PDA

View Full Version : California Bill Says Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation



NJCardFan
04-04-2013, 04:31 PM
The continuing effort of the left to bastardize normal society marches on: http://www.care2.com/news/member/907581929/3558061


California Congresswoman, Rep. Jackie Speier CA (D), wants to federalize a state law to prohibit counseling to change a person’s sexual orientation. That doesn’t sound that extreme, but pedophilia is a sexual orientation according to this bill as well.

Under the bill’s language, a mental health counselor could be sanctioned if there was an attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change his behavior or speak negatively about their behavior as it relates to sexuality.

The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.”

The text of the legislation doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy. Instead, it prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation.

“Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation,” the bill says.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.

Unreconstructed Reb
04-04-2013, 05:01 PM
Well, I guess when you've reached a point in 'civilization' where you think that it's perferctly normal for one man to wiggle his bean up another man's tailpipe then pretty much anything is normal for that segment of society that subscribes to that definition of 'normality', be it pedophelia, beastiality, necrophilia, etceteria, etceteria........

LukeEDay
04-04-2013, 06:36 PM
How long till they make necrophilia and beastiality legal?

NJCardFan
04-04-2013, 07:14 PM
How long till they make necrophilia and beastiality legal?

C'mon, you've never taken a pig home from the bar and she turned out to be a dead lay?

Novaheart
04-04-2013, 07:23 PM
The continuing effort of the left to bastardize normal society marches on: http://www.care2.com/news/member/907581929/3558061

I can't find anything to support the (absurd) thread heading claim.

skip to content home accessibility feedback login

Quick Search:

Bill InformationCalifornia LawMy Subscriptions
Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text
Version:
SB-1172 Sexual orientation change efforts.(2011-2012)
Text Votes History Bill Analysis Today's Law As Amended Status Comments To Author
SHARE THIS:
BILL START

Senate Bill No. 1172
CHAPTER 835

An act to add Article 15 (commencing with Section 865) to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to healing arts.

[ Approved by Governor September 30, 2012. Filed Secretary of State September 30, 2012. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1172, Lieu. Sexual orientation change efforts.
Existing law provides for licensing and regulation of various professions in the healing arts, including physicians and surgeons, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, educational psychologists, clinical social workers, and licensed professional clinical counselors.
This bill would prohibit a mental health provider, as defined, from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts, as defined, with a patient under 18 years of age. The bill would provide that any sexual orientation change efforts attempted on a patient under 18 years of age by a mental health provider shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall subject the provider to discipline by the provider’s licensing entity.
The bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard.
DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming. The major professional associations of mental health practitioners and researchers in the United States have recognized this fact for nearly 40 years.
(b) The American Psychological Association convened a Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. The task force conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts, and issued a report in 2009. The task force concluded that sexual orientation change efforts can pose critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, including confusion, depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social withdrawal, suicidality, substance abuse, stress, disappointment, self-blame, decreased self-esteem and authenticity to others, increased self-hatred, hostility and blame toward parents, feelings of anger and betrayal, loss of friends and potential romantic partners, problems in sexual and emotional intimacy, sexual dysfunction, high-risk sexual behaviors, a feeling of being dehumanized and untrue to self, a loss of faith, and a sense of having wasted time and resources.
(c) The American Psychological Association issued a resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts in 2009, which states: “[T]he [American Psychological Association] advises parents, guardians, young people, and their families to avoid sexual orientation change efforts that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and to seek psychotherapy, social support, and educational services that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support, and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth.”
(d) The American Psychiatric Association published a position statement in March of 2000 in which it stated:
“Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or ‘repair’ homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of ‘cures’ are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, ‘reparative’ therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.
The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.
Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.”
(e) The American School Counselor Association’s position statement on professional school counselors and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth states: “It is not the role of the professional school counselor to attempt to change a student’s sexual orientation/gender identity but instead to provide support to LGBTQ students to promote student achievement and personal well-being. Recognizing that sexual orientation is not an illness and does not require treatment, professional school counselors may provide individual student planning or responsive services to LGBTQ students to promote self-acceptance, deal with social acceptance, understand issues related to coming out, including issues that families may face when a student goes through this process and identify appropriate community resources.”
(f) The American Academy of Pediatrics in 1993 published an article in its journal, Pediatrics, stating: “Therapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”
(g) The American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs prepared a report in 1994 in which it stated: “Aversion therapy (a behavioral or medical intervention which pairs unwanted behavior, in this case, homosexual behavior, with unpleasant sensations or aversive consequences) is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians. Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become comfortable with their sexual orientation and understand the societal response to it.”
(h) The National Association of Social Workers prepared a 1997 policy statement in which it stated: “Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrates that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and, in fact, they may be harmful.”
(i) The American Counseling Association Governing Council issued a position statement in April of 1999, and in it the council states: “We oppose ‘the promotion of “reparative therapy” as a “cure” for individuals who are homosexual.’”
(j) The American Psychoanalytic Association issued a position statement in June 2012 on attempts to change sexual orientation, gender, identity, or gender expression, and in it the association states: “As with any societal prejudice, bias against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism through the internalization of such prejudice.
Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’ ‘repair,’ change or shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized attitudes.”
(k) The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in 2012 published an article in its journal, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, stating: “Clinicians should be aware that there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be altered through therapy, and that attempts to do so may be harmful. There is no empirical evidence adult homosexuality can be prevented if gender nonconforming children are influenced to be more gender conforming. Indeed, there is no medically valid basis for attempting to prevent homosexuality, which is not an illness. On the contrary, such efforts may encourage family rejection and undermine self-esteem, connectedness and caring, important protective factors against suicidal ideation and attempts. Given that there is no evidence that efforts to alter sexual orientation are effective, beneficial or necessary, and the possibility that they carry the risk of significant harm, such interventions are contraindicated.”
(l) The Pan American Health Organization, a regional office of the World Health Organization, issued a statement in May of 2012 and in it the organization states: “These supposed conversion therapies constitute a violation of the ethical principles of health care and violate human rights that are protected by international and regional agreements.” The organization also noted that reparative therapies “lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.”
(m) Minors who experience family rejection based on their sexual orientation face especially serious health risks. In one study, lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide, 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression, 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs, and 3.4 times more likely to report having engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse compared with peers from families that reported no or low levels of family rejection. This is documented by Caitlin Ryan et al. in their article entitled Family Rejection as a Predictor of Negative Health Outcomes in White and Latino Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young Adults (2009) 123 Pediatrics 346.
(n) California has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, and in protecting its minors against exposure to serious harms caused by sexual orientation change efforts.
(o) Nothing in this act is intended to prevent a minor who is 12 years of age or older from consenting to any mental health treatment or counseling services, consistent with Section 124260 of the Health and Safety Code, other than sexual orientation change efforts as defined in this act.
SEC. 2. Article 15 (commencing with Section 865) is added to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, to read:
Article 15. Sexual Orientation Change Efforts
865. For the purposes of this article, the following terms   shall have the following meanings:
(a) “Mental health provider” means a physician and surgeon specializing in the practice of psychiatry, a psychologist, a psychological assistant, intern, or trainee, a licensed marriage and family therapist, a registered marriage and family therapist, intern, or trainee, a licensed educational psychologist, a credentialed school psychologist, a licensed clinical social worker, an associate clinical social worker, a licensed professional clinical counselor, a registered clinical counselor, intern, or trainee, or any other person designated as a mental health professional under California law or regulation.
(b) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices by mental health providers 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.
(2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation.
865.1. Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age.
865.2. Any sexual orientation change efforts attempted on a patient under 18 years of age by a mental health provider shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall subject a mental health provider to discipline by the licensing entity for that mental health provider.

Apache
04-05-2013, 12:32 AM
I can't find anything to support the (absurd) thread heading claim.

.


Perhaps reading the article would've cleared that up...
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.

Wow! Right there....

Bailey
04-05-2013, 01:05 AM
Perhaps reading the article would've cleared that up...

Wow! Right there....



BURN!!! Nova

Rockntractor
04-05-2013, 01:14 AM
I can't find anything to support the (absurd) thread heading claim.



http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/forums/thidH_zps548b4b1e.jpg

Novaheart
04-05-2013, 01:31 AM
Perhaps reading the article would've cleared that up...

Wow! Right there....

What exactly is "right there (wow!)" ? Something someone posted on a blog. You'll note that the headline on the blog has a question mark after it in parenthesis. This is the Glenn Beck style, ie "I didn't say that the bill did that. I ASKED if it did. IS there something wrong with me asking or am I too stupid to know better?"

Your lack of a critical eye says a great deal about your integrity. DOn't you think that if Alcee Hastings had said that it would have been all over credible conservative radio? But no, all reference to this trace back to this blog.

And again, the thread headline says : California Bill Says Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation. No , it doesn't. Wow (Ben Stein's voice)!

Novaheart
04-05-2013, 01:32 AM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/forums/thidH_zps548b4b1e.jpg

Show me.

Novaheart
04-05-2013, 01:33 AM
BURN!!! Nova

Your house and Gambia have something in common.

LukeEDay
04-05-2013, 08:45 AM
Nova must think that pedophilia is a sexual orientation? Then most gay people do. Do you also think beastiality and necrophilia are an orientation also, Nova?

That leads me to a question: I wonder how many morticians are necrophiliacs?

Molon Labe
04-05-2013, 09:03 AM
I'm not much on social conservatism within politics anymore, but this is one area where they are right to be going nuts. Leave it to stupid California idiots to start pushing sexual predatory tendancies toward children as just "another lifestyle orientation".

Novaheart
04-05-2013, 10:05 AM
I'm not much on social conservatism within politics anymore, but this is one area where they are right to be going nuts. Leave it to stupid California idiots to start pushing sexual predatory tendancies toward children as just "another lifestyle orientation".

I'm still waiting to see where they did that.

BTW, yesterday a phrase search on this article yielded a half dozen results. Now it's 2800. All of them reference the "article (blog post)" at rethink.



What this blog post is doing is grossly dishonest.

Novaheart
04-05-2013, 10:15 AM
rehash

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/democrats-accused-of-usin_n_198167.html


Democrats Accused Of Using Hate Crime Bill To Protect Pedophiles (VIDEO)
First Posted: 06/06/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:20 PM ET

Odysseus
04-05-2013, 11:43 AM
What exactly is "right there (wow!)" ? Something someone posted on a blog. You'll note that the headline on the blog has a question mark after it in parenthesis. This is the Glenn Beck style, ie "I didn't say that the bill did that. I ASKED if it did. IS there something wrong with me asking or am I too stupid to know better?"

Your lack of a critical eye says a great deal about your integrity. DOn't you think that if Alcee Hastings had said that it would have been all over credible conservative radio? But no, all reference to this trace back to this blog.

And again, the thread headline says : California Bill Says Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation. No , it doesn't. Wow (Ben Stein's voice)!

I can't speak for the bill in question (much less why a Florida Congressman would weigh in on a California bill), but in a speech on federal hate crimes legislation, Hastings ran through a litany of protected sexual orientations, which included pedophilia and zoophilia (bestiality), and while he did this for comedic effect, he then turned around and announced that the bill would protect all of these orientations and opposed hatred of of those orientations. Here's the video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Niu3_5bbZrE

DumbAss Tanker
04-05-2013, 01:16 PM
That leads me to a question: I wonder how many morticians are necrophiliacs?

You probably don't really want to know.

Really, either only heterosexual sex with sexually-mature partners is normal and everything else is pathological (Some harming other people and some not), or everything including heterosexuality is just an "Orientation," there really can't be any middle ground logically. I go with the first group, and IMHO the second approach leads inevitably to first social disintegration and then directly or indirectly to population collapse.

Molon Labe
04-05-2013, 03:47 PM
I'm still waiting to see where they did that.

BTW, yesterday a phrase search on this article yielded a half dozen results. Now it's 2800. All of them reference the "article (blog post)" at rethink.



What this blog post is doing is grossly dishonest.

It's possible the blog is a dud, yes.

But it's not like there are no tendancy for groups seeking political influence to make headways on the subject of relaxing sexual consent laws on minors. Dialectics is Dialectics is Dialectics. In social progress, this is the way of things in our culture.

Novaheart
04-05-2013, 03:52 PM
It's possible the blog is a dud, yes.

But it's not like there are no tendancy for groups seeking political influence to make headways on the subject of relaxing sexual consent laws on minors. Dialectics is Dialectics is Dialectics. In social progress, this is the way of things in our culture.

I expect that we'll see a lot more of this desperate noise bombing as there appears to be a great shift in the Republican Party towards equal rights for gay people. Those who have enjoyed portraying gay people and gay rights as a giant boogeyman and enemy of God and capitalism are going to get even trashier and less rational in what they think will make their case. I give you poor NJCardfan. Don't you just have to wonder how it was that he happened upon an obscure blog that just happened to have such a thing on it?

Apache
04-05-2013, 08:12 PM
What exactly is "right there (wow!)" ? Something someone posted on a blog. You'll note that the headline on the blog has a question mark after it in parenthesis. This is the Glenn Beck style, ie "I didn't say that the bill did that. I ASKED if it did. IS there something wrong with me asking or am I too stupid to know better?"

Your lack of a critical eye says a great deal about your integrity. DOn't you think that if Alcee Hastings had said that it would have been all over credible conservative radio? But no, all reference to this trace back to this blog.

And again, the thread headline says : California Bill Says Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation. No , it doesn't. Wow (Ben Stein's voice)!

Ok...one more time, for those with a queer eye for nothing....
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment.


Did you catch it that time princess?????

Rockntractor
04-05-2013, 08:17 PM
I expect that we'll see a lot more of this desperate noise bombing as there appears to be a great shift in the Republican Party towards equal rights for gay people. Those who have enjoyed portraying gay people and gay rights as a giant boogeyman and enemy of God and capitalism are going to get even trashier and less rational in what they think will make their case. I give you poor NJCardfan. Don't you just have to wonder how it was that he happened upon an obscure blog that just happened to have such a thing on it?

They gay hurdle is being crossed, now the question has shifted to should they be allowed to use children as playthings, no surprise to any of this.

Novaheart
04-05-2013, 10:21 PM
Did you catch it that time princess?????

ONe more time - You're requoting the blog that is being questioned.

Novaheart
04-05-2013, 10:22 PM
They gay hurdle is being crossed, now the question has shifted to should they be allowed to use children as playthings, no surprise to any of this.

YOu're trying to make an equation where there is no dependent function.

Odysseus
04-06-2013, 02:07 PM
I expect that we'll see a lot more of this desperate noise bombing as there appears to be a great shift in the Republican Party towards equal rights for gay people. Those who have enjoyed portraying gay people and gay rights as a giant boogeyman and enemy of God and capitalism are going to get even trashier and less rational in what they think will make their case. I give you poor NJCardfan. Don't you just have to wonder how it was that he happened upon an obscure blog that just happened to have such a thing on it?

The blog aside, Hastings made comments about pedophilia, zoophilia and other assorted perversions (we can still call them that, right?) that were protected by the federal hate crimes act and proceeded to laud the act for its elimination of hatred for those individuals. It's in the video that I posted. You talk a lot about other peoples' integrity, but you've ignored the video.


ONe more time - You're requoting the blog that is being questioned.

I'm not. I posted a video in which Hastings listed the protected sexual orientations in the federal hate crimes bill, and it included pedophilia. Watch the video and then comment.

Novaheart
04-06-2013, 02:32 PM
I'm not. I posted a video in which Hastings listed the protected sexual orientations in the federal hate crimes bill, and it included pedophilia. Watch the video and then comment.

Hastings states his purpose for speaking in the first paragraph of the video. The Republicans who would have been rightfully opposing the hate-crimes bill, chose the ignoble path of trying to derail it by inserting language which was both superfluous and insulting.

It is already illegal to attack someone because he is a pedophile. It's even illegal to physically attack him if you know that he's acted upon it, if he isn't doing it at the time that you attack him and ostensibly in defense of another.

The text of the federal hate crimes bill does not protect pedophilia and it never did. I will allow that you sincerely give Republicans more credit for integrity than to think that they did this routine in the Rule Committee out of hate and stupidity. I will allow that certain other folks around here aren't intellectually up to figuring all of this out on their own, but you are. I just don't think you gave it all the time and consideration it deserved, and I think that's what "Lisa A" and Rethinkwhatever were counting on.

(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerouse weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--

Pretending that the language here is vague because it doesn't specifically exclude pedophiles, is rather like saying that the First AMendment is too vague because it doesn't specifically state that the Army Of God, stoning, and Jihad are not protected religious expression.

Apache
04-06-2013, 05:27 PM
Hastings states his purpose for speaking in the first paragraph of the video. The Republicans who would have been rightfully opposing the hate-crimes bill, chose the ignoble path of trying to derail it by inserting language which was both superfluous and insulting.

It is already illegal to attack someone because he is a pedophile. It's even illegal to physically attack him if you know that he's acted upon it, if he isn't doing it at the time that you attack him and ostensibly in defense of another.

The text of the federal hate crimes bill does not protect pedophilia and it never did. I will allow that you sincerely give Republicans more credit for integrity than to think that they did this routine in the Rule Committee out of hate and stupidity. I will allow that certain other folks around here aren't intellectually up to figuring all of this out on their own, but you are. I just don't think you gave it all the time and consideration it deserved, and I think that's what "Lisa A" and Rethinkwhatever were counting on.

(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerouse weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--

Pretending that the language here is vague because it doesn't specifically exclude pedophiles, is rather like saying that the First AMendment is too vague because it doesn't specifically state that the Army Of God, stoning, and Jihad are not protected religious expression.

Head up your ass and locked tight! Nice to know you're consistent princess...

Elspeth
04-20-2013, 04:15 PM
The problem with this bill, Nova, is that the language in the beginning allows for court challenges by pedophiles, especially if future versions of the DSM redefine pedophilia as an orientation and not a disease, which is what happened with homosexuality in the DSM IV.

This future redefinition of pedophilia is not merely a paranoid or theoretical "what if" but a projection of current attempts to shift the understanding of pedophilia.

Harvard Medical School already refers to pedophilia as an orientation (not a disease) and affirms its resistance to therapy:


Pessimism about pedophilia (http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia)

JUL 2010

...Key points

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.

No intervention is likely to work on its own; outcomes may be better when the patient is motivated and treatment combines psychotherapy and medication...



For now, mental health leaders declare both that pedophilia is an orientation resistant to change and, yet, that it is a mental disorder needing treatment , but this uneasy compromise may change sooner than we think. Recent conferences on pedophilia have involved discussions about decriminalization of pedophilia and of viewing it as an orientation as opposed to a mental illness. For example, Baltimore Conference, August, 2011 (http://b4uact.org/science/symp/2011/index.htm).

And a recent article in the UK Guardian actually introduces the growing support for pedophilia's redefinition as an "orientation" :



Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light)

...But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change"...

Now what does this have to do with the California bill?

While much of the bill addresses gays and bisexuals specifically, the actual legal language of what the bill will do once it becomes law does not limit the reach of the bill to gays and bisexuals:


(From your own post)

This bill would prohibit a mental health provider, as defined, from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts, as defined, with a patient under 18 years of age. The bill would provide that any sexual orientation change efforts attempted on a patient under 18 years of age by a mental health provider shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall subject the provider to discipline by the provider’s licensing entity.

The language here is "sexual orientation change efforts" not "gay, lesbian or bisexual sexual orientation change efforts." The legal language is more general than that, leaving open the possibility that the law can apply to anything else defined as a "sexual orientation."

Now, much of the latter portion of the bill discusses specifically (and only) GLBT orientations and issues. Most of these are affirmations of belief, not changes in the law per se. (Look at your own post to see this.) But the presence of legal affirmations about the history and rights of the GLBT community does NOT preclude a court challenge by pedophiles once pedophilia is also defined as a sexual orientation, since the actual language of the law is not "ant-gay therapy" but "sexual orientation change efforts."

If it sounds like I'm nitpicking, then you don't understand the law. Most challenges to the law are to its language, not necessarily its spirit. Much of legal language is a question of definition and the law is all about the language used.

This is why the California Republicans brought pedophilia up as an issue. It wasn't to stop the bill, although some religious groups certainly want the bill stopped. The rank and file of the GOP, especially in California, knows that the gay issue is done and the GLBT community has won. Dragging pedophilia into the mix only makes the GOP look like bigots in California. If they ever hope to win back their seats in either house of the state legislature, they need to make nice with the gay community.

The goal in bringing up pedophilia was not to smear the GLBT community and have it backfire on the CA GOP itself. The only reason to bring it up was because the language of the bill itself will allow a court challenge by pedophiles once their condition has been redefined as an "orientation."

It's all about the letter of the law, not its spirit. Most Californians support the bill in spirit, but if they realized that the letter had a loophole big enough for pedophile activist groups (like B4U-Act (http://b4uact.org/science/symp/2011/index.htm)) to drive a truck through, they might not be so supportive.

The California legislators must know this. They're not that stupid. If they had not intended to leave the door open for pedophiles at some later date, they would have shifted the language to exclude any orientation other than homosexual or bisexual orientation. The fact that they did not, coupled with Ody's video, make it very clear where this law is eventually intended to go.

Novaheart
04-20-2013, 08:51 PM
The problem with this bill, Nova, is that the language in the beginning allows for court challenges by pedophiles, especially if future versions of the DSM redefine pedophilia as an orientation and not a disease, which is what happened with homosexuality in the DSM IV.

Referring to pedophilia as an orientation does not logically lead to the idea that it should be legal or legitimate. It's simply a classification. The fact that heterosexuality and homosexuality are also orientations in no way equates them to pedophilia as the dynamics and legalities are decidedly unequal.

You predictions about the future DSM are exactly that, predictions. Moreover they are predictions which play to your preconceived notions. In short, they have no basis in logic. Homosexuality wasn't declassified from mental illness because it's a sexual orientation, it was declassified because it's not a mental illness.

Likewise the status of pedophilia as unchangeable does not mean that it's OK or ought to be. There are many conditions or illnesses which don't respond adequately to therapy.

IN essence, all of these articles pull together language and opinion from academic resources which do not and were never intended to be used to support the conclusion that anti-gay religious zealots misuse them for.

Wibbins
04-20-2013, 10:43 PM
Referring to pedophilia as an orientation does not logically lead to the idea that it should be legal or legitimate. It's simply a classification. The fact that heterosexuality and homosexuality are also orientations in no way equates them to pedophilia as the dynamics and legalities are decidedly unequal.

You predictions about the future DSM are exactly that, predictions. Moreover they are predictions which play to your preconceived notions. In short, they have no basis in logic. Homosexuality wasn't declassified from mental illness because it's a sexual orientation, it was declassified because it's not a mental illness.

Likewise the status of pedophilia as unchangeable does not mean that it's OK or ought to be. There are many conditions or illnesses which don't respond adequately to therapy.

IN essence, all of these articles pull together language and opinion from academic resources which do not and were never intended to be used to support the conclusion that anti-gay religious zealots misuse them for.

Lol no, homosexuality was declassified because of queer lobbying wanting their sexual urges justified, I'm sure in 50 years we'll have pedophiles being able to practice openly after "comprehensive sex ed" takes off in 1st grade after all if a little girl has the mental capacity to buy plan b or get an abortion then why not have sex with adults?

Please, inform us how having sexual urges for the same sex is completely different than urges for children? Consent you say? Please inform me how orientation requires consent.

Elspeth
04-21-2013, 01:01 AM
Referring to pedophilia as an orientation does not logically lead to the idea that it should be legal or legitimate. It's simply a classification. The fact that heterosexuality and homosexuality are also orientations in no way equates them to pedophilia as the dynamics and legalities are decidedly unequal.

I want you to think about where gay rights was back before Stonewall. I remember a recording (which I can't find right now, dammit) in which the head of the NY Mattachine society was interviewed and he explained that gays did not want to marry and did not want to adopt children but just wanted to be left alone and not be treated as criminals. It's amazing where we are now, 40 years later. Last month, I linked to an early article (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?54953-THE-OVERHAULING-OF-STRAIGHT-AMERICA) on the PR campaign laid out for gay acceptance.


...The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion...

Right now, we can see the tiny beginnings of this in the pedophilia movement. If you look at the Guardian article I linked to above, you will see the very beginnings in a "well-balanced" article showing "both sides" (as if there is another side to child rape). The old practice of "child brides" is mentioned, as if going back to the bad old days of the Renaissance when a 40 year old man could marry and impregnate a 12-year old child was a good thing. It's just the beginning--think of it as the late 40s or 50s of the gay rights movement. Everyone still agrees that pedophilia is a bad thing, but we are being encouraged to "understand" it. The defense of Roman Polanski, which rears its ugly head from time to time, is really a defense of pedophilia, child rape (and illegal drugging), but "sophisticated" people in Hollywood, like Whoopi Goldberg, tell us that what Polanski did wasn't really that bad.

DESENSITIZATION. It has already started. And as the PR campaign article states:


At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full "appreciation" or "understanding" of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.

Now it may take another 40 years--we're still at the beginning of this process with pedophilia, but if the DSM V starts defining pedophilia as an "orientation", the PR campaign will take off in earnest.


You predictions about the future DSM are exactly that, predictions. Moreover they are predictions which play to your preconceived notions. In short, they have no basis in logic.

My predictions are logical ones based on what the Harvard Medical School is doing. They have already started calling pedophilia an orientation. There are now a handful of conferences that are beginning to struggle with how to define pedophilia, not just how to approach the offending pedophile. The logic is thus: when major universities and mental health institutions reach the tipping point on pedophilia and decide it is an inborn orientation, then pedophilia becomes no psychologically different from any other sexual orientation. Psychologically, all orientations, thought to be hard-wired in the brain, become "something you're born with", an essential part of the person. Once defined this way, the legal system will be in a quandry: if gays and lesbians deserve equal protection under the laws because of their inborn orientation, why shouldn't pedophiles be welcome to that same protection?

That, my dear Nova, is the logical thread. The legal logic is already in place. If the California law goes through as written, then a legal challenge claiming the psychological equivalence of homosexuality and pedophilia as orientations will be difficult to defeat, and the law then becomes a blueprint for normalizing pedophilia and preventing its early treatment. This is a logical potential outcome based on what has occurred in the courts with gay rights over the past 40 years.

Now here is my speculation--not legal logic, just mere speculation--based on current trends. The legal argument above, claiming equivalence between same sex attractions and pedophilic ones as psychological "orientations", will certainly be challenged by those who believe that child rape is a crime and by the religious. But there will be several counterarguments, which, by the time this thing comes to court, will be aided and abetted by radical changes in social attitudes in the coming decades.

The first change will be based on the continuing sexualization of children and young teens in the media. Think Disney (Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, etc.), Abercrombie and Fitch (and fashion in general), and Planned Parenthood (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?53127-Planned-parenthood-wants-to-sexualize-children-under-18&highlight=consent)among others. My guess is that by the time pedophile rights reaches the Supreme Court, the age of consent will have already been chipped away--maybe to 14. There are people already questioning the age of consent (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2007/09/the_mindbooty_problem.html) and this will continue. I recently ran across an article (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidlindsey/100011564/peter-tatchells-call-to-lower-the-age-of-consent-to-14-is-disgusting-sex-is-for-adults/') in which an age of consent of 14 has been suggested by a British gay activist. My belief is that by the time pedophile activist groups start claiming equal protection under the law, the US population will have been talked into lowering the age of consent. Now this idea of mine is pure speculation. But the legal argument is not--it's the totally logical outcome of the legal ground that has been already prepared.


Homosexuality wasn't declassified from mental illness because it's a sexual orientation, it was declassified because it's not a mental illness.

This is circular logic, which is why you don't understand logic when you see it.

For years, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and appeared in the DSM because it was so considered. If you had asked a psychiatrist in the 1950s if homosexuality was a mental illness he would have certainly replied that it was. What happened in 1973 was that the political climate had changed and the opinions of certain psychiatric authorities changed. Homosexuality did not change. The attitude toward it did. That same psychiatrist when asked the same question about homosexuality 20 years later, would have to have replied that it was not a mental illness since it was no longer listed in the DSM IV. It's that simple.

The same evolution in definition is happening with pedophilia. Pedophilia has been considered a mental illness by the psychiatric community and is still considered a crime by society. However, as the mental health authorities and researchers begin to change their thinking, this may soon lead to the redefinition of pedophilia as an orientation and not an illness. The ground is already being prepared in the media to help bring about changes in social attitudes. It won't be an easy sell, but once the DSM changes its definition, pedophilia will no longer be considered a mental illness. And, since we've lost the language of religion in the public sphere, we can no longer call it a great sin. Therefore, there's nothing to stop the same shift from happening with pedophilia as has occurred with homosexuality.

There is no way to definitively claim whether either homosexuality or pedophilia is a mental disorder. When compared to prototypical mental disorders like bi-polar disorder and psychosis, neither sexual orientation seems to prevent the person from living a self-sufficient life. Certainly there are no medications to change sexual orientation in the way that there are meds to help with bi-polar and psychotic disorders. No amount of therapy can change either orientation, whereas some therapeutic good from talk therapy can be gained for mild depressives or victims of sexual violence. In essence, neither homosexuality nor pedophilia are classic mental illnesses, and, one can argue, that if it weren't for society's criminalization of same sex or child sexual attraction, that these people would have normal, happy lives. Both groups can pay their bills, hold down a job, and be productive without the aid of medication or therapy. It's just society that makes their lives a living hell.

The only thing that makes pedophilia different from homosexuality is that pesky age of consent.


Likewise the status of pedophilia as unchangeable does not mean that it's OK or ought to be. There are many conditions or illnesses which don't respond adequately to therapy.

Give me a good example here of some mental illness that is as resistant to meds or talk therapy as hard-wired sexual orientation.


IN essence, all of these articles pull together language and opinion from academic resources which do not and were never intended to be used to support the conclusion that anti-gay religious zealots misuse them for.

The articles are harbingers of what is to come. There is serious talk in psychiatric circles of changing pedophilia from a mental illness to a sexual orientation. Much of this talk comes from the practicing psychiatrists who have been dealing for years with pedophiles and have found them as resistant to therapy, drugs, and more extreme treatments (like chemical castration) as gays are. Medically, I believe it makes sense to think of pedophilia as a hardwired orientation, considering the overwhelming recidivism rate. Back in the 60s, 70s, and even 80s, the psychiatric community thought they could find a cure for pedophilia. Even the Catholic Church defends its sorry self with the plea that they were told by the psychiatric community that pedophilia was an illness and was curable. (Certainly there is a lot of self interest in this plea, but they're not wrong about the thinking of the time period.) But now, after years and years of failure, the psychiatric community knows better and is coming to the conclusion that there is no cure. It's an orientation that does not go away.

Now as a medical term, I have no objection to the word "orientation" here. But, you see, I have a concept of sin, and just because something is built in does not mean it is intrinsically good and that it is ok to act on impulses arising from that orientation. For example, as a Catholic, I do not believe that it is wrong to drink alcohol (unlike my strict Baptist friends). However, if you come from a family hard-wired for alcoholism, it IS a sin to act on that impulse because of the certain destruction that will follow. Oddly enough, Nova, my concept of sin could distinguish between the largely non-destructive results of a long term same sex relationship of consenting adults and the horrible damage caused by pedophiles to the young on which they prey. You need a concept of sin, harm, and moral wrong for that.

But our society has lost the language of sin and moral wrong. It has only the language of medicine--illness, disorder, syndrome--and the language of the law--equal protection, discrimination, civil right. In this medical-legal matrix, pedophilia and homosexuality will occupy the same category once the DSM is changed: an orientation that is inborn, with no medical cure, which deserves equal treatment (or at least non-discrimination) under the law. To call one a crime and one not is largely an arbitrary designation, once the ability to distinguish moral and immoral, right and wrong is gone.

Novaheart
04-21-2013, 11:18 AM
I want you to think about where gay rights was back before Stonewall.

The gay rights movement started long before Stonewall. However, like all social movements, it did not have the organization or force of government and therefore neither has nor had an official position on anything or a leader who has the authority to speak for all gay people.


I remember a recording (which I can't find right now, dammit) in which the head of the NY Mattachine society was interviewed and he explained that gays did not want to marry and did not want to adopt children but just wanted to be left alone and not be treated as criminals.

Frank Kameny was a brave and intellectual man. He was not a saint nor was he necessarily the godfather of gay rights. The point is that he was but one of many activists of his generation (b 1925). The Mattachine Society was influential mostly by inspiring the creation of other groups. However, in regard to your point, there were several major differences in these groups, their philosophies, and objectives and membership. Some of them were driven by self-styled radicals left over from the Beatniks. They tended to be the ones who claimed "gay liberation" as an objective. Gay liberation and gay rights would come to mean quite different things. Gay liberation was typical out-there radical crap, especially since it was joined at the hip with Flower Power and Free Love and a lot of the 1960's crappola. Most gay people found these gay-liberation groups to be undesirable and dated. So you saw "equal rights" groups arise. The funny thing is that the idiocy of the "special rights" accusation would have applied to gay-liberation but it doesn't apply to anything contemporary.

Of course the gay-liberation crowd like to take credit for the gay rights movement but they did more to harm it after any help they originally generated. These would be the "so what" and "whatever" folks who say outlandish things which the religious right scoops up and regurgitates relentlessly.

So yes, Virginia, there was a man a long time ago who said "We don't want to be equal, we just want to be left alone." He's dead now and his followers live in a commune in the mountains of Tennessee. Seriously, they do.

Elspeth
04-21-2013, 03:47 PM
The gay rights movement started long before Stonewall. However, like all social movements, it did not have the organization or force of government and therefore neither has nor had an official position on anything or a leader who has the authority to speak for all gay people.

Actually, there are certain nexus groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, that, in fact, do speak for the movement. Back when I was at university, there was also Lambda Legal, Act Up, among others, but it's been the HRC that has been front and center on the marriage issue. The movement is unified, even if it does not include everyone who identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. (In fact, the transgendered folks often get burned, since the GLB part of GLBT keeps leaving their concerns on the back burner.)




Frank Kameny was a brave and intellectual man. He was not a saint nor was he necessarily the godfather of gay rights. The point is that he was but one of many activists of his generation (b 1925). The Mattachine Society was influential mostly by inspiring the creation of other groups. However, in regard to your point, there were several major differences in these groups, their philosophies, and objectives and membership. Some of them were driven by self-styled radicals left over from the Beatniks. They tended to be the ones who claimed "gay liberation" as an objective. Gay liberation and gay rights would come to mean quite different things. Gay liberation was typical out-there radical crap, especially since it was joined at the hip with Flower Power and Free Love and a lot of the 1960's crappola. Most gay people found these gay-liberation groups to be undesirable and dated. So you saw "equal rights" groups arise. The funny thing is that the idiocy of the "special rights" accusation would have applied to gay-liberation but it doesn't apply to anything contemporary.

Of course the gay-liberation crowd like to take credit for the gay rights movement but they did more to harm it after any help they originally generated. These would be the "so what" and "whatever" folks who say outlandish things which the religious right scoops up and regurgitates relentlessly.

So yes, Virginia, there was a man a long time ago who said "We don't want to be equal, we just want to be left alone." He's dead now and his followers live in a commune in the mountains of Tennessee. Seriously, they do.

Interesting how the true radicals got left in the dust. Then again, I have my sincere suspicions about the "counter culture's" origins, but I'll leave that alone.