I like Wendy Gritter, and I like New Direction. She’s a sweet and Christ-focused woman and I think New Direction is one of the most Christ-centered ministries for people that deal with same-sex attraction. I was upset when I read her recent blog post about a colleague that has been claiming New Direction “doesn’t offer hope anymore.”
Now, I’m not going to refute that statement here. Ms. Gritter has already done extremely well with that in the linked post, and I highly suggest you read it. I will offer my own personal story, though. I’ve never been involved with New Direction (sadly, I’m not Canadian), and the only contact I’ve had with Ms. Gritter is through comments on her blog. However, I think out of all these types of ministries, New Direction’s philosopy most closely resembles my own, and even I have been accused, in a round-about way, of not having enough hope.
Usually when someone makes that kind of snarky remark about hope, what they mean to say is that I’m not falling over myself in an effort to be straight. I’m comfortable and happy as I am. I’m not comfortable with my sins or my temptations, mind you, but at the same time I’m not stressed about how I dress, or how I talk, or how I express my emotions, or whether or not a pretty young woman turns my head. The way some of the ex-gay ministries talk, you’d think that a “normal” heterosexual existence with a dog, yard, and three kids was a Biblical mandate.
Quite simply, it’s not. Ms. Gritter mentioned how her critics said they saw heterosexuality as part of God’s redemption plan. “Everyone is on a journey towards heterosexuality,” they said, “but some people only go a little way down that road.” That’s their excuse for the same-sex attracted men and women who don’t experience change in their attractions (which I would say is most likely the majority of SSA folks). Oh sure, according to them we’re not sinning by being content celibates, but we’re not whole either. We haven’t completed our “journey towards heterosexuality.”
I got a little mad when I first read that, but then it saddened me. It saddened me to know that there are people who would sell out Christ for something as fleeting as human sexuality. Sure, heterosexuality is a beautiful and God-given gift, but it won’t last forever. There will be no marriage in Heaven, and thus, no sex. We’ll be in such perfect union with God there will be no need for any other kind of union. So I feel saddened for people who think we are on a “journey towards heterosexuality” instead of a journey towards Christ. I feel even more saddened by those in these ministries who aren’t experiencing change, and thus are made to feel like they’ve only gone “a little way down that road.” Sure, they’re denying themselves and taking up their crosses and following Christ, often leaving behind years of a lifestyle that they no longer think is right yet still having to deal with the emotions it left behind, but of course they aren’t whole. They’ve only gone “a little way down that road.” Give me a break.
Our hope is not in anything on this Earth. Nothing. Not our family, not our friends, not a spouse, not children, not jobs, money, cars, trips, pets, not anything. Our only hope is Christ crucified. Crucified for our sins, receiving wrath so we don’t have to. Our hope is the cross. So I have to give an “Amen!” to Ms. Gritter when she says, “How can you say we’re not offering hope – when we’re offering people Jesus?” That’s right. How can you?
Look, it’s not easy living without sex, but it’s not the hardest thing in the world. No one’s asking me to renounce my faith or be imprisoned, or even killed. I’m not being asked to go through the painful process of giving up drugs or alcohol. All I’m asked to do is keep it in my pants and make sure my appreciation of Pete Wentz stays strictly that – appreciation (and yes, I think Pete Wentz is cute, and I even like Fall Out Boy’s music. Pick on me all you want).
Maybe some day I will meet a woman who will rock my world, both spiritually and physically. But she won’t be some trophy wife to show how much I’ve “changed.” I know I’ve changed. Sure, you might not ever be able to see some flashy example of it. What can I say? Obedience and belief aren’t that impressive-looking. Nor are they what people really want when they try out Christianity. But if they really want Christianity, it’s what they’ll get, because that’s what real change is. I was once dead but now am alive, because of my faith in Christ. I once wouldn’t have even considered all this crazy “dying to self” stuff, but now, even though it’s difficult and even somewhat frightening, I do it with joy. If that isn’t “change,” I don’t know what is. If that isn’t hope, then I don’t know what is. And I’m willing to offer that hope to people, and I think Ms. Gritter is as well.
It’s a journey of sanctification, not towards heterosexuality. True, I’m only a little way down that road, but the good part about that is that every other living believer is as well, and I can take that journey with them without feeling like less of a Christian, and we can look towards our only hope together.
—
Reprinted from original with permission.
College Jay considers himself a “Side B” Christian, as defined by the folks at GCN. In short, those who view their same-sex attractions as a temptation, and strive to live celibate lives. Side Bs are not in competition for which view is right, but are simply living their lives as they see fit, recognizing other’s freedom to do the same. This is offered as background, not a point of debate.
As you’re not Canadian, and I don’t think Gritter speaks for all New Directions ministries, I dono if you should really decide you like the whole organization. I know their ministry head here in Winnipeg recently while discussing things with a few friends at my Church was willing to put the “Sin of Homosexuality” on the same level as the divinity of Christ. While New Directions is certainly not as bad as some of the crazy American Ex-Gay groups, it’s still a long way from something I would ever wanna say I like. Especially since they keep feeding the fire of rhetoric that excites people like my mom to tell me I can change.
David Malcolm,
You’ve mentioned that discussion about being on the same level as the divinity of Christ once before. I have no reason to doubt you, but I’m a bit uncomfortable not having the principals of the discussion weigh in. Perhaps Wendy could help with that? I’ve not heard anything like this from Wendy, but if another branch of the same ministry is making such a claim — particularly a leader — it is important to understand that. First things first, it would be ideal to have the leader in question comment.
Could you explain that better? This is SOP for Exodus related groups in the US, but I would like to hear more about what exactly you mean concerning New Directions in CA. Again, many have noticed a lack of this sort of thing with Wendy’s group, but you seem to be familiar with another office.
Amen Brother!
Hello David Malcolm
There was a group in Winnipeg who were connected with New Direction for many years – but are no longer. They decided to come under the umbrella of Living Waters Canada. I have no specific knowledge of the discussion you reference.
The values and distinctives that are on the New Direction website outline the perspective and position of our team. We are seeking to consistently put first things first – that is, offering every opportunity for same-gender attracted people to encounter and engage the presence of Christ.
If sexual orientation was the main change for salvation, I think Church Tradition including the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament would have devoted 90% to making that message loud and clear. The Early Church quickly went from being a Jewish sect to a Greek religion in a Greek world. The New Testament is written in Greek if you need some kind of proof to my statement. Most early Church Fathers wrote in Greek. Christianity was explained in terms of Greek thought by the end of the first century.
Now, the Greek and Roman world upheld and admired sexuality of persons of the same gender so much so that it formed part of their religious ceremonies. With that in mind, if the message of salvation and redemption (or “change”) focuses so strongly on one male being with one female sexual relationships, why is St. Paul the only one to make any sort of mention of same sex, and when he does, it is only in the context of idol worshipping by sexual orgies and not focusing on a relationship between two consenting adults?
Christianity IS about change, but the change is within, not without. That was Christ’s whole argument if you want to Reader Digest it. Pray in secret, look like you have had a good meal, have a smile on your face, and smell nice when you fast, don’t let your right hand know what your left hand does … all these things were to said because Christ’s message was about SPIRITUAL change NOT SEXUAL ORIENTATION CHANGE.
Actually, I think that Jay is getting right to the heart of Christianity. I always understood that while they highly encourage marriage / fidelity, etc., celibacy is revered. Paul calls it a “gift” that certain people are blessed with.
This is definitely a different perspective than Exodus’ current leadership has been showing outsiders. Thank you, Jay and Wendy, for that.
Emily:
In the Early Church, celibacy was the ideal lifestyle because it was believed Christ was celibate. After the Protestant Reformation, the shift went from celibacy to the married state. As time moved on, within the marriage sacrament a shift went from procreation to two people sharing their lives together. For many denominations or sects withing Christianity, celibacy is now only demanded of homosexuals (the RCC still demands celibacy for priests and nuns as well, and the Orthodox churches demand it of bishops which can explain the decrease in the priest and nun populations).
There are those who are of the opinion that the early Church opted for celibacy because it was in the beginning stages of development and required those who were free of other commitments to dedicate themselves fully in spreading Christ’s message. Think of it as starting a new business or starting a new job. At the start one would probably have to devote more time to getting things going. A partner might complain that their significant other is always working and has little time for the relationship.
In the Middle Ages, it wasn’t so much that people rushed off to the monastery because celibacy was the “in” thing to do as much as most families sent their sons and daughters to the abbeys when they had too many mouths to feed or there were no apprentices available. And if you’ve ever read some of the poetry from the nuns and monks during the Middle Ages you’ll soon discover they were far from celibate!
If there are people with the gift of celibacy, that’s great. But there is a huge list of other gifts that are of equal or higher value. The Church today, in my opinion, has grown from its infant stage where people needed to be as freed-up as possible to modern times where having someone to lean on and depend on and to be initmate with is a necessity. That’s why I see most Protestant denominations have no problem with marrying two people who have no intent on raising children for whatever reason. Even in the RCC, I have many friends and family members who are straight and married yet have no intention of having children.
By this growth in the Church, in my opinion, it seems right then that gay couples are asking the church to unite themselves in the presence of the Lord. It also seems right, in my opinion, that some churches are answering their call in the spirit of Christ by welcoming gay couples to marry in the presence of the Lord. I think many churches, guided by the Holy Spirit, are realizing that marriage is about the two people being united, and that reproduction is an option not an obligation.
I always understood that while they highly encourage marriage / fidelity, etc., celibacy is revered. Paul calls it a “gift” that certain people are blessed with.
That raises a problem when it comes to homosexuals because we’re denied marriage to someone of the same gender; Catholic gays at least cannot marry someone of the opposite sex because a homosexual orientation is an impediment for a sacramental marriage (not that many gays would want to consummate it anyways let alone enter such a union); celibacy is thereby de facto the only option. Some gays are indeed given this “gift” of celibacy, just like some straights, but for most gays it is not a “gift” but a curse. Essentially, the argument seems to be that God created us with a sexual orientation that we are not allowed to express and if we lack this “gift” of celibacy, TFB. This hardly seem in keeping with the Gospel IMO.
the RCC still demands celibacy for priests and nuns as well, and the Orthodox churches demand it of bishops which can explain the decrease in the priest and nun populations
In fairness, for the RCC this is only true for priests of the Latin Rite and not those from the Eastern Rites. As for the Orthodox, it is my understanding that their bishops are drawn from their Religious which sometimes I think isn’t a bad idea at all.
Hiya Jay,
I don’t know enough about you personally to form lasting impressions, however from the fleeting glimpse I gained from this statement I can make a few potential assumptions. It sounds like you represent what I feel the exgay movement should be. You’re not taking an evangelical stance and you seem calm, relaxed and accepting. You recognize your boundaries, and are okay with them. You focus on you as the person, and not an ideal that someone else holds. The only part of the equation I don’t know about is if you’re accepting of others who choose a different path towards Heaven, but I would hazard a guess that you do since you’re posting here. 🙂
So given that, I would like to say, congratulations on giving exgays a rare good face, you seem like an okay fellow.
Jay said:
Why isn’t homosexuality a beautiful God-given gift? And not everybody thinks marriage ends here. I actually think love in any form is eternal. I rather think my homosexuality is not an affliction. I was meant to be a homo from my pre-existence to the end of time.
Cowboy:
As St. Paul wrote, “And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.” (Epistle to the Romans – St. Paul 8:28 / Romans 8:28)
I agree with Cowboy that homosexuality is a beautiful God-given gift.
But like with every gift, it is what we do with it that makes the difference. If someone gives me a toaster for Christmas, it can be a beautiful gift. But if I take that toaster and throw it in the bathtub while I’m bathing, it can turn into the worst gift ever given. Not because the gift is bad in itself, but because I misused the gift.
If I am gay and I use my sexuality gift by finding the right person to spend the rest of my life with, then (IMO) I am using my gift the way it was intended to be used. I can opt to not use my gift, just as I can opt to put the toaster away and never use it to make toast aka celibacy. But again, celibacy can be a gift from God as well, but it must be used properly.
Being celibate for celibate’s sake is not using the gift properly. Just as making toast just because you have a toaster is not using the gift properly if you have no intention of having the toasted bread eaten!
If we are Christian (and this can apply to other religions as well), then every gift we receive we use it for a three-fold purpose, we use it to express our love for God, ourselves, and our neighbors (aka everybody else).
Jay:
Maybe someday you’ll meet a MAN who will rock your world, both spiritually and physically. But HE won’t be some trophy partner to show how much you have grown spiritually. That is between you and God.
No, but Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, thought marriage is only temporary. Mormons disagree. I disagree strongly with Jay that because we have God, we won’t want anyone else. I mean God has perfect union with God through the Trinity, but God’s desire for multiple union is so strong and vast that God desires union with consciousness on the planet. I’m inclined to anticipate that a perfect union with God will increase my desire for union, not fulfill it. That is love eternal across both time and space.
The issue of celibacy in the Bible is connected with the Hebrew and Greek cultures from which the Bible is addressed to. The two are vastly different which explains the Bible varied language.
In Hellenism, sex was a pleasurable act but it stole energy and control from the individual. In the Olympics, athletes abstained from sex and put cold metal on the testes to eliminate nightly emissions thinking they would perform better. Greek philosophy, with so much variation, varied on sex as well. But in Christianity at least, energy and control are good and essential things. Thus in the portions written for Greeks (the Pauline letters, the “missionary to the Greeks”), there is a very sex negative view. Read every Pauline reference to sex and i don’t think you’ll find a single positive statement about sex. His writing about celibacy is based on the assumption that sex steals our ability to control ourselves from sin and steals energy that we can use in ministry. It’s not a gift because celibacy is fun, it’s a gift because it enables those things. Paul condemns homosexuality because Paul condemns all sex! The Church now is so sex negative because it emphasizes Paul to the exclusion of the rest of the Bible.
The Hebrew view is much different with a more monolithic view of sex: sex is to give children, part of the circle of life, it’s a foundation for a culture/community, and it’s essentially good. The bulk of the Bible (everything other than Paul) reflects this. There is no celibacy here (except for eunuchs for are just an exception to things in general). In old, anti-Jesus Jewish writings, you’ll find insults against Jesus because he didn’t have children thus disobeying the first mitzvah. This part of Scripture doesn’t address sex much at all; it’s so simple there’s little to say: marry, have sex, have kids, the end. The Hebrew Bible condemns homosexuality (and birth control) because there are no kids.
The challenge is our culture rejects both ideas: leading sexless lives doesn’t make us stronger and sex is for more than offspring. So Christians have three options:
* Reject our culture in favor of either the Hebrew of Greek cultures (won’t happen)
* Reject Scripture (shouldn’t happen)
* Take the Hebrew desire for family and stability and the Paul’s desire for strong ministry and apply it to what we now think about sex.
When Christians do that, taking the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law, you end up with something very pro-marriage, pro-gay, pro-adoption, and emphasizing the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.
Alan,
I didn’t find my toaster until after quite a while. Then I discovered toast, then Pop Tarts, and now…toaster Strudel with icing. And for a while I must have popped a few prematurely and burned a few because I didn’t know how to use the toaster properly. But as I matured I found the right way to use my toaster.
To all my burned toast…err…friends: I’m sorry. I really am.
Ephilei,
You can tell I’m a little biased towards Mormon doctrine. You’ll have to allow me one vestige of my childhood indoctrination. But it’s a concept I like and I feel if I don’t find my mate here in this life I will in the next. At least I “hope” so.
Ragarth:
I think the question of if I’m “accepting” is a tricky one, even for me. I certainly try to be loving and respectful to everyone, yet at the same time I’m not a relativist, and I do believe that my views about sexuality are closest to Scripture (and thus, closest to the truth).
However, I’m not supposed to judge, and I take that to heart. I suppose you could compare it to my views on Roman Catholicism. I’m a non-denominational Reformed Evangelical, and there are many things I disagree with Roman Catholics about. They aren’t minor quibbles, either, but important matters of doctrine. At the same time, I have known many outstanding Christians who were Catholic and I look to them as role models in my faith despite our disagreements. I would never say they were not saved or were not Christians, and the same thing goes for gay Christians who don’t share my views about sexuality.
So even though, like David said, I’m not in competition about who is right, that doesn’t mean I don’t stick to my convictions. I gladly befriend and discuss these issues with people different than me, and I’ll share my beliefs (I might even proselytize a bit). Still, I realize that Christianity is diverse and that none of us are right about everything, and every one of us is at a different point in our journey with Christ.
So… I guess you could simply say I’m accepting, yet not necessarily approving. Not that anyone needs or wants my approval anyway. 🙂
Can you please post sources? I’m curious about these.
Cowboy,
forgot to mention, it’s “Be Kind to Your Toaster” week.
Jay.
Put a Roman Catholic, and Old Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox, an Angelican, a Lutheran, a Baptist, a non-denominational Reformed Evangelical, and every other brand of Christianity you can think of, put one of each in a room to tell them to come to a consensus of doctrine and come back in an hour and you’ll find everyone’s excommunicated everybody.
But put those same people in a room and tell them they have to come up with a plan to do what Christ commanded us to do, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc., and at least 90% of them will have worked together to come up with a workable plan.
Christianity, from its very beginning, has argued and debated over doctrine. We can’t even decide which books belong in the Bible. But most of us can agree on doing God’s work.
Just over 30 years ago, divorced remarried people were unwelcomed even in Protestant churches. When I was in seminary about 15 years ago, I remember a big controversy arose when the priest at the church I was working at allowed a divorced woman who remarried to be in the choir AND to take communion. Now, most Protestant churches and the Angelican Church don’t make much of an issue of it at all.
Once upon a time, divorced people were expected to live celibate lives, but now most churches (and most people for that matter) feel they can live more fulfilled lives if they find someone to share their life with. Now the church is dealing with homosexuality, and, as with divorce, there are a variety of opinions, but again, little by little, churches, and those filling the pews, are realizing the needs of the gay community with regards to marriage.
Jay, I have a question for you:
If you were a resident of California, how would you vote on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage?
I would vote against it, not because I necessarily approve of gay marriage, but because I think amending the constitution over an issue as trivial as marriage is far too extreme.
I’ll add to that statement by saying that my political views are a bit extreme in themselves. Granted, I’m young and haven’t studied politics in depth, but my views currently are Libertarian bordering on minarchy. I believe that all individuals should be able to create any type of contract between themselves. Marriage is, in my view, a spiritual contract between a man, woman, and God. The government, in my view, has no place in it at all, and should allow individuals the freedom to create the type of living situations they want.
Natural Law prevails that dualistic sexuality exists on Earth since the beginning of recorded history and beyond, and therefore are valid natural expressions on Earth. Many people abide in that Natural Law always makes sense. Universal Law, which gave birth to Earth’s Natural Law of opposites, states all forms on this planet shall have an opposite. Hence heterosexuality and homosexuality exist as opposites in the matrix of Earth’s dualist nature.
Since opinion by sexualists that propose acquisition of power over Natural Law exists, which is a popular religious past time past and present, the overlay of these opinions coveting Natural Law can gain unnatural control of the senses, creating disharmony, hence closing off the sexual energies from the waist line down, one of many potentials. The sexualist then can concentrate on energies above the waist line, love grace peace heart and so on.
The rub comes when unnatural law, which to some states homosexuality is bad wrong or illegal, collides with Natural Law, expressing the opposite. Hence nary the two shall meet. This cuts off half one’s experience of being completely human, technically, inhumane.
Celibacy when executed from a loving thought, can have vast and incredible assertations. Applying opposing emotion, celibacy can create great question to be pondered and resolved. Hence the Spiritual Warrior’s inner battle to tie together the worlds of love and sex, ensues.
I sympathize with the Jays of the world as it is their path to unwind Natural Law to figure it out. Though tedious, it is their free will right. Any inner battle can be excessively rewarding if pursued to the end, the prize being a harmonious expression of a complete human experience.
Those who find themselves in loving sexual relationships derived from the innate sense of Natural Law abiding without reprise, with focus, find great sexual harmony.
Universal Law, which governs Natural Law, will always be here, after all unnatural overlays have had their due exploration.
I commend Jay on his acumen for doing a fine job of overlaying self imposed singular unnatural law, seemingly without regret, atop Dualistic Natural Law that governs our planet. It can present the most formidable of inner and outer adversaries, and reward with the most beauteous adventures and outcomes.
As one might say to the spiritual warrior intensely yanking at the ropes of Natural Law, Heave-Ho. And learn.
“There will be no marriage in Heaven, and thus, no sex.”
What a depressing view of Heaven. If you are looking to turn people away from Christianity – such views will do it rather quickly.
“There will be no marriage in Heaven, and thus, no sex.”
What a depressing view of Heaven. Hell’s looking a lot better than it did before I read your sad, sex-negative essay. You also seem to be quite sure about what happens in Heaven. Does your certainty come from experience? Have you been there? If so, do you know where I can get a cheap flight so I can reserve some good real estate with a view and a couple of angels to cook for me?
By the way, Jay, sex is quite wonderful. Holding your gay spouse in the morning does enrich your life in more ways than I can enumerate on this site. Contrary to your glib statement that reduces love and sexual pleasure to “keeping it in your pants” – you are missing out on the fullness and beauty of life, in my view. I suspect you’d be much happier with a boyfriend and dumping the harsh version of Christianity that would deny you the wonder of life on earth for a promise of Heaven – when in reality, you are as clueless of anyone else of what God truly wants and what will happen when we die.
In any case, I wish you luck. But, waking up next to my boyfriend this morning is the closest to heaven I’ve ever felt. I suggest you try it sometime. It might just change your life. (with your own boyfriend, not mine)
Jay, thank you for responding. And thank you for being someone who is not seeking to impose their will on others. After reading Ex-Gay Watch along with other material every day focusing on the relentless campaign by Christians against us, it is easy to forget that there are people such as you.
I’d like to comment on one thing you said in the original post:
Since I do not believe in the existence of God I find it sad for a person’s life on Earth to be nothing more than preparation for a following eternal life that I do not believe exists. While some may find it sad that I think our life on Earth is all there is, I feel liberated from the indoctrination I grew up with and excited by the wonderful discoveries that are made every day.
I wish you peace and contentment as you continue to reconcile the various aspects of your life, including religious belief and sexuality.
Speaking to Jay by Mr. Besen:
So, so true! Jay might be missing out on some wonderful things that should be enumerated. Wonderful music was written for the kind of love you should experience. The joy after reuniting with him after a business trip. The feeling you get when he makes breakfast for you.
Jay might regret his self-induced celibacy. I did. I do.
Cowboy, Wayne,
Just leave him alone. He made a decision to be celibate out of religious convictions – religious convictions that are HIS, NOT YOURS, and as such you are not expected to understand or respect him. Jay has not declared that all gay Christians should adopt his celibate lifestyle. He has not said that his same-sex attractions have gone away and makes no attempts to pretend that he is any closer to heterosexuality than he was before he went celibate. He even holds a political stance that allows absolute freedom for gays and lesbians to live their lives the same way everyone else does.
Celibacy is a personal choice and there’s nothing wrong with it. Not everyone wants to be sexual. As long as people don’t hurt others, their sexual decisions do not deserve to be mocked and publicly panned – this includes, in my opinion, promiscuity.
As for the comment about “no sex in heaven,” I interpreted that to mean that the feelings one achieves on earth through meaningful sex will be so abundant in heaven that sex will not be necessary. Marriage will not be necessary. Jews hold the belief that the closer you are to G-d, the “better” you will feel – that is, G-d’s profound goodness can be felt, a goodness that doesn’t match anything on earth. I believe this is what is meant by “no marriage or sex in heaven.” Those things won’t be necessary. A goodness we can’t fathom on earth will be experienced.
I’ve stayed out this one so far, but I had to comment after what wayne had to say, because I think he hit the nail on the head.
All theology, despite the certainty of the various adherents, is strictly a matter of opinion–and from my perspective, fairly uninformed opinion at that. The very evidence for this is the existence of extreme certainty coupled with extreme disagreement, whatever our notions of G, what G wants, and G’s message to the world, .
I’m reminded of the extreme fundamentalists who believe that anything of this world is a distraction from the next. singing, dancing all forbidden. (What was the movie? Footloose?) Yet the bible is full of referneces “sing unto the lord a new song” etc.
If G exists, and if G gave us the capacity for love, joy and pleasure, (two assumptions i don’t necessarily subscribe to), and the world is a better place for the existence of those things (which i do subscribe to), who are we to say it is against G’s will?
The world is a better place, I am a better person, because i love my (soon-to-be-yay-california) husband. I can’t imagine g wanting less than that for the world.
Hi Jay, Glad to have you here with your story. My brother who is straight, still feels guilty for jacking off because of Christian sexual teachings boiling his mind. It’s a shame you have to put yourself through such similar anguish about something as prescious as your entire sexuality.
I’ve never had any confusion around my gayness, but I get blistering mad when leaders like the Pope, go to Africa and tell people with HiV not to where condoms because it is against church teaching. The blatant disregard by all Christianity for science is bone chilling.
I suggest you look up Peter Tascano (google it) , as it could be where you end up very soon, which would be a fantastic blessing for you.
I also suggest you stop believing you are bad for wanting to kiss a boy and know your true sexual makeup. It’s a travesty that your straight coupled friends whom I only assume you have, get to date, flirt, kiss, hold hands, run jump and play together in love, while you metaphorically sit in a cold steel chair in a corner, hands tied tightly behind your back, with a sock stuffed in your mouth and an iron frying pan chained over your cock. And that cute guy you want to talk to and maybe date and kiss, won’t happen for fear of bursting into flames. What a winner that picture is. I would feel my youth so ripped off. One would say, “you’ve bought the farm.” Jesus can help you if you talk to him and listen with grace and not interfere with your mind. Gay people have Jesus and sex, they are both divine, gay or straight.
Get a good unbiased counselor and start working on your fear issues “below the belt” instead of wishing and “hoping” you never have to. Though you may be getting to know your love better through denial of your sex, your stalling a major aspect of your life. There is no greater expression of human love then in the reflection in a true lovers eyes. You deserve that man, it’s your right. For you, that feeling will be with a guy.
I hope you will find the fearlessness to express the gay boy you sexually really are. Who knows, maybe someday you could save a young gay person the torment of suicide by telling them they are OK as the sexual being they truly are. Now THAT, is love in action.
Good luck on your journey Jay.
We all like Jay – he’s cute, sincere, and smart. He reminds us of the guy we used to be many many years ago.
Like Jay I too wrote about my struggles with God and sexuality and like I Jay I thought I could devote my life to truth, beauty, art, and chaste friendships.
Then I fell in love.
Now I’d rather poke out my eyes with knitting needles than read the stuff I wrote back then.
I believe The Universe has a great guy in store for Jay with his enormous capacity to love and appreciate the world. One day he will find that guy and have a wonderful life.
Either that or he’ll become another Randy.
Assuming Jay has only these two options is nonsense. This thread has gone from appreciation of Jay’s life, to mocking, and then lastly to pressure for him into what some others consider his “destiny” or whatever. It’s fine to relay a personal story about having once had a similar view and how love changed the situation, or one’s own opinion on a response to the same circumstances, but what is wrong with appreciating Jay for who he is?
Jay has brought his faith and his life into harmony and, whether that changes later or not, he seems happy. On top of that he does not spout delusions about orientation change, or chant a mantra about being on the road to heterosexuality — he rejects that. And he does not impose his answers on anyone else through laws or social stigma.
Let’s do at least as much for him — its his life and he seems fine. Otherwise, don’t we risk becoming as arrogant and intolerant as some of those who oppose our own lives?
I was taking a defensive stance with Jay. I was a little perturbed with his “keep it in the pants” comment. Honestly, the way it came across was a little condescending. I don’t know if I misread what he meant but that is how I (and apparently others) have interpreted what Jay said.
Sometimes celibacy is a rationalization for something. It could be a byproduct of some sort of low self-esteem issue or a fear of dating and possible commitment can make you celibate. Jay may be using religion as an alibi for his type of celibacy. But the flippant remark about sex and even romantic love not being such a big deal is worrisome. Plus, I’m not sure if Jay is forsaking even self-induced sexual pleasure**. If not, then, hell, I’m celibate and have been for a long time.
So, I feel more like a Father who would counsel his son if he knew his talents were not being fully utilized. That’s not pressuring him; it is just some friendly advice. That’s not mocking him; it is a defensive posturing on my part. There is a difference.
And I’m hyper sensitive sometimes.
** I can’t type the “m” word for fear it will trigger something on EGW website.
I agree with David Roberts’ comment whole heartedly, because it basically reiterates what I had said above. Jay’s life choices are his own and not ours to criticize. Saying we know he’ll “come around” or trying to “guide him” thinking he’s wasting his life is like saying we know him better than we know ourselves.
What arrogance.
This is EXACTLY the attitude anti-gay activists and conservative activists WANT us to have: so that they can accuse us of “liberal fascism” whereby we believe only our own ideas can be the truly correct decisions to make. In addition, saying he has only two options – be sexual or don’t – with the latter being the only “real” healthy choice – is tantamount to a Christian telling me they just “know” I’ll come around to Jesus and see the light and see I was wrong, and that I’ll realize clinging to my Jewish theological beliefs was futile and ridiculous.
And even if Jay DOES choose to become sexual some day, it’s not like he’d be coming out of the closet or recanting himself some how. He says he is same-sex attracted. He never claimed to be a “former homosexual” or any of that nonsense. He has not said that he is “above” his sexuality, he just treats it differently. And he’s perfectly happy letting others make different lifestyle decisions. For him, right now, right here, today, celibacy is what fulfills Jay. He has given us his honest story and made himself vulnerable and subject to open speculation about his private sexual habits on this thread, which is quite frankly, extremely inappropriate. Celibacy is different for every person and means different things, and it’s nobody’s business how they define it.
Is the only way for people on this blog to be satisfied is for every single gay person to be leftist, sexually active, and religiously liberal? Shame.
Emily:
I agree that no one should be mocked if they choose to be celibate, but I think Jay made it clear that his type of celibacy is in fact abstenance from same sex, because he stated:
Maybe it’s the Catholic in me, but when someone says they have chosen celibacy, it means forever and ever, not “UNTIL I find the right one.” It wouldn’t be celibacy per se then as much as it would be abstenance.
While celibacy is a choice, it can be a wrong choice for the wrong reasons which is why I am in strong disagreement that the priesthood should require it in the RCC. So many priests I knew were in some type of relationship with other priests (I never knew a priest personally that molested altar boys but knew of them when scandals hit). What I saw was very few people have the “gift” of celibacy, and most people attempt to be celibate for the wrong reasons.
Still, it is one’s own choice, and one must be respected for making such a choice. But if it is just abstenance one is persuing in hopes that he or she will find someone of the opposite sex in order to rid themselves of same sex attractions, it may be wise to listen to those who have tried it and failed. It might save that person a lot of tears and regrets.
I think I might have mentioned something along these lines before…and it’s more in concurrence with Alan S’s point in the last paragraph of his post.
Attraction, it’s intensity, the object of it and the ability for a mutual situatation to occur…is a very PERSONAL thing for one.
There is no manual or instructions needed really to know how one feels about a person in particular. But in the case of gender attraction, that’s a broader issue requiring even LESS instruction.
My point is, the attraction itself can make a person happy. It’s only the assumptions made by heterosexuals and heterosexuals turing on gay people so harshly is why we’re even talking about this.
I’ve never really understood WHY it’s so important for homosexuals NOT to be homosexual TO heterosexuals.
And being without, having no real opportunities for romance, intensifies the feelings of aloneness and missing out on something. When it becomes an institutional issue against gay people, singleton status makes you stand out more and become something of the object of even pity on some levels.
Unless you’re gay, then it’s about you deserving that station in life.
And that’s when you make the most impulsive or reckless decisions out of fatigue of that situation or just plain satisfying those who can’t respect your status, whatever it is.
Sure society does have an interest in stable marriages in family. It’s them dictating who you’re supposed to marry is where the rub is. The public at that point doesn’t respect the personal.
I see no good that’s really come from isolating gay people from doing what is healthy and supported in hetero couples.
It truly is in the realm of irrationality to contradict everything when it comes to what gay people should do with their lives.
If there were an advantage to a society to do so, such as in the case of criminals for isolation.
But celibacy STILL doesn’t save a gay person from being discriminated against in their professional lives or ability to be open.
Even religious beliefs should be challenged on the justification of this treatment of gay people. When all else is equal whether one is gay or not.
There’s nothing wrong with being critical of someone when they make a certain choice for the wrong reasons, as I believe Jay has done. I’m agnostic on the question of God, but if such a being exists I find it odd that he would demand that gay people deny themselves the joy of a loving, sensual relationship.
I know people who are celibate because they have a low sex drive or don’t want a relationship, or they are just waiting for someone to commit to. That’s fine with me. Jay seems to have chosen celibacy because he imagines some God demands it of him, not because it’s something he really wants. That’s a shame if it’s true.
Nobody here is suggesting that Jay does not have a right to live his life as he chooses. However, we can question and be critical of his choice.
Regan:
But it does act as a justification mechanism for the one opting to abstain from sexual relations with someone of their own gender. By refraining from sex, they can feel “safe” amongst the ones they associate with, who most likely disapprove of same sex relationships – “hate the sin, love the sinner” groups. So by refraining from sex, the person can still be “loved” by their god and the ones they associate with. Any inclination to sexual attraction or urges can be blamed on the devil, or the world, or the media, or the “gay agenda,” or the “gay culture,” etc. (which, in my opinion, is much like the rapist blaming his victim for raping her because she was dressed a certain way or was making suggestive moves, etc.)
If someone opts to be celebate because they are doing it to serve God and her people, or they just choose to do so for personal reasons other than being convinced God is the Anti-Gay Boogie Man, then it is a personal choice I respect. But that it is a CHOICE, made, not out of fear or hate, but out of love. Not exchanging an evil thing for a good thing, but exchanging a good thing for a better thing.
I would just as easily frown on someone who opted to be celebate so they wouldn’t have to get married and have kids, or that they feel heterosexuality is dirty or bad or evil as I would on someone who opted to be celebate because they felt homosexuality is dirty or bad or evil.
In Christianity, celebacy, in its true religious function, is not about running away from something but running towards something. It is about surrendering oneself for the good of others, not about trying to grapple with one’s sexual identity (which is again why I am against mandatory celebacy for priests and religious in the RCC).
I’ll make a few statements, but I don’t really have the time to respond to everything that’s been said here. First off, my line about there being no marriage in heaven is purely Scriptural. Jesus said it in reply to the Sadducees in Mark 12:25. Most Christians know of this verse and believe it. There will only be “marriage” in Heaven in the sense that Christ will be united with His Church (the Bible often uses terms such as “bride” and “bridegroom” to describe the Church and Christ, respectively).
Sorry about the “keeping it in your pants” comment. I’m sure I could have been more tasteful there. This was originally just a post on my blog, though. I don’t really guard my language there and I’m not above blunt statements. Again, I apologize.
As for the whole “I’ll meet a great guy” shtick… Well, I met one last year, and wrote about it some on my blog (I kept most of it private simply because I try to keep friends and family off the blog as much as possible). We were in a pretty serious relationship for six months. Yes, waking up next to him in the morning was quite special, and he was a true gentleman who accepted and loved me as I was, and I really did love him. Still, my convictions about God and His plan for my life were stronger. The relationship ended, and my ex showed his love for me by being compassionate and understanding (even if he didn’t agree). We’re still good friends and he’ll always hold a place in my heart. Yes, earthly relationships are good and I’ll even say it felt right at the time… but staying true to my convictions felt more right, and in the end I just had to go back to them.
I’ll admit one could make the argument that my celibacy is “forced” by the fact that I view homosexual sex as a sin. I don’t view it as any more sinful than fornication or easy divorce (technically, most Christian doctrines don’t either, but you’d never be able to guess by the way Christians single out gays), but yes, I do think it is sinful and in my own journey to be faithful to God, I’ve decided to abstain from it. I call this “celibacy” because that’s what I’m planning on, since I really don’t see a hypothetical wife in my future.
However, strange as this sounds, there is no fear in this. I’m not afraid God would stop loving me if I started having sex. I know that’s not true. I just don’t think I’d be being faithful to Him. I don’t think I’d be pleasing Him. Those are two things that I take very seriously. Let’s put it this way. I didn’t choose to give up sex so I could go out and devote my life to serving God in ministries or missionary work (like most celibates do). I did it because I believe that God considers gay sex sinful. However, because I realized that a celibate life without that kind of missionary service would be empty and unpleasing to God, that service is now one of my biggest goals. Fulfilling those goals (or even dreaming about fulfilling them) makes me happy and gives me purpose. God doesn’t ask us to give up something without offering something better in return.
Oh, and David and Emily, thank you very much. Take care, everyone.
Jay,
As Christ said, “if you knew what this means: ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would never have condemned the innocent.” (HGJC St. Matthew 12:7)
God didn’t ask you to give up having a relationship with a man, you chose to do so.
If you are an evangelical Christian then you have a lot to be afraid of. Check with your pastor on this one, but most evangelical christian sects see salvation as an inward experience that is manifested outward. In other words, if you look saved you are saved. If you act saved, you are saved. So, for example, if you saw a fellow evangelical walking out of a porno shop, you would most likely doubt their salvation status. If your sect of evangelical christianity differs, my apologies. So for you, if you have a relationship with a man, chances are those in your congregation will doubt your salvation status. You’d be on the next train to hell, and if you died before you repented, you’ll be racking coals for eternity.
So, to say you have no fear…
I remember hearing an evangelical preacher saying that God loves those even in hell. It’s not about God not loving you, it’s about where you will spend eternity. In evangelical theology it’s pretty black and white – heaven or hell, and I think most serious evangelicals walk in that fear of falling to the other side on a daily basis.
Getting back to Christ’s words, did God put you on this earth to be miserable, to deny yourself the joy of being with another, to be alone?
The way you described how your ex “my ex showed his love for me by being compassionate and understanding,” I think he exemplifies more of what Christ asks us to do.
There is a story about a man who was on the roof of his house because the river had flooded the town. A boat came by and the man on the boat said, “I got room. Come on and I’ll rescue you.” The man on the roof replied, “No thanks. God will save me.” A few minutes later another boat came by. “We got room. Come on, we’ll save you.” “No thanks,” the man on the roof said. “God will save me.” Finally a big thunderbolt struck the man on the roof dead. He went to heaven, and he was angry at God. As soon as he saw God he said, “Why didn’t you save me?” God replied, “You’re the one who wouldn’t get on the boats I sent you!”
Maybe your ex was one of those boats. Just something to think about.
I don’t think Jay needs to be “saved” from himself. He hasn’t given off the vibe that he’s stranded in a thunderstorm with a flood about to kill him and celibacy is the only boat that will “rescue” him (which never comes, if we’re going by the story). Why is it so threatening to others when a Side B Christian decides, without pushing it on everyone else as the only true choice, to live their lives as they do? There’s 6,000,000,000 people on this earth. Isn’t it possible that one of them could actually be happy with the decisions they make, even if they DO go against the norm of what is a satisfactory life? Who said Jay was miserable? Did JAY say he was miserable? Everyone needs to stop making these blanket assumptions.
Religious Jews have limits of sorts placed on their lives. Gentiles are usually familiar with the dietary laws, like not eating fish that doesn’t have fins and scales, and avoiding pork. Many converts to Orthodox Judaism miss those foods greatly, but decide for themselves personally that the sacrifice is what makes them feel closer to G-d. I enjoy the first of those foods very much (and to a lesser extent, the second) but I don’t dare pass judgment on those who choose to give them up, despite sharing those feelings. It’s not my place.
Emily:
The point of the story is that G-d provides us with things and we need to be intune to what he brings us in our lives. Sometimes we think we are going to get something from G-d as if it will be handed to us by an angel, when in fact most of the time it is the love and care of others that brings us G-d’s loving care to us. He/she provides for us, and we have to be spiritually intune to that in order to know that. What I was trying to get at was that, how does Jay not know his ex was someone who might have been someone G-d put in his life as a means to bring him the love and care he needs. It is a valid question to ask.
All religions have some sort of sacrifice practice, and many people accept and participate in them with a firm conviction. But that doesn’t mean those sacrifices cannot be put into question, nor does it mean someone outside of that religious theological belief cannot ask questions concerning it. That is precisely what occurred in early Christianity when the question of Gentiles being converted was put to the front.
But the actual sacrifice is not as important as the reason behind it. And that is what I question with Jay. Keep in mind that, he is not only sacrificing his sexuality, but he also sacrificed a relationship and probably hurt the person he broke up with.
I used the word miserable, because that is what I read when I saw the following…
He said earlier that missionary service was not the reason he is celebate but because he thinks sex between two people of the same gender is a sin. If he is not miserable, he certainly sees his life becoming as such if he does not fill it with something else to fill the void.
Again, Emily, I see nothing wrong with being celebate. It can be a beautiful thing, but it must be the right thing for the right person and for the right reasons. Reading what Jay has put down to words does nor sound to me like that is his case. And if it is not, then as a fellow religious person and as a fellow human being I think it is only fair to advize someone or warn them if I think there is something wrong. I mean, if a piano was falling from a 10 story building and it was going to land on someone I would at least say, “Heads up” or “look out” or something. If the piano misses them and hits the empty street and no one gets hurt, and I was wrong in thinking the piano was going to hit them, at least I did what I thought was right to do.
Jay, thanks for speaking out on hope that is not contingent upon orientation change. As the leader of a small ministry in California, I applaud Wendy’s honest, Christ-centered approach and find it an inspiration.
Alan,
You said:
“as a fellow religious person and as a fellow human being I think it is only fair to advise someone or warn them if I think there is something wrong. I mean, if a piano was falling from a 10 story building and it was going to land on someone I would at least say, ‘Heads up’ or ‘look out’ ”
Sounds like something the ex gay folk would say, doesn’t it?
P
Well, “P,” you would probably know better than Alan. Good luck going straight.
Alan,
I find your post really hits a nail (one of many to be hit) on the head, regarding sane reasons for celibacy.
I do not think Jay is caught up so much with changing orientation, as much as he is into, (hold on 7Up) the unsexual orientation. Some sexually struggling gay Christians with healthy sex drives like Jay’s, who follow a celibate path, consider themselves celibate gay, celibate non gay, celibate not sure, celibate straight, etc with all have two things in common, extreme guilt and fear of death/hell as the foundation for their celibacy, and they are still gay.
Celibacy seems to be the newly non-clergy resurrected answer to the gay sex / sin / God issue, since “change” has pretty much bought the bullet. They are under the God spell that their sexual act is evil and not what God wants. Hence, the “God has called me to another path” idea ensues. Then the reaching for saint hood idea evolves, of course, while checking out the gas station attendant, the bank clerk, the box boy, and for Jay, “Pete Wentz” For me, perfectly healthy, for the Jays, one more nail in the coffin.
I think the foundational motivation towards a life of celibacy for confused gay Christians, is not so much to lead a chaste life, but to escape the wrath of God. Jay’s comment is telling, “Our only hope is Christ crucified. Crucified for our sins, receiving wrath so we don’t have to” hence a need to control out of fear of damnation steps in. Control lovers, love life, sex drive, control gay people, temptations, life experiences and so on. Regarding Jay leaving his lover, a great writer Sondra Ray once wrote, “love brings up everything unlike itself”. In this case, the “unlike itself” won out. I believe Jay’s bottom line motivation is his excessive attempt to escape hell, hence all the out of balance confusing control mechanisms kick in to make that “hope”fully happen.
Is Jay miserable? Jay writes, “I’m not comfortable with my sins or my temptations”. He implies his entire gay sexual core with that statement. I think anyone in that position could be, but not necessarily miserable. I would say marginally unsettled could be more appropos. He has made many Earth realities “our hope is not our family, not our friends, not a spouse, not children, not jobs, money, cars, trips, pets, not anything.” seemingly unnecessary, as heaven seems to be more the future goal than living in the present. My take is he is way up in the head and has the perfect cast of good and evil characters, some conscious some un, running his sex show. Lots of great writers get stuck upstairs, and Jay boy, you are a very good writer.
I think Jay is on a fantastic journey towards self realization with regards to good/evil acceptance and rejection, and does not really want to step on anyone’s toes in the process. But in this instance, there is a nitch of the unconscious ‘bull in China shop’, as it is with all Christians who nix gay sex as evil then get on a soap box. By going public with his stance, he is making his way to being another poster boy for ‘gay sex is evil’ which can be rotten-egg-tossing-offensive to some. People will react who know the truth and defend. Hence on a progressive loving note, rather than lashing out, gay marriage flourishes.
Emily, I do not think gay Christians should go celibate stat, i.e. “like not eating fish that doesn’t have fins and scales” regarding other religious doctrine. If we were to follow Christian dogma to the tee, gay celibacy may be the norm. Is that the overlay in translation you were implying? In your mind, should all gay Christians “keep it in my pants” and take the fear birthed celibacy path?
Write more Jay as you are a very interesting and very good writer. With your current subject however, you might want to wear a divine bee keeper suit for protection.
——————————————————————————–
Looking for a car that’s sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
——————————————————————————–
Looking for a car that’s sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
Let me clarify my earlier statement. I see nothing wrong with questioning Jay (or anyone else) about motivations, opinions, desires, etc. And much of the comments above do indeed seem valid to me. My concern was with the turn we seemed to be making toward condescension and even mockery. IOW, be respectful, and don’t assume Jay is somehow taking the wrong path for the wrong reasons just because it isn’t the one you or I might have taken. His way of responding to his beliefs and sexuality doesn’t lessen my life or yours. He’s just Jay.
My problem with the ex-gay equation has always been the arrogant, self-righteous or even bigoted stance that so often accompanies those who are what we have called “ex-gay for pay,” whose credentials and career are essentially defined by who they don’t have sex with. They do a lot of damage and they have ripped many people from their faith.
As has been stated here many times, if a gay person — for whatever reason — wants to be celibate, or a bisexual person wants to focus on their opposite-sex desires, that’s their own business. The problem is with those who hawk conversion therapies or promises of change, or who recommend or endorse opposite-sex marriage to one who is basically same-sex attracted, or impose the idea that one cannot be both gay (and accepting of that) and faithful to God.
And for those who do decide to try one of the above, we want them to have as much accurate information as possible before becoming shackled with the Exodus mindset. Or worse, the tender mercies of Richard Cohen or Joe Nicolosi.
As far as I know, Jay wouldn’t give any of them the time of day. And he is not deluded with the idea that he is just a “wounded heterosexual” or that he can resolve some non-existent fear of men and thereby become straight. He’s just a nice guy who happens to be gay and, from where he sits, feels he needs to abstain to please God. Don’t look for him to drop out of college, start calling us “gay-identified” and pretend to be sexually attracted to women anytime soon.
PS Jay, I support you in writing here anytime you want.
I was implying nothing. I was declaring that there is a parallel between someone who, by their own (sometimes newly-adopted) religious doctrine, chooses to abstain from something they used to enjoy for the sake of being fulfilled spiritually. And as for “do i think all Christians should… etc.” Well, I can’t make a single statement for “all Christians” just like I can’t make a single statement for “all Jews.” Their doctrines are different from my doctrines and that’s for them to figure out, not me. So I’ll leave that last one up to you.
Emily and David, thanks again for your support.
And Devlin… all I really have to say to you is that you are extremely presumptuous. You’re being an armchair psychologist here, taking a few lines from my essay and making an analysis of me that is inaccurate in its best moments and condescending in its worst. I think simply reading through the archives of my blog would help you realize that I’m not really the person you think I am.
I realize I’m a writer and people are going to see my work however they want to see it, and I sincerely thank you for complimenting my writing. I hope you read more of it. There’s plenty of it out there, and it should tell you pretty quickly that I’m not motivated by “an excessive attempt to escape Hell,” and I’m certainly not miserable. Regards.
It sounds as if this particular ministry is more in line with the Catholic and Mormon version of ex-gay ministry. Ex-gay means “not gay” but it doesn’t require heterosexuality.
That certainly has to be more appealing to many ex-gay strugglers, but it’s just a kinder, gentler form of abuse – it’s still homophobic and it’s still abusive.
I don’t think I like seeing all of sexual and romantic intimacy with one’s partner downplayed to the phrase “keeping it in your pants,” but still, thanks for sharing your story Jay. Best of luck for the path you’ve decided to take.
I have to agree with this. It’s only a distant observation but I’ve noticed from other comments and posts at his own blog (where this post originated) that Jay doesn’t seem to have (for lack of a better term) an appreciation for sexual relationships in general. That doesn’t exactly isolate him, there are many people who feel the same way, even to the point of being asexual. But in Jay’s case (and he can feel free to respond) I get the impression that his attitude comes from his belief that he must not participate in such relationships.
Making sexual relationships a thing one must resist at all cost would almost certainly put them in a negative light. And one would be less than human if at some point that didn’t also cause some animosity towards those not similarly restricted. Jay has mentioned that he might have put that a different way if he had it to write again, but the phrase he chose does seem telling in some ways.
Again, I’m not sure anyone could avoid at least some of this attitude in a similar situation.
David:
I agree. It’s like having the bitter unmarried sister (or brother) at the wedding telling everyone that marriage is just a piece of paper, making predictions how long the marriage will last, making faces when the vows are exchanged, etc.
In many ways I feel sorry for Jay because he is convinced he is required by God to give up having the chance to share his life with someone that (given the freedom of his own restraining convictions) he would be able to love and be loved.
For those of us who have broken free from the chains that had us hold back from being who we truly are, it hard to see someone still chained up, and moreso, adding their own chains to the ones already imposed on them. For those of us who are religious and gay and have no problem combinding them both, it is hard to see someone still caught in the Purgatory of Religion vs Being Gay.
P wrote:
in regards to my comment:
I think the only difference between the ex-gay ministry and a gay religious person making that statement is: I would do and say those things because I am concerned about that person as a fellow human being. The ex-gayer, in my opinion, would be concerned about trying to justify his or her own decision to “go straight” by trying to get more like him or her to make the same decision.
There’s an elephant in the room here that nobody has directly confronted. Why is Jay here at all? If he were a 100% happy celibate christian non-homosexual or whatever he is, why is he having to blog about his choices and beliefs? Clearly he has a massive conflict brewing within him. “Look, it’s not easy living without sex.” If you were really “exalted in the spirit” (I think is the jargon they use) it would be easy for you. Sorry. Even though the bible might say it will be hard to follow god’s word, they didn’t mean hard in a “writing long posts to various blogs” kind of way. I’m just being honest. You call yourself stoic on your blog, and yet you’re not truly being stoic! Decide what you want and go for it, Jay. If you really wanted the life you describe, you wouldn’t be here would you? And I think you know that.
Cantabrigian, with all due respect, your comment seems dismissive and illustrates a misunderstanding of what we do here.
Why is he here? Why wouldn’t he be here? This is a place to discuss ex-gay issues and Jay has every right to join in that discussion. If anything, I’ve found Jay to be an example of the reality that Exodus tries to ignore, that even for those who feel God does not want them to have intimate same-sex relationships (basically sex), there doesn’t have to be this surreal mantra of “change” as though that were a real possibility for most people.
Jay acknowledges that he is homosexual, but as his understanding of his faith does not allow him to have such relationships, he takes the honest road — celebacy. That is most certainly his choice to make, and I for one find it refreshingly honest when compared to the neurotic idea of “reparative theory.”
I don’t fully follow your meaning here, but suffice to say that any situation where one is denying strong feelings or desires is not an easy one — hopefully we can all agree and probably even identify with that. I don’t think I’ve ever heard Jay describe his choices as easy — far from it. The point is that these are his choices to make, and while doing so he is not denigrating mine (or yours), he is not making unrealistic claims that he is now heterosexual or even on his way to it. And he is not lobbying to have my rights curtailed to fit his own world view about sexuality.
In short, he is honest and I’ve seen that more and more lately among young people who not so long ago might have ended up in an Exodus program so their life could be ruled by an obsession with this stuff, with a great many finally having their faith ripped from them.
While we certainly would welcome anyone who is questioning their descision to be ex-gay, we also welcome the civil and sincere participation of those who feel secure in that direction. One need not be “in doubt” of their choices to share their point of view here.
I’m sure Jay can speak for himself if anything else requires a response.
Once again, David, I agree. But I’d like to add that I don’t understand why so many people are threatened by people who choose celibacy. It just smacks of insecurity with their own sexuality. It works both ways, you know.
We homos get made fun of by heteros because we’re different and we know who we are sexually, which threatens those heteros who are not willing to see that side of humanity and might even be somewhat gay themselves.
But even among those who proclaim themselves “sexually liberated” – gay or straight or whatever – will mock and question people who choose a path of celibacy or abstinence. If someone is truly sexually liberated and aware, they will not feel the need to needle and prod at those who are different. They will not feel threatened by those very personal decisions that have nothing to do with them. Generally individuals I’ve known who are abstinent or celibate don’t “flaunt” it because 1) it’s nobody’s business, and 2) they’re often looked at like they’re some sort of alien when they disclose such information.
Celibacy is not the same as “repressed” or “asexual.” I enjoyed this question/answer article and helped me to better understand the choice of celibacy.
Because celibacy is inherently “unnatural” to many people’s view of human life, they look down upon it.
And because homosexuality is inherently “unnatural” to many people’s view of human life, they look down upon it.
But I don’t think either of them are “unnatural.” I think they just “are.”
Emily, good points. but I think you’re missing something here:
The article you link to describes a woman who is, in a very real way, asexual. She has no interest in sex, and that is the core of asexuality.
If there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, and celibacy….what’s wrong with asexuality?
Asexuality is when someone has very little to no interest in sex.
Celibacy is not having sex.
To my understanding, celibacy is a choice not to do something you are interested in doing. Jay is an example of this. The woman in your link, however, has no interest in sex.
To put it another way. Someone who likes red may decide not to buy something red. This is celibacy.
However someone who has no interest in buying red will probably never buy something red. This is asexuality.
….and not to get too off topic, but have you guys gone on hiatus? Ray Boltz just came out and there’s been a storm of controversy about it…why hasn’t ex-gay watch picked up on this? especially when ex-gays like quinlan are attacking him?
Cantabrigian: I blog because I like to share my experiences, so that people who may be going through something similar can at least know they aren’t alone. I also like for people who don’t share my views to understand who I am and what I go through. It’s an educational thing, I guess. I don’t really know what you’re criticizing me about, but you aren’t going to make me feel guilty about blogging. It’s just what I do. Read David and Emily’s replies if you want to know the rest.
David and Emily: Thanks, guys. You’re awesome. 🙂
Jason: I think your “red” analogy is actually spot-on, although I’ll add another element to it that speaks to my personal decisions and reasoning. Let’s say I like the color red but the person I love most hates it, and we share a home. I see a beautiful red vase that I would love to buy, but my love for the other person is greater than my love for the vase, so I decide not to buy it.
That’s basically what is going on with me. I love God, and as a Christian Christ is within me. We “share a home,” so to speak, which is why the Bible is so tough on sexual sins (you know, “the body is a temple” and all that). Even though I desire a same-sex relationship I believe God would be displeased by that, and I would rather please Him than myself, despite the difficulty that can bring.
I understand that a lot of people take offense to that concept, but it’s a personal spiritual choice, and like David said, I’m not out to judge anyone. I just like to share my point of view in a fashion that is a bit more simple and intellectually honest than the majority of ex-gays.
Jason, all the writers have been wrapped up in regular life recently and I apologize for the dearth of posts. I’ve actually I have been working on a Ray Boltz related story. Summer in general became rather lax as the election coverage has zapped so much readership and back channel attention. But that should change soon along with some new blood. Stay tuned as they say 😉
Jason: Good point. She might be asexual. I was amazed to hear the flack she took from friends and family for her choice, though. And no there’s nothing wrong with asexuality. How does it hurt anybody? How does homosexuality innately hurt anybody? They don’t. Here is a different article about a Buddhist woman’s journey for choosing celibacy. That it is her choice is definite here.
I would also like to add that maybe it is “lifestyle choices” that ultimately threaten people for some reason – this includes BDSM, “swinging,” or polyamory.
But the same could be said of any sexual practice. Not all gay men engage in a*** sex, and the sexual acts of gay men (specifically “sodomy”) seem to be what obsess anti-equality activists. Does that make them “less gay?” What a ridiculous concept. I think it’s just as ridiculous to consider a person “less than human” if they abstain from sexual acts.
Wow! I thought my response would be a kind of rhetorical coda that would sit there unnoticed.
I wasn’t going to try to sugar-coat my response. Maybe that is the best approach here because we don’t want anybody to feel bad about themselves or that we are being “judgmental” (the irony LOL) Especially about a young person who is at least being more realistic about his lot in life than Exodus would wish him to be. So I actually do respect Jay for his choices. I agree with David that this is definitely more honest than obsessing about change. But the question is, is it completely honest? Let’s think about something. You say Jay is acknowledging that he “is homosexual”. As we know, the bible condemns homosexual acts. It doesn’t exactly deal with the identity of homosexuality as a concept, although I think one could argue that the totality of the Biblical narrative on sexuality in fact, does. Take the story of Sodom – which it’s worth noting Jewish scholars don’t believe applied to homosexuality. Well, folks, this wasn’t a brothel town in Nevada you could visit in your Cadillac convertible. You didn’t “get around” to practice your sin in those days. “the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter.” It seems to make a pretty strong case that these people had an “identity” as homosexuals or sexual predators or whatever the “good book” is making them out to be. If they hadn’t approved of what went on in Sodom, they would have moved on. Or how about another passage: “Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts”. Presumably shameful is pretty close to sinful. Now, I’m not a biblical scholar or a christianist, I know there are level of sin and lustful thoughts are not considered as serious as actually doing lustful things. Nevertheless, anyone being completely honest about the Bible’s viewpoint of sexuality would have to admit that the sinfulness of even a homosexual “identity” is an open and fair question. It’s a reasonable inference, to someone not being politically correct, that because recognizing a homosexual identity depends on recognizing ones same-sex attractions, these are in and of themselves at least shameful. And possibly sinful.
Of course, I’M NOT trying to make Jay feel bad about himself at all. In the end if Jay is happy with his choices and believes that God is happy with his choices, that is all that really matters, isn’t it? I’m trying to argue that deep down, this halfway house of having a gay identity and a 100% “Bible believing” identity is never going to be a happy one. Or an enlightened one. I once found a website of a church that believed in a biblical passage that said women are not to speak in church. I know mainstream fundamentalists debunk that passage; they do so because it’s politically opportune to do so. Wouldn’t exactly go over well with 50% of their followers. But this church believed that all of the other fundamentalist congregants in the world were going to hell, because they weren’t really following the word of God! If Jay goes to congregation with such a rule…so be it. If he doesn’t, he should question: who really is controlling the way the biblical narrative is interpreted? Any chance that an easy to scapegoat group gets the short end of the stick? Any chance you’d prefer to buy into that, than question why God would have made you have feelings that you couldn’t act on, even though it wouldn’t hurt you or anybody else to do so? (provided it’s done responsibly, but, really that applies to riding motorcycles too, and you don’t see any biblical condemnations about that, although insurance companies probably wish there had been )
One more comment I tried to add – not sure if this “10 minutes to edit” thing is working.
* – its interesting that you characterized me as “criticizing you”. As I carefully re-read what I wrote, it seemed at the very worst like “constructive criticism.” I think you probably have a wonderful soul, which is exactly why you’ve been trapped in the way you have.
This seems to be expanding into tangents I don’t care to follow. I’ll let my last response be this; I disagree with pretty much all these propositions concerning biblical passages and their interpretation and the rest is irrelevant because you continue to speculate about the motives of a person who participates positively in discussions here. Going any further seems pointless.
I think you’ll find that a lot of gay Christians — some who are celibate like me, some who aren’t — disagree strongly with that statement, and I have no intention of debating that issue here. It’s a little too off-topic and time-consuming, though I encourage you to try to understand us more by engaging in positive dialog without questioning our motives or calling us “trapped.” Regards.
David. I think what you are doing here is great. I think it’s great that Jay is willing to participate. I at times use a kind of sarcastic “we” to refer to what parts of society generally assume to be true, whether or not its fair, or grounded in reality. My interpretations may be “wrong” but I was only using them to be illustrative, not to tell people how to live their lives in a legalistic sense, which after all, is what many people try to do! Really, who can stand on a soapbox and make a claim to thoroughly interpreting a text that is full of self-contradictions and absolutely swimming in questions about its textual origins and accuracy? That’s not even to mention the bigger issue of whether it really is the word of some supreme being.
You sound a little angry, if that’s the case, I sure am sorry. I in NO WAY came here to upset the apple cart, or the mission of the website.
Jay, I really do wish you the best.
I’m not mad, I just don’t care for this line of discussion so I bowed out.
Jay, I see nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of things I might want to have in the home that my partner has expressed strong disagreement with. These things are “nifty” to me, but not central to my happiness, so they’re not worth arguing over, so my partner wins. I’ve decided that since decorating our home makes him happy, and he’s never picked out anything I hate, it’s no big deal to let him have his way. He just has to understand that some objects I will have to “learn to love” along the way 🙂
My only issue, Jay, would be if you are trying to suggest that your philosophy is a workable solution for all or most gay folks, which I don’t think you’re suggesting. I think some gay people feel “threatened” by you, and folks like you, because it’s not often that someone presents your point of view WITHOUT also trying to convince others to follow your example, or to convince lawmakers that your choices are applicable to everyone and anyone. They’re used to that sucker punch, thus they’re suspicious of your motives. PFOX, for example, tries to hide behind “oh, we’re just a support group” when that’s not all they do. It’s hard, when you’re used to that sort of dishonesty to not think when someone says, “this is how I live my life” that the next words out of their mouth will be “and YOU should do the same.”
Yes, Jason D, very clearly put. I think that you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Well done!