Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

By DAVID CRARY
AP National Writer

NEW YORK -- Evangelical leader Ted Haggard, in apologizing for contacts with a gay prostitute, said he had sought help to combat a "repulsive and dark" side of his life -- but no approach had proven effective.

Even as he pledges to undergo further counseling, Haggard's comments have rekindled debate over the controversial premise that people can overcome same-sex attractions through "reparative therapy." It's a concept espoused by many religious conservatives, and disputed by many mental health experts.

"Haggard is Exhibit A of how people can't change their sexual orientation," said Wayne Besen, a gay-rights activist and author. "With all that he had to lose -- a wife, children, a huge church -- he had to be who he was in the end. He couldn't pray away the gay."

Haggard denied some of the prostitute's claims but confessed to "sexual immorality" and resigned earlier this month as pastor of his 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado. He gave up the presidency of the National Association of Evangelicals.

"There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he wrote to his congregation. "Through the years, I've sought assistance in a variety of ways, with none of them proving to be effective in me."

Haggard did not specify how he had sought help or describe the healing-and-restoration program he vows to pursue now -- but did say he deserved to be "disciplined and corrected."

Clinton Anderson, director of the American Psychological Association's Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns Office, found Haggard's statement dismaying.

"There's a profound sadness that someone should be saddled culturally with such a negative attitude toward a part of themselves," Anderson said. "From our vantage point as psychologists, his self-repulsion is not necessary, it's not justified."

California psychologist Joseph Nicolosi -- a leading advocate of reparative therapy -- said such second-guessing of Haggard was inappropriate.

"If this man is saying, 'This is a part of me that I abhor,' why can't we respect that?" Nicolosi asked. "Why do we have to attribute that to something external and take away the dignity of the individual to express how he feels?"

Nicolosi is president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), representing therapists who believe it's appropriate to help clients try to change their sexual orientation. Some take a secular, psychoanalytical approach; other allies of NARTH favor prayer-based counseling.

Nicolosi suggested that he could help Haggard if the evangelist was prepared for "deep, emotional work."

"We're talking about looking at your life squarely in the eye -- facing the realities that you did not get certain central affirmations from your mother or your father," Nicolosi said.

NARTH's views are considered fringe by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. Both declared in the 1970s that homosexuality was not a mental disorder and does not warrant a "cure."

"There's nothing good that can come from conversion therapy," said Doug Haldeman, a Seattle psychologist who specializes in gay-related issues. "The wreckage left behind, for some who go through it, is frightening -- they're depressed, suicidal."

Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York City psychiatrist who wrote "Psychoanalytic Therapy and the Gay Man," said reparative therapy's proponents ignore its potential for causing harm. "They're selling you something without any warning of what might go wrong," he said.

There have been numerous studies, with varying conclusions, on how homosexuality originates and whether it can be changed. But there has been no authoritative study -- accepted by both sides -- examining the effectiveness and possible ill-effects of reparative therapy.

At its national convention this summer, the American Psychological Association was pressed by NARTH about its stance on reparative therapy. APA leaders said they did not oppose people voluntarily seeking to change their sexual orientation, but said therapists should warn that treatment could prove harmful and be sure the client wasn't motivated mainly by social pressure.

The APA also said the positions of NARTH and its allies "create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish."

Nicolosi said NARTH opposes anti-gay prejudice, but he contended that social factors which trouble gays are a legitimate reason for seeking therapy. "It's more difficult to live as a gay man than as a heterosexual," he said. "We wish to respond to those clients who feel that it is. ... It's irrelevant if it's society's fault."

Nicolosi is a regular participant in Love Won Out, a series of conferences organized by the Christian ministry Focus on the Family as part of what is known as the ex-gay movement. The conferences, often protested by gay-rights supporters, spread the message that "a homosexual identity is something that can be overcome."

Another Love Won Out regular is Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, a network of ministries promoting "freedom from homosexuality" through Christian faith.

Chambers, who says he changed his own sexual orientation through religious counseling, expressed empathy with Haggard, saying, "We're all susceptible to temptation."

As for Haggard's future, Chambers said: "If someone says they want to change because of their faith-based convictions, you have to honor that. There has to be a real desire and motivation on the part of the person to change."

67 Comments:

What does it matter to anyone if Haggard chooses his wife over gay life???
posted by Anonymous, at 11/15/2006 6:38 PM

Anonymous, its obvious he never chose his wife over gay life as you call it, otherwise he wouldn't be in the predicament he's in now. He was always gay from the day he married his wife but chose to ignore it, thereby deceiving himself, his wife, and others. Its caught up with him like it does with everyone who marries knowing they are gay. You can't marry away the gay let alone pray it away. Truth always wins in the end.

Robert, NYC.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/15/2006 6:53 PM

well after reading this, a couple things come to mind, 1 Why is it that because he happen to have gay sex that they feel they have to put him through counseling. I seriously doubt they would be urgeing him to go through counseling if he had a affair with a female as many in the religious community do,well the ones that don't get cought.
2 instead of this so called Half ass Exorcisim that will add to the inner guilt& damage that he already suffers, he would be better off going to counseling to help learn to love and accept himself.
He could always become a pastor for MCC, he does'nt have to go back to a church that is saying he has to change before they take him back.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/15/2006 8:54 PM

Well, if he decides not to leave his wife and stya with heer - then what - you can read his mind???
posted by Anonymous, at 11/15/2006 10:19 PM

Anonymous: Maybe his wife will choose to leave him regardless of what he feels? I'd say that's a more likely scenario.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/16/2006 6:12 AM

I, for one, am sooooo sick and tired of hearing that my being gay is because of some "emontionaly absent mother or father" in my life. What an ignorant idea! I had, and still have, to this day one, of the closest families in existence. I wish that phrase would go away!
posted by Anonymous, at 11/16/2006 6:58 AM

I too came from a loving home with two equally loving supportive parents, neither of whom bestowed more love than the other, their love for me was unconditional yet I am gay. I did all the things that young boys were supposed to do growing up, but the fact is, I'm still gay and happy. How do the NARTH bigots explain that? I think they're all a bunch of closeted Ted Haggards and why do they obsess so much about our sexuality? If they were that secure about their own, then maybe they wouldn't be so interested in ours. The ones who protest too much are the ones most suspect.

Robert, NYC.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/16/2006 8:24 AM

I Agree,
I hate it when they assume all these things as to why they think made us gay, I also had a happy childhood and healthy family relationship.

Ken
posted by Anonymous, at 11/16/2006 10:07 AM

This is an interesting thread.

I really enjoyed "Anything But Straight" because I think it exposes the politicization and exploitation of people whose sexual orientation changes.

However, from personal experience, I have to say that it does change. To say it is "fixed" is just as dogmatic and pseudoscientific as to say there is any particular thing that can deliberately change it.

Doesn't it make more sense to pursue a society that respects the fact that we all have unique wants, needs and desires? That we all learn, grow and develop over time? Shouldn't everyone want a society where we are free to do that?

I'm afraid the gay movement has gotten so "sold" on the idea of "inborn" sexual orientation that it has become a dogma in and of itself. Then if someone changes, it is taken as an affront to the idea of equality (because of the way the right-wing uses the idea of change).

Becoming straight can be a hard thing to come to terms with, especially if one enjoyed the gay identity as much as gay sex. New desires and feelings have to be accepted, old ones fade away, leaving the individual wondering "why do I feel different now" -- "why can't I get into gay attractions anymore" "why do I want and need different things now?"

People in this situation find the mental health community often won't help address these questions because of all the uproar against ex-gays. Worse yet, the religious community often simply wants to exploit the change. Yet very few want to understand it.

The argument shouldn't be about whether people change from gay to straight, or vice versa. The argument should be about how much we respect the uniqe life journey of each person.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/16/2006 10:41 AM

Insist that sexual orientation can change, despite evidence to the contrary. Depict the desire to "convert" as a freedom of choice issue. Portray religious bigots and Gay activists as having been cut from the same cloth. "Anonymous" gets an "A" for adherence to "ex-Gay" talking points, and an "F" for indulgence in falsehood! The previous comment is a textbook example of stealth antihomosexual rhetoric, and believe me, despite its seemingly reasonable tone, it is every bit as dangerous as a vitriol-dripping diatribe from the likes of James Dobson. One more important thing to note about stealth rhetoric: Those who engage in it on blogs like this one almost never have the courage to give their names!
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at 11/16/2006 11:43 AM

Well for me, It's not a problem about some one who says they used to be gay and changed, chances are he/she may have been Bi sexual all along, It just bothers me that these Ex-gay people spread this notion that 'all' gay paople can change just because a very few have for whatever reason, possibly they may just have been so un-attractive to have any luck meeting someone of the same sex.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/16/2006 11:50 AM

So ol' Joe (Daddy, show me your big penis) Nicolosi is going to attempt to "treat" Preacher Haggard. No doubt it will involve "laying on of hands"...:)
posted by Anonymous, at 11/16/2006 1:35 PM

Well; I don't know if "Stuffed Animal" is a real name that can be regarded as anything but anonymous.

Also I contribute alot of money to HRC and other gay causes, even though I'm not gay anymore, and I loathe the religious right -- which is neither.

Also, it is helpful to be mindful of pseudo-science. You can't scientifically prove (or provide evidence) that "sexual orientation" changes or doesn't change unless you can prove that it is "fixed" in the first place.

There is no evidence that sexual orientation doesn't change. There is simply no evidence as to how and why it does. It's much easier to de-bunk a "reparative therapy" treatment than it is to disprove that sexual orientation itself does change in many cases.

Science knows it happens -- but acknowledges it is a mystery. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

So if "evidence" can't prove that anyone was ever gay to begin with, it will never prove that anyone changed (or why).

It's like trying to "prove" whether people who don't like strawberries as children may find they strongly prefer them later in life. Serious science would rightly scoff at such a proposition.

You can't "prove" or "disprove" what someone wants, needs or desires -- or how those wants needs and desires are different from one period in life to the next.

The whole idea of trying to scientifically "prove" affairs of the heart has never really worked -- and despite the wishful thinking of the gay movement and the "ex-gay" movement; serious science will look skeptically on those who claim to have "evidence" on the subject.

I maintain -- sexual orentation is unique to each person, grows with each person -- and is a fundamental right to which each person is entitled (if it changes, then so be it).
posted by Anonymous, at 11/16/2006 1:42 PM

"I don't know if 'Stuffed Animal' is a real name that can be regarded as anything but anonymous."

My picture appears on my blog. Click my name, and you'll see it. I can't be anonymous if people know what I look like, now can I? From my blog, you can also click my profile and view my résumé. I have publications. Anybody who really wants to know my given name can find it pretty easily. Where's YOUR picture posted, babyface? How do we find out what your given name is?

"I contribute a lot of money to HRC and other Gay causes, even though I'm not Gay anymore"

We only have your word for that, don't we? That is, unless you're willing to post check stubs online and reveal your secret identity. Consider yourself challenged to do just that! BTW, do you also give financial support to "ex-Gay" organizations? You support their claims, so it'd make sense if you did. Let's have a look at those check stubs, too.

"it is helpful to be mindful of pseudo-science."

It is, isn't it? How else could we recognize it? I recognized that you were employing pseudo scientific rhetoric as soon as I read your statement about "absence of proof", and also from your ludicrous attempt to equate sexual orientation with taste in fruit. I DO hope you weren't trying to convey something snide with the fruit reference . . . were you?

"You can't 'prove' or 'disprove' what someone wants, needs or desires, or how those wants needs and desires are different from one period in life to the next. The whole idea of trying to scientifically 'prove' affairs of the heart has never really worked . . . serious science will look skeptically on those who claim to have "evidence" on the subject."

You can't have it both ways, you know! You can't on the one hand say science can't prove anything about sexual orientation and then on the other hand try to use scientific deduction to lay a groundwork for fluid sexual orientation. You accomplish nothing except to show everyone how desperate you are to appear knowledgeable about a subject you understand even less than those you seek to discredit.

"sexual orientation is unique to each person, grows with each person, and is a fundamental right to which each person is entitled"

Now, this is the most ridiculous statement you've ever made (and you've made quite a few)! I dare you to find the "right" to have a sexual orientation written in the Constitution. I dare you to find it written in any constitution in the whole world! Consider yourself challenged a second time. Needless to say, sexual orientation is not a "right." It's an expression of an inherent state. In my opinion, that inherent state is gender. I believe all true LGBT folk possess a variation of conventional gender. However, I don't have an obsessive need for others to believe what I believe, I don't constantly try to ram my belief down people's throats, and I don't carry water for any political or religious organization. All of which applies to you.

Reading what you've written here, one would think you were arguing that sexual orientation can change of its own accord. Some might think that a reasonable argument. Only that's not your true argument! Your previous posts make it clear that you say sexual orientation can change when people WANT it to change. In other words, you're arguing that human beings can acquire the power of God, and that's anything but reasonable!

God is the factor your twisted analysis fails to take into account. The Lord creates and imparts what we call sexual orientation. The only changes human beings can make to what God has created are cosmetic changes. We can't "correct" God's work, because He doesn't make mistakes. Nor does He give us our physical traits based on whether we like them or not. It's a sin to oppose God's will, and you shamelessly commit that sin over and over again.

You and your ideological friends at NARTH, Exodus and Focus On The Family remind me of Satan when he tempted Jesus Christ in the wilderness. You repeatedly try to convince Gay people to test God, to make Him jump through hoops for them. Since you choose to emulate the Devil, I'll say to you what the Savior said to him in the 4th and 16th chapters of Matthew: "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test . . . get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me! You don't have in mind the things of God, but the things of men!"
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at 11/16/2006 5:21 PM

Anonymous ast 10:41 a.m., your comments about your persona change of desire are very interesting, as are the follow-on comments.

In fact, Wayne does rather allow that some people might at least apparently experience a change in desire - see for example his remarks on page xvi of the Preface to Anything But Straight. What he points out with coruscating clarity, however, is the total lack of evidence that any person has ever changed desire due to any kind of clinical therapy, and the plenitude of evidence of 'kidology' associated with "reparative therapy".

In the Spitzer study, Doctor Spitzer reported that a few of the 200 people he telephoned, reported a change in sexual feeling that Dr Spitzer believed was a true report. What the study did not in the slightest establish however, was that any such change in any person was due to any therapy at all.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/16/2006 5:27 PM

Yay. That's my vote.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/16/2006 5:55 PM

Yes of course Phil, if people were in therapy to change their sexual feelings and their sexual feelings changed it must have been coincidence - you are so very smart to point this out.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 12:56 AM

Hahahahaha. It's all just coincidence. Okay that's a new one.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 2:55 AM

Anonymous at 12:56, that was not my point.

However, I am interested to learn of any published clinical evidence establishing a link between any form of clinical therapy and a change of sexual desire. If you know of any such evidence I would be most interested to learn of it. Thank you.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 7:28 AM

Well;

A few things come to mind. First of all, if you scroll my earlier post, I never say anything about rights in legal terms. When I say everyone has a "right" to something, I mean everyone has a moral and ethical right -- it's not a constitutional or legal claim and I never presented it as such.

Second of all; I don't have any friends at NARTH. In fact I don't even know any NARTH members personally.

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence" was a favorite expression of the late Carl Sagan -- if it's a pseudoscientific rationale, I guess Sagan was a pseoudo-scientist as well.

Third of all; I never said anyone could or should change sexual orientation "on puropose".

You will never find any chemical or physical evidence that someone changes from gay to straight because you must first find chemical or physical evidence that someone wasy gay to begin with. It's just not a physical chemical thing.

Also if you look at my posts, I never lay out any scientific argument to "prove" sexual orientation is fluid. I say the issue is simply not an appropriate question for scientific inquiry.

It's about life, and each person's own emotional and mental ways of responding to life. That falls firmly within the "humanities" -- not within the sciences.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 8:52 AM

Anonymous, you who contributes to HRC and is no longer gay???? Can NARTH ever prove that a straight man can be converted to homosexuality and has it ever tried it prior to insisting that a gay man can be converted to a str8 by prayer and other aversion therapy? Maybe if it can demonstrate that with solid evidence, then perhaps you might get others to believe in the possibility of becoming ex-gay. Do you have any scientific studies published to confirm either case? I've not read anything, anywhere in the literature. Until, I remain unconvinced.

Robert, NYC.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 10:08 AM

"if you scroll my earlier post, I never say anything about rights in legal terms. When I say everyone has a 'right' to something, I mean everyone has a moral and ethical right -- it's not a constitutional or legal claim and I never presented it as such."

You said "fundamental right" which falls under the heading of human rights, which has definite legal connotations. Nobody has a "moral and ethical right" to have a sexual orientation. That's silly. It isn't something people choose to have, it's something they inherently have.

"Second of all; I don't have any friends at NARTH. In fact I don't even know any NARTH members personally."

I said they were your IDEOLOGICAL friends. Are you confirming, then, that you personally know people at Exodus and Focus On The Family?

"'Absence of proof is not proof of absence'" was a favorite expression of the late Carl Sagan -- if it's a pseudoscientific rationale, I guess Sagan was a pseoudo-scientist as well."

If he did use that phrase, then he must have been rather fond of pseudoscientific rhetoric.

"I never said anyone could or should change sexual orientation 'on puropose'."

I didn't say that you did. I said you've been claiming that people can change sexual orientation if and when they WANT to change it. I don't know what "on puropose" means.

"You will never find any chemical or physical evidence that someone changes from gay to straight because you must first find chemical or physical evidence that someone wasy gay to begin with. It's just not a physical chemical thing."

Here you go again, trying to use scientific deduction to discredit science. Typical fundamentalist tactic.

"Also if you look at my posts, I never lay out any scientific argument to 'prove' sexual orientation is fluid. I say the issue is simply not an appropriate question for scientific inquiry."

I agree that your arguments are anything but scientific. They're at best anecdotal and at worst desperate. But who are you to determine what is or isn't appropriate subject matter for scientific inquiry?

Congratulations for finally acquiring a name, or more accurately, a nickname. "Unrepentant" would have worked just as well as "non-apologist." I'm still waiting to see a photo, and oh, yes, those check stubs.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at 11/17/2006 10:18 AM

Well;

It's pretty clear that "Stuffed Animal" is just too embittered and defensive to allow dialogue on how people's sexual orientation can change free from right-wing exploitation.

Just I'd say to anyone who really cares about the subject -- it would be smart to give up on the scientific "debate." The answer isn't there.

And don't assume that just because someone used to be gay and isn't anymore that they are heterosexist. Heterosexism is everyone's problem, and those with changing orientations are as much of a sexual minority as anyone in the GLBT community.

Perhaps someday a new bar will be added to the rainbow flag that will start pink and morph to blue. Such a bar would represent those who change (either gay to straight, straight to gay, or either to bi).

It's kind of ironic that the same people who believe it is possible for trans-gendered people to change from female to male, or male to female just can't get their heads around someone changing from straight to gay, or gay to straight.

The problem is a problem of heterosexist injustice. Science can't solve that problem by trying to "prove" or "disprove" anything. Only an open, affirming and free society can do that.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 11:41 AM

Every time I think Nicolosi can't sink lower, he does. He justifies his quack therapy because "it's harder to be gay than straight" - as if he and his NARTH buddies hadn't been working to MAKE it harder to be gay! He doesn't care that his "therapy" doesn't work, of course - he gets his money and his publicity.
-Tara
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 12:34 PM

"Perhaps someday a new bar will be added to the rainbow flag that will start pink and morph to blue. Such a bar would represent those who change (either gay to straight, straight to gay, or either to bi)."

Now I've seen everything! You are so hell-bent on imposing your "ex-Gay" gospel on Gay people, you even want it reflected in the Rainbow Flag! Let me explain to you what the flag signifies, because you're obviously confused about that. The flag itself represents LGBT PRIDE. That means pride in being what God made us to be, not in trying to change ourselves into what society wants us to be. The colors of the flag represent the ethnic diversity of LGBT folk. They may also reference Bible verses, specifically Genesis 9:12-17, which speak of how God placed rainbows in the sky to symbolize His Covenant with humankind. The flag has never symbolized hostility toward Gay identity, and it never will. So if you want an "ex-Gay" flag so bad, design your own! Keep your friggin' fundamentalist paws off our icons.

"It's kind of ironic that the same people who believe it is possible for trans-gendered people to change from female to male, or male to female just can't get their heads around someone changing from straight to gay, or gay to straight."

I have never said I believed transpeople can change their gender. I don't believe humans switch genders any more than I believe they switch sexual orientation! What's more, if you talked with any number of transpeople, they'd tell you that their gender identity remains constant. Didn't I just say that any changes man makes to what God has created are no more than cosmetic?

And excuse me, but didn't someone just say it couldn't be proven that people are Gay? Now that same someone is (again) insisting that people change from Gay to Straight and vice-versa. Even changing from bisexual to Straight and/or Gay! Oy vey! Just like a convertible sports car, I imagine. Why didn't I ever read about these human chameleons in biology class? It's just so pitiful to watch you stumble over your own convoluted rhetoric and fall on your face over and over. I hope you're at least being paid well for the constant humiliation!

I'm still waiting to see the check stubs and the photo, BTW.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at 11/17/2006 1:00 PM

Stuffed Animal is too much fun.

Actually I came to this blog because I really enjoyed Wayne's book, and I am bothered by the way the fundementalist movement tries to exploit the idea of changes in sexual orientation.

Then I ran into Stuffed Animal (who is becoming kind of a hobby of mine). I especially love it that he wants to audit my political donations to gay causes.

After being gay for 12 years; I can honestly say that the rainbow flag represents different things to different people. Just like being gay, gaypride and other things have deeply personal meanings to each individual.

If you go to a gay pride event, and ask 10 different people what it means to be gay; you will get 10 different answers.

Stuffed Animal's hatred of people growing, changing and living in their own individual ways seems antithetical to the gay movement I have come to know and support.

The movement was once (and should always be) about equality and freedom; not about bitterness and dogma.

Also I'm not sure where this idea that I'm a religious fundementalist comes from. I'm not the one claiming "God" supports any particular view on sexual orientation.

If anything, I'd have to say I believe God makes each person unique; doesn't make "gay people" or "straight people." And I tend to believe God loves the straight man who becomes gay as much as he loves the gay man who becomes straight; and loves that big majority whose feelings dont' change as much one way or another.

Since "gay" and "straight" are just worldly, human constructs we use in this day and age to reduce people and their personal lives to mere symbols of political convenience.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 1:34 PM

non-apologist, at 1:34 you said

"If you go to a gay pride event, and ask 10 different people what it means to be gay; you will get 10 different answers."

Maybe, But I think you will also find that all ten will say that it means feeling sexual attraction to their own sex......
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 1:55 PM

I was struck by (among other parts) this in the report:

"Chambers, who says he changed his own sexual orientation through religious counseling, expressed empathy with Haggard, saying, "We're all susceptible to temptation." "

What temptation is Mr Chambers speaking of? The context is sex with persons of the same sex. Mr. Chambers, then, seems to be saying that he is still attracted to his own sex, if he is "susceptible to temptation.

With respect to his claim, I can assure him, and anyone, that I am NOT "susceptible to temptation" in respect of the opposite sex. Let the most beautiful, most gorgeous, most wonderfully attractive woman come on to me how she may, I would NOT be "susceptible to temptation" in the very slightest degree. Turning down any such advance would be the easiest thing, for I should feel not the smallest degree of arousal or desire.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 2:02 PM

...so if a guy doesn't feel that attraction anymore, then he's no longer gay?
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 2:02 PM

In relation to the same quote, I was also struck by the fact that Mr Chambers claimed to have had his sexual desire changed "by religious counselling".

It was NOT, then, changed by any clinical methodology?

Presumably Mr Chambers' experience must therefore be irrelevent to NARTH, since they purport to offer science, clinical methods.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 2:07 PM

Is sexuality just about sex??? Can't be - because I'd stay with myself rather than search for a partner. It's more profound than just sex.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 6:51 PM

They don't use aversion therapy because that has some really bad consequences. That's what they did back in the 70's.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 6:59 PM

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
posted by Priya Lynn, at 11/17/2006 7:27 PM

gay" and "straight" are just worldly, human constructs we use in this day and age to reduce people and their personal lives to mere symbols of political convenience.
posted by non-apologist, at 11/17/2006 1:34 PM

No, to the vast majority of people gay means same sex attracted and straight means opposite sex attracted. "Exgay" is a political term used to create the false impression that gays can and should change same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions and that that means they don't deserve equal rights in marriage, etc.
posted by Priya Lynn, at 11/17/2006 7:31 PM

Ex gay does not mean people should change. I am ex gay and beleive that people should be where they are most comfortable.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/17/2006 10:41 PM

Anonymous at 10:41, may I please ask you to clarify what you mean when you say that you are Ex-gay?

Do you mean
1) That you formerly felt sexual desire/attraction for your own sex, and now only feel sexual desire/attraction for the opposite sex?
Or do you mean
2) That you formerly were sexually active with your own sex and now are not sexually active with your own sex but you still feel sexual desire/attaction to your own sex?

Or some other meaning?

It is very important to be clear what exactly is meant in these discussions, and I for one would me bery grateful if you would clarify your meaning. Thank you.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/18/2006 8:14 AM

randi schimnosky, at 7:31 you said "No, to the vast majority of people gay means same sex attracted and straight means opposite sex attracted."

I agree.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/18/2006 8:16 AM

It's posible that some gay men who have come out of the closet and could'nt handle it use this Ex-gay lable as a way to go back into the closet, they may have anonymous gay sex when they leav girlfriend or wife at home to go out of town, but they want everyone around them to be convinced they have gone stright, I have heard that some do just that.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/18/2006 10:07 AM

"After being Gay for 12 years, I can honestly say that the rainbow flag represents different things to different people. Just like being Gay, Gay Pride and other things have deeply personal meanings to each individual."

Oh, indeed! Flags do represent different things to different people. Take the American flag, for example. When I look at it, I assure you that I get impressions that are entirely different from the impressions Osama bin Laden gets when he looks at it. The difference is, my impressions are clear and accurate, while his are distorted and false. The same thing goes for the way you and I see the Rainbow Flag.

As for you claiming to have been Gay for twelve years, let's parse that statement for clarity's sake. You either never were Gay, because LesBiGay identity has no time limit, or you still are Gay for the same reason! In either case, you are in deep denial. As you've been told countless times before, there is NO SUCH THING as an "ex-Gay" person, just as there is no such thing as "ex-Black" person, an "ex-female" person or an "ex-human" person.

Sexual orientation is not the equivalent of your clothes, your hair color, or your brand of toothpaste, all of which you can change at will. It's not a club that you can choose to belong to or leave. It's not a bad habit like cigarette smoking that you can quit. It's not a bad relationship that you can break off. Sexual orientation is permanent! What's more, your own behavior underscores the fact of its permanence.

If you aren't Gay, why, instead of living a normal heterosexual life, do you haunt Gay weblogs, covet the Rainbow Flag and obsess over what Gay Pride means to you? I've lived among Straight people all my life (46 years). I still live among them. I have intimate knowledge of how they act. I never met one that acted anything like you.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at 11/18/2006 1:15 PM

It's an example of a "Catch-22", Regan, and it also reminds me of how White racists used to love to speak for Black people, describing what their "nigrahs" really wanted out of life and especially what they didn't want (which somehow always matched what the Whites didn't want). They imposed stereotypes and limitations on African-Americans after making sure that they were too intimidated to speak for themselves. The societal power imbalance between heterosexual and homosexual people is a bit different, since heterosexists don't want Lesbians and Gay men to "stay in their place" as much as they want us to disappear entirely; however, it still represents the tyranny of majority over minority that you're talking about.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at 11/19/2006 3:07 PM

Okay,

Let me clarify what my experience has been.

For a long time I was attracted to guys, had boyfriends and really enjoyed being gay. It was one thing in my life I felt sure would never change.

Then I got to a point where I just couldn't get turned on by guys anymore. I felt this burning desire to get close to women in ways that used to disgust me.

I felt bad, like there was something wrong with me; like maybe I was a dysfunctional gay man. I wanted so much to be at least bisexual -- and at least be able to enjoy both, but I couldnt. I had reached a point where only women could turn me on. I just couldn't get turned on by guys anymore no matter how hard I tried. All I wanted, sexually was women; and for most of my life I hadn't wanted that. It was espepcially hard because I had really liked being gay and I thought I "knew" that would never change.

Eventually I had to accept that my life had changed, and I simply wasn't gay anymore, and the gay feelings werent'coming back. The hetereosexual desires also weren't going to subside. It was difficult to accept being straight after all those years of being gay, but I couldnt' deny my feelings.

It was made harder by the fact that there are all these religious and political movments out there that wanted to claim that my gay feelings had not been natural, or that I had always been straight. Worse yet they wanted to claim that "God" had changed me (as if God hadn't also been with me and blessing me through all my gay experience?)

Add to that all this crap about how it has been "proven" if a guy is gay, then he "has" to always have gay or bisexual feelings from then on.

I really don't like the ex-gay movement because it tries to deny that my gay experience was an integral part of my life and development when it occurred. Even though it's over, I do believe that having been gay made me a better person.

Now I am not revolted by gay sex; I just am ambivalent to it and find it mildly annoying. It doesn't turn me on the way straight sex does, and that's okay with me.

It bothers me that most people either (1) don't want to acknowledge that my gay feelings and experiences were real and healthy when I had them or (2) just can't accept the fact that for whatever reason, my attractions and interests are now exclusively heterosexual.

All in all; I find the "ex-gay" idea more hutful, because it tries to characterize 12 years of my life as some sort of perversion, and tries to exploit the idea of change instead of accept it as one possible journey in life. But it goes too far to think one could scientifically "prove" change doesnt' happen, or that anyone whose feelings change is really bisexual and attracted to both. Just not the case with me.

I am especially bothered by these "ministries" and "programs" that say they can make change happen. The reason I am opposed to them is because they try to take experiences like mine as if to "prove" thier religious or political dogma.

For that reason, I am very supportive of those who de-bunk the "ex-gay" propaganda; but wish they could do so in way that doesn't spread misinformation about an "inborn" sexual orientation.

For crying out loud, even hair color (which is known to be genetically determined) changes with age in some people. Some men are blonde as boys, brown haired as adults (but blonde in the summer) then white haired as old men. How much more complex must sexual orientation be?

Give me a break.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/21/2006 8:38 AM

non-apologist, thank you very much for taking the time to post with your candid explanation of the change in feelings you experienced. And also your comments relating your own feelings to the ideas of the "ex-gay" proponents. Your experience is really very interesting indeed.

It seems to me that your experience and your comments chime very much with my own view. I think that sexual desire or orientation is of biochemical origin and has basically nothing to do with environment after birth.

I believe that if a person experiences change in feelings such as you have experienced - and I express no doubt whatever about the validity of your testimony - this is because they have undergone an involuntary biochemical(possibly in the brain) change.

If you are willing to comment further on this (or correspond privately with me), would you offer an opinion on my idea? Do you think your feelings changed due to an involuntary biochemical change of yet-unknown nature, or are you more of the opinion that some change in your life circumstances ("environment") made your feelings change?

I think, from your comments, that you are really inclining to the former rather than the latter possibility, but I would be very interested in your further comments.

For what it's worth, I have a kind of theory about a biochemical system, which might impinge on such matters as sexuality, body dysmorphia, and gender dysphoria.

Thank you very much again for taking the time to post about your personal experience.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/21/2006 1:16 PM

There's something very convenient about posting to Wayne Besen's blog anonymously: Sometimes you can claim to be an "ex-Lesbian" and at other times you can claim to be an "ex-Gay" man. Of course, when you finally begin posting under a moniker, that kind of switcheroo isn't as easy to manage.

Lies are like Ruffles Potato Chips: You can't tell just one! From claiming that sexual orientation changes like hair color or preference for ice cream flavors, you go on to claim that you hate "ex-Gay" ministries even while calling yourself "ex-Gay." Then you you try to convince people that it's normal for a Straight person to be addicted to Gay blogs. Then you pass yourself off as male when before you said you were female (or is it vice-versa?). One thing I doubt you're lying about, though: That Gay sex is "mildly annoying." Gosh, isn't it, though? Like a damn fly in the room that just won't leave you alone. You can't get away from those same-sex attractions, and it just makes you want to SCREAM!!!
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at 11/21/2006 3:34 PM

Hi Phil,

Not withstanding "Stuffed Animal"'s usual judgmental rambling, on to your point.

I really believe it is different for different people. I think it's kind of like an equation. On the one hand, there are the deep wants, needs and desires that develop through life. Everyone has wants needs and desires, and they all change with or without changes in sexual orientation. On the other side of the equation is the individual's capacity for filling those wants needs and desires through physical and sexual intimacy -- if the need and the capacity are both there, the attraction is undeniable.

The question seems more like a question of capacity. It seems like the brain responds to life wants needs and desires in the best way it can -- responds with feelings, emotions and chemical and other responses. However what the brain can do when triggered by life needs may have something to do with how it is "wired"; but it's different for each person.

Actually, the development of heterosexual desire and need wasn't nearly troubling for me as the loss of homosexuality. It's like if you always played a certain instrument, then you found you just couldn't play anymore, you feel a loss. Was your talent inborn, or was it a combination of inborn potential and life inspiration?

Hard to say. Probably some of both. But if you find inspiration to play a new instrument, and you discover a new talent you didn't think you had; then you play the instrument that you are inspired to play and develop the talent you find. It's not so bad that you just can't make that old instrument sing the way it used to, because now there is this new one, that is now really your own.

But to really play and play right; you need both the inborn talent and the life inspiration.

With sexuality; to work, to really get turned on, it takes both the life needs for certain experiences and the mental capacity to seek, accept and embrace those experiences.

Perhaps some people lack the capacity for same sex attraction or opposite sex attraction and will always be attracted to only one gender.

Perhaps others can switch back and forth from one to the other at will.

And perhaps still others go through a developmental process as the brain reaches its capacity to respond to life, but for some reason can't be attracted to both simultaneously. I just don't feel I have a capacity for bisexuality; and I wish I did. But I don't. It's clear some people can be attracted to both. But I've always been attracted to one or the other, to men and not women, then to women and not men -- but never both; so I have to accept that.

The trouble with the whole "ex-gay" thing; is it supposes that it's simply a choice. Supposes the capacity and inspiration can come from therapy instead of from just the natural process of living.
As if the mere desire to be heterosexual will change someone's needs, desires and capacities.

I think you can't choose what you need at any point in life; you can just become aware of what you need and why -- and explore healthy ways to satisfy the need given the capacity and ability you find in your mind and body.

So, I'd say sexual orientation is not inborn; but also not really a choice. If I couldnt' choose to stay gay or bisexual when I knew that heterosexuality was turning my life upside down; I doubt someone can chose to become straight just because bieng gay disrupts theirs.

If the need for male-female intimacy and the capacity to experience it aren't both in there somewhere, I don't think there are ingredients for heterosexuality.

The needs clearly come from life's experience and relationships. The capacities probably are different for each person, and have to be discovered through life. Society should affirm and accept each person's journey of discovery. That's my view.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/22/2006 11:10 AM

"Everyone has wants, needs and desires, and they all change with or without changes in sexual orientation. On the other side of the equation is the individual's capacity for filling those wants needs and desires through physical and sexual intimacy -- if the need and the capacity are both there, the attraction is undeniable."

In other words, you're saying that sexual attraction isn't inherent, it's conditional. Jabberwocky!

"It seems like the brain responds to life wants needs and desires in the best way it can . . . responds with feelings, emotions and chemical and other responses. However, what the brain can do when triggered by life needs may have something to do with how it is "wired"; but it's different for each person."

In other words, you had this need to be heterosexual, and your brain responded. More jabberwocky.

"Actually, the development of heterosexual desire and need wasn't nearly troubling for me as the loss of homosexuality."

"Loss of homosexuality" . . . oh, brother! Just like the little girl who lost her yellow basket on the way to market, you lost your Lesbianism. You dropped it, and oh dear! Some mean bastard took it. Probably Hugh Hefner.

"It's like if you always played a certain instrument, then you found you just couldn't play anymore, you feel a loss. Was your talent inborn, or was it a combination of inborn potential and life inspiration?"

Oy vey! You really ARE lost in wonderland. Come back to the real world, if you can. People learn how to play musical intruments. They DON'T learn how to be sexual or have sexual attraction. Does the word "inherent" ring any bells?

"It's not so bad that you just can't make that old instrument sing the way it used to, because now there is this new one, that is now really your own."

I've heard of musicians who play multiple instruments, and I've heard of musicians who develop preferences for instruments, but I've never heard of musicians who forget how to play one instrument after learning to play another. You'd better stop the concert and leave the stage voluntarily before you get laughed off!

"With sexuality; to work, to really get turned on, it takes both the life needs for certain experiences and the mental capacity to seek, accept and embrace those experiences."

Tell that to the sex-crazed, alcohol-fueled frat boys I went to college with!

"Perhaps some people lack the capacity for same sex attraction or opposite sex attraction and will always be attracted to only one gender."

I'd say so. There's certainly evidence for it.

"Perhaps others can switch back and forth from one to the other at will."

Perhaps not. I'm afraid there's a dearth of evidence!

"I just don't feel I have a capacity for bisexuality; and I wish I did. But I don't."

This is something we needed to know? Sounds like a personal issue.

"The trouble with the whole 'ex-Gay' thing is it supposes that it's simply a choice. Supposes the capacity and inspiration can come from therapy instead of from just the natural process of living.
As if the mere desire to be heterosexual will change someone's needs, desires and capacities!"

Excuse me, but didn't somebody here just speculate on the possibility of changing sexual orientations at will?

"I think you can't choose what you need at any point in life; you can just become aware of what you need and why . . . and explore healthy ways to satisfy the need given the capacity and ability you find in your mind and body."

A capacity and an ability, I'm afraid, that is NOT found in your mind or your body, but which only exists within the realm of God's power.

"If I couldn't choose to stay Gay or bisexual when I knew that heterosexuality was turning my life upside down, I doubt someone can chose to become straight just because bieng Gay disrupts theirs."

I'm trying to get a fix on this concept of unwanted heterosexual desire, but it's really, REALLY difficult.

"If the need for male-female intimacy and the capacity to experience it aren't both in there somewhere, I don't think there are ingredients for heterosexuality."

"Ingredients for heterosexuality"? My goodness, I didn't know there was even a recipe! Can you find the ingredients at the local grocer's, or do you have to send away for them?

"Society should affirm and accept each person's journey of discovery."

Only it's not "society" that you're concerned about. It's Lesbian and Gay people. You're obsessed with convincing us that homosexuality is temporary. I don't believe you're sincere about a thing you've said here, but I'll allow I may be wrong about that. If you actually do believe in reversible sexual orientation, then go right ahead and fulfill your "need" to hold that belief. Just don't expect us to partake in whatever it is you've been drinking or smoking, okay?
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at 11/22/2006 1:46 PM

Phil wrote 'Do you think your feelings changed due to an involuntary biochemical change of yet-unknown nature, or are you more of the opinion that some change in your life circumstances ("environment") made your feelings change?' What makes you think these possibilities are mutually exclusive? You are being so vague that both possibilities might be true.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/22/2006 3:07 PM

non-apologist at 11:10, thank you for taking the time to post those extensive thoughts.

I must say I am struggling a little to fully understand your metaphors and how they might actually apply. But if I read you correctly, you are saying that you believe sexual orientation is "nurture not nature". Am I right in thinking that's what you're saying?

I would be most interested in your comments clarifying the timescale of your own change in feelings, and the degree of any "overlap".

As your sexual desire was changing from your own sex to the opposite sex, was there a period when you found BOTH sexes attractive? Or did desire for your own sex just fade out, leaving a period without any sexual desire at all, an "asexual" time following which desire for the opposite sex manifested? Or how did it work? And, especially, how fast? I guess it did not happen in the space of one night, so that you went to sleep desiring your own sex and woke up desiring the opposite?

It would be very helpful if you could describe these details, also perhaps saying what age you were when this change happened, and what age you are now.

Metaphors and theories are interesting and can certainly help to illustrate and illuminate a situation, but in the end I think it is probably more valuable to simply give a full description of the facts of the case, and then conclusions can be drawn.

Many thanks again, and in anticipation of your further response.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/22/2006 5:40 PM

Non-apologist,

May I ask your age group? I've heard of this happening to older men, usually in the other direction, but anticdotally(sp?)I am familiar with a gradual change in orientation upon reaching a certain stage in life.
posted by jekelhyde, at 11/22/2006 7:57 PM

Hi Phil and JeckylHyde;

As to the nature-nurture question; I honestly don't know. I'd say some people it's 100% nature, some it's 100% nurture, and for most it's a combination. In my case i believe it's a combination.

As to the life cycle question; yes, I am sure that has something to do with it. What happened was my gay sexual feelings just got weaker and weaker over a period of years. It was like nothing could turn me on or interest me sexually. This happened over about a 3 year period in my late 20's and followed my decision to give up alcohol.

Late in that 3 year period, subtle heterosexual curiosities entered my mind, seemingly from nowhere. The curiosities grew to desire and then to an insatiable need and attraction to women. This was in full swing in my early 30's.

As this was happening, I didn't really want to be "straight"; I though I was just bisexual. But I tried to find attractive men, and at least still have some satisfying gay connections (because I had "come out" as gay years earlier). It became clear that the gay attraction just wasn't there anymore, and I couldn't choose to feel any differently than I did (exclusively attracted to women).

It took me a a couple of years in my early 30's to really accept that I wasn't gay anymore, and my feelings had changed. I know that quitting alcohol had alot to do with it as did other lifestyle changes and the coming of age in my 30's.

Now I'm in my mid 30's and I haven't felt "attracted" to a guy; or had any kind of genuine fantasy about guys in about 5 years. I don't try to find the "right guy" anymore because I just don't need him anymore, and I am much more into finding the right girl.

I still struggle to understand what changed, and why. But the oversimplified answers of the "exgay" movement and the weak science of "born gay" both seem inadequate.

I would like to tell people that I was gay, and now I'm not; but I don't feel that its' socially "okay" to say that because of how controversial it is. So, I keep my sexuality private, if anyone asks I tell them I'm straight. If someone questions me about my gay past, i tell them I'm bisexual even though it feels like a lie because I am not really attracted to both.

I try to avoid the whole "gay bi straight" thing, but I wish we had a society where I could be more honest about who I am, how I feel, where I've been and where I'm at now.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/27/2006 11:16 AM

But see, non-apologist, you are straight. Ex-gay is a political term, and generally a lie. Truthfully, the only people who should concern themselves with your past attractions are people who are in the same place as you were when you were going through the metamorphesus. Simply because you are in a position to help them. Just as I've always felt myself in a position to help people who are gay and don't want to be. My goal is always to help a person feel comfortable in his or her own skin. Now are you curious to know whether your attractions will again be altered in another 20 or 30 years? For the record, however, I believe that a situation such as yours is very much a rarity. Most gays are in fact born that way. For most gays it is hardwired, and unchangable. For most gays, living the straight life means faking it and usually living sad and unfullfilled existances. Such is the reason that when you say you were once gay and are no longer gay, you are met with such hositility, but I am sure you are aware of this. Thank you for clarifying. I would love to see stats on how many people are like you. I don't see it happening though. Too many people would seek to slant the results.
posted by jekelhyde, at 11/27/2006 7:20 PM

Thanks Jeckyl/Hyde;

I think you are right about that. When I was confused about my new feelings, I really was looking for places I could go to find support in navigating uncharted waters with women.

For example, how can I relate to women who now seem attractive and tempting when before they didn't phase me?; how do I manage new boundaries. I hadn't even asked a girl out, had a first kiss or anything. It was a tough period.

When I went to some "exgay" venues for support, I found that almost none of them really were going through what I was. They were, as Wayne observes -- anything but straight. They weren't going through all these attractions to women I was, they weren't dealing with the fact they just couldn't feel gay attractions anymore. Their experience was very different from mine.

In fact, some "exgays" would talk about how they "couldn't help" but to seek out gay sex, even when they didn't want to. I just couldn't relate to that. I had no problem avoiding sex with men because I just didn't need it anymore, and the "exgays" did. It bothered me to see how so many of them were so hung up about it.

They would ask me "how do you do it?" and I didn't know what to tell them. I just said I went after what I wanted and needed and learned not to worry about whether it was "gay" or not.

At any rate; one thing I have discovered is that there is another lie in the fundementalist "exgay" movement. The movement often supposes that when you become straight, then you are no longer subject to heterosexism. That's not true.

Heterosexism affects anyone who has ever been gay; and the stigma is something a man (or woman) still has to deal with. Because a life that has involved the gay experience is still viewed by many as deviant or deficient; especially when the shift to heterosexuality was not based on any sort of religious dogma or "repentance," or "rejection of the lifestyle".

So, my life's experience means that heterosexism is still a problem, hence I'm here.

Unapologetic as always.

As to whether my feelings may "change back" to gay or bisexual? I sure hope not. It's a pretty difficult thing to go through; in some ways it's like going through puberty all over again.

I really hope that my feelings will stay put, as I have once again aligned my life and my relationships to be true to my needs.

Luckily, however, if I do get to some point in life where my feelings do change; my experience has given me a community of open and affirming friends and others who I know will accept me one way or another.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/28/2006 10:36 AM

Jekelhyde wrote, "Most gays are in fact born that way."

How would you know that?
posted by Anonymous, at 11/28/2006 2:40 PM

Before I respond, are you the anonymous that I often speak with and consider a friendly adversary, and at times a friendly friend????
posted by jekelhyde, at 11/28/2006 6:35 PM

I've no idea if I'm the anonymous you're thinking of, Jekelhyde. Anyway, it's beside the point whether I am or not - just answer my question, please.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/28/2006 7:08 PM

Actually, it's not beside the point because the anonymous that I am speaking of, I have some respect for. My only evidence is antecdotal, therefore unprovable. And I don't wish to get into an argument. I will only say that if sexuality were alterable, I believe there would be virtually no gays in this world. And you can challenge that assessment all you like.
posted by jekelhyde, at 11/29/2006 10:17 AM

Are we going to get back to the "are most gays born that way" question?

Isn't it unknowable? If two pepole are in love, were they "born for one another" -- being in love feels that way, and it's a good feeling. It's good to accept the feeling and have it validated by others. But when you fidn your soul mate; can you ever prove who you were born to love, and how?

Trying to study and scientifically prove affairs of the heart just seems like an incredibly Orwellian symptom of our times.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/29/2006 11:19 AM

Non apologist,

I understand where you're coming from. Really, I do. But you have to understand that gay men, especially from my generation and older, need to feel a reason for their existance. I do believe I was born gay, hardwired, unchangable. I also believe that there are people who change orientation, through osmosis, or whatever. I'm not oppossed to such a theory or life experience. It is not beyond my realm of reasoning. But I do need to feel a reason for my existance. Why have I been different from other males since I was a child. Why have I never been interested in girls? It isn't that I would want my life any different than it is. I have a wonderful life partner and three great kids. But the "why" is important to me and to most of my friends. I would think the why should be important to you also. "Why" did you change from gay to straight? "Why" does this change occur? Is it permanant? Is it genetic? Will my kids inherit the trait? I think about this all the time. My partner is the biological father of all my kids. Will my kids be gay? Will they be Bisexual? What determines this? I would love it if my girls were all hetero. Then the only sexuality problems they would have would be with their parental unit. But what if they are not. What if it is genetic. I want to know. So I can help them if the need should arise. Is this something that you can't understand? I and many others like me need a reason. I believe that I was born gay with all my heart and soul. I can't prove it. I wish someone could. Not for my sake but for the sake of those that come after me.
posted by jekelhyde, at 11/29/2006 10:33 PM

Jekelhyde wrote, "I don't wish to get into an argument."

No, I'm sure you don't.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/30/2006 1:59 AM

Thanks JeckylHyde;

I would have to say that the belief in a "inborn homosexuality" most likely does exist because people need for it to exist. Straight people need to believe it because it's the only way they can accept gays. Gays need to believe it because it's the only way they an accept themselves. None of that makes it true, but makes everyone want to prove or disprove that it's true.

When I was 18; and came out as Gay, I wondered what it meant. I sought counsel from a pastor about the question and got some good advice, which I believe put me in pretty good stead.

He told me that God has given me the gift of sexuality for my spiritual growth and development, through self discovery and honest relationships, whether with men or with women. He advised me to accept and share the gift openly with gratitude and integrity; and that began with refusing to deny how I truly felt about men and what I truly wanted or needed.

He told me my sexuality was a unique gift, that nobody else would experience exactly the way I did -- it was my own; for my expression, growth and sharing of myself. It was not something for others to define or exploit on political, personal or religious grounds. Its purpose was spiritual -- not for social status or a prerequisite for acceptance in the church; but for my unique spiritual growth and development.

Sexuality needed no more explanation or justification than that. All I needed to do was to accept it on faith as a very personal and unique gift. Nothing to prove or disprove, nothing to justify or condemn, not something to study or dissect; but instead something to live and discover.

That belief has put me in pretty good stead, both in gay life, through the turmoil of becoming straight -- and still today. That's the basic belief that I'd like to promote if I could.

The purpose of my straight sexuality is no different than was the purpose of my gay sexuality -- love, intimacy, spiritual growth and discovery. I believe this is the purpose of human sexuality, whatever form it takes.

Hope this helps.
posted by Anonymous, at 11/30/2006 2:00 PM

And I could live with that, if I didn't have to deal with outside influences. As long as FOTF and AFA and of course the Westboro Baptist church exists, I and most like me need to feel justified. And again, it's not for me, but for those that come after me. You can be secure that it's just "a happening." I feel confident that it is something that I was born with. This may be where we differ. And it's fine. But the more people who feel that I was born as I am, the more people who won't be voting against my rights. That's the bottom line. I need to protect my family. So yes, I will adhere to my gut belief. And, whether antecdotal, or when someone comes up with proof, I will continue to preach the message. My only choices in life are gay, or lonliness. I don't want to be lonely. I respect your views and I see where you are coming from. I just don't agree that you and I are in the same place. But if you are happy, that is all that matters. I need to think of my kids.
posted by jekelhyde, at 11/30/2006 8:33 PM

Jekelhyde, did it ever occur to you that it might do more damage to the cause of gay rights over the long run if its supporters insist that people are born gay and it eventually turns out that this theory is scientifically unsupportable?
posted by Anonymous, at 12/01/2006 12:40 AM

Anonymous has a VERY good point.

The movement for GLBT equality is at a critical juncture right now.

Either it's going to be about empowerment -- protecting all of our freedom to walk our own most intimate and personal journeys, taking responsibility for our feelings and experiences -- or it's about victimization -- trying to prove or persuade the world that the only basis for equal treatment is to compensate for an inherent inability of certian people to live up to social norms.

If and when the "born gay orientation" takes its place alongside Alien Abduction, the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot; we may find we still need a social ethic of personal freedom and respect for GLBT people. We won't get that if equal treatment is based on an idea that just isn't true.

Actually, to me it seems the "born gay" idea essentially capitulates to heterosexism. It stiuplates that the heterosexual life is morally, socially or otherwise superior to the gay life and the only reason one would live gay would be due to an inherent inability to live otherwise.

This is anything but an argument for equality. The very premise supposes that all other things being equal it is better to be straight than to be gay. In the argument, the gay person concedes that homosexuality is inferior then says "if only...". Born gay is a weak afterthought to a line of reasoning that is really heterosexist in nature.

A true ethic of equality would accept the bisexual choosing the gay life just as equally as it would the exclusive homosexual or the exclusive heterosexual.

We've got a long way to go. But slicing up the brians of AIDS cadavers and surveying twins isn't the way to get there.

Suppose we found a gay gene and had a way of testing for it. Would women be free to abort gay fetuses? Would a gay marriage license require genetic testing for the couple to "prove" they really need to be in a same sex relationship. And OMG; what if someone tests gay but just prefers teh company of women and they're not "supposed to". Do we deny that person full acceptance as a heterosexual?

Hopefully we'll never have to face those questions because "born-gay" is most likely a myth. But myths, and misguided pseudo-scientific beliefs are historically known to have a way of infecting society; and lead to twisted social norms.

If there is some kind of "test" that is for a period believed to prove homosexuality at birth -- it could lead to greater injustice until the theory is fully and finally de-bunked.

Best to walk away from "born gay" now; and get the emphasis back on the free and respectful society we all deserve.
posted by Anonymous, at 12/01/2006 9:22 AM

No, I completely disagree. You're entitled to your view points and I respect that. But most of your scenarios are outragously far fetched. People will always be entitled to heterosexual marriage. The drive by vegas wedding will never die. I would bet money, however, that if a gay gene were discovered, Roe v Wade would no longer be on the Christian Coalition's chopping block. The fact is, I know in my heart that I was born as I am. And it isn't just about the gender of the person I want screw, OK. It's the gender of the person I want holding my hand when I die. It's more than sex. It's love. I know in my heart, not just my head, that I could never love a woman as deeply or as romantically as I can love a man. You may not feel the same. That's cool. But don't call my life and my knowledge about myself a myth. That I do resent. I've known that I was gay since my first crush when I was just a child. And it wasn't a sexual crush. It was puppy love dammit and just as legitimate as a young girl's first crush on her first male teacher. Or a young boy's crush on the math teacher that makes him get bad grades. In these instances, sex does not play a part. A heart felt emotion plays the part, and that, my friends is the point of my argument. My sexuality is not a lifestyle. Hell, with three kids, most of the time I trade a good night of sex for a good night's sleep. My sexuality is born into me. Just as people are born right handed or left handed. Just as both of my kids were born blonde. Sure their hair color may darken in later years, just as your desires changed. but that doesn't mean that they weren't born right or left handed, or that my oldest wasn't born blonde. I long for the day that the proof is found. Until then I can only say what I KNOW. I am me. I am Darren. I am Gay. And I was that way since the day I left my mother's womb. And they will find proof, eventually. And they will, I believe, find varying degrees of bisexuality, and varying degrees of sexuality fluidity. The issue is not black and white for all of us. For me and a great number of my friends and a few relatives, it is black and white. I will not deny you your life. Don't presume to deny me mine.
posted by jekelhyde, at 12/01/2006 10:54 PM

新宿　賃貸
 人材派遣
 ブログアフィリエイト
 バイク便
 マンスリーマンション
 印鑑
 ゴルフ会員権
 育毛剤
 フロント　サービス
 新宿　マッサージ
 多重債務
posted by Anonymous, at 10/23/2008 4:17 AM

toefl , GRE, SLEP are registered trademark of Educational Testing Service (ETS).
This publication is not endorsed or approved by ETS.
GMAT is a registered trademark of Graduate Management Admission Council（GMAC）.
This publication is not endorsed or approved by GMAC. (*´д｀*)
posted by Anonymous, at 10/23/2008 4:19 AM