Group A is a conservative Christian “ex-gay” ministry. It does not encourage people to expect a change of orientation, and is critical of groups that do. It promotes celibacy rather than a change of orientation.
Group B is us. Gays and lesbians, many of whom have a Christian faith.
My question is this: Can you envisage Group A working with Group B to oppose the more extreme ex-gay groups who are promoting conversion/reparative therapy? Could gays and “moderate” ex-gays ever unite to combat the extremes?
Why/why not?
No.
Because on a second level, the goal of Group A and the more extremist groups are quite the same : forcing someone to act in a way of denying something which is inside him (her). Fucking like an hetero or not fucking at all still means don’t be as you truly are.
I think that nothing less than groups who want to tell gay to act as *they* want. That’s not help. That’s just personal troubles (group A or more extremist groups) spread on weak gay people.
The way could seems different (and group A less dangerous or violent) but it is the same roots : denying homosexuality, in mind and/or in acts.
As far as politically, it would hinge entirely on whether there are any moderate ex-gay groups that would be willing to go to bat for LGBT equality. Does anyone know of any?
No.
Because ex-gay groups assert that being gay is a behaviour and not an orientation. Ex-gay groups and their associates unequivocally view homosexuality as a pathology. That is supremely offensive to many gays and lesbians, myself included.
Some time back the Catholic bishops of the US put out a document, All Our Children, (or something like that) calling for an end to violence against glbt people.
Of course JP II and the present pope Benedict were/are not happy with that.
However I can envision a time when a change in Rome (B XVI is 79!) to a pope who is not obsessed the homosexuality the way the present one is (for whatever personal psychological reasons), and see the Catholic Church at least in the US moving back toward the American bishops’ position. In time, decades perhaps or more, it might move toward defense of some, or most, glbt rights. The Church’s changing position on Jews may be a model for what will happen.
There are tendencies toward accomodation with the world, and toward moderation, and ultimately a respect for reason and science, present in the Catholic Church that are not present in conservative Protestant denominations. It’s just that it moves very slowly.
No. Not if the motivation behind them is the same. Same tune, different tempo.
Suggest remain as Group B, and be welcoming of those gay men and women who wish to be celibate (for whatever reason) but who also support inclusion and equality for all.
Put both out of business. Offer a more attractive product.
(And welcome too Dave, from us!)
Group A and Group B are both us. Homosexuality is an orientation, and is the orientation of both groups.
The decision whether to have sex is a choice. And, from what you describe, they are choosing not to have sex.
Those same-sex attracted people who, whether for religious or other reasons, choose not to engage in sexual activity are part of the greater body of homosexual people. It is bizarre to insist that they conform to someone else’s sexual practices.
My concern with them is twofold.
First, do they adopt the “gay identity is bad” agenda? I have no problem with someone thinking that they should not engage in sex outside of marriage, but it would be difficult to deal with someone who thinks that because they are celibate that they aren’t gay. I would be uncomfortable around someone who feels the need to denounce my decision to live consistantly with my orientation.
Second, do they adopt the anti-gay political agenda of religious/political conservatives (what we in the US call the religious right)? If so, then they have set themselves at the task of harrassing the life of gay people and sadly we can’t work with folks who see their primary goal as our destruction.
But to the extent that they can agree with us that orientation is not readily, easily, often, or significantly mutable and that no one should be made to feel as though they should pursue this goal then I think we can present a common voice.
Beyond that there are plenty of options as to how same-sex attracted people can live their lives:
Some will want to live celibate but in a gay community to avoid the constant heterosexism of the common culture.
Some will want to live celibate and avoid gay culture altogether.
Some will seek to find a same-sex relationship and a family and settle down.
Some will casually date, as do many of their straight peers.
And some will be hedonistic sex pigs with little regard for the emotions of themselves or others.
The celibates are not the ones we need to worry about.
My vote pretty much matches Timothy’s. But because of how the ex-gay groups operate in the US, we will likely be a very distinct minority. They’ve done a lot to poison the well, so to speak.
Perhaps the political climate is sufficiently different in the UK for cooperation to take place against the extremes. From where we are here, I can’t say. But I don’t think there’s a chance in Hades for it to happen here. I would love to be surprised though.
Excellent question, Dave.
Self-determination is the common thread with a potential to bring the two groups together, at least nominally.
Reconciling beliefs and culturally-based ideals and expectations with personal experiences is a necessary task for all folks — straight, lgbt, ex-gay, whatever. Each of us has to ask, what do I want regarding relationships? Intimacy? Affection? Spirituality? Sexuality? Community? Affiliating myself with or distancing myself from the culture, traditions, and faith of my family?
For non-straight folks, one form of personal reconciliation, obviously, is the to accept and affirm ourselves, which often requires close examination and adaptation of beliefs and affiliating with communities that are different from our parents’.
Another way folks reconcile all of that is to explore celibacy, which appears at first glance to simplify relationships to faith traditions. It also produces questions about physical affection and relationship. Is a non-paired life a good fit for me? Do I find some sort of meaning or calling in being non-sexual?
The point isn’t that there are simple universal answers to all of these questions. It is that the reconciliation process is necessary to our development, and we stand the best chance of emerging healthy and whole when we engage in it energetically, considering all of the options.
Suicide prevention is another common thread, one which I know I share with some ex-gays. I talked about it in this post — that wrestling with stuff like this can be overwhelming, and we all want folks to get the support they need in order to survive and grow, avoiding self-harm and self-destructive behaviors.
Finding and forging these common threads is not easy; hopes for common ground can be overly optimistic, and trust depends on people setting aside the natural desire to convert each other to their way of thinking. I think it’s worth exploring, though, especially if the people involved aren’t yet entrenched in decades-long culture wars.
I would hope we could work with Group A to accomplish something that benefits us both. IMHO, what makes most ex-gay groups so bad is their need to misrepresent the facts (or in many cases outright lie)and their role as a tool of anti-gay groups to justify their discrimination and persecution of gay people. If Group A doesn’t do those things–and without further information from Dave we have no reason to assume they do–it would benefit them to oppose groups that do, if for no other reason than that those other groups ruin their image. For Group B, it would benefit them to have a voice among the ex-gay crowd calling all of the other ex-gay groups out for their inappropriate behavior and alliances. So such a partnering would benefit both sides.
That doesn’t mean that both sides would have to agree on anything outside of their common cause. It doesn’t mean that Group B needs to accept that celibacy is a valid expectation, nor does it mean that Group A needs to accept that homosexuality is not a moral issue. Both sides can continue to hold true to their positions outside of their common cause. As with anything else in this world, it would be unfortunate for Our Side to refuse a beneficial partnership towards a specific goal because in the general we disagree with the positions of that would-be partner.
It might be possible to work with them to discourage gay people from marrying heterosexually for the sake of trying to be or look heterosexual for others. Not that I would want to oppose marriage between two people without sexual attraction who really love each other and who’s love is the primary reason for marriage.
If they support equal access to employment and housing for all gays, sexually active or not, it should be possible to worktogether on that.
I can’t see working with them on equal marriage as they oppose same sex sex so its hard to see them supporting equal marriage for same sex couples. Personally I’m more of an all or nothing gal, and I doubt I could work with them at all with the outrage I’d feel at their not supporting everyone’s right to marry the one they love most regardless of gender. I just couldn’t trust or ever be at ease with someone who doesn’t support that kind of fundamental fairness. Good luck to the rest of you though.
“It might be possible to work with them to discourage gay people from marrying heterosexually for the sake of trying to be or look heterosexual for others.”
Thanks, Randi. That’s a good point. Groups A and B could agree that deception of a straight spouse is to be condemned.
This is a really interesting question Dave, and the responses are thought-provoking as well. I’d like to throw something else into the mix, if that’s OK. Could there be a group C in this equation, one that embraces the potential for changing one’s own orientation without politicizing the peripheral issues and combatting the rights of others (to marry, etc.)?
Timothy, I know you weren’t proposing an exhaustive list, but what about the same-sex attracted individual (G, L, or B) who is either in or would like to be in a committed heterosexual relationship and for this reason is seeking therapy to diminish his/her same-sex attractions? This person hasn’t adopted the “gay identity is bad” agenda, but rather says the “gay or even bi identity is not for me.” Is it really fair to villify that individual as well as the support network they need to achieve their own personal goals? In essence, is it reasonable for “us” as the brother/sister-hood of same-sex attracted individuals to seek to invalidate the rights of one segment of our population?
During our Bridges Across experiment, we tried doing something like this. But it just wouldn’t work. The Group A people have, as their primary goal, a need to evangelize openly gay people so even when we did agree on small things, too much else got in the way. The differences were simply too vast. Theoretically, it seemed like it should work. But in the real world, the “don’t want to be gay” contingent drifted away. They aren’t interested in opposing Exodus’ policies except, for a few, from the inside. And when they did that, they were castigated and scorned by the Exodus leadership as being “gay activists.”
There was one “exgay” who tried to forge an alliance with some of the GLSTN people to promote Safe Schools, but he found himself being used by gay activists as a tool against the exgay ministries. The whole situation is too policitized on both sides, in my experience. I’m not saying it’s not totally and completely impossible, but the water has been poisoned.
Steve Schalchlin said:
During our Bridges Across experiment, we tried doing something like this. But it just wouldn’t work.
It seems to work fairly well at GCN, but perhaps that is because there is a third factor which both sides hold strongly in common (Christianity)? I hadn’t thought about that before.
David Roberts
“This person hasn’t adopted the “gay identity is bad” agenda, but rather says the “gay or even bi identity is not for me.” Is it really fair to villify that individual as well as the support network they need to achieve their own personal goals?”
Fine with me, singer.
Just as long as the individual is being honest about his “change” and not trying to impose his need to reorient on others. And as long as the organizations are being honest about methods, successes, and motivations and not participating in anti-gay bigotry.
I do believe that some of those therapies can cause tremendous damage (as the professional mental heath organizations testify) so I would want full disclosure. But I support freedom to make informed decisions and I don’t fault the participant.
Unfortunately, I don’t know of a single solitary reparative therapy ministry that doesn’t endorse both “gay identity is bad” manta and an anti-gay political agenda.
The second part of your question is interesting: “is it reasonable for “us” as the brother/sister-hood of same-sex attracted individuals to seek to invalidate the rights of one segment of our population?”
I think what you are asking is if it is fair for gay folks to try and diminish the ex-gay ministries (correct me if I’m wrong). But that is not what either us here at XGW or the gay community at large does.
For decades we have known gay and bisexual people who sought to become heterosexual. And, generally, they have the support and blessing of the gay community. The only time problems have arisen is when ex-gay ministries have begun to lie, coerce, or pressure gay people to change; tried to poison the relationships of gay people with their families; or tried to influence society or authority by unsubstantiated claims.
I have no hesitation in opposing lies, coercion, pressure, poisoned relationships, or unsubstantiated claims. It is absolutely reasonable for us to invalidate such propaganda.
But, of course, we value all of our fellow gay people, even those who are struggling or who may not value us.
Randi said:
It might be possible to work with them to discourage gay people from marrying heterosexually for the sake of trying to be or look heterosexual for others. Not that I would want to oppose marriage between two people without sexual attraction who really love each other and who’s love is the primary reason for marriage.
That speaks to my thought about the importance of wrestling thoroughly and openly through the reconciliation process.
Singer said:
what about the same-sex attracted individual (G, L, or B) who is either in or would like to be in a committed heterosexual relationship and for this reason is seeking therapy to diminish his/her same-sex attractions? This person hasn’t adopted the “gay identity is bad” agenda, but rather says the “gay or even bi identity is not for me.”
This is close to where I was at when I got married with all the best of hopes and intentions in 1984. The unfortunate distinction was that, while I recognized (accurately) that I am bisexual to some degree, I told no one, sought no therapy, relying on my (sincere but ultimately illogical and unreasonable) hope that I was much more straight than gay, and so (as a monogamy-oriented guy) it all boiled down to making a choice and a simple commitment.
I don’t have any simple answers for you, Singer. That’s why I said earlier that I totally support self-determination. Your description just resonated with me… that’s a complex place to be, it’s often fluid for a significant period of time. In my mind being fair to folks who describe themselves that way ought to include letting them know that, at best, Exodus reports that only a third of them generally achieve a stable ex-gay identity, and at worst, skeptics suggest the number is much smaller than that.
Steve Shack said:
During our Bridges Across experiment, we tried doing something like this. But it just wouldn’t work.
My experience with B-A suggested to me that the best potential for bridging divides lies in working on small, simple targets and making personal relationships the top priority.
Bottom line, I think one of the core challenges (in the U.S., at least) is that the culture war is in full force… on the right we have folks relying on sloppy science and misrepresenting basic facts about the simplest of legal circumstances, and on the left we have folks who sometimes overstate their case and other times don’t seem to know how to engage in the debate directly.
Singer, there certainly could be a group that embraces changing orientation without trying to interfere in other’s right to marry or be protected from discrimination. Unfortunately “exgays” as we know them are very rarely such.
You ask “what about the same-sex attracted individual (G, L, or B) who is either in or would like to be in a committed heterosexual relationship and for this reason is seeking therapy to diminish his/her same-sex attractions?”.
No same sex attracted individual should be seeking to be in a heterosexual relationship unless they’ve already fallen madly in love with
somone of the opposite sex, a love that makes the matter of lack of sexual attraction minor. No doubt in my mind that this is an exceptional occurrence and anyone considering trying to diminish same sex attractions to be in, or stay in a “love comes second” heterosexual relationship should be advised that while not impossible the odds are strongly stacked against them and they’d be well advised not to try.
No one is trying to invalidate any gay’s right to be in a heterosexual relationship, I’m just saying if what you seek in a relationship first is heterosexuality, you’re setting yourself up for failure in love and being unfair to any would be opposite sex partner.
Agreeing on stuff is one thing; working together on it is *quite* another.
And I don’t mean to be crass, but what’s in it for Group A???
XGW writers and commenters often point out that exgays are being selfishly “used” by the religious right, and I wouldn’t exactly disagree. But I have also seen over the past nine years how gays can salivate over the prospect of being able to use “good exgays” or same-sex attracted religiously conservative celibates to further their own goals.
Given the current dynamics in the US, if Group A worked with Group B, Group A would face a two-front assault. There will always be Group B people who will find Group A reprehensible and offensive because of Group A’s belief that homosex is sin. There are plenty of gays who ridicule and attack those who are celibate because of their religious convictions. So Group A will always be under attack from that direction. Plus, if Group A works with Group B, especially on political matters, they will also get hit badly from their own side. Already perhaps somewhat suspect for not “advocating heterosexuality” in the way that some think necessary, they would get slammed by their churches, other celibacy advocates, and their less moderate exgay siblings (with whom they have a great deal in common) for breaking with them to work with acknowledged unrepentant sinners. And thus they would end up pretty much unwelcome anywhere.
Furthermore, maybe this sounds somewhat cynical, but if/when the political aims of the gay rights movement are achieved, I suspect that LGBT attention might shift from politics to “dealing with” religions and groups that aren’t gay affirming. I’m not trying to spin some paranoid scenario here where Group B locks up Group A for their beliefs–that’s not my point! But I just wonder, once the hypothetical political or anti-reparative-therapy alliance was made obsolete by Group B’s victory, whether Group A would quickly become personae non gratae in the eyes of Group B, simply another obstacle in the path of the next advance toward a better world for gays.
So no, I don’t think it could happen, at least not in the US. In part for some of the reasons that others have already stated, and in part because (I think) it’s clearly not in Group A’s interest.
DM
I suspect that LGBT attention might shift from politics to “dealing with” religions and groups that aren’t gay affirming
I suspect that these groups won’t need to be “dealt with” in the future. As society evolves, unpopular viewpoints get marginalized. I’ve noticed by the anti-gay rhetoric from people like Maggie Gallegher and others as of late that they know it’s only a matter of time before any of their opinions can’t be discussed in polite company.
Disputed Mutability, what’s “in it” for Group A is presumably the same thing that’s in it for Group B, a desire to see the best done for all humanity in an equal fashion. At the very least why wouldn’t group A and group B want to see that would be heterosexual spouses of same sex attracted individuals are not deceived into marrying someone for whom appearing heterosexual is more important than true love? Why couldn’t at least some members of Groups A and B work together to see people marry for the love of the partner, not a desire to appease others? I couldn’t work with group A, but I wouldn’t try to stop Timothy from doing it.
“There are plenty of gays who ridicule and attack those who are celibate because of their religious convictions.”
Funny, I’ve never met them. But I’ll take your word for it.
“Plus, if Group A works with Group B, especially on political matters, they will also get hit badly from their own side.”
Only if by “their own side” you mean the side that believes in legislating bigotry and perpetuating lies.
The problem with your entire post, DM, is the assumption that any and every ex-gay person must have an antagonistic relationship with gay people. If they are people of faith, it must be of the right-wing fundamentalist brand. And further, they must have no regard for truth, fact, honesty, kindness, and basic decency.
However I believe that good people, decent people, people who seek to follow the commandments of Christ and the dictates of decency and fairness are by their very nature disgusted by the spirtual violence perpetrated in the name of God. Decent people are on the side of justice and fairness and truth, not the side of bigotry and intolerance and deceipt.
Decent people look at the actions of Exodus and are saddened, whether they are gay, ex-gay, or ever straight. THIS is the motivation for decent people. THIS is what Group A gets out of it.
I’m a white guy and when I see racial discrimination going on I fight it. Not because I “get anything out of it” but because it is the good and moral thing to do. I don’t spend too much time worrying about what “my side” might think – if fact, if they don’t like it, they aren’t on my side.
That is one of the biggest flaws of the type of religion that seems to be such a part of ex-gay efforts. It is focused entirely on itself; getting its way in politics, forcing others to follow its teachings, intolerance or dismissal of anyone who has another faith, and a total desire to see what they can “get out of it”.
Oh, and by the way, Jesus wasn’t really worried about what someone thought about whether he “work[ed] with acknowledged unrepentant sinners” so unless the ex-gays are better than Christ they may not want to make that argument too loud.
But if there are any ex-gay strugglers seeking to live in a way that they think is holy, and who think that living holy extends beyond sex to also include loving your neighbor and doing unto others, then absolutely they could work with us.
Maybe, just maybe, there are some.
Timothy,
I’m not defending that attitude. I’m just saying it exists, that it’s a reality of human nature, and that it’s understandable. Obviously, people should do the right thing regardless of what they get out of it.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
DM
Randi, Timothy, Steve, Steve, and David,
Just wanted to quickly acknowledge your responses to my comments and questions. I wholeheartedly agree that a same-sex attracted individual choosing to enter into a committed heterosexual relationship has a duty to fully disclose his/her orientation to the opposite sex partner. I also agree that an individual seeking some level of reorientation has a personal responsibility to explore all of the facts and potential implications on his/her life — similar to someone exploring a sex change operation. There are actually quite a few parallels between the two if you think about it and I assume that most readers of XGW support the rights of the transgendered as well.
Timothy, you said: “Unfortunately, I don’t know of a single solitary reparative therapy ministry that doesn’t endorse both “gay identity is bad” manta and an anti-gay political agenda.” Have you ever checked out http://www.peoplecanchange.com? It’s not a ministry perse, but hopefully you’ll see this organization as a breath of fresh air.
Singer
singer,
no I haven’t. but I’ll take a look
thanks for the contact
MD,
sorry if I was a little harsh there
singer,
I gave the site a quick once-over. From what I can see, there does not seem to be a lot of overt anti-gay hostility. And that is certainly a welcome change.
I do think that some of the assumptions are just flat wrong. There seems to be an underlying assumption that heterosexuality is somehow correlated with masculinity and that becoming heterosexual equates with becoming a man. They also buy into the “distant father/molestation” theory for which I’ve never seen any scientific evidence presented.
Additionally, it seemed that most of the testimonies involved people who were married and living a double life. So perhaps this applies more to a specific subset of gay/bi men. But this process seemed to help them with this conflict and allow them to keep their commitments and vows, and perhaps for them it’s a good thing.
And over all I liked that they are up-front with their definition of “change” and I did not readily detect a political agenda.
So perhaps this is an organization that I would not find objectionable (I would, naturally, want to reserve judgment until I know more). Perhaps they are the sort of group that could be open to mutually beneficial alliances on some issues.
Singer, you agree “exgays” should disclose their status of attractions to a potential spouse. Do you also agree that the same person should not marry when their concern is more to appease others than for love of the partner?
Timothy,
I appreciate your willingness to take an objective look at this organization. I figured there would be certain fundamental aspects you would disagree with, but it seems that your big beef with XG groups has been the misconceptions they present concerning change, their overtly political agenda, and the disrespect toward the gay community you’ve observed. I don’t see these negative elements present in PCC, at least to the degree that they possibly exist in other groups.
You bring up some interesting observations. From my experience, a significant number of the men and women seeking change are married people who’ve found themselves in or near the “double-life” predicament. Although “how” they ended up in a heterosexual marriage is arguable (caving to social pressures, falling in love, etc.), I think any hope and desire they may have to keep the vows they’ve already made is “a good thing” as you’ve said.
Randi, that leads right to your question. I absolutely agree with you regarding the motivations for marriage. In the past, I think many same sex attracted people married for two primary reasons: 1) because heterosexual marriage was expected of them and 2) they thought it might cure them. I think that’s changing today largely due to our society’s growing acceptance of a gay identity. I think this societal acceptance gives that same individual the freedom to not enter heterosexual relationships, regardless of the decisions they make concerning their own orientation. It also makes it easier for that person to honestly disclose their struggles with orientation to a potential spouse so that s/he can make a more informed decision about furthering that relationship. The progress made by the gay community towards social acceptance has really allowed this shift to take place, even in the lives of those who choose not to embrace a gay identity.
I really appreciate the dialogue we’ve had here. I know that it’s helped expand my understanding of these issues and hope it’s done the same for you all.
Singer
“There are plenty of gays who ridicule and attack those who are celibate because of their religious convictions.”
That would be the case in the UK where simply believing in God makes you a “religious freak”.
I attend a TFT group. They are certainly not a UK version of Exodus. TFT agree with Exodus that “gay sex is not a option” for Christians but they do not try to demonise men who are gay. I was openly (pro) gay and an atheist from the age of 18 to 38 (1983 to 2003) and I was surprised to find out last year that a group like TFT existed. Pro-gay organisations are the most visible gay Christian groups in the UK (insofar that Christian groups are visible at all).
Singer said:
In the past, I think many same sex attracted people married for two primary reasons: 1) because heterosexual marriage was expected of them and 2) they thought it might cure them.
I agree with this but it led me to think again about degrees of sexuality. For instance, I’ve know I was gay at least since puberty, but no amount of either desire for change or need to appear heterosexual could ever have allowed me to marry a woman. I never even came close because it was literally as foreign to me as the average heterosexual wanting to marry another man. That some gays have done this and even had children has always amazed me. Is this a Kinsey scale issue? I don’t hate women, I just have zero sexual attraction to them.
My own answer was to appear asexual for a part of my life. This was as far as I could go towards heterosexuality, and even that was more denial than anything – denial of my sexuality in general.
David Roberts
I wonder about this myself, David Roberts. For instance, some gays seem as revolted by the idea of sexual activity with the opposite sex as many heterosexuals are with sleeping with someone of the same sex. Others seem capable of physical attraction but lack emotional connection. Personally, I lack any physical attraction or romantic emotion towards women. While discomfort sometimes exists, the best description for my feelings regarding intercourse with women would be total apathy.
Perhaps, as you note, this is an issue of sexuality along a spectrum. On the other hand, I could see somebody generating attraction as an almost Pavlovian response if they tried hard enough, which seems to be the case with at least some ex-gays who claim to be attracted to their spouse but not the opposite sex in general. Kinsey may well be right in arguing that humans are just too complex for the neat categories we like to impose on them.
1630r, I’d be interested in talking to you a bit more about your story if you are up for it. You can email me at davidlrattigan@gmail.com. Cheers.
I’d have more respect for prominent ex gays if they said something more like “reconciliation is possible”, I respect who you are as long as you respect the choices I made in life.”
But that’s not what they do.
They don’t respect choices. And so many of them were a mess, they are people who weren’t too good at making good choices any way.
Choosing to NOT be gay looked the easiest, and they were convinced it was, so that’s the choice they took.
However, they don’t respect not only other people who DON’T want to not be gay, they don’t respect if it’s the easiest choice that person has.
In other words, all their rhetoric about how bad being gay is, how destructive and unwholesome living that way has to have RESULTS.
For a lot of very young gay people those results aren’t true.
Only basket case gay people would lend some cred to what ex gays say, but not healthy and uncomplicated gay folks.
So for the results to be valid, ex gay ministries have to be as committed to making gay life difficult as they are to claiming they are the remedy for that difficulty.
I’m glad someone reminded me of the circumstances of Richard Cohen’s wedding. There was a tiny blip of what his wife looked like on Paula Zahn’s show.
I was suspicious right away.
Also too, Cohen engaged in all kinds of alternative therapies and groups himself until he found the right fit on his own terms.
His marriage (as true for those conducted by Sun Myung Moon) are arranged, and Moon himself thinks he’s a god or a divine ruler.
Richard Cohen was a man in search of an identity and would try this one or that one on after rejecting his AUTHENTIC identity.
There is horrific tragedy and dislocation of self with the chronic alcoholism among NA peoples.
Are those who themselves are identity dislocated willing to ascribe this alcoholism on NA identity, or the destruction of that identity because of outsiders?
Would Cohen or the others say
“question nativeness?”
DL Foster dared to do just that. He questioned my NA identity. Of which there are actually two.
And as he described a cultural situation that has been that way for over a century, ex gay supporters look to long ago traditions of therapy and religious discipline, rather than the newer more workable model of
reconciliation with identity and the social majority together.
Ex gays don’t accept what’s new unless it suits THEM.
I have a serious problem with their authenticity.
The way I would say, if a person so appreciated native culture, that eventually they started claiming they were part of a certain tribe by blood.
And claiming the benefits of that culture, without the pain and injustice of it as well.
Especially if they don’t have the dark skins and eyes for outer society to identify them as well.
So many ex gays to me, unfortunately, are at the most meaningful core of what a person is supposed to be, they aren’t real.
And work hard to build a wall of piety to hide that inauthenticity.
So I’d have to say NO too.
I want to hear “reconciliation is possible” or forget it.
Because for ex gays, that would mean being authentic.
And it seems for them authentic isn’t possible.