Ex-gay activist Greg Quinlan’s wife of three years, Cheryl Quinlan, appears to have received a decree of divorce in May of 2007, having filed the initial complaint seventeen months earlier. XGW readers will recognize Greg from a recent incident involving distorted quotes attributed to noted geneticist Francis Collins. The couple had no children and both considered themselves ex-gay before marriage. Greg did not reply to our request for a comment.
This writer debated about whether or not to post this information. Divorce is a painful, private time and we would not wish it on anyone, nor do we want to make things worse for Greg or Cheryl. The inevitable pain of such events led in part to our request that Pam Ferguson (Willful Grace) write for XGW. We hoped that she could help others recognize and steer clear of the ex-gay philosophy that holds heterosexual marriage as the ultimate proof of a successful “conversion.” Too many have gone down that road in a mockery of what marriage means — a bitter irony when one considers that these same unions are held up by Exodus leaders “doing their part” in support of California’s (anti-marriage equality) Proposition 8.
The primary reason for us to report this, however, is that Greg and Cheryl first put their marriage into play by making it such a large part of their ex-gay activism. Even more than most, they displayed it as proof of their claims that people can change from gay to straight. And they used it as the basis of their platform to convince law makers to deny the rights of others. For example, in his testimony for Ohio’s version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Greg said:
Tens of thousands of homosexuals have changed and more desire to change. Homosexuality is a behavior–not a genetic trait. Based on verifiable evidence, there is no justification for same sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnership legislation. None.
My wife and I are living proof–along with thousands of others–that persons with same-sex attraction can, and have, changed–and thereby can marry and be happy again.
We have chosen to follow the Manufactures’ specific guidelines for our lives. That means committed to one another as man and woman.
While they have been more apt to deny it in recent years, this is a concise reading of the ex-gay “holy grail” as relayed by so many who lived it. Greg and Cheryl made these kinds of statements publicly and often, starting with a wedding article titled “The Grander Vision of Greg and Cheryl” which juxtaposed former, evil lives of homosexual excess with God ordained nuptials. And yet when their marriage failed it was hidden — Greg won’t acknowledge it to us even now. Instead, he appears to have moved to a different state and a different organization — business as usual minus any public mention of his ex-wife or his failed marriage.
People deserve to know that this did not work. They deserve to have a full record of events. Had their marriage remained just that, and not become an instrument through which to convince others of a flawed philosophy or a failed premise, then their divorce would not be on our radar today. But they did, and it is.
Just as with the deceptive, false quotes Greg attributed to Francis Collins overshadow the (non-existent) correction, it would appear his marriage will have received far more ink than his divorce.
In the end, what really devalues marriage; what happened here or the legal recognition of the commitment of two people in love with each other who just happen to be of the same sex?
Also of note is the fact that Greg and Cheryl Quinlan appeared as husband and wife in the troubled and much maligned documentary by Warren Throckmorton, I Do Exist. While we have requested for some time that Throckmorton remove the title from sale, at the very least we now call on him to note this new development concerning two of the major figures upon which that work focused. Again, the facts should be clear before anyone considers a purchase.
And what if the reason for the divorce was they just got to not liking each other and not anything to do with sexual orientation? Their quietness about a divorce certainly gives the impression that it was due to one’s or both’s sexual orientations showing through, but that need not be the case. Though I guess you would expect an evangelical Christian to have undergone marriage counselling if the issue were just that they couldn’t stand each other. While “DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN SENSITIVE INFORMATION” leads one to wonder. Greg Quinlan is still working for “family” (read ex-gay) causes.
“The Grander Vision of Greg and Cheryl” [https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33359] mentions their age difference and that could be contributory to their breakup. But it does strike one that moving to New Jersey sounds like the equivalent of the Catholic Church sending a priest into another diocese, and hoping for “change.” I guess we cannot expect an article called “The Failed Vision of Greg and Cheryl” from WorldNutDaily.
All the more reason to be as open about the divorce as they were about the marriage. It was definitely Cheryl who wanted out of the marriage, and there are strong rumors that we have yet to confirm which suggest that she has dropped her participation in church and ex-gay ministries. If we can validate these then we may know more about the nature of the breakup. Three years is pretty brief.
As to the locked documents, I found the same thing on other divorce cases I checked for comparison. I suspect this may be how Ohio handles divorce records online. While the the fact of the divorce is public information, they may have a blanket law about not disclosing documents which may be associated with children and/or sexual issues. This is just a guess, not all public records laws are the same.
What confused us the most was the fact that Greg is Quinlan’s middle name — his full name is Harry Gregory Quinlan. Taking ones middle name as the first is not uncommon, but it was sheer luck that we figured it out.
Funny, the Bible doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage (at most, it condemns same-sex sexual activity) but Jesus repeatedly states intense disdain for divorce. It hammers the point that the ex-gay movement cares less for following Jesus’ commands as it does about following their own commands.
Funny, the Bible doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage (at most, it condemns same-sex sexual activity) but Jesus repeatedly states intense disdain for divorce. It hammers the point that the ex-gay movement cares less for following Jesus’ commands as it does about following their own commands.
What I have noticed from ex-gays and conservative Christians in general is that they pay more attention to Paul than they do Jesus. That Paul’s writings were more important to the Christian faith. I never fully understood that. I always believed it was Christ and not Paul that was the center of Christianity. Paul was only a man. A man that had no part in the redemption of the world.
I think it is fairly easy to argue that Marriage didn’t make Mr. quinlan straight.
It is even easier to argue that his alleged heterosexuality did not prepare Mr. Quinlan for marriage.
It’s a lose-lose proposition ofr everyone.
One of the supreme dangers of holding your marriage up as a model is the obvious scrutiny that you recieve when it fails. This applies to heterosexual couples as well as couples like the Quinlans.
I am sure that we will hear soon enough how the evil homosexual activists are unfairly calling attention to what should be a “private” painful time for all involved. Unfortunately for the Quinlans, they used their marriage for purely political motives to deny basic civil rights to others. Their marriage was a public political spectacle from the beginning with glowing articles in right wing religious pulbications pointing to proof that gays can change. I would bet that WorldNetDaily won’t be writing about the rest of this story.
Fortunately for them, they ended the marriage after a relatively short time.
I have all sorts of compassion for folks who divorce. Most of the time it’s a hellish experience. On the other hand, I have very little compassion for people who use marriage both as evidence of sexual conversion and as a political platform. I really hope either Cheryl or Greg Quinlan comes forward to tell the real story. If they’re just a couple of newly-straight people who fell out of love, so be it. But if they’re still as gay as most of us imagine, the public has a right to know. At the very least, the ‘pro-family’ groups still posting the glowing story of their marriage and the public testimony of Greg against gay marriage based on his own successful straight coupling should pull those immediately. What galls me most, I think, is that the Quinlans have been divorced for a year and a half, and we are just hearing about it now. What sort of silencing was required to achieve that?
I actually do feel some amount of sympathy for people in the Quinlan’s situation. Can you imagine the stress involved in feeling like you HAVE to keep your marriage together and looking perfect for the public eye? I attended an event with Stephen Bennett several years ago and was aghast at how his wife Irene and children were paraded onto the platform as proof of Stephen’s heterosexuality. People applauded and I felt like gagging. What sort of pressure must wives of public ex-gays feel to succeed in their marriages and not let down God and the entire religious right?
We all know people in similar circumstances (well..not with so much publicity) but this is where I’m reminded of the phrase: “…and the truth shall make you free.”
This is a time for us to offer our friendship to both of the Quinlans. “…turn the other cheek”… and wish them success in finding happiness.
Has anyone kept track of these publicized ex-gay marriages that have failed? I am sure that there is long list.
I hope that Cheryl (who is an “ex-lesbian”, apparently) has decided to be sexually honest and move away from Greg. Or, at the very least, move away from Greg because he’s shown himself to be a liar incapable of accepting responsibility.
It’s sad to see a marriage fall apart, hopefully he’ll find completion with his next wife and her with her next husband.
It is great to see people leaving behind the really damaging gay lifestyle for something a bit more forward looking.
Such a striking example of non sequitur, among other things. Is that a serious statement?
Welcome to XGW, Matt.
Matt Sanchez– formerly gay, now straight.
But actually, matt, GQ (isn’t that a hoot for mr. quinlan) left behind the married lifestyle. when he left behind the gay lifestyle, it didn’t work out for him either.
Please.
I’d call Matt an Ugly Troll, but I’ve seen his movies!
I’m always curious as to why these trolls come here simply to butt heads. Do they really think they’re going to win hearts and minds? Do they really think they’re going to give us any fresh message that we haven’t had pounded in our heads for years and years (some from their own families since birth)?
Don’t feed the troll guys, unless he has something earnest and productive to contribute.
Forgive me, but what are the (very) Christian Rules about divorce again?
Matt … that question would be for you.
(ps Throckmorton: what “strike” number would this be?)
More seriously, it is indecent when people make their lives to be paragons of public virtue in order to abuse and harm the decent, honest lives of others. Nobody can live up to that. You hurt others. You damage yourself.
The Closet takes many forms. It’s always a dark and distorted place. May we all keep this in mind, or at least at the back of our minds, when considering what we say in this post string.
It is important that the Quinlans remember that they made a committment, a promise if you will, to each other and to God that they would remain as one until death do they part. And least they not forget that their God is a vengeful God, one easy to anger with retribution of an eternity in Hell for those who disobey and lie to Him. I’m always amused that the arguement against gay marriage is the defense of protecting the sanctity of marriage. There appears to be little or no effort on the part of the straight married community to protect marriage sancitity from their own damning actions and inclinations. So am I correct in assuming that the Quinlan’s are prepared for the retribution of their Lord?
Could we need to ease up on the use of the term “troll” please? For it’s usage in online forum formats, the definition of troll-like behavior is well defined, and it is accurate in a few infrequent cases at XGW. But I’m not sure we should be branding someone as such over a single comment. Like most derogatory descriptors, once in place the value of the individual quickly drops to something less than pond scum in the eyes of other commenters and that’s pretty strong.
On the other hand, Emily is correct that the best course of action if one truly exhibits troll-like behavior is simply to ignore them. In this case, I didn’t immediately realize who Matt was and so I thought it possible he was being sarcastic or satirical. His reputation makes that assumption less likely, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he is trolling. I do find it unlikely that anyone who considers World Net Daily a worthwhile place to post articles would have much respect for the discussion here.
Regarding what Chris had to say. I think it’s appropriate, but I’m on a bit of a rampage today.
Dear protector of the sanctity of marriage:
It’s not really about marriage and divorce. I see as just plain old prejudice. It sounds nicer, it looks nicer, it may even be deemed as compassionate, but the dark heart of bigotry is still there.
And why? Because they can’t tell the truth, and the lies make all of your motivations suspect.
One of the lies you tell is that your religious freedom is threatened if I am allowed to marry. What you really mean is that your freedom to say whatever you want about gay people is threatened by reality. People’s experience may not support your claims about our lives.(It is not threatened by me). you want to enforce your religious opinions by law. A lie is at the very heart of your argument, which makes your whole argument a lie as well.
You support marriage even for ex-gays like the quinlans– and it didn’t work for them. nor would it, because it is also a lie. but it does tell the truth about howm uch you value mariage.
We can both agree that marriage requires a great deal of commitment and responsibility. and you rightly deplore the irresponsibility that seems to go with marriage, at least for heterosexuals, since they are the ones that have had ocntrol of the institution.
and here is your other great lie. you deplore it, but apart from a few social programs here and there, you don’t actually CARE about it. whether prop. 8 passes or fails, nothing will change about the sorry state of hetero marriage, and you will go back to doing whatever it was you were doing before you got your hard-on for hate.
It will still be the case that any man and woman of legal age that have $50 for a marriage license can get one. You will make no requirements that they are ready and capable of marriage, or even know each other. Yet my friends that have been together for 40 years, in sickness and health and the whole thing, must remain legal strangers to each other. A certain pop star had more rights for the 15 drunken hours of her rampage of a marriage marriage than my friends Andy and Paul do with all of their powers of attorney documents.
You deplore it, but you won’t do anything about it. Just like you deplore war and hunger, but don’t do anything about them. You only have energy and money to beat up on the queers.
Heteros will still pop out babies for no other reason that they can, with no requirements for support, care, readiness, training, or anything– let alone that they get married and take care of the life they brought into the world. Of course, you will say that they should. but do you actually care? I doubt it. where’s the initiative that would require a man to marry the mother of his children? that way, every child will have a father and a mother– no matter how unfit or vicious.
My friends that have together raised six children will remain legal strangers to each other. I have another friend who adopted a child with her partner– an unwanted child who would have been raised in poverty and disease, but has been given a chance at a different life with her. M. is now healthy, bright, charming, well behaved, and a joy to be around, instead of merely another piece of 3rd world refuse heading towards an early death because his heterosexual parents neither wanted him nor were prepared to care for him. How does preventing my friend from marrying another woman, thereby giving M a set of married parents and all of the benefits that the law and society allow, do anything to protect anyone else’s family? As the Supreme Court decision said, there are an estimated 70,000 children in California being raised by gay parents. Do not those families need the protection of marriage as well?
I’m sure if you had your way, these children would not be with their parents at all. You only care about some children.
The $40 million spent on this campaign could have fed and educated a lot of children– something I’m sure Jesus would have approved of.
so, I’ll say it once again. please don’t tell me how much you love me. don’t tell me that it is all aobut marriage. I don’t believe a word of it. come out of your moralizing, hate-filled closet and just admit it.
You’ll feel liberated, I promise. “I hate queers, and I will tell any lie, distort any truth, to support that position.”
Doesn’t that feel better?
OMG, he was a GAY PORN ACTOR??? Crimony. He DOES have that “gym bunny” look about him.
I use the term “troll” when a person comes to a place to deliberately incite anger and resistance against them, to drudge up ugliness for a fight. Then if one of us DOES fight, he’ll write in his li’l blog about the mean ol’ homoSEXual activists persecuting poor ol’ conservatives.
To Ben In Oakland … Beautiful and extremely well said. I hope that you realize my previous post was in absolutely no way intended to represent my religious beliefs, as I have none. It was simply to point out the double standard (and irony) by which many of those hiding behind their religion to oppose legalization of gay marriage are hypocrites in the purest sense of the term. Personally I believe that the sexual orientation of an individual should be of no concern, and certainly no business, of any one else. However, when one chooses to either hold themself up as representative of right over wrong or to condem those who don’t live by their determination of what is right they enter an arena where they are rightfully going to be subjected to the same criticism and judgement they cast upon others.
I knew that, Chris.
What aspect of the gay lifestyle would anyone here consider to be healthy?
I’m glad this guy went somewhere else to find happiness. It didn’t work for him this time, maybe the next. Anyone here who believes he would just be better if he “accepted himself” is just a simplistic moron.
Let’s face it, this website is a hate the ex-gay site. I think the term “ex-gay” is stupid.
Frankly, I don’t think people are hardwired to be “gay”. Just like no one is really hardwired to be a cunt if you don’t agree with someone, nevertheless plenty of people on here would rather be insulting.
I’m amazed at all the scared people who are bothered by those who don’t think and act like them. If the man decided his life wasn’t for hanging out in bath stalls or pretending to have a sham relationship with some other dude, good for him.
Why does anyone on here care?
Matt– I certainly haven’t called you names.
Out of the 60 people or so that could call friends, about 40 are gay. Out of those 40, one has a drug problem. none of us have any diseases. many of us are quite happily partnered.
If none of the people you know are like that, then maybe you need to find a better class of friends. Or not hate yourself so much that you enagge in self-destructive behaviors.
As has been said repeatedly in these pages, no one here really cares whether you are ex-gay, gay, straihgt, or a monkey. what we care about is you insisting that we validate your choices, and that the law validates your choices.
Oh, please! This isn’t about “happiness,” or at least it shouldn’t be. The only valid arguments for one to leave the “gay lifestyle” are theological ones (in other words, their faith restricts same-sex behavior). Arguments about the gay community being an “unhappy” community are not only slanderous, but they are invalidated by the existence of happy, monogamous, healthy gay couples. There may not be as many of such couples, but the fact they exist completely destroys the “happiness” argument.
I personally believe that, theologically, God doesn’t permit same-sex behavior. I don’t use this information to force my views on others or judge people, and I usually get the same respect in return. I’ve written for this site a handful of times, and though my views have certainly been challenged, no one has “hated me” because of them.
Also, theologically, marriage is not about “happiness.” It is about commitment to your spouse before God. It is about love and self-sacrifice. Far be it from me to tell someone when their divorce is invalid, but unless there was actual adultery involved, then the Quinlans are being somewhat hypocritical. The restrictions on divorce are just as strict as the ones on same-sex behavior, and not being “happy” is not one of the reasons.
I will add something, but i’m not interested in a war with you, Matt.
I don’t accept your basic premise that there is anything in gay life that is destructive, except that Maybe if there weren’t so many people running aorund– just like you– defaming gay people and oding everything they can to make our lives as difficult and unpleasant as possible.
But you see, that isn’t something inherent in our lives, that’s something inherent in yours, and your so called friends.
I have a theory: straight people often behave very badly, but it is gay people that get the blame and bear the consequences.
DADT– all aobut iggerunt, insecure straight boys.
Child molestation– 50% ogf the time the father ifgure who identifies as straight, 25% of the time a relative.
Marriage– well read my rant above.
MAYBE, MATT, IF YOU WORKED AT MAKING YOURSELF HAPPY INSTEAD OF HATING YOURSELF AND ALL GAY PEOPLE WHOM YOU DON’T KNOW, YOU MIGHT BE ACTUALLY BE HAPPY, INSTEAD OF HANGING AORUND GAY WEBSTIES TELLING US WHAT DOGSHIT ON THE PRADAS OF LIFE THAT WE ARE.
Matt and Ben, please tone down your language. We keep the comments section of this site very tidy and respectful. This is the first warning.
I am curious, do your bathhouse and disease arguments work on us lesbians? Because apparently we’re the “least” diseased and the “most” monogamous. So what do we need to run away from?
Which “gay lifestyle” would you be referring to? The one you lived? The one described in your comment? Mine? The retired couple down the street from me? Describing “the” gay lifestyle is a fallacy, the range is as broad and diverse as would be the “straight lifestyle” if there was such a thing. What I have noticed most ex-gays mean by “the gay lifestyle” is their own bad choices in life — substance abuse, promiscuous sex, etc — and these are most certainly not my choices. Your view is one dimensional.
The rest of your comments reflect a general ignorance of what we do here, either because you don’t care or because you are insinuating that the reactions to your previous drive-by comment are somehow representative. No one here seeks to deny anyone the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. We exist only to provide some balance to the misinformation disseminated by so many ex-gay activists and groups, so that people can make informed decisions.
We do become concerned, however, when those same activists seek to use their own choices in life as proof to deny — through process of law — the rights of others to do the same. That is unacceptable.
Note: Please clean up your language if you wish to continue posting — thank you.
Emily: you are correct. Perhaps I should not have used the DS word, tho’ i’m fairly certain I have seen the BS word. But i don’t think anything else I said was intemperate. Blunt, yes, but still the truth.
I’m curious Matt, do you consider yourself ex-gay? Are you now attracted to women? Still attracted to men? Were you attracted to women “before”? I’ve never really heard your story, so I don’t know what you claim. Have you written on this before?
I would also be interested in your motivations for whatever changes you have made in your life — was it because of your faith? A desire to fit it better with the ultra conservative sector?
Also of note, the term “ex-gay” was created by those who believe they can change their sexual orientation (become ex-gay). It was not a term assigned by us or any other outside group. We use it because it has entered the lexicon and it is reasonably descriptive. If you think it is “stupid” you will have to take that up with others.
Lesbians seem to have other issues, the least of which is that the unions between two lesbians are fruitless or artificial.
Other than that, I under the domestic abuse is higher among lesbians too.
None of that really matters, I couldn’t care less who does what with their bodies. My problem is shoving it down everyone’s throat that they have to be accepted and pretending everyone who doesn’t agree is a homophobe.
The gay agenda is one of intolerance and self-absorption a deadly combination.
David Roberts
If you can’t define a “gay lifestyle” than you should have a problem with a man and a woman getting married.
I do not support gay marriage, because it’s fraudulent. Not on religious grounds, but on social, historical and cultural grounds. I don’t care how many “I Do’s” two men make, they cannot become a family.
Ditto for the women.
Why isn’t anyone angry at Ann Heche for giving up her “gay life”?
Again, this “ex-gay” site is just set up for really angry homosexuals to practice self-righteousness on everyone who is not as “liberated” as they are.
The guy got married, the guy got divorced. It happens all the time and yet the people in this room are cheering it on and claiming it was inevitable. That’s disgusting.
“The guy got married, the guy got divorced. It happens all the time and yet the people in this room are cheering it on and claiming it was inevitable. That’s disgusting.”
Let’s see, “the guy got married, the guy got divored. It happens all the time.” Absolutely 100% correct – so much for the sanctity of marriage arguement.
and then “the people in this room are cheering it on and claiming it was inevitable.” Again absolutely 100% correct as we knew it was coming, it did and so I guess it must have been inevitable.
Your points are well taken. Can’t argue with your facts. Guess you win this round.
OK, I think it’s pretty clear this Sanchez character IS a troll.
His gratuitous use of the misogynistic “c” word should have been enough to get him banned from this site.
That word really offends me.
Editors?
If someone can figure out what that means, I might address it.
Simple, don’t marry a man then. Why do you insist that your option should eliminate mine?
That question is loaded with all sorts of assumptions, but let’s start with the basics; why would that make me mad? Unless she is lobbying to curtail my rights — and I don’t think she is — then how does it affect me? That part is being played by her mother, and to my knowledge (and I could be wrong) without Ann’s support.
I don’t know how else to put it, but you have no idea what you are talking about.
If anyone here is cheering it on, they shouldn’t. As was acknowledged in the article (did you read the article?), divorce is painful and sad. The fact that it could be predicted in this case doesn’t make it any less so. But I’m curious, where is your moral outrage concerning the Quinlan’s use of their marriage as a public prop for their activism? Does this not bother you?
Conversation works both ways, Matt. If you do not have the courage or simple decency to respond to those questions put to you, please don’t comment at all. I have to admit that I am rather disappointed that your public persona is so accurate.
SharonB, he was warned about the language. No one gets banned over a single instance of inappropriate language. I will admit, however, that his values seem pretty low on the stick. If nothing else, considering his own life, he has chutzpah.
Sharon, I gave him a warning, David Roberts gave him a warning, and if I were in control of editing comments, I would’ve censored all the profanity including the vicious “C” word. But I’m not.
Since Matt can’t cite any sources for “lesbian domestic abuse being higher” (I think that’s what he said) then I’m just going to assume it’s made-up. “artificial unions?” I don’t even know what that means. If two women are in love and are attracted to one another and enter into a union, that seems pretty real to ME. Same with two men. Nice try, though.
I’m not angry at Anne Heche because she did not try to harm the community by citing “change” and “ex-gay” miracles. She seems like a bisexual. They date both, you know. I can’t be angry at a bisexual for being bisexual.
“No cultural basis?” well people could argue against that one til the cows come home, and it won’t change anyone’s freedom. Even if that is true, cultures change. Cultures are naturally always progressing. They are progressive. Not “conservative” – they do not conserve themselves. Things are always changing. And sometimes change just IS. It doesn’t always mean the sky is going to fall. Time to wake up and deal.
This quote says a lot of it.
Ex gays “harm the community”. I believe the gay agenda, especially gay marriage harms everyone.
I also think “gays” and the movement are an artificial social, political movement and are not innate much less natural.
It’s sad that children, spurred on by activists, are declaring themselves “gay”. It’s similar to a type of brainwashing or sexual abuse.
No one has explained or named one thing that is healthy about the gay lifestyle. That means “living a gay life”.
I also don’t think getting married is a “right”. That’s just ridiculous.
No one’s explained it because there isn’t such a thing as “the gay lifestyle.” No one can say what’s inherently “good” or “healthy” about being gay because the condition itself is, well, neutral.
For example, despite my religious beliefs, I am gay. Because of my religious beliefs, I am celibate. Perhaps by your definition I’m not living a particular “lifestyle,” but that doesn’t take away from the fact that I’m attracted to the same sex (meaning that by the standard definition, I am gay).
My celibacy has both benefits and drawbacks, as does any other way that one chooses to live out his or her life. I believe my celibacy is also pleasing to God, but those beliefs are my own and I do not make them a requirement to anyone else (though I invite others to consider them).
But still, despite my celibacy, I’m still gay.
“I do not support gay marriage, because it’s fraudulent. Not on religious grounds, but on social, historical and cultural grounds. I don’t care how many “I Do’s” two men make, they cannot become a family. ”
Historically, socially and culturally marraige wasn’t about creating a family, anyone who takes History, Sociology, and Culture seriously will tell you that. Marriage was about recognizing chains of responsibility, property, debt, tribal duties, reputation, rights to rule and genetic predisposition.
Still putting that aside what of the historical perspective of marriage? The historical origin of the Spanish word for marraige is “To house with” or to translate it into it’s more vulgar English, “To shack up with.” No mental gymnastics is required to come to this conclusion, just break down the word. Casarse con, Casa = house, Con = With. This stands out because Spanish is one of the older modern languages with little interference from the “ruling” body, there was no “King’s Spanish” it was a language of the people. So historically in Spanish speaking countries all it really took to be “Married”, at least in the dusty days of the languages origin was to “Shack Up with” someone. Also Spanish which is riddled with gender specific words attaches no gender to marriage. So what does that say of the history of Marriage in Spanish speaking countries? No government involvement, no church involvement, no gender test, just two people “shacking up.”
My favorite part of the history of marriage, is a little advertised fact that one of the crimes of the Cannites was “Marring man to man and woman to woman.” Historically the Cannities predate the Arimaic faiths. So you could say “Historically, Arimaic marriage is a fraud.” Given they imposed their ideas on a conquered people and removed the older people’s way from history.
I will concede you are right, no amounts of “I Dos” will make two men a family, but then no amounts of “I Dos” will make a man and a woman a family. Family is a bond that extends further then simply standing in front of a man with a silly frock or breaking some glasses or making promises to the goddess. A family is created out mutual respect, work and dedication. A family is created when you think about another individual as part of yourself. Of course because so few people recognize this fact it is worth mentioning that being shoved out of a birth canal doesn’t create a family, neither does a night of irresponsible sex. A single act does not create a family no matter how profound, all it can do is help lay the foundation, give the people involved a common bond.
Matt Sanchez said:
I am assuming that “fruitless” means “not bearing children” and not that they don’t eat fruit such as apples and oranges in their diet. Where does it say in Sacred Scriptures that we will be judged by how many children one has? The more children you bear the better seat you get in heaven? Childless couples get a free ticket to Hades? What if a lesbian had children by a previous marriage to a man? Or if she was artificially insemenated? Or if the couple adopts? A lot of my cousins (straight and 100% mexicanos) are married and have chosen NOT to have kids. So by them being “fruitless” does that make them “worthless?”
To say that two people loving each other is “artificial” is an insult to the Author of Love. Artificial reasons for marriage are when two people use each other for social gain, for family status, to keep a family line from dwendling, for a person to gain citizenship to a country … hmmm, things hetereosexuals have done throughout history.
With that mentality, why don’t we say Germans have a higher domestic abuse because their language sounds angry. Or we Mexicans love to live in poverty because most white Americans only see poor Mexicans versus those of us middle or upper class Mexicans.
They say that to me when I play mariachi music or talk to my friends in Spanish in public. I can be Mexican but I shouldn’t act like one, talk like one, like things Mexican. In other words, I can be who I am as long as I am not who I am and I don’t act out who I am or be around others like me. What a great idea! So the same with being gay. You are offering that we can be gay as long as we aren’t gay, and as long as we don’t act gay and we just stay invisible to everyone else. Hazme el frickin’ favor!
As in all groups, there are those who are very accepting, those who are semi-accepting, and those who want to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. While we are common in that our natural attraction is to be with someone of our own sex, we differ from personality, culture, religion, politics, etc. There are some of us who have been so hurt by the rest of society that it has become difficult for us to be so easily accepting of others.
Just asnot all Latinos are alike, so too are not all gays alike. The mexicanos of my family comefrom the north – Chihuahua. There is a BIG difference between a Mexican from Chihuahua and a Mexican from DF (Mexico City). We may talk the same language, but we differ on many, many things. So too with the LGBT community. They may be a few who fit what you say, but if you really got to know LGBT people, you would find that self-absorbed and intolerant gays are not the majority.
I’m going to stick with my original comment about the gay agenda:
I’d like to add that the gay movement, which comes under the umbrella of identity politics, is also radical, leftists and bent on destroying traditional marriage rather than enhancing or improving it.
You’ll note, no one on the homosexual side of lobbying for “gay rights” is making the point about marital monogamy.
“You’ll note, no one on the homosexual side of lobbying for “gay rights” is making the point about marital monogamy.”
One of the principal social health arguments FOR gay marraige is that it will foster monogamy in the gay community and help slow down the spread of STDs. That gay marriage helps to remove the stigma around homosexuality and will help get rid it of the down low culture. Gay marraige will help to create healthy alterintives to the “Bar/Bathhouse/Club” sceen.
So the statement that no-one on the homosexual side is making the point about marital monogamy is false. Lots of people are making that very argument.
Again Matt, you are not answering the questions put to you but instead keep heaping on more partisan platitudes and other such nonsense. This thread has become very shallow since you dropped by and it didn’t have to be that way. Monologues are for your own site; if you wish to participate here, you must converse.
This guy is just looking for a place to vent – he’s not going to get anywhere with us.
This happens all the time on gay blogs.
Seriously, this guy has no purpose except to vent. And maybe spend some time around gay people.
He’s not looking for a place to vent, discuss, or contribute valid points to a legitimate argument. He’s simply here trying to extend his 15 minutes. He had it as a porn star, he had it as an escort/hustler, he had it as a mouthpiece for the neo-cons (until he was exposed) and now he’s not much more than a footnote on a google search (which, by the way, can provide some very very interesting results). He’s here hoping to bring the light shining back on himself and, unfortunately, we’re allowing that to happen.
He was “exposed?” what happened?
Let’s just confine that to a private Google search Emily, there is plenty there and it will keep this thread from becoming even less relevant 😉
This is ridiculous.
If the very real threat of the loss of life from AIDS is not enough to cut down promiscuity, why in the world would marriage vows do it?
Ex-Gay watch is a “gay” blog? Who would have thought it?
The only reason I come here is because of the odd traffic that keeps flowing to my site from this site.
David Roberts,
I am not an ex-gay or a current gay, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why male gays are struck by such a high mortality rate.
nevermind, i already found it. CRIMONY! well, thankfully, not every gay male feels the compulsion to “act” out in the same way immediately following their exit from the closet.
I’ve put Matt on moderation since he does seem to have earned the title of troll. The last couple of his comments being held back are more of the same, with a little Paul Cameron added for effect. Let’s please abandon the tangent and either return the conversation to the original topic or let it trail off.
Thanks.
lol sorry David lemme guess – he’s citing Paul Cameron to “prove” the lesbian/abuse claim.
Well you’re doing the right thing moderating him.
OK back to the issue at hand. The saying “the higher they climb, the harder they fall” I think fits well here. While I think divorce is a sad way to resolve differences, if it involves two gay people who have married what they are not attracted to, aka the opposite sex, then it’s not so much a divorce as a doomed marriage from the start.
That they wanted to be the poster people for the model marriage to show “gays can be straight” should send a message to the ex-gay community that it isn’t happening. But of course, they will most likely just erase these people off the list and pretend they never existed.
Matt, Anne Heche was never gay, she only used Ellen Degeneres to further her career! BTW, whatever happend to Anne??
Alan S, just a thought here… the Bible did say something close….
1 Timothy 2: 11-15
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
1 Timothy 2: 11-15 however, always raises the question of the fate of those women who are physically, through no fault of their own, unable to bear children. Taken as written those women could not be saved.
Isaiah 56:3-5 told eunuchs that they should not think that they are a withered tree, useless, because if they are true to G-d’s word, they will be rewarded.
“You’ll note, no one on the homosexual side of lobbying for “gay rights” is making the point about marital monogamy.”
Well I’m not making that point because our laws don’t make that point. And what we are dealing with are the legal requirements.
Monogamy works for me, and I appear to not be alone in that fact. But it doesn’t work for everyone, not even heterosexuals. There are plenty of marrried straight swingers, and as Dan Savage noted in “Skipping Toward Gamorrah” they outnumber the highest estimate of possible gay couples.
Monogamy is an agreement between two people, and it works best when both are willing and capable of it. Same holds true for non-monogamy. Though it may be traditional, monogamy is not listed as a requirement on any forms or in any laws. And from a law-enforcement standpoint it’s pretty unenforcable. Adultery is certainly grounds for a divorce, but a couple who agrees to have sex with other parties is still legally married and no one can divorce them or nullify their marriage for it.
And to get back on topic, I’m not delighting in Quinlan’s divorce, but I do think it deserves as much press as his marriage.
I don’t consider myself ex-gay, but I have been involved in ex-gay (sexual wholness) ministries for almost 12 years. And I have found much healing in many other ways, but not in terms of my sexual orientation.
I think the worst part of all of this, is the message that Christians are sending out to the world. I think that is the most damaging. Because I whole heartedly sought God for change on this and it didn’t come. And so my responsibility at this point to the remain as faithful as I can, with what God has given me. I’m not fighting for Gay rights (however I do believe socially if the gov’t is going to recognize common law relationships (which it does) gay relationships should fall into that), but I also do not support the Christian agenda on this topic either. Which does NOT give dignity/respect and love to every human being.
I think it is pretty arrogant to get up in front of the Christian Community and use marriage as “proof” for being straight. That is not what Marriage was intended for.
Well said, jason, as always.
It should be noted (and probably should have been in the post) that we were more than fair to Greg about announcing this. I sent an email to him on Sept. 19 in which I told him that we had verified the divorce and that we were going public with it, and why. I also asked if he had any comments for the record. This was a full month before the post went up. He had plenty of time to break the news himself and in his own way. He never replied.
More than fair, David. Particularly given the individual has no idea of what the concept of ‘fair’ actually means. He’s a serial abuser, and can go sink like a stone in any public discussion about the lives of others as far as I’m concerned. You’re too nice, silly boy 🙂
Quinlan has had much more than a ‘full month’ — he’s had 2 years 8 months (fun with figures: this means his marriage has now been over for as long as it lasted).
“…there is no justification for same sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnership legislation. None. My wife and I are living proof, along with thousands of others, that persons with same sex attraction can and have changed, and thereby have the right to marry. We have chosen to follow the Manufactures’ specific guidelines for our lives. That means, committed to one another as man and woman.”
More fun with figures: a similar “2 years 8 months” would place G&D at about Xmas 1994. Blimey, I’m old.
(To help people place that time: chart topper, “Turn the beat around”, Gloria Estefan.)
Yuki:
Thank you for bringing up the quote from St. Paul’s first letter to St. Timothy. In Orthodox Christianity the understanding of that passage is simply that it is part of good works, a mother raising her children, and thus, by raising her children, forms part of her salvation. However, the main thrust of St. Paul’s argument overall concerning salvation is that we are justified by Christ and that our works are a response to that justification. Isolating the passage does make it sound that women can ONLY be saved if they have children, and I am sure many Fundamentalists (Catholics included) make that assumption, thereby demoralizing women.
The early Church was struggling with Jewish custom and Roman custom. Those early Christian communities that were primarily Jewish were required, or chose to, keep Jewish customs while Gentile communities were not. It is thought that St. Paul’s letter is addressing a Jewish community to St. Timothy, thus, the more restrained view on women is involked.
Dan said:
The fact that the Christian community has made such a focus on marriage at all is puzzling to me. As I have stated before, the main focus of Orthodox Christianity is the Eucharist. It is the most important Sacrament of all seven sacraments.
And for Protestant religions, the main focus was on having a personal encounter with Christ. Now, all of a sudden, marriage is the most important thing on the planet. Which begs the question, why is the divorce rate still so high is hetero marriage is the end all beat all?
Amen to not having heterosexual marriage be the “proof” of “conversion”. The “proof” of healing from homosexuality through Jesus should always be holiness and purity before God, marriage is just one sign among others that this has taken place. That’s why I’m encouraged that in Exodus International’s policy statement (https://exodus.to/content/view/34/57/) it says “Exodus recognizes that a lifelong and healthy marriage as well as a Godly single life are good indicators of this transformation. “
What ex-gay ministries are you aware of that put forth marriage as a goal?
Marcus,
A “healthy” marriage is an indicator of the transformation from homosexual to heterosexual. This is how that policy statement reads to me, and that’s not a truth. It’s only an indication that the homosexual man has learned how to behave in a way that is conducive to a healthy heterosexual marriage. It doesn’t mean that he’s transformed from one to the other. He may indeed be holy by your standard, but he is still gay.
Why does being gay have to be so abominable in and of itself?
Pam,
I would agree that the statement puts forth marriage as an “indicator”, but that is different from what this article said with reference to ex-gay ministries making it their “ultimate proof of successful ‘conversion’ “.
So you believe that someone can be a functioning heterosexual, but still be gay? I’d like to ask a few questions about this.
1) Can someone be a functioning homosexual, but still be straight?
2) Can someone go from being gay to bisexual? (Thus perhaps some of the functioning heterosexuals that you believe are gay, may actually be bisexual?)
3) Can someone be a functioning homosexual or heterosexual, but actually be bisexual?
I’ll save answering your last question till we’ve interacted further on these questions I’ve asked.
Marcus,
Thanks for your response. I wasn’t referring to the original article…I was referring to the fact that you said you were encouraged by that statement….and that statement is not true as far as I’m concerned. That’s why I mentioned it. If it encourages you…..and others…yet…it’s not true….hmmm….that’s not a good thing.
1. I know that someone can function sexually outside their “natural affections” or orientation. I don’t reccommend it, but it’s certainly possible. You don’t think that’s possible? I guess I’m as baffled by your apparent belief that they can’t as you probably are in mine that they can.
2. I don’t know if someone can “go” from gay to bisexual or not. I have no idea. Why do you ask?
3. I personally believe if someone is “functioning” or living as homosexual OR heterosexual that they ought to behave with sexual integrity and be monogamous. I can’t imagine why becoming bisexual would be desirable for either orientation.
Maybe I’m not understanding your direction or something. What does bisexuality have to do with any of this?
oh…and don’t think i’m ignoring you…but i’m on my way to nite nite right now….and i’ll be at school tomorrow. so…i’ll be out of the loop of this until later tomorrow afternoon if you want to keep discussing. 🙂
Exodus has paraded married ex-gays in front of impressionable gay people and their familes for years. Marriage and happy families is the carrot that is dangled before folks, luring them in. Even at the latest Love Won Out conference in Colorado, you have an exgay flaunting his marriage and 3 kids as proof of change (please see Box Turtle Bulletin for the local news clip that Daniel Gonzales posted 10/26).
As with so many things ex-gay, they now have little disclaimers, while still peddling the same false claims. You ask where people get the idea that Exodus promotes marriage as proof of change, and the obvious answer is from Exodus itself.
Also, when Chambers steps down, retires or otherwise moves on, does anybody really think that single Executive Vice President Randy Thomas would be offered the job? Perhaps….if he had a ring on his finger.
Marcus, this trend to publicly disassociate from such ideas was noted in the original article:
You have, however, highlighted the disconnect between what these groups say in public and what they actually do in practice. Proper criticism of their unsupported claims, pseudo-scientific theories and distortion of facts over the years (what XGW has been doing since 2003, for instance) does seem to have affected how ex-gay organizations present themselves to the masses. Unfortunately, these changes have not often gone beyond that public presentation.
One could just as easily say that Focus and Exodus do not promote orientation change with Love Won Out conferences — the web site certainly makes that clear enough (now). But a couple of years ago the same web site said that homosexuality is “preventable and treatable.” We know from the content of these conferences that they did not simply change their minds one day in 2006, but obviously they do think it advantageous for them not to say such a thing to the public anymore.
Now what do we call those who say one thing, and do another?
Regarding Marcus French’s question to Pam, “So you believe that someone can be a functioning heterosexual, but still be gay?”
I for one do believe that can happen because that’s my own experience. I was married for 26 years, had a good sexual relationship with my wife for most of those years, and fathered three children. But I never experienced any sexual attraction to women in general. None. And I always remained strongly attracted to other men.
French goes on to pose the corollary: “Can someone be a functioning homosexual, but still be straight?” Of course. That happens frequently in prison or other situations where people are forced to live in an exclusively same sex environment. People may resort to homosexual activity for physical release, without experiencing any fundamental change in their heterosexual orientation.
How is it possible to function as a heterosexual without feeling heterosexual attractions? I know some formerly-married gay men say they had to fantasize about a man in order to become aroused. In my case, I think the nerve endings just took over. Even with my wife, I never got aroused by visual stimulus or fantasy, but touch did set off my physical reactions.
With men, however, sight or suggestion alone is plenty to trigger arousal.
For me, at least, that is one way I differentiate between “functioning” and true orientation.
Marcus: nick’s comments were right on. Here’s a little more.
I’ve known I was gay since I was about 3, though I didn’t know what it was until I was about 11 and found the word in the dictionary. (One of those dirty corrupting books with all the wrong words in it). i’m 100% homosexual.
when I was 25, I had an opportunity to have sex with a girl. I was very curious about it. i had no doubt I was gay, but still, had never had the experience.
It wasn’t bad. It just wasn’t interesting at all. (For me, sort of like eating sauteed squid instead of deep fried the way i like it). I think I had to make quite an effort to stay aroused.
When i was 29, (I’m 58 now) i had another opportunity. I had a two-week affairette with a girl i knew. she knew i was gay. It was very different than the first time, very different than iwth my boyfriend. It was actually a lot of fun. but at the end of the two weeks, I had to tell her, “Nancy, it’s been a lot of fun, but….”
That’s how someone can be a funcitoning heterosexual and still be gay. I’m just not heterosexual and i never will be.
Pam,
Hang on their Pam! I’m just trying to get your viewpoint on things before interacting further. I raise this question because I don’t know how someone can engage in voluntary homosexual sex, but still be heterosexual. Isn’t a heterosexual by definition someone that only has sex with the opposite sex?
I ask because you said: “It’s only an indication that the homosexual man has learned how to behave in a way that is conducive to a healthy heterosexual marriage. It doesn’t mean that he’s transformed from one to the other. He may indeed be holy by your standard, but he is still gay.” And if you believe that someone can be a functioning homosexual but actually have a bisexual identity, then the statement you made is not true in all cases, since perhaps the “ex-gay” may actually be bisexual. I’m not just trying to poke holes in your logic here, I’m trying to make the point that sexual preference is more fluid than many people realize.
So you believe that bisexuality is wrong?
nope. my ex-husband only had sex with me for 6 years….and, to quote my dear friend kurt….he’s as gay as skittles!
nope. i believe that promiscuity is wrong.
Marcus, I don’t know how appropriate it is to require a set of questions be answered as a condition of ones own participation in the front end of a discussion, but reguardless it would seem time for your answer to Pam’s original question of you:
To briefly address a couple of your own points:
In this context a heterosexual is someone who is sexually and romantically attracted exclusively (or some would say primarily) to the opposite sex. It is only with the opposite sex that a heterosexual can form the kind of deep, complimentary bonds which most would associate with marriage. The same is true of homosexuals and the same sex. Your premise above is what leads to faulty assumptions such as sexual “preference.”
As to sexual fluidity, I believe recent research indicates more bisexuality in women (not exactly news) and that while they may emphasize one end of the spectrum or the other at different times in their lives, their bisexuality remains fairly constant (that is news). I believe there is a post partially completed on the subject in our queue — we need more writers.
Marcus, you really need to separate the “same-sex attraction” with the “functionality of organs during sex”.
I am a transsexual female. After almost three full years of hormones and anti-androgens I am almost totally non-functionial. I also did not manage to undergo my surgery to activate vaginal functions either.
But I am bisexual, capable of experiencing sexual thoughts and desires to men to transsexual men. Yes, I am still very much able to be attracted, also sexually, to people I find enticing enough for my taste. I am still celibate, but that does not change the fact that I am bisexual.
Two of us responded to Marcus French to say, “It’s not only possible for someone to function as heterosexual while still having a homosexual orientation, but I’ve done it.” In my case, I did it for 26 years, without ever feeling that my fundamental orientation and attractions had changed. And I pointed out that there is plenty of documentation of heterosexuals engaging in homosexual sex in situations where that is the only option.
Yet Marcus ignores our actual experience and replies only to Pam: “I don’t know how someone can engage in voluntary homosexual sex, but still be heterosexual. Isn’t a heterosexual by definition someone that only has sex with the opposite sex?”
No, Marcus, that is not the definition. I just did a quick Google search on “sexual orientation definition.” Every option offered centered on the words “preference,” “attraction,” or “attachment.”
Orientation is not defined by behavior–who you actually have sex with and how often. If it was, what would you say of celibates of any persuasion? That they have no sexual orientation because they don’t have sex with anyone?
Orientation has to do with the direction of one’s preference and attraction. I was able to have an enjoyable sexual relationship with my wife for years, but through all of that time my sole preference and attraction was toward men.
This has been the experience of many, many thousands of gay people who have, for whatever reason, entered heterosexual marriages. They may have been able to function sexually in those marriages, but the direction of their sexual attractions and preference never changed.
Marcus, you said:
Blanket statements like this really should be avoided. Whose sexual preference? Eveyone’s? Most people’s? Many people’s? Some people’s? Men’s? Women’s?
As I understand it, some women’s sexual orientation undoubtedly is fluid, but that doesn’t mean that it applies to all women; it doesn’t.
Men’s sexual orientation may be fluid, but it seldom is.
Dean Hamer and Angela Pattatucci concluded that it is not unusual for a small number of women to report feeling themselves to be, for example, straight at 16, perhaps lesbian at 24, perhaps bi-sexual at 38, and then straight again at 55. On the other hand, they found that this sort of movement in sexual orientation is very, very rare in men.
See CHANDLER BURR, A Separate Creation (1996).
Surely, surely no one is surprised that the estimable Mr Quinlan is a raging hypocrite. And surely, surely no one has failed to notice that in America, the definition of the “religious right” is as follows: “People who believe that every single word in the Bible is literally true (except for any words which apply to them). To quote from Jesus speaking in Matthew: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Of course, the estimable Mr Quinlan has not remarried, but if he’s going to continue being the radically bigoted idiot that he is, he’s going to have to do it sometime. Of course, as author Wayne Besen has reported, Mr Quinlan has many, many characteristics which are stereotypically typical of gay men. But, of course, that too apparently doesn’t bother his windswept little head. What a pathetic piece of work this guy is!
Pam,
So in your opinion, homosexuality and heterosexuality are about who someone is attracted to? Rather than who they have sex with? I’m not entirely sure what I think about that, but I’ll move on with this understanding of what you mean by gay and straight.
Now that I understand that when you say gay, you mean a person that is attracted to the same sex, I can properly answer the question.
I believe that all sexual activity outside of male-female marriage is contrary to God’s standard, and is wrong in His sight.
As to whether being sexually attracted to the same sex is “abominable”, I don’t know. We all are broken, and have to deal with various tendencies and lusts. Just last week I was talking to a friend that just left a homosexual relationship and has repented of that and is seeking to follow after Jesus again. My wife (who is much better at this sort of thing than I am), when counseling him, didn’t say “now to repent, never have a homosexual thought again”, she told him to find a group of solid believers in Jesus and turn to God with his whole heart. Homosexual behavior is just one of many unholy things God releases His people from when they turn to him.
So those are my thoughts! Many of you who I haven’t responded to make excellent points and ask great questions, and I would love to engage with you all further on these topics, but there are only so many hours in the day. And now that my wife is pregnant and not working, I’m working 50 hours a week, so I don’t have as much time as I’d like. I’m sure many of you can relate to not having as much time as you would like to discuss these important issues as well.
Marcus,
Well, I do want to thank you for respecting my opinion and for not being afraid to use the word gay. That means alot….and it shouldn’t…but…it does. Because there are so many people who flat refuse to even speak in terms of gay and straight or to discuss these things based on the terms you just agreed to with me. Isn’t that sad? It is to me.
So. Thanks for talking about these things in those terms. There have been entire threads on blogs longer than this one arguing over just THAT. Craziness.
I will add that not everyone who turns to God gets released from their same sex attractions and some people have been successful in reconciling their faith with their gayness. My ex-husband is on this journey now, and I’m very proud of him and happy to remain his friend and confidant in spiritual matters.
I obviously see things differently than you regarding gays being Christian and holy in God’s sight. I see it as a matter of original intent….and while I do believe that God’s original design speaks of His original intent….I also believe that there are MANY MANY areas where humanity has strayed from the original intent….and not all of our own choosing….not all to do with sexual orientation…just the way things have turned out to be over the course of time. I believe God’s grace and mercy allows for these things…. and redemption is for ALL.
As to whether being sexually attracted to the same sex is “abominable”, I don’t know. We all are broken, and have to deal with various tendencies and lusts.
Sorry. Not true for me and most gay and lesbian Christians. We don’t consider ourselves broken. I certainly don’t consider myself “broken” in the area of my sexuality. I’m not a conservative evangelical or fundamentalist either. So perhaps that could be the main reason why I don’t believe it. Their whole mantra of being “broken” never sat well with me. It seemed more like it was about stacking guilt and self-loathing on others than anything else.
Homosexual behavior is just one of many unholy things God releases His people from when they turn to him.
I wonder why he hasn’t released his people from the desire to divorce and remarry (adultery), bearing false witness against one’s neighbor, and excess wealth (prosperity gospel)? There seems to be a lot of those Unholy things going on in christian groups/churches. This election year and the three state marriage amendments are proof of that.
I wonder if anyone told Quinlan that he now cannot remarry if he divorces? I doubt it.
I wonder the same thing Ken. I think the answer is in turning to God with our WHOLE hearts, and choosing to lay down our lives to follow Jesus. In the West, laying down our lives doesn’t usually mean literally being martyred, as it does in other countries like India. But it does mean laying down our “right” to divorce, our “right” to lie, and our “right” worship at the altar of money. The good news is if we lay down those things, and give the Messiah Jesus our whole lives, that he will fill us with the HOLY spirit, and these unholy things will indeed be stripped away.
With regard to not being broken, isn’t the gospel in a nutshell that we all are broken people, and need to be made whole? As Jesus said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” I for one, in and of myself, am in the “sick” and “sinner” category. But to the extent that I have and am continuing to turn to this same Jesus with all my heart, he has and is continuing to change me into his likeness, which is righteousness incarnate.
In other words, if you don’t pray hard enough, you don’t get released from your sexuality. Because your “whole” heart wasn’t really into it.
What amazes me about this attitude is that this was EXACTLY what Martin Luther was plagued by as a Catholic Monk. And the scriptures are what he found freeing from this perpetual self-torment of never being “good enough.”
And yet, Evangelical Christians (Protestants), who will often mock Catholicism for being “too religious” “idolatrous” or “the whore of Babylon,” embody exactly what the founder of their umbrella movement escaped.
But you see Marcus, the very people that believe the bible as you do are the same people that perpetuate the false beliefs about the evils of gay people at every turn. They make our lives miserable in hopes that the severe pain they cause whether it be at the ballot box, in word, or for a few, their fist, will, in the end, bring about our “repentance” of our sexuality. Conservative Christians have no problems about bearing false witness against gays or divorcing/remarrying each other. These are evils which they themselves have all but ignored in their own churches. Its the, “Do as I say not as I do” mentality. Its all about the evil gays and lesbians in our mist that is the #1 top priority in their churches because by God accepting them as they are or as equal citizens just doesn’t align with their reading of Scripture. And Scripture must trump everything else in their eyes. We (gays) are the worst of sinners.
No, the Gospel is about Love. Even Jesus tells us that loving God and your neighbor sums up the entire Law and the Prophets. He tells us that in the end there is Faith, Hope and Love. And the greatest of these is Love. He took the form of man out of Love. He ate and walked with sinners out of Love. He laid down his own life for us out of Love. In a nutshell, its all about Love. But so many Christians have missed that message and turned it into the faith of self-righteous arrogance and hypocrisy. Proclaiming they are “real” Christians while others are not. I am not saying you are personally doing this Marcus. I want to make that perfectly clear. But from what I have seen from many Christians that are very openly and rabidly anti-gay there is no way there is any love present in their hearts concerning us. I do not see it. And I am not talking about people that may disagree with gay people in general and think what we are is wrong. I am talking about those that go out of their way to make our lives miserable at every turn. How can any of that be called love?
I believe I am sinful just as the next person but I do not consider myself “broken”. As a matter of fact, I believe I have been healed by the cross and the resurrection. So I do not need to worry about how horrible and evil I am every step of my life. God already knows me. I can pray and try everyday to be a good person. Try everyday to love others and help others when they need it. I can never be holy or righteous incarnate. At least not in this life.
As a Christian Emily, Jesus didn’t free us only for us to be re-enslaved by our own guilt and fear. Man did that. Not God.
Marcus; Here are two thoughts for you.
You may believe that we’re all sinners in need of redemption. I think it is a very negative view of people. No one i know is perfect, but most of us are pretty decent human beings. As for being broken– i feel just ifne, and the only brokenness I see is some people’s desire to stop minding their own business, not fix themselves, and telll others how to live.
As for not praying hard enough– how far do you have to go to please your notion of G? See what this man has to say before you probounce judgment on something you know nothing aobut.
https://www.waynebesen.com/2008/10/survivor-of-ex-gay-ministry-tells-his.html
Yes, there are a lot of them in gay porn. Not that I would expect you to know that. They tend to not be very convincing, often require straight porn to be played within view to help them keep things going(so to speak) and tend to not participate in certain activities. For example, they might penetrate a partner but will not consent to being penetrated. They may receive oral sex, but will not give oral sex.
Some people will do anything for money, fame, success, or survival.
I, for one, don’t believe anyone actually moves in one direction or the other. I believe that most people are, naturally somewhere on the scale from gay to straight, but may only be comfortable with allowing themselves to function heterosexually (or homosexually). Some may be experiencing such a small attraction to the same or opposite sex that they don’t feel it’s worth pursuing, or they did pursue it and that is how they found out how small their attraction is in comparison.
I didn’t go from straight to gay. I thought I was straight. I just had a very skewed view of what straight is. I’ll explain more if anyone’s interested, but I had a lot of lies I told myself and a few misperceptions about heterosexuality.
FIRST – I’d like to correct Pam. And I’m a little disappointed that no one else has yet. Pam, bisexuality is not polygamy. Bisexuals are just as capable (or incapable) of monogamy as gays and straights. I know of a few bisexuals who have had no problem with commitment. It’s a stereotype of bisexuality that they need to be involved with both a male and a female to be happy. I’m attracted to both blondes and brunettes, but I’m quite happy being committed to my brunette partner, the same is true of most bisexuals.
And to answer Marcus’s other question.
Actually, I’m going to answer his implied question instead “Isn’t a homosexual by definition someone that only has sex with the same sex?”
No. Gay folks, and many straight folks concede that our sexuality comes from our attractions. I am gay because of who I am attracted to, not because of what I do. There have been many many many periods in my life when I has involuntarily celibate. That did not make me straight. I was still gay. I was gay before I ever had sex with a man, because I have always been attracted to men, and (in my case) never attracted to women.
Let’s look at this for a moment. If you’re saying that if gay to straight is a continuum and people can “fluidly” move up and down that continuum, that they have some sort of control over their attractions, I would have to say “no” I do not believe this. If, however you mean sexuality is fluid in that people’s BEHAVIOR can vary, well yes, it can, that’s transparently obvious as many posters have shown here. I do not believe people have conscious choice over their attractions. I think it’s possible for those attractions to change on their own, organically, subconsciously, unexplainably, but I think that is rare. The few bisexuals I have met have had to make choices of some sort in their lifetimes. I’ll relate one of them to you.
Dee and Heather dated in college for over 2 years. They were in love. We were surprised because we all assumed that Dee was straight. Eventually they broke up, remained friends, and Dee ended up with Marco, a man. She was discussing this with some of us one night and basically told us about her bisexuality. She was in love with Heather, absolutely head-over-heels in love with her. But something kept nagging her. It wasn’t morality. It wasn’t society. It was something in her own mind and heart. She put it far more bluntly than this, but basically she missed a certain part of the male anatomy. As well as the way men feel physically. She realized that this was something she really wasn’t prepared to give up, even for Heather. She realized that no matter how much she loved Heather, this would always be something she missed, and that it was unfair to Heather and to herself to continue the relationship. So she broke up with her. Today Dee is happily married to Marco and Heather remains her best friend. Dee is still bisexual, and if she weren’t married I’m sure she’d be breaking a few ladies and men’s hearts, but she is in a committed relationship now, and she doesn’t consider herself ex-gay in any sense of the word.
What I’ve seen, and a lot of others have noted, is that many ex-gays are still gay, they’ve just found an elaborate way of ignoring their desires while fostering fake (or exaggerating minor) attractions to the opposite sex. This is sold to us as a conversion. This would be fine if this were for light entertainment purposes, but this is being sold as a legitimate alternative to being Out and Proud. This is being sold as a legit reason why we should not be allowed to marry our partners, adopt our children, and live our lives as we see fit.
Jason,
Where did I say that bisexuality was polygamy???? Maybe I did…and didn’t realize it but you’re going to have to enlighten me so that I don’t do it again if I indeed DID it.
I say very little about bisexuality because honestly….I could fit what I know about it on the tip of my little finger…and have room to spare.
Where did I say that??? Maybe no one else corrected me because they didn’t hear it.
Pam, here were Marcus’ Questions(bold is mine):
Here was your response to number 3:
I don’t think you directly stated a belief that bisexuality = polygamy.
But you were asked if it were possible for someone who is active sexually as a homosexual or heterosexual to innately be bisexual. Your response was to first state that a homo/hetero functioning person ought to be behave with sexual integrity and be monogamous.
To me, that read as a jab at bisexuality. I’m not sure why that would be relevent to the question unless you were under the misconception that bisexuals are incapable of being monogamous or having integrity. Otherwise, why bring that up? The second part of your answer, indicating that you don’t think bisexuality would be desirable for a homo or hetero person, doesn’t help that perception.
If I’ve misunderstood you, I apologize.
But you do have to understand that the most common stereotypes of bisexuals is that they promiscuous, incapable or uninterested by nature in monogamy, and tend to behave in manipulative and dishonest ways.
Jason,
I’m not one to argue. at all. But you are just reading your own bias into my words. I was NOT asked what you state. I was asked if someone can ‘GO’ from being homo/hetero to bi….and I clearly stated that I don’t know. Because I don’t. And then……what I said in the rest of that sentence was that if someone IS gay or straight (which would mean attracted to one or the other) why would it be DESIRABLE TO BECOME ATTRACTED TO BOTH????
It’s tough enough to live with integrity (i KNOW this…and yes, I’m straight…but yes…I think sex feels good and I want to do things that feel good) when you are only attracted to ONE….why mix yourself up by “going” and becoming attracted to TWO? Assuming that’s even possible. Which I clearly do not know.
I have met, in person, ONE bisexual person and I have a very casual relationship with him. I have no opinion of his sexual habits, and I’m not even concerned about them. It’s none of my business. I certainly jumped to no conclusions about him. If anything, I feel kinda sorry for the guy because I personally think that would be very confusing. But…hey…I don’t judge people. I mean…no more than anyone judges people…..and certainly no more than you’ve judged me by taking my words and stretching them into something I didn’t say.
You could just ask for clarity. You don’t have to accuse me.
I’m being defensive. Wow. I hardly ever get defensive.
woo hoo!
🙂
I do hope that makes you feel better about my outlook toward bisexual folks. I fully imagine that bisexual Christians are doing at least as good a job as I am at maintainting their sexual integrity.
pam
oh…and yes…i know that other people…not just Christians…live with sexual integrity….I do know that…..it’s just that being a Christian is my personal motivation for it.
Pam, no I didn’t read any bias into it. I’m convinced you just don’t understand how you come across.
You say this:
Here’s the question you were asked:
Now, please point it out to me, because evidently I’m not seeing it. Where in that question is the word”GO”?
In fact, look at the words that are there…..”actually be”.
Marcus was asking if someone could perform heterosexually or homosexually while actually, innately being bisexual. That is the question you were asked.
Here was your response to number 3:
By first saying that you think people ought to have integrity and be monogamous, it’s not hard for someone to casually understand that you mean to say that bisexuals don’t have either quality, or have trouble with one or both of them.
and as to this:
Again, you’re using the word “going”. Where as Marcus said “actually be”. Going is movement, Being is a state.
Rather than me being biased, I think you weren’t reading the question you were answering since you’ve read a word (go) and a meaning (change) that was not in the original question.
It’s entirely possible that you made a simple mistake, and I already apologized if I misunderstood you. Rather than taking my apology, and reading my words with the possibilty in mind that you mis-typed your response, you get all defensive. And now I’m defensive. And you’re not getting another apology. I’m dropping this because it’s pointless, but I could not stand here and let you misquote Marcus as a defense.
you know what jason….i’m just tired…
i dressed as medusa for school today, had a graduate class meeting…and now the trick-or-treaters are still coming.
i concede.
you’re right. i read it wrong. I just don’t care to argue or discuss…ok?? no harm…no foul. are you good with that??
oh…and for real….i’m sorry for apparently offending you in the original comment. i really didn’t mean to.
he did say “go”
sorry….i knew he did…just wanted to show you that i’m not a complete moron at reading…
oh….the so everyone doesn’t think i also have no clue about when trick-or-treating really is…..my little town had to have it early……..cause….ya know….tomorrow night is football and since everyone goes to that…well…we trick-or-treat tonight…
is this far enough off-topic for you david?? 😉
Gay not Gay, Christian not Christian has nothing to do with Greg Quinlan. Greg has been an evil, heartless, cruel person from day 1. the only true statement that he has ever made is his name is Harry Gregory Quinlan.
He was born into a working class family and he felt he was to good for that and has been lying through his life from the start. Greed, arrogance and a sick need for attention is what Greg is. He should not be used as a spokeperson for any organization, unless they are promoting evil. Greg is good at that.