Hi Approved,
The problem with this law is in the applications for which it can be used. What happens if a teenager goes to a Church summer camp and is converted to Christ? What if a teen goes to a summer camp, youth group or Church meeting and is told the Biblical perspective about homosexuality? This law could be theoretically used against individuals and even churches.
When I was in college, a student spoke with me about his apparent attraction to guys. He told me that he "thought" that he was "gay." He knew that I was a Christian and involved in a campus ministry and respected me for it.
I knew that something was just not "right" with the silly "but I was born this way" claims used by some. Why? People are born asexual and don't develop sexual attraction until adolescence (whether normal or prematurely). Sadly, society is increasingly nurturing -- and even enticing -- individuals into sexual activity that is contrary to the nature that God created in this world. However, I am also aware that individuals are born with a sinful nature and that the sinful nature can crave a variety of pleasures that are contrary to the Word of God.
For most men, they must discipline their minds/bodies or else they would give into the craving to be with a woman (or women) other than their wives -- even if they were "born" with such desires. I know guys who have struggled with lust who confided that they "desired" nearly every beautiful woman who walked by them. They are attracted and given to pornography on the internet, movies and magazines that have them spiritually, emotionally and physically bound by such things.
The guy in college eventually confided that he had been molested multiple times by a man prior to and during puberty while living in an apartment complex while he was a kid. He said that he "enjoyed" the experiences. I prayed for the wisdom to share with this young man. I explained that there is a difference between "confusion" and "nature" and that the lines can often become blurred.
I flat out told him that he didn't desire men...but the pleasure that he experienced that just so happened to come from a man. I told him that I thought that this confused him at a young age; and, I explained that the confusion had continued all the way to the point where he was now a young man and had come to associate "sexual pleasure" with men because of a dirty man who molested him while he was a child.
I explained how God had designed mankind and nature and how we have to accept and commit to His design. I also described how many commit to God's design even though they are given many opportunities to give in to the "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes" and the "pride of life." A man with many qualities that are attractive to women can still say "no" to women who almost throw themselves at him IF that man has committed his life to God.
We spoke about other things and it seemed to make an impact into this young man's mind. I was able to pray with him and encourage him for some time after this meeting. It had an impact on his outlook. He started attending our campus ministry's weekly meeting. He started fellowship with a church. He even stopped sounding effeminate. This young man eventually met and married a girl who worked in the university's cafeteria. They now have a child. Ever-so-often, he still corresponds via email.
Now, what would have happened if this had happened under this new California law? Potentially, it could have been deemed "unlawful." Although it wasn't "therapy" in a medical sense, it could be "deemed" as "conversion" simply because I wanted to tell him the truth.
The most hypocritical part of this law is that "conversion" therapy is perfectly acceptable in California when some parents want to "deprogram" their children away from what they consider to be "religious indoctrination." Also, therapy is viable in other instances...such as drug and alcohol addiction, sex addiction, anger management, and other issues. Some of these individuals are LITERALLY "born this way" (e.g. a child whose mother was addicted to drugs while pregnant).
Yet, Liberal California politicians have embraced a "new morality" in which it is legally and legislatively "taboo" -- and now illegal -- to consider homosexuality "abnormal" or "depravity." You can't "convert" a child away from perceived homosexual tendencies yet the state can allow a school counselor indoctrinate a child to a pro-abortion stand and even take them -- without their parents' knowledge -- to an abortion clinic.
I strongly disagree with this law because it allows the legislature to pick and choose which ideologies that they want to protect. It doesn't protect children. It simply takes away more rights from parents and gives it to the state. Moreover, it represents a conflict with the "free speech" of parents and churches.
Sadly, I think that it is a sign of things to come.
