Freud did not himself first theorize sexual orientation as a concept, to be sure, but his deterministic theories of psychosexual development put him in a certain kinship with psychologists (like Krafft-Ebing) who studied genetic, physiological and environmental factors and their interactions to arrive at a scientific "sexual orientation." This type of research continues today, often with immense public interest. Sexual orientation theory reflects a hyper-modern drive to pathologize human sexual behavior/variation, which is the exact same type of drive that gave us fascist conceptions of single-race utopias too, after all.
Something "seeming to exist" makes it a fact? lolwut? It "seemed" that sexual orientation didn't exist before anyone started talking about it in the 19th century, and (like all other theories) sexual orientation will once again be updated/fall by the wayside when something comes along to challenge it. I suppose something seeming to exist makes it real in a sense, but only because people start thinking/acting like it does.
“Sexual orientation theory”, as you call it, is not a criticism of sexual orientation. It is a criticism of the idea of
sexual identity, not the ideas of sexual attraction or sexual activity. A criticism of identity is a debate over terms. I doubt you would criticize someone for saying they are black - although race doesn’t quite exist - because they identify as black.
I never said I "rejected" sexual orientation in the way you imply. It simply is what it is, a way of describing an (observable? unobservable?) long-term and persistant attraction to certain genders*. If describing such is what you want to do, then the language of sexual orientation is fine to use. But there's no a priori reason to think that describing such is the only or best way to conceptualize human sexuality (i.e., why even talk about individuals being "sexually oriented" to specific genders? couldn't we just as easily be "sexually oriented" to certain hair colors?) I happen to be of the antiquated opinion that who you choose to have sex with, date, marry and/or reproduce with is a personal decision wrought with moral/spiritual consequence, regardless of what scientific theories of sexual orientation may say about our agency over our sexual desires.
Your use of “the antiquated opinion” is an appeal to rhetorical persecution, begging you are just of that minority we call old-fashioned. Do not use the term again, for it makes any argument counter yours seem to be attacking the poor, persecuted, old idea.
I do not know anyone who uses “scientific theories of sexual orientation” who demands that you surrender your agency over your own life choices. Gender is a relatively fixed idea, rooted deeply in scientific facts regarding sex and sexual orientation. You plead and beg that we allow people to choose their partner, rather than giving out sexual orientations to people. You do this in spite of the fact that no one I know of “assigns” sexual orientation and then forcibly limits partners
That you describe sexual orientation as too "personal" and "intimate" to attempt to change is exactly what reveals the superb reasoning in this opinion. The real issue for liberals isn't that sexual orientation can't be changed (in theory) but the political, social or moral belief that it shouldn't be changed. Viewed in this light, it's obvious to see that restrictions on conversion talk therapy (even for minors) while other types of sexual counselling are allowed is a content-based regulation of speech in violation of the First Amendment.
You JUST pleaded that a person’s choice of partner is too personal and intimate to be decided by the Fairy Godmother you claim assigns people a label with a sexual orientation and then demands they choose their partner based on that.
I plead moral belief, and that at least some of my morality should be reflected by law. Perhaps a doctor can cut off a child’s hand if the parents ask nicely - a hand’s integrity
can be changed. It is my assertion that the law should NOT give parents an inalienable right to alter their child as they choose. I have always refused to void morality entirely out of the law, and the idea you just delivered some stunning blow by asserting that a “liberal” moral belief that something shouldn’t be changed ought to be illegal is easily disproven.
Just anarchists assert that government only ought to prevent people from doing impossible things. It is instead my assertion that conversion therapy is so potentially harmful, it ought to be outlawed.