Ex-Gay Watch

Exiting homosexuality does not mean exiting sexual orientation.

Self-identified former homosexuals still have a sexual orientation, even if they are evasive about saying what it is.

If “former homosexuals” are targeted as a class by a specific violent criminal act and the offender is convicted, then they are covered by the federal hate-crimes legislation which provides for enhanced sentencing for that crime. We’ve discussed the wording of the actual legislation before. It’s reasonably straightforward.

Jeremayakovka said it himself: He doesn’t want to discuss the wording of the actual legislation, he “can only tell you what I think.” Hmmm.

If the ex-gay ad were to assert that violent crimes targeting (as a class) ex-gays, heterosexuals, homosexuals, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Jews and Christians are undeserving of enhanced sentencing and unworthy of federal aid to state/local investigators, then a credible case for the ad could be made, in association with the actual wording of the legislation. But the ad and its defenders are not making that case. Instead, they lie about the legislation’s wording — falsely stating that it singles out one particular sexual orientation for special treatment.

Lying is a serious sin. Ex-gay political activists should ponder that.

That t-shirt basically says, “Look how much the world hates us and how much they love fags. If I was still a fag, they would love me. But now I’m one of you and, by extension, it means they hate all of us.”

This is what happens when ministry and politics mix. Politics trumps ministry. The t-shirt, hilariously absurd on its face, is clearly deemed to be an effective weapon or they wouldn’t have had them out. Look at poor little us. Look at our sad but determined facial expressions. The world hates us for who we are. It’s war. War. War. War. Fight the homosexual elites.

Lying is a serious sin. Ex-gay political activists should ponder that.

What if they think that pondering is an even more serious sin?

This posting is instructive on so many levels.

It exposes the malignancy of the political ex-gay movement; and, the willful opacity and mendacity of its putative leaders. The sin of purposeful lying is very much to their account; but more-so the sin of presumption – that no one’s story could possibly be different than theirs; and because of that they know better the path others should take. They compound this sin by then resorting to the police powers of the state (the sword) to enforce their vision.

Regan, as usual, you cut clearly to the chase and spell out things plainly, freshly and correctly. (another thing the ex-gay movement is responsible for is for intentionally destroying glbt relationships, by taking advantage of the vulnerability of one partner. If someone did this to heterosexual relationships, there would be bloodshed!)

I admire the postings of Mike and Steve and the other moderators and regulars here for their clarity and focus.

This is why I keep coming back to XGW!

What if they think that pondering is an even more serious sin?

I started to chuckle at the ridiculousness of this… then I realized that “questioning the TRUTH of God” would be considered a greater sin. Sadly, much fundamentalist doctrine requires that the believer accept that the fundamentals of the faith are true – unquestionably, inarguably, irrevocably true. Any “pondering” is opening yourself up to the lies of Satan.

Not all fundamentalists are like this, of course. I have family members who question, ponder, and think. But I do know that for many in the more conservative end of the fundamental evangelicalism, questioning the declarations of your cobelievers – especially those in authority – are equal to open defiance to God.

And – not surprisingly – this is the language often employed by such people when they discuss us: defiant, rebellious, haters of God.

To many, yes, pondering is sin.

Mr. Falzarano,
The most common break between the what’s happening here is CREDIBILITY. And ex gays lack credibility in so many ways. There is only so much piety, patriotism and sanctimony you can hide behind.
When thoughtful people try to question ex gays, there is a pattern of behavior that presents itself over and over again, mostly DENIAL that gays and lesbians are individuals who don’t all or will have the same experience and that their orientation isn’t going to lead inevitably to all negative, bad, life threatening or unsatisfying experiences.

You could talk to a myriad of black women and hear them complain about the amorphous ‘man shortage’. The social phenom that makes finding a satisfying and long term relationship, especially in marriage, very elusive for black women.
The statistics would seem to make such options impossible.
Black women, like gays and lesbians are part of a minority that’s had war declared on them by their own country. And the result is abysmal numbers on relationship success with black men.

Why would it be surprising that gays and lesbians have similar troubles?
Mores the point, why would you fall into such hopelessness for your own success with another gay man?
Because there has been a calculated war that you DON’T have such relationships.
Hello?!

It’s not like gay people are INCAPABLE, but have a harder time getting there because society won’t let them.
Hope changes people and how they order their lives. The hope of marriage, if not to another black person, gives my black sisters a little more hope that they will have someone someday.

However, young gay people having NO HOPE of marrying another gay person to whom they would be most compatible is taken away, so why arrange your life around what you can’t have?
Whatever it is?

You are an example of someone who took the bait, and took the ONLY option left to you.
But going around speaking as if gay people are unworthy of longtime commitment and heroic child care is reckless, untrue and hypocritical.
It GETS DONE, regardless of no hope for marrying.

It didn’t take long for a lot of black women to jump on the myth that so many black men are on the down low, it is those black men responsible for the rise in HIV infection among blacks.
When it’s really the same sexual irresponsibility of having unprotected sex (adulterous or promiscuous) that also created the huge out of wedlock birth rate.
Just another example of blame the gays, instead of taking responsibility.

You’re doing the same all over again by using your piety to cover your lack of success as a gay person.
You couldn’t cut it. So it’s easier to put down other gay folks, or pretend that successful ones don’t exist.
And you bought into the myth that living heteosexually would solve all those inconvenient issues on being gay.

Well, heterosexual relationships aren’t any easier. Especially among minorities under siege. I’m onto you Mr. F
I don’t have any reason to fear God, I don’t have to believe in God at all, and their isn’t a thing you can do about it if I don’t….is there?
What’s it to you if a few of us don’t.

The real deal is since you chose that path, it’s on YOU to do and exercise it to your best, not mine.

And the rule still goes: you are charged to treat your neighbor as you’d want to be treated. Period, end of question.
If you can’t follow through or don’t REALLY want to follow that rule, it’s STILL on you.
Blaming gay people because you can’t or don’t want to, won’t fly either.

Cred is as cred does.

Anthony’s comments illustrated something valuable and which we should consider: his experiences cannot be dismissed as some non-representative anomoly.

In the 70′s and early 80′s, the gay community that Anthony experienced had the beliefs and values he describes. As those of us who have been around a while can testify, there was an emphasis on sexual hedonism, the literature glorified sexual exploration, and the politics were that of extremism.

I doubt that this represented the majority of same-sex attracted persons – or even of those who considered themselves gay – but it was the accepted thought. There was not a lot of social support for relationships and a desire for monogamy and tradition was publically decried as heterosexist and conforming to the oppressor.

Those days are gone. And, I believe, even without AIDS they would be gone. They were the attitudes of a community that was not yet in its teens and had not yet learned what to toss out and what to value.

I do caution that while it was the prevailing and most public image and attitude – there were always those who disagreed and quietly lived a life of committment and devotion. I was priveledged this past week to be where two men chose to “make it formal” and pledged their vows… after 50 years together.

And those quiet pioneers eventually won. Their brand of responsible gay citizenship has now become the gold standard of gay activism. Many don’t yet live up to it, but the evolution of thought is in place. Hedonism was abandoned for sex buddies. And sex buddies were replaced by open relationships. And open relationships are now transitioning into monogamy.

Nonetheless, I cannot fault Anthony for his impressions of the community as fickle and sex-driven and shallow. It was. And truthfully, to some lesser extent, still is.

But here is the great irony:

In the past 25 years the heterosexual community has placed less value on matrimony and committment. The gay community has placed more.

In the past 25 years the heterosexual community has increased its rates of HIV infections. The gay community has decreased.

In the past 25 years the heterosexual community has become more secular. The gay community has become more religious.

In the past 25 years the hetersexual community has held its civil, religious, and political leaders to lower and lower standards. The gay community has raised its standards.

Anthony, its time to see the world has changed since you were last gay.

I also came from a fundamentalist background and find Anthony’s comments unsurprising.

Their worldview precludes anyone who isn’t a “born again” Christian from being emotionally/spiritually healthy and satisfied with their lives at all – it isn’t just gays.

These people are saturated with years and years of testimonies of non-born agains “realizing” they are spiritually unsatisfied and only finding “real” joy, happiness and fulfilment as “born agains”. So that is their expectation when they talk to anyone. They are never going to believe you may be operating out of a spiritually satisfied position. It can’t exist outside their framework.

They believe that deep down, you are fighting the truth and lying to yourself, as well as them. Therefore NOTHING a non-fundamentalist says is going to have value. Heck, even a devout believer who doesn’t use the correct lingo and buzz-phrases is suspect.

They aren’t going to dialogue, just preach. As far as they are concerned, there is nothing they can learn from a non-believer.

Sadly, I found this to be true within fundamentalist circles. Unless you not only make the exact same profession of faith but also use the exact right vocabulary, then you are not worthy of being heard. You are part of the Enemy.

It is why I refer to conservative American Christianity as a cult. And it’s not that good people aren’t a part of it — or that good people haven’t been indoctrinated into it — but this sheltered cult-like behavior is a foundational part of this religious sect.

Unless you not only make the exact same profession of faith but also use the exact right vocabulary, then you are not worthy of being heard. You are part of the Enemy.

In the Pentecostal Church of God congregation of my childhood, it wasn’t the athiests, the agnostics, the Catholics or even (shudder) the Baptists that were the most frequent illustrations of compromisers with sin. It was that liberal Assemblies of God church across town.

And by “liberal” I mean that they didn’t preach against the evils of television and women wearing pants.

Timothy, I love it!

The Ex-Gay Movement: Stuck in the ’80s!

Would you gentleman please be kind enough to post my final message. I think we all have said what we need to say and now I wipe the dust from my sandals. In the Love of Jesus Christ, AAF

Reference for “wipe the dust from my sandals”:

Matthew 10:

5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.’ 8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[b]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

11″Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. 12As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

This reference shows up in various wording in each of the gospels.

Ironically, for this scripture is a problem for biblical literalists who want to believe that homosexuality is a worse sin than others and who also want to believe that the Sodom story is about homosexuals.

If Scripture is taken to literal extremes and if the Sodom story is about homosexuals, this scripture says that the act of not welcoming preachers is a far worse sin than homosexuality. So if they are going to worry about passing laws in accordance with gospel, they should pass laws requiring Christian conversion (bring back the inquisition) before passing anti-gay legislation.

But somehow literalists are seldom literal when that approach would contradict their previously held beliefs.

Tim, well said!
Can I get a witness?

Mr. Falzarano,

I am really a neophyte at XGW. For a relatively short time I have come here to XGW to enjoy reading the latest news and sometimes make a comment; if sometimes a feeble attempt to inject some levity. I have been rebuked/rebuffed once or twice by the hosts here and eventually I have come (hopefully) to understand the nuances and primary purpose of this website. For example: There is not the gratuitous snarkiness you might find elsewhere. There is a genuine interest in developing a constructive dialogue here.

I know nobody personally here. I have no allegiances to anyone here.

I never even knew who you were/are until reading this thread this past week.

But, let me say in all humility and trying not to be condescending in the least: You really need to step back and reflect on what you have said here. I’m not perfect. I’m not sure I am mature enough to give you any advice. But…please seek some help. The part of wiping the dust from your sandals is just over the top and childish. Life is too short to be obsessive about something. Find some friend to go fishing with, take a walk on the beach or even shoot some hoops. You are being consumed by something…something I can’t put my finger on. Be the life of the party.

If Anthony truly believes in God, then he would wonder if possibly God didn’t send him to this forum for a reason — and not just to teach us “heathens” something.

A crime is a crime is a crime. People for whom equality under the law as citizens is not good enough are not good enough citizens.

A cheap slogan is a cheap slogan is a cheap slogan. People who substitute cheap slogans for actual dialog aren’t actually saying anything.

“Hey, what’s the problem? You fags got the local police to protect you. Who ever heard of a small town cop ignoring the plea of some innocent little queer gettin’ beat up? Never happen in the good ol’ U S of A. We love our fags.”

*snort*

*spit*

No, armchair psychologizing (which someone did about me in the Jim Phelan marathon thread) and personal slander (which commenters have done at my site) are cheap.

The problem is your belief that, because some people think of you as anything less than a citizen, you feel entitled to be recognized as something more than just a citizen. You are a citizen deserving of equality under the law, just like any other.

If you have a problem with that, then I have a problem with you. (Not because you’re gay, but because of your attitude towards citizenship.)

Randy Thomas said it well at the press conference: “Don’t pass bad public policy out of good intentions.”

But, do you believe that non-gender conforming exgays will also be protected under this law?

The point of the law is to assure that when violence is visited upon us, that we have more recourse than the local tubakky-chewing deputy dawg. Making it a federal crime gives us the full weight of the law, something you clearly don’t have to worry about.

But this isn’t really about that. The exgays aren’t opposing this out of some legal principles. They are opposing it because it has to do with gay people. And if it has to do with gay people, you’re against it. Be honest here. Please.

And if it has to do with gay people, you’re against it. Be honest here.

With LGBTetc. people being able to vote? to own real estate? to teach elementary school children? No, I’m not against those (although I’m aware that many early “anti-gay rights” activists, in the 70s, were against even that latter issue).

With LGBTetc. people being able to vote? to own real estate? to teach elementary school children?

…get married (to each other)?

You feel entitled to be recognized as something more than just a citizen.

The lie that people like Randy Thomas and Jeremayakova constantly spread is that non-discrimination laws provide “special rights” for certain groups, beyond the rights of the average citizen.

Yet in fact the “special rights” protected by non-discrimination laws are nothing more than the basic rights of an American citizen. It is just a sad fact that, given the reality of bias toward various groups, it often takes legislation to ensure that all citizens can enjoy their basic rights.

Thus, it has taken special legislation to ensure all citizens of their right to vote without impediments. It has taken special legislation to ensure that citizens can’t be restricted in where they live or shop or eat. And it has required special legislation to ensure that every citizen has the the right to get and hold a job purely on the merits of his work, without being subject to the personal bigotry of an employer or coworkers.

With LGBTetc. people being able to vote? to own real estate? to teach elementary school children? No, I’m not against those (although I’m aware that many early “anti-gay rights” activists, in the 70s, were against even that latter issue).

“In the late 70s” oh that’s rich. My former partner, an outstanding, dedicated Junior High teacher, was fired and blacklisted in this county’s school system for what we later found out was simply a suspicion that he was gay. Some of the staff had seen me dropping him off at school a few times early in the morning, and the witch hunt started from there. He was able to find work again but had to leave the area to do it. That was about 7 years ago, not 30.

I have to agree with Steve, cute slogans are not helpful. Too many people here have lived this stuff. If you want to say that you think employers should be able to fire people because of their sexual orientation, perceived or otherwise, then just say that. But please don’t pretend everything is hunky-dory out there.