Given the defensive, sarcastic, and even hostile reactions that Exodus and its political allies have offered in response to the Ex-Gay Survivors Conference and the growing profile of the ex-ex-gay movement, several questions come to mind.
1. How do Exodus and its affiliates treat those who “drop out” of their programs? Is any follow-up ever done to find out why those individuals left? If not, does Exodus just hope that those people will go away and quietly vanish? How are current participants encouraged to treat former participants?
2. Does Exodus believe that ex-ex-gays have a right to tell their stories in their own words, or does it regard only the testimonies of “faithful” ex-gays as valid? Is there room for dialogue with former ex-gays, or are they considered enemies of the church?
3. Does Exodus believe that ex-ex-gays are in danger of losing their salvation? Can God still work in the lives of those who disagree with Exodus’ theological and political opinions, or are such individuals heretics to be expelled from the church at any cost?
4. When a former ex-gay claims to have been harmed by their ex-gay experiences, does Exodus take those charges seriously or are they dismissed as political posturing? Does Exodus consider its programs so far above reproach that no complaint made against them could be valid?
5. Former ex-gays are familiar with being told (by presumably well-meaning individuals) that their disenchantment is due either to personal failure or to incorrect perceptions and false expectations on their part. What, then, is Exodus doing to correct misperceptions about the definition of “change,” which are still widespread throughout the evangelical church? What is Exodus doing to ensure that “strugglers” – and their families, peers, pastors and fellow churchgoers – adopt a proper set of expectations, including fully understanding that “change” will, for most participants, mean a lifetime of celibacy?
Ex-Gay Watch is interested in hearing how Alan Chambers would respond to these questions, but the floor is open to leaders of local Exodus affiliates as well, as we recognize that their answers may vary.
I thought your questions hit the mark. I just wanted to expound on this one a touch:
That is such an excellent non-offensive way of taking them to task, and hopefully effective.
Perhaps you meant this, but I think it’s important to remember that inherent within that “lifetime of celibacy” demand exists the implication of a lifetime devoid of romantic interest.
Ultimately, to the extent that a lifetime of celibacy is required, a lifetime without hope of experiencing “true love” is required — what most of us consider “happiness.”
Their requirement is to believe that our desire for love is inherently evil/sinful.
So what they’re peddling for the most part are lifetimes of lonliness and despair – but most importantly – without saying so.
“So if you choose to ‘be’ ex-gay, Most of you will never experience romantic intimacy in your lifetime.”
That would at least be a bit more honest, instead of risking the current and ongoing devastating effects of promising spritual redemption only to deliver spiritual homelessness.
Emproph,
I agree with your point, but suspect that Exodus would not concede that they’re denying hope to their participants, since one must remain open to the possibility of God performing a miracle. That miracle might not come for 10, 20, 30 or more years, and chances are it never will, but the possibility remains.
But then, I probably shouldn’t put words in anyone’s mouths; that may or may not reflect the current ex-gay consensus.
If you are so happy and content being “gay” then why do you worry so much about what Exodus thinks? You are totally preoccupied and have no life. Sure and secure people do less “questioning”.
Well gosh yomama, I’ve always identified as gay, but since you’ve effectively put the word in scare quotes I’m not even sure what “gay” is anymore, let alone whether I’m “questioning.”
Here I thought I was just one of a number of “gay” individuals who ask “questions” about the ex-gay ministry because I’m concerned about the real people that may or may not be harmed by its practices, and because I’m also concerned about the way that some ex-gay organizations become political.
Your “use” of “scare quotes” has given me “significant motivation” to “re-evaluate” both my “sexuality” and my “appreciation” for “important questions.”
“Thanks!”
Yomama, secure and sure people do less questioning? Does that mean it is good? A lifetime of questions is better than a lifetime of secuirty. I have to force students every day of my life to question assumptions and ideas. Critical thinking is key. It is not a safety blanket, but people grow that way.
I am not comparing Exodus to the Nazis, but I am trying to point out the faulty reasoning–When the Nazis invaded Europe, most Americans wanted to stay out of the war. Few criticized Hitler in the US, but Hitler was doing very bad things. The President challenged the American people to address these concerns and deal with the Nazis. The War eventually was ended because of American involvement. When people do bad and dangerous things, should we not be “preoccupied” with their actions? Many of us have dealt with exgay ministires and seen the harm that comes with these places. If we do nothing or fail to criticize the harm, then we are partly to blame.
In the same manner that it is possible to “pierce the corporate veil” and overwhelm and undue the protections usually extended shareholders of a corporation (particularly those closely held), this basic principle could be successfully employed to penetrate illegitimate and nefarious ministerial operations for lawsuit purposes. The court would find them not to be a lawful, irreproachable or exempt “ministry,” if determined not to have acted lawfully under one of several definitions, found in either regulation or law.
Regardless of the lawful strategy undertaken and the means to effect same, it is necessary to act now, to take whatever actions deemed circumstantially necessary to put these despicable cretins, frauds and perpetrators at one out of business altogether. For example, an approach might be, say, to investigate and seek to stop their established practice or offering of services without professional and ubiquitously requisite licensing, and especially when they are doing so within such a highly regulated medical or other health care related field. There is also the possibility of asserting fraud charges, even given their admittedly ambiguously-worded service(s) offering statements, which ambiguity, however, could actually also lend credence to willful fraud on their part, and thereby disallow these cursed practices from being performed in the first place — one should reasonably think. And does the reader doubt the greater possibility that these destructively interfering, if not observably demented, ministers, priests and pastors, or whatever self-ascribed moniker the given zealot might want to assume, are molesting these forlorn youngsters, too?
What about charging these organizations and their personnel, if the facts warrant, with kidnapping and/or unlawful imprisonment, molestation, or the like, wherever and whenever they force statutorily-defined minors to undergo the infliction and inculcations of their sadistic, contumacious barbarisms? These god-crazed , self-indulgent-congratulating and disgustingly felonious individuals and organizations have to be precluded from further depredations amongst ourselves, friends, relatives, and, most clearly of all, amongst our children, innocents who have been born Gay.
Religious faiths, their separate histories replete with decidedly miscreant actions or worse behaviors that are only more pronounced to-day under the sordid auspices of the singularly fractious god businesses we are become uncomfortably familiar with this century , each attempting to maintain their or the same increasingly more sophisticated and disbelieving audience internationally, but all having considerable baggage in their fantastical bases originated in the localized tribal hatreds and other frightful challenges of hamlet life before and during the Bronze through Iron Age, along with their well-documented misdeeds, outright and purposeful lies, and creative misinterpretations of life, natural events, and man’s appropriate conduct, need to be put firmly in their appropriate place by not just legal proceedings but also through the useful dissemination of true modern science, the teaching of honest, secularized histories, the application of common sense, and through systemic education the provision of a more grounded understanding of reality amongst the polity worldwide, as found in the accumulated knowledge of this the 21st Century.
We, the Third Gender, never should have countenanced or yet allowed the theocratic fantasies, folklore, and superstitions historically iterated and now fixed, if not metastasized, in the form of three “Great Faiths,” as is claimed by their adherents, even though each began in remote epochs with the lesser regional religious practices and ethnic biases of some few lice-ridden, unwashed, stubbornly ignorant, illiterate, and generally animal-robed hirsute savages. These early practitioners, blinkered and encumbered intellectually by their non-scientific and fear-ridden views as they then were, still had their astonishingly strange views and practices promulgated in the Modern Era by our too cunningly knowing, self-aggrandizing and dictatorial religious authorities, together with their assorted rusticated prelates or acolytes, in the present.
The disturbing thing is that these various “preachers,” regardless of the divined message, and while very widely known to look mainly to their own continual monetary enrichment, in order to stroke both their cheap egos and grow the tax-free business concomitantly, are somehow enabled to take and dispense the preternatural dictation from their god, and much of this acquired wisdom just happens to address our personal morals and ethics, thereby robbing us of volition and placing our lives, emotions and actions in their soiled, grubbing hands. And in this they are enabled by us! Here we have Jefferson’s Great Unwashed, these self-appointed, unprincipled and thoroughgoing materialistic intercessors to a panoply of televised, foreign gods said to have emanated from various strange lands, critiquing and directing everything from a supposedly special vantage and position with some god the intimate nature and selectivity of our affective interests. Do we not have a choice of whether to allow this nonsense to continue?
Gays worldwide, most particularly those in the United States, need to grow some larger testicles and go about utterly crushing these bastards and their morbid sycophants with our greater collective intellectual and economic prowess. Consider, we as a defined group also make up the majority of professionals of all disciplines in this country and also internationally. Let’s use those facts to advantage, and to be serious in joining to effect change to our benefit. Who will to take the first step?
@Aaron
It has been my observation that there are few, if any, situations where Nazi analogies are a good idea. Some evil is just so bad it has to stand on it’s own to provide justice to those who endured it, and for society at large to avoid repeating it.
@Gordon Kinder
Thanks for stopping by. Should you comment in the future, it would be better if you could be a bit more concise with your thoughts.
This kind of rhetoric (and a lot more of what you said) really doesn’t reflect what we are about here. We try to hold ex-gay organizations accountable for false information, both to their audience and to lawmakers. We also debate the issues surrounding the free will of the individual to live as they see fit, with what we know about the virtual impossibility behind actually changing one’s orientation. Above all we try to do all this with civility and respect for the beliefs of others.
Please try to remember this as well should you decide to participate further. Thanks.
Why are you vainly attempting to be condescending, as well as to overtly instruct me, David? How amusing! Are you one of the subject child abusers, program facilitators, or perhaps simply an ardent supporter of the so-called ex-Gay movement, who believes with serious delusion that you have a god-given right to impress perforce your unfounded beliefs and opinions on quivering and frightened children? I am disappointed equally in your level of comprehension with regard to my use of the English language, which from your response seems to have little to do with the mentioned matter of concision, but more to do with some innate disability or hampering sense of denial, or simply your inability to challenge the irrefutable in what I wrote. I am an historian by avocation, written legislation, practiced and interpreted laws as a vocation, and have also dabbled in politics, so I do know of what I speak. Nor is it in my nature to be obsequious.
As well, David, what you (“you” because you do not, of course, speak for everyone contributing to this blog) seem “to be about” is placating a very determined enemy, if you are Gay (which I do not sense you are) and not a parvenu, while mistakenly projecting a strain of docility and passivity, which will avail you nothing, nor anyone else who might accept such impractical and inapplicable advice, which from experience alone I could not admit, or by common sense accept, as an appropriate attitude. Contrary to what you advise, I will not pretend to respect or blithely abide a child abuser, in whatever guise, or yet tolerate the abuser holding one of several atrophied belief systems as revealed truth.
Are you kidding with your remark: “…with civility and respect for the belief of others”? You cannot seriously believe that these exceedingly anti-Gay Christians, who think nothing whatever of abusing children and holding them captive while virtually torturing them, are all the while respecting you , David, or in attempting to deny Gays basic human rights are being civil in return?
Yet you claim “to hold ex-gay organizations accountable for false information, both to their audience and to lawmakers.” It is odd to me that you seem peculiarly determined to greatly mitigate or even preclude such a taking to task that you claim to encourage and support on this website. Indeed, I offered you some ideas on point, which, although basic and exploratory, would make a good start, in my opinion, unless your intent is to keep all viable ideas out of the public discourse, David, so to better protect from challenge the exceedingly harmful and felonious efforts and acts of those you apparently support. But here I am thinking once more that you are not Gay. In fact, there are good cases at law to be brought against these miscreants, whether you like or support it, or not.
As to the matter of belief systems raised by you, David, I will first cite the title of Christopher Hitchens’ latest work: “god is not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything,” and add the advice that it should be required reading and be included in every grade school syllabus, worldwide. The signal fact is that the perpetrators under discussions here employ certain beliefs and strictures informed by Christianity in their overall premise as excuse for the egregious and probable felonious abuse of children. So this point is quite germane and especially relevant to this discussion. Are we to be more concerned for the perpetrators, however abusive they may be, if the abusers have a belief system at their disposal for their warped rationale, as you are wont to instruct the blogger? Or are we instead, as I would posit, to be much more and rightly concerned for the safety of our children, period, and that this natural imperative to protect and save requires neither undue “respect” nor “civility.” It requires but a need and a will to act, which is what I challenged the reader to do, David, but not to have us act either passively or concernedly regards the child abuser. And that challenge to take action is not withdrawn. Certainly not when my positions are wholly unchallenged, much less refuted.
Well, that went well.
I suggest, Gordon, that you spend a little time reading the blog before commenting further, Gordon, as you don’t have any idea what you are talking about, Gordon.
To be quite honest, Gordon, I can’t figure out if you are you are trying to be rude, or just pompous. Either way, try to restrain yourself if you wish to comment further… Gordon.
/snort C’mon David, I bet the last time you were called a parvenu was, what, about 1867? And by Queen Victoria herself, no less.
(I told you not to go grabbing at that third cucumber sandwich… that was also the last occasion on which any of us were invited down to Osborne, need I remind.)
I remember that date. Queen Vicky said she didn’t believe in the existance of lesbians, so I had to stand up to her and say, “uh, i’m right here in front of your face!”
But on topic, I wonder if Mr. Chambers is going to respond to this post.
David, I am sorry, and I did say clearly that I was not comparing Exodus to Nazis. My only point was to say that sometimes when people do harm, we need to stand up to it, and what better example (not analogy) is the Nazis. I would understand the criticism more if I did not clearly state that I was not comparing the two. I am sorry if you took it that way, but I think it works better as an example than anything, and I was responding to yomama’s comment.
[cough cough] Forgive this interruption. Might this be the opportune time to have an OPEN FORUM thread?
And now,
Back to our regularly scheduled program…
Master “grantdale,” (esquire, I presume) it is good to know that someone is familiar with a time when an author could commonly employ foreign or obscure words and had a reading audience that could understand it in context. But sadly, the commonplace of the Victorian Period and Edwardian Era has been so depreciated that what was is not the situation to-day. And David, yes, I would myself tell you that I am intellectually arrogant, in the same sense that Lincoln is reported also to have been; although I was not born in a rustic cabin in the midst of the then wilderness of Kentucky but in a Judean manger instead. Be assured, however, that I am never rude because I consider rudeness a sort of vice that I have no need or desire to employ in discussion. I prefer the use of humor and artful persuasion.
Indeed, I did read the uppermost-sited plaints enumerated on this blog, which when added to the admixture of other comments read elsewhere on this website, resulted in my initial statement and the challenge I issued. Presumably, this blog is just one part of an overarching whole. Frankly, I am amazed that anyone does not prehend what I am trying to convey. So I will simply restate it for that person’s edification and in answer to apparent puzzlement, yet in the starkest and most limited terms possible: You are dialoguing with your oppressor, only after the commission of certain egregious acts, and then limiting your wonderment, as given voice here, to but why the offending organization and its staff members did such and such and how they, if such can be persuaded, are to set about correcting their misbehaviors and operant malevolence in general. What could possibly be the ultimate purpose of this effort and the eventual beneficial result sought? Do you or do you not want these organizations to stay in business and if so allowed to continue their depredations, although with some minimal corrections agreed between the discussants? Would you accept and do you simply seek changes in these programs? What is wrong with or unthinkable about stopping their actual and veritable assaults altogether, immediately?
If one claims to have been assaulted, neither the judicial system as a whole nor the jurist on the bench is interested in the “why” aspect (although perhaps at time of sentencing it could be) but if the accused committed the act as asserted. With this in mind, what I am strongly suggesting is that the readership do more than address meaningless complaints and questions to the unrepentant offender here, but sue that offender instead, and do so as often as is necessary to eliminate their existence as a business, which presence is a present and continuing threat to the well-being and mental health of every American Gay, especially those voluntarily or involuntarily participating in their specious and unsanctioned programs, which are fully and heavy-handedly driven by blind religious fervor, unrepressed hatred of their hapless clientele, and further directed by unfounded biases and misapprehensions on the part of that offender. These misguided, if not truly dangerous, people must be stopped. The most certain and lawful way to accomplish that, in order to ultimately realize a meaningful and permanent result, is to use our current laws and regulations in a court of law to utterly eradicate this current danger, as well as eliminate those that will ineluctably arise in future, unless realistically dealt with and ended now. So ends this epistle.
Transform! (robotic transformation sound in the background)… Apologies, transformation to Victorian language mode unsuccessful….
(ahem) I think Mr Kinder could save more time and space just saying, “Instead of talking, let us just sue them, stop their hurtful lies!” If I am not mistaken, we already covered that, did we not?
I am surprised as to why he would imply that homosexuals are ‘The Third Gender’ in his first post… Since Mr Kinder professes to be intellectually arrogant, surely he knows that is what the educated lot call a girl like me….
I am still waiting for Mr Chambers to answer the questions above, then mail the answers to the two ex-gay groups here, to see curiously their response to it.
I’m beginning to think XGW needs a Troll Bingo card. And now it needs a “Fancies himself the literary descendant of Henry James” square.
My god, there’s been an explosion in a thesaurus factory.
Just a few points on Gordon Kinder (even though he’s raised so many):
-*- This site is populated largely by people who have some abiding religious faith that has usually been tested by some pretty serious trials involving the incompatibility of their sexuality and their past religious beliefs, so you’re not going to waltz in here like Ozzie and Harriet and sour them on religion by waving Hitchen’s book at them. This is probably why it was suggested that you should have opened your eyes around here before you opened up your spleen.
-*- Though I share the views of Hitchens and Sam Harris, we have a constitutional protection on freedom of religion that allows people to act in some stupid ways and believe laughable propositions with impunity. Our judicial system, to which you want to appeal, has just suffered assault by a president in the pocket of the right wing fundamentalists, so I don’t share your view that the courts will make it right. Until we can get some more liberals on the high court, they’d probably just make things worse.
-*- A lot of us can use big words and archaic terms, employ grammatically correct yet tortuous sentence structure, or reference obscure sources. “Waltz in like Ozzie and Harriet” for instance, is what Wallace Shawn said to Ed Begley Jr. in Scenes from the Class Struggle in Beverly Hills. I included it to impress the hell out of cinemaphiles, and so I could later point out how it otherwise just got in the way. What you’ve impressed on me, Gordon, is that you haven’t yet figured out that writing in an obtuse style is a curse. The simple declarative sentence is the holy grail.
Henry James would have been more articulate… There are, to our justified perusal and comprehensive reading, impeccablly enough and many more of synonyms or words that mean one of the same used by our English literature winning champion here on this space alone to start initiating the creation of a miniature version of the book aptly entitled, beholdingly so, the thesaurus….
I’m not a big ex-gay watch fan, but I must say that I am impressed and honored to hear Dvid Roberts set standards: 1. Some evil (e.g Nazis) is just so bad it has to stand on it’s own to provide justice to those who endured it, and for society at large to avoid repeating it.
2. That bloggers be concise with their thoughts.
And to say they want to hold ex-gay organizations accountable for false information, both to their audience and to lawmakers. Albeit, overkill.
However, it is not good to say it is virtually impossible to change one’s orientation. I hope I say this with civility and respect for the beliefs of others.
Thanks, to David.
Since some of names and issues below are mentioned often on this blog, my thought is that the readership might be interested in this recently published online news article. Please inform yourselves. Enjoy:
Psychologists To Review Stance On Gays
Moderator Note: Replaced entire text of APA article with a link. Comment space is for comments. Outside material, for the most part, is used to support statements of fact which are germane to the topic of the thread, and should be linked, not pasted, if a link is available. The topic here is specific questions posed to Exodus ministries, in the hopes that they will respond and generate a debate. Unless the thread is marked “open” please send articles you wish to be covered directly to us at editor@exgaywatch.com.
Hmm….ex gay ministries entreat the public to “question homosexuality.”
But when you question THEM, no answers. I see Chambers has taken a convenient sabbatical from such bothersome business as questions he’s not comfortable with.
Let me know when you hear from him!
Does purple prose smell like anything? If it did I’m guessing the stench in this thread would be…overwhelming 😉
But to what degree? What kind of change? To what end, and most important of all, with what consequences, compromises, or side effects?
Those are important questions to ask.
I think that it is perfectly reasonable to say that “it is virtually impossible to change one’s orientation.”
In fact, I think that dropping the word “virtually” makes sense as well.
Ex-gay groups and therapist have never produced convincing evidence of changing someone’s orientation, and increasingly, they are backing off from making such promises.
A more realistic discussion would be about changing a person’s behavior, but that discussion needs to take into account the personal costs: A lifetime of celibacy doesn’t just mean lack of sex; it also means lack of intimacy. A marriage to someone for which there is no real attraction is grossly unfair to the spouse and possible children, as well as an increasingly heavy burden for the ex-gay to bear over time.
A gay person who is unhappy being gay should be shown the realistic options they have for lving their life, rather than promised something that Exodus knows it cannot deliver.
@Aaron
I was making a general statement and didn’t mean to be critical, though it does appear that way when I read it today 🙁
I guess Gordon’s comments had me waxing nostalgic for those afternoon teas with Queen Vicky.
It saddens me to see so little of the original subject matter (i.e. the questions for Exodus) discussed here. Does anybody really expect Alan Chambers or leaders of Exodus member ministries to respond after the circus of comments already littering this page?
Ah, David–you do good work here, and I am fine. I do understand the issue of fairness, and I think it is fair to make sure that Exodus and others are not presented in unfair ways. I appreciate your means of modertaing so that everyone is comfortable 🙂
A few comments previous, John wrote:
It was interesting to me because the implication is that intimacy and sex are the same thing or that they are in tight marriage to each other. I would argue that intimacy is perfectly afforded in a life without sex, or celibate as some might phrase. So is it commonly believed that no sex means no intimacy?
Eugene,
Glad to answer these next week when I return from vacation.
Just a thought:
Those who seek to impress with the style of their writing often do so because the content is not impressive.
To me that’s like saying no sex means no love, and I certainly don’t believe sex is necessary to share love / be intimate. However, when the anti-gay crowd speaks of gays living celibate/chaste lives, they DO mean that we should live without having an intimate love relationsihip, even IF devoid of sex.
I posed the question on CARM and on the UMC in regard to an article entitled: “A gay cleric who is an avowed celibate has “married” his partner of 30 years.” They just condemned the love/intimacy factor as lust and therefore still sinful, or that two people of the same gender were not capable of experiencing *real* love.
Greg,
When I wrote, “A lifetime of celibacy doesn’t just mean lack of sex; it also means lack of intimacy,” I did not say that sex and intimacy are the same thing.
Intimacy isn’t the same thing as sex. I think that in the long run, intimacy is far more important than sex for the wellbeing of the individual. I was pointing out that celibacy means more than sacrificing sex.
Just who is this celibate ex-gay going to develop an intense, fulfilling, intimate relationship with? How does the life long celibate dating scene operate? Is it going to be a person of the same sex that they are living with? Is it a person of the opposite sex for whom they have no attraction?
Achieving intimacy is important for human beings. Accepting a life long sentence of celibacy would make achieving real intimacy with another person very difficult.
LOL – OMG – That was funny – “explosion in a thesaurus factory” – LOL 🙂
Greg,
How would a celibate person go about achieving real and needed physical intimacy with another without voiding their celibacy?
Emproph says:
Very true. Since they do believe that there could be a possibility of what they consider a “fall” and the temptation may be too great for some to avoid a possible sexual expression of that love if they have partners but remain celibate. The Catholic Church calls it “occasions of sin” and to avoid that type of sin altogether. That was what I was taught in adult catechism. Which was basically avoid anything gay related; bars, clubs, groups, having gay friends. Any influence that could cause me to fall from celibacy. They do consider same-sex love to be only lust based.
Funny. Why is it considered lust when two men or two women are in love but when its a man and a woman its considered love? Don’t straight people lust?
It is lust too, but they imagine the ugliness of themselves “lusting” for what revolts them the most—and then project that back onto us.
It make perfect sense until you find out that we’re NOT confused. The problem is that we really do go against physical nature.
I’m not gay, I’m a heterosexual girl with a guy’s body.
-Two things going on here. One is the idea that the soul is separate from the body, and within that exists the idea that soul/spirit-gender is also then separate from the body.
That’s why they’re manipulated so easily with the “threat” of abortion and stem-cell research. They believe feti and stem cells are SOULS. Souls who will supposedly never again have the chance at life.
I pretty much think that too (souls), but I believe in a God of Love who’s actually in control, and doesn’t leave the eternal fate of souls to the whimsy of sinful man.
They believe that spiritual life begins at PHYSICAL conception–which leaves no room for life before birth, and therefore no room for the idea of gender before birth. Thus, no concept that God could have created us this way.
That’s my perspective (and I CAN qualify it further.. :), it doesn’t cover bisexuality and I realize many if not most gay people wouldn’t necessarily identify with the opposite gender/body explanation, but the point is that a dogmatic decision has been made on the parts of religious adherents and NO-OTHER-TRUTH can ever be “true” without giving up their Christian identity and thus their “salvation” (from eternal hell).
It’s a real mess, but hopefully Alan will be back to sort it all out.
And PS, I see your point, but I personally wasn’t talking about temptation of sex being the threat of sin in question. Even if we had our genitals cut off/out and had the sex part of our brains removed, the anti-gay crowd would STILL condemn us as sinners if we were in a same-gender intimate/love relationship.
It’s the satisfaction of what they see as disgusting that they want to punish.
Conservative religions who buy into the ex-gay concept demand that gays and lesbians act in ways that go beyond anything these same religions place on straights. Straights are asked to abstain from sex before marriage and then keep fidelity with the one they’ve married. Whatever thoughts, lusts and desires a straight feels are not placed under a microscope of analysis. Their feelings are accepted as part of being sexual. This is not how it is for gays and lesbians who are raised in these religions. Their very thoughts are held in contempt, their feelings are not to be expressed. A gay person’s sexuality is to be shut down at all costs. In other words, what these conservative religions demand is a life in the closet. As for ex-gays in these religions, they are just getting a bit of extra credit for being willing to go back into said closet.
PW….recently a huge settlement was brokered for the Catholic church here in Los Angeles. This happened prior to our Cardinal Mahoney having to testify at trial.
660 million, no doubt mostly covered by insurance, won’t really put a dent in the coffers of the church. But a great deal of this scandal is about cover up and moving abusive priests where they can be beyond the reach of the law.
The church is also refusing to reexamine the issue of celibacy.
It IS an unnatural state for a human being to engage in. And human beings without the option of marriage, carry an especially heavy burden.
When a person wears the collar of the office of the priesthood, I know that wearing this is a part of gearing yourself up for the day ahead. It does frame your mind around what you are within that uniform.
But still…rabbis can marry as can non Catholic clergy.
And the prevalence of abuse seems to be less among these groups.
Of course leaving the priesthood is an option, but the power of the Church and it’s representatives is heady stuff.
The Church’s edicts on celibacy was about property and inheritance. Purely economic and selfish reasons.
And perhaps selling that a celibate life puts one closer to God without all those emotional entanglements that distract is a feel good proposition…..but serioulsly, what’s REALLY the point in all that?
There are obviously some people willing to do it, and they do it well.
However, being gay is more about being celibate. There are still the sticky issues about job discrimination, and school bullying and other threats to civil life and freedom that have no bearing on having a sex life or not.
Repression of one’s sexuality, gay or not, tends to have unhealthy results, especially if it’s coerced.
I remember asking on another thread about gay singleton life, when you’re already among coupled family and friends. Attending social functions, or being hard pressed to avoid those asking about your single status and trying to correct it for you by trying to set you up with the totally WRONG person. A straight, opposite sex date.
And that only happens if someone doesn’t know you’re gay.
When they know you are….I would find it insufferable that you have to sit there, and perhaps field questions on the health of your dog.
You can’t even hook up with the OTHER gay singleton in the same social network.
Heterosexuals are more in the face about THEIR attractions, connections and love lives than they’ll admit.
It’s a cruel tease, to do all this….and expect a gay person to pretend or act like they have no feelings and can’t love and feel serious stirrings in the heart and soul for a shared life.
Seriously heartless that such a thing is expected and this is inculcated into gay teens from the very beginning.
It’s an impossible way to live, if you’re set up and expected to be that way for over a lifetime.
And what’s worse…these people should worry MORE about a person who DOESN’T have any feelings or longings for another human body to love.
I would might find someone like that suspect.
But I also respect people that are naturally ASEXUAL. It would also be cruel to make them feel like aliens and inferior because they have no interest in sex. And to force such a thing on them would be tantamount to rape, I would think.
The bottom line is, there is little respect for orientation, and too much unrealistic expectations and understanding of those who are not heterosexual.
And look what a mess is made because of that.
I really do not know where this is heading. All the facts and reality had been laid out clearly to Exodus International, but we still see again and again the outright denial of the homosexual orientation existence in the name of the Big C. Why the double standard? As we know, sin is a sin. And it is mentioned that we are all sinners: Romans 3:23. Is there a bigger sin?
I would agree with some of the commenters that there are unrealistic expectations in terms of same sex love. Lust between straights is supposed to be a sin, as in Matthew 5:28 where lust is equivalent to commiting adultery. And while the Bible always talks about the ‘act’ of homosexuality deserving death, the mere lust between straights in the context of the verse above warrants just that in Leviticus 20:10. So do preachers these days teach Christians to be wary of how they look at their neighbour’s wife?
Again on Matthew 5:28, where Christ himself spoke of lust (as we know, Christ said nothing about homosexuality); we are fed with 24/7 doses of lustful scantily clad women on MTV, pornographic materials available all over the marketplace and even some nudity in movies.
The influence of MTV on teenagers is immense. A majority of girls all over the world wants to look like Beyonce and shake their hips like Shakira. And boys are fed the idea to ‘smack that’ on girls. You see the ‘heterosexual lifestyle’ in clubs and discos everywhere in the world. Here you would notice also the sin of idolatry.
Just what is Exodus doing about that? How about asking the millions of heterosexuals to be celibate then? Or the conversion of these ‘heterosexual strugglers’ to homosexuality? At least as homosexuals they would only be holding hands in the park, and the intimacy would be mostly closeted.
So, If Mr Chambers is reading this; I would like to ask him, with so much straights struggling to contain their own sexuality, CAN WE QUESTION HETEROSEXUALITY?
Ms. DuCasse typed:
I quite agree.
Oh, Alan hasn’t answered the questions yet?
What’s he waiting for?
https://exgaywatch.com/2007/07/questions-for-exodus/#comment-27069
Come to think of it, maybe they’re so defensively anti-gay because they’re all so celibate themselves, or at least constantly trying to be, –even in thought. Maybe it’s the repressed lifestyle that fuels the “anti” in their anti-gay bias.
On the other side of “sick and sinful,” we represent some illusion of sexual freedom, and somewhere within that is the idea that fun is not bad. Which ultimately comes down to love — the ideal of fun — pure unity.
Does Exodus consider our love to be real? Because if they don’t, then they must consider us too confused to know what fun is.
If love is of God, then our love was given to us by God.
And to the extent that love has been given to us through our relationships, then our relationships were given to us by God.
To judge our love is to judge God.
Or are we really all just confused?
Emproph, you DO have an excellent point. Love is fun, has the ability to imbue one with courage and motives that are so unselfish and supportive of another-these things DO happen in gay relationships. And can therefore also benefit one’s extended family as well who accepts it.
I have always liked to think that God IS love. And that putting one’s heart and trust in it, is also risky, not easy…and sometimes very painful.
But the determination to have it, is also healing, and maturing.
A little boy I used to babysit, who has very religious parents asked me if I believed in God. I told him I believed in love, and ONLY love has the properties to show us the way.
This is why I challenge the ex gay industry, or any other people with making a judgement from the foundation of love, not admonishment, deprivation or isolation.
They want to judge gay and lesbian relationship success on what this industry, or social policy is unwilling to put in.
In other words, they want omelettes without breaking eggs, but go on and on telling tales out of school as if they have broken all the eggs possible and still couldn’t make an omelette.
It’s getting hard to have a discussion with the anti gay, they tend to leave HUGE negating factors, or whole amounts of comparative information completely out.
If the money and political capital spent on taking on legal responsibilities for a significant other and children or the response to the AIDS crisis and the personal care and love attended to those stricken doesn’t convince them that it’s love they are witness to, nothing will convince them.
And they can make no claims they know what love is, or how it’s really supposed to be employed. Including in public, religious or social policy.
It is coming to the end of the month… any news from Mr Chambers yet?
He came back from vacation a few days ago, I will contact him Monday to remind him of this thread. Thanks for the reminder 😉