Monday, October 1, 2012

California to Gay Teens Who Seek Therapy: You're on Your Own

By, Chris Rossini
Email | Twitter

California has banned a type of psychotherapy that's aimed at making gay teenagers straight. It becomes the first state to do so.

So for California teens who may desire such therapy, their government has told them (using a favorite leftist slogan): You're on your own.

In a much different, and freer world, the marketplace would dictate if such types of treatment would exist. If gay teens don't desire a good or service, they don't buy it.

Pretty simple.

The fact that California has taken the time to create a law banning a certain type of therapy indicates that there's demand for it. Enough teens must have a desire for it.

These teens must now (like a refugee) go to another state. Or, they can stay in California and go into the black market. They'll have to pay more, since the provider will charge a much higher price to offset the risks involved with providing an "illegal" service. And the quality of the counseling will also be dubious.

Let's also not look past the blatant discrimination here - from a state that prides itself on attempting to legislate away every form it:

Gay teens who don't seek therapy - You're cool.

Gay teens who seek therapy - You're on your own.


  1. Modern liberals (i.e. leftists) don't actually favor any kind of liberty on principle. If you examine those few situations in which they do favor liberty, what they all have in common is that they undermine the sovereignty of social institutions that compete with the state's authority.

    For instance, a teen gets pregnant. The family and church might insist that the child be carried to term. So the liberals step in and say the teen can get an abortion without even telling her parents.

    When it comes to sexuality, liberal support for "sexual liberation" was always, from the beginning, explicitly meant as a weapon against the traditional family structure. The idea was to undermine the family so that people would become dependent on, and obedient to, the state.

    This has already been accomplished to a large extent. In the old days (and still today in many developing nations) the elderly were cared for by the extended family. Today, it's just assumed that the government will deal with them.

    The irony is that left-liberals always smear libertarians (i.e. the authentic liberals) as being against communities, while the left-liberals have actually killed the social bonds that made communities flourish.

    1. It's probably more likely that the state government is desperately casting around for something to cut and it may well be that in the experience of gays that this all a waste of time to get one to shove onesself back into closet and the government established the program only as a sop to the crazy Christians who couldn't bear the idea of more than just toweling off in locker room.
      Anyway, both programs will be gone sooner or later anyway.

    2. They're not cutting a government program here. They're banning a private transaction.

    3. @Heath

      Ask the kids that Sandusky abused (who you might call "crazy" if they would have preferred to towel off in the locker room.

      Then again, you may be one of those libertarian types that believe Sandusky did nothing wrong if their was consent from the 8-yr old...

    4. Whoops don't know how I got the idea that these where state programs. I'll change my opinion then to anti then since its the state presuming to know whats best for everybody.
      Big difference between two kids in a locker and predator Jerry.

  2. While I agree that this law does interfere with freedom in a small way, I think the problem was not with gay/lesbian teens wanting to get therapy on how to become straight. It is more about "deprogramming", where the teen was undergoing the therapy involuntarily.

    If the law had been written to say, "no kind of therapy can be administered to a teen against their will", would you find any problem with that?

    1. I'm against all such "therapy," but consider the source of such an edict. State governments have recently had people involuntarily committed for their religious views and political facebook posts. When it's parents versus state, I side with parents. Again, the purpose of these laws is to empower the state and disempower parents.

      If you're living under their roof and eating their food, then you might just have to accept your parents' restrictions on your sexual activity until you move out. I don't see why these teens have to announce it to their parents anyway (especially if the parents are Christian fundamentalists). Most parents don't want their immature, irresponsible kids having sex, period, and with good reason.

  3. well actualy, as someone who believes you can't just 'cure' gayness, can't this also can be interpreted as state protection against fraud?I mean...I am all for caveat emptor but I don't see the state overstepping here somehow drasticaly. Also, consider the social presure from the parents and orthodox communities gays have to endure so they are effectively pushed to buy these services...which again, gives them nothing but frustration.

  4. Sorry Anon at 2:13, but homosexual behavior is a choice, and therefore "curable" by understanding its anti-social, unhealthy character. But I'm sure you "believe" otherwise.

    Regardless, you are confusing "pressure" with force, much like the dreck Molyneux writes with respect to defooing. Emotional, intellectual, non coercive argument and appeal is not force. Therefore, a voluntary transaction has now been banned. Tyranny wins in California.

    1. Ah, so sexual orientation is a choice? So tell me, when exactly did you "choose" to be straight?

    2. When did he/she 'choose' to be straight? Probably when there was a lack of abuse or trauma in his/her childhood.

    3. Really? Read first, then assert the infallibility of your theories.

      It is by no means decided by any faction of the scientific community as to the determination of sexual orientation, though the weight of quantifiable research (relatively little though it still may be) seems to point to sexual orientation being a predetermined trait. ( )

      There have been innumerable studies since 2003, but this is a good recap of some of the more important early research done, especially if you don't have free access to scholarly journals. Take about 5 minutes a look around.

      @Dave: as far as the causal connection between abuse/trauma and homosexuality this fails on even the most basic of principles, let alone the ability to replicate such a claim. There are uncountable individuals who were abused/suffered trauma in childhood and are not gay just as there are as many who were not abused/did not suffer trauma in childhood and are gay. The exact effects of trauma and childhood abuse are not known, though many resultant effects have been studied and elucidated, it is beyond unwise to go around spouting off about such an undocumented and unverifiable connection.

  5. Teens don't have the resources to purchase expensive therapy, their parents choose it and purchase it for them.

    "Reparative" therapy is not a type of psychotherapy.

    The market place does not dictate effective therapy, no for psychological issues of mental health or for physical health issues. Professional and scientific bodies in association with government regulators do that. If they didn't we would have snake oil salesmen on every channel, as opposed to every cable channel.

    That is a smattering of why your "argument" is spurrious at best.

  6. I'm sorry but what does this have to do with economic policy?

  7. This is not an issue of "curing" gayness. It's a personal issue between parent, child and therapist/counselor. The state is declaring that child and parent who seek a certain type of therapy must be prohibited from seeking advice child and parent believe in.

    Consider: Obesity is a national problem. Weight loss programs have a horrible success rate. Weight loss products don't work. If the state can prohibit reparative therapy on the basis that it does not work then the state can prohibit weight loss programs and weight loss products.

    Don't get distracted by the controversy over reparative therapy. The real issue is "Can the state prohibit parent and child from seeking counseling for sexual issues?"

    Can the state dictate what sexual orientation can or cannot be changed?

    Is it the state's business if a teenager tries to change his/her orientation from gay to straight or from straight to gay?

    The answer is "Hell No!"