In a press release full of risible exaggerations, PFOX’s Regina Griggs has claimed that ex-gays are “the most bullied and maligned group in America,” and complained that “they are not protected by sexual orientation non-discrimination laws.”
Calling on presidential candidate Barack Obama to include ex-gays in sexual orientation discrimination regulation, Griggs wrote:
Former homosexuals and their friends have been fired from their jobs, repeatedly ridiculed, assaulted, and intimidated. This harassment is most often perpetrated by the same groups who demand protection under sexual orientation laws but work to deny ex-gays the same respect.
The evidence offered for these assertions is wide of the mark. She cites the case of gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, whose appearance at an Obama rally was opposed by gay rights groups. Is Griggs sure activists attacked McClurkin “just for being ex-gay”? Perhaps it was more to do with McClurkin’s extreme, ugly and homophobic statements, such as this one:
The gloves are off … And if there’s going to be a war, there’s going to be a war. But it will be a war with a purpose. … I’m not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children.
Now PFOX is suing the Office of Human Rights for not including ex-gays in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). It’s a move devoid of integrity, since PFOX has been vocal in opposing ENDA and has insisted on decrying anti-discrimination laws for gays as “special rights.” Nevertheless, this has not stopped PFOX from riding the “equality” wagon. In July this year, a mass email informed PFOX supporters:
At a time when former homosexuals face increasing intolerance, ex-gay presentations are more important than ever for others to recognize and appreciate the ex-gay community. Equal access by ex-gays supports sexual orientation diversity and tolerance.
Griggs lauds the USDA Office of Civil Rights for confirming that”ex-gays are included in the Department of Agriculture’s non-discrimination policies.” Two problems present themselves here: First, why is PFOX demanding rights for ex-gays that they are happy to deny to gays? Second, is PFOX really claiming that “ex-gay” is a distinct sexual orientation that needs discrimination protection? If so, on what basis is this novel idea formed? Back in July, Ex-Gay Watch asked Exodus President Alan Chambers the following:
PFOX is an Exodus member ministry with considerable exposure. I would like to know your comments on this for the record; is it your contention that there is a complete and separate ex-gay sexual orientation? Is this the stance of Exodus? If not, do you think PFOX, as an Exodus member, should be making this rather serious claim?
We received no reply.
This move is almost certainly the brainchild of Estella Salvatierra, PFOX Vice President and civil rights attorney for the Federal Communications Commission. From the records, she appears to deal with equal employment opportunity issues for various sectors regulated by the FCC. XGW doesn’t yet know if the FCC plans on recognizing ex-gays as a separate and distinct sexual orientation, but the possibility that there may exist a conflict of interest should be explored in a future post.
That’s like a KKK member suing a rap radio station for not letting him be a DJ. Please!
There’s a much more important question that’s being ignored:
How do these laws benefit Joe the Plumber?
Did this not start way back in 2007 when the started bitching about things that might or might not have happed at the Arlington Fair?
Lynn David,
If you mean the idea of ex-gay being a distinct sexual orientation, I think it goes back farther than that. I don’t have cites at the moment, but I doubt it would take long to find some reference to it here and there in their literature over the past few years. This is the first time I remember them being so bold about it, however.
We’ve noted before their bizarre mimicking of gay rights platforms for themselves while actively opposing those same rights for gays themselves. I tend to believe it is just a strategy, as otherwise I would be left to consider that they actually believe such nonsense. I can’t imagine anyone taking much stock in it after spending more than a moment or two in contemplation of what they are actually saying.
I would like to know what attorney would think so little of their career as to work with them on this. I wonder if it is Estella herself?
This has got to be the biggest joke I’ve encounted in this so called exgay movement.
If the case of PFOX suing WA DC Office of Human Rights for exgay sexual minority protection doesn’t get personally escorted to the toilet by the presiding judge, I’d be very surprised.
First, exgays do not exist, the term is erroneous and cannot qualify for the label “sexual orientation”, period. Secondly, if “exgay” or “former homosexuals” actually did exist, and not a few homos out of choice going sludge-hammer celibate via vehement judgement and rejection of their sexual chemistry, they might have a case.
These claims are not just more “exgay” silliness, they are annoyingly absurd, not worth the questionable wind they flew in on.
So true. If they wish to be labelled as a “group” deserving of equal protection, they must first acknowledge that homosexuality really exists … that a “gay” person truly is “gay.” You can’t claim to be an “ex” of something that you don’t believe exits in the first place.
I think these people graduated from Idiot School with top honors.
(1) I should be interested to know whether a single substantiated case can be produced where a former homosexual or a friend of a former homosexual has been fired from his or her job for being a former homosexual or a friend of a former homosexual.
(2) If such a case can be produced, what was the precise reason for the firing? Was it that the employer believed that the person had genuinely changed his/her sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, and wanted to punish him/her for changing? Or was it because the employer did not believe in the supposed change of orientation and wanted to punish the person for still being homosexual (no matter what he/she claimed to be)? In either case it is difficult, nay impossible, to see how the employee would not be covered by any anti-discrimination policies in force.
(3) If it be claimed that the terms “ex-gay” and “former homosexual” do not mean “heterosexual” but are names for some other variety of sexual orientation, then once again any law or policy that prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation must ipso facto prohibit discrimination against people who claim to have this orientation.
Openly expressed scepticism regarding the possibility (or probability) of changing one’s orientation, or regarding the efficacy of ex-gay ministries or of reparative therapy, is simply exercising freedom of thought and expression. It cannot reasonably be regarded as bullying or maligning, no matter how much Ms Griggs may dislike it. But then, intellectual candour is hardly a notable quality of the ex-gay brigade.
I have been “lurking” on this site for a while, and I still don’t understand something. How is “ex-gay” a separate orientation? The way I understand it, there is same-sex attracted (gay), opposite-sex attracted (straight), both sexes-attracted (bisexual), and no-sex attracted (asexual or non-sexual). If you are “ex-gay” you are either straight, if you are now attracted to the opposite sex, or gay and celibate. I am not trying to poke fun at anyone, as a gay man who has never felt the need to “get away from the lifestyle” I am just confused. What does “ex-gay” mean?
As I’ve said before, I actually did live as “ex-gay” for 30 years. Was a gay hippie living on Castro Street in San Francisco, underwent a religious conversion, and lived as straight for the next 30 years. Married, kids, house with picket fence–the whole shebang.
Not ONCE in those 30 years did I face the slightest discrimination because I was living as straight rather than gay. Never did I worry that I would lose my job because my boss thought I was heterosexual. When I wanted to get married, the fact I had once been gay wasn’t an obstacle either legally or in my church. Once married, I never had to worry that someone would harrass me because I held my wife’s hand on the street or gave her a kiss in public. I was even able to serve as a cub scout leader for my sons!
Today, as an openly gay man with a partner, I do have to worry about these things. I live in a very gay friendly area of Washington DC, but in just the last month, several male couples have been physically assaulted because they were holding hands in public. One incident was a block from my office.
I am fortunate to work for a gay-friendly company, but if I need to look for another job, I would definitely be concerned that my sexual orientation could hurt me with some employers.
And if I wanted to marry my partner? Or, heaven forbid, be a scout leader? Forget it!
PFOX maintains that all gay people can “change” and live as straight if they choose to. I can tell you–if their ex-gay members are really as successful in that pursuit as they claim, then they don’t face discrimination.
Very good points, all. We should take notice and stop using their terminology, as the terminology is in and of itself a strategy of the anti-gay Right.
Of course “Ex-Gay Watch” is a catchy title for this blog, it should really be “Self-Repressed Gay Watch”.
These people are Self-Repressed Gays and Lesbians. They will always be gay and lesbian – the difference is that they choose to repress it. There is no such thing as “ex-gay” and we MUST hammer that point home, otherwise their terminology suggests that we are gay by choice, which is a lie aimed at persecuting the gay community.
Can anyone think of any other useful terminology other than Self-Repressed Gays?
“Sally Self-Hating”?
“Doris Down Low”?
Clancy,
I don’t wonder that you’re mystified.
I fancy that the concept of “ex-gay” as a separate orientation – although I don’t know that it has yet been explicitly formulated in so many words – has had to be invented to meet the exigencies of the situation.
One of the earliest ex-gay ministries was founded by a man who claimed that he had become heterosexual as a result of his acceptance of Jesus Christ into his life. It was proclaimed to the evangelical world that he was no longer gay and that God had removed “the lusts, the desires and the act”. (Needless to say, God had done no such thing, as it later transpired.) That is what many adverts for ex-gay ministries and titles of ex-gay books still seem to imply. It has usually been understood by those who go to the ex-gay ministries for help not only that God will remove “the lusts, the desires and the act”, but that they will become heterosexual, “just like everyone else”. If you can manage to get hold of the Rev. Sylvia Pennington’s book, Ex-Gays? There Are None! – it’s unfortunately now out of print – which includes many interviews with ex-ex-gays, you will see that that’s exactly what they were promised.
After the decades in which the ex-gay ministries have been in existence, such claims have now been discredited. If any have become heterosexual, “just like everyone else”, their number is minuscule. In the face of the complaint, “I’ve expended all this time and money and energy on this, and I haven’t become any more heterosexual than I was before”, the ex-ministries have had to back-track to provide a justification for their existence. After all, if no change at all takes place, what is their raison d’être? One evangelical writer has said that the homosexual should try to convert from homosexuality even if he can’t convert to heterosexuality. And now we have Alan Chambers telling us that “The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality; it’s holiness.” (I wonder what other absurd slogans we can invent along these lines; perhaps we ought to organize a competition.) So “ex-gay” now apparently means this rather poorly defined state of supposedly not being homosexual any more, yet not being heterosexual (or even bi-sexual) either. As I read it, it’s this state that people like Regina Griggs seem to want to classify as a separate orientation – and one which they claim is most unfairly not covered by policies that forbid discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The claim is manifestly laughable.
I suspect that what she is really concerned about is that anti-discrimination policies won’t, for example, protect people who make a nuisance of themselves by persistently targeting school students or work colleagues with ex-gay literature, and that they won’t protect school students who bully others whom they believe to be potentially gay and then try to justify their behaviour by quoting verses from the Bible or otherwise citing their religious beliefs.
Kevin,
Ex-Gay is the de facto term for the groups we watch. I have no desire to rename them and I don’t like it when others try to do the same to me (i.e. gay identified, homosexuality, sodomite). That isn’t the way we “hammer that point home.” We point out lies and counter with facts. They can suggest choice all they like, the facts are not with them. Insulting people isn’t going to help get that point across, however.
You might also consider that the term “ex-gay” carries a lot of baggage with it — embarrassing national campaigns, failed leaders, nonsensical theories, bizarre therapists, and a lot of really bad press. It is an accurate reminder of a lot of really bad stuff — the foundation of what we are working with today. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see how removing that reminder helps anyone but those who want to repeat the deception.
First of all, EXSEXUAL (a word I coined) is someone who had a sex life, but no longer does and is celibate for whatever reason.
Of course, THAT changes the minute one decides to returns being sexually active. Sometimes it’s voluntary, sometimes not, but we hope TEMPORARY.
Homosexuality, as we all know it is a condition of sexual orientation whether one is having a sex life or not.
People who claim they are no longer gay would be hard pressed to prove they are not because having an opposite sex marriage isn’t proof, and neither is not having sex at all.
The common assumption or expectation is that homosexuals live EXACTLY as ex gays ARE claiming to live among religious communities, especially.
And most people wouldn’t be OFFENDED by such a way of living to the extent of intimidating, firing or assaulting a person who is ex gay.
Who can tell who is or isn’t at face? Mores the point, who CARES?!
Ex gays make themselves public examples and the face of the ability for gay people to cover up, and make others assume what they want.
Federal, state and other accomodations are not limited for people assuming the ‘heterosexual lifestyle’.
ALL of our laws, protections, guidelines and social networks are based around it.
Ex gay, as a class, IS non existent, as was pointed out, for that reason alone.
The definitive personality disorder that seems typical of avowed ex gays is that they are weak, and require a pathological amount of validation and attention. There is a remarkable amount of emotional maturity when it comes to sexuality, period. Grown assed folks THAT insecure are SO tiresome!
And as I’ve mentioned before, living as a heterosexual, one shouldn’t be expecting accolades, praise and unchallenged life. I live as one, always have. No biggie worth the complaints ex gays have. Really.
One can still have the relationship problems, substance addictions and disordered life AS a heterosexual. Struggle, whether professional, spiritual, physical or social…..is a fact of life.
Ex gays thinking the magic formula for a great life and unconditional acceptance was their new path….was naive at best.
It takes guts, commitment, honesty and serious introspection to make out as the authentic self, whoever you are.
Ex gays seem gutless on so many levels not to want to accept THAT and dammit…DEAL WITH IT!
One cannot cheat their way into something that ISN’T their own.
And also cheat legitimate claims on social isolation and intimidation.
Even if it were gay people in charge of where these ex gays live, work, worship…whatever…they don’t need or don’t want validation from GAY people anyway.
It’s heterosexuals they want to BE and hang with, right?
SO Uriah Heep. Ugh.
They abuse trust all while wondering why they can’t be trusted.
Girl please!
I see your point David. Still, I’m not totally convinced that everyone accepts or understands your assertion that “ex-gay” is negatively associated with failure and all the causes you list above, and I believe the term itself is purposely used to cause confusion.
I’ll make a sweeping generalization (love it when I do) and say that history is written by people who define and win “the debate”, whether it’s politics, religion, etc.
You’re point of view, I’m hoping to understand, is that we can challenge and win this debate by accepting the terminology self-repressed gays and their allies in the anti-gay straight world use to define themselves, simply by associating the failures of that movement falsely called “ex-gay”.
However, as we can see by all of those folks who call themselves “Christian”, this has not had an impact on the numbers of people attracted to fundamentalist evangelicalism. Fundamentalist Christianity, by claiming the authority of “authentic Christianity”, doesn’t seem to be losing followers despite the Ted Haggards, Jerry Falwells, and Pat Robertsons (of course, there are exceptions).
They continue to win the debate over who is “Christian” by repetition and claims of authority of the term, despite the fact that many Evangelical laypersons are wrapped up in fleeting cults of personality – like those who follow Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, etc. And this is why when we think of what the dominant form of Christianty is and how it plays out in the United States, we are thinking of the actions, campaigns, and successes of the Evangelical Right – not the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Episcopalians, the Seventh Day Adventists, and no, not even Roman Catholics.
So, I guess, yeah. I beg to differ with you, but I take your point into consideration.
It has always been my impression that PFOX is dominated by people who were never gay and aren’t ex-gay. In order for PFOX to even have a shred of standing to bring this case, they will have to present ex-gay clients who have somehow been harmed or disadvantaged. Any intel on who the aggrieved ex-gay parties are?
This is just… weird. For one, non-discrimination acts don’t protect “homosexuals.” They protect “sexual orientation” in general. Thus, if an “ex-gay” was fired for being ex-gay, then they’d probably fall under one of the sexual orientations that people already believe to exist without controversy: heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.
Also, I can’t really think that any bullying or intimidation that an ex-gay individual might face could really rival the intimidation that blacks, Jews, Asians, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, Muslims, etc. face… mainly because, well, there aren’t that many people who even identify as “ex-gay.”
I mean, really, how many could there possibly be? And who would we even count in that group? Someone who is simply gay and celibate like me (I’ll accept the term “ex-gay” but I don’t particularly like it)? Someone who is married with a wife and kids (wouldn’t they just call themselves straight now)? It’s just too bizarre to go into further. It sounds mostly like they are trying to mock the concepts of employment non-discrimination.
Nick C said:
“PFOX maintains that all gay people can “change” and live as straight if they choose to. I can tell you–if their ex-gay members are really as successful in that pursuit as they claim, then they don’t face discrimination.”
I agree. PFOX-GAG (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) can’t logically claim discrimination against ex-gays unless those ex-gays have failed to change.
This is effectively an admission of total failure.
And by the way, I think the “PFOX” acronym should be discarded once and for all since it is inaccurate.
PFOX-GAG covers the organization’s complete name, in all its dishonesty.
I just noticed that, 18 months after XGW reported that PFOX-GAG was misquoting Dr. Robert Spitzer on its website’s front page, PFOX-GAG’s home page is still repeating the same lie.
I think someone who would be assaulted for being “ex-gay” would probably fall under the umbrella of someone assaulted for their political beliefs. Because really, the only people I’ve seen who are so openly “ex-gay” that everyone knows it are people who promote Exodus, et al – which has time and again shown themselves to be very political. If anything, they could be protected under religious beliefs, because “ex-gays” are usually doing it for religious reasons.
I agree. PFOX-GAG (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) can’t logically claim discrimination against ex-gays unless those ex-gays have failed to change.
I think the claim is more along the lines of ex-gays being discriminated against by the all powerful gay mafia and its fellow travelers, who of course control all employment and public venues in America.
Before PFOX even starts calling out discrimination against ex-gays, perhaps they should first decide what ex-gay really means. You just simply cannot claim discrimination on the basis of something so poorly defined, that could mean anything between the state of forced asexuality or bisexuality, to religious actions.
Nick– you wrote something, I think on EGW, very similar to this a few weeks ago. can you direct me to it? I loved it.
“If anything, they could be protected under religious beliefs, because “ex-gays” are usually doing it for religious reasons.” I think this is a good point to bring up. I don’t see the point of having ex-gays be counted as apart of ENDA. Aren’t they already protected by freedom of religion in the second amendment?
“I think these people graduated from Idiot School with top honors.” – Alan S
They did indeed – if they’re claiming that ex-gay is a genuine and distinct sexual orientation then they’re also admitting that reparative therapy CANNOT turn gay people straight.
Ben-
Yes, I wrote an earlier post almost identical to the above. It was in a thread having to do with a woman who runs an ex-gay ministry associated with Jerry Falwell’s church. She was also claiming that ex-gays are subject to horrible discrimination. Sorry I don’t remember her name.
(Can I claim age as an excuse? Starting at age 18, I spent two years openly gay, 30 years as ex-gay, and now seven years back in the open. You do the math.)
Seems to me that when ex-gay groups complain about discrimination and bullying, as they so often do, they’re not talking about real civil rights issues–employment, housing, or personal harrassment and physical attacks for just walking down the street. They’re really whining that the rest of us vigorously dispute their efforts to spread falsehoods and defamation against gay people.
thanks. I know where. i’ll find it.
this is truly bizarre.
I’m an ex-smoker and ex-drinker.
I faced some minor discrimination when I first stopped drinking from people who simply couldn’t understand it, and also from people who can’t handle having a sober person around when they’re drinking. This amounted to some reshuffling of some friendships, and nothing really significant.
Course, I don’t go around telling everyone that I’m an ex-smoker and ex-drinker. I don’t lord it over people I know who smoke and drink. Hell, my partner smokes, the only time I bring it up with him is when it starts making it hard for me to breathe ( I seem to have developed an allergy to the smoke or something). I don’t look for opportunities to tell people how I don’t smoke and drink anymore. I’m neither proud nor ashamed of my past, it is what it is.
This is odd because, as many mentioned, ex-gays, if real and true: would just be straight.
If ex-gay is a seperate orientation from gay, bi, asexual, and straight then apparently they’re admitting a sort of defeat, if you will. They’ve told us for years that you don’t have to be straight, that all the guys need is football and grunting and they can be straight. They flaunt their marriages and kids in front us to go “see, you don’t have to accept homosexuality, you can be what God wants!”
Evidently, if ex-gay is an entity unto itself, God wants us to ignore and supress the harmless and natural desires we have, but doesn’t want us to become straight either. Either that, or God knows (just as well as we do) that becoming straight is impossible.
So God wants us to exist in some sexual limbo, somewhere between gay and straight in a backward spectrum opposite of the bisexual spectrum?
Hmm, they seem to want it both ways.
Their advertising and speech suggests you’ll get your heterosexual merit badge if you join their club. But the fine print says “results not typical”. They want the public to believe the lie, but they want the government to protect the reality.
If they’re straight, they’re covered, if they’re celibate gays, they’re covered, if they’re ex-gay that’s covered, too. I fail to see how it is not.
Well, looks like I can’t find a way to find it. Can anyone help? I tried search for Debbie Thurman, but only got one hit, and it wasn’t the one I wanted.
Because, Jason, they wouldn’t have any drama if they did it your way. Drama is one of the Anti-eX-gay needs. Look how much they suffer. Look how much they want us to suffer right along with them.
Transactional analysis to the rescue! Hi-yi-yippee-I’m-ok-your’re-OK.
I just want to say that I am really proud of you all! There really is a great life on “the other side” (straight, I mean). No more guilt; no more shame; just hope and peace.
For those of you who still think that this is just how you are, believe me, sexual identification is a by-product of many things. Once you realize that being gay is not worth it nor acceptable, you can find real love and companionship in a straight relationship. Counseling helps (and over time, works!). I believe in you!
LOLZ @ John the troll :¬D
Bigoted Riggs recently wrote a mean-spirited wha-wha-wha letter which was posted in the editorial section of the Washington Post.
Here is the link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/17/AR2008101702934_Comments.html
Dear Dear John,
Having had great hetero and homosexual relationships, very long term monogamous and deeply committed I might add, and both sides fulfilling to the max, you really are talking out your retarded syrupy deeply judgemental pie hole. You seem to think because you got confused and needed major help sorting out your buckets of sexual bleck, that everyone needs help just like you. Grow. Up. Others are ok while you are struggling, have never struggled and never will struggle, and want to get married and continue joyful unconfused lives.
But! “I believe in you” you say. Voila! That means I can count on you voting for gay marriage should it pass by you on a ballot anytime soon. Right?
Hi John,
I am one of a few heterosexual women that posts here. Never was ambiguous about my sexuality, always knew.
I really wish folks like you would quit embarassing me (and yourselves) as if declaring your hetero relationship should get you a standing ovation!
Know what?
Heterosexuals have sex and relationship problems (usually based on broken and short sighted expectations). Heteros have substance and other addictions and rebellious children.
It ain’t ALL bliss and it’s a bitch to find the right person.
Here’s the down home, nit grit truth: love and attraction requires NO manuals, technical advice or long time DEPRIVATION.
We know how to love, and we KNOW when we’re attracted.
Whether it’s the right person or not, is a chance we take and spontaneity is half the fun.
I think expecting applause because you’re a newly licensed heterosexual is about the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen.
If it takes THAT much work, it’s not what you’re supposed to be, it’s not who you REALLY are.
Heterosexuality isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, and when you might realize that eventually, THEN who gets the blame?
Your little hit and run in here was so desperate and unworthy.
Know what else?
Struggling with some of one’s gay identity is a GOOD thing, It builds character, makes people take out renewed self respect.
It’s harder to be homosexual, so? It’s a struggle to be a lot of things in this world. So?
It’s no one’s business you BECOME heterosexual FIRST and all the rest of the character issues will fall into place.
You LOSE much of yourself by not being gay, just as I would denying how much a part of me being black is and how it shaped me in prejudiced environments.
I know how I can handle them and the depth I have grown because of it.
It’s getting to THAT place that makes gay folks INTERESTING and valuable to learn from.
None of that could happen if the ex gay industry got it’s way.
Ex gays are boring, PABALUM.
So WHAT you’re straight now….what TAKES you so long?
I’m straight too…AND?
John said:
No more guilt, no more shame, eh? Just hope and peace? You forgot to mention DENIAL and SELF-HATRED and LIES and BLAMING YOUR TRUE ATTRACTIONS AND SEXUAL DESIRES AND FANATIES on the devil, society, or the TeleTubbies.
Alan,
So True.
I think John’s post is so filled with undertones of confused hatred towards his gay self and gay people, covered with sugar tones of denial and condescension, he really didn’t get how easy he is to truly read.
Most likely he’s another gay sex addict trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.
It seems his confusing exgay therapy of faux escaping the cellular homosexual self, is working as typically expected; judge the inner gay self as bad and deify the straight self off in the clouds mmm somewhere, unless he is truly bi. He comes off as just plain weird due to the inner conflict being so dramatized, i.e. “I’m so proud of you all!”. This was so condescending, so untrue and just plain nauseating.
Now I’m going to take my exceptionally great kissable cuddly boyfriend to lunch now and discuss how much more money we can afford to throw at No on 8, cuz John, that’s what matters to us folks here fighting for equal rights.
Guys please don’t feed the trolls. This could be some random dude who is perfectly complacent about people’s sexuality but just wants to get a rise out of us “militant gays.”
Thanks, you don’t know me, but that’s a very kind thing to say.
The life on this side isn’t too bad, either.
I have that too, no guilt, no shame, just hope and peace. Only I’m gay. I’ve found those to be a struggle, but once I stopped having a pity party, once I accepted that God wasn’t going to change me….that God had answered my prayers (the answer was “No“)that I just had to get over myself, get over everybody else, and get on with living.
See if I had hurt someone, stole from someone — I’d deserve to feelt guilt, to feel shame. It comes from having a conscience and understanding that hurting people, that stealing from someone is something I wouldn’t want someone to do to me. The guilt and shame are from having hurt someone, having contributed negatively to them in a way you know would hurt you just as much. If I were still drinking like a dehydrated fish, I’d feel shame and guilt. Same and guilt for awkwardness my drunk-self caused, for the lack of control, for the hangovers, being late for work and making up excuses, for lying so that I could continue to pickle my liver and slowly destroy my life.
But gay? Gay doesn’t hurt me, or anyone else. Hasn’t hurt my liver, my heart, my walk. Hasn’t made me late for work. Doesn’t break anyone’s leg or steal money out of their wallet. The only people hurt are those who are offended by my very existence. And I cannot apologize for that. To apologize for my non-threatening, peaceful, employed, tax-paying gay self would be like smacking God in the face. God gave me this amazing capacity to love, and has blessed me with not only a wonderful partner, but also his warm and accepting family. Without being gay I would not know these wonderful people, again, to apologize for being gay would be like smaking these people in the face. My life has been enriched every since the day I stopped lying to myself and those I love. Has it been easy? Of course not, nothing worth having is gotten easily. Like everything in life it has been a struggle, but not a struggle of who I am, but the usual struggle of balancing my wants, my desires, my finances, my basic needs, and my dreams.
Yes it is! It’s a by-product of a world that loves and thrives on diversity! I couldn’t agree more! It takes all kinds of people to make a world!
I must say I disagree, being honest and accepting the gifts that God has given me is not only acceptable, it’s worth everything. There are those who still do not understand, so full of fear. Whether it be the fear of sexual violence brought on by runaway stereotypes, or whether it be fear of losing one’s specialness when everyone is equal, it’s all about fear.
No, I’m afraid that is not possible. For some straight people, it’s not possible, so to pretend it’s possible for someone who has no interest in the opposite sex —well that’s quite mean and deceitful. If you are speaking of the kind of real love and companionship that exists between platonic friends or a brother and sister, you may have a point. But romance? Desire? Sexual Fullfillment? No, these are not possible between myself and a woman, not because I refuse to, but because the flesh cannot be made to be willing. We are sexual beings, and we have no more control over what hairstyle makes us turn our heads than what gender makes our hearts thump. Talk to any relationship therapist, no one can learn to love another person, chemistry is there or it’s not.
The funny thing is, I don’t care. Believe, or don’t believe, I exist nonetheless.
I only need my brave, free country to understand that I am not here to harm, merely to cash the check written to me hundreds of years ago that was made out to the amount of “All men created equal”. When that day comes we can all be proud to truly live in the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
Jason– really beautifully put. what a nice way of saying MYOB to him. I really like what you say, and the way ytou say it. I wish that I had that kind of clarity when i was your age.
If I weren’t married to a fabulous husband– and it sounds like you are, too– I’d marry you in a moment.
If we like each other. If we lived near each other. If I wasn’t old enough to be your father, or much older brother.
If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.
Thanks Ben 🙂 I just decided to “fight fire with marshmallows”, to borrow a phrase from the movie “Toys“.
It’s so easy for me to get upset and fire off with all guns blazing, but for whatever reason, the above is what came out instead. I think part of me is just ready for it to be November 5th already 😛
Now PFOX is suing the Washington, DC Human Rights Office for now allowing “ex-gays” ‘protection’.
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is suing the Washington DC Office of Human Rights for failing to protect former homosexuals under its sexual orientation anti-discrimination law. “The ex-gay community is the most bullied and maligned group in America, yet they are not protected by sexual orientation non-discrimination laws,” said Regina Griggs, PFOX executive director.
The DC Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on “sexual preference,” “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression.” The Office of Human Rights maintains that homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, and cross-dressers qualify for protection under this Act, but ex-gays do not. PFOX’s lawsuit asks the DC Superior Court to direct the Office to include former homosexuals under the sexual orientation law. “Shouldn’t ex-gays enjoy the same legal protections that gays enjoy?” asked Griggs.
“Former homosexuals and their friends have been fired from their jobs, repeatedly ridiculed, assaulted, and intimidated. This harassment is most often perpetrated by the same groups who demand protection under sexual orientation laws but work to deny ex-gays the same respect.”
link: http://www.teachthefacts.org
It’s all part of the same thing Derrick, and it’s not quite how it is playing out. We will have more on it, but it’s basically nothing but spin.
Derrick, it seems that PFOX may have lied about filing a lawsuit.
Ex-gay is a religious and/or sexual identity – NOT an orientation.
Alan Chambers and the gang are the ones who are always saying “the opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality – it’s holiness.”
Well, if that’s true – then the movement needs to be honest about what ex-gay is – a religious identity more than anything else.
Religious discrimination is already illegal. PFOX knows this.
Oh, and by the way – PFOX’s claim to “equal access” is betrayed by their support for a bill that would have banned gay and straight alliances in the state of Virginia.
They’re not about equality – and all of us see right through it.
They seem to be mostly made up of parents who are angry that their gay children will not become “ex-gay” – like Griggs herself, who has a gay son (this is documented in Wayne Besen’s book).