Today’s Sydney Star-Observer reports on 5 ex-ex-gays who have denounced their former programs. I was struck by the mention of discipline in the arsenal of techniques.
Many former leaders believed that homosexuality was a choice, including Vonnie Pitts, the former leader of Living Waters, an organisation that conducts disciplinary programs for those pursuing “sexual wholeness”.
I don’t know much about Living Waters. Readers who do, what could she be referring to by the use of the term, “disciplinary programs?”
The emphasis on rigid gender roles sounds sadly familiar:
After attending Australia’s first ex-gay program in 1972, Anthony Venn-Brown spent 22 years trying to change his sexuality.
The program, he said, was about “modifying your behaviour to become more masculine”.
“You were never allowed to work in a kitchen – that was women’s work,” he said. “You were always doing maintenance work and manual labour outside … and they also removed any articles of clothing from my wardrobe that they believed were not masculine.
…and
“They believed you should have a good, strong male role model because your father was emotionally distant. Therefore they gave me a minder, who would be with me 24 hours a day and who would make sure I was behaving myself.”
Theories have consequences and thus it is important to stay true to the data and to be tentative where the data are not very clear. Dubious theories of sexual orientation development can lead to dubious practices — as is illustrated here. I may have mentioned this before on this blog, but this reminds me of an illustration Ariel Shidlo gave at the 2000 APA convention when he and Michael Schroeder presented their data on harm from reorientation. He noted a young man was asked by his reparative therapist to give up a piano scholarship because piano playing was too feminine. He gave it up but, of course did not lose his attractions to men. The client however, was angry and frustrated.
AM –
You ask some very difficult questions in your above post, and I am so sorry that you have felt such frustration in your search for self.
You said one particular thing that I wanted to respond to:
“Where does it end? I can appreciate that the name that Exodus chose did depict a *journey*. But, even the Israelites did not wander in the desert forever, they eventually did reach the Promised Land.”
You mentioned that you have a pattern, and that this tends to just be a revolving door of sorts for you that you state is (in sum) relationship – program – celibacy – repression….
AM, it is not my place to tell you how to live your life or where your quest will lead. For me, I know that living my life as honestly and as genuinely as I could meant finding personal happiness. For me, that’s being a married (to another woman) christian woman who is a part of a reconciling congretation who is supportive of my faith beliefs and my family. For others, being genuine may have other meanings.
I never did try, although it was encouraged by family, to change…there was something internal in me that knew from my first female experience in college (with a minister’s daughter at that!) that this was me. Even though I had dated men for quite some time, it was the first time I finally knew what all the fuss was about.
There is only so long that one can continue to attempt the same things finding no fulfillment. I would humbly suggest that maybe if Living Waters sets you on the same pattern time after time, that you think on that for a bit to determine your course. Whether that means a different program, an individual therapist, working toward ex-gay, working toward accepting self as gay, or just letting life happen while you pursue it with vigor and your personal values.
Best of luck to you.
Ann and Jag,
I don’t know of such a place, but it would be nice if it existed.
Are there such places where both groups meet and discuss without “debate,” but just for conversation, personal expansion, and possibly worship?
Jag,
Make sure you let me know where this is because I want to come too.
Jayhuck and Eddy –
I just wanted to thank the two of you for your thoughts and opinions on the subject of the label “ex-gay.” why you may or may not apply it to yourself and what it means to each of you. Thank you for sharing that.
After reading both of your comments, it made me think of how much we all have in common. We all question the labels we are given for where we are, whether we choose to embrace or reject them. We see the inconsistencies even *within* groups of those labels. One “ex-gay” should not be assumed to be the same as another – as one gay or lesbian person should not be assumed to be the same as another. Yet we hear this mistake repeatedly for both…and it stigmatizes us all.
So often we are placed into separate “camps,” but in the end it seems the married “lesbian” woman has more in common with her “ex-gay” peers than one could imagine…I’d argue that we often share a more similar value system, set of experiences, perspectives, etc…than many you or I might be lumped with by the “titles” others may give us regarding our sexuality- or we may give ourselves.
Getting to my point – It adds to the notion of how falsely constructed these labels are, and how false these “camps” are.
I truly wish, after having this conversation with both of you, that there were some real ways of bridging those gaps that exist that tend to separate us. For example, I’d love to attend a church where we could worship side-by-side…but may ex-gays attend a conservative church where I am not welcomed, and truthfully I may attend a gay-friendly reconciling church where ex-gays may not feel as comfortable either. Odd how that is.
Do you see that as a possibility, or do you think theological differences would prevent the camps from coming together, even to work together toward issues like housing or employment rights?
I really thought about and appreciated what you both had to say tremendously, and thought on it a great deal. The separation that exists seems more and more motivated to serve political ends, than to true human resolution and growth.
Are there such places where both groups meet and discuss without “debate,” but just for conversation, personal expansion, and possibly worship?
Just some thoughts rather than pointed questions – sorry for the novel.
I thought that commentary had been shut down due to Warren’s work schedule. Apparently, I haven’t read everything on that.
But, reading the words above, leaves me with a reality check:
So, how do you live? Do you have sex? Are you alone? What is LIFE like for you? Not just the Internet.
Now, when I say “you”, I am speaking universally for any and all people who would relate to these “words”.
Maybe that is the biggest issue with this whole debate: take a ‘slice’ of someone’s life — maybe the time they spent in the Living Waters program and fast forward to today.
How many years does one wait to have a life? How many years does one suppress, repress, or shut down? How often does one “act out”? Or have a partner for a length of time?
Hmm…sounds like the concept of a study as to is it real? Does it work?
IOW I could go out, have a relationship for 5 years (for example), then go into a Living Waters program, remain celibate for the next five with suppression and repression which has been my MO and then go revolving door ad infinitum.
Where does it end? I can appreciate that the name that Exodus chose did depict a *journey*. But, even the Israelites did not wander in the desert forever, they eventually did reach the Promised Land.
Eddy,
BTW – I really like your idea of “The Term” – Maybe I’ll rethink my need of a label, at least long enough to see what I can come up with 🙂
Yes, I’m enjoying the conversation again as well!!!!!!
Eddy,
BTW – I really like your idea of “The Term” – Maybe I’ll rethink my need of a label, at least to see what I can come up with 😉
Yes, I’m enjoying the conversation again as well!!!!!!
Eddy,
I guess, for me, people have been leaving active homosexuality behind for decades without a label. I don’t really see the need to replace it. I wish you the best on reforming the term ex-gay though, because it certainly needs it. For the time being I am a Christian who is homosexual but not practicing. For me, for the time being, that’s enough.
JAG-
Thank you! First, before anything else, I have to take exception to one–and only one–comment from your recent response. “I should just change who I am, like you did, and be normal.” LOL! I’ve been called many things in my life–but never ‘normal’. It seems that, no matter what I am…or what I am doing…somehow, I manage to be an abnormal version of whatever it is. Perhaps, if any one label could be applied to me, it would be ‘unique’. LOL! Call me anything you want but never ‘normal’.
I sense we have a kindred ‘analytical/problem solver’ mentality and I love talking in ‘points’…keeps me focussed and helps me to not forget something important.
Re point 1. I totally agree. Long ago on the blog, I cited that dynamic. The ex-gay who’s simply plodding along doesn’t give the news the sensationalism it demands. (I occasionally wish/dream that the most unusual mix here would become newsworthy. Then, we could give a little spotlight to the other versions of ex-gay.
Re points 2 and 3. We debated those ideas when considering the term. The use of the word ‘straight’ was an option only considered by a few. They were of a ‘name it and claim it’ theology. To the rest of us, it felt like a lie. The word ‘straight’ has a common, widely-accepted definition; we knew we weren’t that.
Some wanted a term that had no connection to the past. I remember cringing at ‘Christo-sexual’. A little ‘over the top’ I’d say. We wanted a term that would give people some sense of what we all had in common…’gay’ is where we’d been; ‘ex’ suggested, at the least, that we were moving away from it. (It didn’t even imply Christian! Exodus didn’t have any proprietary rights on the term. I’d have no problems with a Jewish ex-gay…a Hindu ex-gay…even an ex-gay who was ex for non-religious reasons.)
I think you hit on something when you said “I’m not an ex-grad student…I’m way different now”. I agree with that, yet, I find myself saying, in certain conversations, “I’m an ex-hippie”, “I’m an ex-Catholic”, “I’m an ex-smoker”. (No longer ‘ex’ on that one, BTW.) The coupling of ‘ex’ with those terms actually suggests that, to some extent, those things are still part of me. So, you ARE way different from a grad student and adding ‘ex’ would only be confusing. But, if you add it to the sense of hippie, Catholic, smoker, etc., it does suggest some form of present-tense connection.
4) I couldn’t agree with you more. While I was involved with Exodus, I was a persistent voice that we needed to avoid being drawn into right-wing politics. (1) I felt we already had enough on our plates (2) I sensed it would confuse our message and how we were perceived {I score a bullseye on that one!} (3) I found it hypocritical that churches would target one particular ‘sin’ from a list of sins. (4) Even more hypocritical that their very first statement to the gay community is not the message of love, hope and redemption but something more like a surly “we don’t take to your kind around here.” (5) Finally, I felt that whatever it was we hoped to gain (increasing our profile, gaining financial support, finding churches that we could recommend as a safe place to grow) would be outweighed by the negative associations. (Another bullseye.)
Penultimate finally: Your post evoked memories of those times when we were discussing terminology. At the time, I appreciated the ‘ex’ part for its ‘from’ definition. But, I also had no trouble with ‘out of’. LOL! Wouldya believe I still have that same dictionary?!Anyway, it goes on to say “and hence (meaning ‘by inference’) ‘utterly’ and ‘thoroughly’.” Everybody I knew used it in the ‘from’ and ‘out of’ sense; it greatly disturbs me that the derivative meaning is what many are hearing.
Finally, you said:
“Truth is, what is right for one person, isn’t right for everyone. But this philosophical truth seems too much for the average person to grasp. We should join forces for equal rights…that would be phenomenal.
Both sides would get much crap for it, but wouldn’t it just be an amazing statement of solidarity?”
I don’t think I’ve ever heard it said any better! I like to think that somehow WE are working towards that here.
Jayhuck–
Thanks for your reply also. I think that the combination of your post and JAG’s drew the above comments out of me. It felt productive. Yay!
Two (I think) additional comments though.
1) Re “I’m not really sure we need a label anyway.” That’s true, MOST times we don’t. Except for blogging here, my sexuality rarely comes up in conversation…so I don’t need a label, I don’t see myself in the label as I go about my day. I’m just me and I just happen to be in a stage of ex-gay. Personally, I’m quite proud that we found a term that’s been flexible enough to accomodate me and my experience over these past 30 years. LOL! For the reasons I spelled out above, I not only favored the term ‘ex-gay’; I may have been its chief supporter. I was in a slightly abnormal 😉 position of being ‘board material’ but my co-director was already on the board and we had a ‘no more than one from a ministry’ rule. It was the first time that I didn’t defer to her to communicate my input to the board. LOL! I even wrote a few letters and made a few phone calls.
Is it any wonder that I want to rescue the term despite what Exodus political involvements have done to it? It still fits–just like I knew it would. If I need to hook-up for a little support…say by searching the web…I need something simple to search. “Ex-gay” works. Search it and you’ll find Exodus, Ex-Gay Watch, this blog. Anyway, as you consider doing away with ‘ex-gay’, you’ve simply GOT TO replace it with something that people can use to connect or search. Maybe, instead of a label, we could call it a handle. Anyway, we need that label, that handle, that term for times like those.
To your online group idea: Check out MySpace. It’s free and easy to do. I searched both ‘gay’ and ‘ex-gay’ under their groups and was surprised how many there were. (I said ‘groups’…I think it’s a blog family similar to here except that everybody comes from the same basic p.o.v. so the conversations get a little boring.)
And, now, a neat trick of tying both paragraphs together: As you and your friends explore the idea of a replacement term, try the MySpace thing. But, here’s the challenge: Don’t use the term ‘ex-gay’ ANYWHERE for your first month…not in your profiles, not in your headlines, not in your comments. Call it ‘the term’ as you’re discussing a replacement. Then, start using it. I’m positive that you’d see a dramatic increase in new friends and site visitors simply because they found you through searching ‘ex-gay’. (There were a good number of ex-ex-gay blogs that I can recall.) I think they might have a several day ‘lock’ on setting up a public blog but you can set up the basic account and profile in an evening and toy with the blog graphics possibilities in ‘personal blogs’ so you’re ready to fly. (You and each of your friends would set up a personal MySpace profile. Next, you ‘accept’ each other as ‘friends’. Then, one of you…the primary ‘topic’ or “blog’ person would set up the blog.
You can converse on the blog, on your individual profiles, and through personal e-mails.)
2) Lol! There is none. I just realized that was the MySpace idea. So, at last, I think I’m done….
I’m starting to enoy this conversation again. 🙂 Hope you are too! I’ve GOT to get outside. The sun beckons.
Eddy,
I believe Warren doesn’t like the term either – you might ask him why. I’m betting he might have well-thought-out reasons on the matter.
Jag,
For me, I don’t use the term for four main reasons:
1) It has been confused with complete and total healing
2) It has also been confused with healing period. There are some ex-gays that never see a decrease in their desires or see the change they wanted to see in their sexuality. For them their life is a day to day struggle with these feelings they believe are wrong.
3) Ex-gay often simply means celibate, and there is nothing wrong with that. And this ties in to reasons 1 and 2
4) The term has been too often connected with politics – and this is where I think it becomes divisive. The term, from my and some other peoples perspectives, is synonymous with Exodus – and we all know how Exodus turns people off and immediately makes people in the gay community defensive – primarily because they use their change to support inequality and oppression of gay people.
I am currently talking with several other Christians who feel as I do that the term is just problematic. We don’t really feel we need a label. I hate to use this comparison because it usually upsets me when others do, but a small comparison can be made to alcoholics – although I want to make it clear that gay people are not in any way like alcoholics because being gay is not a disease. No matter if the alcoholic never drinks again in their life, or even if they overcome most of their feelings for alcohol, they will never call themselves ex-alcoholics. They will always refer to themselves as alcoholics, primarily because it is a reminder to them that they can never let their guard down, because if they do they often get into trouble – I hope that makes sense and that I haven’t offended anyone.
I might also add that the others I’ve been speaking too and who feel as I do, have thought about creating a web presence to offer and alternative to groups like Exodus – not sure if this will ever happen, but I’ll let you know
Eddy,
I hope that better explains where I’m coming from.
Eddy –
Thank you so very much. I completely see where you are coming from, and I think, as you observe…that this has been the primary sticking point with the term “ex-gay”:
“The major challenge has been that many have ‘misused the term’ to mean ‘complete and total healing’ or somesuch.”
I think this has many reasons:
1. Sadly, because the only people that many are exposed to, are those who go on talk shows, etc…who make statements that this is the case. That they had a transformation and now are completely heterosexual.
2. That some wonder why individuals, if they are currently straight, feel the need to define themselves by their past. For example (and not to be taken negatively) I am from a graduate school past…I call myself a “doctor,” not an “ex-grad student.” I was once a grad student in my past, but now am something entirely different. We call people who were once married “divorced,” not “ex-married.” etc…It’s confusing to many why many define your current state by their past. Why not call individuals straight?
3. From my end, and this is entirely my opinion, why would you tether someone to a past that they no longer relate to? I wonder if this is good psychologically. Now, you know I have no problem with being gay (heck, I am one), but if you did…it would seem to equate with many other things. If I didn’t want to associate with my thieving past (completely fabricated by the way), I wouldn’t constantly call myself an ex-thief. Even though technically it is what I am, that reminder verbally would likely set me back in trying to make progress for my life.
4. There seems to be some hostility on the part of evangelicals and political parties to use ex-gays against gays. It creates a tension between the groups that doesn’t need to be there. The message is often…”see, if they can change, why don’t you?” Truth is, I’m a gay christian woman who has never felt compelled to change in the least to be consistent with my faith.
Others sometimes use the “ex-gay” term to justify not giving those like me rights, because I should just “change” who I am like you did, and be “normal.” The term ex-gay has been very controversial in the gay community for this reason. They constantly play us against each other. In churches, politics, etc…until we don’t talk to each other.
Truth is, what is right for one person, isn’t right for everyone. But this philosophical truth seems too much for the average person to grasp. We should join forces for equal rights…that would be phenomenal.
Both sides would get much crap for it, but wouldn’t it just be an amazing statement of solidarity?
Thanks, JAG.
My point all along–one that I even hope to make to Alan Chambers–is that the term ‘ex-gay’ is actually QUITE descriptive. I keep hearing that the term is ‘fraught with confusion’ but it never seems to be the term itself that is really at issue. Some people hear ‘gay’ and go ‘oh, yuck, those people’ and you can tell they have all kinds of nasty images in their heads. Some people hear the word ‘gay’ and it speaks to them of their loving committment to a wonderful partner. The term ‘gay’ is interpreted differently by both hearers but the term itself is adequate. Is the word ‘gay’ fraught with confusion and divisiveness because these people respond to it so differently?
The major challenge has been that many have ‘misused the term’ to mean ‘complete and total healing’ or somesuch. I know a number of gays who ONLY pursue anonymous sex yet I know that they don’t DEFINE gay. If I suggested that the gay community find a better term because these people give a negative flavor to the term, most would find that laughable. I think most of us realize that the term doesn’t define us; we define it. The part that defines is the part that we hold in common. So, even though we might have a disdain for those who ‘trick around’, we do realize that they are included in the term ‘gay’.
I believe it’s precisely the same with ‘ex-gay’. I’ve always been unhappy about SOME of the people who also fit the basic label but I have to realize that the term was meant to be inclusive–simply “FROM a gay past”. For more details about what an individual meant when they said they were ex-gay, you’d have to take the same path you take when they tell you they’re gay. Develop a conversation where you find out what their version is like. LOL! Exodus believes this way too. Why do you think they settled on the name ‘Exodus’? There was a genuine sense of wilderness when we started out and a real sense that it was going to be a long journey.
The discussion of the term ‘ex-gay’ has come up several times over the past year on this site. Every time, the naysayers have spoken up against it but STILL have never answered my challenges regarding what’s wrong with the term. And they’ve never offered an alternative that even they are willing to live with.
I was around when Exodus labored over terminology back in a time when even conservative Christians didn’t know who we were or what we are about. We were, as a group, young, creative and reasonably smart. About a dozen possible terms came to the table and, of them all, I felt–and obviously still feel–that ‘ex-gay’ says it best.
I’m glad I could help Jag
Eddy,
I’d rather take this discussion offline. I’m not going to have this talk with you here.
Eddy and Jayhuck –
The reason why I asked Gene about the term “ex-gay,” was that from the “outside” (not being a part of the ex-gay community), it does seem a controversial but inconsistently defined term.
Seeing that both of you disagree about its use, and your differing perspectives on it, has been helpful. For scientific purposes, it has routinely been difficult to say when someone is ex-gay…is it behavior? thoughts? etc…the personal seems equally difficult.
I heard a minister once equate homosexuality to any other sin…like thievery…he stated “when do you stop being a thief? when you stop stealing.” Saying that if you stop homosexual behaviors, you stop being a homosexual. As Mary and others have pointed out – and as any client or individuals will tell you – there is far more to it than that.
Thank you for your honest conversation.
Jayhuck,
I’m sorry if it sounds like anger. I’m also sorry that you were unable to recognize the lengths you’ll go to to disparage a point from most anyone who represents the ‘other point of view’. You just responded to David this morning with a mix of “I’m not sure if this is what you’re saying but…” and one paragraph, at least, that is totally unfounded or supported.
I’m still waiting, by the way, for you to clarify “Eddy, I’ll have to disagree with you there”. You addressed me and were responding to me. Since JAG also used the term ‘ex-gay’, it had to be more than the term. What specifically did you disagree with in what I said?
Few things are as limiting and/or choking individuality as attaching a label to a person – it is like ivy or kudzu growing on a tree. Where once there was a beautiful tree, now all that is is seen is the ivy. Take away the ivy and the tree breathes and grows and is beautiful again.
Eddy,
Are you saying I couldn’t share with Jag, on a public forum, my views on the term? Granted, I was not the one that was asked, but it IS a public forum, and the question was out there for all to read. I am sorry if you felt I spoke out of turn, but I felt I had a right to comment on it, even if I wasn’t the person the question was addressed to – we all do that on this blog. I’m starting to wonder about all the anger you keep addressing at me. I’d be happy to talk to you in private if you like.
Eddy,
All I was trying to say is that the term Ex-Gay has a different meaning depending to whom you talk – and the term has also come to embody a great deal of misunderstanding and divisiveness. You may use it of course, many do – But I am on the same path as you and wanted people to know why I cannot use it. That’s all
I don’t like labels either and I believe both JAG and Ann spelled out the reasons. But, I do understand that sometimes they do assist in the discussion.
It’s no secret that I defend the usage of the term ‘ex-gay’. I honestly don’t see the term as misleading. Sure, people add their own value to the term…but, as JAG pointed out, that happens with EVERY label.
We discussed terminology at some length a few months back. At the time, I believe I theorized that it really isn’t the TERM ‘ex-gay’ that most have trouble with; it’s the CONDITION itself. People have a preconceived opinion that everyone must define themselves by their sexuality. LOL! It really is a lot like people who insist on asking “What’s your sign?” Well, what if I don’t happen to believe in astrology–or what if I believe it’s somehow linked to witchcraft and/or dark forces? I know that, when I answer, they’ll have an “Aha! That explains it!” moment. And they’ll labor to make me fit their zodiac notions (from the personality descriptions to the ‘this is how your day is going to go’ stuff). So, what force says I have to play their game at all?
As a Christian who believes homosexual behavior to be sin, the term ‘gay’ just doesn’t cut it. (Actually, since the term ‘gay’ was intended to be positive and affirming, I’m not sure why people want ‘ex-gays’ as part of the mix anyway. Wouldn’t that take away from the positive and affirming sense?)
‘Bi-sexual’ doesn’t cut it either because it actually implies that the two sexualities are operating somewhat simultaneously and that the individual is at peace with both.
Even ‘celibate’ has it’s shortcomings. It doesn’t give a clue as to what I’m being celibate FROM.
I prefer ‘ex-gay’ because, despite the fact that it doesn’t tell everything, it does reveal more than any of the other labels.
There’s one more reason I prefer it. To date, no one has presented a better alternative. For all the griping about the term, even those that claim to ‘hate the term’ still use it. It seems they haven’t found a better term either. Some have occasionally used “SSA” but I’ve found it awkward. The one major purpose of a label to aid in conversation or discussion. When I say I’m ‘ex-gay’, people immediately get a better grasp of who I am than if I say I’m “SSA”.
Jayhuck–
Please follow the conversation timeline closely here: 1) JAG asked my friend Gene what he meant by ‘ex-gay’. 2) I chose to respond with a simple definition that Gene and I share…”FROM a gay past”. 3) You respond “Eddy, I have to disagree with you there…” …and then you tangented off into the TERM being divisive and fraught with multiple and confusing definitions. We were discussing how we DEFINE it; what exactly did you disagree with in my definition?
BTW: Please spare me the ‘well, OTHERS define it differently; I guess I was responding to them’ defense. I AM NOT THEM. Please respond to MY words. Please try to understand them-in their context-before you reply. That’s the least that any of us deserves. One blogger inferred that you seem to LOOK for something to spin negatively. Was it 2 days ago, that you countered one of my blogs by feining you ‘didn’t quite get it’ …asking me to choose an example other than poker? It seems you were hoping I would respond with one of your favorite ‘target answers’ to zing. LOL! I refused to take the bait and you brought them up anyway! “Oh, I thought you were talking about…” Duh, no I wasn’t. I said what I said. I said all I meant to say. It was clear. It turned out that you DID get my point and that you had NO valid exceptions yet you managed to respond negatively at least 3 times. Am I totally off the wall here or is there some truth to the intentional negative spinning I perceive?
Gene–
I did get your message left long ago on an old thread…and then another that Warren passed on. He tried to pass a personal reply from me to you (back in May) but it sounds like it didn’t reach you.
Sorry, ALL!
I’d say ‘back to topic’ but we’ve even detoured from our detours on this one.
Gene –
Thanks for the explanation. You are referencing my thoughts here:
However, depending on what interpretation of the Bible you follow, “being tempted” and “acting on temptation,” is almost the same thing. This is not my belief, but there are many who do believe this.”
I understand and have stated above that not all Christians believe that thinking is the same as doing…but know that some do interpret the Bible this way – for example:
“‘Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”Matt. 5:28
I was just clarifying, and glad I did. Thanks for the follow-up…to both you and Eddie. There are so many interpretations, it is interesting to me how scripture is understood by different groups.
Thanks again.
Gene,
An alternative term, that I believe Warren has suggested in the past, is “post-gay”. I’m not even sure how ok I am with that term, but while in most circles I would be called Ex-Gay or even Post-Gay, I prefer to use the term gay – simply because the only thing that has changed about me is that I’m not having sex with men anymore – not that I don’t fantasize about them – and I don’t define the word GAY to simply mean one who embraces a “gay lifestyle” – To me, gay refers to someone who is primarily homosexual, regardless of whether they are single, celibate, married (to one of the opposite sex) with children, etc…..
JAG–
Eddie speaks for me. The Christian distinction (from Matthew 5:28) is not between thoughts and (external) behaviors, but between temptation and responding to a temptation with a behavior (whether an internal behavior or an external behavior).
I, like you, dislike the term “ex-gay.” I used it solely to avoid an awkward circumlocution.
EDDIE–
Of course I am posting to Warren’s blog. I thought he had forwarded my request that he tell you that I’m around. I even posted something somewhere in this labyrinth along the lines of “when you’re visiting your parents, ring me up.”
–Gene
Ann –
You, me and Jayhuck all agree on this “No label can accurately define someone or their individual journey.”
There are ex-gays, ex-ex-gays, gays, heterosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered, etc…and the list continues. What people usually do not recognize, which in my opinion leads to prejudice, is that there are thousands of differences between the people in each category.
We realize how ridiculous this is when we say something like “all heterosexuals are the same,” but rarely do we acknowledge the differences between individuals who consider themselves ex-gay, gay, or something in between.
Until the differences don’t matter, we’ll have labels for all of them. Call me a pessimist, but I think our society likes its hierarchies a little too much for that.
It is a divisive term fraught with multiple and confusing definitions.
Jayhuck,
You are SO right about this – I agree with you 100%. No label can accurately define someone or their individual journey. It diminishes individuality and places perceived limitations on us by others.
Mi Lucha Interior –
You stated:
“Of course I want romance and love in my life. I believe that God has a partner for me, to share my life and vision. And I believe this partner will be of the female gender. But as I told in my first post, my journey isn’t about “changing” desires, but about wholness in the man He made me, it is about holiness and about knowelge of Jesus Christ, and the loving power of the Cross.”
As I hope you realize Mi, being whole in God does not necessarily require that your desires be directed toward a female. Being whole in the knowledge of Christ is not contingent on you being straight. If this, however, is how you feel you need to pursue your life in order to be consistent with your own desires and beliefs, good wishes to you. I hope you realize that there are many gay Christians out there as well leading lives that are pleasing to God in happy, committed relationships.
Eddy and Jayhuck –
Thank you for your clarfications on the term “ex-gay” and how it is used (or disagreed over use)….
Eddy,
One other thing – sorry 🙂 – I think its troubling to suggest that many so-called Ex-Gays don’t struggle mightily from their temptations – to suggest that even most only suffer from “fleeting thoughts” is stretching it a bit.
Eddy,
I have to respectfully disagree with you there. I’m on that same exact journey but I would never call myself Ex-Gay. It is a divisive term fraught with multiple and confusing definitions. I won’t begrudge someone else using it, but there are many of us who technically might be called Ex-Gay, but have disdain for the term.
Hey Gene! Good to find you here. (LOL! You’re the only person here that I’ve actually met! The strangeness of blogging.)
Being from Harrisburg myself, I posted my first editorial (in the grown-ups editorial page) of the Harrisburg Patriot News when I was 13!
I participated in a very peaceful candlelight march to the Governor’s Mansion in the Vietnam era. The governor wouldn’t come out to see us, so we set our candles on the thin top rail (between the spikes) of the metal fence. The next morning’s HEADLINE story was about the wax damage and cleaning costs! I do believe that their faux pas concerning you was a bit worse!
JAG–
While I agree with you that some Christians do not see a distinction being tempted and acting on it, I can assure you that those with more than incidental contact with Exodus or one of its affiliates see the distinction. Some aspects of theology differed but that one seemed to be universal.
I think Gene and I also hold a similar belief that ‘ex-gay’ simply means ‘FROM a gay past’. It applies to anyone on the journey. My personal belief is that a person will likely have occasional temptations regardless of how long they’ve been ‘ex’. I would expect, though, that they would be little more than fleeting thoughts…having no real power or ‘dominion’ over the temptee.
Gene –
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. However, depending on what interpretation of the Bible you follow, “being tempted” and “acting on temptation,” is almost the same thing. This is not my belief, but there are many who do believe this.
It seems to me (and please correct me if I am wrong) that you define your years of being “ex-gay,” purely by lack of sexual contacts with the same gender. Most scholars would agree that you can be gay without ever acting on your inclinations…why would that not be the case when you stop? The fact that you still experience periodic temptations seems to show that the inclination is still present.
So, without disrespect, when does someone truly become “ex” gay? This has been a problem in the research as well. Is it when the behaviors cease (although one could be a celibate gay man)? When the inclinations cease (most do not report this happens entirely)? When you find the other gender attractive (bisexuality?)? Or is this just a matter of self-definition? (…much like what we rely on in the transgendered community – we rely on self-reports to determine gender as they age).
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Back to the topic …
The Sidney Star-Observer, being a secular source, is very likely to be confused about Christian themes. When it says, “Living Waters, an organisation that conducts disciplinary programs …,” if it is the Desert Streams Living Waters program I am sure that the Star-Observer should have said “discipleship programs.” A discipleship program is very different from a disciplinary program!
In a 1992 lecture on homosexuality that I gave at Penn State University, I referred to the fact that I was “tempted” homosexually twice recently, despite having been ex-gay for 20 years. (Now it’s been 35 years). The Harrisburg Patriot-News reported that I “had two homosexual contacts.” Don’t trust a secular source to understand the distinction between discipleship programs and disciplinary programs any more than it undersands the difference between being tempted and acting on temptations.
Gene
Ann –
I’m not a big fan of “labels” either, but since most “family associations,” etc…reserve the name for only a certain kind of family – it’s difficult to break the box.
It’s the reason why usually even when referring to marriage rights…aside from this circle, I don’t call it “gay marriage,” I just call it “equal marriage” or simply the extension of “marriage rights.”
If someone asked me if I was married, I’d just say “yes,” I wouldn’t feel the need to qualify it. Some people would say that is taking advantage of “heterosexual privilege,” but I see it as normalizing an equal commitment under the law.
Words are very important, and I appreciate you pointing that out.
JAG,
Many have questioned who/what my family is, too. To define it by another person’s standards isn’t enough. We all come with a variety of relationships that put us together for “family” events.
Thanks Jayhuck –
Jag,
Labels and I just don’t get along 🙂 Thanks for your answer.
Ann,
I think JAG really did a good job describing how I would view a gay family as well. Hopefully what he said is helpful.
Ann –
I’m going to “jump in” for a moment to answer your question…
“Can you define a gay family?”
I can tell you that I see no difference between a “gay family” and a “straight family” except for the box that others put us in. I think we are so used to being labeled by others, that we begin to label ourselves. If I had a child with my partner, no one would say…”oh, those are her parents”…most would say “oh look, those are hannah’s lesbian parents.”
You make a good point with your question. But until we all have the ability to have the same rights as a family, we’ll be seen as “different.”
Timothy,
I’ve found it already! His name is Jesus 😉
Love in Him,
for the sake of gay couples and gay families.
Jayhuck,
I know I asked this question before but have not had it answered yet. What defines a “gay family”? If the children are not gay, then are they still considered a gay family too?
Jayhuck,
Can you define a gay family?
Wow – well, at least no no one can blame me for derailing the thread 🙂
I think the fact that we keep coming back to this topic illustrates just how important it is, and also how important it is we come to some sort of resolution soon – for the sake of gay couples and gay families.
Eddy,
I do think its going to take some sort of compromise, at least in the beginning – but I don’t think society, logically, is going to be able to sustain second-class citizenship for a group of people very long.
Good comments here (although, as Timothy has already stated) seriously off the posted topic. JAG thanks for your response. I do hear and understand what you’re saying…and Timothy helped to flesh it out a bit more. It drives me crazy sometimes that I can hear, understand and identify with the goal of having same-sex marriage sanctioned while, at the same time, I can hear, understand and identify with the concerns of many of those who oppose it. As a compulsive ‘bridge-builder”, I keep looking for some point of compromise. Unfortunately, there are those on both sides who view the word ‘compromise’ as anathema.
With all that said, I do think we’ve moved further in this particular off-topic topic than we have in any of the others. HAPPY TRAILS!
JAG,
Also you can keep them online – like in your hotmail account that can be accessed from any computer in the world.
OK, Warren, you gotta admit it… this thread has NO CHANCE whatsoever of getting back on track. 🙂
So I’m not going to feel toooo guilty for going along on the marriage discussion.
I think Ann is partly correct. I think that one of the objections to same-sex marriage is that this would give it the stamp of “approved” and some feel it would be glorifying immorality. However, I think a couple other things come in to play as well.
I think that there is also a sense, among some more conservative folk, that the world is changing quickly and they hardly recognize it anymore. And that is frightening. So there is a natural disinclination to welcome something that seems to be such a radical change as two women marrying.
Also, many conservative people view society as being at war. And they view gay people as being enemies in the Great Culture War. And they think that anything that benefits gay people is to be utterly opposed.
But as gay people become more visible and the nature of their inequities is laid out as clearly as JAG did above, I think it inevitable that decent minded people will find a way to accomodate gay couples and provide some form of protection. It just goes against the American sense of “fair” and “good” to demand that gay people not be allowed to care for each other.
I personally favor civil marriage. But I recognize that not all people are ready to take that step and may wish instead to offer civil unions, domestic partnerships, or some other limited provision of rights.
People of good will need to decide just exactly which rights they are willing to afford their gay neighbors and which they want to reserve exclusively for heterosexuals. I don’t discount the difficulty in such a decision.
Mi Lucha Interior,
I hope you find what brings you peace, happiness, and a rich and valued life.
Thimoty,
Of course I want romance and love in my life. I believe that God has a partner for me, to share my life and vision. And I believe this partner will be of the female gender. But as I told in my first post, my journey isn’t about “changing” desires, but about wholness in the man He made me, it is about holiness and about knowelge of Jesus Christ, and the loving power of the Cross. These terms are so rare now a days in the vocabulary of people.
Be blessed,
how about just being a family without labels attached to it?
Eddy –
“If I’m right that many support the rights but not ‘marriage’, is there a practical way to pursue the achievement of those rights without endorsing gay marriage?”
I don’t think there is a real way to pursue this without calling it “marriage”…the reason? It keeps the door open for discrimination. We leave the door open for “civil unions” (for example) to be treated one way by employers or the government and “marriages” another, simply by calling them by different names. What we can do, is certainly have the institution of “civil marriage” offered to everyone, and have the spiritual component of marriage available at the individual church’s discretion. I don’t want to force anyone to perform or endorse something they do not religiously believe to be correct, just because it is what I endorse. It just shouldn’t affect my rights on a state or federal level…the basics that I described earlier.
The other thing that calling them “civil unions” or another name rather than “marriage” does…is open the door to heirarchical systems of relationships. Where one is deemed better than the other. I don’t want to create categories of relationships, that opens the door to other “categories,” I just want all genders to be able to participate equally in the one we’ve got.
Mary –
On a personal note, thank you for your thoughts on incorporating my family into a business…I’ll look into that.
Fortunately, we have the means to have a stack of papers – from medical powers of attorney, etc…onward. I keep a stack in my home, my car, and take one when we go on vacation. I have to be able to present them immediately if something were to happen.
Ann –
I think you hit the nail on the head when you stated this “Do you think the hold out on equal rights regarding marriage for gay couples, providing them with all the rights and benefits that other couples have, is because in the minds of those that oppose it, they are equating it to moral approval rather than an equal rights issue?”
People feel as though if we give same-sex couples equal standing under the law, then it will become seen as morally correct. We saw this argument for interracial marriage as well with regard to “racial mixing.”
It seems all a matter of exposure to what this really is, this same-sex marriage. What we see, at least in Massachusetts, is that although there is initial resistance to SSM, the population overall has increased in their approval of it since its passage.
They find that their gay neighbors are still their gay neighbors, only now they have protections and obligations. Heck, some of them even go to church, worship with their families, and want to raise their children in an environment where their values are upheld…and where they are welcomed.
No one wants to abuse marriage or destroy it, they just want a chance to have the legal protections and obligations and connections to their already existing families. It makes no sense that two people can have a legal relationship to a child, but not to each other.
Thank you for your continued thoughts and prayers around this…you’re not alone in that.
for gay couples and gay families.
Jayhuck,
Who in the family is gay to have it be considered a gay family? If the children are not gay, can it be considered a blended family or is it still considered a gay family?
Jayhuck,
My thought/question was not about how a marriage is conducted, rather about equating equal rights with moral approval. I am wondering if that is where the hold up is in the minds of government officials and society in general.
Ann and Eddy,
I think it depends on what we mean by “marriage” – marriage is technically a religious construct – it is the secular state and not the church that bestows benefits. Most states already have churches that perform gay marriages, regardless of whether or not the state recognizes those unions. So maybe the issue isn’t so much about marriage, since that is already happening – maybe the issue is just about rights – for gay couples and gay families.
Ann–
It was your response that got me to see that distinction between being against gay marriage but in favor of partnership rights and benefits. It may be a path to a mutually acceptable end result. Don’t know when the shut down is coming. LOL! I’ll miss you all.
Question: If I’m right that many support the rights but not ‘marriage’, is there a practical way to pursue the achievement of those rights without endorsing gay marriage?
Eddy,
So interesting – I just wrote something very similar!
Jag, Jayhuck, Mary and anyone else,
I had a thought as I was putting the clothes from the washer into the dryer – I might not articulate this perfectly and some of you might have already thought of it but here goes.
Do you think the hold out on equal rights regarding marriage for gay couples, providing them with all the rights and benefits that other couples have, is because in the minds of those that oppose it, they are equating it to moral approval rather than an equal rights issue?
Dr. Throckmorton,
I apologize for being off topic – please let me know when it is time to move on.
Jag,
To get around the SOME issues of property taxes and what not – look into incorporating the family as a business. IN essence you create a new legal identity that protects it’s “partners”. In place of Social Security (and I know this is a far cry) invest in life insurance. Women in general pay less – unless you are overweight.
Worth quoting again:
Jag said “You see, I don’t want to change the world – I just want to buy a house and not worry about property transfer without taxes when I die. I worry about not being able to be with her in the hospital when she’s ill, about being able to jointly take legal responsibility for any family we might bring into this world. I feel saddened that she will not receive my social security when I die that would help take care of any family I would leave behind from a system that I’ve been paying into for years…that we can’t claim taxes together as a family.”
I believe if you ask most conservative Christians if they support gay marriage, they’d say no. BUT, if you ask them if they believe you should have those rights you spoke so eloquently, they’d give–at the least–a ‘qualified’ yes. (I did meet one jerk who tried to defend ‘restrictions’ simply because the system couldn’t afford the ‘extra burden’ of being more inclusive. He was silent though when I asked if it was fair that gay people were still forced to pay for his spousal and family privileges.)
I feel disturbed occasionally that I still have to support schools even though I’m childless. Since I attended Catholic school through 9th grade, I figure I’ve more than paid back the 3 years of public education I received. But this is small change compared to the injustice you describe.
Question: If I’m right that many support the rights but not ‘marriage’, is there a practical way to pursue the achievement of those rights without endorsing gay marriage?
Again – AMEN Jag!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂
You see, I don’t want to change the world – I just want to buy a house and not worry about property transfer without taxes when I die. I worry about not being able to be with her in the hospital when she’s ill, about being able to jointly take legal responsibility for any family we might bring into this world. I feel saddened that she will not receive my social security when I die that would help take care of any family I would leave behind from a system that I’ve been paying into for years…that we can’t claim taxes together as a family.
Jag,
I just want you to know that I have read this paragraph over and over again and understand what you are saying. I have been praying for answers for a long time now and after reading this I know there has to be some forthcoming – how they will look, I am not sure but I am going to continue praying until there are some that will bring all of us peace.
Jag and Mary,
Thanks for the replies – I want to say again that what I wrote about, rights and eligibilities to those rights, are what I have experienced and know about the current laws and feelings from society in general. I certainly do not have all the answers nor have I ever expressed an opinion on the subject. I do understand your concerns and they are very valid. I was just trying to explain (not that you needed it) how I see it from the opposition.
From a strictly personal point of view, let me say how happy I am for both of you that you have found peace and joy in your lives. Somehow that speaks volumes about individuality and puts everything else into perspective.
I will re-read the comments tomorrow – it is getting late – and see if I have missed anything or need to add anythig.
Ann –
Thank you for your thoughtful response, and although Warren has since posted that he wants us to “stick to task,” I am going to respond and give you the same courtesy you have offered me. And finish with a bit of the “task,” we are to attend to.
I understand what you say about eligibility requirements re: marriage, but I do disagree with these, and here is why…
In our country, when you say “As the laws are set up, we all have the same rights as a people. Along with those rights, there are eligibility requirements – I cannot run for president unless I live in the state I am registered to vote in…”
The things you list DO apply to all people, and it doesn’t matter if you are gay, straight, black, white, hispanic, etc…the difference is, with marriage, it is a right granted to some and excluded from others. Because of your gender you cannot marry another woman, and that is gender discrimination – we have laws to protect against this in our country. The other thing is that if you marry in Canada as an opposite-sexed couple, our country will recognize it…if you do “exactly the same thing” as a same-sex couple, it is not recognized.
The issue of marrying more than one person is not currently protected by Equal Rights Ammendments, etc..but in our country, men and women are to be granted the same rights unless there is a way to prove that they should not be extended. Where is the proof that it will do damage? It’s a legal argument, not a moral one.
The civil right of marriage is a legal entity, and the religious ceremony is the spiritual component that is offered at the church’s discretion.
I do have a personal investment in this, however…
My partner and I were legally married in Canada (where, to divorce requires a one-year residency – talk about commitment!), and we had a spiritual ceremony in a church with a minister, friends and family. Both of us are Christians, both have no urge or want of change and believe that we have found our soulmate in this world and are absolutely blessed.
You see, I don’t want to change the world – I just want to buy a house and not worry about property transfer without taxes when I die. I worry about not being able to be with her in the hospital when she’s ill, about being able to jointly take legal responsibility for any family we might bring into this world. I feel saddened that she will not receive my social security when I die that would help take care of any family I would leave behind from a system that I’ve been paying into for years…that we can’t claim taxes together as a family.
In this country, even though I do everything right – I have a good education, solid work, stable home, and give back to our community in spades…we haven’t the rights that I would have if we took our education and knowledge-base only a small drive northward.
So, I know I speak with some bias on this subject, knowing that I speak of myself…but the thousands just like me who lead normal, contributory, solid christian lives and are told that somehow our relationship isn’t the same – isn’t as good or natural, and that I would have more rights if I married a man in a shotgun wedding in Vegas I met two hours ago.
Something is just not right about that….and the ex-ex-gays who seem to have to rediscover themselves years later seem a sad reminder of the barrage of messages culture and society gives to you that keep you from just being yourself from the start.
Ann,
You can register as a resident of that said state, get an education to get that job, pay your deductable, lower your income or raise your income, …. so in essence you can change everything about yourself to meet that requirement??? Can I ask you to change to being gay if the shoe was on the other foot??? Most gay people will have “gayness” (sorry for lack of a better word here) for their entire life…. Asking them to change that (with no guarantee) is asking too much, in my opinion. If they marry an opposite gender person and do not consumate the marriage – by most church and legal standards (okay – the legality would probably get tested in Supreme Court) the marriage is void (as in no contract of marriage exists). Like Timothy said – it is fraudulent.
I have heard that argument that everyone has the right to get married – stipulation – to a person of the opposite sex. Hmmm, no. Some people have the right to marry the person with whom they are in love, and want to commit to and share their life with. Others do not.
Now back to Australian ex-ex-gays…
Final comment:
yes, everyone has the right to be married – the eligibility requirement in most states is that we marry opposite gendered people
Well, no, that actually isn’t true. Gay people do not have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex in the same way a heterosexual can.
If a will is challenged, it is presumed invalid.
If an immigration is challenged, it is presumed fraud.
If an annulment is requested, it is assumed grounds.
A gay person can even be sued for fraud for marrying a person of the opposite sex.
As far as the law is concerned in most states, gay people do not have the same right to marry ANYONE.
Alright Ann, I’ll stop responding now.
I’m sorry I cannot read all of what you write in your posts the way I used to
OK, fair enough. I’ll stop addressing your comments and we can just ignore each other. Best wishes.
Warren,
Evangelicals too often try and couch their prejudices and discriminatory beliefs in phrases like, this is just a difference of opinion – this is much more than just having a difference of opinion!
Yes, Warren, true. I never think of disagreement as bigotry. But establishing criteria based on an innate attribute is, I believe.
And lest you think I’m being harshly condemning, I do recognize that we all have areas in which we do this (or, at lease, I know I do). The difficulty is in recognizing our bigoted feelings or presumptions and fighting them rather than harboring them.
And let me be careful to say that I was not trying to be accusatory of anyone here. I was speaking more of those who go out and champion discrimination against gay people (or black people, or jews, or christians, or left-handed people). We all know who they are.
Sorry for sidetracking the thread.
Ann, what you are carefully avoiding here is that the “qualification” we are discussing here is heterosexuality.
Timothy,
Please read my response to Jayhuck #44171 – I’m sorry I cannot read all of what you write in your posts the way I used to – if I missed anything else important that you wrote, please accept my apologies.
Warren,
I think you meant that this thread is about ex-ex gays that have renounced their former ex-gay position – sorry, but that wording makes a difference!
I really liked one of the quotes from this article: ““There was not one person that I met or worked with who, in any genuine way, achieved the fundamental transformation from homosexual to heterosexual,” Martin said.” – We keep hearing this over and over wherever groups like this get started.
Jayhuck,
In response to your post #44152 – you have good questions and I will try to answer them as best as I can. Please also consider my answer as my personal observations and not necessarily my personal opinions.
I believe the government and society in general think of any person living in the U.S. as having equal rights. As the laws are set up, we all have the same rights as a people. Along with those rights, there are eligibility requirements – I cannot run for president unless I live in the state I am registered to vote in, I cannot get certain employment unless I have the education to do so, I cannot take advantage of my medical insurance until I meet my deductable, I cannot drive unless I am of a certain age, I am not eligible for low income housing unless I meet a certain requirement, etc. I cannot get married in most states unless it is with an opposite gendered person. Do I have the same rights as everyone else – I suppose I do because no one is telling me I cannot have these rights – the “hiccup” is that in addition to having these rights, I also have to meet an eligibility requirement and that is determined by someone or something else. In most cases, this is where an individual usually does what is required to get what they want. To answer the specific question about marriage – yes, everyone has the right to be married – the eligibility requirement in most states is that we marry opposite gendered people.
Saying it is just a difference of opinion trivializes what is going on, and makes the discrimination seem not-as-bad as it really is.
Bigot – (n) – a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. (Wordnet – Princeton.edu)
Disagreement is not intolerance. I would like to remind all commenters of this.
This post is about ex-ex-gays who have renounced their former positions. I will not allow every thread to be turned into a debate over same-sex marriage. The premise of this blog is that we have a way here for various sides to discuss issues. We disagree. When common ground doen’t exist, civility is still required. When we find it, it is a nice thing. I am aware that some people have altered or adjusted their views via this blog. For sure, I hope we can still model how people who disagree can live together and do so agreeably.
Yes, Ann, that is exactly the argument some people make (often to themselves) to justify their own support of discrimination.
One easy way to tell: A rational person with a sense of fairness would look at this still-arguable subject and say “since we don’t know that people can change, I’ll support equal rights, or at least wait and see”.
However, the anti-gays say, “I’ll just claim that every gay person can reorient to heterosexuality and because you can’t definitively PROVE that any specific person CANNOT change, therefore I’m justified in working against civil equality”.
Because they err on the side of denying equalities, you know the motivation is animus, or perhaps religious arrogance (do what my religion says, or else).
AMEN Mary!!!!!!! 🙂
Ann –
Forgive me if I’m veering off course here, but what exactly do you mean by “I believe the government and society feel as though we all have the same rights – what we do or don’t do to meet the eligibility requirement on any given issue is where the hiccup is.”????
It is quite obvious that gay people do not have the same rights as straight people. In marriage there is no eligibility requirement for two straight people to get married? They could be awful for each other, they could be abusive to themselves, each other or their children, but it doesn’t matter. I’m not sure what you mean by “requirements” – please elaborate
Ann,
Ann, what you are carefully avoiding here is that the “qualification” we are discussing here is heterosexuality.
You may think it’s perfectly reasonable that an attribute is an acceptable qualification for having civil equality. This isn’t a new idea. For many many years the qualification for voting was gender. The qualification for control of your own destiny was race. The qualification for living in, say, Hancock Park was religion.
Now lest we pretend that “it’s not orientation, it’s just protection of marriage” (or some other equally duplicitious justification), let’s get your opinion on these “qualifications” which are EXACTLY based on orientation:
“After unsuccessfully lobbying the state Legislature to pass a law banning gays from becoming adoptive or foster parents, a conservative group wants to take its proposal directly to the people.”
or perhaps the efforts in Oregon to use referendum to reverse non-discrimination in employment laws. They seem to think that orientation is a requirement for eligibility for employment.
My personal opinion is that anyone who champions using orientation as a “requirement” for any civil equality is bigoted. That is, after all, the definition of bigotry – estabishing arbitrary “credentials” based on innate and immutable attributes (and I’ve yet to see anything that convinces me that for most gay people their orientation is not immutable).
Jayhuck,
While I don’t agree with you about Dr. Throckmorton’s views or opinions regarding the issues you are concerned with, I do respect you and your thoughts on it.
Jag,
Please see my answers below –
J – A couple of questions:
J – 1. If we know that there are some who report that they cannot change their inclinations even with all of their efforts, should they be punished (I mean, punished by their church and the larger society) for this?
A – Punished? NO! Included in what a church or society holds out as a requirement for certain things? I have a personal opinion but cannnot control how other people think or what they do. Just because a married couple comes to church doesn’t mean there isn’t physical abuse at home, or infidelity, or addiction being actively practiced. Sunday mornings are a small part of the other 300 days a year. On another note, there are many churches who support the gay community or a person identifying themselves as gay. It seems to me, in society as a whole, the gay community has the support of more than any other group of people I know.
J – 2. If there are those who have a homosexual orientation but feel no urge to even attempt to change it, and do feel as though they are in alignment with their faith, should they be somehow punished in society for not aligning with the “right” interpretation?
A – When you say “punished”, I am assuming “admonished” and the answer is NO! Faith has no right interpretation – only a personal one, in my opinion, that should never be diluted or diminished with “organized religion”. Again, no one can “make” another person feel what they do about anyone or anything. I have learned to meet people halfway and ask them to do the same – coercion never works and many times backfires. How does anyone on this blog know if anyone else on the blog is connected to our government and checking in to get the feel of general attitudes and how they are represented? It makes me wonder how they might be persuaded.
J – Both of these, as I imagine you understand, are getting at the point of regardless what we discover about whether change is possible for all or not…does it matter in the distribution of rights? Do people have the right to believe what they want, and as long as they act responsibly, enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else?
A – Yes. Remember, all this is left to the mercy of intrepretation unless there is someone responsible representing both sides talking on the issues. Too many times the subjects are halted because of yelling, name calling, contemptuous tones, clipped phrases, arrogance, and mis-information.
J – Basic things like being able to marry the person you love regardless of sex (which I argue is an issue of sex discrimination, not orientation anyway – the only reason you cannot marry another woman is because she is a female).
A – Yes, I know – there is eligibility to getting married and doesn’t only mean same gender – people who want to have multiple spouses cannot do it either as well as certain age requirements, familial marriages, foreign origins, etc.
J – I suppose I think that regardless of what we discover about origins or changeability, I don’t see it as affecting the civil rights of people as people…we know, regardless, that there in some inherent component of inclination (thus, why we see same-sex pairings and matings across the animal kingdom)…
A – Please accept this answer as an observation and not an opinion. I believe the government and society feel as though we all have the same rights – what we do or don’t do to meet the eligibility requirement on any given issue is where the hiccup is. For an example – We both have the right to pursue a certain job – that job requires certain credentials – you chose to meet the requirements by getting the degree, I don’t. Am I still entitled to get the same job as you are? Equal rights are for everyone – the eligibility for certain entitlements are something that only the government and organizations and people can change.
J – Mary has spoken about being ex-gay, and has every right to have all the desires of her heart…was she any less deserving of such things when she was gay?
A – In my opinion, no.
J – To me (and Mary, please correct me if I am wrong), Mary is the same person deserving of the same things in life.
Who she prefers to sleep with (or whether that changes or not) really has no bearing on what she deserves…to me. I wish her happiness and the fullness of life either way.
A – I agree 100%
JAG,
That’s how I see it. Change or not, gay or ex gay, I should have the right just as as anyone else to marry a peron of my choosing. I think it is discrimination on the basis of rights to property. There are soooo many laws that protect a married couple as a family (and unmarried couples who have been together over ten years – so long as they are heterosexual) that do not extend to homosexuals.
This idea that gays make bad parents does not hold water when you look around at those who abuse their children and have the full grace of the land to keep getting married and having more children. (I am not saying gays make bad parents nor good parents)
Ann,
And please don’t get me wrong – I still think Warren is a very good man – I just don’t know that I can support him knowing his views.
Ann,
I don’t know if I can support him anymore Ann – and yes, his views are impeding change – views and votes have a tendency to do that.
His views are not impeding change – they are his views, mine are mine, your’s are your’s. Laws might expand or limit change but they will never ultimately change a person’s views. Even lawmakers can pass a bill and not have it in line with his/her own personal belief.
I continue to support Dr. Throckmorton and his views.
I’m sorry – his views aren’t new, they are just new to me. But I think everyone, before they go on supporting him, need to know about them.
Eddy,
His new views on being against gay marriage – he said it himself. The evidence is here, you just need to read more.
Jayhuck,
How is Warren trying to impede social change? Please supply evidence or arguments that support your allegation that Warren is trying to impede change.
Ann –
You stated “It is still up for discussion whether a person’s sexual orientation is something that can or cannot be changed, and to what degree, and how they want to live in accordance with their values if it cannot be changed.”
A couple of questions:
1. If we know that there are some who report that they cannot change their inclinations even with all of their efforts, should they be punished (I mean, punished by their church and the larger society) for this?
2. If there are those who have a homosexual orientation but feel no urge to even attempt to change it, and do feel as though they are in alignment with their faith, should they be somehow punished in society for not aligning with the “right” interpretation?
Both of these, as I imagine you understand, are getting at the point of regardless what we discover about whether change is possible for all or not…does it matter in the distribution of rights? Do people have the right to believe what they want, and as long as they act responsibly, enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else?
Basic things like being able to marry the person you love regardless of sex (which I argue is an issue of sex discrimination, not orientation anyway – the only reason you cannot marry another woman is because she is a female).
I suppose I think that regardless of what we discover about origins or changeability, I don’t see it as affecting the civil rights of people as people…we know, regardless, that there in some inherent component of inclination (thus, why we see same-sex pairings and matings across the animal kingdom)…
Mary has spoken about being ex-gay, and has every right to have all the desires of her heart…was she any less deserving of such things when she was gay?
To me (and Mary, please correct me if I am wrong), Mary is the same person deserving of the same things in life.
Who she prefers to sleep with (or whether that changes or not) really has no bearing on what she deserves…to me. I wish her happiness and the fullness of life either way.
Ann and Mary,
That is my hope as well – but it looks like we are going to have to work against the likes of Warren and others who are trying to impede much needed social change.
There is value to “take charge”, too. Please don’t get me wrong. I guess if I could put it into a nutshell, with authority comes responsibility. I’m in a culture in the U.S. with a lot of authoritarianism in church and religion. Unfortunately, that is the “fun” part; when it comes time for those in charge to take responsibility, there is a lot of falling through the cracks.
You are right: ultimately it was *I* (to use the King’s English) who tried to make myself “acceptable” ditto the fact that I lived in a gay neighborhood, etc… There really wasn’t that much that stood between me and a medical degree other than my own insecurity vis a vis’ homophobia.
As an aside, I did visit an MCC church when I was 24 and was ready to settle in but had a stop sign placed in my path from God. Not saying good or bad — just saying that we all have interesting paths we have traveled.
Now, regarding race and orientation: I am afraid that even if proof positive it was discovered to be a biological cause, there would still be hesitation on the part of the church to accept. I picture the concept of miracles and faith healing really kicking in then. And as far as physical healing is concerned, we can probably all say that we have seen some healed, some taken Home. And I am not ready to judge those who had enough faith and those who didn’t as some might try to wager.
But, as far as behaviour is concerned, I am to give “equal rights” to the fornicating couples — living together — even though I don’t approve of their “lifestyle”. I really don’t have any say so in this — my neighbors, co-workers, etc… HA! And they *can* get married! I guess what I am trying to say is that “values” are so lax, that even the church will not call people on this one in a lot of cases (the live togethers), so it makes it a little bit daunting IMO to insist that gays be lifetime celibates, need to be heterosexually oriented, etc… It gets back to the “ick” factor, methinks that many have of GLBTs to begin with that is the real issue.
Mary,
That is my hope and prayer too.
JAG, ANN, AM
I do hope things change and people find a place to live in peace with their differences of faith and belief. That was the hope for this country among other freedoms.
*Sigh* It is a long road, and we pick up where others have left off and in turn leave this legacy to those that follow us. Let’s hope we are doing it right.
Lest we forget many others, including Bayard Rustin.
I totally agree with you JAG! The bible also talks about our responsibility for ourselves. So- we do agree and I think that these “camps” are atrocious mislaid places of trust and misdirection. I guess, I have been a little “bitchy” lately with other things in my life and have that – “if you want it done right you have to do it yourself” attitude taking over right now. Which in it’s place has it’s strengths. And when I was gay – that attitude was always a keeper when the fundamentalists were at work.
AM,
I really think the point MLK was making, and rightfully so, is the people cannot change the color of their skin and should not be discriminated against because of that. It is still up for discussion whether a person’s sexual orientation is something that can or cannot be changed, and to what degree, and how they want to live in accordance with their values if it cannot be changed. I’m not offering an opinion, just an observation.
Mary –
You stated in regards to ex-gay programs such as the one described above that “people have to take responsibility for themselves”. I agree with this, but as Christians, I also believe in the saying “whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me.” I always interpreted that to mean those who are defenseless, weak, struggling or suffering. That it means not tolerating people preying on the insecurities, unhappiness, and weakness of others. At least, that’s what it means to me.
Yes, we do have to take responsibility for ourselves, but if we see active misdirected programs striking others in their most vulnerable times, I think we have a responsibility to stop it.
Like Jayhuck, I am glad to see these places shut down – one by one. Before you know it, we’ll be amazed that our society was ever so barbaric and uninformed as to allow them to begin with.
Before someone jumps on me for not knowing my history, yes, it was Rosa Parks who refused the back of the bus. I was speaking in a far reaching sense when I applied that particular to Dr. King. Of course, it applies to all of life — substandardness based on race.
But, my point remains: it cannot be negated the immense strides made by this one man “with a dream” that he put into action for *individuals*. And yes, others took responsibility and joined in, but he was always the one in the front lines and literally the firing line.
It’s not blaming or finger pointing to say that sometimes drastic changes must be reached for individuals to be at a tipping point.
This conversation is getting a bit heated — which was not my point. Neither was it my intent to use “finger pointing” as a way of avoiding one’s life.
However, I also do not see how one can dismiss the Civil Rights movement, led by Dr. King as having little impact on individiual African Americans’ lives. For the record, I am white (not that it mattters), but I have little difficulty perceiving how one man and his courage (which led of course to his death — I hope that point is not up for debate) brought an entire race of people to the point in this country (U.S.) that they are now.
There would be no Oprah Winfrey, Condi Rice — any person of color of prominence had MLK not stated, “No, we will not be taking the back of the bus.”
So…to say out of hand that there is primarily personal responsiblity and no other real time factors is a bit naive IMO. Perhaps I am not as courageous as a Martin Luther King, Jr. (no big surprise), but then there are some who see homosexuals as sinful in and of themselves for their orientation alone (a long time reading of Romans 1, I believe) — so were I to insist, march, protest, I would already be categorized.
As far as expecting churches to change, churches have changed in sexual matters: most of them remarry divorcees who do not have adultery as cause for divorce even though Jesus strictly prohibited it. My personal sense is that as long as homosexuality is considered changeable by the majority of Christians, there will be that onus of doing so or else be ostracized at least to some degree.
My main point in commenting was to express solidarity with the young man who was “counseled” not to take his piano scholarship in the hopes that it would make him straight or at the very least remove the homosexual orientation from him. I can understand why he reacted as he did, and I grieve with him.
As I mentioned to my pastor: If all music ministers/pianists were removed from Sunday morning services owing to their same sex attractions, a LOT of places would be singing acapella week after week.
Not just the Church of Christ. 😉
I’ve probably been outed as the cat lady. Who knows?? Who cares. And some people still think I am gay.
AM,
BTW, in case you have misdunderstood me – I support gay rights. And I do know what it is like to lose a job for being gay, have people look at you with less than human respect, etc…. I do know.
And I do wish the evangelical christian community spent less time ostracizing gays and more time ministering to them. But you cannot expect a person who believes homosexuality to be a sin to change their religion for you. I never expected the Catholic church to change for me – neither did Calvin, Luther etc… and so the church has split and it continues to split. And that’s the way it goes. I have ALOT of grievances with today’s churches, mass advertising of those churches, their involvment in politics (which I believe should be not) etc, etc… And it is hard finding a place to worship and be with friends. Really religion and faith are very private issues that while they can be shared CANNOT be imposed on any other person – that is between them and God. But church boards and their little administrative staffs, vote on governing rules, what they believe, what will be acceptable etc… And it just seems sooooo far away from the original meaning. Ah, well. I agree- the evangelicals have mixed politics and religion in a most sinful way.
And, if you are of a certain age and unmarried (or have never been married), you will be outed, anyway
AM,
What will Mary or anyone else who is unmarried or a certain age be “outed” as and why?
AM,
I understand full well what it is like to be threatened for being gay – I am ex gay. I understand full well that the church has mistreated homosexuals ( I used to be Catholic) sooooo – I get that very well and am as angry and inflamed about the issue as much as I was when I was gay.
But as far as our other pursuits – yep we have all been caught up in the doctrine, dogma, belief of the day, etc, etc… that stopped us from fulfilling another potential.
Yes, but I don’t blame anyone else except myself.
Or I could blame the times I am born into and a plethora of things – but it is my life and still belongs to me and I guess I made some decisions I wish I hadn’t.
So – that’s my point. Blame the church, the society, your family of origin – but it still comes down to the individual.
Everyone goes into a great brew-ha about freedom and rights and then starts blaming others when they make bad decisions. Sorry but if we want our indivdual freedoms and rights along with that comes choices and sometimes bad decisions.
Uh, no Mary, you misread my point entirely.
My mother was a Columbia University grad and a medical researcher in a day when it was uncommon for women to do either. If anything, she encourgaed me to succeed. As did my dad — he wanted me to become a dentist.
However, when it came to sex, they were straight.
What she and then later on society and the church didn’t tell me was that it was O.K. to be gay. That is where the failure came in. And where the failure remains.
And there will be gay people in the church always — those whose sexual orientation remains homosexual. The real question is how will they be treated.
Was I a coward for not pursuing “butch” pursuits? You bet. Do I regret it? Don’t even need to answer that.
But when you are threatened physically, socially, emotionally by a society and then a church that thinks you must be straight — whatever that means — yes, you capitulate.
Now we have members of the church angry about civil rights for gays – putting all of their time and focus (no pun intended) on anti whatever legislation. Why aren’t they helping people pursue change? Hmm…maybe because the success rate there is slim.
BTW, Mary, try to come out at work and see what a neutral reception you will get. And, if you are of a certain age and unmarried (or have never been married), you will be outed, anyway. So.. please don’t say that it is *only* personal responsibility when there needs to be drastic attitude changes as well. We need only look to our African-American brothers and sisters and the courage of Dr. King to surmise that.
Mary,
I really do agree with you, but only to a point. Yes, we all should take responsibility for ourselves, but societal pressures and “brainwashing” as you call it can often be powerful enough to make us believe there are no other options. You said one time you were interested in Sociology – if that is the case, then you know how powerful an influence society can be on, not just individuals, but institutions as well.
AM,
Many people, myself included did not follow some career path because “women” didn’t do that. That is no one’s fault except our own. Let’s think of our mothers who gave up careers because that’s what women did – call it social influence, brain washing, being a follower, afraid of not being feminine and being unable to marry because of a career – call it what you want. At some point we have to take responsibilty. Remember – other women stepped out and are still feminine, married etc… We were just afraid of ourselves.
Mi Lucha Interior,
I’m happy that you have found a means to control your compulsive or destructive behaviors.
While I think that a search for “a root” is mosly a waste of time, and while my theology does not preclude a cohesive integration of ones orientation with ones relationship with God (ultimately expressed in a committed same-sex relationship covenanted before God), I don’t seek to impose on you my personal faith.
If this journey has led you from a dark place into greater peace, I wish you continued success in that journey.
But if at some point you conclude that your orientation is not going to change and that you wish to persue romance and love, I encourage you to not