[gaijin]

Even if the therapeutic behavior is unusual, since both parties consent I cannot see how it should be illegal.

I’m in favor of decreasing intolerance —the government should not regulate in this manner.

Let’s lobby for a more tolerant government..!

[Boogieman]

“Even if the therapeutic behavior is unusual, since both parties consent I cannot see how it should be illegal.”

Well, the opposition argument is that, in the case of minors, they can’t consent. Which, of course, ignores mounds of legal precedent that says parents, being the legal guardians, can consent on behalf of their children.

If this is allowed to stand, then what grounds do parents have to subject their children to any medical treatment? The children can’t validly consent, and the parents would have no right to provide the necessary consent. We may just have to get used to children dying of treatable diseases in California in the future.

Then again, with Obamacare, we’ll all be dying of treatable diseases soon enough.

[conservativefreak]

Even if the therapeutic behavior is unusual, since both parties consent I cannot see how it should be illegal.

"Consumer protection" laws could be used to ban gay conversion therapy on questions of it's efficacy. There's a case in New York about gay men and some of their moms suing counselors on the grounds of the effectiveness of gay conversion therapy. To liberals, gay conversion therapy never works, but there is a fluid continuum of sexual orientation in which people can be at different parts of their life. Their disingenuous and incoherent stance seems to be that wherever you are on the "sexual orientation" continuum you can only change in one direction, to becoming more homosexual.

Second point, if I were a lawyer arguing against this irrational law, I would ask whether banning pedophilia conversion therapy was any different from banning gay conversion therapy.

Liberals could have made this law a little more subtle, regulating anyone who provides gay conversion therapy that they must post notices before any treatment begins stating that the claims they make are not medically verifiable, that the American Psychiatric Association or whatever disagrees, etc.

Even if liberals dispute the effectiveness of gay conversion therapy, outright banning it altogether is really close to banning the freedom of association. This law should be held in suspicion by all Americans, irregardless of their sexual orientation.

[conservativefreak]

Even if the therapeutic behavior is unusual, since both parties consent I cannot see how it should be illegal.

"Consumer protection" laws could be used to ban gay conversion therapy on questions of its efficacy. There's a case in New York about gay men and some of their moms suing counselors on the grounds of the effectiveness of gay conversion therapy. To liberals, gay conversion therapy never works, but there is a fluid continuum of sexual orientation in which people can be at different parts of their life. Their disingenuous and incoherent stance seems to be that wherever you are on the "sexual orientation" continuum you can only change in one direction, to becoming more homosexual.

Second point, if I were a lawyer arguing against this irrational law, I would ask whether banning pedophilia conversion therapy was any different from banning gay conversion therapy.

Liberals could have made this law a little more subtle, regulating anyone who provides gay conversion therapy that they must post notices before any treatment begins stating that the claims they make are not medically verifiable, that the American Psychiatric Association or whatever disagrees, etc.

Even if liberals dispute the effectiveness of gay conversion therapy, outright banning it altogether is really close to banning the freedom of association. This law should be held in suspicion by all Americans, irregardless of their sexual orientation.