RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/16/2009

Stop drinking. Get help for traumas. Heck, stop having gay sex. But stop linking these disconnected elements!

by Jeremy Hooper

If there was even ONE self-declared "ex-gay" who didn't marry their supposed "change" out of homosexuality with their concurrent move away from things like drug abuse, past traumas, promiscuity, and clubbing, then that movement wouldn't come across quite as misguidedly. But that is NEVER the case. The standard "ex-gay" script always details their "conversion" as being not only a move away from simply their attractions to the same gender. Instead, their "godly intervention" is presented as a move away from a whole host of behaviors and traumas that they present as innately connected to homosexuality, full well knowing that such a presentation will much more fully stigmatize LGBT people (the primary goal of a movement that identifies themselves not as what they currently claim to be, but as a 'former' member of the community they are now politically opposing).

Take these recent videos featuring "ex-gay" Janet Boynes (please):

You get it? She was "broken." and now she's "fixed." And while she doesn't fully go into her drug/club/party ways, you can find all the usual claims in Janet's books and on her website.

The bottom line: You will NEVER, EVER, EVER meet a married, successful gay professional with a loving family and stable home life who suddenly decides they are an "ex-gay." A crucial element for this movement is "being saved from sin," which means that the spokespeople must have been shrouding themselves in some sort of debauched, godless revelry (no matter how vague) or some wrecked home life in order to have a compelling enough story. Whether these folks are making up their past ways in order to pad their stories, or if they really were party animals is not even relevant. If the former, then it's par for this movement's deceptive course; if the latter, it means these people very well might have needed some self reflection, but about their social lives, not their internal desires. What matters here is that they, the organized "ex-gays," so fully need this element of the story in order to the keep their game alive. That should make everyone, regardless of placement along the "culture war" spectrum, ask themselves why.

The way we see it: "Ex-gay" is all about perception. When it comes to the LGBT individuals and family members that they hope to recruit, the professional "former 'mos" have to convince them that there is, first and foremost, a need to "change." So it's obviously easiest to find people who may be struggling or falling behind in other areas, and convincing them that their drug abuse/alcohol abuse/molestation/infidelities/family troubles/hangnails/whatever are symptoms of their "god-detested" homosexuality. After all, there are few among either the "ex-gay" or proudly adjusted gay communities who deny that sex is enjoyable. So these tricksters seize on other elements. Whatever life problems a person might have, or whatever risky behaviors in which a person might be engaging (which in the gay world, we all know are quite commonly born out of nonacceptance) are attributed to the sex. They are told that if they just stop the same-sex schtupping, then all else will fall away as well.

Then there is the superficial perception. They have to talk about things like their past "butch/femme" qualities and style of dress, as if (a) gender-nonconformity and sex go hand in hand, (b) all gay people act a certain stereotypical way, and (c) that cultural affectations like a short haircut or a thong on the back of a pride parade float are what sexual orientation is all about. The women talk about lipstick as if it has the vagina-repelling powers! And the men tend to talk about "butching up" as if one cannot like a masculine guy cannot possibly like both sports and balls, or a more effete man cannot possibly like both pussywillows and women! It is shorthand -- a way for them to more easily highlight their "journey" for their public.

Then there is perception in terms of the larger conversation. "Ex-gay" is not just a program of "helping" the "poor, immoral, deviant" gay folk. This is a thoroughly political movement that is meant to tell every aspect of society that while heterosexuality is perfectly normal and in-born, homosexuality is a choice/mistake/aberration in need of "changing." Why do you think the anti-gay groups invest so much money in it? It's because they want it need it to be successful in order to justify how they can, in good evangelical conscience, discriminate against queer people. if it's a "choice" to be gay, then they can keep the "love the sinner, hate the sin" nonsense alive. And if they can marriage gay sex and its associated orientation with far more universally relatable concepts like drugs and partying, then they can keep the "gay lifestyle is evil" meme alive in many social conservatives' heads. These folks don't need to meet an actual living, breathing LGBT person: Focus on the Family has already told them all that they think they need to know.

So those of us who are happy, married, well-adjusted, and/or proud will never be discussed by these groups. They know we exist -- they just don't want others to know. A story about a pair of successful New York gay men who have a thoroughly pro-family wedding at which people of all faiths and generations are represented is simply not (a) a story that would scare the public enough, or (b) one in which they lead players could ever be duped into believing that their easy love and non-debauched lives are somehow "ungodly." The lightness of the picture far too fully reveals the darkness of this movement's offensive suggestions/accusations!

The "ex-gay" movement is a man-made game, where the rules have been created not by actuality or science, but rather by the desires of the professionally homo-hostile. Rule Numero Uno: The backstory should be as scary as possible so as to make the "redemption" seem that much sweeter. It would simply be a funny civil rights footnote if not for the frightening futurestory that they're seeking for the entire LGBT population!

*For more on this video and Boynes' love for Rep. Michelle Bachmann (Very Far R-MN), check out the Dump Bachmann blog: "Ex-Lesbian" Janet Boynes Tweets About Bachmann; "She Loves Her Constitutes!!" [DMB]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I think they should round up every person who identifies as "ex-gay", tie them up, force them to watch homoerotic images and performances, and if they get it hard or wet, we can expose these individuals of their delusion.

Posted by: ---- | Jul 16, 2009 12:00:35 PM

The "ex-gay" movement is just a brilliant fundraising scheme. They charge huge fees to attend these "counselling sessions" knowing full well that the therapies don't work. Then they use the few victims who are duped into beleiving that they have been "cured" in promotion of their bigger fundraising scheme: the Anti-gay machine. It's a win-win for their bottom line.

Posted by: SammySeattle | Jul 16, 2009 12:25:21 PM

I fully agree! These people are addiction prone, and they swap one crutch (drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling) for another crutch (religion). All of those addictions trigger dopamine production in the brain that rewards their addictive behavior. And for the addictive personality, any one of them will work equally as well as any of the others.

That the ranks of Christendom are filled with those who comprise the most profusely vile of humanity is no surprise. They swap a hangover for signing away most of their disposable income, and still get the same rush. And, I, personally, have no problem with that. At least, as long as they celebrate their new found opiate without attempting to force it onto me.

These people also like to assume, incorrectly, that they are normal. And that everyone else is exactly like they are. They are not normal. They are weak and controlled by their addictions. Religion might be a relatively "safe" addiction, but it is just a crutch like all of the other crutches that they might have given up. They really need professional help, and that, unfortunately, is exactly what they are not getting.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 16, 2009 4:45:56 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails