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 »

06/24/2013

Hit a sexual dry spell? Congrats—you're an 'ex-gay' who deserves federal classification!

by Jeremy Hooper

The scientifically-shunned idea that gays can and should "change" is of course negligent enough. However, there is one "ex-gay" claim that is almost more ridiculous than even that movement's stated cause.

I'm speaking of the attempt to position "ex-gay" as its own independent sexual orientation. Regina Griggs of the fringe PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays) organization is one of the chief offenders; here's her latest attempt:

"When we want to speak or we want to be somewhere, we are not discriminated against because many people get confused on the issue. They say You're covered being heterosexual now," she tells OneNewsNow.

"[But] that's not why you're being discriminated against," Griggs continues. "You're being discriminated against, [these groups are] deliberately silencing these men and women because they are ex-gays. They are the proof that change is possible; that homosexuality and sexual orientation are not immutable."

Although the proposed federal government regulations define sex to include gender identity, "sexual orientation" is not defined. PFOX has requested that the proposed regulation definition of sexual orientation include former homosexuals.
FULL:
A message the feds and others are afraid of: Ex-'gays' exist [One News Now]

It's just such a go-nowhere idea. I mean, surely even Regina knows that even the most theoretically conservative government would stop short of adding a non-recognized flux state like "ex-gay" into law or policy. An "ex-gay" is not a real thing. An "ex-gay"-identified person (or an "ex-straight"-identified person, for that matter) is straight, gay, bi, or asexual, regardless of how they choose to steward their feelings and attractions. Obviously.

This is the kind of thing that I both hate and love to see. I hate it, because the claims are so wacky that I can't believe I even have to waste my time dignifying them. But at the same time, I love that people like Regina put this stuff out there because it's the kind of thing that really shows the lengths to which our opposition movement will go in order to build a case against us. It's the kind of thing that helps us win, ultimately.

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails