Refutation: California Becomes First State to Crack Down on Gay Cures for Minors

The following is a direct refutation of Ted Lieu's article: "JURIST - Hotline: California Becomes First State to Crack Down on Gay Cures for Minors":

Ted Lieu is so illogical. He refers to doctors using speech to phone in a prescription and says that it's malpractice when the doctor phones in the wrong prescription. No kidding? What does that have to do with banning all SOCE? Nothing. What would be comparable would be for Ted Lieu to promote a law that no doctor may phone in or otherwise issue a prescription by his or her voice or in fact in any other manner simply because some drugs (no matter how much a doctor tries to prescribe the right one) may injure some people. Some SOCE is wrong. All SOCE is not.

Lieu cites SOCE that is not what is being used by members of NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality). I defy Ted Lieu to bring forth any evidence that at the time he introduced his legislation, any member of NARTH was promoting castration, electrical shocks, nausea-inducing drugs, or suggesting to same-sex attracted children that those children, as children, engage in heterosexual sexual intercourse. If he can find one, that one would be the exception that makes the rule. NARTH's practice guidelines (that were there on NARTH's site for Ted Lieu to read before he introduced his bill) clearly prohibit those practices.

Furthermore, Ted Lieu ignores that most psychological treatments can cause anxiety in anxious people, depression in depressed people, etc. Is he willing to ban all such therapies? Why the double-standard? What therapies are homosexuals undergoing that promote anxiety and/or depression in some people? Many treatments heighten symptoms before a breakthrough. That's common knowledge.

In addition, the APA did not say that it has evidence that the SOCE advocated by NARTH has caused any of the problems alleged by Ted Lieu. Lieu's is a blanket ban based upon his twisted way of couching the whole issue. Let him show hard facts that indicate that NARTH's brand of SOCE is more harmful than the general psychological treatments being offered for a whole host of things clients want to change about themselves.

Where were all of the formal complaints that were lodged against NARTH members before Lieu's bill? There were none that NARTH is aware of, and they checked exhaustively and published that fact. No doubt, that fact influenced the judges.

The APA changed to a mentality that uses two criteria: 1) can the person function and 2) is he/she comfortable. Can a homosexual function in society and is he/she comfortable with his/her homosexuality? Those exact criteria can be equally applied to sociopaths. Can a sociopath function in society and can he/she be comfortable with his/her sociopathy? The answer is yes and yes. So, does that make sociopathy no longer a mental disorder? It does not!

Has Ted Lieu talked directly with any of the thousands of people who have undergone Reparative Therapy and who are satisfied with the outcome? Why does he pretend that they don't exist?

Of course the state can regulate speech. No one is saying otherwise. What the Plaintiffs in the cases against SB 1172 have put forth is that the state does not have a compelling enough reason to forbid all SOCE for minors in California. The liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals believes that the Plaintiffs are likely to win that argument in a full court case. That's why the Appellate Court upheld the injunction by the lower court against SB 1172. The Plaintiffs aren't asking for special 1st Amendment protection but the standard protection afforded everyone. It is Ted Lieu who wants to carve out special limitations on free speech pertaining solely to non-heterosexuals. Why should homosexuals get special "protections" that trample on everyone else's rights?

The fact that homosexuality was removed from the DSM is not proof that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. The scientific fact is that there is a clear causal relationship between homosexual molestation and rape in childhood and then growing up with same-sex attraction. That is what the "community" to which Ted Lieu refers as the experts have been obviously and intentionally ignoring. The children in California who are homosexually and otherwise abused and/or neglected and then sexually confused where they were not before are children Ted Lieu wants swept under the rug. He doesn't want to discuss them. Where have you once seen him address the issue?

I have been following this issue rather closely since it first arose, and I have never seen Ted Lieu once show the least bit of concern for homosexually raped heterosexually oriented children being imprinted with, conditioned into, same-sex attraction that they then still do not want, which is their right not to want. He rather has sought to make it illegal for such children and the parents of such children to get help for that unwanted same-sex attraction from California-licensed SOCE providers in California. To Hell with those children and parents is the practical result of Ted Lieu's position. According to Ted Lieu, the only acceptable thing for any therapist to say in such cases to such children and their parents is tough luck and just embrace the same-sex attraction that was conditioned into the child. That is not acceptable, and no intelligent person should put up with it.

Ted Lieu asked concerning Judge Shubb's ruling, "Could therapists now say whatever they want to a patient regardless of how unethical or dangerous it is?" That's exactly the point. SB 1172's basis has not shown that all SOCE is dangerous above and beyond the average for all other therapies. SB 1172's basis has not shown that all SOCE is unethical. What has been shown is that banning all SOCE would be dangerous and unethical on its face because there are confused children who don't want to be same-sex attracted for whatever reason but certainly for many, due to homosexual abuse. To leave those children without professional help when their parents may not be knowledgeable enough in the specialty of Reparative Therapy and other proven-successful treatments would be unconscionable. Why should those children be left with no legal right to get the help they want just to appease homosexual activists who choose to believe or promote the falsehood that sexual-orientation change is not possible and is always or even ever harmful? Why should formerly heterosexual children be left suffering when help is right there (if Ted Lieu doesn't get his one-sided, selfish way)? Why should children not be told that sexual orientation is fluid and that they most certainly can change orientation? It's the truth. Why are they being lied to?

Where is Ted Lieu's alarm concerning the huge risks over and above the risks of heterosexuality that are inherent in homosexuality? All other things being equal, homosexuality brings with it a whole slew of problems beyond the rates experienced by heterosexuals. That is always ignored. It is always censored. Those who state the facts are often banned. Why? Why are the facts censored. Why are those who bring the facts to light banned? Why is it when NARTH calls for more and better research, both APA's (Psychological and Psychiatric) refuse to engage in that work? It is because science is not at the heart of the issue at both APA's but rather homosexual activism at the direct expense of science, truth, and transparency.

Lieu writes, "Consider the following example: suppose a group of therapists believed in the assisted suicide movement and recommended that for some patients experiencing immense mental suffering suicide would be the best alternative. These therapists then embark on a course of treatment seeking to cause their patients to commit suicide. Under Shubb's ruling, California would not be able to pass a law stopping this suicidal medical treatment because it would be a content and viewpoint based regulation on the therapists' speech." Ted Lieu went to law school?

As I wrote in a blog post:

The whole issue is whether or not the state has a strong enough compelling reason to infringe upon the civil liberties and freedom of speech rights of the Plaintiffs. If the studies and reports are flawed, then upon what compelling ground does the state stand?

After one gets through with freedom of speech, commercial or otherwise, there's still the huge issue of freedom of religion, the freedom of the children to receive religiously consistent Reparative Therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction, which attraction is a sin to many religious persons, especially when behavior follows attraction. The children have a right to receive professional help consistent with their religious beliefs for their unwanted same-sex attraction. Homosexual affirmation is still not condone or allowed in many religions. California SB 1172 is a direct assault on freedom of religion.

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.