Topic of the night: Reparative (Conversion) Therapy

Here's a sensitive subject: Reparative Therapy (or, conversion therapy). Many thanks to API Equality for bringing this up tonight at the general meeting. And now I can't seem to stop thinking about it.

The current debate (LA Times):
CA Governor Brown signed a law that bans mental health professionals from doing reparative therapy (which is basically therapy whose goal is turning gay people straight). It's being held up in the courts because the opposition says that it violates the First Amendment.

Disclaimers:

• I do not condone reparative therapy for anyone, ESPECIALLY for minors, and I think it is harmful and only serves to perpetuate the stigmatization of LGBT individuals.
• I use "gay" to mean LGBTQ--alphabet soup, and/or basically anyone who doesn't identify as strictly straight.
• I believe that homosexual desire is not a choice. But I do believe that taking on an identity is a political and social act, and that "being gay" is a choice.
• For some people, it's the only choice. I understand suicide rates of closeted LGBT youth are very high.
• Why should it matter if it's a choice or not? Shouldn't people respect others' choices, especially when it doesn't effect or harm other people? Isn't that what makes us a democracy? Our ability to choice and expression, and to not be persecuted for them?
• I understand that just the term "reparative therapy" implies that there is something wrong with being gay, and that it should be repaired, rectified, fixed.
• Of course reparative therapy has its own devious agenda. If it didn't, it wouldn't exist.
• Thank you, Helena Vissing, for bringing up this point: "Even if someone would seek therapy because he/she felt unhappy about being gay and wanting to change it, I would find it unethical to try to "repair" or "converse". The client must find his/her answers. If someones wishes to disown/eliminate his/her bisexual or gay sides, then that could be explored in a nonjudgmental way."
• There are frameworks we have to work with (addressed in the "reality" section below). In a utopic society, gay would not be bad, so why would there be the need for any sort of reparative therapy? I understand that clearly, these ex-gays' subconscious desire likely stems from the cultural and social stigmatization of being gay.
• And I know we are working toward that now but...

Reality - as of January 2013... 

• Being gay is still stigmatized in society.
• Which unfortunately often leads to alienation from family, friends, community, etc.
• Coming Out Stars is an activity that poignantly outlines the challenges of coming out
• Life is arguably harder right now for a gay person than it is for a straight person, legislatively, socially, culturally. Gay people don't have the same rights, the same openness about their life. Gay partners are less protected by laws than straight couples, and often are at a financial disadvantage when it comes to health insurance and inheritance taxes. 
• Yes, things are getting better, and I believe they will continue to do so, but until then...

Reparative Therapy says that it helps people who have homosexual desires, but do not want to "be gay."

Here's an episode of Dr. Oz on this (in many parts - you have to click on each separate part and sit through the ads). I actually think the reparative therapy people sounds reasonable, even though I don't, for a second, believe that they do what they say they do. They're also frustratingly vague about how this sort of therapy is conducted.

So the question becomes:

• If someone is "at odds" with their sexuality, and want to prioritize family, friends, community, etc over their sexuality, should they be able to seek help for them to, I don't know, re-prioritize these things in their life? In other words, if someone were in a social situation in which if they were to come out, they stand to lose a lot - family, friends, sense of social belonging, social support system, etc, should they be able to make the decision to say, "ok, maybe having sex, or having an open life with a person of the same sex isn't as important as keeping my relationships with all of these other important parts of my life"?
• Should we respect the choice of consenting adults (not minors, as the legislation currently targets) to seek this kind of therapy?
• Is "coming out" a symptom of our neoliberalist ideology of lifting up (figuratively, and literally in our list of priorities) individual identities at the expense (sadly) of community cohesion and acceptance? (Related to Jean Twenge's work on the emphasis on self)
• Should anyone be forced to take that journey? Should the LGBT community(ies) place that emphasis on "being out" and "being yourself" if the situation doesn't fit the individual?

I think the whole thing is sad, that there are people who feel like they have to choose between these different moving parts, and that their circumstances force them to. But their circumstances are their reality, and should we be condemning something that may help them ease their pain, even in the short term?

• (My counterargument would be that if/when they realize that they can't truly "repair the gay", not only do they have to face up to it years later, but in the meantime, they probably would have married or had kids, and those individuals are also affected)
• (not to mention that the whole thing really perpetuates the idea that being gay is wrong)