You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
Dan Savage wrote an excellent op-ed in The New York Times Today titled, "Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be 'Ex-Gay' Cowboys." According to Savage:
"Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight. If they don't think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one?"
Sounds like a great question to ask. How much do you want to bet the right wing spokespeople refuse to answer?
25 Comments:
"Doorknob Dan" is at it again, it appears.
So what if an always ('til that point)-gay man falls in love with a girl and sets up his permanent ranch with her? It's happened before and will happen again. How does that hurt him?
Sounds to me as if he's as afraid of ex-gays as many evangelical Christians are of gay people...
posted by Anonymous, at
2/10/2006 10:20 AM
Yeah - right, he's "scared" of ex-gays. No, just scared of ruining the lives of women who get caught up in the cheap charade.
If anyone is "afraid" it is ex-gay leaders who won't even see Brokeback Mountain because they are terrified they will immediately leave the movie theeatre and head to an Adult Theatre.
Don't you ever worry that when you start calling people names you're going to sound like you've got absolutely NOTHING of substance to add to an argument?
What I said was, if THESE guys (who essentially claim they're 100% gay) can fall for women, how can there not be true ex-gays (who've both fallen in love with a woman and who are no longer gay, whatever "gay" truly is) elsewhere?
posted by Anonymous, at
2/10/2006 11:39 AM
When the only people claiming such nonsense are tied to (and usually paid by right wing groups) this gives me a pretty big indication there is no such thing as an "ex-gay".
Interestingly, with all of the publicity and millions of dollars spent by these groups, there are still no real ex-gays - just employees of Focus on the Family and Exodus.
Why are the same five ex-gays on all of the advertisments? (All professional ex-gays)?
Maybe because ex-gays are not real and it is a political identity.
Finally, Anonymous attacked the "name calling" but never addressed the substance. When you lose the arguement, it is very unchristian and convenient to change the subject.
Jim in Nashville, by the "ex-gays" are you referring to the four articles I linked to (in the U.K. Guardian, Tom Robinson's site, Instinct magazine and the Advocate (cached from Google).
Did you even read those links? (I'll give you a hint...doesn't look like evangelical Christianity was at all involved in those the "uber-gay-man-falls-in-love-with-a-woman" stories.)
Since you're talking about addressing the substance, I'll ask for the third time:
If THOSE aforementioned guys (who essentially claim they're 100% gay) can fall for women, how can there not be true ex-gays (who've both fallen in love with a woman and who are no longer gay, whatever "gay" truly is) elsewhere?
posted by Anonymous, at
2/10/2006 12:28 PM
Anonymous:
You don't address the true subject. The characters in Brokeback had married and were still gay - and miserable for living a lie. How healthy is that?
It is a shame you have so little regard for women, that you would want to trap them in lovless marriages.
Are you suggesting that all gay people can change? If so, can all straight people?
Your main arguement is essentially baseless. It says - we have found a couple of isolate people who "claim" something, therefire it must be true. This is a typical trick of the ex-gay con artists.
Well, the Heavens Gate cult also found people to shave their heads, castrate themselves and wait for aliens to beam them up to Heaven. Just because a few people engage in an atypical behavior - how does that represent humanity or influence the dabate? Hell, you can find weirdos to say just about anything - including yourself.
posted by Anonymous, at
2/10/2006 12:47 PM
BTW anon, i'm the one who mentioned the book Born Gay. The authors did not say there was no such thing as bisexual; their research showed that it was a much rarer phenomenon than most would expect AND that it's more common in women than men.
posted by Anonymous, at
2/10/2006 12:50 PM
"You don't address the true subject. The characters in Brokeback had married and were still gay - and miserable for living a lie. How healthy is that?"
(Because that was not my original queston: "Why is Dan Savage afraid of ex-gays?")
"It is a shame you have so little regard for women, that you would want to trap them in lovless marriages."
(When did I say I want to do that?)
"Are you suggesting that all gay people can change? If so, can all straight people?"
(I never even hinted at that. When you bring "straight people" into it, see my answer below.)
Your main arguement is essentially baseless. It says - we have found a couple of isolate people who "claim" something, therefire it must be true. This is a typical trick of the ex-gay con artists.
(No, what this proves is that you didn't even read the articles I linked above, because said articles are about people who are most assuredly on your side and not that of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc.
- Russell "Queer as folk" Davies found that he, as well as a bunch of others, had prejudice in their hearts against gay people who fell in love with people of the opposite sex...just as much, I daresay, as Fred Phelps has against gays, given the letters Davies says he received.
(And isn't it interested where he appears to say that gay liberation was NOT about the freedom to love whomever you want.)
- Tom Robinson, once perhaps Britain's most visible gay man, says he's hearing from gay people in ever-increasing numbers who appear to want to love whomever they want (ostensibly as long as that person is a consenting adult), same- or opposite-sex, and still be "gay".
- The "Instinct" article cites therapists and so-called experts on the field who say the same thing...that we're moving into a time when gay people essentially SHOULD have the freedom (and the blessing from the GLBT community) to get into opposite-sex relationships.
Read any of those articles I cited and find me any sympathy for ex-gays and groups like FOTF or Exodus. I dare you.)
"Well, the Heavens Gate cult also found people to shave their heads, castrate themselves and wait for aliens to beam them up to Heaven. Just because a few people engage in an atypical behavior - how does that represent humanity or influence the dabate? Hell, you can find weirdos to say just about anything - including yourself."
(Again, why the need for name-calling?
What are you going to do when what you believe is "atypical" (gays and lesbians falling in love with the opposite sex, perhaps permanently) becomes typical.
Go fantasize violence against the opposite-sex partners who "made them do it", like Davies' letter writers apparently did?)
posted by Anonymous, at
2/10/2006 1:12 PM
Come on, "independent thinkers"...THINK!
If THOSE aforementioned guys (who essentially claim they're 100% gay) can fall for women, how can there not be true ex-gays (who've both fallen in love with a woman and who are no longer gay, whatever "gay" truly is) elsewhere?
And WHY are we hearing from gay people (i.e. Russell Davies, Tom Robinson) who say that there are increasing numbers of gay/lesbian people falling in love with the opposite sex, and that there's deep prejudice in the gay community when it comes to this subject?
(My answer...I sure don't think there's that much money in it for them...)
posted by Anonymous, at
2/10/2006 1:17 PM
Why would there not be "deep prejudice" (your words) against people who say, "You're not right as you are in the eyes of God, and you must change who you fall in love with." The idea is fantastic in its offense.
When it comes to "ex-gays", people like you conveniently espouse the "we deserve respect" doctrine, but only when it serves to benefit you and people like you.
You are an abject hypocrite. NEVER have people like you simply respected anyone's sexual orientation. The very existence of ex-gay ministries is a testament to your unending duplicity. To this very day, you fight to allow an employer to fire someone merely becaue of their sexual orientation.
You fight to deny HEALTH INSURANCE to the partners of gay men and women. You fight to allow landlords to put gay tenants out on the street. And most disgusting of all, you do it in the name of God. Is it any wonder that we are sickened by people like you?
You want respect for what you claim is YOUR sexuality? Fine, respect ours and it will certainly be forthcoming.
You have been fighting the civil rights and equality of gay and lesbian people for decades. And now you complain about the "prejudice" in the GAY community? You've got to be kidding. You have built fraudulent, million-dollar businesses based upon theories which are condemned by all major mental health organizations in America.
Your organizations were and are led by people like John Paulk who couldn't even keep himself out of a sleazy gay bar in Washington D.C, all the while preaching the very philosophy that you now espouse on this board. The current leader of Exodus, Alan Chambers, admits that he is still "tempted". And you ask why we don't take this nonsense seriously? You've got to be kidding.
I can only speak for myself, but I have no problem with any individual or who they fall in love with. If a gay male friend of mine told me that he's fallen in love with a woman, I'd be his best man at the wedding if he wanted me to be. It would be his happiness and the authenticity of his life that I cared about, not the gender of his spouse.
It is when you try to push your experience upon others and demand that they follow the same path; that is where you go wrong, and that is when you offend.
posted by Anonymous, at
2/10/2006 2:08 PM
Chris,
You don't know a thing about what I think about those other things I mentioned, do you? (For one, rather than "pushing experience", I believe no one should ever be coerced, shamed (including by his/her family), browbeaten or forced into any kind of ex-gay ministry. One CERTAINLY couldn't force attraction of the type illustrated in the Davies, Robinson, etc. stories.)
However,here's the only thing you responded remotely connected to what I was asking about:
"I can only speak for myself, but I have no problem with any individual or who they fall in love with. If a gay male friend of mine told me that he's fallen in love with a woman, I'd be his best man at the wedding if he wanted me to be. It would be his happiness and the authenticity of his life that I cared about, not the gender of his spouse."
The articles that "anonymous" cites simply reflect the flowing continuim of human sexuality. When romantic love happens naturally, it's a beautiful thing. However, the so-called ex-gay "movement" does not tolerate the normal flow of human sexuality. It demands strict conformity to it's narrow religious view. Ex-gays are not gay men who just happen to fall in love with women. These are people who have been taught that same-sex love is sinful and evil and must be overcome. When it can't be overcome, these vulnerable people are filled with self-loathing and shame. I've known many people who were hurt by Exodus and the like. They are set up for a devastating fall and it's painful to see.
posted by Sam, at
2/10/2006 3:10 PM
Anonymous, You shouldn't complain about people calling others names when you yourself called someone a doornob. I'm curious as to why you keep coming back to this site. You don't sound like a religious fanatic or a reparative theorist so why are you so interested? Are you an ex-gay or do you know some personally? I just wonder what motivates you. I realize that the validity of ones arguments are not affected by ones motives but I'm curious as to why you're here. Are you just an iconoclast at heart?
posted by Anonymous, at
2/10/2006 11:13 PM
With all this debate over whether gay people can go straight, perhaps not enough attention has been payed to a different quesiton: what difference does it make? The main reason why gay activists argue that it's a good idea to make the public believe that gay people cannot go straight is because more people will support gay rights if they believe that.
In other words, they want to get support from people who wouldn't ordinarily support gay rights, but would if they could be convinced that sexual orientation cannot be changed. Perhaps a more honest approach - given that it's completely unclear whether sexual orientation can be changed or not - would be to tell those people that gay people deserve their rights regardless of whether orientation change is possible or not.
posted by Anonymous, at
2/12/2006 12:43 AM
Regan: Your posts are phenomenal - you have incredible perspective and I thank you SO much for posting here! Regards the last anonymous post, however, I have to say it appears to me that most advocates of gay rights DO strongly insist that sexual orientation cannot be changed, is probably something we are born with, and do so in large part to influence others to support us as well. Given that most gay people experience themselves as having same sex attractions since early childhood and many have tried to change and found the effort ridiculous at best and severely harmful at worst, I understand their position. But an even stronger position to take is that *it should not matter* whether we are born lgbt or not, *it should not matter* if we can force ourselves to act against our inner selves and *it should not matter* if some few people happen to experience what amounts, in our eyes or their own, to a change in orientation. ALL of us deserve equal protections under the law regardless of these things (which are all details anyway, the essential thing is our humanity which, last time I checked, came with an automatic value that deserves to be respected), and that equal protection is precisely what we do not have. And should. I think that is a MUCH stronger argument than saying, in essence, Gee we're helpless to change and become like you so please give us our rights. I think that puts us in a very weak position. And leaves us wasting a great deal of time and energy debating issues of science (embryology, etc) when we ought to be looking at the plain facts, lgbt people do NOT receive equal legal standing with non-lgbts.
posted by Anonymous, at
2/12/2006 12:11 PM
All I have to say is this: in my 16 years as a participant in ex-gay ministries I have NEVER met a true ex-gay. It does not exist.
posted by Anonymous, at
2/12/2006 7:36 PM
Ex-Gay is such Bullshit. I was in the minitries for three years and sucked at least a dozen cocks from "healed" members.
I'm sorry, but the whole thing is a joke and a charade. Ex-Gay political leaders know better. But they are the Uncle Toms of the GLBT community. Shame on them for the lies and deciet. And, for having sex with people like me when they were supposed to be "healing" me. It is all so sick, twisted and utterly pathological.
As a married gay man, who now lives to regret the pain that I have caused to my soon to be divorced wife and to my children, I can truly say that sexuality is imprinted very early and all the fighting and ex-gay stuff will not change that. I bought into the lie that Christians can not be gay and for over 20 years have hid behind an unhappy marriage. Let's face facts: we are who we are. The seven passages of the Bible have been sorely taken out of context and we should be free to love. Let's stop the madness and begin to face facts!
posted by Anonymous, at
2/12/2006 11:32 PM
"Then by what definition was this man EVER gay?" (You may have meant to say "these men".)
Because (t)he(y) (Russell Davies speaking of his friend, The Advocate web editor, the multiple guys interviewed by Instinct magazine, "Britain's (former) #1 gay" Tom Robinson) all SAY that they're gay.
And yet people here keep chanting "There are no ex-gays...there are no ex-gays..." like a mantra.
I'm not denying the experience of anyone here...sad to hear anyone here who has had the experiences with ex-gay ministries some of you have.
Common sense, and those above articles along with other people I've known, make it hard for me to believe that there are no ex-gays. In fact, a very gay man I know who's also a scientist insists that (since we're "animals") given what we know about the animal kingdom it would only be unusual if we humans DIDN'T sometimes see the "gayest of the gay" men become heterosexual.
Then again, this begs the question: "What IS 'gay'?"
posted by Anonymous, at
2/13/2006 4:43 PM
Has any one here heard of a good book called "Any thing but straight?" by Wayne Besen? it may shed some light on the subject matter
posted by Anonymous, at
2/14/2006 8:47 PM
ok, ok it is about time that I spoke up... I'm an ex-straight man. contrary to popular opinion we DO exist. Its a choice even the straightest man can make - even you! It took me years of bath house brainwashing but I'm happy to say that I'm finally here and I'm queer. now I still fantasize about woman when I'm doin it and I have to catch myself from doing a double take when a hot chick walks by but I'm gay now I just know it. I rarely even go into straight bars anymore. I've got all the stereotypes down - and I even know what a show tune is now. most important i've got a boyfriend so that makes me gay right? I suppose some of you will denounce me for "living a lie" but hell if christians say its good enough for ex-gays to lie to women and get married then its good enough for me! wow, lying about sex is now ok - hey mr. clinton, wait, come back...
posted by Anonymous, at
2/16/2006 10:33 PM
