I watched “20/20” last night and their segment on a group of ex-gays (a summary of the report is here - “‘Coming Out’ of Homosexuality”).
The story was about a treatment facility in Tennessee called Love In Action, which uses a variant of a 12-step program to help participants give up their homosexual behavior and live a heterosexual life.
The major thing that struck me (but didn’t surprise me) was that none of the men nor the program itself claim to change sexual orientation, only sexual behavior. Two “graduates” of the program even claimed to still have sexual attraction to men, but consciously choose to repress those desires and not act on them. This is consistent with contemporary mainstream Christian teachings that it’s ok to be gay, but it’s a sin to do gay things.
Of course there were counter points of view saying how psychologically damaging such repression and treatment could be, how religion-based therapies were vastly ineffectual, and one ex member who realized his self-denial was harming his spiritual and overall well-being and stopped “acting straight.”
So should these men be praised for their discipline, self-control and devotion to God, or pitied for their self-deception and being forced by their faith to live a life contrary to their true selves?
Well, I think that they’re harming themselves irreparably, but if they want to do so to themselves, and promise not to shoot up a school because of it, I can’t really pass judgment.
Although this sounds like the latest version of Exodus, to me.
This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man. Shakespeare (Hamlet I think)
Self-discipline, and self-denial are generally good, character building things (otherwise I’d just sit at at home naked, eating Fritos and drinking beer.)
I would imagine that if somebody was unhappy being a homosexual, they have two choices: They could either learn to accept and love who they are, or they could repress that aspect of themselves that they dislike.
The route they choose is an intensely personal choice, and I wouldn’t dare to infringe on their right to make it.
People do all kinds of crazy things because of personal beliefs. This group does not seem that unusual in most respects.
It will be interesting to me to see a study follow these guys and see how many lapse back to active homosexuality, how many are diagnosed with clinical depression, how many wind up commiting suicide.
Quite frankly, it’s purely a matter of personal priority. If they belong to a religion that believes that homosexual sex is wrong, and they decided that their devotion to G-d was more important to them than physical gratification, then their ability to overcome their problems in their service of G-d is praiseworthy. They don’t appear to be deceiving themselves in any way; they acknowledge that they have desires, and actively choose not to act on them because they have a greater desire for closeness with G-d.
On the other hand, if these people are merely full of self-loathing and are trying to change themselves through such a program, then that’s a dangerous self-deception, because such an attitude toward one’s own self is unhealthy…whether this relates to sexual orientation or any other aspect of one’s life.
“Quite frankly, it’s purely a matter of personal priority. If they belong to a religion that believes that homosexual sex is wrong, and they decided that their devotion to G-d was more important to them than physical gratification, then their ability to overcome their problems in their service of God is praiseworthy.”
If a person loves someone of the same gender, isn’t god responsible for that? how can feelings that come from so deep within you be wrong? How can love be wrong, period? It seems to me that any religion which regards the recognition of human dignity as a sin, is not a religion but a disease.
The first part is very difficult to answer. In general, any statement that starts of “Why did God…?” is going to be a toughy.
People have all sorts of desires. These desires are deeply-seeded, and many people have a very difficult time trying to overcome them. I’m not only talking about sexual desires, although those would be some of the strongest.
I do not believe all these desires necessarily come from God. Not directly, anyway. More along the lines of God allowing certain things into the world (through the original fall from Grace), and people have to deal with it on personal and societal levels.
I do not think that morality compels us, as a society, to unilaterally sanction any desire that happens to be strong or deeply ingrained.
As far as the last statement in the quote goes; well, I submit that everyone on this planet can admit that some of the most deeply-held feelings or desires are, indeed, wrong.
If the people mentioned in the OP feel this way; I say all the more power to them for attempting to change their behaviors. If they are feeling shamed into it, I feel their attempts will be in vain.
Maybe they will end up living a heterosexual life and feel they have accomplished something through self discipline and devotion to God. If so, is there really anything so awful about that?
I don’t know… but I’d sure be glad if you could outline some of his other responsibilities as well. I’ve a feeling he’s been shurking some of them quite extensively.
Love, especially when it’s not returned or wanted can be very wrong. Jails are full of people who just could not let go of their love for a person who a) did not return their love in the first place, b) filed a restraining order against them.
Not all deeply felt emotions are right. Let’s not make the mistake of presuming they are.
I think most religions have their own definition about what is dignified behaviour on the part of it’s followers. It’s the failing to live up to those expectations that gets you in trouble with most religions.
I’m sorry if it looks like we’re ganging up on you, goboy, but Chaim didn’t say a thing about love, relationships, or homosexual desire. He said (and you quoted):
(my bolding, of course)
Sorry, but celibacy doesn’t kill people. If they love their god, and want to serve their god, and their god says having sex with another man is wrong, then, abstaining from sex with another man is praisewrothy in the light of their religion.
It just occurred to me that I’ve never seen a commonly accepted definition of homosexuality. Many of the religious groups say it’s a “behavior” or “lifestyle,” while most gays and lesbians speak more of orientation. So are men in prison who ummm “get together” due to lack of women homosexual, and is a person who is attracted to the same sex, but is chaste, homosexual? It may sound trivial but I’ve seen debates where both sides are in reality talking about different things because they’re using different guidelines.
Now, I’ve read the websites of NARTH and Exodus and they bother me a lot. They basically tell homosexuals “there’s something wrong with you, you must change to be like us.” Besides being arrogant, it’s also quite obnoxious.
I did find one “reorientation” program that seems to be well balanced and non-judgemental and they present all views on the topic of homosexuality and whether or not the individual should “do something about it.” Courage Is a Roman Catholic organization who’s stated mission is “To provide spiritual support for men and women striving to live chaste lives in accordance with the Catholic Church’s pastoral teaching on homosexuality.” They do not claim “reorientation” as a main goal (though they do say it can happen) and they don’t condemn same sex attraction. Now I don’t agree with everything in their FAQ but they’re a hell of a lot more balanced and fair than most religious sites. They do get minus points for providing links to NARTH and Exodus, though. So, assuming their are some who do have “struggles” with their homosexual feelings, is this approach more acceptable than the programs such as in 20/20?
Both. To face such self-esteem destroying adversity, and make such drastic lifestyle changes, and to come through smelling like a rose takes a lot of courage and strength. But this is bound to backfire sooner or later.
Slightly OT: Esprix, do you ever watch Malcolm in the Middle? Did you see the episode where the schoolgirls thought Francis was gay? What did you think?
In a way, I agree - they have the right to choose what to do with their lives. But there could be an argument made that they are hurting themselves psychologically, possibly irreparably.
There are a lot of other groups aside from this one and Exodus - Homosexuals Anonymous and Harvest, to name two.
Jeff_42 wrote:
Too bad it’s not in the Bible.
Scylla wrote:
I agree, but that doesn’t mean I can’t question it.
QuickSilver wrote:
Alas, few, if any, accurate statistics exist. The groups themselves purport a high success rate, while outside groups say they fail miserably.
cmkeller wrote:
This is what got me about the “20/20” piece - they really seem to be eschewing a palpable desire for what they feel is a greater good, almost like monks. However, monks give up all sex, whereas these guys are actively trying to pursue a kind of sex that is contrary to their nature; plus, they’re not really “giving it up for God,” but rather giving it up through God to “better” themselves (although I suppose it’s ostensibly for “God’s plan”).
This part was unclear in the report. Of course they all seemed to be level-headed good Christian men, and some were also dealing with addictions, and almost all claimed a poor relationship with their fathers. But some talked about their past “seedy homosexual lifestyle” (talked about group sex, pretty intense sex acts, anonymous sex, etc.), so it wasn’t clear if it was self-loathing or just seeking a higher purpose. Some even had long-term same-sex relationships that seemed healthy while they talked about them, but obviously it didn’t make them happy. I don’t pretend to get in their brains, but when you see a piece like this on national television it makes you wonder about any unanswered questions.
goboy wrote:
Remember, though, they see this as a sin to be overcome through God and faith, like drug addiction or infidelity. It is the challenge God has given them, like he gives all people, to “prove their worthiness.”
divemaster wrote:
Not awful, but sad and pathetic, IMHO. If a Chinese woman got her eyes fixed because she felt she would be a better person if she were Caucasian, or a black person got his skin bleached because he believed God favored the white man, it’s their choice, and it does no harm, and it’s not wrong in and of itself, but it’s still sad and pathetic.
Scylla wrote:
I understand what you were going for, but this is appalling. Comparing homosexuality to homicide is disingenuous and inappropriate. I’m surprised at you.
andros wrote:
In light of their religion, perhaps, but abhorrent from a professional psychological perspective. It’s a tight wire to walk.
pinqy wrote:
From Merriam-Webster online:
It would seem it could be considered both desire and action - orientation and behavior or lifestyle. It just depends on the context. (Men in prison exhibit what is called “transient homosexuality,” which means they engage in same-sex intercourse, but remain desirous of the opposite sex. Those who choose celibacy cannot be judged on their sexual partners as they have none, but may still have feelings for the same sex. They could also be asexual, which means no sexual attraction to anyone.)
I find it hard to believe any RC organization could be balanced. They’re the firmest believers of “it’s ok to be gay, but not to do those gay things.” There is a more accepting RC group called Dignity.
tdn wrote:
Really, this is what it comes down to for me. It’s all well and good and admirable to want to better yourself in the ways you feel your particular religious beliefs say you should, but in the end, in this particular case, it’s a losing battle, and putting so much energy into such a futile effort seems a waste, and ultimately detrimental. Everyone talks about God being love, yet everyone seems to fight every version of it except “man/woman, shades drawn, missionary position, 2.5 kids, a dog and a gun.”
In the end, I guess I pity them. I hope someone is there to pick up the pieces when their self-deception comes crumbling down around them.
I do watch the show, and I think I remember the episode you’re talking about (did it have something to do with a beauty pageant?), but I don’t remember all the details. Go ask me in the “Gay Guy” thread, eh?
Does that make it worse? I don’t understand how, unless you’re making the possibly erroneous, and at least unfounded, assumption that celibate monks are people who have a low natural sex drive to begin with.
Also, I was under the impression that there’s an entire spectrum of sexual desite from completely homosexual to completely heterosexual. While there might be some homsexuals who are at the extreme end of the scale, for whom interest in a member of the opposite sex would be completely null, most probably fall somewhere in the middle (as do most heterosexuals) and, while they prefer their own sex, would notbe completely averse of indifferent to heterosexual relations.
In that case, they sound more like victims of self-loathing such as I addressed in the second half of my post.
As I said, if they genuinely believe in their religion, and they have set the religious goal as their greater priority, then I can’t see it as unhealthy. Rather, that is, in my opinion, the essence of mental/emotional maturity…the ability to forego short-term desires for the sake of achieving a long-term goal.
Well, according to Christianity, that’s true. But last time I checked, God has a strict policy of non-interference these days, so he certainly could divinely intervene, but he’s not going to. Plus, these men are not claming that God has or is going to change them, but rather their faith is going to help themselves to change only their behavior, not their inherent orientation.
Aww C’mon. You know I wasn’t comparing homosexuality to Homocide (or even a parking violation.) goboy implied that all tendencies and feelings come from God, and should be embraced.
To me this is silly, because it absolves one of all personal rsponsibility.
To illustrate this point I pointed out that the tendency toward homocide must also come from God according to his criteria. Since it came from God shouldn’t it be embraced as well?
Nowhere in my statement was there a comparison either implied or explicit between homosexuality and homocide.
Oh, no, no, no, not at all. My point was that a monk or a priest is giving something up, in this case the “vice” of sex. These guys are going one step further - they’re changing their vice from bad man-sex into good girl-sex. Since the Bible seems to have varying opinions of whether or not marriage is a requirement, a good thing, or simply optional, it seems overkill to not simply just give it up, but to force yourself to do something you’re not naturally inclined to do in the first place.
Oh, I agree - certainly I’ve always believed that bisexuality was more prevalent than heterosexuality and homosexuality combined. And I’m sure there are some of them who are bisexual to greater or lesser degrees. But by their own admission they’re going from totally gay to totally straight - no “I’m going to give up sex with men but I still like sex with women,” their tone was “goin’ from queer to breeder!”
I suppose intent really is the key here, and we can’t get into their heads to really know what their own truths are. I’m just glad we do have the freedom to choose our own lives.
At this juncture, I feel it is my civic duty to bring up the following really really raunchy article from The Onion which has always given me several guffaws: Church Group Offers Homosexual New Life in Closet.
(Note to those not familiar with The Onion: It’s a joke newspaper. The article isn’t about real people. Okay?)
