Thursday, April 19, 2018

So who's up for a book burning in California?

Calvin Freiburger has informed me that writing for LifeSiteNews is his day job. That explains everything. He hasn't enhanced his intellectual standing by writing: California set to vote on banning books about treating unwanted homosexual attraction. Freiburger is not the first and he likely won't be the last Defender of the Faith™ to make this preposterous claim. It originated with David French. Mr. Freiburger should think for himself. He might also do some research.

French, who has at times been associated with the hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, has written that bans on conversion therapy are an attack on freedom of speech and (of course) religious freedom. The case law does not agree. In Welch v. Brown the Supreme Court refused to consider a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that bans on conversion therapy do not interfere with religious freedom.

Welch and another case, Pickup v. Brown, shared the same fate. Furthermore, they began as free speech cases and were re-tooled to religious liberty. The matter is settled. Mr. French's book banning comment is no more valid than his free speech plea.

Even if the language of the bill could be improved, there is no intent on the part of the state to ban books (which would be constitutionally impermissible). Mr. Freiburger's click bait is provided to a profoundly incurious constituency unlikely to determine the merits of the claim.

Making matters worse, Freiburger quotes what he believes is the relevant portion of California AB-2943:
The California State Assembly is slated to vote on legislation that has been interpreted as broad enough to ban the sale of books that address helping people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions.

AB 2943 adds “[a]dvertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual” to the state’s list of illegal “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer.”
According to the bill:
(i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.
“Practices” means the actual application or use of an idea or theory. A book is not a practice. He prattles on:
The bill makes no exceptions for adults who actively seek such efforts, or minors whose parents have given their consent. (California minors are not currently required to obtain parental consent for abortions.)
Yes, we know that Mr. Freiburger does not approve of abortions, or contraceptives for that matter. Nevertheless this bill has nothing to do with abortions (or contraceptives). Moreover, the problem exists, not because of parental consent, but because parents force children into a “practice” that has no scientific underpinning. We do not permit medical professionals to be purveyors of crackpot cures for anything.

Freiburger seems to accept, as a given, that conversion therapy works. Yet he is unable to provide a link to peer-reviewed research published to a respected scholarly journal to substantiate that belief.

He does, however, quote Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons or AAPS. AAPS also claims that it is immoral for doctors to participate in Medicaid and Medicare. According to an AAPS article, Barack Obama may have won the presidency by hypnotizing voters, especially cohorts known to be susceptible to “neurolinguistic programming” including young people, educated people, and possibly Jews. Whack job Michelle Cretella (American College of Pediatricians) has “published” her sole bit of “research” to AAPS' “journal.”

They all seem to operate from the same set of absurd talking points:
“Conversion therapy,” also known as reparative therapy, is controversial largely because it challenges the homosexual lobby’s claim that sexual attraction is biologically rooted and unchangeable.
No. It is controversial because it has not proved to be either safe or effective.
Even some homosexual academics have begun dissenting from the “born this way” trope in recent years. In 2016, the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Dr. Lisa Diamond advised LGBT activists to “stop saying ‘born that way and can’t change’ for political purposes, because the other side knows it’s not true as much as we do.”
Freiburger cites an article in American Orthodox Institute. Very compelling. I wrote about that article nearly two years ago. Suffice it to say, they are staggeringly confused over the innateness of sexual orientation, the orientation continuum and the fluidity experienced by some people.

Now American Orthodox Institute's Fr. Johannes Jacobse  has confused Freiburger so that he can confuse others. Ignorance and stupidity breeds more ignorance and stupidity. It spreads because of an enormous lack of intellectual curiosity.

At the moment it is 55 degrees in San Francisco. A book burning is not likely to warm anyone up in the near future.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.