11th Circuit rules that bans on anti-LGBTQ "conversion therapy" violate the First Amendment

[Kingpoleon]

Sexual orientation is a Freudian psychological concept that was made up in the 1890s.  That the current liberal gospel requires a relatively new theoretical invention be regarded as an immutable human characteristic is as uninformed and uncritical as it is radical.  If you reject or critique this orthodoxy, then you are invariably labeled a bigot or homophobe.

If, like you say, your sexual orientation can naturally evolve or change over the course of your lifetime (presumably from changes in brain physiology) then there is no reason these same changes can't be induced as a result of drugs or other interventions (i.e., conversion therapy.)  In fact, it is the insistence on sexual orientation as the modality of human sexual expression that even makes conversion therapy theoretically possible. 

The idea that Freud invented sexual orientation is pretty far off.

While sexual orientation does not exactly exist - nor does race, for that matter - people perceive it as existing and act as if it exists. Such actions result in it actually seeming to exist. To reject or critique this does not make you a bigot, but someone who refuses to admit facts. We ought then to understand that sexual orientation does exist, or at least a person can be almost solely sexually attracted to one gender. This seems to develop during puberty, and there is very little evidence supporting it changing after puberty or being changed by any outside factors during puberty.

To allow experiments to be run on children, so we can satisfy scientific curiosity as to whether or not something as personal and intimate as an individual’s sexual orientation can be noticeably altered? That fails virtually every ethical test in the book.

[Kingpoleon]

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.

[Kingpoleon]

I don't support conversion therapy but the court did rule correctly. These liberal activist judges continue to ignore the constitution and rule based on political correctness. The reasons for banning conversion therapy can easily be used to ban gender transitioning which is just as harmful and has shown negative effects as well. In an ideal world both would be banned but since we have the first amendment from a constitutional perspective neither should be.

A court can and has ruled in the past that a harmful enough medical treatment can be banned. Gender transitioning is not “just as harmful” according to the AMA or any serious, professional organization.