Ex-Gay Watch

Les:
As for the “homosexual lifstyle,” which one are you referring to: (GL = gay lifestyle) (HL = heterosexual lifestyle)

GL / HL 1. single, no partner, not dating, no sexual activity, no children

GL / HL 2. single, no partner, occasionally dating, no sexual activity, no children

GL / HL 3. single, no partner, frequent dating, no sexual activity, no children

GL / HL 4. single, no partner, not dating, no sexual activity, children

GL / HL 5. single, no partner, occasionally dating, no sexual activity, children

GL / HL 6. single, no partner, frequent dating, no sexual activity, children

GL / HL 7. single, no partner, not dating, sexual activity, no children

GL / HL 8. single, no partner, occasionally dating, sexual activity, no children

GL / HL 9. single, no partner, frequent dating, sexual activity, no children

GL / HL 10. single, no partner, not dating, sexual activity, children

GL / HL 11. single, no partner, occasionally dating, sexual activity, children

GL / HL 12. single, no partner, frequent dating, sexual activity, children

GL / HL 13. in a committed relationship with one partner, no sexual activity, no children

GL / HL 14. in a committed relationship with one partner, sexual activity, no children

GL / HL 15. in a committed relationship with one partner, sexual activity, children

GL / HL 16. Having any combination of 13 – 15 but having sexual encounters with other persons besides the one with whom they are committed to without that person’s knowledge (otherwise known as “cheating.”)

GL / HL 17. Having any combination of 13 – 15 but both partners in the committed relationship having sexual relations with other people with the knowledge and/or consent of the other partner.

PERSONAL HABITS – GAY LIFESTYLES (GL); HETEROSEXUAL LIFESTYLES (HL)
Combined the following with the list above.

GL / HL 1. non-smoker (tobacco)
GL / HL 2. smoker (tobacco)
GL / HL 3. non-alcoholic drinker
GL / HL 4. alcoholic drinker (occasional or social)
GL / HL 5. alcoholic
GL / HL 6. no use of illegal drugs
GL / HL 7. use of illegal drugs (occasional or social)
GL / HL 8. illegal drug addict
GL / HL 9. no use of prescription drugs
GL / HL 10. use of prescription drugs (used according to purpose)
GL / HL 11. prescription drug addict

SOCIAL HABITS – GAY LIFESTYLES (GL); HETEROSEXUAL LIFESTYLES (HL)
Combined the following with the lists above.

GL / HL 1. does not go to clubs and discoteques
GL / HL 2. occasional goes to clubs and discoteques
GL / HL 3. frequents clubs and discoteques
GL / HL 4. loner
GL / HL 5. semi-social
GL / HL 6. high profile socializer

PERSONAL PHYSICAL HABITS – GAY LIFESTYLES (GL); HETEROSEXUAL LIFESTYLES (HL)
Combined the following with the lists above.

GL / HL 1. physically fit, frequents a gym or has a defined exercise routine
GL / HL 2. somewhat physically fit, occassionally attends a gym or has a semi-defined exercise routine
GL / HL 3. physically unfit, rarely or never attends a gym and has no exercise routine

PERSONAL APPEARANCE HABITS – GAY LIFESTYLES (GL); HETEROSEXUAL LIFESTYLES (HL)
Combined the following with the lists above.

GL / HL 1. well-dressed in the latest fashions, always has a “glamorous” appearance
GL / HL 2. well dressed, always has a “neat” appearance
GL / HL 3. over-dressed, excessive
GL / HL 4. casual dressed but with a “neat” appearance
GL / HL 5. sloppily dressed
GL / HL 6. a combination of 1 -5 depending on occassion
GL / HL 7. dressing and having the appearance of the opposite sex (cross-dressing)

Please specify.

Alan, rather lengthy but you get your point across.

I always find that absurd when people talk about “the gay lifestyle”. There isn’t one.

My “lifestyle” involves going to work, going to the gym, cooking dinner with my partner, vegging out on the couch, and playing with our cat. i’m an actor, so I do have to go to rehearsal, and do shows from time to time. My partner and I happen to be monogamous, we play video games, and love making each other laugh. We’re not crawling with diseases, we’re not drug addicts. I don’t even drink! We’re not into bars or any of that.

I by no means suggest that we are typical or ideal. But those who rail against “the gay lifestyle” seem to not understand there isn’t a singular experience.

We do know couples and friends who aren’t monogamous, some are celibate (despite their best efforts) and some wait until the 3rd or 4th date to bother.

Sure, when I was younger, I went out to the bars, I drank, I did have a few sexual escapades — but I don’t know any straight people who didn’t do pretty much the same thing.

Jason:

Alan, rather lengthy but you get your point across.

Sorry for the length of the entry but I am tired of the “gay lifestyle” label crap as well. But that is what hate and prejudice is all about … if you can minimize a group of people and define them by a set of qualities that most people find offensive, then it is easier to justify one’s prejudice and hate. Hitler was no dummy to that technique nor were the KKK in their hayday.

And there is so much more to add to that list, like what you mentioned about playing video games, etc. My partner and I (when we are together – we are a binational couple) we go out to eat, tour museums, go shopping, bowl (horribly) … not really a Movie of the Week type relationship.

Maybe when I finally move so we can live together we might have a dramatic moment … but I think people would get more excitement by watching a plant grow than observe my partner and I in our daily routines.

Whereas I have never attempted to hurt or ridicule the individual homosexual or lesbian, I do find myself in sharp disagreement with the more radical elements of the movement. The effort to redefine the family, qualify for adoption, promote the homosexual lifestyle in the schools, etc., are objectives with which I disagree. And I will oppose them when the issues are raised. Does that make me a hatemonger? I think not. How would you and your homosexual companions feel if I began lobbying for special, protected legal status? How would you react if I asserted that I should be given a job and shielded from termination just because I’m me? I can predict that you would fight such ordinances tooth and nail. Why? Because when one person wins in these kinds of struggles, someone else loses. Thus, we must be very careful before creating new “minorities” based on behavior or beliefs — as opposed to those who have been discriminated against historically based on their race. That raises the question: Have homosexuals faced this kind of uphill battle? Perhaps in the past, but there is no evidence of which I’m aware that they are disadvantaged now. The average homosexual earns $55,000 per year, compared with $32,000 for heterosexuals. Gays also have a much higher percentage of college degrees than the straight population. And when it comes to political clout, how can they claim to be shortchanged? Dozens of objectives of the gay and lesbian community are being achieved today. Look at the issue of funding for AIDS research and treatment. Most people know someone who’s had a heart attack, and I am very concerned about support for research on coronary artery disease. After all, heart attacks and strokes kill more people than AIDS, cancer, TB, and several other diseases combined. But the federal government in the U.S.A. for example spent 39 times as much on AIDS last year as it did on heart disease. Why? Because of the clout of homosexuals who turned their powerful guns on Congress and the White House. My point is not to decry money being spent on the horrible AIDS epidemic. I’m simply making the point that the homosexual community is hardly an oppressed, powerless minority seeking protection under the law. They have Hollywood, the press, the media, the universities, the publishers, the professionals and the judiciary enforcing their “politically correct” way of life.

Thus, we must be very careful before creating new “minorities” based on behavior or beliefs

Les, we didn’t create ourselves as a minority group. We finally have been recognized as a minority group.

Whereas I have never attempted to hurt or ridicule the individual homosexual or lesbian, I do find myself in sharp disagreement with the more radical elements of the movement. The effort to redefine the family, qualify for adoption, promote the homosexual lifestyle in the schools, etc., are objectives with which I disagree.

“The family” you ar describing has been redifined since the beginning of time. Which family are you referring to: King Solomon’s ideal family? 600 wives and as many concubines? One wife but with the possiblity of procreating with the help like Abraham did? Marry a virgin and abstain from sex with her like Joseph and Mary? A “family” where the man and wife are set in an arranged marriage, not knowing each other beforehand? Marriage for political gain or social gain? Family with or without children? Family created out of a shotgun wedding?Be specific.

Oh, and for adoption, I guess for you it is better that kids live in foster care and get dragged around from family to family and grow up in an orphanage than a loving homosexual home. Orphan and abandoned kids in foreign countries should just be happy that they made it to their 5th birthday with no hope of a 6th.

Promoting homosexuality in schools? Or is it really teaching kids to be tolerant of others and to learn to live in a diverse society respecting others who are different? Gee, I remember Jesus having a little problem with the divorced Samaritan woman. His apostles weren’t too tolerant of her for being a Samaritan. Had they known she was a divorcee (as they well might have) hell might have broken loose.

I’m simply making the point that the homosexual community is hardly an oppressed, powerless minority seeking protection under the law. They have Hollywood, the press, the media, the universities, the publishers, the professionals and the judiciary enforcing their “politically correct” way of life.

Yes, how fortunate for me that my partner is in another country and can’t come here because the immigration laws descriminate against gay couples. Oh, wait according to you they don’t. Oh, it must be a figure of my imagination that they have denied him a visa for two years in a row. I must be imagining me preparing to move there. I’m not oppressed! I’m not powerless. Thank you letting me in on that little secret Les.

Whether we have Hollywood, the press, the media, Santa Claus, and anything else on our side or not, the important thing is we have God on our side. Because God does not care if we or gay or straight. If he did, the entire Christian Tradition would have been devoted just to that issue alone.

Right now the Church is being tested to see if she truely loves her neighbor as herself. Thanks to Episcopalians, MCC, and a few other denominations she’s got a D-. But if it weren’t for those Churches, she would be a big fat “F.”

Les,

You actively campaign to deny rights to individuals. The reasons you give are based on stereotypes. You don’t care that they are stereotypes and despite evidence to the contrary you continue to believe them and to tell others that these are attributes of these people. You use these lies to try and hurt the lives and freedom of the people about whom you are lying.

You ask if this makes you a hatemonger.

I think the answer is very clear.

Les,
“The effort to redefine the family,”

Les, The family has never had a static structure or definition. It’s always been in flux. Look at just the past century. Family homes used to include Mom, Dad, Their kids, the grandkids, sometimes aunts and uncles, all under the same roof. That has changed as most people just have their immediate family.
I lived with an anthropology major. The reality is that “family” has always changed, it’s never been the same. There are single parent families, there are interracial families, there are blended families due to divorce and remarriage, there are families made of grandparents raising their grandchildren. Sometimes families are made up of a loose collection of friends who act as family in place of relatives that have either disappeared, disowned, or died. What is “family” from a social aspect rarely matches up to what we legally consider family.

“qualify for adoption, promote the homosexual lifestyle in the schools, etc., are objectives with which I disagree.”

I have a serious problem with a government that thinks no family is better than a gay family. It’s been shown that a kid raised in an institution tends to remain in institutions (mental hospital, prison) their whole life. Plus these adoption bans fly in the face of common sense. They pretty much suggest that the worst, alcoholic, drug-addicted, irresponsible, sexual and mentally abusing straight couple is still better than the nicest, most well-adjusted gay couple. Sorry, that’s just not true.
Plus a ban on co-adoption patently punishes the child for having the wrong parents. And that’s bull.
I’m sure you disagree, but what’s happening in the schools is not promotion. It’s simply pointing out reality. There are gay people, they exist, and there is nothing wrong with being gay.

“And I will oppose them when the issues are raised. Does that make me a hatemonger? I think not.” Depends on how you define it I suppose. You seek to keep law-abiding harmless American’s from enjoying the full spectrum of democracy because you don’t agree with who they love. As if that’s any of your business.

” How would you and your homosexual companions feel if I began lobbying for special, protected legal status?”

If you’re a Christian, you already have that status. And I have no problem with that.

“…Thus, we must be very careful before creating new “minorities” based on behavior or beliefs — as opposed to those who have been discriminated against historically based on their race.”

Religion is protected, and it’s based both on behavior and beliefs. Religion is not a race. People leave Christianity (as well as other religions) all the time. For all the talk of “homosexual recruitment” out there — we don’t go door to door, or send missionaries to underdeveloped nations. Nor do we have special schools built solely for indoctrination. If you wish religion (not genetic, by the way) to be protected, then you can’t squawk about gays being protected. If being gay is a choice (and the jury is still out on that one) it doesn’t matter, because so is religion –and both have as much potential for harm as they do for good.

I’m sure if I tried I could come up with some stats about the dangers of “the christian lifestyle”.

If being gay is a choice (and the jury is still out on that one)

Jason,

not to quibble, but actually the jury has come back on this one and unanimously agreed that sexual orientation is not a choice.

Some – ex-gay proponants for example – claim that homosexuality is caused primarily by some event or environment. Others claim that homosexuality is the outcome of some genetic and/or other prenatal factors. The truth is that orientation is probably the result of both biological and other factors.

However, all agree that for the vast majority of gay people, same-sex attractions are not “chosen”.

I’m sure if I tried I could come up with some stats about the dangers of “the christian lifestyle”.

Yes. Especially if you were as dishonest as the anti-gays and didn’t care whether or not they were true.

Les, you were asked to support your original claims of fact and instead you continued to make more unsubstantiated claims. No one is allowed to make sweeping claims as you have without reasonable proof. Since we can see you are no fan of special rights, I’m sure you will understand that this applies to everyone, and we can’t make an exception for you.

If you wish to post further, please either substantiate your original claims or recant them. If you do nothing, we can safely assume you do not have any proof. Either way, do not continue your discussion without addressing this.

Thank you.

Timothy,
Can you link me to anything you’ve got handy about the “its not a choice” stuff. I’ve only ever found some tagental stuff about eyeblink rates and stuff like that.

my favorite rebuttal to the whole “the gay lifestyle is so dangerous!” goes something like this.

The Christian lifestyle is definitely hazardous to your health. During the Roman Empire, Christian behavior dramatically increased the chances of being eaten by a lion!

Les, do you have an original thought? Your entire post was plagiarized from James Dobson’s Straight Answers. Your opening rant about hatemongering is from page 522. You then omit a couple of paragraphs before the rant beginning with “How would you and your homosexual companions feel …” and ending with the rant against Hollywood, which is from pages 522 through 523.

Les, you should be aware that James Dobson is not a reliable source of information.

Does it jump out at anyone else how dishonest the anti-gay crowd is? They come off as if they hold the moral high ground, yet they are terrible liars who are consistently unable to defend what they say. No wonder young people are fleeing from evangelical Christianity.

So I’m at times a lazy plagiarist. I’m not looking to win a literary award. Dr. Dobson by the way, is a reknowned psycologist who has assisted thousands of families and individuals with every issue under the sun. Alright…in my own words…

David… regarding my claims…talk to NARTH….not that stats from anywhere matter because its certainly easier to support claims that justify ones own existance. Lets face it… somebody somewhere has got something to say.

Moderator Edit: You’ve been asked to substantiated claims of fact. “talk to NARTH” is not substantiation. Please do not comment further until you have either recanted these statements or properly supported them. Further, please do not post large chunks of text from other sites as though they were your own words. If you need to refer to other’s work, link to it.

Just because Dobson is famous (renowned) does not mean he is good. Case in point is that according to Christian polling organizations (Barna, for example), evangelicals have as high, if not higher, divorce rates than non-evangelicals. In other words, the people most likely to listen to Dobson are the one’s with the highest divorce rates. Meanwhile, the lowest divorce rates is in the “liberal” state of Massachusetts, you know, the same one that has same-sex marriage. Sounds to me like people will be much better off not listening to Dobson’s “help.”

I also challenge you to use actual academic, peer-reviewed information to support your argument on children. From all the sociology and anthropology I’ve read, being raised in a same-sex household does not damage the child at all. The only “evidence” I’ve seen Dobson’s crowd use are studies that say a child does better in a two-parent home than a one-parent home.

Les,
Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that. The whole point of this site is to look critically at the kinds of information you’ve offered up. Chances are, what you believe to be “facts” have already been torn apart not only by this website, but by actual scientists in the field.

For example, the study commonly used to suggest or state that we have lowered lifespans was one by Paul Cameron in which he surveyed obituaries from gay newspapers. Obituaries are worthless as scientific data, and even less so from niche media, as they will only include those aware of the media, those motivated to post an obituary, and those with the money to do so. People not included in that survey would have been closeted, did not read said newspaper, or had family members who didn’t want to post an obituary in a gay newspaper, didn’t have the money to do so, or didn’t know they could. It was also done during the AIDS crisis, things have changed significantly since then, just ask Magic Johnson.

For example, the study commonly used to suggest or state that we have lowered lifespans was one by Paul Cameron in which he surveyed obituaries from gay newspapers. Obituaries are worthless as scientific data, and even less so from niche media, as they will only include those aware of the media, those motivated to post an obituary, and those with the money to do so.

Exactly. The only scientific data you can get from obituaries is that: out of 100 obituaries, 100 of the ones named in the obituary who it is said have passed away are clinically dead with a 0.002% margin for error.

Dr. Dobson by the way, is a reknowned psycologist

“reknowned” to who? that is an opinion statement.

It’s boilerplate, as has been pointed out — cut and paste out of a letter Dobson himself claims to have written in a Q&A . July 1993. Still online today…

http://family.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/family.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1225&p_created=1044996780

Apart from that, Dobson was as wrong then as he is today. And as deliberately deceptive.

(eg: the “$55,000 vs $32,000″ nonsense compares a survey done by the Wall Street Journal about their readership to the average wage. Gay readers of the WSJ — like all readers of the WSJ — report higher salaries than the general population. Yeah, wow.)

thank you grant, do you have a link to the WSJ readership survey? I like to have my ammo ready when I get ridiculous “evidence” thrown at me.

I’m knot going too be a grammar chequer but I couldn’t not let BARE FALSE WITNESS go uncommented. I suppose Baring False Witness is what happens when you finally meet your myspace date and you are not exactly what you say you are when you get naked?

I have problems with bare –vs- bear too. Maybe we need a new word: bere. It’s like wet –vs- whet. Or: peaked –vs- piqued.

Love ya! Alan S. Really I do.

So Les, let’s go through Dobson’s lies (the one’s you presented as your own) one by one to demonstrate why he and you are indeed hatemongers.

The effort to redefine the family, qualify for adoption, promote the homosexual lifestyle in the schools, etc., are objectives with which I disagree.

Same-sex families have existed throughout known history (just ask anthropologists). Nothing is being redefined.

How would you and your homosexual companions feel if I began lobbying for special, protected legal status?

You already have it. Christians are protected in hate crime legislation, etc based on their chosen lifestyle.

How would you react if I asserted that I should be given a job and shielded from termination just because I’m me?

Given a job because of it? Who is arguing for that? The argument is that we should not be fired solely because of our orientation. No one is demanding jobs simply because we are gay. Furthermore, Christians can notbe fired solely because of their religion. So they are already protected. (Dobson’s original quote was about Christians, not “you” in particular.

I can predict that you would fight such ordinances tooth and nail.

Actually, as Dobson knows, gays did not fight against it tooth and nail.

Thus, we must be very careful before creating new “minorities” based on behavior or beliefs — as opposed to those who have been discriminated against historically based on their race.

And homosexuals haven’t been discriminated against historically? Any superficial survey of homosexuals in history will demonstrate homosexuals have been discriminated against, tortured, imprisoned, killed, etc.

The average homosexual earns $55,000 per year, compared with $32,000 for heterosexuals.

Others have already demonstrated why this is false. It is simply impossible to get a representative sample, given that so many are in the closet.

Gays also have a much higher percentage of college degrees than the straight population.

Ditto

Look at the issue of funding for AIDS research and treatment. Most people know someone who’s had a heart attack, and I am very concerned about support for research on coronary artery disease. After all, heart attacks and strokes kill more people than AIDS, cancer, TB, and several other diseases combined. But the federal government in the U.S.A. for example spent 39 times as much on AIDS last year as it did on heart disease. Why?

The original document had Dobson talking about his own heart attack. HIV is an infectious disease that is a severe problem in several countries around the world.

They have Hollywood, the press, the media, the universities, the publishers, the professionals and the judiciary enforcing their “politically correct” way of life.

And yet, when I look at movies I rarely see a fair or accurate representation of homosexuals. It took me decades before I saw a non-flamboyent or non-”sissy” homosexual man portrayed, particularly one that wasn’t murdered at the end. Assuming 10% of the population is not heterosexual (based on a CDC report of over 100,000 Americans), if we have Hollywood, the media, etc on our side, why is it that basically 100% of love songs are heterosexual, 99.9% of hand-holding I’ve seen by tv couples are heterosexual, 99.9% of kisses I’ve seen on tv are between heterosexuals, etc.

Les, let’s face it. You’ve bought into a lie. And, as a Christian, it is apparently my duty to love you by telling you that you need to repent of your bearing false witness against a group of people. You are breaking one of the 10 Commandments and you will go to Hell for your unrepetent behavior. (Don’t you just love Christian love!).

Yeah, where am I in this poll? Considering how, as a working [gay] artist, I’m trying to claw my way up above the poverty line, I doubt i would fit in the “gay affluence” stereotype.

Oh, hmmm… i don’t buy the WSJ… or cable TV, for that matter. Um, I can’t afford it. Because I’m not wealthy.

FYI, Les is being moderated and has posted another large, mass cut and paste which is being held back. We are serious about providing support for claims of fact. Large sections of text should be linked to from the comment, not pasted in. When and if Les provides support for previous claims or withdraws them, he/she can resume posting.

Jason – no, sorry: we’ve never seen the survey itself online. It was used for marketing purposes — ie to help sell adverts to a niche market — so it’s unsurprisingly never been for public release.

(I understand “Ebony” ? magazine got a similar result when they surveyed their readership many years ago. ie the average income of their readership was well above the average income for black Americans. The conclusion: people who read journals are generally better educated, and earn more, than the overall population. Stunning conclusion, hey!)

We first encountered the distorted claim in early/mid-90′s. (eg, here is the infamous screed by Marco from 1995 — look down to ref#17). Sometimes the figures are varied a bit etc by those making the claim, but they’re generally easy to spot.

(It’s like identifying repeats of Cameron’s “dead at 42″ — too easy!).

Lee Baggett has an online pub at IGLSS. Or a summary testimony here etc.

(see also Badgett, M. V. Lee. “The Wage Effects of Sexual Orientation Discrimination.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review (July 1995), 726-39.)

Grantdale, thanks. I’m a big fan of mythbusters and the urban legend debunking site snopes.com.

I’ve noticed so many parallels between the way urban legends work and the research of anti-gay advocates. It’s parodies/satires/other words taken out of context, real pictures/data merged with false/misleading descriptions, someone’s opinion repeated to the point it becomes accepted as if it were truth, and just plain outright lies.

I’ve also noticed people defend both urban legends and anti-gay propaganda with the same gusto. I don’t know how many times I’ve had to explain to people that not only do you not swallow 7 spiders (on average) in your sleep, that it would be pretty difficult to verify such a claim (not that anyone has ever done any research on this).

Yeah, Emily K… but surely you MUST be part of that OTHER stereotype?

(Perhaps you are an intersection of two stereotypes: the “staving lesbian artist” one cancelling out the “7 Jews in black coats control the World” one! What a dilemma.)

hey cowboy thanks for catching the grammatical spelling error. personally i hate english spelling but that’s a whole matter unto itself.

Nick, good responses. It always amazes me how “the other side” can quote someone like Dobson or the like and yet never be able to quote Christ in their arguments (if, in fact, they are Christian).

I’m almost thinking Les was a “plant” foisted by the editors of XGW…to stimulate activity and viewing advertisements. Oh..wait…there are no advertisements here. Scratch that idea. But was Les real? He/she certainly was a catalyst to demonstrate some valuable lessons here.