US Court Rules First Amendment Protects Conversion Therapy

[Postauthoritarian America]

Elections have consequences. Did you vote third party or stay home in 2016 because you couldn't bring yourself to vote for the best-qualified Presidential candidate in my lifetime? Then this is on you. Make better choices.

[Tsaivao]

Wtf do y'all mean humans aren't supposed to be heterosexual? Did you forget about reproduction?

Ah yes, because that's definitely what this entire argument hinges on, reproduction.

There's 7 billion of us on this planet, we aren't in any danger of running out, if a few people decide not to engage their biological imperative to mate, then who the fuck cares.

[Disgraces]

Wtf do y'all mean humans aren't supposed to be heterosexual? Did you forget about reproduction?

You suppose there's actually meaning in biological mechanisms. This is a great chain of being level mistake.

What?

[Xelsis]

Wtf do y'all mean humans aren't supposed to be heterosexual? Did you forget about reproduction?

You suppose there's actually meaning in biological mechanisms. This is a great chain of being level mistake.

If there is no meaning in biological mechanisms, there is no meaning whatsoever. The very concept of meaning is based off of a biological mechanism, i.e., the brain. Any argument beyond that is just some brand of spiritualism.

[Disgraces]

Wtf do y'all mean humans aren't supposed to be heterosexual? Did you forget about reproduction?

Ah yes, because that's definitely what this entire argument hinges on, reproduction.

There's 7 billion of us on this planet, we aren't in any danger of running out, if a few people decide not to engage their biological imperative to mate, then who the fuck cares.

Reminder I'm not fucking demonizing homosexuals.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You suppose there's actually meaning in biological mechanisms. This is a great chain of being level mistake.

If there is no meaning in biological mechanisms, there is no meaning whatsoever.

Yes. Meaning is not a natural concept and nature doesn't give any fucks about your desire for meaning in all things.

[Esalia]

Wtf do y'all mean humans aren't supposed to be heterosexual? Did you forget about reproduction?

Because "supposed", at least for me, implies design.

A chair is supposed to allow you to sit on it. A box is supposed to contain things. We design both of them to do that.

Humans weren't designed, so I don't call anything humans do things we're "supposed" to do.

Regardless, there are millions of things we aren't "supposed" to do that we do anyway, so whether or not we're "supposed" to do anything is a poor moral judgement.

[Punished UMN]

Opens the door to all kinds of quackery.

[Nuroblav]

Be gay, do crime.

Now whenever I hear that meme, I keep thinking of this song

Because it's the way humans are supposed to be.

Humans aren't supposed to be anything.

I think it was more along the lines of a desire to fit in, rather than 'y o u m u s t c o n f o r m', but yeah I'd agree with that - or at least purpose shouldn't be a legal requirement to fulfill in this case.

[Page]

Elections have consequences. Did you vote third party or stay home in 2016 because you couldn't bring yourself to vote for the best-qualified Presidential candidate in my lifetime? Then this is on you. Make better choices.

People voting third party helped this time around. Biden wouldn't have won Wisconsin if not for thousand of conservatives going for Jo Jorgensen.

In fact since the Libertarians have more support than Greens, the existence of third parties is to the Democrats' advantage every election.

[Xelsis]

If there is no meaning in biological mechanisms, there is no meaning whatsoever.

Yes. Meaning is not a natural concept and nature doesn't give any fucks about your desire for meaning in all things.

Well, that's consistent, I have no problem with that take.

[Tsaivao]

You suppose there's actually meaning in biological mechanisms. This is a great chain of being level mistake.

If there is no meaning in biological mechanisms, there is no meaning whatsoever. The very concept of meaning is based off of a biological mechanism, i.e., the brain. Any argument beyond that is just some brand of spiritualism.

Forgive me for not being one who considers himself a slave to his biological imperatives. Yeah, I'm supposed to mate and have children, but that seems to fly in the face of the whole "society" thing.

Just because it's biological doesn't mean it's right.

[Albrenia]

Wtf do y'all mean humans aren't supposed to be heterosexual? Did you forget about reproduction?

No human is 'supposed' to be anything.

[Punished UMN]

If there is no meaning in biological mechanisms, there is no meaning whatsoever.

Yes. Meaning is not a natural concept and nature doesn't give any fucks about your desire for meaning in all things.

While I think our opinions on the topic of the thread are the same, this sort of nihilism can be ethically dangerous.

[Geneviev]

Wtf do y'all mean humans aren't supposed to be heterosexual? Did you forget about reproduction?

Humans don't need to reproduce. Not all of them can.

[Xelsis]

If there is no meaning in biological mechanisms, there is no meaning whatsoever. The very concept of meaning is based off of a biological mechanism, i.e., the brain. Any argument beyond that is just some brand of spiritualism.

Forgive me for not being one who considers himself a slave to his biological imperatives. Yeah, I'm supposed to mate and have children, but that seems to fly in the face of the whole "society" thing.

Just because it's biological doesn't mean it's right.

Of course not. Plenty that is biological can be considered 'wrong.' All I'm saying is that the human concept of meaning is based off of a biological function, and, unless one is arguing that there is no meaning, which is a fair argument, then one cannot really make the claim that biological functions are meaningless without delving into spiritualism.

[Arcturus Novus]

Elections have consequences. Did you vote third party or stay home in 2016 because you couldn't bring yourself to vote for the best-qualified Presidential candidate in my lifetime? Then this is on you. Make better choices.

I couldn't even vote in the 2016 election, I turned 18 a week later. Who are you addressing with this?

Wtf do y'all mean humans aren't supposed to be heterosexual? Did you forget about reproduction?

We're not supposed to do anything, on a grand scale. We just kinda do whatever.

[Geneviev]

Elections have consequences. Did you vote third party or stay home in 2016 because you couldn't bring yourself to vote for the best-qualified Presidential candidate in my lifetime? Then this is on you. Make better choices.

I stayed home because I couldn't vote. This still matters to me, though.

[Disgraces]

Wtf do y'all mean humans aren't supposed to be heterosexual? Did you forget about reproduction?

Humans don't need to reproduce. Not all of them can.

I don't deny that.

[Albrenia]

Ah yes, because that's definitely what this entire argument hinges on, reproduction.

There's 7 billion of us on this planet, we aren't in any danger of running out, if a few people decide not to engage their biological imperative to mate, then who the fuck cares.

Reminder I'm not fucking demonizing homosexuals.

Certainly sounds like you are. Claiming they're defying some natural or divine order which proclaims they must breed.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Yes. Meaning is not a natural concept and nature doesn't give any fucks about your desire for meaning in all things.

While I think our opinions on the topic of the thread are the same, this sort of nihilism can be ethically dangerous.

I came to terms long ago with the idea that some >60 billion light years of universe has no god-given order or meaning to it so there's that.

[Neutraligon]

Reminder I'm not fucking demonizing homosexuals.

Certainly sounds like you are. Claiming they're defying some natural or divine order which proclaims they must breed.

I mean...homosexuals can breed, surrogacy is thing and scientists are working on ways in which the genetics from two men/two women can make a child so homosexual couples in the future will likely be able to have their own biological child.

[Disgraces]

Reminder I'm not fucking demonizing homosexuals.

Certainly sounds like you are. Claiming they're defying some natural or divine order which proclaims they must breed.

That's what you choose to hear. I'm not saying that. I didn't even mention religion.

[Geneviev]

Humans don't need to reproduce. Not all of them can.

I don't deny that.

If we're not supposed to reproduce, then there's no reason that reproduction means that humans are supposed to be heterosexual.

[Galloism]

Still reading this... the court has apparently gone through the state's evidence they presented with a fine toothed comb and found this:

Defendants say that the ordinances “safeguard[] the physical and psychological well-being of minors.” Together with their amici, they present a series of reports and studies setting out harms. But when examined closely, these documents offer assertions rather than evidence, at least regarding the effects ofpurely speech-based SOCE. Indeed, a report from the American Psychological Association, relied on by the defendants, concedes that “nonaversive and recent approaches to SOCE have not been rigorously evaluated.”7 In fact, it found a “complete lack” of “rigorous recent prospective research” on SOCE. As for speech-based SOCE, the report notes that recent research indicates that those who have participated have mixed views: “there are individuals who perceive they have been harmed and others who perceive they have benefited from nonaversive SOCE.” What’s more, because of this “complete lack” of rigorous recent research, the report concludes that it has “no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone” SOCE.8 We fail to see how, even completely crediting the report, such equivocal conclusions can satisfy strict scrutiny and overcome the strong presumption against content-based limitations on speech.9Still, they say, our confidence should not be shaken: the “relative lack of empirical studies on SOCE is not evidence of lack of harm . . . . If anything, the lack of studies on SOCE may be indicative of the risk of harm.” The district court agreed: “Requiring Defendants to produce specific evidence that engaging in SOCE through talk therapy is as harmful as aversive techniques would likely be futile when so many professional organizations have declared their opposition to SOCE.” In other words, evidence is not necessary when the relevant professional organizations are united.But that is, really, just another way of arguing that majority preference can justify a speech restriction. The “point of the First Amendment,” however, “is that majority preferences must be expressed in some fashion other than silencing speech on the basis of its content.” R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 392. Strict scrutiny cannot be satisfied by professional societies’ opposition to speech. Although we have no reason to doubt that these groups are composed of educated men and women acting in good faith, their institutional positions cannot define the boundaries of constitutional rights. They may hit the right mark—but they may also miss it.

Sometimes by a wide margin, too. It is not uncommon for professional organizations to do an about-face in response to new evidence or new attitudes, but one example stands out as we consider this case. In the first three printings of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a paraphilia, disorder, or disturbance.10Only in 1987 was homosexuality completely delisted from the Manual.11 The Association’s abandoned position is, to put it mildly, broadly disfavored today. But the change itself shows why we cannot rely on professional organizations’ judgments—it would have been horribly wrong to allow the old professional consensus against homosexuality to justify a ban on counseling that affirmed it. Neutral principles work both ways, so we cannot allow a new consensus to justify restrictions on speech. Professional opinions and cultural attitudes may have changed, but the First Amendment has not.

Basically, it's a content based restriction, the state's own evidence from the American Psychological Association says the data regarding this type of "counseling" has not been rigorously evaluated, and recipients report mixed results on both good and harm. But that we should just trust them that it might be harmful.

That won't survive strict scrutiny.

The court even cited the fact that using this level of evidence would have made gender affirming therapy not eligible for constitutional protection before 1987 - when it was considered a paraphilia, disorder, or disturbance based on professional designation.

Unless the state comes up with something better than "there's no data, but it might be harmful, trust us", they're going to lose this one.