Values V. Change
In an article in Crosswalk magazine, Dr. Warren Throckmorton has further demonstrated his shift in focus away from reorientation efforts and towards a values determination for those who find a conflict between their sexual orientation and their religious convictions.
In this article, Throckmorton discusses a friend, Jim, who was unable to achieve a shifting in his base attractions away from men generally and towards women generally. Jim did not find the advice of ex-gay ministries to be useful and his observations suggested that their insistence on set models of psychological causes were not supported by reality. What Jim stated that he did find useful was an evaluation of his values and the crafting of a life which was consistent with those values:
I began working with a counselor had lots of experience in helping people change behavior. He correctly pointed out that it’s not about “being cured” from homosexual attractions, but rather, it is about how I live. That major paradigm shift has been so helpful, I cannot begin to fully describe it. As we have explored issues, things have gotten better, but I still have very difficult moments. Does that mean God is unable to fix me? Hardly. What it means is that this life is difficult, and my difficulty is just different from, not worse than, the “average” next guy. That’s just the way it is.
Dr. Throckmorton closes with some observations that it may well benefit the ex-gay community to consider:
Truth is, the research does not allow for certainty about why sexual attractions occur. Despite the media hype over research relating pre-natal factors to later sexual orientation, there are many contradictory findings. Research pointing to family factors offers a piece of the puzzle but does not apply universally to those are homosexually attracted. Because homosexual attractions may mean different things for different people, counselors should be extremely cautious with promises of change. Likewise, counselors uniformly inclined to promote gay acceptance should understand that devout people cannot switch their religious beliefs on and off any more than people can consciously change their sexuality.
Many same-sex attracted persons are raised in a faith that declares that such attractions are an abomination and forbidden by God. Others are raised to believe that while having attractions cannot be faulted, any same-sex behavior - or even accepting the attractions as natural - is a sin. Both of these attitudes may be, depending on geographical or cultural ideologies, reinforced by society’s collective stigma. Consequently many young people have religious or moral convictions that are incongruent with the attractions that they find in themself.
I can see four possible responses that a person raised with conservative Christian theology can have to unwanted same-sex attractions (other than outright rejection of their faith), though there may be more:
1. Recognition of one’s attractions and a reevaluation of religious assumptions resulting in the conclusion that same-sex relationships can be permissible or blessed by God within certain parameters. (Side A gay Christians)
2. Recognition of one’s attractions and conclusion that same-sex sexual activity is not permissible, resulting in a life of chosen celibacy. (Side B gay Christians)
3. Neither accepting nor rejecting an identity consistent with one’s attraction but instead seeking to live a life consistent with one’s values, regardless of one’s attractions. (this appears to me to be Throckmorton’s new approach)
4. Building an identity based on the rejection of one’s attractions, focusing efforts on a shift in attractions, and declaring that options 1 and 2 above are “a sinful lifestyle”. (the Exodus approach)
Of the above, I believe that approach 4 is the least likely to result in a successful and happy life.
Filed under: Warren Throckmorton
While I don’t fully agree with Warren, I do admire him in many ways. Sure, people tend to disagree with him, but at least he does not seem to want to hurt gay people. He does not address the exgay thing in terms of falsities.
So Warren, thanks for being a thoughtful person in relation to these issues.
My friend (an evangelical minister) and I have had numerous discussions about this over the years. My view has always been that the Christian community can call homosexuality a sin, but since we don’t know origin and probably never fully will, we must understand that you can’t necessarily change it. Also, you do not know if you were created a certain way for certain purposes. When someone says God can’t create a homosexual, how do we know that unless we are God. Gay people and Christian ministries could get along a whole lot better if the churches would say, “We don’t know what causes homosexuality, and maybe it will be a lifelong issue, but as the church we can help you deal with behaviors you feel limits your relationship with Christ.” Understand, I am as agnostic as they come, so I do not believe it is a sin, but I just feel that there can be an understanding reached that will satisfy both sides.
And honestly–I don’t know any gay people who have a serious problem with people trying to deal with the attraction in the best way they feel. I think coerced exgayness is what bothers gay people overall.
Throckmorton said “counselors uniformly inclined to promote gay acceptance should understand that devout people cannot switch their religious beliefs on and off any more than people can consciously change their sexuality.”.
Equating the two is preposterous. As we see with religious beliefs people readily accept the beliefs of the geography where they were born. People’s sexuality on the other hand isn’t readily determined by where you were born or who you were raised by (gay vs straight parents). Religious beliefs are highly variable with circumstances of birth, but sexual orientation is not. While it may be difficult to change beliefs it certainly isn’t remotely in the same category of difficulty as changing one’s orientation. Its much much easier to find someone who’s changed religious beliefs than it is to find someone who’s changed their sexuality. The erroneous belief that there is something wrong with being gay is what causes people stress and is the most amenable to change. Its wrong to mislead people by encouraging them to think its reasonable to accept externaly imposed beliefs over natural internal states of being.
I can tell you that the EXODUS approach almost always fails. In my 30 years of experience, both personally and professionally, I have never met a person who shifted his orientation from gay tho straight. Behaviors change. Attitudes and self-perception change but sexual orientation seems remarkably constant.
I have seen aftermath of the EXODUS approach: defining away real feelings by relabeling them as something else, claiming something on faith that God may not want to give you, feeling guilty that you couldn’t make yourself straight. I have seen failure to “change” result in deep depression, even suicide.
So, I like Throckmorton’s approach. It shifts the focus away form “cause” and “cure” and puts the focus where it ought to be. It seems to leave the most room for ALL of us to live our lives in peace — respecting the other person’s right to live in accordance with their values.
In the final analysis, it is how we love that matters, not who.
I think Warren deserves much credit for not mindlessly parroting the dogma of Exodus and NARTH. He is thinking for himself, which is refreshing, compared to Nicolosi, Chambers and others who are either mixing or drinking the KoolAide.
However, I think there is one huge hole in his theory. In my view, the chances of a man or woman with a normal sex drive being able to live a lifetime (happily) without sex or, at least the opportunity, for love is pretty remote. I just don’t see too many people choosing lonliness over love, solitary over sex. While it is a personal choice, I just can’t imagine this being psychologically healthy for the vast majority of people.
So, I must disagree with Warren’s current view. However, it is a compromise point, in that as long as a phony cure is not peddled, people are not misled with false statistics and lies about gay life and people know what they are getting into without undue pressure from the therapist, they are free to do what they wish.
Its wrong to mislead people by encouraging them to think its reasonable to accept externaly imposed beliefs over natural internal states of being.
It is erroneous to assume that faith must necessarily exist due to “externally imposed beliefs.” For many, including myself, belief was not imposed on me. However my faith is far more important and certain to me than any other part of my life, including my sexual orientation. My understanding of what God wants for me does not conflict with that orientation, but if it did I would certainly have the right to try to live my life in a way that was in accord with my beliefs.
The only problem arises when those who feel a need to live contrary to their sexual orientation seek to impose the same on others.
Now I am confused. I always expected that the perfect livelyhood was the valued one, and visa-versa. So is Throckmorton saying that to live a valued life under Christianity is to give up perfection in that life, that is at least if one is gay?
I’ve always like Throckmorton, he’s always seemed to have an independant bent that every free-thinking man should have. But oftimes it seems he throws a wrench into things which sullies the waters of his inspiration. I can’t help but think that it’s his own Christian faith that does that, more often than not.
. . .
I waited 18 months for this?apparently, if you work out that you value (in this case) Jesus more than homosexuality; you’ll end up heterosexually married. Remind me: I’ve heard that where else?a man — by his own account, predominately homosexually attracted — is neither “gay” or even “bisexual”. Umm, what then, exactly? Heterosexual? Oh, not that silliness again…despite the beating around the bush — we are presented with a classic Exodus-type testimony (template, Male). Again.And of course no predominately homosexual man has ever married a women. And I mean never, ever, never. Not once in the entire 6,000 year history of mankind. Name one such man, if you can.
Left unsaid is the word that at least the old-style therapists such as Socarides did not recoil from: Repression.
And did I just say “old-style”? Am I suggesting, therefore, that there is nothing new, or fancy, or progressive about a notion that therapists have long been able — willing, even — to use techniques for suppression and repression on homosexually attracted individuals?
And I can see it now… the sister organization: rebranded, new and improved (with 40% extra suds), and now perfectly acceptable for any public school setting…
Dare I suggest it?: “Values Clarification” is to “the power of Jesus Christ” what “Intelligent Design” is to “Creationism”.
Urgh, format horrors. Sorry guys, it didn’t look like that in the preview… my bullet points vanished.
Its wrong to mislead people by encouraging them to think its reasonable to accept externaly imposed beliefs over natural internal states of being.
Many of us who are LGBT insist that our feelings and thoughts about who we are arise from something deep within us, not something externally imposed. And we have a right to expect that people take us at our word when we describe our experiences.
While I understand what Randi is getting at (and I certainly understand Randi’s frustration; I feel it too), I wouldn’t go so far as to characterize religious people as those who are merely following something “externally imposed.” That is not their experience of it, not for most devout believers anyway.
Sure, there are those who are “born Baptist” (or pick any denomination) but who don’t attend church or are particularly religious. I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about the many I know who come to their deep and abiding faith in ways they are unable to fully explain.
For example, in my own Catholic background, I’ve known many who have followed the church’s rich contemplative traditions, and their journey is as much an interior dialogue as anything else.
That’s just one visible example. Evangelicals aren’t known for having a quiet contemplative tradition, but many do experience it even though it’s often not visible to you or me. It only becomes apparent when you get to know someone whose faith has come about this way. I’ve known many who would not be able to describe how they came to believe what they do, even though a journey narrative is an important part of the evangelical experience generally.
Why should we not take their word for it when they describe their experiences when we expect them to take our word when we describe ours?
If we mistake the gay/religious tension as an either/or dichotomy, then we’re not listening very well to at least one side.
I think it needs to be said that there are some people who simply cannot accept their gay feelings. Their personal understanding of their religion tells them they cannot. God tells them they cannot. Their faith (whether we think they are right or wrong) is the CORE of their being.
For them, it might be psycologically healthier NOT to act on their gay feelings — that’s why I can support the Throckmorton Model even though I agree with Wayne Besen that for the vast majority of folks, such suppression is not healthy or even possible.
Last night, I watched a program on the Amish and found myself asking, how could anyone live with such restrictions? But they do and we should respect their right to.
Hmmm…I’m not sure how I want to express my thought. But perhaps what I want most is consistency from religious communities.
And many fail in that. Especially when it comes to reconciling their belief system with civil law.
Many faith communities HAVE had to reconcile with civil law and realities for non believers.
A religious life is STILL supposed to be a choice, and choosing to place oneself in the hands of said community also requires complete trust that they will be consistent in how they are to work, and respond to the healthier needs of those the bring to the fold.
There is also consistency in being LGBT.
There has to be a fair and reasoned response to the emotional needs of gay people.
And where some faith communities are concerned THEY take the either or approach, and most often won’t communicate that gay feelings are legitimate, let alone should be encouraged in a way consistent with the approach to straight people.
The goal has been to not be or behave as a gay person, but to also sacrifice those things fundamental to personal happiness, such as legal marriage, children…career of choice, to satisfy religious principles..when one has nothing to do with the other.
It’s not about the standards and working within the goals of the FAITH community alone, but the STRAIGHT world as well.
The church’s goals are FAR more strict for the gay person, than the straight ones.
And they are not doing anything new, they are just CALLING it something else, but their goal is the same.
Priestlike life if you can’t live hetero, or take a leap of faith with living hetero and land splat, taking a spouse and your children with you over the cliff.
A choice between a rock and a hard place is what the church really expects.
I wish they would just say so.
Just say it…
But don’t try and play like straight people are yoked the same way too.
Throckmorton misses one major possibility:
5. The person rejects his or her religion entirely.
Like someone else mentioned, many people do change or lose their faith, especially among the LGBT population. It’s a fairly common story.
Johnny, those bullet points are Timothy’s, not Dr. Throckmorton’s. Since the discussion in the article is about those who are devout and unable/unwilling to abandon their core beliefs, your option is moot. Those who feel able to do as you suggest would not enter into this dilemma.
I think I can understand some of what Randi and others may be expressing. The idea that one can change one’s sexual orientation has been used to justify the assault on the rights of gay people by many who claim to be working for God. I believe this is wrong on many levels. But we should remember that the individual’s right to live their lives as they see fit is essential and completely separate from the unfortunate usury of say Exodus or Focus on the Family.
While changing sexual orientation seems unlikely and certainly rare in any case, we should not disallow the right of those who believe their only course is to try to modify how they live. This does not override what I think are proper efforts to ensure that people are not needlessly shamed into such a decision over societal pressures. Nor does it eliminate the need for potential opposite sex marriage partners to be fully knowledgeable of the risks of marrying someone who is basically repressing one of the strongest biological forces known.
In the end, we need to separate the individual from those who are using them as a lobbying prop. For this reason, I would support (conditionally) the efforts of a Dr. Throckmorton over Exodus any day of the week.
Throckmorton’s SIT guidelines contain language about helping clients to explore why they are seeking “change”, not “overpromising” that they will — as so many ex-gay ministries have done and still do. These ministries have a responsibility to tell the truth. The key here is fully informed consent.
In my own case, I wish someone in the church had cautioned me to “slow down and think” about getting married to my wife Ann — not just cheering us on because it was evidence of “change” and made my testimony sound better. At EXIT workshops, I always got much more applause tan Jim Kaspar, who readily admitted his gay feelings and his decision to remain single and celibate. Perhaps he had made the better decision.
Don’t get me wrong. I am content being a self-accepting gay Christian. I love my my daughter deeply and being a father has truly enriched my life, but…
My trying to be “ex-gay” caused a lot of suffering. Ann suffered. My daughter suffered. We all did. I believe that suppressing one’s true sexual orientation is almost always a disaster. However, as David said:
“…the discussion in the article is about those who are devout and unable/unwilling to abandon their core beliefs”. We ought to respect their right to live in accorcance with their beliefs and choices just as we wish to have ours respected — even if we think their choices will ulimately cause them more pain. Asking them to change their beliefs might make about as much sense as them asking me to try to be straight.
I am not so sure that option 5 of totally rejecting the religion isn’t off the table for the people that Throckmorton is talking about. While I doubt this is one of the options that these folks would first jump to, it could very well end up the option they eventually adopt after great suffering and disillusionment.
It has happened to enough ex-gay folks that it should at least be acknowledged as a possible end result of following the ex-gay path.
“I can see four possible responses that a person raised with conservative Christian theology can have to unwanted same-sex attractions”
Timothy, you seem to suggest in this post that the only people who believe that homosexual sex is sin are those who were *raised* that way. It’s important to note that many of us who hold that view were not raised that way, but instead came to our faith and our beliefs about homosexuality as thinking adults.
I’m *not* saying you’re doing this, but sometimes I hear “enlightened” gay people take an approach that sounds something like this, “The poor little victims of evil anti-gay theology can’t be blamed for being raised in its clutches, and some of them will (alas!) never be able to escape it happily, so we should not be too hard on them for seeking to live in accordance with their convictions.” Sort of analogous to that “The poor dears just can’t help themselves” argument for gay rights! The compassion is fine, but the condescension can be rather annoying.
I ain’t no helpless victim of my beliefs. Of course, I don’t live in a social/cultural vacuum any more than anyone else does, and I’m not necessarily immune from being influenced by what others around me believe and do, any more than anyone else is. But my arriving at my current beliefs about homosexuality was the product of a long process of research, dialogue, prayer, reflection, and trial-and-error. After I became an evangelical Christian (which raised the morality-of-homosexuality question for me for the first time) I read everything I could find on the subject, from all different points of view. I talked to lots of people from various perspectives, listening to everyone’s arguments, opinions and stories. I spent many, many hours analyzing the reasoning and evidence claims that everyone was putting forward. In short, I would suggest that I arrived at my conclusions through the same sort of thoughtful, self-reflective, challenging struggle through which many gay people have come to conclusions very different my own.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that I’m right about anything.
But it does mean that I take full intellectual and moral responsibility for my beliefs, and that I don’t see myself as a victim of brainwashing or of slavish adherence to the opinions of others.
**********************
Regarding the values-determination stuff:
I like some things about this values-determination approach to therapy, but other things not so much. On the one hand, I think it’s far better than emphasizing attraction change or heterosexual marriage as a goal. On the other hand, I would want a therapeutic professional to be honest and forthright about his professional opinion of the different paths, and I’m not sure how well that would work in a values-determination context.
Earlier in my journey, I dealt with depression, and saw a variety of professionals for that, most of them pro-gay. In the one instance where my religious beliefs about sexuality came up as an issue, I basically let the guy know that I considered them non-negotiable, that I wasn’t interested in modifying them to improve my sex/love life, and that if he felt he couldn’t leave them alone, I would look elsewhere for help. So we simply bracketed those issues, and dealt with other areas of my life, and it was overall a positive and productive experience. My point is that I did not and would not expect or want someone who considers my religious views and values to be destructive to be actively involved in helping me integrate them better into my life.
D.M.: I think you expressed yourself very well. You are right. It is not fair to assume that those who believe that homosexual behavior is always sinful arrived at that conclusion through mindless adherance to anti-gay theology. You sound like you arrived at your opinion the same way I did. A lot of throught, prayer, study and soul-searching.
But here, I take issue a bit: You said: “I would want a therapeutic professional to be honest and forthright about his professional opinion of the different paths, and I’m not sure how well that would work in a values-determination context. ”
In my experience, it can work very well, as long as the therapist is honest, knows the limits of his/her expertise and knows when to refer the client to someone who might be better suited to help the client live in harmony with his particular view of the world.
In my experience, it can work very well, as long as the therapist is honest, knows the limits of his/her expertise and knows when to refer the client to someone who might be better suited to help the client live in harmony with his particular view of the world.
Which is why I am extremely concerned about those who would perform therapy and at the same time be involved in an association such as NARTH. A therapists personal world view should have absolutely nothing, I repeat absolutely nothing to do with the direction a patient is led. Once a therapist has a horse in the race, so to speak, all bets are off; find another therapist.
DM: Concerning Timothy, knowing him I’m pretty sure that was not how he meant that. And for what it is worth, I wasn’t brought up with any religion at all, but encountered my faith around 20, so I understand what you mean.
I can relate to DM’s point that it’s not necessarily about upbringing. My own parents have gone so far as to say they would have no problem with me being in a same-sex relationship, and remain incredulous over my choice for celibacy. So my current life choices aren’t exactly resulting from my upbringing, either.
Full disclosure: Over my adult life my personal philosophy has changed from “Option 4/Exodus” to “Option 2/Side B”. This has paralleled my spiritual journey from Evangelical to a return to my cradle Catholicism.
Where I think Throckmorton’s values approach is helpful is among those with SSA who are married. A few years ago, I led a small group (strictly a support group, I’m not a counselor of any kind) for Christian men with unwanted SSA. We were never a part of Exodus; this was after Alan (and Randy, whom I have known for many years) had come on board, and I was already pretty disillusioned with the direction of Exodus. I expected that most of the men who would attend the group would be single, whether they were seeking orientation change and possible marriage, or whether they were more content with celibacy. I was surprised that all of our eventual members (except me) were married.
There’s no question that many of them got married with a degree of denial about marriage “curing” their SSA. But equally there was no question that most of them loved their wives, had good sex lives, and were good husbands and fathers (and IIRC, all but one of the wives knew of the man’s SSA prior to getting married). Whether you consider them bisexual, or something like a Kinsey 2, 3, or 4, their values led them to choose monogamy and fidelity. There was never any question of them leaving their wives to pursue either celibacy or same-sex relationships, or of them giving up their religious views.
I am confident that most (dare I say nearly all?) of married Christian gays NEVER intend to have gay relationships on the side, leave their spouses, etc..
So the idea of their being a question as to whether or not this would happen is not the point IMO. It happens. More frequently than not.
One need only investigate the history of married gays and there it is starkly, painfully in black and white.
Intentions are great. They are wonderful. But they are not enough.
What I would like to ask Dr. Throckmorton regarding his gay friend to whom he alludes is:
Does your friend have relations and/or porn excursions on the side in order to address his overall sexual desires whether he is present with his wife or not.
THAT, my friends, is the $64,000 question; not how things should be using the values mentioned.
And that is the area that gets tampered with the most by ex-gay speak — the spins and twists of such realities.
Franksta wrote: “I think Throckmorton’s values approach is helpful is among those with SSA who are married… Whether you consider them bisexual, or something like a Kinsey 2, 3, or 4, their values led them to choose monogamy and fidelity. There was never any question of them leaving their wives to pursue either celibacy or same-sex relationships, or of them giving up their religious views.”
Yes, These guys, the ones with “good sex lives” seem to be bisexual to some degree. But what about my case and many like me who never developed sexual feelings for our wives (who did know my “unwanted SSA” before we were married)? She deserved to be with someone who loved her body, mind and soul — and so did I.
I am, and have always been, strongly and completely homosexually oriented. I am not bisexual at all. Maybe deeply religious men who are already bisexual to some degree and whose wives know of the struggle can maintain a happy marriage based on fidelity and monogamy. They, unlike me and so many others, have a distinct advantage — they can love their wives sexually because they already have at least some straight feelings.
They are ambidextrous. We are left-handed. Straight and bisexual guys can get married and have mutually satisfying, socially approved and church-sanctioned marriages. I cannot. I find my happiness in a Christ-centered, loving and commited gay relationship. It is real easy for bi’s or straights to demand celibacy when they don’t have to live that way.
But the end result of Throckmorton’s philosophy or theology of treatment is abstinence imposed on the gay person. That abstinence leaves gays feeling intrinsically flawed, disordered, and something more ’sinful’ than their straight peers in the church. If they act on their desires, they have done something far worse than if their straight counterparts engage in sex outside of marriage. Gay abstinence becomes a matter of acceptance and worthiness inside christian community, compounding the guilt and rejection already present in the gay psyche.
While I do not agree with aspects of what Throckmorton is assuming, I will give him credit for at least dropping the “gay can be cured” dogma and taking on a line that is closer to being ethically aligned with what therapy is about - namely helping the client come to terms with their situation, whatever it might be.
I can certainly appreciate that there are going to be those who are unable (or unwilling) to shed their religious convictions, even in the face of a massive personal conflict with their sexuality. At least Throckmorton is talking in terms of helping his clients come to some kind of working framework, instead of telling them that “they must change their sexuality”.
Whether this is a “successful” approach in the long run is debatable, but it is certainly a turn away from a truly destructive model.
I appreciate the comments on our model (with Mark Yarhouse). I would like to reply to three points.
TJ said - But the end result of Throckmorton’s philosophy or theology of treatment is abstinence imposed on the gay person.
Not at all. The value direction is up to the client, not imposed by the therapist. We take time to help clients determine what they believe but that is ultimately up to the client.
Lij - I think at times, the perfect is the enemy of the good. I suspect some traditions within Christianity seek perfection but I do not believe that to be the dominant teaching.
Twilight said - Does your friend have relations and/or porn excursions on the side in order to address his overall sexual desires whether he is present with his wife or not.
I don’t know for sure, but he says not. Even so, one might ask if individual incidents of infidelity invalidate the general value of fidelity in a committed relationship. I do not think it does.
Again, I appreciate the discussion and comments. The Sexual Identity Therapy blog also has discussion and some endorsements for those in the mental health professions.
The missing element in Throckmorton’s approach, as in the NARTH/Exodus approach, is any substantive research or follow up on the long term outcome for the client. Do these individuals find that over time, as they focus on values, it becomes easier to accept and manage the “very difficult moments” Jim describes? Or as years pass–and I mean ten, twenty, thirty years–do they become increasingly conflicted, depressed, isolated, and angry?
Based on my personal experience, I would expect the latter outcome. However, I recognize that I am only one person, and not necessarily representative of a larger population. But then, that’s true of Throckmorton’s friend Jim as well. We don’t even know how long it’s been since Jim made his “paradigm shift.”
In other words, while I appreciate that Throckmorton’s approach is not overtly hateful toward gays, as NARTH and Exodus have become, I don’t see much reason to expect he will be any more helpful to his clients long term than they are.
Warren, thanks for your input here. One thing I would like to ask about relates to Twilight’s comments.
You ask if individual incidents of infidelity invalidate the general value of fidelity in a committed relationship, and I think that is a fair question to ask. However, it seems as if you are conflating infidelity with an overwhelming psychological need to express one’s sexuality with a member of the same sex. The two are not the same thing.
If I am a heterosexual and I cheat on my spouse, I am engaging in behavior that stems from my dissatisfaction with the relationship. There is something missing there that I feel I can’t get from my spouse. Whatever that is, there is always the chance that I can work my way through that dissatisfaction *with my spouse*. If I am a homosexual and I cheat on my opposite-gender spouse, I am engaging in behavior that stems from my dissatisfaction with the *gender* of my spouse. Whatever is missing in that relationship cannot be found *in the relationship* because my spouse will always fall short of where my attractions lie.
In short, a gay person screwing around in his straight marriage is not the same thing as a straight person screwing around in his straight marriage–or a gay person screwing around in his same-sex marriage, for that matter.
One of the big differences, I think, is that by cheating on one’s wife with other guys, there are not only feelings of guilt for cheating but also feelings of guilt and feelings of failure for not being able to live up to one’s values. The problems inherent in sublimating one’s sexuality in deference to one’s religious values seem insurmountable without some kind of acknowledgement that the situation is different than mere infidelity, and a course of action based upon that acknowledgement is vital. Without it, there really is no practical difference between changing one’s sexuality and changing one’s behavior.
Straights and bisexuals can marry and have at least somewhat satisfactory sex lives with their spouses (with the full blessing of church and society). What if you have NO heterosexual feelings? What are the rest of us supposed to do with our sexual/emotional/spiritual attractions and attachments? Never act on them? Live with our same sex partners in committed (but non-sexual) relationships? Can we masturbate to our feelings or is that out too? Why does God give bisexuals a break? Does he like them better or what?
Jim, David, and Michael took issue with my statement “Its wrong to mislead people by encouraging them to think its reasonable to accept externaly imposed beliefs over natural internal states of being”.
Yes, it was inaccurate of me to suggest everyone’s religious beliefs are imposed on them however the point remains that religious beliefs come from an external source and are not innate or at the core of a person in the same way a person’s sexuality is. In the absence of external teaching people wouldn’t grow up to be Christians believing they will be eternally tortured for being gay. In the absence of external teaching people will and do grow up to be gay as we’ve seen again and again. That is my problem with Throckmorton’s statement that people can’t turn on and off their religious beliefs anymore than they can their sexuality - its simply not true. I’m in agreement with John, the option of people learning to change their religious beliefs to come to peace with their sexuality should be given at least as much emphasis as the idea of supressing one’s sexuality to achieve peace. In fact more so because as I said sexuality is at the unbidden core of who we are and religion, despite how strongly some may feel so, is obviously not.
Randi said: “That is my problem with Throckmorton’s statement that people can’t turn on and off their religious beliefs anymore than they can their sexuality - its simply not true”.
I have to agree. Religious beliefs are taught, learned and adopted into one’s sense of being. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, seems intrinsic — something we become aware of, not something we choose. You can choose to change beliefs more readily than instinct — and I do view sexual orientation that way, as intrinsic, basic, instinctual in some myterious way.
In my own case, my gay feelings go back to first grade and I definitely did NOT choose them. On the other hand, I CHOSE to accept Christ as my Savior as a senior in High School. I still consider myself to be a born-again Christian — even though some of my religious beliefs have changed since High School. My sexual orientation, however, has been VERY constant.
I think the point that Throckmorton is making is that for some devout people, changing their religious beliefs is simpy out of the question — as difficult for them as us trying to be straight.
Timothy, you seem to suggest in this post that the only people who believe that homosexual sex is sin are those who were *raised* that way. It’s important to note that many of us who hold that view were not raised that way, but instead came to our faith and our beliefs about homosexuality as thinking adults.
I apologize. The way I phrased this post was less careful than it could be.
Of course, not all dissonance between orientation and faith can be traced to the faith in which one was raised. I think we can agree that this is probably most often the case, but it is also true that some people come to a faith that disallows same-sex relationships through other means such as study, introspection, their personal relationship with the divine, etc.
Michael, I understand where you are coming from since I have felt the same way over the years. I always felt it was unfair that I could not express my love for someone just because they had the same genital makeup that I did. But it was guilt and shame that was placed on me by other Christians. However, as far back as I can remember it was fully natural for me to be whom I was.
More recently, I have moved into the position where it does not matter what other Christians or society thinks about me or my future same-sex relationship. I draw my strength from my relationship with the Lord. That is most important of all since it is he that is guiding my life and not prideful Christians that feel the need to judge and conform others to be like themselves. I rely on the Holy Spirit as the ultimate authority and guidance for my life, even over the bible. That is not to say I don’t read the bible, I do, but its the Holy Spirit that speaks to me in prayer, as I search his will, and in daily involvement with others in my life. What others say to me in judgement no longer has any power over my life.
I was before the Lord when I was an early teen. But before this I began the practice of black magic out of revenge from hurtful peers. I wanted to get back at other classmates while I was in school. After my brush with a demon through a dream, I stopped dabbling in black magic but the hurt and revenge remained. I went to counseling but that did no good. I was in pain. Always picked on for being who I was.
One night I met the Lord. He refused to allow me to look up at him but he did say, “I will give you another chance. Change your ways.” I woke up in tears which I never did in my life. Those were powerful words to someone that didn’t even know the Lord but it took me several years to finally accept him and be baptized. I never believed he meant that I needed to change my orientation but rather believed that accepting him things would change in my life. And they did!
Over the course of twenty years I have done things that have been rather un-Christian. But God being ever so patient, and going after that one lost sheep, I returned to him this past October. It was as if the world changed around me when I returned to him. He has been ever so patient with me. I feel blessed that he came to me and gave me another chance in this life. I was slow in returning but he kept after me every step of the way.
Where does that leave my sexuality now? Its the same. I’m still gay. I love myself as a gay man. Not since 2004 have I engaged in sex with another man. So I’m celibate. Not that I believe its sinful to have sex, which I do not. Love is not a sin. I just want to wait for that special person to come into my life so we can worship and glorify the Lord together.
Ultimately, every person has to make their own decision concerning their sexuality. I just wish more people accepted themselves as they are and not feel the need to “change” because some Christians demand them to do so.
That is my problem with Throckmorton’s statement that people can’t turn on and off their religious beliefs anymore than they can their sexuality - its simply not true.
Randi, for the devout person, the question of whether one thing came at birth and another later is entirely moot. I think you are missing the point. I say this only by way of explanation, but for these people salvation is a supernatural experience which transcends all, not just a random philosophy to be discarded at will. Throckmorton is talking about these people.
I can tell you without the slightest hesitation that I could not consciously discard my faith for anything, sexual orientation included. So for those like me who fundamentally understand, through their own reading, that God does not want them to be intimate with the same sex, then I would hope someone would be able to help them adjust their lives - without lies - to best fit that belief. I think I speak for all of us at XGW when I say that we would not want to deny anyone this right.
As we have said so many times and even in this very thread, we disagree entirely with groups such as Exodus who actually seem to care less about the individual’s plight and more about forcing those of us without such compunctions to live our lives differently, even by force of law. They twist our own desire to have these same rights of self determination into an attack on thier freedoms, because then they can scare up funding from those people frightened by the prospect. It is that with which we disagree.
Well, David, ultimately I’d agree its the individuals choice to do whatever they want, but in the interest of honesty and reality I think its important to inform them that beliefs are much more amenable to change than sexuality. I despise the idea of equating the two in terms of difficulty.
Randi, I agree with some things both you and David have written. I’ve seen people that were once Christians that are now of the Jewish faith. Talking about changing beliefs! I couldn’t fathom changing my beliefs and embracing another faith.
I guess it depends on how deeply rooted you are in your faith.
Randi,
With respect, I suggest that your stating that beliefs are more mutable than orientation does not make it so.
I am inclined to agree with you that specific beliefs on specific subjects can change with time, experience, growing wisdom, etc. However, I think that you are making claims without any more support than that offered by Exodus. You are cavalierly suggesting that “change can happen” in fervently held beliefs much in the same way that they do about orientation.
Just as we might say that one’s orientation is inherent and integral, so might also someone who is devoutly religious make the same statement.
Let’s not disrespectfully dismiss them. It is, after all, their life and their experiences that they are discussing.
I appreciate the clarification of the religious beliefs versus orientation issue. Just as I think orientation may be more “fixed” for some than for others, I also think religious devotion may be such a clear organizing principle for some (many?) that to disrupt it would not be in the person’s best interest — for all practical purposes quite resistant to change.
Regarding the question of research, the questioner is quite correct. We need (and have started) a program of research. The framework actually gives us something that we can research. Currently, the little bit of research there is says nothing conclusive about what might be helpful and what might be harmful. I have (with Gary Welton) one of the few attempts to find out what specific elements might be helpful and might be harmful. We think we have gleaned a few things from the research (don’t force people into models of cause and don’t raise expectations for change) but there is a lot we still want to examine in helping people achieve congruence. This whole thing is long overdue and all sides have made unwarranted and sweeping generalizations based on small convenience samples.
Timothy said “Just as we might say that one’s orientation is inherent and integral, so might also someone who is devoutly religious make the same statement.”.
Timothy no one is born with the religious belief that they will be eternally tortured for being gay. I would personally be shocked if anyone would make the claim that being a Christian or a Jew, or a Muslim is inborn. I understand that people feel strongly about it and that people may argue that gayness isn’t inborn, but I don’t believe anyone makes the claim that specific relgious beliefs are inborn. I can appreciate that to some people religion is more important than their sexuality but by the same token their religion may be more important than their being lefthanded, but one is innate and the other isn’t
Am I right, Dr. Throckmorton, that you believe that (for some of us at least) the absence of heterosexual attraction may be “inborn” in the sense we were “that way” from birth? And that such persons are obligated by Scripture to not act on those feelings, EVER (at least not sexually?)
How do you deal with such a person — a person who has the same basic need for attachment and intimacy as any other human being but is forbidded to express it? Isn’t a little like a person being born with two legs and telling them that God will banish them from heaven if they walk?
OK, Randi, I’ll give this one more try.
Some people, though probably not you, have an innate desire to know God and have a relationship with Him. Throughout the history of the human creature this has been true.
Whether or not you personally believe in the existence of a diety, in is inarguable that this drive to know and worship one has been one of the strongest and most pervasive both individually and culturally. The instinct to seek alignment with the Great Power has been used both negatively (crusades) and positively (universities) and from small Island dieties to the biggies of Christianity, Islam, and Budhism.
This drive is so strong in some people that this desire to know God and do His will outweighs all other issues. And, lest you be confused, it’s not about Hell or Heaven or fear of the future. It’s about a true desire to know and understand and be one with God.
You may think that this is not inborn or innate. But yet this trait is universal. All people. At all time. In all places. It cannot be written off as cultural conditioning or superstition.
And your dismissal of the drive to know and live in accordance with God is as ignorant as anyone else’s dismissal of the drive to know and love someone.
Michael,
Ah, but now you are arguing theology. And you know that those arguments never go anywhere.
Robis:
I understand what you are saying about the difference between a man cheating on his wife with a man as opposed to a woman. But isn’t there an implication there that a man with any degree of SSA should never attempt marriage? At what point does SSA become “an overwhelming psychological need to express one’s sexuality with a member of the same sex” in spite of attraction and devotion to one’s opposite-sex spouse? Is it OK for a Kinsey 1 to attempt heterosexual marriage, but not a Kinsey 4? (I don’t fully accept Kinsey’s paradigm, but it’s convenient shorthand here.) ISTM that, in conventional wisdom, if a gay man were to cheat on his partner with a woman, he wouldn’t stop being gay; OTOH, any degree of SSA seems to make a man all gay. Does gay always trump straight?
Michael Bussee:
Timothy pretty much sums up the theological issues.
But the fact is that Option 2/Side B folks do exist. And some of us have found much personal growth and peace in celibacy. It’s not a choice I regret. I agree with something DM once said on her blog, namely that Protestants (I think it’s fair to include Evangelicals and mainliners here) don’t have a theology of intentional, joyful celibacy in the same way that Catholics do. I don’t imagine myself a paragon of virtue or strength; I am merely pointing out that some of us have found “attachment and intimacy” without sex.
franksta:
I don’t know the answers to that, nor would I attempt to try and tell anyone what those answers should be. My point to Warren was simply that when a gay man sneaks around on his wife, it’s not the same issue or dynamic as a straight man sneaking around on his wife or a gay man sneaking around on his husband, nor should it be treated as such.
Robis,
As I said, I understand the distinction you are drawing and mostly agree with it. The illustration that came to mind was that of Ted Haggard. I agree that his infidelity was different, possibly worse, than if he had cheated on his wife with a woman. But I agree with Warren that isolated incidents of infidelity (whether same-sex or opposite-sex) do not completely destroy the value and worth of longstanding fidelity. I also thought it peculiar that some people (not you) commented at the time (both gay and straight as I recall) that Haggard should just “admit he was gay” and should never have gotten married. My point is that while Haggard clearly had honesty issues, I’m not sure that being honest about his issues from the very beginning would have required him to identify as gay (in terms of being either celibate or partnered) or would have precluded marriage.
Franksta: I have no doubt that SOME people find peace with celibacy. What I am reacting to is the suggestions that gays (and only gays) are never allowed to express their sexuality. I have been told that I MUST be celibate to be OK with God — not just that celibacy is one possible choice for me. I am told that celibacy is a prerequiste for Heaven. Bisexuals and heterosexuals can still express at least a part of their sexual orientation — gays cannot. Why do bisexuals get a break? Does God like them better?
Regarding the question of a person with SSA marrying, I suppose it is possible though risky. (OK all marriages are risky.) It would be helpful if the guy is at least somewhat bisexual already and if his wife clearly understands the possible problems. A heterosexual wife has a right to know that her gay husband may NEVER be able to give her the sexual satisfaction which is normal and healthy for her to crave. So, if such marriages are going to be encouraged by the church, there needs to be Informed consent, not “name it and claim it”.
I don’t think it’s a good idea for “100%” gays like me to marry a woman unless both are OK with having a sexless marriage. My wife and I were told that my gay feelings would change over time if we had enough faith and that God would reward me with straight feelings. We both worked very hard, but it never happened. The bad advice cause all of us great suffering.
franksta says, “But I agree with Warren that isolated incidents of infidelity (whether same-sex or opposite-sex) do not completely destroy the value and worth of longstanding fidelity.”
I think it does, simply because fidelity is not just whether someone steps outside the marriage for sex. It also has to do with being sexually and emotionally present inside the marriage, and I don’t think a person who is struggling with sexuality issues can provide that in a marriage that may address his spiritual needs but not much else. That is not to say that a platonic marriage can’t be fulfilling in its own, but it certainly does create a barrier between meeting those needs and wanting to seek elsewhere for them.
Michael,
I was only partly facetious when I agreed with Timothy about not being able to have a satisfying theological discussion on this forum. I can only say that I have asked many of the same questions you have. I agree with you about “100% gay” guys not marrying; I don’t know that I’m in that category, but probably closer to it than not. I also agree on the issue of “informed consent.” It sort of conjures up this mental picture of pastors asking pre-marital counseling couples if either one has SSA or experience in their past. I’ll bet the number of pastors who do that is next to nil, but it’s not a bad idea, IMO.
Robis,
I think there’s a difference between what I mentioned (a man who is attracted to his wife and sexually active with her, but who also has unwanted SSA) and your mention of “platonic marriage.” As I mentioned, most of the men in my group reported good sexual and emotional intimacy with their wives. Of course, they could be deluded, but that’s no different from any “100% straight” man. I think the very fact that they came to the group showed a fundamental desire for honesty—the kind of values-driven thing Warren spoke of.
Franksta said: “Most of the men in my group reported good sexual and emotional intimacy with their wives”. Franksta also clarified that he was talking about “men who are attracted to their wive’s and are sexually active with them, but who also have unwanted SSA”.
In my mind, that’s pretty much the definition of a bisexual — in this case, one who wishes he didn’t also have gay feelings. Bisexuals experience both attractions. I experience only one. Or as I have heard it said: “homosexuality and heterosexuality are two monosexual orientations, whereas bisexuality encompasses them both”.
The question of bisexuality is often overlooked in the whole gay/ex-gay debate. Christian bisexuals (like Joe Dallas of EXODUS) are not ex-gays. Even Mr. Dallas admits this. They have just opted to act only on their straight feelings. Trouble is, Joe Dallas thinks we are all “both” like he is, but he is mistaken. People like me (being monosexual) have NO straight feelings to act on and the only answer EXODUS seems to offer is “don’t do it” and stay celibate.
Michael,
I understand what you’re saying about bisexuality. I’ve not heard Joe Dallas speak along those lines, but it sounds like his self-identification would be true of all the ex-gay “success stories,” only Dallas sounds more honest than most. And in reality, I imagine the Exodus folks would not tell people with zero opposite-sex attraction to be celibate, but that they can and must change–i.e., develop OSA from scratch. Which is one of the issues I have with Exodus.
Language and definitions are an big issue that I have had with EXODUS as well. From the very beginning, EXODUS has never clarified what it is suggesting. They have traditionally used vague and misleading terms like “ex-gay” and “freedom from homosexuality”, giving the impression that gays turn into straights. Robbi Kenney (another EXODUS founder) admitted “EXODUS has always had a problem with definitions.”
For nearly 30 years, we have been pressuring EXODUS to be more clear with their language. Last year, Alan Chambers decided to drop the term ex-gay — but that’s about as far as they have gone.
Joe Dallas has only been honest when pressured during radio or TV interviews. He told an LA radio station “Ex-gay does not mean ex-homosexual, but rather a person with homosexual tendencies who would rather not have those tendencies.” (Of course, not wanting certain feelings doesn’t make a person “ex” anything.)
Gary and I debated Joe Dallas on the Joan River’s show and even she pressured him to be more specific. His printed testimony contains admissions of gay and straight promiscuity, but he refused to talk about his own experience. Joan Rivers pressed harder. That’s when he made the comment that the change EXODUS was talking about was “not a change from one end (of the spectrum) to the other” but a movement closer to the straight end. That’s why I appreciate the “Throckmorton Shift” so much. As least he has the integrity to admit that sexual orientation “cause and cure” is not as usefful as helping people to live in accordance with their values.
[…] is an interesting discussion going on at ExGayWatch about an op-ed (A Valued Life) I posted elsewhere. Another article posted on my website is called […]
Timothy Posted on 29-Jan-07 at 9:27 pm said “Some people… have an innate desire to know God and have a relationship with Him. Throughout history… this has been true…[it]is inarguable that this drive to know and worship one has been one of the strongest and most pervasive both individually and culturally. This drive is so strong in some people that this desire to know God and do His will outweighs all other issues.
You may think that this is not inborn or innate. But yet this trait is universal. All people. At all time. In all places. It cannot be written off as cultural conditioning or superstition.”.
Do you have a link to back up that assertion Timothy? As I understand it the native north american peoples didn’t have relgion in the traditional sense, they had a certain spirituality and awe in nature. I don’t think you could say they had an innate desire to have a relationship with god(s) or to know him and do his will. And “all people at all times in all places”?! Surely you’ve heard of atheists. Rather than a desire to know god and do his will I assert that people have created a culture of belief in god because it was the easiest way to “explain” the existence of the world - the belief isn’t innate, but rather the desire to have a simple explanation for the inexplicable is. I think my explanation has as much scientific support as yours, which is to say, little or none. On the other hand you know there are a lot of studies that suggest being gay is biologically caused.
I thought about this a lot during the past day or so. What bothers me is that no one automatically says we should respect and not challange people’s beliefs that we are born gay or straight - that’s fair game for questioning (I don’t think you’ve ever said we have to respect and not question that belief, have you?). So why does a belief get a free pass just because its religious, when we don’t give a free pass to other types of beliefs? If its okay to question whether or not being gay is innate, why isn’t it okay to question whether or not religious beliefs are innate?
If its okay to question whether or not being gay is innate, why isn’t it okay to question whether or not religious beliefs are innate?
Well, you questioned whether religious beliefs are innate and no one showed up to hit you with a stick… so I’m guessing that it is ok to question that.
Of course, others find your dismissal of the power of religious beliefs as short sighted, narrow, and dogmatic. And no one hit them with a stick either.
Timothy, I questioned the innateness of religious beliefs and you talked about how important it was to respect those beliefs - that’s another way of saying “I don’t want you to question this”, as are words like ignorant, short-sighted, narrow minded, and dogmatic. When people question the idea that being gay is innate I’ve never heard you say its important to respect that belief. That’s a double standard.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me you often say its okay to sacrifice your sexuality for your religion, but I never hear you saying its okay to sacrifice your religion for your sexuality. If its just as difficult to change one as the other than its just as reasonable (I’d say more so) to sacrifice the religion to find peace. I don’t see you suggesting balance in this. Admittedly, neither do I but as I said (and you ignored) there are many studies that suggest being gay is innate, and none that I know of that suggest being religious is. I suspect you’d agree that the main motivation for most people attempting to become “exgay” or celibate is the belief that they will be eternally tortured for having a loving gay relationship. Surely you don’t expect anyone to accept that that belief is innate. I can entertain the idea that a generalized religiosity is innate, but the idea that specific details are…well I don’t feel free to honestly say what I think of that idea - let’s just say that I seriously doubt you know of anyone who says that idea spontaneously came to them.
It is fascinating to me that many in this group assume that sexual identity is a more central, core human experience than religious belief.
I think the formation of moral behavior begins quite early (before age two children demonstrate basic forms of empathy). From that beginning the child develops a search for meaning that includes constructing a moral system to effectively and compassionately navigate their interpersonal relationships and to deal with their personal shortcomings.
It is natural and adaptive to subsume that process in an established religion and benefit from a community that supports your journey. This idea that morality is exclusively imposed in the form of religion is absudly simplistic.
Morality begin prior to the development of a complete identity.
sorry about the “absurdly simplistic” comment.
Better stated: “The idea that morality is exclusively imposed in the form of religion is not an adequate explanation of the phenomonon of normal moral development, religious conversion and later religious practice.”
David Blakeslee, the phrase “sexual identity” is “exgay” weasel words. What I was saying is that sexual orientation (the state of being same or opposite sex attracted) is a more central and core to the human experience than religion. Correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I know there is no evidence whatsoever that “It is natural and adaptive to subsume [the] process [of the formation of moral behavior] in an established religion and benefit from a community that supports your journey.
You say “This idea that morality is exclusively imposed in the form of religion is absudly simplistic.”. I think we have some agreement here. I agree with Richard Dawkins, morality doesn’t necessarily come from religion, morality evolved because its beneficial to the survivability of groups of individuals. No one needs religion to be moral, morality is innate.
Mr. Blakeslee said: ” It is fascinating to me that many in this group assume that sexual identity is a more central, core human experience than religious belief.”
There is a difference between “sexual identity” (I’m not really sure what that means) and sexual orientation (the prevailing direction of one’s sexual/emotional attractions.) I wouldn’t say that my sexual orientation is “more central” or a more “core human experience” than religious belief. But I would say it’s more intrinsic.
I think that even most straight people would agree that their attraction to the opposite sex was “built in” somehow and that their religious/moral beliefs were learned.
I am gay. My daughter is straight. I didn’t teach my daughter to be heterosexual (she seemed to have those feelings “naturally” from a very early age.) But, I had to TEACH her about Jesus, about God’s love for her, about the difference between right and wrong. I believe that the need for intimacy, bonding, sexual contact and love are instincts. So too, perhaps, is the desire to seek meaning and purpose whether we are gay, straight or somewhere in between.
Randi,
you talked about how important it was to respect those beliefs - that’s another way of saying “I don’t want you to question this”, as are words like ignorant, short-sighted, narrow minded, and dogmatic.
You seem to have an odd interpretation of criticism. To tell you that you are being dogmatic on an issue isn’t to say that you aren’t entitled to an opinion, it’s to say that your opinion is dogmatic. I’m not saying that you can’t question the intrinsic nature of religion, but that I think you are doing so in a dismissive and irrespectful manner. Stop being a martyr, no one is attacking you.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me you often say its okay to sacrifice your sexuality for your religion, but I never hear you saying its okay to sacrifice your religion for your sexuality.
Actually, you haven’t heard me say either of these things. But if someone wants to sacrifice either their religion or their sexuality, you probably won’t hear me trying to forbid them from doing either.
Further, you seem to be under the impression that religion is somehow based solely on avoiding torture (presumably in Hell). Let me clarify that I don’t know a single person that follows their religion because of a fear of Hell. Not one. Every Christian (or other religous person) I’ve met holds to their beliefs because they think that they provide a structure that gives the most meaningful existence in their current life and the afterlife is mostly an afterthought. If God came down in a tower of flame and announced with a booming voice that everyone gets into heaven and there is no Hell, I don’t think there’s anyone who would say, “oh great, now I don’t have to be a Christian”. Try to let go of that stereotype.
I never tell you, Randi, that you are wrong for believing what you do. But you seldom apply the standards of courtesy that you expect and demand for yourself to others. You’ve got to stop letting your hostility to religion overpower your sense of fairness and equality.
You can’t just scream, “I’m right. Orientation is innate. Religion is easily discarded” and then get offended when someone calls your opinion tripe.
David,
Your argument counters itself.
You claim that innate empathy leads naturally to religion. I don’t argue with this. I agree that a sense of empathy and search for meaning can lead one to find a religious identity that expresses the interal reality.
Surely by the same process one’s internal sexual orientation leads on to find an identity that expresses that internal reality. Yet you seem to think that innate sexual orientation does not (or should not) lead naturally to sexual identity.
That is the problem I have with ex-gay proponents that seek to dismiss or limit sexual orientation to nothing more than “identity”. Because “identity” is just the external explanation of an internal truth. In precisely the same way that the idenity of “Methodist” is an external explanation of one’s internal empathy and search for meaning.
Timothy said: “Let me clarify that I don’t know a single person that follows their religion because of a fear of Hell.” Sadly, I do know some people like that — folks who have never given their religion much thought and who think of God as some sort of cosmic sadist who can hardly wait to throw sinners into a fiery pit. Happily, I agree that most people of faith turn to religion for a sense of connectedness and purpose, not to escape eternal flame.
I’ve been following this thread for several days and chimed in once before. As I’ve thought about it, my problem with the Throckmorton approach has become clearer to me.
At the end of the day, Throckmorton’s new approach comes back to the same old approach of all anti-gay (and I use the term deliberately) religious groups. I.e.:
“Homosexuality is a sinful behavior. No, it may not be someone’s fault that he/she has temptations toward that behavior, and yes, it may be impossible to change those impulses, and true, it’s very sad that the person may experience a lot of anguish and suffering as a consequence. But ultimately, all anyone with homosexual temptation has to do is just not act on the temptation. Problem solved!”
This will become an extremely long post if I explain all of my objections to that line of thought. So I’ll just pose the question–to Warren and anyone else who might want to defend his “values determination” approach: What’s new about this? And how does this really help anyone?
Nickc, that is a question I’ve posed to the doctor and others who believe Christian identity and homosexuality are incompatible and irreconcilable.
Keeping gay people celibate, seems the most impossibly illogical thing of all.
I keep asking for whose satisfaction is this really?
We have so many fronts from which gay people are attacked.
A kinder, gentler approach to ENCOURAGING celibacy has what rewards or demonstrable results that are socially beneficial?
Working within the framework of monogamy, enduring relationships, responsible and safe sexuality in marriage…is to my mind THE reasonable reconciliation of gay and straight people and what both can be supported in achieving.
As you’re pointing out, the gay celibate/marry heterosexual of the opposite sex has been encouraged for centuries, with disastrous results for many.
This isn’t as forcible an approach, but the intent and expectations are the same.
And THAT makes no sense.
It’s still comes around to: heterosexual model is ideal and best.
But who says so?
Heterosexuals.
Who is supplying all the information that points in that direction?
Heterosexuals.
And if this isn’t accomplished by the gay person and the results are not good or positive or enduring, who gets to place all the blame and take no responsibility?
Heterosexuals.
There is nothing more exhausting and utterly worthless as justifying your existence to those resistant to evidence and honesty.
I have no idea what it’s like to be gay.
But I sure know that exhaustion.
This requires superhuman patience and shadowing.
And I demand to know what religion requires it and why should a human being be put through it for someone else’s satisfaction.
Those gentle and concerned eyes that are telling you ‘this is for your own good…trust me,’ behave as if abuse never happened and many of their brethren aren’t consistent with the gentle approach and in other quarters can be quite intimidating and brutal.
I was reading an article about homeless gay youth.
Matt Foreman was reiterating about how urgent, life threatening and frequent this is tragedy is.
I’ve known a lot of kids in this situation.
And I hold the ex gay movement and other groups that consider homosexuality an act of rebellion. This more than implies that the youngster be held responsible for being gay.
This also requires that the parents exert pressure in that belief. And parents, acting on advice and consent of their religious communities, break the connection between parent and child rather than mend it.
The child is required to ALWAYS live his life on heteosexual terms, with no tangible or necessarily urgent reason to do so.
You cannot, I repeat…cannot lie to a child.
You cannot offer anecdotes, you need evidence.
You cannot predict results TO a child, the results must be acute.
And ex gay therapy and ministry cannot produce such a thing.
And in the meantime, a sexual orientation and comfort with it is at stake.
The fact remains, WHY NOT be comfortable with being gay?
Because I know for a fact, being heterosexual ain’t a rose garden either. Never was.
Happiness isn’t in being straight, but in being true.
Dr. Throckmorton has acted like I’m not here.
No matter what I directly asked, no matter what I called him on.
Between him and Joseph Nicolosi and Melissa Fryear…
and DL Foster…
I’m STILL waiting.
I would think six years is an awfully long time to wait for the answers to my questions.
Nick… welcome to delightful delemma and paradox we know as religion. You’ve correctly summarized the struggle a lot of gay men feel when confronting this issue. Its also the reason why many leave their faith.
A number of gay men look dumbfounded when presented with this very arguement. Its like the church is saying, “You know, if everything you say about homosexuality is true, we should change our approach in dealing with homosexuals….but unfortunately for you… you’re wrong.”
This kind of ignorance is absolutely unbelievable to me. Its akin to the catholic church blasting Galileo for saying the earth revolves around the sun. The very moment we found out the truth about the earth, did it change our perceptions about God? Maybe, maybe not. But I’d care to think that most people gained a greater awareness and understanding of God once they learned the truth. New knowledge helps remove the constraints we’ve placed on God…nothing more. The more we learn, the bigger God gets. Its just difficult to remove God from the box once we’ve placed Him there. We always try to integrate God into our identity. God becomes something we want to possess because we think we have him figured out or maybe we’re deluded to think that we are Him. We’re not.
I mentioned in a different thread that “revelation” about God (for christians) has to be balanced on 3 separate “legs” of understanding.
1. The Bible
2. Church Tradition and teaching of the early church fathers.
3. Personal Experience.
If you only focus on the Bible alone or scripture, you risk the possibility of becoming a fundamentalist. Focus only on the church and becoming a legalist/Pharisee is in your future. Only think personal experience is important? Then you’ll stand in line with all the other cults out there and you’ll waver to and fro uncertain of anything.
So what is the ultimate answer to your ultimate question? I believe its the understanding that its “your” relationship with God that ultimately will be judged and the only two people involved in that party are you and Creator.
History is full of decisions made by spiritual men that seemingly counter God’s decrees and God seems to smile at them all the more. When you make a decision to accept yourself for who you are, you’re standing in God’s grace and in faith that you’re making the best decision you possibly can and if God can’t realize this come judgement day, maybe He’s not a God worth worshipping.
Wow..even after I wrote that I kinda felt exposed. Its like I’m waiting for a lightning bolt to strike.
Like any parent, God loves us and wants the best for us. I believe the sending of his son was his ways of saying, “I understand”.
Blimey. What a thread to read through. (And I’m about to make it worse, ’cause I’m in the mood!)
A proposition: “spirituality” is not “religion”
Some are not being very clear about which you are referring to, and appear to be discussing at cross-purposes. (Simply from my viewpoint, of course. So there.) And this does have some important implications when we discuss the importance of religion in the lives of, say, a minority of homosexually attracted people.
I’m perfectly happy to entertain the idea that a spirituality is innate, in the sense that (near all) people ponder and reassess the “mysteries of life” as they travel through their lives.
Birth and Death. Altruism and Cruelty. Tolerance and Persecution. Beauty and Ugliness. Pain and Joy. Fear and Comfort. Loneliness and Companionship. Success and Failure. Ignorance and Knowledge. Accommodation and Rejection. Peace and Warfare. Recognition and Obscurity.
It’s difficult to avoid the dichotomy that greets each us at every turn, even, yet even, from the age of 2 years old. It is (IMO) innate to seek an explanation, to find meaning, and (IMO) to attempt to make sense of what we experience or are told about. We must live with other people, afterall.
That search for a meaning — the desire to explain and make sense — pre-dates any current religious traditions. Has there ever been a recorded culture without a creation myth? Why do we appreciate the symbolism to found in Neanderthal graves that were carefully lined with the green boughs of trees?
Lay out on the ground on a warm, still night and it’s difficult not to look up into the stars and wonder what else is out there. Or to see the sun set, only to see it be “reborn” each and every morning. To observe the predictable cycle of the seasons. You don’t need a religion, let alone a particular religion, to have that innate sense of wonder or curiosity. We are simply hard-wired to seek an explanation for how things work, I’d suggest. Including an explanation for human life, and any reason for it.
For many, most, the organizing principles will be found within the culture that surrounds them; including a style of religion (be it trained into them, or adopted later). Some do search and find a place in a religion that is not otherwise commonplace within their milieu, although this is the least common way people come to religious practice.
Hence, religion is not spirituality per se; but a codification of spirituality. Hide-bound by the other artifacts in our lives. If that sounds familiar, it should: sexual identity vs sexual orientation… and all that.
But where oh where do we — can we? should we? — draw a distinction between spirituality (typically expressed through an organized religion), and mere superstitious clap-trap? Is there, in fact, a distinction… or are they both one and the same?
And don’t ask me, I wouldn’t know, and I’m not looking for an argument.I know it when I see it, but.
Timothy — side-note — that may your experience… but perhaps you’re avoiding the flip-side?
The Phelps clan excluded, I guess you mean…. if you’ve never heard the direct threat of ending up in hell, I assume it certainly is not uncommon to hear something along the lines of:
The last is often heard within ex-gay circles, as example. Sam