« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
03/21/2007
'Ex-gay': The kind of 'normalcy' that requires therapy, conferences, and internal battles
In a piece regarding the possibility that science may find a biological link to the homo-gay, Baptist Press quotes professional "ex-gay" Tim Wilikins (pic) as saying (highlighting our own):
"...[F]or the sake of argument, let’s assume for the moment that unquestionable scientific proof exists that same-sex attractions are genetic,” Wilkins said. “That ‘fact’ would, in no way, alter the present discourse. Our genetic code is marred by sin. Multiple sclerosis, cancer, cerebral palsy and every other disease is a result of sin. No one would dare consider any of the aforementioned conditions to be normal. In fact, we invest millions of dollars every year in researching these conditions -- seeking a remedy.”
Uhm...Sin is to blame for "multiple sclerosis, cancer, cerebral palsy and every other disease" under the sun?! Well you can just call a day, doctors, scientists, and researchers. For there's no reason to further investigate the roots, treatments, and cures for disease -- all formulas lie within the pages of the Bible! And as for you, those who are in the care of a hospice worker while suffering the cruel effects of debilitating illness: Well, you simply should have dedicated your life to morality a little more, and you'd still be in good health!
[::Writer rolls eyes so aggressively, he fears for a second that he may detach his retina. He then realizes that it is not his actions, but rather only his faith (or lack thereof) that can cause him harm::]
Wilkins then goes on to say of homosexuality as it exists within the animal kingdom:
“It is natural for a female praying mantis to literally devour her male counterpart immediately after they mate,” Wilkins said. “Yet I do not hear secularists suggesting women follow suit.
“Even before I reached puberty, I recognized an attraction to other boys and men -- though at that time the attractions were not sexual in nature,” Wilkins said. “I can honestly say that homosexuality seemed ‘natural’ to me, but natural should not be construed as normal. It is ‘natural’ for people to get sick and die. And nowhere does the Bible extol the natural. On the contrary, Scripture speaks of the ‘natural’ with disdain and extols the ‘spiritual’ (see 1 Corinthians 15:44, 46 and Jude 1:19).”
Hmm..how bizarre that one who uses the Bible to condemn others makes an allusion to a "praying mantis." But we digress.
Yes, there are loads of animal behaviors that we as humans do not follow. On that same token, there are loads of human behaviors that are not emulated by our less-civilized friends (especially those who aren't mammals). However, as animals ourselves, we do non-debatably share some basic characteristics with our furrier counterparts. Breathing, for example. The need to eat and drink in order to sustain our lives. Sleeping. And yes -- sexual behavior. It is not an insect's bizarre mating behavior with which we should juxtapose our own attractions and sexual lives, but rather with a more similarly-related chimpanzee, tiger, etc. All of these beings (and many lesser-related creatures) demonstrate same-sex attractions!
"Natural" in terms desire should ABSOLUTELY be construed as "normal!" This writer has mentioned a few times that he, up until his late teens, was physically intimate only with females. This despite his knowing full well that he had never once been physically attracted to a girl. And let me tell you -- THAT clumsy attempt at intimacy was unnatural! However, the first time my lips ever touched another guy's, any inner debate I may have previously had about my sexual orientation completely dissipated. I had tested the waters of both, and found the ones in which my ship of desire sailed!
It is absurd for folks like Mr. Wilkins, who believe that we are all creatures of God, to just write off these natural, widely prevalent feelings (and lack of feelings) as outside of the realm of normalcy. After all, these desires exist in people of all faiths (including a lack thereof) and species, while the "ex-gay" notion is primarily confined to that of the evangelical Christian human.
Moving on, Wilkins concludes the Baptist Press piece by saying:
“The Bible-believer knows that in this life we are not exempt from temptation -- homosexual or otherwise; thus we must battle it daily,” he said. “But here’s the good news. Those very temptations, sometimes relentless, drive me into Christ’s presence, where I repeat the words of the hymnist, ‘I need Thee precious Jesus, for I am full of sin.’”
The primary problem, as exemplified by the above, is that folks like Mr. Wilkins refuse to view homosexuality as anything more than a temptation. There is a huge difference between "temptation" and intrinsic parts of one's being. In order for something to be a temptation, there has to be a logical, obtainable alternative that can also be followed naturally. For example, a husband need not cheat on his wife; he can instead remain faithful. A person need not eat an entire cake; they can have a small sliver instead. An employee doesn't have to call in sick so that he can go to a water park; he can instead report to his cubicle and just daydream about the slides and pools. An alcoholic does not have to have a shot of whiskey; alcohol is merely and outside chemical and sobriety is an obtainable, natural goal. But on the contrary, if one is truly gay, there is not a natural alternative in terms of their love and sex lives! One thing that enrages us so much about the "ex-gay" movement is that they act as if there is an alternative, even while many -- like Mr. Wilkins -- admit that they still "struggle with attractions" to men. This is most likely because they are acting in ways that are not truly natural to them!
It's always amusing/enraging that these "ex-gays" present their new wives and children as some sort of proof that they have "changed." Again, this writer has had sexual intercourse with females. He could do it again. However, having to pretend that his difficulty in achieving firmness in the groin region is just a fluke and having to close his eyes and think of a guy in order to carry out the deed, are not the ways he wishes to share intimacy! He instead chose at age 19 to stop following the "temptation" to live an untruthful life for the sake of pleasing those who might object to his normalcy! Ever since that day, there has never been an internal battle in regards to his attractions. He has found his "knight in John Varvatos' armor," and is living a decent, righteous, normal life! Perhaps if the "ex-gays" would better reconcile their "naturalness" with their "normalcy," they could also start loving in ways that are not a daily struggle!
Ex-gays say science can’t change morality [BP]
Technorati Tags: Tim Wilkins
Your thoughts
If it weren't for so much tragedy that results from this indulgence by Wilkins, I'd say that his assertions are hysterically laughable.
What's right before his eyes and the world, he'd rather interpret BADLY and absurdly through a religious lens.
Comparing insect behavior to that of sophisticated mammals.
Comparing a difference of sexuality to a painful and life threatening illness.
If comparisons are to be made, it's best to compare the gay person with the heterosexual...and the differences thereof, are practically non existent.
Wilkins and his ilk editorialize their religious belief to fit their insistence that heterosexuality bears some form of virtue or supremacy.
White people made that mistake with blacks in America, and men with women.
There is no human supreme above another, nor with the right to dominion over another.
I expect people like Wilkins, who claim to be so studied in moral understanding, should know the differences between what is violent, destructive to all human relationships and what is a disease that compromises all form and function of the human body.
And even so, humanity is constantly looking for the comforts, if not cures of said diseases. Off setting pain and suffering and aging and death.
Would he also say as you do already, that there is no purpose in modern medicine, space travel...a better mousetrap?
It is my own belief that men and women and those who are gay are the holy trinity.
Our purpose is TOGETHER as a better whole.
We are each other's protective shield and caring bridge between the sometimes brutal and disharmonic issues between men and women who are heterosexual.
Our human history shows that religious communities, the strictest ones, are offended by the form and function of women and put females in artificially restrictive roles, unnatural to their character and talents.
Sure, the Bible only shows and speaks on how to react to gay people...but it's not instructive on how gay people have treated straight people in return.
The Bible is rife with retrobution, revenge and violent reaction.
Wilkin's is obvious in how he prefers the power to join in reaction to homosexuals and homosexuality, but that's a way to stay safe and sound and indulge those who would otherwise kill HIM.
He's like Uriah Heep that way...a creeping, obsequious person that tells the straight world they are right to hate him and how THEY interpret HIM, he has no argument against.
It's weak.
It doesn't help all those gay and lesbian youth out there, who have to struggle with not only straight misunderstanding, but gay men like Wilkins who won't help them either.
Indeed, he fosters the straight world's self delusion of supremacy.
And they are only getting away with it, not because they are right and moral, but simply because there are so many of them, and less gay people with the means and will to fight back. Even in the courts and with due process of law and a country that promises protection from the tyrannies of the majority.
Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Mar 21, 2007 12:06:47 PM
You draw a distinction between temptations like cheating on a partner, calling out sick from work, and alcoholism, which people "struggle" with but which arguably have attainable alternatives, and homosexuality, which some people try to "struggle" with but which you argue does NOT have an attainable alternative. While I agree with you, I'm afraid you'll never convince people like Mr. Wilikins.
The disagreement between us and them is the following: We see any attempt to struggle with our sexuality as simply unacceptable. To us, to struggle against it means a life devoid of true happiness. To them, the struggle for ex-gayness is perfectly acceptable. To them, the struggle is indeed the path to true happiness (happiness being defined by them as a state of sinlessness, which in turn is defined by them as not being gay).
They seem to have moved beyond the question of natural versus unnatural, and instead stick to their more basic litmus test of right versus wrong. They simply define homosexuality and homosexual acts as wrong. Sadly, I don't think there's any way to convince them otherwise.
Posted by: Arthur | Mar 21, 2007 12:14:22 PM
I think this article hit the proverbial nail right on the head.
That term, "Ex-Gay," in and of itself, is so completely laughable. I've often entertained the notion of rallying together all my fellow gay compatriots and launching an "Ex-Straight" ministry by means of retaliation. But I haven't, mostly because I already recognize such a tactic to be no less asinine. Attraction is what it is. You cannot simply turn it off and go through life pretending that it no longer exists. Anybody who claims otherwise is plain and simply lying to themselves.
I am NOT attracted to women and quite honestly never have been. The misinformed male individuals, like Mr. Wilkins, who have vainly attempted to convince me that I "choose" to be gay and can "change" really do need to step aside and re-evaluate their flawed system of beliefs. If it is such a choice, why don't these same people try taking a little test of their own? Why don't they wake up one morning, tell their wives or girlfriends that they feel like dating men and see just how easily that "choice" comes to any of them? If they're not already gay, if the attraction isn't there, it's plain and simply not going to happen. Do people like this really require a slide rule to figure that out? The simplistics of this petty argument are so astonishingly clear. Why does nobody seem to get it?
This isn't the 1950s anymore! Can we please get past this nonsensically immature indifference and just accept each other for who we are?
Posted by: Brian Summers | Mar 21, 2007 12:23:16 PM
Ah, but see Arthur, you're working under the assumption that I'm trying to convince them. I am not. Nothing I say will ever convince the majority of those who professionally fight our movement. The ones I'm trying to reach are the parents who Google the name "Tim Wilkins" to find out more about his "ex-gay" programs. The ones who are not extremists, but rather just confused about the nature of homosexuality, are the target audience. That's why I challenge every word that our opposition puts out. I want there to be a counterpoint for each of their flawed points.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 21, 2007 12:24:08 PM
I never considered myself "ex-gay" however, being raised Mormon, I tried to live the lifestyle from an early age, even though I remember realizing I was different very early on. In some ways, being able to "talk the talk" made my family and church life easier, and being Mormon, there is not much else. I even served a mission and even got married, hoping that the Lord would change me as I had been promised. Although I was married for 12 years, I never was successful in being intimate with my wife. We were great feriends, but I could not feel anything more for her, and was simply not attracted. I went through several therapists and programs I was sent to by my bishops and other church leaders. As much as I wanted to be "normal", no matter what I did, I could not find happiness in all the things I had been taught. I avoided pornagraphy and even avoided people I sensed were gay as I knew it would be too hard for me to have gay freinds and remain in my closet.
After my divorce, I began making friends with those I had avoided. The first friends I made were so freeing. My first kiss with a man practicall sent me through the roof. I was happy for the first time in my life. it is hard for others to tell me I made a choice or that heterosexuality is "normal" for me. If it is normal, why would I need therapy to achieve it? If it was a choice, then why would I make a choice at such an early age that I would then struggle against. The choices I made were to remain active in a church that would only tell me that continued denial would somehow bring me happiness, and to get married to a wonderful woman, who while a great friend, could never be more. I regret marrying as my wife deserved a husband who could be what she needed, and I would never advocate that any gay man get married to prove their "normality".
So again, the whole "choice" issue. While I agree that my life would be easier if I were to choose a "hetero" lifestyle, I know from experience that I would not find happiness in that choice.
Posted by: Todd | Mar 21, 2007 12:36:40 PM
Todd, I really feel for you... and your poor wife! I cried watching Brokeback Mountain more for the poor wives than the menfolk - especially the wife who knew about it and had to pretend she didn't...
I don't hold any of the gay men who marry women to blame for the hurt those marriages cause. I hold the church (of all stripes) accountable for pressuring them into it. If people were allowed to be who they truly were, then those marriages wouldn't happen, and those hurts wouldn't have to occur.
It's always been one of the things that raises my hackles about the "ex-gay" movement... I can't stand the thought of a man (or woman)who is fooling themselves because of percieved "sin" marrying an otherwise innocent human being, and condemning them to a life with a partner racked with doubts... I think it's cruel.
Again, Todd, I'm not blaming you. It sounds like you did everything you could to make life livable for your wife. But I wish that your church hadn't pushed you into turning a great friendship into a not-so-great marriage. It isn't fair on either of you.
Posted by: Anon | Mar 21, 2007 3:58:49 PM
Anon, I don't think society, as a whole, is altogether fair. If this country really was the "Land Of The Free" our governing body so proudly claims it is, this entire discussion wouldn't be taking place.
We would not have these so-called "Ex-Gay" ministries, and we certainly wouldn't have a President who so passionately strives to write legal discrimination into our constitution. But, see, nobody believes in "live and let live" anymore. Quite frankly, I don't seriously think anybody ever has. That's why these bigots are constantly in the news. If we all don't live the same, share in the same beliefs or follow the same religion, we're plain and simply less than human. That, to me, is nothing short of petty. I've always preferred to assume we're a better collective people than this. But, as long we have those in power who would rather divide than unite, we're not going to see any forseeable end to these conversion ministries....no matter how pathetic they may be.
Posted by: Brian Summers | Mar 21, 2007 6:20:39 PM
What's this??? "On the contrary," he says, "Scripture speaks of the ‘natural’ with disdain and extols the ‘spiritual’ (see 1 Corinthians 15:44, 46 and Jude 1:19).”
Oh pshaw! If they'd just read the whole thing instead of the little bits that make 'em feel so self-righteous. Take Psalm 104...that 'un puts a pretty nice picture on nature.
My dad always said, "for those who are evil, everything is evil...but to those who are good, all things are good."
Posted by: Dash | Mar 21, 2007 11:42:05 PM
comments powered by Disqus
