I laughed reading this account of ex-gay minister Tim Wilkins’ talk to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Apologetics Association, a student-led organization that exists to “promote the literal word of the Bible as logical and reasonable” (a dubious goal, in my estimation, but there it is). It’s pretty funny that even among a group of die-hard Bible believers (who, I presume, accept that Jonah actually dwelt in the belly of a whale) Mr. Wilkins encountered this much skepticism over his ex-gay claims. It speaks volumes about how the cultural debate has evolved–in our favor.
It also reminded me again how gay individuals and organizations ensnare themselves needlessly in arguments over the language of Choice. Once and for all, I wish we would just give up that tactic and concede right up front that we “choose” to be gay. Those words don’t mean what many people think they mean, but saying them aloud will strengthen our position. We ought to begin every argument over gay rights on that footing: Do we choose to be gay? Absolutely! And we love it! Who the hell are you to tell us we can’t be happy?
For context, it might be helpful to separate two entangled notions of “choice.” Do humans have a choice about who attracts us sexually? No, of course we don’t. Attraction is a chemical, biological phenomena, not subject to conscious will. Do we have a choice about whom we have sex with? Do we make choices about our sexual conduct and identity? Yes, of course we do. To say otherwise is silly.
It is the gap between these two different notions, and the lack of understanding most people exhibit about their own sexuality and sexuality in general, that creates the confusion around choice. Time and again, gay rights activists take the bait, bleating publicly about the fact that “no one chooses to be gay.” To counter that, the ex-gay folks need only prop up one professional ex-gay, to create a fake ‘gotcha’ moment. “You said no one chooses to be gay, but see? This guy chose not to be gay…” Producing one ex-gay, of course, proves nothing about any person’s sexuality but that one exgay’s. It’s a pointless PR stunt…but the masses buy it.
In truth, our response to the claim that we choose to be gay ought not to be a defensive one. We have no reason to hide. When asked why we would choose to be gay, we can simply say, “Because we can. It makes us happy. You don’t like it? Fine, you don’t have to, but there’s this little thing called the Constitution…” We have the upper hand every time the conversation goes in this direction.
So exgays exist. So what? The fact that one or two gay people have managed to manipulate their natural sexual attractions into a facsimile of heterosexuality proves Absolutely Nothing about what is possible or desirable for the rest of us.
When it comes down to it, the pressure to conform to heterosexual norms is simply religious discrimiation. Their God tells them we ought not to exist. But we don’t believe in their God, and the Constitution guarantees that we don’t have to. Sometimes it’s nice having the law on our side 🙂
Joe, Lovely! What a reasonable and sensible explanation of choice.
Why would we choose to be gay?
“Because we can. It makes us happy.”
That answer makes me happy.
Thanks!
Peterson
Joe,
I disagree. Strongly. And for three reasons:
1. Constitutionality
The Constitution does not protect “choices”.
For example, many cities disallow lap-dances. Everyone involved is making a conscious choice to participate and yet it is perfectly legal to forbid the activity.
In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court determined that private consensual gay sex could not be targeted for illegality because the Texas statutes were designed to discriminate against a class of people. If, however, gay people are not a distinct class of people but rather just indistinguishable folks making a choice to engage in certain sexual practices, then the protections found by the Supreme Court disintegrate.
2. Practicality
Regardless of what you wish or think should be, there are a very large number of people who defer in some degree or other to religious teachings. And that includes liberal churches as well as conservative ones.
One of the most important reasons that liberal churches support (to an ever increasing extent) equality for gay people is because they see them as persons having distinct traits, not as persons choosing activities.
To a liberal Lutheran, for example, it would be immoral to punish a gay person for an orientation they did not choose. He may even find it a moral imperative that he campaign against discrimination. However, if you tell that same Lutheran “I chose to be gay, so what”, not only do we lose an ally but could cause him to think “then we can pass laws discouraging your choice, that’s what!”
3. Honesty
While it may be tempting to say “I chose to be gay” as in-your-face activism, it isn’t true; at least not in the conventional meaning of the words.
Just because the ex-gay movement tries to deceive the public by changing the meaning of “I chose not be gay” to be equivalent to “I chose not to act on my sexual orientation” doesn’t mean we have to accept their distortions of the language.
And I’m not going to lie just to make a point.
We cannot fight lies with more lies, rather we must shed the light of truth on them. People will eventually see the lunacy in what they say.
We will not win the debate by conceding to liars. Or by joining them.
I wasn’t born into a Jewish family.
I know that the Holocaust was a dangerous time to be a Jew, and it still is dangerous to live as a Jew sometimes. In the Soviet Union, your Jewish background was repressed and practicing it was grounds for imprisonment.
Anti Jewish violence is very prevalent in Muslim controlled countries.
Jews are an ancient and diasporic group of people.
I go to temple, I can speak a little Hebrew and I am familiar with much of the rituals and ethnic differences within Jewish life.
I can set a kosher table and recite the Kiddush.
Some might say it’s a dangerous lifestyle to be Jewish, depending on where living as one is the most tolerated.
You could say that I sometimes choose to behave as Jew. I have chosen to do that from time to time.
You could also say that it doesn’t make much sense for me to behave that way or choose to because I am a black, native American, Irish hybrid who embraces her Chicasaw religion.
Jewish behavior is protected in this country.
I could also tell anyone who doesnt think I should behave like a Jew, because it’s confusing to THEM, to kiss my ass.
But the point is, being gay transcends all cultures and families universally.
It’s not a matter of whether you choose or not, because it’s not a culture to be gay.
I’m left handed. That’s my predominent aspect.
I can sometimes use my right hand too. It’s not as skilled, but I could adapt if I were forced to.
But I shouldn’t be forced to. Or my human rights suspended on condition of anything changing.
What the real question here is not whether or not we choose.
But whether or not we are forced to be what we’re not for ANY reason.
And BTW, SEXUALITY is protected.
It’s PATHOLOGY that isn’t.
Adultery isn’t treated like a CULTURE, and no one is making a federal case out of banning it or keeping consistent adulterers from marrying once or again.
Which is why moral objections to gays marrying flies right out of the window.
The fact remains there are cruelly coercive factors applied to homosexual people that leave the choice factor from any honest discussion.
Homosexuals don’t owe heterosexuals their identity and heterosexuals shouldn’t be demanding
it. They don’t need it.
Heterosexuals have to leave gay people alone, and assure that equality is the given it was promised.
Besides, since it’s only heterosexuals saying it’s a choice…why is it their’s is the only opinion taken as valid?
It’s not THEIR sexual orientation…so how would they know?
If being gay means to be same-sex-attracted, then I don’t see much if any choice available..
If it means to affirm same-sex-attraction, then clearly that is a choice.
If it means to participate in same-sex activity, then clearly that is a choice, also — though I disagree that “gay” means that.
And if it means — as progressives and exgays claim — to espouse a progressive ideology or political identity or to be extremely active and adventurous sexually, then that would be a choice, too. But I strongly disagree with those definitions, and I think those definitions in particular splinter people socially/politically, alienate otherwise sympathetic people, and encourage some same-sex-attracted people to closet themselves or identify as “exgay” out of rebellion or frustration.
So…. What does gay mean?
I will not lie about this, for a political stunt or otherwise.I prefer to approach problematic people like this:I did not chose to be gay. I realised it.I did not chose to fall in love with the person that I share my life with.I chose to be honest and happy. I am. I would not alter my life, even if I could.Why do you chose to so disrespectful of the lives of others?(So, no Joe — I won’t be following your suggestion 🙂 I’m not sure how a bisexual would answer, but I imagine it works just as well. Appreciate the piece anyway.)
It’s really quite sad to think that in 2005 we still are finding ourselves in situations in which we must justify our existence. The argument of sexuality being a choice has been refuted numerous times by credible researchers and specialists in human physiology and psychology. Yet, we still have groups of people, namely fundamentalists religions, who will not let go of ancient stereotypes that they themselves created out of ignorance and blind fear.
I will not give these people a chance to argue that sexuality is a choice and I will put it back at them in a manner that would show the utter stupidity of it. Grantdale hit it when he stated that asking those individuals who assert that our sexuality is a choice as to why they would choose to be disrespectful of others is just the way this argument needs to be shot down.
Timothy:
The actual text of the constitution IS on our side, just as the text of the constitution was a direct rebuke to second-class status for women and minorities. It took our culture awhile to come into line with our core principles…I’m not saying it won’t take awhile to work itself out, but the principles protecting liberty and equality are ALL on our side.
As far as honesty goes, honesty compels me to admit that there is some level of choice involved in my sexual identity. My whole point is, so what? It is no one’s business but mine.
Mike:
Exactly. What is Gay, anyway? It means different things to different people. I contend that our strongest tactical position is to defuse the choice conversation immediately by owning it.
“Yeah, it’s our choice. What’s it to you?”
Joe:
Well said. Try writing the article and being gay — hard to separate editorializing and sensational journalism. Interesting points on “choice.” I wish I would have fleshed that out a bit more. Maybe I will. But I, personally, agree. It’s a PR stunt. What the website doesn’t yet allow is for the masses to read the photo caption. “A UWM student asks Baptist preacher Tim Wilkins how it feels to return to the closet and repress his homosexual desires. Wilkins said he is no longer gay and doesn’t experience the unwanted same-sex attractions he once did.” For fun, a good friend of mine noted the age of his wife, 22. He also inquired whether she has short hair. “If he laid her face down and matted the hair – hey, whatever works…” Thanks for your insight. 🙂
Best, Bradley
Bradley, you did a great job with the article. Can you tell us how the members of this “Apologist” group felt after they heard his pathetic speech? Joe said that they seemed skeptical, but one of them seemed very happy to me:
—
“(It) was productive,” said Dustin Wales, AA president. “It presents the other side of it that people don’t hear. It gives them another option so they’re not stuck in the current lifestyle they’re in.”
—
So he thinks gays are stuck in a “lifestyle”. Did he invite all the gays to this event or did they show up on their own? If he thinks they are trapped in agony I’m surprised he would even want to be around them.
To me this sounds like this group just wanted to create a more anti-gay climate at their university and they had to drag in anyone they could find. Since Wisconsin’s legislature is run by anti-gay Republicans who are planning to ban most legal rights for gay couples, you would think this student group would have found a higher quality of ex-gay. This guy seems like an Andy Kaufman sketch.
I really respect what you are doing, Bradley. I’m so glad I’m not in college or high school today. It seems like the homophobia and the ugliness towards gays, the open hostility and denunciation of anyone who just wants some kind of honest life, is getting worse every year. I don’t know why so many claim that young people are more tolerant of gays.
Hate to tell you, but this discussion is nothing more than a reflection of the reason that I distinguish between “gay” and “same sex attracted.” There is a difference.
Bradley:
I’d like to echo Raj’s point, you did a great job with the article! It’s nice to know we have great young journalists like you on our side.
Raj, what are you saying regarding usage of the word “gay”? That we not use it at all?
Joe I think I’m the one who said that, not Raj, although I may have mixed the comments up.
I actually liked Joe’s commentary, and it all boils down to the fact that no one “chooses” to be homosexual, but we do choose to come out or be gay, which is a self-identity. But not only are we choosing to live honestly and openly when we come out, we are also choosing to accept a set of moral and ethical beliefs (or modify the moral/ethical beliefs with which we were raised) that include the concept that being gay is a normal, natural, and neutral part of being a human being – rare, yes, but not “abnormal.” That is where the First Amendment protections come in.
People like Wilkins are free to follow their own ethical and moral beliefs as homosexuals (bisexuals) and either remain celibate or have only relationships with opposite-gender people. I don’t think any of us have a problem with that.
But what they should not do is a) contend they have changed the essential nature of their orientation, because that is currently not proven to be possible in a scientific sense(and really, how do you ever prove someone wasn’t bisexual before they went “ex-gay” and got married?) and b) insist we all have to follow their moral and ethical belief system or face societal ruin – that is where they go beyond the pale.
My first reaction was to agree with Joe’s article. But Timothy’s input was very compelling — as usual! In the end however, I’m going with Joe.
I came out very late in life. I always knew I was “same-sex attracted” — there was never any doubt about that, nor was there any choice in it.
But for religious reasons, I chose to remain celibate. So, no, there was no double life of “slinking around in bars” for me. I also chose not to go for the charade (or especially the selfishness) of dating women.
But after a lifetime of loneliness and misery. I finally decided: no more! It was time to live my life in full with the gifts that God gave me. To do otherwise is to deny God’s creation in me; to reject God’s gift of life and capacity for love that he gave to me. It was at that point that I used my own voice to say out loud, “I’m gay.”
That was probably the single most conscious, deliberate decision I have ever made. And it’s the one that I’m most proud of precisely because it was my choice.
For all the talk about gay pride, it’s hard to be proud of what you don’t have control over. I can no more be proud of being attracted to other men than I can be proud of being attracted to chocolate or the color blue. If you’re going to be proud of something, be proud of what you do, which is grounded entirely in the choices you make. And for that, I’m very proud of being gay.
Joe,
I’m willing to bet that before the week is out some anti-gay website will say “Homosexual Activists admit being gay is a choice”. Why? Because they know (even if you don’t) that the surest way for them to sway public and legislative opinion agaist our basic freedoms is by stating that we could “be normal” if we chose to. That is the motivation behind the political face of the ex-gay movement.
If you want a sure-fire way to see your rights disappear, adopt the slogan “Yeah, it’s our choice. What’s it to you?”. You will find out what it is to them.
If you want to say “I choose to live my life openly” or “I choose to act on my orientation”, that’s fine.
But when you say “I choose to be gay” what the average person hears is “I chose my orientation”.
Perhaps you live in a place where your freedoms are assured and perhaps you only associate with people that think you are to be respected for whatever choices you make, but that’s not the case everywhere.
It is not an exageration – or even speculation – to say that adopting “It’s a choice” will result in young kids having that choice beat out of them.
Joe,
I re-read my comments and they come across as a personal attack. They aren’t meant that way.
🙂
Jim,
You said: “For all the talk about gay pride, it’s hard to be proud of what you don’t have control over.”
I respect your comments, but this is something that many homophobic commentors will say. If this is true as you say, you cannot have pride in being American (unless you weren’t born here), in being part of any ethnic group or culture, or in being part of a family. THese are things you have very little control over although people find pride in all these things.
Maybe pride comes in discovering heritage and a sense of self. I can’t think of many things that should make someone more proud than being out and gay. I am saying to people when I am open that they can’t hurt me. People cannot take anything away from me regardless of what they may try. That is pride, and gay people who have survived difficult situations should have pride.
Foster’s new entries have information on a conference at the LA Convention Center. It’s mostly to discuss or concentrate energies on
‘the homosexual problem’.
I’ll be showing all of this to my interested colleagues.
There’s also a gleeful post on the Texas anti marriage amendment vote.
He also has his own analysis of the TIME magazine article on gay teens.
The tone of his site speaks for itself and contradicts his stated compassion for homosexual people.
Depends on who he’s talking to, of course.
With two mouths to who would believe him or point out his contradictions.
I might not deliver my opinions with much concision, or sweetness.
But could you ever accuse me of talking from two mouths and using two faces?
Aaron,
You raise some very good points, and I think we’re not that far apart, really. In fact, the more I read your post, the more I think we’re saying the same thing. Violent agreement, as some would say. 🙂
The things you describe are pride in things that are the result of choices. For example, pride in being American comes about when you choose to identify with America, and you choose to adopt, defend, and contribute to the values of this country. Accident of birth doesn’t do it — we can expand on your example of those who weren’t born here. Immigrants who seeks American citizenship are often very proud of becoming Americans. But conversely, think of the Americans who travel to Europe and tell everyone they’re Canadian. 😉 There are many people who are American by accident of birth. That by itself does not engender pride — the ones who are proud are the ones who have chosen to be American with whatever sense of values, duty or accomplishment they derive from that identity.
Same for culture, ethnic group, family, etc. You have a choice: you can deny being part of that group (Remember the African-Americans who used to say they were Carribean “islanders” in the 1950’s?), or you can claim it and add your contribution to it. That is the choice.
And when it comes to family, what better example do we have but the many gay men and women who have had to leave their families of birth and form new families? They could have remained closeted and welcomed by their families of origin, but they chose not to do that. I’m guessing that many of them are more proud of their new families than their original ones.
I think pride begins in discovering heritage and sense of self, but it doesn’t end there. It ends in what you do with it: being out and gay, by your (and my) example. And surviving. Definitely surviving. I think we’re both proud of all of those who survived, because that was a choice as well — and an accomplishment to be proud of.
Regan- why not just ignore Foster? Every piece is basically the same- self-hating gay guy vents his self-hatred. His bread and butter are the reactions he stirs up in others. Why feed the beast?
Perhaps some of the difficulty that we are experiencing is the false dichotomy between choice and nature that anti-gay (and some pro-gay) activists have set up. The homophobes in the world have taken ownership of the word choice, and when we use that word they jump and say “Aha!” But of course, their use of the word “choice” is nearly always wrong. Dead wrong. And their dichotomy is false. Absolutely false.
We speak English too; we have as much right to the word “choice” as they do. And more so, we have a right to speak the truth. That truth is this: the opposite of choice is not automatically nature, and the opposite of something false is not automatically true.
What we need to focus on is exactly how anti-gay activists are wrong. And to do that, we need to be careful not to reflexively jump to the opposite position.
I understand that some say the Constitution doesn’t protect choices and that when someone says “I choose to be gay” others hear “I choose my orientation”. But I would argue that the constitution does protect choices (via the right to privacy and the first amendment, for example) and that when someone hears “I choose my orientation” that they heard wrong. And because they heard wrong, the constitution protects us there via the equal protection clause.
I think these are the kinds of arguments we need to be making.
James:
Oops, you’re right, my bad. Thanks for the input, everyone!
Mike
Raj, what are you saying regarding usage of the word “gay”? That we not use it at all?
I have no problem with the use of the word “gay.” I use it quite often. I actually do believe that it is a political/lifestyle term and is different than “same-sex-attracted.”
People may be “same-sex-attracted” but not be gay. Some reject the notion of being gay. I’ve known black and asian people who are same-sex attracted but who reject the notion of being “gay” because they believe it is white. I’ve also known people who are same-sex-attracted but don’t want to engage in sex until the “right guy” comes along.
Gay does not equate to same-sex attracted. And that was my point. I choose to be gay. I frankly don’t care whether I choose to be same-sex-attracted. Whether the SSA is genetic, or whatever, I really don’t care. Why should anyone else have the temerity to profess to have an interest in the matter? That is my basic point.
I think it so funny (talking about pride) that people (collegues, friends, spouse) think I am one of the toughest motherf****kers around. No one will mess with me. I am not a bodybuilder or anything like that, but I can have a pretty tough attitude. It is so funny when people find out I am gay because they can’t believe that someone as hardass as I can be am gay. You know what though–I have met some very tough, very strong gay people in my lifetime, which is funny since people will use gay as a weak term, but I know a lot of gay people (really smart gay people) who would mop up some straight people in a barroom fight. Few gay people I know are scared or will put up with crap. I am sure that there are some, but many gay people are the strongest people I know.
Re: …many gay people are the strongest people I know.
You got that right, bro.
Too right, Aaron.
For these reasons.
1. For continuing to want to get along and play well with heterosexuals regardless of how much crap is piled on gay folks.
Heterosexuals have no clue how much patience and compassion they’ve exploited…and they should know.
2. The local law enforcement is strongly reaching out to gays and lesbians. The recruitment drive has been fierce. Where rejection has occurred in military service, there may be a stronger showing in law enforcement and firefighting, of gays and lesbians.
If heterosexuals think they can be smug about not allowing gays and lesbians marriage licenses.
Now…gay folks will have badges…and guns.
And have been responsible for saving houses during brush fire season.
Heterosexuals really have no idea how good they’ve had it. Living with gay people.
Perhaps very soon, they’re going to have to show some gratitude that their public safety is in the hands of patient people with the real sense of civic responsibility…and justice.
The point I was trying to make is….gay folks are VERY tough to be this way among such ingrate heterosexuals.
Point taken Boo.
I could ignore Foster.
Except that he’s one of legions…that I really have to deal with directly.
Coming here to this site might help me figure out how to deal with them by
It’s exercise. Mental and psychological.
As a black woman, confronted with black men who tend to be very condescending to the women in their church communities…I’m just getting my spear sharpened up.
Ya feel me?
Regan- people who are out spreading misinformation in public definitely need to be countered. I was thinking mainly of the comments on his blog. That’s his little kingdom where he puffs himself up. He’s just not the kind of person who responds to engagement, so commenting on the blog would make you what we in the trade call a narcissistic supply source for him.
Point taken again, Boo.
The conference info was taken off his blog. Attempts to call the producer have been met with a number that doesn’t work.
The things that make you go hmmmm…
I do like to know what the gang here thinks of my observations. I might get a little preachy, I’ve noticed that.
But since I’m not gay, I don’t exactly know if what I say makes sense to everyone here.
There is a big, fat article by David Kupelian at WorldNetDaily today.
He mentions the gay agenda often. He highlighted a gay politician named Bauman, that struggled with his gay identity. Especially since Bauman was molested when he was five years old.
If you get a chance to read it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com
What Kupelian is doing, is headlining his article first with ‘the marketing of evil’ above another line on homosexuality. That is to say, putting evil in context with gay sexuality.
He also puts Bauman’s struggle in context with being gay, not with the social pressures against gay people that are unfair.
And he then backhands his attempt at compassion as if to say, how do we as a society help gay people with their unnatural inclinations. And turn them away from them.
He also very emphatically mentions the lack of genetic connection to gay orientation.
David and I used to have some very lively and regular exchanges. I wrote him about the tone and quality of his article and I wonder if he’ll write me promptly like he used to.
I’m thinking it’s getting down to the nitty gritty of gay identity, it’s ownership and those who demand it’s repression.
It was an exercise, if not on those who stubbornly want to hold onto stereotypes, but in how to handle moderate people. To simplify the discussion.
I always appreciate feedback from here.
The harder cases, I need to observe and challenge just to see if there is a common thread to how they respond.
Those in the ex gay movement don’t want to understand that even put nicely: to say that a gay person is required to abdicate their identity just so people will like them better or they’ll be allowed to have the protections guaranteed already in the law, is an insult on it’s face.
Any hetero (or former homosexual) that says they have gay friends, or cares about them, but supports wholly any program that denies a gay person even the right to be in a committed, monogamous and enduring relationship without challenge to that commitment, really doesn’t know any gay people or really cares about them and their happiness whatsoever.
And you see what happens to me when I point out this phony compassion and conceit.
I read Bauman’s book several years ago (I think I still have it)
What Kupelian doesn’t say is that Bauman eventually accepted his orientation, entered into a long-term loving relationship with another man and, last I heard, was perfectly happy.
The whole point of Bauman’s book was the tragedy of keeping things bottled inside and what it can do to you. It was also a bit of an expose on gay Washington in the late 70’s and the nasty politics surrounding his outing (it is not complimentary of Tip O’Neal or Jimmy Carter).
It is disingenuous of Kupelian to take selected portions of Bauman’s book out of context to try and make his point as though Bauman was in agreement with Kupelian’s position. Perhaps he thought no one would be familiar enough with an obscure 1986 political memoir of a gay conservative.
Most of Kupelian’s diatribe was a recitation of text taken out of context, mostly from After the Ball (which I mistakenly loaned to someone who did not return it). The rest of it is preaching to the choir (… as everyone knows, blah blah blah).
He reveals with great shock and horror that gays made an effort to clean up their image (imagine that) and that gay journalist question whether there’s any need for an anti-gay position to be quoted every time something vaguely impacts the gay community (the NGLJA suggested that perhaps since the KKK isn’t quoted everytime a black issue is raised, there’s no compelling need to find a god-hates-fags quote for “balance”).
Yeah. Woo.
Other than the context of the quotes and the anti-gay assumptions, there’s nothing new to this guy.
There’s not much to refute without just being nit-picky and saying “that’s out of context”.
The people who think it’s horrible to try to make homosexuality more accepted in society will be all whipped up into a tizzy. Those who don’t think its a bad thing to have a PR campaign to improve your image and refute stereotypes and lies will think “yeah, and so what”.
Timothy,
Since you are a Christian, I was just curious what you believe as to why you are gay, if it’s not a choice? Did God make gay people just as he made them str8- no big deal?
Marcus
Marcus,
Sexual orientation is generally accepted to be determined before the age of four. The best we are able to tell is that there is definitely some genetic component, though it is not a purely genetic trait in all cases.
It appears that there may be an “environmental” component as well, though there does not seem to be agreement as to whether this is biological in nature (hormonal levels in the womb) or whether there is some influence that is external to the birth process.
I don’t seem to fit in any of the explanations that the anti-gay religious folk offer up as their basis for the possible environmental factors:
I wasn’t molested.
Although I was never “good in sports”, I was familiar with sports, not the last chosen, and wasn’t intimidated by the jocks. I didn’t like baseball – it seemed to be mostly standing around – and quit little league after a few years. But football was fun because you could run around.
I wasn’t picked on or isolated by school kids (or not more so than usual). I was a smart-mouthed brat (so kinda liked by my peers) who did well in school (so was kinda liked by my teachers).
I didn’t have a distant father or a domineering mother (or vice versa).
I played like a boy. Thinking back on my childhood play right now I recall: playing cowboys and indians with Jimmy Green, dragging off my dad’s tools and spare boards to build a tree house in the lot across the street with neighbor kids, taking things apart and putting them back together (not always correctly), riding my bike, riding inner-tubes down the creek with Art and Paul (not too smart, I couldn’t swim), building cities with books and driving toy cars down the “streets”, and reading a lot. I don’t recall any dolls or little girl traits – wait, I do recall swinging on the bars with a little girl – she tried getting me to look up her dress and that wasn’t much fun.
So as for me, personally? I don’t know. Maybe I’m one of the purely genetic ones, if such a thing exists. Or perhaps hormones in the uterus (I’m the youngest of three boys and that seems to matter). Or perhaps some day we’ll find out that it’s because my mom fed me Gerber’s strained peas or because Mrs. Grissom had scary shoes.
I do know that the ex-gay folks and the anti-gay folks have not yet come up with anything that seems to apply to me.
As for whether I think God had a hand in it… yeah, I do. Just as He had a hand in my eye color (each of us brothers has a different eye color) and my shoe size. I’m just not arrogant enough to question His wisdom in this matter.
Timothy, I can relate to your post as my background is similar although I did identify with feminine traits but also masculine traits as well. I was always busy and was well liked for the most part and did very well in school right through university. I remember finding the male body appealing from as far back as I could put together a rational thought. Not entirely sexual at that point but fascinating and I’m still fascinated to this day and love looking at men. I understand your belief systems and your faith. However, I do not have beliefs. I do not believe in god or jesus christ and certainly not organized religion. I have enough background with it to make that decision, it was not made lightly, let me tell you. Belief just isn’t there for me, never has been. My question to you and others is that the ex-gay movement appears to be built around religion or “giving your life to christ”. I have not seen any instances where claims to change to heterosexuality, have been claimed without any references to religion. Are there any? Also, are there others on this blog who share my “disbelief”. Not judging, just curious.
Tim,
While I think a site focusing on ex-gay ministries and their claims is probably more likely to have those with some ex-gay experience and thus more likely to have people with at least a religious background, you certainly are not alone in being a doubter/agnostic/athiest/whatever.
I do think that there are people who have been involved with the same sex that are not at this time, but I don’t know if they would consider themselves “ex-gay”, per se. Some believe themselves to be bisexual and others may have only ever been interested in one particular person of the same sex. I suspect this to be more true with women than men.
The ex-gay movement, however, is almost exclusively religious. It is also politically conservative and frequently puts its political aims ahead of its care for its participants. For example, Exodus endorses sodomy legislation that, if enforced, would put its “stugglers” in jail. PFOX exists to oppose school programs that keep its future ex-gays from being beat up on campus.
(Do you ever wonder if Jesus Christ wants to change His name so he won’t be associated with his “followers”)
Thanks Timothy, I find the ex-gay movement very intriguing from the perspective that it is so entrenched with fundamentalist religion and is so friggin phoney. If it wasn’t so dangerous and wrong, I would laugh, but I’m not laughing. I find discussion on this site very interesting and less anger based than some websites, although sometimes I’m spitting nails after reading some of the articles. I really do think there is a big problem with apathy in the gay community and most are not aware of or either do not care what this toxic approach to religion really wants to do with gays: criminalize, stigmatize and annilate(sic) them.
Timothy,
Thanks for answering. You sound like a hottie. LOL.
I question God’s wisdom all the time because I don’t understand it. But I know God is smarter than me and in the end, that’s the only thing I can rest on.
Take care,
Marcus
I am the President of the Organization that brought Mr. Wilkins onto the campus of UW-Milwaukee and I would just like to say one important thing. Mr. Joe Riddle does not have all the facts, which makes sense since he is obviously not a part of the groups that were involved in this event. The fact is that this event had a majority of people who were not of the Christian faith… this was publicized through banners on campus, ads in the student newspapers, and flyers around campus… our group is about 1/100th the size of the LGBTs…. and their director made sure they knew about this event… even if it was to tell them not to come. But the fact that our banner that was down the hall from where the event was being held was stolen, the info packets on Tim’s life were ripped and placed in water fountains and garbage cans, clearly shows that this was not an all christian event. The other thing is that there were about 30-40 cell phones that just happened to go off one right after another for about 15 minutes. Also finally I got an email from the LGBT director here a couple days after the event saying that he heard that the “fight” was set up and if you were in attendance that was quite clearly the case.
In any event I’m glad people are still commenting on things they do not have first hand knowledge on because without those people stories would never become as colorful as they inevitably become. So thanks Joe, you have started the “fish story” that is sure to continue snowballing until some ludacris accounts of this event permeate the internet.
As far as the rest of the posts and “counter-posts” I don’t have the time or energy to respond to everything I believe needs a response. So I hope you guys all have an enjoyable time debating issues of choice and constitutionality.
Regards,
Dustin Wales
President Apologetics Association UWM
Jeeze, Dustin is pretty hostile young man.
First let me stipulate that I do not approve of efforts to disrupt Wilkins’ speech, I don’t like the trashing of his literature, and I don’t think taking down the banner was productive.
However I do need to point out one thing with what Dustin says. Because much of the audience was not in agreement with Wilkins, Dustin assumes that the audience had a “majority of people who were not of the Christian faith”.
In other words, if you don’t agree with Wilkins (and Dustin) then you aren’t a Christian.
Not only is this arrogant, it is unscriptural. I would refer Dustin to Romans 14. If the apostles who knew Jesus personally and spent years with Him could not agree on such issues as circumcision or eating meat and yet were still Christians, what makes Dustin think that disagreements on the ex-gay ministries somehow is a deciding point.
For those who don’t know:
Circumcision was the physical act that symbolized God’s contract with man – if you weren’t circumcised, you did not follow Jehovah (the old testament name for God). No argument or debate. Yet the early church made a very radical wild discovery that God didn’t really care as much about the penis as he did about the heart.
As for the meat issue, for pete’s sake it was OFFERED TO IDOLS. There’s no way that Christians could POSSIBLY eat meat offered to idols. It’s idolatry!!! Read your Bible!!! James Dobson would be horrified!!! And yet Paul said “hey, it’s meat and I’m eating it. No big deal”.
Basically, what Romans 14 says is if you feel guilty about something, fine don’t do it. But don’t judge those who have reconciled themselves with God – even if you think it’s bad bad bad. And those who have no problem with something, be courteous and don’t do it in front of your fellow believers who would be offended. In other words, be loving.
I have certainly found all of these posts interesting. I hope I’m not too late to comment and that you are all still reading.
I’m not gay although as a child I did have some same sex experiences. I’m say I’m not gay though, because the thought of kissing or doing more than the little we did was a huge turn off to me. I believe at the time I was more curious and trying to overcome confusion than anything. I am still confused though and am sincerely asking for comments that might help me clarify my thoughts.
I was raised as a Baptist preacher’s kid so I have a pretty good understanding of where Timothy is coming from. My problem is that I have an attraction that is definately not my choice. Ever since I can remember I have been attracted to young girls. We’re talking 10 and younger which most sane people find horrible. Please understand that I am in no way equating my attraction with homosexualality (so please don’t be offended), but I do have some of the very same feelings and issues that closet gay friends I’ve had over the years have experienced. I even faked being gay and went to one of the ex-gay groups to try to get help. By the way, I do not act on my attractions other than to admire them or through fantasy. I am married to a wonderful lady who I do love but I’m just not as physically attracted to as I am to the girls.
I say all that because if it is true that sexual attraction is something we don’t “choose” and sexual actions are things we do “choose”, then why is there not an outcry from groups wanting pedofiles to be accepted (as long as they don’t act outside of the law). Why are my atrractions said to be a sickness but other attractions are said to be a normal part of life.
Again, I am not trying to cause a problem by asking this. I sincerely want to hear answers and thoughts. Also, if any of you know how I can be cured of this horrible “sickness” please let me know because I am 40 years old and have been “suffering” all my life (sorry, there is not any other terminology I know of to use). And please remember before you tell me all the torturous things that need to be done to me; I do not act out on my attractions and I wish with all my heart that I didn’t have them.
Thanks in advance,
John
“I say all that because if it is true that sexual attraction is something we don’t “choose” and sexual actions are things we do “choose”, then why is there not an outcry from groups wanting pedofiles to be accepted (as long as they don’t act outside of the law). Why are my atrractions said to be a sickness but other attractions are said to be a normal part of life.”
Because there is no healthy way for your attractions to be acted on.
“By the way, I do not act on my attractions other than to admire them or through fantasy.”
Even this really isn’t a healthy thing to do. Sexualizing a little girl, even if it’s only in your mind, is still violating her.
The only way I’ve ever heard of to diminish these kinds of attractions is through testosterone-suppressing medication. You could probably ask your doctor. If you make it clear you have never committed any criminal activity towards children and have no intention to, then they would have to keep it confidential. Honestly, I hope you do this.
John,
I have a few comments.
FIRST, I don’t believe you.
The nature of your post seems less of a plea for help than an argument against acceptance of gay people. You’ve constructed a straw man argument which is evidenced in the following:
“..if it is true that sexual attraction is something we don’t “choose” and sexual actions are things we do “choose”, then why is there not an outcry from groups wanting pedofiles to be accepted..”
Other than the fact that anyone who had suffered for years with attractions to children would know how to spell “pedophile”, you first state that you are not comparing pedophilia with homosexuality, and then do just that.
Also you seem uncommonly conversant with the anti-gay vernacular. Certain word popped out of your posting such as “trying to overcome” and “attractions” (which is almost never used in the plural outside of gay rights debate).
SECOND, assuming you (or someone like you) exist, there is a significant difference between sexual desire directed toward an equal of the same sex and sexual desire for a child.
Homosexuality assumes that two adults mentally capable of consensual reciprocal affection are able to find in each other their complementary partner. Each brings to the other their personalities and perspectives. This is true whether forging a lifetime or in a one-night stand.
Even when expressed in its crudest sexual form, it is still a meeting of two parties capable of informed mature consent. When expressed in its most refined form, it is first a meeting of minds consummated by a physical act.
Pedophilia assumes no meeting of equals. There is no component of pedophilia that includes the bringing of personality and perspective but rather the opposite, that of immaturity and innocence. Implicit in the very definition of pedophilia, there is no possibility of a lifetime bond and the only expression possible is sexual.
So, I’m sorry. We are not a very valuable resource for you. Our experiences do not closely mirror yours and we have nothing to offer you.
James:
***Can you tell us how the members of this “Apologist” group felt after they heard his pathetic speech? Joe said that they seemed skeptical, but one of them seemed very happy to me:
“(It) was productive,” said Dustin Wales, AA president. “It presents the other side of it that people don’t hear. It gives them another option so they’re not stuck in the current lifestyle they’re in.”***
They were all thrilled. That was why I included the article. I actually asked Wales how he saw the interruptions, outrage, shouting and disgusted faces leaving the program as “productive.” That’s where the second part of his quote comes in.
***So he thinks gays are stuck in a “lifestyle”. Did he invite all the gays to this event or did they show up on their own? If he thinks they are trapped in agony I’m surprised he would even want to be around them.***
No, he didn’t invite gays per se. Wales sent out press releases to the campus newspapers and city daily. He also distributed a great deal of bulletins advertising the event. Word spread like wildfire. I actually marched to the LGBT Resource Center on campus to get its reaction to an event being held.
Interestingly, and true enough, many of these kinds of events are staged on Matthew Shepard’s anniversary, coming out week and the day of silence. It speaks mounds of the respect these organizations lack.
***To me this sounds like this group just wanted to create a more anti-gay climate at their university and they had to drag in anyone they could find. Since Wisconsin’s legislature is run by anti-gay Republicans who are planning to ban most legal rights for gay couples, you would think this student group would have found a higher quality of ex-gay. This guy seems like an Andy Kaufman sketch.***
Many on campus hold a similar view point. The LGBT Resource Center’s official stance is it created a hateful climate and that conflicts with one’s right to free speech.
Having been in attendance of the event, and in response to Dustin Wales’ commentary:
30-40 cell phones did not go off, this is a grotesque exaggeration. Maybe a dozen did simultaneously and it would suggest it was planned yes.
It was disrespectful. I didn’t see as much destruction and chaos as the picture Wales’ paints but any destruction is chaotic.
Wales’ actually got a taste of what it’s like to run a student organization. Problems arise, both that can be seen and not.
There were a select, small few who chose to destructively lash out against Wilkins — leaving more than the clear majority as innocent of the acts contended.
It’s a shame, really. There are more appropriate ways of handling things. Wilkins dealt with hard questions by ignoring them or shouting and yelling (a successful intimidation tactic). Those who were not happy with Wilkins’ methods made it clear by interrupting with questions and comments.
It’s all a matter of perspective, that’s for sure.