An article by Rita Price in the Columbus Dispatch is either a very clever swipe at the ex-gay movement or an unintentionally hilarious sincere effort at reporting. A few of my favorite quotes are:
“Don’t tell me that I have to be gay,” said David, 36, a teacher and member of the same group. “Who is the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, to say that no one can change?
“Can you be certain there are no white ravens? No, you can’t. Not unless you’ve seen them all.”
And James, 50, a member of Bridge of Hope, explains his goals:
“I’m tired of being an exception. A man and a woman fit. I want to be able to sit down at dinner across from the woman I love and brush the hair out of her face. I want to know that.”
Helping to bring about David’s reorientation is Elton L. Moose of Springfield. Moose is 70 and has been married 49 years but in the 80’s was “discovered” and lost his position as a church pastor.
But like the men and women he counsels today in his Springfield and Dublin offices, Moose refused to pronounce himself gay. His wife stood by him. He became a charter member of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality and, in 2001, a subject in Dr. Robert Spitzer’s famous sexual-orientation study.
Moose gives us the quintessential example of the definition of success in the ex-gay movement:
Moose said change is difficult. About a third of his clients succeed, he said. And even those who do often continue to wrestle with what it means to live as “heterosexuals with homosexual attractions.”
I can’t tell if the tears I have are from laughing so hard or out of pity.
Timothy,
I think it’s sincere. Really. I know it’s funny to you…but….really…let’s think about that. I’ve said no different basically, as far as the “heterosexual with homosexual attractions” goes. This is just a person who wants to identify as straight, not gay, even if they struggle at times with being attracted to the same sex. You can still call it homosexual (or gay) and laugh at it…but…it’s still a person deserving of being respected for their choices. (not SAYIN’ you have a choice, you know i don’t say that either) but still….do you sort of see what i’m sayin’ here?
Here’s the deal. It DOES look and sound ridiculous…but so does a bunch of other stuff when you start really digging into the upside-down way of looking at things like Christ did. (again…NOT saying you don’t do that) But I am saying that for people like Tdub and myself, and maybe some of these people you’ve quoted, that may be what’s going on.
i love ya!
grace
I have no problems with people who want to believe they’re ex-gay or people who believe they’re Jesus Christ reincarnated either for that matter. I have problems with people holding up either group to “prove” anything though.
Hi Grace and Timothy,
As a person of color, I really can’t help but think of all the people who have been in my life who went through nearly their entire lives in the shadows of institutional prejudice and what it did to them psychologically.
Jews who lived in the Soviet Union, blacks under Jim Crow…
It’s not about choice, but what is normal?
What is a matter of being a normal and functioning person, who has to live in a world that doesn’t respect what normal is.
And what that person would be like under normal circumstances.
If someone were not educated to place gay people in such contempt of their orientation, would they feel that way ‘normally’?
If gay people themselves were not educated this way as well, why such disciplines and restrictions to feel as if they’ve arrived at heterosexuality?’
The sex drive, the urge to eat and the need for socialization and community are normal.
Excesses are not good and neither is lack of consideration for others and we know that deprivation of all of the above tends to result in overreaction and excess.
That is also a normal way for a human being to respond to repressed, but normal urges.
What happens to gay people is a different form of repression, but the myths, persistent prejudice and ignorance are astonishing to me.
I mean, look at the ages of the subjects.
They are of a previous generation inculcated to believe their duty was to heterosexual lives, not their own.
This deferment is not a choice, it’s more like a resignation to heterosexual expectations.
When I think of how many black people suffered burned scalps to straighten their hair and or refused to marry someone their same ‘shade’, so they wouldn’t have dark babies if they could help it.
The Clark Doll Study revealed the non acceptance that black children had for black dolls or anything they’d known to be associated with blackness and black people.
This isn’t rocket science to see that these people suffer from heterosexual expectations.
They suffer to be accepted, period.
And if it takes trying to change the deepest instinct they have, then so be it.
For them, the alternative is unpredictable and most assuredly could be threatening.
I say, over and over and over again, the spectre of threat takes away any gay person’s options for saying that their wanting to be straight is a choice.
Heterosexuals have no friggin clue how EXHAUSTING it is, not only to be able to reveal your identity, but to pretend you’re something you’re not.
And when someone breaks under the strain, they are called a failure for it.
What choice is in all this?
What other options are gay people really given?
I sympathize with these people, and your husband too Grace because when it’s all said and done, NONE of this is for the benefit of the gay person.
But for the comfort of straight people.
What benefit could it be to straight spouses and the children in the family to have this revelation?
Everyone is betrayed by those who insist that being gay is a choice, and then create a hostile environment where being gay is so much harder.
As you have seen Grace, there isn’t any respect for those gay people who do just fine and succeed in SPITE of everything.
Make no mistake, historically, those who were very successful where no one expected them to be…were punished for it in other ways.
For Jews, it’s known as the Holocaust, for blacks it was eruptions of riots in Rosewell, Greenville and St. Louis.
I don’t find this situation at all funny, it’s pathetic and I know it’s roots.
There is less and less evidence that some has really changes their same sex attracted instinct.
But living as if they don’t have it, isn’t a happy situation either.
grace,
you know I respect you and honor tdub’s decisions. However, I think you and I are looking at this differently. This is my perspective:
I’m cool with describing tdub as ex-gay or not gay because one of the (many) definitions of “gay” includes acceptance of an identity or being part of a community.
But the term “heterosexual” has a more clinical meaning which requires desire toward the opposite sex. It is more than identity or self labeling. Without desire for the opposite sex, there is no heterosexualty.
It really is unfair to hijack the language and decide that because you WANT to be heterosexual, that therefore you ARE.
This is especially true when contrasting with the word “homosexual”. It becomes an oxymoron to claim one identity and yet have the defining characteristics of the other.
I know that there is a branch of Christianity that practices “name it and claim it” theology. But I’ve never had much respect for delusional belief.
And I know that much of Christian faith could also be called oxymoronic: a sinner saved by grace, the beatitudes, etc. Yet those seeming contradictions are between the way that God sees us and the way that man sees us. It is not in how our view differs from the tangible facts of our lives nor is it justification to make claims that are false or based on future hopes.
If we live in an apartment, we don’t get to hold on to our firm belief that God wants us to own property and stand in faith as a property owner when we fill out the application for credit at Macy’s. Truth and honesty is more important than laying claim to God’s blessings.
I believe that God sees us as neither heterosexual nor homosexual, neither young nor old, male nor female. So it’s just fine to say that one isn’t homosexual in God’s eyes.
But telling the world that you are heterosexual when you have the defining attributes of a non-heterosexual is not a matter of Christ’s upside down way of looking at things, but rather an attempt to delude others or oneself.
Interesting article. I have to agree that some of the quotes in it are both sad and a little funny, even from my perspective.
But, as I read David’s quote about the APA I couldn’t help but wonder how it might have sounded 30 years ago for a gay man to stand up against the APA’s stance on homosexuality as a “mental disorder” (‘Who is the APA to tell me I have a mental disorder…’) Doesn’t seem quite as “funny” in that context, does it.
If 40 is the new 30 and red is the new black, then maybe ex-gay is the new, well … gay.
I read the quotes from those guys and think back to my own closeted days – I was exactly like them, except for me the reason to hate being gay was more about masculinity, not religion. My parents were very accepting of my gay first cousin, and my Dad and sister are totally fine with me today, but my entire childhood and a lot of my teenage years were spent in various activities to make me more of a “man” and ironically only drove my father and I apart as I resented these attempts to change me – because it meant I was not good enough as I was. Nonetheless, I understandably equated being less than masculine with being inferior with being gay – they were all wrapped up for me.
If you had asked me, at any point in my 20s, if I were gay, and it happened often enough to terrorize me, I would have responded much as these men – certainly I was not gay, I was not a fag, but I knew then that I was a homosexual. Until my late 20s I even clung to the idea that it was just a phase, something I could/would “outgrow.” So I did everything I could to change – to make myself the man I thought I was supposed to be. Until one day in June of 2000 when I had had enough – I stood in the shower and thought “it can’t be worse than this to be out of the closet.”
I was living the half-life that these men are now – unable to respond to women but unwilling to respond to men. Had I had the kind of religious faith they have, I might have been content to stay in that existence. If these men really value their religion so much, and are willing to go through life without a close romantic relationship, if necessary, then none of us really have the right to deny them that.
But we cannot escape the fact that all the reasons not to follow one’s same-sex desires and attractions are based on the idea that being homosexual is “bad” in some way – naturally, ethically, morally, religiously. For any common ground or respectful dialogue is to ever occur, then both sides must accept that the other side has the right to their opinion about the relative worth of acting on same-sex attractions, AND, as Timothy points out, both sides must act honestly.
I don’t think those of us who are ex-ex-gay are necessarily great about respecting the rights of religious people to reject same-sex actions for their own reasons, but I would put our honesty up for examination at any time. I also know that the anti-gay side almost never acknowledges that there could be a postive, moral argument for homosexuality, and has a real problem with honesty and accuracy.
Timothy,
I was speaking more along the lines of the upside-down way of “living” not really looking at things….
the “love your enemies”, “lose your life to save it”, “die to live”….that sort ot thing….not so much a way of looking at things as a way of responding to and living which is Christ-like in it’s foundation….and….which results in unexpected blessings and surprisingly beneficial results. All that based on my personal experience. It has nothing whatsoever to do with name-it-and-claim-it sort of stuff. I’m pretty opposed to that line of thinking.
Your first sentence of response was right on…I think we are just looking at this differently.
love,
grace
…heterosexuals with homosexual attractions.
I have to admit, it’s hard to get past that one without a chuckle or two. I wonder if Elton L. Moose is an average Narth member, i.e. refused to pronounce himself gay and like his clients, often continue to wrestle with what it means to live as “heterosexuals with homosexual attractions.”
David Roberts
I don’t think it’s as simple as name-it-and-claim-it theology. In my experience, many Christians, particularly older ones (i.e. 40+) use “heterosexual”, “bisexual”, and “homosexual” to designate people based on behavior, not attractions.
So, for example, I have heard several of these Christians with no familiarity with the exgay movement tell me, “Oh, I’m ex-bisexual–I used to be bisexual in college” or something like that. They aren’t talking about sexual attractions or orientation–they’re talking about experimenting and fooling around with the same sex.
And when popular Bible translations, such as the NAS, list “homosexuals” as among those who will not inherit the kingdom, most evangelicals read this as referring to those who engage in certain sexual behavior, not those who have same-sex attractions.
I grew up using the words “homosexual”, “heterosexual”, and “bisexual” to refer to people based on their attractions primarily. So it’s natural and instinctive for me to say that I’m bisexual, and to correct people when they refer to me as a heterosexual. But as I mentioned to Randi on my blog, I have found that conservative Christians tend to get really confused and alarmed if I refer to myself as bisexual. They think I’m saying that I am having sex with (or looking to have sex with) people of both sexes.
So I don’t think the terminology issue is as simple as one man’s wishful thinking or the perniciously dishonest influences of name-it-and-claim-it theology. Among conservative Christians, the term is genuinely ambiguous as to whether it is referring to attraction or behavior, and among older conservative everstraight Christians, from what I have seen, I would say that it is *more* likely to refer to behavior than to attractions.
I’m not trying to defend their using those words in that way. I’m just saying that I don’t think it’s all Elton’s fault. 🙂
“heterosexual with homosexual attractions” really really sounds like a bird deciding to be called a cat… with fluffy feathers! It can be fun as part of some bugs bunny gag. In the real world it´s more akin to a tragic personality disorder, out of the sheer desperation to be accepted by heterosexual peers. To cite the great Shakespeare: “That which we call a rose by any name would smell as sweet”. What else could I add?
That’s a great observation DM. You don’t really hear people say “I’m a homosexual who sometimes struggles with heterosexual attractions.” Insofar as we as a society have virtually forced people to define themselves in terms of their sexual attractions and/or behaviors (a pretty bizarre phenomenon, when you stop and think about it), there are really no mutually-pallatable options for “ex-gays” in terms of semantics. Hopefully that’s changing with the younger generation on both sides of this issue, as you’ve pointed out.
For me, this whole thread (and actually this entire website) really reinforces what I said in my post above. It seems that the ex-gay has now become the enigma to society that the gay person once was.
What does that mean, “name it and claim it theology”?
As to the meaning of heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual I hope people will consider what they mean to most people, not just a minority of Christians. Christian warping of the usual meaning of words is a real sore point for me. A Christian might talk of loving murderers, but they don’t mean love in any conventional sense of enjoying and being totally at ease with another person’s personality. Its up to Christians to speak in a manner consistent with most people’s understanding of words, not the other way around.
Singer: “You don’t really hear people say “I’m a homosexual who sometimes struggles with heterosexual attractions.””
I’ve never heard of a gay person describing any heterosexual attractions as “struggling”. Perhaps because gay people are less likely to be unaccepting of the natural attractions God gave them. As far as having no mutually-palatable term for ex-gays, that could be because – unlike homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals who are all defined by their attractions – exgays are defined by their political/religious identity.
(Incidentally, ex-gays are not defined by behavior – as long as they are “struggling” not to “slip”, they are called ex-gays – even if they spent the previous evening behaving like a hedonist in a sex club)
“Insofar as we as a society have virtually forced people to define themselves in terms of their sexual attractions and/or behaviors (a pretty bizarre phenomenon, when you stop and think about it)…”
Yes, when certain segment of the conservative religious/political establishment went about identifying a segment of the population to stigmatize and villify, they insisted on definitions by behavior and attraction. When these laws came into place (fairly recently in our history) the whole purpose was to identify and punish those who did not conform. Sad, isn’t it. And yet it is continuing today. There are legislators today who seek to pass laws that gay individuals and/or couples cannot adopt or – in some states – enter into contracts – all based on identity.
Of course, gay people now have come to say “yeah, we’re different” and as objective study has come about this idea of unique identity seems to be mirrored by observable physical difference: in olifactory response, in hypothalmus reaction, by blood-flow response to sexual imagey, and in other clinically measurable ways.
In contrast, ex-gays seem (at least so far) to be distinct only in manner of chosen behavior and possibly in some change in reported attraction. So far, we’ve not seen any measurable distinction. But studies have not been done (and are not endorsed by much of the ex-gay movement).
So I’d have to say that the only way in which ex-gay is the new gay would be in matters of politics.
Randi — the “name it and claim it” theology (roughly) equates to a belief that if you think and believe correctly what follows is the reward you have been praying for etc.You’ll detect elements of it when you hear, say, an exgay declare “I am being healed” (ie changed into a heterosexual) when quite plainly no such thing is or has been occuring. But you’ve got to say you are, otherwise you won’t be. If you declare it beforehand, it will happen. God is duty bound to obey the prayers of true believers. Get it? :)(“Yeah… right. Isn’t that just called wishful thinking?”)I’m trying to think of a few that come to mind. Normally they are big on praying for health, wealth, etc. Think Benny Hinn. Marilyn Hickey. Copeland.Nothing wrong with being hopeful, I guess, but as experience seems to suggest it does leave a certain type of person very vulnerable to manipulation and being duped. Oh, and bad comb-overs and big, big hair are also popular :)(Was that summation about right, everyone? Guess you’ll let me know if it isn’t…)
Just as an aside — we were discussing this the other night (as you do).Apart from here (or similar forums) that sometimes compels the statement…When was the last time you said “I am gay” to someone?For both of us it was years ago. So long ago we couldn’t think of the occasion. In normal old conversation we refer to each other constantly. What we did on the weekend. Holidays. Etc. We introduce one another, as in “This my partner Grant” etc.I guess anyone therefore knows we are gay. They’d have to be as thick as two short planks if they didn’t work that out. But the G-Word basically never comes up.
If 40 is the new 30 and red is the new black, then maybe ex-gay is the new, well … gay.Posted by SingerNaw, transgender is the new gay (Globe and Mail, Saturday, June 12, 2004):Activists say the transgender movement is poised to become the fourth great human-rights movement, following the fights against racism, sexism and homophobia. Transgendereds have even been described as the “new gays” in sympathetic magazine articles, and they reached a milestone last month by launching their first Transgender Rights Awareness Week. But as they fight for recognition, they are also grappling with fundamental issues of identity.Ex-gays will just have to be the new…well, ex-gays? That is, unless the ex-transgender become the new ex-gays… 😉
Singer said “You don’t really hear people say “I’m a homosexual who sometimes struggles with heterosexual attractions.” Insofar as we as a society have virtually forced people to define themselves in terms of their sexual attractions and/or behaviors (a pretty bizarre phenomenon, when you stop and think about it)”.
Not true Singer. I was born male, live as a female now and am bisexual. If I thought I could juggle two relationships as well as one I’d want a partner of each sex. Practically speaking I can’t and I am committed to my boyfriend who meets all my emotional needs. Frankly I would just as soon not be attracted to women any longer, you could certainly say I struggle with heterosexual attractions – despite the exgay politicians’ assertions that no one wants to become more gay then heterosexual. Love conquers all you see.
Regardless of what society asks, defining oneself by one’s attractions is an inevitable need of individuals because the gender(s) you’re attracted to is a core aspect of self. To say people shouldn’t be considering sexual orientation a significant defining aspect of self is to say whether you love Joe with all your heart or Jane isn’t of core importance to a person. Whether you’re atracted to male or female is every bit as defining of core self as is the choice of who to love and marry or whether one is male or female.
Society was the first to define and single out gays as a group for punishment. “Exgays” are not the new gay in that they have not similarly been targeted by society for oppression for living as they choose.
Society also forces male and female roles on people, that doesn’t mean its bizarre for people to define themselves in those terms. People define themselves as writers, painters, mechanics, christians, lovers and fighters, etc. Its every bit as natural and inevitable for people to define themselves as same sex attracted.
I’ve also seen the “name it and claim it” theology called “Word-Faith” or “Word of Faith”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_faith
Wow… just how pretzeled must one be to buy that bull$hit?
“I am a heterosexual with homosexual attractions” really means “I am in denial about my true sexuality. I think that I am supposed to be heterosexual, but I am still attracted to members of my same sex. I am confused.”
Just. Plain. Stupid. (And. Sad.)
Ok, I just had to come back for more.
“Can you be certain there are no white ravens? No, you can’t. Not unless you’ve seen them all.”
Ummmm… bad analogy, that. A raven is a bird which has black feathers, etc. Practically every raven ever hatched on this planet is born with black feathers and features. By definition, a white raven would be an oddity, a genetic anomaly. One doesn’t have to “see them all” in order to know that ravens are black 99.99% of the time. Only a very small number of ravens would be hatched without the characteristic color – just as a small percentage of human beings are born albino.
“Who is the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, to say that no one can change?”
Who is the APA to say that “no one can change”? Well, the APA is made up of professionals who have conducted research and have treated many patients and after reviewing the data concluded that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that so-called “reparative therapy” is harmful to one’s mental health. Who would be more qualified to speak on issues of mental health, the American Plumbers Association, or the American Pigbreeders Association perhaps?
I recognize that there are people who simply cannot accept their sexuality. I can understand how it feels to live among hard core fundamentalist “Christians” who scorn gays and lesbians at every turn. I know what it’s like to go to church and hear a preacher scream until he is red in the face and panting, condemning us to hell because we happen to have been born with a same-sex attraction. It is hard to find the inner strength to lift oneself up and out of such an environment, and even harder to challenge such beliefs when one believes that doing so may cost them a relationship with their family and/or loved ones.
But I also know what it feels like to be open and honest and no longer have any secrets to hide. I know how liberating it is to look in the mirror and know that I am no longer lying to myself and everyone else. It is a great feeling.
Here’s wishing that more people could liberate themselves from irrational religiosity and find peace within themselves.
Wow, a lot of feedback on my comments since I last checked here. Thanks everyone for your insight. I’ll do my best to respond.
Timothy, you said:
“I’ve never heard of a gay person describing any heterosexual attractions as “struggling”. Perhaps because gay people are less likely to be unaccepting of the natural attractions God gave them.”
Neither had I until I read Randi’s post above.
Also:
“… exgays are defined by their political/religious identity.”
I thought it was interesting that you would make such a (blanket) statement in light of what the interviewee in the above article said about politicizing this deeply personal issue. As for being defined by a religious identity, aren’t we all to some degree if we profess some faith?
As for stigmatization and vilification, the thread of responses to articles like this one certainly show that trend going both ways.
Regarding your description of “name-it-claim-it” theology. I don’t have a ton of first-hand experience with that one, but what you’ve said seems pretty accurate to me.
Autumn: It’s so interesting that you brought this up because in my mind I’ve made a lot of correlations between ex-gay and transgendered people. I think they have a lot in common. Both groups exert a tremendous amount of effort to change things about themselves (inside and out) that many would argue to be God-given traits, much to the derision of society at large. Anyhow, I just had to say that you read my mind, and apparently so did “Globe and Mail” back in 2004. Thanks for your input.
Randi, Thanks for sharing your story. You said:
“… you could certainly say I struggle with heterosexual attractions”
Timothy and I both stand corrected.
Also:
“’Exgays’ are not the new gay in that they have not similarly been targeted by society for oppression for living as they choose.”
That may be true for the time being, but things sure seem to be headed that way based on all that I read here. Hopefully we won’t see overt oppression, but the subversive form is already out there. Personally, I would feel “safer” telling most people that I’m “gay” vs. “exgay” largely due to the stigma being propagated here and in the media at large.
Finally, Jonathan, I just had to respond to this comment:
“Well, the APA is made up of professionals who have conducted research and have treated many patients and after reviewing the data concluded that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that so-called “reparative therapy” is harmful to one’s mental health. Who would be more qualified to speak on issues of mental health …”
As I mentioned before and is noted in the article, these same esteemed organizations did in fact refer to homosexuality as a “mental disorder” just 30 years ago, and they weren’t right then either. This is precisely why I think “ex-gay” is the new gay, for they’re encountering similar social stigma, labeling, and political opposition as the gay community did 30 years ago.
I hope my responses were kind & that I didn’t miss anyone. Was sort of in a rush today and there was a lot to say. Thanks again everyone for your feedback.
Singer: This is precisely why I think “ex-gay” is the new gay, for they’re encountering similar social stigma, labeling, and political opposition as the gay community did 30 years ago.You’re not serious are you? Even as a narrow statement that is rather absurd, and I’d like to see you back that with something more than your perception.If it was true we would see widespread and mainstream social, political and medical forces attempting to:ostracize exgays for choosing to live however they wantmake being exgay a criminal offense?declare exgays to be mentally ill?I’m not seeing any of that.Forgetting for one moment the anti-gay elements that remain both widespread and mainstream (and, hence, the old gay is still the new gay…)I do see people opposed to the anti-gay underpinning of the exgay movement. I see some people opposed to the blatant anti-gay politics they are involved in. I’m not about to forget for a moment that it is in fact groups such as Exodus and NARTH that are attempting to redeclare homosexuality to be a mental illness and to recriminalise gay men and women.I do see the professional bodies making statements about the likelihood of change, or about the claims that sexual orientation can be changed through therapy. They have said slim chance, and no evidence is available – for good reason.Few, if any, have appeared to change sexual orientation. There are legitimate alternative explanations for the way people decide to live their lives without assuming sexual orientation itself has changed. There are no scientific studies supporting the exgay claims. Mainly because they have refused or neglected to do them.There are many who do indeed ridicule individual exgays. But stop for a moment and wonder what they are ridiculing : rather than it being directed at people who chose to live as straight or celibate, the ridicule is directed at people who go around making rather bizarre statements about “white crows” etc. And who are plainly way off centre when it comes to religious conviction. Or who obnoxiously behave in an anti-gay fashion in public.That’s not ridiculing exgays, per se. That is ridiculing people for being “cranks” or “religious nuts” or “bigots” or who have a “persecution complex”.Not saying that’s a good thing either, but let’s not confuse what people are actually opposed to.
Singer you say “I think “ex-gay” is the new gay, for they’re encountering similar social stigma, labeling, and political opposition as the gay community did 30 years ago.”
There isn’t much similarity in the stigma or the political opposition. No one’s proposing exgays be jailed for non-gay sexual behavior. Yet the opposite is true.
If “exgays” are stigmatized I’d say its because leading exgay proponents use the concept to oppose and punish people taking what should be the easy route and accepting their unchosen same sex attractions. If there’s stigmatization of exgays perhaps its because of concern for people ignoring strong natural core desires when making relationship choices.
If scientific studies of ex-gays consist of connecting them to penile plethysmographs and seeing whether or how they respond to different kinds of pornography, they are right to refuse to become involved with them.
I’d suggest that Spitzer’s study is scientific, but that would probably lead into a silly debate about the definition of science, so I won’t bother.
AB,
Spitzer relied on 200 people REFERRED to him by ex-gay organizations.
Daniel G. (who writes here) could explain the vetting process to you if you’d like, he was told to lie to be part of Spitzer’s survey.
Hardly a random scientific sample if you have to recruit your subjects from people with a vested interest in keeping the lie alive.
Scott,
It’s very common for gay groups to dismiss anything ex-gay groups or individuals say on the grounds that ex-gays cannot be trusted.
Ex-gay groups generally feel the same way about gays, of course. Neither attitude is fair, or makes for productive discussion. So I don’t think that Spitzer’s study should be automatically dismissed just because it involved people referred to him by ex-gay organisations. It provides some reason to think change in sexual orientation may be possible for some people, although it doesn’t really settle the issue and more work needs to be done.
I know nothing about the situation that isn’t already public knowledge, so I obviously can’t pass any judgment on whether or not Nicolosi told Daniel Gonzales to lie to Spitzer. No comment there.
Grantdale and Randi,
My initial “exgay is the new gay (like red to black, 40 to 30)” statement was certainly “tongue in cheek” to a degree. I’d hope that was obvious to most readers and apologize if it wasn’t. However, the more I’ve thought about it after reading everyone’s comments, I can see that there’s more truth in that statement than I had initially realized.
Grantdale, you said:
“If it was true we would see widespread and mainstream social, political and medical forces attempting to …”
Of your list that follows the above statement, the only one I don’t see happening today is the “criminal offense” part. Yet, there are certainly “social, political, and medical forces” at work. The “medical” side has already been discussed in this thread. Socially speaking, just look at the number of movies and TV shows we’ve all seen recently and discussed here with an “anti-ex-gay” message. I believe that to some, “anti-ex-gay” = “pro-gay”, but I don’t think that’s really true. I think it’s possible to be supportive of both (gay & exgay people/communities), just as it’s very possible to deride both.
Singer, what people are responding to is the intolerance and deception in the Ex-Gay movement, not people who wish to attempt to be ‘not Gay’.
To claim that the AMA once claimed that homosexuality is a mental illness and so whatever they say now may be wrong, is very similar to the fact that geologists at one time believed that the flood story in the bible was literally factual so now geologists may be equally wrong in claiming that it isn’t. The current views in both the medical world and the geological world are based on accumulated studies that discount the previous belief.
Hava Israel,
I’m sure that’s exactly what the AMA thought 30 years ago as well as the many people who ascribed their view at that time. Hypothetical matters of science are always evolving (no pun intended) and “conclusions” often swing from one end to another and then back again over time (as we continue to see on matters of geology as well — this was part of my field of study in college, so I’ll refrain from boring everyone with my thoughts on all that). Unfortunately, I think these “conclusions” (in both hard and soft sciences) are sometimes socially and/or politically motivated — as I’m guessing the AMA’s stance was 30 years ago, and the APA’s may be today. This is why I personally don’t put much stock in either and can understand the interviewee’s question (back to the subject article) of “who is the APA to discount my own personal experience?”
Contrary to what you’ve stated, many of the above responses to this article have been direct criticisms of “people who wish to attempt to be not gay.”
Guys, have we beat this one to death enough yet? Although I appreciate the interest in my comments, I’m sure everyone’s really tired of hearing me say the same thing in so many different ways. Thanks for being willing to hear another view point.
singer,
thanks for responding.
“As for being defined by a religious identity, aren’t we all to some degree if we profess some faith?”
Yes, that is true. But the distinction I’m making is between gay and ex-gay not between religious and non-religious.
In general, “gay” is a term that has been defined by identity/attitude, behavior, or attraction. However (other than rare exceptions) the identity and behavior are completely based on the attraction. So, though it might be a bit simplistic it can be said that ultimately, “gay” is defined by attraction (which is, after all, the determining factor for essentially all people who call themselves gay).
However, “ex-gay” is a term that is defined by identity/attitude. Sometimes the definition could be by behavior, but that behavior is based on identity rather than on attraction. “Ex-gay” is not based on attraction and generally speaking runs contrary to attraction.
(For practical purposes, I’m speaking of the larger “ex-gay” identified population, not the miniscule number who claim that their orientation has changed).
And that’s the distinction I was wishing to make.
. . .
ab: “If scientific studies of ex-gays consist of connecting them to penile plethysmographs and seeing whether or how they respond to different kinds of pornography, they are right to refuse to become involved with them.”
For ex-gays who are open that their “ex”ness is a matter of identity, there is no need for scientific study. No one is disputing that one can say “I identify as _____ “. However, those who claim to have converted from fully homosexual in attraction and desire to fully heterosexual in attraction and desire, are making a very bold claim.
Additionally, it appears that ALL of them (that I’ve heard of) are using this claim to advance a political agenda. They are asking the people of the country to base public policy on their claims of reorientation.
Before the nation makes decisions of public policy, surely the standard of acceptance of a very bold claim that runs in conflict to all the professional organizations has to be higher than “because I said so”.
So, yeah, before I believe the very few making this extreme claim, I want proof. And using a penile plethysmograph is certainly no more harrowing of an experience to them than what they are demanding be done to gay people. Surely, before the anti-gay ex-gay activists demand that gay people be denied ANY accomodations for their relationships (which is EXACTLY what they demand), they should be willing to take a minor inconvenience to justify their demand.
Don’t even begin to tell me that a penile plethysmograph is more intrusive than being denied access to the hospital room of a loved one. Or being fired for being gay. Or being denied the right to make decisions for your children. Or any of the hundred of other indignities that the ex-gay leaders go around testifing to legislators in favor of.
Or, for that matter, is a private plethysmograph any more embarrassing than being a teenager in some ex-gay camp having to tell total strangers (including pedophiles) the details of your private fantasies or thoughts?
So don’t try to come here and suggest for a moment that too much is being asked of those who are making this claim and using it to attack my life!
Well, contrary to what you are seeing in the responses, I’m seeing people criticizing (or finding humorous) what they believe to be confusion and self deception in the statements that were made in the article. Most have expressed sadness over that because of an ability to relate to the situation, either through actual experience of having attempted to be exgay or through similar situations, as Regan has pointed out. The same type of situation occurs when Jewish people have internalized anti-semitism and women have internalized sexism.
The fact that people have rejected your observation does not mean we have been unwilling to hear what you have said. Being able to listen and be open to another persons opinion does not always mean that agreement will occur.
I too can understand the man’s statement about the APA. Each individual needs to work with the situation they are personally in. Perhaps it is true that he is one of the few people who can actually change. I wish him luck. I also wish he didn’t feel there was something ‘wrong’ with himself that needed to change. I feel bad for him. I can also relate to James. I, too, wanted to have a ‘traditional’ family and no longer be an ‘exception’. Being accepted and not ostracized for being different is a vital need in many peoples lives. That is why I’m opposed to racism, sexism and homophobia.
I think that many of us are torn between sadness and laughter at the article because we actually have the experience of attempting to do just what these people are attempting and we’ve seen the futility of it, the unnecessary struggle against our natures and the damage that is caused by being in denial, trying to change something so fundamental as sexual orientation is. Many have experienced the psychological damage that occurs from reparative therapy. I also have to admit that some of quackery is just downright funny. It just is, to me, at least, when I’m not feeling the sadness resulting in knowing that the quackery is actually harming people.
When the majority of geologists can produce scienticially valid arguments that support a worldwide flood and publish these studies in a peer reviewed journal, I guess I’ll have to concede my point about Noah’s story. The same is true for studies on reparative therapy and homosexuality. I know I don’t have a mental illness. Who are exgays to tell me that I do? I’ll defer to professional psychologists and my own experience on this one.
Singer you dismiss that “reparative therapy” is harmful and that asking anyone to be exgay is an unjust burden. You ignore the widespread malicious lies used by “exgays” to oppress and demonize gays. If it weren’t for these activites by exgay proponents no one would even notice these individuals. The exgaywatch community is not representative of the larger society’s attitudes. In that larger society gays are still widely hated and “exgays” are apparently “heterosexuals” who if they are discriminated against at all its because of their past association with being gay, not heterosexual.
Exgays encourage this negative attitude towards gays which if anything is also the source of discrimination against “exgays”.
Other than my suggestion that “exgays” may make poor relationship choices I didn’t see any direct criticisms of people because they do not wish to be gay and you didn’t mention any specifically. What criticism here do you have to compare with Alan Chambers saying gays are being used by the devil for evil? Its disingenous to ask that people focus on the few exgays who might sincerely change while ignoring that vast majority who do not.
Timothy,
Your response to what I thought was a reasonable and moderately expressed opinion is extremely hostile and borders on the threatening. There is nothing to stop me from coming here and expressing any opinion I wish, unless I am actually going to be banned from the site. This had already been threatened a couple of times in another, now concluded thread, and I modified my behaviour as a result. So please either get on with it and finally ban me or else stop making remarks that could be construed as threats of banning. I have tried to be polite and follow site guidlines, so if you do ban me now, it will be clear to everyone that this is for nothing more than expressing an opinion you dislike.
Regarding your comments on the ex-gay issue, I think the only principled response to claims that someone has gone from gay to straight is to insist that the issue is irrelevant where public policy issues are concerned. People have a right to live a gay lifestyle because of their right to do as they wish with their own lives, not because of any alleged immutability of homosexuality.
ab,
My comment was not to suggest that you be banned. Rather it was to state that your self-rightous indignation about political ex-gays not subjecting themselves to testing is morally bankrupt. It is of the “how dare you” variety rather than “you don’t get to speak”.
“Regarding your comments on the ex-gay issue, I think the only principled response to claims that someone has gone from gay to straight is to insist that the issue is irrelevant where public policy issues are concerned.”
Tell that to Alan Chambers, Stephen Bennett, Randy Thomas, etc. etc.
Until they stop using their supposed reorientation as support for legislation restricting my ability to get married or adopt or not be thrown into jail, I will challenge them to prove their claims.
Singer: I asked for some substance behind your claim, not a repeat. There is nothing in this thread — or anywhere we’ve seen — from any medical authorities suggesting that people must not be permitted to go the “exgay lifestyle”.Compared to what was done to gay men and lesbians within my lifetime the observations that 1) attempting to change may raise conflicts and cause harm and 2) there is no proof anyone can change their sexual orientation are very mild. None have suggested Court enforced instutionalisation. Nobody has suggested brain surgery. Or drugs. Or gaol. Or “make them be gay” therapy.I think you have completely sidestepped the main point: people (ie us, here) are not opposed to people living or trying to live however they see fit. It’s not the exgay part that bothers us. It’s the baggage the exgay organisations carry.ab et al: As for Spitzer’s study: charts and numbers might impress some, but Spitzer did nothing more than compile a list of untested testimonies. Frankly, why bother. We already have enough of them.If not for the anti-gay political and social purposes that exgay groups (and, therefore, some individual exgays) are being used for I doubt many of would give exgay a moments thought.I resent their intrusions into my life, which includes attempts to have me branded a criminal. I honestly don’t care about whatever they wish for themselves. Nor should I.