is not possible for you to know if it is or not ….. BECAUSE …. most of the people who ACTUALLY work in the fields have trouble saying if it is or not ………. and if you were EVER given a study to “peer review” you would be so over your head you would not know what to do ………. so your assessment of if this study or that study as being valid …… is WORTHLESS ………..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            All right, so then what’s a better system?

          • Amos Moses

            science was just fine Without peer review …….. but for science to work ….. you have to know and accept the truth ……… otherwise it is a waste of effort, time and energy ………

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so show me an example of a “good” paper.

          • Amos Moses

            Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked `publish’ and `reject’. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back `How do you know I haven’t already done it?’

          • Amos Moses

            what you really need to do is not look at if something is “peer reviewed” ….. what you really need to do is look at the flawed process of peer review ………….. it is garbage …….

  • David MacKenzie

    Liberal logic: Boy wishes to become attracted to girls, disallowed; boy wishes to become girl, promoted.

    • Damn science – why can’t it be as blind & obedient as religion?

      • David MacKenzie

        Don’t worry; science is well on its way to becoming mere propaganda.

        • Actually, both science and religion are used that way by politicians. You’d think that with a common attacker (wrecking their reputations for profit) there would be some common ground…

        • Chris

          “Don’t worry; science is well on its way to becoming mere propaganda.”

          No you’re thinking of creationism.

    • Michael C

      If you’re able to show me some hard evidence that even one gay boy or girl was able to “become” heterosexual through any means of therapy, perhaps these “reparative therapy” bans wouldn’t exist.

      • David MacKenzie

        Read the APA’s own literature. They now increasingly argue the fluidity of all supposedly “fixed” orientation, because “fluidity” is now the political rage. You’re being duped.

        • Jason Todd

          Michael is being disingenuous. Read my comments with him elsewhere in this thread.

        • Michael C

          Read the APA’s own literature. They now increasingly argue the fluidity of all supposedly “fixed” orientation, because “fluidity” is now the political rage. You’re being duped.

          That’s not even close to being accurate.

          *Some* people experience some “fluidity” in their sexual attractions over the course of their lives. That’s what the APA says. A good word for this is bisexual.

          The APA also says that “efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates.”

          Do you or don’t you have any hard evidence that even one gay boy or girl has been able to “become” heterosexual through any means of “therapy”

          • David MacKenzie

            “Individuals with NONEXCLUSIVE patterns of attraction are INDISPUTABLY THE ‘NORM’, and those with exclusive same-sex attractions are the EXCEPTION”— Dr. Lisa Diamond, researcher in the Handbook of the the American Psychological Association (v.1 p.633).

          • Michael C

            Individuals with NONEXCLUSIVE patterns of attraction…

            Um, okay. Are you trying to tell me that you’re a little bit bi? I don’t understand what you’re saying.

          • David MacKenzie

            You just said “some” experience fluidity. Diamond, of the APA, says fluid is “the norm”. So which is it?

            The whole thing is a political dance, designed to justify radical sexual autonomy. This research is nothing more than toxic politicized self-justification, wrapped up in smooth-sounding psychological theory. Believe it at your own peril, but you can count me out.

          • Michael C

            I understand your confusion because I am guilty of tying the term “fluidity” to bisexuality when they’re not the same thing. Many bisexuals, regardless of their chosen partners, remain bisexual throughout their lives.

            Just because a person may experience some level of fluidity in their attractions over the course of their lives doesn’t mean that their sexual attraction can be altered through therapeutic means. It especially doesn’t mean that they can change from homosexual to heterosexual through therapeutic means.

            One more time, do you have any hard evidence that even one gay boy or girl has been able to “become” heterosexual through any means of “therapy?”

          • David MacKenzie

            So, they’re hard-wired to be bisexually indiscriminate? Wonderful. Honestly, at what point do we all just admit that we like being sexual anarchists, and experts and self-justification? And yes, I do know some who have have their orientation changed because of Christ Jesus. But you wouldn’t believe it anyway, which is most of the problem.

          • Michael C

            oh boy.

            So, they’re hard-wired to be bisexually indiscriminate?

            Is that what you think bisexual means?

            Being heterosexual, are you completely indiscriminate when it comes to women? Is that what heterosexual means to you?

            Why on earth would you think bisexuality is any different?

            you wouldn’t believe it anyway

            Show me facts. I believe facts. Show me hard evidence. So-and-so said so isn’t very compelling.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      A trans female is, in the eyes of science, simply a female with male genitalia. If you wish to dispute this fact, because you believe yourself to be smarter than the APA, the AMA, and the AAP, feel free to do so. I await your article in JAMA.

      • David MacKenzie

        Because suddenly biology has been attacked by psychology, in the name of political “science”.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          “I don’t like this” is not a valid scientific argument.

  • Croquet_Player

    This headline is entirely misleading. So called “conversion therapy” is proven to not work, and to be harmful. It is not “helping youth”, it is the exact opposite.

    • Status Cymbals

      So true. Wish I could upvote you 50 times.