The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has released a report entitled
Youth in the Crosshairs: The Third Wave of Ex-Gay Activism
A key finding of the report shows that, in this third wave of ex-gay activism, ex-gay programs and their evangelical Christian right allies are focusing less on “curing” adults of homosexuality and more on preventing its development by targeting parents, children and adolescents. Whether through ex-gay teen programs or traveling ex-gay conferences like Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out ex-gay programs are recommending that parents commit their children to treatment of “prehomosexuality” even if it is against their children’s wishes. Heterosexual youth are also being recruited in schools and churches to spread the message that homosexuality is a treatable mental illness.
I’ve not yet reviewed the full report and will addend to give my observations when I have.
The full report can be downloaded here.
ADDENDUM AFTER THE JUMP
I’ve still not completed the report but find it, at first observation, to be poorly written. A few of my objections are
Falsely Attributing Quotes
Throughout the report I found a number of times when the writers of the report put words in the mouths of ex-gay ministries and others. For example, on page 10 they claim that those who came out of reorientation therapy had poor relationships with their parents because their therapist “told them to blame their parents”. Later they say their therapists “told them God was ashamed of them”. Neither quote is footnoted and both seem highly suspect.
A Basic Misunderstanding and Stereotyping of Ex-Gay Ministries
The authors repeat several times that ex-gay groups claim that homosexuality is a mental illness. On page 32, the authors claim “the overall social and political agenda of the ex-gay organizations remains the same: to turn the clock back to a time when homosexuality was considered a disease and to oppose any and all legal protections for LGBT people.” Yet I haven’t heard language from ex-gay groups claiming that homosexuality is a mental illness. The claim isn’t supported yet the authors rail time after time against this straw man.
They claim that ex-gay leaders use ex-gays as “evidence that sexual orientation is a choice”. Yet most ex-gay ministries do not claim that same sex attraction is a choice. While they do say that living a “homosexual lifestyle” is a choice, that is a significant distinction, and one that NGLTF does not make.
The report also says that it is a “common message of ex-gay programs” that “homosexuals either have HIV or will become infected in the future”. Having not attended an ex-gay program, I can’t speak about what is said within the program. However, I would certainly hesitate to say that was a common external message of ex-gay programs.
Additionally, they convolute ex-gay and anti-gay. While often times the players are the same, sometimes they are not. The Day of Truth program created and pushed by the Alliance Defense Fund is given as an example of direct action in schools employed by the ex-gay movement. While Day of Truth uses ex-gay propaganda, neither it nor ADF could be legitimately used as an example of the ex-gay movement.
Reactionary Language
I probably should not be surprised at reactionary language from NGLTF. Nonetheless, it does diminish the credibility of the report when you use sentences like “What are these ex-gay teen programs and why would parents take the drastic step of forcing their children to attend one?”
Infringement on Privacy
The authors make extensive usage of Zach Stark’s story, including quoting from his online journal. Not only is this inconsiderate and intrusive (assuming that Zach did not authorize it) but it is also foolish. We have not heard from Zach as to whether he hated or loved his time a Love In Action. This could come back to bite them.
Unsupported Conclusions
On page 24 the authors use the following sentence: “The relationship between FOF and NARTH, and the important role it plays…, cannot be understated.” But they don’t explain the relationship other then when Dobson praises a book by Nicolosi. If it can’t be understated, then state it.
Also at 50 pages in – when I gave up – there still had been only minimal evidence that the ex-gay movement has changed its focus from reorienting gay people to preventing prehomosexuality. It seems that it is clear that the ex-gay movement has at least broadened its scope, but for the primary conclusion of the report, NGLTF had not yet presented any significant evidence. Perhaps in the last half, the conclusions are given some support.
Some Praise
This report does compile in one place some of the history of the ex-gay movement. Also it may help focus more attention on the lies, failures, and questionable motives of many ex-gay ministries.
Also, the report from the Love Won Out conference was informative.
However, NGLTF had a chance to produce a useful comprehensive report. Instead they used stereotypes and demonization. And that’s unfortunate.
Hi Daniel,
I actually wrote a review of the report. You actually should get to reading the whole report, because the best content is in the last 50 pages. Much of the social research supporting some of their assertions (particularly about people’s experiences with reorientation therapy) is contained here. The first 50 pages is basically just a broad description of “ex-gay” groups. Being a broad description, it will leave out a lot of the citations that you wanted to see.
I didn’t see your objections as a big deal because while “ex-gay” groups may not explicitly say something, there are always implications. For instance, they may not say that homosexuality is a mental disorder (NARTH actually does say this), it is implied in the rhetoric that homosexuality is pathological. And I personally have heard “ex-gay” people inflate the dangers of HIV.
I also think the relationship between FOF and NARTH is self-evident from the report. Nicolosi speaks at LWO conferences and Dobson did, in fact, cite Nicolosi in one of his articles–even adopting Nicolosi’s idea of “prehomosexuality.” This shows a common viewpoint.
As far as your objection that the ADF is not the be equated with “ex-gays,” the ADF is connected with the “ex-gay” targeting of youth because “ex-gay” discourse is USED in their so-called “Day of Truth.”
I have my own criticisms of the report, which can be read at https://www.queertoday.com.
Solidarity,
Brian
oops, i thought you were daniel gonzales. sorry timothy!
Timothy, I have not read the report and I’m not here to defend it. But I think you need to temper some of your criticism or provide some more evidence. Failure to specifically identify a source does not constitute “falsely attributing quotes,” just failure to attribute sources. And if you haven’t heard an ex-gay group calling homosexuality a disease that can be cured then you aren’t paying much attention to the ex-gay groups. Exodus, as an easy example, refers to “homosexual tendencies” as a “disorder.” Not homosexual behavior, but homosexual tendencies–which can then be “healed” through their brand of Christ. And then there is NARTH, which is all about treating homosexuality as a mental illness.
Ex-gay and anti-gay nearly always go hand in hand. I don’t think it is at all unreasonable for a gay rights organization to paint the ex-gay industry with a broad brush. It’s not as if it were a tiny fraction of the ex-gay industry which also actively works against gay rights legislation.
I agree that it is unwise to bring Zach Stark into the report. Until Zach is old enough to be completely free of his parents, no one–not even Zach–will understand the full ramifications of his visit to hetero-reeducation camp. However I don’t think it’s an invasion of privacy–his dad pretty much took his privacy away when he went on the 700 club.
And I agree that FOF’s role needs to be played up as much as possible. FOF is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. As long as they are allowed to maintain their slightly-less-extreme image, they will continue to carry weight with the uninformed while their well-funded surrogates carry out the dirty work for them.
Timothy, I disagree regarding “Misunderstanding and Stereotyping of Ex-Gay Ministries”. I’ll explain :)you just swapped from “ministries” to “groups”, you realise? And that’s where I’m not following you. As far as I’m concerned, any group providing any exgay “service” is an exgay group. The ADF is — it funds and organises an exgay day. FOTF is — it funds and organises Love Won Out. You don’t need to be providing counselling or ministry. And it need not be your only business activitywhen all that Exodus refer to for support of their medical claims are groups that do call homosexuality a mental illness… Exodus is taking a side. Their literature is chock full of “pathology” and “healing” and “childhood disturbance” etc. They claim time and time again, specifically, that homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a mental illness for no scientific reason. Excuse me for mistaking that meant homosexuality is not a mental illness. The effect of what Exodus says, and the way they say it, is what matters. And people are left in no doubt, wink wink, that homosexuality is still a mental illness regardless of what gay activists groups like the APA say.If you claim that anyone gay can become straight — or lead others to think that – then you are claiming not nly homosexual behaviour but homosexual attraction is a choice. Afterall, you could change into heterosexual but you chose not to. So it’s a choice, no? Please don’t mistake that dynamic with Exodus saying that initial homosexual attractions are “not often chosen”.Conflate exgay with anti-gay??? Well, yes — for good reason. I’m willing to stand corrected, but is there anyone you can nominate that would show that assumption to be wrong? I have yet to encounter anyone associated with even the remotest corner of the exgay movement that is not ultimately anti-gay. Appealing to anti-gay religious beliefs is, of course, also anti-gay.They have been called, IMO, correctly about throwing out inflated and false claims about how gay men (in particular) and lesbians live. Some bang on about HIV and early death. Others domestic violence, drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, faked love in relationships or whatever. Again, I am willing to stand corrected but is there any group you can nominate that says “living as gay is fine and dandy, but we don’t want to”?Without picking the paper apart any further (see below…) I will agree the language, wording etc is rather bleauh. Perhaps a matter of taste. I wouldn’t write it all the way the NGLTF did, but then again I didn’t write it (!)I also see a rather thin thread running throughout a report supposedly about targeting gay youth. Much of the paper is about nothing to do with that subject. It seems like it’s two papers cobbled together. I would had categorically left any reference to “Z” out of the paper. See, I just showed them how they should have done it :)That’s it for now. Hon’s home and we’ve got friends about to turn up and I’ve got to iron a frock. And it’s a pleasant 91degF tonight — perfect weather for the Flying Duck and it’s beer garden I think…
Timothy, I would concur with the suggestion that you should read the entire report before making judgments.
After going throught the NGLTF report twice, I would agree that the writing quality could be improved and that using Zach Stark’s blog snippets was unwise. While much attention is being focused on getting to queer, questioning, and GLBT-supportive kids and on this concept of “prehomosexuality,” I don’t see any reduced call for adults to “change,” and yes, many in the exgay world – though not all – DO say that homosexuality is chosen and blame those who “fail” to change. If that doesn’t connote that a person had a choice in the matter, I don’t know what does.
To these eyes, which belong to a person who has researched the issue for a decade and has experienced the exgay world from the inside, the research and anecdotal evidence provided appear for the most part solid – and yes, the best stuff comes later in the document. Frankly, despite its flaws, I find the report an important and necessary counterpoint to the ex-gay propaganda that assaults us with increasing frequency and fury.
Timothy,I think your review this time could have been better balanced. In particular you said “…they claim that those who came out of reorientation therapy had poor relationships with their parents because their therapist “told them to blame their parents”. Later they say their therapists “told them God was ashamed of them”. Neither quote is footnoted and both seem highly suspect.”
I don’t know how you see that as highly suspect, it sounds exactly like the sort of thing I’ve heard from ex-exgays posting at XGW and certainly is my summarized impression of exactly the sort of thing Exodus says.
You said they made the reactionary statement “What are these ex-gay teen programs and why would parents take the drastic step of forcing their children to attend one?” which diminishes the report’s credibility. I’m mystified as to why you think that, sounds like a perfectly reasonable question to me.
Finally, this comment troubled me:
“They claim that ex-gay leaders use ex-gays as “evidence that sexual orientation is a choice”. Yet most ex-gay ministries do not claim that same sex attraction is a choice. While they do say that living a “homosexual lifestyle” is a choice, that is a significant distinction, and one that NGLTF does not make.”
This is similar to my beef with Exodus saying “complete change is completely possible”. You may see a significant distinction but I seriously doubt anyone not well familiar with Exodus’s word games would – that means most of the public. When most people hear “living a homosexual lifestyle is a choice” they are going to think that means you don’t have to choose to be same sex attracted. If they had said “one can choose whether or not to act on same sex attractions” that would be acceptable. Saying “living a homosexual lifestyle is a choice” may not technically be a lie but it certainly is for all practicle purposes.
Timothy, I think in striving to be fair and balanced to the “exgays” you’ve overcompensated this time.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 3, 2006 12:57 PM
Damn, did it again, the above post was me, Randi Schimnosky
Whew… I stirred up some ire, didn’t I. 🙂
Let me address a few things:
First, my primary objection was that the report was poorly written – and I still stand by that assertion. Perhaps some will not agree with me on a particular or two. And that’s OK.
I was perhaps a bit harsh because I was initially happy to see the report and hoped for something focused, thoughtful, well written, and useful. What I saw instead was a whine written to those who share the authors’ initial assumptions. This is not at all a useful tool to approach the ex-gay movement, or even to approach those in the middle or undecided.
I’ll mention two themes of those who disagree with me here and why I hold to my guns on this.
It is of no value whatsoever to set up straw men. If someone hasn’t said “homosexuality is a mental illness” or “homosexuality is a choice”, then we win nothing by claiming they have and trying to justify it by saying “well, but that’s what can be extrapolated from what else you’ve said”. We don’t win those arguments and it takes away from our real message. Let’s not put words in the mouths of our opponents, they say plenty that we can point to without this distraction.
Let us not lump everyone together and generalize. Anti-gay groups use ex-gay claims, but they would not consider themselves an ex-gay ministry. It probably is fair to call the ex-gay groups “anti-gay”, or at least the national ones, but the reverse isn’t true. ADF’s Day of Truth is not an ex-gay effort. They spout some of the claims of the ex-gay groups, but they make no pretense at being an ex-gay ministry.
Here at XGW, we hold those who criticize us to a standard of honesty. I think that to have any integrity we have to hold those who agree with us to the same standard.
This report makes claims that are not true. This report stereotypes and lumps people and groups together. This report relies on limited information and extrapolates broad interpretation. This would infuriate us if it were anti-gay activists doing it, so I’m not willing to give pro-gay activists a pass.
(but I do appreciate the feedback and it is a good point that I probably should have completed the report before critiquing it)
Looks like everyone recruits… 😉 (see the last paragraph links)–Autumn–Parents Sue Over Forced Pro-Homosexual ‘Safety’ Workshop March 2, 2006Traditional Values Coalition Parents of Kentucky children forced to undergo “safety” training that promotes the homosexual agenda have filed a lawsuit to opt out their children.Federal Judge David Bunning says that students in Boyd County Schools have no religious or free-speech rights to opt out of an ACLU/Gay Straight Alliance diversity training program. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is representing three parents who are challenging mandatory homosexual diversity training. The ADF may appeal Bunning’s decision to the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. TVC reported on this case last week: Kentucky Children Forced To Take Pro-Homosexual Training. Read and distribute TVC’s report: “Homosexuals Recruit Public School Children,” that describes the homosexual strategy of using “safety” as an excuse to push the homosexual agenda in public schools.
Timothy — I hope we didn’t come across as unappreciative either. We’re also mighty glad to see the NGLTF pull this 100 pages together: it’s very useful, and long overdue.But I disagree that exgay groups are not projecting homosexuality as a mental illness. They are, whether they call it a “developmental condition” or “mental illness” specifically. Same. Same. Our brains have gone awry, hence our homosexuality.But… it is also true that the language has been deliberately altered in the last 3-5 years (under, I suspect, the direction of FOTF). Piecing together the dialog over that time, I can see it went something like this (pls excuse gross liberties taken for brevity)exgay groups call homosexuality a mental illnessrealise this sounds harsh and realise such behaviour is being rejected by Joe Public, and is at odds with the clear declarations of every authorative mental health body that “homosexuality is not a mental illness”find other terminology. But leave everyone in no doubt that gay men and women have a “mental problem”. So, they have “a gender identity deficit”. Or they are “confused about sexuality”. Ditto the use of “cure” — now these people “can move into healing”.I am in the middle of trying to piece together the way the rhetoric has changed over the years, and link it to specific events on a timeline. (Yeah, I should never have started that… the rate it’s coming along they will have changed everything again before I finish!)What hasn’t changed is the impression about gay men and women that the rhetoric-d’jour is attempting to influence — let alone the underlying negativity, which has not changed at all.You do have to go back a few years to see a bald statement like this:
If we do not except the exgay semantics-dance around “change”, I don’t see why we should deny it around “mental illness” or “cure”.And hope I also didn’t confuse on exgay v. anti-gay. I realise exgay groups are anti-gay, and that anti-gay groups are instead using exgay groups (rather than being wholly exgay; although some are in part: ie FOTF and LWO). But given the attitudes of exgays, the working relationships, the financial support and the reliance of each on each other to support their positions; it’s impossible not to conflate the two at present.A very different story to gay and “the activist liberal left”. Log Cabins, 26% voting Repub… and yourself… show such a similar conflation to be unwise and inaccurate 🙂 On specific isues they can both agree, but that makes no case for them being dependent on each other.I see no real reason for someone exgay to be anti-gay if they were genuinely only concerned with wishing to live their life as they wanted to. Hence, I see no reason for exgay groups to be anti-gay; if all they are doing is supporting individual members. The fact that they consistently are illustrates an important point.Well, I think it does.
Agape Press reports on RR reaction to NGLTF report: Focus, Exodus Respond to ‘Gay Task Force’ Criticism of Reparative Therapies By Jody BrownAgapePressMarch 3, 2006Article excerpt: Both Focus on the Family and Exodus International are responding to the report and to the criticism being launched their direction. The two ministries affirm that change is possible for anyone, including teens, struggling with homosexual desires — and that the fashion in which they present their information is both “compassionate and appropriate.” … Maier, psychologist-in-residence for the Colorado-based ministry, continues. “Though the road to change can be difficult, the research is clear that many gay men and women who have sought reorientation therapy have been able to achieve fulfilling, long-term heterosexual relationships,” he says. “Tragically, the NGLTF ignores this research — and the evidence of changed lives — in pursuit of its duplicitous social agenda.”
With all respect, Timothy, the fact that you didn’t go through the entire document before critiquing it renders your criticisms meritless and egregiously unfair. If you are going to hold gay or ex-gay groups to a high standard, you first need to measure yourself by that same elevated bar. I give you kudos, however, for being upfront about your failure (at least at the time) to read the entire report.
Do note that a number of respondents have agreed with you that the NGLTF report has its flaws:
Anti-gay groups indeed aren’t necessarily ex-gay groups. Nothing is won by saying otherwise.
Using stereotypes is beyond the pale; the report is at times guilty of that.
Does it rely only on limited information? That is debatable.
But what really irks me is the assertion that the report is playing fast and loose with many ex-gay and anti-gay groups’ promotion of the idea that “change” is the goal and that homosexuality is a mental disorder. That is patently untrue. As has been previously noted, the Orwellian doublespeak they employ changes with the wind. Never forget that these groups are all about marketing and PR – they are now savvy enough to avoid saying the literal words if at all possible, but the phrases they use force extrapolation to suss out their true meanings.
Like it or not, those meanings are quite clear: They DO want rank-and-file Americans to believe that gays should and can change. They DO want us to believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder that can be cured.
Don’t damn us – and the report – for seeing through the smokescreen and stating the ugly TRUTH behind it. What? Because they are intelligent enough to avoid the words “change,” “cure,” and “mental illness,” we’re supposed to ignore the fact that that is directly what they’re communicating? Many of us refuse to allow that to slide by without translation. We cannot. And I don’t see how fair play and “honesty” are violated by doing so.
Well hey, Natalie — if Warren Throckmorton et al can make psych. comments on a movie he’s never actually seen… surely Timothy can make comments on a paper he hasn’t actually entirely read?That, BTW, was a rudeness to both of you :)If I may make some suggestions:Timothy, read the whole freakin’ thing. (But you saw that coming didn’t you…)Natalie, wait. Don’t be so hasty. Timothy will read it all. And he will be sensible and reflective. We will appreciate his perspective.What is it we are all working toward again?
I interviewed Jason Thompson of “The Portland Fellowship” exgay ministry on TV. You can watch the webcast free here:
https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247/
I asked him questions like:
— “Are gays born that way?”
— “Are there REALLY any such things as former gays?”
— “Do all gays live miserable, depressed lives?”
— “Can homosexuals change?”
Plus many other questions.
My blog article is also here:
https://fgn.typepad.com/freegoodnews/2006/03/formation_can_g.html
…Bernie
Mr. Dale, I am working toward equality for all under law and freedom (for myself and those I love) from the specter of the ex-gay movement and its politics (which necessarily doesn’t include ex-gay people as individuals; however misguided I believe them to be, and some are quite lovely humans, they have the right to do as they will and find happiness in any way – except if it comes at my expense).
Hi Timothy. I haven’t read the report (shame on me) but I agree with some of your general criticisms. I believe it is easy for people who care about this issue on all sides to become sloppy in our language and debate, although I still think that those of us on the ‘reality-oriented’ side of the discussion are far less prone to unsubstantiated claims than much of the ex-gay leadership.
I did want to point out what I see as one error in your criticism. You say that the NGLTF report misrepresents ex-gay ministries as claiming that homosexuality is a mental illness. If the language of disease is not a position taken by ex-gay groups, it definitely is a popular position taken by many individuals or organizations who support and promote those groups and hold up ex-gays as an example of how homosexuals can be ‘cured’ (just read the public statements of MN Senator Michele Bachmann).
However the quote you reference from the report talks of “a time when homosexuality was considered a disease”. Until the mid-1970s homosexuality definitely was considered a diagnostic category of mental illness, and public ex-gay statements often refer to the psychiatric profession’s change of stance as having to with the power of the so-called ‘homosexual lobby’ rather than any scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a mental illness.
Ex-gay ministries also talk a great deal about curing or healing the homosexual ‘orientation’. Such langauge seems to assume that homosexuality or some part of the homosexual ‘orientation’ to be a disease (or at least a spiritual disease) even when homosexual ‘conduct’ is considered a sin. Their positioning is generally not consistent in this respect. For instance, while the Exodus web-site refers to homosexuality as ‘sin’ and ‘struggle’, it also devotes space to talking about ‘healing’ from homosexuality and quoting approvingly from the literature of reparative therapy.
Sin can only be repented of, not healed, so what is it that ex-gays are supposed to be ‘healed’ of, if not a disease? My own experience with ex-gay treatment as a youth was that the focus shifts back and forth between sin and sickness with remarkable fluidity, depending often on their perception of your degree of compliance to the program’s requirements.
So I think it is reasonably fair to characterize ex-gay groups and writings as making a strong connection between homosexuality and mental illness, even if those claims are not entirely consistent with other messages.
Mark,
I think that my problem with claiming that the ex-gay groups categorize homosexuality as an “illness” is in the way “illness” and “healing” are used differently by evangelical Christian groups than by secular society.
For example, a Christian would pray that God heal them from having a gossiping spirit (a tendency to gossip too much). That doesn’t mean that they truly think they contracted a virus that make them gossip (or even that some external demon was forcing them to gossip) but rather that they want God to “heal” them by bringing them in closer allignment with his plan for them. Much of the conservative Christain language about “healing” is relating to spiritual healing. However, to a secular person, the term “heal” involves sickness or disease.
I think that when the ex-gays use “healing” they are not necessarily indicating that they believe that homosexuality is a clinical disease. I think that the contributors to the report were not adequately sensative to (or aware of) the subtleties of language and the culture of conservative Christianity and as a consequence made some assumptions that don’t hold true.
There may be some ex-gays (or anti-gays) who believe that homosexuality truly is a mental illness and should be classified as such. But I was disappointed in the report in that it seemed to leap at this conclusion.
There is much good in the details of the report, but I don’t find the conclusions well substantiated.
I am a 16 yr. old former homosexual. If it wasn’t for these “ex-gay” ministries helping us with the discouragement and emptyness of homosexuality and the love of God and my family and friends I would have already committed suicide last summer. I have not had relations with a man for over a year. I thank God all the time for these ministries who show what true love is, what a TRUE family is. The “pro-gay” groups care about themselves, I had questions that they couldn’t even understand much less answer. Thanks to false reports sent out by them I am even more fueled to share God’s healing grace to those who feel that “this is the way I was meant to be”. The “pro-gays” are a selfish bunch of people who hold on to lies that they cannot sell off as possiblities. True love wins everytime!
Stewart, I doubt that most people here desire for anyone to come to harm or be misinformed. Your statements regarding pro-gay groups are rather broad, so I do not know what you mean. Speaking for myself, everyone should have the opportunity to make their own informed decisions about sexuality and behavior.
Yes Stewart, true love wins every time.You deserve true love as much as anyone. Including gay men and women.I am concerned you seem to be saying you were having sex at 15, and with an adult (?). To be perfectly honest, if you live in the U.S. that man has committed a crime. I encourage you to identify this person to someone you can trust. I understand you may feel uncomfortable doing that, but it is very important not to remain silent. An adult having sex with an underage person is abuse, and you may be able to stop this person from abusing others.I’m also sure you’re more than welcome to ask questions here. We’re not running a gay support group, but more than a few of us could probably answer any question you could ask. Email Mike (the editor) at editor@exgaywatch.com if you wish.
Stewart, at 16 you’re pretty young to be calling yourself a former “homosexual”. From the time I was your age until into my late 20’s I went through long periods of time (months, perhaps years) where my attractions fluctuated between women and men. Frequently I became convinced I was either completely gay or completely straight only at a later time to be surprised by the return of attraction to the sex I had thought I was no longer attracted to. Don’t be surprised if it happens to you too. I suspect before you’re 20 you’ll become gay again and perhaps experience the fluctuations I still have at 45.
Randi said:
I suspect before you’re 20 you’ll become gay again…
I have some trouble with the validity of that statement, or at least the assumptions behind it.
Grantdale said:
I am concerned you seem to be saying you were having sex at 15, and with an adult (?).
That was my initial reaction. If I might express a personal opinion, even if it was not with an adult, I would suggest that he has no business having sex at 15 years of age.
I’m not entirely certain that the post is genuine, but am giving Stewart the benefit of the doubt for now.
David Roberts
David, let me clarify, I suspect by 20 and probably a good deal sooner Stewart will experience same sex attractions assuming by “former homosexual” he means he is at this time not experiencing same sex attractions. Does that help?
Assuming Stewart is legitimate, there’s nothing in his post to suggest that he’s changed his orientation or is no longer experiencing same sex attractions. He’s simply not had “relations” with a man in a year.
I wish Stewart well on his journey. Should he find himself one of the miniscule number of same sex attracted people who can reorient, that may well make his life less stressful (considering his family). Or perhaps he will experience satisfaction with life-long celibacy.
But I find it highly likely that he will at some point come to accept the orientation God gave him. Ironically, feeling loved by his family will probably strengthen his self-regard and make it easier for him to come out.
Timothy, when Stewart says he’s a former homosexual to most people that means he’s a person who is no longer same sex attracted. In the dictionaries I’ve checked homosexual is defined as someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex.
Ah, but Randi, you know that the “former homosexuals” don’t use language the same way the rest of the world does.
The ex-gays define “change” and “former” to mean simply that they’ve decided to not call themselves gay any more (well that and lobby for hateful laws, of course).
So simply claiming to be “a former homosexual” could include “fully healed”, strugglers, bisexuals who don’t have sex with men, celibates, married guys who make occasional trips to a gay bar to use the phone, individuals that run ex-gay ministries while exposing others to HIV in drugged-up unprotected sex orgies, lots of folks desperately trying to believe that they are less gay than they used to be and hoping they will someday experience heterosexuality, and those who are about two meetings away from saying “this is so bogus, I’m out of here”.
So who knows what Stewart means… but I suspect it means that he’s decided to try and not be gay and is very proud that he hasn’t had sex in a year (which means, of course, that he has wanted to).
Yes, I know Timothy, I just like to keep the queen’s english straight given the common understanding of these words, as you’ve well laid out its not at all the same as what “exgays” usually mean.
This is the sort of conversation I don’t really know what to do with…so I generally stay out of it.
But I am curious….Grantdale…not defensive…not at all..just curious based on something you said in your first comment in this thread. Do you consider me to be anti-gay? Based on this peice of your statement “Appealing to anti-gay religious beliefs is, of course, also anti-gay” this is why I ask.
Just wondering.
love,
grace
grace,
I can’t speak for grantdale, of course, but here’s my take:
If you APPEALED to anti-gay religious beliefs, then yes you would be anti-gay. In other words, if you supported laws that were punative or inequitable to gay people and justified it based on your own religious beliefs, then you would be anti-gay.
Now, of course, those who are anti-gay should have no problem with identifying as such. Just as those who think blacks are mentally inferior should have no problem being called a racist. Or just as those who think Jews are cheap should have no problem identifying as anti-Semetic.
Those all just descriptive adjectives. After all, libertarians don’t mind being called libertarians, scientologists don’t mind being called scientologists, and environmentalists don’t mind being called environmentalists. Why should bigots mind being called bigots. If they don’t like being called bigots, they should not support bigotry.
But for some odd reason they do. Homophobes hate the labels of homophobia and bigot. Yet they are quick to champion anything that makes the lives of gay people more difficult.
I don’t think that you are anti-gay, grace. You may hold anti-homosexual religious convictions, but your behavior – as best I can tell – is not to treat gay people with animus. But should my observation be wrong and you actually activate for punitive and inequitable legislation, then you would be anti-gay.
It is possible to “love” gay people and still be anti-gay if your “love” includes support for legislation that rewards you and your kind and punishes gay people. I hope you that doesn’t discribe you.
That’s (sort of) an easy one to explain grace: but we’ll need your help to do that.I was going to write a long version full of the relationship between holding negative views, the involvement of exgay groups in politics etc etc… but I’ll spare us and yourself :)A short version (sort of) instead…If God spoke to you now and said:
Regardless of what you decide… what this says about your personal views… we’ll also add that if you are asking when by “anti-gay” do we mean have you personally ever been rude here etc…The answer to that is no. You seem to treat all people with gentleness and, well, with grace. 🙂
ok…well…like…i get that…#1 is the obvious answer for me….
and yet…you guys all know what I believe….
and yet..i’m as much a “victim” of my beliefs as your or anyone is….
so…..
it’s okay???….we can be friends? right????
Timothy: When you say “you and your kind”
i get chills up my spine! augh!
we are all of one KIND…..
this is the debate at large….really….
we don’t NEED to pretend that there are more GENDERS than male and female….we just need to respect the people that exist as whatever gender the ARE or percieve themselves to be..and move on….from where i’m coming from…we are trying to out do GOD in the work that only HE can do….we need to LOVE on another…and take it from there….
Sure!Apart from the fact you’re a million miles away and we don’t actually know one another that is 🙂 I think we’ve already left this link at your blog once, but there it is again.That type of “survey” is actually a very standard way of polarising the underlying attitudes.If you chose #1, it suggests you’re not actively anti-gay. Even if you have some negativity, you are able to keep that in check. You know where your business ends, and other people’s business starts. Your confusion also suggests some conflict between what you know you would personally want for yourself and what you would be prepared to do — or see done — to others. That doesn’t make you schizo, just normal.We started asking that question a few years ago, in various forms. You may be surprised at how many (some of them well-known) exgays/supporters chose #2. Their reasonsing, mainly, is that it is the kindest thing they could “do to us”.
thanks Grantdale for clarifying.
love,
grace
Lord only knows if this “Stewart” is real or not, but I have a real problem with his insults to my family. If he is a teenager, he should learn to respect his elders. Apparently, because they have never encouraged me to become “ex-gay” and support me for who I am, we are not a TRUE family.
For me, that kind of rhetoric is the worst result of the anti-gay hate movement – the dismissal of the value of any family that does not meet the narrow definition of “Christians.” Gay and lesbian people did not fall off a turnip truck and were not sent down by space aliens. We are part of the human and American families, and our lives have as much value as anyone elses. We have the right, in fact the duty, to reject any/all religious beliefs that we find immoral and inconsistent with reality. As Americans, the “ex-gay” movement is in turn supposed to respect that right. We all know how often that happens.
grace,
sorry about the wording… I meant “you” in the more general meaning, not “you, grace” but in re-reading that, it wasn’t very clear.
Yet while we are, to some extent, all one “kind” of people as you stated, that is not how current legislation is written.
In EVERY state in this country there are two kinds of people: those who are just regular folk because they are heterosexual, and those who are excluded from full participation in society because they are gay. Artificial barriers have been created by legislators across this country and we hear ever more debate about which basic aspects of daily life should be taken away from gay people. Things which everyone else takes for granted somehow are up for “legitimate debate” when it comes to gay people.
And there are a large number of people who live on the free side of those barriers that are quite content that things remain this way. And quite often they justify inequality by claiming religious privelege.
So, grace, while you are operating out of love (and I believe you when you say that you are), please remember that you live on the priveleged side of the barrier. And while you have the luxury of wishing we could all just get along and see each other as all one big family, we are still on the restricted side of the barrier and have daily reminders that there are two “kinds” of people.
Please don’t be offended or think that I am excluding you or seeing you as an enemy. But truthfully, grace, if you think that there are laws that should treat you – and people that fall on the same side of the divide as you – (what I meant by the offensive term “you and your kind”) differenly than they should treat me, then I would encourage you to reconsider your position and ask yourself how this differs from what you would describe as “anti-gay”.
p.s. I don’t get your point about there being two genders. THat sounds a bit like saying that sexual orientation is just a social construct and that Dobson is right in that everyone is born either male or female and is therefore by definition heterosexual and that homosexuality is simply a behavior. But I haven’t heard you make these sorts of comments so that would surprise me.
Grace said “we don’t NEED to pretend that there are more GENDERS than male and female….we just need to respect the people that exist as whatever gender the ARE or percieve themselves to be..and move on”.
Grace I feel hurt when I hear that kind of statement. Being attracted to both genders it has not been a clear cut decision for me to seek a complete sex change. My therapist advised me that some people in my situation choose to live as “she-males”, taking hormone therapy but not actually having the surgery. I have seriously considered this “third sex” option, if I had chosen it would there be a place in your world for me? As it is I can’t affort the surgery and although I don’t want to be mid-gender, regardless of how female I perceive myself to be I am perceived by others to be either male or female depending on the day, what I’m wearing etc. I would love to be a genetic female but I can’t force the public to accept me as such. I don’t feel I should have to force fit myself into black and white roles just because other people need to categorize me in that way. Not all men who want to be women can make the total change that society and you apparently prefer. I don’t feel like we are all of one kind if we ignore the fact that its hard for many of us to make a perfectly acceptable change from male to female.