Looks like must see TV…Our America with Lisa Ling (details at the link)
92 thoughts on “Gay change topic tonight on the Oprah Network”
Comments are closed.
A college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues
Looks like must see TV…Our America with Lisa Ling (details at the link)
Comments are closed.
It has been show that two females can reproduce with a little lab work. That is if the females are mice. But taking the concept up the evolutionary ladder shouldn’t be too difficult.
I am a gay 31 year old. I, like ever other gay man on the planet, of course realizes that being “straight” and therefore socially acceptable would make our lives easier. However, the vast, vast, vast majority of us choose to be ourselves and hope/expect that others will love us for who we are. I knew I was born gay and became attracted to boys during puberty just like a straight boy finds girls attractive during puberty. I had a very normal childhood, with loving parents.
I think why so many in the gay community laugh and mock the “become straight” movement is that we find it sad that people are so brainwashed by religion that they feel the need to try and become something they are not. “Praying yourself straight” is everyone’s right, of course (I’ll leave out the question of it’s effectiveness), but wouldn’t it be great if we lived in a society where we could just be ourselves, and not feel guilty about it??? This movement contradicts that noble goal.
The sperm donor is not a person?
Science and technology have solved that problem. Willing lesbians and a sperm donor are all you need.
Whatever, Preston. You brought up parenting as a reason why gay people would want to live the heterosexual lifestyle. I brought up that you can be gay and a parent. You eventually said that there’s a difference between having kids and parenting kids. You then put the emphasis onto looking at your genes in your kids. That’s fine, but not everyone suffers self-satisfaction with being the parent of biologically-related kids who look similar to them.
If you think I’m quibbling and splitting hair by pointing out that gay people don’t have to enter the “heterosexual lifestyle” in order to become parents, then so be it. You don’t. I didn’t. I know many others who didn’t.
That said, I personally know a few ex-gay folks who did enter the “heterosexual lifestyle” and who became parents. They are all gay again and divorced and their kids are being split between homes.
I prefer my way of becoming a parent.
There’s passing on genes but there’s also looking at your child and seeing yourself and your spouse.
Again, I’m not sure why his needs so much explanation. It’s like people turn their brains off when they come here.
“Parenting” and “procreating” aren’t the same thing, as you yourself acknowledge in your responses to Jon.
If I were personally bothered by my genes disappearing from the gene pool — which I’m not, ’cause what’s it to me if my genes aren’t around 200 years after I’m dead? — I could solve this by the simple expedient of sperm donation, which involves much less time, expense, and trouble than “change therapy.” (I’m HIV- and have the same IQ as Jayne Mansfield, so I’m willing to bet that some chicks would pay good cash for my semen even knowing that I’m homosexual and this trait might theoretically show up in the resulting offspring.)
P.S. For what it’s worth, I have some ethical problems with the idea of being a “sperm donor,” so I’ve never given this idea serious consideration and doubt I ever will. I’m just observing that as a practical matter, it’s simpler than “change therapy” for gays who really really want to pass their genes on.
Thanks, Throbert. The reason I asked is because there seems to be two very distinctive thoughts on whether orientation and identity are separate or one in the same. I have known people who say their orientation is not who they are, rather, it is who they are attracted to. Other people say their orientation is their identity and they are one in the same. I personally see them as separate. Having an orientation does not necessarily mean that has to become one’s identity unless the person chooses it to be. I also think it is intrusive and arrogant for anyone else to tell an individual how they should identify themselves as has been evidenced here before.
I’m an adoptive father. I guarentee that I love and cherish each moment that I spend with our sons. I don’t need to be genetically connected to my sons.
There are thousands of kids who need homes because too many people want to see themselves reflected in their kids’ faces. That’s a tragedy.
Yes, there is a difference between procreating vs. actually parenting. The streets are filled with kids who’ve been abandoned by parents who procreated them.
But if all you care about is procreation, then I agree there is a difference.
Ok, well, there’s a bit of a difference.
Well, I was going to say no one seems to have defined ‘change’ but I see Warren has a new post on that subject now. I was 50 minutes too late.
My point is that procreating offspring is a very powerful motivator. If you want me to spell it out in more detail so that you may understand, let me know.
I have kids and I’m gay. What’s your point?
And yet we can still have kids and be parents.
For whatever reason, the program was only concerned with the topic vis a vis religion hence the title “Pray the Gay Away?” (and Gayle’s incessant reminder about the question mark!).
It’s extremely annoying to me as an atheist that it only seems religious people are granted a pass when wishing to address their unwanted SSA. Given that atheists hold evolutionary theory in such high esteem, you’d think there’d be more considerable non-religious ex-gay component.
Regarding Lisa, quite honestly, given her strong pro-gay views, she was much more balanced than I expected. Even though OWN is not on many channels, it is distinctly mainstream.
Gee, I thought us jews controlled the media. Maybe it’s GAY jews. (yet another George Soros conspiracy to dream up!!)
Are you saying that if gay atheists (a) respect evolution, and (b) believe that homosexuality makes no evolutionary sense, then they should want to become ex-gay in order to be intellectually consistent, or whatever?
My point is that gay people aren’t necessarily infertile. If we want to procreate, we have options. If we want to adopt, we have options. If you want me to spell that out in more detail so that you can understand, that’s cool too.
Preston,
I agree with you about Lisa Ling. While I like her a lot, I felt she was taking the subject personally instead of an unbiased journalist. It seemed to me that was unnecessary as she was reporting on a subject that could hold an interest for a lot of different point of views. From what I saw, I didn’t see or find out anything new, or an attempt to find common ground. Most people interested in this subject know about Exodus and Alan, Michael and his journey, and the conflict or congruence individuals feel who are gay and Christian. I am wondering why other individuals who have different religious beliefs weren’t included as well as those with no religious beliefs at all.
If I’m not mistaken it’s not possible for two people of the same sex to reproduce.
Ann asked me in the “BYU rebuts LDS ex-gay group” thread:
Since that thread is now so long and getting stale, I thought I’d answer the question here — it’s no more off-topic here than there!
So, here goes. As I said, I think there are multiple facets to “sexuality” or “sexual identity”; starting with the most obvious ones:
Orientation — by this, I mean the basic question of “snails or oysters” (as it was phrased in the movie Spartacus), or as I prefer to put it, “Do you prefer tacos, or corndogs?” The terms heterosexual and homosexual describe the biological gender of the “lust objects” relative to the self: Are you turned on by the sex that’s the same as you, or the sex that’s opposite to you? However, you can also discuss orientation in “absolute” terms using words like androphilia (attraction to men) and gynephilia (attraction to women). Note that heterosexual males and homosexual females are both “gynephilic,” while homosexual males and heterosexual females are both “androphilic.”
Age preference is sort of analogous to “orientation” in that it deals with the question of “Who makes me horny?” It can be described with terms such as pedophilia (prepubescent children), hebephilia (young teens just past puberty), ephebophilia (older teens), teleiophilia (adults who are post-teenage but not “senior citizens”), and gerontophilia (“elderly” adults) being used to describe sexual attraction to different age ranges.
Gender identity has nothing to do with “Who makes me horny?”, but rather deals with the question “Which am I — male or female or both or neither?” Generally, people with penises see themselves as males/men and people with vaginas see themselves as females/women. But transgendered individuals may self-perceive as “a woman born with male genitals,” for example. And in the 19th century, some homosexual-rights advocates postulated that male homosexuals were a “third sex,” rather than “a type of man.”
Gender behavior has to do with whether a person’s overall mannerisms and affect outside the bedroom tends to be stereotypically “man-like”/”masculine” or “woman-like”/”feminine” — with “androgynous” or “indeterminate” also being options. Note that a man who is markedly feminine in his behavior may nonetheless have a very strong sense that he is a man, and may also be exclusively attracted to women.
Erotic role preference is a term that I would use when discussing whether a person gravitates towards “active” / “dominant” / “controller” / “alpha” roles when having sex with a partner, or instead prefers “passive” / “submissive” / “controlled” / “beta” roles. Note that In gay parlance, “active” and “passive” may be used to describe whether one prefers the insertive or receptive role in anal sex, while in S&M circles, “dominant” and “submissive” may describe who’s holding the whip, and who’s tied up — but I’m talking in more general terms about psychological roles. Some people have a very strong preference for being either “active” or “passive,” and find it weird to reverse the roles; while others are averse to being typecast, and feel much more comfortable to swap roles back and forth, or to be very egalitarian all the time and avoid the active/passive dichotomy altogether.
Sense of sex-destiny is a phrase I just made up (for lack of a better one) to describe how a person sees his own sexuality in relation to the rest of society: “Am I a participant in a hallowed tradition, or am I outcast from it, or am I actively rebelling against it and subverting it?” Or, “Was I put on this earth to be a devoted husband to one woman, or to be a chaste monk, or to share my magnificent self with as many ladies as possible?” Or, “Should I try to be a parent who gives life to the next generation, or is it better for me to be a doting uncle or aunt to other people’s children, or would I rather not involve myself at all as a team player in the procreative effort?”
There are possibly even other “facets,” but the above are some that came to mind for me when I was reading preston’s links about the Fa’afafine of Samoa (i.e., men who have sex with men, and are culturally perceived as a third sex, and who typically “act effeminate”, and who have apparently been encouraged by the traditional culture to bequeath their earnings to nieces and nephews).
Having a child seems like it would be strong motivation for a lot of people.
The topic seems to be “whether or not it’s possible to be gay and Christian at the same time.” And since she is interviewing Alan Chambers we know what his answer to that question is. Sounds like it will be a boring interview.
So how was it, Warren?
Lisa Ling: “Do you really think people can change?”
Interviewee: “Yes”
Lisa Ling: “Do you really, realy think people can change?”
Interviewee: “Yes”
Lisa Ling: “Do you really, really, really think people can change?”
Interviewee: “Yes”
Lisa Ling: [weird stare]
Lisa Ling: “Well don’t you think the Naming Project is just great?”
It would be comical if it weren’t so sad.
Well, it can’t be too awful from the ex-gay POV. One of the ex-gay men interviewed for this program was skyped in for a post-program discussion and said that he was very pleased with how he was portrayed in the non-live portion of the program. There’s a clip of that segment on the JoeMyGod blog if you’re interested in watching it.
so far this seems like a piece for Exodus. I wish they would do a segment with some of the MCC churches and affirming pentecostal and evangelical churches. I notice that so far the people that they are profiling were out of control, partying, promiscuous folks.
It’s another classic report of showing people who change and still insisting that you can’t change. “Here are a bunch of people who changed. But as we all know, change is really not possible.”
That’s the brainwashing, folks.
I wish I had access to the Oprah Network
I guarantee the segment is gay-friendly. There is simply no way that a non-right-wing media personality can be gay-skeptical these days.
I’m glad I’m too much of a skin-flint to get the ‘upper’ channels like OWN.
I am a gay 31 year old. I, like ever other gay man on the planet, of course realizes that being “straight” and therefore socially acceptable would make our lives easier. However, the vast, vast, vast majority of us choose to be ourselves and hope/expect that others will love us for who we are. I knew I was born gay and became attracted to boys during puberty just like a straight boy finds girls attractive during puberty. I had a very normal childhood, with loving parents.
I think why so many in the gay community laugh and mock the “become straight” movement is that we find it sad that people are so brainwashed by religion that they feel the need to try and become something they are not. “Praying yourself straight” is everyone’s right, of course (I’ll leave out the question of it’s effectiveness), but wouldn’t it be great if we lived in a society where we could just be ourselves, and not feel guilty about it??? This movement contradicts that noble goal.
For that matter, it took me several years of introspection in my late teens to begin sorting out “erotic response” from “aesthetic response.”
In high school, I feel in love with the pre-Raphaelites and neo-Classicists (side effect from four years of Latin, I guess!), and I actually really enjoyed drawing the nude female form. But I gradually began to understand that I had never liked the nymphs in the same way that I liked Hylas!
I guess I see your point, but I was trying to clarify why I self-identify as a “homosexual” instead of an “overwhelmingly male-leaning bisexual” (for example).
My erotic responsiveness to women is not merely “infrequent” and/or “overshadowed” by my erotic responsiveness to men; my sexual attraction to women feels subjectively like “zero”. Moreover this has been the consistent pattern since early adolescence — in other words, my sexual attraction to woman does not merely average out to zero over the decades; it has consistently flatlined at zero.
That said, I’ve never lacked emotional attraction to women, and in fact I had two personally significant crushes on girls (two rather dissimilar girls) when I was in high school and college.
It took me a while to grapple with the reality that I had no interest in having sex with them or seeing them naked or even kissing them, and that I was confusing my peer-love for them and my vague sense that it would socially nice to “have a girlfriend” with erotic response.
For that matter, it took me several years of introspection in my late teens to begin sorting out “erotic response” from “aesthetic response.”
In high school, I feel in love with the pre-Raphaelites and neo-Classicists (side effect from four years of Latin, I guess!), and I actually really enjoyed drawing the nude female form. But I gradually began to understand that I had never liked the nymphs in the same way that I liked Hylas!
I guess I see your point, but I was trying to clarify why I self-identify as a “homosexual” instead of an “overwhelmingly male-leaning bisexual” (for example).
My erotic responsiveness to women is not merely “infrequent” and/or “overshadowed” by my erotic responsiveness to men; my sexual attraction to women feels subjectively like “zero”. Moreover this has been the consistent pattern since early adolescence — in other words, my sexual attraction to woman does not merely average out to zero over the decades; it has consistently flatlined at zero.
That said, I’ve never lacked emotional attraction to women, and in fact I had two personally significant crushes on girls (two rather dissimilar girls) when I was in high school and college.
It took me a while to grapple with the reality that I had no interest in having sex with them or seeing them naked or even kissing them, and that I was confusing my peer-love for them and my vague sense that it would socially nice to “have a girlfriend” with erotic response.
It has been show that two females can reproduce with a little lab work. That is if the females are mice. But taking the concept up the evolutionary ladder shouldn’t be too difficult.
The sperm donor is not a person?
Science and technology have solved that problem. Willing lesbians and a sperm donor are all you need.
Preston,
I have been posting on this blog since it’s inception and don’t remember seeing your posts until just recently. I like most of what you write. Do you mind me asking how you came to know about this blog?
That you lack sexual interest in women. That’s how most people would say it. Inserting “completely” is odd and adds doubt to this reader.
You sure are.
Convince myself of what, Mr. Projector?
I’m probably reading in to something too much but it’s notable to me that Throbert always needs to insert the word “completely”. As if he’s still trying to convince himself.
Thanks, Throbert. The reason I asked is because there seems to be two very distinctive thoughts on whether orientation and identity are separate or one in the same. I have known people who say their orientation is not who they are, rather, it is who they are attracted to. Other people say their orientation is their identity and they are one in the same. I personally see them as separate. Having an orientation does not necessarily mean that has to become one’s identity unless the person chooses it to be. I also think it is intrusive and arrogant for anyone else to tell an individual how they should identify themselves as has been evidenced here before.
Preston,
I have been posting on this blog since it’s inception and don’t remember seeing your posts until just recently. I like most of what you write. Do you mind me asking how you came to know about this blog?
That you lack sexual interest in women. That’s how most people would say it. Inserting “completely” is odd and adds doubt to this reader.
I see “sexual identity” as globally encompassing ALL of those variables that I listed above — and possibly other variables that haven’t occurred to me yet.
So, as an example, my own “sexual identity” might be summarized thus:
* I am a markedly “homosexual” or “androphilic” man who is attracted to other men, but completely lacks sexual interest in women.
* I have never felt that I was a “woman in a man’s body” or that homosexuals constitute a “third sex” — I am simply a man.
* I have always felt a strong preference for males of my own age or older. (Although my preference for “older than me” has gotten less pronounced as I’ve approached 40 myself, and have thus “caught up” with the 35-45 demographic that I found maximally sexy when I was a teenager!)
* I value behavioral and physical “masculinity” in my sexual partners and am much less responsive to men who are physically “androgynous” or who have “feminine mannerisms.” I also have a strong need to be recognized and valued as “masculine” by my sexual partners — it would distress me if a man were attracted to me specifically because he perceived me as “androgynous” or “feminine.” (It’s not nearly so distressing if society at large perceives me to be non-masculine, but I do care what a potential sexual partner thinks — it’s important to me that he groks “homomasculine communion” )
* I abhor the top/bottom dichotomy that some gay men embrace, and find sex less psychologically satisfying if it’s not characterized by egalitarianism, mutuality, and reciprocity. (I’m not saying that there’s something morally wrong or unnatural about embracing “the top/bottom dichotomy” — only that it feels weird to me, personally.)
* Despite being not conventionally religious, I have some inner sense that there might be a divinely-ordained purpose to my homosexuality, and that possibly my “mission from God” is to be a good uncle and also — maybe — to help improve gay male culture in some way, or to make some contribution to society’s overall understanding of homosexuality.
Whatever, Preston. You brought up parenting as a reason why gay people would want to live the heterosexual lifestyle. I brought up that you can be gay and a parent. You eventually said that there’s a difference between having kids and parenting kids. You then put the emphasis onto looking at your genes in your kids. That’s fine, but not everyone suffers self-satisfaction with being the parent of biologically-related kids who look similar to them.
If you think I’m quibbling and splitting hair by pointing out that gay people don’t have to enter the “heterosexual lifestyle” in order to become parents, then so be it. You don’t. I didn’t. I know many others who didn’t.
That said, I personally know a few ex-gay folks who did enter the “heterosexual lifestyle” and who became parents. They are all gay again and divorced and their kids are being split between homes.
I prefer my way of becoming a parent.
Fair enough. I’ll try to be more consistent and post more citations. Apologies there. I never mentioned “parenting” by the way. I’m pretty sure I’ve always said “reproduction”, “procreation”, “have kids” (ie birth them), “produce offspring”. I think I’ve been pretty consistent on that even with Jon coming in to quibble and split hairs in his favor.
Completely unrelated topic. That’s another argumentative tactic.
You sure are.
Convince myself of what, Mr. Projector?
Tu quoque, bozo.
Earlier in this very thread, YOU brought up the case of “atheists who hold evolutionary theory in high regard” — which, to many readers, would imply that you were talking about gene propagation rather than the emotional rewards of co-parenting in the raising of children.
Later, in exchanges with Jon, YOU felt free to move the goalposts back and forth between “parenting” and “procreating,” as best fit your own rhetorical purposes.
In short, preston, you have no business accusing your debate opponents of “turning off their brains” if you can’t make up your own freakin’ mind what your own position is.
Also, in the BYU thread, you were content to throw around one-liners about how obviously redonkulous the “kin selection” defense is, but it was carole who actually took the time to offer substantive arguments with supporting links about why the math works so devastatingly against kin selection being able to “rescue” any gay-gene hypothesis.
All that said, I must credit you for the Fa’afafine links, and for your pointing out the reported “avuncular altruism” of the Fa’afafine is far more likely to be a culturally-caused phenomenon that a genetic effect. (Assuming that the Fa’afafine ARE significantly more altruistic than heterosexual uncles, which may not even be the case — I hadn’t heard of the Fa’afafine before you posted those links, but as soon as I saw “Samoa” I was reminded of the cautionary tales about Margaret Mead seeing what she wanted to see!)
I think that with that example, you did made a good point that a politically-correct or academically fashionable desire to “prove we’re born that way” can lead to a lot of barking up the wrong theoretical trees, wasting time and effort in the process.
I’m probably reading in to something too much but it’s notable to me that Throbert always needs to insert the word “completely”. As if he’s still trying to convince himself.
Throbert,
Thanks again for the detailed response to my earlier question on the other thread. I do understand the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation, however, you said earlier that orientation was only a part of sexual identity. How would you describe sexual identity and how or what part of it is it connected to sexual orientation?
I’m an adoptive father. I guarentee that I love and cherish each moment that I spend with our sons. I don’t need to be genetically connected to my sons.
There are thousands of kids who need homes because too many people want to see themselves reflected in their kids’ faces. That’s a tragedy.
There’s passing on genes but there’s also looking at your child and seeing yourself and your spouse.
Again, I’m not sure why his needs so much explanation. It’s like people turn their brains off when they come here.
“Parenting” and “procreating” aren’t the same thing, as you yourself acknowledge in your responses to Jon.
If I were personally bothered by my genes disappearing from the gene pool — which I’m not, ’cause what’s it to me if my genes aren’t around 200 years after I’m dead? — I could solve this by the simple expedient of sperm donation, which involves much less time, expense, and trouble than “change therapy.” (I’m HIV- and have the same IQ as Jayne Mansfield, so I’m willing to bet that some chicks would pay good cash for my semen even knowing that I’m homosexual and this trait might theoretically show up in the resulting offspring.)
P.S. For what it’s worth, I have some ethical problems with the idea of being a “sperm donor,” so I’ve never given this idea serious consideration and doubt I ever will. I’m just observing that as a practical matter, it’s simpler than “change therapy” for gays who really really want to pass their genes on.
Yes, there is a difference between procreating vs. actually parenting. The streets are filled with kids who’ve been abandoned by parents who procreated them.
But if all you care about is procreation, then I agree there is a difference.
Ok, well, there’s a bit of a difference.
I see “sexual identity” as globally encompassing ALL of those variables that I listed above — and possibly other variables that haven’t occurred to me yet.
So, as an example, my own “sexual identity” might be summarized thus:
* I am a markedly “homosexual” or “androphilic” man who is attracted to other men, but completely lacks sexual interest in women.
* I have never felt that I was a “woman in a man’s body” or that homosexuals constitute a “third sex” — I am simply a man.
* I have always felt a strong preference for males of my own age or older. (Although my preference for “older than me” has gotten less pronounced as I’ve approached 40 myself, and have thus “caught up” with the 35-45 demographic that I found maximally sexy when I was a teenager!)
* I value behavioral and physical “masculinity” in my sexual partners and am much less responsive to men who are physically “androgynous” or who have “feminine mannerisms.” I also have a strong need to be recognized and valued as “masculine” by my sexual partners — it would distress me if a man were attracted to me specifically because he perceived me as “androgynous” or “feminine.” (It’s not nearly so distressing if society at large perceives me to be non-masculine, but I do care what a potential sexual partner thinks — it’s important to me that he groks “homomasculine communion” )
* I abhor the top/bottom dichotomy that some gay men embrace, and find sex less psychologically satisfying if it’s not characterized by egalitarianism, mutuality, and reciprocity. (I’m not saying that there’s something morally wrong or unnatural about embracing “the top/bottom dichotomy” — only that it feels weird to me, personally.)
* Despite being not conventionally religious, I have some inner sense that there might be a divinely-ordained purpose to my homosexuality, and that possibly my “mission from God” is to be a good uncle and also — maybe — to help improve gay male culture in some way, or to make some contribution to society’s overall understanding of homosexuality.
Fair enough. I’ll try to be more consistent and post more citations. Apologies there. I never mentioned “parenting” by the way. I’m pretty sure I’ve always said “reproduction”, “procreation”, “have kids” (ie birth them), “produce offspring”. I think I’ve been pretty consistent on that even with Jon coming in to quibble and split hairs in his favor.
Completely unrelated topic. That’s another argumentative tactic.
Tu quoque, bozo.
Earlier in this very thread, YOU brought up the case of “atheists who hold evolutionary theory in high regard” — which, to many readers, would imply that you were talking about gene propagation rather than the emotional rewards of co-parenting in the raising of children.
Later, in exchanges with Jon, YOU felt free to move the goalposts back and forth between “parenting” and “procreating,” as best fit your own rhetorical purposes.
In short, preston, you have no business accusing your debate opponents of “turning off their brains” if you can’t make up your own freakin’ mind what your own position is.
Also, in the BYU thread, you were content to throw around one-liners about how obviously redonkulous the “kin selection” defense is, but it was carole who actually took the time to offer substantive arguments with supporting links about why the math works so devastatingly against kin selection being able to “rescue” any gay-gene hypothesis.
All that said, I must credit you for the Fa’afafine links, and for your pointing out the reported “avuncular altruism” of the Fa’afafine is far more likely to be a culturally-caused phenomenon that a genetic effect. (Assuming that the Fa’afafine ARE significantly more altruistic than heterosexual uncles, which may not even be the case — I hadn’t heard of the Fa’afafine before you posted those links, but as soon as I saw “Samoa” I was reminded of the cautionary tales about Margaret Mead seeing what she wanted to see!)
I think that with that example, you did made a good point that a politically-correct or academically fashionable desire to “prove we’re born that way” can lead to a lot of barking up the wrong theoretical trees, wasting time and effort in the process.
And yet we can still have kids and be parents.
Throbert,
Thanks again for the detailed response to my earlier question on the other thread. I do understand the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation, however, you said earlier that orientation was only a part of sexual identity. How would you describe sexual identity and how or what part of it is it connected to sexual orientation?
If I’m not mistaken it’s not possible for two people of the same sex to reproduce.
My point is that gay people aren’t necessarily infertile. If we want to procreate, we have options. If we want to adopt, we have options. If you want me to spell that out in more detail so that you can understand, that’s cool too.
My point is that procreating offspring is a very powerful motivator. If you want me to spell it out in more detail so that you may understand, let me know.
Throbert,
I just got back – thank you so much for the detailed response to my question. I will read it a little later when I can concentrate on it. Just wanted to thank you now.
I have kids and I’m gay. What’s your point?
Having a child seems like it would be strong motivation for a lot of people.
Well, I can’t speak for all atheists, but for me, it works out to this:
Do I find my life as a homosexual to be perfectly happy? Hell no. I’ve been single all through my 30s and I really don’t like it. I’d much rather be one half of a committed couple, as I was for most of my 20s, but finding a compatible man who’s willing to commit ain’t easy.
But supposing I subjected myself to all the time, expense, and tsuris of going through Sexual Identity Therapy so that I could experience some degree of satisfaction from heterosexual relationships. Would that ensure me happiness? Obviously not, because I’d still have the problem of finding a compatible woman, compounded by the fact that most ladies probably aren’t too interested in having a husband who’s thinking about c*ck half the time. (Linda Lee Thomas was willing to do it, but I’m not Cole Porter.)
So, in the absence of any overwhelming conviction that God wants me to live a heterosexual lifestyle, what is my motivation to go through costly therapy that at best might allow me to kinda-sorta enjoy sex with a woman (while at the same time being nostalgic for physical intimacy with men)?
Are you saying that if gay atheists (a) respect evolution, and (b) believe that homosexuality makes no evolutionary sense, then they should want to become ex-gay in order to be intellectually consistent, or whatever?
Well, I was going to say no one seems to have defined ‘change’ but I see Warren has a new post on that subject now. I was 50 minutes too late.
For whatever reason, the program was only concerned with the topic vis a vis religion hence the title “Pray the Gay Away?” (and Gayle’s incessant reminder about the question mark!).
It’s extremely annoying to me as an atheist that it only seems religious people are granted a pass when wishing to address their unwanted SSA. Given that atheists hold evolutionary theory in such high esteem, you’d think there’d be more considerable non-religious ex-gay component.
Regarding Lisa, quite honestly, given her strong pro-gay views, she was much more balanced than I expected. Even though OWN is not on many channels, it is distinctly mainstream.
Throbert,
I just got back – thank you so much for the detailed response to my question. I will read it a little later when I can concentrate on it. Just wanted to thank you now.
Ann asked me in the “BYU rebuts LDS ex-gay group” thread:
Since that thread is now so long and getting stale, I thought I’d answer the question here — it’s no more off-topic here than there!
So, here goes. As I said, I think there are multiple facets to “sexuality” or “sexual identity”; starting with the most obvious ones:
Orientation — by this, I mean the basic question of “snails or oysters” (as it was phrased in the movie Spartacus), or as I prefer to put it, “Do you prefer tacos, or corndogs?” The terms heterosexual and homosexual describe the biological gender of the “lust objects” relative to the self: Are you turned on by the sex that’s the same as you, or the sex that’s opposite to you? However, you can also discuss orientation in “absolute” terms using words like androphilia (attraction to men) and gynephilia (attraction to women). Note that heterosexual males and homosexual females are both “gynephilic,” while homosexual males and heterosexual females are both “androphilic.”
Age preference is sort of analogous to “orientation” in that it deals with the question of “Who makes me horny?” It can be described with terms such as pedophilia (prepubescent children), hebephilia (young teens just past puberty), ephebophilia (older teens), teleiophilia (adults who are post-teenage but not “senior citizens”), and gerontophilia (“elderly” adults) being used to describe sexual attraction to different age ranges.
Gender identity has nothing to do with “Who makes me horny?”, but rather deals with the question “Which am I — male or female or both or neither?” Generally, people with penises see themselves as males/men and people with vaginas see themselves as females/women. But transgendered individuals may self-perceive as “a woman born with male genitals,” for example. And in the 19th century, some homosexual-rights advocates postulated that male homosexuals were a “third sex,” rather than “a type of man.”
Gender behavior has to do with whether a person’s overall mannerisms and affect outside the bedroom tends to be stereotypically “man-like”/”masculine” or “woman-like”/”feminine” — with “androgynous” or “indeterminate” also being options. Note that a man who is markedly feminine in his behavior may nonetheless have a very strong sense that he is a man, and may also be exclusively attracted to women.
Erotic role preference is a term that I would use when discussing whether a person gravitates towards “active” / “dominant” / “controller” / “alpha” roles when having sex with a partner, or instead prefers “passive” / “submissive” / “controlled” / “beta” roles. Note that In gay parlance, “active” and “passive” may be used to describe whether one prefers the insertive or receptive role in anal sex, while in S&M circles, “dominant” and “submissive” may describe who’s holding the whip, and who’s tied up — but I’m talking in more general terms about psychological roles. Some people have a very strong preference for being either “active” or “passive,” and find it weird to reverse the roles; while others are averse to being typecast, and feel much more comfortable to swap roles back and forth, or to be very egalitarian all the time and avoid the active/passive dichotomy altogether.
Sense of sex-destiny is a phrase I just made up (for lack of a better one) to describe how a person sees his own sexuality in relation to the rest of society: “Am I a participant in a hallowed tradition, or am I outcast from it, or am I actively rebelling against it and subverting it?” Or, “Was I put on this earth to be a devoted husband to one woman, or to be a chaste monk, or to share my magnificent self with as many ladies as possible?” Or, “Should I try to be a parent who gives life to the next generation, or is it better for me to be a doting uncle or aunt to other people’s children, or would I rather not involve myself at all as a team player in the procreative effort?”
There are possibly even other “facets,” but the above are some that came to mind for me when I was reading preston’s links about the Fa’afafine of Samoa (i.e., men who have sex with men, and are culturally perceived as a third sex, and who typically “act effeminate”, and who have apparently been encouraged by the traditional culture to bequeath their earnings to nieces and nephews).
Gee, I thought us jews controlled the media. Maybe it’s GAY jews. (yet another George Soros conspiracy to dream up!!)
Well, I can’t speak for all atheists, but for me, it works out to this:
Do I find my life as a homosexual to be perfectly happy? Hell no. I’ve been single all through my 30s and I really don’t like it. I’d much rather be one half of a committed couple, as I was for most of my 20s, but finding a compatible man who’s willing to commit ain’t easy.
But supposing I subjected myself to all the time, expense, and tsuris of going through Sexual Identity Therapy so that I could experience some degree of satisfaction from heterosexual relationships. Would that ensure me happiness? Obviously not, because I’d still have the problem of finding a compatible woman, compounded by the fact that most ladies probably aren’t too interested in having a husband who’s thinking about c*ck half the time. (Linda Lee Thomas was willing to do it, but I’m not Cole Porter.)
So, in the absence of any overwhelming conviction that God wants me to live a heterosexual lifestyle, what is my motivation to go through costly therapy that at best might allow me to kinda-sorta enjoy sex with a woman (while at the same time being nostalgic for physical intimacy with men)?
Preston,
I agree with you about Lisa Ling. While I like her a lot, I felt she was taking the subject personally instead of an unbiased journalist. It seemed to me that was unnecessary as she was reporting on a subject that could hold an interest for a lot of different point of views. From what I saw, I didn’t see or find out anything new, or an attempt to find common ground. Most people interested in this subject know about Exodus and Alan, Michael and his journey, and the conflict or congruence individuals feel who are gay and Christian. I am wondering why other individuals who have different religious beliefs weren’t included as well as those with no religious beliefs at all.
Sorry, I should have indicated that those quotes were tongue in cheek, not actual. My apologies.
For someone as opposed to the subject as Lisa is, the show wasn’t as distinctly biased as I expected. Although, of course it still obviously sided with the pro-gay camp. You could tell she was half-winking to all her friends “isn’t this ridiculous”.
It would be extremely refreshing to see a news journal like that take a truly unbiased look at the subject or even be supportive of the other side. But not even 60 Minutes can muster up the fortitude for that. Gays have too much influence in the media for anyone to “break rank”, I believe.
I will give Lisa some credit: “What I actually found in the case of the Exodus movement is while I don’t agree with them, the Exodus of today is not actively out trying to convert people. They’re basically saying if you don’t want to live a gay lifestyle, we can help you. Quite honestly, if that’s your prerogative if you fundamentally think being gay is wrong and you don’t want to live and be who you are, that’s your prerogative.”
But even still she mocks those who want to change with that last sentence.
Are you talking about the post-interview clip? If so, that’s not quite accurate, Preston.
The questions were more like what do you think of your portrayal? Are you still prepared to live a life a celibacy instead of living in a gay relationship? What did you think about the kids involved in the Naming Project?
Lisa Ling: “Do you really think people can change?”
Interviewee: “Yes”
Lisa Ling: “Do you really, realy think people can change?”
Interviewee: “Yes”
Lisa Ling: “Do you really, really, really think people can change?”
Interviewee: “Yes”
Lisa Ling: [weird stare]
Lisa Ling: “Well don’t you think the Naming Project is just great?”
It would be comical if it weren’t so sad.
It’s another classic report of showing people who change and still insisting that you can’t change. “Here are a bunch of people who changed. But as we all know, change is really not possible.”
That’s the brainwashing, folks.
Well, it can’t be too awful from the ex-gay POV. One of the ex-gay men interviewed for this program was skyped in for a post-program discussion and said that he was very pleased with how he was portrayed in the non-live portion of the program. There’s a clip of that segment on the JoeMyGod blog if you’re interested in watching it.
Sorry, I should have indicated that those quotes were tongue in cheek, not actual. My apologies.
For someone as opposed to the subject as Lisa is, the show wasn’t as distinctly biased as I expected. Although, of course it still obviously sided with the pro-gay camp. You could tell she was half-winking to all her friends “isn’t this ridiculous”.
It would be extremely refreshing to see a news journal like that take a truly unbiased look at the subject or even be supportive of the other side. But not even 60 Minutes can muster up the fortitude for that. Gays have too much influence in the media for anyone to “break rank”, I believe.
I will give Lisa some credit: “What I actually found in the case of the Exodus movement is while I don’t agree with them, the Exodus of today is not actively out trying to convert people. They’re basically saying if you don’t want to live a gay lifestyle, we can help you. Quite honestly, if that’s your prerogative if you fundamentally think being gay is wrong and you don’t want to live and be who you are, that’s your prerogative.”
But even still she mocks those who want to change with that last sentence.
Are you talking about the post-interview clip? If so, that’s not quite accurate, Preston.
The questions were more like what do you think of your portrayal? Are you still prepared to live a life a celibacy instead of living in a gay relationship? What did you think about the kids involved in the Naming Project?
I guarantee the segment is gay-friendly. There is simply no way that a non-right-wing media personality can be gay-skeptical these days.
so far this seems like a piece for Exodus. I wish they would do a segment with some of the MCC churches and affirming pentecostal and evangelical churches. I notice that so far the people that they are profiling were out of control, partying, promiscuous folks.
The topic seems to be “whether or not it’s possible to be gay and Christian at the same time.” And since she is interviewing Alan Chambers we know what his answer to that question is. Sounds like it will be a boring interview.
So how was it, Warren?
I’m glad I’m too much of a skin-flint to get the ‘upper’ channels like OWN.
I wish I had access to the Oprah Network