I agree with this statement by NARTH

I don't agree with all of the perspectives that NARTH represents.  This time, I do agree with this statement here by NARTH about the Federal Court of Appeals ruling on California law, SB 1172. 

However, reading the statement by Liberty Counsel, at the same site, is troubling to me on multiple fronts.  The comments there are closed so I cannot express my reactions there.

And I agree with most of this article from NARTH, by Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D., written in May of 2012, entitled, Fact- Checking California Senate Bill 1172. 

Ages of consent in North America

This will be a helpful reference.  These are the various ages of consent for areas in North American, including the range of ages of consent in the 50 states of the USA.  Especially consider California and New Jersey's ages of consent. 

My thoughts on bill SB 1172 in CA being upheld by Federal Appeals Court

Commenting on the AP article about the Federal Appeals Court upholding CA law SB 1172.

Conversation therapy does not necessarily seek to turn gay youth straight.  But if you say something enough, in a democracy, the public tends to believe it.  That’s what I meant when I said that in a democracy, effective communication is incomplete and inaccurate communication. 

Again, the APA says sexual orientation includes sexual attraction, sexual behavior and more. 

Does therapy appear dangerous in other regards – of course.  And as I said about the NJ bill A3371, at my blog here,  if you read it carefully it also bans licensed therapists from helping a bisexual minor become gay.   

My review of CA bill SB 1172

I posted these points for consideration in regards to California bill: SB 1172 to the LA Times article.   

Working through CA bill SB 1172: 

Points I want to make for consideration.  I split them up into 5 separate comments to meet comment space restrictions for the LA Times:

·         You can be religious and be a clinical counselor.  Laws like this inhibit clinical counselors from seeking to be licensed, if they do not agree with the precepts of the law.

·         My point is that it also thus prohibits a licensed health professional from assisting a minor who wants to change their sexual orientation from bisexual to gay.  Gosh, this is poorly written. 

·         Even though they are saying that a bisexual orientation is not a disease, etc., they are saying by the language of the law, that it is  not healthy to change from bisexual to gay. 

·         Again, the language is only “can pose.”  This can equally be said for any form of counseling or any form of medical treatment. 

Nudging toward better vocabulary

I think that it is important to continue to nudge people toward using correct vocabulary. 

So, I posted this reply today to a person's comment to Jonathan's article.

Mike Jones Aug 28, 2013 at 12:03 pm               

"I would then ask, in the wider world what is bisexual synonymous with?  

I know it’s cumbersome to say, “same-sex sexual attractions” instead of “same-sex attractions,” but there is a significant difference between the two terms, even within the gay community as well as within the segment of the Christian community who experiences some level of same-sex sexual attractions, but who do not desire to express those attractions in intimate same-sex sexual behavior.  

NJ law is being challenged in court

I felt that it was important to post this reply to a person commenting on

Susan K. Livio's article.  The article was about New Jersey bill A3371

Mike Jones

Aug 27, 2013 at 12:38 pm

Again, we need to be careful as to whether we are referring to identity, orientation, attraction, behavior, or romantic attractions. We can determine our identity, as separate and distinct from our orientation or our attractions. People can decide to be straight in their identity, and they can decide to be straight in their behavior, even though they might be gay in their orientation, or they might be bisexual in their orientation.

My comment to the actual article was:

Mike Jones

Commenting on AP article on Divide over Religious Exemptions on Gay Marriage

AP article – Divide over Religious Exemptions on Gay Marriage

The last part of this article seemed to be the most telling:

"The religious community would have done much better to ask for protection for their religious liberty instead of trying to stop same-sex marriage and try to prevent it for everybody," said church-state expert Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia, who is recommending the more pragmatic course. "The more same-sex marriage seems inevitable, the less likely we are to see religious liberty protection in blue states."