A story I came across today began thus:
Former Lesbian Brings Ex-‘Gay’ Message to 2006 NEA Annual Meeting
By Jim Brown
June 26, 2006(AgapePress) – A former lesbian who now runs a Christian ministry in Minnesota will be holding the first ever ex-“gay” exhibit at the National Education Association Annual Meeting in Orlando, Florida.
I found it amusing to behold the mindset that questions the legitimacy (existence?) of homosexuality by placing the word “gay” in inverted commas, while apparently finding no reason to question the notion of an “ex-gay”.
I think Agape’s reason for putting “gay” in qoutes is because they don’t want to concede the word to homosexuals not because they question the existence of homosexuals. Afterall, “lesbian” wasn’t in qoutes.
Some conservatives believe “gay” is a politically-motivated term that re-casts homosexuality in a positive light. I believe even the New York Times maintained this policy until a management change in the mid-1990s.
Social conservatives’ linguistic battle over “gay” seems to be completely lost since I doubt anyone in our society would use “gay” to mean “happy”. The “ex-gay” movement has even undermined conservatives’ efforts by using “ex-gay”. It is amusing to watch how AFA/AgapePress, Focus on the Family, CBN, etc. support “ex-gays” while not using the term “gay” while they qoute “ex-gays” who use “gay”. So, the “ex-gay” movement has had a positive impact in changing social conservatives semantics.
There’s a similar battle within the GLBT community in conceding the term, ‘”ex-gay”‘. Do we keep the quotes or not? On one hand, we shouldn’t concede the claims that it is possible to change someone’s sexual orientation anymore than it is possible to change someone’s race. On the other hand, shouldn’t we respect others’ “ex-gay” self-identification to maintain civil dialogue? More complicated, there are “ex-gay” homosexuals who identify “ex-gay” while admitting to same-sex attractions.
– Have a gay old time!
Interesting thoughts, Norm.
The reason I wondered whether Agape was questioning even its existence is because of the insistence of some ex-gays of questioning whether there is such thing as a gay “identity” (we’re all heterosexual, you aren’t really “gay”, you’re just “struggling with heterosexual feelings” etc).
Ex gays are insinuating themselves into what is the biggest educational access, the public schools.
Their agenda is essentially a religious one, if not specifically Christian.
This is un Constitutional. This would mean that schools are compelled to promote a message of a faith discipline in a general school setting.
And it also would mean that a state funded school is promoting religion or religion based psychiatry (if there is such a thing).
The state cannot favor religion in this way.
Ex gays are not targeting religious schools, are they?
No, they want their agenda to be a part of the general school curriculum.
Now that gays and lesbians are coming out younger and younger…Exodus answers this in kind by targeting schools.
Still, this isn’t about leaving the choice of interest in their ministry to the young person, but going into an institution where they are captive.
If young people were told the truth about what’s in store for them with the ministry (lifelong celibacy or marriage to the opposite sex) it’s not very appealing.
Lay on how dangerous being gay is, without the young person having an opportunity to realize for themselves that being gay isn’t as bad as Exodus insists.
There is no appeal in their message really for Christ, nor is there much going for insisting on the unappealing life of being gay is.
In other words “We’ll tell you what’s in store for you, so you BETTER obey what we say! Everyone else is a liar and a shill for the homosexual agenda!”
I don’t think this is for the gay teenager whatsoever.
This is for the straight people who are a majority and can lay on a lot of pressure on the gay kids.
Straight people are more likely to be eager to do the bidding of Exodus.
Because it sure wouldn’t be as easy to make a gay kid do it.
Good points all. So their editorial stylebook says “‘Gay’ must always appear in quotes, even when part of a compound word. Exception: It is correct to quote ‘ex-ex-gay’ in its entirety. The term ‘sodomite’ may be substituted unquoted for either ‘gay’ or ‘ex-ex-gay’, and is in fact preferred because it is more meaningful in the lexicon of our average reader.”
I think it’s just as likely that whoever wrote it is just used to typing “gay” in quotes and it was force of habit. Perhaps it’s even set that way in their auto-correct function. If it was intentional, there would probably be more instances of it. A quick Google search found none, only a few “ex-gay” entirely in quotes.
David Roberts
Dave Rattigan: “…The reason I wondered whether Agape was questioning even its existence is because of the insistence of some ex-gays of questioning whether there is such thing as a gay “identity” (we’re all heterosexual, you aren’t really “gay”, you’re just “struggling with heterosexual feelings” etc).”
Although I’m sure Agape”Press” (see? more quotes) opposes the idea that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, I’m pretty sure they quote “gay” for silly semantic reasons. In other articles, they have no problem referring to homosexuals, lesbians, or transgendered people without qoutes. For example: in another article(1) they specifically only quoted “gay”:
“USA Today reports that a growing number of colleges and universities are holding so-called ‘lavender graduations’ to honor their ‘gay,’ lesbian, and transgendered graduates; …”
Although if you search gay in their archives in brings up some interesting qoute usage:
…Macy’s ‘Gay Pride’ Display…
…Lay Group Want ‘Gay’ Bishop…
…’Gay Rodeo’ Event.
…”Gay Games”…
Interestingly, I found a couple of articles in which they don’t use quotes when referring to Gay Straight Clubs. I’m not sure what the distinction is. They may have forgot or they’ve given up on the notion that someone might confuse GSAs with ‘Happy Straight Clubs’.
I suspect “gay” usage is more of a generational issue and we’ll see more younger conservates use “gay” without the quotes.
(I don’t mean to belabor the point. It’s just interesting to me to see these small changes come to anti-gay organizations.)
(1) https://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/252006e.asp
>> “shouldn’t concede the claims that it is possible to change someone’s sexual orientation anymore than it is possible to change someone’s race”
There is one human race. Unless you prescribe to the validity of racism, you cannot change one’s race unless one becomes something other than human. But one can change how one’s life is orientated.
A person who experiences same-sex attraction is not necessarily gay. In fact, a person who once had self-identified as gay but no long does so, may continue to experience same-sex attraction even as he self-identifies as ex-gay.
Gay does not mean homosexual nor does it it mean same-sex attracted. One can choose to be gay, or not. It is a chosen identity, not a condition or a sexual urge. That identity carries with it a range of lifestyle choices that the ex-gay person would reject explicitly.
When an ex-gay reorientates his life toward his or her religious beliefs, or toward his or her marriage (many ex-gays are currently or are formerly married and many with children), that person is changing his or her sexual orientation.
But that person may continue to experience same-sex attraction without succumbing to it. People do this with all kinds of mysterious urges that they experience.
Those who discount or deeply despise the ex-gay path are those who deny the existence of these people. Either they are self-hating dupes or they were never same-sex attracted in the first place, so the critique goes. The denial of choose of how one orientates one life is disrespectful of the individuals human dignity.
And that is far closer in distemper to the objectively falsifiable reference to race in the quote above.
F. Rottles,
According to many people’s definition of “gay,” someone who is same-sex-attracted IS gay — plain and simple. You do not enjoy any special right to define “gay” for everyone else.
Some people define gay to require affirmation of same sex attraction, but many people do not. If you don’t believe me, then I suggest you read the writings of Eve Tushnet and other Catholic same-sex-attracted social conservatives.
A few people redefine gay to require allegiance to certain political, social, or religious beliefs — but most of those people are exgay or antigay.
Many gay people, whether liberal or conservative, have oriented their lives toward their religious beliefs since an early age, and they find no conflict.
Some gay people choose to stay married to their opposite-sex spouse because the relationship and family are more important to them than the sexual activity. I suggest you catch up with the many blogs written by the wives of gay men.
Your suggestion that gay people, by definition, “succumb” to their attraction (presumably through same-gender sexual behavior) is highly prejudicial, in my opinion. Many gay and lesbian people are celibate or abstinent — and one is hard-pressed to argue that gay partners in a monogamous 10- or 20-year relationship have “succumbed” so much as “succeeded.”
You made another sweeping generalization, that anyone who criticizes “the ex-gay path” denies the existence of exgay people. That comment will sound ridiculous to anyone who reads this web site periodically. First, you are not entitled to define what is a valid exgay path and what is not. Second, this web site recognizes the existence of exgays. Third, you pretend not to be aware of the obvious fact that there are very few exgays who are public about their identity but who are not employed by exgay political organizations. The 2001 Spitzer study spent 18 months seeking exgays across the country, and found barely 200 who had remained exgay for five years. Nearly all of them were employed as exgay activists.
Your insults toward anyone who criticizes exgay ideology for any reason seem to be an effort to avoid discussing the substance of those criticisms — and to avoid recognizing the human dignity and integrity of people who live beyond your cookie-cutter stereotypes.
I hope you will eventually free yourself from ideology and learn to engage other individuals here and elsewhere in civil and substantive discussion — and mutual prayer.
David Roberts: A quick Google search found none, only a few “ex-gay” entirely in quotes.
I hate to be the first one to explain Google to you, Mr. Roberts, but you can’t search punctuation in Google. From Google Help:
“How can I get Google to recognize punctuation in my search query?
“Google doesn’t recognize special characters such as exclamation points, question marks, or the @ sign.”
I find it difficult to believe that you browsed the 821,000 hits for ‘ex-“gay”‘ to draw the conclusion that “a quick Google search found none.”
Jay said:
I hate to be the first one to explain Google to you, Mr. Roberts, but you can’t search punctuation in Google.
My, someone has a lot of extra time on their hands today. You are correct, Google does not allow you to search with punctuation as a criteria, but it does return the punctuation if it is there. Obviously, since I said that other variations were returned, I wasn’t claiming that it was filtering on the quotation marks.
I find it difficult to believe that you browsed the 821,000 hits for ‘ex-“gay”‘ to draw the conclusion that “a quick Google search found none.
Hence the phrase “quick” Google search. This isn’t exactly a heavy debate or I might have been more detailed. I wouldn’t expect that anyone would make the mistake of thinking I searched through 821,000 pages. A quick Google search is just that, a quick browse through the most obvious listings to see if something shows up (as opposed to an exhaustive search).
Feel better? 😉
David Roberts
F. Rottles at June 28, 2006 05:05 PM
Wow. I thought Noah Webster had dropped in for a moment there.
(As an aside: From time to time I’ll see some anti-gay writer – of the less intellectual bent – say something along the lies of “my dictionary defines blah blah blah”. For their edification, the modern dictionaries do not dictate definitions from on high and impose them upon the great unwashed. Rather, a dictionary reflects the common usage of a word so that others can figure out what shared meaning there is in our language. Thus, “gay” in a 1920’s dictionary is happy, and “marriage” in a 1970’s dictionary is man and woman.)
Rottles does help us understand the distinction that seems to be utilized by some in the anti-gay world. “Gay” is attitude or community, “homosexual” is condition or affliction. I have no problem with this distinction if it were used clearly and consistently.
However, this too seems to be shifting (the anti-gays never seem to find language they like). The new distinction seems to be that “homosexual” is identity (thus the “former homosexuals”) while SSA (same sex attraction) is a temptation. This new one is completely dishonest (as most “former homosexuals” still continue to oriented sexually and emotionally toward the same sex) and seems to be used primarily by anti-gay political activists like Alan Chambers.
F. Rottles, whether you choose to call me gay, lesbian, homosexual, “same-sex attracted,” or any other term, the words you and I use do nothing to change or invalidate the reality of my 15-year relationship with the woman I love, nor the lovely children God has given us. I cannot imagine a more fulfilling, blessed and sacramental covenant than the “lifestyle” I live with the wonderful woman God placed in my life.
When you discuss a gay person “reorientating” him- or herself, you make the error of confusing orientation with “lifestyle.” Certainly I have chosen (and been blessed with) a lifestyle that involves having a family and a home together with my same-gendered partner and our children. I could have chosen a celibate lifestyle, or even, God forbid, a loveless, dishonorable, dishonest “married” lifestyle with a man, promising him levels of physical and emotional love and commitment I could never actually fulfill. So, yes, one can change one’s lifestyle (though not necessarily with particularly good results), but one’s orientation is quite another thing entirely.
Think in terms of a compass. You orient yourself based upon the points of the compass. You may turn the compass one way or another so that the needle appears to be pointing to the east or to the west, but the fact is that the needle always continues to point to the north, no matter which way you turn the compass. Similarly, a gay person may turn him/herself one way or another, opting for a celibate lifestyle, or choosing to marry someone of the opposite gender despite lack of love, attraction and deep, intimate connection, but his/her internal compass will always remain pointing to his/her “true north,” his/her basic orientation towards and attraction to persons of his or her own gender.
Lorian at June 30, 2006 05:44 AM
beautiful analogy
Lorian,
Good comment. One can turn the compass so it looks like the needle is pointing to East or West, but it’s pointing North, none-the-less. Hope you don’t mind that I posted your comment on my blog.
Do an Agape site search of keywords like “homosexual” –then “family” , Use a gay word combined with another word the haters might use to try to describe themselves and their fumbling movement ….you’ll find they spend way more time writing about conversion plans for us homos than they do discussing schools, education, or their own damn families. The proof is obviously when one does a simple search like the one described above.
Bill, you are more than welcome to the quote. Thanks for the link.
Lorian,
Thanks for the comment and the way you have of expressing yourself so well.
F. Rottles frequents the Family Scholar’s Blog. Here’s an excerpt from this post of his there:
“The general opposition to the choice of change, in this matter, arises from a fear, I think, that those who choose to allow their same-sex attraction to dictate their sexual behavior would feel undermined by the success of others to change their behavior. I think that is understandable, to an extent, but for it to become a general policy, I think, would be unwise, unhealthy for society, and not fit for a virtuous society.”
He’s a great proponant of lesbians and gays changing their behavior to comply with societal and religious norms without the foggiest clue about the damage this would likely do to the person, the spouse and the children involved.
“Family Scholars” Blog won’t allow most of my reasoned comments no matter how polite I attempt to be. Their “moderation” is a disgrace to an accurate portrayal of reality and an honest search for the truth. And so is F. Rottles statement “When an ex-gay reorientates his life toward his or her religious beliefs, or toward his or her marriage”…”that person is changing his or her sexual orientation.”.
Rottles that person has not changed their sexual orientation, they’ve suppressed it in favour of other aspects of their “exgay” lifestyle. As you’ve admitted, the attraction remains. The sexual orientation is the attraction and that remains the same. You and yours at “Family Scholars” blog can prevent me from contradicting your calling white black and black white all you want but here I can tell you that to most people gay and homosexual both mean same sex attracted and if anything both have negative connotations.
You are telling lies.
We don’t feel undermined because a rare handful of “exgays” might have been successful in changing their behavior, but because they tell terrible lies about us, do their best to have society punish us, and insist we are less desirable because we choose to find happiness with our same sex love. What’s unwise is punishing and telling people they should feel bad for desires which can be used to find wonderful happiness with another. What’s unwise is attempting a committed relationship with the gender you are not naturally attracted to. What’s “unwise, unhealthy for society, and not fit for a virtuous society.”” is society asking any individual who’s hurting no one to live their whole life according to the capricious whims of F. Rottles or society.
Ex-‘Gay’ Group Reports Harassment by Homosexual at NEA Convention By Jim BrownAgapePressJuly 6, 2006Excerpts:
And…
Randi Schimnosky: “[…] to live their whole life according to the capricious whims of F. Rottles or society”
You outlandlishly mischaracterize my comments as “capricious” and as “whims”.
Bending your life so that it is orientated toward the unhealthy and impotent sexual behavior espoused and celebrated in Gay Identity is your choice to make.
Whether it makes you wonderfully happy or not, is entirely subjective and, again, is based on your personal preference.
Gay identity is not one and the same as same-sex attraction. The former is a choice, the latter may be inborn or at least deeply ingrained in the personality.
In any case, behavior is not dictated by mere attraction. Neither is love. Nor is happiness.
But one might miss this truth by looking at the world through the severe limitationsn of the Gay Identity filter.
That suppresses one’s true freedom. It usually means suppressing choice and also tyrannically demanding that society also repress choice for others. I see such nonsense in Randi Schimnosky’s self-centered and hyper-defensive response to my comments.
What seems to be ignorantly missed by the likes of Randi Schimnosky is that sublimation is not suppression.
Also Randi Schimnosky misses the distinction between the bloggers at Family Scholars blog and the participants (such as myself) who comment in the threads below the blog posts. I haven’t stopped anyone from commenting there, because I am not an FSB blogger, moderator, nor am I otherwise part of the decision-making that occurs at that blog. A mature reader would have discerned this distinction after a very brief review of the content of the FSB site.
Bill Ware: “He’s a great proponant of lesbians and gays changing their behavior to comply with societal and religious norms without the foggiest clue about the damage this would likely do to the person, the spouse and the children involved.”
Misrepresentation like that is ludicrous.
1. I have not presented religious arugments on this topic.
2. If you are against compliance with societal norms, then, you might give up promotion of Gay Identity as a societal norm.
3. And you might stop scaremongering about the ex-gays amongst us in this society. Again, if you don’t think compliance with societal norms is a good idea, then, why do you demonize ex-gays?
While I am not same-sex attracted, I empathize with those who are — whether or not they celebrate homosexuality in their own lives.
Tolerance does not require approval, as your comments continue to recommend.
Lorain: “you make the error of confusing orientation with “lifestyle.”
No, I spoke of choice in how one orientates one’s life.
I think I have made it fairly clear that Gay Identity is not a sexual orientation. It would appear to me that you would err by conflating that Identity with same-sex attraction.
Your analogy with a compass is pretty but inaccurate. A compass is objective. What you described is subjective.
This is self-evident in your own words:
“You may turn the compass one way or another so that the needle appears to be pointing to the east or to the west, but the fact is that the needle always continues to point to the north, no matter which way you turn the compass.”
Also, I have not advocated that Lesbians marry men. Nor do I buy the Gay Identity claim that women who experience same-sex attraction can form only sham marriages with their husbands. It is usually at this point that someone will start to argue that there is a True Gay Man or a True Lesbian Woman and those with same-sex attraction who marry well are not of the True variety.
This reliance on false purity of sexual orientation is also subjective and political rather than objective and scientific.
F. Rottles, you have ignored both my questions and my advice of June 28, and you proceeded again to engage in strawman argumentation as well as some personal attacks.
–You assert that other commenters promote what you call “Gay Identity.”
–You insinuate that same-sex-attracted persons “celebrate their homosexuality” — quite an exaggeration compared to “affirm” or “accept.”
–You refuse to define “Gay Identity” or to acknowledge that many people — gay, exgay and heterosexual — define “gay” differently than you.
–You claim to empathize with same-sex-attracted persons, but you call them “unhealthy and impotent” as a class — that’s a bigoted generalization if I ever saw one — and you gratuitously insult Randi Schimnosky’s maturity simply because she perceives that both the writers and the commmenters at FSB share similar unscholarly biases.
Overall, your harsh, ideological and prejudicial approach to these issues suggests that it is you who adheres to an Identity, and not the politically diverse range
of same-sex-attracted and transgendered commenters that comment at XGW.
You insinuate that same-sex-attracted persons “celebrate their homosexuality” — quite an exaggeration compared to “affirm” or “accept.”
What the heck is wrong with celebrating your sexuality? In the proper context, sexuality is a beautiful thing, and a wonderful gift to share with your partner. What’s not to celebrate?
F Rottles, gay people don’t bend their lives to be oriented towards a “gay identity”, that’s what comes naturally. Its “exgays” who bend their lives to heterosexuality which does not come naturally to them.
You say “Gay identity is not one and the same as same-sex attraction.”. This makes no sense to me. To be gay means merely to be same sex attracted. Can you even describe what you mean by “gay identity” seperate from being same sex attracted? I think not. And while you’re at it there is no important difference between sublimation and suppression in “exgays”.
Behavior may not be dictated by attraction but love and happiness come much more easily when they are in sync with it. Its you who wish to suppress freedom and choice for gays by asking them to go against what comes naturally.
Of course what “makes me wonderfully happy is subjective and based on personal preference”. Given that we agree on that why on earth would you suggest gays follow your preference and suppress their same sex attraction?
F Rottles,
You make the error of using words without knowing their meaning. It is very clear that you don’t understand what “orientation” means. Thus you end up making statements that leave you looking, well, not very bright.
Although the origins of orientation meant “directed to the east (or the orient)” it has more generally come to mean the direction to which something is pointed. In context of sexuality, it is the direction to which a person’s emotional/romantic/sexual interest is pointed, i.e. toward the same or opposite sex (or sometimes at a point between).
The compass illustration above is actually exactly correct. As you indicated a compass is objective, and so is the way one is oriented. It is an objective pointer which directs attraction, romantic affection, and sexual desire. As with a compass, regardless of the way that one “faces” ones life, the internal needle points the same direction.
You seem to think that “one orientates (sic) one’s life”. You are mistaken. Behaviors are based on one’s decisions (though impulses are influenced by attractions and desire). One cannot orient one’s life, only direct it.
You can debate identity all you like. You could even argue, if you wish, that orientation does not exist as such (this, of course, would immediately put you in the category of “kook” but you could claim it). However, you cannot claim that behavior is orientation. It just displays an ignorance of words and meaning.
Boo, I believe F. Rottles defines “celebrate” differently than you do.
Boo, I believe F. Rottles defines “celebrate” differently than you do.
No doubt it involves some sort of “identity.”
>> you have ignored both my questions and my advice of June 28, and you proceeded again to engage in strawman argumentation as well as some personal attacks.
No personal attacks made by myself. None.
No strawman offered. None.
You asked no questions. None.
(Maybe you did not review our previous exchange. Or mistake me for someone else or are confused with some other thread. It is fair to give you the benefit of the doubt.)
You then make four points that are disconnected from what I have actually written here. You have conflated several things and rather than seek clarification you have gone attacked speculatively.
Is this the civil discussion you had promised earlier?
Timothy Kincaid,
Orientate is entered in many legitimate dictionaries as an alternative for orient. Your earlier comment about common usage still stands, presumably. Or not, perhaps your nitpicking speaks for itself.
>> “you cannot claim that behavior is orientation.”
With what words of mine are you disagreeing, precisely? Because what I get from your comments is almost pure attitude and precious little substance.
If you clarify, I’ll respond if there is something I think is worth addressing in kind.
Mike Airhart peviously you had agreed with most of my earlier comment even as you had posed as if you were in disagreement.
>> First, you are not entitled to define what is a valid exgay path and what is not.
That is irrelevant since I did not claim to be entitled to do that. You can read my comments again and see for yourself.
>> Second, this web site recognizes the existence of exgays.
Yes, but then you go on the explain how deeply you discount their existence. Denial takes various forms, such as with the unfit comparison with race to which I first responded. Apparently defending their chosen path is your role, for some unstated reason, and I’m scolded for tresspassing or something.
>> Third, you pretend not to be aware of the obvious fact that there are very few exgays who are public about their identity but who are not employed by exgay political organizations.
I have not so pretended. The latter part of your sentence is another way you would deeply discount their existence.
The lack of going public has a great deal to do with the ill-treatment they can expect from people across the spectrum on these issues. The loudest critics call exgays self-loathing or they are dismissed as never having been “gay” in the first place. Their marriages are vociferously described as loveless, miserable, unfulfilling. Speculative limitations are heaped upon them rather than authentic empathy from people who pose as seeking to help rather than hinder them.
This also happens when people reject them for their experience of same-sex attraction. Concerns about that also keeps them from going public.
an effort to avoid discussing the substance of those criticisms — and to avoid recognizing the human dignity and integrity of people who live beyond your cookie-cutter stereotypes.
That’s very confuddled. What insults? Stereotypes? You may feel challenged, but misrepresenting my words if very poor form. To clarify, what substantive criticisms are you referring to, precisely?
>> I hope you will eventually free yourself from ideology and learn to engage other individuals here and elsewhere in civil and substantive discussion — and mutual prayer.
Such seemingly false piety does not impress. I have been civil.
Your response to my comment looks like the words of a poseur. Afterall, if you had read more carefully, you would have realized that your response was largely in agreement with my own comment. Where we disagree you have yet to substantiate. We expect better of each other, in other words.
>> gay people don’t bend their lives to be oriented towards a “gay identity”, that’s what comes naturally. Its “exgays” who bend their lives to heterosexuality which does not come naturally to them.
You may be committing the fallacy of naturalism.
We all bend our lives. We orientate ourselves. This is intrinsic to the dignity of the human individual.
Some choose the gay identity and others will reject it, even as both experience same-sex attraction. I had said as much in my previous comment.
>> Its you who wish to suppress freedom and choice for gays by asking them to go against what comes naturally.
To ask is to offer a choice, surely. To deny that choice, is to impose or supress rather than to ask. My comments point clearly to choice.
Besides when someone says they wish to affirm their choices, to celebrate their ideals and principles, it is they, not I, who ask for respect of their human dignity. I support their wish. Do you?
F. Rottles you still haven’t explained what you mean by gay identity seperate from its clear meaning as simply being same sex attracted.
If you’ll review your own comments you’ll see you falsely claimed gays bend their lives towards the same sex. The fact is gays are already oriented that way, one does not bend their life to the same sex when that orientation comes without effort or outside influence. You are the one recommending they make the onerous exertion to bend their lives to heterosexuality. It takes effort better spent pursuing happiness to bend one’s life away from the harmless and beneficial course it is already on – the effortless course of finding happiness with the love that comes naturally. The fact that people bend their lives is irrelevant to your lie.
You are not offering a choice by asking gays to go against what comes effortlessly you are coercing them to live their lives according to your desires rather than their own. “Exgays” do not freely choose to supress their same sex desires, they do it to avoid the hatred and rejection of a society and religion filled with people like you. Left to their own desires no one would choose to repress their desire for whichever gender they wish to be close to and supportive of.
I afirm choices that don’t harm others. “Exgays” don’t freely choose, they are coerced into sacrificing their happiness and contentment by religious threats of eternal torture and social rejection from people like you “asking” them to attempt ill advised and improbable change. In no way can that be considered a choice, you lie by calling that a choice. I don’t affirm that, I despise it, there’s no dignity in that.
The ex-gay movement seems committed to trying to confuse the public by using words with common understanding, but assigning alternate definitions to the words. Instead of being clear, they seem to be doing just the opposite by creating a new language that nobody understands.
Most people in this country associate being gay as being attracted to members of the same sex.
Most people could easily understand the distinction between that and gay sexual activity, which would involve sexual activity between two members of the same sex. (I am acknowledging that there are many who engage in sex with members of the same sex and don’t consider themselves gay).
Most people would also understand the term working to promote gay rights.
Of the three above mentioned aspects of the lives of gay people, I still don’t understand which if any apply to the term Gay Identity.
I am increasing coming the to conclusion that the term “Gay Identity,” just like the term “special rights,” does nothing more than clearly mark the person speaking as a likely opponent of equal rights for gays, lesbians and transgendered people in American society.
F. Rottles (October 20, 2006 08:25 AM)
“If you clarify, I’ll respond if there is something I think is worth addressing in kind.”
As is pretty obvious from my post, I disagree with these words:
“No, I spoke of choice in how one orientates one’s life.”
As I stated, orientation in this context is not an activity. One cannont orient ones life.
Randi,
Let’s avoid language such as “people like you”. It’s unneccessarily incendiary and could be taken as a personal attack.
Thanks,
Timothy
ps. Timothy, you keep this policy in mind too!!
John,
“The ex-gay movement seems committed to trying to confuse the public by using words with common understanding, but assigning alternate definitions to the words. Instead of being clear, they seem to be doing just the opposite by creating a new language that nobody understands.”
I have to agree. Here at XGW we’ve watched the mutation of the word “change” at Exodus until it’s new meaning is “assigning an identity that does not correlate to physical reality”.
In other words, to ex-gay ministries “change” now means “relabeling”. While that might work on Madison Avenue for FabuMarvelGreat Soap (previously BoringDull Soap), it doesn’t work so well when you’re playing with peoples lives – and I doubt God is impressed.
So too does it appear that some now want to redefine the word “orientation”. Rather than use the word for that internal attraction which was not selected, now some would use it to mean “intentionally directing one’s life” through use of phrases like “we orientate ourselves”.
In my opinion (for what its worth), only those who seek to hide their true intentions and to bury what they really believe use language that is intended to mean the opposite of what the listener believes it to be. Those who are forthright and bold in their beliefs do not hide behind deceiptful phrasing and spin.
But we are not fooled. And neither is a growing segment of the populace. The more they use words and twist meanings, the more people will say “these folks are dishonest and liars”.
The sad part is that this image of liar and cheat will be reflected on many good Christian people. That is truly a shame.
>> “I am acknowledging that there are many who engage in sex with members of the same sex and don’t consider themselves gay”
Those who self-identify with the social construct, Gay, comprise a subset of those who experience same-sex attraction. Others live chastely married, or not married, and others act on the attraction, exclusively or not.
Gay and same-sex attraction are not one and the same. This should be clear when people who experience the attraction explicitly reject the identitificiation.
The Gay Identity does not arise from within — it is not inborn. It is constructed partly as a defense mechanism but also as an aggressive means to herd them all under the single label, Gay.
Gay Identity is related to, and overlaps, other identities such as Queer, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, and so forth. Here I assumed we have been discussing men who you would identify as gay men.
Such self-identification can be re-evaluated by some people and they change their behavior.
Sometimes choice is driven by a political or philosophic or religious preference, for examples, and not determined by an unchanging internal compass-like instrument.
Lots of people may be confused by the purposeful conflations. That does not mean the distinctions are nonexistent or unimportant.
>> “you falsely claimed gays bend their lives towards the same sex”
The assertion is not false. For example, you have recommended that same-sex attracted people shape their lives to homosexed behavior.
You use different words, supposedly to make your recommendation more palatable, but for some reason you object to the word, bend.
People who’d follow your recommendation would bend, shape, turn, incline their lives to the same sex. They’d orientate themselves.
You depend on the term sexual orientation as the rough equivalent of the term sexual attraction. Fair enough. I’ve already said that attraction may be inborn or deeply ingrained.
However, each of us is a free agent who makes choices and acts on those choices.
The use of the word, sexual orientation, to explicitly mean lack of choice really needs to be challenged, especially by those who believe that there is merit in their choices. Such as yourself.
When a same-sex attracted person turns their sexual behavior *away* from homosexed relations, their sexual orientation changes.
But you might object that sexual orientation doesn’t change.
Yet they have rejected homosexed behavior. And, usually, they turn, or bend, toward a different set of principles than you might espouse as part and parcel of the social construct, Gay, which you’d conflate with affirmation of same-sex attraction.
Ex-Gay means bending one’s life differently than Gay. It is not so complicated, really, even if it is a difficult path by your lights.
One choice you’d make, it seems, is to belittle the prospect of the choice of others who do not follow your insistent recommendations.
F. Rottles- whatever you’ve been smoking, I want some…
*ffffffffffffffttt*
*cough cough*
See guys, it’s like… gravity… the attraction you experience to the ground may be inborn… but there are people who don’t identify as fallers. It’s like… some people choose to bend their bodies… so they don’t fall… yeah!!! Damn, what is in this stuff??!!
F Rotteles to the majority of people gay=homosexual=same sex attracted. You’re confused as is indicated by your meandering talk about gay identities which you never did give a clear meaning for – obviously you can’t give such a definition because it doesn’t exist even in your own mind. Look up both terms in the dictionary, gay (slang) and homosexual, they are both defined in mine as same sex attracted and that is most certainly because that is the most common meaning, what you’re saying is poppycock.
Changing one’s behavior doesn’t change the internal attraction and that person is still gay(has a same sex orientation). You referred to “those who believe that there is merit in their choices. Such as yourself.”. I have the most wonderful loving supportive relationship with my boyfriend, obviously there is a great deal of merit in my being with him, for you to blindly suggest otherwise is simply ignorant. Its you who would deny the freedom to be in such a relationship by your blind insistence that it shouldn’t be.
Gays don’t bend, shape, turn, incline, or orient themselves towards the same sex any more than heterosexuals bend, shape, turn, incline, or orient themselves to the opposite sex, they happen to be that way from roughly the time of puberty onward. Gays don’t bend themselves to the same sex anymore than one bends themselves towards sleeping, both are desires that appear without being conciously willed which is what a gay must do to bend themselves towards the opposite sex. Bending, orienting, etc. is a concious willing away from one’s naturally occurring desires. You can call black white and white black all you want it doesn’t change this fact. Do you think heterosexuals bend or orient themselves to the opposite sex? This must be the case if you believe this to be true of gays.
Randi says “F Rotteles to the majority of people gay=homosexual=same sex attracted.”
Even if true, so? To the majority of people, a heavy object falls faster than a light one. Majority is not a substitute for one’s own critical thought. Have your “majority” consider this one question:
1) Is a man who engages in sex with other men gay, homosexual, or same sex attracted? (Any answer other than either all or none of the above renders your purported majority wrong.)
Boo says “it’s like… gravity… some people choose to bend their bodies… so they don’t fall… ”
Ummmm, yeah. It’s called “standing.” Put down the weed and try it some time. Since we are not all face down in the mud, your gravity analogy seems to speak against your thesis that attraction dictates behavior. Does an attraction to marijuana dictate one’s behavior? What if I make an analogy to gravity or to magnetic north? Your argument by false analogy is as meaningless as Randi’s appeal to majority.
I wasn’t talking about attraction vs behavior, you silly goose. I was talking about Rottles’ postmodern definition of identity as something which seems to have no correlation whatsoever to anything in external reality. I could “identify” as the true owner of F. Rottles’ car, but the law would frown on any actual attempt to assert my new-found identity.
Boo said “I could ‘identify’ as the true owner of F. Rottles’ car, but the law would frown on any actual attempt to assert my new-found identity.”
I see. And exactly what would the law do if you were to identify yourself as gay or to assert such an identity? By your own test, doesn’t that mean the identification gay, in your own words, “has no correlation whatsoever to anything in external reality?”
As far as I know, the law won’t strictly do anything if I identify myself as gay, at least in this country. Neither will the law do anything if I make my famous lemon fried chicken strips tonight. Therefore, by your interpretation of my test, my famous lemon fried chicken strips do not correspond to anything in external reality. But they sure are tasty.
Op Ed, unlike the laws of physics the majority determines the meaning of words. As I suggested to F. Rottles why don’t you go to the dictionary and look up the words “gay” and “homosexual”. I suspect you’ll find as I did that homosexual means same sex attracted and gay is slang for homosexual. As to your question I’d assume that a man who has sex with men is same sex attracted but I can’t rule out the possiblity that one could do so and not be same sex attracted. Such a person is similarly likely gay (homosexual) or bisexual although once again I can’t rule out the possibility that they are heterosexual – heterosexual men in prison do have sex with other men.
If you don’t like the fact that gay=homosexual=same sex attracted go argue with the publishers of your dictionary, not me.
Op Ed,
The whole point of language is to share an idea. If I am writing a text on beasts of burden, then I must be careful to distinguish between a camel and a dromedary. If however I say “that’s our tour bus driver over there next to that camel” what matters is that the listener understands me, not the number of humps on the beast.
The problem comes in when people like F Rottles and yourself move outside the understood language and decide that words have either no meaning or can mean anything you like. It’s pointless to discuss anything with you because there’s no shared understanding of thought.
You simply say things like “But camel is a social construct and really is the big tent shaped thing with the table of dates and figs in front of it that you call a booth”. So rather than recognizing the identity of the bus driver, we’re left debating the meaning of “camel”.
The minute that someone makes a point, you simply discount it by changing the meaning of words. Suddenly “orientation” doesn’t mean orientation; now it means chosen behavior. And “gay” doesn’t mean gay; now it means constructed identity. The fact that everyone else understands the meanings of gay and orientation don’t matter to you because you aren’t here to share thought, just to justify your otherwise unjustifiable positions.
The problem is that you come here sounding reasonable. So it’s tempting to think that a dialog can be opened. But you aren’t interested in clarity and discourse, only in obfuscation and fuzzy language.
When one is very young this seems clever and a test of wits. It’s not. It’s just an exercise in futility. And I’m too old for word games and late night pot-induced “yeah, man, but what if this word really means the opposite” thinking.
If all you have to support your ideas are to mask your ideas behind newspeak, then really there’s no point in engaging you.
Obfuscation!
It’s the newest board game. Debate for hours and say nothing at all.
George Orwell © 1984
🙂 you made me chuckle
First, Timothy Kinkaid said, “I’ll see some anti-gay writer – of the less intellectual bent – say something along the lies of ‘my dictionary defines blah blah blah’.”
Then, Randi chimes in with “why don’t you go to the dictionary and look up the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’. I suspect you’ll find as I did that [blah blah blah]…”
Too funny. Boo then goes on to raise the question of what is legally enforceable, but when confronted with the reality that legally, sexual orientation is self identified suddenly develops an attack of the munchies and goes off for some lemon fried chicken.
While Boo is off dithering his chicken and as you have dismissed Randi as being of a less intellectual bent, Timothy, that leaves me to address just your comments.
I will concede that you have run into a problem with language, specifically that you cannot seem to find safe harbor in any particular definition of terms. Dictionaries define a homosexual as one who practices homosexuality, but that leaves Randi to tapdance around prison life and you around those who used to practice but now don’t, i.e., ex-gays. F. Rottles uses the more legal definition of the term as how one identifies oneself. Since one can identify oneself differently over time, however, this also admits the existence of an “ex-gay,” which sends you into lathers of hatred at F. Rottles.
Your basic problem is that any definition of “gay” that has an observable component to it will eventually lead to an observable “ex-gay,” which it is your mission to disprove.
Sadly, even your current “same-sex attracted” refuge itself proves too observable for your purposes. Most of us know people who at one point in their lives were exclusively same-sex attracted at some point and now are not. These people may not associate religion with why they are now different, which is probably the larger windmill you are tilting at, but they are quite a common phenomenon nonetheless. And since we know, therefore, that “ex-gays” exist among the population at large, who are you to say they do not exist among religious circles as well? Anathema!
There is a problem with shifting language in this thread, but it is not with F. Rottles. His use has been quite consistent, even pointing out that one could still have a same-sex attraction after one no longer identifies as “gay.” His usage is consistent throughout. It is you, on the other hand, who must jump from one definition of gay to the next, eventually to light upon what F. Rottles calls “The True Gay,” a circularly defined term meaning someone who can never be “ex-gay.”
Spit, foam, blame me, blame your dictionary, but whoever you blame your fundamental problem remains. As humans we repeatedly demonstrate an ability to control our behavior that overwhelms simplistic categories. There are ex-alcoholics, ex-smokers, and ex-junkies. There are ex-baseball players, ex-bodybuilders, and ex-movie stars. There are ex-Christians and ex-Atheists, ex-conservatives and ex-liberals, ex-convicts and ex-cops. There are ex-“breeders” and you are on a fool’s errand trying to deny that there is such a thing as an “ex-gay.” Dictionaries, language, and the world around you will continue to vex you as long as you are so engaged, blame who or what you will.
Op Ed and F. Rottles,
Commenters here have various opinions and that is fine – we don’t want nor encourage “groupspeak.” You have your own opinions and that’s fine as well. However, you are now beginning to make sarcastic, personal attacks which are not allowed. You are also stating things as fact without anything to back them up, such as this:
Most of us know people who at one point in their lives were exclusively same-sex attracted at some point and now are not. These people may not associate religion with why they are now different, which is probably the larger windmill you are tilting at, but they are quite a common phenomenon nonetheless.
We encourage debate, but it must be productive debate in search of the truth and not simply endless arguments which degrade into personal attacks. If you have facts to present, present them, but do so with respect toward others. Otherwise, as has been said before, there are plenty of sites which allow and even encourage endless argument for argument’s sake – we are not one of them.
You may both now exercise your own freedom of choice. You may continue to comment here but do so in a manor consistent with our guidelines and respectful of others. Or, you can continue as you have but on someone elses’ blog.
David Roberts, I haven’t made sarcastic personal attacks. But some who have criticized me have not been shy in doing so. They go unamed in your comment and remain unnamed in mine.
>> “Suddenly “orientation” doesn’t mean orientation; now it means chosen behavior. And “gay” doesn’t mean gay; now it means constructed identity.”
When was the word, gay, first used in human history? I can assure you it was not to describe homosexuality nor same-sex attraction.
On the other hand, homosexuality was introduced into the lexicon of human sexuality and thus, a few years later, the word heterosexuality was introduced as the opposite.
But gay meant other things until, relative to human history, it suddenly came to mean an identity constructed by people who sought a fortress for the defence of their behavior.
So, yes, it is used to share a meaning. As I said earlier it is partly a defence mechanism and partly a means by which to herd people.
It is interesting that you refer to giving things names. Before the appropriation of the word gay what did gay people call themselves and others like them? What did the word gay commonly mean (and still does mean)? Did you know that people named Gabrielle were also known affectionately as Gay?
I think you answers might prove my point.
Today it has become common to conflate the espoused (and constructed) identity with attraction (which may be deeply ingrained) and both with behavior (which is always a choice).
When I say that a person can re-orientate their lives, even the sexual aspect, I do not mean that he necessarily changes what may be inborn or deeply ingrained in his personality.
There are plenty of nonsexual inclinations which are not so changed by force of will nor by change of priorities.
But a person’s sexual orienation, as I have described it and not as you claim it to be (i.e. not same-sex attraction) does change when one turns from the Gay Identity. The person leaves the identity fortress; or, to use the other analogy, he is no longer herded. He reclaims his individual dignity as a human being and chooses.
Presumably, those whom have disagreed with me would never give-up your choice to join a Pride parade or to wear a Ranbow Sash or whatever. This may be your chosen identity and that may include conflating Gay with homosexuality with same-sex attraction. But it is a choice to so conflate.
Others see significance in the distinctions between identity, behavior, and attraction. This is true of attractions other than sexual; behaviors other than sexual; and identities other than sex-based.
Orientation is an act or a process and not just “being”.
If you use the phrase sexual orientation without self-identification and without behavior, what is its shared meaning among you here?
By the way, a friend of mine pointed out to me that a compass points north for everyone — man or woman. North is the nature of humankind which is two-sexed; and the nature of humankind’s regeneration is sexual, both-sexed.
If one turns internally to discover which way is north, then, one depends on the subjective not the objective order of things.
When the needle of a compass points north, it does not dictate that all travellers journey to the pole. People from any place on the surface of the planet could orientate themselves by north but travel in different directions. Finding north means we know of the full range of points on the compass.
So the analogy made earlier by Loraine is flimsy when it comes to comparing north to some object of attraction. I don’t think she claimed she was reading an objective instrument. She seemed to emphasize the subjective internal sensation which felt real to her. And I have not said that same-sex attraction is unreal.
But the compass analogy does show that one reads north, as per Loraine, and only travel northward. A compass would be pretty useless if it did not permit use of the other points on the dial.
On the other hand, one could travel northward without reading a compass but by following some other pointer (such as the rising sun or flow of a river) that guides in the selection of a destination or general direction. And there are different norths all of which wander — magnetic, celestial, geo-magnetic, and so forth.
In any case, north is objectively determined. The nature of humankind is so discerned. But not so the gay identity. The jury is still out as far as same-sex attraction.
–
I refer you back to the false analogy with race and ask if the True Gay is as pure as the True White Race as defined through the racist filter of white supremacy?
True Gay appears to mean exclusively homosexed. Surveys determine who is Gay by one of two ways. Self-identification or behavior. As homosexed behavior is more broadly engaged in that self-identification as Gay, it would make valid the distinction between 1) identity, 2) homosexed behavior, and 3) same-sex attraction.
Too funny. Boo then goes on to raise the question of what is legally enforceable, but when confronted with the reality that legally, sexual orientation is self identified suddenly develops an attack of the munchies and goes off for some lemon fried chicken.
Um… noooo… you’ve missed my point entirely, or more likely purposefully tried to confuse it. You and Rottles are trying to construct a definition of identity which means nothing other than wishful thoughts someone happens to have in their head which bear no relation to anything in the real world and which can even be contradicted by other thoughts. For instance, I am a she, not a he, so calling me a he is not giving me an “identity,” it is a “mistake.”
Dictionaries define a homosexual as one who practices homosexuality
Dictionary.com has seven different dictionary definitions listed. None defines homosexual exclusively as one who practices homosexuality. Only one lists that as a definition after providing a first definition of “of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one’s own sex.”
F. Rottles uses the more legal definition of the term as how one identifies oneself.
What “legal” definition? Or is “legal” another kind of “identity” which doesn’t actually “mean” anything?
Since one can identify oneself differently over time, however, this also admits the existence of an “ex-gay,” which sends you into lathers of hatred at F. Rottles.
If one chooses to define “ex-gay” simply as “an individual who sometimes thinks thoughts in their head about how they don’t like being gay” then yes, but this is a far cry from what most ex-gay organizations try to convince the public the term means, and by most any objective analysis, this is a pretty meaningless definition. If one attempts to choose an “identity” which is contradicted by the chemical fact of continued sexual responsiveness most strongly or exclusively towards members of one’s own sex, then “identity” is nothing but postmodernist gobbledygook.
Spit, foam, blame me, blame your dictionary, but whoever you blame your fundamental problem remains. As humans we repeatedly demonstrate an ability to control our behavior that overwhelms simplistic categories. There are ex-alcoholics, ex-smokers, and ex-junkies.
No one’s blaming anyone Sparky, just calm down. And most alcohol recovery organizations would dispute your claim that there are ex-alcoholics, but that’s besides the point. If a gay person chooses to refrain from sexual behavior, that makes them a celibate gay person, just as a straight person who chooses to be celibate doesn’t become an “ex-straight.”
There are ex-“breeders” and you are on a fool’s errand trying to deny that there is such a thing as an “ex-gay.” Dictionaries, language, and the world around you will continue to vex you as long as you are so engaged, blame who or what you will.
We probably are on a fool’s errand to try and get ex-gay advocates to use a definition of ex-gay which actually means something, but foolishly we shall soldier on. And I’m afraid it isn’t us the dictionaries are vexing, unless you and Rottles have decided to start “identifying” as dictionaries now?
When was the word, gay, first used in human history? I can assure you it was not to describe homosexuality nor same-sex attraction.
True, but the definition of words tends to evolve by social agreement, not suddenly by one person’s fiat. Now if ex-gay advocates will be honest and explicitly state that by their chosen definitions they remain homosexual every time they describe themselves as “ex-gay” it probably wouldn’t cause a problem. Although it would continue to look exceptionally silly.
If you use the phrase sexual orientation without self-identification and without behavior, what is its shared meaning among you here?
Preponderance of physical attraction, which is the general shared meaning, not just among us here, sorry.
But hey, maybe y’all are right and we’re wrong. Maybe identities corresponding to nothing other than a thought in one’s head are the most meaningful…
I’m a billionaire!!!!!
…
Dang it again!
Some of our most productive, meaningful discussions have been the product of people with opposing points of view. A civil, reasoned debate between such people can bring about understanding and spur new thought. The pontification occurring in this thread is not an example of such discussions. If we are going to resurrect an older thread, it should be to bring further clarity or new insight to the subject. One could gain more clarity from reading Numbers than from the last few days of discussion here. I think it best to close this thread to new comments.
F. Rottles, it would appear from your last post that you have made your choice and will from now on post to sites that encourage your type of enigmatic monologue. I would suggest your own personal blog for such thoughts. Either way, please discontinue posting at Ex-Gay Watch.
Thank you,
David Roberts