Are there any gay people who think they choose to be gay?

Post Reply New Topic

Why does it matter to ME? For the purposes of this thread it doesn't. What I see is problematic reasoning. I don't understand the assumption that accepting homosexuality as one's own path is the ONLY possible path one can take. It clearly isn't. But choosing active homosexuality or choosing an alternative path in coping with unwanted attraction is not the same as saying homosexuality can be cured. I'm just curious about what the possibilities really are. I'm also fascinated by the idea of what would happen or what it would mean if homosexuality was to be understood as a choice, whether one is "born that way" but could make alternative choices or if that's just an illusion and the choice existed all along.

I tend to believe that people will do whatever they want and that we have a lot more freedom than we give ourselves credit for. Perhaps rather than ask a straight guy, it might be better to ask an active, open homosexual the same question: Why does it matter so much that isn't a choice?


NO reason? OK, but my worldview holds that we ALL have something to be ashamed about, that we are born the way we are, and that the only chance we have at breaking free from our nature is through a Divine power. That's not to say all people hold or should hold the same worldview that I do, but we all also have a right to our faith and/or opinions and the expression of same. And that also means that our reasons for accepting/rejecting various things as right/wrong are our own. A Christian believer struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction at the very least deserves to know that he is not compelled to choose a path inconsistent with his faith. You are assuming that the social norms in question are unhealthy without taking into consideration that someone might actually prefer those norms. If we're talking about norms within a community of believers, then you are making the assumption that the religious community is undesirable. And you can't know that for every single person, especially those struggling against unwanted attraction.

It bears repeating that no one is suggesting a "cure" here.


This suggests that it is OK to impose your opinions and beliefs on a society that may not be ready to accept them. You can't force people to just believe whatever you want them to believe. Look at it from the gay perspective--you don't like contrary ideologies from anti-gays being imposed on you, do you? So what does it solve being militant about it? If you want people to be accepting of homosexuality, you have to show them the same understanding and tolerance of their views as you do of your own, and that will often mean understanding and tolerance of views you really despise.

Don't give me that drivel. The origin and nature of morality is the philosophical and, for some people, theological question. Practical questions of right and wrong, though, are often pretty clear-cut and simple. A child could figure out that it's wrong to advise gay men that enough prayer and wishful thinking can abolish all of the gay thoughts from their minds, when this leads a number of them to being ridden with feelings of guilt and self-loathing, even to the point of killing themselves, for not being able to do so.

You said, "the problem with evangelical Christianity," and now you are kind of back-tracking on that. The way I see it, you are playing around, here.



Look, I happen to know a little bit more than most people about how gay people have been treated historically because I tend to meet a lot of older gay men, and the abuse against gay people has never had anything to do with what Paul spouted off in Romans or Corinthians. It had everything to do with macho-ethics and conformity. You weren't persecuted for being "immoral." If it was "acceptable" or "expected" immorality, it was often rewarded. You were persecuted for being "different." You were persecuted for being "a weirdo." You were also persecuted for being "weak." I knew one man who was sexually abused by his older brother. His father beat him for "being a sissy" and "not being man enough" to fight his abuser off, and his parents never acknowledged the sexual nature of the abuse. To them, the real sin was that their youngest son curled up into a tight ball as his brother and his hoodlum friends beat him and kicked him, rather than trying to fight back.

The reality is that evangelical Christians are vicious, callus, closed-minded and hateful toward anybody who doesn't think, act or sin in the way that they do. They will gladly take in somebody who has abused alcohol or knocked-up a woman. It's "normal," therefore it suits them fine. This doesn't have anything to do with their religious faith. It has everything to do with the fact that they feel thoroughly justified in abusing anyone who looks, thinks or acts differently or they regard as "sub-par," and that's just how it is.

Evangelical Christianity is morally bankrupt.

And you directed me to an anti-gay Christian site.

Nope. He showed every evidence of being a bisexual youth, period. His main love interest was his girlfriend. There is a difference between someone who is bisexual and someone who is thoroughly gay. Some gay people are not even capable of becoming aroused with a woman, even if they try. It's apples and oranges.

None of them reported a "sharp decline" or "complete reorientation."

Any other route is destructive for a person who is really 100% gay. It just doesn't work.

You haven't shown any evidence for this claim at all, though, and I have presented you with ample reason to believe that this is not the case. You have lost this argument.

AngelRho,

From my perspective, the bottom line is that you cannot prove a generality through anecdotes.

Are there people who have emerged from "ex-gay" programs as happy, well-adjusted individuals? I would be a fool to suggest that there were not. And you are correct that it cannot be claimed that such programs are invariably harmful (though, bear in mind that I have never made such a claim).

But the experience of a handful of individuals does not validate these programs.

And you have consistently failed to go behind the superficial question to speak to the deeper issue: "Why do these programs exist in the first place?"

When a child grows up in an environment in which LGBT people are demonized, it should suprise no one when that child--upon discovering a same-sex orientation--becomes psychologically damaged. When a person must face a choice between alienation from that person's family and upbringing, and suppression of that person's innate sexuality, there is no good result. Both alternatives are equally apalling.

So, who is the more blameworthy? A child who develops a same-sex orientation has no choice in the matter. Sexuality manifests without any conscious act on the part of the individual. But a community does have a choice about the values that it teaches.

When Christians preach that homosexuality is an abomination they are intentionally setting out to cause the consequences of preaching that doctrine. And they know--or ought properly to know-- that the consequences of their preaching is emotional harm (and in some cases inciting others to inflict violence). They know full well the devastation that their hateful doctrine will inflict upon others, and they are perfectly content to see that devastation take place.

So, I am throwing down the gauntlet at you: acknowledge the harm that you, yourself, have caused, and that your fellow believers have caused. Acknowledge your sin, and seek forgiveness from those you have harmed. Or continue to live as a hypocrite.

I haven't attempted to. Or if I did, it really is beside the point. But I've also referenced one study and a real-world ex-gay.

One issue we'll always run into with this sort of discussion is that it's predominantly a matter of psychology, which is a branch of study that inherently depends on anecdotal evidence. If you want to argue that psychology isn't a legit science, then that's fine with me and we don't have anything left to discuss. However, given that the discipline of psychology is integral to other disciplines, it would be a shame to completely disregard it.


I regard you as one of the more sensible posters here since you at least try to keep an open mind about it. I know you never made that claim, so my comments on such claims are not directed at you.


It does serve as evidence that such programs may have some efficacy, though. Secular groups, unfortunately, do not seem to show interest in so-called conversion or reorientation programs. It comes as no surprise to me that the data is disproportionate. But the data that IS available could point a legit way towards further study.


No, I mean, I've addressed that in other posts. To be direct, though, the programs exist for the benefit of those who want change. That may not be the historical reason, but in the present context different programs exist in part because some people deal with an unwanted attraction.


This is somewhat misleading. I'm not defending what Christians have done in the past and what many continue to do. But Christians are not completely at fault, either. Many Christians are caught off-guard when confronted with LGBT issues, so coming up with an appropriate (and Biblically consistent) response may at first be too difficult to in a crisis moment. It is possible to remain consistent with Biblical teaching on homosexuality without returning someone's need for compassion with cruelty. What you see is that people either haven't taken the time to understand unwanted attraction or they just haven't had enough time yet.

You also, of course, see people that are just glad that THEY aren't gay and aren't interested at all in compassion. Westboro comes to mind. Those people have the greatest need to repent and they can't even see it.


I regret any senseless harm that I've done to anyone (in any capacity) and hope for forgiveness. I can't speak for fellow believers, though; they have to answer for themselves.

But I should also add that this is a pretty confrontational statement. I think if I should be asked to apologize on behalf of all believers, then I should likewise ask you to apologize for the harm experienced by people like Dennis Jernigan who have been misled by the LGBT community to think that accepting homosexuality is the only answer for unwanted attraction. It's interesting to me that I've dealt with bullying most of my life and continue to be the target of some especially judgmental individuals, yet I'M the one bearing the demands for an apology. I fail to see how our respective inequities amount to any kind of justice.

^^^^^

As long as you hold the belief that homosexuality should be criminalized, your words and asking for forgiveness are nothing. Do you still think that?

I think you should finally admit what you thought the actual punishment should have been, since if you asked for forgiveness you obviously recanted on that statement saying you condone societies that imprison/kill them, so any attempt to ban you would be moot. I am putting that in bold and in larger letters since if a moderator see this they will just know you are saying a former belief you do not hold anymore. You can be completely open about this now.

This would have been nice to know you recanted before I accused you of supporting the death penalty twice on this thread, by the way.

I'm just saying, numerous people think you want it criminalized, but asking for forgiveness means you don't hold it as an abomination for it to be a crime anymore, and this would be a good time to dispel all this, especially on a thread about homosexuality.

Your regret doesn't do anything for anybody.

Look, homophobia doesn't even come from Christian doctrine, but it stems primarily from hostility toward anyone who looks, thinks or acts differently. I have known these "evangelical Christians." They are hateful toward anybody who thinks differently or is outside "the norm." They are just as nasty and mean-spirited toward people who have psychiatric problems as they are toward gay people.

You can't take away homosexuality. However, gay people can settle into stable relationships. They don't even necessarily have to have sex. Having a constant partner in your life often, although perhaps not always, takes away the need for sex. It is better than sex could ever be to just be close to someone who can be there as a fixture in your life. Whether or not they are sexually active, gay people are living healthier lives if they have a steady partner of the same sex. There is no substitute for it.

However, it is not realistic for most people to just try to run away from being gay. Gay bars are filled with married men who thought, at one time, that they could run away from being gay. They married their wives with nothing but good intentions and a willing spirit. Trying to pretend that you can just "pray the gay away" leads ultimately to broken families.

And it's fine to talk about celibacy, but these "conversion therapy" programs are not focused on celibacy. They are focused on convincing gay people that they can become straight people, if only they pray hard enough, and it doesn't work. They are taught to believe that they are failures if they cannot succeed in praying away the gay. These programs are excessively cruel. They are evil.

Really, that's the crux of it: if Christians were saying, "gay people ought to practice celibacy," that would be a little much to ask for in some cases, but maybe it would be realistic for some people. I don't know. I have an easier time of going without sex than most people. However, that's not what the conservative Christians are asking for because it's not what they want. The reason they resent gay people is that gay people are "not normal."

If you told them, "let the gay people go on identifying as gay and having feelings toward the same sex, but have them practice celibacy," they wouldn't want to even consider it. It's not gay sex that bothers them but GAY PEOPLE. The fact that gay people exist, with their "unnatural and abnormal urges" is what the uneducated conservative Christian hates about gay people, period. They don't hate gay people for practicing sodomy, but they hate gay people for being fags in the first place. That is the bottom-line.

Because you know better.

People don't choose who they feel sexual attraction towards any more than they can choose how tall they want be.

This may be my misinterpretation of your intention. I am still somewhat at a loss to understand your ultimate point. "Ex-gay programs aren't always bad," seems to me to be a very flimsy point to be hammering away at, but if this is truly the sum and total of what you are trying to say, then the misunderstanding is mine.

For clarity, however, I do think it should be noted that you have referenced a debunked study and your real-world ex-gay is a single case.



I see us parting ways here. I certainly don't agree that psychology "inherently depends on anecdotal evidence." In fact one of the greatest challenges of psychological research (as opposed to clinical practice) is the need to use population samples that are sufficiently large to mitigate the impact of outliers. And, of course, translating research into clinical practice carries the inherent risk that if the patient is an outlier, then all of the research in the world is only going present limited guidance for the clinician.

And I certainly don't accept that the experience of a handful of individuals is evidence of even a possibility of efficacy on the part of those programs. If I administer placebo to 100 of my patients and five of them recover, it is not evidence of efficacy of the placebo that I administer. It is evidence, only, that five of those patients recovered.

Similarly, the handful of people who have emerged successfully from ex-gay programs (assuming that this is, in fact, an accurate description) is evidence only of their circumstances. It proves no causation.



I think you are still being disingenuous. Why do those people want to change? What is it about their circumstances that causes them to view ex-gay programs as the better reconciliation between sexual orientation and cultural environment?

Now, we are still stuck, of course, in the world of the psychological, where the anecdotal and the outlier are ever present. But it seems to be inescapable that ex-gay programs exist primarily (if not exclusively) within the confines of evangelical protestant christianity. While the Roman Catholic Church might preach that homosexual Catholics are "called to chastity" it does not go about creating programs to "cure" their sexual orientation.



I don't see this as an example of being "caught off-guard." This is a consistent, ongoing, deliberate teaching. Westboro might be the lunatic fringe--but the preaching of a hateful message toward homosexuality, under the guise of "biblical teaching," is wanton and it is cruel. And it is this wanton and cruel message that is fuelling the crises that gay-identified Christians are undergoing.



I expressed myself poorly. I certainly don't expect you to seek forgiveness for the actions of all of your fellow believers. You need only seek forgiveness for that harm that your actions have caused. But the call to acknowledge the broader harm puts your own actions in context. When a preacher stands up and calls homosexuals evil, do you commit a sin of omission when you fail to challenge that teaching? When you repeat that teaching, do you commit a sin of commission by repeating that which you know (or ought to know) to be cruel?

For my part, I think the gay community has far greater sins to acknowledge than people like Dennis Jernigan. I think that we must acknowledge the consequences of the sexual licentiousness that prevailed in many communities in the 1970s--not only from an epidemeological perspective, but also in terms of the consequences for an aging generation of gay people.

The difference I see between you and me is that I am prepared to stand up and acknowledge the harm that "my people" have done, and to challenge the received truths that have contributed to it. I don't see you doing the same.

I agree. Though whether it is a choice or not should not even matter really, imo. There is a broad spectrum of sexuality and romance. Some people might be sexually attracted to both sexes but only romantically attracted to one, for example

I'm more concerned with civility in a dialoging with people holding opposing viewpoints. I'm not interested purposefully doing harm to anyone. Honestly, I believe the death penalty is wrong--however, so is murder. The death penalty is wrong purely for the reason that there shouldn't even be a reason for it. But those reasons do exist, so sometimes things like the death penalty exist. There is no point in ever apologizing for doing the right thing. But I get no pleasure from hurting anyone and would prefer to avoid doing so if I at all can. I would hate to think I could be persecuted for simply being less perfect than some others.


OK, but what exactly do we mean by "homophobia"? I'm an arachnophobe, though I've learned how to handle some spiders without fear. But being creeped out by spiders doesn't mean I have an innate instinct to kill every single spider I see. Wasps, on the other hand, will instinctively try to hurt me, so I do turn into a genocidal maniac any time I'm confronted by a wasp nest. I feel perfectly justified in that had the roles been reversed, I firmly believe the wasps would regard me with the same agenda they do now.

Homosexuals are fellow human beings, and I think most thinking people, including some Christian evangelicals, would admit that they do not feel threatened by homosexuals. So I don't think, properly speaking, that "homophobe" is really an accurate label for what you're describing. Maybe for some, but I contend that it isn't appropriate for all who disagree with the morality of homosexuality or its acceptability. It's used as a polarizing term, and accusing all Christians, especially evangelicals, won't win any favor with them.


Agreed. But for people who believe that homosexuality is wrong yet still have to confront unwanted attraction, a "substitute" would just mean turning from one thing that is wrong to something else that is wrong. They don't want a substitute. They want it completely gone from their lives. But if they can't get rid of it, they at least want help in making their lives livable in coping with those feelings. That could take the form of somehow reducing the attraction or avoiding the temptation to engage in homosexual behavior.


Agreed. But what if someone really regarded being gay as wrong and yet still felt SSA? They don't deserve support in dealing with unwanted SSA and try to keep their families together? The way this looks to me is that men who have unwanted SSA are free to be gay but not free to maintain their faith.


These are some very broad generalizations. Do you really believe that ALL programs have that effect 100% of the time? "Failure" in Exodus is more a measure of a failure in the program to reach the participant, not a failure of the participant. I'm not convinced Exodus is excessively cruel. Also, how do you define "evil"? And is that "evil" universally, absolutely applicable?


OK, but all this really proves is that hardline conservative Christian evangelicals need to repent. And I really do like how you put it: "uneducated conservative Christian"

Incidentally, I had the pleasure of meeting Dennis Jernigan through a mutual friend. He's one of those guys that most Christians have no idea that they actually know because of the strong influence he has had on church music. He feels strongly that Christians are often led away from the faith for the LGBT community because they aren't able to find the love and support they need from the Christian community.

And what you said really is the problem. Christians generally seem clueless as to how they should approach someone struggling with sexuality issues. I believe the more Christians are educated and the more Christ-like compassion they show to those who are having such a crisis, more people brought up in a Christian church but experiencing SSA would begin to choose their faith and heterosexuality/celibacy over the LGBT community.


Indeed. And I'm being persecuted and baited because I believe that societies have to do the best they know how to live consistent with their values. And I continue to be harassed even after I comply with mods and try my best to be civil in discussions here without compromising the values I DO have. If I'm content to drop it, I feel it's only fair that others do as well.

EDIT: You know what? I think I did enough work to show how two-faced AngelRho is on this subject. It just keeps giving him an excuse to paint himself as a victim. If he still believes in criminally prosecuting homosexuals after asking for forgiveness from visagrunt that is the most dishonest thing I ever read on PPR. So I'll let others take part now. I did my job I think. It takes away a trump card to avoid posting here anyway.

For the record, I still believe he condones killing them if they do not turn straight, and I don't believe his asking for forgiveness since it is apparent, at least to me, that he still thinks gays should be criminally prosecuted. You don't think the death penalty is wrong if you agree it is acceptable in some cases. I am not going to hide my views to look respectable to some people.

Now you are playing semantics. It doesn't matter what the term is. We both know what it means.

And so are n****rs, but I usually prefer to call them "black people."

And this is why it is very cruel to try to teach gay people that they are "sinful" for being how they are.

Does it not register with you what this kind of preaching does to gay men? "By their fruits, you will recognize them."

Okay, so I am really not sure where we disagree there, if at all.

And I can tell you first-hand that one thing that actually does work is to develop a strong, stable relationship with a member of the same sex. Being in a solid relationship helps control your libido.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... erone.html

"A man's testosterone levels drop significantly when he holds an infant. Even holding a baby doll can decrease levels of the male virility hormone.

Married men, whether fathers or not, have markedly lower testosterone levels than single males, according to one of the first studies of how the hormone changes when men marry and become fathers. Results of the study, done by a team of Harvard University anthropologists, increase our knowledge of human biology and may have implications for so-called "male menopause."

If two gay men wanted to kill their desire for gay sex, getting married to each other would be an extremely effective means of doing it. It's actually very healthy, and I think that more gay men ought to consider it. The thing is, this wouldn't take away being gay. It would just give them a fulfilled and secure relationship in which they would no longer have a biological need for physical gratification. It works, and I can vouch for it first-hand.

And nobody would even have to commit suicide. I am speaking from experience. My way just works.

This is an interesting point. Although I hold such behaviours in utter contempt and disdain (I'm judgemental and unforgiving, I admit ), I think that you need to look a bit deeper. Let us first ask why such behaviour happened. Well, it felt good, both people partaking in the sexual activity were men with the typical male high libido, and there was no risk of pregnancy. Yet there are other factors involved. After all, these issues do not in and of themselves explain promiscuity, at least not to the extent in which it happened. I think that there are far larger reasons. First there's the fact that having a traditional monogamous relationship (or any sort of relationship, for that matter) was much more difficult for gay men and women. It was not generally acceptable to be open about these things and cohabitation could result in violence directed towards you. As such, one-night stands were really the easiest option. The other reason is perhaps even more important. These men were being told that their attraction was morally wrong; society's general moral system was condemning them. Naturally, they rejected this. Unfortunately, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater, and institutions like monogamy were rejected as well.

I'm inclined to believe that had, in the 1920s say, a magical fairy (pun intended) come and waived a magic wand making everyone believe that homosexuality was acceptable, natural, and that things like same-sex marriage should be legalized things would have turned out very differently. I suspect that then gay people would have practiced heterosexual norms such as monogamy. Or that they would have been by the 1970s anyway (well, except for the fact that the 70s was the 70s). I believe that to a large degree it was intolerance that caused these sorts of behaviours in the first place. I think that this is gradually starting to happen today, especially now that same-sex marriage is gradually being legalized. I was twelve, fiver years away from realizing that I was gay, when it was legalized nation-wide in Canada. It was legalized a year or two before that in my province. So when I came to terms with my homosexuality it was natural to assume that I'd still get married and live an otherwise traditional lifestyle. Admittedly, I am a bit of an odd case, but I think such ideas are becoming increasingly common among gay youth. The people who talk of the "gay lifestyle" (not what you or I mean when we say it, but the Queer as Folk type version) as a reason why same-sex marriage is a bad idea seem to miss the fact that if anything same-sex marriage will tend to reduce such behaviour.

Of course, you actually lived through these times and were coming to terms with your own homosexuality shortly thereafter. All I have to go on is a little bit of reading and some sociological theory. So you could easily be seeing things that I'm not.

Edit: And as usual, I see that I've written far too much.

I'm really not, though. I'm just trying to make sure we agree on terms. Most evangelicals that I know are not afraid of gays nor do they hate them. They'd be offended by that label and honestly deny it.

Also worthy of consideration is exactly what evangelicals we're referring to. Fire-and-brimstone, hell-and-damnation style is increasingly out of favor and being replaced by a "teaching" style or other style that focuses on keeping the gospel message relevant. I'm generally not in favor of "relevance" for the sake of filling pews (or auditorium seats, whatever), and I'm vehemently against the prosperity heresy (which is just pagan religion with "Christianity" stamped on it to make it look good). The younger Southern Baptist pastors I've gotten to know won't even touch the subject of homosexuality. The newer evangelical congregations tend to be a lot more inviting than the older ones.

So the issue is not with evangelicals as a whole. It's the older style that still maintains that in-your-face kind of approach. Opposing lifestyle decisions doesn't kill people. It's forgetting that compassion and understanding take precedence over condemnation.


Exactly what I'm talking about in regards to semantics... I'd never be allowed to get away with using racial slurs.


That's the beauty of it...western society affords most people the freedom to believe what they want and peaceably express their opinions without fear of persecution. If you don't want to live a Biblically consistent lifestyle, no one is going to force you to. But if you DO and part of that means accepting that something with which you struggle is immoral, then you would hope that your fellow believers would help you deal with those shortcomings. Christians accept that we are ALL born sinners. We are to live lives of repentance, but no amount of repentance makes us perfectly acceptable. Only Jesus can do that. We're discussing homosexuality here, but we should also accept that there are many other forms that sin might take. No one is in greater or lesser need of repentance than anyone else.

If someone WANTS to follow Christ, it is also cruel to let that person persist in sinful behavior because of how disruptive sin is to the relationship between a person and God.

I'd say it's cruel to compel someone who wants to live a Biblical lifestyle to accept homosexuality if they don't want to.


Sure...but as I mentioned this is becoming less and less the case. I think that the day is coming that the only time the topic will come up is if Christians are directly challenged by it.

The other time things like that will come up is when Christians are faced with knowingly supporting causes contrary to their faith. I'd be less inclined to shop at Sears, for instance, if I caught wind that they were selling pornography (hey, it's happened before).


Common ground is good.


The one POSITIVE thing about gay marriage. Now gays can NOT have sex just like heteros!


OK, but here we're meandering into a whole different topic, and I don't care to get into whether gay marriage is right or not, at least not in this thread.


Exodus International "just works" for some people, also. And they don't have to commit suicide, either.

...

Looks to me like we're just repeating ourselves here and we've both made our points. The last word is all yours if you want it. I've tried not to be confrontational about it and respect your views, even if we disagree; it appears to me that as long as we understood each other here you've been mostly civil. I appreciate that, and hope that any future exchanges we have continue to be so.

Don't feel bad.