Upcoming ex-gay documentary stirs up controversy
An upcoming documentary (Spring, 2008) regarding the ex-gay movement has created hard feelings months before release. I received this release from filmmakers Bill and Mishara Hussung responding to an email from Joanne Highley of Life Ministries in New York City. Watch the trailer on You Tube.
For Immediate Release
Contact: Bill Hussung/ Mishara Canino-Hussung
Coqui Zen Entertainment
bill@coquizen.com
mishara@coquizen.comEx-Gay Ministry criticizes upcoming documentary.
A New York City ministry claiming to cure homosexuals with exorcisms isn’t pleased with an upcoming documentary by filmmakers Bill Hussung and Mishara Canino-Hussung. Joanne Highly, who runs LIFE Ministry, is responding to a Youtube trailer for the upcoming documentary in a recent mailing to ministry supporters. Highley says the filmmakers are, “using our footage to make us look bad,” and she adds, “We have been made fun of before.”
A trailer for the upcoming documentary features members of LIFE Ministry singing and dancing at the groups’ annual Christmas party. The trailer also includes a sound bite from Highley saying she came to New York to minister to “homosexuals and Jews.”
Co-director Bill Hussung says he’s surprised Highley views the clips of her annual Christmas party as an effort to make the ministry look bad. “The clips show people enjoying themselves and celebrating the work of the ministry, there’s no spin or slant involved in how those clips were edited,” Hussung says.
A trailer for the film, Chasing the Devil: Inside the Ex-Gay Movement, can be found at the following website:
Bill Hussung followed up the news release with this statement in an email about the challenges of making a documentary about those who believe they have altered sexual orientation.
More than four years ago we set out to document the journeys of people belonging to the most politically incorrect subculture in America. The result is Chasing the Devil: Inside the Ex-Gay Movement, a documentary film. Spending time with those who claim to have changed their sexual orientation from gay to straight can be a bit of a paradigm rattling experience. We accept that identity is largely self-defined and acknowledge that sexuality can be fluid. Mick Jagger switches back and forth between men and women for much of the 1970s and defines jet setting chic. Self-defined identity and fluid sexuality are both left of center beliefs long associated with urban elites and secular progressives. Folks like most of those in the documentary film business. But there’s a disconnect when this paradigm butts up against the ex-gay movement. If we really believe identity is self-defined and sexuality fluid, then there’s nothing surprising, or offensive, about the ex-gay ministries and reparative therapists claiming to “heal” homosexuals of their unwanted desires. But we are surprised. And often offended. The central underpinning of gay identity is the belief that people are born gay and can’t change. The ex-gays challenge these beliefs. Their claims of having changed from gay to straight challenge our understanding of identity and tolerance. But are they living a lie?
We made this film to answer that question.
Bill Hussung & Mishara Canino-Hussung
Co-directors, Coqui Zen Entertainment
Looking forward to it.
I’m looking forward to it as well. I’m sure it will be interesting to see and discuss. I doubt, however, that its going to tell us anything new, or show us anything we haven’t seen before regarding self-identified ex-gay individuals or the movement itself. I’m wondering if it will actually add anything new to the discussion!
This statement gives me hope that they are in fact trying to say something new:
But there’s a disconnect when this paradigm butts up against the ex-gay movement. If we really believe identity is self-defined and sexuality fluid, then there’s nothing surprising, or offensive, about the ex-gay ministries and reparative therapists claiming to “heal” homosexuals of their unwanted desires. But we are surprised. And often offended.
Whatever the results, it should be an interesting read.
Eddy,
But there’s a disconnect when this paradigm butts up against the ex-gay movement. If we really believe identity is self-defined and sexuality fluid, then there’s nothing surprising, or offensive, about the ex-gay ministries and reparative therapists claiming to “heal” homosexuals of their unwanted desires. But we are surprised. And often offended.
But this is what I was talking about - this idea isn’t new. Fluid Sexuality, Bisexuality, fixed-sexuality, repressed sexuality, ex-gays, gay people being offended, lack of any evidence outside of anecdotal to prove real change - none of this is new.
If we really believe identity is self-defined and sexuality fluid
The other question I have is, who is the “we” this quote is talking about? I certainly believe sexuality can be fluid for bisexuals, but I don’t believe it IS fluid for most people.
Or let me rephrase that - I don’t believe it is truly “fluid” for the majority of people who don’t fall into a true bisexual category. Anyway - I suppose all of this talk and speculation is pointless since we haven’t even seen the film yet.
Sadly, again what this clip demonstrates is that somehow the film depicts that there are two groups: gay people and straight christians….not that you could be a “gay christian.” One of the gentleman said that he understands why many gay people make the choice of being gay over their faith…
This continually perpetuated dichotomy seems to be one of the biggest lies going…and it isn’t consistent with how most conservative christians view many other issues.
For example, Even if you do believe homosexuality to be a sin, and everybody sins (sometimes volitionally), why are homosexuals “different?”
The presence of Richard Cohen also adds that magical “something” to the film…at least this time he pulled out magnets and not a tennis racket (or a spontaneous body hug).
Someone should tell Cohen that as much as he refers to “opposites attract,” research shows that the couples who are the most similar tend to report being the happiest with the most longevity.
The fact that this is a film that makes ex-gays unhappy is interesting…I think it will likely make many gays unhappy too.
As near as I can tell this is an honest effort to portray the experience of the people involved in their own words — and sometimes it does not appear flattering (e.g., Richard Cohen saying same-sex pairing is a non-sequential).
jag, who knows maybe the raquets are unleashed in the film too?
Jayhuck–
Please, please, please. All I said was that I have hopes of seeing something new. A statement that simple does not need to be challenged or refuted. I have hopes…okay?
Eddy,
Please, please, please. All I said was that I have hopes of seeing something new. A statement that simple does not need to be challenged or refuted. I have hopes…okay?
Sorry Eddy - I think our online relationship has left me a little hypersensitive/trigger happy, for lack of any better terms. THAT is probably something good for me to work on in 2008. I have the same hopes
For example, Even if you do believe homosexuality to be a sin, and everybody sins (sometimes volitionally), why are homosexuals “different?”
Jag,
If homosexuality is a sin, and that is left to each individual’s conscience based on their beliefs, then it is the only sin that is asking for acceptance and endorsement and approval. That would be the only difference I can think of.
One piece that I know this film will offer that has previously not been considered is the perspective of a parent of an ex-gay survivor.
Bill and Mishara spent extensive time with my father and filmed him talking about his experience with the ex-gay movement. He is a straight man, a former US Marine and is supportive of me as his son who also happens to be gay. Hearing his thoughts about the hopes he had up front and the concerns that quickly grew once he became exposed to the treatment at the Love in Action ex-gay program gives a new perspective.
In 1996 he and my mother attended Love in Action’s Family and Friends’ weekend, an event that I have described over at Beyond Ex-Gay where I presented some of his thoughts. (see http://www.beyondexgay.com/article/parents). They attended another such weekend in 1998 as part of my graduation from the program.
Regardless of how people feel about the whole ex-gay discussion, I believe that the stories of people negatively troubled by conversion therapies and ex-gay ministries, reveal that harmful practices, theories and techniques affect not only the people who submit to them, but can also harm their loved ones.
Warren:
I am sure you are more than aware of the Laumann study out of U of C.
I bring it up here because of its direct bearing on the quote:
“But there’s a disconnect when this paradigm butts up against the ex-gay movement. If we really believe identity is self-defined and sexuality fluid, then there’s nothing surprising, or offensive, about the ex-gay ministries and reparative therapists claiming to “heal” homosexuals of their unwanted desires. But we are surprised. And often offended.”
Based on The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, Chicago: University of Chicago.
The Laumann study, was based on a survey of a statistically representative sample of American adults between the ages of 18 and 60, and conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Laumann is universally recognized as definitive. Since its publication, numerous large-scale epidemiologic surveys, conducted in all the English-speaking and many other industrialized nations, have repeatedly confirmed and strengthened its findings. One of the major points of the Laumann study, which the authors themselves did not expect, is that “homosexuality” as a fixed trait scarcely even seems to exist” stating that “[E]stimating a single number for the prevalence of homosexuality is a futile exercise,”
Laumann declares in the first paragraph of an entire chapter devoted to the subject. It is futile not because of bias, underreporting, methodological difficulties, or complexities of behavior, but “because it presupposes assumptions that are patently false: that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured.”
All the evidence points to the fact that homosexuality is not a “stable trait.” Furthermore, as was already evident in the data concerning prevalence of homosexuality—however measured, whether by action, feeling, or identity—before age eighteen and after age eighteen, Laumann et al., found to their surprise that its instability over the course of life was one -directional: declining, and very significantly so. “Sexual orientation” wasn’t just not a stable trait, homosexuality tended spontaneously to “convert” into heterosexuality as a cohort of individuals aged, and this was true for both men and women—the pull of the normative, as it were. (See Laumann et al., chapters eight and nine.)
Such findings and there mainstream scientific acceptance need to be highlighted in the documentary you discuss. Rather than a fringe religious ministry, such organization represent the natural cultural reaction to a scientifically verifiable phenomena of (at the very least) people transitioning “back” to heterosexual relations or practicing them for the first time.
Fitz,
All the evidence points to the fact that homosexuality is not a “stable trait.”
That is false. Using those reasonings we could make the same argument against heterosexuality.
And the ex-gay movement is a fringe religious phenomena.
Fitz,
Discussing orientation is difficult because some gay-identified individuals do identify as straight at different points in their life and some straight-identified individuals identify as gay later. This doesn’t tell us much about orientation as it does about behavior.
From GLBTQ.com
“The Enigmatic Nature of Sexual Orientation
Another important dimension of sexual orientation is the fact that, unlike visible racial characteristics or ethnic traits, sexual orientation is not an attribute that can be tracked or detected at birth or at an early age. Moreover, for some individuals, sexual orientation does not appear to be entirely fixed but instead may be a more evolutionary characteristic that challenges our deepest understanding of the roles played by genetics and the environment. Sexual maturity and awareness awakens at different times for different individuals.
Another challenge with tracking individuals based on their sexual orientation has to do with the nature of sexuality itself. Is being gay or lesbian simply being attracted to a member of the same sex? Or is does it require individuals to actually have sexual relations with members of their own sex? Does it include people who only sometimes have sex with members of their own sex?
Laumann’s research indicates that the proportion of individuals–whether male or female–who express same-sex attraction or participate in same-sex behaviors is greater than the proportion who are willing to self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
Research also shows that self-description–i.e., identifying openly as gay, lesbian, or bisexual– remains a very complex process influenced by innate and environmental aspects. For some, particularly males, the process of identifying as gay, or “coming out,” appears to occur now at younger ages than it did in the past, while for other men and women, the process may not unfold until mid-life, if at all.”
JAYHUCK (as stated above)
“…Furthermore, as was already evident in the data concerning prevalence of homosexuality—however measured, whether by action, feeling, or identity—before age eighteen and after age eighteen, Laumann et al., found to their surprise that its instability over the course of life was one -directional: declining, and very significantly so. “Sexual orientation” wasn’t just not a stable trait, homosexuality tended spontaneously to “convert” into heterosexuality as a cohort of individuals aged, and this was true for both men and women—the pull of the normative, as it were.” (See Laumann et al., chapters eight and nine.)”
This is a study. Not a summary by a commitee, nor a political statement issued by an organization. It is neither a religious or GLBT advocacy group.
The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, Chicago: University of Chicago.
The Social Organization of Sexuality reports the complete results of the nation’’s most comprehensive representative survey of sexual practices in the general adult population of the United States. This highly detailed portrait of sex in America and its social context and implications has established a new and original scientific orientation to the study of sexual behavior.
“The most comprehensive U.S. sex survey ever.” —USA Today
“The findings from this survey, the first in decades to provide detailed insights about the sexual behavior of a representative sample of Americans, will have a profound impact on how policy makers tackle a number of pressing health problems.” — The Boston Globe
This statement by the Hussungs is ridiculous:
“The central underpinning of gay identity is the belief that people are born gay and can’t change.”
What rubbish. Some practitioners of identity politics (many of them ex-gay) may believe that, but most people define “gay” simply to mean “predominantly attracted to the same gender.”
Also rubbish: The notion that ex-gays are politically incorrect. They are under constant criticism for mandating pseudo-Christian, GOP-defined political correctness in all of society — not for being correct or incorrect in their private lives.
Fritz,
First, one study doesn’t PROVE anything. Surely you’re aware of that. This study also doesn’t answer why so many people seem to be coming out as gay later in life, or why we have such a large gay aging community - large enough for people to be building gay oriented retirement communities.
I don’t know the study well-enough to refute it, but I do know it is almost 18 years old, and that, according to you ti dealt with how some individuals change from homosexual behavior to heterosexual behavior - NOT how some individuals move from heterosexual behavior to homosexual behavior later in life.
Jayhuck
I am afraid that Laumann is more important than you realize.
{The Laumann study,} was based on a survey of a statistically representative sample of American adults between the ages of 18 and 60, and conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Laumann is universally recognized as definitive. Since its publication, numerous large-scale epidemiologic surveys, conducted in all the English-speaking and many other industrialized nations, have repeatedly confirmed and strengthened its findings.
Having said that: it merely alluminates our understanding and is not a replacment for further conversation or neccesary ajudication.
Fitz,
No one study is EVER definitive in the scientific community, I don’t care how well-recognized you are.
Please show us these “large-scale epidemiological surveys” that support Laumann’s instability findings.
I personally think what Laumann’s study says is interesting - but not any more interesting than what it DOESN’T say.
“I personally think what Laumann’s study says is interesting - but not any more interesting than what it DOESN’T say.”
This seems impossibel due to the fact that you have never read it.
Fitz,
Apparently you have blogged about this study before - I found a very good rebuttal against your claims made by a Percival on the progressiveu site that deserves to be copied here - Here is a link to the site where this discussion has already taken place:
Read Misrepresentation of Laumann data here
“As usual, what we have here is a disingenous attempt to misrepresent the findings of legitimate researchers. This is a fairly common practice among anti-gay pundits, though it is one that can be easily dispelled by simply turning to the original sources of their shell-game citations.
For example, even the authors of the study which good old Fitz cites agree that the work is not definitive.
**********
The authors of the new study, “The Social Organization of Sexuality” (University of Chicago Press), are the first to say that theirs is not the last word.
“To fetishize 2.8 as if this is solid to that level of precision is a mistake,” said Stuart Michaels, a researcher at the University of Chicago who is an author of the new report and the project manager of the survey. “And it is to miss the point.”
“To quantify or count something requires unambiguous definition,” Mr. Michaels and his co-authors wrote. “And we lack this in speaking of homosexuality.”
Moreover, they said, estimates in the survey were likely to be lower than actual numbers, since many homosexuals were probably reluctant to report certain behaviors or feelings to the interviewers.
(LINK)
**********
When Fitz tells us that “one of the major points of the Laumann study, which the authors themselves did not expect, is that “homosexuality” as a fixed trait scarcely even seems to exist,” what he fails to mention is that this comment is specifically in regards to the difficulty of distinguising between homosexual and bi-sexual people due to an “overlap” of the respective populations, nor does he mention the fact that the observed ambiguity of “‘homesxuality’ as a fixed trait” is actually a specific comment about how the subject see themselves and self-identify. Fitz attempts to spin the comment stating that “the most common natural course for a young person who develops a ‘homosexual identity’ is for it to spontaneously disappear unless that process is discouraged or interfered with by extraneous factors” into a general comment about to imply that sexual orientation is not a fixed trait, but the researchers in the study noted specifically that sexuality was not just about the way people self-identify, and that desire and behavior often seemed disconnected from the way that people self-identify.
**********
The US study included 3 characteristics measuring homosexuality and bisexuality: desire, identity, and behavior. The authors stressed that these characteristics overlap, making it impossible to ascertain the exact number of homosexual or bisexual people. The study estimated that 2.4% of the men and 1.3% of the women “define themselves as homosexual or bisexual, have same-gender partners, and express homosexual desires.” [17] (pp300-301) On the other hand, 10.1% of the men and 8.6% of the women demonstrated at least 1 of the 3 components of homosexuality.
(LINK)
**********
Here is a more in-dept review of the study that Fitz attempts to misrepresent to us…
Review: The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States and Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles.
Also, here is a collection of a wider sampling of studies addressing these topics, that demonstrate the range in which these numbers appear, rather than focusing just on the one study that when selectively viewed presents the lowest possible figures which Fitz hopes will assist him in mounting an anti-gay assault.
Prevalence of Homosexuality: Brief Summary of U.S. Studies (Compiled 6/99)
One of the main things that this cross-section of studies shows is that the way the percentages break down has a lot to do with the way that the question is asked.
percivale”
JAYHUCK
“Please show us these “large-scale epidemiological surveys” that support Laumann’s instability findings.”
They support his findings in general including those.
I have a copy of both the survey itself & the companion piece that details the corresponding surveys done before and after the U of C work.
That article is entitled…
A Political History of the National Sex Survey of Adults
Edward O. Laumann, Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon
Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1994), pp. 34-38 doi:10.2307/2136095
And can be found at.. (cost involved)
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-7354(199401%2F02)26%3A1%3C34%3AAPHOTN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H
You can understand my reluctance to re-type the multiple surveys (you & others will simply have to do your own research)
Its not hard to imagine why such finding (even though widespread and accepted) dont make it into mainstream news sources.
Fitz,
Most references to studies include the year which was, in this case, 1994.
1. Can you please provide a link to whom you are quoting. It is uncertain if you are quoting Laumann or someone extrapolating from Laumann
2. Can you please provide a link to the subsequent studies that have confirmed your assertion that homosexuality is not a fixed trait.
3. Will you please confirm whether these “not fixed trait” conclusions are for both sexes or only for women.
Fitz,
It looks like you already are declining to provide point 2 to back up your claim. That is disheartening.
Tim,
Fitz has already has this same discussion on another blog - it is interesting to see how the discussion played out.
Laumann’s Study
JAYHUCK
I have had this discussion on multiple blogs as well as my own.
They always turn out the same way.
#1. No one ever substantially refutes the finding of the Laumann study.
#2. Individual scientists are attacked as partial or “quacks”
#3. Pro-gay activists devolve into a “we can never know???” - “give me more studies” - “quote supporting studies” type of mealy mouthed obfuscation.
Never the less the conclusions of Laumann and supporting studies the inherent flexibility and one directional nature of sexual identity based on multiple identifiers.
Timothy Kincaid (writes)
“Can you please provide a link to the subsequent studies that have confirmed your assertion that homosexuality is not a fixed trait.”
No - why would you suspect such studies are available online?
However: here is a beginning of some of the relevant literature.
M. F. Schwartz and W. H. Masters, “The Masters and Johnson Treatment Program for Dissatisfied Homosexual Men,” American Journal of Psychiatry 141, pp. 173—81
Robert L. Spitzer, M.D., Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403—417 (2003) Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation.
Nigel Dickson, Charlotte Paul, Peter Herbison, Same -sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood. Social Science & Medicine 56 (2003) 1607–1615
K. Skegg et al., Sexual Orientation and Self -Harm in Men and Women, Am J Psychiatry 2003;
160:541–546
Jorm, AF, Dear, KB, Rogers, B, Christensen, H. Cohort difference in sexual orientation: results from a large age-stratified population sample. Gerontology. 2003 Nov-Dec; 49(6)392-5
Jag, Wish the dichotomy wasn’t emphasized either. Or that one has to give up God or their sexuality (since we live in a society that has expression for gay christians, young christians, new christians etc…) either.
And I was disenchanted with the woman who was almost protesting too much that she isn’t gay because God does not make gay people. Ah well - she does not speak for everyone with that opinion.
Fitz,
Thanks for the info. You confirmed what I suspected.
Fitz,
No one ever substantially refutes the finding of the Laumann study.
No one was trying to refute the Laumann study - they were trying to help you put it in perspective - to understand what it was really saying.
Fitz,
We’ve already discussed several of those studies on this blog.
Not to mention all the Ex-Ex Gays that are out there
JAYHUCK
“No one was trying to refute the Laumann study - they were trying to help you put it in perspective - to understand what it was really saying.”
I wasn’t aware you have read it.
I own a copy of it, attaining it at a certain expense & difficulty.
Yes: multiple people claim not to refute it but want to make sure they put their own spin on its findings. Often this comes down to matters of nomenclature and semantics (what we mean by words & identity).
All that aside: it is enough to note that Laumann makes the existence of those who once had a homosexual identity (however measured, whether by action, feeling, or identity) who then later successfully rejected such an identity: not just a statistical certainty but rather a majority.
Timothy Kincaid
Your Welcome.
Fitz,
The quote that you were using earlier looks like it was taken out of context. Here’s the information surrounding that quote about instability - from Chapter 8 of “The Social Organization of Sexuality” as re-typed by Percival at progressiveu.org:
“The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
Chapter 8
Homosexuality
Given the highly charged political atmosphere in which all sides adduced wildly contradictory statistics in support of their claims, we want to be especially careful that our data and interpretations are put forward in as responsible and straightforward a manner as possible. Of course, <b<we have no way of controlling or even anticipating the ways in which our findings will be used, but we do want to avoid obvious misinterpretations wherever possible. In short, neither pedantry nor extreme scientific cautiousness leads us to assert that estimating a single number for the prevalence of homosexuality is a futile exercise because it presupposes assumptions that are patently false: that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured…The social stigma attached to homosexuality creates an added challenge for us. Homosexuality in Western societies has historically been viewed as a sin, a disease or an aberration. These notions are still extremely widespread…The findings of our research need to be understood in this context. The widespread, strongly negative view of homosexuality shapes both behaviours and our attempts to measure them. While we have attempted to be non-judgemental in our inquiries, many respondents likely have been reluctant to report behaviors and feelings that they think might reflect badly on them in the eyes of the interviewers of the researchrs. The estimates derived from survey data on socially stigmatized sexual behaviors and feelings, whether they be masturbation, homosexual relations, anal sex, or extramarital affairs, are no doubt lower-bound estimates…Independent of question of valuation and judgement, recent writing and thinking about homosexuality can be divided into two major camps. These two basic views of homosexuality (and many minor variants of them) can be found both in popular thought and in more theoretical and scientific debates. These two perspectives have come to be called essentialism and social constructivism…Essentialism is various forms is probably the most widespread view, especially in popular thinking, although it also has many proponents among scholarlrs and researchers. An essentialist view of homosexuality is closely related to perspectives that view sexuality through an individualistic, biological or psychological lens…Social constructionism, on the other hand, almost always involves a description and creitique of essentialism…Constructionism examines the implicit assumptions of our thinking about sexual preferences and orientations and questions their universality. It emphasizes the historical and culturally variability of such sexual categories as homosexuality and heterosexualtiy, stressing how conceptions of sexual orientation and practices have changed over time and vary across societies. In raises question about how the categories emerge, are maintained, and change…We cannot adjudicate the conceptual and theoreticall differences between these two opposing positions and their many variants. The data from a cross-sectional survey concluded in a single country at a given moment are simply inappropriate to resolve these issues. While our general theoretical framework is highly compatible with the social constructionist approach, the data themselves can certainly be treated from various points of view…The basic division that well be described is quite independent of the valuation of homsexuality. People who accept one basic viewpoint or the other can hold either pro- or anti-gay beliefs. Socical constructionism was mainly develeoped by pro-gay intellectuals. However, in denying the innateness of homosexuality, some of their arguments have beent aken up by the right-wing, anti-gay forces, who believe that homosexuality is a sin and want to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Views of homosexuality as a pathological condition or disease have traditionally sought its “cause,” an essentialist notion, usually to cure or eradicate it. Ironically today, many gay people are strong believers in some version of essentialism.”
So the authors knew their work would be taken out of context, that their work wasn’t definitive, and that there were challenges and problems with measurements.
Fitz,
multiple people claim not to refute it but want to make sure they put their own spin on its findings
It looks to me that that is exactly what YOU are doing - spinning it to suit your own personal beliefs.
Another apparent example of spin by Fitz - From Percivale at progressu:
“When Fitz tells us that “one of the major points of the Laumann study, which the authors themselves did not expect, is that “homosexuality” as a fixed trait scarcely even seems to exist,” what he fails to mention is that this comment is specifically in regards to the difficulty of distinguising between homosexual and bi-sexual people due to an “overlap” of the respective populations, nor does he mention the fact that the observed ambiguity of “‘homesxuality’ as a fixed trait” is actually a specific comment about how the subject see themselves and self-identify. Fitz attempts to spin the comment stating that “the most common natural course for a young person who develops a ‘homosexual identity’ is for it to spontaneously disappear unless that process is discouraged or interfered with by extraneous factors” into a general comment about to imply that sexual orientation is not a fixed trait, but the researchers in the study noted specifically that sexuality was not just about the way people self-identify, and that desire and behavior often seemed disconnected from the way that people self-identify.”
Fitz,
The thing you need to realize, that was talked about above and is problematic in this study, is that just because someone self-identifies as a gay man, that may not mean he is, anymore than a person who self-identifies as straight but has primarily homosexual desires. The way someone identifies is not always indicative of their primary desires - or even their lifestyle. For example, when I was sexually active I slept with a few older married men. They called themselves straight, but they confessed to me that they hardly slept with their wives anymore and from my perspective anyway, spent more time thinking about and having sex with men. Are they straight simply because they wanted to identify as such? I believe that there are ways in which we identify ourselves and then there is reality - they don’t always mesh.
JAYHUCK
“So the authors knew their work would be taken out of context, that their work wasn’t definitive, and that there were challenges and problems with measurements.”
Of coarse.. It is both #1. Science & #2. on a highly controversial subject.
Nevertheless (and once more) it is enough to note that Laumann makes the existence of those who once had a homosexual identity (however measured, whether by action, feeling, or identity) who then later successfully rejected such an identity: not just a statistical certainty but rather a majority.
P.S. You should read that (brief) excerpt that you posted carefully & make sure you understand its terms well. It says quite a bit about this discussion & is an excellent primer.
It is not however the substance on the finding made in the study. Rather it is the context the researchers were operating within.
Fitz,
I have read it well
Fitz–
Sorry, I’m not well acquainted with the Laumann studies. I do hope Warren checks in with a response to 79129.
All–
Here’s a statement related to fluidity that struck me. Jayhuck said: “This study also doesn’t answer why so many people seem to be coming out as gay later in life…“.
What motivates this coming out? If something can motivate them ‘to leave the straight life behind’ and to identify as gay, why do we have such fits about people ‘leaving the gay life’ and identifying as straight? Or, more to the point, why are we more inclined to accept their new identity without question while we challenge and demand proof from those who go from gay to straight? Can Christian belief be a sufficient motivator?
BTW: I have no doubts that portions of this video will be highley embarrassing (pun intended). That New York gang has always been notorious for being a bit ‘out there’. (I’m having flashbacks to the characters in the group meeting in the ex-gay episode of ‘Will & Grace’. Only ramp it up a notch and throw in a few twists.)
Here is a good review of the Laumann study at PubMed:
Click here to read the article
Eddy,
What motivates this coming out? If something can motivate them ‘to leave the straight life behind’ and to identify as gay, why do we have such fits about people ‘leaving the gay life’ and identifying as straight? Or, more to the point, why are we more inclined to accept their new identity without question while we challenge and demand proof from those who go from gay to straight? Can Christian belief be a sufficient motivator?
Because Eddy - the Ex-Gay movement is used as a political tool to restrict equal rights for gay people. I thought we had already had this discussion. Not to mention that there are folks that have been genuinely harmed by the movement. This is why I have, and I’m fairly certain many others have a problem with people making these claims. Its not so much the people themselves as it is the idea that the movement tries to spread which is: gays can change (which sometimes is either interpreted to mean or is spun to mean most or ALL change) and the ones who don’t don’t deserve equal rights.
My problem isn’t directly with the people who claim they have been “cured” or whatever, my problem is with what they represent in terms of the organization and movement - and then sometimes the people if they tow the movement’s line on issues.
Eddy,
I sooooo agree with you.
Jayhuck–
So people have fits about my choice to leave the gay life behind and are justified in challenging my decision and how it’s played out “Because the Ex-Gay movement is used as a political tool to restrict equal rights for gay people.“
Eddy,
I think that may be the unfortunate consequence of the actions of FOTF, Exodus and other organizations, yes. Of course I can’t speak for everyone. It does seem that the public perception of the Ex-Gay Flagship organization is one of anti-gay politicking.
I will say that in the time I’ve gotten to know you and Mary somewhat, I’ve been pleasantly surprised at the views of other ex-gays. Of course I already knew about Disputed Mutability and others who don’t tow the Exodus line, but I was never sure how many more people “like me” there were out there. I will tell you that my own early “fits” were directly tied to the perception I had of the movement itself and the organizations that supported it.
I’m also just as sure that other people have fits for other reasons. Because we know harm has come to some, they may worry about you. They may have been hurt by the Church or more specifically by Ex-Gay therapies in the past. Your actions might be challenging them on some level. There are a host of reasons I can think of that might make some people have “fits” because of your choice - but I’m positive the use of Ex-Gay people for political purposes has turned many off to the cause.
Please Eddy - I never said anyone was justified in doing anything!
I believe there’s more we might uncover in the questions I posed. Wouldn’t many automatically defend the ones who were ‘coming out’ saying they were actually ‘realizing who they were in the first place’ while viewing the gays who went straight as ‘denying their true selves’? What are the repercussions of this ’spin’ in the lives of real people?
Eddy,
I personally see these kinds of comments as a symptom of a disease - the one involving using people’s spiritual journeys as political tools. - BUT, I realize there are other reasons.
Eddy,
Let’s not forget that the speech coming from Ex-Gay organizations is itself often loaded with spin. Which came first, who knows? Perhaps this is something like the Hatfields and McCoys. Perhaps the gay spin is in reaction to the spin from Ex-Gays - or vice versa.
Jayhuck–
I hear you. But I’d still like to hear from others in response to the questions. See if there’s any new or different light or perspective. Or perhaps there’s several dynamics at work, some that go beyond the political/religious spin. Anyone?
Eddy,
Please refer me to the post number with the questions.
Ann,
I THINK they are 79221 and 79260 but I may have missed some.
Eddy,
I wasn’t aware that anyone was having fits about your decision not to engage in sex or to associate with other gay people.
Who, precisely, is having these fits? Who is challenging YOUR decision or YOUR choice.
I am becoming weary with these vague accusations against nameless gay people who are treating you so badly.
Who are they? I’ll go have a little talk with them.
Sure they have the right to challenge anyone’s testimony that is being used as a tool against their freedom. And sure they have the right to doubt your reorientation. And sure they may think that you are self-loathing (what an odd term that is) and making a bad choice.
But they have no right to challenge your decision or your choice.
Who did this?
Specifically?
Timothy–
You don’t know them. They’re out here in the flesh and blood world. The most significant was a woman who saw me hand a booklet I’d written to a bouncer at the VFW where I sing karaoke. She was standing there and wanted to know what that was all about…I said something to the effect that he wanted to understand what I meant by ‘ex-gay’ and those were the last words I got to speak. She literally ‘went off’…telling me I was hateful, confused, and an assortment of other lovely messages when all she really knew was that I identified as ‘ex-gay’.
Then there was my one brother-in-law who I’ve never seen outside of family gatherings. At the most recent wedding, he pulled me aside to tell me I needed to let go of my conservative Christian viewpoint and find me a good man. Not really a fit but–when you consider that I expressed no dissatisfaction with my life and didn’t bring up the topic–a totally unwarranted lecture.
A guy at work thought I was gay, when he found out I was ex-gay, it changed our relationship completely. He no longer saw me but rather my beliefs in this area. Hasn’t talked to me since and, for a time, was spreading ‘my secret’ to the other gays at work trying to throw a wrench into these friendships.
Jayhuck said, “I’m wondering if it [the film] will actually add anything new to the discussion!” And he is probably right, because by the looks of the trailer it is nothing more than patchwork propaganda.
Eddy,
Maybe the “woman” at the VFW was drunk?
Where you say,
“At the most recent wedding, he pulled me aside to tell me I needed to let go of my conservative Christian viewpoint and find me a good man. ”
You should have told him, “I’m straight! But, thanks for the proposition, big guy!”
Happy New Year! Jim
Eddy,
I have had many similar kinds of experiences. A family friend who tried to fix me up with one of her girlfriends (imagine the woman’s surprise when I told her I was no longer gay - she became expressively angry), antangonism from gays, my family of origin laughing at my belief system (without inquiring I might add and which came later than the changing of my attractions) and then rolling their eyes when I say I’d rather settle down with a man. Rarely - do I talk about “it”. The comments are just too much.
Rarely - do I talk about “it”. The comments are just too much.
Mary and Eddy,
As you know, you are not alone.
JAG said, “One of the gentleman said that he understands why many gay people make the choice of being gay over their faith…This continually perpetuated dichotomy seems to be one of the biggest lies going…”
That happens to be David Matheson a Licensed Professional Counselor in private practice the Salt Lake City area and co-creator of the Journey into Manhood weekend (www.peoplecanchange.com). He is also the author of Evergreen’s Workbook for Men, a practical guide to the change process. He also authored Origins of Male Homosexuality, a lengthy review and discussion of research and theory regarding the development of same-sex orientation. He is a former member of Evergreen’s Board of Trustees. So, he knows what he is talking about and is not a lyer. You are only getting a part of the message he was trying to convey.
Sorry, meant “Liar” not “Lyer” on last post 79379
The film is nothing more than creativity in that it takes parts of what people say and blends it into their own agenda — one which makes ex-gays look weird and ex-ex gays as survivors, hence the latter is the one felt sorry for. I’d respect the film makers if they give this disclosure.
Eddy,
Thank you for clarifying. But if I understand you correctly, all these folk that were dismissive were all heterosexual.
Mary,
Other than vague “antagonism from gays”, all your examples are heterosexuals as well. I know in the past you’ve mentioned that your gay friends didn’t want to hang around with you now that you were living differently, but I don’t think this is quite the same as challenging your right to make choices other than the ones they would make for you.
Is it possible that this hostility and antagonism you are experiencing as coming from gay people may in actuality not be coming from gay people at all? No doubt some friends and acquaintances think your choice was not for the best and tried to dissuade you. No doubt some individuals find your evangelical ex-gay (or, more likely, anti-gay) publications to be offensive.
But I propose that the gay community recognizes and respects your right to self-determination. I respectfully challenge you to consider this and perhaps ask whether the accusations charged against “the gay community” really hold up.
A link germane to the debate at hand.
http://constitutionallycorrect.com/archive/2007/12/18/581.aspx
It is very curious that the gay community takes BOTH a essentialist claim of homosexuality and an constructionist approach depending on the political opportunities they present
Timothy,
Anti-gay publications??? Surely you didn’t write that about me. And I have never dsaid anything to anyone about changing if that is not what they feel is in their best interest. EVER.
Evangelical christian view? - surely you have never heard me preach to any about being a christian except to say that we are not all that way.
Vague antagonism from gay people?? If you want me to name names - ain’t gonna happen. If you want me to be specific about every incident (it could reveal my geographic location and possibly others) so I won’t do that either.
From my experience - not yours - I propose that the gay community is not accepting of my choices and right to self determination. They have the usual mantra - “You’re born gay and can’t change. You’ll be back.” And …. whenever speaking with someone who is gay or my family or their friends I just say that I am not gay anymore. I don’t go into details and I don’t talk about my faith except to say I attend a protestant church (enough to bring a gasp to everyone at the table).
Mary,
I think I was confusing in the way I wrote the previous comment. I was actually addressing both you and Eddy in the paragraph after the one specifically directed to you. Sorry about the confusion. Eddy was the one passing out a “bookle” he’s written.
My point, and I think it is a good one, is that you and Eddy have both for quite some time leveled claims against the gay community (or gay people in general). These claims are that gay persons (or the community) are hostile and antagonistic towards you. And all that you are doing is just trying to live your life.
That rings false to me. Not that I think you are lying, but rather that I think you are misreading all this hostility and challenges to your right to choose your destiny. That is certainly not the way that gay people or the gay community react in LA - and it doesn’t get much more “liberal” than LA.
You seem to be thinking that any opinion other than “gosh golly, I’m so happy you are ex-gay now” is not accepting your right to self determination. That is nonsense.
“You’ll be back” and “you can’t change” are not matters of denying you rights. They are opinions based on the observations of those making them. You may not like these opinions, but they are not abusive or restrictive. They may not “accept your choice” but most people on this site don’t “accept” mine either. Fortunately many, like you, recognize my right to make choices that others don’t accept.
It’s frustrating to hear these claims of abuse over and over but when confronted about them you and Eddy both listed what heterosexuals have done and get indignant when I point out that your stories don’t match your claims.
So please either quit accusing my community of things, or offer evidence that they have actually done these things. If you are too fearful to back up what you say, don’t say it. Otherwise you are just making false witness against gay people.
I’m not trying to attack you. I just want you to stop attacking me and my community.
Can we agree on this?
ugh… typos
1. “booklet” not “bookle”
2. Eddy has not yet gotten indignant
It should be enough to just say, in my experience, the gay people in my life did this or that. There is no need to generalize to a community, nor is there any reason to react in defense of an entire community since no one can know what another person has gone through.
I have witnessed gay folk at the NEA convention attack ex-gays with hateful speech which had nothing to do with any perceived ulterior political motives. The ex-gays were told they were lying, intolerant, etc., just for being there. Now I understand they were angry, but the 10 plus members of the gay educators caucus who came to the ex-gay booth were intimidating. However, I do not assume this conduct is representative of Timothy or the people he speaks about.
May be, Warren. But not everyone lives in L.A. And no I am not going to name specifics but it is a general overall feeling and experience. I am not hoping everyone pats me on the back and says way to go! I am hoping that people are not hostile, mean, vengeful and filled with hate speech towards me. Sorry but that has been my experience and I have to say Timothy in the past on other blogs a has been that individual ( very cruel, judgmental, assumptive etc..) . He now claims to be a different man. Good. Then my presence and remarks are beginning to have an impact - as well as Eddy’s and Ann’s etc..
Mary,
I have also noticed that sarcasm is often used as a tactic to shut people down in discussions that challenge the views of those who only want the gay position to be heard or accepted. To me this is a way of bullying someone or a group into silence or submission. My experience is that this is very commonly used in liberal circles.
Warren et al,
Now I understand they were angry
Is it enough to understand that they were angry or should we try and understand why? I think I do understand why many are angry, but I doubt I’ll ever be sure.
Mary,
I’m defending Timothy because I’ve seen him be incredibly gracious and understanding under fire. I don’t know of all the blogs you speak of, but I think we often have trouble deciphering tone on blogs. I used to think that Eddy was attacking me every chance he got and I could have sworn his tone was patronizing, condescending and sometimes angry (all this was my perception). That is what makes these faceless online discussions so difficult - we cannot see another person’s body language, and I think we (not necessarily you) sometimes mistake simple frustration for hostility or anger…..Anyway, I’m sure I misread Eddy many MANY times.
That’s not to say any of us on here aren’t guilty of being angry or displaying that anger to others - rightly or wrongly. I think we’re probably all guilty of that. Overall, though, I can’t think of anyone of what I consider to be our CORE group now who is spiteful or hateful - or even just mean.
And its also probably good for all of us to call people on poor conduct when we see it. I’m sure I’ll have my turn
Concerned,
My conservative Republican friend uses sarcasm as a weapon all the time. Trust me, its not something unique to liberals. It would be a mistake to make a blanket statement like that.
Timothy–
Two of the people I cited were heterosexuals; the third one was gay. But I wasn’t making a point about what gays do versus what straights do, my comments went quite specifically to how real people like me are victimized by the spin mentality. My brother-in-law’s views seemed to be garnered from ‘things he’d read’ while the raving woman got much of hers from a ‘gay activist friend’.
I spoke about the VFW environment some months ago when I mentioned that it’s a very mixed crowd and that a lot of the regulars just assume I’m gay. LOL! I’m there to sing. Anyway, I don’t really make it a point to straighten people out on their misconceptions until they try to set me up with their brother or something–or unless the topic somehow comes up unavoidably in a conversation. I learned one way to diffuse the awkwardness and have employed it a time or two. Rather than saying “I’m ex-gay” in response to one of these situations, I quip “no thanks, I’m trying to quit.”
My best friend (a gay man) doesn’t want his partner of 6 months to know I’m ‘ex’; he tells me ‘he isn’t ready to hear that’.
Anyway, in 3 places that occupy a significant portion of my average week (the bus to and from work, work, and karaoke) there is more pressure on me to be silent about who I am than there is on a gay person. I’m not crying about it; I’m just saying it’s so. And, I’d like to find a way to fix that in my lifetime.
In response to a comment I made shortly after New Year’s, Jayhuck said I was wrong when I said this blog never seemed to be interested in really hearing how it is for people on my side. This topic seemed like a logical place to explore the validity of that statement.
And I must confess once again to the agenda I’ve admitted to a number of times. I am here trying to determine if, when, and how there can ever be any ‘common ground’ between the two polarized sides. Are we forever bound to speaking at each other rather than to each other? Do the big disagreements we have totally obliterate the concerns we have in common?
For that reason, the ‘flashpoints’ intrigue me. When a seemingly simple statement sparks a flurry of comments, whether pro or con, I try to understand who’s button got pushed and why. I also try to understand if the speaker knew their statement would push a button. I apply this to myself as best I can, as well. Whenever I find that my ‘buttons got pushed’, that always provokes a mandatory time-out where I try to understand that button. (Yeah, we all know there’ve been times when I didn’t take that time-out soon enough but I do see progress.)
That last boatload of comments actually dropped in while I was writing mine above so I didn’t get to them until after I posted.
Concerned–
While there may have been some truth in your post, the idea of making it a tactic only employed by the liberals seemed to be a perfect example of intentional button pushing as I described in my previous post.
Jayhuck–
Thank you for 79430. The only qualifier I’d want to tack on is that: it does seem that things, in general, have heated up here since just before Christmas.
Up til then, things were pretty much as you described but suddenly the blog tone, in general, did increase measureably in sarcasm and dismissive statements. (But I think it’s a stretch to blame that all on T.K.!)
I wondered about: 1) holiday stress in general 2) particular stressful holidays some may have had 3) whether it was a bleed-over of the ‘culture wars’ from ‘Dr. Brown responds’ thread 4) sin talk (that is our biggest difference)…again from Dr. Brown thread 5) well, the last one, you don’t have to wonder about. Whatever the reason was for the tension to increase, tension feeds upon tension and things just got snarkier.
So, I appreciate Jayhuck’s reminder that we do all manage to get along most of the time. Let’s shoot for that again (and make Warren proud of us!)
Eddy,
I think I misread what you were saying. I apologize.
Eddy,
I am here trying to determine if, when, and how there can ever be any ‘common ground’ between the two polarized sides.
That’s an excellent question Eddy. I’d like to think that the two groups will find common ground, but it all boils down to how we want to treat each other - and by that I mean whether or not we want to squash another person’s freedoms or rights. I know you know I feel this way - and I’m sure you want other people to comment on this - hopefully they will.
I live an exgay life - I empathize a great deal with the struggles that exgay people deal with. However, I also find myself identifying with gay people more often than exgay - mostly because of politics.
I think its possible - I believe anything is possible - but things will have to change.
Well since we are on the topic of one’s feeling I will add my two cents.
#1. Its not hard at all to imagine an ex-gay feeling isolated. a.) They are not welcomed warmly by other than the most Christian communities.
b.) The gay community seems to have every political reason to deny their very existence. (up to an including the active lobbying to make reparative therapy un-ethical treatment)
#2. The tactic of “your really gay inside” or “self hating homosexual” is not just used against ex-gays.
I can attest that this (interesting) tactic is used against ostensible heterosexual’s who are apposed to the gay “rights” agenda.
The idea is that anyone who invests any time or passion in refuting either political or social claims made by the homosexual community is really a closeted homosexual himself.
Having witnessed this tactic one can only imagine the force by witch it employed against ex-gays.
Mary,
Nope. Same ol’ Timothy.
I don’t change my story, my history, my name, my approach, or my idealogy. I do change positions, from time to time, if evidence arises that contradicts an opinion, but that’s about it.
Thanks Timothy. I appreciate that. I did write the morning one a tad hastily…barely caught my bus. My apologies for not making it clear that the work associate was gay. I realized that I hadn’t even mentioned the bit about my best friend’s partner about two blocks into the bus ride.
And Jayhuck, I’m in agreement as long as we hold onto a more global picture of ‘freedom and rights’. As I demonstrated above, I want a better world for ex-gays too. I want both sides to do a little bending and stretching. Don’t know what that is yet…I keep hoping we’ll discover those parameters here.
But I wll accept your word here. History is a good indicator of future actions/behaviors. But a fresh new face is also an indicator.
Went back to check my e-mails. Got one in ‘junk’ which rarely happens. I didn’t read it but it wants to talk about regulating my menstrual cycle. I was relieved to see that MSN ranked it ‘very high’ in the ‘potential junk’ rating.
And all this time I thought it was just a bad cold….
Jayhuck,
I would agree with you but it is still bullying regardless of who is using it and unless you have a very thick skin it can be very hurtful and I believe there are times when it is meant to be so.
Concerned–
I’m with you all the way on this one.
Don’t worry Eddy - I recieve things for Cialis!! Well, I guess? I could be a target market.
Eddy,
Bending and stretching is a good thing, but I think gay people have a great deal more to lose than ex-gays. That is NOT to diminish the stuff you and other ex-gay people have been through (including myself) from friends and so-called friends and even strangers. But when it comes to “rights”, gay people have much more on the line. I don’t see the ex-gay problem as one of rights as much as it is of better recognition and understanding of what we are and what we are not.
And while society has gotten better at understanding gay people - they still have their own problems with recognition and understanding as well.
The fact that gay people are still being killed for who they are shows how much there is left to accomplish when it comes to tolerance and understanding.
Wow - I broke one nice-size post into three - so much for that New Year’s resolution - sigh
I find this particularly germaine to the conversation & the Luaman study I discuss concerning fluidity and hinderances to fluidity.
The case of Michael Glatze A former gay activist who explains how he left homosexuality.Michael Glatze decided at the age of 13 that he was gay and eventually founded Young Gay America, a nonprofit media outreach project. Through a series of incidents,however, Glatze slowly began to realize that he was not gay at all but was dealing with fears about his own masculinity. He has since rejected his gay identity.
This follows the evidence presented in the Lauman Study - providing the kind of context one would expect concerning the “fluid” nature of human sexuality & the “extraneous factors primarily the “social milieu” in which the person finds himself.
It seems that for Michael the “social milieu” that was preventing his natural progression towards heterosexuality [as the Luaman Study above attests] was the homosexual community he found himself part of.
From an interview with Michael Glatze
Michael Glatze: “Well, I think maybe the first thing that comes to mind is just that I began noticing the nature of my desires, and the fact that I was able to change them.”
J.N. “That’s an interesting phrase: “the nature of desire.”
M.G. “Although when I look back on my life in the gay community, there was always a sense that “You don’t question your same-sex desires.”
J.N. “Yes. That’s a very big rule in the gay community.”
M.G. Right. In fact — it’s rule number one.”
J.N.” Rule number one: “Don’t ask why.” People “just are.” No questions about why.”
M.G. “As soon as you join the club, that’s the first rule. You can go ahead and examine any other thing’s cause, except for homosexuality.”
J.N. “I can explore the foundations of my alcoholism, my overeating, my depression– but not my homosexuality.”
M.G. Right. “And ironically, it’s even OK for straights to question their heterosexuality.”
J.N. (nods)
Oh yeah, and you can explore - so long as you ONLY come to the same conclusion as the “community” otherwise you are labled a quack, a conservative, a hate monger, anti-gay, brain washed, uneducated, unsympathetic, unchristian, intolerant etc…
Mary -
Your point is a valid one for both sides to be wary of. In any majority group, if you vocalize difference, you are an anathema - ex-gays are persecuted, gays are persecuted, etc…and sadly, everybody calls each other names around it, hoping they conform to whatever the rest of the group believes.
It takes courage to be honest with your own opinions and be genuine to yourself - whoever that self is and whatever that self believes.
I hope more people can do that…maybe it will start to get others thinking.
MARY
“Oh yeah, and you can explore - so long as you ONLY come to the same conclusion as the “community” otherwise you are labeled a quack, a conservative, a hate monger, anti-gay, brain washed, uneducated, unsympathetic, unchristian, intolerant etc…”
What particularly alarms me is the potential this presents to young people coming of age sexually.
Not everyone fits the Barbie & Ken ideal. The pressure to fit in and belong to a group of ones peers is enormous. Peer pressure is acknowledged as a preeminent force among adolescents. Combine this with the great pressure the popular culture creates (along with hormones) for young people to be sexually active and you have a perfect storm.
They dont call them “formative years” for nothing. Its not hard to imagine (and heck I know multiple examples personally) of young people seeking identity, companionship, and solidarity only to find themselves labeled and pigeon holed later in life with no prospects of understanding and help in adjusting.
Fitz,
They dont call them “formative years” for nothing. Its not hard to imagine (and heck I know multiple examples personally) of young people seeking identity, companionship, and solidarity only to find themselves labeled and pigeon holed later in life with no prospects of understanding and help in adjusting.
I agree, but this goes both ways - for self-identified straight people and self-identified gay people. I think most young people know which gender they are primarily attracted to. That’s not to say that there aren’t those that experiment both ways and then find themselves caught up on one side or another - I mean, look at all the adults that have gotten married, had kids, etc, only to come out later in life. I don’t think this excuses us from supporting young people though, especially if they identify as gay, when being gay can be so tough to navigate through without help from others. I grew up in a conservative town and had to keep my sexuality private until I got to college where I could finally be around others like me. It was NOT a pleasant experience to have to hide that part of myself for so long.
Fitz,
J.N. “I can explore the foundations of my alcoholism, my overeating, my depression– but not my homosexuality.”
First of all, homosexuality is not a disease and those other things are.
Second, that may have been Michael’s experience, but it certainly wasn’t mine. I questioned my homosexuality many times,and tried to suppress and repress it before I realized that is just who I was. There is no such RULE in the gay community - LOL. To have Michael Glatz speak for some 3 - 8 million gay people in this country is ridiculous.
Mary - I do agree with you though - I know the labels that all sides like to throw around at each other and I’m sorry if you were hurt by them.
Jayhuck–
If you’re going to attempt to correct somebody, please do it with true statements. Overeating is not a disease. And neither is depression. Both can become diseases but they aren’t in themselves diseases.
JAYHUCK
“There is no such RULE in the gay community - LOL. To have Michael Glatz speak for some 3 - 8 million gay people in this country is ridiculous.”
I think when Michael said it was a “rule” he meant it was generally accepted practice or normative of the gay community as he experienced it. Not that it was written down somewhere & anyone who disagreed gets fined.
Apparently Mary disagrees with the force of this “rule” when she writes “Oh yeah, and you can explore - so long as you ONLY come to the same conclusion as the “community” otherwise you are labled a quack, a conservative, a hate monger, anti-gay, brain washed, uneducated, unsympathetic, unchristian, intolerant etc…”
As Michael alludes, the stigma seems quite strong & Mary concurs.
“I think most young people know which gender they are primarily attracted to”
I’m saying that for a young person coming of age sexually this can be less important or central than the pressure to fit in and belong to a group of ones peers, Peer pressure is acknowledged as a preeminent force among adolescents. Combine this with the great pressure the popular culture creates (along with hormones) for young people to be sexually active and you have a perfect storm.
“I think most young people know which gender they are primarily attracted to”
Apparently the author of that statment has overlooked those who seem to change midstream. Hmmm. Another way of discrediting a person or trying to intimidate them.
Peterson said: “Regardless of how people feel about the whole ex-gay discussion, I believe that the stories of people negatively troubled by conversion therapies and ex-gay ministries, reveal that harmful practices, theories and techniques affect not only the people who submit to them, but can also harm their loved ones.”
I say,
“Regardless of how people feel about the whole ex-gay discussion, I believe that the stories of people positively helped by conversion therapies and ex-gay ministries reveal that no practices, theories, or techniques harmfully affect the people who submit to them, or their loved ones.”
JayHuck, Why do you “live an exgay life”? Some say ex-gays live a life suppressing their homosexuality. Do you agree with that? Do you do that?
I read before where you said you live celibate, but you are a gay man. Some would say that is suppression? Would you agree? If so, why do you suppress? I position these questions in the open forum but if you wish you can address them offline. Thanks, Jim.
Fitz,
I think when Michael said it was a “rule” he meant it was generally accepted practice or normative of the gay community as he experienced it. Not that it was written down somewhere & anyone who disagreed gets fined.
I knew what he meant Fitz. I was part of the gay community for many, many years - still am in a way, and I know of no such rule.
I’m saying that for a young person coming of age sexually this can be less important or central than the pressure to fit in and belong to a group of ones peers, Peer pressure is acknowledged as a preeminent force among adolescents. Combine this with the great pressure the popular culture creates (along with hormones) for young people to be sexually active and you have a perfect storm.
The pressure to “fit in”, even in today’s culture, is one of being straight. Being gay is difficult, and one has to overcome many hurdles before they can be comfortable with themselves. As tolerant as society has become, it is still primarily one that rewards straight people and often punishes gay people for being “different”. Society has a very hard time with minorities and acceptance.
Mary,
Apparently the author of that statment has overlooked those who seem to change midstream. Hmmm. Another way of discrediting a person or trying to intimidate them.
I wasn’t in ANY way trying to discredit you or anyone else. I was trying to say that the people who change midstream are in the minority - I never meant to suggest that they are any less deserving of respect and equal treatment. All I meant to say is most young people who are straight or gay don’t change midstream - that is ALL I meant.
Jim,
JayHuck, Why do you “live an exgay life”? Some say ex-gays live a life suppressing their homosexuality. Do you agree with that? Do you do that?
I read before where you said you live celibate, but you are a gay man. Some would say that is suppression? Would you agree? If so, why do you suppress? I position these questions in the open forum but if you wish you can address them offline. Thanks, Jim.
I think some ex-gay people probably are simply suppressing their homosexuality - but I don’t know that that is true for all or even most ex-gay people.
I made a conscious choice to be celibate. I don’t feel that I am “suppressing” anything. Most ex-gay people live celibate lives, don’t they? This is where we are going to have a problem with labels. Technically, I am an ex-gay man, but I do not like the term ex-gay, as I’ve stated before many times on this blog - probably in discussions in which you weren’t present. The term represents different things to different people, and to me it represents a political movement that I do not agree with.
Eddy,
Overeating is not a disease. And neither is depression. Both can become diseases but they aren’t in themselves diseases.
You are right Eddy, my apologies.
I don’t feel that I am “suppressing” anything.
Jayhuck,
Are you willing to give those who no longer identify themselves as gay the same consideration and believe them when they say they are not suppressing anything?
Jayhuck,
Maybe it would be better if you spoke of your experience. You are saying things that are arbitrarily decided on by you. IE: most ex gays are celibate??? most young people have decided on their sexuality (paraphrasing of course) etc… please -please - speak for yourself.
Mary,
Actually, when I was speaking of most gays being celibate I was speaking about the ex-gay study that was recently done by Dr. Yarhouse that showed that only 38% of ex-gays were “successful&#