David Fishback On The Radio
David Fishback, former chair of the MCPS Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Health and Human Development and currently speaking for TeachTheFacts.org and PFLAG, was interviewed on the Human Rights Campaign X-M radio program, The Agenda, on August 27. Click the link HERE to listen.
posted by JimK at 7:22 PM
16 Comments:
It's great that David could find a media outlet that would just let him talk without a CRC spokesman to keep him honest. He always does so bad in those debate and discusson formats.
Funny to listen to the two people interviewing him while they throw in sarcastic comments about the pro-family groups that aren't there to defend themselves.
Oh well, it ain't the MSNBC, but smoke 'em if you got 'em, right, TTF?
"Oh well, it ain't the MSNBC, but smoke 'em if you got 'em, right, TTF?"
You're the one who said "There really is no reason for the illegalization of marijuana." It's pretty obvious who smoked a few already.
To Crisp/Anonymous: More of your nasty, snide, supercilious comments. Sooo Tiresome!! Spend more time on the CRC site with your Cro-Magnon friends until you can learn some manners.
Agreed! Manners make you look educated and genuine... crisp and anon definately do not look/sound like that.
Despite claims by some mental-health experts, new research indicates that a change in sexual orientation is possible for some homosexuals. In the book Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, which was released today, authors Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse address two of the most disputed questions in the homosexuality debate: Is change possible and can the attempt to change be harmful?
C. S. Lewis said that science produced by Christians would have to be “perfectly honest. Science twisted in the interests of apologetics would be sin and folly.” Jones and Yarhouse took Lewis’ advice to heart as they conducted their research, which produced what publisher InterVarsity Press claims to be “the most scientifically rigorous study of its kind to date.”
Jones, a provost and professor at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Ill., spoke with CitizenLink about the research.
Q. What prompted you to conduct your study?
A. The ever-increasing pessimism expressed in the professional world that sexual orientation could ever be changed. This was in contrast to the fact that I occasionally met individuals in Christian circles who claim to have experienced precisely such change. When the mental-health field actually began to say that change is impossible — that sexual orientation cannot be changed — it formed the perfect scientific hypothesis to be able to conduct a study.
Q. How did you do the research?
A. The research on change is very complicated. Over the years, there have actually been dozens of studies conducted suggesting that change is possible for some people. However, the research is not of the highest quality and has been deeply and highly criticized. So, we first studied all the criticisms of those studies to look at what a high-quality study would look like, concluding that our proper methodology would need to be both prospective and longitudinal. Prospective means that you catch people before they begin the change process and follow them through the process, while longitudinal means that you’re actually following people over time to see if the change is stable. The scientific characteristics of the study are unique, in that no one has ever started early and then followed people over a long period of time like we did.
We then went out to a variety of ministries and asked for research volunteers that we could track over time. We then conducted long, detailed interviews with them at three stages: as they began the change process, a year and a half later, and again, a year and a half after that. In our new book, we’re reporting on the changes we observed in these subjects over roughly a three-year period.
Q. Can you share two or three key findings from your study?
A. We framed the whole study around two key hypotheses taken from claims made by the secular mental-health community that change is impossible and that the attempt to change is harmful. What we found by following these subjects over time is that not everyone is successful, not even a majority is successful, but a very substantial group of people report fairly dramatic change.
We found that 15 percent of our sample of about 100 claimed to actually have changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality. These people experienced significant enough change that they really felt like they had left one sexual orientation to shift into another. It needs to be said that this process is not like a light switch that switches from one switch point to the other. Life is still complicated for these people, and some still have some residuals of their homosexual attractions. However, they are people who report being able to function as heterosexuals, they’re happy with their marriages and they feel that their lives have changed dramatically.
The other type of success that we found in almost a quarter of the sample were the people who left the homosexual lifestyle and experienced very substantial reductions in homosexual attraction by embracing the Christian discipline of chastity, not acting on their sexual impulses. These were people who felt like they were free now to orient their lives not on their sexual, erotic desires and needs, but on their relationship with God and on healthy, nonsexual intimacy with other people. These two groups together — those who experienced what we call “conversion” to heterosexuality and the others who experienced chastity — made up about 38 percent of the sample. We feel these changes observed over this substantial period of time provide clear indication that the opinions of the secular mental-health field that change is impossible are simply wrong.
As I mentioned, the second area of our research focused on the secular mental-health community’s claims that the attempt to change is harmful. We administered a standard psychological inventory that measures psychological distress to our subjects at every point along the way. We found that there was essentially no change in their psychological distress over time. On that basis, we feel that there is no evidence that the change attempt is harmful, and we found evidence that change is possible for some people. I would hasten to add that our research doesn’t prove that anybody can change. It doesn’t prove that no one has ever been harmed from the attempt to change. It just suggests that the forceful way in which the secular mental-health community is saying change is impossible and harmful is just not well-advised.
Q. What are the implications of your findings?
A. I think the implications are multiple, but to pick one, the American Psychological Association has a blue-ribbon panel right now that’s examining the question of how the APA should formulate its formal policies about the attempt to change sexual orientation. Certain members of that group have already said publicly before the group comes to its conclusion that change is impossible and harmful, and we feel there has never been a good, empirical basis for saying that. We just simply hope that there will be enough of an open mind on the part of the secular mental-health community that they will not continue the movement towards banning these kinds of attempts to change sexual orientation, harassing them out of existence, and labeling as unethical any professional person who cooperates with them. There is a need to respect the autonomy of individuals who are distressed about what they have experienced sexually and for religious or moral reasons want to try the attempt to change. Those people first need to be fully informed about just how complex and difficult that process is and then they should have the right as individuals, as an exercise of personal and religious freedom, to seek support in their attempt to change sexual orientation.
Q. There are those who have tried to leave homosexuality, who were not successful. What would you say to them?
A. The heart of my response would be to say that the change process may be easier for some people and more difficult for others, and it might, in fact, be impossible for certain people to change meaningfully. I think our study says that change is possible for some people and that we need to keep an open mind about that. So, for an individual who feels they need to pursue change, particularly on a religious basis, our study encourages them to pursue that path.
Uncle Alias has provided us with yet another bit of plagiarized CitizensLink spin.
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005470.cfm
Pulling the few facts from all this spin shows 15 of 100 gays are now heterosexual although "some still have some residuals of their homosexual attractions." How many of the 15 still have these "residuals" and how long will they be able to live the lie that is life in the closet before these "residuals" come to the surface? How many years did Ted Haggard and Senator Craig manage to live the lie that is life in the closet before they got caught?
Let's see 38-15=23. 23 of 100 gays chose to be asexual, for now. We already know that for teenagers, 88% of those who pledge to remain abstinent until marriage fail. One can only wonder about the failure rate for those who pledge abstinence for life instead of until marriage.
100-38=62. That means 62 out of 100 gays are still gay.
"Uncle Alias has provided us with yet another bit of plagiarized CitizensLink spin.
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005470.cfm"
Obviously wasn't trying to claim that I conducted an interview myself. The pasted article clearly says in the text that the professor "spoke with CitizenLink".
"Pulling the few facts from all this spin shows 15 of 100 gays are now heterosexual although "some still have some residuals of their homosexual attractions.""
Actually you didn't have to pull with much force since the facts are plainly stated. The data also demonstrates another fact nicely: reparative therapy doesn't have any negative consequences per se. At least, not when the motive is religious conviction.
"How many of the 15 still have these "residuals" and how long will they be able to live the lie that is life in the closet before these "residuals" come to the surface?"
The idea that resisting any hedonistic impulse is dishonest represents one of the many insidious influences of the gay agenda movement.
"How many years did Ted Haggard and Senator Craig manage to live the lie that is life in the closet before they got caught?"
I've read many mainstream psychiatrists speculating that Craig was not homosexual but had some other type of self-destuctive mental condition.
"Let's see 38-15=23. 23 of 100 gays chose to be asexual, for now. We already know that for teenagers, 88% of those who pledge to remain abstinent until marriage fail."
No, you don't.
"One can only wonder about the failure rate for those who pledge abstinence for life instead of until marriage."
That's true since you have no facts.
"100-38=62. That means 62 out of 100 gays are still gay."
That's 38 less than TTF claims.
reparative therapy doesn't have any negative consequences per se. At least, not when the motive is religious conviction.
The corrent interpretation would be that RT had no negative consequences for these 100 Christian gays.
We already know that for teenagers, 88% of those who pledge to remain abstinent until marriage fail."
No, you don't.
Yes we do.
Based on those interviews with more than 20,000 young people who took virginity pledges, Bearman found that 88 percent of them broke their pledge and had sex before marriage.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/60minutes/main696975.shtml
That's 20,000 compared to this study of 100.
That's 38 less than TTF claims.
No, that's 23 non-sexual people and an unknown number out of 15 who have "residuals of their homosexual attractions."
You really should try to stick to the facts.
I'm sorry to confirm that it's easy to play at being heterosexual and to be "happy" in a marriage even when being truly miserable in your core.
The question is: why? You start off with the assumption that the only way to be happy is to be straight, and that is clearly untrue. Anyone who doesn't accept your premise wouldn't even consider converting.
And the most important thing to me is that even if those 15 converts were married and claimed to be partially straight, I believe it would be cruel and unusual to their spouses to pretend. Christianists never seem to care about the wives. Unless, of course, the wives freely choose to be married to gay men, which is not unheard of.
Long time no hear, doctor. I don't know if you've been following developments but Iraq now seems to be moving to the solution you and I had agreed on some time ago: division into Kurd-Shiite-Sunni states only loosely condeferated. Better yet, it's developing from the Iraqi people not imposed by us. Indeed, the Sunnis now ally with us to chase down al quaeda. The Kurds already appreciate us. Now, if we can just get the Shiite to accept our protection from their Iranian-backed radical elements, we'll be able to start winding this thing down and leaving the place in better shape for our involvement.
BTW, I remember how indignant you all were about Abramoff and the Republicans. How about Hillary and Hsu? Can someone get me a deal on cattle futures?
Global warming update: after much hyperbole and disruption of our economic system over the warning from top scientists of powerful and incessant hurricanes caused by hotter sea water, this week a hurricane, albeit weak, finally hit the mainland U.S..
Score: Gore!
"I'm sorry to confirm that it's easy to play at being heterosexual and to be "happy" in a marriage even when being truly miserable in your core."
Perhaps. But can you really universalize your own experience?
"The question is: why? You start off with the assumption that the only way to be happy is to be straight, and that is clearly untrue."
Since when?
"Anyone who doesn't accept your premise wouldn't even consider converting."
Uh, you're assuming someone else's premise. I think the Wheaton study was based on religious conviction.
"And the most important thing to me is that even if those 15 converts were married and claimed to be partially straight, I believe it would be cruel and unusual to their spouses to pretend."
Well, you don't know the circumstances of the 15 but even if they are as you assume, isn't the important thing whether the two people are happy with the relationship.
"Christianists never seem to care about the wives."
You again seem to presume too much. Just because someone is sometimes tempted, doesn't mean there can't be a happy marriage.
You'd have no problem with that if the temptation was another woman. Aren't you just being biased, from your perspective, to assume it's a bigger problem if the temptation is of a same-sex nature?
"Unless, of course, the wives freely choose to be married to gay men, which is not unheard of."
Probably in ex-gay situations, it's usually disclosed if it's in a religious community.
Beatrice
"The corrent interpretation would be that RT had no negative consequences for these 100 Christian gays."
This is the only study of the consequences of reparative therapy that exists. The organizations who cite harm phrase it as "potential" harm.
"Yes we do.
Based on those interviews with more than 20,000 young people who took virginity pledges, Bearman found that 88 percent of them broke their pledge and had sex before marriage."
There is no attempt to measure the depth of religious commitment among the 20K. The Wheaton study was not of the general population but focused on the religious. Other studies and polls have gotten similar results when measures of religious commitment were attempted.
"That's 20,000 compared to this study of 100."
A pretty non-descript 20K.
"That's 38 less than TTF claims.
No, that's 23 non-sexual people and an unknown number out of 15 who have "residuals of their homosexual attractions.""
You need to stop saying any fleeting gay feeling makes one gay. Even the MCPS curriculum does better than that!
From BoxTurtleBulletin:
Assuming that these are percentages of the 73 participants who made it to the fourth year, this would break out as follows:
Success: Conversion - 11
Success: Chastity - 17
Continuing - 21
No-response - 11
Failure: Confused - 3
Failure: Gay identity - 6
With four people left unaccounted for.
So that's 11 "success" stories out of 98 participants (25 dropped out). Of those 11:
Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at Time 3 did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and did not report heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated. … We believe the individuals who presented themselves as heterosexual success stories at Time 3 are heterosexual in some meaningful but complicated sense of the term.
More info at Ex-Gay Watch.
This is the only study of the consequences of reparative therapy that exists. The organizations who cite harm phrase it as "potential" harm.
No it isn't "the only study of the consequences of reparative therapy." Shidlo and Schroeder studied the consequences of reparative therapy for 202 research subjects (133 or 66% "considered themseslves to be religious") and found evidence of psychological harm, social and interpersonal harm, and spiritual harm. Psychological harm they reported includes "depression, suicidal ideation and attempts...self esteem and internalized homophobia...distorted perception of homosexual orientation" and others. Social and interpersonal harm they reported includes problems with "family of origin...alienation, loneliness, social isolation...interference with intimate relationships...loss of social supports" and others. Spiritual harm they reported includes "(a) complete loss of faith, (b) sense of betrayal by religious leaders, (c) anger at clinicians who introduced punitive and shaming concepts of God, and (d) ex-communication."
They also found a psychological benefit for some of their 202 research subjects: "for the subgroup of conversion failures who were in the resilient-recovery-of-gay-identity period, the therapy paradoxically solidified their gay or lesbian identity. It demonstrated to them that change was not possible and thus resulted in a sense of relief from the pressure to change."
Even Warren Throckmorton said, "I noted in my article the study done by Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder that documented harm experienced by some people who sought reorientation counseling. The truth is we do not know how often harm is experienced by people seeking sexual reorientation. I do agree however, that there are harmful things done in the name of reorientation counseling."
But long before Shidlo and Schroeder's 2002, "Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumers' Report" was published, there were countless other scientific papers addressing the harm caused by various types of attempted conversion therapies. As I posted on this blog months ago here, a review of those studies by Douglas Haldeman reported:
"Early behavioral work in conversion therapy operated on the rationale that if certain predetermined (homosexual) behaviors could be extinguished, and if "adaptive" (heterosexual) behaviors could be substituted, the individual's sexual orientation would change. Such early behavioral studies primarily employed aversive conditioning techniques, usually involving electric shock or nausea-inducing drugs during presentation of same-sex erotic visual stimuli. Typically, the cessation of the aversive stimuli would be accompanied by the presentation of opposite-sex erotic visual stimuli, to supposedly strengthen heterosexual feelings in the sexual response hierarchy. Some programs attempted to augment aversive conditioning techniques with a social learning component -- assertiveness training, how to ask women out on dates, and so on (Feldman & McCulloch, 1965). Later, the same investigators modified their approach, calling it "anticipatory avoidance conditioning," which enabled subjects to avoid electrical shock when viewing slides of same-sex nudes (Feldman, 1966). One wonders how such a stressful situation would permit feelings of sexual responsiveness in any directions; nevertheless, a 58% "cure" rate was claimed. Again, however, the outcome criteria were defined as suppression of homosexuality, and an increased capacity for heterosexual behavior. It is not uncommon for homosexuals who have undergone aversive treatments to notice a temporary sharp decline in their homosexual responsiveness.
As with aversive techniques, the “covert sensitization” method calls for the use of noxious stimuli paired with same-sex erotic imagery. In this procedure, however, the subject does not actually experience the electric shock or induced vomiting, but is instructed to imagine such stimuli (Cautela, 1967). Outcomes here are limited to single-case studies, and are not generalizable.
More recent studies suggest that aversive interventions might extinguish homosexual responsiveness, but do little to promote alternative orientation. One investigator suggests that the poor outcomes of conversion treatments are due to the fact that they “disregard the complex learned repertoire and topography of homosexual behavior” (Faustman, 1976). Other recent studies echo the finding that “aversive therapies in homosexuality do not alter subjects’ sexual orientation, but serve only to reduce sexual arousal” (McConaghy, 1981). This pattern is reflected in yet another study suggesting that behavioral conditioning decreases homosexual orientation, but does not elevate heterosexual interest (Rangaswami, 1982). In fact, such methods applied to anyone else might be called by another name: torture. Individuals undergoing such treatments do not emerge heterosexually inclined; rather, they become shamed, conflicted, and fearful about their homosexual feelings."
Haldeman, D. (1991). Sexual orientation conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination. In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. pp. 149-160. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nowadays the torture is often less overt and the effects of the psychological torture gays endure in conversion or reparative therapy programs may take years to surface. For delayed-onset PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder], [symptoms] may occur months, years or even decades after the traumatic event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_stress_disorder
The Wheaton study was not of the general population but focused on the religious.
Exactly. That's what renders the findings meaningless to the general population or gays. Nobody I know ever doubted that some religious people are able to remain celebate, but I think the priest scandals tell us that even the most devout among them sometimes fail to resist their nature, and sometimes that nature is gay.
A pretty non-descript 20K.
"Study co-authors Peter Bearman, sociology department chair at Columbia University, and Hannah Bruckner of Yale University used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which is funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and CDC, the AP/Long Island Newsday reports. The national study surveyed students nationwide in grades seven through 12 and followed up with interviews one, two and six years later."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/21606.php
Not only did the Bearman and Bruckner study have 200 times as many research subjects, but the length of time covered in their longitudinal study was twice as long as in the study by Yarhouse and Jones. I hope Yarhouse and Jones follow up again with these 100 subjects periodically through their lives to see how well living in the closet is working out for the 15 and how well practicing celebacy is working out for the 23.
In the interest of full disclosure, readers should know that Yarhouse and Jones are affiliated with NARTH, a small group of radical therapists who reject the positions of mainstream medical and mental health profession associations like the AMA, both APAs, the AAP and others. In fact Jones is the scheduled keynote speaker at the NARTH conference coming up this October. Yarhouse teaches at Regent University, which bills itself as "America's Preeminent Christian University" and Jones teaches at Wheaton College, (Illinois) "whose historic motto is, “Christo et Regno Ejus,” or “For Christ and His Kingdom.”" Yarhouse is enrolled in a doctoral program at Wheaton College while he directs the Regent University's Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity (ISSI), which reports itself to be "a scholarly institute for the study of issues related to sexual identity and for the training of students to be leaders in the discussion that are shaping the culture. There are many topics that are viewed as critical for Christ and culture today, and the topics of homosexuality and the broader construct of sexual identity, are certainly among them."
http://www.sexualidentityinstitute.org/about.php
Stanton L. Jones and Warren Throckmorton are listed as ISSI Affiliates.
You need to stop saying any fleeting gay feeling makes one gay.
I didn't say that. You did. But thanks for reminding me that the MCPS curriculum revision that the suers first attacked **with your blessings I might add** contained a similar statement, which MCPS students will never hear.
Myth: A person is a homosexual if he or she has ever been sexually attracted to, or ever had sexual contact with someone of the same gender.
Fact: Fleeting attraction or contact does not prove long-term sexual orientation.
Unk uran said "The data also demonstrates another fact nicely: reparative therapy doesn't have any negative consequences per se."
Wrong. The study by Yarhouse and Stanton does not address whether or not harm was done to the participants. 25 participants dropped out and yarhouse and stanton did not follow up with that group to see if they had been harmed by the process.
Of the 11 "successes" this was judged by having a degree of "heterosexuality with complications". A true heterosexual does not have a complicated heterosexuality. 0 of the participants achieved a complete change in sexuality and even those claiming an achievement of a "complicated heterosexuality" may well have been lying. No objective measures of sexuality like lie detectors, penile plethysmographs, or no-lie MRIs were used, only interviews in which one can easily deceive.
The sample size was also ridiculously small to be trying to make conclusions and while Yarhouse and Stanton claimed it to be "representative" of those who attended Exodus, they admitted they had no evidence that it was and simply asssumed it to be so. Like Spitzer, Yarhouse and Stanton commented on the extreme difficulty they had in locating participants for the study, despite Exodus's ludicrous claims of "hundreds of thousands" of "successes". Clearly the whole thing is a farce.
Turkish Daffy said " Just because someone is sometimes tempted, doesn't mean there can't be a happy marriage.".
When there is no sexual fulfilment in a heterosexual marriage because one partner is gay this means there can't be a full and complete and totally happy marriage. Its one thing to have sexual enjoyment in a marriage and be tempted by someone else, its another thing to have no sexual fullfillment and be tempted by the gender you have no opportunity to be with. There simply is no comparison to temptation in a sexully fulfilling marriage and temptation in a marriage with no sexual enjoyment.
Unk uran said "The idea that resisting any hedonistic impulse is dishonest represents one of the many insidious influences of the gay agenda movement.".
There is nothing hedonistic in having a fulfilling sex live in a committed same sex relationship. Suppressing same sex desires while participating in a sham heterosexul marriage is dishonest, destructive (to all involved) and to be avoided altogether. Men like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig have ruined not only their own lives by failing to accept their gayness, but the lives of others. No one should live on the constant edge of pretending to be something they are not and being unable to give fully to their "partner" and children just for the sake of pleasing anti-gay bigots who in fact couldn't care less about the quality of the lives they ask people to fake.
"When there is no sexual fulfilment in a heterosexual marriage because one partner is gay this means there can't be a full and complete and totally happy marriage."
If you inserted promiscuous for gay in this sentence, you'd object but there would be no difference in your argument. Resisting temptation doesn't eliminate the possibility of fulfillment. All homosexuals could learn to enjoy normal sexual relations; that's clear. It's an essentially a choice. This whole argument about residual temptation proving that change is not possible is really gay propaganda.
"Its one thing to have sexual enjoyment in a marriage and be tempted by someone else, its another thing to have no sexual fullfillment and be tempted by the gender you have no opportunity to be with. There simply is no comparison to temptation in a sexully fulfilling marriage and temptation in a marriage with no sexual enjoyment."
Please. If guys are functioning sexually, they're enjoying it.
"There is nothing hedonistic in having a fulfilling sex live in a committed same sex relationship."
Placing more importance on pleasure than morality is hedonism.
"Suppressing same sex desires while participating in a sham heterosexul marriage is dishonest, destructive (to all involved) and to be avoided altogether."
You just assume anytime someone falls into temptation that the rest of their live is a sham. Can you see that you are simply being judgmental?
"Men like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig have ruined not only their own lives by failing to accept their gayness, but the lives of others."
Actually, what ruined their lives was a vicious gay agenda crowd desperately trying to force everyone to share their state.
"No one should live on the constant edge of pretending to be something they are not and being unable to give fully to their "partner" and children just for the sake of pleasing anti-gay bigots who in fact couldn't care less about the quality of the lives they ask people to fake."
You know nothing about the quality of their marriage and families. Your ideas are based on a bunch of wish fulfillment.
I said "When there is no sexual fulfilment in a heterosexual marriage because one partner is gay this means there can't be a full and complete and totally happy marriage."
John replied "If you inserted promiscuous for gay in this sentence, you'd object but there would be no difference in your argument.".
Wrong. A promiscuous person has the enjoyment of the sex he/she has with her marriage partner, a gay in a heterosexual marriage does not. There is a big difference between having some fullfillment and none."
John said "Resisting temptation doesn't eliminate the possibility of fulfillment."
I never said it did. What eliminates the possiblility of fulfillment is the total lack of desire for the person you are married to.
John said "All homosexuals could learn to enjoy normal sexual relations; that's clear. It's an essentially a choice. This whole argument about residual temptation proving that change is not possible is really gay propaganda.".
Nonsesne. The studies by shidlo and shroeder, spizter, and now Yarhouse and jones show that in the vast majority of cases it is impossible to change sexual orientation. Virtually no one of either sex believes they chose their orientation - you know you didn't choose yours and its the same for gays.
John said "If guys are functioning sexually, they're enjoying it.".
What makes you think any of the gays in straight marriages are performing? Larry Craig and Alan Chamber's children were adopted. Most married "exgays" state that sex is not important to them in their marriages. If a gay man performs with his wife by fantasizing about other men he most certainly is not enjoying having sex with a woman and most certainly is not fulfilled by it.
I said "There is nothing hedonistic in having a fulfilling sex live in a committed same sex relationship."
John said "Placing more importance on pleasure than morality is hedonism.".
There is nothing immoral about two people enjoying a sex life that hurts no one and hence by your definition gay sex is not hedonism anymore than heterosexual sex is. Immorality is hurting others and gays hurt no one by being in a loving committed sexual relationship. By defintion your actions in opposing this benefit are immoral.
I said "Suppressing same sex desires while participating in a sham heterosexul marriage is dishonest, destructive (to all involved) and to be avoided altogether."
John said "You just assume anytime someone falls into temptation that the rest of their live is a sham. Can you see that you are simply being judgmental?".
You don't know what I assume and you are wrong. Giving in to temptation doesn't make your life a sham, living in a relationship with no romantic or sexual attraction does. Pretending to be romantically and sexually attracted to women when you're only attracted to men makes your life a sham.
I said "Men like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig have ruined not only their own lives by failing to accept their gayness, but the lives of others."
John said "Actually, what ruined their lives was a vicious gay agenda crowd desperately trying to force everyone to share their state.".
You obviously don't even think about the nonsense you write - that couldn't be more absurd, you are obviously driven by blind hatred. Unlike people like yourself no gay person has ever tried to force anyone to marry someone they are not attracted to.
Its people like you that ruined the lives of Larry Craig, Ted Haggard and their families. If it weren't for the hatred of people like you they could have settled into a happy relationship with a person they're attracted to rather than living a lie to try and avoid the hatred of the likes of you.
I said "No one should live on the constant edge of pretending to be something they are not and being unable to give fully to their "partner" and children just for the sake of pleasing anti-gay bigots who in fact couldn't care less about the quality of the lives they ask people to fake."
John replied "You know nothing about the quality of their marriage and families. Your ideas are based on a bunch of wish fulfillment.".
I know what is common for many gay men and that is to get involved in sham marriages because of the hatred of bigots like you. Of course they might be the rare exceptions to that but that is highly unlikely. When you live in North America and you see hoofprints, think horses, not Zebras. And its mighty hypocritical of you to say I know nothing about their lives and then for you to claim to know that being gay is a choice when no gay or even anti-gay "exgay" would agree with that - talk about wish fulfillment - describe to me the process you went through of choosing to be heterosexual. If being gay was a choice, all those "exgays" wouldn't have failed so miserably in changing their orientation and the few claiming to have "succeeded" wouldn't have a "complicated" "heterosexuality" as Jones and Yarhouse put it.
Post a Comment
<< Home