Anyone in California and get email for opposing AB 2943

[Daniel2]

On ‎05‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 12:23 PM, kllindley said:

Even Evergreen was not promoting conversion therapy, despite the attempts by the AP to make it sound that way. The focus was on overcoming behavior and decreasing desire. Desire is different from attraction. 

There is a lot of misinformation and lack of education around the topic. 

To be fair, Kllindley, Evergreen itself evolved over time.  25 years ago, when I was at BYU and met with the Evergreen counselor for six months on campus while attending as a student, he was advocating very much for reparative/conversion therapy, including ongoing and blunt references to "becoming straight" and "changing my orientation," coupled with scriptural references as to how "with God, nothing is impossible," that "faith precedes the miracle," etc. 

It's likely difficult (as you acknowledged previously) to pin down terms such as these, especially looking retroactively, and especially when attempting to speak universally.  It's entirely possible (and likely probable) that different Evergreen groups, leaders, and therapists each had their own unique approach/verbiage/spin in earlier days, because culture wasn't focused on the issue and it wasn't under the scrutiny that later arose.

As the practice lost favor, Evergreen attempted to adapt and change it's approach and sought to stay current (as any responsible organization should).  Ultimately, from my perspective, the organization was plagued by too much baggage around prior practices which certainly seemed like reparative/conversion therapy, which is why it ultimately merged with Northstar and retired the Evergreen branding.

I think it's wise to focus on behaviors and encourage all of us to ensure our behaviors are congruent with our most important, personally-held values, and therapists should seek to encourage their patients to find ways to deal with their desires and behaviors in emotionally, physically, spiritually, and sexually possible ways.  I believe that ecclesiastical leaders should be free to encourage their adherents to live by the moral code advocated by their religious beliefs and values, so long as they don't misrepresent therapies which medicine has disproven or found to be damaging, unhealthy, or dangerous.  Sometimes knowing where to draw that line is difficult, and that's the conversation the legislature is engaged in now.  Again, from my perspective, there's well-meaning people on all sides of the issue.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think it would depend on whether or not you found Hemsworth attractive or if you were attracted to Hemsworth.

Does anyone not find Chris Hemsworth attractive?! lol

Same question about Jennifer Aniston.... is there anyone alive that doesn't find her attractive....?!

lol

[Daniel2]

On ‎05‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 2:14 PM, kllindley said:

2) In 12 years of personal experience with people, I have always seen a difference in saying "I experience same-sex attraction" and "I desire to engage in gay relationships" Some people who can say the first would also say the second, but many would not. That is why I think it is disingenuous when people try to delegitimize the term same-sex attraction. It is a perfectly accurate descriptor. 

Again, this is no different than a heterosexual male being able to acknowledge that a woman not his wife is sexually attractive, and not feeling a strong desire to engage in adultery with her. Do some men experience that desire? Of course. Do all? 

 

The problem I have with the term "same-sex attraction" is that it's reserved for individuals who experience attractions to members of their own gender in a way that is NOT used by individuals who experience attractions to members of the opposite gender.

Except as a foil when engaging with gays or lesbians, I've never heard a straight person:

a) object to being described as "straight" on the basis of their attractions to members of the opposite sex,

 

b) refer to themselves by saying "I experience opposite-sex attraction,"

 

c) avoid using the concept of "be-ing" (as in, a state of existence) 'straight', as opposed to something they 'have' or merely 'experience.'  The implication being they "are" straight as a comfortably innate self-identifying characteristic.

In every case, I've heard straight people say "I'm straight" or the VERY different "I'm attracted to women."  NOTE the significance of the words "I'm"--an abbreviation of "I AM," and nothing like "I EXPERIENCE..." or "I HAVE..." 

The term "I AM" is a state of being.  A state of existence.

It adds legitimacy to "straight" people's experiences and identity as "straight" people who "are" straight.

The avoidance of the term "gay" or to say "I'm attracted to men" is significant, and delegitimizes one's identity in a very different way than is afforded to "straight" people.

In sum, I think most heterosexual men are able to acknowledge that women who aren't their own wives are attractive, but I've never heard one say, "Wow... Look at HER--I'm experiencing attraction for her!"  Most would simply say, "I'm attacted to her," or "I find her attractive," or "She's HOT." 

And to me, the difference in language is significant as the implications underlying it.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Daniel2

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Does anyone not find Chris Hemsworth attractive?! lol

Same question about Jennifer Aniston.... is there anyone alive that doesn't find her attractive....?!

lol

Well, I can recognize that he’s attractive but for me personally, he’s not my type. I don’t usually find blonde hair and blue eyes that appealing. I’m not that drawn to that body type either. 😆

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

To be fair, Kllindley, Evergreen itself evolved over time.  25 years ago, when I was at BYU and met with the Evergreen counselor for six months on campus while attending as a student, he was advocating very much for reparative/conversion therapy. 

It's likely difficult (as you acknowledged previously) to pin down terms such as these, especially looking retroactively, and especially when attempting to speak universally.  It's entirely possible (and likely probable) that different Evergreen groups, leaders, and therapists each had their own unique approach/verbiage/spin in earlier days, because culture wasn't focused on the issue and it wasn't under the scrutiny that later arose.

As the practice lost favor, Evergreen attempted to adapt and change it's approach and sought to stay current (as any responsible organization should).  Ultimately, from my perspective, the organization was plagued by too much baggage around prior practices which certainly seemed like reparative/conversion therapy, which is why it ultimately merged with Northstar and retired the Evergreen branding.

I think it's wise to focus on behaviors and encourage all of us to ensure our behaviors are congruent with our most important, personally-held values, and therapists should seek to encourage their patients to find ways to deal with their desires and behaviors in emotionally, physically, spiritually, and sexually possible ways.  I believe that ecclesiastical leaders should be free to encourage their adherents to live by the moral code advocated by their religious beliefs and values, so long as they don't misrepresent therapies which medicine has disproven or found to be damaging, unhealthy, or dangerous.  Sometimes knowing where to draw that line is difficult, and that's the conversation the legislature is engaged in now.  Again, from my perspective, there's well-meaning people on all sides of the issue.

I will definitely admit that my experience was much later (2008 and beyond) and that my only exposure to the older Evergreen was through printed materials. There is no question that I ignored much of what I read and even heard that didn't fit with my experience and journey. Other things I'm sure I reinterpreted through my own personal filters to make sense.  If earlier approaches were more focused on changing orientation, I would have understood that as changing behaviors and identity rather than attraction. But another individual could very easily have come away with a different message. 

 

[toon]

18 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

To be fair, Kllindley, Evergreen itself evolved over time.  25 years ago, when I was at BYU and met with the Evergreen counselor for six months on campus while attending as a student, he was advocating very much for reparative/conversion therapy. 

It's likely difficult (as you acknowledged previously) to pin down terms such as these, especially looking retroactively, and especially when attempting to speak universally.  It's entirely possible (and likely probable) that different Evergreen groups, leaders, and therapists each had their own unique approach/verbiage/spin in earlier days, because culture wasn't focused on the issue and it wasn't under the scrutiny that later arose.

As the practice lost favor, Evergreen attempted to adapt and change it's approach and sought to stay current (as any responsible organization should).  Ultimately, from my perspective, the organization was plagued by too much baggage around prior practices which certainly seemed like reparative/conversion therapy, which is why it ultimately merged with Northstar and retired the Evergreen branding.

I think it's wise to focus on behaviors and encourage all of us to ensure our behaviors are congruent with our most important, personally-held values, and therapists should seek to encourage their patients to find ways to deal with their desires and behaviors in emotionally, physically, spiritually, and sexually possible ways.  I believe that ecclesiastical leaders should be free to encourage their adherents to live by the moral code advocated by their religious beliefs and values, so long as they don't misrepresent therapies which medicine has disproven or found to be damaging, unhealthy, or dangerous.  Sometimes knowing where to draw that line is difficult, and that's the conversation the legislature is engaged in now.  Again, from my perspective, there's well-meaning people on all sides of the issue.

Thanks for this perspective. I'm sorry you had to go through the reparative/conversion pressure. I'm also impressed by your current approach to the matter that is respective of people on both sides to of an issue where, in my opinion, there only remains one reasonable side to the issue.

 

[Daniel2]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well, I can recognize that he’s attractive but for me personally, he’s not my type. I don’t usually find blonde hair and blue eyes that appealing. I’m not that drawn to that body type either. 😆

That's exactly what I say about Jennifer Aniston!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Well, I can recognize that he’s attractive but for me personally, he’s not my type. I don’t usually find blonde hair and blue eyes that appealing. I’m not that drawn to that body type either. 😆

Could I make this comment  about some female movie star on this board and get away with it?

[Daniel2]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Could I make this comment  about some female movie star on this board and get away with it?

I think a man (straight or otherwise) can say that a female actress "isn't his type" and comment that her body type isn't one he's "drawn to".... in fact, I echoed it in my response to Bluebell (and actually, I even agree with her that while I can appreciate and even admire his attractiveness,  I'm not drawn to the body-type of men of Mr. Hemsworth stature, either).

Did you find her post unfairly sexist or offensive from a male perspective...?

Edited May 8, 2018 by Daniel2

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I think a man (straight or otherwise) can say that a female actress "isn't his type" and comment that her body type isn't one he's "drawn to".... in fact, I echoed it in my response to Bluebell (and actually, I even agree with her that while I can appreciate and even admire his attractiveness,  I'm not drawn to the body-type of men of Mr. Hemsworth stature, either).

Did you find her post unfairly sexist or offensive from a male perspective...?

I plead the fifth. 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by mfbukowski

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

The problem I have with the term "same-sex attraction" is that it's reserved for individuals who experience attractions to members of their own gender in a way that is NOT used by individuals who experience attractions to members of the opposite gender.

Except as a foil when engaging with gays or lesbians, I've never heard a straight person:

a) object to being described as "straight" on the basis of their attractions to members of the opposite sex,

 

b) refer to themselves by saying "I experience opposite-sex attraction."

In every case, I've heard straight people say "I'm straight" or the VERY different "I'm attracted to women."  NOTE the significance of the words "I'm"--an abbreviation of "I AM," and nothing like "I EXPERIENCE..." or "I HAVE..." 

The term "I AM" is a state of being.  A state of existence.

It adds legitimacy to "straight" people's experiences and identity as "straight" people who "are" straight.

The avoidance of the term "gay" or to say "I'm attracted to men" is significant, and delegitimizes one's identity in a very different way than is afforded to "straight" people.

In sum, I think most heterosexual men are able to acknowledge that women who aren't their own wives are attractive, but I've never heard one say, "Wow... Look at HER--I'm experiencing attraction for her!"  Most would simply say, "I'm attacted to her," or "I find her attractive," or "She's HOT." 

And to me, the difference in language is significant as the implications underlying it.

I agree about the difference in language having implications underlying it. 

I would agree that the phrasing specifically calls into question the validity of a particular identity. But it does so on the personal level, and only imcidentally, if at all, generally.  Using that language is an intentional effort to refuse to let society define my identity based on a particular facet of my mortal experience. 

And that is a fundamental question of whether sexual orientation(whether defined as attraction, pattern of attraction, or identity) is a state of being or an experience. To claim that this is settled science is simply uninformed. 

But, I think this whole discussion is only tangential to the point I was making that I can be attracted to someone and not desire to act sexually with them. That difference may be for a multitude of reasons.

The distinction between attraction and desire exists and is not a semantic game. Because, I know plenty of people who identify as gay who no longer desire a homosexual relationship. If the desire is essential to the orientation, we'd have to admit that these men have "been cured" or changed their orientation. Now, most people would say that the underlying orientation hasn't changed. I would agree. But something about their experience definitely has. Would that sort of change be outlawed?     

This is why I think we need to be very clear what we're talking about, especially when it comes to laws. 

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Could I make this comment  about some female movie star on this board and get away with it?

I don’t see why not. 

[Daniel2]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I agree about the difference in language having implications underlying it. 

I would agree that the phrasing specifically calls into question the validity of a particular identity. But it does so on the personal level, and only imcidentally, if at all, generally.  Using that language is an intentional effort to refuse to let society define my identity based on a particular facet of my mortal experience. 

And that is a fundamental question of whether sexual orientation(whether defined as attraction, pattern of attraction, or identity) is a state of being or an experience...

But, I think this whole discussion is only tangential to the point I was making that I can be attracted to someone and not desire to act sexually with them. That difference may be for a multitude of reasons.

Well said.  And in my experience, it's best (as in most polite, respectful, and an exercise in the golden rule) to refer to others' self-identity as they refer to themselves (also as you say) on a personal level.

That is, even though I may find the term "same-sex attracted" or "experience same-sex attraction" distasteful or inadequate, I understand and respect others' decision and comfort to so self-designate.

And even though others may find my terms of "gay" to be distasteful or inadequate, I hope for the same understanding and respect in my husband's and my choice to so self-designate.

And as always, Kllindley, I appreciate your thoughts and approach on this entire issue.  Though we come from different paradigms, I appreciate the mutual respect and striving to understand and avoid behaving disagreeably, whether or not we agree.

[Stargazer]

On 5/7/2018 at 5:23 PM, Gray said:

According to the chain letter, a financial transaction is required before the fraudulent, deceptive and unethical practice of conversion therapy and advocacy actually carries penalties, so it looks like everyone's free speech rights are secure.  Fraud isn't protected by free speech.

The actual proposal:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2943

While I tend to agree that conversion therapy, as we now understand it, is indeed "fraudulent, deceptive and unethical", but I wonder what would happen if there were a discovery made that could actually reverse same-sex attraction?  Would this law prohibit its being offered as a treatment to someone who wanted it?

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Stargazer

[Danzo]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

While I tend to agree that conversion therapy, as we now understand it, is indeed "fraudulent, deceptive and unethical", but I wonder what would happen if there were a discovery made that could actually reverse same-sex attraction?  Would this law prohibit its being offered as a treatment to someone who wanted it?

 

They could always go to Canada

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

And to me, the difference in language is significant as the implications underlying it.

As a straight man, I can tell you that I would never refer to myself as "experiencing opposite-sex attraction" because that phrasing implies that the orientation could change or go away.  While this is obviously the intent when referring to SSA, I find the idea laughable when applied to myself.

Luckily, the attractions gay and lesbian people feel are fundamentally different, so the different terminology is appropriate when applied to them.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

While I tend to agree that conversion therapy, as we now understand it, is indeed "fraudulent, deceptive and unethical", but I wonder what would happen if there were a discovery made that could actually reverse same-sex attraction?  Would this law prohibit its being offered as a treatment to someone who wanted it?

 

I was wondering the same thing.  I'm guessing those who are supporting the bill would either argue that such a discovery is impossible, or that even if a therapy or other method were discovered to change gay people to straight, it should still be outlawed.

Can you imagine what would happen if genetics ever gets to the point that embryos can be tested for a likelihood of being gay, and then patched (or aborted) if that's the case?  That's a whole new world of ethical quandaries that would make my head explode.

Edited May 8, 2018 by cinepro

[california boy]

8 hours ago, kllindley said:

I'd love to believe that. But if the bill is really trying to target conversion therapy, them why wouldn't the authors take the extra dozen lines to clarify that?

The bill is very clear.  It only targets reparative therapy as being fraudulent.

8 hours ago, kllindley said:

Even the LA Times is able to recognize that the bill, as written, has the potential to be used against religious belief.

 

  Quote

 

Would that include churches or other religious groups that sold, advertised or even recommended books that propagated the idea that believers can use prayer to overcome "same-sex attraction"? That's what several conservative organizations and commentators are arguing. They have the Constitution on their side. The 1st Amendment clearly protects their right to preach, and encourage adherents to follow, religious doctrine on sexual morality.

Supporters of the bill scoff at this critique. A fact sheet provided by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Silicon Valley), the sponsor of AB 2943, asserts that the bill "does not apply to the sale of books or any other kind of goods" and that the Bible "would absolutely not be banned." Yet the bill itself makes no such declaration. And the existing Consumer Legal Remedies Act clearly applies to the sale of goods such as books, videos and other educational materials — including those sold by churches and other religious groups.

 

 

 

 

  Quote

 

Another complaint by critics is that, while the bill permits therapies that "do not seek to change sexual orientation," it defines "sexual orientation change efforts" to include attempts to alter not only romantic attractions but also "behaviors or gender expressions." Under this broad definition, wrote David French in the National Review, "if ... a sexually active gay man or woman sought counseling not to change their orientation but rather to become celibate, then the services and goods provided in that effort would violate this statute.

Many Californians obviously reject the idea that gays and lesbians shouldn't engage in sexual activity. But many religious groups (including the Roman Catholic Church) teach that sex is permissible only within heterosexual marriage. The 1st Amendment protects their right to counsel adherents to live by those teachings.

  Quote

 

Finally, it's true that AB 2943 covers only sexual orientation change efforts that result in the "sale or lease of goods or services" and thus wouldn't affect a lot of religious communications in which no money changes hands. But what if a minister urged someone he or she was counseling to buy a book or enroll in a religious seminar that charged a registration fee? Treating that activity as consumer fraud would raise serious constitutional questions.

It's possible that the critics of this bill are being alarmist, but the language of the legislation is ambiguous enough to justify at least some of their concerns. The Senate can allay them by amending the bill to make it clear that it can't be used against books or religious preaching or counseling about sexuality.

We have seen this before.  For some reason, this issue more than most seems to bring out slippery slope arguments.  So yeah, critics of this bill are being alarmist.  The law is very clear.  You can not profit by telling a gay person they can become straight.  Period.  That is what this law is about. You can counsel them on how to deal with being gay.  How to be celibate.  How to not be in relationships with other gay people.  You can tell them that just because they are gay, they can still marry someone of the opposite sex.  You can promise them anything you want.  You just can't make money on telling a gay person they can become straight. 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

So does 12 Step Recovery count as a legally questionable practice?  

Over the past 12 years I got to know several men who weren't trying to change their orientation (I know several who could not begin to count their sexual partners), but wanted very much to change their obsession, so they could live a less painful life.  The essence of addiction is an increased craving combined with impeded judgement. The brain of an addicted person has been tricked into treating their object of desire as equivalent to survival.  (On this, see Pleasure Unwoven: The Science of Addiction).  And they all reported that successful recovery from addiction (which, unlike reparative therapy, is not a bogus Skinnerian attempt to point their desire in a religiously approved direction while leaving the underlying increased craving and impeded judgement untreated) allowed them to live much happier lives, improved their relationships with their families.  There is a huge difference between having a desire and being able to weigh consequences, and to decide with those in mind, and having a desire that ignores consequences, and employs reason as servant for obtaining, rationalizing, and cleaning up after itself.  Addicts characteristically believe that sex is their most important need (see Patrick Carnes), and they always justify themselves via a set of grievance stories (see any Recovery Literature).  Put a group of addicts together (and addiction is not rare, but common), and you have the basis of a political platform.  They collectively defend their ability and opportunity to act out (their "most important need",  something felt so deeply as to be for them "equivalent to survival"), notably by telling grievance stories about other people, without demonstrating any notable concern for what might be painful self-examination.  And the people I know in 12 Step groups all recognize that the key to understanding and changing their situation is not the direction of their acting out, not a God-given orientation beyond judgement, consideration or criticism, but rather, the obsession to act out in whatever form.  A person who has healed from obsession has not changed their orientation.  They are just able to choose what they do, or do not do, based on a consideration of what consequences they prefer.  Should people be legally barred from exploring such options?

Or what about a person I know who, after a decade or so of living in her third lesbian relationship, left that lifestyle, and married in the temple?  As far as I know, counseling and recovery played no part whatsoever in her decision.  She simply decided to leave after lengthy experience.  Indeed, the first step in her decision to leave, a relationship that came before the current temple marriage, is remarkably telling about what her experience in that community had become, but is not my story to tell.  Would anyone who simply approved of her decisions, say the leaders who asked Temple Recommend Questions, be at legal risk?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

This has nothing to do with the bill that is being proposed.  There is nothing in this bill that would prohibit anything that you wrote here.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, provoman said:

 

Great question Kevin.  If the 12 steps are for promoting staright lifestyle then I would say it appears California would deem it questionable but nit fraudulent if monies are not involved.

You aren't getting it.  Read the bill.  You can promote a straight lifestyle. That is not what this bill is about.  The bill does one thing.  It specifically prevents someone from making money by promising a gay person they can become straight.  It says nothing about helping a gay person live a straight lifestyle.  They just can't make claims that they will no longer be gay.

 

7 hours ago, provoman said:

 

It also seems that California's approach is that no one who identfies as lgbtq would ever identify as not lgbtq. So it appears that for the person you mentioned and several people I know who were homosexual relationships that Ca would PROHIBIT thise people from seeking counseling concerning their previous homosexual lifestyle and adjustment to a heterosexual lifestyle.

This is also not true.  A person can seek counseling concerning their previous homosexual lifestyle and adjust to a heterosexual lifestyle. What the counseling can not do is promise the gay person that they will no longer be gay.  That is what reparative therapy is.  That is the fraudulent promise that cannot be made.

7 hours ago, provoman said:

 

As for Temple recommends and the proposed bill. Enemies of the Church promote a "I did not PAY [actual monies or likekind], therefore I am barred from the Temple."  So I have no doubts an eneny of the Church woukd try to press fraud against the Church.

Read the bill.  The bill says nothing about a lesbian choosing to marry a man.  Did the church make a promise that she would no longer be gay? 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, kllindley said:

Yes. And about 90% of my concern is the second part. Some advocates of the bill are insisting that they are not trying to impact the practice of helping people live in harmony with their values. One guy said: Does not refer to counseling for how a LGBTQ individual can modify their behavior to live life as a Christian if they so choose."

I have no problem with that. Claiming that a therapy or other experience can change orientation is fair to label as fraud, in my opinion. 

And this is exactly how the bill is written.  It addresses just one thing.  Targeting fraudulent claims that a persons orientation can be changed.  ALL other counseling, teaching, exhorting, books, etc are still allowed because there is noting in this bill that prohibits any of those things.  You just better not say if you do this or that, you will change your orientation.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

While I tend to agree that conversion therapy, as we now understand it, is indeed "fraudulent, deceptive and unethical", but I wonder what would happen if there were a discovery made that could actually reverse same-sex attraction?  Would this law prohibit its being offered as a treatment to someone who wanted it?

 

This bill is a consumer protection bill.  If it could be proven that sexual orientation could be changed, then of course it could be challenged in the courts.  Because the basis of this bill is that no scientific studies have ever shown that sexual orientation can be changed.  Read the bill.  They address this issue.

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

And this is exactly how the bill is written.  It addresses just one thing.  Targeting fraudulent claims that a persons orientation can be changed.  ALL other counseling, teaching, exhorting, books, etc are still allowed because there is noting in this bill that prohibits any of those things.  You just better not say if you do this or that, you will change your orientation.  

I'm going to have to ask for a CFR on this claim. Because I have read the bill several times and don't see any definition of "sexual orientation." What is the limiting principle defined by the law?

[kllindley]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

You aren't getting it.  Read the bill.  You can promote a straight lifestyle. That is not what this bill is about.  The bill does one thing.  It specifically prevents someone from making money by promising a gay person they can become straight.  It says nothing about helping a gay person live a straight lifestyle.  They just can't make claims that they will no longer be gay.

 

This is also not true.  A person can seek counseling concerning their previous homosexual lifestyle and adjust to a heterosexual lifestyle. What the counseling can not do is promise the gay person that they will no longer be gay.  That is what reparative therapy is.  That is the fraudulent promise that cannot be made.

Read the bill.  The bill says nothing about a lesbian choosing to marry a man.  Did the church make a promise that she would no longer be gay? 

I think another CFR is needed. Where in the bill does it say that people can still seek counseling regarding lifestyle and behavioral choices?  Does the bill limit sexual orientation to attractions only? Does it talk about measuring sexual orientation  change? What about moving say from a 5 to a 4 on the Kinsey scale? The Kinsey Scale is a generally accepted measure of sexual orientation. Wouldn't moving from a 5 to a 4 be a change in sexual orientation? Does the bill state that the only fraudulent activity is claiming a change from gay to straight? Can a practitioner just change the language to claim change from gay to bisexual? If the bill is so clearly written you won't have any trouble pointing to the parts that answer those questions. 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Well, I can recognize that he’s attractive but for me personally, he’s not my type. I don’t usually find blonde hair and blue eyes that appealing. I’m not that drawn to that body type either. 😆

Well, there goes any chance I could have had with you.