Focus runs a number of other websites besides Family.org. In this case they have a site called Boundless.org which has an advice column written by someone only identified as “J. Budziszewski” who’s column is titled “Ask Theophilus:
Dear Professor Theophilus:
I am in the strangest, most painful situation I’ve ever found myself in, apart from my parents’ divorce. A young man is pursuing me. He wants to get married, but he’s not, well, firing on all cylinders. What I mean is that he doesn’t find me sexually attractive. In fact, he doesn’t find women in general sexually attractive. He used to suffer from homosexual desires, and he used gay porn. He no longer has homosexual desires, but he doesn’t have heterosexual desires either. He’s not pursuing help to be restored to sexual wholeness, which makes me wonder what he’s really in the relationship for.
Sounds like a pretty common exgay situation. Not gay anymore but not exactly a raging heterosexual. At least this boyfriend appears to have more of a functioning heterosexual dating life than many self-proclaimed exgays I know of. Sounds like this guy has been pretty “successful” in achieving “change,” terms rarely and inconsistently defined by ex-gay groups.
What’s Focus’ reply?
Okay, I’ll let it loose. Your intuition is right, and the pastor who told you to stick with the fellow should have his head examined: The relationship has to end. Marital love involves union between two whole persons, total self-giving, which cannot be separated from sexual self-giving. If the man doesn’t want eros, then he doesn’t really want marriage; he only wants the legal form of marriage. You are right to be suspicious of his motives.
Mind you, the relationship has to really end — you say you’ve ended it, but obviously you haven’t. End the whole thing, small talk and all. Break off. Don’t see him at all. You’re like someone with an infected tooth. You’re afraid to pull it out because it will hurt. The problem is that if you don’t pull it out, it will hurt much worse, for much longer, and in many more ways.
Read the full column here. (Google cache)
Notice to those who wish to “leave the homosexual lifestyle”:
Ex-gay groups all agree (though they may not tell you at first) that some few participants may become heterosexually attracted, some more may diminish their same-sex attraction without becoming heterosexually attracted, and some may just learn to control their same-sex attraction.
You may want to find someone to love and live your life with. However, unless you are amoung the miniscule amount that become heterosexual (I think I’ve counted three that make that claim), Focus on the Family will say:
“his emotions are still not in order”
“broken guy”
“a man with broken emotions”
“You are right to be suspicious of his motives”
“he’s pursuing you as a substitute for sexual wholeness”
“he still isn’t being honest — with you, or for that matter with himself”
In other words, dear prospective ex-gay, it doesn’t really matter what you do or how hard you try, the ex-gay and anti-gay activists are still going to hold you in contempt. Maybe not when talking to you, but definitely when talking about you.
Isn’t this what we have always known?
They just can’t get their talking points in order, can they? And here I thought they were all about promoting marriages as a lie. . .at least as much as they are into promoting ex-gays-for-pay. . .
Okay, I’ll let it loose. Your intuition is right, and the pastor who told you to stick with the fellow should have his head examined: The relationship has to end. Marital love involves union between two whole persons, total self-giving, which cannot be separated from sexual self-giving. If the man doesn’t want eros, then he doesn’t really want marriage; he only wants the legal form of marriage. You are right to be suspicious of his motives.
Sorry to cut and paste the entire paragraph, but I couldn’t find a stopping point in the advice where I could disagree. I think his advice to the young girl is exactly correct in every way.
But yes, ironic, isn’t it. What exactly do “ex-gays” have to look forward to?
Jim
Yeah, you’re right. I do agree with his advice to the girl to not get too involved with someone who isn’t attracted to women. I also agree with him when he says “he still isn’t being honest — with you, or for that matter with himself”, I just think the area of self delusion is different than what FOTF thinks.
I’ve always thought the advice and position that the conservatives have on gay men and ex-gay men is amazingly cruel to women. First they are (or for decades were) advised to marry and it would help them avoid temptation. Now they are held out the hope of marriage and a family as the Christian ideal for a “former homosexual”. Any ex-gay that is married is ALWAYS introduced as such – to the point of being laughable.
Yet they always seem to forget the woman this poor misguided dupe will end up with. None of these anti-gay preachers really want their own daughter to marry a gay man. And now that they are giving advice to a girl, naturally they say “what are you thinking, girl, run and run quick”.
But it is funny when the hypocrisy and conflicting messages of the anti-gay activists are so obviously displayed for the world to see.
The advice-giver’s implication — that no person with same-sex attractions can be trusted — seems clear to me.
For “Focus on the Family” its never been about “exgays”. They don’t really care about “saving” anyone from the “homosexual lifestyle”, its always been about making gays look as bad as possible and as undeserving of consideration as possible. Once they’ve minimized gays its irrelevant what happens to them, “ex” or not.
In one sense, it demonstrates that FOtF isn’t as slick in its marketing to exgays as you might think–otherwise, they would watch the content more carefully on their sites and affiliate sites, to make sure they are consistent.
I do have to say, though, from a personal perspective, as a wannabe exgay who nearly married a seminarian one right out of 17th century American (e.g., Puritan)–there may be some truth in the writer’s words. If anything, he’s getting at the gut-level fact that someone who struggles with same sex-attraction and is that anxious to marry, even without the level of physical response that they surely had for their own gender…well, they may want to rethink. Demonizing them as “using” the other person is a strech. This fellow I mention was a nice guy, and I really thought I was doing the right thing, following the “rules”–but even my church back home was wary of the fact that I never said how much I loved him, in my list of reasons why he was “right.”
I digress.
(Oh, and as I write this, I am wearing a new diamond on my left hand, too–I suppose I’m ‘engaged’ or something…even if the state of Missouri forbids us female sodomites the rites of marriage….)
Perhaps they just wanted to avoid the bad publicity of another ex-Governor McGreevey type incident later when the marriage falls apart.
I googled this guy to see what else he has written, and over at trueu.org, a FotF site for college students, he has a two-part article on dealing with homosexuality. He writes several encounters as a single session in which he naturally takes the kind but firm ex-gay position.
He opens by stating research shows that homosexual men continue to cruise even in relationships. He follows by saying true love would not lead to Gay Bowel Syndrome. Yes, he said GBS. He then compares homosexuality to incest. This statement is quickly followed by how selfish homosexual sex is compared to heterosexual sex, and how the two can never be compared. The first section ends with a standard call to stop sinning and find God’s true love to replace one’s broken sexual love. The second section is a summation of natural and compatibility arguements with a dash of fear of disease.
Considering his beliefs regarding homosexuals, their behavior, and the results, I see why he would not recommend for the relationship to continue.
Did anyone else notice this little slip:
Did Focus just admit that our gay relationship is, ummm, what??? A marriage? And it’s also to be expected to be sexual?Oh. Sorry. That’s right. It’s still not because we aren’t really “whole” persons (being mere homosexuals) and the relationship is based on selfish lust, not “self giving” (and Theophilus would know that).But for all the exgays out there… remember that until you have raging heterosexual attractions you have to face the “fact” that your “emotions are still not in order”. So says Focus.Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.
We should add that not-a-medical-Dr. Budziszewski is another one who bangs on about “natural law”.You remember: if have penis = heterosexual man, if have vagina = heterosexual woman. Obviously a complex subject approach with much subtlety, much like his take on atheists. QED… we see such gems as via NARTH…
I’m not sure what sex acts, exactly, he’s referring too — neither of us must be gay enough. Or if his claim is intended to repulse, or arouse people to explore homosexuality. (Males only, plainly. Women are once again ignored.)Rather, that description sounds more like childbirth!
While I agree that this woman should probably not go into a relationship like this, I think calling a person trying to overcome gay attractions and achieve straight attractions “not a whole person” is irresponsible and ignorant at best.
I guess this advice column really throws the, “gays can get married just like everyone else, as long as they marry the opposite sex argument” right out the window.
I guess the only thing left to do is kill yourself or live out the rest of your life alone. Oh yeah, these sound like attractive choices. It is so sad to think that some people believe in the concept that gay men should be forced to live with the option of never having a loving partner.
Oh CK — for some UNUSUAL reason we missed that.Congratulations dear!(We’ll recognise you two, even if Missouri condemns — as was once said repeatedly by a rat-cunning moron who once was Premier of our “Deep North” — the “sondomites”).Give a big hug to Madam X — as yet unmentioned by name at XGW — from us too. 🙂
I don’t know what that good doctor is referring to in terms of gay sex: “sexual acts that cause tearing, stretching, bleeding, choking, death, disease and pain.” However, I do know that straight sex can cause tearing, stretching, and bleeding the first time for women.
Oh, congrats CK!
Aaron, you hit it, m’boy!
Us straight women go through those physical situations during sex too.
And as grantdale so aptly put it, CHILDBIRTH sho ’nuff carries all those possibilities as well.
Let alone a ballooniing stomach and body weight, swollen ankles, hemmorrhoids and varicose veins, skyrocketing blood pressure and insulin!
The list goes on….
One could call hetero sex a medical emergency waiting to happen for a woman who becomes pregnant.
us straight women have more to fear than gay folks from sex.
But there we go again anyway!
So saying there are ‘health risks’ to gay sex, is laughable to me.
Especially because it’s not the gay folks complaining about it!
Forget what FOTF and other conservative, bigoted, right-wing “christian” groups are telling you. Forget what they have told you. Bottom line is if you have ever been labeled (by yourself or others) as one who has “suffered from homosexual desires” or tendencies, you are already condemned in their book. They would rather you live a lonely pathetic life that follows their beliefs, than be true to yourself and live a loving and caring life in a relationship with someone of the same sex, because it goes against their beliefs. BE TRUE TO YOURSELF. Forget the rest of the world. Who are they to speak for God? There is nothing wrong with you unless you give in to their false teachings. Live your own life. Be happy. Be true. God still loves you. God will always love you.