Mary says: “Gays don’t like the term. So what.” It’s not just “gays” that don’t like it. Joe Dallas doesn’t like it. ALAN CHAMBERS doesn’t like it. The “so what” is that it is confusing and misleading. YOU may know what you mean when you use it, but what about the “new recruits” and those who are hoping for orientation change? What about the media and the general public?

“Ex-gay” creates a false expectation that a person is now heterosexual. It gives the impression, intentionally or not, that a person will become straight as a result of this faith journey. And, as Ed has pointed out, that’s “a total fallacy”.

I, personally, expected a rather fascinating journey that may or may not end up in straightness and I taught “lessons for the battlefield” at Exodus Conferences. Question: if ex-gays all went straight with no more homosexual temptations why would we need such a class?? When I ministered out of Dallas, Texas between my two stints at Outpost, I christened that one Joshua Ministries, again identifying with the journey. (By it’s third or fourth year, Exodus (the organization) was nearly half evangelical or conservative protestant as opposed to the early charismatic predominance.) The term was evolving along with Exodus but NEVER did it mean “heterosexual”; it applied to EVERYbody from the moment they felt convicted to leave homosexuality behind regardless of where they thought they were heading.

In that sense, I see it as no different from “post-gay” so could probably become comfortable with that term. Can I keep the hyphen, though? Post-gay? Post gay? Is either one okay? (apologies for any Seuss brain-loops that might provoke…)

And how would we establish its definition before it had a chance to be twisted or corrupted? I’d hate to have to come up with a new politically correct term every decade or so

So as it is with all or at least many social definitions – such as family, sexuality, social systems etc… ex gay is just a term that was used to make a mark of difference from having been engaged in gay living and changing – whatever changing happens to be. And though it is not perfect and exactly defined the same from one person to the next, it’s pretty broad in it’s scope and context, it gets the idea across to others.

That gays resist any term or word used by ex gays is obviously going to be questioned, doubted, and discouraged simply because the definition for homosexual means something different to gays than it does to ex gays. So how can you get from two different points of perspective on homosexuality to not homosexual anymore? I don’t think you can.

So be it. Gays don’t like the term. So what. I agree with DM – we all pretty much have the idea of what we are saying.

I happen to like post gay myself as that comes closest to my experience. I think I’ll take that out for a while and try it on. I really like the idea of moving on beyond gay and ex gay.

I was the one quoted at the very end of paragraph 3. The blog they were lifted from appears elsewhere on this site. In that context, I was saying that the media had a pre-conceived notion of who we were and what we were about and I liked the term ‘ex-gay’ because I thought it would vex them and provoke them to ask more questions (rather than jump to conclusions).

Anyway, I feel I should clarify that I was never an Exodus leader…never sat on the board, never attended a board meeting. I was the co-director (later the director) of a prominent member ministry and did teach at a number of their conferences though.

The classes I was invited to teach were what we jokingly called ‘brutal truth’. Topics included: The Reality of Temptation, Reckoning with the Roots, Overcoming the Obstacles, Burning the Bridges, Understanding Freedom. Gutsy stuff for dealing with the everyday struggles–sexual or otherwise. These were endorsed by Exodus (they kept inviting me back…) so I don’t think they were hiding any reality.

Biblically, we no longer felt comfortable with calling ourselves “homosexual”; realistically, we didn’t feel comfortable with calling ourselves “heterosexual” either. We needed a new word for what we were…not a six-word description. At the time, “ex-gay” seemed to do it. I still prefer it but mainly because I always saw the ‘ex” meaning “from”. (I’m an ex-Pennsylvanian. I’m FROM there. If you listen close, you can still hear it in my voice. Expressions, mannerisms. How fast I talk. You can tell I’m from out East.) An Ex-Gay was someone from a homosexual background, no matter where they were on their journey OR what they thought the destination was.

LOL! Michael expanded this definition beautifully in a later post…

“They were all Christians. They all believed it was (always) sinful to act on same-sex attractions. They were all trying (some harder than others) to not engage in gay sex. They were trying to let go of old, self-destructive behavior patterns and to develop healthier (drug free and non-sexually addicted) lifestyles.

They were all hoping that someday God might make them heterosexual. Some had decided to be celibate in spite of the fact that they had only gay attractions. Others had gotten married or were trying to make some sort of “heterosexual adaptation”.”

There’s more to the ‘from’ part though. We were a pretty mixed bag. Some had come from the streets, from the young bar and club scene, some had been flamboyant while others were conservative. Some came from a lifetime of involvement with their local gay network, some from committed relationships, some struggling in a heterosexual marriage. Some had no Bible background whatsoever; others were pastors or deacons. Some had other emotional and/or psychological issues to contend with. Some were HIV+.

But, okay, if we couple Michael’s definition with mine, I think we’ve finally got the expanded definition of ‘ex-gay’. In the meantime, I’m sticking with “someone from a homosexual background, no matter where they are on their journey or what they think their destination is.”

(BTW: if we do replace “ex-gay”, we need a word that can incorporate all of the above.)

I think many folks are starting to understand that “ex-gay” doesn’t mean “no longer attracted to the same sex”. In fact, recent news coverage has been pretty good at letting the readers know that many ex-gays are not making that claim.

The problem is not with the term. The problem is that some in leadership are deliberately seeking to deceive. With all the “walking away” and “former” and “change”, there seems to be a campaign to hide the realities of Jay and DM and to fool the world into thinking, hey presto, heterosexuality.

I mean for heavens sake we have Alan this week telling ABC news “It’s not an easy process, but someone can choose not to be a homosexual”.

Huh? Really?

It takes every inch of my charitable nature to find that sentence anything other than a blatant lie and a transparent effort to reintroduce “it’s a choice” as a political justification for his efforts at political discrimination. With crap like that for comparison, the problems with “ex-gay” seem tame.

I never considered myself “gay” and was not part of any “gay subculture” or “gay identity” PRIOR to becoming a Christian and helping to start EXODUS. I never went to a gay bar or saw a gay parade. I didn’t even know such things existed. I really thought I was “the only one” — until I read that there were many more like me.

I had had “gay” sex only three times before becoming an “ex-gay” in 1974. These were brief, mutual masturbatory experiences. I did not like the term “gay”. I was not happy with my homosexual attractions and wanted to be “normal”.

So “ex-gay” never really fit. I was never “gay identified” so I could not call myself “formerly gay identified”. We chose “ex-gay” as a statement of hope and faith that God would heal us and make us straight. He did not.

I came to the conclusion that he didn’t “fix” it because it wasn’t “broken”. Now, I consider myself a Christian gay man. I use gay only as a synonym for homosexual. In spite of being married and doing everything I knew to do to become “ex-gay”, THAT never changed.

I did notice some commonalities: They were all Christians. They all believed it was (always) sinful to act on same-sex attractions. They were all trying (some harder than others) to not engage in gay sex. They were trying to let go of old, self-destructive behavior patterns and to develop healthier (drug free and non-sexually addicted) lifestyles.

They were all hoping that someday God might make them heterosexual. Some had decided to be celibate in spite of the fact that they had only gay attractions. Others had gotten married or were trying to make some sort of “heterosexual adaptation”. None of them were heterosexual.

Perjhaps Joe Dallas of EXODUS said it best: “Ex-gay does NOT mean ex-homosexual. It’s just a convenient way of saying: a person with homosexual tendencies who would rather not have those tendencies”. Alan Chambers of EXODUS said: “I think we should do away with the term entirely and see that it is never used again. It’s more negative than anything and does not accurately convey the change process.” I tend to agree with both oi them.

I do not have another “label” to suggest — something that would be readily understood, would not mislead the media and would not give the false hope that one will someday become straight — if only they have enough faith. I think that simply telling the personal story is the probably the best approach. Describe the path you are on. Tell the truth about your sexual orientation. Don’t manipulate, provoke or vex the media — or promise/imply that one will become heterosexual as a result of “walking the path”. Just be honest.