What does ex-gay mean? Is the term offensive?
Thoughtful discussions by two exgay/gay-celibate bloggers, Rainbow Unbroken and Disputed Mutability
Exodus condones homophobia,
criticizes Fall Out Boy’s tolerance statement
Discussion by Pam Spaulding and Some Guys Are Normal with two comments at the Exodus Live Out Loud blog
Palm Beach County. Fla., school board
thwarts free speech over exgays
By Wayne Besen
Antigay activist ejected by GLSEN
By 365gay.com and Bay Windows
Re: Fall Out Boys
Nancy Brown at Exodus: “Mr. Wentz’ statement is clearly stating that homophobia is not just a difference of opinion to which all Americans are entitled. He is saying it is on the same par as sexist and racist behavior.”
Umm, Nancy? Homophobia ISN’T just a difference of opinion. And it IS on par with sexist and racist behavior.
For example, the following are all differences of opinion:
Women who don’t stay home and raise children will regret the missed opportunity some day.
The black community should replace leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton with more credible middle-of-the-road representatives.
Gays would be more effective if they didn’t have parades with drag queens and floats with half naked guys that offend middle America.
Those are all controversial – and some would find them offensive – but they are not based on hatred or animus. They are just opinions that might be different than mine.
Compare them to the following:
A woman’s place is in the kitchen. She needs to let men make the important decisions.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are just like all the other blacks. They can’t keep their pants on and are crooked as snakes.
Homosexuals are only interested in sex and mocking straights. They parade it down the street with “pride”.
Notice the difference, Nancy? Those last three were all about identifying a group, assigning it negative characteristics, and hating its members.
I think your problem, Nancy, is that you want to hate gay people (not just disagree about reorientation or religious doctrine) and make lives difficult. You just don’t like it when someone points out that you are operating out of hate.
You want to think it’s just opinion. But then again maybe you think that of all of the last three items. Often haters don’t restrict themselves to just one category: race, sex, or orientation.
scratch “and hating its members”
better would have been “and thinking you’re better than its members”.
Disputedmutability makes some intersting observations. However, her four definitions of ex-gay all assume some measure of change in actual orientation. Even her first definition (the weakest) assumes the person is open to attraction change.
And I think that gives clues to a weakness of the ex-gay movement. If you are unwilling to convince yourself that you can become more heterosexual, they don’t know what to do with you.
Simply choosing to be celibate is a HUGE threat to ex-gay philosophy. It is important to REJECT your gay identity.
If a person decided that sex with another person was unacceptable to God but otherwise they were fine with being attracted to the same sex, they would be consistent with the literal text of scripture. There is no “sin” that anyone could point at. However, Exodus et al would have to deal with them “living the homosexual lifestyle”. In other words, Exodus has made IDENTIFYING as gay into a sin.
But that isn’t consistent with their purpose of helping people who are “unhappy with their homosexuality”. Such a solution would be very useful to reconciling their inner feelings with their understanding of God. There would be no set up of expectations or feelings of failing if you didn’t find the other sex appealing.
And with a goal of lifetime celibacy laid out in advance, no one would be confused or hurt or feel betrayed down the road by God or the church or the program. This would no doubt result in fewer exexgays rejecting religion all together.
The whole point of rejecting a gay identity is political in nature. It takes the issue away from personal goals and allows the organization to be a political lobby group that can make claims to legislators about “change”.
And it is cruel for an organization to set the goals of their political agenda over the needs of those they are claiming to want to help.
Timothy,
I’ve just read Michael Warner’s The Trouble With Normal. His arguments are some that I’m thinking about–and along with my tendancies towards a more social constructionist understanding of identity, I think that DM has some points.
An identity is what the bearer makes of it. If someone decides to be celibate and to view themselves with another interpretation (homosexual attraction = sin, not biological determinism), that’s fine. It’s an identity which is open to them. I think that’s what DM means by “openness to heterosexual attraction.” It doesn’t mean that the person will ever experience it, but that because their view of their self has shifted, they would be open to it, as it wouldn’t be a threat to a “gay” identity.
I think that biology will bear out the truth that there is something basic upon which our identities tend to supervene–that is, although we can shift somewhat from one pole to another in the objects of our attraction, we are constrained by biology. It isn’t be possible for someone to move from exclusive homosexual attractions to exclusive heterosexual attractions. However, when it comes to interpretation of these attractions, and awareness of (and attention paid to) the feelings that arise from members of the same sex, there’s a variety of stories we can tell.
I am still mulling over what I’ve read, but I wonder if we’re putting too many eggs in an essentialist basket–at least when it comes to politics.
While Nancy Brown’s posts on the Exodus Blog are usually nothing more than snippets of articles and links to them, I find that she tends to link the most negative ones she can find. I’ve always found her posts more upsetting to me personally than posts from the other folks there specifically because she does seem to focus on the negative at every opportunity.
As for the comments (the first one is from me, but my TypeKey identity is older than my blog, hence the different name), I’d also like to say that I pointed out the problem in Nancy’s arguments in my next comment, but it was not allowed. I was actually surprised they let my first one through at all.
“homosexual attraction = sin, not biological determinism”
ck, that’s one of my big problems with ex-gay programs. It is the attraction that has become the sin, not the sex.
I think it is harmful and sets up stugglers for unrealistic standards and expectations.
The ex-gay groupies often compare themselves to diet plans. But really it’s like telling a dieter that you can’t just give up garlic bread and icecream but you also have to hate the smell of garlic bread and the sight of icecream.
You’ve set your program up for failure.
And there isn’t a single scripture that supports the idea of attraction being sin. It’s not only illogical, but it’s also scripturally unsupported.
“I think that biology will bear out the truth that there is something basic upon which our identities tend to supervene–that is, although we can shift somewhat from one pole to another in the objects of our attraction, we are constrained by biology. It isn’t be possible for someone to move from exclusive homosexual attractions to exclusive heterosexual attractions.”
ck,
I think the jury is still out on pole shifting (hmmm, somehow that just sounds wrong). I am not convinced whether no one shifts, everyone shifts, or some people shift, although I suspect it is the later.
One thing I read many years ago and seems to be supported somewhat by the CDC report and by anecdotal evidence is that women’s orientation is more fluid. We know that bisexuality is more commonly reported by women and I believe that mutablity in attraction may well be also.
I also tentatively believe that the origins of orientation may not be the same for each person (still open on this) and so this may too have some impact on mutability. In other words, those with either fully biological or mostly biological contributing factors may be less likely to shift between the poles of attraction. Those for whom environment or socialization may have played some role may be more likely to shift.
The fact remains that one’s biological aspects didn’t protect from bias, discrimination or cruel isolation from the majority.
What ex gay supporters are not discussing is, one’s sexual orientation excluding one from other pursuits of merit in social and professional life.
Celibacy, nor one’s active sex life….has no bearing on qualities of character or integration in the lifestyle of one’s choosing.
This isn’t something heterosexuals are held accountable for.
Are ex gays celibate from gay sex, or sex altogether because they aren’t attracted to the opposite sex.
Big difference.
Heterosexuals who are dissatisfied with THEIR sex lives, don’t usually run to a religious ministry for help with it.
Sometimes one can have fatigue with dating, not just a sex life.
But that’s what it’s called a ‘sex life’ and that’s exclusive from what else a straight person does. Whether they are married, or single. Whatever hobbies they have or profession they are in.
So far, most of the ex gays that are most visible are furthering their agenda with broadcast media or ministries of their own.
Where are the ex gays willing to say that being now ex gay or living straight has nothing to do with their professional lives as teachers, or real estate agents or insurance salespersons.
Where are they?
If Exodus expects me to believe ‘they exist’…well what are they doing and why is it so important to know what kind of sex they are or aren’t having?
Because that’s what it’s getting down to.
What kind of sex they are or aren’t having. And ultimately where any of us is concerned…
who gives a sh*t?
Mores the point, what do I care if someone is or isn’t satisfied with their sex life?
This is where the ex gay preoccupation makes no sense.
Concern for one’s sex life is a personal one, not a political one.
Concern for just attraction, is thought policing.
And thought policing is an even worse agenda.
Timothy,
I think you misunderstand me.
I have no problems with people choosing the celibate gay-identified option. I think both can be Biblically justified, God-glorifying paths of faithful obedience. I think the exgay path makes more sense prudentially speaking, as I personally found the combination of celibacy and embracing gay identity very, very stressful and unstable (more on this below) but if someone prefers the gay celibate route, may God bless them and strengthen them for the journey. If they succeed, they will prove themselves to have been made of far stronger stuff than I am.
I just think if they’re choosing the celibate *gay* option, they shouldn’t be called *ex*-gay, on any definition. I would think that would be obvious. If I suggested otherwise I suspect you would be going after me for dishonest doublespeak. 🙂
As far as “openness to heterosexual attractions” is concerned, ck has done a magnificent job of saying pretty much exactly what I would say, except the part about reading Michael Warner’s The Trouble With Normal, as I haven’t read it. Also, I would refrain from using the notion of “supervenience” which I think is far stronger than what was meant, and stick with the much weaker notion of “constraint” instead. (ck, I think the supervenience claim *is* the essentialist claim, i.e, “No difference in identity without a difference in biology.”)
I have always (even before becoming Christian/exgay) found constructionist views of sexual orientation more persuasive than essentialist ones, given the stunning diversity of ways in which same-sex desire has been expressed over the millenia. While it seems probable to me that there is some biological foundation underneath it all, I think there is a lot of space for identity, self-perception, and cultural understandings to fill in. I believe that our biological make-up underdetermines our sexual orientation/identity, and that which sort of identity we end up with depends on how we interpret our situation.
Before I became a Christian, I was one of those gays who would *never* consider taking the mythical straight pill, and I pitied those who would. I loved my gay self in all my queer glory. (The X-Men trailer resonates deeply with those memories.) Even *after* I became a Christian and came to believe that homosexual sex and relationships were outside of God’s will for me, there was still a stretch of time in which I had no interest in being straight, regardless of whether or not it was possible. It would have been a frightening threat to my identity. That is what I would call not being open to heterosexual attractions. Openness would be the opposite…being willing to accept orientation change if it were available. A willingness to embrace opposite-sex attraction, should the opportunity arise. To me this seems like a reasonable standard for being “minimally” exgay.
Timothy: “The whole point of rejecting a gay identity is political in nature.”
Um, no! Unlike *some* people, I’m not a Republican. 😉 And all my votes have always been cast for pro-gay candidates.
My reason for rejecting a gay identity and encouraging others to do so has absolutely nothing to do with politics. It is simply that my experience (and the experience of many others I have known) is that trying to maintain a gay identity and at the same time maintain one’s belief that homosexual sex and relationships are sinful simply doesn’t work well in the long run. I have not yet met anyone who could keep a firm commitment to celibacy and a strong gay identification in the long run. The latter has a way of eroding the former over time.
I suspect that this stems from the inherent tension in such a position. Such a person is embracing as central to their identity an inclination which they must be continually fighting against. So in a sense they are simultaneously affirming and rejecting it, pushing it away from themselves, and drawing it close to their hearts. Furthermore, my impression is that “gay” has normative implications. To see oneself as gay, I think, is not simply to acknowledge one’s same-sex attractions, but to see oneself as the sort of person for who same-sex love is natural and appropriate, the sort of person who was *meant* to be in same-sex romantic/sexual relationships. A person who identifies as gay in that way while rejecting homosex as sinful is obviously adopting an unstable, incoherent position.
I should make clear that by rejecting gay identity, I do not mean being in denial about the state of one’s sexual attractions. I simply mean a different interpretation, a different way of looking at one’s sexual attractions. I came to view them simply as *temptations* to sin (not sin themselves), just like the many temptations to pride, greed, gluttony, and impatience I experience daily, and not a constitutive part of who I am “deep down.” For me this was immensely freeing and helpful for living out my convictions. It also made me “open to heterosexual attractions,” in the sense discussed above.
Timothy said:
“The ex-gay groupies often compare themselves to diet plans. But really it’s like telling a dieter that you can’t just give up garlic bread and icecream but you also have to hate the smell of garlic bread and the sight of icecream.”
I see your point. In fact, just the other day I remarked to my partner that I saw a cute woman at the grocery store (Whole Foods, naturally) and simply noticed it to myself. I didn’t have a meltdown about how I was being unfaithful, or ‘lustful’–but I realized that several years ago, I would have had such a meltdown in terms of my unconquered ‘sin.’
To be fair, though, Christians of this ilk go to lengthy means in order to prevent themselves from getting attracted to people of the opposite sex. Josh Harris’ books on kissing dating goodbye are an example of this.
I think, though, you’re right about the mixed messages. I recall some writing (I’d have to look it up) by Alan Chambers encouraging ‘strugglers’ to look beyond the remaining attractions, and not think of them as ‘defeat.’ Yet it does seem that a shift in what happens internally is the focus. Still, though, I contend that people can make the choice to live like that–and be desperately unhappy in the process (or happy, I suppose?). It should be an educated choice, though–and that’s where I think much of the debate is raging. Counterevidence to the possibility of change is suppressed, and the positive aspects of being gay are played down, for specious news stories of the type that Nancy Brown displays.
It’d be like if I were to try to convince myself that I shouldn’t try ex-gay therapy again because of the bad things about heterosexuality: the Duke rape case, the divorce rates, the fact that a straight president is taking our country down the toilet. That would be laughable.
Regan said:
“Heterosexuals who are dissatisfied with THEIR sex lives, don’t usually run to a religious ministry for help with it.”
There are actually quite a few religious ministries and self-help books focused on this. HOWEVER, they aren’t politicized in the way that the ex-gay issue is. When they are politicized, it is in terms of how the awful liberal culture is allowing gender roles–which would otherwise preserve heterosexual relations–to decay. Feminists and gays usually wind up getting blamed.
Disputed Mutability–you posted your reply about the time I made mine.
I have to think more about the difference between supervenience and constraint. The former would entail that identical mental states between two people is caused by identical underlying physical states. The latter would mean that you could have two identical mental states but with different physical states, although perhaps certain mental states would be impossible without corresponding physical states.
Suppose we have person A, who is attracted to someone of the same sex. Person B is also attracted to the same sex. Person A has an underlying physical property G which is why they are attracted to the same sex A(same), along with some socially constructed belief sets in their mental background, M(w). Person B has a weak underlying physical property G(w) which is also part of why they are attracted to the same sex, along with very strong socially constructed belief sets in their mental background M(s). their attraction is also A(same).
On this scenario, we have supervenience–G(w) and G(s) cause the attractions–but the mental states (attractions plus background belief) are different. This is consistent, since their physical underliers are not identical. As well, the background belief itself has a physical component–beliefs cause neurological states (let’s call them N(b), since they come from beliefs). There would be a difference between the two neurological states of the people.
Person A: G(w) + N(b1) = A(same) + M(w)
Person B: G(s) + N(b2) = A(same) + M(s)
The parallel would hold between two persons sharing G(w), let’s say. If their background beliefs are different, that causes a different physical set:
Physical description of
Person A = G(w) + N(b1) = A(same) + M(s)
Person B = G(w) + N(b2) = A(same) + M(w)
The mental states of the two persons would not be identical.
That’s just a sketch. I’ll have to think more about it–I have read only a little in philosophy of mind (Tim Crane and Donald Davidson).
Also, A(same) above stands in for a supposedly identical mental state shared by all people attracted to the same sex. I would guess that the mental states would vary, even if we use the same social label for them.
disputed mutability at May 16, 2006 03:02 PM
First,
I’m sorry. I reread my post and I jumped straight from a comment about your blog to a complaint about ex-gay ministries. It certainly looks like an attack on your thoughts. It wasn’t intended.
What you say is logical and consistent. And I have no complaint with it.
However it caused me to recognize an area where Exodus, for example, is failing those whom they claim to serve. All of their language is about leaving lifestyles and has no room for someone like Rainbow Unbroken or someone who is in the space where you started.
I respect that you distinguish between sexual acts/relationships and identity. Unfortunately, it seems that the ex-gay establishment does not.
Their focus, and all language, is about those who reject identity and not on those who reject sin (as they believe it to be). This suggests to me that their focus is purely on politics, to the detriment of those who may wish to live chaste but can’t imagine at this point “leaving” who they understand themselves to be.
Second,
I retract my blanket statement about the reason for rejecting a gay identity. I can understand your arguments – though I do have at least one friend who is a celibate gay man.
However, I think that your position (as you described it) was transitional. It seems to me that ex-gay minitries are all black or white and seems very conversion based.
I should have been more nuanced in my earlier posts.
I’ve been curiously observing the traffic to my site, specifically to the ex-gay post. I am appreciative and amazed. Also, I’ve read through SOME of the comments. To one in particular I’d like to respond:
Regan wrote:
“I just think if they’re choosing the celibate *gay* option, they shouldn’t be called *ex*-gay, on any definition. I would think that would be obvious.”
I agree, which is why I no longer claim to be an ex-gay. It was a process of understanding myself, hence the initial claim. As stated in the original post, I identify as a celibate lesbian.
Regan wrote:
“To see oneself as gay, I think, is not simply to acknowledge one’s same-sex attractions, but to see oneself as the sort of person for who same-sex love is natural and appropriate, the sort of person who was *meant* to be in same-sex romantic/sexual relationships.”
If you read my original post carefully, you will see that I think identifying as a lesbian has little to do with sexual attractions, but everything to do with my soul and personhood. Yes, sexual attractions are a part of the end result, but are not the reason for identifying as a lesbian.
Whether or not I am in a relationship, does not negate or affirm my homosexuality. In the same way a heterosexual remains constant regardless of relationships.
Love is appropriate, period. Sex is one part of expressing love. As a celibate lesbian, I can be emotionally and spiritually intimate with a partner, and refrain from sex. Intimacy does not require sex, nor does being a lesbian require sexual relations.
I am meant to love my soulmate, the one God has intended for me. This does not conflict with celibacy.
Regan wrote:
“A person who identifies as gay in that way while rejecting homosex as sinful is obviously adopting an unstable, incoherent position.”
By unstable, do you mean the decision itself or the instability it would bring to the person?
For me, instability came when I disobeyed God by have sex outside of marriage. Now celibate, continuing with the homosexual identity, I have never felt more stable than in all my life. This does not mean I am without struggle. There are times when I deeply desire physical intimacy with a woman. However, in my personhood, I am still stable.
Even if I were heterosexual, I would still require celibacy of myself until marriage. I think it is a weak argument to say that homosexuality and celibacy cannot co-exist, with the idea that the identity is linked with sexual activity, and thus by being celibate, in essence it is bringing shame upon the identity.
I have no shame in my sexuality. In its purest form, I have no shame in loving someone deeply.
I believe the Word of God is not stagnant, but alive. I believe it is possible to work with God. I believe God has not kept silent regarding the affairs of the heart, and that there is room to flesh out boundaries in respect to homosexuality.
With this said, I believe that God is leading me to learn those boundaries. This means it is possible for me to be in a covenant relationship with a woman, someday.
So, until this day occurs, I am stable, at peace in my celibacy. Fully lesbian. Fully human. Fully Christian.
ck,
“I have to think more about the difference between supervenience and constraint. The former would entail that identical mental states between two people is caused by identical underlying physical states.”
I *think* (this isn’t my strongest suit either) that you might have it backwards. If the mental supervenes on the physical, then identical underlying physical states entail identical mental states, not vice versa.
Anyway, I think overall we’re saying different (but not necessarily contradictory) things, but I’m not quite sure anymore. 🙂 I think my point was that the identity properties do not supervene on the biological properties (which include what you are calling G, I think), because multiple identity properties are compatible with some specific biological properties like G.
For example, I think it’s possible that you(now) and I(3 years ago, when I was exclusively SSA) could have the same G–the same underlying biological factor bringing about our experience of same-sex attraction–but nonetheless have different identity properties–in your case a gay identity, in my(3 yrs ago) case a repentant-sinner-who-happens-to-struggle-with-same-sex-attraction identity. In that case, the identity properties would not supervene on the biological properties, because we can have different identity properties while sharing the same biological property G.
Still, G would probably be incompatible with some identities, such as “raging heterosexual.” In that sense, the biological properties would *constrain* which identities are available to a person at a time. So, we are constrained by biology, but are left some latitude in what we decide to make of it as we form our identities–biology does not determine identity. Which is what I thought you were saying at first.
Suzanne,
It was I and not Regan who said all those things you quote. I wasn’t speaking about your blog, but was responding to some of Timothy’s comments that I (perhaps wrongly) took to be directed toward me. I was trying to speak about my own experience, and was not trying to criticize you or yours in any way. I apologize if I offended you.
I was just trying to explain to Timothy why I felt that the celibate gay option did not work *for me* and why I opted for another instead. Embracing gay identity while believing that homosexual sex is always wrong was not a workable position for me.
disputed mutability said:
My reason for rejecting a gay identity and encouraging others to do so has absolutely nothing to do with politics. It is simply that my experience (and the experience of many others I have known) is that trying to maintain a gay identity and at the same time maintain one’s belief that homosexual sex and relationships are sinful simply doesn’t work well in the long run.
I think this goes without saying. It brings on a turmoil which can drive some people literally mad I think. I have a little trouble with your terminology “maintain a gay identity” because I don’t know exactly what you mean by that, but many Christians do not consider homosexuality a sin, don’t see it in scripture as a sin and feel no conviction from the Holy Spirit that is it sin. Therefore one might just as easily ask someone struggling to re-examine why they do believe it to be a sin if that is the case.
To reconsider our understanding of scripture is not the same as questioning God. I can tell you right now, if I truly believed that God was displeased with any part of my life, I would seek a different path – that is part of spiritual growth and perfecting my relationship with God. Nothing is more important to me than Him. But likewise, I believe those in the midst of the struggle you outlined above should be given the opportunity to make certain that their guilt or shame about being gay is not societal based, having nothing to do with spiritual conviction (or worse, condemnation).
For example, the American family structure is nothing like that described in scripture. Does that mean we are all living in sin when we take part in it? There is a lot to consider here, and one day it may just be a fanatical move to bring extended families back under one roof that sweeps through the fundamentalist movement. Quite a lot to consider.
I have not yet met anyone who could keep a firm commitment to celibacy and a strong gay identification in the long run. The latter has a way of eroding the former over time.
Go over to GayChristian.net and ask around, you will find plenty. I believe those who believe that celibacy is best for their lives are called “Side A” people, while those who believe gay sexual relationships are ok are called “Side B” people. It might sound odd but they are a sound bunch of believers.
To see oneself as gay, I think, is not simply to acknowledge one’s same-sex attractions, but to see oneself as the sort of person for who same-sex love is natural and appropriate, the sort of person who was *meant* to be in same-sex romantic/sexual relationships. A person who identifies as gay in that way while rejecting homosex as sinful is obviously adopting an unstable, incoherent position.
In some ways this is restating the same from above, but again I would agree. I would add that if indeed homosexuality is as much a part of the “gay” individual as heterosexuality is to the “straight, then for the gay person to reject that part of themselves to live a life contrary to their basic nature is also “obviously adopting and unstable, incoherent position.
I should make clear that by rejecting gay identity, I do not mean being in denial about the state of one’s sexual attractions. I simply mean a different interpretation, a different way of looking at one’s sexual attractions. I came to view them simply as *temptations* to sin (not sin themselves), just like the many temptations to pride, greed, gluttony, and impatience I experience daily, and not a constitutive part of who I am “deep down.” For me this was immensely freeing and helpful for living out my convictions. It also made me “open to heterosexual attractions,” in the sense discussed above.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but this revelation seems to have also given you hope that you might have a path to “normal” within society, and that is incredibly tempting. I’m not saying you don’t have deep convictions, just that, like all of us, you might have been sold a bill of goods which may have nothing to do with God. It’s your own walk and as long as it remains that way, you are free to live your life as you truly see fit. It’s when others are co-opted into a struggle with impossible goals by those with either a misguided sense of duty or worse, a selfish desire to prove that they are on the right track themselves.
David Roberts
disputed mutability wrote at May 16, 2006 11:47 PM:
It was I and not Regan who said all those things you quote. I wasn’t speaking about your blog, but was responding to some of Timothy’s comments that I (perhaps wrongly) took to be directed toward me. I was trying to speak about my own experience, and was not trying to criticize you or yours in any way. I apologize if I offended you.
My response:
Sorry for the misunderstanding, and thanks for the correction. I was not offended, actually. I understood the comments were not directed towards me. However, in my response, I was addressing them from a personal perspective.
Disputed wrote:
I was just trying to explain to Timothy why I felt that the celibate gay option did not work *for me* and why I opted for another instead. Embracing gay identity while believing that homosexual sex is always wrong was not a workable position for me.
My response:
I understand what you’re saying now. However, in your previous comment, you wrote:
I just think if they’re choosing the celibate *gay* option, they shouldn’t be called *ex*-gay, on any definition. I would think that would be obvious. …
I have not yet met anyone who could keep a firm commitment to celibacy and a strong gay identification in the long run.
These general statements do not speak about your personal issues, but to all who attempt to be both gay and celibate. Along with similar statements you made, it was for this reason I wrote my comment.
Regan, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Side note, I posted the original comments on my blog Rainbow Unbroken.
disputed, I am going from the way supervenience is used in analytic philosophy. Two good explanations are found here:
Wash U
Stanford
In this view, the mental implies the physical and vice versa:
(i) No two objects can differ in their mental properties without differing in their physical properties.
(ii) A single object cannot change its mental properties without changing its physical properties.
(iii) If, at a given time t, a single object has two different subsets of mental properties, it must have two different subsets of physical properties.
By physical properties, we’d include not only normally biological concepts such as genetics and brain structure, but also the physical brain states corresponding to beliefs.
I think I will try to write up a more substantive post on the question, because I do think that it’s important.
“In that case, the identity properties would not supervene on the biological properties” — I think that’s the cause of the confusion, is what is supervening upon what. I was considering mental states as supervening upon the physical brain states and biological make up of the person.
I’ll try to put up something on ArbitraryMarks about it–along with my list of UU questions you sent me! 🙂
David, (and Suzanne!)
I shouldn’t have said “I have never met anyone who could keep a firm commitment to celibacy and a strong gay identification in the long run.” What I should have said is that I have never known anyone well for any length of time who could keep up both–I have never seen it work with my own eyes, so to speak. It was not my intent to be skeptical about others’ journeys and experiences. In the heat of defending myself to Timothy I got a little carried away.
“I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but this revelation seems to have also given you hope that you might have a path to “normal” within society,”
Uh, if I was doing this to achieve “normalcy”, I shoulda demanded a refund a loooong time ago. Thankfully, I don’t have any such hope. 🙂 I’m not exactly the “straight-acting” sort. Ain’t terribly proud of it (anymore), ain’t terribly ashamed of it neither. It’s just the way it is.
Different people’s experiences differ on this, but in my own eyes, and in the eyes of those around me at the time, taking up an exgay path meant becoming a freak, moving more toward the fringe. I didn’t expect to change–I knew the odds, and I’m a pessimist to boot! All I hoped for was to become a celibate same-sex attracted individual who didn’t see herself as gay. How normal is that? Not very! The straight people still see you as gay (ultimately they don’t care how you “identify” or how long it’s been since you’ve gotten laid), and the gay people see you either as a traitor and/or a pathetic self-loathing religious nut. Yeah, that’s a real big step in terms of social acceptance! 🙂
“I’m not saying you don’t have deep convictions, just that, like all of us, you might have been sold a bill of goods which may have nothing to do with God.”
If you’re saying I might be wrong about my convictions, well yeah, obviously! But I’m not so sure I could ever claim that I was sold a bill of goods. I read everything I could get my hands on from both sides, and I talked to tons of people on both sides, and drew my conclusions from that. If I am in error, as I may well be, I’m afraid that I can’t blame it on anyone duping me; the fault is entirely my own.
disputed mutability, I just want to take this opportunity to tell you that when I read what you write, it takes me a long time to read it. That’s because I barely get a few sentences along before my mind is shooting off on some new tangent about something, and I have to stop and think it through.
The ability to create new neural pathways in the brains of others is an awesome power indeed!Thanks for doing this to me, here and at your own blog.
David Roberts at May 17, 2006 06:24 AM:
Go over to GayChristian.net and ask around, you will find plenty. I believe those who believe that celibacy is best for their lives are called “Side A” people, while those who believe gay sexual relationships are ok are called “Side B” people. It might sound odd but they are a sound bunch of believers.
Just for clarification’s sake, it’s Side A that’s affirming of gay relationships and Side B that advocates celibacy.
Robis,
Thanks, I think! 🙂 That’s one of the odder compliments I’ve received.
ck,
yes, please, let’s take this to Arbitrary Marks ASAP. 🙂
disputed mutability said:
If you’re saying I might be wrong about my convictions, well yeah, obviously!
I think I was just wanting to make sure they were indeed your convictions. In the end, I think this is all that really matters; you have a right to your own destiny and understanding of what God wants for you.
Robis said:
The ability to create new neural pathways in the brains of others is an awesome power indeed! Thanks for doing this to me, here and at your own blog.
Now that must rank right up there with the most unusual compliments ever given 🙂
Eugene said:
Just for clarification’s sake, it’s Side A that’s affirming of gay relationships and Side B that advocates celibacy.
I stand corrected!
David Roberts