Slog
News & ArtsSunday, March 21, 2010
Homo We Can "Accept" Ex-Gays
Posted by Dan Savage on Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 3:39 PM
And we can take them at their word, I suppose, and allow them to enjoy their ex-gayness unmolested. But when a conservative politician or religious bigot points to ex-gays as proof that no one else has to be gay (and hence there's no need to protect or acknowledge the civil rights of gays and lesbians)—and when ex-gays allow themselves to be used to make an explicitly anti-gay political point—then we have a right to ask that political/religious bigots this question: "Would you want your daughter to marry one?"
The answer is always no. Because the people out there pimping "ex-gays" don't believe in ex-gayness anymore than the still-gays and never-gays do.
1
But I thought they were dumb enough to want their daughter to marry one. Isn't the whole point that they actually believe this shit?
But it's still a good question. Check with some of these people and see if they want their daughter to marry an ex-gay. I think as long as they were Conservative-acting, Republican-appearing, and had been duly forgiven by Jesus for their past sins, they'd be all good to go.
But it's still a good question. Check with some of these people and see if they want their daughter to marry an ex-gay. I think as long as they were Conservative-acting, Republican-appearing, and had been duly forgiven by Jesus for their past sins, they'd be all good to go.
2
Would a bill that bans gays from adopting children ban ex-gays from adopting children? Is it like felons and voting, where they get their rights reinstated if they can prove they're ex-gay enough? Or are ex-gays allowed to adopt so long as they are in a heterosexual relationship?
I wonder.
I wonder.
3
Some of my best friends are ex-gays. But i wouldn't want my sister to marry one. My brother yes, but not my sister. Well, my sister if she is an ex-lesbian, but then not my brother.
4
Can't any hetero asshole claim to be ex-gay? The term is entirely meaningless unless a sex tape exists to prove the claim of "former gayness." Straight people cannot be trusted.
6
"...Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." is not limited to only those activities approved by people who clearly have limited capacity to think do to religious blindness.
7
Just as "Jews for Jesus" really means nothing more than "Christian" and the term is simply used in an effort to mask a discriminatory view of Jews, "Ex-Gay" really means nothing more than "straight" (or maybe bi-) and is simply used in an effort to mask a discriminatory view of gays.
9
Fundies that believe that gay is a choice, a lie of Satan, or giving in to SIN (ie: most of them) actually *do* believe that their daughters are okay to marry one, since there's no such thing as gay to begin with. I'm living proof, with kids and ex-wife to prove it.
All hell breaks loose when it doesn't 'take' after 10+ years, but what the hey- "he just gave in to Satan's lies" and "we're waiting to see him turn to the Lord and away from SIN".
And the never-ending sorrow grinds on....
All hell breaks loose when it doesn't 'take' after 10+ years, but what the hey- "he just gave in to Satan's lies" and "we're waiting to see him turn to the Lord and away from SIN".
And the never-ending sorrow grinds on....
11
There is a fundamental contradiction in the conservative religious argument: they believe that homosexual behaviour is non-biological in origin ("teh gayz iz merely naughty behaviour, 'cause it's fun to sin!") but also claim that gays must necessarily engage in certain behaviour, which implies a biological imperative ("all gay men molest children"/"all gays are promiscuous").
12
@11 Interesting statement... But I guess a conservative could just lump all that behavior in 'he chose to do it because he's the devil's servant, and has no morality.'
13
The whole concept of "ex-gay" is homophobic and I don't have a lot of interest in tolerating homophobia.
Do what you want with your life, but once you use your ex-gayness as a bludgeon to hurt the rest of us, my tolerance comes to an end.
Do what you want with your life, but once you use your ex-gayness as a bludgeon to hurt the rest of us, my tolerance comes to an end.
14
@12 Then they need to produce evidence of the existence of the devil.
This is what makes me tear out my hair when I hear conservatives attempt to construct arguments. They know less about reasoning than the average high school debate team.
This is what makes me tear out my hair when I hear conservatives attempt to construct arguments. They know less about reasoning than the average high school debate team.
15
Do they really _always_ say no? I expect those who know it's not likely to stick would lie and pretend like they'd be totally OK with it. They have an agenda to promote, why weaken it?
17
I think most religious conservatives would be very happy with the idea that their daughters are only having sex on very rare occasions for the purpose of procreation, in which case ex-gay husbands would be in high demand. These people are not just down on gayness, but generally on other people enjoying sex. They tend to draw the line at their own pleasure, however.
18
@16
Yeah it's not like any straight people have ever ridiculed, teased, harassed, violently assaulted/killed anyone for being gay to cause trust issues from our side of the fence. There is no reason not to trust straight people. Other than the fact they may just kill you, for being you.
I will never trust straight males, and my ability to trust a straight female is limited, at best. Do I see a problem with this? Nope, because I rather enjoy living. And remember their bigotry includes all that I've listed above and more, if my bigotry (and possibly the bigotry of other gay persons as well) is limited to not trusting their kind, tell me who's the more wrong?
Think of it this way. If at a young age a child is bitten or attacked by a dog, later in life they may have a fear of dogs and thus avoid them whenever possible. This is a simple, natural reaction. Just like some of us being distrustful of the breeders. Only it's not fair to compare dogs to such vicious animals.
Yeah it's not like any straight people have ever ridiculed, teased, harassed, violently assaulted/killed anyone for being gay to cause trust issues from our side of the fence. There is no reason not to trust straight people. Other than the fact they may just kill you, for being you.
I will never trust straight males, and my ability to trust a straight female is limited, at best. Do I see a problem with this? Nope, because I rather enjoy living. And remember their bigotry includes all that I've listed above and more, if my bigotry (and possibly the bigotry of other gay persons as well) is limited to not trusting their kind, tell me who's the more wrong?
Think of it this way. If at a young age a child is bitten or attacked by a dog, later in life they may have a fear of dogs and thus avoid them whenever possible. This is a simple, natural reaction. Just like some of us being distrustful of the breeders. Only it's not fair to compare dogs to such vicious animals.
19
No, I wouldn't want my kid to marry an ex-gay... honestly I really think that perhaps the ex-gays would be better of as a self-contained dating pool. At the very least, the rest of us would be better off.
21
Sure I'd let my daughter marry an ex-gay ... if I hated her and wished upon her a miserable sexless marriage to a maladjusted self-loathing Jesus freak.
22
Well, if their daughters brought home ex-gays, then their vaginas would remain "pure." That is their obsession, right? Female virginity without sexual agency? And, of course, the logical extension of the misogyny towards men who behave "like women?"
23
I agree with Dan.
If someone finds that anything about themselves is in enough disarray that they need therapy or a support group to live an otherwise normal life, then they have every right to make that choice, whether it is alcohol, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever.
Some people, apparently, feel that they are incapable of following their natural same-sex desires without ending up in a cycle of bars, promiscuity, drugs, and other horrible consequences and feel their souls are at risk as a result. If they need support, and can get it, then more power to them.
But the claims that because they have a support group, everyone needs one, or that everyone should be required to go to one, or that the rest of us don't actually exist in the first place, are so far outside the scope of reality that they have to be opposed.
And, of course, if the ex-gay movement was honest - that they are are support group for people who have trouble managing same-sex attraction, rather than a cure for homosexuality, the obvious solution is for their members to get therapy to become happy gay people, not unhappy straight ones.
If someone finds that anything about themselves is in enough disarray that they need therapy or a support group to live an otherwise normal life, then they have every right to make that choice, whether it is alcohol, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever.
Some people, apparently, feel that they are incapable of following their natural same-sex desires without ending up in a cycle of bars, promiscuity, drugs, and other horrible consequences and feel their souls are at risk as a result. If they need support, and can get it, then more power to them.
But the claims that because they have a support group, everyone needs one, or that everyone should be required to go to one, or that the rest of us don't actually exist in the first place, are so far outside the scope of reality that they have to be opposed.
And, of course, if the ex-gay movement was honest - that they are are support group for people who have trouble managing same-sex attraction, rather than a cure for homosexuality, the obvious solution is for their members to get therapy to become happy gay people, not unhappy straight ones.
24
Former straight people just don't get the attention of the media like the former gay folks do. Tis a pity....
25
Best sign ever at the protest in Washington:
If I can't marry my boyfriend, then I'll have to marry your daughter.
If I can't marry my boyfriend, then I'll have to marry your daughter.
27
@ 18 -
Presumably, most of the people who have harmed you were of a certain skin color, too. Perhaps most of them shared a hair color. Perhaps they all enjoyed a nice pasta salad. But I presume you have not lumped them all together in the "people who enjoy pasta salad cannot be trusted" category.
You are right that the human brain has a natural tendency toward prejudice as a precautionary measure. However, we also have logic, compassion, willpower, and the ability to out-think our ingrained prejudices.
As a straight female who is very much a believer in gay equality and a fighter for gay rights, I take offense at your immediate mistrust of me because I enjoy some wang in my vag.
Presumably, most of the people who have harmed you were of a certain skin color, too. Perhaps most of them shared a hair color. Perhaps they all enjoyed a nice pasta salad. But I presume you have not lumped them all together in the "people who enjoy pasta salad cannot be trusted" category.
You are right that the human brain has a natural tendency toward prejudice as a precautionary measure. However, we also have logic, compassion, willpower, and the ability to out-think our ingrained prejudices.
As a straight female who is very much a believer in gay equality and a fighter for gay rights, I take offense at your immediate mistrust of me because I enjoy some wang in my vag.
28
"Ex-gay" is nonsense. Not because it's impossible, but because it makes so much more sense to say "bisexual - currently exclusively interested in ________ (pick your gender)"
29
Um, no. I do not have to "accept" or "respect" "ex-gays" and their ilk.
I believe that, for some people more than others, sexuality is fluid and attractions change over time. I also believe that it is possible to change behaviours. But I reject the notion that religious or pseudo-scientific intervention can "change" anyone's sexual orientation.
I have about 3 friends who, after being gay most of their lives, ended up with a partner of the opposite sex. Those people I accept unquestioningly. (I also know people who came out as gay after living their entire lives as straight, but that's a different topic).
An "ex-gay," on the other hand, is a vastly different creature. An "ex-gay" is someone who, out of shame or religious indoctrination or external pressure or internalized homophobia, attempts to change his or her sexual orientation through charlatanistic "therapies" and religious intervention, all of which is based on lies, misinformation, fear-mongering, superstition and just plain bigotry. To "accept" "ex-gays" means to accept all these along with the dangerous falsehood that is "conversion therapy," and I for one utterly reject the entire package.
The difference between the friends I mentioned at the beginning of this post and "ex-gays" is that the former either came to a new understanding of their sexuality or unexpectedly experienced a new attraction; they haven't rejected their gay pasts, they don't advocate that anyone try do what they do, and they make no claim of external influence or attempts to "change." Ex-gays," on the other hand, either lie or are forced to lie about the so-called "treatment" to which they've been subjected, can frequently be found shamefully sneaking around with people of the same-sex following their supposed "cure," and perpetuate the bigoted lie that there is something wrong with homosexual feelings or behaviour. The biggest problem with "ex-gays" is that they aren't honest: if they truly believed the pablum fed to them and spouted by their religions (gay is bad; hate the sin, love the sinner), then they would accept that the cross they've been given to bear is one of unrequited love and sexual frustration, and they would quietly live their celibate lives amidst the admiration of their peers for the strength they show in bearing that cross.
So basically "ex-gays" and everyone involved in that particular movement can shove it up their collective ass.
More...
I believe that, for some people more than others, sexuality is fluid and attractions change over time. I also believe that it is possible to change behaviours. But I reject the notion that religious or pseudo-scientific intervention can "change" anyone's sexual orientation.
I have about 3 friends who, after being gay most of their lives, ended up with a partner of the opposite sex. Those people I accept unquestioningly. (I also know people who came out as gay after living their entire lives as straight, but that's a different topic).
An "ex-gay," on the other hand, is a vastly different creature. An "ex-gay" is someone who, out of shame or religious indoctrination or external pressure or internalized homophobia, attempts to change his or her sexual orientation through charlatanistic "therapies" and religious intervention, all of which is based on lies, misinformation, fear-mongering, superstition and just plain bigotry. To "accept" "ex-gays" means to accept all these along with the dangerous falsehood that is "conversion therapy," and I for one utterly reject the entire package.
The difference between the friends I mentioned at the beginning of this post and "ex-gays" is that the former either came to a new understanding of their sexuality or unexpectedly experienced a new attraction; they haven't rejected their gay pasts, they don't advocate that anyone try do what they do, and they make no claim of external influence or attempts to "change." Ex-gays," on the other hand, either lie or are forced to lie about the so-called "treatment" to which they've been subjected, can frequently be found shamefully sneaking around with people of the same-sex following their supposed "cure," and perpetuate the bigoted lie that there is something wrong with homosexual feelings or behaviour. The biggest problem with "ex-gays" is that they aren't honest: if they truly believed the pablum fed to them and spouted by their religions (gay is bad; hate the sin, love the sinner), then they would accept that the cross they've been given to bear is one of unrequited love and sexual frustration, and they would quietly live their celibate lives amidst the admiration of their peers for the strength they show in bearing that cross.
So basically "ex-gays" and everyone involved in that particular movement can shove it up their collective ass.
30
I love the use of the terms "still gay" and "never gay." I think I shall now refer to my straight friends as "never gays."
31
Valeanora [18]--out of curiosity, where does your trust stand with bisexuals and asexuals, or pansexuals? Giving how many straight people are gay rights supporters, and supporters for human rights in general, it is kind of insulting that you mistrust them right off the bat. However, if you grew up in a fundy-town like I did, I could kind of see why you'd mistrust anyone you met off the bat. Not saying that's right or fair, but I could see why'd you have that attitude. Doesn't make it any less sad though.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (31) RSS