Ship of Fools: NYT ex-gay article

Thread: NYT ex-gay article Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028594

Posted by Ultracrepidarian (# 9679) on :

I read this fascinating article earlier in the week and I'm still not entirely sure what I make of it. I tend to the fairly conventional view that sexual orientations are pretty much fixed and that there shouldn't be any 'happy ex-gays' unless they weren't really gay to start with. This story seems to fly in the face of that.

What do other people think of the story of Michael Glatze?

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

I think we don't know enough to say--there certainly is plenty of evidence that sexual orientation can be fluid in some cases (more so in women than in men), and reason to suspect that homosexuality (and for that matter heterosexuality) are not monolithic phenomena. There may be several causal pathways to a given pattern of overt behavior, some more subject to environmental influence and conscious choice than others.

That said, one has to be skeptical of claims to have changed from gay to straight, simply because there have been so many examples of such claims that turned out to be false.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

His reasoning is both right and wrong, and untangling the different strands is a tricky exercise.

For instance, he says that God loves you more than any guy could. Correct. But you could say the exact same thing to any heterosexual person - God loves you more than any person of the opposite gender ever could.

The same goes for all the material about brokenness and feeling lost. Heterosexuals are just as capable of leading hedonistic 'lifestyles' that turn out not to be fulfilling.

The great, great difficulty in all ex-gay programs is linking these problems and saying 'it's because you're homosexual'. Well no, in most cases it simply isn't. Unless, of course, you weren't being true to who you are to begin with - which is why the part on the last page suggesting that this man wasn't actually homosexual didn't surprise me.

PS I agree it's a fascinating article, it struck me as well written.

[ 22. June 2011, 03:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

It reminds me of IngoB's faith DNA. It sounds like Michael needs to 1) have an air-tight, rigorous framework to his sexuality and his views on it, 2) he wants to save people from wrong sexuality, and 3) he has to allow no wriggle room for doubts that he is right.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I have an acquantance that was gay but is now apparently straight.

Apparently the bible set him straight.

quote:
In a WorldNetDaily article, Michael wrote about why he believes he mistakenly took on a gay identity: “When I was about 13 I decided I must be gay because I was unable to handle my own masculinity.” He went on to blame his father for that, which is consistent with the ex-gay narrative that same-sex attraction among boys is often a result of a deficit of masculinity, usually caused by a fissure in the father-son bond.

Don't know much about this kind of narrative but boy oh boy does this acquaintance get upset if you say God is female.

He's quite overt about needing God to be male and love him because his own father never told him he loved him.

I can't see how he can't see the projection! He's an intelligent bloke.... [Disappointed]

Are there lots of gay clergy in the church because of unrequited love projected onto a male God? [Confused]

Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :

Evensong, what an interesting idea! In my case, I struggled for years with the idea of a Father God. I always wondered why people couldn't picture or relate to a Mother God. When I was trying to be a happy little heterosexual and failing miserably, I thought I was under the wrath of an angry male God. When a friend (a Catholic nun, no less!) told me that it was perfectly all right to picture God as Mother, a lot of my hang-ups and struggles resolved themselves. Now I'm an out and proud lesbian but it's funny... although I mostly imagine and experience God as Mother, I don't consider Her as Lover. Ok, maybe sometimes, but mostly not. Maybe this has not a thing to do with what you all are discussing! It's late, I'm very tired and now I'm going to bed. [Smile]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Evensong, that bit you quoted is another illustration of what I'm talking about.

Ex-gay groups definitely do hit the 'father issues' button a lot - that was my experience as well.

But who the heck DOESN'T have father issues? The percentage of the population with father issues of some description is massively high, as is the percentage of the male population who struggle in some way with their concept of masculinity. In both cases, way higher than the percentage of homosexuals.

If you ask a homosexual male whether they have father issues, they're going to go "Oh My God Yes, How Did You Know?'. But so what? Where's the correlation?

It's a lot like selling tiger repellent.

Even if you could prove correlation, is the son gay because he had father issues, or are there father issues because the father and son are aware at some level that the son is gay?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

orfeo:

quote:
PS I agree it's a fascinating article, it struck me as well written.

Well, but just because it's well-written doesn't mean everything he says is true...

ISTM that it is at least *possible* that some bisexual men struggling to come to terms with being male end up thinking they're (exclusively) homosexual. Because that gives them a way of explaining why they don't like football/are fond of wearing pink shirts/aren't interested in having sex with girls. I don't think you can extrapolate from one man's experience to say 'therefore all men who claim to be gay are really just closet straights'.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Stephen Fry has described himself as "90% gay". I think my own slice of gayness is about the same. I dated women exclusively until I was 29 - for the last year and a bit I've been with a man (I'm female). I have a friend who is in a similar situation but in reverse.

My own take on this is pretty much: fair enough - I'm 90% gay. There was always a chance someone would trigger the other 10%. I didn't set out to find a man. However, I am aware that if someone else found herself in this situation, at a particular point in her life (when she was becoming interested in religion, perhaps) it might have been read in a completely different way - as being "saved" from same-sex attraction. It's a bit like someone taking a homeopathic remedy, getting better by coincidence and then swearing by homeopathy for the rest of their life.

Is sexual orientation open to change? I think it depends what you mean. I think it is more fluid than many people think, but I don't think that means you can "set out" to change it. It's not open to conscious effort. I'm also very wary of people who drivel on about "I don't believe in labelling people as gay or straight. I don't believe in labels at all" as I've found that these people generally have an agenda around trying to persuade people to conform to what they think sexuality should be.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I don't think you can extrapolate from one man's experience to say 'therefore all men who claim to be gay are really just closet straights'.

This is important. I am very aware that I could walk into many churches, tell my story and be hailed as someone who had broken away from the chains of homosexuality (probably safest to marry the guy first, but if I did that it'd work like a charm). I could probably harvest a load of admiration and affirmation and be held up as an example to others. I don't want that to happen, because I know how much it can suck being gay and young, or gay and Christian, and I'm damned if I'm prepared to be used as a stick with which to hit vulnerable people.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I'm afraid Michael might be in for a shock if he ever leaves his little Christian enclave. I think the "gay" could strike again. And woe! the wailing and despair!

Seriously, I think it's likely one of those mixed sexuality situations, with a bunch of other personal and social issues thrown in. But God help the poor gay youngsters he is now going to "cure" because he has a sexuality unique to his bodily system and to his life decisions.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ultracrepidarian:
I read this fascinating article earlier in the week and I'm still not entirely sure what I make of it. I tend to the fairly conventional view that sexual orientations are pretty much fixed and that there shouldn't be any 'happy ex-gays' unless they weren't really gay to start with. This story seems to fly in the face of that.

Heard it all before. There seem to be so many people nowadays (including myself) who are of the opinion that it's wrong to constrain a person by pre-supposed notions of fixed sexual orientation, that it's even got a name: "pomosexuality".

My view is that there is no universally recognised yardstick for determining whether a person is gay or straight. "Gaydar" is a myth. With the exception of people who are known to be in long-term committed relationship, most of what we base our beliefs as to whether a person is "probably gay" or "probably straight" on are stereotypes - for example, gay men are a bit camp, lesbians are a bit butch, that sort of thing.

And as for people who are in long-term relationships - it's not unknown for a "gay" man to be in a long-term straight relationship, just to please his parents, or his church, or his army commanding officer, or whatever. But equally, it's not unknown for "straight" men to get into gay relationships because they've been bullied for being a bit effeminate in the past, making them want to prove the point that even if they were gay, it wouldn't matter.

It just seems like a fallacy to suppose that a straight person who seems to turn gay is to be celebrated for "coming out", because he was gay all along - whereas a gay person who seems to turn straight must never have been truly gay to begin with.

The idea that a publicly straight but secretly gay person might "come out" as gay is now fairly widely accepted as normal in popular culture. But the idea that a publicly gay but secretly straight person might "come out" as straight is only really taken seriously by Christian fundamentalists.

So, if a person finds that they have come to be publicly known for being gay, when they're actually straight, and they want to do something about it, but can't cope with it on their own - then the only people who will actually take that problem seriously, and give them support, are the Christian fundamentalists. That support tends to be given in the form of what is called "reparative therapy".

It's a tragedy, but that's the way it is. I don't want people to be forced to choose between crazy fundies, or trying to cope in silence - but sometimes, the Christian fundamentalists are the lesser of two evils. And it's going to stay like that until the rest of us get over our ideology about the permanence of sexual orientation.

Let's stop treating people who have come to be known to be gay, but who now think they're straight, as though they are somehow traitors to the gay cause - because, really, they're not. However, they may come to be traitors to the gay cause if the Christian fundamentalists are the only people who are prepared to meet them where they are.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Let's stop treating people who have come to be known to be gay, but who now think they're straight, as though they are somehow traitors to the gay cause - because, really, they're not. However, they may come to be traitors to the gay cause if the Christian fundamentalists are the only people who are prepared to meet them where they are.

Holy crap, we agree on something *blinks*

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
That said, one has to be skeptical of claims to have changed from gay to straight, simply because there have been so many examples of such claims that turned out to be false.

Okay. But should we not also be sceptical of claims to have changed from straight to gay, for the same reason?

Indeed, should we also not be sceptical of the claims of anyone who says they're straight, even if they have never previously claimed to be gay - on the grounds that some people do indeed "come out" as gay later on in life?

It can be highly traumatic for a previously-thought straight person to come out as gay - but, likewise, it can be highly traumatic for a previously-thought gay person to come out as straight. So I think we should not be sceptical of it - because it's precisely that scepticism that drives people in this situation into the hands of Christian fundamentalists.

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ultracrepidarian:
What do other people think of the story of Michael Glatze?

Very sad! There's a bit at the end where he's quoted as saying “It doesn’t get better if you’re gay.” He struck me as someone who's trying to find happiness in ideologies.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I could probably harvest a load of admiration and affirmation and be held up as an example to others. I don't want that to happen, because I know how much it can suck being gay and young, or gay and Christian, and I'm damned if I'm prepared to be used as a stick with which to hit vulnerable people.

Brava.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Seconded.

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

He reminded me of a man interviewed in a documentary about Israel that I saw years ago. He was an orthodox Brooklyn Jewish guy who emigrated to Israel, and a few years after that converted to Islam and became a very intemperate activist, shouting on camera that Israel or Israelis or both had "no right to exist".

I think some people have a need to be dogmatic and right about everything.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I don't think you can extrapolate from one man's experience to say 'therefore all men who claim to be gay are really just closet straights'.
This is important. I am very aware that I could walk into many churches, tell my story and be hailed as someone who had broken away from the chains of homosexuality (probably safest to marry the guy first, but if I did that it'd work like a charm). I could probably harvest a load of admiration and affirmation and be held up as an example to others. I don't want that to happen, because I know how much it can suck being gay and young, or gay and Christian, and I'm damned if I'm prepared to be used as a stick with which to hit vulnerable people.

Aye. Not least when we're in a week where all the CofE Gay Bishop stuff has happened,... and our best compromise is that the 10% of Bishops who are known to be gay either have to hide, or have to repent of all gayness and promise faithfully that they are totally celibate with any gay partners. What it says to vulnerable youngesters who are exploring their sexuality is anyone's guess. Especially when straight Bishops don't apparently have to repent of past straight non-marriage sex. It's a mess in churches already.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

First page, I thought the case was interesting. Kept reading and decided it really wasn't.

At times, the guy is attracted to both men and women. He's bi. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

The guy had a religious experience which causes cognitive dissonance with what was his worldview. He interpreted the experience through a Christian lens. Hated Christian fundamentalism. Tried progressive Christianity. Didn't think it was able to take seriously his experience. Became a fundamentalist because it did and then suppressed the sexual attractions that conflicted with his new viewpoint. Nothing out of the ordinary with any of that.

The guy is close minded. Every now and then something forces his mind open and changes it. However, once that happens, his mind closes once again. He simply replaces one extreme viewpoint for another. Happens all the time. Fundamentalist Christians become militant atheists. Militant atheists become Christian fundamentalists. Evangelical Protestants become Traditionalist Roman Catholics. What he can't seem to do is find a middle ground. Nothing out of the ordinary there either.

Homosexuality presents a unique moral quandary. This guy and other fundamentalist Christians view it as an unhealthy addiction that is a symptom of a spiritual addiction. Sexual attraction to members of the same sex is no different from alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling, or any other sexual addiction. Supporters of this view have no problems finding examples to support their view of the destructiveness of the gay lifestyle.

On the other hand, opponents of that view can point to plenty of other gay couples living in happy and committed relationships. Finding alcoholics and drug addicts who are truly happy and living productive lives is a bit more difficult. The question then becomes is it homosexuality per se that is destructive or a particularly destructive lifestyle lived by some gays or lesbians?

Would the lifestyle that is destructive for gays and lesbians some how not be destructive if lived by straight people?

I don't think anybody could make a case for that.

Are gays and lesbians more likely to embrace a destructive lifestyle?

I'm not sure. However, even if gays and lesbians are more likely to engage in self destructive behavior, is that because they are gay or because of how the larger society treats gay people? Given the existence of perfectly happy gay and lesbian couples, I'm inclined to see it as the latter.

Therefore, the solution to the problem would appear to make it possible and even encourage gays and lesbians to be in healthy and committed relationships. Allowing gay marriage is one of the most important ways of doing that. Embrace gays and lesbians as normal and all of the negative things associated with a particular lifestyle will become less of a problem.

But, some continue to maintain without much evidence that I can see that homosexual acts and even orientation are inherently wrong. For them, homosexuality is spiritually damaging. And, yet, how can something be spiritually damaging but not have effect on the rest of your life? How can something spiritually damaging actually make people happier than they were? Wouldn't that make homosexuality a unique exception in Christian moral theology?

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

Okay, I've actually read it all the way through now. And this, from near the end:

quote:
It doesn’t get better if you’re gay? Michael would have punched me in the mouth if I said that back when we worked together. I never would have, of course, because it’s a lie. But also dishonest, in retrospect, was our claim in a 1999 issue of XY that “everyone is happier” after coming out. Michael insisted that we include that line, but it was wishful thinking, and ex-gays are living proof of it.

Spot on, in my opinion.

There seems to be a whole mythology that has grown up around "coming out". It seems to teach that if you're unhappy, it's because you're probably gay, and you're still in the closet. It also acknowledges that coming out is a scary thing to do - much like the quester who goes to slay the big scary monster or dragon that's hiding in the enchanted forest or misty mountains, or whatever - but once you have slain that monster, and established yourself as gay, then the gay community will celebrate you as a hero, and everything will be better.

Trouble is - very often, it doesn't actually work.

But the "coming out" pop myth lives on. Is it any wonder if people who aren't actually gay, but who are merely a bit insecure in the idea that they are straight, end up latching onto the "coming out" myth, in the hope that it might solve their problems?

And once they've done it, what then? When everyone around them is saying, "But I thought you said you were gay", and "You've always been gay, don't be in denial" - where do they turn? What if our supposedly gay man tries chatting up a woman, but his advances are spurned, on the grounds that he's "obviously" gay?

Without putting too fine a point on it, a man who has gained a rep for being gay who then tries to chat up a woman, is likely to be treated with suspicion by that woman, on the grounds that his apparent change of sexual orientation might be a sign that he's a bit of a Lothario. In such circumstances, throwing yourself at the Christian fundamentalists might be a good way of putting such suspicions to rest. Indeed, the Christian fundamentalists may even go so far as to provide a free matchmaking service for those who pass themselves off as "ex-gay".

Is it necessarily such a bad thing when this happens? Perhaps not. So is there anything to be gained from trying to squash the popular "coming out" mythology?

I don't deny that some people who call themselves gay really are gay. And if being able to spin their own "coming out" yarns and be thought interesting for it as helped them to come to terms with that, then that's a good thing, in my opinion.

In spite of queer theory and "pomosexuality", it still seems that the common assumption is that a young single person is straight, unless there's reason to believe otherwise.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
On the other hand, opponents of that view can point to plenty of other gay couples living in happy and committed relationships. Finding alcoholics and drug addicts who are truly happy and living productive lives is a bit more difficult. The question then becomes is it homosexuality per se that is destructive or a particularly destructive lifestyle lived by some gays or lesbians?

You are, of course, completely right.

Right up to the moment that someone pipes up and says "but I don't think my life will be complete until I've settled down, got married, and had children!"

Mid-life crises have a rather nasty habit of forcing an urgent resolution on that issue. Especially on women. But even on men, to a lesser extent, seeing as a lot of people prefer companionship with people of their own age group, and it can be a lot more difficult to set up and maintain a relationship over a big age gap.

But what if the issue is left unresolved? You've then got an existential angst problem. And it seems to me that existential angst does tend to correlate with drug and alcohol abuse, to some extent.

But I don't think the solution to that problem is to stop people from being gay, and force them to be straight. We really don't need a population explosion. If some people don't want kids, that's okay by me; indeed, if they're able to find a sense of place in the community, and a sense of purpose in life, that does not require them to have children, then that is to be very much encouraged. And besides - you can always adopt or foster.

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

This is an interesting story. I am sure that our sexuality is more fragile and complex than we often think or are comfortable imagining. However me typing "I Am Straight" just now doesn't make it so.
Reading Michael's story I am struck by continuity as much as discontinuity. Here was this passionately articulate 'out' gay man who seemed to be a role model to many who has now embraced the particular certainties of Christian fundamentalism. At both stages he is convinced of the absolute rightness of his cause. Some of us feel our way, struggle for meaning and muddle through - he doesn't seem to and seems to need the certainty of rightness.
God loves me more than "some dude" can, I am sure. Also God loves me more than any woman could either but in the economy of God desire, erotic and romantic love serve to make us more loving, tender, creative and humane. Michael's observation is both self evidently true and completely misses the point at the same time.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
There seems to be a whole mythology that has grown up around "coming out". It seems to teach that if you're unhappy, it's because you're probably gay, and you're still in the closet. It also acknowledges that coming out is a scary thing to do - much like the quester who goes to slay the big scary monster or dragon that's hiding in the enchanted forest or misty mountains, or whatever - but once you have slain that monster, and established yourself as gay, then the gay community will celebrate you as a hero, and everything will be better.

Trouble is - very often, it doesn't actually work.

But the "coming out" pop myth lives on. Is it any wonder if people who aren't actually gay, but who are merely a bit insecure in the idea that they are straight, end up latching onto the "coming out" myth, in the hope that it might solve their problems?

Are you gay or lesbian yourself? I think you trivialise what is an absolutely enormous challenge for almost every queer person I've ever known, including myself.

I've spent a long time supporting people who were in the process of coming out to themselves, probably the biggest hurdle they'll ever jump, particularly if they're married to someone of the opposite sex. And for young gay people who are well aware of the potential for violence at home and at school when they come out, you say what? Its not real, you might be straight?

I agree about the spectrum and about the potential for shifts, but I think you also need to respect the lived experiences of gay men and lesbians. For most of us the pressure does come off when we come out. Not the external pressure, but the pressure of having to lie about yourself every time you deny your partner or pretend you are interested in the opposite sex hottie everyone else is talking about, not inviting anyone over to your house without having to de-gay it, staying home rather than going out so that important people don't see you with your partner, avoiding other queers in case someone thinks you might be... etc., etc. Just a few of the strategies I've heard about over the years.

If someone came to me and said they thought they might be gay, I'm not going to take them to a gay bar or a lesbian potluck. I'm going to let them talk to me about what they're actually feeling. Explore a bit what they mean by "gay." I'd be honoured that they felt OK to talk with me because I know how hard that initial contact can be. It took me six months to get out of the library section on homosexuality (I worked in a university) and shaking, to talk to a friend. That was relatively quick, in my experience.

I don't care if people go back and forth. I find it unlikely that I ever will, but then, most of my friends are male, so who knows. More to the point, I'm in a happy, stable, long-term (18 years and still loving it) relationship and I can't see that ending except by the death of one of us some time well into the future.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

I found it interesting that Mr. Glatze relocated to someplace as gay-unfriendly as Wyoming. As I've observed before the "ex-gay" movement does not seem to have the ability to make gay people straight, just celibate.

An interesting counterpoint to this article, for those with twenty-six minutes to burn, is The "Sissy Boy" Experiment.

Part One [9:01]
Part Two [7:56]
Part Three [8:58]

Short version for those who don't have half an hour: a study was conducted at UCLA to "cure" young boys of effeminate behavior (and keep them from turning gay). The program, conducted by George "Lift My Luggage" Rekers, resulted in a deeply introverted and unhappy individual who eventually committed suicide, though it is still cited as a success by the ex-gay movement and is the basis for some current treatments. (As a crossover, the Dr. Nicolosi mentioned briefly in the article is interviewed in Part Three starting around 2:30.)

From my perspective, any "program" that uses beatings in an attempt to alter someone's underlying psychology is questionable from the start.

There's also a follow up (along the lines of commentary rather than additional information) from the subsequent week.

Part Four [4:28]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
It reminds me of IngoB's faith DNA. It sounds like Michael needs to 1) have an air-tight, rigorous framework to his sexuality and his views on it, 2) he wants to save people from wrong sexuality, and 3) he has to allow no wriggle room for doubts that he is right.

And how would your points 1-3 have anything to do with my "faith DNA" thread, other than in your own prejudices?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
Evensong, what an interesting idea! In my case, I struggled for years with the idea of a Father God. I always wondered why people couldn't picture or relate to a Mother God. When I was trying to be a happy little heterosexual and failing miserably, I thought I was under the wrath of an angry male God. When a friend (a Catholic nun, no less!) told me that it was perfectly all right to picture God as Mother, a lot of my hang-ups and struggles resolved themselves. Now I'm an out and proud lesbian but it's funny... although I mostly imagine and experience God as Mother, I don't consider Her as Lover. Ok, maybe sometimes, but mostly not. Maybe this has not a thing to do with what you all are discussing! It's late, I'm very tired and now I'm going to bed.

Thanks for sharing this. Adds to my collection of odd thoughts. [Smile]

So do you have serious issues with your mother? [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evensong, that bit you quoted is another illustration of what I'm talking about.

Ex-gay groups definitely do hit the 'father issues' button a lot - that was my experience as well.

But who the heck DOESN'T have father issues? The percentage of the population with father issues of some description is massively high, as is the percentage of the male population who struggle in some way with their concept of masculinity. In both cases, way higher than the percentage of homosexuals.

If you ask a homosexual male whether they have father issues, they're going to go "Oh My God Yes, How Did You Know?'. But so what? Where's the correlation?

It's a lot like selling tiger repellent.

Even if you could prove correlation, is the son gay because he had father issues, or are there father issues because the father and son are aware at some level that the son is gay?

Quite right on all of the above orfeo. Everybody has issues with their parents and proving gay people had more serious issues with either parent than heterosexuals would be hard to do.

I've just noticed that quite a few clergy are gay and wonder if:

1) There is a higher percentage of gay people (I'm mainly talking about men actually - I only know of one gay female priest) in clerical office

2) If that has something to do with suppression of sexuality and projection onto a male God.

Re the father issue. I've often heard gay men actually struggle with over dominating, over controlling mothers. But then again, that's just hearsay.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Aye. Not least when we're in a week where all the CofE Gay Bishop stuff has happened,... and our best compromise is that the 10% of Bishops who are known to be gay either have to hide, or have to repent of all gayness

Ten percent of CofE Bishops are gay?

Is that a higher incidence than the normal populace?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I don't want to tangent this thread so I've started another one with clergy issue.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
That said, one has to be skeptical of claims to have changed from gay to straight, simply because there have been so many examples of such claims that turned out to be false.
Okay. But should we not also be sceptical of claims to have changed from straight to gay, for the same reason?

Indeed, should we also not be sceptical of the claims of anyone who says they're straight, even if they have never previously claimed to be gay - on the grounds that some people do indeed "come out" as gay later on in life?

It can be highly traumatic for a previously-thought straight person to come out as gay - but, likewise, it can be highly traumatic for a previously-thought gay person to come out as straight. So I think we should not be sceptical of it - because it's precisely that scepticism that drives people in this situation into the hands of Christian fundamentalists.

Jessie, your points in this post and the previous one are good so far as they go.

I think the main argument against equal treatment of both situations is that the societal pressures tend to be specifically in one direction, not the other. Perhaps there are some situations now where there is pressure to appear gay, but it would still strike me as somewhat unusual. If there's pressure in either direction (and really there shouldn't be in an ideal world), I would still think it far more likely that the pressure is in favour of heterosexuality.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

ADDENDUM: Although I would be more prepared to accept that there might be pressure on bisexuals to 'declare themselves' one way or the other.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
There seems to be a whole mythology that has grown up around "coming out". It seems to teach that if you're unhappy, it's because you're probably gay, and you're still in the closet. It also acknowledges that coming out is a scary thing to do - much like the quester who goes to slay the big scary monster or dragon that's hiding in the enchanted forest or misty mountains, or whatever - but once you have slain that monster, and established yourself as gay, then the gay community will celebrate you as a hero, and everything will be better.

Trouble is - very often, it doesn't actually work.

But the "coming out" pop myth lives on. Is it any wonder if people who aren't actually gay, but who are merely a bit insecure in the idea that they are straight, end up latching onto the "coming out" myth, in the hope that it might solve their problems?
Are you gay or lesbian yourself? I think you trivialise what is an absolutely enormous challenge for almost every queer person I've ever known, including myself.

I've spent a long time supporting people who were in the process of coming out to themselves, probably the biggest hurdle they'll ever jump, particularly if they're married to someone of the opposite sex. And for young gay people who are well aware of the potential for violence at home and at school when they come out, you say what? Its not real, you might be straight?

If you doggedly insist that absolutely everyone who comes out really is gay, then you can't say that ex-gays were never actually gay to start off with.

However, if you do insist that reparative therapy doesn't work, and that anyone who claims to be straight when they formerly claimed to be gay was never really gay to begin with - then you've got to concede that this means that some of the people who come out as gay must, therefore, be straight.

You can't have it both ways. It's got to be one or the other.

Unless, of course, you concede that queer theory has got some mileage, and that our notions of "sexual orientation" may have some fluidity, and may even be - dare I say it - social constructs.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think the main argument against equal treatment of both situations is that the societal pressures tend to be specifically in one direction, not the other. Perhaps there are some situations now where there is pressure to appear gay, but it would still strike me as somewhat unusual.

Don't you realise what a slippery slope it is to argue in this way, though?

It's all very well to argue that it's unusual for a gay person to turn straight. But then again, you could equally well argue that it's unusual for people to be gay at all.

If you argued that gay people shouldn't be treated equally, simply on the grounds that there aren't that many of them, and that most people are straight - then a lot of people would be horrified. You roll back decades of the gay rights movement with arguments like that.

So why should ex-gays be any different? I'm honestly not seeing it.

The biggest problem with allowing Christian fundamentalists to capitalise on this is that, generally speaking, they're not very sympathetic to the gay movement as a whole.

Personally, I think that the best way would be to let queer theory run its course, in the hope that it might put an end to people thinking about "gay" and "straight" in terms of "them" and "us". But there's a problem, in that it unavoidably trivialises coming-out narratives.

That's why I think that the story-telling tradition that has sprung up out of "coming out" ideology acts in opposition to developments in queer theory.

If you want the "coming out" narrative to continue to be treated as holy, then the "apostate" ex-gays must continue to suffer for it.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
It reminds me of IngoB's faith DNA. It sounds like Michael needs to 1) have an air-tight, rigorous framework to his sexuality and his views on it, 2) he wants to save people from wrong sexuality, and 3) he has to allow no wriggle room for doubts that he is right.
And how would your points 1-3 have anything to do with my "faith DNA" thread, other than in your own prejudices?

Obviously, I've just piddled on your parade somehow.

I thought the "faith DNA" had something to do with certain points of necessity that could be interchangeable between faith frameworks but remain consistent in a person's faith journey. I certainly wasn't comparing Michael's mindset (or "DNA") to your own in any way. You had to spend a lot of time on the thread defending the metaphor against literalness instead of expanding your thoughts on your subject. So quite possibly I missed some key points that you were making.

My comparison of Michael's journey in sexuality with the idea of faith DNA was that in both his gay and straight personas he seems to me to have those philosophical requirements I listed. If my analysis of the things I read in the article seem like "prejudice" to you, I least I put it that "It sounds like Michael needs to..." I'm well aware that no one can have a real understanding of a person's thoughts and experiences from one article. But that's what we have to work with and on which to give opinions.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I don't think you read to the end of my post Jessie - the bit where I said I agree there is a spectrum and people go back and forth, and no, it didn't worry me.

However, if one goes to the gay/lesbian end of the spectrum, inevitably, one has to decide whether to come out or not. My observations are simply that it is usually rather better for the individual's mental health if they do. It may solve no other problems in their life, such as not fitting in, or not being able to find a partner. But as EM Forster said (rather paraphrased because its a long time since I read it), "The problem with a secret is that you lose all sense of proportion about it, and it takes over your life."

I watched this with my previous partner. She had never had a male partner. She lived with me. We did lots of things together. People visited us at home. But out in public, she completely ignored me in the hope that everyone would think she was straight. It was the worst kept secret in the art community in our city. And when we broke up, I decided I was never going to let anyone do that to me again.

She still walks six metres in front of her current (female) partner when they go somewhere. People are still gossiping. She's still pretending. If she came out, there would be nothing to gossip about - instead it gets treated like a dirty secret, which is how she viewed it. Her fear ruled the way she lived her life. How is that good for her mental health?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Michael seems a very strange person, almost one addicted to proclaiming extreme positions, yet hiding what he actually believes. He learnt the queer jargon and used it; he has now learned the fundamental jargon, and uses that. Is either position Michael? In the joint photo, he seems detached, and it is Ben who looks committed.

He would probably be a real risk in any relationship. His partner would never know what he really felt about anything.

I feel sorry for him in so many ways.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Jessie, I have absolutely no idea how you managed to equate discrimination with scepticism about claims.

They are two utterly different concepts. So no, there isn't the slightest slippery slope involved at all.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
However, if one goes to the gay/lesbian end of the spectrum, inevitably, one has to decide whether to come out or not. My observations are simply that it is usually rather better for the individual's mental health if they do. It may solve no other problems in their life, such as not fitting in, or not being able to find a partner. But as EM Forster said (rather paraphrased because its a long time since I read it), "The problem with a secret is that you lose all sense of proportion about it, and it takes over your life."

Ah, I think you misinterpreted the point I was trying to make then.

My point was not about trying to argue the relative merits of "coming out" on the one hand, versus "staying in the closet" on the other, as if to say that it's sometimes better to stay in.

Rather, my point was that the distinction between "coming out" and "staying in the closet" is often turned into a false dichotomy.

How is it possible to be only "half" out, you might ask? Well, in reality, there are many areas of human activity where your sexual orientation just isn't relevant. For example, if you sit an academic exam, and there's an anonymous marking scheme in place, then the question of whether you're gay or straight really shouldn't make any difference. So it makes no sense to speak of "coming out" in that context either.

However, the popular "coming out" meta-narrative seems to deny this. It assumes that you're either "in" or "out" with the entire community, but fails to specify what this means in practice.

For example, supposing a person goes to gay socials or gay bars - but doesn't tell any of their relatives. The fact that their relatives don't know about it might be regarded by some as meaning that they have not yet "come out" - and to "come out" means to tell your relatives that you're gay.

But what does this mean for an orphan? A person in that situation has no-one to come out to.

Another way of looking at it is that if you're putting in an appearance at gay bars or socials, you're already "out", regardless of what your relatives do or don't know - and that a person who is "in" is someone who harbours homoerotic fantasies but never tells anyone about it at all. Under this sense, an orphan can be thought to have "come out".

There's all sorts of other permutations of what it might mean to be "in" or "out", depending on how many communities and social circles you are a member of, the strength of your commitment to or dependency on any of those circles, and the extent to which they do or don't overlap. Not to mention the question of whether you're in a relationship or not. Is it possible for one half of a couple to be "out" but not the other?

But the popular view of "coming out" as a rite of passage seems to deny all this. It suggests that you're either "in", or you're "out", and that's that. "Coming out" is seen as something that a gay person should only ever have to do once, a bit like the Christian belief that baptism is something you only have to do once.

But in reality, there is no universally recognised "coming out" ceremony, in the way that there are near-universally-recognised marriage and graduation ceremonies. The question of what it means to "come out" depends very much on the social circumstances.

So how do explain that we have a "coming out" meta-narrative at all?

It seems to me that we have a culture in which gay people spin yarns about their experience of coming out - but they spice those yarns up to make them sound more like a hero-quest than they actually are. Occasionally, they even write novels or shoot films about it. This has the effect of making the distinction between being "in the closet" and being "out of the closet" sound bigger than it actually is in reality.

It also has the effect of galvanising people - both gay and straight - into their sense of sexual identity, thereby making the distinction between "gay" and "straight" sound bigger than it actually is.

But the problem is, it's very difficult to acknowledge that, without trivialising people's coming-out stories.

I don't think it would be fair to assume that anyone who has ever spun a half-interesting yarn about coming out must, by virtue of that story, be a smooth-talking con artist. Even if they've embellished that story a bit. Some of these yarns may first have been spun when the story-teller was a patient in a talking therapy setting, as part of a process of addressing the problems for which they were referred to therapy in the first place. Then they simply retell the same stories out of therapy that they first told in therapy.

So even though I'm sceptical of a lot of coming-out yarns, I still think that the associated story-telling culture is valuable, it improves social bonding, and it is therefore worth preserving.

However, in spite of that, I still think it plays a part in exacerbating the plight of ex-gays - but not to the extent that ex-gays wouldn't face any problems if the coming-out story-telling culture didn't exist at all.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Jessie, I have absolutely no idea how you managed to equate discrimination with scepticism about claims.

It's easy. If a person complains that they have been discriminated against on the basis that they are gay, then you can answer it simply by saying that you don't believe that the person who made the complaint really is gay.

Or are you saying that the only people who are capable of discriminating against gays are those who do at least acknowledge the existence of homosexuality?

If we are to admit the possibility that people who don't believe homosexuality exists may be able to discriminate against gay people, then we must also admit the possibility that people who don't believe ex-gays exist may also discriminate against ex-gays.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Obviously, I've just piddled on your parade somehow.

Sorry, I guess that was knee-jerk reaction. I spent quite some time trying to establish that the "faith DNA" idea is not just another term for "dogmatic intolerance" and is applicable beyond motivating "rule book conformism". It's intended to be widely applicable, e.g., also to apparently "anarchistic" ultra-liberals. And then this sounded like you identified my idea with only the former, again...

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I understand. I rather like the idea of faith DNA. Which is why I borrowed it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Jessie, I have absolutely no idea how you managed to equate discrimination with scepticism about claims.
It's easy. If a person complains that they have been discriminated against on the basis that they are gay, then you can answer it simply by saying that you don't believe that the person who made the complaint really is gay.

Or are you saying that the only people who are capable of discriminating against gays are those who do at least acknowledge the existence of homosexuality?

If we are to admit the possibility that people who don't believe homosexuality exists may be able to discriminate against gay people, then we must also admit the possibility that people who don't believe ex-gays exist may also discriminate against ex-gays.

That still makes no sense whatsoever, and bears no resemblance to what I said about PROBABILITY, nor is the belief that everybody has the same sexuality (ie heterosexuality) equivalent to the belief that nobody changes their sexuality.

And no, you CAN'T actually discriminate against homosexuals if you don't think they exist. You can still, however, discriminate against people who claim to be homosexual.

But it's on the first point that your logic falls down in a massive heap. Beliefs about people's sexuality and beliefs about people's capacity to change their sexuality are two different concepts. Fusing them together like that just doesn't work.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

And if I'm *sceptical* about the capacity of people to change their sexuality, that might be because I spent 17 years trying to do just that. And it didn't work.

If anyone suggests I simply didn't try hard enough, you'll be able to hear the howls of rage from anywhere on the planet.

[ 24. June 2011, 00:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Furthermore, if one accepts for the sake of argument that it IS possible to change your sexuality (as distinct from your behaviour), then there is a very nasty question that follows: WHY DO IT? WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

The only arguments in favour of it I've ever seen are the ones that this man is now espousing. And if he's right, then you are telling me that God cursed me with failure. 17 years of trying to change to be the 'right' sexuality, the last 2 of them in the sort of ex-gay programs that talk the way Michael now does... and failure.

Now, if anyone has any OTHER arguments in favour of changing one's sexuality, I'm all ears. Again, sexuality not behaviour. Because many if not most bisexual people will stick with a partner of a particular gender. And also because I resolved my sexuality, finally, without ever having had sex with anyone. Sexuality is about who attracts you, not who you are bonking at a particular point in time.

[ 24. June 2011, 00:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Aye. Not least when we're in a week where all the CofE Gay Bishop stuff has happened,... and our best compromise is that the 10% of Bishops who are known to be gay either have to hide, or have to repent of all gayness
Ten percent of CofE Bishops are gay?

Is that a higher incidence than the normal populace?

Quite likely. Alfred Kinsey's study in the late 1940s found 10% of men were gay, but his numbers have not generally been revised downward, using what is generally regarded as mor precise methodology.

The numbers vary, but no one that I've ever heard of has duplicated Kinsey's 10% estimate. A UCLA study, for example, found that 3.8% of the total population identified as gay, bisexual, or transgender.

[ 24. June 2011, 06:54: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Perhaps the happy ex-gays were actually bisexual rather than gay? I find it hard to believe that someone entirely homosexual could change so completely.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

Also because it's possible to love someone very much indeed as a person rather than because they are male or female. Love is as powerful as lust, I'd say, and can achieve the same end results.

Looking through magazines aimed at women, I can happily ignore all the piccies of "hunky blokes with no clothes on tastefully posed" - it's not interesting. But I have to keep me eyes firmly closed if it's piccies of women in very little [Help]

. My brain registers women as its object-of-attention, not men. Yet I'm married, most happily and faithfully and wonderfully, to a truly lovely man whom I love with all my heart and thoroughly enjoy all aspects of life with. And who accepts me totally as I am (even in the midst of all this bloomin' business with cancer etc). Do I regret my choice? Not for a second.

I think sexuality is something society tries to compartmentalise for convenience. But a lot of people in the LGBT communities aren't so easily put into 'boxes' or understood in that way.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And if I'm *sceptical* about the capacity of people to change their sexuality, that might be because I spent 17 years trying to do just that. And it didn't work.

If anyone suggests I simply didn't try hard enough, you'll be able to hear the howls of rage from anywhere on the planet.

Right. So an African-Carribean black guy who lived in the Southern States finds that he's spent years on the receiving end of racist abuse, he thinks all his problems would go away if he could just be white, but it's impossible. Bleaching his hair, using theatrical make-up, it's all absurd, because it's not going to make any difference, he'll still face racist abuse all the same.

Then, one day, some dude who suffers from albinism comes along. He says he used to be teased in the playground at school about being a "ghost", and one day he hit back, and it all went pear-shaped, and he's been ostracised from the community ever since.

Does the sufferer of albinism deserve all the howls of rage that are directed against him, from the black people who wished that they could be white - not to mention the white people who think they're proving their own anti-racism credentials by siding with the mob?

I don't see how your vitriol against ex-gays for "not being as gay as they should be" is any different to the vitriol directed against albinos for "not being as black as they should be".

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Furthermore, if one accepts for the sake of argument that it IS possible to change your sexuality (as distinct from your behaviour), then there is a very nasty question that follows: WHY DO IT? WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

You have committed the fallacy of assuming that the people whose sexuality has changed are somehow more in control of their sexuality than those whose sexuality hasn't.

If it was possible to change your sexuality, then there wouldn't be a problem. Ex-gays would be able to change themselves back into gays again, and the problem would be solved.

It's precisely because they can't change themselves back into gays that the problems they face arise in the first place. And, to add insult to injury, it seems that the only people who are prepared to take that seriously, and to provide any support (flawed though it is), are the Christian fundamentalists.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Right. So an African-Carribean black guy who lived in the Southern States finds that he's spent years on the receiving end of racist abuse, he thinks all his problems would go away if he could just be white, but it's impossible. Bleaching his hair, using theatrical make-up, it's all absurd, because it's not going to make any difference, he'll still face racist abuse all the same.

Then, one day, some dude who suffers from albinism comes along. He says he used to be teased in the playground at school about being a "ghost", and one day he hit back, and it all went pear-shaped, and he's been ostracised from the community ever since.

Does the sufferer of albinism deserve all the howls of rage that are directed against him, from the black people who wished that they could be white - not to mention the white people who think they're proving their own anti-racism credentials by siding with the mob? [/QB]

For the analogy to work, the albino would have to be ex-black. No White claim it's possible to change from black to white or albino. No albinos claim that either. But some heteros do claim it's possible to change from homo to hetero. This analogy is dead out of the gate.

[ 24. June 2011, 17:53: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

Seems to me that Glatze is tied to certainty. He use to have it in his identity as a gay man. He now has it in his identity as a straight Christian.

Fine. He can stand in his certainty.

He doesn't get to say that it explains things for anybody else but him.

But it's clear that doesn't work for him. To have his certainty, he has to stand in judgment of others.

Phhhht on that.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I don't see how your vitriol against ex-gays for "not being as gay as they should be" is any different to the vitriol directed against albinos for "not being as black as they should be".

As well as seconding mousethief's response, I don't see where you got the idea that I had vitriol against ex-gays for 'not being as gay as they should be' to begin with.

Any harshness in this thread has been directed at (1) people who tell people they OUGHT to become 'ex-gay', and (2) probably you for mounting arguments that make no sense whatsoever.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Put it this way: if there was a person who said that they were gay, didn't have a problem with being gay, but they weren't gay anymore, I doubt that would trouble me.

But that is not this situation. What we have here is the usual: a person who says that they were gay, but (hallelujah!) they've seen the light!

To paint this as equivalent to the reverse move is completly disingenuous. You will not find anyone who says they were straight but (hallelujah!) they've seen the light and become homosexual. Except possibly a particularly fundmanetalist advocate of population control. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
You have committed the fallacy of assuming that the people whose sexuality has changed are somehow more in control of their sexuality than those whose sexuality hasn't.

If it was possible to change your sexuality, then there wouldn't be a problem. Ex-gays would be able to change themselves back into gays again, and the problem would be solved.

It's precisely because they can't change themselves back into gays that the problems they face arise in the first place. And, to add insult to injury, it seems that the only people who are prepared to take that seriously, and to provide any support (flawed though it is), are the Christian fundamentalists.

And you're arguing in knots, because it was the fundamentalist Christians who told this man HE COULD CONTROL HIS SEXUALITY.

Not me. Them. So it's completely bizarre for you try to turn this around and say I'm the one propagating fallacy. He didn't change his declared sexuality because it just naturally happened. He 'changed his sexuality' because people told him (1) he COULD, and (2) he SHOULD.

[ 25. June 2011, 10:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As well as seconding mousethief's response, I don't see where you got the idea that I had vitriol against ex-gays for 'not being as gay as they should be' to begin with.

Any harshness in this thread has been directed at (1) people who tell people they OUGHT to become 'ex-gay', and (2) probably you for mounting arguments that make no sense whatsoever.

That may be. But for a person who is ex-gay, it can be hard to make that distinction. All they hear is that people don't take them seriously - and that people get angry at the suggestion that perhaps they might now be straight, when they thought they were gay in the past.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Put it this way: if there was a person who said that they were gay, didn't have a problem with being gay, but they weren't gay anymore, I doubt that would trouble me.

This is not about you personally.

You see, any of us could just as easily say that if there was a person who said that they were straight, didn't have a problem with being straight, but they weren't straight any more, then it wouldn't trouble us.

But that doesn't change the fact that coming out can be a difficult and frightening experience for some.

Or are you now telling me that coming out is a trivially simple matter, and that anyone who ever says they found it difficult to come to terms with being gay, is just a histrionic attention-seeker who's making mountains out of molehills?

Looks like a double-standard to me.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But that is not this situation. What we have here is the usual: a person who says that they were gay, but (hallelujah!) they've seen the light!

I don't see how it's any different to the triumphalism that is sometimes associated with people's coming out stories.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And you're arguing in knots, because it was the fundamentalist Christians who told this man HE COULD CONTROL HIS SEXUALITY.

So you're telling me that fundamentalists convincing gays that they can control their own sexuality is a serious problem, then?

The way I look at it is this: a person either can change their sexuality, or they can't. If they can't, then it should be self-evident that they can't. So the attempts that Christian fundamentalists make to convince them otherwise won't make any difference.

So, what exactly is the problem here?

Is it that the fundamentalists are actually right?
Or is it that that the ex-gays secretly know that the fundamentalists are wrong, but, for some reason, they see fit to peddle their myths anyway?

If it's the former, then I can't see why that would actually be a problem. So let's suppose for a moment that it's the latter. Why do you suppose an ex-gay might be motivated to toe the fundamentalist line?

Try and empathise for a moment, and see it from the ex-gay's point of view.

If it was actually true that they could control their sexuality, then why would they put up with all the vitriol that gets thrown at them by the gay community for being a traitor to the cause?

Do you seriously think that being alienated from their former friends is something that causes them absolutely no pain whatsoever?

Surely it would be a lot simpler for ex-gays just to cut the crazy fundies loose, change back to being gay again, so that they can enjoy the benefit of the mutual support network of the LGBT community, who, you'd have thought, could understand them and empathise with their plight much much better than the Christian fundies possibly can.

But for some reason, that doesn't happen.

The way I see it is that there's a turf war going on, between the LGBT ideologists, and the Christian fundamentalists. They both want to claim the ex-gays for their own. I personally don't believe that either side has got the moral high ground - but it's not hard for me to see how the fundamentalists might be able to get the edge from time to time.

If the LGBT ideologists want to win that war, then they will need to go one better than the Christian fundamentalists. How hard can that be? By your own admission, the fundamentalists manipulate people into spending their time propagate stuff that clearly isn't true. So they're not exactly bastions of the hospitality ethic, now, are they?

But if, in spite of the low standards of the fundamentalists, the LGBT ideologists still can't do any better, then I don't think the LGBT ideologists can claim the moral high ground.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Yep. "Could" and "should" seem to be the key words here. If in a mirror-image experience someone told me that my heterosexual orientation was not something I was stuck with, that I could change it and should change it, I'd find it hard to believe that I could and even dafter to believe that I should. But that's the way I am. Not everyone is.

I guess there are three main categories here.

1. Folks who are sure that their orientation is hetero- or homo- and who believe and act accordingly.

2. Folks who are sure that their orientation is, to some greater or lesser extent bi- and who believe and act accordingly.

3. Folks who are not sure about their sexual orientation and find the whole issue a puzzle.

If you're in category 3, the best kind of help you can get is from somebody who doesn't really mind how you resolve your uncertainty.

Most folks I've met fall into categories 1 or 2, but I have talked with a few in category 3. One time, I listened to a young man talk through his confusion. He thought he might be gay, even though he really was attracted to girls, and wasn't turned on by men. Couldn't work it out.

Turned out that an element of chavvyness in his peer group had given him the impression that sensitivity and emotional openness were characteristics of females and gays, but not "real" men. Not so much said, more implied. "Good Lord", I thought, "macho man rides again".

After the conversation, I was pretty sure he was strongly hetero-, but a good deal less sure about one or two of his more chavvy friends. Seemed to me likely that there was some compensation and smokescreening going on.

A personal lesson I learned was the realisation that I wasn't bothered about which direction the clarification led to. Far better for him just to understand himself better, whatever that meant. A classic non-nouthetic counsellor's guideline at work, but it made moral sense as well.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If you're in category 3, the best kind of help you can get is from somebody who doesn't really mind how you resolve your uncertainty.

I know this is classic non-nouthetic advice ... and B62 down to a't' ... but I'd like to push you further on this -

Do you really mean this? Doesn't mind at all? What if they resolved it by going out and having sex with any animal, vegetable or mineral they wanted? What if it was without consent?

IME there is no such thing really as completely non-nouthetic counselling. Or at least if there was B62 wouldn't sign up for it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
The way I look at it is this: a person either can change their sexuality, or they can't. If they can't, then it should be self-evident that they can't. So the attempts that Christian fundamentalists make to convince them otherwise won't make any difference.

What. Absolute. Rubbish.

The attempts that were made to convince me otherwise did massive amounts of damage. They certainly prolonged my psychological suffering by... *rough calculations* 5 to 10 years.

The rest of your post is so full of appalling stupidity that I don't kmow where to begin. You constantly speak of 'double standards' while fusing together concepts that aren't equivalent. You use analogies that don't make any sense.

I have no idea what your agenda is here. As far as I can tell, you're furiously trying to defend the right of people to change their sexuality of their own free will, while providing no evidence whatsoever that this actually ever happens. Here in the real world, people respond and react to the pressures that are put on them. Those pressures are not equal and opposite.

Christian fundamentalists do not go around saying 'hey, did you know that you can change your sexuality if they want to'. They go around saying 'this is not really you and you MUST change'. I have never, ever met a gay person that goes around saying that to their outwardly straight friends.

And for your information, a heck of a lot of ex-gays become ex-ex-gays. Not only is the failure rate of these ex-gay programs massive, so is the 'recividism' rate. So guess what? What you suggested would happen, but then dismisssed, IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS!

Frankly, if you want to continue this discussion any further, I suggest we move it to Hell. Because I doubt I can limit my frustration at your bizarre methods of argument any longer. Your only position seems to be a desire to be as vague and unclear as possible.

[ 25. June 2011, 14:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I don't see how it's any different to the triumphalism that is sometimes associated with people's coming out stories.

Because they are celebrating COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS, not exact opposites!! [brick wall]

Celebrating a change of sexuality/sexual behaviour and celebrating a new openness about sexuality are totally different. And this is what I mean when I refer to you fusing concepts together in ways that make no sense. The difference between the two 'celebrations' is so breathtakingly obvious that I can only conclude you haven't the slightest idea about coming out. AT ALL. And probably not about ex-gay programs either.

Well I've been around both, thanks.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

For your analogy to work, an ex-gay would have to be someone who secretly knew they were straight all along, and has finally declared to the world that fact after years of pretending to be gay.

That is not how it's dealt with in any ex-gay program I have either been part of or heard about. It's a completely bizarre proposition.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Hi Orfeo,
If it's any help, I notice that Jessie makes the same kind of posts on the abortion threads, so I don't think it's anything to do with this issue, but more to do with his style of posting.

So I wouldn't bother getting upset by the content of his posts, I dont think anyone is in any danger of being convinced of anything by them. As to why he posts in this way- that would have to be a Hell call. But don't let it provoke you!

cheers,
Louise

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You will not find anyone who says they were straight but (hallelujah!) they've seen the light and become homosexual. Except possibly a particularly fundmanetalist advocate of population control.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If you're in category 3, the best kind of help you can get is from somebody who doesn't really mind how you resolve your uncertainty.
I know this is classic non-nouthetic advice ... and B62 down to a't' ... but I'd like to push you further on this -

Do you really mean this? Doesn't mind at all? What if they resolved it by going out and having sex with any animal, vegetable or mineral they wanted? What if it was without consent?

IME there is no such thing really as completely non-nouthetic counselling. Or at least if there was B62 wouldn't sign up for it.

Aren't you mixing up orientation and behavioural ethics? Or maybe I am!

I was actually thinking about the difference between Carl Rogers and Jay Adams. You're right that no one completely checks their moral code at the counselling door, but there's a difference between knowing that and imposing that.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:

Try and empathise for a moment, and see it from the ex-gay's point of view.

If it was actually true that they could control their sexuality, then why would they put up with all the vitriol that gets thrown at them by the gay community for being a traitor to the cause?

Do you seriously think that being alienated from their former friends is something that causes them absolutely no pain whatsoever?

Surely it would be a lot simpler for ex-gays just to cut the crazy fundies loose, change back to being gay again, so that they can enjoy the benefit of the mutual support network of the LGBT community, who, you'd have thought, could understand them and empathise with their plight much much better than the Christian fundies possibly can.

But for some reason, that doesn't happen.

The way I see it is that there's a turf war going on, between the LGBT ideologists, and the Christian fundamentalists. They both want to claim the ex-gays for their own. I personally don't believe that either side has got the moral high ground - but it's not hard for me to see how the fundamentalists might be able to get the edge from time to time.

If the LGBT ideologists want to win that war, then they will need to go one better than the Christian fundamentalists. How hard can that be? By your own admission, the fundamentalists manipulate people into spending their time propagate stuff that clearly isn't true. So they're not exactly bastions of the hospitality ethic, now, are they?

But if, in spite of the low standards of the fundamentalists, the LGBT ideologists still can't do any better, then I don't think the LGBT ideologists can claim the moral high ground.

Except that Michael Glatze is not merely an "ex-gay" with a "live-and-let-live" attitude; he's on a crusade against homosexuality, by his own admission.

quote:
“Homosexuality, delivered to young minds, is by its very nature pornographic,” he claimed. In a second WorldNetDaily article a week later, he said that he was “repulsed to think about homosexuality” and that he was “going to do what I can to fight it.”

....

“God loves you more than any dude will ever love you,” he told me at the cafe. “Don’t put your faith in some man, some flesh. That’s what we do when we’re stuck in the gay identity, when we’re stuck in that cave. We go from guy to guy, looking for someone to love us and make us feel O.K., but God is so much better than all the other masters out there.”

Michael, who is 36, now often refers to gay life as a kind of cave — or cage. In an open letter to Ricky Martin, published on WorldNetDaily after Martin came out, he wrote, “Homosexuality is a cage in which you are trapped in an endless cycle of constantly wanting more — sexually — that you can never actually receive, constantly full of emptiness, trying to justify your twisted actions by politics and ‘feel good’ language.”

I mean, this is a generalization extended to all gay people - but based only on his own personal experience. He doesn't seem to realize he's projecting his own feelings onto everybody else, either. (I mean, this isn't my experience at all.)

So in fact, he is a "traitor" - not to any "cause," but to his own friends, by claiming things about them that simply aren't true. If he'd just have talked about himself, and his own experience, I don't think anybody would be troubled at all.

Even so, in fact, he did get some sympathy from the very people he's attacking; at least one person in the article stated, openly, that he was "worried about [Michael]." And nobody has attacked him at all.

It would probably be good if you read the article. Then you'd have some idea of what the facts are here.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
That said, one has to be skeptical of claims to have changed from gay to straight, simply because there have been so many examples of such claims that turned out to be false.
Okay. But should we not also be sceptical of claims to have changed from straight to gay, for the same reason?

You have to take social desirability into account. And most people I know whose behavior changed from straight to gay didn't say they changed, they said they discovered the true gay self they'd really been all along. Which has to be take with a grain of salt in the light of our well-documented tendency to recall our past feelings and attitudes in a way that harmonizes with our current ones.

I should say that I don't believe the malleability of sexual orientation has any bearing at all on the moral question. Even if people could change it at will, there's no reason why they should.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
That said, one has to be skeptical of claims to have changed from gay to straight, simply because there have been so many examples of such claims that turned out to be false.
Okay. But should we not also be sceptical of claims to have changed from straight to gay, for the same reason?

You have to take social desirability into account. And most people I know whose behavior changed from straight to gay didn't say they changed, they said they discovered the true gay self they'd really been all along. Which has to be take with a grain of salt in the light of our well-documented tendency to recall our past feelings and attitudes in a way that harmonizes with our current ones.

I should say that I don't believe the malleability of sexual orientation has any bearing at all on the moral question. Even if people could change it at will, there's no reason why they should.

Social desirability is an interesting card to play in this context. Fifty years ago (and come to think of it in most periods of history in most cultures) when homosexuality was very generally regarded as a pathological condition, I guess any of us might take the pragmatic view when talking to someone who believed they had a choice over orientation and sexual expression and say "why don't you save yourself a whole parcel of trouble and go with the majority?". I'm saying that was pragmatic advice, not moral advice. In practice, I'm sure such advice has been given and my guess is it may have sometimes got in the way of personal self-awareness. That's it's danger.

But western culture sees things differently now. It's much more a free (i.e. not loaded) choice for those who think they have a choice. If you're like me, and never perceived you had a choice in the first place, the question of the morality, or pragmatism, attached to any such choice doesn't arise.

I think that made my life easier; I have sympathies for those for whom such issues are things they need to face up to.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

Right, Barnabas.

The one gay guy I knew who started out thinking he was straight discovered his gayness after a failed marriage to a woman -- she left him, but not because he was gay, rather because they apparently couldn't conceive. His discovery that he was gay came later, and his same-sexrelationship -- now a marriage -- even later.

But all this was happening over 30 years ago, when there was no good reason at all for him to "become gay". He still is one of the "straightest" men I know in terms of interests, appearance, behaviour and all the rest, and works (as he did then) for a major international which couldn't care less what turns him on. The idea that there might be social reasons for "choosing to be gay" certainly doesn't work for him. (And I'm never sure quite how much validity to give to the concept of "choosing to be gay", which is what Jessie's position is, in essense. Absolutely none is where I start.)

John

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

I will say that I knew people (both male and female) back in the '70s who did, according to them, choose to be bisexual--and at the same time they insisted that they were getting in touch with their true nature--on the grounds that heterosexuality was inherently counter-revolutionary.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

That strikes me as a pretty perverse way to think, Timothy. It seems reasonable to argue, following Kinsey, that human sexuality is more a matter of a spectrum than a matter of poles. But spectrum thinking doesn't rule out folks being at, or pretty much at, the poles, unless one thinks that folks are distributed uniformly along the spectrum. There is pretty strong evidence that is not so.

As a matter of justice, it also seems reasonable to argue that prejudice against people whose sexual orientation is different to the majority is not fair, however deep seated it has often been in human culture. That is pretty much my position.

But to assert that we should express our sexuality for political reasons, rather than in accordance with one's own nature and preferences strikes me as majorly cross-grained. "As a demonstration of an asserted freedom that folks should be free to act responsibly in accordance with their innate nature, I'm going to live bisexually, regardless of my own innate nature". There's something off-base in that assertion, surely?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Aren't you mixing up orientation and behavioural ethics?

Quite possibly, my question involves the degree it is possible to treat the two as distinct.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You're right that no one completely checks their moral code at the counselling door, but there's a difference between knowing that and imposing that.

I don't follow you. Are you saying, for example, that if your counsellee wanted to explore something non-consensual that you would not try at all to steer them in a different direction?

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But to assert that we should express our sexuality for political reasons, rather than in accordance with one's own nature and preferences strikes me as majorly cross-grained. "As a demonstration of an asserted freedom that folks should be free to act responsibly in accordance with their innate nature, I'm going to live bisexually, regardless of my own innate nature". There's something off-base in that assertion, surely?

Yup, and cross-grained was definitely the description I would give of the women I knew who called themselves lesbians for political reasons at the height of the feminist revolution - actually, I'd have called them just plain cross. There were a significant number of them at the time I was first coming out in the early 80s, and they were a bloody pain in the neck to be around. Fortunately most of them did revert to what was normal for them quite quickly. I wouldn't say that they ever were really lesbians in terms of changing their sexual orientation, so I don't think they count in terms of this discussion. They're a historical oddity and I've only come across one other subsequently.

On the other hand, I know only a few lesbians who have never had a relationship with a man - at one stage I was the only one in my circle who hadn't been previously married to a man.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Arabella - I wouldn't be at all surprised if we met some of the same people. They were the only women I have ever met who identified as lesbian and put pressure on straight women. Thank heavens they do seem to have disappeared into the woodwork.

Huia

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You're right that no one completely checks their moral code at the counselling door, but there's a difference between knowing that and imposing that.
I don't follow you. Are you saying, for example, that if your counsellee wanted to explore something non-consensual that you would not try at all to steer them in a different direction?

I'm not sure all centres work the same way, because of differences in both law and ethics of association. The centre where I worked had clear guidelines to cover these situations and these were as follows.

1. At the outset, we explained that complete confidentiality could not be offered; if we heard about illegal personal behaviour, (e.g non-consensual sex, both by force or with those under age), we had a duty of care to inform authorities. That was part of the client contract. The law is, or maybe used to be, a bit murky in this area in the UK. It provides counsellors with limited protection re client confidentiality; there have been test cases and since I'm no longer practising, I'm not sure where the current dividing line stands.

2. As a matter of practice, should a conversation look as though it was heading that way, we would step in immediately with a reminder of the guidelines to which they had agreed and ask them if they were sure they wanted to continue with the conversation.

In general Johnny there is a difference between reflecting back what you've heard and giving an impression that you collude with or approve of any particular behaviour. In short, you don't have to go down the Jay Adams directive route in order to preserve personal integrity in counselling. Sometimes it's a fine line.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Thanks B62, that makes much more sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sometimes it's a fine line.

Sure is.

If your 'line' is defined by law then, for matters of sexuality certainly, that line has been re-drawn several times during your lifetime.

The grey just got greyer.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That strikes me as a pretty perverse way to think, Timothy. It seems reasonable to argue, following Kinsey, that human sexuality is more a matter of a spectrum than a matter of poles. But spectrum thinking doesn't rule out folks being at, or pretty much at, the poles, unless one thinks that folks are distributed uniformly along the spectrum. There is pretty strong evidence that is not so.

As a matter of justice, it also seems reasonable to argue that prejudice against people whose sexual orientation is different to the majority is not fair, however deep seated it has often been in human culture. That is pretty much my position.

But to assert that we should express our sexuality for political reasons, rather than in accordance with one's own nature and preferences strikes me as majorly cross-grained. "As a demonstration of an asserted freedom that folks should be free to act responsibly in accordance with their innate nature, I'm going to live bisexually, regardless of my own innate nature". There's something off-base in that assertion, surely?

I thought so at the time, and still do. I rather suspect that most of them have now backslid into heterosexuality now that the political imperatives seem different.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

If your 'line' is defined by law then, for matters of sexuality certainly, that line has been re-drawn several times during your lifetime.

The grey just got greyer.

Probably worth another comment here. In essence, when working as a counsellor, it is important to have personal lines but applying them responsibly means you have to know the law as it applies to counselling practice.

At any time, in a particular situation, any one of us is free to apply our personal line, regardless of what the law says - or our counselling centre rules indicate - and be prepared to take the consequences. That's the way conscience works, not just in counselling but in many situations in life. The most important thing is to know what lines are there and make sure one's actions are informed by that. They do not have to be determined by those lines.

Or as Asimov pithily observed in one of his books, "never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right". Christianity and situation ethics, anyone? Sometimes he who is not against us is for us, sometimes he who is not for us is against us. Life can get pretty knife edged when seeking to do the right thing.

[ 28. June 2011, 08:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0