Ex-gay ministries depend on certain adversarial elements to inspire the commitment of their members. Although the majority will agree their members did not have a choice in their homosexual feelings, ex-gay ministries emphasize choice as the key factor in the re-orientation of these feelings. Biblical emphasis on purity, chastity, and self-sacrifice give the ex-gay person a sense of process. By making consistently “biblical” choices in the expression of their sexuality, the ex-gay person can experience a level of “freedom from homosexuality” albeit paid for in their own blood, sweat and tears.
My opinions are not founded on scholarly research; rather they come from my own personal foray into (and out of) the ex-gay movement. I have lived on both sides of the controversy. Not so long ago, I could not imagine making statements such as these. Perhaps the most controversial statement I can make regarding my change of heart is that it was borne out of an earnest exploration and thoughtful examination into the seeds of my own Christian faith. I started out with a very rigid picture of God. I knew the fear but not the love of God. My experiences in ex-gay ministry served only to affirm this narrow view of faith.
Set against a biblical contrast of right versus wrong, ex-gay ministries often draw a direct link between the quality of a person’s faith and their commitment to make a choice in the “straight” direction. This value system often results in the ex-gay person being caught by a cycle of perpetual self-evaluation. Compelled to dissect every thought, every word, and every deed into these black or white categories, the life of an ex-gay can become all about choosing sides. With homosexuality as the target, the goal then becomes to eradicate all thoughts and behaviors associated with “wrong” sexual attraction. This becomes the “calling” of the ex-gay person who finds their purpose in the process of self re-orientation. I believe this mode of thinking establishes a clear and distinct association between the effectiveness of God in a person’s life and that person’s ability to commit to ex-gay change.
As if it weren’t enough to instill such burdensome expectations, the constant emphasis on thought and behavior modification will in most cases develop into a deep-seated internal conflict. If feelings of sexual attraction are not a choice but acting on them is, the split between feelings and actions can leave a person feeling segmented, even disconnected from their true self. Ex-gay groups affirm this disconnect in their members, perhaps unwittingly convincing them heterosexuality is within their reach. If groomed properly, this disconnect can become so pronounced that in some cases the “reformed” homosexual will in fact be so far removed from their sexual attractions that to say they are “no longer gay” seems perfectly within reason.
In my opinion this may be one of the greatest flaws in ex-gay doctrine; that is, the idea that heterosexuality can be arrived at through the process of distancing one’s self from what are natural, intrinsic feelings of attraction. This is just not the norm in the process of development in human sexuality. In fact it is quite the opposite, as most people would agree a person’s sexuality is at the center of their identity and of the human experience. Self-dissociation from this core element would therefore lead to a loss of identity rather than the discovery of true self. I believe it is for this reason that those who subscribe to ex-gay thinking must remain connected somehow to ex-gay ministries in order to remain “ex-gay”. Without a strong internalized sense of self-identity, a person becomes dependent on external cues to help define their experience. The idea of the heterosexual goal must constantly be repeated, reminded, and reaffirmed. Group accountability sessions, prayer meetings, national conferences and the never-ending list of books, CDs, DVDs are resources proving vital to the survival of ex-gay ideology. I am personally acquainted with the prominence of ex-gay media (see I Do Exist) and can attest to the importance of their role in helping to promote the ex-gay movement.
Isn’t it time for ex-gay groups to stop using adversarial tactics when the real goal is the building up of our communities of faith? These tactics can only serve to divide and destroy the faith of the weak and alienate the most vulnerable. Why not try a revolutionary approach like loving your fellow man, or sharing as sisters and brothers in Christ? Let God take care of what you cannot give. Take up the cause of those who have been excluded by their churches, families, and friends. Make room at your table; invite someone to fellowship with you in your own home. Take the opportunity to get to know us and you will soon learn we are not so different.
As I have delved deeper and deeper into the mysteries of faith, I have found some sense of relief and a renewed sense of excitement at what the Bible has to say specifically to LGBT people. There is a message in the gospel of Jesus Christ that is best understood by those of us who have been oppressed by puritanical thinking. To my own surprise, this message is diametrically opposed to the messages of ex-gay ministry. Freedom is not found in striving, but in stillness. Joy is not found in hiding but in being open and true to our selves. Love is not borne in sacrifice but in mercy. Most importantly, healing does not come from our own efforts to mend what is broken; healing comes from knowing the one who gave his life for us.
I believe in prayer. I would ask us to pray for change in ex-gay ministries. I believe this change is already happening and there is an amazing window of opportunity here for us to heal the wounds that have driven so many in the LGBT Christians far from the faith. There is room at God’s table for all of us, but no one is going to show up without a genuine, caring and loving invitation. Take note that a good dinner invitation should not require anything from the guest. I believe this is what the gospel of Jesus Christ is all about. Besides, why wouldn’t you want us there…? Everyone knows LGBT people throw the best parties.
It is good to hear your story, Noe. Welcome to XGW.
Noe, you have an amazing way of expressing yourself. Thank you very much for sharing your insights.
Thank you for sharing! Your honesty opens up the reality of the hardship in those aspiring to become ex-gay.
This may be nitpicking, but I take some offense that “a person’s sexuality is at the center of their identity and of the human experience.” I think the center of the human experience, more exactly, is relationship. I am asexual, so if sexuality is central to identity, that means I have no central identity. Besides, most relationships of every person is non-sexual (family, friends, community of faith) but those relationships can be just as critical as a sexual relationship.
Your last few paragraphs mirror liberation theology, which is valuable indeed to all of us whom have been oppressed by religion. But the Gospel does not come to us despite oppression, it comes to us because of oppression. In Liberation Theology, to know Jesus, we must know Jesus’ suffering and that is why we are such an important group. Pain, difficultly, and rejection are the catalysts for God’s revelation and salvation only comes through death. Not merely Jesus’ death, but our death as well. I am justifying the ex-gay movement, but God is using even them for good.
So where I come at odds with the LGBT movement is the philosophy that God doesn’t want us to change who we are. Not according to the Gospel! The essence of the Gospel is Death and Resurrection. Jesus taught stripping off greed, envy, violence, lust, hatred, and gluttony and being born into charity, humility, justice, generosity, and compassion. Where ex-gays get it wrong (and gays too sometimes) is that Jesus doesn’t care about the dividing attributes – female, rich, slave, Jew, sick, male, Roman. I’m sure if Jesus preached today Jesus would rebuke our obsession over sexual orientation and gender identity too and to change into people who worry about the important things: feeding the hungry, healing the sick, comforting the lonely . . .
Noe,
Thank you for sharing your story with us. Your writing demonstrates a keen insight into the mindset that many who go through ex-gay ministries adopt. I, too, hope that we will continue to see more reconciliation between the church and its GLBT members.
That is so true, Noe. The journey of the Christian faith had always been getting to know Our Saviour. It should be “be still and know God”; that is truth. It is amazing how people had revised it to say, work hard to know God. Or worse, be heterosexual acting to know God.
This is great, Noe, your journey might have been difficult but it was definitely not for naught. We need people like you to speak out just as you’ve done here on XGW.
Noe,
I think the highest compliment I can give you is that I’m going to send a link to your story to my ex (tdub) because I believe it will be beneficial to him. And that’s what all this sharing is all about…..helping each other as we find out way in Christ.
Thank you for your transparency…..we are truly blessed by your presence here.
Well, I am happy the Noe is learning stuff from his experience, but I am shocked at how people are reacting. Remember, Noe is that person who said some things on I Do Exist that really hurt the community and individuals. His experience comes across as somewhat selfish to me–he helps the gay community with student and teacher outreach, participates in a pretty anti-gay video (in fact, didn’t most of us think his video portions were some of the most problematic?), and then reaches out and says he has come across the divide. It is about his “spirital journey.” While I appreciate his comments, doesn’t his “journey” seem almost planned? Maybe he is sincere, but the hugs around Noe aspect from everyone is disturbing. Did he not try to hurt people (gay and ex-gay)?
Fan4ad,
What do you find disturbing about the “hugs around Noe aspect?” What would you suggest, and why?
Many of us have “journeyed” similarly….and I for one have been grateful for the gracious way folks have allowed that to happen without holding things I’ve said in the past over my head all the time. While I’ve always tried my best to be gracious to others even when I didn”t agree with them…I’ve still said a few things that I go back and read now and I’m all “whoa…….i said that……..yikes….”
Fan4ad,
I have to be honest, that sounds a bit callous to me. Peterson was in exgay programs for 17 years, certainly he influenced a great many people. But I don’t believe his or Noe’s intent was to hurt anyone — they were doing their best to find their way at the time. Noe was only briefly in the spotlight and then pulled back. The “hugs” are because we can identify with how difficult that journey has been, and be happy that he is coming to a better, perhaps more genuine place in his life.
I’ve talked with Noe at length, and I believe he is very sincere. And I don’t believe I am betraying any confidence to say that during those conversations he expressed deep anguish over those he affected while working under an ex-gay ideology. Perhaps he will gain the strength to express that openly if we don’t chastise him for his past on his first attempt to share what he has learned.
In short, let’s not practice conditional love as so many of those ex-gay groups we discuss have.
I am sorry David about it sounding callous–it was meant to be skeptical. I cannot judge his heart, and he may be sincere (and probably is); however, I see it all as too quick. Remember that the makers of I Do Exist also were shocked by his quick change of view and the video quit being sold. Anyhow, just my opinion–I am a skeptic, so it is natural for me to question these things. I will not say anything more about Noe’s experience out of respect to him and the site. I do think it is legit to just mention these issues.
David Roberts said:
Point well taken. Because a lot of us were conditioned by our religious upbringing, it has always been a balancing act between our sexuality and our religious beliefs, and frankly, our religious upbringing usually helped us to hate ourselves and hate others who are like us and yet did not hate themselves as well. For me, I felt a false sense of superiority that I hated my homosexuality and that I was better than those who embraced theirs. It wasn’t until I came to the realization that Christianity is not about being superior but rather realizing that we are all loved by God equally that that false sense of superiority slowly disappeared.
Those in the ex-gay movement are given that false sense of superiority because if they didn’t, they would accept their sexuality with no complications. For those like Noe who have finally come to a new level in his religious journey, they should be celebrated and encouraged to move forward, not backwards.
It was explained to me once by a very spiritual priest that our spiritual maturity is likened to our physical maturity. When we are infants we know only our world and our needs and our wants. The universe centers on us. The big ME! As we mature we begin to see there are others around us yet we still tend to believe our ways are the correct ways and that others are not. As Lily Tomlin’s little child character Edith Ann once said, “I am not bossy; my ideas are just better.” Finally we arrive at a stage where we not only realize there are others, but that they all form a chain in the human existence. The “ME” becomes the “WE.” So too in our spiritual journey. I think Noe has finally found the “WE” or so it appears. Another priest used this scale to explain the same concept…on one end of the scale is Jerry Fallwell and the other end is Mother Theresa. The closer we get to the Mother Theresa side of the scale, the more we see God in everyone. Perhaps Noe is moving up in the scale. Bravo! if that is the case.
Yes, it is, but I think you might have been a little harsh. In some ways this is like any relationship — you have to be willing to get hurt to truly experience the joy. Even if he did change his mind, we did nothing wrong to trust him. I’m probably also less troubled because I have had a chance to speak with him and ask more questions than what was covered here so far. Perhaps we will figure out a way to bring some of that to another post.
I can very much relate to this quote.
I can’t tell you how deeply I appreciate the posts on the article. There is so much more to my story than meets the eye. “I Do Exist” was not my vision and I did in fact ask that it be removed from circulation just months after its release. You may have noticed that my name was strangely absent from all press and promotion of the DVD. There also are no quotes of my support. Those involved with the DVD knew exactly where I was on my journey and that I no longer felt the DVD spoke truth, at least in reference to my life.
For more than a year following its release, I was persuaded not to disturb the DVDs “effectiveness” in others’ lives. The messages I received from various ex-gay leaders said that to “come out” in disapproval of the DVD meant impeding the work of Christ in the lives of those committed to the change process. I was told (paraphrase), “Just because you can’t keep up with the call of Christ on your life, it doesn’t mean you should lead others astray.” I believed this message and took it upon myself to deal with my own change of heart, in silence and obscurity. It took some time for me to figure out this was not right (nor healthy). This was not what Christ had called me to and there was something very wrong with the messages I was being fed.
In late December 2006 I contacted the producers of “I Do Exist” and told them I was making a public statement about my change of heart. There was a panic in their voices and I was asked to delay my statement until they could prepare a statement of their own. Finally on January 7, 2007 I posted a personal statement on my website regarding my participation in the video.
I learned a valuable lesson from this experience. The ex-gay movement may say that people are their priority but it is often the case that the promotion of ex-gay ideology takes precedence. What I have written here and on my website are my attempts at setting things right. It should be noted, however, that I am also in process of being “set right”. This takes time and I can only trust God to keep true to his promise of completing the good work he has begun.
Thank you all for reading and for writing! N.
And who are they to judge what is truly calling you??
I think that visiting a place like XGW, and reading of others’ journeys, and just listening to what commentators say, will help you in that process. I would also recommend beyondexgay.com, where many ex-ex-gays go for support and to tell their own stories.
Noe said:
That remined me of a quote by Bishop Sheen which said, “I’d rather experience love than know its definition.” I think as Christians (and I am just as guilty as the rest) we tend to defend our beliefs when we should be aligning our actions to Christ’s. We put doctrine (or ideology) over people.
In what you say about how the the ex-gay movement tends to put their ideology over people, I always find it amazing when I speak to anti-gay or ex-gays, and I state that God is love, and God loves us all, how quick they are to react with anger. It is as if God being a loving God spoils their plan. In some ways I can relate to that. Being Orthodox Catholic, I can sometimes forget that God is about love, not doctrine. The doctrine is there for me (and others) to better understand God’s love, but it is not God. We tend to make doctrine a god just as other types of Christianity make the Bible out to be a god. The truth is, when we go to the pearly gates, we won’t be on a quiz show and be asked, “Name the twelve apostles,” or “Is the Virgin Mary’s conception called A. The Immaculate Conception, B. The Virgin Birth, or C. The Assumption?”
By the same token, when we reach those pearly gates, we will not be asked whether we are gay or straight but rather how we dealt with others. Did we feed the hungry, did we cloth the naked, did we visit those in prison, etc.
It’s a life-long process, and God will always keep his promises. It’s good to hear you are turing into one of God’s many vessels of love.
“God is love.” First Catholic Epistle of St. John 4:16
“God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God and God in them.”
Hi Ephilei,
No need to take offense at Noe saying that sexuality is at the core of one’s identity. That is essentially true. There of course is a process of mastering relationships to GET to that core.
Asexuality is part of the scale from one level of intimacy (emotional) to physical intimacy (which I thought asexuals are not interested in at all.)
External cues come early in life. In a way, I’m reminded also of the cues the ex gay movement gives on physical affection and demonstration. It’s long been noted how little casual affection is accepted among males. There is deep discomfort among ‘old school’ men so to speak, that connect affection only with sex.
But the assumption that GAY men are confused regarding affection and masculinity is another MISCUE from the ex gay movement that doesn’t respect individuals, but gives men the EX GAY cue by rote.
The ex gay movement seriously confuses not only individuals in their care, but the public at large.
What DOES qualify a person to be anything OTHER than what they know in their own hearts to be true about themselves, but the assumptions of others becomes their cue?
There is a difference between asexuality and celibacy, for example.
And when a person IS in a relationship, there is an assumption they are having sex, or plan to eventually.
What is put before the public requires a relationship as a cue to the community.
It’s relationships that sometimes advance the coming out process to that community.
Sometimes it’s having a certain history among one’s social network that requires informing them you are no longer on the market or interested in a romantic relationship.
But few people assume that a person doesn’t want to have sex for their own reasons.
Leading to my other point of how so many SINGLE ex gays present themselves before their religious community. They usually ARE celibate and either have never been or won’t be in a relationship. And the more commercial ex gays present themselves as having been formerly promiscuous and reckless in their sex lives.
Another confusing aspect because heterosexuals can be that way as well, but are not expected to blame their orientation.
All of this truly wrecks honesty and transparency. It’s impossible to know who is who and what they are doing. There are more and more assumptions, and certainly the ex gay movement encourages not asking any invasive questions of the newly minted heterosexual.
But plenty of invasive questions are asked of gay people or assumptions are made that their sex lives are hotter than a pistol unless that gay person SAYS outright, ‘I’m celibate’ or whatever to appease whoever might ask.
I think the price is WAY to high and ultimately contradictory to knowing FOR SURE what a gay person would really do if given the same opportunities that heteros have without question FROM their respective social networks.
Gay kids are given miscues and the contradictory cues all the time, and the ex gay movement simply exploits that.
It’s way past time that the real test be done. What would REALLY happen if the assumption and expectation wasn’t for a gay person to pass or go without?
I don’t think anyone who sincerely wants to see what a gay person would do in Christ would be afraid to find out.
Noe, that was beautiful and very insightful. I especially liked the way you addressed the ex-gay notion that a person can disconnect themselves from their sexual nature and still be whole. You just can’t. Sex is a drive we share with all the other living creatures of this good earth, with the exception of maybe bacteria, and for obvious reasons it’s a very powerful drive. To talk about sex as a mere behavior grossly trivializes it. It’s part of the bedrock of life on earth.
The analogy I like to make is with art. Not all art is explicitly sexual by any means, but remove any hint of sex, any hint of desire, romance, fancy, that longing for intimacy, the joy and ache of love from all of it…from music, from dance, from sculpture and literature…and what is left? And so it is with the person.
This is why what the ex-gay movement does to what so many good hearted, decent people, angers me so. There needs to be more kindness and love in this poor angry world, not less. But if you take someone’s heart away from them, what is left? It seems though, that the human heart does not die so easily. That gives me hope. Thank you very much for sharing your story Noe.
Nice illustration, Bruce.
The interesting question to me is why people keep choosing a religion (and ex-gay therapy IS a religion because it operates in exactly the same way) that is destructive to their health and happiness when there are other clear choices that do not. for example, other religious choices that do not claim a lock on the mind of G, or ‘understanding’ of unclear or non-sensical prohibitions that simply that simply do not work. Why do people not choose the path that would make their lives better, but instead, choose the path that continually brings pain. Noe’s comments on this are illustrative of the problem: conflating the messenger ( so-called ex-gay minister) with the message (G’s love), the ideology (gay is bad) with the idolology (the bible is G’s word and not men’s words).
My husband’s brother, a sweet man, stays with his wife despite the fact that both are miserable in their marriage. We have advised him repeatedly to get some counseling, either with her or without her. But don’t leave the situation unchanged, even if the change will result in reduced financial circumstances (at worst) or a renewed marriage (at best). (It is not about religious beliefs about divorce).
Yet he won’t, and continues to suffer. I can only conclude two things. One is that he is afraid of the change. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. questioning these so called ‘religious’ or ex-gay leaders is the equivalent.
My question then is, why choose a devil at all? This might also apply to gay people of a fundamentalist bent in dealing with their sexuality.
The other is, I think, a self esteem issue, and this I believe certainly applies to gay people in this situation. We are taught from an early age in obscure but pervasive ways that their is NOTHING worse than being queer– boys especially believe this because they equate being queer with being effeminate, and there is nothing worse than not being a full man, which one is not by definition if one is effeminate. Putting it another way, there is nothing worse than being a woman. Ask St. Paul and the whole army of misogynists masquerading as G’s representatives and intermediaries on earth. “Let us make man in OUR image. males and female created he them. Hah and double hah. I will suffer no woman to have authority over a man–indeed!!!
Being gay is SO bad that it makes some gay people crazy enough to believe that they have something to gain by betraying their basic natures, by betraying THEMSELVES. Another word for this is shame. Losing the war against oneself– or as the Throckster calls it, ex-gay therapy– doesn’t work, because it just confirms their opinions of themselves. They’re bad, evil, sick, inherently worthless. And if they just sell their souls for a cheap enough price, all will be well. but they are so worthless that of course it won’t work.(Transactional analysis does the best job of explaining this basic and apparent contradiction).
The truth is, gay people in this position WANT to be punished for being inherently and intrinsically morally evil (thanks to Benny the Rat for that bit of ‘moral’ analysis), and they can’t think of anything else besides fundamentalist religion that is bad enough to give them what they deserve. So they keep choosing it.
People do this sort of thing all of that time. It is what we call self-destructive behavior, and it is a common enough phenomenon well known to those in the psychiatric field. If that self destructive behavior, grounded as it is in culturally constructed poor self esteem, is not what is being addressed, then no therapy is going to work. Ex-gay ‘therapy’ is intended to do just one thing– confirm and support that poor opinion of themselves. Gotta keep the money, the political power, and the sense of superiority (glad you recgonize that, Noe) flowing. Hence the words sexually broken, sinful, lost masculinity, blah blah blah blah. Even the word therapy itself loses its meaning in this context.
I think this is one of the biggest challenges the pro-gay side has in understanding ex-gays and a good portion of the Christian world. I’ll use myself as an example, but I don’t think you will find mine a unique experience.
When I felt my homosexual feelings and actions where wrong, sin if you will, it was because I thought God thought that was so. It wasn’t my church or denomination that gave me that — though they certainly reinforced it — I did. I took what I saw in scripture and deduced that God didn’t like it. Was I influenced by those around me, society, history and just plain prejudice? Absolutely, though I didn’t realize it at the time. But I could have sat myself down in a gay-affirming church and I just would have disagreed with them – in fact I did this and that’s what happened.
I’ve heard people ask this question before, and it is very hard to answer, but my faith was not something I could put down while shopping for another. It was and is more important to me than life itself, so to avoid the parts I didn’t like to get around the issues was just unthinkable – I would be fooling myself. It was in fact that attempt more than anything else that almost sent me over the edge. It is not unlike being in the closet (only for me, much worse), trying to say I didn’t believe something about God that I did. That was real torture for me.
It was not until I faced the issue with God that I began to understand. In what can only be described as listening to His voice in a state of surrender, I began to see scripture much differently. I realized that going down the ex-gay route was literally killing me. I made a choice and I gave God the freedom to alter that decision if I was wrong. Doing so enabled me to get beyond my obsession with the whole thing, and live again. I could never have accomplished that by simply switching faiths — and I certainly tried!
There may have been some self-punishment in there, but that seems far to black and white, too simple an explanation. There is nothing simple about it from my vantage point. It certainly had nothing to do with feeling that gay is effeminate, because I’ve never thought that. That may well be the reason for some of the societal hatred of gays, but it really played no part in my own struggle.
I think we are actually in agreement here, David, but with a slightly different perspective.
Homosex used to be described as ‘the crime against nature, not to be named among Christian men’ (Get the emphasis there? Christian men.) You could talk about murder and slaughter (the OT is full of it), incest (lot and the children of Adam), human sacrifice (Abraham and Isaac, G behaving VERY badly (also the OT, especially the Flood), even DEICIDE (the brutal murderof G), but you could not even NAME homosex.
This is why I said: ‘We are taught from an early age in obscure but pervasive ways that their is NOTHING worse than being queer– boys especially believe this because they equate being queer with being effeminate, and there is nothing worse than not being a full man, which one is not by definition if one is effeminate.’ and i should have added for clarification– effeminate or queer.
This is where transactional analysis comes in, aka I’m OK, you’re OK. (Except in this case, it’s I’d be OK, if only I were not so not OK). It provides the best framework for understanding the phenomenon. There are two basic positions in life that one takes as an attitude towards oneself and others. I’m OK, or i’m not OK, you’re OK or you’re not OK, though no one is the TA equivalent of a Kinsey 1 or 6. One does whatever is necessary to confirm that position, because it is at the heart of identity. Which position one takes, vis a vis oneself or others, is not so important (except for the health and happiness of onself or others) as the fact that one will do whatever is necessary to confirm the position. this isn’t just TA theory. i think it is a concrete description of how human beings tick.
The concept of original sin– in adam’s fall, we sinned all– is just one religious expression of this idea, except that it takes the positon that no one is OK, or ever could be. Patent nonsense, but powerful nonsense noetheless. This is where some religions get their power and money– the meal ticket. you’re bad, but if you give us your allegiance and your money, we’re here to provide you with a way out of the dilemma, a dilemma which we have created out of whole cloth. Jesus certainly didn’t say so.
And here is in fact the basic problem with this kind religion. In no other field of human inquiry and experience is so much demanded in the way of belief on so little basis of history, inquiry, experience, and logic. Scriptural certainty exists only because people believe it does, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary that “certainty” is open to the self-interested interpretation of men– power, money, and the feeling of superiority that the ex-gay ‘movement’ provides to its adherents. In fact, the strength of faith exists in inverse logarithmic proportion to the amount of evidence there is to sustain it.
The lives and spirits of gay people, and their ability to choose what is best for their lives, are molded and stunted, hijacked by “faith” long before they even can understand the basis of that faith OR that they are gay and what that means in their lives.
I’m not saying here that all religion is inherently bad. i have no objectionto anything that gives meaning and order to people’s lives, as long as that meaning and order is not destructive to the individual or the society.
You could not see a way out of your dilemma because it was at the core of your being– both faith and sexuality. You were doing what TA says you have to do–confirm that basic position by any means necessary. You literally had no choice.
Except that as human beings, we always have choice. that is what makes us both human and moral. Your point of surrender– you would say to G, I would say to the human fact of choice– finally gave you a way out of the impasse.
So you are right, in that it simply wasn’t a matter of choosing another religion. It was reaching the point of choice– between your faith and your survival. Before that, you were only choosing that which confirmed your basic evil.
I cannot believe that any god, especially one sold as a god who loved the world so much etc etc etc, would offer that as a choice.
It is also the basic nature of despair, which is what I think evil frequently attempts to do, and certainly what the concept of original sin is intended for, because despair is at the heart of the doctrine– as always,(at least as I see it) Paul corrupting what Jesus had to say. Take away everything from a man, especially his knowledge of his own choice in life to be the best he can be. But then, give him back something that is broken. He can lose everything, but still have hope. The broken thing takes even that away.
How magnanimous of you, lol.
It’s not that I don’t understand what you are saying, I just don’t think such an analytical approach can ever adequately describe matters of faith — or any of the other mysteries of being human. And there is some extra jaded religion baggage in there as well, which makes it hard to fully explain what I mean to you. You have the explanation of basic decision making covered, and certainly the societal prejudice, but the rest not so much, at least not in my case. For instance:
That makes sense, but it doesn’t explain the why. It does accept that the decision is based on issues at the core of ones being. So as far as it goes, it is accurate.
For the record, I was a staunch atheist until my early 20s. I had no basis in faith on which to draw in my early days of dealing with my sexuality. If anything, I would have shunned any scriptural approach to the matter. The only negative and shameful feelings I felt up to that point were based on society in general, which is certainly affected by many faiths.
Actually, I had no real issues at all until I hit puberty, when guys became something quite different than they had been. In those days, it was what people might think of me that gave me pause, and later it was what God might want of me that stood in the way. I had lots of male friends and did all the stuff you might expect, but when I started becoming sexually and emotionally attracted to them, not understanding it, and having to keep it a secret, well that changed things as you can imagine.
There is no doubt in my mind that Exodus and related organizations facilitate, even (unwittingly) encourage the damage and destruction of the very faith they claim to hold so dear, in many, many people. If I have communicated anything, I hope you can understand how important that faith can be — as core to some as anything else in their lives. So you can imagine the anger and frustration caused when the supposed safe haven of an ex-gay ministry only accelerates it’s mutilation. Yet it is that very faith which draws the majority to them — a bitter irony that makes me sick.
I’m glad you wrote ‘lol’. I wasn’t trying to be magnanimous at all. unlike many of the ufndamentalists i have met, I don’t think I have all the answers that are necessary, especially to questions i don’t understand. My late partner had the basic philosphy that if every day you choose things that make your life better, then at the ned of your life, your life will have been better. I don’t see anything else going on in life except that–certainly not a better afterlife.
You wrote: ‘That makes sense, but it doesn’t explain the why. It does accept that the decision is based on issues at the core of ones being. So as far as it goes, it is accurate.’
I would say, there is no why to it, any more than there is a why to gravity. It is just the way people tick. Science, which to my mind never answers why, only how, is a good descriptor of reality for exactly that reason. Victor frankel (Man’s search for meaning) posited that that search is essential to being human. My cat, sparky, loves a good chin rub. the meaning of it stops at his nose. but then, sparky is quite essentially a cat.
You wrote: ‘ So you can imagine the anger and frustration caused when the supposed safe haven of an ex-gay ministry only accelerates it’s mutilation. Yet it is that very faith which draws the majority to them — a bitter irony that makes me sick.’
I wrote the same: ‘Take away everything from a man, especially his knowledge of his own choice in life to be the best he can be. But then, give him back something that is broken. He can lose everything, but still have hope. The broken thing takes even that away.’ The end product of this corruption– Mutilation, bitter irony, call it what you will–is despair.
It makes me sick as well, and is why I think corruption (in the very moral and very old sense of the word) lies at the very heart of the whole idea of ex-gay and exgay ministries. The very term ex-gay is a quiet admission that the basic premise is a lie, and known to be a lie, however sincere some or many of its proponents are or seem to be.
Alan chambers says change is possible, yet admits that he struggles every day, and we know where he gets his opinions because, as Mark Twain says, we know where he gets his cornpone. Despair is what keeps people in an ex-gay ministry, despite the palpable sense that it isn’t working.
For the sake of clarity, “I Do Exist” was released in July 2004. Although I had verbally made prior objections to the video, my own records indicate the first written objection to the producers was in September of 2005. I realize these datails (though small) are important and want to be sure I portray them accurately.
Ben,
Then as far as the how, there is logic to what you say. The end result is the same, a lot of damaged people, sometimes fatally. This is why I have been convinced over the years that we must allow everyone the freedom that I believe God gives all people. They must be allowed to work out the fine details for themselves. Who are we to take that away?
And while I think they fell short of the ideal themselves (and would probably readily admit as much), the founding fathers seem to have had the same thing in mind. It’s amazing how that has been corrupted by those who want to use them as another weapon against freedom of thought and faith. This whole thing is rife with bitter irony.
The key to understanding that reaction lies in a definition of ‘love’ is so tangled up with fear – fear of eternal damnation, fear of a big bad world that’s focused entirely on hating them for being Christians, fear of God sending hurricanes as punishment for immorality – that they don’t know how to deal with anyone whose faith isn’t similarly permeated by fear.
It’s a difficult mindset to escape, because that same fear rises up to beat you back down every time you try to question it.
Keep up the good work Noe, you are in my prayers and thoughts.
Peace be with you.
I can really relate to Noe’s statement about the unhealthiness of fixating on heterosexuality. After about five years of trying to change and being in ex-gay ministry and going to conferences, I reached a place of increasing depression because I did not see that change happening. Plus, it was taking all the focus of my life. One of the best things I ever did was to stop trying to change and simply go on with my life.
By going on with my life, I don’t mean that I decided to affirm homosexuality, I simply stopped trying to change. I focused my energy on more important things like work, friends, ministry endeavors, etc. I left behind the ex-gay world for 9 years. Leaving ex-gay ministry behind didn’t change my beliefs on the issue (I still believe its not God’s design), because my beliefs were not being dictated by external pressure. Rather I was influenced primarily by my own faith process and what I felt the Spirit was speaking to my inner person. So, despite leaving ex-gay ministry I still pursued (and am pursuing) chastity, but without fixating on it and without fixating on change.
There is a lot of fear among many ex-gays about being open in the church and with their families about their sexual orientation. This is so damaging. I eventually became very open and public about my same-gender attractions even while a student at a conservative seminary. This was one of the best thing I ever did. I have no secrets. I can be myself with others because I don’t have to hide my past or current same-gender attractions.
Ex-gay ministry was helpful to me in being open for the first time in my life. I benefited in that regard. But, I needed to move on. It would have been unhealthy to stay there as a participant for the long term (at least for me). I think ex-gay ministry could improve by focusing more on the spiritual disciplines and spiritual growth than change, and leave any change outcomes to God.
PS– I do have to say that some disillusionment with ex-gay ministry comes from our own hopes rather than what ex-gay ministry promises. The ex-gay ministry I was a part of never promised me heterosexuality. I wrote in my journal how it was about “holiness, not heterosexuality” and I acknowledged (intellectually) that I might not change. But, it was my own hope for change and my disappointment that it didn’t come that was part of the issue. We can blame ex-gay ministry, but a lot of times we simply have to take responsibility for our own expectations and our reactions when our expectations aren’t met. That being said, perhaps ex-gay ministry could somehow emphasize even more clearly that change may not occur, but when you are full of hope, one doesn’t always heed that even when its stated quite clearly.
It might be holiness, though I do not believe that holiness is the same as heterosexuality, or the opposite of homosexuality.
Personally, I think wholeness is a much better goal than holiness.
As a gay person who thankfully escaped getting suckered into any religion, let alone ex-gay therapy, I must say I am ambivalent toward these kinds of “ex-ex-gay” testimonials. Obviously I think it’s great people like Noe can finally wake up to some sense of reality and live a life without lies and repression (or at least, with fewer of them than before).
However, I’m with others who aren’t ready to forgive and forget the atmosphere of ignorance and bigotry he’s almost certainly contributed to, specifically as a spokesperson for the ex-gay movement in Throckmorton’s video. How many impressionable, lonely gay youths, unfortunate enough to be born into religious homes, saw that video? How much of their fear and self-hatred was reinforced by that video? How many now cling to that false hope of change and will now wander, lost for years while their lives pass them by? How many will become spokespeople themselves and recruit other innocent souls?
Noe does give some great insights into the psychology of the ex-gay ideology, I certainly can’t fault him for being a bad writer.
But no offense pal, while you were off being totally self-centered, obsessing over yourself and struggling to accept even the most basic truths about who you are (and all just to live up to some archaic mythology), those of us who have been honest and well-adjusted for most of our lives have had to constantly defend ourselves and our families from right wing attacks, and propping up the ex-gay poster children like Noe here is a key part of their anti-gay strategy.
I think this is a step in the right direction, but people like Noe are going to have to do a lot more than write an editorial or two to make up for the harm they helped cause, directly to a few, and indirectly to millions.
Perhaps if you had some of that “archaic mythology” you might be more willing to forgive. Just a thought 😉
Ambivelent you say? That’s quite a little diatribe for one so ambivilent.
Eshto– I understand what you are saying, and the reasons for your feelings. I agree absolutely with your very last paragraph.
On the other hand, perhaps a bit more empathy for Noe is in order. I never had any problems with BEING gay, but i was afraid of the consequences for coming out, being a child of the ’50’s as I was. When the strain of not being truly alive became too great, I came out at 21.
but as many people have commented, coming out is a lifelong process. I told the last people that needed to know when I was 28, in response to the Briggs initiave in 1978. 99.9% of the time, I am as out as I can be. But i still have found myself not telling my clients i am gay when the appropriate question comes up, because I have been afraid that I will lose what little is left of my business. And I am ashamed of that .1%.
So, cut Noe a little slack. Encourage him to stand up for himself, to atone for the damage he did. That is a postive thing to do. He is young, after all, and perhaps coming to understand that actions, even self-absorbed ones, have consequences. The journeys we take as people are made one step at a time, and if the foot is lame or the leg is damaged, the movement is slower.
In response to Eshto comments David Roberts said:
This seems like another case of giving Christianity the credit for traits deemed positive, while the responsibility for traits deemed negative are deflected elsewhere.
Christians have a sorry history on issues such as slavery, black civil rights, interracial marriage, and women’s rights, but today I now see them taking credit for the results of these movements. In about fifty years I expect that they will be taking credit as the force for ending the persecution of homosexuals. In each case Christians were dragged kicking and screaming towards social change.
I know that this was/is not true for all Christians, but I also know that virtually 100% of our organized opposition is Christian based. They are motivated, loud, well funded, and persistent. And those we consider our Christian allies are, for the most part, unmotivated, quiet, and unorganized for any significant action on our behalf.
Et tu, Richard?
First, I didn’t mention Christian anything – it was faith in general that he appeared to disparage. Second, absent face to face communication, a wink is about as much as one can do to convey levity. But you are right, some people of faith, including Christians, are just as unforgiving.
Richard R said:
I believe we as Christians have to fess up to “the sins of the past” as well as “the sins of today.” The heart or core of the Christian faith is definitely a positive one, but the way it has been misused and abused certainly is an evil that the Christian community as a whole must address and strive to remedy. Gay Christians are pushing the Church towards a mirror for it to see itself, and for many, they still refuse to see the true image of how it deals with the gay community. But that is the history of the Church since its beginnings. It is taking the human condition, forcing it to look at itself in order to change for the good.
Christianity certainly does not corner the market on positive traits, but as much damage that many Christians have done throughout history there is that much or even more good. That could be said for any group of people whether they be a religion, a nation, or just a collection of people with similar philosophies (with few exceptions).
Someone once said, “Christianity would work as a religion if there were no Christians.” I’ve always understood that to mean that, if we just lived our lives according to what Christ demands of us without flaunting that we belong to some club, we would be too busy doing what is right rather than boasting our religious affliation.
What I do find is for those who are anti-gay and who tag the word “Christian” to their identity, they have to distort the Christian message so much so that it no longer resembles what Christ taught in order for them to be constant in their hatred toward the gay community. Like what Patsy said to Saffy on AbFab once, “You may dress like a Christian, but the similarity ends there.”
I am pleased the author has found freedom from ex-gay movement and found his own peace of mind. But I just do not buy this about the goodness of religion. I’m afraid, I see it as the problem, not the answer. By what criteria do you more moderate christians separate the good verses of the bible from the evil or irrelevant ones?
If people were expected to give reasons for their beliefs, i.e based on evidence, observation and logic, rather than revelation and authority, this argument would not be necessary.
A lot of pressure groups base their claims about the sinfulness of homosexuality on a mythical event in a garden in mesopotamia, about 6,000 years ago. We know the universe is at least 2 million times older than this, and archaeology has shown no evidence whatsoever for the first five books of the Bible. And the historicity of the gospels is extremely lacking too.
For someone to argue that Christianity has been responsible for so much good, then it can also be claimed that Scientologists and the Nation of Islam do lots of work to get people off drugs, and Hamas and Hezbollah do charitable work too. It is also worth asking why it took nearly 1500 years after Christianity was first institutionalised, to abolish slavery – first called for by secularists like Thomas Paine, in the face of fierce Christian opposition.
Historically, religion has opposed just about every advance in human rights and science. The less impact religion has, the happier and more equal society, is – as the top five countries in the Economist peace index published this week show. The religious can no longer go for people of different race, witches, or Jews. Gays are the last of the ‘scapegoats’ to cast the sins of society on to. It sounds morelike, we are good in spite of our beliefs.
I have to ask of the believers: Why would heaven wait millions of years and impassively watch the early humans suffer so much as they evolved, fought and died young, almost being wiped out by predators, famines and ice ages. After all this it decides to send an envoy, not to civilisations like China where people could think and write, but to illiterate peasants in …Palestine?
We will all be happier when we realise the universe was not made for us in mind, we have one life and we should live and love to the full, and defend everyone else’s right to do so as well (Epicurus).
Adrian, I will use your comment to reinforce one of our basic rules here – it’s been a while. Matters of faith are deeply involved in the ex-gay equation, so we do end up talking about them quite a bit as a byproduct. It is fine to discuss this interaction, how ministries might use or abuse people’s faith to force their own convictions on GLBTs, and how faith in general plays a part in the lives of those who feel the need to seek out elusive change. Just about any civil discussion in that area is fine.
However, this particular site is not about questioning the validity of anyone’s beliefs, or of any particular religion in general. You may certainly participate and acknowledge your point of view, but not in such a way as to denigrate anyone else, i.e. “the bible is mythology” or “Mormonism is a cult” or whatever. Those may be valid discussions on other sites, but we need to remain as neutral here as possible, accepting the link to faith described above.
I realize this is not written down for easy access, and you are welcome to continue commenting, just try to understand the particular boundaries. It’s not perfect, but it helps us reach more people and provide a safe environment for discussion. Thanks.
Hi Dave,
I mean to do you no wrong – sorry did not see this was specifically a faith based site.
Whatever your beliefs, I wish you and your website all the best and keep up the excellent work.
A x
No problem, Adrian. It’s not really faith based, we just have to be mindful of it because of the overwhelming involvement faith plays in ex-gay issues. You are welcome to participate with that understanding, you certainly don’t have to discuss that issue.
Can I ask a compound question?
Like Jews in the world, gay people are a minority under siege. Very often the directives from Judeo-Christian origin are of course about increasing and preserving Jewish cultural and tribal viability.
Because of the Holocaust and other decimations on Jews, that directive to increase the tribe and waste no Jewish flesh to non procreative activity is taken to extremes from Christian prostletyzing and hyper procreating.
Jews are STILL a minority, in part by attrition.
And are concerned with their survival as who they are.
Now, gays and lesbians, asexuals and bisexuals are a less common member of their orientations, but MORE heterosexuals is not necessary to increase THEIR numbers.
Isn’t it unfair to human education, information and diversified cooperation to keep looking at homosexuals to turn into straight people?
It seems offensive that Christians want to convert Jews without solicitation from Jews, and it’s just as offensive to assume that a world without homosexuality is preferred?
And so far only heterosexuals think so, and they WOULD.
Let’s imagine a world without thumbs (which are in the minority on the human hand. And lefties are rarer too) and see what the point of eliminating a minority is really for.
So what say you all?
Obviously our world was created with MUCH variance and diversity. So all of a sudden no one other than heterosexuals being created doesn’t make any sense at all.
Well, I’ve always wanted to tell you what I thought of you after seeing your testimonial on “I Do Exist”, Noe, and now it seems I have found the forum to do so.
As someone who has overcome homosexual attraction and left it behind, I found your story moving and inspiring. It’s not a popular belief or stance, and I thought you were so brave to come right out and say it. It does seem to me now that you aren’t exactly as adamant as you seemed then, but I still find what you said encouraging for those who are trying to change this lifestyle choice. As for your current article, I think those with whom you were working might have seemed convoluted in their methods and ideas, but the real gospel of Jesus Christ is crystal clear, and it’s true that Christ does heal us all, but we have to do our part and try.
But I do not agree that freedom is found in stillness. The gospel of Jesus Christ preaches reaching and striving, progress and improvement, always trying to be like Christ, be a better person. Striving to be better is what keeps me going. If I believed that freedom was found in stillness, I would believe Christ wants me to stagnate, and that cannot be true.
Anyway, thanks for your honesty in the past. Peace.
Drew, Noe has retracted his testimony and come out as a gay man. It’s not that he’s “not as adamant” about his ex-gay story – he thoroughly rejects it now. He did not possess his “honesty in the past.” He possesses true honesty in the present.
Emily,
Really? The only clear comment I could find from him on the subject was a vague statement that he’s not going to make his sexuality a topic of discussion (which is entirely within his rights). Can you provide documentation where he actually said he “retracted his testimony and came out as a gay man”?
Either way, his history is still inspirational, which is why I posted my thoughts here. It was the first time I thought my words might actually be read by him. His story has been told, the words have been said, and people are being comforted and inspired by them every day, whether or not they have heard his most recent views.
Yes indeed. We get a clearer picture on the illusive and often futile fight with one’s natural God given instincts versus a Christian faith according to the single sin inspired by the ex-gay movement. We are trully comforted that more people know about it now, and inspired by the testimonies of those who wishes to have no part in such promotion nor practices.
Often futile, like you yourself said. Not always. In fact, it’s often successful.
Yours truly is case in point.
Okay, so we should be striving and not be still to know He is God. We should submit to Him by running a progressive race. We should surrender all things to Christ Jesus Our Saviour who is in control of all things by improving on how to be like Christ Jesus Our Saviour by what, not letting the Spirit to lead us but let people define their version of God upon us? So we are all saved by the Gospel of Grace called Might and and Mercy called Works. When we pray we are supposed to shout tot he world we are holier than others and do some sweaty activities around our house and garden? So we do not have the convictions borne by the Holy Spirit in us, we have to make ourselves into becoming something? So we are supposed to seek salvation which is already been given, and put a hook on God’s hands when He is already carrying us the day we accepted him? So the Christian faith is action?
Dear Drew, there is always something wrong when someone claims to have overcome homosexual attraction and calls it a “lifestyle choice”. Gays or lesbians never say such things. So perhaps you should strive to reflect on yourself whether you are naturally born homosexual or just another homosexual wannabe then wannaway then want your way.
By the way, since you are so adamant to call homosexual a “lifestyle” choice, would you extend the same equality in choice for heterosexuals who wish to leave their “lifestyle”. Ya know, they are all over MTV and movies these days. Gosh, more and more young ladies like Anne Hathaway, Sierra Miller are getting nude for sex scenes. You even recently have Christina Ricci and Justin Timberlake doing it on the cinema. Shakira singing about her hips and Fergie singing about her butt and Akon that wants to Smack That and 50 cent that wants to PIMP it. Surely with such promotions and marketing of such activities, you would of course strive even more to educate the public about dangers of the straight lifestyle, right?
So why not start an ex-straight ministry? Ex-straights have rights too! And there are more heteros to change and make money from with video testimonies. Maybe “I Do Exist 2”?
Dear Drew, you are you still attracted to the same sex? Are you celibate? Were you an experimenting straight? Were you a bisexual in the first place? Are you just acting out an asexual lifestyle now? You will unfortunately still fall within one of these categories as the “definitive result” of the ex-gay movement. Or do you claim that you are now 100% heterosexual? Ex-gay “I have done it!” stories have been wrecked by the realisation of people who had reconciled sexuality with their faith. Perhaps you should leave them alone.
As for your statement of it’s often successful, I am sure we would be interested to know on what study or from what source you gather such warped idea. Please do tell us.
Noe is not available at the moment or I’m pretty sure he would respond himself (and probably will at some point). I will let him speak to his sexual orientation. However, from my discussions with him, I know that statements such as yours are one of the key reasons he wished to no longer be included in the oft maligned “I Do Exist” video. If you are truly interested in his story, and not just the earlier bits that validate your own beliefs, then you must understand what Noe means when he says he does not regret his ex-gay experience — as painful as that part of his life was.
He does not regret it because, like all growth, it is sometimes a painful and necessary chapter in finding the truth about ourselves, and what God wants for us. It wasn’t long after the video was released that he began to feel that he was portraying an illusion which others were taking as reality and using that for support. That’s a tremendous responsibility; how does he answer the emails from people like you when he was beginning to realize that the life portrayed on the screen was not real?
I know of the pain and grief Noe has suffered, and how sad he is for others who suffered because of “I Do Exist.” Watching you force him back into that one slice of time, while disregarding “his most recent views” as though they were insignificant, that truly is a cruel irony. It’s also an excellent addition to the reasons Throckmorton should dispose of that video and fully inform those who purchased it of what he knows now.
Anything else will need to come from Noe, but let me assure you, it ain’t pretty. If you want to think of his statements in the video as some sort of proof for the life portrayed therein, you will need to put the truth aside, and enjoy the fantasy.
I suggest you might consider an apology to Noe for that statement, the implication once again being that with which you disagree (now) is somehow less honest than that with which you agree (before).
It was candid and honest when it was said, wasn’t it? And, to Yuki, remember that faith without works is dead. And I will continue my comments privately via email. I don’t believe in spamming up people’s blogs with unrelated comments and the intolerance for my beliefs and personal attacks are already starting, which I don’t want to continue here. I meant no offense to Noe or anyone else, so if any was taken, it was because the offended chose to react so.
Peace.
Unfortunately Drew, David got his point through first that you only choose to listen to things you agree with. You are willing to parrot to me one in James that says that “faith without deeds is dead” talk, but chose to ignore two verses in Romans and Galatians that clearly states SALVATION is by faith, not by works. Even when James talks about faith, it is the act of faith which is the deed. So what is the act of faith, your human endeavour to change to someone you are not (desires of the flesh) and grieve the spirit, or the actual fruits that come from the Holy Spirit. To take the words “deed” and trying to justify it as action will get you no favours from the Almighty God. What “deeds” you want more? Crucify Christ again?
You also choose not to answer pertinent questions I presented to you. Why? Because obviuosly you cannot answer it. You seem to represent following Christ as a single “sin” eradication process, but have you lied? Have you idolized anything else? Did you put anything above God? You cannot go to a site which states all the real truths about homosexual issues only to attempt to twist it your way (in any case, we all know who is the “offender”), but then close one eye to other matters that trully constitute wrongs in Christ.
So before you attempt to validate your “I only have to pretend to be heterosexual because I believe being who I am is a sin” which Christ himself said nothing, perhaps you should concentrate on divorcees which Christ clearly said something strongly about. Is it okay?
I also said:
You have yet to address the heterosexual lifestyle issue. Why not start with that, Drew?
My symphaties Drew. No one is intolerant of you here. That is why so many ex-gays do come by and comment. But I personally feel a burden for you people. You guys and gals are intolerant of yourself cause you choose to let people define what God they preach on you.
Drew said:
I am really beginning to feel a sense of empathy some for ex-gays. There is so much insecurity with them that questioning their ideology is deemed as “intolerance for beliefs” and commenting on what they said is taken as “personal attacks”. Hope Drew learns that the walk with Christ is to be focused on Christ, or Drew would be lost focusing on the walk.
I have been very fortunate to find the support of people like David and others at XGW. Conversely, there are those out there who still refuse to accept the comments I have made since “I Do Exist”. These same people would demand a statement in support of their own world view, using words they would choose, without regard or realization they may be objectifying a person with thoughts, feelings and experiences. The very reason I withdrew my support of “I Do Exist” had to do with this need to be “right” by those arguing the issue, and what I consider a very caustic by-product; that is, the dehumanization of men and women grappling with the very deep and complex issues of faith and sexuality. I do not say that I regret having gone through the “ex-gay” experience, as it has afforded me insight into my own life and the lives of others caught between a rock and a hard place. The bottom line is we are told we must choose sides; that there is something inherently “wrong” with us if we experience homosexual attractions. In the guise of “support” we are offered chastity, sacrifice, self-loathing and a neverending climb to an impossible summit. At the top are laid the idols of a movement gone wrong. For many, “I Do Exist” is such an idol, a symbol of the elusive goal that must be sought and achieved at all costs. To those people I would offer a sincere apology and a plea to reconsider their perspective on what the Bible has to say to the LGBT community. I believe it speaks hope and not condemnation; inclusion and not rejection; mercy over sacrifice and love over hate.
By saying Noe was “honest in the past,” he is calling him a liar today. How Christian of him.
Emily, how do you know it is a him (Drew as in Drew Carey) and not her (Drew as in Drew Barrymore)?
I was actually careful to not say him or her and just call the commenter as Drew. All my points were straight and honest without the slightest hint of even minimal abuse. David made a very mature statement too. Yet, I still cannot get it, as to why Drew said we were intolerant of the views presented and there were personal attacks starting? How odd and sensitive.
I have known more male drews than female drews, so I just made an assumption. I do the same thing with names that are mostly female, but have male owners: Dana, Tracy, Ashley, and others.
Noe, thanks for your comments. I too am against the dehumanization and objectification of human beings, which is part of why I am against the homosexual lifestyle and mindset. Emily, that is in absolutely no way what I implied, your inference is totally off. What Noe said in his interviews seemed entirely candid and honest to me, so I considered it honesty. Period.
Personally, I also don’t believe there is something inherently wrong with experiencing homosexual attraction, but I do believe there is something wrong with accepting, indulging or acting on said attractions, which the Bible (among many other things) indicates. I do also agree that the Bible etc. say we should love and accept everyone, but that doesn’t mean we should love and accept their behavior. Just as I can love someone who believes differently from me, or engages is behavior with which I don’t agree. Christ Himself condemned and denounced certain behavior, while still clearly displaying love for all of God’s children.
Maybe Noe’s experience with the ex-gay movement was different from mine.
As with heterosexuality, homosexuality can be all about dehumanization and objectification. But it can also be about care, compassion, tenderness, beauty, trust and love. If only you knew how bizarre and nonsensical your statement sounds to those of us who have had the joy of truly loving and being loved by someone of the same sex.
That’s why I specified “part of why”, as I know that happens in heterosexual relationships as well.
Would you still feel that way if the Bible condoned homosexual relationships?
Drew,
You may step out from behind the facade any time you wish. It took us a day to remember why the surname was familiar.
Shows the undeniable link between internet porn, chat rooms, sex addiction, and homosexuality and the deceitful and predatory nature of the “gay” lifestyle.
That’s the blurb for the book you have planned, yet you dare call other people intolerant?
That’s us you are slandering with those lies. You are painting a false and harmful picture about all gay men and women. And you are fooling nobody but yourself.
Tragically, your religion demands none of that from you. (Or does it?)
But who can blame you, really — surrounded as you are by people who have spewed out this type of ignorant venom for years. Dehumanizing is the only way to describe it, and I see no love for us displayed anywhere. I do see references to all the usual suspects.
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Who was hiding? I didn’t tell a lot of things about myself, because it just didn’t seem important at the time. Am I supposed to give a full biography when I post somewhere online? Since we’re talking about hiding, what’s your story? Why haven’t you mentioned your entire life history? But, now that you bring it up, I really don’t mind. I’m actually flattered that my surname was familiar at all! You think you’re not noticed, and then this! Sometimes you’re more well-known than you realize, I guess.
It’s not intolerance, it’s not lies, it’s not slander and it’s not prejudice, all depending on your point of view. I experienced what I did first hand, and I have a right to express and share my history, just as anyone else does. It is my honest experience. I am trying to help people you want this kind of help, just as Noe’s experience has helped so many, myself included.
You see no love displayed because you don’t want to see any. You must really want to further propagate victim mentality and attitude by insisting that everyone hates you and are out to get you. Truly sad. I only wish the best for you.
Drew — this will be the one and last time we indulge you like this. It’s your claims and your attitudes that are under the microscope, not our lives.
Given the accusations you’ve hurled at people here, and the wild claims you’ve made about yourself, then yes it would help if they knew who you really are and what your background is. You needn’t bother : that’s why we’re here.
And no Drew, I know not everybody hates me. Really, it’s the least thing I worry about.
For good reason.
I have my partner of 16 years, for a start. He loves me. I have my family — all of them. They love me, and him. His family enjoys having me around too. And we have our many friends, work mates and so on. I am very content with my life, and ache for nothing. Except sleep.
I’m no victim, and I won’t be your punching bag either.
Alas, you’re ego has also got the better of you. I’m aware it’s a common self-opinion that gets deliberately built by the ex-gay process into those people who think they are now conquering heroes (and the rest of us condemned to hell)… but you’re not famous. I’d be more accurate to describe the familiarity as with your parent’s infamy.
Your parent’s words (your mother’s mainly, it seems) speak for themself. I gave the link, and people can do their own reading. With all respect, she is your mother afterall — but she is plainly a sandwich short of a picnic when it comes to this subject.
Going far beyond any expectations informed by her religious beliefs, her writings are a torrent of bile. Paranoid. Ignorant. Hateful. Abusive. Rants.
If you knew anything about homosexuality, or gay men and women, you’d know just how wrong she is. I also get the feeling you wouldn’t challenge her even if you did know better.
To return to the subject of this post, I’m unsure how Noe’s experience has helped you. Surely you mean “only part of his experience” — and let’s forget everything else that Noe has witnessed and been through.
I think there is a great deal Noe, and us here, could tell you. Would you listen?
If it’s the last time I’ll be “indulged”, then what does it matter how I answer that last question?
Again, if anyone wants to continue this, feel free to email me.
Thank you as always for your keen eye grantdale.
Drew, this is a place for open discussion. If someone wants to talk with you, they have your link. Please stop soliciting private email as an alternative for discussion here.
Ah yes, the inverted ex-gay thought process…
We indulged you about ourselves, and said that was to be it. The last question has nothing to do with that. (We don’t ask questions of people we’re not speaking to, you know.)
Off-line discussions are also not encouraged here. We understand why you’d want to invite private conversations as soon as you’ve made your claims and the questions begin. It’s a way of hijacking a post, and avoiding open scrutiny.
Good grief. There’s an enormous factory in Korea making these people isn’t there?
It’s an interesting thing, really. I’ve recently been following websites of this sort, observing the conversation between the pro-heterosexuals and the pro-homosexuals. There has been a pretty interesting correlation. It seems that as soon as a pro-hetero says anything on the subject (generally non-offensive and without malicious intent) the pro-homos viciously turn on him/her, often with personal attacks. For people that always want to focus on love and acceptance, homosexuals are hardly practicing what they preach. Thank you for reaffirming this surprising observation.
Grantdale typed:
Another clue should have been when Drew typed:
the other things are: the Book of Mormon, their Prophet T.S. Monson, etc. So, yes, his religion demands it of him. (Though, I have never heard of homosexuals mentioned in the BofM.)
Two hugs to grantdale.
I actually wasn’t referring to the Book of Mormon or the prophets, although those are good points too, now that I think about it. I mostly meant science, anatomy, biology, etc. So, no, our religion doesn’t “demand” it of us, in fact, nothing is demanded, only commanded, and not from man, but from God. Of course we are always free, obviously, to choose whether or not to follow.
I will quote from my recent email to grantdale (since public discussion is encouraged after all):
It’s not paranoid if it’s real. It’s not ignorant if it’s educated and informed. It’s not hateful if it’s motivated by love. It’s not abusive if it’s motivated by desire to help. It’s not a rant if it’s documented and researched. What makes you think we know nothing about homsexuality when I have told you that I have experienced it first-hand? I’m pretty sure I know a thing or two about gay men as I used to be one. 🙂 I can understand the hostility though, I am the very antithesis to this entire website! All I can share is my experience, whether or not it coincides with certain persons’ beliefs.
And I’m certainly not afraid of public scrutiny (despite how outnumbered I am), since I have after all authored a book on a controversial topic.
Grantdale said:
Actually, I think it is not the religion that demands, but rather the people who present that religion demands. I think I mentioned to Drew about the heterosexual lifestyle twice (and twice he just ignored it), just as he ignores almost every other thing Christ himself mentions, like in regards to divorcees. And remember, these are the true demands of the religion we are talking about here. But funnilly enough, as what Christ demands is virtually rejected by all, some represent homosexuality as rejected by Christ which is nonsense.
I always believe when what people say about the religion replaces the core values of the religion itself ala James Dobson or when you allow someone to become that religion ala James Warren Jones without questioning anything, that is when you become a zombie listening to instructions from other humans beings rather than your own spirit or conscience, whichever it may be instead of having a real God over your life and living.
It is like eating. I know surely that we all need to eat. I am sure my spirit and concience asks me to have my full three balanced meal a day. But what if someone who represented Christianity tells me I am supposed to enjoy my every meal as my last supper and asks of me to swallow the ideology of eating just the holy communion small piece of biscuit mixed with some blackcurrent juice? I would be an anorexic. Just like Drew believes in sexual anorexia here, based on what people tell him to believe about his orientation when, again, Christ said nothing.
Can you possibly cite any single instance of me ignoring or disregarding what Christ says? Especially since you claim it was “almost every thing”. I told you how I feel about divorce, how is it even related?
If you believe and understand that Christ is and was and always has been, as far as human record goes, then you know that Christ had a hand in things from the beginning, which includes the prophetic writings regarding morality in the Old Testament, in which case Christ had an AWFUL lot to say about inappropriate sexuality, homo and hetero alike.
Look who’s sounding like a zombie! I have had my issues with the human element of my religion and faith, believe you me, which is why my faith now is much more focused and centered on the divine. Man doesn’t tell me what to do. God has His servants on the earth, but I always rely on the Spirit to confirm the truth of what they may be saying.
I don’t believe in sexual anorexia at all, I just don’t believe in sexual gluttony. There have to be standards. Just like I wouldn’t eat in excess, or something that’s not good for me, I don’t believe in behaving in sexual behavior that I believe to be harmful, physically and spiritually.
Funny, I always see signs by “Christians” at Pride celebrations that say “Truth is Hate to those who hate the Truth.” But what they fail to see is that Hate is Truth to those who find Truth in Hate.
I trust gay men who are STILL gay men. Ex-gays aren’t ex-gay because they saw that loving someone of the same sex wasn’t as vile, unbiblical, and physically unnatural as they originally thought. Just like Randy Thomas of Exodus thinks his lifestyle of drugs and sex in the 80’s was brought on solely by his attraction to other men and now denounces our “lifestyle” as if he knows what all gay men do because he “used to be one.” Gay people of my own generation have little personal knowledge of the “gay hedonism” that he put himself into.
And science has offered no proof that homosexual acts or behavior has any more harm than heterosexual behavior. In fact, MY behavior as a gay woman is the “safest” of the sexual practices. Lesbians are also known for being stereotypically monogamous (2nd date moving company, anyone?)
Mr. Andrew Graham,
I live just over the point-of-the-mountain from you. I would appreciate some clarifications after reading some of the FAQs on the home page on your Standard of Liberty website.
We can dance the semantics two-step but I would rather have a direct clarification. You say you are no longer gay and you don’t believe in sexual anorexia. That would suggest you are ruling out a life of celibacy. That leaves me to assume you are attempting to find a wife? I don’t see any other course of action for you…considering your Mormon dogma.
Drew said:
Then don’t. No one (here at least) denies your right to live you life as you think is best, or how you think God wants you to. But don’t expect that people will not be offended by and react to such Cameronesque tripe as this:
And most of us are all to familiar with this sort of double-speak:
And responses to those comments and others like them are not an “attack on your personal beliefs (the use of which for an excuse to avoid genuine discussion we may soon call “Ould’s Syndrome”).” You began your comments here with a condescending attempt to remake Noe’s experience in your own image, to turn what he has learned in life on it’s head so that it fits your own views better. It may have been dressed up in passive-aggressive style faux compliments, but it was still a personal attack far worse than the open and candid variety.
And when asked to apologize to Noe for basically calling him a liar, you chose arrogance instead of humility:
Blame the offended, just as you try to blame Noe for “not trying hard enough:
By implication, you are saying that Noe didn’t “do [his] part and try?” Those who know a little bit about Noe here may indeed respond strongly to such comments, but no one here has been overly harsh.
Noe aside, the onus is on you to prove your position if you want anyone to consider it aside from yourself. You’ve not given a scintilla of evidence beyond your own vague interpretations to support statements made here and in your book preview. And when asked for something more than anecdote, you tried to take the discussion off the blog and out of the light of day.
If you wish to participate in future threads here, please support statements of fact or do not make them. And if you slip innuendo into your comments, don’t be surprised if others figure out what you are doing and call you on it.
David, I have never read so many unintended inferences in my entire life! You are putting words in my mouth that I swear have never been there. My original post was indeed a genuine and heartfelt note to Noe, saying what I’ve always wanted to say to him, since this is the first time I have ever had the opportunity to write something I was pretty sure he would hear. That was my intention. Period. I came back to respond because my character was brought into question, and I felt like defending myself. It’s not my fault if people choose to be offended. Personally, although sometimes baffled, I’m not offended by anything said to me here! Being offended is a choice, and I would rather not be. Noe’s words are still an inspiration to me. You can infer all you want, but that is your own doing. Innuendo? This is positively amusing!
And cowboy, to answer your question, yes, I am dating women, looking to marry. In fact, if you read the above posts, I’m quite in love with a lovely young woman from CA. (Direct enough for you?) I don’t believe a life of celibacy is necessarily what God wants for us, but rather that he wants us to marry and raise children and teach them of Him, eventually helping lead them (and ourselves) back to Him.
The fact remains that I am the antithesis to what this website purports. Incidentally, I tried to take the discussion off the blog for reasons I have already stated, but also mostly because I’m bored with it, it’s like talking to a wall (or, several walls?). But you’re wrong about one thing: I don’t have to prove anything to anyone.
But I never called anyone a liar. Rather, I ask any and all of you to apologize to me for calling me a liar.
Drew,
My heart goes out to the “lovely young woman from CA”, or any other person who gets dragged into the ex-gay mess. She could not possibly know what she is getting into unless she is also part of the ex-gay movement.
You can live your life as you please, and you have chosen to make your personal campaign against your own gayness a public cause at this time with your blogging and book writing. However, you, like so many before you, will probably look back on what you are doing now with great regret at some point in the future.
Your personal actions and statements extolling how you have “changed” may make you cringe in embarrassment, but they won’t sting anywhere near as much as the guilt over the people close to you that have been hurt.
Do your future self and this “lovely young woman from CA” a favor. Walk your current path on your own.
My word, may I just take a moment to thank everyone on this blog for letting me who I am? It’s good to finally get to know myself… < /sarcasm >
The path of overcoming homosexuality has been trod and passed for me! Let me make it clear that it has been close to a decade since I have put this part of my life behind me. It is practically ancient history. It’s not like I’m currently “going through” something, it is long since over. In fact, I sometimes don’t even think about it, there are long periods of time when it never even crosses my mind. I can’t imagine looking at what I’m saying now with regret in the future, since I don’t look back on any similar things I said in the late 90s with regret now!
Drew said:
“the onus is on you to prove your position if you want anyone to consider it aside from yourself.”
I might also add that you must support statements of fact if you wish to participate in discussions here. You can say any old thing you want, accurate or not, on your own blog or in your own book.
I guess I don’t really care if anyone considers it. I’m pretty much used to the idea that no one here is going to respect my views. But they were asked about and challenged, so they are being expressed. I have already stated my original purpose for being here. It has admittedly gone a little off course in an effort to defend my good name, but maybe this discussion has run its course. Like you said, I have my own book and blog with which to distribute my thoughts.
Cursory homosexual experimentation? Aside from blaming everything on others, what the heck does that statement mean? This is the basis upon which you claim to have been gay? This sounds more like Michael Glatze.
And if you “hardly even think” about the bad old gay days, why are you writing a book about it? Honestly Drew, Andrew, whatever, experimentation in college is hardly much on which to make a claim, particularly if, as you say, it was spurred on by an addiction to porn.
This is what I mean by facts. I’ve likely spent nearly as much time trying not to be gay as you’ve been alive, and yet you base your claim of “change” on experimentation during college? I suspect a lot more people are gay by that standard than either of us are aware of.
Drew wrote:
According to his website, Drew Graham is 27 years old.
Yes, almost 28… And?
A reading of the book will help you understand better. It’s hardly limited to college experimentation. It started with childhood and continued, mostly exhibiting itself in high school and college, where I finally decided to take control. Porn was only one factor in the equation.
And if I really blamed everything on others, I would actually have accepted homosexuality as my identity, because I would have a perfect scapegoat! No, I decided not to blame others, but to recognize the root and cause of certain things, that’s all.
The book, as I have said, is an effort at helping young men and others (or their families) who experience unwanted homosexual desires and would like to know success stories of change. It was quite something to go dredging through the past like that, but if it helps anyone, which, incidentally, it already has, then it’s worth it.
You have got to be kidding. That’s younger than I even thought. So, experimentation in the first year of college? That’s the most he would have time for if his statement is correct about when he last “put this part of his life behind him?” Drew, people that read XGW are accustomed to serious discussion. It is hard to take you seriously when even your own statements cast doubt on whether you were ever gay to begin with. This sounds more like a tad bisexual, if that.
And I’m curious, does your family own your publisher, Tidal Wave Books? I ask because the domain is registered to an “sgraham” and all the books printed by them are either authored or co-authored by someone with the last name Graham:
Next time you drop by a blog, try being a little more honest with something like “I watched too much porn as a teen and experimented sexually my first year in college, but when I got serious I realized that wasn’t me.” But then you might also want to explain why you are blogging and writing books about something you are “so over.” It’s all a bit confusing.
Ok Drew, here is some info from a post on your blog from July 3. It’s an accounting of things that were going on at different milestones in your life. Emphasis is mine:
10 years ago I:
1. Was a senior in high school.
2. Was student body artist (unopposed in the elections).
3. Was “dating” the “love of my life”.
4. Was in and out of life-changing troubles.
5. Was leading the marching band.
5 years ago I:
1. Was plodding (and animating) my way through college.
2. Was made used to the idea of never serving a mission.
3. Was getting into the Harry Potter hype like you wouldn’t believe.
4. Was working on and off at the BYU Bookstore and living at the Glenwood (still my favorite college ward).
5. Had long since left the life-changing troubles from high school behind for good.
Assuming that the “life-changing troubles” were porn addiction and the “sexual experimentation with older men,” you state here yourself that these were issues “from high school” and not college. Did you extend the length of time you were involved in this for the description on your book? I can imagine that “freedom from sexual experimentation in high school” wouldn’t impress many readers. But more and more, this is looking like a brief, early chapter in your life. That does not discount it as something that may have been difficult for you, but it does lessen the impact of any statements of “change” and people should know that.
This kind of inconsistency is something we have become familiar with in many ex-gay stories, particularly when they are used for some sort of gain. And these came up after only a brief exchange on a blog. That’s not very promising.
There is a half hour (somewhat insightful) interview with he and his mom here. (podcast)
One quote of interest was this:
“My son’s therapist said that if he had not been addicted to same-sex pornography, he would not have had a homosexual-a problem with homosexuality.”
Also, based on her mention of “Dr. Robinson” in the interview, the mention of “Dr. Jeff Robinson” in her bio, and his connection with BYU, I’m assuming this was his doctor.
And the $64,000 question @ 22:40: “So when you see a handsome man, is there any attraction?” And then we get a 45 second response that begins with: “Well, here’s the thing…” where we then learn that it’s possible for a man to appreciate the attractiveness of another man, without being attracted to that man.
Perhaps he just forgot to say: “No, absolutely and miraculously not. No attraction what so ever. I’m sexually attracted to women now, in the same way and to the same degree that I used to be attracted to men. I am now fully heterosexual. In fact, being the heterosexual that I am, I struggle with lustful thoughts when I see a beautiful woman. Thankfully the Lord helps me to keep those lustful thoughts at bay as I look forward to having a rich and satisfying sexual relationship someday within the bonds of holy matrimony.”
—
The lesbian girl who called in at the end summed the show up best — eloquently and graciously — but the mother, pitifully, wasted no time in trashing what she had to say.
Yes Drew. Then imagine the scenario when someone questions your past words, or your book, as insignificant.
So in face of equality, again I will ask. What would you do to overcome the heterosexual lifestyle? Would it be based on the same standards which require you to play-act another sexul orientation?
Then what are you doing here? Garner attention to get hits for your website? Promoting your book? Marketing “change”? Unfortunately, most people here do not “experiment” homosexuality, and unfortunately for you, their parents do not call it a sickness called “a homosexual”.
I am so happy for you that you have discovered that homosexuality is just not your orientation and is just an experiment with you. The problem is there is a difference between an MSM and a homosexual. Men who have sex with Men; some may as well be heterosexual or bisexual. So you are branding your “homosexual” experience on experimentation here.
Unfortunately, most homosexuals in the world can barely relate to your “experience”. When you go around telling people about your little “sexual experiments” as if it represents the entire gay and lesbian community, you are blatantly insulting everyone here. You are fortunate people are still talking to you and show you grace. But to respond in such disdain as to “defend yourself”?
Drew, look carefully, you are not defending yourself. You are defending the painting of your teenage life that depicts the wrong ideas about yourself, and totally the opposite of what other gays and lesbians experience. Then you are defending your right to parrot it as a fact about gays and lesbians. That amounts to fabricating and distributing lies and defamation.
Can you please tell me just how this is any different with someone of any sexual orientation?
Yes, it would appeal to confused heterosexuals or bisexuals who wish to place their opposite sex experiences as their primary. No one born homosexual would ever brand it as unwanted. Unless. One thing. They are stigmatized and discriminated, and it is caused by the uneducated and unfounded biased claims you make right now. Or as in many ex-gays I know off, “if you cannot target them, target their paranoid families!”
David wrote”
Perhaps Drew is facing the familial version of “pubish or perish.”
“Pubish”? I’ll assume you meant “publish”, in which case let me clarify that writing and publishing my book was my idea.
They were troubles that STARTED in high school. That doesn’t mean they exclusively happened in high school. And besides, I constantly hear gay people insisting they just KNEW they were gay when they were teenagers or very small children, so what does it matter that this happened when I was young? I’m sure half of the people here identified themselves as gay when they were teenagers. And I diplomatically answered the question on the radio because I knew that people wouldn’t believe it when I said I wasn’t attracted to men (which is happening even here and now). I answered in a way that I thought they would understand, about which apparently I was mistaken, clearly saying I am not physically or sexually attracted to men, but also saying that I’m able to look at a nice-looking human being without immediately sexualizing them (male or female… some people have a certain measure of self-control). It’s more complicated than sex, but since that’s pretty much what homoSEXuality is about (rather, that is a major difference between it and heteroSEXuality), it would make sense that you would choose to focus on it. As for the blog history, you also notice I put “dating” and “love of my life” in quotation marks. It was pseudo-dating, and to someone I thought at that time I loved, hardly to the love of my life. It was an unhealthy relationship, and those who most often visit my blog would know exactly to what and to whom I was referring. For the exaxct response you wanted to the question asked me, see my forthcoming book.
You have to be tricky with you lot because you nitpick, hence my careful radio answer. Now we’re getting into rhetoric and semantics. Spare me.
The lesbian girl said exactly what we expected an opposing caller would say. In fact, it’s something I would fully expect someone on this blog to say as well! I appreciated her comments because they were so transparent and predictable. The same old lines. Nothing new.
I am further flattered that you’re listening to our radio material and obviously reading up on our work, including my humble blog! Cheers!
Drew,
Perhaps you know what my next question is going to be. But, let me preface the question with some personal tid-bits you might find interesting.
I never saw any gay pornography until I went to college. When I was young I remember a magazine about bodybuilding at the local drugstore that intrigued me but the closest I got to gay porn was viewing some cigarette or razor-blade ads with hot-looking guys. One time I got a copy of the Advocate when the cover story piqued my interest but I knew I was gay long before I saw porno.
I look back and realize I spent a good deal of time in denial. With some peer pressure and a desire to be one of the boys I dated during high school and briefly during college. I had marvelous fun but I knew there wasn’t the deep interest in back-seat gymnastics at beer-can flats like my buddies had. I can truly say I was in love with one girl but fortunately she saw the obvious signs of my inadequacies in steaming up the windows.
I think John (and a whole lot of others know) what I say when I ask this question:
Are you SURE you will love a woman in the same manner as a full heterosexual?
I hate to think you might wake up one day with regrets.
I had family who insisted that I do as Steve (who is gay) and Bruce (who is also gay) who got married and had kids. In every instance my family gave me as examples of where gays can and do marry it took years but eventually these marriages ended in a messy divorce or shattered dreams. EVERY case! Even one where my Sister told me about a friend of hers that married a nice-sweet spirit that understood her hubby’s misplaced affection (he was as gay as they come) there is a very strained relationship where they simply exist in a huge home and sleeping in separate bedrooms. That’s not what I think Mormons would say is a very family-oriented ideal.
Would you hate it if you suddenly realized that peer-pressure, pressure from church and family that you made a terrible mistake. There is a high probability you would ruin your and some innocent lives. One day you could wake up with much the same revelation as Noe.
Wow, thanks for the audio link Emproph, that was quite illuminating. According to the audio, it’s a common story; he satisfies his same-sex drives during puberty through pornography and masturbation. In high school he took it further by meeting older men he found in gay chat rooms, having three encounters in all. The last was apparently an older member of his church. To his surprise, this left him feeling shallow and guilty, after which he apparently went for some sort of therapy.
Porn and anonymous sex shallow? Who would have suspected? And yes, mom does state categorically that “same-sex porn causes homosexuality.” The entire family seems to be involved in “fighting the homosexual agenda” with a passage from the Book of Mormon inspiring the site’s mission. I’m not usually so catty, but I suspect there is a closet door in Utah that will be flying open in a few years. Drew is gayer than I thought.
Maybe one day he will post at XGW about how he feels over the way he influenced people during his “ex-gay years.”
My comment go stuck. I can hear it calling, “release me!”
Drew,
I hope you don’t think we should buy your book. You should come here with an altruistic desire to bring the truth to light.
I think XGW is here to prevent the exploitation of the vulnerable and the gullible by making sure the authors/publishers are doing their best to present valid scientific data and not publish just for the money. I would like to hope you have the moral standards and reasons to publish..but I suspect when you are the author AND publisher there might be another motive. Would Deseret Book publish your book?
I know it’s hard to have you prove your intentions but reading the Standard of Liberty website and other nuances I see here I’m guessing there are other factors at play here.
I am pressuming you are talking about me (correct me if I am wrong), but it is because dear, you are still not answering the issues I presented:
– You claimed to have answered, but have not, on the divorce issue.
– I asked you to cite any research in regards to change, since you claim “it’s often successful.” You have not shown a single piece of study to back it up.
– How you would address the heterosexual lifestyle? Silent.
– Single sin in the world worth eradicating? No comments.
– Holy spirit or the works of the flesh? Quiet.
– Even, where and when did I “personally attack” you? *Mute*
(If it is so transparent and predictable, why do you only respond with something like)
“Hear ye, hear ye… Drew is saying, look it is….
My testimony, My experience, My sex-life, My blog, My book, My radio spot, My….
Everything I say is so because I say is so, because I am Andrew Graham.”
Drew, the problem is the majority here say it is not so. So what are you going to do? We already know you and your childhood, your porn, your experimentation, your blog, your confused heterosexuality, and the entire “you” package you are promoting in your blog and book. So? Must we all agree with you? So who is being transparent and predictable here?
David R — you’re correct, I think. It doesn’t take long for elements in the story to become rather less than compelling. Or even, beyond that, frankly absurd.
You might enjoy “Our Story” too: noting, as you no doubt will, the references to “crushes on girls” and the time “the girl he adored” decided to become engaged to someone else. Some looking at body-building sites, some porn, some on-line chats, some ridiculous fumbling to satisfy the curiosity… all done in episodes amounting to a collective time of, what?, months… and we’re apparently done with the gay and onto repression. Or are we.
Another bloated ex-gay stretch, for The Cause.
(Did I mention I have a book coming out?)
Emproph — correct, he’s The Doctor. Where he’s coming from is all too plainly laid out. Equally plain is his heavy use of classic techniques of “break them down first, then rebuild them in one’s own image.” I’m sure all the parents — and numbers of the clients — must love him as an extension of their own controlling tendencies.
For someone bisexual, or in this case only experimentally homosexual, such tactics are probably tolerable, and at least somewhat reconcilable. For others, they are equally classically known to traumatise when the newly imposed self-expectations fail to match with life’s reality. At what point, and how, does one attempt to reconcile the hatred that has been reinforced by such techniques with a need to get on with a peaceful life?
Well, one could become one of those ex-gays that have been “changing” for several decades. A constant reinforcement of hope as a substitute for actual change.
But too often — as someone now crippled — they’ll explode out of their shell, arrive on “our” doorsteps in a drive-by indulgence and (in the same of mode of self-destruct) proceed to fulfil every absorded myth about how they think gay men behave.
To answer my own question since Drew did not, mom and dad do own Tidal Wave Books according to the website. Again, nothing wrong with keeping it in the family, but there is a certain achievement associated with gaining the respect of a publisher for your material. Using a vanity press, for instance, can tend to cast an unprofessional shadow on a work since a big reason for using one is the lack of interest by a professional house. Having mom and dad publish would have to be even less impressive, particularly when only family members are on the list of works. Finding someone not related to you to put this one out might have been a better choice.
Most of “Our Story” left me on the verge of nausea, but this one sad quote makes me feel sorry for Drew, along with so many who have found themselves in the same loop. And it’s an excellent illustration of what caused the author of the post so much pain.
I don’t recall having seen that answer either.
Outside of the Biblical bounds (adulterous cheating or unbelief) of divorce and remarriage…
What say you Drew? Do you think that they also, the divorced and remarried, should be put to death as the Bible commands?
How about Leviticus 20:13? Do you think those of us who accept our homosexual lot should be put to death as well?
More importantly, how do you expect people like me to view your non-condemnation of such a position to be indicative of Christian (unconditional) Love?
Actually, the Leviticus commentary only applies to those who do not believe that when Christ came, we should not follow the old laws because the New Covenant has come.
However, in the light of his mother’s involvement in his son’s confused repentence, I will tell his mother as the Word in the New Testament says in 1 Timothy 2:11-13 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35… KEEP QUIET….
And since you are so busy with parroting rubbish about the homosexual tragedy that you have no time to buy something to cover your hair, then Aunty Graham, please (1 Corinthians 11:6) CUT IT OFF.
Yes, but how does that apply to bird’s nest protocol?
Deuteronomy 22:6-7:
If OT no longer applies, can I now take the mother with the young?
If you are convicted it no longer applies, of course!
Just like a lot of people believe the OT no longer applies, then they go around spreading lies about the LGBT community without regard to the 10 commandments. They even steal LGBT rights, like now they are attempting to steal marriage back to their own definition.
And just like such people no longer even think of killing non-virgin women. Instead, they absolutely love these women to death for their experience! That is why the heteroSEXual lifestyle likes to flaunt sex scenes in movies so much! Hey, the practice is so fine!
Wow, tonight’s additions have been entertaining indeed! Here I thought I would come here and be disappointed or hurt by what you spewed this time, but even though it was twisted, under-handed, subversive and just plain mean and spiteful, my feelings aren’t hurt at all! I smiled the whole way through. You all really have me figured out, don’t you? For the record, my “experimentation” took place in college. Your research was pretty good, but not flawless. My goodness, the convoluted understanding of the Bible, the accusations of conflict of interest (you can find our books in Deseret Book, incidentally, we opted to self-publish to have final editing rights, but don’t you worry, we have our testimonials and professional support), it’s just one good laugh after another. It’s good to know you consider my story “common”, perhaps my book will be more relevant than I at first expected! But trust me, money couldn’t possibly be a viable motivation for publishing this book–there just isn’t big money in putting out a story like this, especially from a small, family-owned publishing company. And I only suggested a reading of my book so you would get the big picture, rather than the dumbed-down versions you’re spouting here. I don’t actually expect anyone here to read it, except perhaps for nefarious purposes. Yuki, I wasn’t referring to you in the least, for heaven’s sake don’t flatter yourself. Sure, I may have referred to “my” blog, “my” experience, etc., but like it’s been said, I’m the one with the onus to prove something, right? It makes sense to bring up “my” history. I do have one more thing to say, and then I am done here *knock on wood…*, and heck, David, you even prompted it! When you mentioned my possible future with XGW, I couldn’t have asked for a better lead-in. It is this:
So, back in Noe’s “I Do Exist” days, he and his ideas and beliefs were probably not very well-esteemed on this website (and/or others like it) or by its supporters/staff. His very existence as a former homosexual was probably questioned and refuted. Rather like myself, he and his views were probably ridiculed and demonized, treated with disdain and contempt, especially considering his relative youth. His sanity and spiritual convictions were probably questioned and shut down without a second thought. But now that he’s changed his tune, he’s lionized and celebrated with sickening sycophancy. So interesting, Noe, that the same people who probably would have slandered and lynched you back in the day for standing up for what you then believed are now great supporters, grovelling and kissing your feet. Are you satisfied with the legacy you’re leaving now? Does it not bother you that these same people, your current “allies”, once regarded your entire worldview and life experience as not only insignificant, but also fallacious and laughable?
There is no honor among thieves. Sometimes a person’s mind, opinion and loyalty changes as often as the wind blows.
In the utterly impossible event that I go back to my old ways (let’s make this abundantly clear–this Utah closet door has already been opened wide and slammed shut, leaving splinters and shards), there is no chance under God’s heaven that I am going to turn here to be prostituted by these clearly treacherous, validation-desperate pseudo-intellectuals, and used to further spread your gospel of hate and lies. You said it yourself, it’s shameful exploitation, though you claim it’s what you’re against.
Longer than I expected tonight. Have fun pettily tearing this post apart as has been done to each post so far. Heaven knows you will. In fact, I could probably write my own version of what you’re going to say, and be pretty accurate. What started as a simple expression of gratitude has turned into a typical conversation almost identical to many I’ve had in the past.
You will all be in my prayers! There are more of us than any of you would dare to imagine or admit! God loves truth.
Yes, well good luck with all that Andrew 😉
I will address what appears to be an actual valid point in the ramble above, our reporting on Noe from the past. It remains on the record, good or bad. There may be a little of that in there, most mostly from commenters, not the writers. Certainly nothing as melodramatic as your dime-store novel reading of it. But still, I’m sure we have been unfair to some in that regard.
The only comment I can remember making about Noe after seeing “I Do Exist” was that he seemed like a sweet guy, sincere, and that I felt very bad for what he must be going through. I had no idea how true that was until I was able to speak with him later. But you are correct in an odd, probably didn’t realize what you were saying kind of way — we do become jaded by those who become so obsessed with the idea of not being gay that they have to become professional ex-gays to keep up the fight, exploiting where they can.
I wish very much that XGW was not necessary, but these organizations have a very poor record of policing themselves. And without someone to make it clear that one should actually have proof of such statements, a distraught parent might actually believe your mom’s statement that “same-sex porn causes homosexuality” and a whole lot of other whoppers out there.
But look on the bright side, you can use your exchange here as a good boost to your victim/martyr status.
“you can find our books in Deseret Book”
People are welcome to try and do that. If nothing else, you are consistent.
As for Noe, the conversation here has been generally well moderated.
The conversations about “I Do Exist”, however, were not so generous. It was plainly a manipulative load of tripe, dressed up as some sort of academic contribution to issues about sexuality. The presentation of Noe seemed out of kilter (to us), and more a plea on his part to “name it and claim it”; rather than anything convincing about “change”.
If anything, Noe can be seen as having returned to an original message for tolerance; regardless of whatever diversions his life took along the way, and regardless of whatever he currently sees his calling in life to be. Perhaps he should have known better than to publicly advocate under the tutorledge of such a disreputable movement; but we all misjudge the real intentions of others at times.
(Indeed, the person who has ended up with the egg on their face is the person responsible for producing that hogwash in the first place. It’s taken a lot of calls, and we don’t doubt only the upcoming threat of the public statement by Noe, before we finally got even so much as the weasel.)
Drew… the mill grinds slowly, but it grinds very fine. Do what you want with your own life, but stop pretending to be misunderstood or persecuted when people object to the abuse you (and your parents) are spewing. You have a right to your own torments, but people will rightfully defend themselves against the intolerant falsehoods of others.
More the point, we seriously ask you to reconsider whether you should take a public role — with such a weak testimony, surrounded by such poisonous opinion that shall surely haunt you, and with a very obvious inability to deal gracefully with the scrutiny of others.
We fear, alas, this is something you will only come to realise through experience; rather than by commonsense or from wise counsel.
Grantdale,
I’m not so sure any Grahams’ book(s) are at Deseret Book. At least not when you do a search on the DB website and I’m afraid to go inside a DB retail store. Not because I would be immediately vaporized the second I crossed the threshold into the store but rather I’m afraid I might not be able to restrain myself from choking Ms. Sheri Dew if I saw her. (Remember, she’s the one that compared the gay agenda to something akin to a Hitler-esque threat to civilization…lovely isn’t she?…and she’s President of Deseret Book.)
yes cowboy — that’s what we meant : we did a search, and couldn’t find them listed. (the “you are consistent” meant “consistently making stuff up and claiming it to be true, even if it’s easy for people to check otherwise”)
Without going inside a D.B. — I have to admit, the instant vaporisation would bother me too; and nobody wants a cowboy who’s molecules are that energised or that far apart — perhaps a tome or two are indeed “laying around”.
A “holding up the wonky leg of the table in the 2nd meeting room”, or “propping open the door to the alley way when we take deliveries” type of laying around, I mean.
And we doubt you’d choke anyone, in all seriousness. Nope, you’d probably be more likely to somehow trick them into a steer roping contest in a muddy arena… to their vast humiliation and the amusement of the crowd. Family fun for all, and no assault charges.
We’ll stop with the cowboy refs now 🙂
For the record, Drew is now an open advocate of a one, Mr. Stephen Boissoin.
Found this
https://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=4943529
apparently temporarly out of print
Oh yes, wrap your cause in a “defense of the children” and you can get away with all kinds of awful things. Sad to see that even our reasonable “neighbors to the North” have their share of nuts to contend with. What will happen to this globe when we run out of people to demonize?
“Noil” (aka Drew) said:
Gee, thanks Drew, but why hide behind a different name just to give us that? So you will know, we don’t allow posting under multiple identities here. It disrupts the flow of the conversation, and it is intellectually dishonest in such discussions. Please stick to your original nickname if you wish to post again.
Thanks.
Grantdale,
I thought you would advise me not to ever assist any cowboy that is helping hoist a sheep over a fence. (Just visualize for a moment.) But we do need to rein in the sheep/cowboy jokes…PETA might be reading this. (wink wink)
Speaking of being cheeky. Commentor: Noil is really Drew? How quaint. How utterly lame. Trying to foist a sneaky one past us? We, who are pseudo-intellectuals, are easily buffaloed? (taking hayseed out of my mouth)
Why wouldn’t searching for: “Graham” bring a listing for this book on the web page? Does “Out of Print” mean: We’re Not Going To Stock This Book Either. It says nothing about being “temporarly [sic] out of print”.
Moderator Action
This comment contained excepts from emails between the commenters named Drew and Yuki. This is inappropriate and we don’t allow it. In her defense, Yuki was trying to discuss issues which Drew carried from the public discussion to emails aimed at her. To do this, she posted the information thinking others could reference it in the spirit of open debate. Unfortunately we just can’t do that, and the situation here illustrates one of the reasons Drew was asked not to solicit private discussions in the first place.
Moderator Action
See explanation in previous moderated comment from Yuki.
Yuki — in all honesty I wish you hadn’t done that.
As warped as the man is, those were emails back and forth between you two: not posts for here. We also got one, but it’s too silly to even bother replying to let alone showing others (even if we felt inclined).
Not sure what the policy is… but if David does redact your posts don’t take it personally — it’s not because of the issues etc, but because they started as private emails.
At least you know now why he was fishing for an “off-line discussion” with people, rather than openly converse on the blog. They’re sneaks — that’s how they operate 🙂
——————–
cowboy, we’d never do that! We have, naturally, hoisted a few sheep over a fence or two in our time. Crutched. Dipped. Eaten. All part of being Australian. And who’s Peter?
grantdale…
I knew both of you would appreciate the sheep thing.
Peter? Oh you mean: PETA …People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (Maybe you need to click the box: LARGE FONT on your browser options).
In a cursory scan of Drew’s e-mail to Yuki, I’m not sure Drew is 100% heterosexual as he claims. We see Larry Craig and others say they’re not homosexual but yet they’re doing what homosexuals do. Suppression of feelings does not convert you from your natural sexual orientation. Neither does ‘acting’ like a hetero prove anything.
I’m curious about the type of pornography Drew claims to “cause” his homosexuality. Plus, no one forced Drew to purchase pictures of naked men either. The root of the curiosity in gay pornography is what is important to note here. Shutting off access to gay pornography will not make you hetero. You have to also deal with walking past a hunky guy and accept what your thoughts are about. You have to recognize there is a spark, no matter how much you try to suppress it, of sexual lust for seeing an attractive guy. Then, you can’t sequester yourself from all worldly examples of male sexuality to continue your process to heterosexuality? You can’t always close your eyes when you see a billboard or an underwear ad. And what about wet-dreams? What are Drew’s real fantasies about? Dreams are a telling sign about your sexuality. Nocturnal erections are subconscious validation of your sexual desires…and orientation.
I doubt Drew, as he says, is certifiable hetero. I suspect Drew is as gay as I am. I know my years of self-induced celibacy were a result of peer pressure and of a grand scheme at manipulation by my Mormon family and friends.
Actually, I was under the impression that much of the time they were caused simply by the way blood flows through the body as it positions itself during sleep, and not necessarily a form of arousal. (And I censored myself, btw, to prevent search engines and spammers from picking up this site for the wrong reasons.) In addition, oftentimes “erotic” dreams represent something other than attraction or desire – I read that a dream of an erotic occurrence with a person you loathe represents not a repressed sexual desire for that person, but of an expression of the fact that you are, in life, engrossed in personal situations you would never want to be in – for example, dealing with a stressful family member.
But I’m no expert.
Maybe it’s one of those differences between men and women. And I’m no expert either…but…my dreams were pleasant ones about persons I were attracted to…(when I could remember what the dreams were about).
Curiously, you can type erotic but erection gets panned?
Who knows this could be a discussion about some architectural-green building techniques and Brad Pitt and both might need to use the word: er****** in the discussion.
100% heterosexual.
I have never heard an actual heterosexual say this about themselves. I have heard people say, “Sorry, I’m not into guys,” or “Nope, I play for the other team,” etc.
There is only one person who really stands out in my mind for having claimed to be 100% heterosexual, and that was Alan Chambers on Terry Gross’ NPR program, “Fresh Air.” Maybe it’s just an ex-gay thing.
In my opinion, I don’t think that any person that has been posting on this site is homosexual in any degree. You are all suppressing your heterosexual desires by surrounding yourself with others that are just as bent on trying to convince themselves. Every desire that you have is something you are conjuring up in your mind only to try to push out the heterosexual thoughts. Any dreams that you have are simply your mind carrying on the thoughts that you force into there throughout the day. Let me reiterate that again. None of you are homosexual.
Jared wrote:
So we aren’t homosexual, but we are “bent.” Hmm. Someone might want to look up some of the alternative meanings for the word “bent.”
Doesn’t that sound a lot like what you all are doing to Drew?
Doesn’t that sound exactly like what you all have been saying to Drew?
Another thing. From the way some of this debate has played out, I’ve gathered that most of us here are Christians. As Christians, I assume that we all believe that the Bible is the word of God. So, as such, I’m curious how everybody feels about the following scriptures:
Romans 1:24-32
A lot of the talk has been about faith and how we need to focus a lot on faith, salvation, etc. But does that mean that we can overlook other things that God has said?
Y’all’s thoughts.
One day there is a chicken called “straight”. A born chicken. One day when he was a young adult, he began to fantasize drifting across the lakes with the ducks. He watch some “documentaries” on it. So he made his move and dives into the lake. He felt good for that fleeting moment. Then his legs began to struggle paddling across the lake. It was then he realised it is just not for him. He climbed out exhausted, and with deep pain and the realisation that the lake life is just not for him. Then all the chickens rejoice for him for he had left the lake. He felt good, he felt pleased. So he began to go around spreading the news to every chicken community that the lake lifestyle is horrible, damaging and life threatening. Little did he know that he is disrespecting a duck who was around there.
That duck is called “gay”. He is a born duck. No one believes he is born that way because on the chickenville the land is huge but the lake is small. But he had lived his entire life as a duck, among the small community of ducks nearby. Some of the ducks had ventured into chickenville with the same disasterous consequences of trying to live like a chicken. But they realise they will never be a chicken and returned to the lake. These ducks were scorned by the majority chicken community for not trying hard enough to be a chicken. But the duck saw what happened and realised, ducks will be ducks, chickens will be chickens.
The moral of the story? A duck called gay, even by the pressure of the majority of chickens, can never be called a chicken, and must accept himself in that full affirmation. A chicken called straight may try to venture into the lake lifestyle for curiousity, but can never be a duck. Straights and gays are but two sexual orientations. Respectfully, all must accept what they are born as, and can never attempt to cross over. The evidence is all there. The day ducks and chickens were born, they were born distinctive in characters and will face life as who they are. There may be confusion along the way, but the true self always will mature.
I’m off to stuff (or “force”) my head with things to dream about tonight…otherwise I might not dream and I’ll be a plain, ordinary hetero. There’s no fun in that!
In case anyone had not guessed, we’ve just confirmed that “Jared” above is also our friend Drew. Drew (aka Jared, aka Noil), we told you this nonsense was not allowed here and why. Apparently you are not interested or able to have a direct discussion and have no problem ignoring the basic rules that everyone else follows.
You and all your alter-egos have been banned from commenting in the future. Please respect that and go on your way.
Hey Yuki, when is a chicken not a chicken? When it’s a duck with a glove on its head.
Lol, just something weird I say
Please, do you people really think that Drew is the only one opposed to the homosexual lifestyle? I can assure you that I am not Drew.
And thank you for adding to my point. That is post #3 without any refutation to my post.
Just to clarify for anyone reading this thread:
In response to Jared (aka Drew, aka Noil):
That would be a bad assumption. As most are aware, there is a heavy Christian involvement in all things ex-gay for reasons that can be pondered in other threads. Since that is the case, you will find more people of that faith, some heavily disallusioned by their experience with ex-gay organizations such as Exodus, and others detached from their faith entirely. But most of it does involved Christians. However, there are people of various faiths who read and comment here, including those with no faith at all — they are all quite welcome to participate.
The only thing we ask is that those faiths be respected and the conversation remain civil, we are not here to decide who’s belief is right or wrong, though sometimes there are some mini-debates amongst those of the same faith or division of that faith — most of those are harmless but can become boring to others, so we try to limit them.
So there you go, Drew managed to contribute something positive after all in that I got to clarify his inaccurate assumption and explain an important issue to new readers.
No daughter of mine would ever date Drew/Noil/Jared. Not if I could help it. I know the kind of sneakiness Drew is doing here. I would also suspect he is not being totally truthful with his prospective dates. He needs to tell them he once perused gay pornography and got off on it.
No sweet spirit…no special Sister in his Mormon world would ever get involved with Drew if they knew his past. So, I understand his need to say he is completely heterosexual. He would be dateless if he told them the truth.
**Side note: I have no daughters. But if I did…
It’s funny, because “Jared” commented on this thread earlier while “Drew” was simultaneously commenting:
People seemed to (rightfully) recognize this attempt at trolling, so he was ignored. But Drew was engaged. And Drew, your I.P. address will give you away, as well as your location that the I.P. address is linked to.
It’s an interesting thing, really.
Can you just visualize Drew at a romantic dinner with his California girlfriend. (He has to date girls from out-of-State because they aren’t aware of his past.)
I’d put on my football-referee uniform, stand at their table with hands on my waist, and blow my whistle (tweet!) and yell: OFFSIDES! Illegal motion in the backfield! 100-yard penalty for dishonesty.
(For grantdale: You have to understand American football. I’m sure it’s similar to Australian football except your referees are cuter cuz they wear shorts.)
Yuki,
My dad used to like calling the duck an “odd bird,” because it was too much for two, but not enough for three.
Not that this has anything to do with your post, but I couldn’t resist.
Ok Cowboy, I think we all had our catty moments in this thread, but let’s not get too personal about the sarcasm. Let’s also remember that this was a fairly serious topic before the right turn at Utah 😉
I think perhaps we (myself included) should let this one wind down now. New and interesting posts to come…
Okay. I agree. And I truly wish the best for Drew. Honest.
David R: You and all your alter-egos
Yeah… think you nailed it down flat this time!
and as the threads winding up…
cowboy : For grantdale: You have to understand American football.
Oh, we understand. We just think… what a bunch of big girls blouses with all that padding and helmets and stuff. All that stopping and starting doesn’t make any sense (what? are they puffed out or something?) but we do love the part of the game when the moms run onto the field and kiss away all the hurties. 😐
Wait a minute, grantdale – aren’t you the guys who play baseball with those white jumpsuits, caged helmets, and huge bulky kneepads?? And maybe the Phillies (my home team) would hit more homeruns if they had such wide bats.. 8)
Late, and off topic, I know, but grantdale, my partner is from Singapore – he delights in making fun of American football players – with all the pads and the frequent rest breaks… 🙂
But then he actually thinks soccer is exciting, so what does he know???
Drew (jarred, noil, etc.)
I wish you happiness in finding the person you were meant to partner with.
However, you will have to forgive my skepticism about having left “this part of my life” behind you for a decade. I’ve found that few people take well to celibacy (in the Christian world it’s a calling) and have noted that those who do not believe in premarital sex very seldom wait until their late 20’s to marry.
Your story is your own, but surely you understand that credibility is going to be questioned when presenting a story that is so very difficult to believe. When claiming that your cow speaks English, you can’t be upset that folks demand a videotape. So too will they question, “I’m fully heterosexual and have been celibate for a decade but that has nothing to do with my attractions”.
Further difficulties arise when your family’s website contains information that is, on the face of it, ludicrous. Preposterous. And, frankly, so utterly stupid that it deserves mockery. (this isn’t said to offend you, but to emphasize the extent to which it should be obvious that its false).
For example:
This is nuttery. HIV is a virus which can be transmitted through sex (heterosexual and homosexual) as well as by other blood contact. It isn’t caused by “sodomy”.
At this point, even the most ignorant of backwoods rubes knows that if there is abstinence before a same-sex relationship and fidelity within it – regardless of whether there is “normal” sexual intercourse – has no more risk of transmitting disease than heterosexuals. Do you really think that viruses are magically created by sex acts?
Until you come with a testimony that can be believed on some level, you cannot expect folks to take your word.
You all may recall that the father of Drew/Daniel/Noil/Jarred caused a bit of a stink when he tried to make a presentation to the American Fork High School PTA.
I stumbled upon this entry through a Google search. I have been through a year long ex-gay program that was very traumatic for me. I felt that much of the criticism that Noe has leveled at the ex-gay movement is very legitimate, as well as much of the criticisms leveled against some parts of the ex-gay movement. I believe that is very hard to change one’s sexual orientation, and indeed wonder how important that really is, if one believes that God does not approve of them fulfilling their sexual desires. I fall in that camp–though I do desire men sexually, I can’t live that way, because for me, my convictions won’t allow me to. I don’t speak for anyone else, but I do know this: that through the grace of God, it is possible to deny one’s desires.
What prompted this comment is something that Noe wrote in his first paragraph:
There is no doubt that the path that I have tread for the past 30 years has been one that has been difficult. “Blood, sweat and tears” is no real exaggeration, as Noe clearly says. But where I differ from Noe, and I suspect many who have come out of the ex-gay movement is that I don’t necessarily believe that “blood, sweat and tears” are things that we should avoid in this life, nor is their absence signs that we are in God’s will, nor is their presence a witness that somehow we are living a life that God has not willed. We are told many times that we will suffer in this world–why should blood, sweat and tears over our sexuality surprise us? We have never received promises from God that we will not suffer–quite the contrary. Our Savior sweat blood and shed tears–should we expect anything different when he has called us to take up our cross daily? I find that in the battle against my desires I have been given a gift by which I can come closest to following Christ, and I take comfort in the words of Paul in Romans 8:18, “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.”
I think in this world we have forgotten who we are, and where we belong, and for what purpose we were created. Our fulfillment and happiness on this earth is not our ultimate aim and goal in life, and if indeed we desire to find our happiness in the transitory joys of the earth, whether that be in possessions or in the arms of another, then we have fallen far short of the potential blessing that God has in store for us. C.S. Lewis says something profound that resonates deeply with me: “If you think of this world as a place intended simply for our happiness, you find it quite intolerable: think of it as a place of training and correction and it’s not so bad.”
For me, I have come to view my very desire for men, and the conviction that I cannot fulfill those desires as a gift from God that He is using to shape me into His image. It is part of my training and correction and I view it as my cross to bear, which He calls us to do, and in so doing, I hope and pray that He will give me the strength to place my desires on the altar, in the hopes that my life can become a living sacrifice. I do not believe that living in a homosexual union is approved by God, regardless of how much the erudite writings of pro-gay theologians may have suggested that the interpretation of Scripture has been incorrect–the mental gymnastics required to believe in what they wrote does injury to my own rational mind. For me then, I have had to ask the question of why I feel this way. For me, it is a severe mercy that I am drawn to other men and attracted to them and it is in the very act of denying those desires that I come closest to my true self: a child of the most High God, called to become like Christ by denying myself and submitting obediently to Him, regardless of what my inclinations may be.
I think we forget the nobility of our inheritance as being children of God. We far too easily settle for happiness on this earth instead of seeking the peace that comes from obedience to God.
I think this is a strange belief. Aren’t all actions based on sexual attraction a choice, regardless of whom one is attracted to? Why would denying one’s sexual desires be traumatic or psychologically damaging for anyone? We do this on a daily basis.
Contrary to Noe’s assertion that our sexuality is at the center of our identity and human experience, I have come to the conviction that our sexual fulfillment is not a worthy goal in and of itself. Why should it be? Sex is not any guarantor of happiness, nor is a relationship with anyone–except with God, our Creator and Heavenly Father. I have strong sexual desires, but God has called all men and women to take all of their desires and offer them up to Him. In God’s plan, our sexuality, and all the rest of who we are orbits around our soul, united with Christ. We are called to bring everything to Him. We cheapen who we are if we believe that our sexuality is at the center of our identity. The center of our identity is that we are made in the image of God. Our cry and creed to God must be that of our Savior: not my will, but thine be done. If there is one message of the Bible that comes through loud and clear, it is this one: deny yourself, particularly in the area of sexuality. Why should we be surprised at the possibility that some of us have sexual desires that can never be fulfilled under the will of God?
I view it as a high calling, and a noble calling, and a beautiful sacrifice that can be given to God. I too believe in prayer, but my prayer is very different: I pray that all Christian men and women who feel homosexual desires would come before Christ at the Cross and fall on bended knees and say to Him, “I unite my sorrow and pain with your suffering on the Cross–use it for the furtherance of your Kingdom on earth.” It is there, at the very foot of the Cross, and offering up all of my sexuality and my desires to Christ that I find who I truly am.
I believe we fall short of God’s beautiful plan for our lives when we do not see our desires, which I believe we cannot fulfill, as the very vehicle through which God pours out his grace into our lives. As we deny those desires each and every day, God’s grace is poured out into the world as we become living sacrifices for his glory.
That’s the message I wish the ex-gay community would talk about.
I am in full agreement with the statement above and I do not shy away from the sacrifice that comes with personal conviction. The assumption here is that as a former ex-gay I lose this very unique association with Christ; one that closely links the self-denial in ex-gay therapies with the sufferings of Christ on the cross. This is a false assumption and one that sets the “sufferings” of ex-gay people above those of other people groups. Though the quality of the sacrifice it takes for ex-gay people to deny their sexuality is considerable, this does not relegate people who accept their homosexuality to a lower status of union with God. This belief is popularly held by ex-gay groups, either overtly or covertly, and (IMO) is one of their greatest weaknesses. The way people get connected with ex-gay groups often has to do with the influence of shame from parents, friends or self. This shame withholds acceptance, love, and inclusion from the individual based on the notion they are rejected by God. This is all founded on the idea that there is no possible way for God to accept a gay or lesbian person “as is”, rather acceptance must be worked for and bought in terms of human sacrifice. Ex-gay groups provide a vehicle for the individual who adopts this logic, a place to prove to themselves and (in their minds) to God that they are worthy of acceptance. My personal opinion is that the acceptance that comes from God is not by human works, rather by faith in Christ and that alone. Now, to assume that because of this belief I am not privy to human suffering on the level that helps bring me closer to identifying with Christ is a mistake. Like any other believer, my faith is challenged on a daily basis. I have learned and continue to learn lessons that will likely last a lifetime– humility, charity, chastity, self-sacrifice, and love to name a few. What is liberating for me now that I am outside the ex-gay movement is that for once I am not in control of my own “spiritual education” and for once, I am able to trust God to teach me the lessons I need to learn in his own time.
Dan,
I read your comment above with respect, appreciation, and compassion.
Respect because you are faithfully working in a direction that you believe God is calling you and are willing to set aside pleasures, temptations, and momentary satisfaction to achieve what you are seeking.
Appreciation because you did not come here with a snarky and dismissive attitude (though I may have found within your words some evidence of self-righteous condemnation, judgment, and certainty).
And compassion because, well, its not something new to hear. This testimony has been given, time and again, especially to one in your place on your journey.
This reminds me of a comic strip from my youth. If I recall correctly, it went like this:
For some unknown reason Lil Abner and his fellow Dogpatch denizens had been compelled to take the place of statues in a museum. Lil Abner was posing as Atlas, with the world on his shoulders.
Abner was not troubled by the weight at any moment. He was strong enough to bear it. But what he came to find intolerable was the recognition that this was to be his future, that he would stand in one place with this weight on his back for the rest of his life.
So, Dan, I wish you peace and joy and hope that you find the life you have crafted for yourself to be all that you want it to be. But I fear that the day will come when you look to the continuing future with dread and question your decision. And you may well wonder at the wisdom of having stood so long in one place bearing an unnecessary burden.
I appreciate the comments, and the discussion. I don’t have many people with whom I can discuss these things with, and indeed, because of my rather negative experience with the year long Living Waters program, I find that I agree with much of the criticisms of the ex-gay movement that I have read here and so I would rather discuss them here than on an Exodus related forum.
I offer my take as one voice in a million, to contribute to the conversation. I don’t want to ever come across with self-righteous condemnation or with judgment to anyone! God forbid! As to the certainty, I have reached a point of certainty in this regard, for myself, so if I write with conviction I suppose that’s to be expected.
For me, when I think of your last paragraph, I don’t view this as an unnecessary burden. I see it actually as an invitation, and that’s what’s exciting to me! In my comments, I write from the standpoint of someone who has actually become excited by the prospect of embracing this part of my life, in a way to shoulder this burden, not out of some self-righteous stance, but as a way to love others.
I have come to cherish one passage of Paul, Colossians 1:24, “Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”
This is an interesting phrase: “fill up…what is still lacking in regards to Christ’s afflictions.” I’ve come to view any suffering that presents itself in our lives as something we can offer up on behalf of those we love. It certainly isn’t a case where Christ’s suffering is somehow incomplete, but rather that He allows us to unite our own suffering with His, for the redemption of the world. I view this as a tremendous gift from God.
For me, it’s an invitation, rooted in love for others, and in any way we deny ourselves, I believe we can offer this up on behalf of those we love, to be used by God for the furtherance of his kingdom.
The writing of Thomas Merton has meant a lot to me, particularly this passage:
Suffering, therefore, must make sense to us not as a vague universal necessity, but as something demanded by our own personal destiny. When I see my trials not as the collision of my life with a blind machine called fate, but as the sacramental gift of Christ’s love, given to me by God the Father along with my identity and my very name, then I can consecrate them and myself with them to God. For then I realize that my suffering is not my own. It is the Passion of Christ, stretching out its tendrils into my life in order to bear rich clusters of grapes, making my soul dizzy with the wine of Christ’s love, and pouring that wine as strong as fire upon the whole world.
After many, many years of struggling with this, I have come to see my personal suffering as the sacramental gift of Christ’s love. I see it as an invitation to join with Him. I’ve begun to see just a bit of the joy that Paul seemed to say could be found in suffering, and I guess I find that to be the good news of the Gospel. So for me, questioning the wisdom of shouldering the burden is something I don’t think I’ll ever question, because I’ve found it to be filled with too much joy. And that is something that is so exciting, that I want to tell the world.
“My yoke is easy and my burden is light” has only begun to make sense to me by seeing it through the lens of Christ’s love for us. It wasn’t that his yoke wasn’t difficult–He died on a Cross!–it was His love for us that made it easy and light, and as painful as it is to suffer anything, whether it be an illness, or denying one’s sexual desires, it becomes something I think we can embrace when we view it as something that can be poured out upon the world, out of love.
Thanks for the comments, Noe. I found your original post to be well thought out and very insightful, and the same with your response to my post. (Sorry…I should have combined these two comments!)
I suspect that we hold much more in common than we disagree with. I don’t like much about the ex-gay movement, even though I’d call myself that. (Or maybe I’m a Side B Christian–I just learned that term here on XGW recently). I don’t really like any labels like that, honestly, since I’m just Dan, in my mind. I just happen to like guys (and yes, even some women) and have thoughts about what that means for me as a Christian.
I guess my story’s a little different. I went to my first conference mainly because I wanted to try and see how I could be obedient to what I felt God was calling me to do. I also wanted to finally be able to talk to some other people who had dealt with this in their life as well, to finally be able to not “be alone.” I fortunately never had any shame brought to bear by my parents, only love and compassion. I certainly never felt rejected by God because I thought guys were hot–though I never believed he approved of me acting on that (even though I did).
For me, I believe that God accepts everyone “as is,” and then immediately begins working to change them. Particularly in the areas that are really important: pride, envy, greed, arrogance, self-righteousness and the whole list of stuff that Christ got so exercised about with the Pharisees. For me, I’ve come to realize that the “change” I think God desires for me is moving to a place of not contemplating having a life with another man, and so avoiding all that goes along with that. (I have found women more and more attractive to me, but I don’t say that as some ex-gay groupie might to prove that change is possible. It just sort of happened, and it ebbs and flows with me, and more often than not, it’s the guys that get me going.)
When Ex-gay groups ever communicate the message that the people in their programs need to earn God’s acceptance, or the acceptance of family members, or a church, through demonstrating that they’re willing to do the “hard work” necessary through their own sacrifice, then they do injury to the people they’re ostensibly trying to help. I am in complete agreement with you about that!
When I talk about blood, sweat and tears, I’m not talking about working hard to earn acceptance, or approval from God, or anyone. I’m talking about taking each day as it comes, and for the choice that I’ve made, to try and avoid the temptation to be with another man. I’m not doing that to prove myself to anyone–I’m just trying my darnedest to do what I think God is calling me, personally, to do. And so your phrase, finding “‘freedom from homosexuality’ albeit paid for in their own blood, sweat and tears,” this is the blood, sweat and tears that I’m talking about, not proving oneself to anyone else. It’s that nose-to-the-grindstone difficulty of following one’s conscience.
And so I’ve had to seek out my own answers to why the blood, sweat and tears have come into my life, as I elaborated on a bit in my comments to Timothy above.
I guess in conclusion I have come to view the sacrifices of anyone as something that can be united to Christ’s suffering. I don’t suggest or believe that “the “sufferings” of ex-gay people” are “above those of other people groups.” I’m simply thinking of this in terms of my own life’s journey, and to offer my thoughts as one voice in the conversation. In the context of Thomas Merton’s comments, where he says, “When I see my trials…as the sacramental gift of Christ’s love, given to me by God the Father along with my identity and my very name, then I can consecrate them and myself with them to God,” I realize the greatest struggle I will ever encounter is the one against my natural inclinations to be with a man. If I view this very struggle as a gift from God, along with my identity and my very name, then to seek out ways to fulfill those desires, rather than to do battle with them, I miss out on the power of uniting this struggle with His own, in ways that could never happen if I lived happily ever with another man. That is not to say or suggest that I wouldn’t suffer in other ways, but rather that I would cheat myself from experiencing all that God had in store for me by embracing what for me is a most difficult burden.
This is what I’ve come to believe about my own life and situation, for what it’s worth.
Sadly, I find Exodus and other ex-gay organizations seem to have no limit of new yokes with which to burden those who simply want to work out with God what His desire is for their lives. The day they are just as happy for someone who comes to accept their sexual orientation and live comfortably with all that might entail, that will be the first step in the right direction for them.
We’ve affirmed the reverse many, many times as Timothy has again above, yet I’ve never once heard them do the same. The one exception to date would be Wendy Gritter and New Direction, a woman with more wisdom and grace than anyone I have dealt with from Exodus. They would be wise to place her in a position of leadership with great flexibility — she could do a lot of good for them.
Feel free to participate here anytime, Dan. It is not necessary that we all agree on everything, only that we are civil and honest in the discussion. I think you will find a great deal of wisdom and candor from those who comment and write here.