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

[afleitch]

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

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  

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.

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.  

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.  

*which, funnily enough, if sexual orientation is imputed onto people based on their genetic make-up or brain chemistry...but "gender" is socially defined and constructed...then it means that...a supposedly natural predisposition kneels to our recently invented conceptions of.....#REF!

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.

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.  

That's super.

The moral/spiritual consequence of being married to my husband is amazing. The love is strong, the mutual support is beneficial to my health, the cuddles rock and the sex is legendary. Disprove it.

[afleitch]

That's super.

The moral/spiritual consequence of being married to my husband is amazing. The love is strong, the mutual support is beneficial to my health, the cuddles rock and the sex is legendary. Disprove it.

Uhm...what?  I'm not trying to disprove it, lol.  I think in your eagerness to get an "own" in on a Deep South, blue avi you've either willfully or ignorantly misread my post

My point is that we shouldn't have to pathologize our same-sex attraction and relationships into an immutable, biologically-dictated "sexual orientation" to validate them.  You have all those things with your husband because you chose them not because you were only "born this way," and you should be proud of that.  The point that you latched onto in my post is only that, like any other choice, there are moral/spiritual consequences (positive or negative) to who we have sex with/date/marry.  And not "consequences" of the Heaven/Hell type mind you, but "this world" consequences involving our mental or spiritual health, community, or kids and family.  We should relish in this moral agency, and stop trying to cheapen our own sexual experience as a deviation from some social/historical norm.   

I did understand you.

If heteronormativity didn't result in the a priori assumption that heterosexuality and it's healthy or unhealthy expression was unchosen and default so that any deviation from that was choice and therefore could also be not chosen I'd agree with you. But that's not the case. So here we are. I had as much choice, in that in all measurable purposes, I had none in having a husband as opposed to a wife as my sister did having a husband as opposed to a wife.