Christianity Today has an article out online today which covers familiar ground to readers here.
Written by Bobby Ross, the article notes the divisions over reparative therapy which have been accentuated by the recent APA report on sexual orientation and therapy.
No surprise here: Evangelical leaders who advocate gay reparative therapy took umbrage at a highly publicized American Psychological Association (APA) resolution that criticized such efforts.
By a 125-4 vote, the 150,000-member association’s governing council adopted a task force report in August claiming a lack of evidence that efforts to change one’s sexual orientation work.
One aspect of the 138-page resolution, however, drew praise from some Christian psychologists—and exposed a divide in the evangelical therapy community.
As we discuss here often, modest change in orientation has been reported but, in my opinion, the change paradigm for therapy and ministry is old school.
Warren Throckmorton, a counselor who believes that the Bible prohibits homosexuality, commended the task force for “clarifying the value of helping clients sort out their beliefs and work out an identity and life that fit within the clients’ beliefs.”
A one-time proponent of sexual reorientation efforts, Throckmorton said he spoke up until 2004 at conventions of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). But the Grove City College psychology professor has come to believe that changing a person’s sexual orientation is at best difficult.
Rather than focusing on reparative therapy, he has embraced “sexual identity therapy,” which focuses on helping a person live in a way that is consistent with his or her beliefs.
My issues with reparative therapy involve the lack of research support for the basic perspectives on the formation of same-sex attraction as well as the paucity of robust demonstrated outcomes.
“The reparative side sees the objective as healing the trauma [of family dysfunction] and thus curing the homosexuality,” said Throckmorton, former president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association. “The sexual identity side doesn’t see the efficacy of that approach and doesn’t think change is necessary in order to help people live in congruence with their faith.”
Ross then addresses the Jones and Yarhouse study and notes Mark Yarhouse’s views on change and therapy paradigms.
Yarhouse says more Christian psychologists are providing sexual identity therapy rather than reparative therapy. He recommends “a range of options” to help believers make sense of their sexual and religious identities.
“I don’t want to discourage people from making that attempt [to change orientation],” he said. “But for most of those people, success will not be a categorical shift from gay to straight. The gains will likely be modest, more along a continuum.”
As co-author of the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework, Mark offers a balanced view of the landscape. Most of the people who consider Exodus a success have a story of congruence with their faith than tell a story of some degree of change in their sexual arousal patterns.
Alan Chambers weighs in with more of the reparative therapy side of the divide.
Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, said it is wrong to assert that sexual orientation cannot change as a result of therapy.
“That flies in the face of the testimonies of tens of thousands of people just like me,” said Chambers, a married father of two who credits God and counseling for helping him leave a homosexual lifestyle. “That’s not to say that you can flip a switch and go from gay to straight.”
Finally, NARTH’s David Pruden worries that the APA report will keep people from trying to change.
David Pruden, vice president of operations for NARTH, said the APA’s resolution likely will not affect how Christian psychologists counsel. He voiced concern, though, about its impact on potential clients.
“[This] could discourage individuals from even seeking assistance or entertaining the thought that growth or change is possible,” he said.
Well, if the proper information is disclosed to people, I doubt they will not seek assistance. However, if therapists practice in accord with the SIT Framework and recent APA guidance, they will not experience over promising or be directed to developmental theories which may not fit their lives.
Claire,
Congratulations on your happy life.
David,
I stated my case. I backed it up with examples. I asked for alternative phrases and offered compromise.
You chose to ignore the examples, refuse compromise, and accuse me of a narcissistic agenda.
In the spirit of not furthering the hostility, I’ll avoid the temptation to speculate on why you chose not to find a solution and instead went for personal attacks.
Again.
Thanks Claire. My current boyfriend knows a minimal amount of my past and no one in my present life (save here and my family of origin) know of my past. It’s just not worth discussing or bringing up because of the criticism and the stereotypes that persist.
Why oh why would I want to drag my boyfriend through this mud.
Thanks Claire!!! Not only did I appreciate what you said but HOW you said it. Very clear and easy to grasp. I agree with Debbie…a breath of fresh air and I’m very glad you dropped in. The rest of us can get caught up in our seemingly endless debate while people like you simply move on. (I mean that in a good way!!! I believe it’s God’s plan for most people to move on and live out their lives without the focus on the past.)
Thanks, Claire, for that breath of fresh air. You give substance to what many like me believe in their hearts and confirm with their own experiences. Except, you are living proof of even more than I am as you can testify to being exclusively SSA in the past.
I wrestled with keeping my past life confined to only that small inner circle, and would have done just that were it not for the definite call God has put on my life. Yes, who would willingly want to put themselves out there to incur the wrath of arrogant, insensitive and ignorant onlookers? I have come to see this “thing” as much larger than any of us and our individual feelings.
I think there is a reason you came here and posted.
I think some of the comments on this thread give one reason why there are not tens of thousands of testimonies readily available for verification. (Hint: not because there are no people whose attractions have changed.)
I am a female who used to have exclusive SSA. Due to my Christian convictions, I did not act on them very much, although I did to a small degree in one relationship. I was never formally involved with Exodus or any reparative therapy groups, but I read some of their materials, found them to be helpful, and received pastoral counseling. And, to make a long story short, God changed me.
I am now married (pregnant with our second child, not that I think Alan was referring to numbers of children) and OSA. I do not know that I could say absolutely, utterly OSA, but there was definitely a huge shift. Very rarely I have fleeting feelings of SSA, but it is certainly not a dominant struggle. I rarely even think about SSA even theoretically, as it’s not part of my life now. …That’s kind of the thing.
Since no one who meets me now would ever know about my past SSA, and it doesn’t feel like it has much relavance to my current life, why would I want to open myself and my family up to this hostile, invasive criticism and skeptical demands of proof, and then more/better proof. No one has ever asked me to be in an anonymous survey — if they did, I might consider it, if I had time/energy in this hectic stage of raising small children. I share my testimony with close friends when I want to, but it is not public knowledge and I don’t feel called or responsible to provide that.
Not sure why I’m even posting this now, except that I was surfing around, this thread caught my attention, and I guess I felt sufficiently irked by some of the arrogant presumptions in this comment section that I felt like adding my two cents.
(Note: In general from the little I’ve read on this site, I think Warren’s focus on sexual identity therapy rather than reparative therapy is positive. I think congruance between belief and behavior is more important than change in attraction. But change in attraction is possible, and from someone who has been there, it comes off as really arrogant and annoying when people dismiss it out of hand. I personally think Alan’s “tens of thousands” number is probably more than fair. I understand why people want hard data to back these claims up, but I really don’t think it takes that much of a leap to understand why people like me are not clamoring to publish their testimonies for public consumption.)
@ Timothy,
No one is even remotely asking that.
No one is forbiding (Warren is the arbiter of such actions) you from using anti-gay; feel free….as I said, persist.
It is a manipulative phrase that oversimplifies the issues involved and has an imbedded personal attack (double meaning).
I am repeating myself…but once more:
These are the tactics of narcissistic agenda folks on all sides of every debate.
Eddy, Take pics and send them my way!!!! PLEEEEEEEEASE.
Thanks, Tim, I will. My favoritest time of the year…I expect that the colors on the trees will start to pop within the next week or two.
Eddy,
Enjoy your beautiful autumn weekend.
David,
Sorry for yet a fourth comment. But it distresses me that I’m being portrayed as insulting or offensive. And I want to find resolution.
If there is a word or phrase that is as descriptive and accurate, I’d like to use it. So, please help me with the words that you would use to replace “anti-gay” in these sentences:
and
and
While Sarah’s politics were anti-gay, she had strong personal relationships with several gay individuals and couples in her community.
and
Periodically I hear anti-gay folk explain that homosexuality is just a “social construct.”
Timothy–My statement goes to the future as evidenced by “I will challenge”. I won’t be digging through the archives and am no longer ‘in the groove’. It appears to be a beautiful autumn weekend ahead and I don’t relish the notion of playing tit for tat online.
Ugh… double negative typo. What I meant was
And David if you really are interested in whether or not this is getting personal or whether incivility and slurs are getting in the way of communication, I’d invite you to re-read your last several comments.
Eddy
I think my usage has been clear. If not, please identify where I used the term as a slur or to falsely suggest that you or anyone else was anti-gay when, in fact, they are not. I’ll happily apologize.
David,
You appear to be unaware of the common use of these terms. The term Pro-gay most definitely includes a supportive position on gay political goals. And if you doubt that, let me give you reference from conservative sources in use in the news today:
OneNewsNow: Producers treated the 12.7 million viewers who tuned in Wednesday night for the premiere to a pro-gay adoption speech within the first two minutes of the program.
Associate Baptist Press: The church still remained in relative obscurity until 2005 when it moved beyond picketing gay-rights events and pro-gay politicians to demonstrating at funerals of fallen soldiers.
And if you wonder about my usage of the term “anti-gay”, today alone I found this term used by media as diverse as Courthouse News Service, Memphis Flyer, Baltimore Sun, Yeshiva World News, and The Guardian. The term was even included in a statement about the United Nations by Republican congresswomen Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
If they can use it, so can I.
It is not a “weapon” or a slur or a name. It is a descriptive term. But if you don’t like it, I’m open to alternative terms.
What I will not do, however, is pretend that we cannot ever acknowledge that some attitudes, politics, behavior, or activism are not hostile to gay rights, freedom, and dignity.
@ Michael,
When I first started commenting at ex-gay watch and elsewhere, I used the term “gay lifestyle;” it was naive and harmful on my part. I have resolved not to use the term and to the best of my knowledge have not done so for several years.
Regarding “gay identity”…I would argue that this is less limiting than you imagine; Christian identity, conservative identity, American identity…very broad categories that include a great variety of people.
Since the science does not support, in my opinion, advocating for civil rights based upon biological differences; I have opted to support many people like you based upon one’s right to choose an identification based upon beliefs, associations, sensations, experiences and facts.
Very much like religious tolerance….and religious practice.
I will argue for a respectful, non-demeaning use of the word “identity”—and I think the same must be applied to “identifying as heterosexual”—to be consistent with my rational (although I think there are much stronger arguments for a biological model here).
I cannot speak for haters, whether obvious (fa**ot) or subtle (SSA, body language of sneer and disgust).
This website is sacred…because people from previously alienated positions are seeking understanding and reconciliation.
Timothy’s labels attack what is good here.
@ Michael,
I addressed you with Timothy, not for calling people anti-gay; I was trying to address your comparison between anti-war, anti-abortion and anti-gay as being neutral descriptors of a political position.
Also, the inclusion of your phrase “irrational fear of…” does not generalize to other “anti” positions.
I am also concerned with dependence on Wikipedia for definitions…but that is another argument for another day.
When I’ve played a record album that repeats because the needle is stuck in a groove, the remedy is to lift the needle out of the groove and move on. I wonder if that would work here.
David has stated his point…that he feels the term ‘anti-gay’ is charged and that it can be used to shut down those who disagree. He was referring to conversations here, on this blog, and even cited that he doesn’t believe that any of the regular bloggers here are ‘anti-gay’.
Ann gave demonstration to what David was saying. She was branded as ‘anti-gay’, felt shut down and minimized…and all because she held to a different point of view. Instead of rationally discussing the difference in point of view, people branded her as ‘anti-gay’ as a way of dismissing her. After Michael met Ann when she attended a memorial gathering, Michael realized that Ann was not ‘anti-gay’.
It does not matter to David’s point that Michael never called her ‘anti-gay’. That is to Michael’s credit, however, the point was that some use the term in an attempt to control, shut down or sway our conversations. Some used the term ‘anti-gay’ in reference to Ann and they were wrong to do so.
Ann had the unique opportunity to prove that she was not ‘anti-gay’ but Ann went to that memorial out of her own heart and desire…the same heart and desire she had when she was branded ‘anti-gay’. Some used the term ‘anti-gay’ in reference to Ann and they were wrong to do so.
The repeat was intentional. Although that statement is specific to Ann, it goes directly to David’s point. ‘Anti-gay’, when used as a conversation controlling, discussion quenching brand is inappropriate and offensive. And, as he cited in his latest post…it’s personal. When used on this blogsite and directed at people who are in the conversation, it’s a personal slur.
I believe we can accept that people aren’t going to eliminate the term ‘anti-gay’ from their vocabularies; what we are unwilling to accept is its indiscriminate usage here as a conversation controlling tactic and an unsubstantiated personal slur directed at a commenter.
Hoping that we’re done groovin’….
If enough persons who are opposed to or dislike homosexuality on any level organize into a unit with an agenda or agendas to oppose it, that group could rightly be called anti-gay. Likewise, if enough persons who dislike the Church or religion or who reject God and those who follow Christ organize into a group with an agenda or agendas to oppose those things, they could rightly be called anti-Christian or anti-religious.
The forms the opposition within both camps — we all know some that fit this description — take are all over the map, of course. And somewhere, those who see any sex outside of traditional marriage as sin (but don’t go around carrying “God hates gays” signs or practicing Christianity as an “assault” ministry instead of as “a salt” ministry) have to fit in.
Michael, would referring to people as gay-identifying ring differently than saying they have a gay identity? The term identity has come to be associated with agendas and politics in the minds of many folks. One who identifies as gay, as defined by his or her sexual attractions or activity, is not necessarily one who also identifies with the full spectrum of gay identity politics or social causes, you are saying. True. But that person is likely to have associations that may give rise to the identity label. I think gay Christians would rather be known as having an identity in Christ.
Not all Democrats are tax-and-spend liberals and not all Republicans are greedy capitalist pigs. But there are enough with those leanings within each party to create a perception of a party identity.
The culture war has been largely a war of words and image-crafting or debunking. Clearly, words carry weight. Our heightened sensitivities these days make it hard to effectively communicate. We walk on eggs. We have need of getting past the initial layer of lazy, knee-jerk reactions to words. This happens when we seek and achieve relationship. “Love covers a multitude of sins.”
Some of the name-calling amounts to intended slurs and some is out of pure ignorance. Of course, the terms “broken, disordered, sick, etc.” would rankle gays. The truth is those terms apply to a wide swath of people within every church who are straight in their sexual orientation while otherwise living crooked lives.
David, while I do not approve of name-calling, I agree with Timothy that persons who who have “attitudes, politics, behavior, or activism that is in opposition to gay rights, equality, and dignity” could rightly and fairly be referred to as “anti-gay”.
In the same way a person who had “attitudes, politics, behavior, or activism that is in opposition to Christian rights, equality, and dignity” could rightly and fairly be called “anti-Christian”.
(Not saying that anyone here is either one of these, though I wonder sometimes…)
I think we also need to recognize that certain words, terms and phrases may be offensive to a person or group of persons — even if that is not the intent of the speaker.
For example, I find the phrases “the gay lifestyle” and “gay identity” offensive since these phrases seem to lump all gays together — as though we all shared a partcular lifestyle or identity. I also find it offensive to refer to gays as broken, disordered, sick, etc. as well as the assertion made by some folks that gays have “an agenda”.
It may not be name-calling or intended as slurs, but it sure feels like it.
Anti-gay…Timothy persists in this, because he knows the power of it.
Let him persist.
Anti-gay is about a person…not a set of political goals.
Anti-abortion is about a procedure….(although some make it about being anti-woman, when they are trying to accomplish the same visceral response as Timothy).
Pro-gay is about a person…not a set of political goals.
To conflate tolerance with being aligned with specific political goals with being Pro-gay politically is a gross simplification.
It is a simplification that is tried and true…call a name.
But that appears to be the method Timothy wishes to use.
It would be like saying Timothy is anti-traditional marriage….or that Timothy is trying to destroy our culture….
Timothy has a set of ideas, rooted in logic, science and human rights advocating for a particular agenda for GLBT people…
He is not anti-Christian, anti-marriage and so on…
Timothy, the very weapon you have worked so hard to take out of your enemy’s hand, you readily wield.
It is beyond disheartening.
David, you mentioned that some people disapprove of homosexuality for “rational, deductive, logical reasons”. I am not sure what you mean. Could you give some examples of such reasons?
David, I am not calling you anti-gay.
Timothy–
When you use it here–in these discussions–and fail to make it clear that you are not referring to us just because we happen to disagree with you–I will challenge your usage.
And I will keep your logic in mind in all future discussions regarding ‘the confusing terminology’ employed by ex-gays.
Only time will tell if your choice today was a wise one. Let’s consider the request asked and answered (although with a ‘no’) and move on.
Eddy,
It would be foolish and counter-productive to communication to simply pretend that there are no attitudes, politics, behavior, or activism that is in opposition to gay rights, equality, and dignity.
So, until another word comes along that as accurately describes such attitudes, politics, behavior and activism, I’ll continue to use the very clear and concise phrase “anti-gay” to describe such activist, politics, behavior and activism. And I will also, upon occasion, use the term to describe people who are consistent and dedicated in their efforts to oppose gay rights, equality, and dignity (e.g. “Paul Cameron is an anti-gay activist”).
The term is neither a slur nor offensive and I view efforts to ban it as a way to control the debate by forbidding an accurate description of attitudes, politics, behavior and activism that are in opposition to gay rights, equality, and dignity. Rather than arguing the merits of the the attitudes, politics, behavior and activism, such attempts are meant to distract and change the debate and divert it instead to a discussion over hurt feelings.
I will, however, remain open to other words or phrases that are equally concise, clear and descriptive.
Nope!
My suggestion is just like your suggestion with the ‘misleading word’ change. Avoid using the misleading word and simply say what you mean. (This would go along with David’s suggestion as well…that you give examples of what it is that you deem to be ‘anti-gay’ rather than just declare ‘it’s anti-gay’. Then, like those Exodus spokesmen, we’ll know what you’re talking about.)
Eddy,
Since you are offended, perhaps you can provide an alternate word.
There you go again, Timothy. This was in your response to ME…I’m here…I’m the one who responded to the term ‘anti-gay’…I’m the one who referred to people like me or who were like-minded…so WHERE do you get off with the suggestion ‘they just don’t want them to have any rights.’ (We’ve discussed my position on rights before…it turns out I’m for most of them.) This is the kind of dialogue we’re talking about. You pretend to be talking to us…the folks who are chatting with you here on the blog…but then you keep on pulling in this CRAP from the outside…
Your reasoning for the continued use of ‘anti-gay’ doesn’t fly. You see, if you applied your very same logic to the word ‘change’, Exodus wouldn’t have to dance for you. You see, people in the Christian community (their primary audience) have a general understanding of the word ‘change’ along with the ongoing processes of healing and sanctification. But the word confused you…it offended you…and although, it wasn’t untrue, Exodus reckoned with how it could be misleading to some…especially when you considered some of the rhetoric that went with it. I firmly believe that the same conditions apply to the term ‘anti-gay’…that although you can support its definition and usage, it has a strong potential for being misinterpreted especially when you consider some of the rhetoric that goes with it. We have demonstrated the problem…we have shown how it offends us…are you going to ascribe any value or credibility to our protest or are we still playing in a unfair game where every call is in your favor?
But how would you refer to a person who displayed a definite pattern of irrational hatred, fear or prejudice against a particular group because of their percieved differences?
I would call that bigotry.
But being anti-gay is not necessarily an indication of bigotry. As David said, there are some people who are anti-gay for health related reasons, perceived differences with biological design, or other “rational, deductive, logical reasons”.
And if they apply the same standards to other groups and use the same measurements and if such measurements are not arbitrary and simply designed to be a cover, then indeed they may not be bigoted.
We know that people can have objections to other groups (race, religion, culture, whatever) based on rational, deductive, logical reasons which are not bigoted but are still anti-that-group. So too can folks have objections to homosexuals that are based on rational, deductive, logical reasons which are not bigoted but are still anti-gay.
That deserved to be repeated.
Absolutely. Forgive me if I suggested otherwise.
I think perhaps my establishing a definition of “anti-gay” has led some to believe that I am slurring them. I don’t think that I’ve accused you of being anti-gay, Mary, though I may have suggested that some position or argument is anti-gay. If I have called you anti-gay, then I apologize.
And I welcome any support you give.
Eddy,
I don’t think that many people in the gay community make such a distinction. When you hear the term “anti-gay” within the community, it certainly can include opposition to gay persons, but it more often means policy, activism, freedoms, rights, etc.
I do know that some folks object to being called anti-gay because they feel that they love gay individuals (they just don’t want them to have any rights). Gay folk tend to measure whether one is anti-gay not on statements of love, but on support or opposition to quests for freedom, equality, and dignity.
So if there is confusion about “genuine love and sincere compassion”, perhaps it would be useful for those on “your side” to recognize that the word “anti-gay” is the antonym to “pro-gay”.
David,
Nope. One is anti-gay if they are (big surprise here) opposed to “gay” (gay rights, gay community, gay whatever).
Again, nope.
Just like the term Pro-gay, the term Anti-gay is descriptive. That you find it a slur is interesting but of no relevance whatsoever.
I think perhaps that it is actually the meaning of the word that some folks don’t like. I think perhaps they would prefer that there be no words whatsoever that describe the attitudes, behavior, politics, activism, and efforts of folks who work against gay rights. As long as we can’t talk about such attitudes, then they don’t have to think about what having such attitudes might mean.
David,
I really appreciate you saying this – I personally cannot call it a sin because I think that is up to God, not me.
Also, I think the very valid reasons you cited for any kind of disagreement can also be credible for the person wanting to live in congruence with their values, which might not necessarily include religion.
@ Michael and Timothy,
This characteristic does not represent anyone at this site…and that is the point.
Name-calling is a way to marginalize, humiliate and truncate the conversation…it is an act of narcissism that seeks to attack those you disagree with a word that is near or next to the word bigot.
Regarding your comparisons:
An irrational fear of war?
An irrational fear of abortion?
An irrational fear of Mormons?
Your list is incomplete:
Some people disagree with it for health related reasons, some people disagree with it because it is against biological design and many other rational, deductive, logical reasons (non-religious or personal).
Being open-minded and tolerant does not have to included being empty-headed, gullible or irrational…
Being open-minded means entertaining all the facts, arranged in a hierarchy of importance, despite social and cultural or religious pressures.
This whole topic is infuriating given how hard people have argued for open-minded, thoughtful and fact based discussion.
Anti-gay…sheesh.
Call me a Papist, ni**er lover, or anything you want, you discredit yourselves with this name-calling.
Eddy,
Yes, you are so right. This reminds me of what Dr. Throckmorton suggested a couple of years back – pretend you are in the same room with the person before you make a comment to them. I often wonder what could be accomplished in the discussions here if we did this and got to know each other’s humanity.
Thanks Michael 🙂
p.s. – Over the last several days I am just realizing how important the term “sexual arousal patterns” is regarding this subject.
So many of us, though, never meet…yet we still need to get to know each other’s humanity. It’s difficult, I know…yet another challenge of the blog world.
This might be a very good statement for Exodus to put on their literature, web site, etc. and for their speakers to refer to during conferences. It is positive, genuine, and has integrity. It also would open up the possibility for more people to experience success rather than struggle. Real hope happens when it is begun from the premise of truth. While that truth can vary from one person to another, it can only be built upon rather than taken away.
Ann, you are right. I do not, and have not ever. thought of you as anti-gay. I think there is a big difference between disapproving of gay sex or the “gay lifestyle” on personal or religious grounds, and disapproving of gay people.
That’s the key, I think. Once we meet each other and get to know each other’s humanity, it is harder to be “anti”. 🙂
Ann–
Very well said. There is real-meaning to ‘anti-gay’ and, when the situation (or the individual) calls for it, then, by all means, use the word…call a spade a spade. But to use the term ‘anti-gay’ in a discussion where a person just happens to disagree with our POV on a situation or two, it does become a conversation-closer. In dialogues where we are constantly challenged to speak clearly and to mind how our words might be misunderstood, we need to reckognize that many people hear ‘anti-gay’ as ‘against the gay person‘…the term comes loaded that way. While it may not mean much to those ‘on the other side’, many of us on this side KNOW that although we believe that homosexual behavior is sin, we have genuine love and sincere compassion for gay people. We find the term both offensive and misleading when directed at us and we find that it frustrates productive dialogue.
Lord knows I cannot impact how someone speaks when ‘I’m not in the room’ but, whenever I’m a part of the conversation, and someone uses the term in a way that demeans myself and others who are similarly minded, I will do my best to point out their careless and disrespectful usage. I appreciate what David said:
…but most likely, I would have said ‘it can be’ in place of ‘it is’.
Michael,
If this were the case then I would refer to them as anti-gay – like a Fred Phelps. I have been called anti-gay on this blog – nowhere else – and I do not think I have ever, not one time, ever, displayed the pattern you are referring to. Perhaps I have not shown it because I do not have it inside my heart to feel this way to begin with. You have never referred to me as anti-gay because you know me. I think it is all too easy for others though to throw the term around to dominate or close down a discussion though.
I would agree that trying to “control the debate by making an overt accusation rather than arguing the merits of the case” would be a slur.
But how would you refer to a person who displayed a definite pattern of irrational hatred, fear or prejudice against a particular group because of their percieved differences? A person whose policies, views, or actions harm or discriminate against another group — for example, Jews?
“Anti” seems to be the appropriate prefix.
David, does this just pertain to gays? Would anti-Christian be a slur as well? Would anti-abortion? Anti-war?
I know some folks who are definitely “anti-Semitic” or “anti-Mormon” or “anti-black”. Not a slur. It’s a fact.
To identify is to recognize your commonality with others based on an interest, condition or behavior.
If you peruse a newspaper or periodical and find yourself drawn to articles or stories that speak of a certain group, chances are you identify.
If a particular group has been the target of public scorn or public praise and you find yourself feeling the scorn or the love, chances are you identify.
If you find yourself using the words ‘we’ , ‘us’ or ‘my people’ when referring to a particular group, chances are you identify.
The link between identifying (as exampled above) and having an identity is in the degree of commonality or identification that an individual experiences. Because it’s individual, some people who are part of a subgroup may have an identity related to that group while others don’t.
Michael,
Conservatives get a bad name because of few are very vocal. When I told my boyfriend about my beliefs he was taken aback. Then he asked the questions about what my thoughts were on evolution etc… I think there is probably a wider spectrum of beliefs within the conservative christian group than one first thinks.
@ Timothy,
If one disagrees with Timothy…they are anti-gay.
This reminds me of that comedian, “You may be a redneck…”
Anti-gay is a slur; plain and simple. It is a way to control the debate by making an overt accusation rather than arguing the merits of the case…it is meant to coerce, rather than persuade.
Such tactics are common on all sides and are beneath the goals this site to thoughtfully engage and to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Hear, Hear! Timothy, like you, I agree that it is animus, not faith. Like you, I do not believe that all “conservative Christians” are “anti-gay”.
But a large number of gay people are convinced that they are. The very mention of “conservative Christian” is apt to evoke a negative gut response for many gay people — and I don’t think it’s because they are hostlie to the Gospel.
How did conservative Christians get this reputation? What do you think causes that gut reaction? How can it be undone?
Timothy, Can’t we have differences and still support eachother. I support my Jewish and Muslims friends, too.
Thanks, David. Now I think I get what you mean.
Still, I don’t quite understand what people mean here by “gay identity” — although it seems really important that they not have one. I don’t know if I have one. Yes, I “identify” (recognize, accept) that I have only gay attractions,but I don’t think of “gay” as who I am.
So, what’s a “gay identity”? Does belieiving that it is not always sinful make it my “identity”? And for ex-gays, does believing that it is always sin mean that it is no longer one’s “identity” — even though the SSA may remain unchanged?
I have a feeling that what others used to think of as their “gay identity” is different than what I think of. What’s the social construct part? Wouldn’t it be more acccurate to refer to “gay identities” since each individual person with SSA might “identify” differently?
Could someone explain?
Here’s hoping that some day the wall between those two boxes comes down and your personal empathy will overpower your ideological objections and you will find yourself able to support your neighbor and feel righteous in doing so.
Debbie,
Anti-gay is not a synonym for evangelical. It is a descriptive term used for folk – religious or otherwise – that are ideologically opposed to “gay rights” (i.e. treating gay people and gay couples under law exactly the same as heterosexual people or heterosexual couples), especially those who are activists in their cause. It is an indication of animus, not of faith.
As such, someone who thinks that the word “marriage” should be reserved for male-famale coupling may well not be “anti-gay”, while the person who lobbies to deny gay people the right to teach in public school most definitely would be. Most folks out there – including evangelicals – are somewhere in between.
It’s like the word “pro-gay”. It may be a bit fuzzy to define but I think we all intuitively know what it means.
As for evangelicals being considered anti-gay… well, many are. Others are not so much.
And looking at voting patterns, comments on websites, and lies told in campaigns, evangelicals have no patent on that attribute. Often times those who are the biggest bigots are those who have no religion at all and some of the most religious of non-evangelicals (the Pope, the leaders of the Mormon Church) are the strongest in their efforts to deny basic – even minor – civil rights or protections (the Mormon Church opposes ANY rights, even things like hospital visitation, an idea that most evangelicals whould be comfortable with).
And polls show that conservative Republican evangelical Christians are far less anti-gay than just a decade ago. Polls show that majorities support lifting the ban in the military and providing non-discrimination in employment and housing.
I guess if one wants to know if they are anti-gay, they only have to observe their own instints. If the first response to “gay activists are trying to pass a law” is to oppose it no matter what it is without even considering the case, then one is anti-gay. If one automatically assumes that every negative thing one hears about gays just must be the truth, one is anti-gay. If one imagines a nefarious agenda or dishonest intentions or a lack of faith or decency because someone is gay, then one is anti-gay.
But I guess that is up to each of us to consider.
@ Michael,
Christians have been devalued for centuries as well…based upon a “social construct” model (social construct is the new word; the old word would have used heresy or superstition).
Crucified, tormented, killed, socially ostracized, ridiculed, mocked…I do not need to be gay in order to comment accurately on man’s inhumanity to man…being gay is not “that special.”
That is why I say we all have our Trail of Tears.
Christianity is a social construct…Being a Latter Day Saint is a social construct….being polyamorous is a social construct…as is gay identification …as is post-gay identification….calling it that isn’t anti-anything…it just is.
Cruelty is universal; claiming uniqueness only alienates you from those who could love you well…
It just occurred to me that the 14th chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans might provide some guidance on how Christians can disagree. Wish I could get the hang of it. 🙂
Debbie and Mary:
I gave it more thought. When it comes to my faith, I I think I am probably more “orthodox” than “conservative” — since “conservative”, for me, seems to imply a set of what some might call “right-wing” political or social beliefs, positions that may (or may not) be Biblical at all. By “orthodox, I mean holding to the traditonal views on God, Jesus, salvation, etc. expressed in the great Creeds.
Of course, some would consider my beliefs on homosexuality to be un-orthodox — and they certainly are — and therefore, they might doubt the “orthodoxy” of the rest of my faith. That is understandable, since some consider the gay issue to be a salvation issue. They do not believe I can be “really saved” if I do not believe as they do.
So, how can we relate to each other with these different views? With love, respect, courtesy, compassion, patience — all of which I lack to some degree. Sacrasm and snarkiness often intrude into my comments. Give me some time. I am working on it. Or should I say, the Holy Spirit is? 🙂
An exercise in juxtaposition:
Some believe that I have my faith in works rather that grace, that I believe in a rigid and twisted interpretation of the Bible and that I’m leading people to Hell by coaching them in false expectations.
But I’m not sending out invites to a pity party. They believe differently than I do and neither their belief or mine has been conclusively proven right or wrong. How shall we then converse?
Thanks, Debbie. Many would disagree with you — and many have claimed that I do not trust God, do not believe the Bible and cannot really be saved if I believe the way I do on the gay issue.
Mary, I guess by “conservative”, I would say that I hold to all of the major, ancient doctrines of the Christians faith, as expressed in the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds. I do not see the “gay issue” as one of the major foundations or creeds of Christianity. I am politically and socially liberal — but theologically conservative — more “Baptist” than “Presbyterian” in my views on the Bible, God, Jesus, salvation, etc..
I am pretty much in agreement with you. I do not see anything in the Creeds that rule out evotutionary processes as some of the tools God employs to create — and re-create — His universe. I think evolution is God’s paintbrush — but that evolution does not exaplin everything. I also don’t believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old — a day could be a thousand years or more in God’s eyes. Adam and Eve? Not sure. Could go either way on that. I don’t think it’s important HOW God created us, but THAT He created us…
Without question.
To some extent, in my humble opinion, in addition to the above.
Yep.
I don’t consider myself anti-gay, though I do believe gay sex is either fornication or adultery — at the very least, outside the will of God. I have empathy toward those who are in committed married-like relationships or who wish to marry. Their personal plight I put in a separate category “box” from the one I put the gay marriage issue — both socially and spiritually — in. And that is hard for many gays to understand.
And Michael, you have shared enough of your Christian beliefs here to make me comfortable with your saying you are “conservative” in your faith/theology, the gay thing notwithstanding.
I’m asking Micheal to define what a conservative christian is to him. That’s all. I’m not going to interrogate. Just curious.
I would consider myself conservative and yet I do not hold to many of the “beliefs” that are usually considered conservative. IE: I believe in evolution, that the planet is more than 6k years old, that Adam and Eve are a metaphor.
Mary – Michael can answer if he wants to but this has to potential of going down the road, what makes you think you are straight or gay?
Whatever answers comes, I am not going to be patient with questioning or disputing the answers.
Michael,
What exactly about you defines you as a conservative christian?
Debbie, Who besmirched it? Do you think that conservative Christians are responsible for at least part of the negative atttitude many gays have against them? Or are they innocent victims of irrational anti-Christian bias?
“Conservative Christian” have been anti-gay” for so long that gays have a “gut instinct” towards them. It has been earned. That may not be fair. But it is there. Conservative Christians have a lot of damage to un-do, wouldn’t you agree?
Yes, I know that you can be anti-gay-sex (believeing that behavior is “sin”) without being “anti-gay”. And I also know that not all “conservative Christians” are “anti-gay”. Heck, apart from the gay issue, in theology and practice, I am a conservative Christian… 🙂
What I pick up sometmes (here and elsewhere) is the implied question, “Gee, why are gays so TOUCHY when people say negative things about them — their sexuality, identity or lifestyle?”
To me, that’s kinda like guards at a concentration camp asking each other, “Gee, have you ever noticed how skinny and sad Jews are?
Why are you surpirsed, David? Have you ever been gay? Gays have been “devalued” for centuries. Why would you be surprised when we get the feeling that some people are trying to explain gay away — as though it does not exist, by referring to it as social contruct?
I think, unfortunately, I resemble that remark. Something, obviously, hit a nerve with me in your exchange with Timothy, Carole. Perhaps it was my gut instinct to defend the besmirched name of conservative Christianity and the tiresome anti-gay dismissal it so often receives without a fair examination. I saw an undercurrent. I didn’t recognize the pitfall soon enough to keep quiet. I almost did.
It’s difficult to avoid reading something — a little detour or an aside — within a comment you may think is talking about something else. Many topics pop up in comments here. To simply disregard those eddies is an option, of course. Trust me, I have disregarded many of them. I can’t ask someone here directly for clarification if I don’t know how to contact them, though.
I’ll take that at face value, then. Please forgive my intrusion. Let’s move on.
@Debbie,
Why would you say this? What do you hope to achieve by saying it?
I majored in English, minored in cultural anthro with an emphasis in linguistics. Thus, my interest in what you call “the minutiae of academia.” My question of Timothy was not “rhetorical” since I figured Timothy might have an explanation I’d not thought of.
If this is a “subject and an ethos” you are uninterested in, don’t read the posts that deal with the subject. Simple.
I’d much prefer it Debbie, if in the future you’ve a question or a comment about what I said and why I said it, that you’d ask me directly for clarification. If you don’t like what I said or why I said it, plain out tell me, for sure, but leave the sarcasm aside. It’s a cowardly verbal device nor does it offer any hope of advancing communication.
= religious
Since I’m back briefly, I may as well add that the term anti-gay is widely applied to religious folk — evangelicals, predominantly — is it not? Another reason for me to deduce as I did. Biblical concerns are what produce the most objections to homosexuality, correct?
Well, Carole, I only have a lowly bachelor’s degree — in English, at that — but it sure sounded to me as if you were begging the reader to draw an analogy between the anti-gay uneducated and the anti-gay educated, both of whom, then, one would logically presume you were placing mainly in the category of the religiously inclined. This I deduced from your use of the term parochial, first, and your nod to Timothy’s feelings about the Religions Right later.
Alas, I am just reading words arranged in sequences meant to convey an intent. That I found more in them than you realized was there is not an unusual occurrence. Maybe Warren would call it a variation on confirmation bias? Interestingly, it could have tripped us both up.
It also seemed as if it were mainly a rhetorical exercise, with no need of clarification from Timothy, thus begging the question of why it was even brought up in the first place. Thanks for clarifying your intent.
But I will chalk it up to your interest in the minutiae of academia, a subject and an ethos (culture) I am decidedly uninterested in.
@ Timothy,
I think you borrow more pain than it there.
David,
I think I’m qualified to determine the intent of the people with whom I was conversing. Or certainly more qualified than a third person who is just making statements of defense without knowing any of the circumstances.
@ Anyone,
“Just a social construct.” and SSA.
“Just a social construct.” and Transcendent Feelings of the Divine.
Devaluing others by seeing the world and our sensations this way is not the intent…I am surprised so many people (Timothy?) make that assertion.
Sensation + Experience + Logic + Social Demands = Religious Practice.
Sensation + Experience + Logic + Social Demands = Gay Identity.
@Timothy,
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, the liberal groups do jump through intellectual hoops and trip and fall, don’t they?
And, the others….
Got it.
I think that if they’d use that term at all, most have had some semblance of higher education.
Yes, true.
@Eddy,
You got it. That was it, Eddy.
As for pop? I hear ya. I still ask guests if they’d like a coke as growing up it seems my group of friends called any soft drink “coke.” Not until much later , when guests would say, “I don’t really care for Coke. Do you have a Pepsi?” did I get it through my head they thought I meant Coca-Cola specifically.
I have tried to break the habit, but old habits die hard. When I catch myself, “I’ll add, “I have 7-Up or root beer or orange.” I just never have been able to instinctively say soda.
@ Debbie, you said,
Oi Vey, no, I am not. My interest in language is pertinent, do you see? The written word is very weak as it is not accompanied by gestures, body language, intonation pattern, nuance, ability to receive immediate feedback to provide clarity.
Once again, I’ll try–I knew that the college profs I referred to were not the ones whom Timothy said used the term “social construct” as an “anti-gay” descriptor, and I know that that term is likely not to be used by some groups. I can go grab fifty people off the street of most towns and ask them if they have ever used that term and most would say “No.”
Thus, I wondered if he was implying that the educated religious right used that term. Why did I wonder that? Because I know that Timothy knows as well as I who is most likely to use the term–those who’ve spent time in academia. The term is one found in social science and some feminist lit classes and as such is one not likely to be used by one who hasn’t spent some years in an environment in which there ARE such classes.
I come from a blue collar background, Debbie, as probably most people my age do, and the term “working class” is not a negative to me. I have taught my fair share of those kids and know their families well. To say they have a different lexicon than than those with education beyond high school is a truism and is no different than saying those who speak Spanish every day have a different vocabulary than those who speak English every day.
Seems as if “both sides” always have antennae up, presuming they see attacks from east, west, north, south.
For good measure, I looked back at my post and wondered, Debbie, what word or sentence set you off? Is it parochial? If that is so, then once again the failures of the written word become evident because where I’m from, the word parochial is often used in its specific sense–“limited to a group, frequently a religious group.” We call schools run by churches, whether they are elementary, secondary, or university level, “parochial”.
I wanted to know if those people educated at such schools of higher learning were the ones Timothy felt were “anti-gay. Did he mean it was they who equated homosexuality with a “social construct”?
As for “‘anti-gay’ virulent language” ? Let’s be real. A man working on a constuction site is much more likely in the course of his daily conversation with co-workers to use the “f” word than those working in professional settings. Does that mean the “professional” is less likely to harbor bigotry? Who knows? One could argue “yes” or “no,” but that’s an irrelevant point here. What’s obvious is that the carpenter on his work site feels “safer” using that language than does the teacher, the software designer. The professional might harbor anti-this and that feelings but feel unsafe in uttering them.
The same would be true of the difference in their language usage were the subject to be females.
Really – I bet left to our own devices, no religion, no social mores, no greed for money or power and we would all just be getting it on with whomever. I know that’s hard to imagine for some of you “totally” straight people out there but really we are just animals seeking pleasure whether is is food, shelter, or some other comfort.
Timothy,
Yes, I would call those people anti-gay. But just because someone sees homosexuality (or heterosexuality as I do) as a social construct does not mean they are anti-gay or anti-heterosexual.
Society has devised alot of customs, rituals, etc… around sexual acts – as such – social constructs. I really find it kind of funny. I find th enotion of marriage licenses kind of funny. The marriage laws are kind of funny. Does not mean I am anti-marriage.
Mary,
No. Those who do not partake in hiphip culture are not by definition anti-hiphop. Just as those who do are not gay are not by definition anti-gay.
But some people are active in their opposition to hiphop and they are legitimately considered anti-hiphop. Some folks are anti-religion because they oppose religion and its expression. And there are those who are active in their opposition to gay rights/culture/etc. who are correctly identified as anti-gay.
Interestingly, anti-religious folk and anti-hiphop folk do not become indignant at the identifier.
Funny thing is that we may consider many things a social construct without being called ant- whatever.
For example, church goers is a social construct. It does not mean they are anti – non religious people. Hip Hop media, fashion, culture is a social construct but if you do not partake you are not considered anti hiphop.
WASP is a social construct. But if you are not does that mean you are snti- WASP.
Social construct is an academic term – that’s all.
Carole,
I’ve seen the term in two separate contexts:
I’ve seen liberal pro-gay folk use the concept of social construct in the way you’ve referenced – as a dismissal of social norms or physical distinctions in gender, orientation, and a whole host of things. I tend to find these to be examples of cerebral masturbation with little practical application.
I’ve also seen the term adopted by those who are anti-gay in perspective and who seek to use ‘social construct’ as a dismissive term. They tend to be of the “there’s no such thing as homosexuality” bent and say things like, “homosexuality didn’t even exist 100 years ago.”
It is my opinion that they tend to misunderstand the concept and conflate homosexuality as a culture (i.e. community, shared identity, presumptions about behavior, thought, politics, and even music) with homosexuality as a descriptive about same-sex attractions.
They seem to see that the culture is to a great extent socially constructed and take that to mean that prior to the CURRENT iteration of gay culture, same-sex attracted individuals would not have seen themselves as being uniquely that, an assumption does not, as best I read, have historical support. It appears to me that there have always been people who readily recognized in themselves the distinction of their attractions and saw them as other than just “acts” – regardless of social definitions or expectations.
As to whether the anti-gay users of the term are well educated, I would assume that they do have some educational background. Familiarity with the concept would suggest that. However, I might question whether they are very strongly grounded in secular education.
In other words, I’ve no idea if they are parochially educated and would hesitate to guess. But I doubt that they are philosophy professors at Harvard.
Carole–
For what it’s worth, I understood your question and the reasoning behind it. I thought you were just trying to get a better sense from Timothy who ‘these people’ were and the use of ‘social construct’ seemed to narrow the possibilities. But I’m a word and language person myself…noticing nuances, one word chosen over another, words being subtly interchanged, regional and culturally specific usage. (I lived in Minnesota so long, that I still call soft drinks ‘pop’ instead of ‘soda’. It gives my family members visible pause.)
Perhaps not, Carole, but it may be a tad esoteric. If the “Christian Right” you mentioned, with a throwback to Timothy, is where you may perceive much of that “virulently” anti-gay rhetoric to emanate from, then you are implying, it seems, inferior education (or breeding?) among that set (“working class Janes or Joes”). Are you not? I don’t call that neutral ground. I could call it uninformed or even uneducated. Or impressionable to suggestion from uninformed or uneducated sources. Not all Christians are educated in “parochial” institutions of higher learning, conservative or otherwise, by the way.
Please correct me if my inference is wrong.
LOL. I just corrected a typo I ought to have let pass: “institutions of higher leaning.”
I guess a side discussion on language is not off-base, given the great divide over what the word “change” means.
Carole,
Yes, I agree.
Debbie and Ann,
I don’t want to miscommunicate with anyone so to clarify I will offer that my interest in what Timothy said is a linguistic one since language and its relationship to culture and cultural groups occupied much of my time during my studies in college.
The conversation several days/posts ago turned to the term “social construct.” I chimed in and explained that that term is now used by some profs in certain departments in colleges across the country when it comes to the topics of gender, sex, and orientation, etc.
Such profs scoff at the distinctions made between male and female. I didn’t point out, but assumed many knew, that these profs tend to be found primarily on what can be termed “liberal” college campuses. I did point out that their ideas have found a following in niches in the soft sciences like sociology; I didn’t point out that their ideas have found some application in places like Sweden where there is a movement among some to push to remove distinctions between male and female when naming children, to promote unisex clothes in schools, and even to promote the idea of boys wearing girls’ clothes to school. (Can’t quite recall, but I think it’s also a Scandinavian country in which a man is trying to get shots that will cause him to lactate so that he can nurse his infant child.)
These ideas are based on the position of some that gender, sex, etc. is only a “social construct”, that male and female, girls and boys, men and women are cultural terms and that biological distinctions between them are unimportant, a goofy idea in the eyes of most reasonable people, I would argue, yet like many goofy ideas, gaining favor among some.
We are not talking about people who merely stress that social roles are culturally learned (of course, in large part they are–no one has a problem with that) but about people who deny that male/female has meaning or that our biology determines much of who we are and who we become as we grow.
Thus, to what I originally posted, Timothy responded,
My comment/ question back to him was
The reason I asked him to clarify was that I can’t imagine a working class Joe or Jane using the term “social construct.” My language background tells me that people who’ve not attended places of higher learning would not have chosen to utter a phrase such as “social construct” anymore than they’d chose to use the word efficacious in place of the word effective.
Thus, I was interested in a clarification because of my interest in language. In my experience, the anti-gay slurs, words and phrases we all know, from people who are indeed virulently “anti-gay” (as their choice of those words and phrases indicate) would not include the term “social construct.” The working-class Joe who might be anti-gay and who might not believe there’s am iota of a biological root to homosexuality would say something like, “Ahh, they choose to be that way!” They’d not say, “Oh, homosexuality is a social construct which gays choose to follow.”
The term is likely to be used by those with higher educations or at least by those who do a lot of reading. So, trusting in my knowledge of language usage that this term is not used by members of the working class and aware that Timothy has made clear his difference of opinion with what might be called the Christian right, I wondered if he had heard the term “social construct” used by educated people, but those educated in religion-based schools. Thus, my
Simply put–I just wanted a clarification of whom he had heard use that term since those profs I mentioned could hardly be called “anti-gay.” It’s interesting from a language perspective.
Debbie said,
My ground is neither high nor low, as far as I can tell, Debbie.
Michael,
I’m not using social construct in a negative way. It truly is a sociological term. In it’s strictist definition alot of social things are social constructs. I am not saying your feelings are social constructs.
In the interest of seeking higher ground, you’ll be happy to know I withdrew a comment I was tempted to make.
Carole,
I see that the term anti-gay has again been used to discredit what someone has said.
Mary said:
Very different from my view. My emotional and sexual attractions to the same sex were certainly not “made up” or “conditioned”. They were there — very early on — in spite of all the cultural conditioning that I should not have them or accept them.
Timothy said,
Wow, interesting. These people who use that phrase…are they, do you think, college educated or do they consider themselves “well-read” ? The reason I ask is that I can’t imagine a working class Joe or Jane using the term “social construct.”
Are they those who have attended parochial places of higher learning ?
I see a lot in terms of social construct because of the variety that exists among groups. In my view, it’s pretty much all made up. People can be conditioned to accept just about anything. And there will always be those who don’t follow the majority or have a proclivity or more so interest in the “pop” culture than do others.
In my view (quite different from the biblical view) is that the family is pretty much just a financial and political social construct. Thus it becomes a self serving prophecy to continue it’s structure for the psychology of children etc…etc…
Mary,
You have a different reading of history than I do.
Yes, “society” has had different perceptions of “behaviors”, but from all that I can tell there have always been persons who recognized within themselves their same-sex attractions and who have sought the like-minded – or for as long as there have been cities. Law may have focused on “acts”, but people appeared to have distinguished by actors.
Of course, there are those who see everything in terms of social construct and any unique identifiers will be dismissed as arbitrary. One can claim that the distinction between a tiger and a tabby cat is a social construct, but I’m still not bringing a tiger into my home.
Timothy,
When you look at different cultures in today’s world and even through out history – even though you see heterosexual and homosexual behaviors you see them percieved differently. That’s why they are called social constructs. It’s not to deny someone something, it’s just to say that another group does not follow that social contruct for themselves.
David B,
Yeah, I’d like to see de-politicizing of the whole thing. And the APA did not say that it knows where or how SSA or OSA develops. I’ll give it that much credit.
carole,
Periodically I hear anti-gay folk explain that homosexuality is just a “social construct.”
I always picture them telling some same-sex attracted kid, “There’s no such thing as ‘a homosexual’. Yes, I know you are attracted to boys and your brother to girls, but that is just a social construct and really there’s no distinction between you whatsoever; it’s just social conditioning that suggests that this difference is real or relevant to your life.”
Yep, that’s going to work.
@ Michael,
The APA has spent a lot of time, money and theoretical energy on a purely biological model for SSA.
The result is only minimally verifying…
There may not be a “change in the APA position; but the justification for endorsing SSA due to biological determinants is beyond weak…
Just as much for basing it on a Father-son deficit.
SSA is quite a puzzle, and I would settle for the APA de-politicizing the argument and admitting as much…
That is change I could believe in…very little faith required.
If the ex-gay crowd can come up with some convincing scientfic evidence of sexual orientation change, I hope the APA will indeed change its position — and I will certainly change mine — as well we should. But not without evidence. You expect us to just take it on faith? Why should we?
Michael,
Just like at one time gays went against “common” opinion. As an ex gay, in time there will another change to the APA position.
Mary, this is completely NOT TRUE about what I believe. I agree that SSA people can and DO change many things. Please stop saying that I “don’t believe in change”. That is a serious mis-representation of my position.
Of course, gays change many things. They may experience a lessening or almost complete diminishing of their SSA. Some may develop some OSA. Some become celibate. Some only masturbate — but the thoughts are still same sex. Some develop feeelings for their spouse and are happily married.
Gays change their identities, their behaviors, their beliefs. Every day. Every Day. All people change! I have just not seen convincing evidence that SOCE changes men from homosexual to heterosexual.
Neither has the APA. You guys expect us guys to “take it on faith” that gay men become straight — but not even the formerly gay men here will claim that. Alan Chambers doesn’t even claim that.
Why does it upset you so when I say that I don’t believe that gay men become straight? If I had met a few such guys in the past 30 years — or even one such guy — I would change my tune.
But for now, like the APA task force, the “evidence is not convincing” that SOCE turns gay men into straight men. Not saying it cannot happen. Just saying I have not seen any evidence of it. Yet.
Nick C,
Ah, I see what you meant now. Thus, were I to speak to a group of smokers about my life as a non-smoker, my “identity, ” at least as long as I was speaking to them, would be that of “Carole, ex-smoker or non-smoker.” Or were I to mentor a group of teacher candidates, I’d be “Carole, veteran teacher.”
For clarity’s sake, however, are you suggesting that he maintains that he has experienced change and is happy only so that he can have a public identity?
@Eddy
No, I don’t mind at all. Having read your response, I am reminded there are two sides to every story.
The endless wrangling over how much or how little change an individual has undergone, what kind of change, etc., I have come to understand, is debilitating, debilitating and unproductive to all “sides” really. I am sorry there are “sides.”
Or how about – he doesn’t agree with change therefore any definition will not suffice. Nothing about change is good enough for MIchael.
Carole–
I hope you won’t mind this aside to you. I know I said I was moving on from this conversation but I think I can take a cue from Michael and, rather than attempt to converse with the whole blog, perhaps I can find productive conversation by directing my comments to you.
As you likely remember, I was involved with Exodus for years after Michael left. Bob Davies (cited by Michael in his last post) and I were friends…even now that we’ve both moved on beyond our Exodus involvement…we stay in touch via Facebook. I don’t have an insider’s view into his motives, though. When someone ‘falls silent’…all we really know is that they ‘fell silent’. Michael seems to think that he ‘fell silent’ because Michael exposed a glaring inconsistency; I tend to think he ‘fell silent’ for another reason.
Picture the scenario if you will. An individual who was once a part of your organization experiences a change in belief and moves on…now believing something that is pretty much the opposite of what you stand for…and occasionally speaks out privately and publicly advancing his new beliefs and denigrating the efforts of his former organization (the organization you represent).
Now, envision receiving a phone call from this person offering words of wisdom and correction…imagine that they are on the other end of the line going on about how they take exception with your new literature and have a few questions and criticisms. Imagine further, that this nameless ‘they’ isn’t nameless at all…imagine that it’s Michael…the Michael you’ve grown to know just a bit from dialogues here. (Phone calls from Michael to Exodus HQ and/or to former Exodus colleagues are ‘legendary’…let’s just say that they amounted to more than a few over the years.) Given all that, can’t you imagine several different reasons for why Bob ‘fell silent’?
1) Eyes rolling. “Oh, no, here we go again! Michael’s got a ‘burning issue’.”
2) Pushes mute button. “Who let this call through? I’ve got actual work to do.”
3) Hand over mouthpiece. “Pray for me…it’s ‘you know who’ again…get me a copy of our latest info packet.”
4) Thinking to self…”I don’t believe this. They challenge us to be real, to tell it like it is, to avoid overstatement…so we do this, we try to accommodate, we try not to speak Christianese or to speak with inflated hope…and, what do we get? Complaints like this one!”
5) Silent prayer (likely coupled with #4). “God, there are some parts of this job I just don’t like. Help me to understand why I have to spend a part of my day listening to this person and answering to them when they no longer have any interest in our mission and have defected to ‘the other side’. Please, God, I need a quick infusion of grace and strength.”
BUT, all we really know from Michael’s report to Timothy is that Bob ‘fell silent’. Michael’s got his take; I submit that these are likely possibilities as well.
I am often humbled in the presence of Michael and Timothy…if only I had the ability to read and interpret ‘silence’ as effectively…if only I were able to know and judge intent, purpose and motive based not only on what a person or organization says but also on what they don’t say.
Chuckling aloud to myself over the removal of the definitions and the inference taken by Michael from that. If I had any voice in drafting the info materials…if I’d been part of drafting the original piece, working very hard to make a realistic statement hoping to appease our critics… …and then learned of Michael’s criticism of the wording…or how he read into it …I likely would have said “there’s no pleasing them (him); leave the wording just as it is” and, ‘if not, then remove definitions altogether’.
Timothy: some years ago, Exodus used to send out an info packet that explained Exodus’s mission and services. I am sure they have something else they send out now, but this one was really interesting as it relates to this particular discussion.
The introductory letter proclaimed that folks could be free of “homosexuality” — which they defined as the “adult, ongoing emotional and erotic attraction to persons of the same sex”. I thought it was a pretty good definition.
It went on to offer freedom to “pursue heterosexuality” which they defined as — read this very carefully — “the ability to relate to the opposite sex with interest, not fear or distaste”.
Notice that the Exodus definition of homosexuality specifically included emotional and erotic attraction, but the definition of heterosexuality did not — just the “ability to relate” without “fear or distaste.” Strange.
I called Bob Davies, President of Exodus at the time, and pointed out the discrepancy. I asked him why heterosexuality did not include “attraction” to the opposite sex, but homosexuality was about “attraction”.
He fell silent — and said he had not really read the information that was being sent out but would “look into it”. He said that I had made a “good point” and that heterosexuality should also include “attraction” to the opposite sex, not just an absence of fear or distaste.
A few months later, I received a new, updated information packet. The problem has been solved. Everything remained basically the same. The packet still promised “freedom from homosexuality” and the “freedom to pursue heterosexuality” — but all definitions had been removed.
From this, I got the message: Anyone can become heterosexual by redefining the term — or by doing away with definitions altogether.
Timothy said (with a smile),
I agree, there are. When it comes to gender, sex, sexuality, male/female, heterosexual/homosexual, and on and on, there are indeed some teaching on college campuses ( in some sociology, cultural anthro and psychology departments) and writing that gender, sexuality, male/female, hetero/ homo/bi etc…are nothing but “social constructs.” I think their counterparts in the sciences want to “off them.” LOL. It’s the American way, however–come up with something new, be hip, write a book, bend minds.
The same in politics–Chavez is “cool.” Fidel too. Oh, well.
Timothy,
I don’t think that is the intention when someone seeks to define themself. It’s not to confuse the issue it is to better understand the individual experience away from the mob.
I dare say that there are people in the world out there somewhere 🙂 who would be perfectly happy if terms were muddied so completely that there was no word to distinguish between those who are exclusively same-sex attracted and those who are exclusively opposite sex attracted.
I agree with you, Timothy. A meeting of the minds seems unlikely. But no matter what you call it or how you conceptualize it, a large number of folks (like my older brother) are primarily or exclusively attracted to the opposite sex (commonly referred to as straight or heterosexual).
A smaller number (like me) are attracted primarily or exclusively to the same sex (commonly referred to as gay or homosexual.) Some are attracted to both. You don’t have do believe in “orientation” or “innateness” to notice that.
I suspect that we will never see the day when these terms are commonly understood without the “attraction” component. If we do, and attraction is not a necessary component of what we call “orientation”, then my brother is gay and I am straight — or we are both neither.
I think the problem so many here are having with defining ‘sexual orientation’ is that some here don’t really think such a thing exists.
Gay and pro-gay folk believe that persons have a sexual orientation, that such orientation is innate, and that it directs (and is determined by) the gender to which one is directed in matters of sexual, romantic, affection, and spiritual attraction.
Others, including many here, really don’t think that there is an innate part of one that determines the targets of such attractions. So they are driven to define orientation in terms of behavior, choice, mindset, intention, lifestyle, identity, community, or other non-innate type and personal decision based terms.
I’m not exactly sure that we can come to a meeting of the minds. The basic assumptions are diametrically opposed. But I do believe that the definition of ‘sexual orientation’ really ought to be determined by those who believe such a thing exists.
Nick, I have to disagree. I don’t think that “confusing and misleading” is the ONLY reason people want to use a broader definition of “orientation”. I don’t even think it is the MAIN reason. Going one step further, I don’t even think it’s MOST LIKELY motivation for broadending the definition.
I think they do it because it actually fits their experience better. The common definition of “sexually, romantically and emotionally attracted” to one gender or both is too narrow. For them, identity change trumps attraction.
With the borader definition, orientation is more a matter of how you view yourself, not which gender you are attracted to. So, you can be gay-indentified even if all your attractions are straight — and straight-identified even if all your attractions are gay.
Carole-
I think you missed my point. I was saying that by your definition–“he/she no longer has a “sense of identity” related to or based on what once was the original attractions”–I could argue Alan Chambers has not had a change in orientation even if he no longer has ANY same sex attractions. His sense of identity remains based on his original sexual attractions–ie, I’m Alan Chambers and I used to be gay!!
I’ll grant you , however, that I can’t judge at all what his real personal sense of identity is. I’m speaking here of Alan Chambers as a public figure, and the identity I see him projecting in that role.
David,
I’ve also never been a kool-aid drinker about the “harm” of the programs.
I consider reorientation a colossal waste of time and expense (and are harmful in that way) and I think that they drive many people from God (and are harmful in that way) and I do know that some participants do experience emotional harm of various sorts, but I’m not convinced that the Shidlo and Schroeder study tells much at all about the extent to which harm – such as a psychotherapist would recognize it – results from most instances or reorientation therapy.
David, how am I denegrating, minimizing, persecuting or harming the “smaller minority” of folks who have changed?
On the contrary, I have said many, many times that people have every right to live in accordance with their beliefs. I have said many, many times that I believe some have made major, profound, important, life changes that are very meaningful to them.
I have acknowledged time and time again that some have made big changes in behavior, beliefs, indentity and lifestyle. I have no doubt that some have even developed some straight attractions or that their gay attractions have diminished over time. These folks deserve my admiration and support for living in harmony with their beliefs.
I strongly admire folks who live according to their values — as long as those values don’t take away the rights of others. I may disagree with their take on the Bible — but not their right to live according to their understanding of it. Who knows? They may be right.
But most folks here seem to concur that a change in sexual orientation from gay to straight is exceedingly rare — if it happens at all. There is insufficient scientific evidence that SOCE makes people straight. That’s not “denegrating, minimizing, persecuting or harming” folks who have made identity and lifestyle changes. That’s the truth.
Yes, I do get sarcastic at times (OK, often) — but so has nearly every other commenter here from time to time when frustrations run high — including you. (Ann seems to be the rare exception — maybe we should all follow her example.)
Other commenters, just as frequently sarcastic and snarky as I am, have repeatedly taken me to task about my attitude and behavior — often using sarcasm and snarkiness to do it — while they do the same thing. It’s the old “speck and beam” problem. They see my sarcasm, and call me on it — while conveniently ignoring their own.
Tell you what. I will make a determined effort to stop my snarkiness and sarcasm — even if the other commenters here keep it up. If I can’t, I will stop commenting. Call me on it once after this, and I will leave Throckmorton’s blog for good. How’s that? Are you willing to take the “no snarkiness/no sarcasm pledge”?
Gee, Nick C, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing.
I think your first sentence contradicts your second sentence, but no matter I think, for it seems clear that you equate your own feelings and SSA with his. This is always the case with human feelings, isn’t it? We can’t grasp in our heads that another’s anger feels/is any different from our own, that another’s love might feel/be different from our own, that another’s happiness feels/is different from our own.
The difficulty may be compounded for me since I am straight and female, and I do know that the way sex/men and sex/women are very different on numerous levels.
Nonetheless, I wouldn’t feel comfortable saying that I know another how another woman feels just because I am a woman. That is, I’d at least be careful about extrapolating her feelings based on mine; I’d hope I wouldn’t conclude that what she must feel in circumstance X or Y is exactly what I did just because we both had a woman’s mind and body.
Similarly, he/she no longer has a “sense of identity” related to or based on what once was the original attractions.
By that definition, I’d still argue that ex-gays like Alan Chambers have not had any change in orientation. I have no idea what level of same-gender sexual attraction Alan may experience–he says very different things in different forums. But certainly I would say that a large part of his “sense of identity” appears to remain rooted in “what once was the original attractions.” That is, his identity still seems to be completely wrapped up in the fact of his (current or once-upon-a-time) same sex attractions.
Put it this way: how many days a week do you think Alan Chambers passes without a a single thought to the fact that “he used to be gay”?
sorry–I meant that I know ex-smokers who never crave another cigarette.
Nick,
I just read your response. Whatever it was you had in your “heterosexual” life, was not enough to make you happy enough to stay in your marriage. Sounds as if you were at times content, but not happy, certainly not happy enough to consider yourself “fulfilled.”
If what others in your situation have is indeed enough to make them happy and fulfilled perhaps we just have to chalk it up to individual difference. I know smokers who never ever crave another cigarette. Me? Every now and then the urge is powerful, intense, yet fleeting.
If those who speak of change are honest about the nature of their change, that is all one can ask of them. If they dissemble or make false claims about themselves in order to persuade others, that is wrong.
Sorry…still on my way out of this conversation….but I couldn’t overlook this tidbit.
Alan doesn’t say this…in fact, he admits he’s still tempted. I don’t say this…in fact, I fully expect to reckon with homosexual desires as long as I’m alive. But, your snide attitude conveyed in ‘those nasty, dirty homosexual desires’ troubles me most. One of the major goals of my ministry was simply to extend the complete Gospel message to a group (the homosexuals) who had often been overlooked. I didn’t see it as anymore ‘nasty and dirty’ than any other sin. Within the past two weeks, I’ve even posted further statements to that effect reminding all of us that even our ‘righteousness is as filthy rags’.
But, keep on playing your word games, Nick. The use of words like ‘nasty’ and ‘dirty’ comes in the complete set of games called “SPIN”.
The APA definition is problematic for the same reason that almost all definitions are— because no single definition fits all people, whether we are talking sexual orientation/behavior/identification/attraction or whether we are attempting to define or categorize people’s politics. That is what accounts for all the “and’s” and “or’s” and phrases in a series in the definition–a sure sign that the APA was trying to form a definition that was neither too narrow to be exclusive nor too broad to be helpful.
As I said, it’s similar to defining people by their politics. Do we use their party identification/affiliation as the determinor? Or their stated political ideology? What if ideology is inconsistent? Or do we define based on voting behavior itself which is at least “measurable”? But what if the voting behavior is mixed, inconsistent? If so, which votes do we choose? All? Some? Only those relating to certain issues? It’s not easy. Political scientists have the same problem. People are complex . Their behaviors are frequently not consistent and two people who share the same behavior as illustrated by their votes may not share the same identity, the same beliefs or values, the same political ideology.
However, as a guide, I would think the APA definition gives enough guidance to be helpful to those who use it in their profession, and it doesn’t seem to try to fit any one individual into a small hole.
I’d think that a person who has undergone a change does not have an “enduring pattern” referred to here. Similarly, he/she no longer has a “sense of identity” related to or based on what once was the original attractions.
Ok, you’ve just described my life for a good 25 years. What would I call it? Not a change in orientation, because the enduring pattern of my sexual attractions remained directed toward men through all those 25 years. I would say that, despite my orientation, I successfully adapted for many years to live by a more heterosexual identity.
Again, I do understand that many people, from Alan Chambers to Eddy, want to use a broader definition of orientation, that includes elements of identity and lifestyle as well as attractions. If this was just an abstract academic discussion, among people who fully understood what each other was saying, I’d have no problem with that.
But I still maintain that the ONLY reason all these people want to use that broader definition is to confuse the issue and mislead individuals who are struggling with same-sex orientation. They know that to most people, the promise of a “change in orientation” means that your same-sex attractions will go away. Maybe it will take years, maybe it will be a struggle, but eventually, those nasty, dirty homosexual desires will just stop bothering you.
Everything we know–and agree upon!–on this issue says that is a false promise. Some individuals do experience a total change in sexual orientation over the years–sometimes from heterosexual to homosexual BTW–but those cases seem to be rare, and often spontaneous. That is, not produced by therapy or other intervention in a way that can be reliably replicated for another person.
I know from experience that individuals who don’t experience such a change can successfully adapt, capitalize on what heterosexual attractions they do experience, avoid obsessing over their homosexual attractions, and build a satisfying life. (I will say though, for myself, that such adaptation did not hold up through all the personal changes of a whole life time.)
However, don’t pretend that is the same as what so many conflicted people want, which is for their homosexual desires to just go away. Stop torturing language to create that impression.
Cool. It seems Michael was able to answer his own question to his personal satisfaction. Although it seems related to my questions…referencing the APA definition and all…his slipped in an absolute that was not a part of my question. He ask and answers about a person with NO attractions to the opposite sex while I was inquiring about those who started to identify as heterosexual.
I’m very tired of restating things that I’ve stated clearly in the past. “Those who started to identify as heterosexual” should not be assumed to be people who start identifying without some good reason…without some budding attractions towards the opposite sex. I’ve never spoken on this blog in a way to represent myself as a ‘name it and claim it’ person. I’ve even shared how for the first few years of my Christian experience…I was fine with giving up the homosexuality but prayed that God wouldn’t make me take up heterosexuality. As a matter of fact, the labels ‘straight’ or ‘heterosexual’ made me very uncomfortable and did not fit. ‘Gay’ or ‘homosexual’ no longer fit either. That’s why I begrudgingly accepted the label ‘ex-gay’…at least it fit.
I’m going to move on from this conversation. My questions aren’t going to be addressed and I feel so very very sorry for that dead horse.
@ Michael,
You miss my point…
but make it at the same time…
Studies on both sides are flawed…to devalue those you disagree with by minimizing their numbers is to dehumanize.
It is wrong that people have been harmed.
It is wrong that people who have changed are denegrated.
It is stunning to me that a persecuted minority seeks to minimize and harm an even smaller minority.
We all have our “Trail of Tears” Michael, let us not be cruel, gratuitous, sarcastic or narcissistic to those whose Trail challenges our own.
Note that in this Wiki definition “attractions” to men, women or both is the first componenet of “orientation”. Which gender does one find oneself attracted to “emotionally, romantically and/or sexually”? Men? Women? Both? It starts there.
The next component is one’s “sense of identity based on those attractions”, related behaviors and membership in a community that “shares those attractions”
Which “attractions”? The ones towards men, women or both! Can one have a sexual orientation without emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions?
Can a person with NO attractions to the opposite sex (and only attractions to the same sex) rightly be considered to have a heterosexual orientation? Sounds homosexual to me.
I see Michael’s got his own question–which he also asked several times. I’m getting used to asking questions that either don’t get answered or addressed or seem to provoke even more burning questions.
I assume this question comes up only because you are thinking of men who have sexual desires for men but who wish to change and that they might call them themselves something other than “homosexual” if they are not acting upon their desires.
If so, I would also assume they are in the process of undergoing some kind of change that involves behavior changes (and perhaps attendant emotional changes) and that maybe they are in the process of reaching a place where they feel the word homosexual does not describe them since they don’t engage in homosexual behavior. To a person trying to change, I would imagine a word that doesn’t quite describe them accurately might bother them.
This goes back to ex-gay as a useful term.
No, of course it wouldn’t apply to you, for you have no wish to change nor are you in a process of trying to change.
Michael,
Let me also say that you have been understanding of my thoughts and feelings on this and it is important for me to do the same for you. If it is important for you to delineate this term to distinguish the difference, I understand. It does not work for my world view, however, I respect that you might view it differently 🙂
Why does it matter? It seems it is what we do with our life circumstances that defines us. If a woman realizes she is incapable of having a child of her own and adopts instead, is she any less of a mother? Do we define her as barren or a mother?
Carole: Spousosexual has been suggested.
My question was: Is a guy who has no sexual attractions to women and only sexual attractions to men heterosexual? Is so, my orientation just changed.
This all started with Chambers, right, and what he said about himself and those like him? Okay, so here’s a guy who evidently wasn’t happy with his life and his sexual urges. He worked to change his life/himself enough (and since that is a very personal thing, I wouldn’t care to surmise just what it is he worked on to achieve that) to the point that he is now happy with a heterosexual existence, “heterosexual” here meaning being a husband to a woman he feels attracted to (“spousosexual,” as Warren calls it?), fathering children with her, raising a family together, and a reduction or maybe even an “almost” obliteration of his SSA.
Do I believe that Mr. Chambers now has a sex drive that prompts him to turn his head at a sexy female when she passes, one that causes him lustful thoughts when he sees hot babes on the big screen? Does he fantasize about such women the way a man who never was same-sex attracted does? Of course I don’t think that, but that is not what he is claiming, is it?
Still, to be happy with one’s opposite- gendered spouse, to enjoy sex with that spouse, to love the life they have built together to the point of happiness for both… if all this is true for him and his SS desires have either abated or waned what the heck would you call it?
I suppose many would call it repression. That is probably so, but if you think about it, almost all behaviors that people wish to rid themselves of even though they physically and/or emotionally enjoyed them, involve repression and substitution. Drinkers and smokers and chocolate lovers can and do stop drinking, stop smoking, stop eating sweets although it’s hard, and even when they have stopped, they still often desire what they have given up; however, the longer they go w/out, the less they actually do desire what it is they gave up. Sometimes the desire returns, then ebbs, then stops again. Maybe that is what a guy like Chambers and others have experienced.
Carole: Which “attractions”?
Under the broader definition, can a person who has only homosexual attractions and no sexual attractions to the opposite sex at all be properly referred to as “heterosexual”? If so, I give up.
I see that Eddy’s last post says what I was thinking…that the APA definition of the term sexual orientation encompasses much more than which gender most quickly and intensely floats one’s boat sexually. I think the terms OSA and SSA do that better.
I don’t think it’s us that’s torturing the language. I based these observations on the APA definition. I ask again…what does Michael base his definition on????
Nick–
I must take exception to your reasoning re the terms. First, I take exception because I invited all those who were a part of the conversation to read the Wiki definition and to weigh in.(I only quoted the first paragraph, by the way, they really do go to some depth.) But you weren’t a part of that.
My second exception is the logic that ‘we should go with the first sentence ‘since it’s what most people think’. LOL. All along, I thought that those of us who blogged here were a rather unique group of thoughtful people who were trying to find out what we might contribute to the overall understanding…how we might add to the discussion…how we might provide insights…how we might actually have an impact. But, no, according to you, not only should we ignore the broadened, responsive definition of the APA but go to a basic layman’s definition. How very strange! After all the appeals to science…after all the times that the conservatives have been maligned for their ‘rejection of science’…and now it’s you that wants us to be less specific…less scientific. And, of course, Michael agrees wholeheartedly with every word.
The irony of it all was that I was the one that asked for discussion of definitions…I was the one who pushed for clarity…and yet you seem to be accusing people like me of obfuscation. Seriously…that’s a real hoot! I do believe that if we’d invite a true outsider in to evaluate the comments… the word play, the dancing around a topic, the back-pedaling, the dramatic overstatement and hyperbole…I do believe we’d find they wouldn’t support your charge that ‘me and mine’ are the ones advancing the confusion.
Carole. I still understand what ex-gays probably mean when they use the term “ex-gay”. One commenter gave a very helpful and very clear definition of what he means when he uses it. I agreed to accept his definition — including that ex-gays did not necessarily have to have any OSA — and might still have only SSA.
Then some time ago, a dicussion arose as to what “heterosexual” or “straight” might mean. Some insisted that a person did not have to have any sexual attractions to the opposite sex to be straight. Some even argued that the term “heterosexual” was useless — that it essentially meant whatever a person wanted it to mean.
Now, we have gotten into a discussion on “orientation” and whether or not there is any standard, commonly understood, generally applicable use of this term. Some, like me, want to define “sexual orientation” in a narrow sense — referring only to which gender one finds sexually attractive.
Others are arguing for a broader, more amorphous definition of sexual orientation that includes identity, behavior and sub-culture “membership” — and does not necessarily have anything to do with the gender one is attracted to.
Under this broader defition, a person with only “SSA” and no “OSA” could still be referred to as “heterosexual”. And I suppose a straight person with only OSA could be referred to as “homosexual”. To me, that is simply absurd. I agree with Nick — it’s “torturing” the language.
Nope. I still understand how others are using the terms — even if I do not agree with them.
Nick and Michael,
As a straight who reads this blog, I’d have to say that the terms “same-sex attracted” and “opposite-sex attracted” make a lot of sense to me, and if in the discussion of “change” people wish for clarity, they might be better off using those terms more frequently. It would help avoid a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication.
SSA and OSA are explicit whereas the word orientation, even when it isn’t applied to one’s sexual preferences is a more “amorphous,” less specific word. In fact, the term sexual preference says a whole lot more than orientation does if identifying the object of one’s lust is what one is after although I don’t think it is nearly as apt/accurate a term as either SSA or OSA.
Nick, I don’t know if you followed the very long, very contentious, very circuitous, yet ultimately very informative dialogue about terminology that involved a whole host of people on Warren’s blog. It might be of interest to you. I am sorry that I forget the name of the thread, but maybe someone will point it out in a post.
Michael, you were a major contributor to that thread. I take it from your response to Nick C. that you are now retracting what you said on that thread when all that discussion led to understanding and consensus about terms.
David, fortunately (or unfortunately, from my point of view) those who report that have been harmed by SOCE are easy to find — unlike formerly gay guys who are now straight.
Dozens and dozens of us participated in the first Ex-gay Survivors Conference. We believe there are many, many more like us. We have a good sample already.
How about a descriptive study? We could ask other folks who believe they have been harmed by SOCE to define what they mean by “harm” and to give examples.
We might learn a lot — if advocates of SOCE were not so quick to dismiss them. Are you willing to trust their testimonies — or all they all gay activists trying to make SOCE look bad? We are expected not to dismiss or question ex-gays. Why dismiss us?
http://beyondexgay.com/
Nick C.: I agree with every word and every point you made above. I wish I had written it myself. Very well said!
I check in here from time to time. There seems to be an endless battle over what “change” is, which has now expanded to a battle over what “orientation” is.
Eddy suggests somewhere above that we start with the Wikipedia definition. Note that said definition starts with a simple, clear statement:
“Sexual orientation is a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender. ”
It goes on to point out the many expansions and qualifications and reservations surrounding that basic definition. Eddy, I believe wants to focus on all of these, But I would maintain that the basic first sentence does define sexual orientation as most people understand it: “a pattern of … attractions.”
The battle that goes on here seems to be this:
All regular commentors seems to concede that a complete, total change in actual sexual attraction is extremely rare. All seem to concede that no therapeutic approach can realistically claim or promise to produce such a change. But all equally accept that individuals may choose, usually for religious reasons, not to act on same sex attractions–whether that means to remain celibate or to pursue a full heterosexual identity and marriage (for those with enough heterosexual attractions for that to be realistic).
The big debate seems to be all about the words “change” and “orientation”. if someone with same sex attractions follows said path, does that mean he/she has “changed” “orientation”?
If we stick with the simple, one-sentence definition, then I say the answer is clearly NO. If your fundamental pattern of attractions remains the same, then you haven’t changed orientation.
As Carole points out, many of the regular commentors have explained that they want to define orientation as “a behavioral and psychological state of mind, a state of mind that includes one’s choice of lifestyle as well as one’s way of perceiving one’s self.” She says: “They have been clear about this delineation between “orientation” and “physical attractions,” at least clear enough that I have been able to understand the distinction with no great effort. This is but one reason they wished to distinguish between the terms “same-sex attracted” and the word “orientation” since “orientation” connoted not only certain behavior but also a specific self-perception.”
I agree with Carole that this is how some of you want to define orientation. But simply because you want to redefine the word in this way doesn’t make it so. On the contrary, I would argue that you seek a broader more amorphous definition for the sole purpose of confusing those who struggle with same sex attractions/orientation. You know that the majority of people caught in this situation simply want their same sex feelings to go away, and you don’t want to have to tell them straight out that probably will never happen.
I respect Warren, who says very clearly: “Sexual identity therapy does not seek to change your orientation and attractions, but to help you deal with them in accordance with your moral/religious identity.” That is an honest, realistic description. It helps the individual weigh the real costs and benefits of pursuing such a therapy. As someone who lived as ex-gay for 30 years, who was married and raised children, I can respect those who choose such a path and those like Warren who seek to help them follow it.
But I cannot respect those who continue to torture the common meaning of words in order to hold out false promises.
@ Warren,
Given the reaction to Spitzer’s results from the GLBT advocacy groups…maybe you can see why people who have reliquished their GLBT identity would be cautious.
Now lets apply that same rationale to Shidlo and Schroeder’s notion of harm due to reorientation…IT TOOK FIVE YEARS.
So maybe only DOZENS have been actually harmed (not ‘claimed to be harmed’, wait, let’s get a strict Wikipedia or APA definition of harm to determine if people are really harmed or only imagining it) by reorientation therapy…given Timothy’s math and your rationale!
Gawd, I am irritable today.
Warren–
I’m in agreement with most of what you posted. I have trouble with the ‘tens of thousands’ figure also but, LOL, I actually wanted a common understanding of ‘sexual orientation’ before diving into a discussion of whether Alan misspoke or not…as you can see, the effort to establish a common ground for discussion went nowhere.
We shouldn’t forget that, for most people, sex isn’t the focal issue of their lives. Those like the man David referred to…checked in, got some help and perspective, and moved on. Many feel that relating to a bunch of ex-gays is nearly as wrong for them as relating to a community of gays…it emphasizes the sexual over all other areas. I had a number of clients who never associated with a group and never attended an Exodus conference. They were well connected in their local church(es), wanted a bit of a boost in dealing with the homosexual temptations, and then went back to relying on that church connection.
Many feel that sex has been ‘trashed’…that it’s mystery has been degraded…that the sanctity of romantic love has been cheapened in an age of Maury Povich and Jerry Springer ‘in your face’ candor. They won’t submit their sacred marital unions to the probing curiosities of scientists and others preoccupied with sexuality. To ask them how often they do it…if they feel satisfied…if their partner feels satisfied…if their minds ever wander…if they sometimes have doubts….these are all perceived as offensive and terribly invasive…not just to them personally but to their spouse. LOL. And it’s stuff that just rolls off our tongues (or keyboard fingers) here.
The most regrettable part of Alan’s statement was the ‘just like me’. It should be assumed that he was speaking from his main source of identification…likely ‘Christian who left homosexuality and surrendered their sexuality to God’. BUT he should have been aware how a ‘just like me’ statement could be interpreted. Timothy’s original reference to the two children was a stretch but certainly ‘married with children’ could be inferred. It would be great if you could get him to speak to the statement.
Warren, you said:
That may be. I am not so sure.
I agree.
I tihink is probably more likely.
carole has it right I think. This is an area we covered pretty well.
RE: Alan’s statement. I am not clear what he actually was referring to since the reporter set up his answer. Alan may have been answering another related question but the reporter put this answer to the point about change. That said, I would like to see Alan clarify this.
Something flies in the face of all these testimonies – whether it be the SIT framework, the APA report, I don’t know. I am sure that 10s of 1000s have experienced SSA and refrained from acting on it but I am not sure that is the same thing that Alan is referring to, when he says, “just like me.” Indeed it may be, but the APA wouldn’t know it given the research available. If there were 10s of 1000s “just like” Alan, I don’t think Robert Spitzer would have had as much difficulty gathering up 200 ex-gays (over 2 years). I think many people have simply determined not to act on their feelings (prob 10s of 1000s) but I am not sure that it is clear to offer that number as a reaction to the APA.
MIchael said,
Come on, man, this response is a re-tread of that long kumbaya thread that is only a few weeks old. You made clear you understood and accepted.
Sorry, Michael, that’s not good enough. You referenced ‘you guys’ so I’m assuming you were referring to me. I even quoted your own words…from less than a few hours ago…are you saying that your words are not what you were saying? are you saying I misread your words? did I misread you when you wanted to ask him how it feels to ONLY feel for the opposite sex? You used the word ‘only’ twice.
Both Carol and I quoted your own words as evidence of what we heard that led us to our conclusion; it simply isn’t enough to say ‘you guys completely misunderstand’. Perhaps you can go back to the quotes from you that we used and show us where we misinterpreted you.
I don’t mean this unkindly but it seems that you WANT to be open-minded…you post things that sound like you want to embrace other realities but then–as you keep on talking/writing–the reality comes through. The quote with the ‘only’ reference was from the end of your comments. A review of your comments on this thread will demonstrate that this ‘either/or’ condition is a major part of your definition. It creeps into many of your comments. “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks”.
Many comments ago (but still on this comment thread) , when I requested that we review the Wiki definition of ‘sexual orientation’ so that–down the line-we wouldn’t end up saying ‘oh I thought you were saying thus and such’, you simply didn’t respond. And now, here we are–down the line–I have this sneaking feeling that you’re going to tell us we misunderstood you because our definitions differ. As I cited a few posts ago, my definition is based on the APA; where is yours based? If also the APA, please address my post from 11:57 AM.
I have been under the impression that ‘you aren’t speaking to me’. If that’s really your intent, then by all means abide by that…but, please do it completely. Be advised that when you address a comment only to ‘you guys’ when I’m one of the main people commenting–or refer to ‘some people think’ and then quote words that I’ve just used, that you’re not really being consistent with your original intent.
The question for me is “Do gays become straight?” If go with”my” definition (change of attractions from SSA-only to OSA-only), I say NO.
If we go with the other definition (change of identity and lifestyle), we would both say YES.
You guys completely misuderstand what I am trying to say.
These are Warren’s words in the original post:
Then, Warren offers a quote from Chambers which illustrates the point:
It seems clear to me (from both Warren’s words and those of Chambers) that the key phrases are “sexual orientation” and “homosexual lifestyle.” The follow-up statement by Chambers makes his intent to convey a certain meaning even more explicit: “Thats not to say that you can flip a switch and go from gay to straight.”
So, nowhere in these quotes do I see proclamations from Chambers that someone such as himself can shift from exclusive SS-Attraction to exclusive OS-Attraction. He simply speaks of “lifestyle” and “orientation.”
In many previous threads on this blog, care has been taken by those who consider themselves ex-gays to explain that the term “ex-gay” (especially when pertaining to men) does not proclaim the obliteration of all (or even some) same-sex attraction. Some ex-gays on this blog have explained that their SSA has waned in both frequency and intensity; some have explained they have developed some OSA, etc.–but they have made clear what they mean.
They were speaking of sexual attractions; however, they also made it clear that “orientation” is (my words here) a behavioral and psychological state of mind, a state of mind that includes one’s choice of lifestyle as well as one’s way of perceiving one’s self. They have been clear about this delineation between “orientation” and “physical attractions,” at least clear enough that I have been able to understand the distinction with no great effort. This is but one reason they wished to distinguish between the terms “same-sex attracted” and the word “orientation” since “orientation” connoted not only certain behavior but also a specific self-perception.
MIchael Bussee, you participated in that long thread of not long ago and after much explanation, you said you now understood what they meant. So, I have to believe you know the meaning of the term “orientation” as they use it and how it is not, in their usage, synonymous with “attraction.”
Thus, I read this thread and grew confused about why a conversation about “orientation” (as opposed to SSA or OSA) has once again deteriorated into a demand that you’d like to meet one formerly gay man who is now straight..
You say,
Well, there you have it. Someone like Chambers has developed a “non-gay identity.” He evidently no longer “acts on gay feelings,” is “no longer a part of the gay community” and has developed some heterosexual attractions. This, then, speaks to his “sexual orientation.” There is no mention of SSA/OSA. He hasn’t proclaimed, as far as I know, that he never has same-sex attractions at all or that he is as robustly opposite-sex attracted as men who’ve never been SSA, has he?
If he or others claim that he and 10,000 like him have gone from lusting after men to lusting after women, then that would be different, but I can’t see that he has said that; thus, based on the content of Warren’s post and on Chamber’s words, I am having difficulty understanding where your fixation on someone producing such a person comes from when I haven’t read anyone claiming that someone with a strong sex drive with men as the object of attraction has shifted to someone with a strong sex drive with women as the object of attraction.
??????????
I’m sorry but this is taking ‘active listening’ to a whole new level.
LOL. Please note what the man said…I put it in bold.
Now, consider the concluding sentence in Michael’s response:
There is simply no way any one, not an ex-gay, not the APA, not anyone…is going to get around Michael’s pervasive absolutism. “It doesn’t matter, sir, how you see yourself. It doesn’t matter that you’ve found fulfillment in heterosexuality that you never dreamed possible. It doesn’t matter that, although sometimes you might be tempted, you KNOW deep down in your heart that the homosexual life will not fulfill your deepest needs. My definition of change of orientation is that you were once ONLY attracted to the same gender and now you have ZERO thoughts in that direction. I’m sorry, sir, but, you don’t qualify as changed in my book. Everyone has an orientation and you haven’t changed yours.”
Ann, I completely agree. As Dr. Throckmorton knows, I have absolutely no problem with people living in accordance wtih their values — in fact, I admire that.
I hope that I have not given the impression that people should accept being gay if it doesn’t fit their value system. I have no desire to bring such folks back to the “gay side”. May God bless them in their new life — whoever they are attracted to or however the define themselves.
This is very appreciated Michael – thank you.
I do not know if this is possible either, nor should it be promoted as such – IMHO.
Furthermore, it seems like it shouldn’t matter to an individual if they understand it up front and proceed with life by transcending it with what they value instead.
Ann: Let me put it another way: If there was a group that claimed that tens of thousands of its members had been abducted by aliens, wouldn’t you be a bit skeptical? Wouldn’t you want to meet one?
Michael,
That all sounds good to me.
I am already convinced that there are many people who no longer conisider themselves gay or homosexual, who have adopted a non-gay identity, who no longer act on gay feeelings, who no longer are part of the gay community and who may have developed some hetereosexual attractions.
I do not doubt their stories. All of those things seem pretty changeable. It’s that one formerly gay person who no longer has SSA and now only has OSA that continues to allude me. They seem to be extremely rare. I think they may not exist. I could be wrong. That’s why meeting one would be so interesting.
Ann: It’s not about what I want ot need to hear. I don’t want to be “convinvced”. If he is convinced, that is enough for me. I really just want to meet ONE — one straight man (by his own definition) who used to be gay (by his own definition).
I would really like to just listen to his experience. It’s not about me authenticating or diminishing him. I just want to shake hands with him, sit down with him and talk to him for a couple of hours.
First of all, I would tell him how genuinely happy I am to have finally met someone like him — that I had always wanted to meet such a person. I would not disbelieve him. I would ask him what he meant by gay and what he meant by straight.
I would ask him to tell me about his experience, how he became heterosexual, what it is like to have once been only attracted to the same gender and now only attracted to the opposite gender.
David,
I sent you a post yesterday regarding this exact thing and it was deleted 🙁
I still hope the apology you thought was appropriate will be forthcoming.
I wonder at times if the goal is to communicate here, or to come up with the Snarkiest comment of the day.
I think being snarky may be a newer form of ridicule, milder, whitty; but still simplistic and demeaning…
Ridicule has always been an effective form of social control, albeit not necessarily rooted in tolerance, information sharing and respect.
Is there a straight man out there who used to be gay? Alan knows tens of thousands. I wish I could meet just one.
Michael,
Ok – if you were to meet a man who says he is now straight and used to be gay (ugh – still hate these labels), what would you need him to say to believe him and come to a mutual understanding and, perhaps, agreement? If he did not say what you needed or wanted to hear to convince you of his authenticity, would that diminish how he still felt about or described himself? In other words, our personal experiences and perceptions are for us, not to satisfy another’s perception or experience of us. No one should have that burden. As to what Alan meant, I am not sure and it certainly does not factor into whether I will have a good day or a good life either.
I thought only fundamentalists were rigid!
Thanks Eddy.
Michael and Timothy’s definition is more absolutist than the APA.
Ex-gays might still have some attractions for the same gender BUT 1) if their behaviors aren’t expressing them and 2) they are no longer members of the ‘gay community’…and 3) if their personal and social identity isn’t based on whatever gay attractions they may still have…can we really say that they have a homosexual orientation.
Further, 1) if they have begun to have heterosexual behaviors 2) consider themselves members of the heterosexual community and 3) are developing a personal and social identity based on their newfound heterosexual attractions…aren’t they now heterosexually oriented?
I picture a hiker with a compass. They were heading due North but realized it was not the direction they should be travelling in…so they changed their orientation and began heading the opposite direction. It doesn’t matter where they are…or how far they’ve travelled in the new direction…they are now oriented in the new direction.
Ann, I am not talking about measuring it. I would just like to get an idea of how many guys think they have done it. Is there a straight man out there who used to be gay? Alan knows tens of thousands. I wish I could meet just one.
Eddy,
I agree. Most people would not want to put themselves in the position of such cynicsm or held up for the ridicule that they have experienced before. Like I just told Michael, I honestly do not know how something so personal and different from one person to another can be measured or should be.
Michael,
Couldn’t this be as simple as a personal and ongoing dedication to a transformation of thoughts or a renewing of the mind rather than anything concrete in physical form that research could show? I’m just not sure how this could be measured. Gay to straight is also so subjective from one person to another that I am not sure how that can be measured either. I believe it would probably have to be broken down into specific questions that would describe each person’s experience and then be interpreted from there – of course this would be subjective as well to the person interpreting it as to how they perceive what is being told to them. Oy!
Amen
The polarization is so great that despite this generous ‘olive branch’ approach, they know better. The respect for their rights and boundaries that you proclaim will be seen for what it is…an arbitrary statement backed by no real committment which will be rescinded at will whenever you feel you have just reason to change your mind. Decades of anti-ex-gay rhetoric and anti-ex-gay hate speech can’t be erased and won’t be forgotten.
Debbie: There is no need to prove anything at this point. It’s too early to form those kinds of hypotheses or to mount that sort of study. We need information first. We don’t currenlty know much, if anything, about these guys who claim to have changed from gay to straight.
So, let’s ask them to “come out” — there must be some who would be willing. Maybe if we search widely enough, make the study extremely confiential — and make the call public enough we can get a few to take part — maybe a couple of hundred out of the tens of thousands. That would be a great start.
Then ask them to tell researchers about themselves. Don’t impose any definitions. Let them define the words they use. They say they have switched from gay to straight. Interesting! Way cool! Now they can teach us. What do they mean by this?
How do they say it happened? What else do they have in common with each other besides the conviction they they have switched from gay to straight?
Let’s take some huge steps back and do a descriptive study.
“A descriptive study design is one in which your primary goal is to assess a sample at one specific point in time without trying to make inferences or causal statements. In general, there are three primary reasons to conduct descriptive studies:
1.To identify areas for further research.
2.To help in planning resource allocation (needs assessment).
3.To provide informal information about a condition or disease.”
http://www.nedarc.org/nedarc/collectingData/chooseProjectDesign/descriptiveStudy.html
Such a descriptive study, properly conducted, could reveal a lot about this previously little-known population.
“I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.” (Matt. 11:25)
Amen.
Reorientation for women, easier than men; it is amazing how often this blog forgets women with SSA in this discussion…
Sexism within an “open-minded” system.
Ohh…and now we learn that Alan isn’t Alan.
Wierder.
Gay and Lesbian identities are legitimate conclusions that one can come to when deciding what to do with SSA. There are other conclusions that one can come to which many would consider “transformation.”
Eddy said:
Timothy said (in a post where he quoted the above):
:
Eddy responds:
They sure look like questions to me.
Um, I meant to say Blakeslee, not Busee in regard to point 1 above. Sorry!
@Timothy Kincaid:
1. You will never win an argument with people like Busee. Whenever you point out the evidence that change is exceedingly rare or nonexistent, they change the definition of change. Even the J&Y study – using a self-selected group of the most motivate Christian men – could only claim a 1 point Kinsey shift over 7 years of Exodus “therapy.” And that is excluding all of the drop-outs. If there were 10s of thousands of people like Alan, the J&Y study would have looked very different. As for the average one-point shift, I wish we could perform an experiment in which we take 100 straight men, convince them that their heterosexuality is merely a manifestation of their sexual desire for their mothers and tell them that God condemns this. Then after 7 years of harping on this point 3 times a week, I would bet good money that we get a 1-point shift in these men toward Kinsey 6.
2. I would note that not even Alan – the real Alan – is like Alan as he portrays himself to the press. I believe you or someone on your blog reported extensively from the Love Won Out conference at which Alan admitted that he struggles with and suppresses homosexual desires. That is part of his “walk”.
Whatever floats your boat, I suppose, but that is not sexual orientation change. If the ex-gay movement can only claim success by contriving definitions of change, their successes are hollow.
Michael,
J&Y were not looking for “success stories” as their population.
Spitzer is a better example. He spent two years looking for those who reported a change in their orientation and found 200 for his sample. Many of those were determined to not have changed much of anything.
Debbie, I would be willing to chip in some money to help put together a “survey type” study. We could put out a call in the media for gay men who now consider themselves to be heterosexual. Maybe Warren could help with the design of the study.
It would be very interesting just to see if we can get, say, a thousand men who would anonymously report that they once were gay and are now straight. That might be a start. How many did Jones and Yarhouse find?
Classy, Debbie. As always, real classy.
I have never said that “change is impossible”. Behavior, lifestyle, beliefs and identity all seem quite changeable. I just don’t see any convincing evidence that SOCE results in orientation change. Neither did the APA task force. So, like them, I am skeptical.
But, my being very skeptical that gay men turn into straight men in no way prevents you — or anyone else — from trying to cross over. If people are happier on the ex-gay side of the road — regardless of whether or not they are now straight, or how many have crossed it — God bless ’em.
They have every right to cross in peace, Debbie. My doubts should not interfere with their hope.
I don’t see how anybody can prove it or disprove it. Short of taking a census and giving everyone lie detector tests, how will we ever find the folks Alan is alluding to, or determine they don’t exist?
I easily could have kept silent about my own struggle. Did for a good while, in fact. Why should it be assumed there are not lots of others like me who may never come forward or who haven’t yet? Any why, Timothy, must you absolutely know for certain what the numbers are? WHO CARES???? God knows. And He’s laughing about all this.
If some have changed, then it’s possible. Everyone said the four-minute mile barrier couldn’t be broken. But it was. And it kept on being exceeded. Why do people climb mountains, and risk failure, even death? Look how many things were once deemed impossible. You can’t give people “presto, chango” programs and formulas. But don’t tell me a person who is motivated enough and has faith can’t climb their mountain … or move it. That’s hogwash, and you know it. What, by God, makes homosexuality impossible to change? Nothing. It’s hard, like a lot of things in life. And it is surrounded by so much illusion, truth is swallowed up.
Take a hike. Walk on the gay side and be happy. Let those who want to cross the road do it in peace.
Eddy:
Me:
Eddy:
Note to self: Eddy’s “questions” aren’t really questions
Michael,
C’mon. Surely you know that belief trumps facts every time. Especially an old belief.
In the words of the wise, when it comes to persons who have changed orientation from gay to straight, we don’t know for sure that they don’t exist.
And isn’t that the standard that the APA should have used? I mean how dare they say there is a “lack of evidence that efforts to change one’s sexual orientation work” when clearly we don’t know for sure that they don’t exist.
LOL. While the burden of proof may be on them, they do NOT have to provide convincing evidence that he does exist. The belief in Bigfoot is at least 50 years old…and if you factor in the belief in similar creatures in other lands…its centuries old. Nobody has provided convincing evidence that Bigfoot or these other creatures exist…yet the belief persists…AND we don’t know for sure that they don’t exist.
There is plenty of good reasoning for why a person who has changed orientation from gay to straight would keep that relatively private. If they did share it, it would likely only be to a counselor or trusted friend. Curious scientists, ex-ex gays and ex-gay bashers wouldn’t rank high on their trust list.
Regarding a common definition for ‘sexual orientation’ I was advised to ‘read the book’, they have several definitions and then the commenter was gracious enough to provide his capsulized version. How very convenient.
Laughable too! I posted one paragraph of definition asking if we could read the paragraph and agree (or disagree) to it…that didn’t happen. Yet, I’m supposed to read a whole book. Gee, I wonder if this conversation will have moved on by then.
Whether it has or hasn’t, I think I will.
Some people believe that Bigfoot exists. We do not have to prove that he doesn’t. They have to provide convincing evidence that he does. The burden of proof is on them.
You may believe that tens of thousands of of persons have experienced sexual reorientation from gay to straight. This belief, however is just that — a belief. It is not supported by current scientific evidence. You may not like that, but it’s true.
@ Timothy,
If you speak often enough…you do get the last word.
Your number: dozens, is hyperbole.
Read the book, Eddy.
They used several definitions – rather clearly, I must say – but their basis was sexual attraction.
Timothy:
What did they attempt? to first define ‘sexual orientation’ in clear scientific terms? To then define the other orientions based on that clear scientific definition of ‘sexual orientation’? Cool! You may notice that I’ve already asked several times in this thread for a common and clear definition of ‘sexual orientation’…asking that people consider the Wikipedia rendering. But since Jones and Yarhouse already attempted this, can you provide their definition of ‘sexual orientation’? And then whether you agree or disagree.
NOTE: I’m wanting to start with the base…with the definition of ‘sexual orientation’ rather than the definition of ‘homosexual orientation’.
Eddy
Which is what Jones and Yarhouse attempted. The results showed that only a tiny percent became “heterosexual”, but unconventionally so. None were reported to have lost their same-sex attractions.
Jones and Yarhouse demonstrated that Exodus programs are ineffective at turning same-sex attracted persons into opposite-sex attracted persons.
To all,
If Alan wants to talk in Christianese about those who have “walked away from homosexuality” or who do not “focus on identification (labels) but focus on behavior” or who have “been transformed by the renewing of their minds”, or any non-specific, hide-the-meaning, vague non answers, that is certainly up to him.
But Alan wasn’t speaking in church. He wasn’t at an Exodus conference. He was making a specific claim in a specific article about a specific action on the part of the APA.
The APA wasn’t voting about the renewing of the mind. They weren’t voting about focusing on behavior rather than identity.They were saying that there is no evidence that orientation (i.e. same-sex attraction) changes through therapy.
Alan said that this flies in the face of the testimony of tens of thousands of people. Alan’s response was that the testimony of tens of thousands of people is evidence that “efforts to change one’s sexual orientation work.”
And that isn’t true.
Debbie
David
Guys,
I am responding to Alan’s comments:
Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, said it is wrong to assert that sexual orientation cannot change as a result of therapy.
“That flies in the face of the testimonies of tens of thousands of people just like me,” said Chambers, a married father of two who credits God and counseling for helping him leave a homosexual lifestyle. “That’s not to say that you can flip a switch and go from gay to straight.”
I was also speaking in the context of the article. If you refresh your memory you’ll find that it was about persons who are primarily same-sex attracted and seeking to become heterosexual, not about some more nebulous MSM population or those who never seek therapy. And I wasn’t addressing testimonies that are secret (a contradiction in terms).
Alan’s statements were false.
And “but it’s extra-special Christian language” doesn’t make it any more truthful.
How do you support
“That flies in the face of the testimonies of tens of thousands of people just like me,”
with ‘good scientific evidence’?
It’s not a scientific statement. It speaks of ‘testimonies’ and refers to ‘people just like me’.
LOL. The ‘good scientific evidence’ would first have to define ‘sexual orientation’ in clear scientific terms…then based on that definition, would have to define the various orientations (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and asexual are the most common ones). After all of that is clearly established, they could determine just what to measure and how to measure it.
Regardless of how he meant it, there is simply no good scientific evidence to support his claim. You have to take this sort of thing on faith.
Timothy: I think it’s enthusiastic overstatement, well-intentioned hype — not deliberately dishonest. I am sure that he did not mean to convey that tens of thousands of gay men are now straight.
He was probably referring to the many thousands who decide to leave homosexuality, walk an ex-gay path, live in accordance with their values and undergo identity change –whether or not they experience a change in sexual orienation.
Yeah, he really needs to get up to speed and communicate with sarcasm instead.
Timothy: Regarding the “tens of thousands” who have changed their sexual orientation — I think Alan may be speaking Christianese.
@ Timothy,
this is a flawed beginning in your calculation:
Christianity does not focus on identification (labels) it focuses on behavior. You have often rightly reported that the number of people engaging in sex with members of their own sex is larger than the 4% number.
@ Timothy,
Even your math seems to confirm that your “few dozen” is way low.
I used the 10% number that it frequently cited for MSM…rather than the 4% number the CDC uses for homosexual identification.
Since Exodus and other groups focus on men and women, we can assume the pool they are drawing from is larger.
Plainly, there are many folk who convert to various religious groups as a means of identification and impulse control.
I am surprised how often people have found their way to my office who have struggled with SSA at one time or another, but never sought help for it specifically. They end up in my office with their SSA pretty much resolved already (mid-fourties); heterosexually married with other problems. But religiously devout.
They never show up in the mental health research, or at an Exodus meeting. They are not about to advertise their previous struggle.
Apology still in order.
Is there some requirement for everyone who has been transformed by the renewing of their minds (and other things) to publish their testimony? Where is that written? David’s got reasonable numbers to work from.
You just keep out-Timothying yourself. How do you do that?
But what if Michael is wrong? How do -L-;s statements hold up if God does not approve of homosexual behavior?
Forgive me if I’m somehow mistaken but I thought this blogsite was unique in the fact that it respected the rights of both sides to speak and to be heard. Instead, -L- speaks his beliefs and they are ridiculed through sarcasm.
Can anyone tell me what -L- did, other than have a belief that homosexual behavior is sin, that justifies these sarcastic responses?
I guess that helps explain it. I still disagree with it — and with any belief system places a negative value on homosexuality — psychologically, spiritually or morally. I still think homosexuality is neutral — and that is is what you make of it — just as heterosexuality is.
Michael,
I think that L’s thoughts may be disconcerting partly because he comes from a different faith background.
I don’t pretend to be grounded in Mormon theology, but if I get it correctly, human beings are spirit children of God. And after death, humans can have their own spirit children on other planets to which they will be gods. But this can only happen if they are married heterosexually. So it is logistically impossible to become a deity – a god – if one is not living heterosexually.
This then adds perspective to help understand why the Mormon Church has been strongly influential in the gay marriage wars (for example funding over half of Prop 8 money and 80 – 90% of volunteers though only 2% of CA population).
Non-Mormon Christians don’t believe that they will some day be divine if they marry heterosexually. While Protestants are sad for those who never marry, they are not considered sinful or flawed and Catholics downright require celibacy for their religious leader. So the perspective is different.
I think what L is saying is that if he did not believe Mormon theology, he could see value in same-sex relationships.
David Blakeslee ~ Sep 15, 2009 at 12:36 pm
David,
math aside, Alan is talking about testimonies. I’ve read them. Pretty much most of them that are out there on ex-gay websites. Truthfully there just aren’t that many – surely not more than a few dozen that represent people “like Alan”
And by “like Alan”, I mean those who assert that their sexual orientation changed as a result of God and therapy. That’s what the article was talking about – sexual orientation change.
Regardless of “his emphasis in the last several years”, when he spoke to the media, it was about sexual orientation change. I.e. from gay to heterosexual of the “married with children” variety. (those ‘credentials’ don’t accidentally show up every time he’s quoted – they are there for a purpose)
Now, let’s address your math:
I’m not sure what all those percentages are supposed to represent, but I’ve done the calculations before. Assuming that the CDC is somewhat close with 4%, there are about 10 million gay and bisexual men and women in the US.
But very few go through therapy or ministry to change.
There are currently 86 ministries and 29 counselors affiliated with Exodus. There is also Evergreen and Jonah who seek reorientation efforts. Additionally there are 113 Courage chapters which, while they don’t encourage reorientation, they don’t opposite it either. There may even be some unaffiliated folks out there seeking to “credit God and counseling” for helping them rid their patients of homosexuality. So let’s use 300 as a good round upper-end number.
Now let’s go WILDLY generous and assume that each of these ministries gets, 24 new participants per year (2 per month). I’m sure you’ll agree that this is an unlikely high number. This gives us an annual pool of new participants of 7,200.
J&Y can let us guestimate that 9% of these will (at least for a while) obtain heterosexual functioning. Let’s assume these folk all are “like Alan”. That means that of each year’s new crop of ex-gays, about 650 may become “like Alan.”
So we’ll happily get to our “tens of thousands” total in, oh say, thirty one years in a best case scenario.
But we know that’s just so much hoping and wishing and not much reality. The fact is – as we all well know – there just aren’t that many testimonies out there. Count them.
(you need issue no apology, David 😉
The problem is that Alan knows that the truth doesn’t help his cause. He knows that there are not tens of thousands of one-time gays that are now heterosexual. Come on. You know that too, David.
I wish Alan would just stick to honest facts. I’d certainly respect him more if he did.
And of course, believing that gay love is “evil” and that it will be “ulimately exluded” and “ultimately damned” doesn’t mean that you are evil — or that you will be…
Pathia: I clicked the “here” (above) and I have to say, I found -L’ s thoughts very disturbing. You might find them otherwise. Here are a couple from the site -L- referenced that particularly distressed me me:.
Words like “excluded”, “damned” and “evil’. probably will not comfort you much or raise your opinion of the “people with faith” who abused you. Personally, I find this all very sad. Not the “Good News” I heard.
Of course, unlike -L-, I may not have achieved the required level of sophistication, my belief scaffolding may be too dogmatic and my coping mechanisms may not be up to the task.
I don’t think that believing homosexuality is sin means that it isn’t genuine love. If interested, you can read more of my thoughts here.
Hi Pathia:, You wrote to Debbie, but your post moved me — so I hope you won’t mind me responding:
My partner and I were together for over a decade — until the moment he quietly died by my side. Throughout our relationship, we heard much of the same stuff you have heard– and sadly — some of the worst came from some ministry leaders. I have been told that I am not really saved and that Satan is my Father. But they are wrong.
Try not to let it bother you, even though I know that it is hard. I know what you mean when you say, “Love is something we have.” It is what Gary and I had. Others may not understand and may take pot-shots at it. Love endures all things.
I pray you won’t let their abuse and your loss of faith in people cause you to abandon faith in God. The Creator and Savior loves you deeply — and wants to bless you and your partner. Confidence in His love can get you through a lot of abuse by His errant children.
You would think that this would be OK and would cause no moral problem for even the most conservative religous folks — but it still does — even when the same sex couple is no longer having sex.
Gary and I also could not have sex during the last two years of our relationship — so, it was all about loving and caring then. That did not matter to them. It was still sin. But you and I know better, right? Blessings to you Pathia. My love to you and those you love.
P.S. Now, I expect someone will reaind me that I promised Ann that I would not share personal stuff — but I hope it was helpful to you in some way. I am praying for you both.
Eddy,
Just saying that that definition has been re-defined as of late. I dunno. I’m tired from shouting at the TV last night during the football game. Tired in general from agreeing on definitions. I agree that we all have different definitions. To me sexual orientation is how one describes themselves.
You know, Warren, this continuing analysis of the APA report and the JY study also raises the question in my mind of how much Christian is in “Christian counselor or therapist.” Are faith-based counselors held to a strict, deterministic approach to helping their SSA clients, because they feel they must toe the APA line?
We know, or ought to by now, that Alan Chambers speaks of an approach to “change” that entails faith in the God who is more powerful than the captivity of homosexuality or any unwanted sin, behavior, orientation, lifestyle, addiction or any other terms we want to throw out when discussing psychological and spiritual problems. We can’t very well take the spiritual out of the equation, can we? APA, after all, was addressing just that.
But I have wondered for some time how the Christian approach to counseling/therapy is being influenced by the mental health guilds. The “delicate dance,” to quote a prominent person in the field of Christian counseling, is a bit sketchy, isn’t it?
@ Jay…no Timothy?
The assertion is so small, compared to the general population of those with SSA, it is a very safe assertion.
Ten’s of thousands out of, 15-30 million. Quite reasonable.
Unless we think that Alan is proposing some sort of complete transformation to heterosexuality in all attractions in addition to behavior.
That hasn’t been his emphasis in the last several years; quite the opposite.
That is why Timothy’s assessment of this quote seems quite hyperbolic and destructive.
Mary–
What about how the Wiki definition starts out:
Can you agree with that?
LOL. I just don’t see how we can proceed in discussing sexual orientation or evaluating other people’s statements re sexual orientation unless we have a base definition. NOTE: We can have a base definition and not be constrained by it. For example, ‘I take exception to the part of the definition that speaks to thus and such but otherwise I can see how thus and such is possible.’ What I’m trying to work around is a lot of back and forth where we’re all using the same term without realizing that we’re using it differently. Thought it might be nice to work that out beforehand rather than as an afterthought. 🙂
I’m heading out for awhile anyway…
Debbie,
Love is something I have. My partner and I have been together for five years now. I’m constantly told that we’re sinners, damned, abominations, disgusting filthy animals. I have to sit there and be told over and over, the love is false, purely physical and animalistic.
Never mind the fact that my medical conditions more or less leave me a eunuch. There is no sex in our relationship, only love and caring. Sex never was or is a part of the equation, quite literally, it’s impossible to do.
Eddy, Well – the APA defined sexual orientation in their recent paper and they also defined sexusal orienttion identity as something different and separate from sexual orientation which I find disturbing. Anyhow – I can’t agree to that new definition like that. It flies in the face of those who have changed.
We’re all subject to cowardice about something, but you have to decide, ultimately, what matters to you, same as I do.
Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13, “When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”
I assure you there is still love in this world. We can hold onto our old hurts, and build monuments to them, or we can choose to live differently. There are too many stories of overcoming to justify clinging to pain. I know I have not walked a day in your shoes, but perhaps the woman Marin writes of has come as close as anyone can.
Think on it.
Alan’s portion of the article reads like this:
He didn’t mention reparative therapy by name. (Sticky wicket here. “Reparative Therapy” is actually the name of a specific therapy approach but many use the term to apply to any therapy directed at mastering homosexual impulses. (Think of it like “Kleenex”…a brand specific name that has somehow gone generic. You can ask for a “Kleenex” and people don’t even think about which brand they hand you.) He didn’t even say heterosexual marriage or heterosexual desires. He did say ‘tens of thousands of people just like me’ but it’s unclear what ‘just like me’ means. Timothy, in his opening challenge, suggested it meant there were tens of thousands with two children…a rather literal take on ‘just like me’. Alan didn’t mention the two children in his quote; that was injected…you do notice the lack of quotes there. I’m assuming that it’s not a literal ‘just like me’…they don’t all have two children…serve as the top man in an international ministry focussed on homosexuality and faith…live in Florida…have dark hair…. I assume ‘just like me’ refers to belief…they believe just like me in a real God and a risen Savior…they believe just like me that homosexuality is not God’s created intent…they believe just like me that God empowers them to live a life no longer dominated by homosexual desires and impulses…
I saw no real reference to ‘history’ or ‘over the ages’. This would be tricky since ‘homosexual orientation’ is an invention of the previous century and, even today, is not even a globally accepted/recognized concept.
Regarding whether his statement is hyperbole…I really believe we need to agree on a definition of ‘sexual orientation’ before we can measure any statement against that definition.
Pathia,
I too have stayed away from many “Christians” because of the bashing. As much as my shrink insists there are good nice people out there, I’ve met very few – and mostly online and those who have experienced the same isssues.
Hang in there, keep going, begin again.
I enjoy your presence here and find it encouraging.
Debbie,
I admire her fortitude, however, if I continue to get beaten, I shy away from the blows. I don’t like to be hurt. I guess I’m just a coward.
David, perhaps I read Alan’s comment wrong, but he seemed to be saying that tens of thousands of people are living a heterosexual lifestyle and have heterosexual attractions as the specific result of reparative therapy. If he was going to talk about all the homosexual people throughout history who have attempted to change their orientation or who have lived chaste lives regardless of their homosexuality, then yes, tens of thousands would be a pretty accurate (and likely understated) figure. But in his particular context, it did come across as hyperbole.
Pathia, it is disconcerting to me to know that so-called Christians who ought to know better continue to damage the witness of the Church. Yes, many like the adulterous women Eddy reminded us of are beaten down, and many do give up on their faith. But that is only part of the story.
You might be interested in Andrew Marin’s most recent blog post (apologies to Warren for diverting traffic momentarily). Read the part, specifically, about the intersexed woman he met who continues to go to church.
Talk about trusting God and not a people. … Uplifting. God bless the marginalized. I think there must be a special crown for them in heaven.
@ Timothy,
“A few dozen folks…” In Merced?
Maybe.
you are being hyperbolic…in anger and discredit yourself by your own critical comment.
20000 people (tens of thousands) out of 300 million= .000067 of the population.
100000 people out of 300 million = .000333 of the population.
20000 people out of 150 million adults = .000133
100000 people out of 150 million adults = .000667
Those who have some form of SSA and decide to do a wide variety of things when choosing how to respond to such feelings:
15-30 million.
If anything, Alan is under representing the numbers, given how many people use Christianity generally to modify a wide variety of their behavioral drives and impulses (OSA, SSA, Aggression, Appeasement, and so on).
You owe Alan an apology.
Pathia–
Are you responding to something Debbie wrote on another comment thread? Her comments here were only related to subscribing to comment notification.
With that aside, though, you ask
:
The answer is that we are called to have faith in someONE not something. In the Bible, there’s a story of woman who was beat down…quite literally. They drug her to Jesus feet and threw her to the ground in front of him seeking his okay to stone her. They were religious people. Jesus did not respond as they expected him to–instead responding to her with mercy and forgiveness and to them with words that challenged their self-righteousness. The Bible story seems to indicate that this was a life-changing moment for her.
Debbie,
Some of us have no more faith, because of the treatment we have received by those with faith. How can we have faith in something, when we are beat down? I’d be comfortable with even just being ignored, but I was actively attacked, physically and mentally.
Thanks Eddy, but I did not misspeak. I specifically do not want to have notifications of any kind regarding comments on this or any other blog in my inbox. I don’t want it nagging me. I’d rather be blissfully ignorant of the oft-melee for however long I choose to. We have enough tugging at us as it is in this information-laden world.
Debbie–
I think you might be misled about the nature of the follow-up comments box. All it does is subscribe you to that particular comment thread. It sends you an email notice everytime that a new comment is posted on that particular thread.
I’ll grant you that that is often overwhelming…sometimes dozens of comments in a days time…meaning dozens of notices…but there is also the option under ‘manage your subscriptions’ of turning off the notification.
Handling the dozens of notices can be easy too. I’ve learned the trick of temporarily sorting my inbox by ‘sender’…that puts all of the notifications from this site in a batch…then you simply select them all and delete.
I specifically never click that box. It seems some follow-up comments are directed at people with my name who aren’t, in fact, me. I shall not be changing my strategy.
Dang it! Forgot to click the ‘notify me of followup comments’ box.
From Wikipedia:
The above quote is just the beginning in a long and somewhat comprehensive treatment of ‘sexual orientation’. Given that many of our discussions here have derailed over a difference in definitions, I’m wondering if it would be appropriate to suggest that we all give consideration to Wiki’s definition and give voice to any particular agreements or disagreements we have with it. Of course, if there’s some other more credible definition, we should/would consider that too.
Precisely, Mary. My beef with the APA has always been that their message has been translated as: “the only appropriate response to homosexuality is affirmation and embracing that true identity,” regardless of what their latest task force says in its policy recommendation.
I do appreciate that there is (apparently new) acknowledgement and attention given to the importance of tailoring therapy within a religious identity. However, gauging from the blogs I’ve seen, that message hasn’t quite trickled down, and Drescher’s (and others’) message that religion is the enemy is quite alive. If he’s truly changed his message as Warren implied before (very charitably it seemed), I’m very happy to hear that.
Nonetheless, change does happen and more for some less for others. We don’t know why – really. That should not deter the faithful from pursuing change. Just be realistic.
Has Alan no shame at all?
Or has he no regard whatsoever for truth?
No, Alan, there are not “testimonies of tens of thousands of people just like you” who have “walked away from homosexuality” and are now “a married father of two.” It’s just a lie, Alan, just a lie.
If I rounded up all the testimonies, Alan, and eliminated the repeats and the obsolete one (ya know, the ex-ex-gays) we might have a few dozen folks “just like you.” At most.