Part of the chorus of dissent bringing down the recent APA symposium was an April 24 article in the Gay City News, called “Junk Science on Stage.” In that article, some false claims were made about sexual identity therapy and my work. I addessed themhere on the blog recently.
Generally, “junk science” is a phrase used by advocates when they want to discredit views with which they disagree. The tobacco industry used the term to describe the research on second hand smoke and generally the term is little more than an ad hominem attack. Such was the case in the GCN report.
So I am glad that Paul Schindler, editor of GCN and author of the article in question, allowed me to make the record clear about the SIT framework. At the end of the letter, he acknowledges the error.
UNDERSTANDING SEXUAL IDENTITY THERAPY
05/22/2008To the Editor:
In “Junk Science on Stage” (by Paul Schindler, Apr. 24-30), a claim was made about the Sexual Identity Therapy framework. The SIT framework was to be presented at the cancelled May 5 American Psychiatric Association symposium on religion, therapy, and homosexuality.
Gay City News described SIT this way: “‘Sexual Identity Therapy,’ which [Throckmorton] says he has successfully applied to help patients ‘alter homosexual feelings or behaviors’ and live their lives ‘heterosexually’ with ‘only very few weak instances of homosexual attraction.’”
This is false. The article attributes to me claims about SIT I have never made. In fact, the SIT framework says this: “Prior to outlining the recommendations, let us define what they are not. They are not sexual reorientation therapy protocols in disguise.”
The SIT framework, first contemplated formally in 2005, does not provide any means to do what the Gay City article references – “alter homosexual feelings…” etc. These quotes are taken out of context from a 1999 speech. Putting these phrases in quotes makes it appear that I was interviewed for the article and quoted in reference to SIT, which is not true.
Endorsed by Robert Spitzer, the former editor of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and former American Psychological Association president Nicholas Cummings, the SIT framework provides guidance for therapists who work with clients experiencing sexual identity conflicts but does not prescribe beliefs about homosexuality or religion. The SIT framework specifically discourages several practices conducted by reparative therapists and so it is disappointing that the Gay City News wrongly suggested that my presentation would somehow support their work.
Warren Throckmorton, PhD
www.sexualidentity.blogspot.comEDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Schindler acknowledges Dr. Warren Throckmorton’s advisory that he made the statements about the results of his therapeutic work, quoted in Schindler’s article, prior to the development of his Sexual Identity Therapy framework.
Note my statement about reparative therapy. You cannot be in compliance with the SIT framework and tell clients that you (the therapist) know why people are homosexual. Explaining a theory and helping clients find themselves in it is not the way we believe this work should be done. We likewise do not promote a view of same-sex attraction that views it as a disorder to be cured or grow out of. The GCN article created a false picture of what the symposium would discuss and falsely attacked me for trying to promote views I do not hold.
ken
This may be the case for those who seek reorientation for religious reasons as well. The average age of the Jones and Yarhouse study was in the early 40′s.
Evan,
if you are not seeing the pressure of which Ken speaks, it’s because you are not looking where Ken is speaking of. Predominant religious influences in Belgium and the Netherlands tend to be affirming of gay persons.
However, please also be aware that in addition to homophobia (animosity towards homosexuality) there is also heterosexism (assumptions that heterosexuality always applies).
For example, even in the most supportive of families and cultures, a child is assumed to be heterosexual unless there is something presented to suggest otherwise. Nearly every fairy tale, billboard, beer ad, and neighbor presents a model of heterosexuality. Remember most gay kids are raised by heterosexual parents. There is present from birth a subtle yet relentless pressure to be heterosexual.
Even in Belgium and the Netherlands.
I’ve heard of similar pressures on racially minority children that were adoped by white parents and raised in all-white neighborhoods. Being different from what is presented as “usual” or “normal” cannot be easily remedied by television images or postcards – though such things do help.
While it may be tempting to imagine an internal genetic drive towards reorientation to heterosexuality, a much more obvious and much more likely cause would be those pressures that we can see if we but glance at them. They are everywhere and all the time. Such pressures need not be conspiratorial or of evil intent to be present or to have an impact on the psyche of a kid.
Don’t you agree?
As for the rest of your assertions, perhaps I misunderstand them.
You seem to be saying that there are a great many (or at least a sizeable minority) of persons seeking to change their orientation who do so absent of any pressures in that direction.
That may well be the case in some few individuals or in some rare locations, but I am really struggling to accept the notion that there are many places in which there is not a strong pressure towards heterosexuality. Further, I am having a difficult time with the idea that there are a great many individuals who have secular values that idealize heterosexuality without any religious values affirming them.
Frankly, that just doesn’t fit with my experiences. And I am fairly familiar with the reorientation conversations – or at least those in the United States.
I have to conclude that you are a most peculiar person. You have multiple acquaintances with experiences that none of the rest of us have met even in single isolated instances. I dare say that very few of us here know any persons that are athiests and who have NO pressures towards heterosexuality and yet are seeking to reorient.
I don’t say that your experiences and acquaintances are not legitimate. But considering that they are so very far outside the experiences of the rest of us at this site – and we are a diverse yet informed community – perhaps they have little relevance to the conversation.
Mary,
And when I was gay, I have even heard gays laugh at “breeders” and make fun of heterosexuals.
I’ve heard that too Mary, and I’ve even been a part of it, but I never heard these things said when they weren’t meant to be humorous – right or wrong. Despite my past use of these words, the majority of my friends are straight, and I am very involved in their lives – well, most of them anyway. I hold no animosity towards straight people, and I don’t begrudge them anything, as long as they aren’t set on imposing their beliefs on me, or suggesting I don’t deserve the same rights as they do.
I’ve never met an atheist who was anti-gay, and I’ve sure never met, read about, etc. an atheist who was gay who wanted to re-orient him/herself. If that does happen, and since most people who desire to re-orient themselves ARE religious, I’m guessing this must be a very rare thing indeed.
LOL! You’ve played the “Just joking” card! Unbelievable. Suffice to say as has been said many times on this thread – everyone experiences it differently.
I didn’t mean to “play the just joking card” – although I suppose I did. I sure didn’t mean to suggest it was right.
I don’t view making jokes about breeders in the same way I view ex-gays talking about gay people as perverse, sinful, in need of change, not worthy of having the same rights as us, etc…
Timothy,
Have you considered that how the issue of homosexuality is discussed in your country is shaped by factors that are specific to that context? Like the very strong influence religious groups can have in social and political life. But as I said earlier, this is how the issue is shaped, how it takes a meaning expressed in beliefs and interpretations, not how it is caused. No one can prove how it is caused at a personal level, but most assume that it must be a simple causation by means of direct social pressure. If you want to understand someone’s motivations you ask them a number of questions until you reconstruct some coherent account of how they understand and express their problems (or you observe their behaviour, a more difficult task). But it’s mostly cognitively processed information that at most you can verify by other tests and see how consistent they are when you ask them in different ways.
Would you say that people’s behaviours are fully explainable in terms of beliefs (or lack of them)? If they have SSAs, do only their religious views stand between their attractions and engaging in same-sex behaviour? I find this common assumption to be too simple to explain complex behaviours. What if their beliefs are just conscious motives that people pick up from their environment to make sense of their decisions that come from deeper layers of motivation? They grow up within a framework of values that later provides them with the terms and explanations they can resort to in order to make sense of what they are going through. But why people have SSAs or why some act on them and others don’t it’s still empirically unknown. I think they go together: until you understand how attractions develop you cannot fully understand why some people act on them and why others don’t, because you don’t know how they actually work, what variables are different in what people, to be able to ascribe motivations to them. It may have more to do with some dimensions of their temperament than with what beliefs they have. After all, we can agree that people can lose beliefs but can hardly lose unwanted attractions. Some people change their values to adjust to newly adopted behaviours. They do not entirely lose them, they interpret those beliefs in a new light to permit their behaviours. So which one determines which? Does behaviour motivation determine change in beliefs or does change in beliefs determine change in behaviour? Do gays who adjust their beliefs to fit their behaviour act on social pressure to keep their beliefs, even in an adjusted form, and so demonstrate that they can be both believers and gay-identified in order to have more chances to be validated by a society in which religious groups are very powerful in shaping public morality and law?
It seems that it’s not just a change in belief that makes people shift from one side to another, I think belief is a strong reason for some personality types, but not for most. It’s just the tip of the iceberg we’re seeing, the culturally expressed one. There is something else that makes them decide to act on their attractions and adjust what they can, namely their beliefs. So beliefs seem to play a more conscious and higher level role, but not the most determinant one in why some people engage in some behaviours or not. I don’t think that people’s behaviours can be fully predicted by the interplay between the system of beliefs they grew up with and their primary attractions. I think different personalities have different strengths and weaknesses that determine their levels of disinhibition, just to name one factor that can play an important part in the decision or impulse to engage in a behaviour.
PS. I am considering inviting the person I mentioned here to give account of his own motivation if he wants to. He may be uneasy about this, as he is a very shy person and primarily speaks/writes in French but can manage English too. It would be interesting to hear someone’s account that does not fit our cultural assumptions.
Warren: I apologize if I have been offensive and confrontational of late. Tomorrow is the sixth anniverysary of the murder of my best friend, Jeffery Owens. http://www.riversideca.gov/rpd/press/2002releases/jun20a02.htm
I was also stabbed and, but for the grace of God, might have died in the attack. Hate attacked us. Homophobia attacked us. Igorance attacked us. And it keeps killing adults and kids. I don’t know how many and I don’t care. One is too many.
Timothy hit the nail on the head when he said earlier: “I think that you and Mary both care. I think that both of you are truly concerned about childhood suicide and genuinely wish there was something that you could do that would eliminate the stresses that lead to such an action by a gay kid… up to a limit. But I also think that for some reason caring was not your first and automatic response. …I am asking if the correct response to Michael’s concerns is to challenge the minutia of his claim while ignoring the heart of his concerns.”
Timothy is right. That’s why I got angry. Tomorrow, I will attend the candlelight vigil for my friend. Perhaps you, Warren, and Mary, along with your other readers will join me in spirit — in an attitude of prayer for the many victims (no, I won’t risk guessing at how many) of anti-gay fear and hate.
Michael,
If you give me the location and time, I will try to attend. If my request is overstepping a personal boundry, I apologize and will be with you in an attitude of prayer and spirit.
Evan,
Its not that difficult to understand that religion is the primary source of anti-gay attitudes and that most people who desire to change do so for religious reasons. I think you’re missing what Timothy was trying to say.
Evan,
Not all pressures to change are directly religious – I think you might have missed that in Timothy’s message. There are a multitude of subtle messages that society sends out – some directly religious, some indirectly and some non-religious – the message is, whether its in a sermon or seeing a heterosexual couple on a billboard, that heterosexuality is the acceptable norm and people should strive for that. There is something recognized in psychology called the Social Desirability Bias. You can’t underestimate all these messages that society sends out in photos, on TV, on the radio, etc. Its not just all about religion, even though the primary message that homosexuality is wrong does come from religion. I highly recommend you re-read Timothy’s message. I don’t think he was suggesting that these behaviors were to be explained by some simple answer – in fact, his message suggests something more complex
Thanks, Ann. This time of year is always hard for me. Awhile back, Mary asked (in response to my offensive and combative tone) “Are you having trouble with a friend or something?” Yes. I guess I am. Except that it is having trouble without my friend — not with him.
I get real testy when people appear to want to minimize the impact that anti-gay social/family/religious pressures — on adults and especially on kids. It feels like they don’t really want to believe that anti-gay pressures kill — sometimes other people kill them and sometimes, the self-loathing and shunned gay kids do it to themselves. And that makes me really angry.
I hear them saying: “Prove that anyone is harmed. Prove that people are bullied, beaten or killed. What statistics can you cite? — nitpicking over stats — while I fight to get the sound of “faggot” out of my head and the image of five gang members beating and stabbing us out of my mind.
Ann, I sincerely appreciate your offer of prayer. Here is the info about the vigil: June 6, 2008 Memorial Vigil in Honor Of Jeffery Owens: Remembering the June 6, 2002 attack and subsequent death of Jeffery Owens for whom this center is named begins at 7:30 pm on the steps of the First Congregational Church followed by a walk to the site of the attack that led to the founding of the JOCC. Call 951-683-2032 for more information. http://www.jocc.org
Michael,
I’m so incredibly sorry about your friend and your ordeal. I can’t do much but offer you my prayers.
Thanks, Jayhuck. I want folks to know that I am not “playing victim” as some have suggested. I am a survivor. Jeffery was the victim — and his mother who killed herself a month later because she could not bear the grief was a victim.
And every gay teen who hates herself or who offs himself for being gay is a victim. Without statistics we may never know how many, so, sadly, the debate over that will continue…
Michael,
I am truly sorry for your loss. It is a great tragedy what happened with your friend and his mother. I hope you will find your peace of mind.
Evan: Thanks. We all have this wonderful promise: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. <>
Mary said, “However, I suspect that among gay men who wish to be straight, for non-religious reasons, you will find that the majority of them are men over 30. I.e. men who grew up in a time when the anti-gay bias was much more prominent.
This may be the case for those who seek reorientation for religious reasons as well. The average age of the Jones and Yarhouse study was in the early 40’s.”
We are finding the age of people who start attending our group, (Where Grace Abounds, in Denver, ) is getting younger and younger. What is true, however, is that they are addressing the issues in their lives for different reasons. Rather than primarily motivated by shame, guilt, relational pressure from families, etc., they seem to be genuinely interested in exploring alternative explanations for their feelings/attractions. They seem freer to question, whatever side of the fence they happen to be on.
Evan,
All of us, heterosexual or homosexual, act on our attractions. That action may be courting, marriage, and domestication. It may be “sowing our wild oats”. It may be rejecting such attraction by means of spinsterhood, monastic affiliation, or reorientation. But we all act on our attractions.
And, as Jayhuck clarified, I believe that the pressures, influences, and motivations are diverse and complex.
However, I am unwilling to agree with you that beliefs are selected to align to some “deeper layers of motivation” or “something deeper and linked to the biological status of masculinity”. While you are quick to discount obvious and evident external pressures and assign unknown and undetected mystical internal motivations towards reorientation, you have provided nothing other than speculation to support these assumption.
And while this may all be fine and good to discuss in some theoretical realm, it is a tangent from the original point: that external pressures DO impact the discussion about sexual orientation and can lead some children to abuse others, lead some children to abuse themselves, and in some instances result in suicide.
The question is not whether there is some individual in France that is seeking reorientation for reasons other than religion. The question is what religion can and should consider when making statements and whether there is a moral obligation to look at the consequences of the pressures it applies or whether this obligation is entirely mitigated by positions of faith.
Timothy,
Of course I cannot prove that yet, I was elaborating new ways to explain the same problems, but you know what? Neither can anybody prove otherwise. And no one can prove the common assumption that heterosexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality actually exist as completely separate types of attractions that can be found in completely different people. But we all agree that they exist, that people really live that, although we or they cannot fully prove it.
I don’t dispute that, I may also not be fully aware of how dramatic the situation is in the US, but my argument pointed to a more complex development of motivations that could explain more outcomes of the same process (for instance, why some people adjust their faith to fit their new-found sexual identity). I don’t think this is just an equation of faith versus sexual identity, although I do not deny that most people might put it that way when they get vocal or public about it. When people get confrontational about what they hate in society, they can make use of their most sacred values in order to force their opponents either to come up with equally good reasons for their behaviour or to deny those beliefs and make themselves look bad. I also think people’s anger can be sparked by the fears they have and exposure to what they do not want to see in the public space. Most people are not dogmatic, they have common emotions like you and me. That’s why I believe it has more to do with their own emotions about other people’s declared sexual identity than with church dogma. Time will tell, I stand by my argument that people manipulate their beliefs against people they cannot abide. That’s why there are religious people who, although they recognise that church dogma prohibits same-sex behaviour, they have no problem with gay people as individuals. These are people who are secure enough to deal with people of different assumed sexual identity, their faith does not dictate them to harbour hate.
But when it comes to real cases of crimes and assaults, I must say that in moral matters, any offensive act of aggression or physical abuse, regardless of motive, cannot be tolerated.
Timothy,
I did it inasmuch as present research permits. I pointed to the Santtila et al. study that concluded that only a tiny minority of people who would be willing to engage in same-sex actually do it. Researchers concluded, along the same lines I argued, that what makes people engage in same-sex behaviour may be genetically determined in a different way than what makes people able to fantasise about a possible same-sex encounter. It’s not much, but it has potential to explain a lot in the future.
Evan,
I pointed to the Santtila et al. study that concluded that only a tiny minority of people who would be willing to engage in same-sex actually do it.
When you say things like this, there is a good chance we are talking about a majority of the population. Having SOME same-sex attractions is not the same thing as predominately being attracted to members of the same sex. Societal pressures go a long way to explaining why many of these people probably don’t act on them – because its simply EASIER not to, and we tend toward the easy – but the majority of these people are likely bisexual as well. There is no mystery here
Evan,
Just something Timothy said that I feel merits repeating
“And while this may all be fine and good to discuss in some theoretical realm, it is a tangent from the original point: that external pressures DO impact the discussion about sexual orientation and can lead some children to abuse others, lead some children to abuse themselves, and in some instances result in suicide.
The question is not whether there is some individual in France that is seeking reorientation for reasons other than religion. The question is what religion can and should consider when making statements and whether there is a moral obligation to look at the consequences of the pressures it applies or whether this obligation is entirely mitigated by positions of faith.”
Looking at the study it seems a little odd. Firstly the question asked was:
‘‘If a, in your opinion, handsome man [to male participants]/beautiful woman [to
female participants], whom you like, suggested sexual interaction with you,
how likely would you be able to do it (if you could define the nature of the
interaction and nobody else would know about it)?’
The values were coded as follows:
0 – Quite Impossible (~65 %)
1 – Very Unlikely (~ 18 %)
2 – Quite Unlikely ( ~ 5 %)
3 – Not likely – not unlikely ( ~4 %)
4 – Relative likely (~ 4 %)
5 – Very Likely (~3 %)
(The percentages are my readings off the bar chart – actual percentages are not quoted. These values are for men)
To get the 32.8 % have a potential for homosexual behaviour he added up all the categories except 0 (Quite impossible). Of course this seems odd – are you really going to give the same potential weight to those that responded ‘Very Unlikely’ as ‘ Very likely’. I wouldn’t think so – but that is what is being done here.
Also note that the question presupposes cultural reasons for people not engaging in homosexual behaviour (with the reference to nobody else knowing about it).
I fail to see how this study supports your view Evan.
Jayhuck,
I think that you overestimate the prevalence of bisexuality in men. Please check out the actual studies. Bisexuality seems to be quite rare.
Patrick,
Thanks for the clarification.
This study seems to be not about sexual orientation but rather about behavior outside of orientation.
For example, I think it extrememly unlikely that I would engage in sexual behavior with a woman. But it wouldn’t be “quite impossible”. I’ve seen far too many “impossible” things occur.
By Evan’s measurement, I have the capacity for heterosexual behavior. But would it be honest to say that societal pressures stop me from such behavior? No. It is that I have no sexual interest in women.
Most gay men are probably capable of performing with a woman in the right setting with the right person, adequate amounts of alcohol, and strong enough images in their mind to keep them ‘in the mood’. But only one quite ignorant of the nature of sexual orientation would claim that they are “willing to engage in opposite sex behavior”.
Jayhuck continues to assert this point without any substantiation or backup. I believe it’s an untrue statement.
Where is the factual evidence that supports the opinion that religion is the primary source of anti-gay attitudes?
I have to agree with Eddy that is is unfair to say that religion is the primary source of anti-gay attitudes. The attitudes are already there. Religion just codifies them and adds the threat of Hell.
People are anti-gay. Religion has been twisted by those who hate. Let’s not confuse people as religion.
Mary, I get your point, but people are religion. They bring to their religion their own fears, hopes, hatreds, dreams and prejudices. Some use God to validate their poision. This poison, given the veneer of spirituality, is often used to inflict great harm, In this sense, sadly, religion does become one of the major sources of anti-gay fear and hatred. You don’t have to look far to see that
Eddy and others will probably ask for statistics and “sources” to back up my claim, so I will spare them the time and just point out: “It’s only my opinion,” just like my contention that gay teens are at high risk for suicide.
But the contention that religion is one of the major sources of anti-gay hatred and fear, has what we call “face validity” — that is, it makes sense. Just look around. To dispute that seems very head-in-the-sand to me.
I don’t know. Can primary emotions like anger be aroused by simply knowing something (‘that person is gay’, ‘my church/belief asks me to hate gays’) or by knowing something that relates in a direct way to what a person knows he/she is (‘that person is gay-identified’, ‘I am not gay-identified’, ‘I can sacrifice for my beliefs’, ‘they don’t')? Which one makes more sense in the way anger can be sparked in some religious people?
Let’s imagine you are a postman and you are taught by your more experienced colleagues to hate dogs. Do you hate dogs because your colleagues taught you to or because dogs can attack postmen?
I would say that dogmas cannot so efficiently plant primary emotions in people. I don’t know of any other example whereby a primary emotion could be instilled in people by conditioning (at least not so resiliently and in such large numbers). For instance, when I was living under a Communist regime (my entire childhood), we were each and every day taught to hate capitalists. There were books about how degraded capitalist people were (American people were the epitome of the materialistic capitalist way of life, according to Communist propaganda), that they took drugs and drank too much alcohol, that they had disordered lives, that their lifestyles lead to divorce and suicide, that their societies were cancered by unemployment, exploitation of the poor, religious sects, manipulation and so on. That left any sane person wondering how could those people manage to survive so rotten and given to waste? Most people under the Communist rule never met people from capitalist countries. Nevertheless, after the fall of Communism, we could still not identify ‘capitalist swines’ in the streets, probably because they looked like any other people. When I first travelled abroad in a couple of those capitalist countries my primary feelings were not of hate at the sight of those ‘depraved’ capitalists. I was rather curious about their lifestyles and frankly admired them for their being well-off and looking carefree about their lives. I think in time I became one of them and can just remember about the times when adult people in schools used to teach us to hate capitalists. Our parents were more targeted by those messages, by means of TV propaganda, workplace propaganda, university propaganda and so on. Still, they were the happiest to visit capitalist countries after communism collapsed in our country.
That can leave anyone wondering how does hate conditioning works: by education or by providing a supporting framework of values for the ambiguity or conflicts people go through, that can also motivate them to sacrifice and hate? Does the framework create hate or provide meaning to a primary emotion that is already projected by a denied part of one’s self onto another person’s affirmed part of one’s self?
I still believe that religious belief cannot create aggressive primary emotions, that they cannot cause it properly (building only on cognitions). My intuition tells me it must be quite the contrary, religious belief must have an eliberating and illuminating effect in a person, creating primary emotions of certainty and gratitude. I think people caught in a hating stance take a break from their faith and react how their primary emotions dictate them in relation to what they primarily feel about the people they hate. A trauma could create a man to hate seeing rats, but education in a stable environment seems most unlikely to cause hate towards specific categories of sexual identities.
Correction: ‘A trauma could condition a man to hate seeing rats.’
Actually, Michael, if you say it’s an opinion, I don’t raise objections. I’ve challenged Jayhuck because he makes the statement as if it’s an absolute and commonly accepted fact.
I’d be careful with how far you go with ‘face validity’…the logic behind that is what I run into from conservatives who try to say that gays recruit. Question one: Was your first homosexual experience something you initiated or did someone else approach you? AHA! You were recruited.
Of course, the question leaves out some vitals…like whether the ‘recruitee’ was out looking to get recruited…and whether ‘recruitment’ was even in the remotest thoughts of the ‘recruiter’.
I think the reason that Jayhuck’s statement bothers me so is that while I see some areas of the media be more accepting of gays, I still see a significant portion celebrating heterosexuality (including sinful heterosexuality) while reacting snidely to gays or to gay attractions. Since these are mainstream television programs geared for adults, I question how much they are influenced by conservative religious folks. There’s an anti gay bias but it appears more rooted in a ‘good ol’ boy’ mentality than in anything remotely religious. This more subtle homophobia is, IMHO, far more pervasive and far more insidious.
You hear it a lot in sports talk/banter. The men can be drooling all over the cheerleader lineup (i.e lasciviousness) and, in a heartbeat, be making some joke that lets you know that, to them, gay is unacceptable. When pressed about their homophobic attitudes, I’m sure they’d play the ‘God card’…but they don’t do it because they are religious but rather because they’ll grab at anything to excuse their behavior.
I think we’re missing something when we blame it all (or even most) on the conservative religious folks. I’m not sure what the something is but I’m thinking it’s vital to our understanding if we really want to challenge homophobia and gay-bashing.
Eddy: Why are you so reluctant to admit that gays have suffered greatly at the hands of “religious” people? Haven’t you? Haven’t many of the “ex-gays” you have ministered to over the years?
Alan Chambers says the church needs a “sudden, radical and complete change” in the way it treats gays. It’s one of the main reasons we created EXODUS in the first place — to try to change those hateful, fearful and hurtful anti-gay religious attitudes.
Negative religious meesages, behaviors and attitudes are a major part of the stressors gays face. If you can’t see that — or are more concerned with “stats” — then, in my opinion, there is someting seriously wrong with your head and your heart. Face it, Eddy. Religious persecution and mistreatment of gays in the name of God is an undeniable fact — .even if no on has published a double-blind stastical analysis of it.
Michael,
You seem most focused on the religion part when it is the people who misrepresent religion – or do things in the name of god. Truly, people of christ, do not do those things. Beware that you have not confused the two in the same way that they have.
Ooops,
This may mean Michael, that you need to look at your life when you did advocate those things and probably were not acting as a christian – no matter where you THINK you heart was at the time.
Mary: I reallydon’t think you have any right to question whether or not I was “acting as a Christian” during the years I struggled to become “ex-gay”. God knows my heart. He knows my love for Him and how sincerely I wanted “change” — and how deeply I believed the things I taught. Thank God HE is my Savior and Judge — and not you!
Of course, I know that it is the “people” and not the “religion” that teaches the fear and hate. But why do both you and Eddy seem to have so much trouble accepting that In the name of religion much harm has been done.? Eddy wants stats — but he knows what I am saying is true. Many churches still teach that gays choose to be gay, that they are demon-possessed, etc. Wouldn’t you call that relgious pressure?
Perhaps I should have said that many gays have suufered persecution from folks who claimed to be religious — and that that influence has had powerful negative results for many people.
And God knows their hearts, too. Not you nor I. Don’t blame religion – blame the people involved in spreading the wrong message.
It seems to me that those truly aligned with a faith or religion have spiritual boundries that their ethics will not allow them to cross – injuring another person either in spirit or physical harm is one of them. Unfortunately, there might be less of these people than what we expect. There might be more that claim they are aligned to their religious beliefs but their actions tell us otherwise, especially when they use their religion as a validation to justify their injurous words or actions. When this is backed up by church leaders or the injury or need of another is met with indifference (don’t get me started), it can be devastating.
Michael–
I did not take exception to your statements that were expressed as opinions…I took exception to Jayhuck’s rather absolute statement that ‘religion is the primary source of anti-gay attitudes.’ I believe that religion is ‘a source’ but not ‘the primary source’.
You asked why I seem to minimize the negative responses of the church. There are at least two reasons.
1) Because folks like you and Jayhuck continually point fingers only at the church and ignore all other possibilities.
2) Because, when I was in active ministry, my primary goal was to influence church attitudes to reduce homophobia and all types of anti-gay hysteria….BUT after more than a decade of pursuing that route, I began to realize that –in attempting to reach the church, I actually wasn’t speaking to the bashers. They weren’t there. So, I was impacting church attitudes but doing nothing to reduce the unacceptable treatment of gays out there, in the real world.
Don’t read too much into my blogging. It does not reveal my entire heart or purpose. When I enter a conversation, I look to see if I have anything to contribute that isn’t already being spoken…or that simply needs to be said. So, on this blog, due to the nature of the discussions, you get to hear my take on the comments made. For the past month, I’ve barely even ventured any new opinions, I only comment on obvious exaggerations/overstatements or on comments directed to me/written about me. That’s my choice…also my right.
In short, if you take exception to something specific that I’ve said, say so and we’ll discuss. But comments such as “why do you always seem to do thus and such?” are, IMHO, out of place. I really don’t know why it seems that way to you…ask yourself the question, not me. What I’m trying to say is, it’s fair to ask me to respond to specifics; it’s not fair to ask me why you feel a certain way about my comments.
Also, please be careful about how you lump people together. I’ve never met Mary and I don’t know that we agree down the line on everything; it really irks me when people assume that we do. Consider that, up til Ann attended Jeffrey’s vigil, she was regularly getting lumped in with Mary and I by bloggers here. It wasn’t a sudden change of heart that caused Ann to attend; she displayed the same heart she’s been displaying all along. It just took that occasion for some of you to see it. (If I lived nearby, I likely would have attended as well.)
Michael,
I have some trouble with what you are saying, because in the name of anti-religion much harm has been done also. When we take the actions of some and paint religion as being the problem we are passing judgement. I have never felt so judged as I do by many progay activists demanding that their right be respected and yet they show very little respect for the rights of others. Should I lump all gay people or even those who struggle with same-sex attraction but do not feel they want to be part of the gay culture into one category. I some how feel you would not like this very much and yet you seem to want to do this with those who do not see the issue of homosexuality as you do.
What is hurting people is closemindedness not religion? There are closed minds people on both sides of this debate and within the scientific community and for that reason I have little faith in what you claim to be true science. The way science is meant to be done is very rapidly being eroded away by political correctness and power. Humility is needed so that each of us can more willingly walk in the others shoes and that walk should be from a point of where we are at today rather than where they were at 10, 20, or 30 years ago.
Michael. I know it stings. It stings me, too. And, yes, I would have attended the vigil had time, space and, finances permitted.
Ya’ know Islamic people’s are not all bad either. We could put them all into one boat. Truth is – it is people who corrupt the religion. It is people.
When you do a search for psych literature about homophobia and religion – you do find a fair number of studies that show an association between religious belief and homonegativity.
Here is one such article:
The Relation of Religious Affiliation, Service Attendance, and Other Factors to Homophobic
Attitudes among University Students
Author(s): Barbara Finlay and Carol S. Walther
Source: Review of Religious Research, Vol. 44, No. 4, (Jun., 2003), pp. 370-393
In this study the group identified as non-Christian (mostly atheist, newager, pagan etc) scored more lower on the homophobia scale (2.7) as compared to Conservative protestants (15.4). [Higher numbers indicate greater homophobia]
Now this doesn’t mean that the only source of homophobia towards glbt persons is due to religion – but certainly a significant amount is. Is this the primary source of anti-gay feelings out there – I don’t know – but I cannot see how you can deny the connection between homophobia and conservative religious belief.
I’m not denying those stats but here are some questions I wonder about.
Of those identifying as conservative christian – how often do they attend chruch services or actvities throughout the week.
Does seeing scripture as the definitive word of God equate to homophobia or homosexual violence?
And how was the homophobia scaled presented and measured?
On many scales I have taken – I come out homophobic but that could not be farther from thr reality. And does homophobia equate to anti-gay sentiments and violence against gays?
All good questions Mary.
Here were the questions used to code for the homophobia scale:
1. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are mistreated in our society.
(Strongly Agree = 0)
2. It would be beneficial to society to recognize that homosexuality and bisexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. (Strongly Agree = 0)
3. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people should have equal opportunity in employment. (Strongly Agree = 0)
4. Romantic relationships between people of the same sex are immoral. (Strongly Agree = 5)
5. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people endanger the institution of the family. (Strongly Agree = 5)
6. Homosexuality and bisexuality are mental disorders.(Strongly Agree = 5)
And no I don’t think that even those that score high on the homophobia scale are the same ones that commit violent acts against glbt persons. However, that isn’t to say that their actions and behaviours towards glbt persons can not be just as hurtful.
Patrick,
I presented a personal case of being the subject of hate conditioning against people from capitalist states when I lived under a Communist regime and confessed that it left no mark on any primary emotions on my part. I think they failed because 1. it was not credible and 2. we did not trust the manipulators. There was nothing in our minds that could be aroused against some people that we were supposed to hate in any instance – in the books we read, in the movies we watched, in the people we met and so on. There simply was no connection to what motivated our lives, so it never succeeded.
I hope you can make a similar case of how hate conditioning can proceed from religious experiences or teachings to hate practices, violently verbal or physical. I could believe you if you told me that young boys call effeminate boys ‘sissies’ or ‘fa**ots’ because they feel those different boys are not like them in some very typical aspects, so they unconsciously like to tease them to prove themselves in front of their friends (some older brothers or fathers may teach them the words or they may pick them up from the culture). When these boys grow up they may be given more elaborate reasons to build on their scorn, some may be presented under a religious guise. They may be told or find out from older peers about the dirty kind of sex those people can have, how pervert they are because of that, that they are going to hell because of that (this would the part where they are let in on the ultimate stakes…). Do you think this brief description is more credible than simple preaching from the pulpit?
This is one possible path, but there could be more that lead to the same result, depending on people’s motivations.
OK. I give. All of the gay men I have met who tell me that they have experienced very strong anti-gay “religious” feelings, teachings and behaviors are liars or delusional. No pressure from the church. It’s all in their misguided heads. You are right. I will lay off. The church has always been supportive and caring. Somehow gay people just don’t want to see it. You win.
Here at GCC we did a survey several years ago looking at homophobia among our students. We used the Index of Homophobia which claimed to be a unidimensional measure of homophobia. We found however that there were three dimensions. One was personal dislike, two was concern about loved ones being homosexual and the third was belief/moral disagreement with homosexuality. Our students were high on 3, moderate on 2 and low on 1.
Michael,
Some have been supportive and caring, some have not. It is just as unfair to make generalizations against religion as it is to make them against all gay people. It is not a matter of winning or losing it is a matter of whether we are all open to hearing what the other is saying.
OK. Some people say that they have experienced religious intolerance and pressures. Many gay men say that they have personally experienced this –Sorry I don’t know what the stats are.
If a black person tells me they have experienced racial prejudice, should I ask them to cite a particular study or believe them? Is it a great leap to think that they might be telling the truth? I only know what I hear from gay men time and time and time again over many decades of listening to them. Many gay people (and no, I don’t have the stats) think the church hates them.
They may be lying. Maybe the Holy Spirit is just convicting them of their “sin” and they are blaming the church. Would that be fair to say? What is it that I can say about his issue without someone nipicking the point to death?
I am frankly surpised at the reluctance to admit that religious pressures have indeed negatively impacted many gay men. To me, denying that is like trying to deny that water is wet. If you really listen to their stories, it is a very frequent theme. What am I to make of these personal testimonies? Dismiss them as delusional?
Michael,
If we don’t understand exactly how it works, there is a small chance of addressing the problem correctly, in all its complexity. I have no pre-defined conclusion. I raised some questions, I invited people to support and explain their point of view in detail, so we can understand how exactly do negative emotions work to produce homophobia, whether they could be simply caused by religious teachings or just justified by them, or some other combination. I don’t know empirically which one is the correct answer. I expect there are more paths by which homophobic attitudes and feelings can develop and I also suspect there are more types of homophobia. We may be focusing on a particular instance that is perceived to be motivated by religion, because people who speak up and who preach against what they think is immoral are mostly religious. The rest of the homophobic people, from the general society, may hardly be religious and may have no motivation to voice their hatred, but still they may be the ones committing acts of assault on people of different sexual orientation. Why don’t anonymous haters band together or speak up? Because there is no moral banner under which they can come together: every such grouping has a ‘highbrow’ claim, a symbolic purpose. But it’s not that that makes them hate, I argued. In this light, you may be right, if people who are brought together by a common creed can be determined to change their message into a more accepting and loving stance, they can deprive any of their members of a symbolic alibi to publicly chastise gays. But that will not remove anonymous homophobia, although it must improve things, I agree.
Warren,
I wonder how would students from the GCC have scored score if they were surveyed on how did they think their sexual orientation was set: a. they were born that way; b. developed that way; c. chose to be that way. The information they knew about it might have influenced how they invested an answer to be their interpretation. It’s self-rewarding and self-confirming to score according to values, but it may not say much about what caused that feeling of homophobia, even if attitude and opinion are shaped in religious terms. If most of them are religious, they might be inclined to understand their attitude as part of their beliefs, much less as a matter of personal dislike developed during their childhood or adolescence.
PS. Call me an fMRI geek, but maybe some brainscanning studies would help to see emotional reactions and cognitive processing before checking an answer.
Michael,
Perhaps you need to be open to listening to the personal testimony of those who have extremely negative experience while trying to live a gay life and the feelings of non acceptance of ones faith by those who have decided for whatever reason that religion is the route of all problems in the world and if we just get rid of it all will be right with the world, when in fact we have many examples of where a lack of faith in a culture has meant nothing but hardship for large groups of people who do not see things as the ruling authoritative powers do. I would ask you to ask yourself how gay people fair in these kinds of societies.
I forgot to state what I think it could be a principle in this case: No one group or representative of a group can reject a targeted category of people on grounds of personal dislike. A higher reason, of symbolic value, will always be used to keep all the members of the group in a cohesive state of attitudes, opinions and actions.
I know, this could be turning into a chicken and egg problem.
Michael,
The church, synagogue, mosque, etc. have, as long as I can remember, put pressure on those who are unwed mothers, those engaging in same gender sex, infidelity, pre-marital sex, pornography, and addictive substances. I think where the problem comes in is how and to what degree the church leaders and congregation want to either exclude these people (which would probably be at least half of their congregation if the truth be told) or how, they as a church, representing the body of Christ, choose to reach out and respond in love and fellowship as Jesus did. If they follow their personal rules (which most of the time have nothing to do with what Jesus taught and asked that we follow) instead of following Jesus, then the same civil unrest will continue. How often I have seen the glazed look come over someone’s face when they came looking for help or friendship and were only admonished or preached to instead. Words that had no meaning to them and drove them away. Only PEOPLE will change what needs to be changed in the church to align it with Christ’s teachings – only those that look beyond and transcend all the things that have caused the unrest and exclusion and reach out and do what Jesus taught rather than what the church teaches – THEN peace like the kind Jesus left us – “peace I give you, not as the world gives” will override all this other “stuff” and allow everyone to realize they can have the same gifts of faith and hope and redemption because someone acted toward them in a way that Jesus would. By the way, this goes for people of all religions – meet them and interact with them as Jesus did and they will respond – you or they don’t need to be identified with religious labels to do the right thing towards each other. I feel the tide turning – through natural attrition the old and outdated ways of responding to individuals with church rules instead of human relationships is being replaced with people who are following the true teachings of Jesus – IMHO, that is VERY cool.
Eddy,
Thank you Eddy – this observation and comment means a lot to me.
Evan:
I don’t know what exactly the connection between homophobia/homonegativitiy and religious (in particular conservative Christianity) is. I was only reporting this one study (although there are other studies that have reached the same conclusion).
Perhaps some people that have negative opinions about homosexuals are drawn to Christianity because they feel it supports their viewpoint. Perhaps people that are drawn to conservative Christianity are not the most independent thinkers and are more suggestible to indoctrination (in this case homonegativity could be impressed upon them via sermons etc).
And it is worth mentioning that these studies are really not about what Eddy was referring to. It might be that the majority of conservative Christians are not homophobic – but that most of the homophobic/homonegative people are in fact conservative Christians.
Patrick,
Can you please describe what your definition of a conservative Christian is and how it would compare to other people with other religions and beliefs?
I don’t know if I have a precise definition – but it certainly would include those Christians who think the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
The wiki on conservative Christian encapsulates pretty much what I am referring to.
How does it compare ? – hmm I am not really sure what you are asking. I don’t think the conservative/liberal divide applies to all other religions/beliefs. I think you would be hard pressed to make this distinction for pagans or secular humanists. I imagine you could make this distinction with respect to other religions like Judaism.
Patrick,
We have a more extreme and not-so-distant historical example of official gay hatred that was not caused by religious teachings: Nazism. Another clearer example is former Communist regimes, which criminalised homosexuality: people went to prison if they were caught engaging in same-sex behaviour or if they admitted having had same-sex acts. At the same time, Communist regimes, which were ideologically atheist, tried to undermine religious practices and beliefs by specific propaganda that told people to believe only in materialistic ideas, backed up by science and sanctioned by party ideology.
Again, I’m not denying that some of the hatred might be caused by religious beliefs, but I think this argument does not cover most cases in time and space. That’s why I argued for other causes that are more general to human nature and can be found in any given historical period and geographic area.
But Evan lets not forget how glbt persons are treated in Islamic countries – certainly as bad as under the Nazi’s or communists.
I don’t think we can really let religion off the hook here.
I don’t know if we can parse out how much antigay feelings are due to religious belief and how much due to other sources.
Certainly when you look at the political climate in the US – almost exclusively the groups fighting against gay rights (and often outright slandering glbt persons) are groups headed by, and followed by conservative Christians. Same for exgay groups. And I am willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of members of Narth are conservative Christians.
You are absolutely right Patrick – while Evan has good examples of less-than-religious anti-gay sentiments, Much of the present political, and otherwise, anti-gay rhetoric in this and other countries has been coming primarily from conservative religious groups
And to separate Nazism from religion would be a mistake – from Wikipedia:
“Christianity represented one of the pillars of Nazism; particularly its antisemitism was heavily inspired by the Christian ideology.[11][12][13][14][15][44] Hitler extended his rationalizations into a religious doctrine, underpinned by his criticism of traditional Catholicism. In particular, and closely related to Positive Christianity, Hitler objected to Catholicism’s ungrounded and international character — that is, it did not pertain to an exclusive race and national culture. At the same time, and somewhat contradictorily, the Nazis combined elements of Germany’s Lutheran community tradition with Ariosophy, an occult-mystical doctrine mainly inspired by Biblical and Christian mythologies. Elements of militarism found their way into Hitler’s own theology; he preached that his was a “true” or “master” religion, because it would “create mastery” and avoid comforting lies. Those who preached love and tolerance, “in contravention to the facts”, were said to be “slave” or “false” religions. The man who recognized these “truths”, Hitler continued, was said to be a “natural leader”, and those who denied it were said to be “natural slaves”. “Slaves” — especially intelligent ones, he claimed — were always attempting to hinder their masters by promoting false religious and political doctrines.”
There’s always more to the story of course
To spare us all the hassle next time around, here is a handy list of disclaimers that I would like for all of you to keep in mind when I post somehing:
(1) It is only my opinion.
(2) It is based on my own personal experience based on conversations with hundreds of gay folks over the course of my lifetime, not hard science.
(3) There are certainly exceptions to everything I state.
(4) I may be wrong.
Now I can just end each comment iwth “1-2-3-4″. So here goes: I believe that negative religous pressures impact nearly every gay person and I also believe that such pressures are a contributing factor in gay depression, suicide and violence directed at gay people. — “1-2-3-4″
Michael,
So many people go to the church or other religious affiliations for fellowship and a sense of belonging and because it is the way they were brought up so it has become a way of life. When they are perceived or openly share a part of their life that is outside of what their particular church finds acceptable, and that is meant with either indifference or ostracizing or an environment of passive/aggressive hostility, I can absolutely see how a person would become depressed because due to injurous words or actions afflicted upon them. I have seen this with un-wed pregnant women, the young teenager who had tourettes syndrome and was asked to sit in the balcony instead of downstairs, the homeless man asked to sit out in the lobby area instead of with the congregation, and the person who has shared his/her either struggle or contentment with a same gender attraction or relationship. I have said before – “if that was someone you loved and wanted to contine or come back to having a relationship with the God you say you love and trust, would you want him/her treated like this?” The following silence is always the answer.
I really believe more people have been loved and accepted and helped by their religious affiliation with a church than have been hurt, however, it is those that are hurting or have been hurt that we must pay attention to – Jesus did, so must we.
sorry – this should say “met” not “meant”
and that is meant with either indifference or ostracizing or an environment of passive/aggressive hostility,
Ann: Can you cite any stattistics or studies to back up what you are saying about unwed mothers, homeless people, tourette’s and gays? Just kidding. Wanted to beat the others to the punch.
This is really what I was trying to convey — that people have been hurt — often by the very people or instutions that claim to care (1-2-3-4).
Be that as it may, you express the spirit and intent of the Golden Rule very well when you ask: ““If that was someone you loved and wanted to contine or come back to having a relationship with the God you say you love and trust, would you want him/her treated like this?”
Funny
I remember what wasn’t funny though and how much it hurt – when other people on this blog questioned the validity of my volunteer work (wanting locations, statistics, etc. – like I could give this out), the validity of my friends who have taken another path, calling me anti-gay, personal attacks with sarcastic remarks, commenting that I align myself with all things “ex-gay” (whatever THAT means) and other assumptions about me that couldn’t even come close to describing who I am. I do understand how important statistics and studies are to some, however, almost everything that I say has and will come from my own extensive involvement, interest and personal experiences. I am saying all this perhaps to also add my own disclaimer. Asking for clarification is very different from making assumptions.
Words can hurt and can lead to actions that hurt – no one is excluded from this.
Jayhuck,
Definitely more. I could go on and say that when Hitler was a boy he attended a school where he was in the same classroom with future philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was Jewish, rich, very intelligent, aloof and a bit of a ‘sissy’. There are a few books that speculated and put forward a few proofs that this first encounter with a boy who was more succesful than him left an indelible mark on little Hitler’s mind. They say his hatred towards Jewish people stemmed from the fact that he came from a poor family, he demonstrated a tendency to impose himself and act as a leader in the classroom groups but felt a Jewish boy like Wittgenstein stood in his way.
The link between Nazism and Catholicism is far-fetched. Any political regime that takes over an old regime brings a combination of change and conservation of older values. Nazism was an immanent business, that eclectically borrowed anything convenient from pagan and modern beliefs to further its violent ‘mastery’ agenda. But to extrapolate from that that the roots of anti-gay policies during Nazism were to be found in Catholicism is, again, far-fetched. There are some accounts that many Nazi officers were gay and that was no problem to the regime as long as they kept it away from the public (it was probably convenient to have reasons to eliminate them if they rebelled against the regime). But the official policy was a different issue and it was not because Nazis believed gays should change or end up in hell. The scapegoat complex has always been activated by violent regimes in times of crisis.
How would you explain that an atheistic and materialistic regime like Communism, that aspired to destroy religious beliefs and replace them with belief in science and party ideology, also criminalised same-sex behaviour?
Patrick,
Thanks – the reason I asked was because it seems I have heard so many different definitions and descriptions within just the past year from various people. I said something recently to a friend about an American Idol contestant who is Mormon – my friend replied, “well, you know Mormons are not Christian”. It seemd very important to her to get that point across to me, without acknowledging the compliment I made about the individual – I thought that was odd and self serving. Anyway, IMHO, I think it is a real contradiction for someone to say they are a Christian (in the most basic way) and then turn against others based on personal prejudices. Jesus didn’t do that.
Back to what this thread is about
I am glad the clarification could be made and that the error was acknowledged.
Ann: I apologize for the times I may have lumped you together or assumed that I knew your motives. I offer the same apology to Eddy and any other person I may have treated in this way — and no, I will not (1-2-3-4) that. I mean the “sorry” sincerely.
Evan,
My point wasn’t to say that there haven’t been incidences of non-religious folks outlawing or discriminating against gay people, but rather to show how strong the religious component is now and has been throughout history in shaping anti-gay attitudes.
Michael,
You are an exceptional man to offer this – thank you. I must say that it was other people, and not you, that I was referring to so as far as I am concerned, no apology is needed. Even in our most spirited posts, I know if is ok to reason things which has enabled me to learn and understand many things.
Dr. Throckmorton,
Please note I tried to stay on topic and it was Michael who took me off it
“I know if is ok to reason things”
sorry – should say reason things OUT
Oh Ann – if anyone should be faulted for getting off topic, its me.
Just have to add that to the list of things I need to work on this year 
Just have to add that to the list of things I need to work on this year
Jayhuck,
Bet my list is longer than your’s
I feel ANY moment Dr. Throckmorton is going to come in and say that this thread has run it’s course and if no one has anything substantial to say, he is going to close it down
I’ve been feeling that in the three threads in which I’ve been posting – LOL – and you know, I’d have to agree with him.
I’ve been feeling that in the three threads in which I’ve been posting – LOL – and you know, I’d have to agree with him.
Well, certainly my one liners and smiley faces would have nothing to do with his decision that nothing more of substance is being contributed and therefore the thread has run it’s course
Eddy: Before Warren puts this thread (mercifully) to rest, I would like to invite you to dialog one-on-one, off the blogs, to see if we might establish some common ground. Give it some thought: michaelbussee@netzero.net
Michael–
Please understand that I need to decline your offer of the off blog one-to-one. I began seriously re-evaluating my time spent blogging and/or focussed on these issues several months ago…I got some serious help cutting back even further when my personal hard drive died. Cutting back appears to be the right direction for me. Even here on Warren’s blog, I’ve refrained from jumping in on new topics and am only sticking around to respond to topics I was once a part of.
I’m not saying I’m thoroughly done but, at the least, I’ve shifted from ‘regular’ to ‘occasional’…and I suspect I’ll continue to visit with a comment now and again. Or Warren will come up with some provocative topic that I just can’t resist…..
BTW: The way you phrased your statement where you employed the 1-2-3-4, it wouldn’t have needed the disclaimers. I’ll say it one more time: it’s opinions that are stated as facts that usually get a rise out of me. An opinion can be extreme and outlandish for all I care….as long as it isn’t presented as an established fact.(Your statements weren’t extreme, outlandish or presented as fact.)
I’m an equal-opportunity confronter, BTW. I confront people on ‘my side’ who make outlandish claims such as: it’s a demon, homosexuals are abominations, homosexuals are child molestors, homosexuality is the worst sin. Even if they say something I happen to agree with, I challenge if it’s presented as fact when I haven’t yet heard of any research or proof. (I do not agree with any of the ‘outlandish claims’ above. I do tend to believe that there is a ‘gay political agenda’ that is in direct conflict with the church at large. But it’s an opinion. We can’t yet make any solid conclusion. So I’d challenge a person who tried to say, without question, that there was a ‘gay agenda’. More than once I’ve had to say “Oh, I agree with you but I just didn’t know that that’s been proven yet. When did our opinion reach ‘fact status’?”
Well, my library allotted time for the computer is all gone for today. Peace, all. Will likely check in again by the end of the week.
Eddy,
I hope your “occassional” posts will come often – please don’t stay away too long.
Eddy: Still don’t get why you couldn’t shoot me a friendly email — on occasion. Maybe we could calm some of the contentious rhetoric.. Oh, well. About me always blaming the church for the pressures gays feel, I do not blame only the church or even mainly the church — but their influence has been huge. I know you don’t have to believe in God to be a homophobe.
Michael: You have suggested several times over the course of our mutual blogging here that we start conversing offline. I’ve declined politely each time. I intend to be polite again but I guess I can’t escape telling you the balance of my reasoning…I am very protective of my email address and am extremely careful about who I share it with. On one level, I trust you but on others, I don’t. We have that one issue where I used the word ‘provocative’ in one sense and you continued to quote it without giving its original context even after I asked you not to and explained my reasoning. I shudder to think what you could do with an offhand comment I might make.
Already, on the blog, I feel the pressure of having to word and say everything ‘just so’. I accept that as part of the burden of blogging. But, I’m simply not ready to open myself up to exchanging so-called ‘friendly’ emails…knowing full well that these topics are the only thing we have in common…and then essentially having to monitor my phrasings so as not to provide a sound bite.
Beyond that, you can be a bit relentless. When something has your full attention, you seem to feel that everyone else should think and feel as you do…and you hammer. I have visions of logging in to my email and seeing a dozen or more messages. “Well, what do you think? Is that what you believe? So and so said thus and such, what’s your response?”
LOL! I know! I can be relentless too! And there are people who wouldn’t care for me to have their personal email address. I understand that. I hope you do too. (Our mutual friend, Robbi, has been after me for several years to make a trip out to California. I told her that when I do finally make it, I’d like to rendezvous with you if at all possible. At the moment, it’s the best I can offer.)
(Thanks, Ann, for your kind comments. Only time will tell. I’m delaying buying a new pc because 1) I want to avoid Windows Vista 2) I want to re-priortize my computer use. LOL. If I bought a new pc tomorrow, I’m sure I’d be back to blogging by Sunday. Not over the blog addiction yet.)
Time to head out. I’ve been invited to sing karaoke at the birthday of a lesbian friend of mine…I thought they said it was her wedding so I was practicing ‘non gender specific’ love songs all week…now I find out it’s a milestone birthday so I need to tweak the mix a bit.
Evan,
Not to be too intrusive, but it would be incredibly easy to create an email address with which to converse with Michael – one that you could get rid of immediately after your conversation – all without ever divulging any of your private information – FYI
Oooops – by Evan, I meant Eddy