Today, I seem to have run into a couple of articles on homosexuality that I want to discuss.
First, in Words That Need to Become Less Easy to Use, Mike argues that we should disallow certain showstopper words in our discussions if we want to continue with meaningful dialogue. Although his post is mostly about the word "heresy," he also includes the words "racism" and "homophobic."
When they enter into the conversation, they end the conversation. It’s not that there are no such things as racism or homophobia or heresy. It’s that they are incendiary. Because racism, homophobia and heresy are so morally repugnant, the latter more so for its inquisitional past, these words immediately put the person against whom the accusation is directed on the defensive, and they render the conversation untenable. They are the sine qua non of ad hominem attacks.
Second, in the May 27 edition of The Week magazine, I found "The curious case of homosexual homophobes." (Unfortunately, The Week doesn’t put its archives online at all, but the original article by the author can be found in the NYT archive at Just How Gay is the Right?) In this snippet, the author mentions how many of the public attackers of homosexuality turn out to have gay proclivities themselves.
Why is it that so many gay bashers turn out to be gay themselves?…This is more than hypocrisy – this is pathology. Could it be that what many homophobes really fear is their own impulses?
I can only comment that it is a very common pscyhological pattern, that those with guilt over their own behavior often rail against it out of self-loathing. But this doesn’t mean that all such criticisms of sinful behavior are motivated similarly, nor does it mean that the behaviors are not sinful. When discussing such hypocrites, Jesus not only publicly called them hypocrites, but told danielgs to "do as they say, not as they do." (my paraphrase).
It is unfortunate, however, that the author used the word homophobe. I agree with Mike in saying that using this one word to broadbrush all who oppose homosexuality in some way, or think of it as a treatable condition, may seem accurate to a the fearful, persecuted homosexual, but to those of us trying to engage in meaningful dialogue while disagreeing with the gay suppositions, it is a fear-based ad-hominem attack. To paint all of your opposition as a monolith of extremists shows you to be a paranoid extremist yourself.
Yes, pat yourself on the back. Congratulate yourself that you don’t have a bigoted bone in your body. And, of course, pre-emptively attack anyone who disagrees.
Wait a minute… Who gives a shit what you and your fellow xtian hate-mongers think, anyway? You are irrelevant, at least to this sexual heretic.
Oh, and btw, thanks for alienated me from xtianity.
Something tells me that I'm going to regret asking but what is a "xtian hate-mongers".
Chroniker,
That is Louis' term of enderment for Christians who believe that homosexulaity is a sin. I love having Louis around here because he challenges us and stirs things up. He also has a wicked sense of humor if we could only us it for good. ;)
By the way Chroniker thanks for the links to Two or Three and Wardrobe Door on your blog. We appreciate the compliment!
I think most gays are understandably intolerant of any position critical of homosexuality. They see all such people as haters, rather than people of moral conviction who actually don't hate them. It is, imho, a self-defense mechanism. What else can they do? To them, all criticism of homosexuality is a personal attack, and therefore their attackers must be hateful.
However, they are also intolerant of anyone saying that therapy has cured some gays of their Same Sex Attractions. The existence of such people threatens their absolutist claims that homosexuality is an entirely biological phenomenon which they have no control over.
And I don't think that Louis means "hate-monger" as a term of endearment. I percieve that he feels genuinely that homosexuality is OK, and that those of us who think otherwise are backwards moralists, akin to the racists of the recent past who used religion to bolster their need for power and superiority.
Further, I suspect that he has some genuine love or respect for Christ or the biblical truths he has experienced, but can't reconcile the biblical censure of homosexuality (or the conservative take on scripture) with his own experience and need for personal acceptance (which we all have).
I think that the diffiulty with homosexuality and other deeply held coping mechanisms is that, without deep therapy, truth, and often, the help of God, we can't separate our true selves from these deeply ingrained patterns. So when we hear people condeming these behaviors, we take it as a personal condemnation.
I think this issue calls for more gentle and deep spiritual teaching on the subject so that people who are listening can be helped rather than turned off. I don't think I've reached that level of skill yet ;). And there will always be people who are hearing who will be angry – let's just hope that it is the truth that makes them angry, not our condescending manner.
BTW, the author of the NYT article Just How Gay is the Right?, Frank Rich, was interviewed on Fresh Air today. I liked what he had to say, mostly. Give it a listen (audio up at 3PM ET)
Since you have the "truth," further discussion with you is impossible. Why? Because the only reaction to someone with the "truth" is submission not discussion.
btw: You are the poster boy for condescension.
xtianity only for straights.
Well, I'd say that we all have convictions, some tentative, some solidified by years of research and experience. To say "I know" is to make a claim to truth, and that is not morally wrong. If others disagree, you can open it up to argument. Each person must decide how good the opposing argument is.
From what I have seen and experienced, gays can change their orientation and live as happy heteros. I have also seen some that also don't change and are unhappy trying to be a hetero or changing.
However, I find good explanations for the latter (they were trying to change for the wrong reasons, or found the inner work too difficult, or had bad counselors who made it impossible for them to succeed). You could also believe that it was never possible for them to change. But until you've eliminated the other possibilities, the latter explanation is just one of four possible answers.
And how do you explain the existence of happy ex-gays? You say they don't exist! You say they are all self-deceived! Hardly an argument. Some people say they weren't really gay to begin with, or really, they were bi-sexual. Those are decent explanations, worthy of exploration.
*** The fact that I am open to these possibilities, and the fact that you are NOT open to my possible explanations shows who is the one bailing out on reason. ***
I have yet to hear you say that it is possible that those who succeed in ex-gay therapy succeeded because the maladaptation model of homosexuality may be the mechanism for these people. The fact that you flatly oppose it means that you are the one who is making conclusions without evidence, or in contradiction to the evidence.
then your memory is faulty or non-existent. I wrote in the "Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of Victory" thread,
"My offical view is that everyone should be and do whatever the hell they want, providing they don't directly harm another doing so. If someone is so oppressed and depressed by the fact that they are gay in a homophobic society and heterosexual dictatorship, then they should "convert." My personal opinion is that it is a f*cking shame that they are put in that position, and that they will be doing severe damage to themselves, but that they should do whatever the hell they want. I also think that the dissonance between what they are internally and what they try to be externally will eventually lead to even more unhappiness and "down low" sexual trysts. As I said, I've met many so-called "straight" men, complete with rings and wives, who want sex with me. I remain skeptical. But, whatever floats your boat I always say."
I don't think you can turn a gay person into a straight person. You may be able to turn a bisexual towards heterosexuality, and you may be able to convince a gay person to stop having sex, but you can't turn someone who's homosexual into someone who's heterosexual. While they may tell YOU and their families and friends and fellow christianists that they are straight, they are probably lying to create a cover. How do you really know what they're doing when you're not around? How much experience have you had with the gay community? It's all just theoretical for you.
Oh well, you'll never change your mind. You are unconvincable. As you said, everything I say falls on deaf ears. So why bother? My experience in life is that people believe whatever lies make them happy. So go on: indulge, brother.
Whatever.
I really feel sorry for any gays who fall under the influence of your ilk. Seriously.
You see? You have already concluded that people can "convert" but they are really just pushing down their true orientation. You won't even admit the possibility that some ex-gays are happy, healed, and perfectly adjusted people. They are all just "living a lie." You pity them, how patronizing! How superior of you.
You are wrong about things being theoretical only with me. I have had and do have gay friends and family, some of which have successfully changed their orientation, and some which have not. And as I have said, some of the ex-gay literature has helped me incredibly, and so I recognize it as true, and want to spread those ideas.
You are almost right about me being unconvincable. I used to think like you until I met with the truths that changed my life and mind. And my friends. It would be very hard for someone to change my mind *back* to my old position when I have seen so much that contradicts it.
And you are right about many ex-gays falling back into their old lifestyle. However, many people in recovery, or in false recovery (haven't really done the work) do this, so I am not surprised. It fits the recovery model well.
But I have learned many things from our discussions, including:
– i don't need to make global statements about the "cause" of all homosexuality. Some may be that way because they are born that way. Now, I don't believe that, but it could be possible, so I have to allow for that possibility. Therefore, the best I can say is that *some* gays fit the gender identity malformation model.
– the truths of masculine recovery are not limited to helping gays recover, and so I don't have to be focused on gays, but can share those general ideas with all men, gay and straight
– it is easier to talk with people who are gay but not happy about it – people who want to change, and to whom I can offer hope. People who don't want to change are a different story, and may need a different approach
– many in the gay community want to supress the ideas behind reparative therapy. They see it as doing harm to gays.
– anyone interested in this type of ministry will suffer persecution from people who are offended, and hateful and fearful themselves. I have to make an effort not to fall into their anger and bitterness, getting caught in useless arguments
Oh, dear, feeling persecuted? What's with you xtians and persecution, anyway?
And of course it's easy for you to talk to gays who are miserable and self-hating. They fit right into your model of how gays should be. Someone like me who isn't miserable about it – in fact, is happy about it (other than having to live in a homophobic culture) – will be a different matter. I am content with my identity. I see no reason to twist myself into some alien form just to please a heterosexist society or theoretical father-god. I prefer reality.