As an ex-ex-gay, I have to comment.

You are right. Wallen is missing several points, including social critique, a complete understanding of the place of love and sex in (straight and gay) relationships, and -- I would argue -- the ability to integrate religion and sexuality.

Most of us understand his dilemma. I, like you, have chosen to accept my (homo)sexuality as an integral part of me that I accept, love, and protect. Wallen hasn't been able to do that. But should he accept himself as gay? I don't know that that is always best for everyone.

Exodus International (the national ex-gay umbrella organization) is careful to teach that homosexuality in and of itself is not sinful. That is, the same-sex attraction is not sinful. It does not teach that ex-gays will ever be attracted to someone of the opposite sex. What it does teach is that it is sinful to be "gay" -- to affirm homosexuality and live in a gay lifestyle. For many Exodus participants, this distinction is what allows them to accept themselves and continue through the program, despite the fact that their same-sex attractions remain as strong as when they were seducing neighbor boys in their parents' bed.

I do not know many ex-gays who have continued as ex-gays. Most, like me, have learned to accept themselves as gay. In the process, some reject religion. Some waffle back and forth in a cycle of repentance and promiscuity. Others (me included) learn to integrate religion and homosexuality and settle on an identity that includes both God and gays.

However, there are those who I believe are truly happy as ex-gays. Their religious identity excludes their sexual identity, but it allows them to live at peace with themselves. Yeah, it's a struggle, but that struggle -- in their minds -- brings glory in the end. (After all, didn't Christ struggle and suffer, and were we ever promised happiness?)

I empathize deeply with the internal conflict in these people, but I can't say it's absolutely best for every one of them to accept themselves as gay. I do know some individuals who are truly content with their single lives spent obeying their idea of God's law, even if that means some self-denial and suffering.

I give Wallen credit for having the balls to write this editorial. It's narrow, preachy and illogical, but I give him credit. I hope that he finds peace and contentment, and to me it doesn't matter whether he finds that at The Saloon or in the church pew.

Sadly, though I will happily leave him alone to make his own choices, he and his kind can not leave me to make my own choices. But that's another story...

"I was Black Until My Plastic Surgeon Made Me White" by Michael Jackson

I say that you, Jason, and me hunt down this asshole and beat the shit out of him. I have no empathy for the guy or his pseudo-Freudian whining about why he's a fag.

Sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but it's not possible to be "ex" anything, including ex-"ex". All the psychobabble on both sides (and religion is now the prime purveyor of psychobabble) isn't going to change things. Disagree? You can eat my entelechy.

You raise interesting issues, albeit no more or less authoritative than those Wallen has raised. You assume because of your own experiences and the experiences, cultural beliefs, and morality of those that you surround yourself with, that Wallen is "confused", and must be supressing his homosexuality. You very blatantly claim to have the truth, do you not? Wallen claims that homosexuality is a choice, and you simply contradict by saying "not exactly. Homosexuality is an integral part of who we are..." Neither claims are based upon anything except personal experience and cultural mores. If there is indeed a truth to be had, you cannot both be right. If there is indeed no truth, we must all cease to have an opinion, because it doesn't matter anyway. And if opinion dictates truth, we all ought to live in our own little worlds and not try to share one space.

My point is this - what makes you an authority on the subject, and Wallen a mistaken, lost sheep? If I use our wonderful cultural buzzwords of "tolerance" and relative truth, you should both be able to get along and believe the other person is right. But if I insinuate that there "might be" an absolute truth, I am dubbed "intolerant", "ignorant". And if that truth is suggested to be "homosexuality is not what God intended", then I am also a "homophobe" and a "bigot". Who is calling the names?

Perhaps I am ignorant. Perhaps I know nothing about anything. Perhaps Wallen is confused. But perhaps you are too. What if, oh what if, Wallen is right? What if what he deems as a tremendous experience into new life and joy and contentment actually CAN happen and IS truth and reality? Certainly you are not "open-minded" enough to consider that possibility. Perhaps you ought to meet Wallen and speak with him, and then decide if he's confused or dissatisfied with what he's found. Interesting how you are so ready to judge him based upon what you "know" to be "true" about sexual orientation, and unwilling to even consider his side of the story, his own long years of experience. You reject his views on grounds of nothing, and you call him the ignorant and confused one. Examine yourself.

Feelings . . .
Nothing more than feelings . . .
Trying to forget my
Feelings of love . . .

Teardrops . . .
Rolling down on my face
Trying to forget my
Feelings of love

[Everybody together now:]

FEELINGS
WOH-OH-OH FEELINGS
WOH-OH-OH FEELINGS
Trying to forget my
Feelings of love

gill,

Just a bit of background on me ... more than you should know ... i was brought up in a religious family, raised Lutheran. And because I was uncomfortable with being gay, I piled more religion on myself. I tried to pray away my 'sin' of wanting to be with other guys. And then I slowly came to realize -- it was all bullshit! I wasn't sinning, and organized religion was a complete sham, and futhermore, there was no God. I am happier for those realizations. I'm not confused at all. Wallen isn't right -- homosexuality isn't a sin that we need to pray ourselves out of. I might be wrong -- there might indeed be a god and a heaven -- but when I die I won't be going to hell, I'll be getting a big fucking medal for standing up to bullshit like Wallen's. Whether or not homosexuality is biological or sociological or a combo, face it, sexuality is an integral part of who we are. So don't say that I'm up in here in my ivory tower judging Wallen when I have no idea of what his experiences might be.

I could meet with Wallen, but what would we talk about? We have different world views -- his reality is based on certain assumptions (for one, that the bible is the direct word of god and is absolute truth) that I simply do not accept as anything but a laughable premise. What would we talk about? Well, we might talk about him sucking my dick, but only if he brought it up first.

Perhaps you are ignorant. Perhaps you know nothing. Perhaps your post is a confusing jumble of meaningless terms and rhetorical pimples. Perhaps these are the absolute truths which you seek???

Perhaps this is a bit out of place, but when I think about "ex-gays" I really want to do them. Kinda hard. I anticipate that they might like it a little raunchy too, which is cool.

I know it trivializes and objectifies them even if they aren't particularly deserving of my affections, but still, like Pac-Man on a winning streak, I just can't help myself?

Oh well... I had hoped that someone would have engaged in a logical, intelligent discussion with me, laying their hatred and hurt feelings aside. Unfortunately, all that was in the response was more assumptions, more statements based on nothing but your opinion and experience. No offense, but you sound like a three-year-old: "Yes it is!"...and I say "consider the possibility that it isn't", and you say, "but it's not! Shut up! You're stupid!" My oh my... You are really sensitive about something.

I just find it interesting that no one is willing to be open-minded, a buzzword that we seem to find so important. How can anyone tolerate another's view, while still holding firm to their own? Unless that view is that there is no view, it truly refutes itself. "There is no truth and I have found it" is what you have fundamentally stated. Furthermore, I have received more hateful comments from supposed tolerant people that have been rejected and abused by religion, than I ever have from hypocritical religious people. I do not deny the existence of those religious people - they are in fact the very types of people that Jesus berated throughout the gospels, and still exist en force today - I merely was calling attention to the hypocrisy of tolerance, diversity, and relativism. I am called just as many names for being someone with a firm faith as someone who hates everyone that's ever called them a name. You seem to get offended by everything - isn't that just a sign of insecurity?

My point is not to try to convince you that you aren't gay, or that you are in sin, or even that Wallen is right. My point is that you have not backed up anything, you have done nothing but what you accuse others of - forcing your beliefs on other people, and mocking and berating those that have different views than you. I am merely raising questions, not providing answers, and you are merely pushing all logic and discussion away from your already-made-up mind. Like I said, I'm not here to change your mind, I just wanted to hear an intelligent basis for these truths you seem to have found.

Gill,

I was very open minded with Wallen's essay. I didn't denounce his arguments outright as tripe; I read his piece very carefully, and my arguments were grounded in his text and in the real world. In the end, I reasoned that Wallen could have made other choices. I'm sure you read my response very carefully. So you know that I took issue with his assumptions for not wanting to be gay anymore. As Wallen stated in his piece in many different forms, he led an unhappy, unfilling life, and he blamed that on his homosexuality. I simply disagreed with that rational -- sexuality is a benign part of ourselves. Society interprets these parts of ourselves, or we interpret these parts of ourselves, and act accordingly (being gay doesn't kill people; people kill people.) What Wallen's essay indicated to me is that he was deeply uncomfortable with being gay, and did everything he could to eradicate that from him (unsuccessully). Another person might have integrated that part of himself, and found the source of his unhappiness outside of himself, where these sources usually belong -- in the people who actually beat him up, for example.

I've also been open minded about religion. As wrote in my earlier response, I was an active Lutheran until about the age of 17 (oh, and by the way, religion didn't reject me, and it's not the source of my 'bitterness'. I rejected religion, because I realized that they were wrong in saying homosexuality was a sin. I felt in my heart it wasn't a sin, and in fact was the source of a great and powerful love I felt for another man; religion was telling me this was wrong. Religion had to go. )

I neither hate you nor Wallen nor am I hurt. I grow tired of these pieces though. If anyone is being relatavistic, it's you and Wallen (it takes a pretty fucking tough relatavist to declare that the bible is the direct word of god.)

Here's the thing that makes me angry, Gill ... and I hope you'll agree. Wallen's testimonial is not just a happy little cloud. If it was, I'd say: Great, Wallen, be your happy little ex gay in peace, have your slip-ups, and I'll do my thing over here. But these things don't exist in a bubble. They are a part of a political movement that wants to redefine homosexuality as a 'choice' and then strip gays and lesbians of their fundamental human rights. Gill, can you agree that this is a bad thing? And that Wallen's testimonial is another aspect of that movement?

I love it how I'm deemed intolerant of diversity (and therefore a hypocrite) when I say I don't believe the bible is the direct word of god, or that it's infallible, or that it's wrong to say homosexuality is a sin. Geez next I'll have start being nice to all those people I work with who think the world is flat! This is political correctnes run amok!

Glen,

So if it's impossible to be ex-gay and ex-ex-gay ... what does that make aaron? Is he still an ex-gay then? Or ... is he now just gay? Wait ... wouldn't that make him an ex-ex-gay then?

Blah, blah, blah. Universal truth/relativism, gay/straight, good/evil... haven't we all learned to put these boring, tired binaries behind us? Wake up! Culture and especially human sexuality is much more complex and nuanced than the terms of this debate allow. There really is almost no point in engaging an "ex-gay" in a discussion about this, because he will force such a discussion to be conducted in his own realm of discourse--a realm where the rest of us, even before opening our mouths, have no power. Wallen's testimonial was anti-intellectual, repetitive, and frankly just not very smart. It would be easy to ignore people that insist on espousing a world-view that has proven obsolete centuries ago if they weren't currently dictating policy in these United States.

I'm with Glen on this one. "Ex-gay" or "Ex-Ex-gay" assume an essentialized subject. "Gay" or "Straight" aren't really real. It is to the dominant culture's advantage to label us based on our same-sex desire... they need an "other" to define themselves against--and in the process control us. Cultural theory 101.

Sure, human sexuality is oversimplified and the terms used to describe it are lacking. Some like it that way -- they don't even leave room for poor bisexuals (they're really gay, of course).

The term ex-gay is useful. Whether it's "real" doesn't matter. (But I'm interested -- What would make it real?) What other term should we use to discuss people who have lived a homosexual lifestyle and then decided it wasn't for them? I don't see the terms gay or ex-gay as tools of the dominant culture that allow it to control us. I see them as I do other words or labels -- they can be limiting, but they also can be useful and helpful in understanding human behavior.

Being in a Women's Studies Senior Seminar course right now, I have to say, I've gotten to the point where I think that if we don't employ at least some of these binaries, then we disable discourse entirely. To act as though the binaries are essential, or universal, is a mistake, but without the ability to define "the other" and the ability to know even a fluid definition of a thing, we can't really have any discussions at all.

I feel like i'm hanging out at the existentialist coffee shop in Iowa City again.. akk. I was through with that when I was 17, let's not go back =)

Of course it's possible to be gay,ex-gay, and ex-ex-gay simultaneously. If Wallen wasn't both gay and ex-gay, he wouldn't, and couldn't, have written what he did. The first comment above could only have been written by somebody who was, and is, gay, ex-gay, and ex-ex-gay. If people could really be ex-something, they likely wouldn't be interested in a discussion like this. An ex-lazy person who looked up 'entelechy' would've understood what I meant.

While I loath speaking for someone else, I bet that Aaron feels he is gay, ex-gay, and ex-ex-gay. I bet he embraces all these parts of his history as important to who he is now. Glen, I've seen your entelechy and your epididymis and both are beautiful but is this really the forum for bragging about reproductive anatomy?

Jason, I am glad that your response this time around was at least civil and intelligent. Calling Wallen's ideas "bullshit" and talking about sucking dick was not my idea of an intelligent discussion, which is why I responded as I did.

I am encouraged by your response, not because I ever hope to convince you of a viewpoint or worldview that you oppose, but because I see that you at least know what you believe. However, what I have been trying to point out to you is that these are still things that you BELIEVE. You are insinuating them as "realizations": "I felt in my heart it wasn't a sin". That is, that your viewpoint is FACT and mine is FANTASY; or, at the very least, that yours is based in fact ["my arguments were grounded...in the real world"] and mine (and Wallen's) in fantasy. You liken religion, my ideas and views, and anything that contradicts what you believe to archaic beliefs like the world being flat. I understand your firm belief, but the world was PROVEN to be round. I'm asking you to back up your PROOF that gays are born gay, and that it's not a choice or an optional lifestyle. You assume it like it's a common-known fact, but it is rather the subject of much debate, with no real medical, scientific, or intellectual evidence to back it up. That's what I'm asking for when I say your assumptions are unfounded.

We come from entirely different and opposing worldviews, and we cannot discuss things based upon the assumptions we both make. My worldview is based in my faith that God exists and has designed the world to work in a specific way, and that He has made that way known to us, and everything works if that way is followed. Those are my assumptions, but I never imposed them on you, I simply raised questions. You, however, have imposed yours on me. Your worldview is based in your "realizations", an epiphany that you have had that somehow is supposed to prove to me (or anyone) that God doesn't exist, religion is a sham, and homosexuality is not an optional lifestyle, but an "integral part of who we are." Why should I accept these? How have they been proven - just because you've felt them in your heart? You would never accept my heart's feelings as a reason to believe in God, would you? Why do you impose these assumptions on me as truth, when all I have done is suggest that they might not be true, and that Wallen may indeed have grasped something you have missed? You must be the only person in the world that has it all figured out, you're just waiting for all of us to catch up, right? I'm just wondering where your enlightenment is coming from.

My discussion of social mores was simply a reference to our culture, which has only recently (in the last 20-30 years or less) started to accept homosexuality as whatever you say it is. You are worried that "we", the political movement, will strip you of your rights that you have so recently obtained. These rights have been obtained with much struggle, to be sure, but I say that that struggle is because there is still much debate about these "facts" of homosexuality that you so firmly base your life upon. I myself would argue that the homosexual agenda in this country has been far more active, pushy, and noisy (than the silent majority of conservatives on the issue) to obtain these special rights - going so far as to redefine marriage, obtain the rights to raise children (a "special right", as the children cannot physiologically be attributed to a same-sex couple), and many other things that were never considered an issue 50-100 years ago.

So you see, from my point of view, the movement to "strip you of your fundamental human rights" is not that at all. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. From my point of view, your movement is and has been infringing upon my lifestyle, my definitions of what is and what should be, and the morals which I base my life upon. This "political movement" to "redefine" homosexuality is merely an adherence to the beliefs that have always been present in our country and throughout history. Perhaps you can relate to the terms "conservative" and "liberal" upon this matter, as my ideas are of course "old-fashioned" to you. We are merely trying to uphold a definition that your movement has already redefined for us. Apparently, our two viewpoints cannot coexist. I wish that they could, but then again, I probably wish that you would change your mind as much as you wish I would change mine. And neither of us are going to, we know.

Ohmygawd Gill you are so retro I love it. Your posts are like stale bowling shirts. There's a homosexual agenda out there arguing for special rights! We're redefining marriage! We want to raise our own children! Ayeee do you read 1) books 2) newspapers or do you get all your information from 1) sermons 2) CBN?

You probably also think that abortions cause breast cancer and agree with President Bush on global warming that the verdict's still out.

Let's say that being gay isn't immutable. Is it really that bad? Should we work to change it? Is it really damaging? This goes back to my earlier arguments about Wallen's testimonial. Blah blah blah. No, even if homosexuality could be eradicated (which it can't, and even Exodus will agree with me on that), does it really need to be? You and Wallen would say yes--homosexuality makes you get beat up by people! It destroys your life! I say, no...society should change not me. I'm not at fault on this one, society is. But then, that would mean you biblethumpers actually have to live and let live, and then, like, America would go down the tubes. Hey, look on the bright side! As soon as the gays have destroyed every last moral fiber in this country with our lascivious lifestyles and sodomitic ways, the sooner the apocalypse will come and you and Wallen can be taken up into heaven. Whew won't that be a relief? For me too.

I still think both you and Wallen are full of shit. And if Wallen wants to suck my dick, I'd still be open to discussing that with him. I'm not sure what you look like, Gill, but I'd be open to you sucking my cock too.

Hehehe... stale bowling shirts! That's funny! :) I'm gonna use that one sometime. Anyway, that was funny, but the rest of your response was again uncivil. Am I hitting a nerve or something? You sound like someone who is really insecure about something, that you have to say I'm full of shit and that you want to suck my cock, etc etc. (You would not do well in politics)

I'm not going to continue or even back up my arguments right now (though I can), because you haven't even attempted to answer the questions and challenges that I've raised. You simply mock me and reassert your statements. Once you are civil, calm, and intelligent enough to show me why you believe what you believe (based upon something other than your supreme epiphanies), then maybe we can have a conversation. Feel free to do it by email, if you don't care to do it in this public forum.

I'm not offended, hurt, or even surprised by your responses and insults. In fact, you only solidify the very "prejudices" that you accuse me of having. Knee-jerk reactions to a civil argument are not considered by anyone to be intelligent. I could easily bring my questions to someone smarter and more civil than you, who also happens to be gay, but I decided to ask you. You're only making a fool of yourself.

Gill,

I have answered your questions, and asked some of my own, which you patently ignored. You can do this because you think I'm being uncivil, or acting like a three year old, but you should be grateful for my rudeness--it allows you to discount my arguments without actually having to discount them, which religious folk are fond of doing (often through an appeal to Biblical 'truth').

I've not kept up on the debates surrounding the biological determinacy of homosexuality. While we can all agree that sexuality is an innate part of being human, no one can agree on whether homosexuality is innate as well. It seems that no matter what your political bent--pro-gay or anti-gay--you can find a study or a doctor to back up your claims and refute the opposition's. This state of affairs is a direct result of a particular viewpoint that sees homosexuality as an aberration, a skewing of a normal sexuality, heterosexuality. While it isn't hard to view heterosexuality as innate, it's hard to see homosexuality the same way, when you consider it a mutation or aberration of a norm. Further, this point of view depends upon a binary of hetero and homo which doesn't hold up to the range of human behaviours practiced safely, healthily, and happily by humanity.

These debates don't interest me very much (as I wouldn't be interested in, for example, debates on whether left handedness was innate or learned, if there were such debates). For me the question is, whether or not homosexuality is biological or social, or both, whether or not it can be changed or not, should it be? Is homosexuality, separated from the social, a bad thing that damages individuals? This is at the root of my disagreement with Wallen, and I continually refer to my resonse to his testimonial (like that does any good). Wallen (and religious fundamentalists), think that homosexuality is a sin, but beyond the Bible, their proof is that homosexuality damages the invidual. It makes them unhappy, promiscuous, depressed. Turns people into alcoholics, suicides, or AIDS patients. I disagree vehemently with this. And so does the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatry Association. These organizations do not view homosexuality as an aberration, or as damaging to an individual's psyche, or as something that can be changed or should be changed. Why are fundamentalists so obsessed with homosexuality? You accuse me of being insecure about something, but I wonder the same thing about fundamentalists obsessed with homosexuality and its eradication, especially when the Bible forbids sooo many things, when there are sooo many problems out there that might benefit from thoughtful Christian action. Why homosexuality? These are questions that haven't been answered sufficiently for me. Part of me feels that the answer lies within...them.

The debates over gay rights (which you call 'special' rights) pose a different contradiction for me. You feel that these rights infringe on your own rights. But no one has been able to offer me a reasonable explanation of how this is possible. And believe me, I'd like to know (if only so I could have a target to debate). How do my rights infringe on your own? How do marriage rights for gay couples damage your marriage rights? This argument continues to possess political currency, and yet I've looked at it from all sorts of angles, and I find it completely empty. Further, because you say these rights erode your own (though it is unclear how), your response is to then practice what you object to.

Unlike you, I have no problem coexisting with beliefs like religious beliefs that are different from mine (though I believe personally that they are without merit) unless, like you, they infringe upon my rights. I'm not trying to take away your right to define, within your specific religion, what marriage should be. Within your religion, you may discriminate against gay people. You may advocate gay members of your congregation to undergo reparative therapy. You may completely ban gays from your church. Go ahead--that's your right. But I will not allow the politics of exclusion on Biblical or otherwise spurious grounds to extend beyond that--into the political realm which should be free from undue influence from religion, where the framework of my livelihood and happiness is at stake.

Since this topic has reached 20 posts and requires more scrolling than Jacob Nielsen approves, I suggest that further comments be posted to the topic immediately below--the one about throwing up.

I like the part where the "silent" conservative majority and glen are the victims.

Do it again. Do it again! =)

I think you mean GILL considers himself a victim...Glen is a victim too, but only when it comes to fashion... otherwise Glen is a WINNER.

Hey Jason, I was wondering, why do you believe that you can't be straight? Not as in giving yourself up to God or what not, but why do you believe that your heart and lifestyle, and your selfimage couldn't be changed? Also, I'm not siding with Gill or anything, but could you admit that someone could possibly be able to and have the chance to to truly be freed from a lifestyle and move on with a new one? If so, could it be true that Wallen could really have had that opportunity and made the choice to change? Just curious.

~Alaiena

Yeah Jason,
I think Alaiena has a point. The way I see it, I mean if the atmosphere of the earth, which is mighty huge and all, doesn't even have a will and emotions and feelings, desires and lusts change in pressure and can cause so many different effects to both the rest of the planet and to to the people, why can't a person who has all of those feeling, emotions, desires, lusts, and even a human will to change and adapt to his or her surroundings change a integral part of who they are by choice? I mean if the weather patterns without a soul can change, why is it that we who have souls can't?

David

Oh fer chrissakes!

This just in, Fiveoclockbot has been selected as Pastor Preston M. Purity's "Sodom&Gomorrah-Site-of-the-week!" in the "hotlinks" section of his very popular website "Campus Crusade for Converting Cocksuckers."

Hey Jason, I'm still waiting for your answer, becasue it's important to me to see if you think what I think you think. PLease resond with an answer. Are you ok?

~Alaiena

Yeah, Jason, resond with an answer, and make it a well-resond answer as well.

yo jason . . . i'll suck your cock . . . i'll take it deep down and swallow everything you got . . . you wanna give it to me baby? mmmm . . . you are lookin' tastey.

.brandon

Jason, you read my mind. That was exactly what I had intended to say.. gil is the victim. *proceeds to cry river*

I'll decide whether I'm a victim or not, thank you.

Okay, I've read all views and althought I'm a little late on everything sinced I just came across this. I came to the assumption that maybe Jason and Gill should date ha ha!!!! I be willing to talk to either one of you...anyone got aim my sn is sexcityut and yahoo messenger killeencityboi.

Sure I'll do you.