 |
Resource available for those people unable to bring themselves to purchase a book with “HOMOSEXUALITY” on the cover. Well I’m assuming the “H…” is for homosexuality, it could stand for any number of things, I mean for all I know it could be for Hindus who wish to convert to Christianity. Get it here.
I believe the H is for hemroids. Thus the doing it backwards reference. Or it could be hypocrisy. I mean there are so many H things from which God may be inclined to deliver us.
Herpes, Hate, Herod?
Thank you Peterson, hemroids is exactly what I was looking for but I had just gotten out of bed when I posted this and was having trouble coming up with comical H words.
Wouldn’t the most accurate “h” word be hypocrites!
It’s so good to know you found the book. The first answer was correct.(homosexuality) As for hate, None here. Certainly not as much as I feel from the interesting posts. I would be interested in a simple dialogue regarding the book. It’s only been thirty years since I found the answers stated in the book and they still work extremely well for those who want to use them. However If there is no desire then I won’t waste more of your time. Doug M.
“…journey through recovery from Health (mental)”. Or maybe “Hair stylists”. Definitely not “Hysterical Homophobes”.More about the publisher of this Harmful Hypothesis at the Hotties Anonymous web site.
Doug, what do you expect other than hate from many in the gay community when people like you typically unconditionally oppose all homosexuality, even loving monogamous relationships? If that isn’t a hatred of homosexuality then I don’t know what is. Its a slippery slope from hating gay behaviour to hating gays. GLBTs aren’t obligated to live according to your religious desires, we have a right to self determination, and I hate people like you that would take that away from us justified solely by the highly unlikely belief that yours is the one true religious interpretation out of the thousands that have existed over the millenia.
Two points
One: When You Just Can’t Say It
That is one thing that originally spurred the growth of gay book stores. Also that spurred the growth of on-line booksellers like amazon.com
Two, it’s “hemorrhoids” 😉
The topic of this thread brings back some memories for me, of a time when I “just couldn’t say the word.” It was 25 years ago, and there were no online booksellers, there was no internet!
I remember, as if it was yesterday, going to a bookseller in our town, and buying a copy of Edmund White’s “States of Desire” (a book about gay life in the 1970’s – which were only a couple of years past then). I remember I couldn’t even make eye contact with the clerk at the store! As I walked out of the store, I could feel my cheeks blushing bright red.
I hurried to my car stuck the bag containing the book under the seat and drove home. After I got home, I sat down and didn’t stop reading until I’d finished the book.
That was that first, very tentative step out – but it really was more like sticking a toe out of the closet!
I like their misuse of quotation marks. Typically you use them to cast into doubt the term in quotation marks:
After living that “Lie” for over twenty-five years He tells of the discovery that led him to find the “TRUTH” of healing and renewal from homosexuality.
I think they mean to put those words in bold, but the result is that healing and renewal from homosexuality is “truth” and that living as gay is a “lie.” Hysterical.
Oh, and I’m assuming the capitalization of the author isn’t meant as an implying that the “Real” author is God…
Oh, and Doug M., please don’t take my comment as hateful (if you’re reading) but what it is meant to be–something I noticed about the unprofessional and uneducated contents of the website which supports my prior assumptions about the substance of the theories being hawked there.
Phil at December 27, 2005 02:20 PM
That’s a bit extreme, but I recall something similar (although not so extreme), when I bought a copy of The Best Little Boy In The World 30 years ago. It was published under the pseudonym John Reid, but it was actually written by Andrew Tobias.
Link For David:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345381769/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-5795176-9936151?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
Other than that and the earlier movie A Separate Peace, there wasn’t much out there for us little gay boys at the time
Link for David:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069249/
although you can find other links to the movie and the novel by doing a google search using keywords: john knowles separate peace Knowles was the author of the novel.
I managed not to blush when I checked out The Lord Won’t Mind by Gordon Merrick from my local library, though in retrospect I probably should have.
How on earth did my small rural town local library end up with that book? I think it was because Merrick was a semi-established novelist before he decided to write gay soft-core porn.
Doug M,
Unlike Randi, I don’t hate you. Or what you are trying to do. I don’t agree with your basic premise (God does not want me to be gay) but that’s OK.
If what you have sought has worked for you, then fine. And if you are able to bring peace to people that are unable to reconcile their faith with their orientation, then I certainly wouldn’t oppose that.
Personally, I’m suspicious of your “countless” successes and inclined to believe they can’t be counted because they drop out and return to the way they were created. But that may just be cynicism on my part.
So far, I haven’t heard of you lobbying Congress, seeking to eliminate freedoms and rights, or making bizarre claims of changing “hundreds of thousands”. And if you have not been an anti-gay activist, I say “thank you”.
I distinguish between those seeking to change their orientation (regardless of what I feel about their odds or their honesty) and those who are using their new-found identity for political purposes. Those who claim “I changed so you shouldn’t have the same rights I do” are, frankly, evil.
But the rewards from the political powerful for doing so are high. I hope that you avoid the temptation to sell your “testimony” (or your soul) to be used for purposes of oppression.
And I hope that you have found peace in your decisions and process. God bless you.
Timothy
I was always the child who went first to the Encyclopedia, and then to the library when I wanted to learn about something. Even as an adult, I remember furtively haunting the “gay/lesbian” aisle in the library stacks at Oklahoma State University. I was TERRIFIED. I did not check out any materials, but sat in the study carrels to read through things like the Kinsey report, books on Greek sexuality, and homosexuality and the Church. Many of the things that shaped my understanding then resound with me even now: A quote from a monk who said, “I am completely homosexual, I should never marry!”…C.S. Lewis’s refusal to comment on homosexuality, because he had never himself experienced the feelings…Michelangelo’s love sonnets to Tommaso Cavalieri…a Dover book that described the essential “bisexuality” of Greek Athenian culture…a tale of two canonized saints who were most likely gay lovers.
Anyway, the “H” word…hah! There is another such word that I, thankfully, got over long ago: Hell. I was fortunate to find the freedom to search out the issues of homosexuality without worrying about that particular word.
Doug, I am the author of this post and I apologize for the way you’ve been treated by some of our readers.
Thank you, I gathered the book is about homosexuality and the post wanted to humorously communicated that. The ensuing discussion has shown that those who are now gays as well as ex-gays alike had difficulty in brining themselves to access literature they were interested in. The title of your book is a reflection of that.
I hope making light of the title won’t stop you from making more contributions to this site.
Ok Doug, I will give it a shot. On your website I read that you are the co-founder of Homosexuals Anonymous. Is this the basis for your “answers stated in the book”? It is my understanding that AA, after which
HA says it is patterned,
does not seek to cure alcoholics. Treatment is considered successful if one stops drinking, but it is always acknowledged that the individual remains an alcoholic. Does this mean that you consider a “successfully treated” homosexual one that does not engage in homosexual sex acts? Would this be “ex-gay” to you?
Note: Any phrasing I may use which places being gay in the same league with being an alcoholic (or any other pathology) is purely for the purpose of discussion.
David
Doug, I am the author of this post and I apologize for the way you’ve been treated by some of our readers.
I haven’t followed the dialog with Doug, and I have no idea who he is, but someone might want to suggest to him–gently, of course–that people who post or comment on the Internet really do need to have strong backs. I learned that 7-8 years ago when I was posting on FreeRepublic.com (!). It’s not nice, but it’s true.
He should realize that it is unlikely that anyone here knows who he is. If he has something that he wants to contribute, he should do so. But he should not expect that, just because he has contributed, his contribution will not be torn to shreds.
BTW, when I was posting on FreeRepublic.com, I learned quite a bit. That is why I continued posting there. I learned quite a bit about the minds of more than a few far right-wing homophobes. I considered it an educational experience.
Posted by: Timothy at December 27, 2005 03:41 PM
I guess that’s where you and I differ Timothy. I don’t feel the ends justify the means in this case – that “bringing peace to people unable to reconcile their faith with their orientation” justifies saying the orientation is wrong when in fact it is the faith which is wrong. Although its common I don’t consider it acceptable that views of reality differ – in this instance. I’ll always work to change that.
Doug M. if you’re willing to make a statement that you support the right of gays to self-determination and happiness through monogamous same sex intimacy I’ll admit Timothy was right in giving you the benefit of the doubt I wouldn’t volunteer to anyone making unqualified statements opposing same sex relations. Timothy, please email me at randi.schimnosky@sasktel.com so I might have a private exchange with you.
Ooops, that should be randi.schimnosky@sasktel.net
Jay,
“C.S. Lewis’s refusal to comment on homosexuality, because he had never himself experienced the feelings”
Please, if you recall the source, let us know. This is particularly relevant with the insistence on the part of some (Bennett for example) of comaring Narnia to BBM.
Randi said:
willing to make a statement that you support the right of gays to self-determination and happiness through monogamous same sex intimacy
Good point – this should be seen as the most basic common ground in such a debate.
David
“I guess that’s where you and I differ Timothy.”
C’mon now, Randi. We differ on much more than that.
But that’s what adds value. If everyone here was of the same mind on everything we would be boring as heck. And we wouldn’t learn anything from each other.
I just returned from work so I missed all the fun today. (lighten up I really love you all) In fact how could I not love the people that read the same books, watched the same movies and hid in the same library corridors and shed the same tears I did for 28 years. I am now 60 (hense the lack of a “professional” website. Some old dogs hate these new electronic gadgets. (I prefer my trusty sliderule)
Tim, Thanks for the benefit of the doubt and you got it right. ( the part about the peace I have found and share) As for the tough back, As I said I am 60 and I’ve been hit a few more times than any of you. It just bounces off because I know from experience that the blows come from wounded hearts and we have all cryed together over these issues.
As to your lifestyle choises. If you choose not to go in any direction with your life, thats fine with me. All I desire is to be told that I have equil right to go in mine and when an opportunity is presented to express my belief in the possibilities that I be allowed to do it without the venom some people tend to display.
Believe me I understand. I found my first real acceptance in life at the MCC-LA and marched in one of the first gay pride parades there. (I even sang in the chior.) I am not an anti-gay activist, I am an equil opportunity advocate as far as choise and rights of discussion and learning are concerned.
Now about Homosexuals anonymous, It is designed for those who want to be there. It works in varying degrees for those who follow the program and does not work for those who choose not. How complete is the process and how long does it take? all I know is it works and has been working for over twenty five years. (detailed answer to follow if you are really interested.)
I am glad I found this blog and will remain for the obligatory beating
Doug M
ck, I read your [post. is ck like H…? Just ck…g the humor level here.
“I am not an anti-gay activist, I am an equil opportunity advocate as far as choise and rights of discussion and learning are concerned.”
Hmmm… I’m not seeing that Doug M. Where’s your equally prominent web site advocating for equal marriage for same sex couples? In fact, I don’t buy it at all, its like saying I’m an equal opportunity advocate in terms of preventing and supporting free speech – one precludes the other. If you’re only concerned with being told you have a right to go in the direction you choose with your life then why are you trying to coerce others into doing the same as you? How is anyone preventing or discouraging you from choosing to be “ex-gay”?
Wow.
Interesting that certain books touched your lives as young gay men.
I was lucky.
Nobody really blushes in my family. We’re people of color, it doesn’t show. :0P
I tended to get recommended reading from my young gay friends as they came out.
One of the first “The Front Runner” by Patricia Nell Warren, when I was 17.
Hey, this stuff helps us straight folks get the picture.
I’ve been a fan of hers ever since.
Even better, a friend since four years ago.
Gay literati, gotta love them!
Timothy said: Please, if you recall the source, let us know. This is particularly relevant with the insistence on the part of some (Bennett for example) of comparing Narnia to BBM.
This post will veer quite a bit off topic, but I felt compelled to provide this information per Timothy’s request. I confess, that my memory has played somewhat loosely with the actual facts. I have only remembered in part, and here I offer what I have remembered with all that I forgot:
In Surprised by Joy Lewis tells quite the tale of “pederasty” among the boys of his boarding school, Wyvern. The older boys, he says had younger “tarts” who acted as “catamites” in consensual and even “sentimental” relationships. “I suppose it might be called the Greek Tradition.” he wrote, “But the vice in question is one to which I had never been tempted, and which, indeed, I still find opaque to the imagination” (Chapter 6). He begins Chapter 7 with the following:
Before the chapter ends, as promised, he adds:
Lewis’s commentary is colored by two things as I see it. First by his only real contact with homosexuality in his world through the observation of the young men at his school, and second his familiarity as a scholar of literature with literary examples such as are described in Greek poetry and Platonic dialogues like Symposium. He uses the word “pederasty” which is notable as a dated term specifically holding the connotation of an older man with a much younger boy (especially in ancient Greek homosexual tradition) and almost dismisses the sentimental aspect that the relationships between the upperclassmen and their love interests sometimes displayed. He does not seem to have known what a committed, relationship between two men or two women looked like. He never acknowledges (at least in what I re-read this evening) that two men might actually love each other as he knew a man and woman could. He did after all say that it was a concept “opaque” to his imagination. [Therein lies the great power of Brokeback Mountain, in my opinion, for it gives audiences the opportunity to live vicariously emotions and experiences that they hitherto may have been completely unable to fathom; and having walked those brief miles in the boots of Ennis and Jack Twist, they may find the humanity and human love that really does exist among gay men. Indeed, I think that it might have been of use to someone like C. S. Lewis.]
He makes brief mention of homosexuality in The Four Loves in the chapter on Friendship. There he rebuts the idea that strong male friendship is “really homosexual” while acknowledging that it may “creep into” and “contaminate” friendship. “Abnormal Eros,” he calls it.
I would almost swear that there is another instance where he discusses these things, but I can’t remember where. After he wrote Surprised by Joy there was a long-standing disagreement between his older brother and he about the reality of the sexual activities at Wyvern. His brother never saw anything like what Lewis described while he was there.
In any case, what my failing memory finds confirmation of in these passages is this: Lewis does not ascribe any greater disapprobation to homosexuality than to other carnal vices. He reserves his strongest judgment for other evils that are often ignored by Christians and society. In the end, I must acknowledge that he considered gay love to be sinful and made that abundantly clear. Ten years ago when I was reading everything I could by Lewis, and when I was much more troubled, I think I latched onto the little chink of light that he offered—that being gay might not be the worst thing in the world. Having since broken through a very dark, forbidding wall, I can only remember the great brightness that little light cast upon my sad dungeon. I had forgotten how small it was.
Lewis wrote two books on sorrow and suffering: The Problem of Pain and A Grief Observed. The first he wrote before he had experienced the grief of losing his wife. The second was a completely different perspective, and he acknowledged the wisdom that his bereavement added to his understanding. Perhaps if he had lived to observe the struggle we face as gay men and women in the world today, if he had lived to see a story like Brokeback Mountain, he would have used different words to characterize homosexuality. One can only speculate….
I hope that I have not disappointed you too much, by not being able to provide a single mighty quote from Lewis to raise up against the Narnian-loving-anti-Brokeback critics. 🙂 It has been a long, long journey for me, and more circuitous than I remember. Tracing back my steps or creating a road map of my travels would be a task perhaps more challenging than making the journey has been.
Jay
thank you for such an elaborate response. I think the one thing that sets Lewis apart from so many current Christians is his capacity to apply his Christianity to his experiences rather than try to conform the universe to his beliefs.
Perhaps the one gem I gleam from the above is this: “Cruelty is surely more evil than lust”.
If Christians leading the charge to take away health care and hospital visitation would come to this realization, perhaps the world would be a better place.
Doug, would you care to respond to my original questions above:
Posted by: ReasonAble at December 27, 2005 04:02 PM
Thanks,
David
Doug M.
“I am an equil opportunity advocate as far as choise and rights of discussion and learning are concerned.”
I hope that you are not being deceptive in this. I’ve heard words almost identical to these used by people who really simply want to have ex-gay religous teachings introduced into public school curricula.
In other words, they support schools teaching that through Christ gay people can become straight. Oddly enough, though, they seldom like schools teaching that many churches are supportive of gay people just as they are – that seems to be contrary to “equal” opportunity. And they never want to hear about religous beliefs other than Christian beliefs ever making it into schools. In fact, many of the same groups who want ex-gay teaching in school, oppose “don’t beat the gay kid” rules. It seems they think that the only time you can every mention homosexuality is to say that you can overcome it.
Needless to say, these people do not believe in any form of equality at all. They believe that the government should proclaim them to be better than gay people. The government should endorse their marriages (not those between gay people), their families (not those of gay people), and their religions (not those who disagree with them). In other words, they are elitists.
So I hope that by supporting equality, you mean that gay people and straight people, and gay couples and straight couples, should have exactly the same legal standing before law.
Which do you mean?
OK David, I’ll give it a try on the HA meanings. When we first started HA It was to enable those that wanted a format to freely interact with each other on changes we were experiencing. We looked at several types of meeting and felt that the best way to be able to express how change in lifestyle acutally occurred was a step format. As to the deceptive comment, we do not need to play silly games here. You know that I believe that Once gay always gay is a deceptive statement and I have experienced change to the point that the old life is totally gone. You. on the other hand. think that It (the change I know to be reality)just could not be true. OK so we differ in our understanding. That does not give either of us the right to prohibit the other a voice on the subject. As to the school issue, a pro gay adgenda is being openly promoted but a differing viewpoint is being precluded. Religion has nothing to do with this as the arguments on both sides are secular in nature. (That Church and state issue) The fact that you would totally refuse to allow even the discussion seems to point to a fear of the argument. For nearly twenty five years the most I have done politically is vote, but the deceptive nature of the pro gay adgenda has begun to draw me into the arena again. tO this point I have not been involved with the HA organization very much. There is life after step groups. Raising children and grandchildren ect. As with AA it has been my practice to just deal with those that request help in any way I can but (you put my book on this site without permission so I guess I can voice my opinion of your efforts a little louder.) Perhaps the best defense is a good offence. Or we can have a civil discussion and each of us might learn from the other?
Doug, for future reference, could you please do paragraphing? A window full of text is difficult to read. That’s one reason why they invented paragraphing.
Doug, you say you’re not anti-gay yet you complain that in schools a pro gay agenda is being openly promoted but a differing viewpoint is being excluded. Any viewpoint on gays that differs from pro gay can only be anti-gay.
Some alcoholics experience change to the point that the old life is totally gone, but they are still alcoholics in that they are vulnerable to its attractions. Are you saying you are no longer vulnerable to same sex attractions? If so, would you prove it by allowing someone like Michael Baily to hook you up to the penis-meter and show you sexual images of men?
And Doug, how can you say that “Religion has nothing to do with this as the arguments on both sides are secular in nature” when your book mentions God on the cover and your organization is patterned after AA which heavily emphasizes God and spirituality as part of its program? If religion has nothing to do with it why haven’t you responded to Timothy’s question as to whether you support teaching school children “Don’t beat the gay kid” or made a statment supporting the right of gays in monogamous supportive relationships to marry?
Raj,
Sorry to make you struggle so hard with the reading. With practice it will get easier. I’ll try harder next time. Where were you when I needed an editor?
Randi, The logic of either/or on the pro-gay issue is somewhat flawed and just because you say it that way does not make it valid. You leave no options for discussion if you keep trying to box in the argument
As you know the “don’t beat the kid issue is very valid (I heartily endorse it) but to expand it into the pro-gay instruction mode within the school systems is going a bit far. Then to exclude any mention of a very valid option for discussion is almost reverse discrimination. Both sides of this issue are presented in schools as secular in nature and both sides deserve a hearing. Then the free speech idea is validated.
Yes Randi, I mention on the cover of my book, and If you had read it you would understand why. Would that be asking to much? However I can present the concept of change from both sides secular or religious.
The penis meter thing is a hoot! At 60 with diabetes and high Blood pressure meds getting any reading would be interesting.
finally, It may surprise you but I feel everyone needs equal rights for benefits. Whether you call it marriage or not is beside the point. I don’t have some of those benefit now and I”ve been married for 35 years. we are all in the same boat here and I think it’s sinking.
I just read the prewiew and there are no paragraph separations en though I have them in the text. I might need some help with the way these blogs work.
Posted by: Doug M at December 27, 2005 07:47 PM
Doug M.,
ck is is for Colleen Keating, but there may have been a time when I thought it synonymous with the “h” word. Now I’m comfortable with that as part of who I am, but not my sole identity. I came to that realization through acceptance, rather than “deliverance”, but I respect your desire for coherence with your religious beliefs. Thanks for stopping by to interact.
Doug M at December 28, 2005 09:25 AM
That’s better. Some of us skim. I usually read the first sentence of a paragraph and, if I’m interested in the subject matter (which should be introduced in the first sentence) I’ll read the rest of the paragraph. If I’m not interested, I don’t.
If there is a screen full of un-paragraphed text with no theme evident in the first sentence, I just ignore the whole thing.
If you actually wrote a book, you should understand paragraphing.
ck,
thanks so much for the explaination. I did not mean to offend. I went to your site and will visit it again if you allow. I understand the acceptance rather than deliverence statement. I have been there and it is where we all have to begin.
doug
Raj,
If you spend your life skimming you never will get the depth you need. Are you an english teacher or just a person that needs to learn to have a simple chat without over inflating his own need to be a controller? The ability to allow imperfections in other is a gift.
I’m not aware of any ‘pro-gay’ agenda in public schools. Some schools in some parts of the country have begun including, as part of a larger program of ‘social tolerance’ indoctrination, the idea that being gay/lesbian/bisexual is perfectly normal. This is intended to counteract the documented existence of anti-gay harassment at the secondary school level.
I believe that that is what Doug considers a ‘pro-gay’ agenda. To add the additional message ‘but if you’re gay/lesbian/bisexual and don’t want to be, you have these options’ would not, strictly speaking, be ‘anti-gay’. After reading and re-reading Doug’s posts, that seems to be what he has in mind.
For what it’s worth, I’ve long believed that human sexuality is fluid; after all, that was one of the most remarkable findings in the Kinsey studies (and one which is often overlooked). The (in)famous Kinsey scale is a continuum; most of the gay men I’ve known have, in fact, been sexually attracted to women at one point or another. But human sexuality is also incredibly complex; who you have sex with, who you fall in love with, who you love for the rest of your life, who you want to wake up next to every morning – there are so many indicia and qualifiers.
The big issue for me, at any rate is this – Doug, are you operating from the conviction that it would be better for gay men in general (me, for example) to leave homosexuality and become straight? If so, what is your basis for believing that, other than it was better _for you_? I am genuinely curious.
Doug, just saying you’re not anti-gay doesn’t make it so either. If you’re not pro-gay, anti-gay, or indifferent you’re something highly unusual and the onus is on you not just to claim, but to explain the unicorn with something specific – how can you invite people to repress same sex attractions and somehow not be anti-gay?
Explain the logic flaw.
You are clearly not indifferent, you want to promote the idea that all gays should consider repressing their same sex attractions. I think a reasonable person admits that is anti-gay and one shouldn’t trust your advice when you won’t admit that.
It seems you’re saying you support equal marriage for same sex couples but your language is vague. That would be something. Are you letting people assume you mean one thing only to later claim you intended an atypical, narrow, and completely different meaning – the sort of thing we commonly see regarding the meaning of “change”? Similarly, you said you heartily endorse “don’t beat the kid” whereas Timothy and I specifically said “don’t beat the gay kid”. It seems you’re speaking in broad general terms to encourage people to read into your words whatever they want to see and that later you’ll claim you intended a narrow opposing meaning such as “I heartily endorse ‘don’t beat the kid’ but not ‘don’t beat the gay kid'”.
Relgious people make secular arguments for repressing same sex attractions, but because ultimately their justification is religious they risk being blind, perhaps willfully, to the specious nature of many of those arguments. For example they’ll use studies on the transmission of HIV to claim sexual behaviour typical of promiscuous gays who get STDs is typical of all gays.
https://exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/07/are_homosexual.html#comments
Joking about being unable to get it up doesn’t address the issue of whether you consider being
gay similar to being alcoholic in that once a gay or alcoholic, always a gay or alcoholic. Specifically, is saying your old gay life is completely gone any different than an alcoholic saying his old drinking life is completely gone?
Isn’t it that its your behavior that is completely gone, not the possibility that you may become attracted to men?
Please don’t compare HA to AA.
AA allows people to have a “God of their own understanding” and there are plenty of Buddhists, Hindus, new-agers etc in AA. Even atheists who take the group as a type of Higher Power over alcohol. HA talks explicitly about Jesus Christ and uses descriptions of God drawn from evangelical Christian theology.
HA is a PERVERSION of AA!
Robert, Doug doesn’t say he just wants to add ‘but if you’re gay/lesbian/bisexual and don’t want to be, you have these options’ he says pro-gay is going too far and talks about “both sides” of the issue. If pro-gay is too far and he is one of “both sides” but not pro-gay then he must be anti-gay. His argument doesn’t deserve a hearing just because its supposedly secular, its no different than saying “if your black and don’t want to be you have these options for trying to pass as white…”. Maybe someone at Exgay Watch will correct me, but isn’t that also co-dependence, and a bad thing?
Doug, considering the 14 steps of HA, I’m having a hard time believing this is a secular endeavor. I’m sure you can see my point. I’m also having trouble connecting you with HA at all, unless Doug M. is a total alias. I did find the following which is representative of much I have been reading today concerning HA:
From
Wikipedia:
Seventh Day Adventist Colin Cook founded the groups Quest Learning Center and Homosexuals Anonymous in 1979 and 1980 respectively. In 1985 he wrote Homosexuality, and Homosexuality: An Open Door. In 1986, he was discovered to be engaging in sexual acts with his Quest patients. He claimed that the nude massages of other men should desensitize them against homosexual desires.
In 1987, he was expelled from Homosexuals Anonymous for sexual activity, and in 1995 a similar scandal happened with his newly founded group FaithQuest Colorado. According to the Denver Post, Cook had engaged in phone sex, practiced long and grinding hugs, and asked patients to bring homosexual pornography to sessions so that he could help desensitize them against it. The Seventh Day Adventist church eventually severed all ties with Cook. Homosexuals Anonymous survived without Cook.
I have been unable to find any mention of a co-founder for HA, but that is not conclusive. However I should ask, are you this Colin Cook fellow? If not, perhaps you could better explain your relationship as co-founder and provide some reference for us. As I am sure you understand, it is important to have a little background on someone making such seemingly authoritative statements and publishing them no less. If you were a doctor, we could ask about that, but these are the only credentials you provide. Since you seem to advocate bringing this into the classrooms, it is all the more important to know where you are coming from.
David
ck,
thanks so much for the explaination. I did not mean to offend. I went to your site and will visit it again if you allow. I understand the acceptance rather than deliverence statement. I have been there and it is where we all have to begin.
doug
Posted by: Doug M at December 28, 2005 10:05 AM
Hey, I can’t keep you from visiting my site–and wouldn’t want to stop you! I do think that the theories behind your efforts at change are specious. That being said, you have every right to pursue self-satisfaction (in God, in your beliefs, etc.) and I wish you the best in that search. Obviously, I have problems with potential harm to others–but that’s a difficult ethical issue to tease out. So stop by my blog, interact, and have a good New Year.
(Oh, and I’m with those who urge you not to spend to much time interacting on comment boards. I do occasionally, but find the lack of a face-to-face frustrating and often unhelpful.)
Doug M
I’m still having difficulty in determining what you say on any subject.
I am inclined to believe that those who are overly vague or overly careful with what they say have something to hide. I hope that isn’t the case with you, but so far you seem amazingly unwilling to stake any position AT ALL.
You talk about there being “two sides” to “the issue” but not only do you tell us both sides, you refuse to define the issue. The ex-gay movement in general have become masters of deceipt (one might think they follow their father).
Because of this, generalities are not welcome.
With due respect, and an opportunity to prove me wrong, I’m beginning to suspect that you are a purveyor of spin (in more crude terms, a deceiver – in even more crude terms, a liar and worker of Satan, the Great Deceiver). I hope this is not the case but after a great number of posts, a saddenly consistent pattern is developing.
Doug M at December 28, 2005 10:10 AM
If you spend your life skimming you never will get the depth you need.
Apparently you did not read. I do not read everything on every comment thread on every blog that I read. I doubt that anyone does.
If you do paragraphing properly, I may be interested in reading your paragraph from the first sentence of the paragraph. Then again, if I determine from your first sentence that I won’t be interested in the paragraph, I will skip the entire paragraph. (Jesus F Christ, don’t they teach paragraphing in English courses any more?)
Just to let you know, if you do the verbal equivalent of the Blob, which you did, I won’t be reading.
Raj, please keep it clean. What you said would be just as valid without the anti-Christian epithet. Thank you for your understanding on this one.
David
ReasonAble at December 28, 2005 04:16 PM
What you said would be just as valid without the anti-Christian epithet.
What the heck are you talking about? The Blob was the name of a movie. Actually two movies.
Links for Timothy, from the Internet Movie Database:
The 1958 version: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051418/
The 1988 version: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094761/
Both are interesting entertainments.
Posted by: raj at December 28, 2005 04:37 PM
Gee thanks Raj.
David
Some clarification.
1. Who am I?
If you look at the web site, that has the picture of the book that you say I didn’t write, you will know who I am. (BTW there are two books)
2. As to AA versus HA. We choise the format and always acknowledge that we are not endoesed by or have any association with AA. (Group interaction helps people in the most positive ways)
3. Raj, The point was loosen up! when perfectionism in grammar supercedes the validity of the discussion someone is missing the point!
4. Now to my relationship with HA, When you go to the real HA website and find the history section (it is there) You will find the story of the way the program started. (I am there.) Also a call to HAFS National headquarters for the 50+ HA chapters that meet across this nation and in several other countries will get a verification for you. Documantation of my journey through the renewal process has gone back as far as 1978 with magazine articles and tape distribution.
5. About Colin, The articles you presented have been used for years to distroy him personally. I remember all the reprocussion from those articles. Are they true? Having talked to him again just last month about the articles, I was told yes parts of them are true. He is currently living a normal hetrosexual life. (growth is a process) Was I hurt by the things that happened then, Yes! But the very essence of the program is being able to accept and allow growth rather than distroy the person.
6. Tomothy, You asked me to stake out a position and not avoid the issues. After being represented as the devil incarnate (If you do not believe in God, there can not be a devil for you) I will offer you the opportunity to contact me directly (yahoo phone messenger works for me) or any other means possible. I cannot give you a direct phone number because of the loving way you represent yourself. (Dave I just saved you the need to again ask for civility from your bloggers)
Anyone wishing to genuinely converse with me about any issue is also invited to contact me through the website. http://www.acceptancefellowship.org
7. Robert, If you are genuinely curious contact me. (I’m usually less agressive and very open. but when in Rome do what the Romens do.)
“(I’m usually less agressive and very open. but when in Rome do what the Romens do.)”
Doug M. you weren’t agressive at all, deceptive is how I found your posts here. I’d have appreciated it if you’d have agressively explained your unsubstantiated claim of a flaw in my logic, how your “other side” of the pro-gay viewpoint can be something other than anti-gay – you are inviting people to repress same-sex attractions. All I really wanted from you was an honest admission of your opposition to gay behavior (and by extension gays). I would think it should be easy for you to admit what is obvious, apparently not. You weren’t forthcoming here, I can’t imagine a private conversation at your place would be any different. Sigh…always the bridesmaid and never the bride…
Doug M
“6. Tomothy, You asked me to stake out a position and not avoid the issues. After being represented as the devil incarnate (If you do not believe in God, there can not be a devil for you) I will offer you the opportunity to contact me directly (yahoo phone messenger works for me) or any other means possible. I cannot give you a direct phone number because of the loving way you represent yourself. (Dave I just saved you the need to again ask for civility from your bloggers)”
Doug, I have no patience for people who refuse to address issues and instead dance around the “you offended me” tactic.
I did not call you Satan. I did say that you seem to be deceptive and that is a work of Satan. You continue to refuse to answer where you stand on issues of equality and that furthers my suspicion that you are being deceptive.
I also find it telling that you assume that I do not believe in God. It is precisely my faith in God and my Christian principles that cause me to cringe at the way that “Christians” approach the issues surrounding homosexuality. I believe there are many issues open to debate and views that can be discussed but it is the insistence on the part of the ex-gay community at large to lie, spin, and deceive that is contrary to all the Christ came to present.
I will not engage in some “off the site” conversation with you. Since you have purported to favor equality here (in vague terms that seem intended to deceive), you have an obligation to clarify HERE what you mean. So far, several days later, you are still are playing games.
This is not a recruitment opportunity for you. This site is intended for open communication. We are not fools here, nor are we bound by internalized homophobia just waiting for someone to convert us to your way of thought. I, for one, am not receptive to evasions and changing the subject.
I will be the first (and was the first) to welcome you to the extent that you are not a political front. And yet, here we are. You still are refusing to clarify your position.
I don’t give a fig about Colin, whether you wrote a book, etc. What I care about, and what you have so far have been evasive on, is this:
Do you support the equal treatment under law of gay people and straight people? Do you support the equal treatment under law of gay couples and straight couples?
It’s not a tough question. Why do you refuse to answer? Are you ashamed of your answer?
Doug said:
Now to my relationship with HA, When you go to the real HA website and find the history section (it is there) You will find the story of the way the program started. (I am there.)
There are a lot of HA sites. Since you referenced the “real” one, could you please give the URL?
About Colin, The articles you presented have been used for years to distroy him personally. I remember all the reprocussion from those articles.
If this is the truth (which even you admit to some extent), do you not expect others to take it into consideration when discussing your methods and success? We hear so many stories about this or that program being successful, even that “hundreds of thousands” have been “cured” (a term for which you still haven’t provided your own definition with regards to this subject) of homosexuality, only to find that not only are the patients still gay but those tending to them are as well.
This is certainly germane to your claims. If, over a span of 20+ years, the founder of a group that claims to change others from gay to straight can not sustain such a change in his own life, this casts doubt on the effectiveness of that group and the verity of your claims. You can’t expect others to just ignore that because it causes the person personal anguish.
Doug, it’s always easier to take a discussion off to the side, out of the light, but iron sharpens iron – if you are not ashamed of your position then debate it in the open. With very few exceptions, you will find this group intelligent and honest, but with little tolerance for deception or hypocrisy.
David
Robert said “Doug, are you operating from the conviction that it would be better for gay men in general (me, for example) to leave homosexuality and become straight? If so, what is your basis for believing that, other than it was better _for you_? I am genuinely curious.”.
Doug M. that was a key question required to judge the honesty of your viewpoint. I am dismayed by your unwillingness to answer. Maybe you didn’t mean so much that your posts (or lack thereof) were agressive but rather passive agressive.
Timothy asked you “Do you support the equal treatment under law of gay people and straight people? Do you support the equal treatment under law of gay couples and straight couples?”.
I echo David’s sentiment, Doug – if you’re not willing to answer a simple question, civilly asked – to wit, as I asked above
“Doug, are you operating from the conviction that it would be better for gay men in general (me, for example) to leave homosexuality and become straight? If so, what is your basis for believing that, other than it was better _for you_?”
If you are going to come onto a forum such as this to promote your views, a reasonable person would expect you to be willing to answer such a basic question. My own suspicion, based on your posts and the website you reference, is that the answers to the above questions would be
a) Yes, and
b) Because (I believe that) God wants us to.
If the answers are different, please let us know.
Friends, I am very glad to see that the tone of the posts has calmed. (Less serious barbs being thrown by all.)
So I will be glad to answer the questions you pose.
1. Beating the Gay Kid issue. Beating any kid is unforgivable. no one has a corner on the abuse. Gay or straight, black or white, fat or whatever. Can we all agree on that?
2. “Do you support the equal treatment under law of gay people and straight people? Do you support the equal treatment under law of gay couples and straight couples?”.
I believe that the Golden rule says it best. (forgive the biblical but it is my basis)
Of course I support equality of treatment. I have been on the recieving side of hate and it’s not a place to put anyone else as far as I can see.
3. Doug, are you operating from the conviction that it would be better for gay men in general (me, for example) to leave homosexuality and become straight? If so, what is your basis for believing that,
It was never an uplifting experience for me to treated as I was during those 28 years I beleived myself to be gay. I never had a straight reaction to women for most of those years and vomited on the first girl that tried to kiss me. On the Kinsey scale I feel I was pretty far on the gay side. Maybe a one. The life I now live is so much better that of course I wish I could see others share the freedom I have found.
The desire for that change is entirely yours but knowledge of the possibility that it is possible should be made available to anyone wishing to pursue it. I am not out to evangelize you or “recruit” anyone.
I do feel that to restrict the ability of anyone by any means (intimidation, witholding educational resources or outright deception) to have knowledge of the information is following a path that leads to disallowing to others the very equality you have been demanding for so many years.
4. Am I anti-gay? You have the right to life, liberty, and… as do I. Personally I tend to be heterophobic or religiophobic because of the way they overzealously deal with people I feel need to shown greater love. Am I pro-gay? I tend to be more pro-people. I do not please the right-wing conservatives with this stance because they want me to carry those stupid hate signs and create fear among the Gays. I also do not please the gays because they think I want to harm them with my statements of possibility.
(they also want me to carry stupid signs about the other side)
The real basis for my even being here is of course the belief that God has something better for us and I found evidence of it in the way He has treated me. All I offer is the posibility of change “if and when” you choose to allow me the priviledge of sharing with you.
Thanks for that opportunity here.
Doug M.
Yeah, whatever, Doug, “nice” dance around the anti-gay question. I don’t see any reason to change my feelings about you, you’ve sort of admitted the obvious that you are anti-gay in that you want all gays to repress their same sex attractions and burden heterosexual women with propping you up in your forced heterosexual behavior. You never did state a position on whether or not you support equal marriage for same sex couples and only slightly clarified your stances on other issues. And that was like pulling teeth.
Tbanks for the offer of “change” but I’d rather fight the social bigotry that troubles gays than repress myself to fit in with questionable religious teachings slowly being rejected by responsible religious organizations and people.
Randi, I guess to please you I would have to shout the answers you want to hear from the rooftop then you could say you found the truth because it agrees with your conception of it.
Well, I am still not anti-gay or pro-gay but that concept seems a little hard for you to grasp. So go carry your sign or ex-exgay your blog and we will watch. It seems that you have personified the hatred you detest and probably don’t even know why.
I’d like a little assistance from the others posting here to make sure I’m not misreading.
Doug M’s specific response to my specific question seems to come down to “I was unhappy being gay, now I’m happy being something else. If you’re unhappy being gay, you should be allowed to know that you can be something else.”
This sidesteps the problem of _why_ someone would be unhappy being gay in the first place. If you felt a romantic/sexual longing for a cute boy in seventh grade, and ‘decided’ that meant you were really gay (never mind that you also thought girls were sexually attractive), and realize twenty years later that you’re just not happy that way – well, I’m sure there are people in that position. Me, I was getting crushes on boys in fifth grade, and never felt any desire for girls at all. The unhappiness I felt about being gay was due entirely to how inconvenient I believe it was going to make my life.
Well, over thirty years later, I’ve been married quite happily for ten years, and my husband and I are raising our (adopted) son – and I can’t believe, with the best will in the world, that I’d be any happier if I was in love with and married to a woman, instead of a man.
As far as what God has for us – I firmly believe that, if God and/or Goddess had anything in mind for me, my husband was a big part of it.
The major challenge in treating homosexuality, from the point of view of the patient’s resistance, has, of course, been the misconception that the disorder is innate or inborn.
— Charles W. Socarides
Taken from what appears to be the official HA
website (you still haven’t provided a URL for us), this appears, IMO, to be a reasonable distillation of what you are about Doug. Why you decided to jump into the current “ex-gay” fray with a new book is open to speculation, but you might try being more candid and, frankly, honest in your future debates.
David
Doug you say you’re not out to evangelize or recruit anyone, but in the same post you “offer the possibility of change” and suggest “allow me the privilege of sharing with you”. Its the same thing and more of your deceptions.
I don’t see where your opinion deservers equal representation in schools anymore than the KKK deserves equal say in schools to oppose black equality. You don’t just want to provide your viewpoint to those who seek it, you want to make an unsolicited presentation of it. The “pro-gay” stance in schools that says specifically “don’t beat the gay kid” (do you opppose that specifically? you never did say) is a response to a pre-existing situation where heterosexuals have singled out gays for abuse. Adding your misguided message that gays should change undoes the message that its wrong to beat gays. Your message is antithetical to that and has no place in schools for that reason.
You’re hurting gay kids directly with your message of rejection of those who wish to act on same sex attractions, and indirectly by trying to add a contradictory message in schools that counteracts the need to stop the singling out of GLBTs for verbal and physical abuse.
I have known exgays who were strictly non-political. Who had no particular viewpoints on or knowlege of the issues being raised here. It does seem strange, but it seems that serious grown up people can maintain that this is their stance. IMHE, the position usually goes along the lines that their reasons for being exgay are wholly religious. And that they have no interest in politics. Do not study it. Do not really understand or care about it. And lack a language to discuss these issues in. The website Justice and Respect is that way.
There are exgays who are oblivious to our concerns. Strange but true. I suspect Doug is one of these.
Raj, The point was loosen up! when perfectionism in grammar supercedes the validity of the discussion someone is missing the point!
The point, that you appear to be missing, is that grammar helps people to find the point. I for one am not going to parse your lengthy bloviations to try to figure out what you are trying to say. If you have something to say, you really could probably do it in a couple of sentences. I just did.
Dalea at December 29, 2005 06:47 PM
Yup, I agree with the first couple of sentences of your post. I have said so many times here before. They did not wear their “ex-gayness” on their sleeves, they did not oppose equal rights for gay people, they did not need a ministry to do it (although they might have done it for religious reasons, and, most importantly for me they have not objected to equal rights for gay people.
Doug,
Thank you for your responses. You may feel that you adequately answered the questions and, if so, I apologize for not accepting your responses as adequate. But they are not.
It is a sad truth that “Christian” groups in general, and ex-gay ministries in particular, hedge, twist, and avoid questions more than any attorney I’ve ever met. I don’t personally believe that Christ ever taught us to trick or fool anyone – not even to get close enough to them to share the Gospel.
Though you may have tried to answer our questions, you have not. I’m going to assume for argument sake that you are not being deliberate in your vagueness. And though you may find it frustrating, I’m going to address your responses and explain why your responses leave us with more questions than resolutions.
1. We all agree that all abuse is wrong. However, bullying isn’t performed universally and it is important to identify where it does occur and address it specifically. If children are being beaten for being Moslem, it is entirely appropriate to say “don’t beat kids because of their religion”. And if kids are being beaten for being gay, it is appropriate to say “don’t beat kids because of sexual orientation.”
However, some folks are so opposed to gay people that they don’t want it to be said that you shouldn’t beat gay kids, specifically. They think this is some concession to a “homosexual agenda”. In particular, PFOX is a leader in the charge against including gay kids in the non-bullying programs.
You are being very vague on this issue which leads us to suspect that you are in agreement with PFOX. Are you?
2. You deflected my question about equality under law and tried to discuss the Golden Rule.
I did not ask “do you treat gay people nicely”. And although it is good that you do, it is irrelevant to the question I asked which was about equal treatment UNDER LAW.
Since you have couched your response so that it doesn’t answer the question, let me rephrase it in very specific, hard to ignore, terms.
Do you, Doug, believe that either the state or Federal governments should pass or enforce laws that treat gay people differently than straight people in ANY way including, but not limited to, adoption, immigration, employment, right to expression or assembly, or right to be included in the social fabric and/or community? Do you or the organization with which you are affiliated ever lobby, advocate, or otherwise attempt to influence legislation involving such matters?
Do you, Doug, believe that either the state or Federal governments should pass or enforce laws that treat gay couples differently than straight couples in any way including, but not limited to, adoption, immigration, marriage, or right to be included in the social fabric and/or community? Do you or the organization with which you are affiliated ever lobby, advocate, or otherwise attempt to influence legislation involving such matters?
Clear and specific enough?
I don’t have a lot of complaint about your answers number 3 and 4.
I’m not offended by or afraid of your “statements of possibility”. I don’t think it is anti-gay to say “I’m happier not living as gay and would like suggest you try it” as long as you are honest with what you are truly offering. Perhaps you are different, and I hope so. But I’ve yet to see any ministry that is completely honest. And that is truly shameful.
Doug, I’m quite serious about the following and am not saying it out of malice, so please pay special attention to it:
Ex-gay ministries have a long history of well-documented lies. This is very evident to us and is not up for dispute. If you come to us in the guise of such a ministry, you must anticipate that what you say will be subject to greater scrutiny than otherwise. This is only right and fair.
If it seems that you are not completely forthcoming, you will be dismissed as just another liar. This may seem like a harsh standard, but it is based on our experiences with other ex-gay representatives who come on our site and say one thing only to say something else at another time or place.
You have a higher obligation to be completely honest and exactingly specific. If you are, indeed, different than Exodus or Love in Action or Warren Throckmorton or PFOX, you can’t behave like them. You must be very clear where you stand apart from them.
My concern, Doug, is that much of what you have said so far is nearly verbatim from what we’ve heard from those other groups. They twist the meaning of word so that they say one thing and mean another. Often these groups believe that unless they fool us about what they really believe, we’ll dismiss them immediately.
But I can tell you will all certainty, Doug, that if we determine that you are trying to deceive us about what you believe or what you do, we will never trust anything you say again. We will never listen to your offer of “possibilities” if we think you are not completely honest.
So please, Doug, in response to this post do not simply state your honesty, or your offense to my statements, or ignore me, or go on some tangent. Please answer us, honestly, specifically, and without avoidance. If you behave in this truthful and forthright manner, you will be a very welcome voice here. Otherwise we will have no use for you.
“He makes brief mention of homosexuality in The Four Loves in the chapter on Friendship. There he rebuts the idea that strong male friendship is “really homosexual” while acknowledging that it may “creep into” and “contaminate” friendship. “Abnormal Eros,” he calls it.
I would almost swear that there is another instance where he discusses these things, but I can’t remember where.”
There’s a book called A Severe Mercy written by Sheldon Vanaukan, who was converted to Christianity by C.S. Lewis when he was at Oxford. It includes some letters they exchanged about homosexuality. In them Lewis basically confuses homosexuality with transgenderism and seems to believe that a gay person ought to be celibate and attempt to adopt the “characteristic virues” of the opposite sex. So, he really didn’t know what he was talking about.
Doug- it’s hard to wade through everything written here but I think there’s another point you might want to address. What exactly do you mean by “change?” You claim to have been freed from your old life, that your life now is better, that God has something better for you, but I can’t find any part where you say exactly what that is. Are you talking celibacy or actual exclusive sexual attraction to women or some attraction to women complemented by a “struggle” with still being attracted to guys or something else entirely? Please be specific.
Boo, good luck getting anything specific out of Doug. He’s not here to objectively do what’s best for gays, he’s here to promote gay “change” (repression) by spinning all that follows from the absurd destructive belief that a loving and just God would torture gays for an eternity for being in a loving, supportive, monogamous relationship.
He claims he has reasons for as he called it “not being pro gay” that are secular – those posted here are just game playing, a front for the religious motivation. He says he’s not pro gay, he’s pro people. With Doug I’ll have to assume that means he doesn’t believe society should distinguish between gays and straights – that society should be indifferent to our desires to be happy and productive in same sex relationships, that gay grievances like verbal and physical assault in schools should not be directly adressed by telling anyone “Don’t beat the gay kid”.
Boo,
“In them Lewis basically confuses homosexuality with transgenderism and seems to believe that a gay person ought to be celibate and attempt to adopt the “characteristic virues” of the opposite sex. So, he really didn’t know what he was talking about.”
It seems to me that while Lewis’ advice displayed his ignorance, it also displayed his heart. I would think that the suggestion to “adopt virtues of the opposite sex” would have been a position far outside the mainstream.
Without reading the original source, I’m only guessing. But it seems to be Lewis’ attempt apply his beliefs about the love and compassion of Christ to a real situation rather than apply a “one size fits all” approach.
I wish more Christians did the same. I wish more people of all faiths did the same.
Timothy-
Oh definitely, Lewis was by no means a wingnut. He’s one of my Christian heroes 🙂 The Abolition of Man is very possibly the best and most prophetic (and disturbing) book of the 20th century.
“Without reading the original source, I’m only guessing. But it seems to be Lewis’ attempt apply his beliefs about the love and compassion of Christ to a real situation rather than apply a “one size fits all” approach.”
That’s basically what I found too. Unlike virtually all anti-gay people today, in his letters you get a real sense that he’s trying to be compassionate while not contradicting his starting assumption that any homosexual expression must be inherently sinful. I think if he were alive today he more than likely would be someone who could actually be reasoned with. He seems to have been one of the very rare people who could actually change his thinking based on logic and evidence.
Two observations:
Lewis’s perceptions of same-gender sexual attraction were no doubt colored by the fact that his only exposure to it (as far as we know) was
the celebrated/infamous tradition of public schoolboy buggery.* Given that, his (relative) open-mindedness is even more admirable.
Second, the tendency of _certain_ Christians to behave as if same-gender sexual activity were the summum malum of all sins is due (IMNSHO) to the fact that it is easier to decry those sins we ourselves do not feel tempted towards.
*By which I mean ‘buggery as practiced by boys at public schools’ not as practiced in public by schoolboys.
By which I mean ‘buggery as practiced by boys at public schools’…
I definitely missed something in school!
David
Doug M.
I would like to state that suggesting, offering or advertising that change is possible is in itself offensive.
And given the long, long and prominent history that this is the expectation of heterosexuals towards gay people, what you suggest isn’t NEW.
This idea is brought to gay youngsters from the beginning.
For many years and still, suggesting or offering isn’t the agenda of the ex gay movement.
There is heavy reliance on threat and fear to achieve this goal.
If not the threat from their fellow men, than the wrath of God is the potent back up.
Furthermore, gays and lesbians being a minority in the world, deserve to REMAIN who they are.
For several reasons.
One being, that the pernicious ignorance about homosexuals and the reality they live with can be better served by MORE gay people becoming visible.
The other important reason is the pursuit of truth. The ex gay literature and agenda is one sided.
That there is only civility and equal standards conveyed to gay people on condition they not be themselves.
Or are engaged in pursuing sainthood. A condition not committed to heterosexuals on ANY level for any reason.
The standards change and become impossible for gay people who could never meet them.
The expected results are not expected to happen, leaving the heterosexual controlling majority with no option to be reasonable or fair regarding gay needs and obligations.
And the ex gay agenda is moved to ignore and deny empirical and scientific evidence regarding gay people.
Does not regard homosexuality as simply a difference, an inversion that’s not an effect of immorality, or malevolence or unhealthy.
It is not incumbent on ex gays or heterosexuals to dictate the terms of ANY human being’s own self determination if it comes at so much expense.
But it’s their mission to exclude homosexuals ONLY for this purpose.
If you chose to pursue the ideals of the ex gay movement, than do so and take that journey on your own.
Why do you need company if it’s so wonderful?
The pursuit of more ex gays for yourself reminds me of addicts and drug dealers.
You dont feel validated that you’re really doing what you want to do, unless you know someone else will do it too.
Straight people don’t care enough about their own heterosexuality to go to such lengths.
They only obssess about homosexuals, who don’t require anyone else’s advice, however well meaning.
I’m sure some people mean well when they advertise that a woman’s happiness is related to submitting to a pair of silicone breast implants.
But is she succumbing to her own wishes…or that of the larger society that places undue worth in prominent breasts?
And what would it look like, a woman who’d had such work done, running around enthusing
‘you should do what I did! You’ll feel a whole lot better!’
Yeah, I thought so.