I’m a lesbian who is attempting to be chaste because of religious beliefs. However, I’m not the least bit upset about being lesbian. In fact, I feel ‘gifted’ by God for being ‘disordered’ because Our Lord has a special love for the poor, the sick, the weak, the helpless. I feel I’ve been given a special gift from God to participate in His Cross, His social opprobrium, etc. I’m not about to change, and I don’t engage in the ‘gay’ culture. And, I don’t hide the fact that I’m a lesbian if questioned.

I’m also a bit confused about the term SSA. It’s a very misleading term. Every person of whatever gender who has a friend is same sex attracted to that friend. For example, a guy likes sports, cars, music …. he’s attracted to guys that also like sports, cars, music. SSA, Same Sex Attracted, is a cutesy term to hide centuries old terms that were completely legitimate: homosexual, lesbian.

However, I’m confused about your position, Mary. Are you saying a lesbian like myself is socially unacceptable … that I need to change to be acceptable even if I’m chaste? Are you saying my disorderedness has to be treated?

Are you now straight, married, with children?

I am by no means being contentious. I’m new here, and because women are different than men, I’d like your input.

Thank you.
Tess

Being intellectually honest? I am straight to most of the world – except here. I don’t consider myself bi sexual or same sxz attracted anymore. I don’t know what the rest of my life holds for me in the future. By all definitions, I am ex gay and if you have been following the definitions given by the many people here – you will find a variety of answers. Simple? Not so. It has more to do with than penises, vaginas, breasts etc… and what people imagine or do with those things. Many SSA people do not define themselves by a label such as gay because the bible does not refer to people in that way. That is a faith based person who does not accept the “secular” definition of a person. And that is intellectually honest, too.

when we need to use labels to define or undersand something, it is not wrong to say “gay”, “bisexual” or “ex-gay” (a gay person not acting on ssa) if someone is attracted to the same sex.It’s a way of differentiating them from heterosexual, which, if we are intecllectually honest about this, they are definitely not. A straight person who has no attraction to the same sex would feel rightly they are being misdefined if an ex gay or bisexaul or gay personn called themselves a heterosexual. Why? Because then the defintion of straight in intellectually dishonest.

We need to replace political correctness with intellectual honesty-it’s as simple as that.

We’re not defining them as a person.

Psychology studies the workings of the mind. It finds like things, puts them in classifications or groups, and studies them. More often than not, they come up with labels for the groups that seem to fit. I belong to a group that they really haven’t studied much or tried to work with. They already believed we were embarking on an impossible journey just as the ex-gays were beginning to emerge and begin to find each other. You have your goals, I have mine. Mine is to convince psychology that we are a legitimate population of like-minded individuals worthy of both study and professional assistance. You won’t likely find me caving in to your demands to accept their classification.It conflicts at a very basic level with my faith. I will NOT identify myself by something my faith is calling me to walk away from. “Learning to see yourself as God sees you” clashes with psychology’s label. You are concerned about the psychological confusion; although it does concern me, I am more concerned about the spiritual and religious dilemma.

And once again, I’ll remind you that the dictionary supports ‘ex-gay’. The word has a hyphen suggesting it’s made up of two parts. “Ex” means “from” and “gay” means “gay”. The term speaks to our current commonality based on where we’ve been; heterosexuality or straight aren’t mentioned at all.

On another thread, you rant that Exodus and ex-gays are heretics, suggesting that they live by works. I respond with a question about the role of repentance and you simply don’t answer. You let your heresy charge just stand there…you left my question ignored for several days. Then, you come back to the blog from your 2 or 3 day hiatus, ignore my question still and post a sarcastic blast on this thread with me as part of your sarcasm.

I bring the repentance question over here and again have to ask you twice to get an answer. (Although you took the time to tell me how I’m always assuming.) And I’ve posted several comments re your (n.s.) idea, yet you felt no need to come forward with the fact that it was sarcasm until I’d asked you at least two times. (And I’m guessing Carole’s post re sarcasm was also a way of saying “please acknowledge it”.)

And, always, in the process of not answering legitimate questions, in the process of wasting my time, you find a way to throw in a ‘stinger’ barb jab in every response. I personally find ‘purposely wasting another person’s time’ to be one of the greatest signs of disrespect ever invented.