The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has announced the death of its former president, Dr A Dean Byrd.
A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Byrd was the foremost proponent of reparative therapy among Mormons, and as a leading member of NARTH he was, according to the organization
… a true clinical pioneer paving the way for many others in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attractions. He had been a member of the NARTH Board of Directors for more than a decade and made a tremendous contribution to the early work in establishing NARTH as a reliable scientific and research organization.
He was born in 1948 and died on April 4, 2012, of cancer.
NARTH was founded in 1992 to promote psychiatric therapy to treat homosexuality. Although it promotes itself as a professional organization, less than a quarter of its 1,000 members are mental health professionals. A recent report by the Southern Poverty Law Center described NARTH as the “main source of anti-gay ‘junk science.'”
It’s a pity that he didn’t come to see the error of his beliefs and the harm he had caused before he passed. Still I hope his family finds peace while they deal with his passing.
as to NARTH’s description of his role, not only are they not really a professional institution as was pointed out here they also weren’t only focused on “unwanted homosexual attractions” as they claim but rather trying to create an environment where people would be led to view their homosexuality as unwanted by convincing them that it is some kind of a disorder or problem. the use of the “unwanted homosexual attractions” term by ex gay groups has always bugged me because it also covers up the abuse against children who are forced into these programs by their parents with the ex gay group going off of the wishes of the parent and not the child.
@bill johnson, you’re right. Perhaps the question isn’t whether they focus on unwanted homosexual attractions so much as this: Unwanted by whom?
Unwanted by whom?
My guess is, unwanted by people who have them but who believe their only alternative is to make sure that nobody who has them wants them
Oh Bill, I’m so glad you said that. That same frequent statement has always bothered me too.
“Unwanted same sex attraction” doesn’t really qualify itself at all.
I’ve brought it up before in other contexts to the difference between constant and unrelenting social pressure to change to attain acceptance and RELIEF from prejudice and suspicion.
I’ve mentioned that normal physical or behavioral attributes have been considered undesirable or threatening, which led the person with them to have risky and painful surgeries or suffer physical and other breakdowns.
Such as blacks who have tried to change their features to look less black.
Asians changing their eyes.
Anorexia in our culture because thinness is so celebrated and glamorized as more desirable.
Conversion of Jews because Jews are and always have been under constant siege for thousands of years.
So it’s not a surprise that anyone wouldn’t WANT to be gay in an environment made unfriendly and dangerous to them.
It’s harder to be gay by deliberate calculation.
But the very people who create that environment also exploit it and engage others to pester, assault and deride those gay people who ARE self satisfied and accepting of their orientation.
The others typically are family members and the assault on their young gay child too vulnerable to resist or leave.
There was a horrific story on the news recently about a church pastor who ran some kind of half way house. It wasn’t specified exactly what kind. And the church was a storefront style.
The mother of a 13 year old boy asked this pastor to ‘straighten out’ her son. They went on to abuse this child in such a way the could traumatize him forever. There was no mention of exactly what kind of behavior this kid engaged in to make his mother employ this pastor and two cohorts.
But my gut is telling me, the mom suspected this kid was gay. I have a good instinct for these things. And I’d just LOVE to know more. Perhaps because this kid was a minor, his identity is kept quiet. But it sure begs the question.
Anyway, gay kids HAVE been subjected to torture and other forms of coercion. So any of these ex gay people, touting their work as if wholly voluntary with no prompting or coercion to their method are being more than dishonest about how they benefit from anti gay prejudice.
There is nothing good about groups or methods that operate like that.
Mores the point, if we lived in a society that was fully accepting, and NARTH didn’t involve itself in anti gay imagery and verbage, and gay people STILL wanted to come to them for help: ONLY then would I consider their work honest and believe it was for benevolent reasons.
But it’s not. They need prejudice to operate. That’s bad enough.
Dr. Byrd was my therapist for three years and my advocate for 15 more years. While he worked on Evergreen’s model that some people could diminish their same-sex attractions to find happiness within their religious convictions, he also fully accepted me as gay and was more interested in my happiness than in forcing me to adopt an orientation that didn’t work for me. He was a a generous man, though he had his faults, as we all do. I hope those in this community can find it in their hearts to forgive him, to maybe even show up to his funeral with kind words for his family.
Rest in Peace, Dean.
Respectfully Jahn, that a therapist works in Evergreen’s model at all, still isn’t a healthy attitude towards gay people or homosexuality. Diminishing one’s orientation is demanding more than any human being should or should be required to do.
And how is that accepting you as gay?
Regardless that a person is celibate and is in no romantic relationship at all, they are still their orientation.
You ever hear of a celibate hetero claim to NOT be a heterosexual because of living like that? Saying that their attractions are diminished for the opposite sex, because they just aren’t ACTING on them?
And that they are good with that over the entire of their lifetimes, just without the support, uniforms and prestige that nuns and priests get for the trouble.
Again, for WHOSE happiness is a gay person bothered to be in a life like that, REALLY?
Diminished homosexuality=diminished socio/political challenge to whoever wants you to adopt THEIR orientation. Meaning hetero.
I’m going to be brutally honest with you, Jahn.
I’m ever straight. Never knew any differently since I was a child. I’m a woman, very unconventional in my looks and abilities. Grew up tall, strong and not at all girly or within those sorts of stereotypical traits that the ex gay industry thinks their female clients should affect.
I have always fought against being held back from my full potential, just because I was a girl.
And fought those abusive to me for challenging what they thought was their authority over me.
Being ex gay, is an AFFECT of heterosexuality, but it’s not AUTHENTIC and one can’t come by it, no matter how much prayer and denial of romantic bonds with the same sex, and involvement with the op sex.
You can pass, you can pretend, you can believe fully that you’ve accomplished something that’s important to yourself and what you’ve wanted.
Being hetero is only rewarded by no challenge or denial to the entire of your humanity and what you want to accomplish, but that’s not saying much.
But that doesn’t make hets better or more desirable AS people.
The disciplines and sacrifices you are making, are to have something that’s in part, superficial.
While the most important aspect you are subverting, has the greater meaning.
There are still relationship and social adjustments that straight people struggle with. Look at all the failed marriages, and expectations that occur.
The het grass only looks greener, because there is more freedom to be het.
But het people are not morally greater or more holy, nor is that orientation attached to a higher calling that REQUIRES being het to get there.
Hate to break it to you, but you got sold a load because you think no relationship or being het is EASIER.
In other words, Jahn. You took the low road, the path of least resistance because there is something in you not strong enough to be gay with all the vigor others have managed.
It’s not that you don’t have the strength to be het, you don’t need strength for it, or discipline.
That’s not how it works.
You’re not het. Just as I’m not right handed, and don’t want to be. However dominant righties are.
It’s not been easy to be a black woman, in a non traditional environment for either and having little socio/political and economic representation as well.
But I’m a be ME, and fuck anyone that doesn’t like it.
And Jahn, in a world that’s roughly about 90% het, I’m sick and appalled that’s STILL not enough for ex gays and every other het that would like to see YOU disappear from the face of the Earth.
People STILL don’t know gays and lesbians WELL enough, and honestly enough and what gay people truly are, no thanks to the ex gay industry, ex gays and THEIR advocates.
It’s not het wannabes that need it.
It’s all those gay kids out there still having to defend themselves, even against their own parents.
Gay people shouldn’t still be having to explain their existence to anybody, let alone defending it AND their humanity.
Religion is what’s been so destructive and dangerous, depending on if you’re gay, female, gender variant, and indigenous culture…the list goes on. THAT is the identity to be careful of.
I cannot appreciate it being taken for granted that hets like me, don’t appreciate the differences, the variety and the flavors and spices of the human race. They take it for granted that not being gay, is a step UP.
It’s not.
I despair at the idea of less variance in our race. Less diversity among our species, when clearly, it’s what we are first.
Unique.
Your trip to the other side, just makes you common and less interesting. There is no applause or accolades for it.
Why should there be? It’s not an accomplishment to HAVE an orientation.
It’s what we all have.
And being het, considering how common it is and easy to BE one, is even LESS something to be applauded for.
How ridiculous.
Okay, so you’re not down for traveling with the gay folks so all the world will get to know you better.
But you won’t be known better. YOU won’t be known at all. So if it meant THAT much to you, to not be who you are, ok.
But let’s not treat this as if there isn’t a war on, to do to millions more, what happened to you.
You left your brothers and sisters behind and there is no defense for that considering the stakes.
Personal happiness. Fine.
Own it.
What you did means making it harder on the rest. Again, considering the stakes, that’s nothing to respect. So go on with your life.
Me and my friends here, have a shit load of work to do you can’t and won’t do.
I grieve when there is one less gay person in the world, whether their identity was killed or they were murdered outright for NOT letting who they were disappear.
However, I don’t grieve, when there is one less ex gay therapist who has worked their entire lives to keep one less gay person in the world.
“While he worked on Evergreen’s model that some people could diminish their same-sex attractions to find happiness within their religious convictions,…”
And this, Jahn, is the problem, because it sneaks in three hidden assumptions. 1) That same sex attractions could be diminished, whatever the hell that means. 2) That Evergreen’s model is the appropriate vehicle to accomplish it, though your words “some people” give away the game. and 3) that such diminishment is requisite for one to find happiness within his religious convictions.
Same sex attractions can be “diminshed?” Define it first. As far as I can tell, it only means they can be supressed or ignored, just like opposite sex attractions.
Let us assume for a minute that all catholic priests are heterosexual. I know that’s way out there, but this is a thought experiment. Does a catholic priest “diminish” his heterosexuality in order to be a priest? no, he supresses it if he chooses an unhealthy response, or ignores it if he wants to affirm his charisma of celibacy.
In the former case, it is unhealthy because as every therapist knows, what you resist persists. In the latter case, it is healthy because the priest is at a place of choice. but in neither case, is his heterosexuality diminished.
And as Alan chambers admits, no (as in .1%) gay person changes from homo to hetero.
And Regan? “However, I don’t grieve, when there is one less ex gay therapist who has worked their entire lives to keep one less gay person in the world.” As always you nailed it exactly.
Our experience with Byrd indicated that he was willing to distort the truth with the best of them in order to make homosexuality over in a way which fit his world view. A death, certainly an unexpected one, is always painful and I wish his family peace and comfort. While alive, there is always a chance that someone will gain understanding and change their ways. I’m sorry he doesn’t seem to have.
It is because of NARTH and Dean Byrd and their close ties to the LDS Church that policies and church dogma has been so slow in coming to terms with gay LDSaints. I remember a few years ago an editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune authored by Dr. Byrd. It was full of lies and distortions that frankly was indicative of the person who wrote it.
Sad. History will not be kind to him and his legacy.
I should have been checking ex-gay watch closer as I rad this over at TWO with the H/T to EGW.
I am not going to write what I really think. I will simply say, the world is a better place with Dean Byrd no longer walking among the living, and breath a sigh of relief.
@Jahn
Jahn, how exactly did Byrd advocate for you for 15 years? Please be specific.
Straight Grandmother, you made it clear on TWO that you are glad that Byrd died. While it is appropriate to discuss how his legacy has been harmful, your words make me question what is going on inside of you. How much do you really know about this man? You often seem very uneducated on these topics, but very quick to comment. I don’t find joy in someone else’s death, but you obviously do. Disturbing, to say the least.
@Regan DuCasse Regan, your comment to Jahn was three times longer than his and you went off on rabbit trails that had nothing to do with what he was saying. Really, now. Jahn didn’t say that he was celibate. He said that he was gay, and that Byrd accepted him. I find it hard to believe, and I’d love for Jahn to elaborate, but I have no reason to not take his word for it.
Make no mistake. I’m gay and proud of it, even though it took me a long time to get there. I’m no fan of ex-gays or harmful therapeutic models like the ones Byrd promoted and practiced, and I appreciate XGW for the work they do in discrediting those practices. Without Byrd’s influence, it’s safe to say that many lives would have been easier. However, Jahn had a right to plea — as someone who knew Byrd personally — for respect for a dead man. I think it’s ridiculous that you left such a wordy and largely irrelevant comment in reply to someone who was simply asking for a respectful tone and kind words to Byrd’s grieving family. Think before you type.
@College Jay,
Take your own advice about thinking before commenting, I didn’t say Jahn was, nor suggested TO him that HE was celibate. I was speaking in a general term that a celibate person is STILL their orientation. And in what way the ex gay industry think that’s a part of their success model when a person opts out of any relationship at all.
And so what about the length of my comments?
They are for people who have attention spans longer than a gnat’s.
And a person ALWAYS has the choice not to read them.
A very petty criticism on your part.
I don’t owe Byrd, nor his family anything.
I already mentioned who I save MY grief for AND which dead I prefer to respect.
If I have other priorities, too bad.
Even if Jahn looked to us for his own comfort, that’s one thing. But that’s not what he was looking for.
All things considered, Byrd being dead doesn’t wash clean his lifetime of damage so easily.
Really now, snipe about something more important.
@Joe
Where did you get “joy” from? I said relief. I consider Byrd an oppressor and I can’t walk back my opinion that the world is a better place without him in it. You gotta remember what NARTH did and does, they were not simply “therapists,” they including Byrd, were therapists with a vengeance.
They were not satisfied to simply help people with their gayness, they went out and claimed all kinds of Nasty Lies about sexual minorities with a goal of denying ALL Sexual Minorities Equal Civil Rights. Byrd was, and his organization is, a propaganda machine plain and simple. This is the Byrd and NARTH I know
https://www.truthwinsout.org/2006/page/2/
Less than 25% of Byrd’s NARTH organization are in the health care field. So who are the other 75%. It is the anti gay Haters crowd. THIS is the group that NARTH leads.
I read an article on Throckmorton’s website where Nicolosi was treating a man 5 times a month for 8 years, and the man is STILL gay. It is simply money grubbing to continue to treat patients that long.
The world IS a better place without Byrd walking among the living, Byrd earned those sentiments. I may be ignorant about somethings Joe, but not this.
@Regan DuCasse It wasn’t the length that bothered me, it was the irrelevancy and redundancy. You kept on saying “you” and, frankly, it sounded like you were repeatedly attacking Jahn. It seemed to come from nowhere. If it was a general “you,” then you probably should have made that clearer, grammatically.
And I suppose I was raised with the morality that a human life is a human life. Every human life — indeed, the very concept of life, which is what we fight for — deserves respect. If one wants to preach love, acceptance and nonviolence, then it is immoral to view any death as anything but a tragedy, even the death of a severely flawed man who brought much pain. Indeed, deaths such as his are all the more tragic because of the wasted potential involved. We don’t get to choose which dead to respect. Otherwise, we enable the bigots and the fundamentalists to hate dead gays and lesbians, too. Someone has to stop the cycle of discord.
I understand your anger, and I have more than my fair share of it myself — having actually been through the type of pain that was handed out by Byrd and other ex-gay therapists. However, I learned that anger cannot fight anger and hate cannot fight hate. Those who make a call for a greater sense of respect, civility and politeness shouldn’t find themselves shouted down by those who want to keep the volume raised at all times.
@College Jay,
Must have been that snipe at how long it was that made me think you had an issue with it. Also, you’re the only one complaining about relevancy, judging much there? And not for much of a good reason.
And spare me the lecture about which dead to respect, and your opinion on all deaths being tragic, regardless what kinds of lives were lead before.
And no, you don’t enable bigots, nor fundamentalists when being honest and forthright about the continued damage to gay lives is exacted.
That’s very different from expressing glee over the death of someone. Which I in fact didn’t do. I simply pointed out who I reserve my grief for. What about the right of that?
I have a feeling I’ve been in this fight a lot longer than you have and I know what kinds of strategies work.
Again, do not lecture me, about what hate or anger does.
That all depends on how it’s used.
Because, brother, sometimes anger is very necessary so as not to lose strength or tenacity. Being fired up, and growing a thick skin for the fight, WINS them too. Doesn’t mean that such anger has to manifest in violence, or shouting, but in determination and courage.
Hating injustice, hating any forms of abuse of another human being works that way too.
That is where I put my anger, that is where I put my hate.
It works, VERY well actually.
Byrd has no need of me showing him any respect, I didn’t actually show him any disrespect. Not even here.
As I said, your complaint was petty, and even more irrelevant.
We’ve got work to do, I suggest you get over it and move on.
@Regan DuCasse So you can lecture Jahn about stuff that has nothing to do with his comment, and you bristle when it’s called irrelevant, but I can’t lecture you about the actual content of your post? Come on, now. Show me where, in your original comment, you actually were responding to what Jahn had said. After the first two sentences (which were, I admit, well-written and appropriate) you went off on a tangent and it was both tiresome and disrespectful. To clarify, my initial comment was about the disrespect you showed to Jahn, not to Byrd.
I only mentioned Byrd in my second comment because I assumed you were a Christian, and as a fellow Christian, I found your reaction to his death callous. I did not think it was appropriate to view any death with indifference, since each life is a gift from God, no matter how it was lived. If you are not a Christian at all, then I suppose we don’t have the same moral premises, and that would make communication about the subjects of life and death rather difficult. It would not, however, make my opinions less valid or less relevant, and your age and experience do not give you the entitlement to speak without being challenged, questioned or criticized. To imply that I’m not old enough to understand these things, or to understand what hate and anger can do, is the very definition of pettiness.
Feel free to move on if you think we’ve reached an impasse, but I think that needed to be said.
Get your bucket of stones ready…
Would it be mean of me to hope that Chuck Colson is doing poorly with his brain bleed? I am NOT one to advocate violence towards anyone, BUT when they are struck by natural causes AND they are an EVIL person, I do not wish them a speedy recovery.
Let me put it this way, when the slave owner who strung up his slaves and whipped them to within an inch of their lives ripping their skin off, and rolled them inside buckets with nails driven inside, do you think that those slaves were sorry for the family when the slave owner died? That after all they were a human being.
There is bad and there is EVIL, when evil ceases to walk among us I let out a sigh of relief. It is not that I am “happy” they are dead, I am relieved. If Chuck Colson doesn’t recover, I’ll breath a sigh of relief.
Let the stoning begin.
Is this topical direction really necessary? It seems out of place here, and unproductive. When we reach the point of discussing the relative merits of wishing for the speedy demise of a human being — no matter how odious we may find his opinions or beliefs — then I think we have lost any moral high ground the conversation may have once held.
Let’s just agree that some thoughts are better left unexpressed.
I guess it is not absolutely necessary. If you want to delete my comment I won’t cry about it. If you want to claim the high moral ground, take it. You see human beings and I see Evil Human beings, maybe I am just more bitter than you are Dave.
I know what your point is. They call sexual minorities evil perverts and hate them. Your point is that it looks like I am doing the same, calling them evil and not feeling a drop of compassion with their demise. I am satisfied that 10 – 20 years from now that I will not be condemned for my hard heart against them. History is not kind to despots.
If these comments really bother you, it is your website you should feel free to take them down.
@College Jay
My first post, however eventually expository was to Bill.
The next was addressed to Jahn.
And Jahn didn’t respond, to me OR to any other questions posed here.
He had the choice and apparently utilized it to ignore me.
Too bad you didn’t, would have saved you a lot of assumptions and inappropriate comments of your own.
@Regan DuCasse Sorry, when I mentioned your first post, I meant your first post to Jahn. My apologies for being unclear about that. I don’t resort to sarcasm or snark, so I don’t think anything I’ve written was inappropriate. I suppose we’ll let the lurkers who read, but don’t comment, make up their minds about that.
I thought over what you said College Jay, and please understand that the ex gay industry, and some ex gays set me off. I get expository about it so those who don’t know me, will know what I think of it and the damage it does. Relevancy doesn’t matter, but Jahn, as typical of ex gays, was looking for a kind of validation for the time he spent in crossing over and letting us know what Byrd did for him.
I cannot and will not, give any absolution to Byrd’s life. There is a predatory quality about ex gay therapists, that do the worst thing when a gay person is at their weakest. No other doctors or counselors do it, nor endorse it.
It’s a criticism of ex gays themselves, because they develop an unusual need for comfort and validation of their decision. To be assured that it’s heroic and that they are now normal, and their lives more holy and special.
I’m not so two faced as to agree when I don’t feel that way.
And your assumption of my being Christian and what’s the appropriate, or what you judge decent response to hearing of Byrd’s passing, was arrogant.
As if to say, ‘us Christians are to be of forgiving nature and those of you who aren’t, are just so indecent and mean’.
People like Byrd don’t come to US and ask for it.
Unless they do, there is no reason to give it. If they don’t change, then forgiveness won’t help anything.
And people like Byrd are indifferent to the damage they cause and don’t care.
They just THINK they do.
Even when done in a gentle nature and smiley face, their work is horrible and has made our work very very hard.
I don’t have to tell you.
You’re gay, you said yourself you understand and know what it’s all about and you don’t especially support what Byrd did either.
You did however resort to a cheap, misplaced criticism. I don’t have a problem with criticism when it’s done for the right reasons. I don’t have a problem with a challenge. That’s hardly what your comment is.
I will however, respond when you don’t get it right.
You’ve got vinegar for ME, but not for Byrd or his ilk.
And he’s not here to be hurt, nor changed by what I say. I’m a straight ally and Byrd wasn’t.
Must be all those at risk gay teens that I’ve mentored and fostered that makes me work into a spit at the likes of Byrd.
I warned Jahn that I’d be brutally honest.
The fact remains, I was addressing Jahn and it wasn’t up to you to speak for him and it was unnecessary. He’s not a baby, he’s a grown assed man.
He chose not to respond.
If he’s hurting or vulnerable at the loss of someone who he apparently feels was a friend, THAT I understand.
But that’s not what he was looking for.
And as I said, no one here is obligated to say nice things about Byrd for Jahn’s benefit.
Thanks for the conversation. Now, let’s move on.
Thank you for the reply. We’ll have to let that be it. I have one minor correction, though. You said I have vinegar for you, but not for Byrd and his ilk. I have plenty of vinegar for Byrd and his ilk, but Byrd is dead, and the rest aren’t a part of the conversation, so I didn’t feel the need to express it. Wait until one of them waltzes in here and starts shouting their misinformation and bigotry. Then you’ll see me get harsh. You haven’t really seen that, yet. Have a good day.
Okay, cool. Thanks College Jay.
@College Jay
You said, “I have plenty of vinegar for Byrd and his ilk”, yet on your blog you hold that celibacy is your answer to same sex attraction as you allude that gay sex is sinful wrong broken etc, and you are gay. It would seem your stance promotes “change” from a healthy sexual orientation (pre judgement) to an unhealthy sexual dis-orientation (post judgement), being as filled with as much vinegar towards a healthy gay sexual orientation as is Byrd’s. There seems to be little difference between the two positions as the foundation for both models are “gay sex is bad wrong evil etc”.
I read you broke up with a boyfriend long ago yet you enjoy gay sex by vicariously living through men having gay sex on your computer screen, yet you say you are “celibate”.
Irregardless of your sexual vs celibate desires my main question for you is; how is your promotion of this “celibate” ex-gay-sex-for-life model because it’s bad sinful broken etc, any less damaging and destabilizing than Byrd’s position?
iDavid, I wrote much the same thing elsewhere to another man who was claiming that ex-gay has made him happy. Yours was more succinctly put. I’m going to post it here.
Colege jay, this is not an attack. These are questions I’ve asked others as well. I’m still trying to undersatnd the exgay experience. So….
you are absolutely entitled to your own spiritual journey. I applaud you for it. But then you wrote this, which makes me wonder exactly what your journey entails.
““I” was doing wrong”. Put aside the “gay” issue. I dont think God likes seeing me hanging out in Bars, getting drunk, having sex with men/orgies, lying, blaspheming, gossiping, slandering. Yes I do Sin each day. BUT, i pray several time a day and REPENT of my sins and try my best to not keep doing them.”
It sounds to me that like to many “I-used-to-be-gay-but-now-I’m-not testifiers, you lived the “evil” gay lifestyle instead of a good gay life. And you confused your bad choices on how you lived your life with a morally neutral fact of your life, blaming the latter for the former. It’s not an uncommon story by any means. And that’s the problem with it. I’ve heard maybe once in my 62 years someone saying, “I had a great life with a wonderful man and a great family. I realized it was sinful and then threw it all away.’ It’s always “My life sucked.”
Instead of accepting the responsibility for your bad choices. Instead of making better choices. Now you’re making better choices for your life. If you didn’t like to promiscuous gay lifestyle, why did you choose it? And other than the improvement in your own life, why did you need jesus to make better choices for your life.
For example,I smoke to much dope. I like it. but too much. i didn’t need Jesus to help me get it under control. I just needed to accept my own responsibility.
So here are the questions. Are you still gay? Do you still feel attraction to other men? Do you still want sex and love with other men? And these times that you have “sinned” every day: are those sins of a sexual nature that involve other men? Are you repenting of them? Do you repent of them and then commit them again? If so, what does repentance mean?
And here are the parallel questions. Are you now heterosexul? Do you feel the attraction wo women that you used to feel towards men? Do you want love and sex with women? Are those times you sin every day sins of a sexual that involve women? Are you repenting of them? Do you repent of them and then commit them again? If so, what does repentance mean?
Please undertand, I’m not attacking you. I’m just asking you to be honest with us, at least, if not with yourself. It’s one thing to claim that you are no longer living the despicable gay lifestyle, and have been healed by the power of Jesus.
It’s quite another thing, like alan chambers, to claim that you’re not gay to one audience, then admit you are to another, to claim that you have changed to one audience, and then admit to another that no one has changed.
@Ben in Oakland Ben, I don’t know where you got that quote, but I never wrote it.
@iDavid I’m gay. I’ve almost always maintained that I was gay. I think I insisted on being called “ex-gay” for a very short season when I was a senior in high school, but that changed early in college. The linguistic irrationality of the term could not sustain itself. I also have tried to avoid “promotion” of any sort on my blog, which I haven’t updated in well over a year, actually. I’ll openly admit that I was far more dogmatic about sexual issues back then than I am now, but even so, I tried to avoid judging another person’s choices. Did I fail at that principle at times? Sure. While they were still active, my blogs had over 200 posts and thousands of comments, and since they were written by a maturing teenager writing about sensitive issues, I know I could go through them all today and find multiple quotes that I deeply regret.
Sexuality is a private issue, and politicization of it by churches and ex-gay organizations is what originally brought me to XGW, which I think does fine work. I’ve almost always seen the irrationality of the ex-gay therapeutic model, mainly because it clashed with my own life experiences so thoroughly. I’ve always had a respectful view of celibacy, and that is still the road I’ve chosen for myself, but I do not view it as compulsory and I apologize if my comments here have given you that impression.
One final note: My past romantic relationships — or my present or my future ones, for that matter — are nobody’s concern. Nor is the fact that I have struggled with an addiction to pornography, something that affects people of all genders, religions, sexual orientations and relationship statuses. My blog was simply the online journal of a college student figuring out his faith, sexuality and social life. Not everything I wrote about was related to the “ex-gay” movement.
It is a shame that those who advocate for freedom for gay activity, gay marriage, gay rights, equality socially and occupationally, accepted within the Church,, the military, and so forth, seem to carry such vitriolic vengeance as displayed here in this discussion. I can understand frustration and disapointment. But the Truth which Wins Out in the rage expressed here is that no matter how much “progress ” seems to be made, some gay advocating folks are deeply bitter, deeply enraged, and deeply hateful — true hatred, not the politically correct “hatred” which is merely a euphemism for an opinion contrary to yours. The above conversation is exactly that which makes me question and reject the monolithic “gay community” as being a place of understanding and compassion for those who identify as gay.
Tim, apparently you don’t get around much on the internet. You can go to a website like http://www.townhall.com
And every week, there are one to three articles that paint gays and lesbians as if they are terrorists or street gangs who are out to molest children, who are violent if disagreed with. World Net Daily exacerbates this CONSTANT perception with equal hyperbole.
For weeks, nearly every day we hear about a CHILD committing suicide because of anti gay bullying. Exemplary teaching, military, law enforcement or other careers have been ruined.
The greater public doesn’t just ‘disagree’, there is commitment to PUNISH gay people, to hurt and slander them by any means necessary.
And all things considered, ALL things….this is a community that DOESN’T respond in kind.
And if you REALLY think that a gay person shouldn’t display pain and anger, or commit to challenge the slander and libel and the media continues to foment, then you are displaying that kind of elevated bigotry that denies gay people have any feelings, or shouldn’t for what happens.
I live in CA, and regardless that I’ve spent the last FIFTEEN years fighting anti marriage laws, Prop. 8 won by fomenting fear and distrust of gay people, AFTER months of marriages taking place and NOTHING negative against het people occurring.
Why SHOULDN’T gay people have gotten upset over their lives being put through a legal blender like that?
This isn’t about disagreement, but LIFE and DEATH.
The kind of life and death difference between being able to afford cancer treatment for their spouse, or sponsoring them from being deported to a country dangerous to them.
The difference between a parent being able to keep custody of their children.
Obviously, considering the vitriolic responses to and about gay people at TownHall and World Net Daily, just for starters, they are FAR more vicious and ignorant than anything close here.
There are people there who insist that gay people are no better than murderers and especially pedophiles. They LOVE that label.
There are too many people who don’t consider what’s at stake or the LEGITIMATE feelings of gay people.
And evidently you are one of them.
So a gay person isn’t supposed to express any anger or pain or express how humiliated or frustrated they are?
Even on a website comment thread, YOU pass judgement on that too.
Gays are just too, too intolerant and they better back down or else they are going to be disliked even more?
Gay people are just SO irrational and emotional about those who ‘disagree’.
Tell me something Tim, what would you say to those comments at TownHall.
Search for Dr. Michael Brown’s articles and get back to me.
He’s made a few comments here as well.
See the thing is, you seem to be mistaking gay people for door mats, not HUMAN BEINGS and you’re here to scold on how they react to the policies and social isolation and defamation destructive to THEIR lives.
It figures you’d scold the easy target.
Regan, you admit in your note above that all your anger has accomplished nothing in terms of winning those who oppose gay liberties to your side. That’s my point.
I don’t know how you figure that, because I don’t admit any such thing. I say the opposite. I said I USE my anger to stay fired up, and that I HATE injustice. And you just dodged the crux of my last post.
Which figures.
I’m actually very effective. I volunteer for a venerated anti hate educational institution (Simon Weisenthal Center), in law enforcement AND comment for several media outlets.
Including BROADCAST media. A nationally syndicated station that respects my input and experience and allows me to comment.
People at the extreme, tend to have the attributes of crazy people.
At the more rational level, I’m happy to say I do very well. Especially with young adults.
And it’s obvious that others are even more so than I am, who use their fame, wealth and popularity to great extent.
But apparently Tim, like those whose paranoia and distrust of gay people is SO intense, they’ve lost all rationality or semblance of ability to know the truth from reality, you were seeing something that wasn’t there.
I admitted no such thing.
For this to be a productive conversation, let’s talk about the truth of how the gay community is DEFAMED and every move they make suspect, even righteous anger at the preventable tragedies around anti gay sentiment.
Everything that gay people do is criticized and scolded. EVERYTHING. Especially the innocuous stuff.
And only until a gay person does something stupid and profane, well THAT has to get the most attention as what ALL gay people do or will do unless someone says something about it.
Your scold is misplaced, and your deflection obvious. As is the fact you hallucinated me admitting that my anger does.
Well?
Anger at injustice can be a powerful motivator for change.
Again, Regan, the point that I am making is that rage and vitriol don’t seem to be accomplishing your desired goals. Perceiving to be a victim begets rage begets hatred begets frustration begets futility. The wrath of man does not accomplish the purposes of God. Truth wins… as always, even when we don’t like the Truth.
Tim,
I have to disagree, though I do think the Ghandi approach is an effective variable, rage and anger in action do produce at times, positive results. Stonewall was a perfect example. It is this rage at discrimination by monkeys-with-hands-over-eyes that has gotten us this far, and continues to do so. Regan’s anger is focused and productive, that is how I have always perceived her. She is a freedom fighter and doesn’t do horizontal on couch wondering when her rights are going to be hand delivered via snail mail. THAT is a victim. She’s mov’in and shak’in making gay sex love and marriage a positive changes for the world. And she’s straight, how cool is that!
I like your enthusiasm for non violent change, but when an issue is this deep and this stuck in the minds of the masses, as homosexual sex love and marriage is, sometimes it takes a bomb to open the trenches.
Do you not agree that some avenues for change use different methods than others? Now if I have missed something in your point, please let me know.
Tim, just because YOU don’t listen, doesn’t mean other people don’t. If you don’t think the desired goals aren’t being accomplished, then you’ve insulted those involved in the repeal of DADT, for starters.
In the laws changing in states like IA and NH, for example. Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” project got international attention and thousands of contributions and helped in keeping the conversation going on bullying.
You’ve been quite eager to scold, but I haven’t heard of any contributions from YOUR end of it.
Scolding a serious advocate is even LESS productive. Ever think about that? Show some respect. I don’t have a dog in this fight, so I have some advice for you. You do things YOUR way, and I’ll do them mine.
The point you’re making is an insult. So exactly what do you think you’ve accomplished by doing that?
You need to have a pedigree of your own if you think you deserve any respect for what you’re saying.
Notice you’re not bringing out the best in anyone here. Think about that too.
There are a lot of assumptions going on here about what kind of man Dean Byrd was or was not. He was my therapist for several years so I will tell you what I do know. His day to day job was as president of a foundation that gave cash grants for children’s medical research. Some of the projects they funded developed treatments for eye infections that were blinding impoverished kids. Another was a way to sterilize the breast milk of mothers who had aids. He was so excited about the results they were seeing. It was his joy to help these kids.
He also taught at the U of U Medical school in various departments and was voted professor of the year twice by the students. He also had a private practice which I was a part of. He was a gifted clinician and helped many people with many diverse difficulties.
I tell you this so you may know he was not a heartless wrecking ball. He did believe in self-determination of treatment and he was a religious man. If someone’s main identity as a christian was conflicting with their sexuality he believed they had the right to try to align the two.
I came to him as an atheist with no hatred of myself as a predominately homosexual woman. The problem was that I was married very young, back when I believed my lesbian feelings were not originating with me, but from Satan. Years later the feelings came back with a vengeance. I was married with kids and I was deeply involved with a female lover. I knew divorce was best for myself and my husband, but not for our kids. I was a child of divorce and distraught over the thought of putting our kids through that. I decided I owed it to my kids to try to reorient. I would try for a set period of time. If it didn’t work, I wanted his help with divorce so that the kids would be spared as much hurt as possible.
He had no problem with my atheism, in fact, he thought it was refreshing. He also told me in no uncertain terms that he was “pro choice” when it came to making my decision in the end. To make a long story short, we were successful. I am still with my husband and my kids are being raised in an intact family which is what I want more than anything in the world. It was by far the most difficult thing I have ever done. Dr. Byrd was caring, patient, and skilled. You may not agree with my choice, but don’t take it away from me. I am appalled at some of the articles he wrote– mostly religious stuff. It doesn’t jive with what I experienced in his office. I understand why so many people disagreed with him, but that doesn’t make him a bad person. I’m sad to learn of his death. Believe it or not, he was a very good man.
Several things, firstamom:
1. Your initial problems stemmed from religious teaching that has proven unhealthy and dangerous to gays and lesbians.
2.That same teaching extends well beyond pastoral care, but into the political arena that denies gay people the most basic of essential rights and protections, regardless of their situations and responsibilities.
3. A professional who is in the healing arts, their first obligation is to DO NO HARM. When it comes to gay people and gay people EXCLUSIVELY, this principle of healing is ignored or denied in deference to religious belief with a serious disregard for scientific facts and efficacy and the harm caused.
4. We live in an age and time of social, political and scientific advancement that cannot restrict gays and lesbians from also benefiting from them the way most of society does at large. It’s fair to disqualify what Dr. Byrd did with gays and lesbians with that going on. As long as there are still some very coercive and societal pressures against gay people at the expense of their civil and human rights, then the ex gay industry cannot be trusted in their endeavors. There is far more harm done by fomenting public fear and distrust and paranoia of gay people, than by gay people existing as themselves.
5. You’re too young, and perhaps you’re not a person of color, to know the experience or appreciate fully what it’s like to be restrained, humiliated and forced into a social position based solely on your biological distinction and all around you, the adamant defense of it on religious grounds. During Jim Crow, there were white people convinced that blacks were better off with segregation. Were certain that blacks were a destructive and dangerous element without it, and too childlike and in need of pastoral care in order to not challenge white authority over their lives. And some white people did all of this with civility and a smile. But the effect of their beliefs in the order of things is STILL devastating to this day. It’s going to be a long time before Jim Crow is lived down.
The truth is, this isn’t about God or pleasing God or Satan, this is about pleasing the heterosexuals who have your life in their hands and they know it. Making you take your medicine with a kindly tone, and gentle nature, is but one way to pacify you in order not to fight it.
Defend Byrd all you want.
He still participated in something that doesn’t help or support what REALLY needs to be done for the vast majority of gay people.
I think what I wanted to say more than the generalized factor of the political for gays, is
that the ex gay industry, or any of it’s therapists therein, gives license to uninformed heteros to ARGUE with gay people about their ability and requirement or DEMAND they change.
And this is often brought up with it comes to extending equal rights. That they aren’t necessary since gay people CAN change.
Heteros assume, and expect gay people to change and are led to believe they can. With no regard for the fact that it’s impossible, nor the problems it causes rather than solves.
When a therapist sees and INDIVIDUAL, they can think themselves only dealing with a handful of clients as if that doesn’t affect the ENTIRE of gay people in a much bigger sense.
This is another form of denial.
This is not the arena to defend an ex gay therapist, or extol the virtues of your now, non gay life and expect no criticism, or no one being impressed with how nice a man you thought Byrd was.
I’ll say this again: I’m hetero, I don’t expect applause for it and neither should you. Why should anyone be impressed by you living hetero with your husband and children?
There’s an implied insult that gays are inferior beings, and too weak to achieve what you have.
Actually, it’s the other way around.
It takes some real stones to live openly and honestly as a gay person, and fight the religious and social injustice on these terms.
And, regardless if an ex gay doesn’t actively participate in anti gay policy making, it’s morally, socially and politically impossible to defend what’s personally rejected.
What you have done and what Byrd has done, has left a BIG problem for the rest of us to handle.
And the denial of that is weaker than you wish it were.
Comment deleted by author.
Firstamom, Thanks for your honest and heartfelt comments. I also appreciate your transparency here. It’s refreshing. I applaud your tribute to a good man.
Regan,
To be honest, I agree with almost everything in your post. Religious teachings against homosexuality have done much harm to society as a whole and to me and others personally. Prop hate was especially painful to watch. Even though I participated in the therapy, I’m very against it being widely used. There should be strict guidelines on its use because it’s too easy to misuse it. My opinion is that it should be available for adults only. They should undergo a thorough psychological evaluation to ascertain if they are good candidates. There should be a definite end date and automatic termination if certain symptoms develop etc…. We have a much better chance at limiting it with controls than we do at banning it.
What I think is that we should not shut the door completely on this therapy for that is a violation of personal rights, too. When I think of people wanting to outlaw my ability to choose an abortion I feel the same way. You should control it by law to keep abuses and danger to a minimum, but don’t completely deny me access. Don’t make that choice for me, even if you can.
I don’t believe what Dr. Byrd and I did left a big problem for the gay community because everyone knows there are exceptions to every rule. The concept of reorientation therapy being contraindicated for the vast majority of people would be the rule. Cases like mine would be one of the exceptions. Rules and exceptions coexist all day long in the world of medicine and psychology.
I understand that you’re advocating for the public at large and I’m advocating for specific individuals. I see this as a type of check and balance system. We need to balance what’s good for the public without obliterating individual rights. We do that fairly well in America.
Ease of choice and impression are small vanities that I couldn’t care less about. It’s all about the kids to me.
I’m not young. I’m in my forties and I sometimes wonder what ever happened to good old fashioned compromise. It used to be a virtue, it’s how things got done. Now, being completely uncompromising is supposed to be a virtue and I don’t buy it. We can make room at the table for the exceptions.
Are those rhetorical questions, College Jay or did you make another assumption and ran all over with it?
1. I was responding to when she said she’d married young and thought her being a lesbian was about being in the throes of Satan. She didn’t make that up on her own and that shaped an issue that’s she’s now having to live with all of her life.
2. Once I read through the troubles she had during her marriage and committing to it eventually (children sometimes are what makes the decision), what I saw was a woman who learned to make the best of what she’d already put a lot of time into. I know that she loves her family. I get that.
3. And an ex gay, defending gay people, wouldn’t be considered a credible source on acceptance. They don’t accept homosexuality for themselves, and there are serious social pressures NOT to accept one’s own homosexuality. It would be a contradiction in terms to say that homosexuality is acceptable or something that need not change. That kind of thinking is a profound form of hypocrisy.
Firstamom, I would stand with you on the matter of having the therapy or seeking it out, as strictly a choice for an individual. I really would. IF there were generally acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual people.
But the public is VERY confused about what choice means. If a gay person CAN’T BE GAY in peace, then there ISN’T choice at all.
But as you must know, the lack of efficacy and the unstructured methodology and without peers that agree on it, this sort of therapy is more on the side of illegal, unorthodox and a lot like voodoo, so to speak.
And the het public at large, tends to change the goal posts on everything to be expected anyway.
I get seriously upset and appalled at an ex gay person, sort of like what happened in Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
I don’t think I’m seeing and hearing the real person.
And since gay people are a much smaller part of the population, to diminish it much more distresses me.
So I lash out the way I do.
I’ve had gay kids have to come live with me because of terrible violence at home because their parents demand and expect them to go through all of this discipline and isolation to not be gay.
You seem very idealistic. Something else very typical of those who no longer live gay. Making room at the table for the exceptions, shouldn’t be the responsibility of the gay folks. And it’s gay folks taking ALL the weight here. EVERYTHING is expected and demanded of them already, and still it’s never enough.
Even those few individuals you advocate for, make a huge impact on this. The nature of systemic bigotry is, that what a few gay people do, defines them all.
And as for keeping the door open on this therapy for those who want it. I wouldn’t analogize it with an abortion. One’s orientation isn’t a temporary condition, nor one that requires the sacrifice of a life.
It’s more like being a light skinned black person, who insists they are white to escape the social difficulty of being black. Yet, by living that way, gives validation to the systemic belief that being black is bad, unattractive and undesirable.
Or the way an anorexic develops a dysphoria about bodily curves.
Our society rejects gay people for similar terrible and unfair reasons. As I said, as an inferior aspect that deserves rejection.
Now, you’ve done for yourself which you still think should be a matter of choice and individual access to what one wants.
The unfortunate thing is, as I already said, seeking out such therapy is unhealthy to begin with. And there are therapists willing to do harm, because of the societal pressures on some people to conform as with perfectly normal people who have plastic surgery to erase their ethnic features.
The surgery is a choice.
But a HEALTHY one?
THAT is what deserves to be challenged.
@firstamom:
I know several very young people who have married young as well. The young men were the sons and grandsons of friends of mine. Once they were school age, their parents set about homeschooling and virtually ALL religious, ALL Christian entertainment and social community.
I don’t think they know any other black people but me. And even then, I don’t live THAT close to them. I don’t see them so regularly. But I’ve seen their church home and I know how they live.
I had a feeling you were older, wasn’t sure. But you didn’t seem old enough to have caught the non traditional feminist wave.
So little diversity, very little experience.
And, they agree with people like Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron on the issue of gay people.
Now, it’s an extremely touchy subject and I’m still trying to figure out a way to school these young uns without hurt feelings.
One of the boys is a father himself and we’re very close. He’s realized that too much was kept from him and he felt like a real fish out of water. Especially when he went into the Marines.
We had long, LONG talks on his visits and he’s said my opinions and what I know of the world mean a lot to him.
I know that at times, I’ve been very hard on ex gays or those who claim such a life.
But then I talk to this boy and he DOES look to me to tell him the truth.
He’s VERY confused about the gay issue. There are so many things that are selective, and intractable that people do as an excuse to not EVER really know gay people.
The EASIEST people TO know. And yet, this group keeps getting treated like aliens that just showed up and no one knows a thing about them except ‘what the Bible says’
When EVERYTHING else in life has allowed human progress for us to enjoy each other more, have greater opportunity to learn, and much less fear of doing so.
I just tend to think that ex gays mess all that hard fought progress all up and set us back all the time.
Anyway, I don’t want to be nasty to you.
I really don’t. I don’t want to patronize, even if it comes out that way.
I have a lot of young people depending on me, and I’d rather die than let them down.
So being right about this, is a very big deal.
@Regan DuCasse Regan, I deleted my comment because I thought it would derail the thread, so I’m not sure what questions you’re referring to. I wanted to let Firstamom have a chance to respond first, anyway.
I’ll respond quickly to your third point, because we don’t seem to be in significant disagreement about the first two points. Here goes: An individual’s personal choices do not have to influence their politics. For example, let’s say a woman personally would never choose to have an abortion herself, but at the same time would never advocate for abortion bans. She has her own personal choices, but she doesn’t want to pressure other women to make the same choice, because she recognizes that it’s their right to decide.
Similarly, I’m a Christian, but I do not want my faith to be held up as an official state religion, nor do I think it should be recognized by the government — meaning that, unlike many Christians, I don’t think schools should sanction prayer or make references to Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter). I recognize that my personal beliefs are not meant to put pressure on other individuals, or make them feel inferior.
Can’t a person who — for whatever reason — has made different choices about his or her private life still have the general decency to promote human rights in general? Are we really going to turn down allies when we have them? You’re making this zero-sum game, and it simply isn’t. Gay people are individuals. We’re not a category. We’re not a statistic. We’re at our most effective when we show people that we run the gamut in terms of our personalities, preferences, characters, beliefs, political ideals, talents and occupations. A gay person who honestly and openly lives in a heterosexual marriage — for whatever reason, religiously-motivated or not — is one part of the spectrum, and I’ll admit it’s a very difficult part of the spectrum to accept. But hey, some people view gay Christians (or Jews or Muslims) as hypocrites. Some view gay Republicans as hypocrites. Some people — including many gay people — view bisexuals as hypocritical phonies. Even many transgender individuals have found acceptance within the gay community difficult.
Gays are not a monolithic group. We’re a messy group of individuals. And you know why? It’s because the only thing that binds us together is the fact that we are attracted to people of the same sex. That’s it. That’s the only inherent commonality. That’s the only thing that makes us gay. Some experiences might be common, but they aren’t inherent to homosexuality. So what are you asking? That people like Firstamon stop talking? Are you saying that she’s not allowed to share her story until society has accepted homosexuality as a whole? You seem to imply that all gay people have to live the way you think they should live for the benefit of all the other gays, just because some idiotic straight bigots might get confused.
Sorry, but I’m an individualist. I know people like Firstamom are a rarity, so this conversation might be moot. Most people who go to ex-gay therapists don’t have solid moral and rational reasons to back it up like she did, but I’m glad that she set up some strong guidelines for it, and I agree with those guidelines. Still, however rare people like Firstamom are, they deserve a spot at the table. This whole conversation reminds me of when bisexual friends of mine date heterosexually, and their gay friends accuse them of “betraying” the gay community. The question is, why should anyone view the personal decisions of another person as a betrayal? Unless I’m married or dating someone, I do not owe another human being a single thing when it comes to my sexual or romantic relationships (or lack thereof). And even though we’ve made vastly different choices, neither does Firstamom.
Sorry, I suppose that response wasn’t as quick as I originally intended.
@Regan DuCasse I didn’t see your second comment until I had already posted my own response. For what it’s worth, I thought that was a very lovely response, and I do understand where you’re coming from. I even have respect for you. I just wanted to make that clear, just in case my tone sounded too harsh.
Hi College Jay, thanks for getting back to me.
In some ways, yours and firstamoms responses are very idealistic. As aspirations, I don’t have a problem with it. I even agree.
If only things were that way.
I for one, hate the idea of a woman having to be in the position of needing or wanting an abortion, and I don’t believe in standing in her way either.
But, those who oppose abortion, are very powerful and pressure the states to their wishes. They not only oppose abortion, but interfere in access to CONTRACEPTION, sexual health education and prevention.
The issue at hand regarding ex gay therapy is that there really is no way to CHANGE one’s orientation. The methods used are not supportable or supported by legitimate doctors and psychologists. And the harsh reality is that those who insist that gay people can and should change on condition of any personal choice and happiness ARE very powerful and they know it.
I live in CA and witnessed exactly how Prop. 8 was used, and what was invoked for it to pass. The preoccupation that gay people have NO choices, no options or any ability towards self reliance and determination is predicated on the belief that they can ‘choose’ not to be gay.
But where is the respect for the ‘choice’ to be gay?
How can it be called a choice at all, when in fact the rallying point is to not really have one?
I agree, you don’t owe anything when it comes to your romantic relationships.
But the hetero majority doesn’t see it that way.
The invasive nature of politics into gay lives proves exactly the opposite.
The same impetus that invades and stigmatizes contraceptive sex. Most of the complaint regarding justifying discrimination against gay people, is that they don’t spontaneously procreate.
The anti gay have way too much control. They expect it, and want it.
Demand to vote, precisely because of the unfair advantage in doing so.
As we speak, PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) are complaining that their materials on re-orientation isn’t accepted in schools or other public places and their charge is discrimination against ex gays.
Dr. Michael Brown, wrote a two page article in TownHall about how outrageous such discrimination is. And that those who support gay people are the ones getting undeserved preferential treatment.
It might seem like he’s part of a fringe. Perhaps. But an awfully scary amount of people who can vote, who do have influence on the young gay people in their lives, go along with that complaint.
This kind of therapy isn’t legitimate, for starters.
I know that a person can be bi-sexual. And I’ve learned a lot about asexuality as well.
The sad fact is, too many are exceptionally, and stubbornly ignorant about the nature of sexual orientation altogether.
And of course, gay people get the harshest, most brutal judgement and risk to their well being of all.
Notice that, although asexuals are making more of their presence known and helping people to understand THEIR orientation.
There aren’t whole businesses poised to force them to like sex, have babies and feel guilty about not wanting to have sex at all.
They aren’t threatened in the street, nor with denial of their civil rights for NOT changing themselves into sexually active people.
Perhaps those sex therapists were the ones who were sought after when an asexual didn’t understand what was happening.
But gay people still have to argue that they are normal.
Asexuality is normal, and not a problem in the sense that homosexuality is attacked as such.
And for a therapist to go along with treating a NORMALITY, as if it’s NOT normal, is an unqualified therapist.
Homosexuality is not a PROBLEM. The systemic bigotry against it is.
There’s all kinds of therapy for depression, for self esteem problems, for relationship function.
There isn’t a reliable one for changing sexual orientation.
Several years ago, a contributor named Pamela Ferguson gave us a very detailed, personal account of being the straight wife of a gay man, and what their church community set up for them and the expectations for Pam and her husband.
It also seems terrible to me, to assign the job of changing a gay person to their sometimes unsuspecting spouse.
If I were a single, straight person, I’d resent having to compete for a spouse with a gay person. The thread of relationship success is too tenuous and at risk, frankly. And firstamom ended up having a problem like that. Gays and straights deserve better than to be held responsible for something like that.
Of course wanting to marry, have someone to share your life with, raising children together is admirable.
But some religious communities, and politics have and still do get it very wrong, and don’t care that they do and aren’t compelled to care.
And mixed marriages like this, or politically forcing gay people to their will on marriage and family is but a few of their serious missteps.
cont: I understand that what a person does as an individual doesn’t have to be political. Of course there are people who don’t engage in activism and politics as controversial as pro gay politics are overwhelming or of little interest.
But even as individuals, their example IS used as an example that defines what ALL gay people can and should do.
This is another one of those funny disconnects that’s very typical in ex gays. To not be actively AGAINST gay people or FOR gay people, absolves from any responsibility for the bad things that DO happen to gay people.
Because you’re one of a minority of people.
However, the adage that evil thrives when good people do nothing, applies here.
And even if an ex gay person does want to participate more actively in pro gay policy, again…identifying as EX gay, rather than say BI sexual, disqualifies an ex gay from being credible ENOUGH for the situation we’re facing here.
You’d like to think there should be room at the table for ex gays, with everyone else.
As long as ex gays are used as pawns, and ex gays represent EXACTLY what the more powerful majority wants for ALL gay people, it’s not the gay table they are being excluded from.
It’s the reality of straddling that does. Straddling keeps you in one place, and the gay community needs MORE than that.
An individual who has rejected an aspect of themselves that’s rejected so profoundly and effectively at large, cannot DEFEND it at the same time.
Who can believe them?
Ex gays, however well intentioned, by definition of their lives, have no credibility.
THAT is why they are actually of no real help to such a pernicious problem.
Good intentions aren’t enough here.
One needs to REPRESENT who suffers the injustice here, not those who foment it. And unfortunately also by definition, ex gays represent the anti gay too.
I was just reading an article at Salon.com
About what to do when your child is gay. It was very interesting to see what happened when children as young as pre pubescent started coming out. Typically coming out wouldn’t happen until young adulthood when that adult was past parental dependency. As you know, this could risk estrangement.
Even those straight people with that experience wouldn’t get the difference between when their child actually knew they were gay, and when it was safe to say so.
This kind of misdirection and dishonesty about how early such awareness manifests and who rushes to indoctrinate has been something interesting to witness from the outside.
As you know, it’s a constant libel against the gay community, that to just have an open discussion is considered indoctrination to be gay. Which is another example of laughable and profound hypocrisy.
It’s Christians and heterosexuals who indoctrinate so intensely and without mercy or leaving room for anyone to breathe or be honest.
It was wonderful to see how young some kids came out, in that way, they could show that prior to actual sexual activity, their orientation was innate without any prompting or influence.
Which, I would have thought considering how universal homosexuality is to all human life and history, it’s a given that it’s an innate and biological factor of human sexuality.
One cannot be taught or forced to be any of them.
Which is the other factor that begs how ex gay therapy qualifies itself as effective in DIAGNOSIS.
We’ve seen the template the ex gay industry always uses.
And it NEVER fits.
So if the diagnosis is wrong, how can the therapy be effective?
At any rate, how children are teaching us about how early one’s orientation manifests and how to address it is what the ex gay industry interferes with.
And perhaps yes, it’s way past time for them to BACK OFF.
And let this trend speak for itself.
People who keep insisting on doing something they have no qualifications for and cannot HELP, can be dangerous.
As I also keep saying, Christians or whatever person who was motivated by religious belief to involve themselves in changing gay people have had the floor and taken over the discussion for thousands of years, and gay people being able to speak for THEMSELVES, make their decisions and advocate for their own destiny is relatively new and short in comparison.
So yes, maybe ex gays SHOULD be quiet and give gay people their turn for as long as need be.
Because it’s the hets and ex gays who had more than enough time. And when it’s up, it’s up, for now.
It’s only right and fair and obviously important they do so.
So if they are honest about what would really help this situation, and being less selfish about the needs of other gay people, then let the gay folks have the floor and give it enough time for things to change the way they need to.
Regan,
Exquisitely executed.
College Jay,
I think discrimination in any form should be eradicated like white blood cells attacking cancer, and I take no prisoners. Ex-gay and/or gay and celibate-for-life due to insane straight-boy religious convictions is a form of social sexual cancerous ideology, yet you are asking for “room at the table” if you vote for gay rights. That is very odd as the message you are sending is, “it’s ok for you to have gay sex/marriage and I will vote it into law, but I can’t have it myself because I believe all the same basic religious insanity that upholds ex-gays and religious gay celibates that view homosexual sex as evil wrong and sinful. But you can do it, it’s ok with me! Woohoo!” Yet the next confused kid errantly buys your brand of publicized poison and commits suicide. The next family breaks up over similar corrupt religious banter. More kids are homeless living in the streets. And you want to “break bread?” You want a “place at the table” as if to honor your stance? How does this insanity support my vote for you coming to “the table”.
I see that form of thinking severely confused and dangerous to society, families and kids. Would you ask an armed Nazi to join your table because he believes blue eyes are not important to select a superior race and therefore doesn’t want you dead? Yet goes back to his friends at camp and sharpens his blades of war along with his fellow Nazis, supporting death to the enemy regardless? If such is permitted “at the table” then we must then invite all the wackos, including Michael Brown and the Phelps clan. That is how crazy this idea sounds.
I can’t come up with any rational basis to allow that form of insanity at a sane table. Deadly religious convictions are just that, deadly. My feeling is it is imperative that you eradicate your own religious inner insanity, then ask for a seat. You simply haven’t graduated out of all forms of religious discrimination. Yet.
If there is some form of argument that supports your position, please share. But from my standpoint, when gays are struggling for their rights AND THEIR LIVES, and you are opposed on one hand and supportive on another, it just smacks of hypocrisy and danger. Allowing your ilk at my table would intimate that I agree with you “privately” destroying lost kid’s/families lives with religious poison, while supporting your support for gay sex and marriage. Thanks for your vote for gay marriage, but the rest smacks of anti gay anti social voodoo cross-eyed weirdness of which you, AS A GAY PERSON, seemingly uphold. Do you see the complete disgust that can bring up for sane gay people? Dead teens and broken families at your hands.
Regarding your proposed position, I would say there are vipers in those dates. Why in the world would you even think you deserve full acceptance, a place of glory, a “place at the table” of sexual sanity, with such horrific anti gay tactics at play?
Firstamom,
I am a little puzzled as to what kind of therapy Byrd used with you as you say you are an atheist and it didn’t matter to him. Did you “go religious” during therapy or maybe another form was used? Are you “privately” anti gay with yourself?
It seems your therapy may have been done pre gay marriage cultural war, I am wondering if you would have made the same choices today as you did then? Are you bi or gay? Do your kids and husband know all this?
I find your trek interesting and would like to connect the dots.
Thx.
PS I also find your goal very admirable.
@iDavid I don’t think you read my last reply to your comment, which was earlier in the thread, but to summarize it: I’m gay. I’m not ex-gay and even though I may be celibate in my personal life at the moment, it’s not necessarily a lifelong thing, nor is it due to religious convictions. I’ve already said that, but I suppose you missed it. You also don’t know whether or not I’m in a romantic relationship right now, and I’m not going to say whether I am or not. That’s because my personal life — or the personal life of Firstamom, or the personal life of anyone, for that matter — should be irrelevant to this discussion.
I’ll reply to Regan later, because she brought up good points in a respectful tone, and I want to address her separately. For you, however, I will say that you are engaging in the same kind of hysterical rant that many anti-gay fundamentalists engage in. How in the world would what I choose to do in my private life cause a gay teenager to commit suicide? That’s like saying that a gay couple getting married will cause straight couples to divorce. If a gay person chooses to remain celibate, for whatever reason, why does that concern you? If a gay man chooses to marry a woman, for whatever reason, why does that bother you? It happens even among non-Christians (the Oscar-nominated director Stephen Daldry is a high-profile example). What one person chooses to do in his or her private life — and the complex reasons they have for it — has nothing at all to do with what another person chooses to do. If they’re minding their own business, you should also mind yours.
If you took your arguments to their logical conclusion, it would mean that no form of civil society could ever possibly exist. You said you’d like to eradicate all religion. Good luck with that, but that’s simply not plausible. Like it or not, we live in a society where everyone has, and always will have, deeply personal and contradictory beliefs. Most followers of any belief system believe that theirs is the only correct one. Christians, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and pagans, none of these people agree with each other, yet for the most part they respect the religious liberties of others. And atheists, of course, usually think that all us religious folks are stupid.
Yet, somehow, we tend to get along pretty well at the table of human respect, dignity and decency. That means I can be friends with a Muslim coworker, even if she thinks I’m an infidel. I can be friends with an atheist roommate, even if he thinks my personal faith is childish. The implicit understanding between many religions is that those who do not belong to a particular sect will face eternal damnation simply because they do not belong to that sect. To me, that would be an even more controversial statement than the disapproval of a sexual identity, and yet if people can learn to agree to disagree about the first subject, why not the latter? Why must everything be so black and white?
In other words, your rant doesn’t actually hold water. The fact is that people will always discriminate. It’s what people do. We choose our beliefs, our friends, our lovers, our jobs, our politicians and our activities. We choose who we will and will not associate with. Somewhere along the line, we have to learn how to respect the rights of others who choose differently. While one religious sect may think their way of life is the most righteous privately, they should never seek to make it the way of life for everyone else. As a society, we all understand that (folks like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann excepted). I don’t see why sexual issues can’t be the same way. What one man chooses for himself does not dictate that he stand on a soapbox and preach it to others. Rights are founded upon civility and respect for another person’s freedom of conscience.
The only way that any society will ever be free from discrimination is if every single individual believed and behaved in the exact same way. Good luck with that. You’re never going to get all religious people to believe the way you want them to. You’re also never going to get them to not express themselves freely. What you can get them to do is recognize that their beliefs don’t negate your rights, and that their right to choose their religion comes from the same foundation as your right to choose a partner and provide for him in marriage. I never said anything about “full acceptance.” That’s only something that individuals can give to one another, anyway, not societies or communities. I’m talking about rights, empathy, basic respect and civility. That’s all I meant by “a place at the table.”
@Regan DuCasse Regan, thanks for your reply. I think I’m sensing an overall personal disconnect between us, which might be at the root of our disagreements. I would like to think of myself as a very independent individualist. How that particular identity resolves itself with my identity as a Christian is complicated. The two should contradict each other, and that’s something I’m working out in my faith journey as we speak, but it’s also rather irrelevant to this discussion.
Anyway, I simply don’t think I represent anyone. Even given the current political climate, I’m just a guy. Nothing I do or say should be used by anyone to justify, well, anything. I represent no one but myself, and that’s how I view other men and women as well. I’m not alone in this. I know many other self-described “ex-gays” who resent when their lives are used as weapons. I even know one who scolded his pastor about mentioning him in a sermon one Sunday. It’s very similar to how I resent iDavid implying that I didn’t deserve “full acceptance” if I was still celibate for religious reasons. (In that case, I also resented it because it was inaccurate, but that’s another matter.)
Anyway, you obviously have the viewpoint of an activist, so you see things on the bigger scale. You see politicians, articles, journalists and soundbites, all of which can be organized and presented in such a way so that they can influence societal change. I see individual lives that should best remain private. That’s not the same as “doing nothing.” It just means that I think change is best instituted when individuals embrace civility and honesty in their own personal lives. It’s a “bottom-up” notion of change, as opposed to “top-down.” If you say I’m an idealist, you’re probably right, although I see you the same way. (And I don’t regard the term as an insult at all.)
Here’s my thesis: Even if homosexuality was freely chosen (and, obviously, I don’t believe it is) gay rights would be just as important. Anti-bullying efforts would be just as important. Hatred of religious stigma against gay people would be just as important. Yes, even hatred of the ex-gay industry would be just as necessary, since their primary moral failing is the manipulative tactics they use to play God with an individual’s life. Rights and civility don’t flow from the fact that homosexuality is immutable. They flow from the fact that gay people are people, and that no one is harmed by our relationships, so people should mind their own business. I think, as individuals and as a movement, if we focused on this angle, we’d see more success. Once people understand the foundation of rights, they’ll understand their necessity to all humans, even those with whom they disagree.
It seems two of my posts are not showing on this thread. You’re right about a disconnect, and here is where it is, College Jay.
You and firstamom are too idealistic about what you as individuals do. I might agree that you should be able to have a choice, and anyone accept it.
But that’s not what happens and how the world works. What a few gay people do, DOES define the entire of them, according to those who have gay lives in their hands and know it.
Homosexuality is a highly rejected and distrusted form of orientation as are those who are gay. Regardless that you don’t actively work AGAINST gay interests, by definition it’s impossible to defend what is individually rejected.
It’s a contradiction in terms.
One cannot have any credibility and regardless of good intentions and being a good person, the anti gay don’t CARE about that.
All they care about is the reinforcement that another gay person doesn’t exist and does so through THEIR assignment.
Not the gay person’s.
And I don’t no where you’ve been. But yes, rights and civility ARE denied PRECISELY because of the few gay people and their straight support who claim they have changed FROM being gay.
Therefore are not deserving of equal treatment and rights because it’s a BEHAVIOR based issue.
Each and EVERY anti gay or anti equality person inevitably and ALWAYS cites this. It doesn’t matter how few there are. They claim they KNOW at least ONE person who has done so.
So it does not matter you’re an individual, you’re ENOUGH to their purpose.
You’re right, that it shouldn’t matter whether homosexuality were chosen or not.
But it DOES, to those who know how much influence they have socio/politically.
It’s just an unfortunate reality that ex gays do NOT have the credibility necessary to this to changing minds about accepting homosexuality. Good intentions aren’t enough. A rational need to participate isn’t enough. The ONLY people who are credible are gay people living AS gay and their competence in it.
It’s naive to think that ex gays, even decent ones, can be of ANY help on this. They just can’t. It’s no slam on their intentions to help.
They can’t help.
No one wants to feel utterly useless to anything important to them. The thing about civil rights activism, especially with stakes like this, it still goes to leaving it to what would be the most helpful and effective.
Not what compromises it.
And too many ex gays, especially those who feel such a commitment to helping other gay people and supporting their rights, do compromise the most important message here.
Wish more ex gays and their supporters understood and accepted THAT.
@Regan DuCasse I think your comments did show up. I think they’re just on the previous page. I saw all three of them. As for what you said, again, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I’m going to keep living my life and saying what I want to say. It’s not like anyone can force me not to. And like I said, I really just don’t think immutability and biological determinism are the best arguments in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality. Theoretically, I think we’d have just a strong a case even if it was a freely-chosen behavior. The fact that gay relationships aren’t harmful or “less than” straight relationships is our biggest and best argument. But if you disagree with me about that, there’s not much else I can say. At least we both know where the other stands on this.
By the way, you realize I don’t consider myself ex-gay, correct? I’m openly gay. For this conversation, I’ve been speaking hypothetically in some instances, and in defense of “ex-gay” or celibate gay friends of mine in other instances. I hope that makes things a little clearer in retrospect.
Oh Dear College Jay, Where do I begin ….
Fist off, I support the eradication of discrimination, not religion, I didn’t say religion. And the eradication of all discrimination is a noble goal, though probably unattainable.
Second, I do not care about whether you are in a rel or not, I said you left your bf along time ago, that’s it.
Third, you supported on your blog that gay sex as evil wrong and sinful and said you would counsel others the same. You said you had many things in your past posts that you now regret, but refrained from divulging what those things were. With over 200 posts, am I supposed to guess your regrets?
As far as a relationship goes, I really don’t care if you are in one or not. But your unwillingness to express where you stand about gay sex love and relationships in your own life, and you’re the only one on this blog asserting that, only leaves windows of interpretation open for contemplation and suspicion. In other words, you as a strident strick believer in negative religious sexual doctrine in the past being quite open about it, have now come forward changed ala past regrets, and is at best vague and unyielding, about your current beliefs. You were an open book, now shut. For the sake of misinterpretation, why don’t you just lay it on the line about your current beliefs in gay sex celibacy relationship etc, and give your vague0sphere a rest? That’s what this whole culture war is about, where do you stand?
I like the idea of agree to disagree, but from my point of view, you are so non commital about your stance, presuming it has truly changed, I have nothing to disagree or agree with, except from what I know from your past.
I want to know if you are still throwing flames on the fire about gay sex or not. And if not, how have you changed? What’s different? Who are you these days?
I don’t lose sleep over age old contradictory beliefs like whose god has the bigger penis, I could care less. But I do lose sleep when gay kids kill themselves. Your current beliefs may add to that fire like they used to, I don’t know, because you are not saying. You’re hiding out.
Then and only then can I discern whether coming to a “table of basic respect and civility” would be useful. Help me to make that decision. Be authentic and forthcoming. I believe that is the first step.
If I was too harsh for you I apologize, but it is the current that we are bucking that makes it tough. Anger can be a very deceptive anchor sometimes.
I believe we are all in transition on a very hot topic, trying to put out our own inner fires and find peace within the chaos. We will push each others buttons till we get there but I think that is the goal. The trick is how to do the dance without falling into the orchestra pit. It’s a noble goal. I’m getting better at it, I can only hope everyone else is too.
Immutability and biological origin are A defense, if not THE or BEST defense. It’s part of a spectrum of defensible things about gay people. And I absolutely agree with you about ss relationships being another firm and irrefutable defense.
As there is more comfort with being oneself, then there will be more and more out and integrated couples.
Just as there are more CHILDREN who can and do come out. Some with much parental support. These are all very helpful in having the more honest and effective conversation about the necessity of conversion, and acceptance.
NONE of this, of course can be credited to ex gays, but either ex, ex gays or ever gays.
And sometimes I forget that you’re gay and said so. I’m guilty of speaking a bit more generally and working my way backwards.
I don’t know that we are disagreeing so much. Except in the defense of ex gays. You appear to be doing that and defending the idea of them having a choice.
But I think you’re meaning without judgement or challenge as to the EFFECT of it on other people.
Do you disagree there IS an effect on other people, and ex gays should keep reinforcing what they do by definition?
Do you disagree that by doing that, they are NOT HELPING the necessary conversation about accepting homosexuality?
You’re right that no one can stop you saying what you want.
I just want it to be made VERY clear, that ex gays DON’T help. Even if they WANT to, they can’t.
And this is a very important point in all of this.
@iDavid I said I’m gay, and even though I’m celibate, it’s not for religious reasons. How much clearer could I possibly get? That means that although I’m currently not having sex, that has little to do with my religious beliefs. It’s for other (quite boring) personal reasons. I also said that I don’t view celibacy as compulsory. That means if another gay Christian views it as okay, I’m not going to judge them or question their faith. Sexual matters are between them and God. Honestly, now, I said this all already. It wasn’t vague.
But this really isn’t new for me. I never pushed people to make choices they didn’t feel led to make. I have many friends — openly gay, gay and celibate, “ex-gay” and “ex-ex-gay.” Their personal stories run the gamut. I don’t think any of them would say that I ever pressured them to choose one path or another. I simply told my own story, and even though I’ve said some mean-spirited things to commentators in the past, and believed some silly things, I don’t regret the basic fact that I told my story as I was experiencing it at the time. It’s mine; it was my right.
If anything, even when I was at my most dogmatic, I would still be happy for a friend if they decided that they were better of seeking a gay relationship. Would I have my reservations? Sure. And a lot of those were fueled from jealousy, I know. But I don’t think I ever was harsh or cruel to anyone because they were openly gay. I made, and still do make, a strong effort to remain on good terms with everyone I value, even if their views are on opposite ends of the spectrum. The reason I’m closed off about things (and you’re right, I totally am) is because I made personal friendships with many individuals. I don’t view myself as noncommittal. I view myself as in the awkward position of being respectful towards many friends who are at various different places on their sexual and religious journeys. That’s why I don’t often speak up, because there’s really no way for me to say anything without offending somebody. But I hope that I have been able to stress the value I place on respect and civility. I’m done telling my own story; there isn’t anything interesting to note these days. I’ll just stand back and let others tell theirs now.
I do really adore that last paragraph of yours, though. I agree with it, and I don’t mind having my buttons pushed on occasion, although perhaps this thread has gone on far too long, and it would be best to e-mail me if you have anything else to say.
I know one thing for sure, relationships are very difficult sometimes. It’s always going to be an individual and personal fit. One has to weather the bumps and troubles to learn from them.
Even with ALL the support and expectations and unchallenged ability to find their own levels, even heterosexuals can get it so very wrong. I can understand celibacy or abstinence when it IS a choice.
Sometimes it’s necessary to have room for personal growth without the constraints of a relationship.
Same goes for non parenthood. Makes me wonder why at the same time sex is elevated practically to a sacrament, it’s decried.
The same is true for contraception and having children.
Someone mentioned in another thread somewhere that sex is a mystery. And perhaps some things will never be figured out.
I just think it’s sad and frustrating that those who extol it and push it (het sex) the most, try to control it for others (gays) and have no respect for what relationships are the most likely to be compatible for gay individuals.
We might not all have the choice of having sex, or a committed relationship, or marrying. The pressure to engage in all that is a ridiculous preoccupation for people who don’t have to deal with it.
Rather insensitive of course. As if it’s all so easy and anyone can do it.
I wish you the best of luck, all.
@iDavid iDavid, Wow. I just looked around this website to get a better idea of where I was and I think maybe I shouldn’t be posting here. I had googled ‘Dean Byrd’ to see if I could find any write ups about his passing and clicked on the title of this article. When I started reading it I was disturbed at some of the personal attacks. I understand being vehemently opposed to some of his work and beliefs, and fighting that with all you got, but to assume that made him a throw away human being was too much. I wanted to defend his character because I knew him personally. I don’t know why I threw some of my personal info in there– maybe as credentials for commenting, because I have never posted about it before nor told anyone who didn’t already know. It feels weird to talk about it to someone other than him. Since I brought it up I will answer some more questions. Then I should probably bow out of here.
Here are some answers to your questions. I did not go religious during therapy. He only worked with men so initially sent me to a female counselor for individual sessions. My husband and I saw him in the context of marriage counseling. After 12 months of visits with the female it was clear she hadn’t helped much so I stopped seeing her thank goodness. I think by then Dr. Byrd realized it was him or nothing so he started seeing me individually too. He didn’t seem to have much trouble deleting religion from our sessions. He saw my husband individually sometimes and I know those sessions must have been religiously flavored because my husband is very mormon. I think we were incredibly lucky to land in his office. His skills were off the charts compared to the female counselor, and she was supposed to be really good. I believe most psychologists could not have helped us.
I am not privately anti gay with myself. I fully acknowledge and value that aspect of myself. I just don’t participate in it, or advertise it for the sake of my husband. I don’t know what the official beginning date of the gay marriage war is, but I began therapy in 2003. Yes, I would absolutely make the same decision again. We are realizing the results we were after. Our two oldest kids know about it and they are now up and out of the home. As far as bi or gay– well it depends where on the Kinsey scale you draw a line between the two. I feel predominately homosexually oriented. I must have some het in me though, or I wouldn’t be able to touch my husband. Thank you for validating my motives. I hope this helps you connect some dots.
@firstamom: you need to read the article on this site about Rachel Maddow’s report on Robert Spitzer.
Her report is an essential part of why ex gays are a PROBLEM. Because they are extremely intertwined with anti gay politics and civil policy.
Ex gays are USED to that purpose, when NO OTHER issue of mental illness, therapy or having choices for therapy is on condition of one’s right to marry and have children, among other very important civil rights.
As I say in my post on that article, people with profound clinical disorders are not denied that right.
THAT is why, regardless of your idealized desire to have the choice and be who you want, without judgement, ex gays DO NOT HELP when it comes to gay people having to debate anyone about their existence.
Your motives for conversion isn’t my issue.
It’s with being weak or in denial about your impact on public policy and political action against gay people. And your conversion contradicts defense of gay people.
You might not be doing anything individually or as a person against gay people.
But get this: is does NOT matter. It truly doesn’t.
And firstamom: each and EVERY ex gay or person claiming conversion has been exactly the same way on this.
You should know better than me, how many bald faced hets are quite comfortable with lecturing gay people about conversion and that their sexuality is a lifestyle that can be abandoned at will.
Each one of these hets is so audacious as to wax very expert on GAY sexuality. You know what I’m talking about.
So far, you’re mostly defending YOURSELF and Byrd.
Well, that’s the point: the hets, who know they have ALL the political power and little will to change things, with folks like YOU around, are validated. So how do you figure what you are doesn’t do harm?
Check out that article. You’ll see.
Regan, I’m not sure why you keep pointing out that my existence does not help. I’ve never claimed it helped anything or anyone except my kids. If it makes you feel better, only a handful of people even know. I’m curious what you think I should do about it that does not include breaking up my family or ceasing to exist?
Let me try to explain this to you. This isn’t just about YOU. There are evidently a great many ex gays who DO claim that being so helps THEM, helps OTHERS and so therefore, ALL gay people are to do it. Ex gays extol, as you did, the virtues of their therapy and therapists (further enabling and empowering the therapists) and defend their conversion as strictly a personal choice and no one else’s business.
But it IS made other people’s business (such as the politicians and anti gay) and it’s a BIG business.
For which other gay people are made to pay for with THEIR happiness and social acceptance BECAUSE people like Byrd are empowered, and influence political and civil policy.
And the melodrama about breaking up your family or ceasing to exist isn’t the point. What you can do about it, is NOTHING.
And THAT is my point.
What’s done is done and you’ve done what you wanted and got what you wanted.
I said I get that. There IS nothing you can do but keep living your life and just DO it.
It doesn’t matter that few people know that you PERSONALLY haven’t told anyone that you’d converted.
Byrd could and DID influence a lot else, even if YOU didn’t, personally.
Look at how many people DO advertise conversion and how it only takes a few people for such demand that conversion is the preferred condition is VIRAL against the lives of gay people?
Spitzer only talked to a few hundred people, and just LOOK at what happened with that.
What I’m trying to demonstrate, is that you like to think it’s just between you and your therapist. It’s NOT.
This is a deeply socio/ political issue as well.
Not so confidential, nor kept that way as far as some of the therapists are concerned.
You, typical of each and every ex gay I EVER spoke to: keeps talking about this in first person, self involved terms. As if it’s only themselves in this and no one else is effected.
As if there is no collective of you doing a great deal of damage to the credibility of gay people, who can’t afford it and never could.
So if you’re going to be ex gay, then BE it. It’s not as defensible at this point, as you wish it were as a personal matter.
Homosexuality is used as a character and value judgement. You’ve judged it that way too. That’s what you brokered yourself on.
And those who are powerful and can and do use it as a means of restricting some very basic civil rights for gay people. And very typical of ex gays, you go right into denial about the weight of it and refuse to take that weight.
It’s the very burden you don’t want to share, and deny you’re adding to it.
You’re not the only one who does it, firstamom.
Which leads me to think it’s part of the character of people who don’t want the weight of being gay, OR being ex gay.
In other words, taking what they think is the safe straddle. And being safe, is what it’s ALL about for ex gays.
And yeah, if you hadn’t reacted the same way they all do, I would consider your responses something unique to YOU.
But your response is not unique at all. It’s just a SAFE response so you can handle things the way you want to without accountability.
This isn’t about ME feeling better. I’m not so selfish. I don’t have a dog in this fight, and don’t have to give a shit about gay people or what they deal with.
I’m EVER hetero, remember?
I don’t do this to feel better. I’m in it because it’s the right thing to do, it’s GOT to be done and I’m NEVER afraid to do something unpopular, difficult or dirty.
Stay safe, where you want to be and good luck to you, okay?
And those of us who have to do the rest of it, will do it as we always have, without you.
FirstaMom,
Thank you for that update, it does help connect the dots. I honestly think the hardest job in the world is raising kids, particularly for the Mom as they are the primary focus in younger years from the child’s perspective and require her attention beyond all others. They take one emotionally and physically to task like no other thing possible on an ongoing basis in my opinion. They can be both the greatest joys and the greatest difficulties. So when you say you did what you did for your children, their is no greater and honest reason than their well being. Could there be a goal more noble? I don’t think so.
I don’t get you are in any way anti-gay. You seem to have systematically done what you feel necessary to attain your goals, which you seem to have done. And with full disclosure which is honorable.
As far as Byrd goes, we all are good at our core and we all have our dark and light sides. Byrd had his but it seems from your comments he had a great side to him that was helpful to many. That is relevant. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I do find your story very interesting and though this culture war over gay marriage is a platform for healing that sends most of us through the roof sometimes, any comments you might have would surely be welcomed. Don’t be a stranger if you have more you’d like to say, your input has been well worth the read.
I wish you the best with your continued adventure of designing the family of your dreams.
If I didn’t praise you as a mother, instamom, why would you assume that I had something against you being a mom?
I have not now, nor EVER said anything against YOU and your commitment to your marriage and family.
So there was no need to be defensive about it, unless I DID specifically say something against you AS a wife and mother.
I have no praise for Byrd and his work and I’m not obligated to.
See the difference?
My criticism is essentially about ex gays denying they aren’t part of the problem of gay credibility, and most importantly, that the ex gay business IS a part of the discrimination process and anti gay politics and public policy.
These might be tough truths to accept, but they ARE the truth.
There also is a fragile insecurity among ex gays that if they aren’t being praised, than it’s criticism by omission. I’m not so obtuse. If I had a problem with you as a mother and wife, believe me, I would have said so.
I don’t.
There is no reason to be.
But we do get a boat load of obtuse from ex gays on what their conversion does to OTHER people and how their conversion is useful to the anti gay.
Just sayin’.
Regan, I agree the existence of exgays (including myself) does not help. Mostly because some use it to beat gays over the head with. Also, our cases are used to to encourage people to enter therapy that have no business trying it. So I can think of two strategies 1. Put guidelines in place for it’s use by therapists, and start an education campaign for the public so that everyone knows it’s low success rate and potential for harm. Or 2. Educate the public about it’s potential for harm, claim no one can reorient and ban the therapy. Honestly, the latter seems much more difficult to accomplish to me because it’s not 100% true and there are personal rights issues that will cause problems. Is the first strategy idealistic? Maybe. Unrealistic? I don’t think so. I’m sure there are other strategies out there too
iDavid, Thanks. If you really don’t think it’s inappropriate, I would like to make some comments about the Spitzer retraction, but I’m out of time. We are leaving for a week to where internet access is $35 an hour so I won’t be posting. When I get back I could post, but it might be old news by then. Anyway, thanks for the invite.
I appreciate your comment, firstamom.
Your ideas that ARE being tried, are still a matter of giving too much oxygen to an issue that keeps stealing it from who needs it most. People like, Dr. Michael Brown, Tony Perkins, reps of PFOX and other anti gay individuals quickly cast themselves as victims of censorship and discrimination.
School administrators and legislatures in different states and school districts do the same thing.
Their push back is strong, however rather insane or spiteful.
As for option 1. Not a bad idea, really.
As for option 2. If you believe option two will be harder to accomplish because “it’s not 100% true” it’s certainly unfair for you to assume that of something that hasn’t been tried yet. It’s been difficult to educate the public on the nature of sexual orientation, at all. Whether it’s homosexuality, asexuality or bi-sexuality. And the nature of coercive and threatening social pressure to abandon all BUT heterosexuality. That honest conversation on a serious and widespread level has yet to happen.
So let’s at least get THAT far first, and let gay people be the ones to educate on homosexuality since they’ve had the least amount of time to do so. Compared to anyone else.
After all, they have put up with a lot more because of it.
Look forward to having you back when you return from your travels.
Regan, I have a few minutes. You said, “So let’s at least get THAT far first, and let gay people be the ones to educate on homosexuality”. That’s a really good point. I hadn’t considered going for option 2 first, then when most of the ignorance has been eradicated, open the door a crack and move into option 1. It seems like a natural progression. Kind of like a pendulum. Exgays like me would take the hit for a time, but gays have taken the hits for so long that it seems more than fair. Administering controls and guidelines on reorientation therapy would be much more successful in an environment where homophobic discrimination has gone extinct. The new generations coming up seem super comfortable with homosexuality so it may not even be very long before we get there. 50 years maybe (wild guess). I really like strategy #3 mostly because it eventually allows a measure of individual choice. I still think #2 is going to be hard to accomplish though. Okay, now that we’ve solved world peace, I need to finish packing. HaHa.
It might clarify this issue if we remember that “ex-gay” is an ideological position, not a state of being. Also, while it is perfectly reasonable to think that some people had positive experiences with Byrd, that does not negate what he did with much of his professional clout. For instance, it was Byrd that was behind this nonsense, which has rippled through countless publications and caused untold confusion.
This is an example of professional dishonesty. In this case, perhaps not having personal experience with the man allows for a more objective view of his work, rather than vice versa. For all I know he may have been a wonderful spouse and kind to children and small animals alike, but that is hardly the point.
I’m not afraid of what’s hard, or unpopular. That’s the thing about us serious civil rights activists, firstamom.
We know how to FIGHT and hard, and do what it takes. We aren’t fence sitters and we don’t wait for when it’s safe and the coast is clear. And we get a lot DONE.
So, you might think it’s amusing, and might take 50 years. Our country is still paying dearly for Jim Crow.
So WHAT if it’s hard? Hard is why it’s worth fighting for. There will be something to point to, and look back on and I’ll remember I was THERE when it was hard. I’ve worked for more than half my life for gay equality.
I was there to take some of the bruises.
At the end of the day, between us, the real question is: were YOU?
And Chuck Colson has Joined him!
Not gonna weep or express any regret about Colson either.
@Regan DuCasse
As with Byrd, I feel for Colson’s family and their loss. However, Colson did a lot of damage during his life. It is sad that he did not recognize that before passing away, but it is a good thing that it has stopped. It is hard for me to get excited over the death of another human being, and I’m honestly glad that it is. I don’t mean to sound self-righteous — that’s just how I feel. I think we lose a bit of our humanity when we celebrate such things. But I see nothing wrong with acknowledging that a negative influence is now silent.
I don’t celebrate the death of anyone either. And I have expressed NO joy or encouraged it at the deaths of Byrd or Colson. I merely stated that I won’t weep.
It’s a shame that my honesty is judged as something at an extreme that never happened.
Tact isn’t even that necessary.
Why? Because this isn’t a memorial site for either Byrd or Colson, that’s why.
And the most likely people who do frequent this site, were harmed the most by both men.
Fair?
The oppressed are relieved when their oppressor dies. Because that is final, the oppression from the deceased has permanently stopped.
I Think Rainbow Phoenix over at TWO made the best comment ever-
Puts things in their proper perspective for me, apparently not for you David R, but for me it does.