Ex-Gay Watch

Timothy Posted on 29-Jan-07 at 9:27 pm said “Some people… have an innate desire to know God and have a relationship with Him. Throughout history… this has been true…[it]is inarguable that this drive to know and worship one has been one of the strongest and most pervasive both individually and culturally. This drive is so strong in some people that this desire to know God and do His will outweighs all other issues.

You may think that this is not inborn or innate. But yet this trait is universal. All people. At all time. In all places. It cannot be written off as cultural conditioning or superstition.”.

Do you have a link to back up that assertion Timothy? As I understand it the native north american peoples didn’t have relgion in the traditional sense, they had a certain spirituality and awe in nature. I don’t think you could say they had an innate desire to have a relationship with god(s) or to know him and do his will. And “all people at all times in all places”?! Surely you’ve heard of atheists. Rather than a desire to know god and do his will I assert that people have created a culture of belief in god because it was the easiest way to “explain” the existence of the world – the belief isn’t innate, but rather the desire to have a simple explanation for the inexplicable is. I think my explanation has as much scientific support as yours, which is to say, little or none. On the other hand you know there are a lot of studies that suggest being gay is biologically caused.

I thought about this a lot during the past day or so. What bothers me is that no one automatically says we should respect and not challange people’s beliefs that we are born gay or straight – that’s fair game for questioning (I don’t think you’ve ever said we have to respect and not question that belief, have you?). So why does a belief get a free pass just because its religious, when we don’t give a free pass to other types of beliefs? If its okay to question whether or not being gay is innate, why isn’t it okay to question whether or not religious beliefs are innate?

If its okay to question whether or not being gay is innate, why isn’t it okay to question whether or not religious beliefs are innate?

Well, you questioned whether religious beliefs are innate and no one showed up to hit you with a stick… so I’m guessing that it is ok to question that.

Of course, others find your dismissal of the power of religious beliefs as short sighted, narrow, and dogmatic. And no one hit them with a stick either.

Timothy, I questioned the innateness of religious beliefs and you talked about how important it was to respect those beliefs – that’s another way of saying “I don’t want you to question this”, as are words like ignorant, short-sighted, narrow minded, and dogmatic. When people question the idea that being gay is innate I’ve never heard you say its important to respect that belief. That’s a double standard.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me you often say its okay to sacrifice your sexuality for your religion, but I never hear you saying its okay to sacrifice your religion for your sexuality. If its just as difficult to change one as the other than its just as reasonable (I’d say more so) to sacrifice the religion to find peace. I don’t see you suggesting balance in this. Admittedly, neither do I but as I said (and you ignored) there are many studies that suggest being gay is innate, and none that I know of that suggest being religious is. I suspect you’d agree that the main motivation for most people attempting to become “exgay” or celibate is the belief that they will be eternally tortured for having a loving gay relationship. Surely you don’t expect anyone to accept that that belief is innate. I can entertain the idea that a generalized religiosity is innate, but the idea that specific details are…well I don’t feel free to honestly say what I think of that idea – let’s just say that I seriously doubt you know of anyone who says that idea spontaneously came to them.

It is fascinating to me that many in this group assume that sexual identity is a more central, core human experience than religious belief.

I think the formation of moral behavior begins quite early (before age two children demonstrate basic forms of empathy). From that beginning the child develops a search for meaning that includes constructing a moral system to effectively and compassionately navigate their interpersonal relationships and to deal with their personal shortcomings.

It is natural and adaptive to subsume that process in an established religion and benefit from a community that supports your journey. This idea that morality is exclusively imposed in the form of religion is absudly simplistic.

Morality begin prior to the development of a complete identity.

sorry about the “absurdly simplistic” comment.

Better stated: “The idea that morality is exclusively imposed in the form of religion is not an adequate explanation of the phenomonon of normal moral development, religious conversion and later religious practice.”

David Blakeslee, the phrase “sexual identity” is “exgay” weasel words. What I was saying is that sexual orientation (the state of being same or opposite sex attracted) is a more central and core to the human experience than religion. Correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I know there is no evidence whatsoever that “It is natural and adaptive to subsume [the] process [of the formation of moral behavior] in an established religion and benefit from a community that supports your journey.

You say “This idea that morality is exclusively imposed in the form of religion is absudly simplistic.”. I think we have some agreement here. I agree with Richard Dawkins, morality doesn’t necessarily come from religion, morality evolved because its beneficial to the survivability of groups of individuals. No one needs religion to be moral, morality is innate.

Mr. Blakeslee said: ” It is fascinating to me that many in this group assume that sexual identity is a more central, core human experience than religious belief.”

There is a difference between “sexual identity” (I’m not really sure what that means) and sexual orientation (the prevailing direction of one’s sexual/emotional attractions.) I wouldn’t say that my sexual orientation is “more central” or a more “core human experience” than religious belief. But I would say it’s more intrinsic.

I think that even most straight people would agree that their attraction to the opposite sex was “built in” somehow and that their religious/moral beliefs were learned.
I am gay. My daughter is straight. I didn’t teach my daughter to be heterosexual (she seemed to have those feelings “naturally” from a very early age.) But, I had to TEACH her about Jesus, about God’s love for her, about the difference between right and wrong. I believe that the need for intimacy, bonding, sexual contact and love are instincts. So too, perhaps, is the desire to seek meaning and purpose whether we are gay, straight or somewhere in between.

Randi,

you talked about how important it was to respect those beliefs – that’s another way of saying “I don’t want you to question this”, as are words like ignorant, short-sighted, narrow minded, and dogmatic.

You seem to have an odd interpretation of criticism. To tell you that you are being dogmatic on an issue isn’t to say that you aren’t entitled to an opinion, it’s to say that your opinion is dogmatic. I’m not saying that you can’t question the intrinsic nature of religion, but that I think you are doing so in a dismissive and irrespectful manner. Stop being a martyr, no one is attacking you.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me you often say its okay to sacrifice your sexuality for your religion, but I never hear you saying its okay to sacrifice your religion for your sexuality.

Actually, you haven’t heard me say either of these things. But if someone wants to sacrifice either their religion or their sexuality, you probably won’t hear me trying to forbid them from doing either.

Further, you seem to be under the impression that religion is somehow based solely on avoiding torture (presumably in Hell). Let me clarify that I don’t know a single person that follows their religion because of a fear of Hell. Not one. Every Christian (or other religous person) I’ve met holds to their beliefs because they think that they provide a structure that gives the most meaningful existence in their current life and the afterlife is mostly an afterthought. If God came down in a tower of flame and announced with a booming voice that everyone gets into heaven and there is no Hell, I don’t think there’s anyone who would say, “oh great, now I don’t have to be a Christian”. Try to let go of that stereotype.

I never tell you, Randi, that you are wrong for believing what you do. But you seldom apply the standards of courtesy that you expect and demand for yourself to others. You’ve got to stop letting your hostility to religion overpower your sense of fairness and equality.

You can’t just scream, “I’m right. Orientation is innate. Religion is easily discarded” and then get offended when someone calls your opinion tripe.

David,

Your argument counters itself.

You claim that innate empathy leads naturally to religion. I don’t argue with this. I agree that a sense of empathy and search for meaning can lead one to find a religious identity that expresses the interal reality.

Surely by the same process one’s internal sexual orientation leads on to find an identity that expresses that internal reality. Yet you seem to think that innate sexual orientation does not (or should not) lead naturally to sexual identity.

That is the problem I have with ex-gay proponents that seek to dismiss or limit sexual orientation to nothing more than “identity”. Because “identity” is just the external explanation of an internal truth. In precisely the same way that the idenity of “Methodist” is an external explanation of one’s internal empathy and search for meaning.

Timothy said: “Let me clarify that I don’t know a single person that follows their religion because of a fear of Hell.” Sadly, I do know some people like that — folks who have never given their religion much thought and who think of God as some sort of cosmic sadist who can hardly wait to throw sinners into a fiery pit. Happily, I agree that most people of faith turn to religion for a sense of connectedness and purpose, not to escape eternal flame.

I’ve been following this thread for several days and chimed in once before. As I’ve thought about it, my problem with the Throckmorton approach has become clearer to me.

At the end of the day, Throckmorton’s new approach comes back to the same old approach of all anti-gay (and I use the term deliberately) religious groups. I.e.:

“Homosexuality is a sinful behavior. No, it may not be someone’s fault that he/she has temptations toward that behavior, and yes, it may be impossible to change those impulses, and true, it’s very sad that the person may experience a lot of anguish and suffering as a consequence. But ultimately, all anyone with homosexual temptation has to do is just not act on the temptation. Problem solved!”

This will become an extremely long post if I explain all of my objections to that line of thought. So I’ll just pose the question–to Warren and anyone else who might want to defend his “values determination” approach: What’s new about this? And how does this really help anyone?

Nickc, that is a question I’ve posed to the doctor and others who believe Christian identity and homosexuality are incompatible and irreconcilable.

Keeping gay people celibate, seems the most impossibly illogical thing of all.
I keep asking for whose satisfaction is this really?

We have so many fronts from which gay people are attacked.
A kinder, gentler approach to ENCOURAGING celibacy has what rewards or demonstrable results that are socially beneficial?

Working within the framework of monogamy, enduring relationships, responsible and safe sexuality in marriage…is to my mind THE reasonable reconciliation of gay and straight people and what both can be supported in achieving.
As you’re pointing out, the gay celibate/marry heterosexual of the opposite sex has been encouraged for centuries, with disastrous results for many.
This isn’t as forcible an approach, but the intent and expectations are the same.
And THAT makes no sense.

It’s still comes around to: heterosexual model is ideal and best.
But who says so?
Heterosexuals.
Who is supplying all the information that points in that direction?
Heterosexuals.

And if this isn’t accomplished by the gay person and the results are not good or positive or enduring, who gets to place all the blame and take no responsibility?
Heterosexuals.

There is nothing more exhausting and utterly worthless as justifying your existence to those resistant to evidence and honesty.
I have no idea what it’s like to be gay.
But I sure know that exhaustion.
This requires superhuman patience and shadowing.
And I demand to know what religion requires it and why should a human being be put through it for someone else’s satisfaction.
Those gentle and concerned eyes that are telling you ‘this is for your own good…trust me,’ behave as if abuse never happened and many of their brethren aren’t consistent with the gentle approach and in other quarters can be quite intimidating and brutal.

I was reading an article about homeless gay youth.
Matt Foreman was reiterating about how urgent, life threatening and frequent this is tragedy is.
I’ve known a lot of kids in this situation.
And I hold the ex gay movement and other groups that consider homosexuality an act of rebellion. This more than implies that the youngster be held responsible for being gay.
This also requires that the parents exert pressure in that belief. And parents, acting on advice and consent of their religious communities, break the connection between parent and child rather than mend it.
The child is required to ALWAYS live his life on heteosexual terms, with no tangible or necessarily urgent reason to do so.

You cannot, I repeat…cannot lie to a child.
You cannot offer anecdotes, you need evidence.
You cannot predict results TO a child, the results must be acute.
And ex gay therapy and ministry cannot produce such a thing.
And in the meantime, a sexual orientation and comfort with it is at stake.
The fact remains, WHY NOT be comfortable with being gay?
Because I know for a fact, being heterosexual ain’t a rose garden either. Never was.
Happiness isn’t in being straight, but in being true.

Dr. Throckmorton has acted like I’m not here.
No matter what I directly asked, no matter what I called him on.
Between him and Joseph Nicolosi and Melissa Fryear…
and DL Foster…
I’m STILL waiting.
I would think six years is an awfully long time to wait for the answers to my questions.

Nick… welcome to delightful delemma and paradox we know as religion. You’ve correctly summarized the struggle a lot of gay men feel when confronting this issue. Its also the reason why many leave their faith.

A number of gay men look dumbfounded when presented with this very arguement. Its like the church is saying, “You know, if everything you say about homosexuality is true, we should change our approach in dealing with homosexuals….but unfortunately for you… you’re wrong.”

This kind of ignorance is absolutely unbelievable to me. Its akin to the catholic church blasting Galileo for saying the earth revolves around the sun. The very moment we found out the truth about the earth, did it change our perceptions about God? Maybe, maybe not. But I’d care to think that most people gained a greater awareness and understanding of God once they learned the truth. New knowledge helps remove the constraints we’ve placed on God…nothing more. The more we learn, the bigger God gets. Its just difficult to remove God from the box once we’ve placed Him there. We always try to integrate God into our identity. God becomes something we want to possess because we think we have him figured out or maybe we’re deluded to think that we are Him. We’re not.

I mentioned in a different thread that “revelation” about God (for christians) has to be balanced on 3 separate “legs” of understanding.

1. The Bible
2. Church Tradition and teaching of the early church fathers.
3. Personal Experience.

If you only focus on the Bible alone or scripture, you risk the possibility of becoming a fundamentalist. Focus only on the church and becoming a legalist/Pharisee is in your future. Only think personal experience is important? Then you’ll stand in line with all the other cults out there and you’ll waver to and fro uncertain of anything.

So what is the ultimate answer to your ultimate question? I believe its the understanding that its “your” relationship with God that ultimately will be judged and the only two people involved in that party are you and Creator.

History is full of decisions made by spiritual men that seemingly counter God’s decrees and God seems to smile at them all the more. When you make a decision to accept yourself for who you are, you’re standing in God’s grace and in faith that you’re making the best decision you possibly can and if God can’t realize this come judgement day, maybe He’s not a God worth worshipping.

Wow..even after I wrote that I kinda felt exposed. Its like I’m waiting for a lightning bolt to strike.

Like any parent, God loves us and wants the best for us. I believe the sending of his son was his ways of saying, “I understand”.

Blimey. What a thread to read through. (And I’m about to make it worse, ’cause I’m in the mood!)

A proposition: “spirituality” is not “religion”

Some are not being very clear about which you are referring to, and appear to be discussing at cross-purposes. (Simply from my viewpoint, of course. So there.) And this does have some important implications when we discuss the importance of religion in the lives of, say, a minority of homosexually attracted people.

I’m perfectly happy to entertain the idea that a spirituality is innate, in the sense that (near all) people ponder and reassess the “mysteries of life” as they travel through their lives.

Birth and Death. Altruism and Cruelty. Tolerance and Persecution. Beauty and Ugliness. Pain and Joy. Fear and Comfort. Loneliness and Companionship. Success and Failure. Ignorance and Knowledge. Accommodation and Rejection. Peace and Warfare. Recognition and Obscurity.

It’s difficult to avoid the dichotomy that greets each us at every turn, even, yet even, from the age of 2 years old. It is (IMO) innate to seek an explanation, to find meaning, and (IMO) to attempt to make sense of what we experience or are told about. We must live with other people, afterall.

That search for a meaning — the desire to explain and make sense — pre-dates any current religious traditions. Has there ever been a recorded culture without a creation myth? Why do we appreciate the symbolism to found in Neanderthal graves that were carefully lined with the green boughs of trees?

Lay out on the ground on a warm, still night and it’s difficult not to look up into the stars and wonder what else is out there. Or to see the sun set, only to see it be “reborn” each and every morning. To observe the predictable cycle of the seasons. You don’t need a religion, let alone a particular religion, to have that innate sense of wonder or curiosity. We are simply hard-wired to seek an explanation for how things work, I’d suggest. Including an explanation for human life, and any reason for it.

For many, most, the organizing principles will be found within the culture that surrounds them; including a style of religion (be it trained into them, or adopted later). Some do search and find a place in a religion that is not otherwise commonplace within their milieu, although this is the least common way people come to religious practice.

Hence, religion is not spirituality per se; but a codification of spirituality. Hide-bound by the other artifacts in our lives. If that sounds familiar, it should: sexual identity vs sexual orientation… and all that.

But where oh where do we — can we? should we? — draw a distinction between spirituality (typically expressed through an organized religion), and mere superstitious clap-trap? Is there, in fact, a distinction… or are they both one and the same?

And don’t ask me, I wouldn’t know, and I’m not looking for an argument.I know it when I see it, but.

Timothy — side-note — that may your experience… but perhaps you’re avoiding the flip-side?

The Phelps clan excluded, I guess you mean…. if you’ve never heard the direct threat of ending up in hell, I assume it certainly is not uncommon to hear something along the lines of:

“What is 5 minutes of pleasure compared to forever being separated from the love of Jesus!”

The last is often heard within ex-gay circles, as example. Same same, but different: no? (I mean: If you’re not with God, where else would you be but Hell? Hanging around the mall, waiting for friends?!)

I think it has more to do with your familiarity with current-day U.S. protestant evangelicals and their own terminology/emphasis, rather than — say — the church in Rome. They can and do go all mystical and medieval on us every now and again. Including the bits about purgatory, and Hell

——————————

NickC: exactly my (somewhat snarky) point way up at the top.

The difference appears to be nowt but that “caring” anti-gay therapists should now first go through a process of recording and documenting the client’s heart-felt desires. And if the client wants to, they can decide to be celibate. Big woop, frankly.

But this, alone, adds what to the potential of becoming not-a-gay? This is what the client is actually seeking, afterall, is it not?

——————————

David Blakeslee. — side-note deux — perhaps, here, you need to be clear about what you are referring to. Elsewhere you can probably get away with the conflation and/or confusion and/or minority reinterpretation of commonplace terminology. That’s why a couple of previous posts have jumped on your statement.

Following the same format as above… sexual identity is not sexual orientation.

Sexual identity is a codification of sexual orientation (with the primary organizing principle being the sexual attractions). There’s no great mystery in that, or any need to reinvent the wheel. It’s useful enough as it is.

When you decide to use sexual identity instead of sexual orientation (and we know that’s “ex-gay-speak” if you will) you will come across — here — in an unfavorable light. The terms are not synonymous, and shouldn’t be used as such. I cannot think of any regular here at XGW who doesn’t have a deep understanding of this distinction, or it’s implications, both from a personal and an informed perspective.

As a therapist, surely, you do otherwise understand the difference between a client thinking they are the reincarnation of Napoleon… and actually being Napoleon?

There is a perfectly workable term for those who insist they are Napoleon, even though they’ve never even been to Belgium (let alone fought at Waterloo): delusional.

——————————

“Doctor, I keep thinking I am a slice of ham.”"Hmmm. Recline on this bread roll, and tell me about your mother.”

Timothy said “You can’t just scream, “I’m right. Orientation is innate. Religion is easily discarded” and then get offended when someone calls your opinion tripe.”.

Well, Timothy, you continue to ignore the points I’ve made. Studies on twins, eye blink rates, hearing, finger length, reaction to and production of pheremones, same chromosone deactivation, inheritance, older brothers correlated to gayness, brain structures, and probably any number of things I’ve forgotten all suggest being gay is at least somewhat innate and I don’t think you’d argue with me about that. What have you got to suggest relgiosity is innate? Nothing as far as I can tell, and once again, surely you don’t expect anyone to accept that people are born with the belief that being gay is against god’s will – that’s an idea that’s tripe.

And I don’t care if you call my ideas tripe or dogmatic. The trouble is that I’ve been temporarily banned for expressing my opinions about religion and warned about being permanently banned for doing so. Contrary to what you said at 30-Jan-07 at 9:48 pm exgaywatch is waiting to hit me over the head with a stick if I express the wrong opinion about religion. Words like disrespectful, dogmatic, narrow, ignorant, etc. only emphasize that. You say now I’m free to express my opinion, but that is not entirely true.

No, Randi,

You were temporarily banned because you were hostile, insulting, and rude. You seemed unable to say “I don’t share your religion” and instead felt it necessary to show contempt to other people’s faith and in the least pleasant way possible. You came back promising to chill on the constant hostility and angry accusations of everything religious and for a very long time you’ve been fine.

Rather than accuse us of wanting to shut you up (or hit you with a stick), why don’t you just join in civil discourse.

Your points are not without merit. But I do think they lack nuance.

If you are trying to claim that there is no sense of empathy (or spirituality as grantdale so eloquently discusses above) which is innate that is later expressed through religious beliefs, I think that’s been addressed. If you think that this empathy does not necessarily have to be expressed through religion – or any specific religion – well I certainly don’t disagree with that.

I do think that religious beliefs can become very closely linked to that spirituality and that it can become extremely difficult for some people to break that linkage. I further think that for some people, though certainly not many, that linkage is stronger than the sex drive or the desire for a companion and perhaps the best course for that person’s mental health is not to break their beliefs.

Or at least I don’t rule that out.

Grantdale,

I think you may misunderstand me. I didn’t say that I only know Christians who don’t believe in Hell. Nor did I say that Christians aren’t quite concerned about their loved ones going to Hell. Just that I’ve not met any who (admittedly, at least) make the conscious choice to be a Christian solely as a means to avoid Hell (though no doubt such people exist).

Non-Christians sometimes think that this is the sole (or at least primary) reason that someone adheres to Christianity. Perhaps it is for the Phelpses (and a few others) but most Christians I know (maybe I’m lucky) are so because they want a life of meaning and relationship with God.

Ironically, many Christians who are not personally motivated by the punishment/reward dichotomy of Heaven and Hell still seem to think that this is their best (or only) argument in favor of their faith. Rather than say, “my faith gives meaning” they’ll say “oh, but if you don’t become a Christian you’ll go to Hell”. Do they think that the people they tell this to are incredibly shallow?

This obsession with “rescuing souls from Hell” feeds into the false impression that this is the only purpose of religion. And it gives a very narrow presentation of God – quite useless in this life (unless you lose your car keys and pray) and easily replaceable by a computer tracking your sins and your repentences.

I wish they would stop.

“Hence, religion is not spirituality per se; but a codification of spirituality.”

Very close to agreement here. It is that, plus the calling of the Divine to the mortal. Spirituality as an idea implies that the search begins with man.

Nah, get it. Just didn’t seem that nuanced the first time around, but that’s prob. more about me.

And yep, know the sort. Not too many months ago was witness to the “lost car key” type. Who loudly (VERY LOUDLY) began a weeping, wailing, “thank you Jesus” explosion in an emergency ward. Until firmly reminded by matron to belt-up, or retire to a side room.

Oddly, but the skill and dedication of the surgeons and nurses who had just performed a gruelling 4 hour operation never got a mention. Nope, it was all due to the personal intervention of God. Praise Jesus.

Speaking of which — I have actually lost my car keys, the 2nd set. Any hope you could put in a kind word to Him, on my behalf? Alternatively, I’ll just have to keep looking.

We are simply hard-wired to seek an explanation for how things work, I’d suggest. Including an explanation for human life, and any reason for it.

GrantDale – good place to start. When I argue for a values focus, this level of depth is what I mean. Our approach takes seriously those whose search leads them to make sense of it all via a flavor of religion. When I talk about worldview, this kind of metaphysical-making sense of it all is what I mean. For some, making sense of it all leads them to experience a dissonance with their sexual attractions leading them further to believe they should choose celibacy or to act on the heterosexual side of their attractions. Others will come to conclusions that permit them to express their homosexuality in ways they believe to be proper. We believe some therapists impose their own values on these clients leading to unsatisfying outcomes. We think this happens on all sides of this issue.

So Nick, Regan and GrantDale, there is a sense in which you would be correct for some people. But it is not the sexual identity therapist that imposes this course as if this was some kind of new ex-gay therapy. Clients (ministry participants, etc) decide that homosexual behavior is not consistent with their efforts to make sense of it all and so they craft other paths. For others, who are bisexual in their attractions, their making sense of it all leads them to act on only one direction of their attractions.

It is a mistake to think that we are proposing a new ex-gay therapy to be promoted as some do reparative therapy as the singular explanation and response. We are not. We are proposing a framework to guide therapists who work with clients who are in conflict. Relatively speaking one large group of these people have durable religious attachments that forbid any sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage and these people value this making-sense-of-it-all view highly. Some of these people, – like Jim – determine that pursuing their worldview (knowing their attractions will not change much) is the preferred route. Our framework places emphasis on helping clients articulate the sense of it all that they have made – whatever that may be.

Sorry, that one was for Timothy.

Thanks for watching my back:
“Sexual identity is a codification of sexual orientation (with the primary organizing principle being the sexual attractions). There’s no great mystery in that, or any need to reinvent the wheel. It’s useful enough as it is.”

When you decide to use sexual identity instead of sexual orientation (and we know that’s “ex-gay-speak” if you will) you will come across — here — in an unfavorable light. The terms are not synonymous, and shouldn’t be used as such. I cannot think of any regular here at XGW who doesn’t have a deep understanding of this distinction, or it’s implications, both from a personal and an informed perspective.”

Let’s see if I can wade into this a bit. Sensations to orientation to identity. There is an essentialist argument that is deterministic and a constructionist argument that is non-deterministic.

The same model can be applied to my faith: sensations–spirituality—religious practice. I may call it essentialist, my athiest friend might call it a social construction.

I have a right to call it essentialist, my athiest friend has a right to examine it as a social construction. It is in fact, probably a little of both.

Regarding vocabulary and meaning, we all know that the words we choose can limit or expand the conversation. I believe Warren’s work actually expands a rather polarizing and politically charged conversation and allows us to talk more rationally on both sides of this issue.

The whole notion of sexuality has undergone many redifinitions and expansions in just the last 50 years. Surely we can tolerate the notion of adding a few more words, or do we stop at the words that merely bring comfort to our own conclusions (a new form of orthodoxy that stifles scientific inquiry)?

Randi said: 

…but I never hear you saying its okay to sacrifice your religion for your sexuality.

It’s not our place to say if that is ok or not.  But you are again missing the point completely; the people about whom the original article was written are unwilling to sacrifice their beliefs, period.  This other stuff seems only to be you expressing your well known disdain for all things spiritual.  It was old before, it is beyond old now.  Learn to leave that behind when you debate here.

Timothy said:

Further, you seem to be under the impression that religion is somehow based solely on avoiding torture (presumably in Hell).

Yes, and this view is shallow enough when supposed Christians use it, it is more so when Randi constantly beats the same drum.  And Randi, if you truly believe this, then I would say that gives us some insight into why you are constantly denouncing anything that would give credence to faith.  We can not help you settle that internal debate. 

Let me clarify that I don’t know a single person that follows their religion because of a fear of Hell. Not one. Every Christian (or other religous person) I’ve met holds to their beliefs because they think that they provide a structure that gives the most meaningful existence in their current life and the afterlife is mostly an afterthought.

I have to admit, I’ve met a few who use the threat of hell to convince others, we used to call it “fire insurance Christianity” and I think it’s useless.  But no, I have no Christian friends who say they are such because of a fear of hell, certainly not now.  My reasons for following Christ are my love of God and wish to please him, not necessarily because I want structure in life.  Any philosophy can give one structure, so my personal experience wouldn’t agree totally with that perspective either.  And along those same lines, I don’t know any Christians who do not think about the afterlife a fair amount, but it’s heaven, not hell.

This is rapidly becoming a torturous discussion about the legitimacy of faith, spirituality, religion, etc. Such a debate will never be productive and will always be useless here. We are at 70+ comments. If anyone else has something to add, feel free but please make it germane and civil. If not we will shut this one down as played out.

My interest in sexual identity therapy came out of research I was conducting on sexual identity among Christians and how it develops and synthesizes over time. I had been comparing Christians who experienced same-sex attraction, identified as gay and were part of the Metropolitan Community Church with Christians who experienced same-sex attraction, did not identify as gay, and were part of Exodus. What both groups had in common were same-sex attractions and a strong religious identity and commitment. They also had some similar and some different milestone events in the development of their sexual identity and ultimately in the synthesis of their sexual identity. Because I also provide clinical services, my thinking was that it might be helpful to have a framework clinicians could draw upon when working with a religious person in particular who is navigating the complexities associated with experiencing same-sex attraction and forming a sexual identity in light of a religious identity.

Warren, (and Mark Y, having seen he’s joined us)that much we get. And have done so for a long time. It is also something nearly every gay man or lesbian already goes through, par for course. (And you well know that we personally don’t care if someone was to live as gay, or run away to an order of silent nuns.)

The point is — and you fail each time, when in public, to clearly educate others about it — that “values clarification” has nothing to do with, and will not, alter anyone’s sexual orientation. It is not even applicable to many.

A hint, for some a warning siren (due to your choice of an atypical outcome), is the use of “Jim” in the article that began this thread:

“I began working with a counselor had lots of experience in helping people change behavior. He correctly pointed out that it’s not about “being cured” from homosexual attractions, but rather, it is about how I live.”

Unfortunately this is exactly what others already seek to impose on us. And have done for a very long time.

Frankly “they” do not care if someone is a Kinsey 1, K3, or a K6; or stay as one. “They” simply expect us to have sex with a wife, or not at all. Now, apparently, if only we had a “valued life”, we could indeed have sex with a wife and be a contented individual while doing so.

You know as well as we do that ex-gay groups, reorientation therapists and anti-gay individuals more generally already promote this “values clarification” (as well as the notion that sexual attractions can actually change).

“Do you love Jesus enough? Do you want to be liked by others? If you do, you won’t be a gay.”

Pure values clarification, followed by their desired outcome. What it results in for the vast majority of gay men and women is more rarely considered even worth mentioning.

It goes without saying that any conflict in life needs to be resolved or ignored. One can resolve it, most often only temporarily, by reframing and repression. And why not, right? That will continue to be the demand, as it is now.

So mark my words: unless you chose to be more careful about how and where you present this in public, your guidelines — ostensibly aimed at a minority with severe religious and sexual dissonance — will become the justification for the reframing and repression of all.

Not your aim? OK, good. But therefore don’t ignore the pile of Semtex you’ve left unguarded on a Baghdad street corner.

You could start, as we once suggested 6 months ago, by adding a section to the guidelines that give clear warning about the most common outcomes of reframing and repression; particularly with regard to the long, awful, unhealthy, and failed history of using those techniques on gay men and lesbians as a group.

Call it the warning label.

David Blakeslee: Surely we can tolerate the notion of adding a few more words, or do we stop at the words that merely bring comfort to our own conclusions (a new form of orthodoxy that stifles scientific inquiry)?

Yes, we could. But you’re not doing that.

You’re using identity in place of orientation. That isn’t defining a new term, expanding our vocabularly and understanding, but taking something with one meaning and using it in place of something with another meaning altogther.

We need not consider, let alone agree, whether sexual orientation is “socially constructed” or “essentialist” to know that identity and orientation are not synonyms.

Off the top of my head, (alas most will be unsuited for a family publication like XGW) I can come up with a long list of identities (or labels) used by gay, bi, and straight men. They can all be put on and taken off like a pair of socks, at any particular time or place, without having anything to do with underlying sexual orientation.

But then again, I’m also in the annoying habit of asking the husband to please get me some 2-acetyloxybenzoic acid. And, ya know, it works just as well as asprin!

And Timothy you call my opionion that sexual orientation is innate but not religion, tripe but I’m supposed to respect the belief that this is not the case. How do you explain that double standard? Why are beliefs that are religious to be respected, but not beliefs that are not religious? Why do religious beliefs get a pass that other beliefs don’t?

David Blakeslee said “Sexual identity is a codification of sexual orientation (with the primary organizing principle being the sexual attractions). There’s no great mystery in that, or any need to reinvent the wheel. It’s useful enough as it is.”

Well, David, there’s plenty of mystery in my mind as to what on earth that’s supposed to mean and I don’t find it useful in anyway. Earlier you said “It is fascinating to me that many in this group assume that sexual identity is a more central, core human experience than religious belief.”. No one is talking about “sexual identity” (whatever that’s supposed to mean), they’re talking about sexual orientation, the straightforward concept of being attracted to one sex or the other. As far as I can tell you harp on this “sexual identity” nonsense to minimize and dismiss the signifcance of sexual orientation.

David Roberts said “It’s not our place to say if [sacrificing one's religion for their sexuality] is ok or not.”

Well, I frequently hear either you or Timothy (or maybe both) lamenting people’s loss of their spirituality when they find “exgay” therapy doesn’t work. Timothy at least has said he doesn’t oppose people’s attempts to be exgay. Between the two of you its certainly my impression that you feel its your place to say its okay to sacrifice your sexuality for your religion. It would be fair for you to say its just as valid for people to sacrifice their religion to have a guiltless sexuality.

David said “This other stuff seems only to be you expressing your well known disdain for all things spiritual. It was old before, it is beyond old now. Learn to leave that behind when you debate here.”.

Timothy said “Well, you questioned whether religious beliefs are innate and no one showed up to hit you with a stick… so I’m guessing that it is ok to question that.” and ” I’m not saying that you can’t question the intrinsic nature of religion”.

So Timothy says its okay for me to question the intrinsic nature of religion, but David showed up to hit me with a stick. No wonder I’m never sure what opinions I can express here

David Roberts, you know I dislike hearing you talk about religion just as much as you dislike me hearing talk about it. But you won’t find me suggesting you refrain from doing so.

Mr. Blakeslee, I completely agree with a previous post that said: “When you decide to use sexual identity instead of sexual orientation (and we know that’s “ex-gay-speak” if you will) you will come across — here — in an unfavorable light. The terms are not synonymous, and shouldn’t be used as such.”

I don’t mind if you introduce new words to the dicussion as long as you DEFINE them. In my mind, un-defined terms like “ex-gay” and “sexual identity” have always seriously clouded this debate.

Grantdale said it well: “We need not consider, let alone agree, whether sexual orientation is “socially constructed” or “essentialist” to know that identity and orientation are not synonyms.”

Randi said: 

So Timothy says its okay for me to question the intrinsic nature of religion, but David showed up to hit me with a stick. No wonder I’m never sure what opinions I can express here

Oh please Randi, this is the second time someone has asked you to stop playing martyr.  You can question something, but you are never content with that where faith is concerned.  You appear to be so angry over your fear of hell that you just can’t stop yourself from slipping from questioning to berating, and then you begin to evangelize for your own form of worship.

David Roberts, you know I dislike hearing you talk about religion just as much as you dislike me hearing talk about it. But you won’t find me suggesting you refrain from doing so.

First, if you dislike even the discussion of religion you are in the wrong place.  One cannot discuss the ex-gay equation without a heavy dose of religion now and then.  Second, you don’t talk about it Randi, you assault it.  What is worse, you have been banned (ironically only temporarily because of my suggestion) in the past for just this same thing.  Yet you continue past all attempts to warn you.  You just don’t appear to care.

At times Randi you have interesting things to add to the debate, but you seem so tortured by whatever you believe about hell that you just can’t stop lashing out here.  I see no reason to believe it will ever change if it has not by now. 

You know Michael B…

Ever thought of actually writing a 1000 word piece “What was Exodus, and Why”..????

I’m sure XGW would host it, and when you’re bored you can do a follow-up “Why Exodus is not Exodus any more (we once had ethics, afterall)”!

More seriously, there’s a bus with your name on on it. There always is, you know. Before it arrives surely you and a few of the other “964 founders” of Exodus (eg Ed et al, that you’ve reconnected with) can still string a few words together between piano recitals at the Exodus Retirement Home???

Much more seriously… I’m thinking “historic record” and “accountability” — neither of which have featured much in the 30 year history of Exodus.

Yet But you could change that. A bit.

Randi,

I think these words were someone else’s that I quoted:

David Blakeslee said “Sexual identity is a codification of sexual orientation (with the primary organizing principle being the sexual attractions). There’s no great mystery in that, or any need to reinvent the wheel. It’s useful enough as it is.”

I think grantdale made that comment and I was responding to it.

Regarding terms: precision is power and we are arguing whether the term sexual identity has a certain precision that helps the discussion of being gay identified or understanding how one responds to sexual attractions.

I have a catholic friend who actively identifies as lesbian, but lives as celebate. No shame, she says, for who she is. There is an interesting twist on things that I think captures the potential range of responses to same-sex attractions.

David, you seem heavily invested in the “activity=identity” equation.

To the rest of us, it is not even remotely interesting that a lesbian be celibate. Of course there are celibate lesbians. After all, “lesbian” is what she is, not what she does. A convent may be full of celibate women, some of whom are straight and some of whom are lesbian and none of whom are having sex. The 9/11 hero Father Mikal Judge was another example of a celibate gay man.

To those who don’t dismiss orientation as simply being an “identity” that can be donned or doffed at whim (or heartfelt determination), the terms “gay” and “lebian” have an exact meaning. A lesbian is a woman who is attracted (emotionally, sexually, romantically) to women rather than men.

This is not a difficult concept. When some teenage girl asks her best friend, “umm, Johnny, are you ummm… are you gay?”, she’s not asking if he spent last friday night doing the football team. She’s asking him if he is attracted to boys rather than girls.

When he says, “umm yeah, maybe, kinda, I think I am, yes”, he’s not saying, “this is the identity I am adopting”, he’s telling her the direction (orientation) to which his attractions point.

The only people who seem to have any difficulty in understanding this are those who don’t want to allign measurable reality with language. The rest of us use the common language and it is frustrating trying to converse with someone so obviously choosing not to.

I know you don’t intend this, but it really is condescending. It says, “you may think you’re gay but REALLY you’re only gay identified and I know better”.

For the purposes of this website let’s just use language that the rest of the world shares: gay and lesbian = same-sex attracted.

If you don’t want to call those who wish they weren’t gay by some other term fine. They can be “strugglers” or “ex-gay” or “those with unwanted SSA” or whatever. But for those of us who have no dissonance between observable reality and language, please stop with the “gay identified”

/rant over

David Roberts…

I wish you wouldn’t have closed the “Philpott” thread because I had more to say. But I respect your position to moderate the threads as you see fit. Actually, the “Philpott” thread was actually turning into an extension of this thread…the similar topics were being discussed. Can we continue here?

Maybe we could use a little help from the dictionary:

IDENTITY: “that which identifies somebody or something: the essential self: the set of characteristics that somebody recognizes as belonging uniquely to himself or herself and constituting his or her individual personality.”

ORIENTATION: “the position or direction in which something lies (as in “the hill slopes in a southerly orientation”), the direction in which something is developed or focused, a leaning or direction in which somebody’s thoughts, interests, or tendencies lie.”

So for me, the two words are not synonymous. One relates to self-definition, the other to the prevailing direction of the desires. To use them interchangeably is an incorrect usage of the terms and only clouds this debate.

Brian, the Philott thread was going way off topic, so bringing it over here would just do the same to this thread. I apologize, but we do occasionally have open topics. At over 90 comments, this thread is becoming too large for others to read through anyway. If you stick around, I’m sure you will find more active topics in which to comment.

Yes.. I admit it was going off topic, but so many interesting things were being said. Oh well… no problem.

Timothy,

I agree that the word “identity” is problematic, and I understand you feeling (potentially) condescended to by its use. But (going back to something I alluded to previously), I find the blanket use of “gay” and “lesbian” problematic, and see (potential) condescension in your statement, “let’s just use language that the rest of the world shares,” when I’m not sure we do share it. If gay isn’t about activity for those who are celibate, then shouldn’t it not be about activity for those who have sex? Gay has many meanings and associations, some of which I personally don’t identify (pun intended) with.

I have same-sex attraction. Those attractions are unwanted (in therapeutic lingo, “ego dystonic”). I will even say I have a homosexual orientation, or bisexual anyway (backpedaling from my previous statement, Kinsey may be helpful here). But I have never thought of myself as gay, and I don’t know what would be the value (pun intended again) of me doing so. This is what I was talking about before: It seems there is a tendency to categorize anyone with any degree of SSA (no matter how dominant, no matter if the person also has any degree of OSA, and no matter their activity) as gay—or as I said before, “gay trumps straight.” Maybe, as Michael seemed to suggest, married ex-gays are all just bisexually-oriented folks suppressing their SSA. But again, I’m not sure calling them gay clarifies things, and it seems to add some things that aren’t necessarily there.

Somewhat jokingly, but also seriously: Does a word that theoretically describes you, me, and Ted Haggard bring clarity or give meaning?

Franksta:

I’m cool with those who are unhappy with their SSA calling themselves something else. You can think of yourself as anything you like – as long as you are not making public proclamations in order to affect my civil rights. You can be ex-gay, or SSA, or a struggler, or a polka-dot turtle.

After all, although “gay” is the most predominant term, some folks prefer “queer”, or “SGL” (same gender loving), or as it said on the billboard I passed earlier today “bruthas loving brothas”.

But I’m over the “gay identified” language when used specifically by anti-gay persons and directed towards those who are living their lives in accordance with their orientation.

Somewhat jokingly, but also seriously: Does a word that theoretically describes you, me, and Ted Haggard bring clarity or give meaning?

yeah it does. Without language, we can’t communicate. Of course the shared term is probably not gay but same-sex attracted (yes, I acknowledge exceptions)

I’m gay, Haggard is closeted (either about his homosexuality or bisexuality), and you are, well whatever it is that you are.

But I’m not “identified as gay” and Haggard is not “identified as closeted” as though the same-sex attractions are nothing more than a socially constructed identity.

Because when you get right down to it, whatever term is used it all comes back to the fact that there are same-sex attractions whether one wears them as a label or hides them in a closet. And as I’m sure you would agree, choosing not to “identify” with one’s same-sex attractions does not make them magically disappear.

Let’s not use language that suggests that it does.

I think the reason why people think that gay trumps straight because of a very obvious “conflict of interest” about the issue. I wouldn’t trust anyone who experienced same sex attraction and had a negative view on homosexuality to give an honest answer about their attractions.

They would be too motivated to dismiss the gay ones and promote the straight ones. If your choices are burn in hell for acting on the gay one (or something else not of equal value) OR act of what little opposite attraction there is. Which would you choose?

If you’re only moral choices were unwanted celibacy and having a relationship with a woman? Which would you choose?

A person like that would indeed be very temped to act on the opposite sex attractions and try to ignore the same sexed ones.

The only problem is the person may or may not be very good at not acting on the same sexed ones (I used to read a blog of an ex-gay who had more gay sex than me!). And the opposite sex attraction may or may not be all that great.

I know I can find a woman attractive, just not strongly or often. I wouldn’t call myself bi for that reason. I would be more willing to believe a proud out gay man who acted on his hetero attractions than someone who thinks that acting on their homosexual side is sinful.

Any asked: “If you’re only moral choices were unwanted celibacy and having a relationship with a woman? Which would you choose?

Good question. Thank God those aren’t the only two choices. I am gay and I have many “relationships” with women. I just don’t want to have sex with them. I believe God created us for relationship. In my case, that means an inimate, emotional, sexual and spiritual relationship with one man.

Come to think of it, if forced, I would take “unwanted celibacy”. I have lived through such celibate episodes before (after the death of my partner or after a break up). There are even times that I have been intentionally celibate.
If by “having a relationship with a woman” you mean “being married to a woman and being expected to have unwanted sex with her” I would take celibacy any day.

Michael said: If by “having a relationship with a woman” you mean “being married to a woman and being expected to have unwanted sex with her” I would take celibacy any day.

I agree. I would not want to put myself in that situation nor would I want to put anyone else in that situation either. If I cannot fool myself into thinking that I’m straight and I have the desire to get married to a woman then what makes me think I can fool God himself?

Franksta wrote: “I will even say I have a homosexual orientation, or bisexual anyway (backpedaling from my previous statement, Kinsey may be helpful here). But I have never thought of myself as gay.”

I am not at all surprised. It has been my experience that folks who have attractions to both sexes (are somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale like Franksta) are not comfortable with the term “gay” — because they’re not gay. They’re bisexual.

I agree with Timothy. Words are very important. And we need to be careful how we define them and use them. A standard English dictionary can be very helpful here. Without at least trying to define our terms, discussion becomes meaningless babel.