Peterson Toscano makes a curious comment about ex-gays and ex-ex-gays in an email to Box Turtle Bulletin
In sharing ex-gay survivor narratives, I see the importance of digging up the many non-religious reasons people go ex-gay. For too long Focus on the Family, Exodus, etc, have been hiding behind a religious curtain. Similarly many ex-gays and former ex-gays I meet express that their ONLY reason for going ex-gay was their faith. Warren Throckmorton capitalizes on this sort of thing claiming that the struggle is an incongruence between faith and sexuality, when in reality for many it is primarily a conflict between society and sexuality.
First, Peterson says the ex-gays and former ex-gays express that the only reason for seeking to be ex-gay is related to conflicts over faith. And then he says I, in some way “capitalize” on this claim when in fact, the conflict is not really with faith but derives from conflicts with society. Maybe it is just me, but it appears he is saying those congruence seeking ex-gays and former ex-gays are wrong. They really weren’t motivated by religious conflicts at all. Apparently, I am wrong as well when I believe them. Perhaps, he is suggesting that I know that they and I are wrong but I ignore that. I am not really sure. But the message I get here is that he knows the real motives.
Seems like you find confirmation bias all over. Those ex-gays and ex-ex-gays are mistaken, the real reason they seek ex-gay is social conflict, Peterson asserts, even if they don’t know it. He needs to dig for what he knows is there.
I am sure in some cases, that social disapproval is more motivational than religious issues. Religious disapproval is a metaphor for disapproval from all sources. However, on the other hand, I think you risk missing the individual factors by “digging up the many non-religious reasons people go ex-gay.” Sure those who minister and help should be open to those reasons. However, those who dig should be prepared to find little else but what the conflicted person said in the first place.
Michael said:
My point is that if you still are only “tempted” by men and not “tempted” by women you are still gay — even if you don’t act on the feelings or like that term.
I realize you believe this very strongly but it goes to the heart of our difference which I’ve addressed time after time. The Bible definition and the psychological one don’t line up. Once again, you state your opinion as if it trumps mine; I’m here to tell you it doesn’t.
I see attraction to ones own sex as an appreciation of the gifts that another has been given and a desire to be in relationship with that person whom God created and to desire to have sex with that person or to look at them in a lustful way as an objectification of that persons gifts and lacking repect for the wonder of that creation. My own experience with my own SSA never brought me to a greater connectedness with that person and in fact made it much more difficult to connect with and feel comfortable with members of my own sex. I do not believe there is such a person who is either 100% homosexual or 100 % heterosexual. We all fall somewhere in between and therefore all experience the term “gay” as meaning something very different and I suppose in the same sense our interpretation of the word “ex-gay” means something different for people with differing levels of attraction. It is therefore, in my opinion, a judgement on the part of anyone who says that no one ever changes, however, ultimately the only one who can truly make that judgement is the person who experiences the change and only in the honesty of a deep relationship with their God. No on else.
PianoMan – wow – nicely put
I agree with you Michael – and so does a vast majority of the world. Some exgays will fight to the death regarding what being gay means, but there is still, out there, in the ether, an idea that gay, simply means, being attracted to others of the same sex, and whether you act on those feelings or not, whether you try to change them with only a modicum of success or not, doesn’t change the fact you are gay. Others will fight to suggest that you cannot label them as such while the rest of the world goes on doing so – is that right? Sigh, I’m not sure anymore, but the term GAY is used VERY differently in Evangelical and other ex-gay circles than it is by the rest of the world – does this pose a multitude of problems – Oh yeah
Does this cause problems when it comes to discussing the issue – just look at the archives on this blog
Jayhuck–
I see that you were knocked out by Pianoman’s statement
“Some Christians who believe God wants them not to express themselves in a homosexual relationship (even though a homosexual relationship still has some appeal to them at some deep levels) because they believe that such a homosexual natural physical relationship would be at odds with their Christian spiritual supernatural relationship with God?” I think that might just suffice, but it of course is way too long to be useful as a label.
LOL. While discussing here, you also blog on the Ted Haggard topic where we actually have a Christian who fits the cumbersome definition that ‘is way too long to be useful as a label’. But you don’t follow the rest of Pianoman’s advice…’perhaps we should toss the labels’. You insist that Haggard must then be bi-sexual and marvel that he can’t accept his box.
Oh No Eddy – I’m actually becoming excited at the prospect at having everyone get to decide who and what they really are – I have some ideas for myself
LOL
Jayhuck–
This comments sounds flippant to me and my comment was quite serious. Also, please consider that when you use the smiley face thing when you aren’t actually telling a joke, it can come across as ‘baring your teeth’.
Due to the fact that you and I are prone to misunderstandings, I simply don’t feel we have the luxury of posting things that are purposely ambiguous…especially when it dodges a very real question.
Sorry Eddy – the smiley face – at this point anyway, just means I’m enjoying myself
I’m not purposefully meaning to bare any teeth – I know we have deep and probably irreconcilable differences, but that doesn’t take away from the odd and problematic let’s-allow-everyone-to-define-themselves issue
Seriously though – I have labels I would like to start applying to myself before others get to chime in
!
Oh, I have no trouble understanding this POV from you…what I couldn’t understand was your endorsement of Pianoman’s statement. I am very much in agreement with it as well. And yet you and I disagree in practice. I’m trying to understand how you can endorse the ideas Pianoman put forth and simultaneously be arguing that Ted Haggard needs to accept his bi-sexual label at least. LOL. And then speculate on why he doesn’t like them.
Ted doesn’t have to accept anything Eddy – LOL
And I’m pretty sure he won’t – My friends and I have been having a great deal of fun with the term hetero-flexible – LOL – he should get points for that one
So, your friends and you make sport of Ted’s spiritual/sexual dilemma? As his brother-in-Christ, I hope you’ve spent at least as much time praying for him. (It’s not too late to start.)
I’m sure that makes you feel like the bigger person Eddy – and if it does, well, more power to you
We don’t make light of his struggle, really, we don’t, but his deep seated desire for an odd, perhaps off-the-cuff label, well, that’s something else entirely
Jayhuck, it is indeed something to want to define oneself and not to accept the boxes. Perhaps he’s a minority within a minority within a minority. To me, every individual is a minority, at least, I do the best I can to treat individuals as individuals and not define the individual by the label of any group they may be a part of (other than the two groups I note in the next sentence), but I’m not any more perfect/complete at avoiding putting people in boxes than anyone else, much as I would like to be. Seriously, I think the only labels that matter are In Christ and Not Yet In Christ. I suppose it would be nice if the Scripture said “in Christ there is no male, female, slave, free, black, white, red, yellow, green, Jew, Gentile, gay, straight, bi, “80% gay 20 % straight living as a 100% straight 0% gay”, not aroused by sex at all ever, preferers of cats, preferers of dogs, melancholy, sanguine, introvert, extrovert, sensing, thinking, feeling, intuitive, judgemental, perceptive, preferers of numbers or preferers of words and language (i.e.sudoku or scrabble), preferers of history, preferers of theory, peacemakers, people who like to stir things up, conservatives in form and substance, liberals in form and substance, conservatives in form and liberal in substance, liberals in form but conservative in substance, animal preferers, plant preferers, dark solids, pastels, stripes, polka dots, randoms, sequentials, conretes, abstracts, morning people, evening people, etc etc etc etc but all who are In Christ Jesus are One.” Not to say there were not people of these characteristics, but that the characteristics all paled as labels in comparison to the two labels “In Christ in Life” or “Not Yet In Christ still in death”, or if you will, sheep and goats. The crucified life is a paradox by definition, but that’s not the subject of this thread so…..
How about It’s OK to accept a box and it’s OK not to accept a box. Obviously there are many people who believe that other people are being dishonest with themselves or are just plain deceived. And then there’s the concept of denying yourself while acknowledging yourself, that is, not letting who you are be a limiting definer or restrictor of how you do and what you do. Which to many people, is just plain foolishness, but to others, is a way of life that is working for them.
Yes, I got carried away. I’ll try to make my posts much shorter.
Eddy, I’m struck by the fact that Mr. Haggard is grateful to the escort for bringing Haggard out of the darkness and into the light. I’m sure that Haggard knows there will be detractors and that his roots are growing in the foundation so that whether or not people make fun of him will become less and less relevant. What was that the Apostle said, “We are fools for Christ sake?”. I think it takes either a lot of guts or a calling from God to make the show so public. I know the detractors will say they’re just doing the interviews for the fame and the money…whatever. I’m confident that the Spirit will lead them when to be public and when to get out of the spot light, regardless of what any supporter or detractor says. Your thoughts?
Eddy, I’m guessing that perhaps what Jayhuck liked about my statement was where I acknowledged that there are people who are in Christ who value monogamy and decency and keeping private things private whose goal is to be living in a long term even life long homosexual exclusive faithful relationship, even though I think God doesn’t endorse that, I could be wrong.
Might not know for sure until we see Him face to face, for now we know in part. But I think (notice readers I said think, not know) God doesn’t endorse it because his image is both male / respect / authority and female / love / power; thus a homosexual relationship by definition is portraying God coming into Himself rather than God coming spiritually into the Church. I think everyone would agree that God’s love is focussed outward and not inward.
Pianoman:
I worry about his motives but I don’t have anything to go on to judge them by. I realize that he was capable of pulling off some slimy stunts in the past and pray that this exposure really did lead him to a place of healthy brokenness…that he really does recognize that he has those desires but that, at the bottom line, his choice was to deny them for the sake of his faith and his marriage. I hope that awareness will keep him in check when he is again tempted and has opportunity.
I have been giving this a lot of thought, and I realize that I have beating my head against a wall — for nothing! Eddy actually agrees with me! He says that straight did not fit”. (Ex-gays are not heterosexual.) He says that “bisexual did not fit.” (Ex-gays are not bisexual.) “Ex-gay” did fit — even though it seems to imply that ex-gays have “changed” and are no longer homosexxual in their attraction. But this is clearly not the case!
Joe Dallas, Eddy, Alan Chambers all admit to “SSA”. So, regardless of what the label may intentionally (or uninterntionally) imply “Ex-gays” still have exclsuively or mainly SAME SEX ATTRACTIONS. Who has SSA? Bisexuals and gays do!
Heterosexual people do not. So from now on, I will amend the term “ex-gay” with the letters “n.s.” to make it clear that whatever “ex-gays”(n.s.) are or what “background they may have come from”, they are NOT STRAIGHT.
I fall victim to it as much as the next person, but this quote from John Knowles’
A Separate Peace helps remind me of what I think is a truism. His narrator and the novel’s protagonist says the summer between his junior and senior year was his “sarcastic summer.” As an adult looking back at his teenage years, he concludes, “It was only long after that I recognized sarcasm as the protest of people who are weak.”
I posted this on the Ted Haggard thread –
I am aware of individuals having sex with people they are not attached to in any way or want to be attached to in any way – the sex satiates a temporary impulse and then is not thought about in any kind of positive way afterward, sometimes causing self loathing or repulsion. I am not sure if this is what happened to Ted Haggard but it is a possibility.
Michael-
Go for it. It will be your special usage and until it catches on you’ll have to explain it. But I like it. I’ve been thinking for the last few days how we distinguish between Christians who actually believe in concepts like sin, repentance, monogamy and those who have a ‘new’ revelation of a grace only relationship. I was thinking of going with Christian with a capital C for the former group and christian with a small c for the ‘grace only’. If it catches on, it could even translate to spoken English, “Yes, I’m a ‘big c Christian” or “No, I think I’m more aligned with the small c’s on this one.”
Uh-oh, you’re new definition has some problems. I don’t recall that either Joe Dallas or Alan Chambers ever said that they still have ‘exclusively or mainly same sex attractions’. They didn’t qualify, quantify or compare to their level of opposite sex attractions; they simply stated they still have them. But, the more I think of it that won’t be a problem. You can write ‘ex-gays (n.s.)’ in all of your posts on the topic. I’ll see how the big C, little c thing works for me.
I look forward to this change, actually. For once we’ll have agreed on terms so we won’t have to keep going over the same ground. I won’t have to fumble for non-offensive words to describe Christians who still hold some of the old school values. The Big C will say it all. And you’ll simply be able to say the names Alan Chambers or Joe Dallas, ex-gays (n.s) –and you won’t have to tell their stories anymore. LOL. Both of us will have less time at the keyboard.
Michael-
It occurred to me that ‘ex-gay, nst’ might be more functional in the long run. The meaning of ‘nst’ is ‘not straight though’. 1) it rolls off the fingers onto the keyboard easier 2) it pronounces easier in speech: nist.
I might even be able to persuade a few others to use it. Back in the day, we wanted people to ask what ‘ex-gay’ meant. It would open the door for us to share the Gospel of redemption and a daily walk with Jesus. And, they didn’t ask. I think if we attached the ‘nst’, they’d ask. We’d get a chance to explain what we believe and it would encourage a more realistic sense of the meaning of the words ‘change’ and ‘freedom’. (“Yes, I heard him say that Jesus changed him completely BUT nst.” or “When he said he had freedom from homosexuality, he also said nst. He’s not dead yet so likely has sexual temptations at least once in a while. We can safely conclude that those temptations are sometimes, perhaps most times, homosexual. That’s only logical.” That could also serve to curtail the way too personal questions in public. There would be no need for them.
I have an absurdist bent: Chuckling over the image of some taking it a step or two further. Exodus makes it compulsory. New ex-gays start out with an all caps NST. After some ‘change’ or ‘freedom’ milestone, they drop to lower case nst. And if they get to an 80% straight/20% homosexual blend, they can drop the nst. Ex-gay opponents and detractors wouldn’t start harassing you until you dropped the nst.
But back to point a or thereabouts: even I might be persuaded to use ‘ex-gay, nst’ but ‘ex-gay (n.s.)’ is awkward to type. Compromise?
Eddy: You say that you have “been thinking for the last few days how we distinguish between Christians who actually believe in concepts like sin, repentance, monogamy and those who have a ‘new’ revelation of a grace only relationship.”
I assume from this comment that you are assuming that (unlike you) I am not a “Chriistian who actually believes in concepts like sin, repentance, monogamy”. Here again, as with many of your assumptions about me, you would be wrong!
I believe that we all sin and that we need a Savior. I believe He calls to repent. I believe He expects us to use our sexuality (and all His good gifts) responsibly and lovingly — not to abuse others with it (sin against aothers) or dedicate our lives to the worship of lust (idolatry).
I doubt that you and I really differ on HOW we are saved — or the need for repentance. We disagree on whether or not all homosexual behavior is always sin. You believe it always is and I do not. I believe that is a matter of individual conscience before God. Real, Bible-believing Christians disagree on the gay issue. It’s not as black-nd-white as you would like to make it.
So, once again, we are saved by grace. That being said, we are called to act like it — loving God with all our heart, soul and mind and loving our neighbor as ourselves..
Although MIchael, it would not fit everyone as a woman like myself does consider herself straight. Exgay men are different than ex gay women. A topic you seem to continually overlook.
Mary, I would love to hear how “ex-gay men are different than ex gay women.” How so? Can you give me a few examples of the major differences as you see them? I admit I have trouble understanding what ex-gay men are — and I have very little knowledge about ex-gay women
I know that ex-gay men are (1) not straight, (2) that they still have “SSA”, (3) that some manage refrain from some gay behavior, (4) that some may remain celibate and (5) that some marry, and (6) that some have both attractions even though they don’t consider themselves bisexual.,
I know that (7) some consider themselves “ex-gay” even though they continue to have some type or gay sex from time to time (for example, masturbation to gay fantasies) — even though, as Eddy points out, “continuing “sin” of this type puts them at risk of Hell — and that (8) that some find their “SSA” is less intense over time . Could the same things be said of ex-gay women?
@Michael Bussee:
I wish we could all just stipulate that men are different from women. In sexuality, this seems beyond dispute. Women may indeed make a complete shift without even trying according to Diamond’s work (and my own clinical experience supports this). However, I have only known a handful of men who say the same thing. And in a couple of cases, they thought they were completely changes but later experienced SSA.
This debate is probably endless. I agree with a comment made by Timothy Kincaid here some time ago. We are really talking about the edges of groups statistically. Most people do not switch broad categories once they become adults. There is fluidity from adolescence to adulthood and women are more likely to flex than men.
Michael–
You seem to be saying that we’re pretty close in our theological approach except that we view homosexuality differently. If you really believe that, then I don’t understand the earlier slam you took towards Exodus and ex-gays that suggested they were living by the heresy of works as opposed to grace. That’s when I introduced repentance into the conversation. My conclusion only came after I asked your opinion of repentance twice and you didn’t even acknowledge the question. Just as you assumed Joe Dallas ‘hemmed and hawed’, I assumed you had internal reasons why you couldn’t answer a simple question. So, while you’re pointing the finger of accusation against me once again, please take a moment to feel the imprint of your own fingers pointing back at you. (It would appear with the ‘works heresy’ charge that you were simply tossing out an indefensible negative observation, that even you didn’t believe in, simply for the sake of obstructing the progress of the conversation.)
You don’t think that homosexual behavior calls for repentance and I do. LOL. I’ve been saying that since day one. The way we believe about it impacts our worldview and the way we communicate. To understand that about one another would be a great step towards conflict avoidance and resolution.
When will you begin using your new ex-gay terminology? I noticed you didn’t in your most recent thread. I couldn’t be sure when you suggested the (n.s.) if you were serious or just trying to be negative. You’d thought about it for days and presented it as a revelation of sorts. Is that true and will you be following through? Or is it false, supporting the possibility that you were simply finding a way to say the same old thing but make it sound new?
Eddy, you said: “I don’t understand the earlier slam you took towards Exodus and ex-gays that suggested they were living by the heresy of works as opposed to grace.”
I base my “slam” on a number of things. First, a newsletter from Frank Worthen in which he asserts that we are “justified or condemned”, not by grace, but by the labels we apply to ourselves! He argued that “gay Christians” were not saved, indeed could NOT be saved, because they still use the word “gay” to describe themselves. That’s not the Gospel I received!
You argue that “continuing sin” condemns us – when the fact is we ALL continue to sin. Is one time “continuing”?” Where is the cut-off? If I die with unconfessed and unrepented sin, do I go to Hell? How scary would that be?” We would all live in fear that we had “continued” one time too many.
Like you, I believe that God calls us to repentance and holiness, but I can only “:repent” of something that I believe is sin. Some Christians believe that dancing is sin. Others believe that drinking is sin. Or blood transfusions — or organ donations. You get the point.
To you, it is perfectly clear that all homosexuality is sin. It is not that clear to me. Are we saved or condemned by the language we use — as Frank argues? Am I condemned because I understand certain Biblical passages differently than you do? Can we each live according to our individual conscience and still be saved?: Or do I have to agree with you, use the words you use and live as you do?
Michael–
I haven’t said on this blogsite that I believe all homosexuality is sin. Please don’t assume. I certainly lean very strongly in that direction but I’ve always been open to the possibility I’ve misinterpreted.
Now, let’s go to your example of dancing as sin to some and not to others. What ought the behavior of a dancer and a non-dancer be when they are thrown together? Should the dancers spend their lives trying to prove to the non-dancers how wrong they are? If a non-dancer lapses, is it cause for celebration (a dance perhaps)? Does it really say anything about whether dancing is or isn’t a sin when someone does lapse? Or what about when a non-dancer is tempted to dance but doesn’t? Or dances without a partner? Is it our business?
I think I’ll close with the question you posed to me:
LOL. You’re the one who’s been fighting about our use of the word ‘ex-gay’; you’re the one demanding that we identify ourselves by the psychological words you use rather than the bible ones we choose. What’s that all about?
You said your ‘slam’ was that we were ‘works heretics’ was based on several things and then you gave an example of Frank Worthen and labels. I don’t get the works connection there. Neither do I see where Frank Worthen should be presumed to speak for all ex-gays or all of Exodus. And I didn’t see any other explanations for why you referred to us as ‘works heretics’. In short, I still don’t see your basis for making such a charge. Please help me out here.
You still haven’t answered on the ex-gay (n.s.) thing either. Do you think we should proceed? I’m very perplexed that I ask simple and direct questions yet you always seem to go somewhere else. Should I bold them? If you’re going to pretend to be actually conversing with me–which is what you do when you address your comment to me–please do me the courtesy of respecting the questions that I ask. I do my best to answer yours.
Michael,
See Warren’s comments. Men and women are different – just is. And sexually again – we are different – even when we are ex gay. Women make a greater shift.
Michael – it just seems that no matter how a person changes you are still trying ot categorize them as gay. That’s all. You just want gays to stay gay it seems.
I’m tired.
Mary: You are right when you say that “it just seems that no matter how a person changes you are still trying ot categorize them as gay.”
Yup. You got it, If they are still only attracted to the same sex, they are STILL gay! Gay (or homosexual) only means that the person is attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex. They may not like the term, they may not call themselves gay and they may have made major changes in their lives.”
But no matter what other changes ex-gays may make, they are still gay. It is not that I am trying to “categorize them as gay”. I didn’t make up the words and I did not define them.
Don’t blame me. That’s what the words mean. Only ex-gays insist upon redefining these terms to suit their own puposes. Like it or not,straights don’t have SSA. Only gays, ex-gays and bisexuals do.
Of course, I am using standard, English definitons of these terms. Contrary to what Eddy suggests, there are no “Biblical” definitions of gay, ex-gay. straight, bisexual or heterosexual! I know. I checked.
Eddy, I was being sarcastic about suggesting “n,s” at the end of “ex-gay”. We all now are perfectly clear that “ex-gay” is “not straight”. And I never called you or anyone esle “works heretics”. I said that I find the notion that we are saved by anything other than grace “heretical” — because it is.
Michael-
I am quite disgusted by the level of your disrespect demonstrated towards myself and others who believe as I do. Your recent behavior towards me in particular is, IMHO, way over the top.
On another thread, you rant that Exodus and ex-gays are heretics, suggesting that they live by works. I respond with a question about the role of repentance and you simply don’t answer. You let your heresy charge just stand there…you left my question ignored for several days. Then, you come back to the blog from your 2 or 3 day hiatus, ignore my question still and post a sarcastic blast on this thread with me as part of your sarcasm.
I bring the repentance question over here and again have to ask you twice to get an answer. (Although you took the time to tell me how I’m always assuming.) And I’ve posted several comments re your (n.s.) idea, yet you felt no need to come forward with the fact that it was sarcasm until I’d asked you at least two times. (And I’m guessing Carole’s post re sarcasm was also a way of saying “please acknowledge it”.)
And, always, in the process of not answering legitimate questions, in the process of wasting my time, you find a way to throw in a ‘stinger’ barb jab in every response. I personally find ‘purposely wasting another person’s time’ to be one of the greatest signs of disrespect ever invented.
You’re absolutely right about not finding a bible definition. The bible does not define people by their sexual attractions. So, I only label myself when absolutely necessary…such as in a blogsite as this one.
Psychology studies the workings of the mind. It finds like things, puts them in classifications or groups, and studies them. More often than not, they come up with labels for the groups that seem to fit. I belong to a group that they really haven’t studied much or tried to work with. They already believed we were embarking on an impossible journey just as the ex-gays were beginning to emerge and begin to find each other. You have your goals, I have mine. Mine is to convince psychology that we are a legitimate population of like-minded individuals worthy of both study and professional assistance. You won’t likely find me caving in to your demands to accept their classification.It conflicts at a very basic level with my faith. I will NOT identify myself by something my faith is calling me to walk away from. “Learning to see yourself as God sees you” clashes with psychology’s label. You are concerned about the psychological confusion; although it does concern me, I am more concerned about the spiritual and religious dilemma.
And once again, I’ll remind you that the dictionary supports ‘ex-gay’. The word has a hyphen suggesting it’s made up of two parts. “Ex” means “from” and “gay” means “gay”. The term speaks to our current commonality based on where we’ve been; heterosexuality or straight aren’t mentioned at all.
Wow. I think we all understand each other a little bit better after all of that. Many people will always say I am defined by my attractions and temptations, and that’s fine. God defines all of us as either In Christ or Not In Christ. If we are in Christ, then whether or not we have attractions and whether or not we are acting on them falls into the secondary category. How meat eaters do best not to cause vegetarians to stumble, vegetarians don’t put down meat eaters, drinkers to teetotalers, teetotalers to drinkers, everyday vs one day a week is special, one day a week is special vs everyday, etc. each “side” having trouble with thinking that both sides can’t be in the Right. Freedom in Christ is always biblically tempered by avoiding a great risk of being a stumbling block. And that works both ways. The gay christian’s freedom could easily be a stumbling block to the samesexattracted christian who doesn’t want to live out those feelings, and the freedom of the samesexattractedchristian who doesn’t want to live out those feelings could easily be a stumbling block to the gay christian. So we understand that we disagree. Someone famous said “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, charity; in all things, charity”. How about now lets move on in love (easier said than done for any of us).
Rats, I messed up the quote. “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, DIVERSITY; in all things, charity”
HI everyone,
when we need to use labels to define or undersand something, it is not wrong to say “gay”, “bisexual” or “ex-gay” (a gay person not acting on ssa) if someone is attracted to the same sex.It’s a way of differentiating them from heterosexual, which, if we are intecllectually honest about this, they are definitely not. A straight person who has no attraction to the same sex would feel rightly they are being misdefined if an ex gay or bisexaul or gay personn called themselves a heterosexual. Why? Because then the defintion of straight in intellectually dishonest.
We need to replace political correctness with intellectual honesty-it’s as simple as that.
We’re not defining them as a person.
Kristin,
Being intellectually honest? I am straight to most of the world – except here. I don’t consider myself bi sexual or same sxz attracted anymore. I don’t know what the rest of my life holds for me in the future. By all definitions, I am ex gay and if you have been following the definitions given by the many people here – you will find a variety of answers. Simple? Not so. It has more to do with than penises, vaginas, breasts etc… and what people imagine or do with those things. Many SSA people do not define themselves by a label such as gay because the bible does not refer to people in that way. That is a faith based person who does not accept the “secular” definition of a person. And that is intellectually honest, too.
It is so disheartening when a label becomes such a point of focus – really, what does it matter how I think of myself or how I live my life and how does it interfere with how anyone else thinks of themself? Don’t tell me who I am – trust me, I am capable of knowing myself better than you. Call me what you want but don’t count on me to respond – sorry, my identity doesn’t have to be limited to accommodate you or anyone else.
@Mary,
I’m a lesbian who is attempting to be chaste because of religious beliefs. However, I’m not the least bit upset about being lesbian. In fact, I feel ‘gifted’ by God for being ‘disordered’ because Our Lord has a special love for the poor, the sick, the weak, the helpless. I feel I’ve been given a special gift from God to participate in His Cross, His social opprobrium, etc. I’m not about to change, and I don’t engage in the ‘gay’ culture. And, I don’t hide the fact that I’m a lesbian if questioned.
I’m also a bit confused about the term SSA. It’s a very misleading term. Every person of whatever gender who has a friend is same sex attracted to that friend. For example, a guy likes sports, cars, music …. he’s attracted to guys that also like sports, cars, music. SSA, Same Sex Attracted, is a cutesy term to hide centuries old terms that were completely legitimate: homosexual, lesbian.
However, I’m confused about your position, Mary. Are you saying a lesbian like myself is socially unacceptable … that I need to change to be acceptable even if I’m chaste? Are you saying my disorderedness has to be treated?
Are you now straight, married, with children?
I am by no means being contentious. I’m new here, and because women are different than men, I’d like your input.
Thank you.
Tess
Welcome Tess…
i hate the lables…i find that gay homosexual lesbien heterosexual and SSA and OSA…the whole lot to be rediculously inadiquate discriptive terms that really do nothing but cause confusion and devision….people love to define others by forcing them into these tiny boxes…and when they dont fit just right, there must be something wrong with them…..well i reject all the lables….its harmful to even use them, in any context….if it were not for sexuality lables and the desire for people to feel the need to conform to them…we would see a lot less problems with sexual attractions and (go figure) fewer people living in shame over having some level attraction to the same sex, even if they never act on those attractions or want to act on them…..but you folks go ahead and continue to debate over the usefulness of one pointless lable over another….its just silly in my view..