I’m sure many of you have already seen this article from the Galveston Daily News, highlighting efforts by local Christian groups to counter the anti-gay message fostered by South Houston’s recent "Love Won Out" conference. Still, I wanted to link to it because it’s great to see moderate Christians responding to the tactics of the extreme right with a more genuine, Christ-like message of love. It’s also important to remember that the Christian Family is a more complex place than the leaders of the Religious Right would have us believe.
Along those same lines, Christian author Jack Hitt has an op-ed in today’s LA Times calling Americans on the carpet for "politicizing Jesus." I question blaming the media for this (surely Christian leaders bear some responsiblity for conflating their cause with the GOP’s?), but regardless, the point needs airing. The fact is, no one group can claim to speak for Jesus, and we ought to be suspicious of people who speak as if there is only "one true" Christian stance on a given political issue.
Although the article doesn’t mention gay rights, this is especially true when it comes to gay issues. Ex-gays and their supporters love to pretend that there is only one Christian stance on gay rights, and they openly question the faith of people who disagree with their agenda. But the fact is, there are many, many Christians on our side. Often, they are afraid to speak out and risk having their faith called into question.
If gay rights are ever to advance in this country, we will need our moderate Christian friends to stand firmly with us. It’s wonderful to see some of them stepping up.
“Gay Spirituality” is an Oxymoron. You cannot be engaged in same sex and be truly spiritual except in your own deluded mind set.
Why are gays so afraid of the ex-gay? Afterall who knows gays better than they do being ex’s and all. Made me think they are on to something and it’s anything but hate. It’s love of gays that makes them show there is a way to overcome those abnormal feelings — if you want to overcome — but at the very least offer the choice to do so.
Posted by: Les at January 5, 2006 09:16 AM
Hey Les, since when do you get to decide what’s spiritual for anyone other than yourself? Too bad you can’t go back in time – you could tell all those North American Native tribes that chose two-spirited people as religious leaders they had it all wrong.
The “exgays” may know themselves better, but they can’t know gays as well as gays know themselves. Exgays don’t proselytize out of love, they do it out of a need to have others validate their decision by making the same one. Some people from discriminated against ethnic backgrounds can modify their appearance and behaviour enough to pass as white, should we offer them the choice to do so? It would make life easier for some of them, but wouldn’t it be better to eliminate the social rejection which causes minority and gay ills in the first place?
It always amazes me that people who think they are offering love and not hate can actually say things like “your own deluded mind set.”
If I didn’t know that they were serious I’d think it was just parody.
And they never seem to see the irony.
Les said:
Why are gays so afraid of the ex-gay?
You would have to establish that gays are indeed afraid of “ex-gay” before you could reasonably ask that question. And actually, since the definitions are myriad, you would need to explain exactly what you mean by “ex-gay”. I am a Christian, I am gay and I am not in the least afraid of anything to do with “ex-gay” in any form. I am upset by those who use it as a platform or bootstrap for other issues and of the charlatans who promise what they cannot give. If you are not upset by this, then why not?
You cannot be engaged in same sex and be truly spiritual except in your own deluded mind set.
Let’s just leave that one to God and my walk with Him, ok? You have enough to deal with.
David
“. Exgays don’t proselytize out of love, they do it out of a need to have others validate their decision by making the same one.” I would say the same of gays proselytizing simply to validate the abnormal. Also…
How do you know this of ex’s? Why not allow the ‘choice’ to overcome abnormal feelings? Why get all bent out of shape and intolerant of them and that choice? They are not judging or hating, as most of you here are doing of the ex-gay or anyone who disagrees with abnormal same sex [they once walked in your shoes] ….they simply state the logical and obvious.
Les- reread your own post. You claim not to be judging and condemn same-sex love as “abnormal” in the same sentence.
If “ex-gay” groups did not work against LGBT equality, were specific about exactly what they mean by “change”, and above all stopped lying, then most people would have no problem with them.
Gays do not “proselytize.” Only “ex-gays” try to recruit.
Les,
Oddly enough, no one here is “bent out of shape or intolerant” of ex-gays. Many here on this site once were ex-gays.
We do however criticise those who lead and speak for ex-gay ministries when they are wrong. Our criticism is not about whether they are making a choice to try and change their orientation, but rather we point out when they lie.
Les, do you think they should lie? Is it OK to deceive either legislators or potential clients?
We also disagree with them when they advocate for legislation that distinguishes between gay people and straight (or ex-gay) people. They are certainly entitled to their choices in life. They are not, however, entitled to restrict mine.
Les, do you think ex-gays are entitled to restrict my choices in life through legislation?
Please answer these two questions, Les.
Timothy Kincaid at January 6, 2006 04:26 PM
We also disagree with them when they advocate for legislation that distinguishes between gay people and straight (or ex-gay) people. They are certainly entitled to their choices in life. They are not, however, entitled to restrict mine.
This pretty much expresses my position on the “ex-gay” issue. If they don’t want to be gay, or if they don’t want to engage in homosexual sex, they shouldn’t. It truly is not rocket science.
But more than a few of the “noisy ex-gay operations” (as I refer to them) seem to want to validate their choices by getting the state to invalidate our choices.
Posted by: Les at January 6, 2006 03:22 PM
Les, how about you state the logical and obvious, that history and examples of animals in nature have shown same sex attractions are normal for a minority of people.
I never advocate anyone without a same sex attraction try a same sex relationship. I couldn’t care less what “exgays” do so long as they don’t continue fostering the social rejection that harms all same sex attracted people and which is responsible for gays desiring to be heterosexual in the first place.
“….that history and examples of animals in nature have shown same sex attractions are normal for a minority of people.”
Just because same sex attraction exist in nature doesn’t make it normal. The attraction is out of the norm. We are all born by nature heterosexual. That is a fact. We all can overcome the abnormal “feelings” of same sex attraction….if we want to….if not… so be it. Ex’s are socially rejected by gays. What is your point?
“Les, do you think ex-gays are entitled to restrict my choices in life through legislation?”
What choices are they restricting?
“Les, do you think they should lie? Is it OK to deceive either legislators or potential clients?”
Examples of this??
Gays recruit everyday in our schools by forcing kids to believe same sex is normal. It is not.
“….condemn same-sex love as “abnormal” in the same sentence.”
Same Sex is abnormal. Scientific Fact. Mens and womens bodies are physically designed to fit one another. Men and men or women and women are not. Not a condemnation. Just a statement of fact. To disagree is not judging.
Posted by: Les at January 7, 2006 08:47 AM
Les, let me put it to you this way, in nature wouldn’t you say that a certain amount of abnormality is normal?
Les, if gays weren’t normal they wouldn’t have consistently existed throughout as far back as recorded time, they would be something that only happened sporadically under contrived cirmcumstances. That gays have consistently occurred in similar percentages in societies throughout history is obviously because that is normal for a minority of people just as it happens in nature. People are animals and I don’t intend that as a slight.
And you haven’t answered the first and most important question I asked you – since when do you get to decide what’s spiritual for anyone other than yourself? I’ve responded fully to your questions, in fairness and honesty you should do the same.
Les, please show me where these “facts” are proven. And did it ever occur to you that if what you claim about male and female bodies were true then homosexuality would be physically impossible? And yet it’s not… You cannot establish “Scientific Fact” by decree Les.
Joe- so you think homosexuality is so friggin awesome that as soon as someone hears there’s nothing wrong with it, they’ve got to run right out and try it? That all kids have a deep-seated longing for the same sex that is only kept in check by social condemnation? I guess that puts you in the same company as rabidly anti-gay quack Paul Cameron, who said that gay sex is more pleasurable than str8 sex. Maybe you two should hook up…
Anonymous- Paul Cameron has made a career out of lying about homosexuals and trying to influence anti-gay legislation through phony “studies.” The “ex-gay” movement has a long and well documented history of lying and lobbying for anti-gay legislation. Recently several “ex-gay” groups were lobbying to persuade voters to overturn Maine’s anti-discrimination ordinance, which ironically would hurt their own members since many “ex-gays” act stereotypically gay. “Ex-gay” groups lobby against our marriage rights. Even the ones who come on here and pretend to be different from the rest, like Chad Thompson, can’t seem to help equivocating and playing loose with the truth. If what they have is so great, why do they have to lie about it? Do you think at least part of their lobbying agenda might be based on the fear that if LGBTs had civil and social equality, no one would want to buy what they’re selling?
“We are all born by nature heterosexual.”
—
Les you call that a scientific fact if you’re that certain show proof. For the sake of argument assuming that were true why under normal (uncontrived) circumstances does consistently the same small percentage of people turn out gay if it isn’t normal? Occaisional bad social circumstances are normal too (albeit undesirable) and even if you think a bad social environment occaisionally causes gayness that would in itself be normal even if undesirable in your opinion. Why else would it be present throughout history regardless of the style and intensity of social rejection if we are born heterosexual and that must somehow be “undone”.
Don’t confuse normal with common in this case. Yes gays are uncommon but that is still normal for some species and we share a great deal of DNA and in general with all animals. We desire food sleep, sex, safety, community, etc. Its where we differ from animals that is unusual and uncommon given the basic nature of life. If you acknowledge the homosexuality in nature for you to then say its abnormal (unless you mean uncommon)is an exception, a unicorn, and the onus is on you to explain it.
Randi
—
“”Les, do you think ex-gays are entitled to restrict my choices in life through legislation?””
“What choices are they restricting?”
Posted by: Anonymous at January 7, 2006 08:50 AM
—
The right to marry the one person GLBT’s love most. I am not aware of any “exgays” who do NOT oppose this.
Randi
—-
“Gays recruit everyday in our schools by forcing kids to believe same sex is normal. It is not.”
Posted by: joe at January 7, 2006 08:53 AM
—-
Joe, no one can force another to believe anything. If they could my parents and family wouldn’t have failed at making me religious.
Randi
—-
“”Les, do you think they should lie? Is it OK to deceive either legislators or potential clients?””
“Examples of this??”
Posted by: Anonymous at January 7, 2006 08:50 AM
One of the worst examples is Exodus advertising that complete change is possible. They allow people to believe same sex desires can be completely changed to opposite sex desires but only when pushed will they admit they only mean once can change one’s behavior and that the desires may change little if any.
Randi
Les at January 7, 2006 08:56 AM
Same Sex is abnormal. Scientific Fact. Mens and womens bodies are physically designed to fit one another.
This is just plain silly. More pseudo-science. Irrespective of the fact that there is no evidence that human bodies were “designed” (shades of creationist or “intelligent design” rhetoric) my same-sex partners and my parts fit very nicely with each other.
You really should learn to do better than to spout nonsense.
Ooops, my previous comment should have said:
“only when pushed will they admit they only mean one can change one’s behavior and that the desires may change little if any.”
But we must
not forget that evil spirits are also part of the whole of
spiritual reality!
“Les, if gays weren’t normal they wouldn’t have consistently existed throughout as far back as recorded time, they would be something that only happened sporadically under contrived cirmcumstances. That gays have consistently occurred in similar percentages in societies throughout history is obviously because that is normal for a minority of people just as it happens in nature. People are animals and I don’t intend that as a slight.”
Not to say these examples are equivalent but other abnormal sexual proclivities [pedophilia, insest, beastiality etc.,] have existed for all time and that still doesn’t make them a normal. So your point here is mute.
Also I never said I decided for anyone. I simply stated the obvious.
“The right to marry the one person GLBT’s love most. I am not aware of any “exgays” who do NOT oppose this.”
Randi
Marriage is a priveledge granted by a society. It is not a right just because you want it to be. Just as it is not a right for underage kids; consenting loving insetuous adults etc., etc. [not meant to offend…just to make the point] to marry.
Also Randi…..Sorry but Nonsense is reflected in your rebuttle above.
joe at January 7, 2006 11:46 AM
Um, you really should consider watching things other than the SciFi channel.
You mean like the evil spirits who are encouraging your anti-gay animus?
“You mean like the evil spirits who are encouraging your anti-gay animus?”
No…my intentions are not anti-gay except in your need to believe them as such.
I did answer Randi etc. but it was not posted. It was not offensive in any way. Obviously tolerance is not given for my disagreeing with a few opinions here.
Joe, Les, and Anonymous are the same person (same IP address, same computer) — which alone is good reason to ban them for trolling.
In addition, he’s taking this page’s topic and disrupting it with unsubstantiated, off-topic remarks and accusations. More troll-like behavior.
One of his messages was trapped by the XGW spam filter; I’ve released it, but blocked Joe/Les from further posting until he identifies himself with a verifiable e-mail address (privately, if he prefers) and plays by these simple rules.
Troll-like behavior can be avoided if a commenter:
1. Stays on-topic, or requests an open-forum page.
2. Identifies himself truthfully.
3. Substantiates his assertions.
4. Answers questions directly, rather than issuing fresh potshots.
Since most of the comments to/from Joe/Les are off-topic, I’ll probably delete them within a few days.
Well Joe, then you need to do some serious work to reconnect your actions with your intentions.
Why not just admit the hate which is so evident to everyone here? Why spew hate and then turn around and deny it when it’s right there on the page for all to see?
You claimed that “Gays recruit everyday in our schools by forcing kids to believe same sex is normal. It is not.”
It’s right up there on the page, plain as day. Why deny that you’re anti-gay? Please stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by trying to make us believe that up is down, black is white, and sentiments which are quite manifestly anti-gay (not to mention false and illogical) are somehow not anti-gay.
Mike Airhart at January 7, 2006 01:01 PM
Feel free to delete my posts to the troll. Deleting only the posts from the troll, and not those to the troll, is often confussing.
BTW, you might want to go to a registration system, although that can also be problemmatic.
Is change possible for anyone who is gay?
There are times when i love being gay, but i personally find gay sex to be somewhat boring even if i am attracted to the other person. I think that an opposite sex relationship might offer more mystery and the sex might be a bit less boring. I am only 23, but i am really worried about growign old in the gay lifestyle. I don’t want an open relationship, sharing my love with other men. I dont want a string of short term relationships and yet this is what the overwhelming majority of us will have to deal with in our lives. Very few ( maybe only 10%) will have relationships longer than 3 years and many of them are open. This scares me. I met a long term gay couple last night and they impressed me but they said they faced hostility from other gays, jealous of their relationship.
I think its amazing that they are together, but if i could change and was able to seek happiness with a woman i would. I just dont know if it possible. If it is i would be willing to try it because i am tired of being hurt over and over in this lifestyle.
I would not say that alteration of sexual orientation is impossible, but the likelihood of such a shift occurring would seem to be very small. Only you know what your feelings are and how happy and fulfilled a relationship will make you, and I see that as the way to judge whether you should consider a serious commitment. Physical attraction obviously plays a role, but those feelings should serve as a gateway to deeper attachments. If you find a woman for which you feel that special combination, then you can consider moving forward.
Regarding gay relationships themselves, I agree with you. The transitory relationships seem shallow compared to those built on commitment. Your choices are your own, but remember that there are those of us out there who seek the same thing you do.
John said:
I am only 23, but i am really worried about growign old in the gay lifestyle.
I have to be candid with you John, and I rarely say this to a poster, but I simply don’t believe you are sincere. I’ve never heard anyone gay actually say something like that, nor do I have any idea what “the gay lifestyle” is beyond being a key phrase in anti-gay propaganda. Likewise I am not aware of any legitimate study reflecting the statistics you have quoted and you yourself have provided none. We require substantiation of any claims such as these, so please either provide this or retract the statement.
The fact is, I can’t find a single thing in your post that rings true. I certainly can’t imagine someone becoming hostile towards a couple because of the success of their relationship – that’s almost laughable. However, if by some incredible chance you truly are the person you are describing here, I strongly suggest you seek some counseling to help you understand the source of your unhealthy views on sex and relationships. This type of problem is hardly restricted to gay relationships, as the 50% rate of divorce in the US certainly illustrates. Assuming that a person with a sexual addiction and/or other issues will suddenly be “OK” if they could change their sexual orientation is an unfortunate fallacy but one that seems to be common among ex-gay proponents.
If someone wants to try to change their sexual orientation, that is their business. However, it is only prudent that they understand what they are up against and the unlikely chance of any success. Given these facts, they should at least consider whether the reasoning which led to their desire to change is the flaw to be dealt with, and not their sexual orientation itself. Your comments, genuine or not, are an excellent illustration of this.
David Roberts
David,
Unlike you, I don’t have any doubts about John’s sincerity. After all, gay people say all kinds of different things. I wouldn’t hesitate to use the expression ‘the gay lifestyle.’ The fact that anti-gay people use that expression a lot doesn’t worry me in the slightest.
I don’t know about John’s statistics, but other than that, I sympathise with him. My feelings are somewhat similar to his.
ab said:
Unlike you, I don’t have any doubts about John’s sincerity.
I was expressing an opinion, albeit an informed one from viewing a lot of suspicious posts, some of which turned out to be fake (and some didn’t). You are welcome to your view as well. I might add that you have not exactly hidden your anti-gay bias in prior posts and your belligerent misrepresentation of source materials has resulted in at least one warning.
Since you mentioned it, how exactly would you describe “the gay lifestyle?”
David Roberts
Irrational Entity said:
Regarding gay relationships themselves, I agree with you. The transitory relationships seem shallow compared to those built on commitment.
If I understand correctly from your previous posts, you are unhappy with your sexual orientation (correct me if I am wrong), but seem to be rather reasonable and rational in your posts (in spite of your nickname!). With that in mind, I have to ask; is it your contention that same-sex relationships are by their nature transitory and without commitment?
Except for the bar scene, and that is rather dismal in both gay and straight arenas, committed relationships have by far been the norm in my life and those around me.
David Roberts
David,
Your opinion that John was not being sincere seems to be based partly on the idea that no gay person would say something anti-gay, which in your view apparently includes using the expression ‘the gay lifestyle.’ Since you think that my views are anti-gay, does this mean that you think I was lying when I claimed to be gay? Believe me, I wasn’t lying. No one who wasn’t gay could possibly be as obsessed with the issues of the causation and potential changeability of homosexuality as I am, and neither would they want to come to a gay website to have long arguments about them.
Denying that people are born gay or suggesting that it’s theoretically possible that most gay people could go straight if they really wanted to may be embarrassing or non-PC opinions, but they aren’t inherently anti-gay, as, for example, claiming that all gay people are child molesters (which I don’t believe) indisputably would be. Even supposing they were inherently anti-gay, that wouldn’t automatically stop gay people from holding them, and I’m sure gay people are as entitled to hold and express anti-gay opinions as anyone else. For someone like me, obsessed with my own murky and borderline sexuality, it is personally gratifying to discuss such issues. That is my motive. That, and the fact that I am very arrogant, and enjoy trying to prove other people wrong, but obnoxious as that is, it is not inherently anti-gay either.
I hadn’t forgotten being warned that I might be banned from posting. The warning was for several things, my alleged misrepresentation of source materials being only one of them. Is this another warning? I accept that I may not have represented some of my sources properly, but if not, this was inadvertent error on my part and not deliberate misrepresentation. I will address the subject again in more detail when and if it seems appropriate to do so. As for the ‘gay lifestyle’, people usually use this expression to suggest that homosexuality is a chosen behaviour rather than an inherent orientation, which can be argued. It’s also often used to describe a particular pattern of sexual promiscuity and drug use which most people who have much experience with gay life probably would be able to recognize.
David Roberts, I think you may be mistaking me for someone else. I am quite comfortable being gay, see no reason to alter my orientation, and consider the likelihood of such a shift in most homosexuals to be very small. Male homosexual relationships do seem to be proportionately less geared to commitment, though how much of this situation is the result of social forces or the male sex drive is something to ponder. I was expressing sympathy for and partial agreement with john’s viewpoint, as committed relationships can appear unlikely in certain circles. Obviously there are many same-sex couples who have maintained life-long relationship, and I would happily enter such an arrangement if I found the right person.
Regarding trolls, john may or may not be one, but I sometimes respond even to those I suspect are trolls. His wording did strike me as odd yet not beyond what someone may feel in certain situations.
ab, I believe the last definition that you brought up is the most contentious, though I would disagree with the chosen behavior understanding as well. By such a standard I have never lived the gay lifestyle, though the-forces-that-be will probably not take away my membership card anytime soon.
I apologize IE, I understand my confusion now – I need to stop posting while tired 😉 I took you for someone else.
I should have followed my own advice and just kept silent on John’s post. There was no single comment that made me suspect he was trolling, rather an entire stream of attitudes most commonly held by anti-gay organizations along with the fact that the thread is over a year old and entitled “Gays and Christians.” For whatever reason, a high percentage of posts coming in through old Google searches are trolls. Regardless, I think it must have been obvious to most as it seems it was to you.
Since none of this, including my own comments, are really on topic for this thread, I suggest we just let it go. Sorry for the detour folks.
David Roberts
My BS meter isn’t perfect, but I think I’m with David on this one. There’s just too much about it that doesn’t ring true. And here’s why:
1. It seems that John’s purpose was not to seek help but rather to establish a position: gay relationships are not long lasting. He stated his position and then tried to support it by claiming statistics (or observed statistics) and then an anecdotal story. It seemed more like an argument than an appeal.
2. John uses language that is specific to those who are in (or have contact with) anti-gay activist organizations. The term “lifestyle” is almost never used within any gay setting (especially by a 23 year old) and thus would not be the first phrase that came to mind for someone unfamiliar with anti-gay arguments.
3. John uses a phrase that is foreign to the gay community: “growing old in…”. Usually someone who was gay that was expressing this concern would say “growing old gay”. It’s a matter of an active tense (in) being applied. Most gay people think gay is something they are rather than something they are in.
4. The idea that gay people are “jealous of their relationship” is pure hype. No one within the community EVER expresses this term, and if they did they would not phrase it that way. Yet this is something that is a constant part of the anti-gay propaganda machine (I think this exact phrase is used in the video “It’s Not Gay”).
My conclusion is that John is not an actual gay person and, in fact, has little or no contact with actual gay people. Those who are quick to assume the opposite may want to rethink their motivation to do so.
Because I suspect John is a troll, I’ll avoid addressing his remarks specifically.
Moderator Action: Posting lengthy sections of scripture is not a comment nor does it contribute to debate, therefore it has been removed. You are welcome to comment, even to a thread this old, as long as it is germane and within our guidelines.
David Roberts