Conversion therapy is defined broadly in recent laws to include any efforts to change someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Such efforts may include, to quote a British Columbia bill, "any counselling, behaviour modification techniques, administration or prescription of medication, treatment, service, practice, or tactic" to that end. According to this broad definition, conversion therapy may be something offered by medical practitioners or persons in positions of trust or authority (presumably including parents, teachers, counsellors, and pastors).So, what could go wrong?
Just this year the "conservative" Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the definition of "sex" as it appears in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There we find that employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin is prohibited. SCOTUS redefined "sex" in that line to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." No argument can possibly be made that this was the original intent because neither concept existed when it was written. So, SCOTUS took a term -- "sex" -- with a definite and understandable meaning and redefined it to mean something else and then planted it back into law because, "Look, there it is right there in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So you have to abide by it."
Canada's new "conversion therapy ban" is loaded the same way. They ban any "counselling, behaviour modification techniques, administration or prescription of medication, treatment, service, practice, or tactic" that aims at altering a person's perception of their sexual attraction or gender identity. (Well, as long as it's opposed to same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. If you encourage someone to pursue same-sex attraction or gender bending, that's perfectly suitable. It's not "conversion therapy." Strange dichotomy.) But here's the real problem. Does that list of banned things include, say, a pastor talking to a person about their same-sex attraction? Does it prevent parents from praying for their son or daughter to be moved from it? Will it be illegal for a teacher at a Christian school to show a student who intends to engage in homosexual behavior the Scripture passages that oppose it?
Given the fact that "the sexual thing I want is the my right" rules today and the history of changing words to satisify that demand, I'm quite certain that the tiny step from "service, practice, or tactic" to "prayer and Scripture reading" will be crossed in a heartbeat. The explanation includes "parents, teachers, counsellors, and pastors." And people who seek to follow God and encourage others to do the same could face legal prosecution. Right now it's Australia. Tomorrow it's Canada. Who knows how long it will take for the current lawmakers to take it up in America?
4 comments:
I wouldn't have a problem with banning forced or coerced therapy, but the notion of preventing someone who wants any particular therapy from being denied the ability to pursue it, seems counter to most notions of freedom.
Most of the Christians I know are opposed to the coercive kind of stuff. In a Christian worldview, it makes no sense. But they're defining "therapy" to include a conversation with a teacher, pastor, or parent or even prayer by same. Both the Australian law and this new Canadian version criminalize people who pray for others to escape the sin of homosexual behavior (for instance).
I would agree that most Christians would oppose anything coercive. But it's almost like they are trying to take away the ability of people to choose the type of treatment they want to avail themselves of. Choice is a funny thing.
Despite the justified shot at our "conservative" SCOTUS, this is the result of leftist ideology not being fought at every level and at every turn by enough people who should know better. I'm done with it all.
Post a Comment