First published at 365gay.com on March 3, 2008
People often ask me what I think about ex-gay ministries. I have no objection to them in principle, but serious problems with them in practice.
I have no objection to them in principle because I believe we should give others the same respect that we ourselves demand. That includes giving people wide latitude about living their lives as they see fit. If you really believe that you're heterosexual deep down, and you want to take steps to help realize that identity, far be it from me to insist otherwise. I'll let you be the expert on what you feel deep down, as long as you show me the same courtesy.
In fact, many ex-gays do not show me the same courtesy. I've had several tell me, "C'mon-deep down you know that being gay is wrong." I know no such thing, and I resent it when other people tell me what I know "deep down." So let's make a deal: you don't tell me what I know deep down, and I won't tell you what you know deep down.
I'm not denying that people are capable of deep self-deception; indeed, I know it firsthand. For years I insisted that I was "really" straight, even though (1) I had gay feelings, (2) I had no straight feelings, and (3) I knew that people with gay feelings but no straight feelings are gay. (This, from someone who would later teach elementary logic.) Somehow, by not letting my thoughts "touch," I could avoid drawing the feared conclusions from them.
Maybe ex-gays are engaged in similar self-deception; maybe not. The point is that it's their feelings, their life, their decision to make. So I won't oppose their efforts in principle.
In practice, I have at least three serious problems with ex-gay ministries.
The first is their tendency to promote myths about the so-called "homosexual lifestyle" by generalizing from some people's unfortunate personal experiences. Ex-gay spokespersons will often recount, in lurid detail, a life of promiscuity, sexual abuse, drug addiction, loneliness, depression, and so on. "That is what I left behind," they tearfully announce, and who can blame them? But that experience is not my experience, and it's by no means typical of the gay experience. To suggest otherwise is to spread lies about the reality of gay and lesbian people's lives. (The best antidote for this is for the rest of us to tell our own stories openly and proudly.)
The second problem is the ex-gay ministries' abuse of science. Many of its practitioners are engaged in "therapy" even though they are neither trained nor licensed to do so; some of that "therapy" can cause serious and lasting psychological damage. Ex-gay ministries tend to lean on discredited etiological theories-domineering mothers, absent fathers, and that sort of thing. They also tend to give false hope to those who seek such therapy. By all respectable accounts, only a tiny fraction of those who seek change achieve any lasting success. Even then it's unclear whether feelings, or merely behaviors, have been changed. While we shouldn't reject individuals' reports of change out of hand, nor should we pretend that their experience is typical or likely.
The third and related problem is that many ex-gay ministries promote not merely a "change," but a "cure." "Cure" implies "disease," which homosexuality is not. Insofar as ex-gay ministries promote the long-discredited notion that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, I oppose them. ("Spiritual" disorders are another matter, but then we've left the realm of science for that of religion. Ex-gay ministries have an unfortunate habit of conflating science, religion, and politics.)
I am not at all threatened by the notion that some people can change their sexual orientation, if indeed they can. In reality, it seems that at best only a small number can do so, and only with tremendous effort. But if they can, and that makes them happy, good for them. I'm confident enough in my own happiness that I need not doubt theirs.
Nor do I feel the need to insist that I was "born this way." Maybe I was, maybe I wasn't. What I can say with confidence is that these feelings are a deep and fulfilling part of who I am, and I see no reason to mess with them. Quite the contrary.
So when ex-gays announce, from billboards and magazine ads, that "Change is possible," I say: Possible? Maybe. Likely? No. Desirable? Not for me, thanks.
Corvino, John
{ 123 comments }
← Previous Comments
ND30- Then why not just write refuse to enable? I don’t think you are being candid, “get rid of” sounds sinister.
Think what you like, Patrick.
But I will point out the irony of your obsessing over those words when there are far more actual and obvious examples of wishing ill on other gay people out there.
And frankly, given that gays and lesbians on this site regularly claim I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest, your insinuations are rather small potatoes in comparison.
“”And frankly, given that gays and lesbians on this site regularly claim I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest, your insinuations are rather small potatoes in comparison.”"
Okay, apparently I missed that accusation.
“But that is typical; you automatically assumed that a lesbian was being falsely accused and that it was all the result of straight “homophobia”.”
No, I didn’t. What I did do was not discount immediately the POSSIBILITY that such a thing might happen.
I do know the details of the Bleskachek case, as you well know. And you know goddamn well that, knowing the details, I believe that her charges were NOT trumped up and were NOT motivated by homophobia. But you act like it’s impossible that ANY sexual harassment charges against a gay person could be trumped up like that.
It’s not ridiculous to, until the details are know, be damn suspicious of such charges against one of the first lesbian supervisors in a field like fire-fighting. It’s completely reasonable to withhold condemnation and presume innocence. The most I’ve ever seen anyone do is take that too far – continuing to hold out belief in innocence in the face of evidence. No one says she was ALLOWED to harass, a point that you have repeatedly refused to concede.
As for Blescachek knowing which buttons to push: DUH. But there wouldn’t BE buttons to push at all if there weren’t a pattern of discrimination and persecution of LGBTs. And no gay person or organization that I know of is supporting her or has taken up the cause of clearing her name For Great Justice. It’s over. She’s done. The only reason we’re still talking about her is because you’re in love with her story because you think it proves something it doesn’t.
“I feel for those lesbians; they’re probably treated like dirt by the rest of the LGBT community for “squealing” on Bleskachek, not just keeping their mouths shut, and thus making the “community” look bad.”
Any evidence? No? How surprising.
Katamari, he’s doing his regular thing:
Taking the absurd statement of one person somewhat out of context, and then attributing it to many, many people – perhaps “gays and lesbians on this site”, perhaps “gays and lesbians”.
He is not “regularly accused” of any such thing. He’s just a crybaby.
Alpha, it’s pro gay organizations like PFLAG and Lambda Legal that would break down gay households by ethnicity.
I took the Pew information you found and CROSS referenced it with the others by the Alliance Defense Fund, the Family Research Council.
The FRC for example keeps floating numbers from the CDC on short lifespans and higher incidence of HIV/AIDS among gay men.
And Rebecca Hagelin of the Heritage Foundation keeps saying that children suffer from having gay parents.
But when you take all the information that say, the CDC does say or the American Psychiatric Association from what the Heritage Foundation says…one can show that the HF only tells half the information and makes it look like the CDC or APA are in concurrence.
It takes a lot of work, Alpha.
And some of it I did a few years ago.
Northdallass is once again lying. I told him I wouldn’t be surprised If he had an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest, I never ventured an opinion as to whether or not he actually did. Of course he then lies and claims “gays and Lesbians” accused him of this when not a single one did. It really doesn’t matter what Northdallass says, you can safely assume its a distortion at best or a lie at worst.
And by the way, I made that statement after I opposed polygamy, incestuous and pedophilic marriages and Northdallass defended pedophilia responding “I’m sorry, Randi, but all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”.
So, as you can see the statement was a fact, it would NOT be surprising if Northdallass did have an eight year old chained up in his basement to molest.
Obsessing? hardly. I was just peeking under your peeling veneer; so far what I have seen is appalling. You write that ?get rid of? is another way of saying ?refusing to enable?. While the latter is passive the former is certainly aggressive. If your intentions are flaccid you certainly don?t present them as such. I characterize your first statement is indicative of your attitude and your second as backtracking. I know the Nazis weren?t refusing to enable when they got rid of the Jews or that when I get rid of a sweater I am not refusing to enable my clothing. I can not think of any instance that the two would be interchangeable, maybe you could contrive one? Thanks for giving me your OK to think what I want, that was nice of you.
To Karen–great responses! ND 30 does have false notions about “this odd worldview” that gays and lesbians claim to have. He continually attacks gays and lesbians(I think all respondents in this forum realize this!) yet he never disparages straights—-it sounds alot like the “the odd worldview” for him.
Priya, I really hate to defend him, but he was clearly being sarcastic in that excerpt – he was trying to make a point – a stupid point that’s been made a million times and refuted a million times, but a point nevertheless. Your remark was either over the line, or woefully blind to sarcasm.
Amusingly, though, I’ll never get credit for sticking up for him. He’ll continue to pretend that everyone here truly believes that he has an 8-year-old chained up in his basement. And he’ll continue to pretend that he’s the only gay person in existence possessing enough principles to chastise another gay person. And he’ll continue to be a little drama-queen crybaby about a stupid remark on an internet forum where he CHOOSES to come and hijack perfectly decent threads (which, granted, I enable him in. I can’t help it! He’s so wrong!)
Thanks, Frank.
Regan,
How any of what you have said shows that the rate of homosexuality does not vary between different ethnic groups, I have no idea.
While Corvino’s piece partially outlines a “live and let live” attitude toward the freedom of ex-gays to embrace transformational therapy (I can’t adopt the PC notion that it’s repairing anything, sorry) but not to advance their false scientific or qualitative claims, I’m amazed at the intolerant attitude of so many supposedly “enlightened” liberal gays here toward anyone who holds a non-orthodox viewpoint… and that’s the liberal gay orthodoxy, I mean.
Karen, Priya, FrankC; you prove that narrow minds aren’t just the province of radical religionists… you guys show some pretty narrow, intolerant and closed opinions very nicely.
I agree with Corvino… let the ex-gay folks do what they want. Let ‘em be. They aren’t impacting constructively on the public square… anymore than the Right’s HomeMilitia movement folks… or the Left’s CodePink… or the moral relativists’ NAMBLA. They have their opinion; I think it’s irrelevant to me or the broader societal issues we ought to be pressing.
Pick your battles. Ex-gay claims to restorative (ugh) or transformational therapy shouldn’t be one of them.
Michigan Matt,
Care to elaborate? Which of ND30′s points of view that I contested are simply “unorthodox” and not actually based on faulty logic and lies?
He’s entitled to his own opinions. He is not, however, entitled to his own set of facts, nor to his own rules of logic.
Alpha, I was trying to make a very simple point. And it was in part that proves that the strong mother/weak father theory and it’s correlation to homosexuality isn’t true.
ESPECIALLY because of the higher incidence of single parent homes headed by black mothers. (That’s on record.)
So I was reiterating that since THAT is true, then (according to those who support ex gay ministry), then there SHOULD be a higher incidence of homosexuality among black men.
And their isn’t.
That’s the point I was trying to make.
I found a book by a friend of mine, Eric Wat on the gay Asian community in Los Angeles. In his book at least he outlines how large the Asian (including all Asian cultures) and how it grew in Los Angeles in particular.
As I said Alpha…I cobbled some information together from different sources and my own results don’t square with what the pro ex gay or anti gay information tells you.
I didn’t say a particular organization or information was available that did the cobbling for me and put the results together.
In fact…they do just the opposite.
I have Armenian, Asian and Latino friends who are social scholars and they’ve done research AND they are gay. THEY tell me what happens in their respective cultures and I put it together with what the AFA or FRC says on their websites.
I said I CROSS referenced information. I don’t think I ever said that any ONE group or person was representative of doing so.
Regan,
‘there SHOULD be a higher incidence of homosexuality among black men.
And their isn’t.’ It’s still not quite clear how you know this.
One, I am a black woman very close to the trends of my own culture and demographic. I live in a big city with all manner of information and experience at my disposal. I know the trend of such mothers well in my own environment and family. The black churches, in fact are usually speaking out against this very distinct trend in the area.
Now, I’m sure…that if this strong mother/weak father trend produced and also disproportionate amount of homosexual black men, the anti gay/ex gay forces at hand would TRUMPET it from the rooftops as evidence of their being right.
It’s well known just how strong the black mother is too. REAL strong. It’s the subject of movies, books, the entire cultural lexicon of black Americans.
I’m a strong black woman myself.
It’s my whole LIFE.
Where YOU been? THAT’S how I know.
And?
What’s being EX-GAY about? It’s about the religious right trying to turn the tables on gay people and be able to point their fingers saying “See see see the gays are really the ones who are intolerant!” – all the while using and cruelly manipulating homosexuals who have been conditioned by our society to believe they face a life of misery if they don’t somehow become heterosexual. No one, absolutely no one, would choose to be gay – college women temporarily playing at rebellion until their senior year aside – in our society. As someone who dropped out of college in the 80′s and spent several years contemplating suicide before I finally understood I, a white middle class straight arrow, had been duped by our homophobic society into hating myself and putting the blame on myself, this subject simply infuriates me – even now, years later, when I generally shrug off the usual anti-gay crap.
I guess that I or anyone else shouldn’t really get too worked up over this subject. It seems that every “ex-gay” who’s made a name for himself has been caught “relapsing”. It doesn’t get much attention which I take as a sign that all but the most Bible-addled recognize the whole business as ideologically driven bullshit.
It is silly to claim that a person’s race makes them more or less likely to be gay or straight.
The notion that having a ‘domineering’ mother or an absent father makes a person gay or straight is also totally without merit.
Sexual orientation may be the result of biological and sociological factors, but its not the result of our own petty prejudices about race, gender, class and sex.
Richard,
Whether people of some races are or are not more likely to become homosexual than people of different races is an interesting question that has never, so far as I know, been settled by science. Theoretically, it’s possible that blacks are inherently less likely to become homosexual than whites. No one knows enough to be sure whether this is true or not, and in this age of political correctness probably no one would be brave enough to do the research to settle the issue.
I’d respect exgay and Christian Right pseudo-therapeutic groups more if they actually engaged in evidence-based psychotherapeutic and counselling care of their clients.
You might be interested in having a look at the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au), which has been running a series of useful articles about the questionable standards of ‘care’
at Mercy Ministries, a fundamentalist run “social service” agency that “cares” for young women with eating disorders, unplanned pregnancies, past experiences of child sexual abuse, depression- oh, and lesbianism…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
Alpha – Black men are no different from white men in regard to sexual orientation, speaking from experience and not political correctness. Obviously, however, they feel more pressure not to deviate from their “group” because of racism, hence their greater discretion and reticence. Not being openly gay is not the same thing as being straight, needless to say.
Well, I do not have a problem with ex straights becoming radical queer advocates -who would have thought?- and telling the rest of us, who never lied to anyone, what to do and what to think. They make me laugh out loud.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.