# Becoming straight **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 17, 2000, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478 "2000-09-17T07:37:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/41 "2000-09-21T02:05:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > So youre saying that if it weren’t for religion, people would be able to accept the fact that they are gay and there’s no changing it? > Certainly not all religion. > How exactly, do they come to accept themselves for what they are? Rose, I’m assuming that question is at least partly inspired by my post. If one’s sexual desires are principally same-sex, and one’s religion dictates that that’s an abomination, then one obviously has a conflict to deal with inside. There are three possibilities: (1) either one’s religious faith miraculously transforms one’s sexuality, or (2) one decides to dispense with that particular aspect of his faith (or maybe the whole kit n’ caboodle), or (3) a state of conflict continues inside the person. (In door #3 I’m including the option of suppressing one’s same-sex desires due to one’s religious teachings. It’s still a conflict, just not out front.) I can’t speak with authority on whether the Lord can ‘straighten out’ a person with same-sex desires who wants to be hetero. But (a) in a very long walk with the Lord, I’ve never known anyone who claimed it had happened to him/her; and (b) I’ve known people who wished the Lord _would_ do that for them, but He hadn’t. And, if you will, my belief that the Lord works in that particular way has diminished over time. There was a time when I was afraid of Him because I thought my heart needed ‘cleaning up’ in various ways, and I was afraid the Lord wanted to reach in and turn me into someone I wasn’t in order to do so. My understanding has changed considerably since then, for the better I think: He’s not a God who’s interested in violating us, even with our consent. IMHO, he’s not out to do surgery on our personalities, removing sin like a diseased gall bladder; He’s out to change us in the manner that a really good, long, heart-to-heart friendship changes us…only more so, if we’re open to it, due to the nature of the friend in question. Our sexuality is something that is there down deep, and it manifests itself pretty early: I was five, I think, when I had my first crush on a girl. IMO, it’s rooted pretty well into our identity. As I grow older, it seems to me that, like anything similarly fundamental, it’s something that we all get the joy and aggravation of working our way to self-understanding through dealing with, sooner or later. With same-sex desire, the road to self-knowledge would either have to be through accepting it or letting go of it, if the latter is possible. If it is possible for people to let go of it in a way that makes them truer to themselves, rather than pretending to let go of it and papering over the problem, then that is good. But frankly, I haven’t seen that happen, and my experience with conservative religion with respect to related matters is that they’re not good at helping anyone work their way through this in a holistic fashion; rather, they tend to believe in the ‘you should pray to have God take this sin from you, and if you have faith, then we don’t need to talk about this anymore’ approach. This obviously leads individuals to try the papering-over strategy. * * * How many people come to accept themselves for what they are, at least in the context of a religion, is through a relationship with a God that loves them unconditionally - whether we’re straight or gay, peaceful or angry, in all of our continual fallenness. We don’t have to hide anything from Him for Him to love us; we don’t have to practice certain behaviors for Him to love us. After awhile, if we’re lucky, we get the idea: if He accepts us, maybe we can learn to accept ourselves. But we’re slow learners. It’s good to give oneself time. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/42 "2000-09-21T05:00:44Z")
Please don’t flame me. I have always taken the words of my homosexual brothers and sisters that their homosexuality was not a choice for them. There are some studies which offer clinical evidence of this too, I’ll admit, but the main reason I used to go crazy at LBMB when people said that gay people could change if they wanted to was because it was really what THEY wanted others to be able to change. By the logic I have always believed that asking a gay person to change was like asking a lefty to write with their right hand. Sure, it can be done, but the person will always be a lefty no matter what hand (s)he writes with. But the OP doesn’t say “stop sleeping with the same sex when you take this drug,” it says “stop being attracted to the same sex.” Why wouldn’t you want to be straight, Matt and Sqrl? I often hear gay people say in their defense, “Who would choose to be ridiculed, gay-bashed, dosowned by family members, denied basic rights and civil liberties such as marriage, ad nauseum…” Well, you guys are saying that even if it was POSSIBLE for you to change that you are against the idea. Please know that I do NOT think there’s anything wrong with being gay or bisexual. I like to think that everyone here knows me well enough that I am not like that. But I do want to understand why you guys feel this way… Help me understand, please… * * * Yer pal, Satan - Commissioner, [The Teeming Minions](http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/full/show?lid=39428&page=leaguehome) \*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING: Five months, one week, five days, 3 hours, 0 minutes and 35 seconds. 6605 cigarettes not smoked, saving $825.63. Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 1 day, 22 hours, 25 minutes. \***“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. _(Amen, brother!)_** ---
**Author:** ![Kupek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90db22/32.png) [@Kupek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kupek)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/43 "2000-09-21T05:54:25Z")
**Satan** : Flip it around. Pretend there’s a society where hetersexuals are persecuted for being attracted to/loving the opposite sex. Would you take the pill? I know I wouldn’t. You probably wouldn’t either, assuming you’re straight. I’m sure the reasons you’d give would be the same they would give. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/44 "2000-09-21T06:13:19Z")
Satan, that’s exactly why I _hate hate hate_ the whole “it’s not a choice” argument. To me, that whole attitude basically says, “Wahh wahh wahh. Please don’t hurt me. I didn’t want to be this way. It’s all a horrible accident. _It’s not my fault!_” To which I say, “Fuck you, it’s not **a** fault!” The whole “it’s not a choice” thing tacitly _agrees_ with the homophobic position because it says that if it were a choice, _it would be acceptable that we be made to choose heterosexuality and that people who choose homosexuality be denied their rights._ I chose to be _Wiccan_ and I want civil rights for Wiccans. If I had chosen to be gay, I would still want civil rights for gays by the same token. I want human rights because I’m _human._ Moving right along. > [@](#): > > If you could invent a hearing aid that actually fully restored hearing, I would imagine the deaf would be lining up to get it. [snip] Deafness IS a handicap; it is a condition which prevents a human being from using a fundamental sense. That’s certainly what a Hearing person would have an instinct to believe, but you will simply have to take my word for it that Deaf people have built a culture of which they are very proud, and in general do not care to be assimilated into the general run of mankind. No question that some hearing-impaired people would want to use a cochlear implant. However, there are a great deal of Deaf people - probably the majority - who strongly disagree with you. As for the handicap argument, it’s very difficult to draw the line between a handicap and an expression of diversity. You could say that “gayness IS a handicap; it is a condition which prevents a human being from experiencing a fundamental drive” and the analogy wouldn’t break down. A lot of Deaf people have decided that they do not want to be treated as invalids and children, do wish to retain their difference and their culture, and want to adapt the society of which they are a part to better work for them rather than vice versa. They speak for themselves, and since they are sentient human beings, their wishes are the determinant of their status, not your preconceptions. > [@](#): > > matt, apparently there are many people who Would want to stop being gay. > Does this bother you so much? > SHould we Force them to be gay? Would that be the healthiest for them, psychologically? I think it’s absolutely tragic that the homophobia tainting our society causes some people’s place in the spectrum of human sexuality to throw them into such agonizing conflict. I would rather that society be changed to throw this torturous pressure out than that tormented gays and lesbians be encouraged to change themselves instead. Destroying a perfectly ethical and healthy part of yourself because society doesn’t like it and is giving you grief is the non-fatal equivalent of throwing yourself off in front of a subway train. To answer your question: Urge, yes. Plead, yes. Educate, yes. Work like hell to change society so that wouldn’t be an option worth considering, yes. Force, no. ---
**Author:** ![Kupek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90db22/32.png) [@Kupek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kupek)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/45 "2000-09-21T07:00:18Z")
I think you’re misunderstanding the context of the statement “I didn’t choose this.” When they’re told that they’re going to hell for it, it’s morally wrong, unhealthy, blah blah blah, the reaction is “I didn’t choose this,” because hey, they didn’t. It’s not an excuse, it’s a reason. There’s a difference. Often times homosexuals are told that it’s their fault that are subjected to the treatment they endure. The insinuation is that it is a choice, and the retaliation is that it is not. It’s like being told that breathing oxygen is wrong. Hey, I didn’t choose to breathe oxygen, I have to. If you think that reason (it’s not an excuse, it’s the reason I breathe oxygen) says “Wah wah wah, I didn’t mean to breathe oxygen, I don’t want to breathe oxygen,” then that’s a problem with your perception of my statement. You are misinterperting my statement. My saying “I didn’t choose to breathe oxygen” in no way condones the belief that breathing oxygen is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/46 "2000-09-21T07:18:15Z")
Well, I think a better set of responses would be as follows: > [@](#): > > they’re going to hell for it “Your hell, your rules, you burn. Not me.” > [@](#): > > it’s morally wrong “If you think it’s morally wrong, don’t do it. Until my sexuality hurts you in some way, keep your rosaries to yourself.” > [@](#): > > unhealthy “Except for the cold I’m getting over, I’m in perfect health, so go bite me.” > [@](#): > > It’s like being told that breathing oxygen is wrong. Hey, I didn’t choose to breathe oxygen, I have to. Can you honestly say that would be your first response to the statement? Wouldn’t you raise your eyebrows until they were crawling off your forehead and then correctly surmise that you’re dealing with a complete whackaloon? Some people think that being a Catholic is evil, and being a Catholic is definitely a choice. Do we accept that point of view? Do we even accept it as being within the range of those points of view that deserve a moment’s consideration? No, we do not. It simply doesn’t enter into it. Ethics are the recognition of the effects of our actions and omissions on the people with whom we share our society. To the effect that my actions do not impact those who share my society, they are not at all a subject for ethical discussion. Full stop. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/47 "2000-09-21T13:35:21Z")
I do believe its NOT a choice, as many 5 year olds wouldn’t decide to be gay. So what of the religion question? Are the religions that say gay is wrong, unless you are celibate forever wrong themselves? How to reconcile? Do you see a time when homosexuality is simply boring to everyone and it doesn’t matter if anyone is gay or straight? Hasn’t progress been made since the 60’s? And that was a beautiful post, RTF. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/48 "2000-09-21T14:16:02Z")
A friedn of mine says that of course its religion. If it wasn’t for his religion, he would have no problem being gay. So is the religion wrong? ---
**Author:** ![SqrlCub](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SqrlCub](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SqrlCub)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/49 "2000-09-21T14:20:00Z")
Ok Satan, playing devil’s advocate again? Anyway, I wouldn’t want to take the pill for a reason that many above have stated. I have learned many of my life’s lessons as a gay person. I have gained perspective that I don’t believe many straight anglo men get from what life is to how love works for me. I don’t want to change to lose all of that. Even if I didn’t lose that aspect of myself then it would still not be worth it because even though I would now have straight desires my earlier desires and goals as a gay person would in essence be invalidated. Knowing this I wouldn’t have wanted to take the pill as a child either. Even without knowing this I would have still not wanted it as a child because as Matt pointed out, there is nothing wrong with us with regards to our sexuality that needs changing. We simply are same as straight people. The same as everyone. HUGS! Sqrl ---
**Author:** ![SqrlCub](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SqrlCub](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SqrlCub)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/50 "2000-09-21T14:26:33Z")
Vanilla, “So is the religion wrong?” Yes. If the religion is trying to force one to change a fundamental part of this person’s being than it is wrong for him. Not necessarily wrong for other people but definately for him. Would you join a religion that forced you to give away all your children and then remain forever childless with no contact from any outside children after that? I don’t think so since I know that you have a child already. It would be deeply hurtful and painful to do that. It is the same with being gay if you read into the analogy as your child being a fundamental part of yourself. I am sure you see your child as a fundamental part of yourself as most people whom I know see their children that way. The choice isn’t in changing the backbone of oneself but in changing a religion. One can not change their desire (one can lie to one’s self) but one can change their belief structure. HUGS! Sqrl ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/51 "2000-09-21T14:47:20Z")
[hijack] Speaking of turning away from homosexuality…you guys are gonna love this. It is a mass email that I received, and is not copyrighted. > [@](#): > > BREAKING NEWS: #1 EX-GAY LEADER REPORTEDLY CAUGHT IN DC GAY BAR > Claims he was only peeing; 40 minutes and a drink later > > It’s been a bad couple of weeks for celebrity gay couples. > First Anne and Ellen, then Melissa and Julie, now John and Anne. > John and Anne? > > John Paulk - the nation’s most famous “ex-gay” - was reportedly > caught in a gay bar in Washington, DC late last night by Wayne Besen > and Darryl Herrschaft of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). > Paulk, you’ll recall, was on the cover of Newsweek on August > 17, 1998, with his “wife” Anne, proclaiming that they used to > be gay, but now are cured. John Paulk is currently Chairman > of the North American Board of Exodus International, “the largest > homosexual-recovery organization in the world” (they say). Paulk is > literally the militant fundamentalist’s number one poster boy > for “ex-gays” - his wife even appeared in the infamous “ex- > gay” ads two years back. Read his bio here: > [http://www.exodusnorthamerica.org/speakers/speakers/a0000165.html](http://www.exodusnorthamerica.org/speakers/speakers/a0000165.html) > > [You can read Joel Lawson’s breaking story about Paulk’s > “outing” at Southern Voice’s Web site û LawsonÆs story includes > photos taken on the scene by HRCÆs Besen: > [http://www.southernvoice.com/southernvoice/news/record.html?record=10262](http://www.southernvoice.com/southernvoice/news/record.html?record=10262) ] > > It all began when HRC staffer Daryl Herrschaft, 27, decided > to grab a drink at a local bar to unwind. “I wanted to get a > drink where I didn’t think I’d know anybody,” Herrschaft told > me. Unfortunately for Herrschaft, about 9:45PM last night > someone walked in who looked very much like someone he knew: > “ex-gay” celebrity John Paulk. > > Herrschaft thought he recognized the man as Paulk, but didn’t really > focus on the import of what he’d seen until he turned around > about 15 minutes later and the man was standing right behind > him. Herrschaft said hi, and struck up a conversation with > the Paulk look-alike in which the individual admitted his name > was John, and that he was from Colorado Springs (Paulk does in fact live > in Colorado Springs). Herrschaft says he asked if the man was gay, > and he said yes. The man then reportedly offered to buy him a drink > (Herrschaft declined). > > “He was a hostile witness,” Herrschaft told me. “He was > evasive, but he kept me engaged. He wouldn’t let the > conversation die.” The man claimed he worked in “graphic > design,” and when Herrschaft asked him his last name, he said > said “Clint.” Herrschaft responded, “are you sure it’s not > Paulk?” The man said no. After about 5 to 7 minutes, > Herrschaft excused himself, found a phone, and called HRC’s > Wayne Besen. > > Wayne Besen, HRC’s deputy press secretary, is an expert on > the “ex-gays” and has debated Paulk and met him more than > once. Besen arrived at the bar, camera in tow, about 40 > minutes after Herrschaft initially saw reputed “ex-gay” enter the bar. > As soon as Besen entered, the man apparently recognized him > > - and Besen absolutely recognized the man as Paulk. According to > witnesses, the man tried to hide, so Besen started > snapping photos. The bar owner, unaware of who Besen was, or > what was going on, escorted him out of the bar (presumably > because he thought this was perhaps some homophobe harassing > a gay customer). Besen then explained to the bouncer what was > going on, while the reputed “ex-gay” reportedly asked a bar employee if > there was a back way out of the establishment - the employee > reportedly refused to help. > > A few minutes later, Herrschaft says the man exited the bar’s > front door, “head down, walking in a straight line up the > street very quickly.” HRC’s camera-toting Besen followed him > all the way to the Dupont Circle metro stop, about 2 blocks. > > How is Besen sure this was Paulk? First, because Paulk reportedly > phoned Besen today and told him he was at the bar, and just > stepping in to use the bathroom, he now claims (Focus on the > Family also confirmed to Southern Voice’s Lawson this morning > that Paulk was in DC on business). Paulk also reportedly called Lawson, > and told him the same “bathroom” story he gave Besen. Besen > reportedly asked Paulk why it took him over 40 minutes to use > the bathroom (the amount of time between when Paulk was first > spotted by HRC staff, and Besen’s arrival), and why, if he > was just using the bathroom, was Paulk reportedly seated at the bar, > drink in hand (Lawson says Paulk told him it was water), reportedly in > intimate conversation with another male customer? And, were > Paulk simply using the bathroom, why did he reportedly lie to HRC’s > staff when they confronted him, pretending he was really > “John Clint”? > > I had raised doubts about Paulk’s “cure” two years ago. At > the time, I reported that “In a previously forgotten Wall > Street Journal interview, the nation’s most prominent ‘ex- > gay,’ John Paulk, admitted to not being 100% cured of his > homosexuality even though he was already married to a woman.” > > On April 21, 1993, John Paulk admitted to the Wall Street > Journal that his new-found straight orientation was not as > intense as that of the “average man on the street.” Paulk > confessed that he was unsure he would ever have the > “intensity for sex with women” that most straight men have. > > In the same interview, Paulk also put cold water on the > notion that he and his wife were yet cured of their gay > orientations: “To say that we’ve arrived at this place of > total heterosexuality - that we’re totally healed - is > misleading,” Paulk told the Journal. Time magazine added > further fuel to the Paulk credibility fire. On July > 27, 1998, the magazine reported being unable to find even one > former girlfriend of the supposedly former-lesbian Anne > Paulk. Mrs. Paulk refused to offer the name of a single > lesbian lover. In addition, Time reports that Paulk “conceded > that her ties to women in college were ‘more emotional than > sexual.’” Things that make you go hmmmm. > > Paulk picked one hell of a place to pee, if that’s his final > answer to the accusations. Mr. P’s is not exactly the Taj Mahal > of gay bars in Washington, DC (and is conveniently kitty-corner > from the most notorious pick-up spot in the city: P-Street > Beach, which is actually a dark wooded area.) And there are > lots of places nearby that Paulk could have chosen to go to > the bathroom - like an enormous coffee shop right across > the street, and the Barcelo hotel literally next door - rather > than a small hole-in-the-wall bar, that frankly, to me at least, > has always looked kind of scary. (And Paulk ain’t exactly the > butchest guy you’ve seen - you can catch his picture here: > [http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=1010&sid=0&pid=0](http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=1010&sid=0&pid=0) > > In the end, “Pee-gate” came about because some smart HRC > staffers were on the ball in the right place at the right > time. “It was not the night I was expecting to have, or > wanted to have,” HRC’s Herrschaft told me. “This guy [Paulk] > has made a cottage industry out of preying on people’s > insecurities. I felt I had to do my part to expose this man > for who he is.” > > Atta boy, HRC. > > * * * > > Some of Paulk’s quotes about homosexuality, from Focus on the > Family’s Web site: > > “Homosexuality is a lonely and disillusioning way of life. There > is a reason why this behavior has been considered morally wrong > throughout most of human history. Can you think of any other form > of immorality which has been set aside for a month of celebration > by an American president? How indicative of his character and our > depravity as a nation.” > > “To those of you who are parents, I say, “Be aware!” Your > children are being inundated with inaccurate - but enticing - > messages about homosexuality. Television, movies, music and > an increasing number of public schools constantly reinforce > the idea that “gay is good.” Monitor the influences your > children are receiving, and address the subject of homosexuality > directly with them.” > > “It’s an honor to be a role model for those struggling to > leave homosexuality behind,” says Paulk. "My wife and I, and > thousands of others, serve as living proof that change is > possible. By taking a bold stand against the lies that say > homosexuality is biological and unchangeable, we hope to > encourage others desperate to escape homosexuality. > “The gay activist agenda, which includes ‘National Coming Out > Day,’ is promoted heavily by Hollywood and the media. Focus > on the Family believes that ‘National Coming Out of > Homosexuality Day’ is crucial in order to provide the > American public with the other side of the issue.” > > “Primarily, our concern centers on the destructive messages > being sent to today’s youth. Millions of young people > struggling with a variety of issues are being encouraged to > ‘come out’ as a solution to their problems. Our goal is to > point teens, their parents and teachers in another direction- > -that of an achievable, healthy, normal heterosexual > identity,” says Paulk." > > “We believe that a young person struggling with homosexual > tendencies should also be informed of healthy alternatives to > homosexuality,” says Paulk. “It is irresponsible for > educators to steer that person into a potentially dangerous > and lonely lifestyle.” > > * * * Ain’t homophobes great! MR ---
**Author:** ![SqrlCub](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SqrlCub](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SqrlCub)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/52 "2000-09-21T15:27:35Z")
That is so funny, Maeglin. Mr. P’s is a big cruise bar. It is also where the hustlers hang out in DC. So those of you who don’t know, a cruise bar is a synonym for a pick-up bar with its emphasis being on one night stands. HUGS! Sqrl ---
**Author:** ![Kupek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90db22/32.png) [@Kupek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kupek)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/53 "2000-09-21T16:21:09Z")
**matt\_mcl** : Sometimes, the thrust of their argument is that homosexuals chose to be the way they are. So the obvious retort is “I didn’t choose to be this way.” Again, if you think that’s condoning the hate, you’re misunderstanding the statement. _Do we even accept it as being within the range of those points of view that deserve a moment’s consideration? No, we do not. It simply doesn’t enter into it._ And what does that have to do with the statement “I didn’t choose to be this way”? _To the effect that my actions do not impact those who share my society, they are not at all a subject for ethical discussion._ Yeah, that’s great, but see above question. (And actually, everything can be subject to an ethical discussion, but that’s straying from the point at hand.) ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/54 "2000-09-21T17:28:36Z")
> [@](#): > > matt\_mcl: Sometimes, the thrust of their argument is that homosexuals chose to be the way they are. So the obvious retort is “I didn’t choose to be this way.” Again, if you think that’s condoning the hate, you’re misunderstanding the statement. It’s the obvious retort, but it’s not the best one. It accepts their premise that there’s something unfortunate about being this way that we are trying to show we are not responsible for. “You chose to be this way.” “No, I didn’t.” You’re now playing on their turf, accepting their basis for argument. This is a mistake. You agree with them that you need to justify your life to them, and “No, I didn’t” is a method of doing so. “You chose to be this way.” “What business is it of yours?” I’m not playing on their turf. I’m not accepting their basis of argument, because I think it’s incorrect. I am disagreeing with them that I need to justify my life to them. Isn’t it better to deny their premise entirely? Isn’t the goal of the whole movement to _stop_ justifying our lives to people, not to _continue_ doing so? > [@](#): > > Do we even accept it as being within the range of those points of view that deserve a moment’s consideration? No, we do not. It simply doesn’t enter into it. > > And what does that have to do with the statement “I didn’t choose to be this way”? Because we shouldn’t admit that “choice” argument any more than Jewish-rights advocates do. > [@](#): > > To the effect that my actions do not impact those who share my society, they are not at all a subject for ethical discussion. > > Yeah, that’s great, but see above question. (And actually, everything can be subject to an ethical discussion, but that’s straying from the point at hand.) Rather than responding to their ethical judgment of me, I am denying their jurisdiction to make such a judgment of me. Don’t you see how this is more fundamentally inimical to their aims? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/55 "2000-09-21T17:38:03Z")
Maeglin, that’s a riot and a half! Makes me wonder if this [Onion](http://www.theonion.com/onion3407/churchhomosexual.html) story isn’t actually a documentary. To sum up my feelings on the ‘it isn’t a choice’ bit: 1. My educated guess is that, for the vast majority of gays, homosexuality isn’t a choice, anymore than my heterosexuality is a choice. 2. And to the extent that some may be in a position to choose one way or the t’other, why the Sam Hill shouldn’t they have the right to? There’s another [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=39204) here linking to some lively correspondence between Focus on the Family and the creators of _Will and Grace_ regarding the latter’s portrayal of the ex-gay movement. FotF is upset that W&G “denigrate[s] the thousands of men and women who have successfully left homosexuality.” If homosexuality is a choice for some, then there are those who can un-choose it, as it were. And if they feel like doing so, well, more power to them. But fair’s fair: if FotF wants respect for those who choose to leave the gay life behind, maybe they ought to start by showing some respect for those who continue to be gay, whether or not choice plays a role in it. After all, they claim to worship the One who said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” They might want to give it a try. WWJD, and all that. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/56 "2000-09-21T18:20:39Z")
> [@](#): > > “You chose to be this way.” “What business is it of yours?” I’m not playing on their turf. I’m not accepting their basis of argument, because I think it’s incorrect. I am disagreeing with them that I need to justify my life to them. > > Isn’t it better to deny their premise entirely? Isn’t the goal of the whole movement to stop justifying our lives to people, not to continue doing so? Absolutely, Matt - preach it, brother! I think there’s something to be said for the “even if we accept your asumptions, your argument’s _still_ totally invalid” approach, but -especially in this case - only after the point’s been made that their assumptions suck cow pies. * * * Rose, thanks for the compliment! I’d personally say the religion is wrong, but we live in a country where people are free to believe what they want, right or wrong. Where various religions step over the line, of course, is in saying that the objections to homosexuality that they derive from their sacred texts should be recognized and adhered to by the civil laws. That’s beyond ‘I believe X, they believe Y’; that’s just plain wrong. They can believe whatever they please, and the rest of us can choose whether or not we want to join or leave their churches. But they’ve got no business extending the rules of their churches to apply to members and nonmembers alike. (There’s nothing original here - this has been said a few million times here in a few thousand threads, but it never hurts to say it one more time, until the Falwells and Robertsons and Dobsons of the world either get it, or look around and find nobody’s listening to them anymore.) ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/57 "2000-09-21T21:59:26Z")
Apparently, to some folks, their religion is more important than accepting what they are, or who they are, as it were. So what religions accept Homosexuals? I’m talking truly accept them, not trying to convert them or make them celibate. ---
**Author:** ![Kupek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90db22/32.png) [@Kupek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kupek)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/58 "2000-09-21T21:59:42Z")
**matt\_mcl** _It accepts their premise that there’s something unfortunate about being this way that we are trying to show we are not responsible for._ No, it does not. It accepts no premises. You are interperting it as such, but you are adding meaning that isn’t there. All the statement says is that they are not responsible for it. _I’m not playing on their turf. I’m not accepting their basis of argument, because I think it’s incorrect. I am disagreeing with them that I need to justify my life to them._ There you go again. Saying it is not a choice does not accept their premise. If you’re so concerned about not justifying yourself to them, you woudln’t respond at all. But that really doesn’t keep dialog open. If you want to educate bigots, you have to explain things to them, not play games. _Because we shouldn’t admit that “choice” argument any more than Jewish-rights advocates do._ And yet, it’s _not_ a choice. This, I am inferring, you agree with, yet you want it to remain unsaid. Why? Homosexuals have no more control of being gay than I do of being straight. I think that’s a very important thing for people to understand, yet you seem to think it’s wrong to say. Countering an argument does not agree with it. You’re putting words into people’s mouths. \*Rather than responding to their ethical judgment of me, I am denying their jurisdiction to make such a judgment of me. \* They have “jurisdiction” to make judgements on anyone they please. The question is if you care. ---
**Author:** ![Spider\_Woman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Spider\_Woman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spider_Woman)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/59 "2000-09-22T00:28:20Z")
The Unitarian Universalist Church welcomes and accepts everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Medea\_s\_Child](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Medea\_s\_Child](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Medea_s_Child)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478/60 "2000-09-22T02:16:17Z")
/slight hijak I would enjoy the ability to choose. I would choose to be bi. I would love to be bi. I think it is one of my life’s goals. Do you think one of those groups that ‘heals’ \ gays could help me make the choice that is right for me? “Hi, you people change sexual orientation? Great, sign me up. I want to be bi.” Sigh. I didn’t think so either. Drat. I’ll go back to the lab now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/becoming-straight/33478.md?page=4)