Wayne Besen is a national voice of the Homosexual Movement. His article, "The Convoluted Case For Reparative Therapy," was published on October 3, 2012, here.
The following is my answer:
Wow, Wayne, either your reading comprehension is extremely low or you are deliberately attempting and perhaps succeeding to mislead those with poor comprehension by spinning what is clearly meant by those who drafted the PJI complaint. For those who can't see right through it right from the start, let me spell out a few things.
The term "seeking" there is referring to the Plaintiffs' rather than the patients' or clients' aim. The Plaintiffs reject the notion that when a homosexual comes to them, that they, Plaintiffs, are seeking to change those others when those others haven't even expressed any interest in change but have only revealed their same-sex attraction. Reparative therapists (with the exception of those whose practice is exclusively based upon, specializing in, SOCE — Sexual Orientation Change Efforts) offer help in the form of SOCE but will provide help with other issues regardless of whether the same-sex attracted patients/clients express no interest in SOCE. The Plaintiffs aren't seeking to change patients/clients against the wishes of those patients/clients. It is the only reading an intelligent person can make because the whole context of the suit makes clear that the Plaintiffs engage with patients/clients who want to utilize SOCE. For you to suggest that the attorneys at the Pacific Justice Institute are as dumb and incomprehensible as you are representing them here to be is astounding and speaks to your poor reading skills – lacking much, if any, ability to contextualize.
As to what you call the "second fascinating argument," your reasoning there, if one may even call it that, is worse than with the first. Honestly, I should think a room full of 12-year-olds would be able to comprehend what you don't or at least don't want others to. The law (SB 1172) as it stands and if it is allowed to go into effect, will prevent Dr. Duk from offering SOCE for any SSA minor even where that minor personally wants his or her sexual orientation to change to be in conformity with his or her own religious traditions, cultural norms, and moral standards.
Just to clarify in case you are unable to grasp it, the issue of discrimination there is used in its general sense, not what is typically considered political-only.
You attempt to turn it around to make it appear hypocritical by pointing out that he doesn't, to your knowledge, offer "services to turn heterosexuals into homosexuals." Look, anyone who wishes to go from hetero to homo doesn't need help with that. Your thinking is so poor. If one is thinking "affirming" SSA and aiding the SSA patient/client with becoming comfortable with SSA, then where is the law blocking that? That's the point.
If a particular doctor specializes in otolaryngology, you can't fault him if he won't do the brain surgery you want. Is there some reason it would be evil discrimination for the otolaryngologist to advise the one seeking brain surgery to consult a neurosurgeon? What if the patient were then to request the neurosurgeon to do rolfing on the patient? What if the neurosurgeon were actually knowledgeable enough and capable enough to do that but doesn't agree with rolfing, should we call the neurosurgeon wrong for discriminating? Hardly. Is that too complex?
As for your accusation of quackery, you have zero proof, you can refer to zero research or studies that prove that Reparative Therapy (RT) as advocated by NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) does not work. No such research or studies have been conducted proving RT to be quackery. NARTH is ready and willing to engage with the associations (to which other homosexual ideologues and you refer as the sole authorities on the subject) in conducting the necessary research to definitively determine once and for all whether current SOCE as supported by NARTH works.
Then you actually go on to what in effect is a total denunciation of any use of drugs in medicine. That is the logical conclusion of your complaint against the doctor using drugs in some cases. For those who are unaware, psychologists do not write prescriptions for drugs, medical doctors do. Psychiatrists are legally allowed to prescribe drugs for all sorts of mental states. I personally believe that such drugs are way over prescribed, but that's an entirely different issue than the one Wayne Bensen is attempting to raise. If Wayne is anti-drugs in all cases, then let him say so. Let him make the case for no drugs, period.
If anyone is oversexed for whatever reason and a doctor prescribes libido-reducing drugs, is that quackery or unethical? Hardly. It may not be the way I would go about dealing with the issue of hyper-sexual addictions, but I'm certainly not going to call it quackery or even necessarily unethical. The fact is that such drugs do lower the sex drive and that some people suffer from sexual manias where they are, for example, compulsively masturbating and to the point where it radically interferes with their ability to function on a normal level and where marriages and families and other relationships are severely damaged or even completely ruined. Such problems can ruin schooling and careers. It can end up in extreme anxiety and depression and finally suicide. It is not wrong for a psychiatrist to do his or her best to help such people, and hyper-sexual addiction can definitely come in conjunction with SSA.
In addition, the use of such drugs in some cases in no way indicates the impotency of SOCE in other drug-free cases. To suggest that it does shows inherently dysfunctional thinking on the part of those suggesting it.
Wayne, you wrote, "I fully hope that lawyers vigorously cross-examine Dr. Duk over his possible abuse and unethical use of pharmaceuticals to lower the sex drives of his clients." The Pacific Justice Institute lawyers are not morons. They will more than handle any attempt to paint the use of libido-reducing drugs as inherently unethical. It would be an easy matter to get drug experts and ethicists to testify on the doctor's behalf.
On to your next claim, is looking at pornography an illness? When does looking at pornography become an illness if at all? Is masturbation an illness? When does masturbation become an illness/addiction if at all? Is the State of California going to outlaw mental healthcare practitioners in CA from offering treatment for porn viewing and/or masturbation for all minors and regardless of the minors wishes including for minors who have their parents' full support in seeking treatment, professional help, in stopping pornography viewing and/or masturbation? It is perfectly analogous to the ban on Reparative Therapy, which by the way, in many practices and those by psychologists, is drug-free. The law makes no such drug distinction. It throws out RT for minors no matter what.
As for Wayne's "LGBT youth were made to feel guilty and ashamed" theory, maybe a boy who was repeatedly homosexually sexually abused and had no SSA prior to it but then found himself unable to avoid being erotically stimulated by same-sex imagery and such because the sexual nerve-endings of his body had been repeatedly stimulated even to the point of ejaculation against his will and desire or conscience, tracing and retracing and deepening and widen and ingraining the neuronal pathways resulting in brain-chemical addiction of SSA, realizes that his situation was diabolically forced or foisted or both upon him and that he has a natural human right to seek help to overcome SSA, to diminish his drive for the SSA dopamine-fix that the perpetrator caused, got started, every bit as much as heroin pushers cause heroin addiction or a baby is born addicted to crack cocaine through no fault of the baby.
Such children are "easy prey for avaricious charlatans who offer to "help" but provide nothing but harm"? You don't care about those children, obviously. You know they exist, but you are interested in distorting society so you may continue on without a care for those kids, leaving them suffering year after year after year; and you have the nerve to point to those who will help those children overcome their unwanted same-sex attraction as unethical quacks and charlatans.
You say that "all medical and mental health associations say that homosexuality is not a mental illness." Well, have you surveyed every medical and mental health association in the world on that? No. Have you taken a vote of every mental healthcare provider to see the percentage that believes sexuality is not fluid? No. Is it possible that men performing anal intercourse on each other is symptomatic of mental illness? Definitely. It's prima fascia.
Taking a show of hands at some committee or board meeting ruling that men sodomizing each other is not sick doesn't fool everyone. It doesn't fool me and never will.
Sodomy is an error. Putting your penis up another male's rectum is sick, Wayne. Willingly allowing another male to put his penis up your rectum is also sick, Wayne. Neither the American Psychological Association (APA) nor American Psychiatric Association (APA) has a magic wand that can alter those facts no matter how much you wish for them to. The official positions of those associations on homosexuality are wrong. It's self-evident. Homosexuality is inherently wrong. It is never right. Sodomy is a sign of brokenness (including for heterosexuals). For it to occur, there has to be disease, which can include even temporary bad intoxication/impaired judgment. That's just how it is. The whole person, the healthy person, the unbroken person, never engages in sodomy. Sodomy is unwholesome.
If you are engaging in it, you should seek the help of an authentic, skilled Reparative Therapist and want it desperately and be completely prepared to go all the way through with it and not backslide but rather persevere unto healing your emotional wounds that you have been trying for years now to mask.
Your wounds are not healed, Wayne, by being affirmed in your disease by a bunch of also wounded associations. They will fester forever until you turn and overcome.
As for only causing harm as you claim, how do you explain the thousands of people who have benefited from the treatment? You don't. You ignore them. You pretend they don't exist. You do that because if you admit to yourself that others have successfully walked away from the homosexual lifestyle and reconditioned their emotional patterns such that SSA is greatly diminished and in some cases gone, that you will see yourself as a relative failure. Well, they exist, and many are coming out on VoicesOfChange.
(Also, this case will be the beginning of the end to the censorship by your friends in media about those people, a number of whom I have the pleasure of knowing via direct communications.)
You were not born homosexual. Events in your life turned you into what you are. You can change that if you want to. Your disease, your deeply ingrained brain-chemical addiction, wants to keep you. If you were addicted to heroin, the same would apply. Shall we outlaw treatment of minors with unwanted heroin addictions? Of course we shouldn't. To say that treatments for heroin don't work, whether with or without other drugs, but are conducted solely by avaricious and unethical quacks would constitute slander, and if put in writing and openly published, libel, for which one would be at risk of facing civil suit for such.
Here's an article you've possibly seen but ignored: "Dopamine, without alcohol, makes flies court males."
Here's one of my own post that sheds more light on the subject: "Vindication continued: "The Neuro Transformers," by Robin Phillips."
Continuing on with your confused article, you further complain that the lawsuit says, "The statute makes no attempt to define 'family rejection.'" You do that by pointing to shelters, as if the lawyers are claiming there is no such thing as family rejection, which they do not claim. Your pointing to shelters still does not define family rejection for the purposes of the law. The law itself needed to define that so that it isn't subject to wild interpretations, such as that a family member remains in the house but is feeling rejection at any level.
It's well established that homosexuals on average are much more sensitive, thin-skinned, worse at judging the emotions and intentions of others. It happens all the time. I am routinely subjected to their distorted realities. When I am cool, calm, and collected, such as right now, I am routinely accused by homosexuals of being angry.
That's because you homosexuals project your hyper-sensitivity and lack of proper coping skills onto others. When you are losing a debate, most of you resort to what can only be termed child-like tantrums, ever-increasing wild accusations and false assumptions, further and further from reality and logic, etc., finally arriving where you think you've won by being the most insulting (at least hoping to be insulting and to illicit hard feelings).
It appears clear to me that it's an ingrained pattern due to the abuse and negligence you homosexuals have experienced that caused your homosexuality in the first place. You get stuck in the double-bind (which is fully explained in Reparative Therapy) and in your hyper-emotionalism, lash out thoughtlessly, dangerously, recklessly. You become more and more fascistic making more and more demands that your disease be unleashed upon the world. You are being devoured and have been taken over as tools for the further devouring of humanity.
With Reparative Therapy, if you will use it religiously, consistently, you will learn to not react the way you do. Rather than rushing to another homosexual act, brain-chemistry fix, for your sensitivity, feeling of having been shamed or "bashed," as you all are fond of calling it, you will retrain yourself, recondition yourself, to cope using your knowledge of the double-loop (also fully explained in RT). It does work. It works with addictions. The more you want it, the better it works. Giving up, doesn't. Wanting instant gratification doesn't. Wanting it to fall in your lap with no work or desire on your part, doesn't. It is not the therapist's fault you quit before you are less sensitive for your selfish self and more understanding of what's truly going on with others.
Back to "rejection," the lawyers know the range of possible claims of rejection and are viewing that aspect in light of many, many possibilities including, but obviously not limited to, that some religious parents will never accept homosexuality regardless of who it is who's engaging in it. This is one way in which SB 1172 is a complete infringement upon Christianity, for one, and some other religions as well.
The canonical New Testament of Christianity contains very clear anti-homosexuality admonitions. The US Constitution has as its First Amendment the right of parents to freely exercise their religion. There are limits, but those limits cannot be based upon Wayne's irrational ideas that, for instance, completely reject homosexual rape and its unwanted-SSA consequences for many and also reject the power of operant conditioning that can, as I've made clear in my posts, completely change orientation.
Some would want to treat that as a hypothesis. I don't need to. It would definitely withstand testing. There is no doubt about it. Right now, it's a forgone conclusion – inescapable short of divine intervention.
You say you "have spoken to a number of scientists about this topic and feel confident that this argument will be obliterated in court." Well, we on the other side, the right side, are looking forward to the opportunity, through this and other suits, to expose all the information SOCE therapists have proving that your so-called scientific consultants and you have it backwards. You see, Wayne, your politically correct homosexual allies in high places in the mainstream media will not be able to censor this one. Are you nervous? Do you feel the ground shifting under your feet yet? It shows.
Finally, you say, "The lawsuit also says that SB1172 "would directly curtail the religious expression of members of the clergy who are also mental health professionals." This is a load of nonsense...." Wow, the twisted frosting on your confused cake that is. Look Wayne, your convoluted efforts are tedious to constantly straighten out, but for the sakes of others and perchance you may yet come to see the light, let me explain yet again a basic fundamental.
A California-license practitioner who is also practicing under the auspices of his or her religion, sanctioned by that religion in his or her use of Reparative Therapy even on parishioners on religious property, will according to SB 1172, no longer be allowed to do that in California. That is a clear and plain violation of the involved religion(s) that hold that homosexuality is wrong, a sin, and against that religion.
For you to claim that Scriptures don't say that is ridiculous. The New Testament epistles clearly prohibit homosexuality in all cases. I can tell you necrophilia is also prohibited even though you won't find the issue of men having sexual intercourse with dead bodies specifically listed by Jesus Christ in the Gospels or elsewhere in the New Testament. If you are one of those people who claims Jesus never said necrophilia (by that name) isn't acceptable therefore it is acceptable, I hope the lawyers for your side in the case call you to the stand as one of their experts on religion.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)