Hey, thanks for ther post (that was quick!). It's nice to reject labels but not very practical (I certainly identify as a lesbian, but my sexuality is a whole lot more complicated than that, as is a lot of people's, I suspect) . While it's still ilegally and culturally important whether you're gay or straight, those labels have to stay. For example, the reason I can't marry the person I've loved and raised a family with for the last 16 years is because I'm gay. Not because I'm a woman and she's a woman, because the vast majority of women *do* get to marry the person they love. Because I'm a gay woman, and the person I love is legally unavailable to me despite the vows we've made and kept for closing on 2 decades.
But back to the post: do you think that if you polled a sampleof evangelicals (or even evangelical ministers) and asked them what they perceive "success" for someone who's a part of an ex-gay ministry, do you think they would define it as "someone with SSA who is obedient to God's will" or do you think they still perceive success as "becoming straight"?
Here's my suspiscion: you guys might consider the first answer correct, but I suspect the majority of Chrisitans of similar religious conviction (i.e. not Unitarians ;-} ) still believe that a positive outcome is being *cured*. And if they DO believe that (here's a quote: "Ted Haggard is now completely heterosexual [after 3 weeks of prayer and counselling]"), what should we (or perhaps, you: Exodus) do about it? Does that affect how they view people with unwanted SSA in their congregations? Does that affect how they see people like me (someone who has a lifestyle much more similar to theirs than *you* do in a lot of ways)?
If becoming ex-gay means a life of obedience rather than (necessarily) a life of change (of the very temptations that taunt us), doesn't that somehow really change the whole picture of what it means to be gay at all?
Randy
· 10 months ago
Yeah , I intended it to be a short comment but it kept growing so I turned it into a post. I don't agree that "gay" or "straight" have to stay. They weren't really a part of the cultural lexicon until fifty years ago and yet the world still turned with other societies who were MUCH more accepting of homosexuality than ours is now.
I also don't believe that she is completely legally unavailable. You have to jump through more hoops than other people and there are benefits not available to you as a couple but ... "legally unavailable" is a generalization that says you have zero options and in today's reality you have a heckuva lot more than even twenty years ago. Plus, the courts will actually back up your private legal agreements and contracts. There is still legitimate issues to debate on how that should or shouldn't be made easier for you but ... I am not buying the complete "legally unavailable" line.
still love me? :)
But back to the post: do you think that if you polled a sampleof evangelicals (or even evangelical ministers) and asked them what they perceive "success" for someone who's a part of an ex-gay ministry, do you think they would define it as "someone with SSA who is obedient to God's will" or do you think they still perceive success as "becoming straight"?
That would be a great sampling. I am not sure but my gut feeling would be that 20 years ago, they would have for the most part seen success as becoming "straight" as you say. However, again sixteen years ago I was given the same understanding that I just shared with you (on what the goals really are) and I have always been in churches and around people who, while they challenged me on things like not calling all the guys in my small group "cutie", they never made me feel like I *had* to change my sexual orientation or become married in order to be "justified, sanctified and washed" by the blood of the Lamb (1 Cor 6:11). And even the ones who "challenged" me never shamed or condemned me. They just helped me think through the issues for myself and determine what I wanted to do about them. Today, and I hope as a result of Exodus' influence, people are more understanding of the fact that our temptation is just like theirs with regard to ongoing sanctification and pursuing holiness.
Your third paragraph is a little confusing to me. I don't know any Christian that thinks you can be "cured" of temptation. That isn't a word we use on purpose. Of Haggard, that was a quote from way back when his public statements were all over the place. When I heard it I just shook my head. And what we do about it, especially among our own, is to reach out to them privately and offer our support and help.
And no ... I won't tell you what high profile figures have accepted that help or not. :).
And, I tell you, those that talk insta-deliverance or verbiage along the lines of "cure" aren't around me for long without us having an "issue" to work through. At the same time my goal isn't to score points or do memo's to our critics. My goal is to bring reality into the situation.
Everyone I know would probably have a great time with you as much as you would let them be who they are too. For instance, they are not going to recognize your union as a marriage. They just aren't. At the same time I don't think they would doubt that you have invested a tremendous amount of love into each other. I don't think they would be fearful in any way.
They, I, would probably enjoy you and your partner's friendship on a lot of levels because life is multidimensional. I have no doubt that they would do anything possible to simply help you with a flat tire, illness, go to coffee and yell about the recession ... you know ... the rest of life stuff. I also have no doubt that if someone came after you verbally or physically that they, and I, would defend you and put ourselves in harms way if we could deflect any of that coming at you.
And at the end of the day, when the public policy battles are done ... we are still going to yell at each other on my blog ... in love of course. ::: laugh :::
But you have to know that there are just some things that simply won't happen. I personally like it when people just get it all out there and get over it so we can find what we can (if we can) get along on. My friend Rateb, in Texas, believed I was an infidel going to burn in eternal torment because I had the arrogance to tell him that Mohammad was a false prophet. I mean ... I told him that because he asked what I thought. But ... he and I were friends for over 11 years until our paths took us in other directions.
We have to stop being instant "all or nothing" on both sides of the issue even though there are very serious beliefs that just aren't ever going to be compromised.
If becoming ex-gay means a life of obedience rather than (necessarily) a life of change (of the very temptations that taunt us), doesn't that somehow really change the whole picture of what it means to be gay at all?
It changes it completely. That's what I am saying.. we have been saying. Obedience, repentance, forgiveness, worship ... IS change in and of itself. That's why we don't identify as gay or ex-gay. Also, a lot of people do experience some level of sexual orientation change and even some who completely move into a relatively struggle (temptation) free life for whatever reason.
Plus, the world is simply much more complicated than the talking points on either side. Consider this, my therapist, who helped me with my PTSD was a secular humanist who thought I was nutty on this issue. Even so, after our official relationship ended, he said he had two clients who once they got past their trauma, they were no longer attracted to the same sex ... at all ... and they weren't even Christians. That's another reason why I believe the gay vs. straight or gay and straight construct is starting to unravel. It doesn't account for what is actually happening out there. That's why I think the far right is failing and also why the "gay" centered activist community is crumbling for lack of consistent core leadership. Their messaging isn't resonating with what more and more ssa (Lifetime or situational) people are experiencing ... especially among the young.
While the goals are to live a Christian life that doesn't mean we don't learn about a biblical sexual ethic and question homosexuality to discover things we can turn away from, grow out of or simply accept as ongoing issues. Your last paragraph, while profound in scope ... doesn't cover the vast complexity of all that is going on for people like me. I am not knocking the question at all but books have been written in response to that question.
Ok... I am a little worn out with these very long replies. :).
Joe Dallas
· 10 months ago
Don't look now, but you're writing a book. So either take this post and expound on it or I'll be glad to steal it. Just let me know.
Diane Nagel
· 10 months ago
For me it all comes back to Genesis 1, He created male and female. I am through the redemption of the cross His child, I am Diane.
Rose
· 10 months ago
Randy, thanks for continuing the conversation. I really enjoy chatting about this so much with you; it seems like it's hard to find a place where people with truly opposing views can talk without insulting each other or resorting to random ad hominem attacks. I'm just going to address your first point. The rest is excellent, and I concur. I lived for 10 years in the deep Suth, and I worked at a home for severely emotionally disturbed children that was Methodist, and very evangelical/conservative in nature. As a result, many of my dearest friends (hah!) are evangelicals, and I have found that as a rule, you guys are extremely kind, generous, and polite to me as an individual. (It's only when I'm out of earshot do you try to ensure that my legal freedoms are as tiny as possible!). So here's my thoughts - and I promise I won't get offended if you don't:
>I also don't believe that she is completely legally unavailable.
Well, you're completely correct. She's legally available to me in the same way blacks could ride on buses in the fifties: sure you can get on, but don't expect to sit up front with the white folks. Now hear me out: I am NOT saying that the black civil rights struggle is analgous to the gay civil rights struggle. It's not. But let's be very, very clear: the rights I get to be legally joined with my partner are not only different but plainly inferior than the rights you have to marry Ms. Perfect.
And throwing out my label doesn't help me whit .
Now, if you perceive a strong PUBLIC need to give me legal rights to be joined to my partner so that we can form a stable unit to raise our daughter that are clearly inferior to other Americans who are trying to do the same thing... well, gosh. It strikes me as being quite similar to your Muslim friend: you believe his very soul to be in jeopardy, you believe that many others who share his Muslim lifestyle cause real damage to our country, and yet you do not regulate that he he only gets to practice his religion in a second class manner (perhaps his church shouldn't be tax deductable?! Perhasp he should have to apply for a different sort of permit to build a mosque?)
So back to your point. I probably live the most post-gay life imaginable. 90% of my friends are other (straight) parents, I work in a mainstream industry, when I moved to a new job I mentioned to one of my (straight friends) that I wondered how my new co-workers would be about my family, and she just looked at me blankly. I hactually had to *remind* her that my family was different ffrom hers! I live a life without labels in a way you can probably only dream of. But every time I fill out a form, do my tax return, travel with my child, I am smashed right back to the reality of my label.
So preventing me from having an equally recognized family doesn't stop me from finding love; it doesn't stop me from overcoming the stresses and strains that go along with committing to one person for the rest of my life; it doesn't stop me from creating a family; it doesn't stop me from doing volunteer work in the community; it doesn't stop me from paying taxes; it just stops me from being a threat to the very fabric of American society.
Which apparently, having a [label redacted] equal legal relationship in the eyes of the government, does.
Rose
· 10 months ago
> he said he had two clients who once they got past their trauma, they were no longer attracted to the same sex ... at all ... and they weren't even Christians.
Ooh, I'm on a commenting roll! I think this is very plausible. Were they girls, though? Seems like we chicks are prettty non-denominational when it comes to sexual orientation and behavior. I've been with my lovely spouse since I was nineteen years old (high school sweethearts!), but honestly, if she died in afiery wreck tomorrow, I can't guarantee that my next spouse would be a girl. Does that lessen my commitment to her? No more than saying my next spouse might be a blonde (she's a brunette). So I'm with you - it's probably quite possible for some people to have a sexual orientation that shifts/wavers/slams back and forth throughout their life. That's great news for people who are uncomfortable being SSA, because it means some of them are likely to change (Hi DM!). I love the idea of the "whole gay-straight construct beginning to unravel". The only time it makes a difference is when people *make* it make a difference (so call off you dogs, dude!)
Peter Ould
· 10 months ago
I think you'll find that I have first dabs on THAT book. One day I'll get round to expanding this bit of wisdom further.
editorgal
· 10 months ago
Coupla things...Joe's correct...somebody's got a book here! Collaborate amongst yourselves and get it to a publisher. Big sigh...stretching making wall angels...big sigh. Okay, labels bite. Some are more hurtful than others, but they all bite. I'm now a biker chic...and boy do I get looks. Suddenly I'm png and a threat to women and children who cross the street to avoid me. No...no tats, no leather...just biker boots and a stretchy band for my hair. This conservative, old, mom and wife is a biker chic ::run:: And the other thing: ya just can't argue someone into the kingdom. No way, no how. I'm not making light of apologetics and exegetical study...I'm just sayin' it's not my job to convince anyone of scriptural truth. It's God's. Maybe that sounds naive...I'm frequently accused of naivete. Still, for me, it all comes down to this: I'm a sinner saved by grace. I can't defend biblical Truth. I don't need to...He does that. Sigh. And I really don't want people looking at me and judging Christianity by my example. I'm flawed and imperfect...a constant work in progress. Anything good, it's all Him. I try to stay out of His way, and let Him be seen and working in my life. And still...at church I'm drawn to others like me who do not fit into pre-designated boxes. I'm certain I have boxes ... I try let Him live outside them. Oh no...I've gone and gotten serious. Sigh. I don't do serious well. Perhaps I made some sense...perhaps not. Oh...my point: I'm called to love others. Love them, not judge them. I'm not going to argue point of law, scriptural foundations, etc. I'm gonna bring you supper. Send you books. Mail you cards. Be glad to see you. And I'm going to tell you about the freedom being His child brought me. Truly...ditzy and easily distracted here. Hope you can read between the lines and see what my heart is trying to say.
Rose
· 10 months ago
Meow!
Randy
· 10 months ago
Peter I pray your book, if you are going to write one, would come quickly.
Also, the history of post-gay goes further back and in different directions than your explanation. As I told you, I have been meditating on this off and on since I first heard the word in 1998 in a secular sense (Collard of Out magazine was hyping it) and especially over the past two years with regard to our journey and the cultural/church implications.
I would love for you to write a book from your vantage point but post-gay (in my view) is much much larger than describing our particular kind of journey. I don't think any of us should think about seeking first dibs on a book about it ... just write it with proper citation. All three of us and a bunch of secular people could write about it and it would still be worth exploring further.
To be clear, I could care less who wrote a book on the subject first. I would rejoice in all efforts to expand this paradigm further.
Randy
· 10 months ago
Thanks Joe. I really appreciate the encouragement. You don't have to steal anything. Get to writing! We all need to be writing!
Randy
· 10 months ago
Rose, I am not sure how productive it is going to be to talk about public policy ... we both will exercise our civil liberties as we see fit. I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint, passion and story. I won't get offended whether you get offended or not.
Now, about you relating to the term post-gay ... I totally think that is appropriate. Are you shocked?
The first I heard of the word Post-gay was through some friends at Bridges Across The Divide back in 1998. They sent around this quote:
Post-gay is a fledgling, somewhat murky idea that describes a homosexual identity in which sexual behavior no longer defines one's life. It's not bisexuality. It's not retreating to the closet. It is a way of saying, "We've come a long way, so calm down." In a post-gay world, homosexuals have won their battle for acceptance and are now free to move beyond identity politics. Anne Heche is post-gay, for example. Ellen isn't.
"Post-gay isn't 'ungay,"' explains James Collard, Out's editor in chief. "It's about taking a critical look at gay life and no longer thinking solely in terms of struggle. It's going to a gay bar and wishing there were girls there to talk to." —"New Way of Being," The New York Times, June 21, 1998
So in a sense the word was really coined within the gay identified activist community and it would make more than sense to me that anyone who doesn't identify with gay culture is "post-gay" whether they believe like I do or are living with your frame of reference. That's why I really love the term on a Christian and Secular level. It's an indication, a paradigm, of a way of thinking ... not merely a label.
Now the quote above and your story are SO far from how I relate to the term. The quote and you still hold on to a homosexual identity (to some degree) whereas I see it as something I deal/dealt with but not a part of "who" I am.
I think the above quote turns back on itself saying that post-gay is still a homosexual identity. That doesn't seem very post to gay :). So, I think Peter and I take it eve further. Even so ... outside of the gay paradigm a post-gay paradigm can go in all kinds of directions and not be contradictory at that basic starting point of a person not needing to identify as gay or with gay culture simply because they had or have same sex attractions.
Randy
· 10 months ago
He wouldn't tell me about them beyond that ... and you know I was asking :).
Maybe I should ask four questions in a row before taking a breath. :)
And ... they aren't my dogs ... dudette. We all got dogs in the battle and it could be argued on who is forcing the issue and carrying it too far. But you should know, I try to tone down the barking and combat the biting where it is inappropriate.
Do you? Remember I don't read some of the blogs I think you do so I haven't seen any comments you might be making there.
I LOVE that you are on a commenting roll. Thank you.
Randy
· 10 months ago
Now Rose ... I don't think it is all that.
Randy
· 10 months ago
And Rose ... please register (claim) your comments so you can be automatically published and I don't have to approve each single one :).
And upload a picture :)
Randy
· 10 months ago
Excellent and very true.
Randy
· 10 months ago
Well, biker chick or not I think you are groovy and really appreciate your perspective and I totally agree. But I want to challenge you on describing yourself as ditzy. I have yet to see you say anything ditzy.
Just sayin ' :)
editorgal
· 10 months ago
Remember, I am the Secretary of Lost Focus! Besides, ditzy is one of those labels foisted upon me that I've reclaimed for myself...it works. I do have the attention span of a golden retriever...or a gnat. Sometimes translates as ditzy. And comments frequently fly way above my head in verbal conversation...again, translates as ditzy. I'm kinda lovin' bein' a biker chick...challenges me to re-examine some of the boxes I try to toss folks in sometimes. I'm tryin' to toss off my blinders over here!
Love the dialogue I find here...open and loving ... even when some commenters appear to have an agenda (no, I don't mean Rose!).
Diane5
· 10 months ago
The last replies sound nice, but are a cop-out, we are to do that and so much more. We are called to be the Light of the World. To go out and preach the gospel. The power of salvation is in the message of the cross/done in love. I want hurting people to have food. shelter, and living water. I am a fan of Youtube videos on Francis Chan's book Crazylove. That reminds me has anyone seen the Gladys Hardy videos? They inspire a good laugh, I just saw two. Am going in a different direction here.
editorgal
· 10 months ago
No, sweetness. Not a cop out. St. Francis of Assisi said, "Proclaim the gospel; use words if you must." I will share about salvation and the cross, but first folks must have a reason to ask me. I want to live my life in such a way for people to ask me. To talk with me about my faith. And they do. They ask questions, and I answer. We discuss belief. I leave the results to God. I cannot tell you for certain whether I've had the privilege of aiding someone in a decision for salvation, though I've shared with many the simplicity of the Gospel.
That said, there are those called to a more vocal and, to me, confrontational, style of witness. God gifts us all in this area in different ways. I can confront and challenge when He leads...because He leads. As a Christian of many years, many struggles, many knee callouses . . . Bible-thumpers and button-holers preaching at me make me cringe and squirm. Just sayin' that's me, and how God made me for use in His kingdom . . . a little softer, perhaps. A little sillier, definitely.
Rose
· 10 months ago
>I am not sure how productive it is going to be to talk about public policy
Oh, I know. It's just really really hard for me not to see all of this through that lense, because (obviously) it means a lot to me. And I only meant for you to call off the dogs tongue-in-cheek. You're a lot less pugnacious than many others who share many of your opinions, which is probably why I keep/reading and commenting here. I guess my point is, you can't argue for a post-gay existence for either YOU or ME while you still support parcelling out special favors on the basis of *whether ot not you're gay*.
Don't you think it's a bit inconsistent to say "I don't like to be labelled and people shouldn't label me" and then support public policy that is EXPLICITLY ase on labelling people? Seriously, how do you recocile this in your mind? That's not post-gay, that's pro-label!
And, I do try to tone down the rhetoric at other blogs, actually. Even in regards to you, as a matter of fact!
Rose_rose
· 10 months ago
Okay, I'm registered.
Randy
· 10 months ago
Actually if you look at the language of most public policy it isn't framed with gay/straight labels. They use sexual orientation and gender contexts. Dropping the labels won't stop the public policy battles because the language isn't based on the labels. They can't be. Where the language is ... it's considered weak and look for it to be rewritten soon. One example is while the talking points say benefits for gay couples ... the actual policy says partner benefits.
You're making this about me and the application of my beliefs. I can present my post-gay opinions because they are broader than your trying to push a public policy litmus test on them. Which is what people do to folks like me to stigmatize every single one of our efforts. Plus, it would seem you have bought into the lie that public policy is all I do or a large part of what I do. It is a minuscule part of what I, or Exodus. do.
>Actually if you look at the language of most public policy it isn't framed with gay/straight labels. They use sexual orientation and gender contexts.>
Yes, but that's playing games a bit, because we all know what the public policy is written for in the cases that I think we're both talking about: what rights gays may and may not participate in. The language is weak, but the intention is clear, no?
>Plus, it would seem you have bought into the lie that public policy is all I do or a large part of what I do
No, it's just the only part of what you *do* that really has a bearing on my life, though. Ministering to people with unwanted SSA is certainly a more important part of your life, I appreciate that. In fact, I find it utterly fascinating - more so, really, than your stands on public policy (which you share with thousands of conservatives nationwide, whose blogs I don't ever read). So I suppose the reason I am commenting is that we've got into an area where I have an opinion, as opposed to your, erm, post-gay/ex-gay/side B/strugglers' ministry/pick-the-label-of-your-choice, where I just read and learn and think.
So please don't interpret my contribution to these comments threads as a suggestion that this is what you're all about. I know it's not, and it's rather narcissitic of me to turn this thread into a public policy debate. I started off by asking more about your ex-gay/post-gay journey, and then got off track... Mea culpa.
B.T.Carolus
· 10 months ago
You know, editorgal, you may be on to something. It is quite common amongst us academics to publish books which are compilations of essays by many different people, all on the same subject. I would totally volunteer to compile a book on post-gay-ness. It would be very interesting.
All Comments
But back to the post: do you think that if you polled a sampleof evangelicals (or even evangelical ministers) and asked them what they perceive "success" for someone who's a part of an ex-gay ministry, do you think they would define it as "someone with SSA who is obedient to God's will" or do you think they still perceive success as "becoming straight"?
Here's my suspiscion: you guys might consider the first answer correct, but I suspect the majority of Chrisitans of similar religious conviction (i.e. not Unitarians ;-} ) still believe that a positive outcome is being *cured*. And if they DO believe that (here's a quote: "Ted Haggard is now completely heterosexual [after 3 weeks of prayer and counselling]"), what should we (or perhaps, you: Exodus) do about it? Does that affect how they view people with unwanted SSA in their congregations? Does that affect how they see people like me (someone who has a lifestyle much more similar to theirs than *you* do in a lot of ways)?
If becoming ex-gay means a life of obedience rather than (necessarily) a life of change (of the very temptations that taunt us), doesn't that somehow really change the whole picture of what it means to be gay at all?
I also don't believe that she is completely legally unavailable. You have to jump through more hoops than other people and there are benefits not available to you as a couple but ... "legally unavailable" is a generalization that says you have zero options and in today's reality you have a heckuva lot more than even twenty years ago. Plus, the courts will actually back up your private legal agreements and contracts. There is still legitimate issues to debate on how that should or shouldn't be made easier for you but ... I am not buying the complete "legally unavailable" line.
still love me? :)
That would be a great sampling. I am not sure but my gut feeling would be that 20 years ago, they would have for the most part seen success as becoming "straight" as you say. However, again sixteen years ago I was given the same understanding that I just shared with you (on what the goals really are) and I have always been in churches and around people who, while they challenged me on things like not calling all the guys in my small group "cutie", they never made me feel like I *had* to change my sexual orientation or become married in order to be "justified, sanctified and washed" by the blood of the Lamb (1 Cor 6:11). And even the ones who "challenged" me never shamed or condemned me. They just helped me think through the issues for myself and determine what I wanted to do about them. Today, and I hope as a result of Exodus' influence, people are more understanding of the fact that our temptation is just like theirs with regard to ongoing sanctification and pursuing holiness.
Your third paragraph is a little confusing to me. I don't know any Christian that thinks you can be "cured" of temptation. That isn't a word we use on purpose. Of Haggard, that was a quote from way back when his public statements were all over the place. When I heard it I just shook my head. And what we do about it, especially among our own, is to reach out to them privately and offer our support and help.
And no ... I won't tell you what high profile figures have accepted that help or not. :).
And, I tell you, those that talk insta-deliverance or verbiage along the lines of "cure" aren't around me for long without us having an "issue" to work through. At the same time my goal isn't to score points or do memo's to our critics. My goal is to bring reality into the situation.
Everyone I know would probably have a great time with you as much as you would let them be who they are too. For instance, they are not going to recognize your union as a marriage. They just aren't. At the same time I don't think they would doubt that you have invested a tremendous amount of love into each other. I don't think they would be fearful in any way.
They, I, would probably enjoy you and your partner's friendship on a lot of levels because life is multidimensional. I have no doubt that they would do anything possible to simply help you with a flat tire, illness, go to coffee and yell about the recession ... you know ... the rest of life stuff. I also have no doubt that if someone came after you verbally or physically that they, and I, would defend you and put ourselves in harms way if we could deflect any of that coming at you.
And at the end of the day, when the public policy battles are done ... we are still going to yell at each other on my blog ... in love of course. ::: laugh :::
But you have to know that there are just some things that simply won't happen. I personally like it when people just get it all out there and get over it so we can find what we can (if we can) get along on. My friend Rateb, in Texas, believed I was an infidel going to burn in eternal torment because I had the arrogance to tell him that Mohammad was a false prophet. I mean ... I told him that because he asked what I thought. But ... he and I were friends for over 11 years until our paths took us in other directions.
We have to stop being instant "all or nothing" on both sides of the issue even though there are very serious beliefs that just aren't ever going to be compromised.
It changes it completely. That's what I am saying.. we have been saying. Obedience, repentance, forgiveness, worship ... IS change in and of itself. That's why we don't identify as gay or ex-gay. Also, a lot of people do experience some level of sexual orientation change and even some who completely move into a relatively struggle (temptation) free life for whatever reason.
Plus, the world is simply much more complicated than the talking points on either side. Consider this, my therapist, who helped me with my PTSD was a secular humanist who thought I was nutty on this issue. Even so, after our official relationship ended, he said he had two clients who once they got past their trauma, they were no longer attracted to the same sex ... at all ... and they weren't even Christians. That's another reason why I believe the gay vs. straight or gay and straight construct is starting to unravel. It doesn't account for what is actually happening out there. That's why I think the far right is failing and also why the "gay" centered activist community is crumbling for lack of consistent core leadership. Their messaging isn't resonating with what more and more ssa (Lifetime or situational) people are experiencing ... especially among the young.
While the goals are to live a Christian life that doesn't mean we don't learn about a biblical sexual ethic and question homosexuality to discover things we can turn away from, grow out of or simply accept as ongoing issues. Your last paragraph, while profound in scope ... doesn't cover the vast complexity of all that is going on for people like me. I am not knocking the question at all but books have been written in response to that question.
Ok... I am a little worn out with these very long replies. :).
>I also don't believe that she is completely legally unavailable.
Well, you're completely correct. She's legally available to me in the same way blacks could ride on buses in the fifties: sure you can get on, but don't expect to sit up front with the white folks. Now hear me out: I am NOT saying that the black civil rights struggle is analgous to the gay civil rights struggle. It's not. But let's be very, very clear: the rights I get to be legally joined with my partner are not only different but plainly inferior than the rights you have to marry Ms. Perfect.
And throwing out my label doesn't help me whit .
Now, if you perceive a strong PUBLIC need to give me legal rights to be joined to my partner so that we can form a stable unit to raise our daughter that are clearly inferior to other Americans who are trying to do the same thing... well, gosh. It strikes me as being quite similar to your Muslim friend: you believe his very soul to be in jeopardy, you believe that many others who share his Muslim lifestyle cause real damage to our country, and yet you do not regulate that he he only gets to practice his religion in a second class manner (perhaps his church shouldn't be tax deductable?! Perhasp he should have to apply for a different sort of permit to build a mosque?)
So back to your point. I probably live the most post-gay life imaginable. 90% of my friends are other (straight) parents, I work in a mainstream industry, when I moved to a new job I mentioned to one of my (straight friends) that I wondered how my new co-workers would be about my family, and she just looked at me blankly. I hactually had to *remind* her that my family was different ffrom hers! I live a life without labels in a way you can probably only dream of. But every time I fill out a form, do my tax return, travel with my child, I am smashed right back to the reality of my label.
So preventing me from having an equally recognized family doesn't stop me from finding love; it doesn't stop me from overcoming the stresses and strains that go along with committing to one person for the rest of my life; it doesn't stop me from creating a family; it doesn't stop me from doing volunteer work in the community; it doesn't stop me from paying taxes; it just stops me from being a threat to the very fabric of American society.
Which apparently, having a [label redacted] equal legal relationship in the eyes of the government, does.
Ooh, I'm on a commenting roll! I think this is very plausible. Were they girls, though? Seems like we chicks are prettty non-denominational when it comes to sexual orientation and behavior. I've been with my lovely spouse since I was nineteen years old (high school sweethearts!), but honestly, if she died in afiery wreck tomorrow, I can't guarantee that my next spouse would be a girl. Does that lessen my commitment to her? No more than saying my next spouse might be a blonde (she's a brunette). So I'm with you - it's probably quite possible for some people to have a sexual orientation that shifts/wavers/slams back and forth throughout their life. That's great news for people who are uncomfortable being SSA, because it means some of them are likely to change (Hi DM!). I love the idea of the "whole gay-straight construct beginning to unravel". The only time it makes a difference is when people *make* it make a difference (so call off you dogs, dude!)
Big sigh...stretching making wall angels...big sigh. Okay, labels bite. Some are more hurtful than others, but they all bite. I'm now a biker chic...and boy do I get looks. Suddenly I'm png and a threat to women and children who cross the street to avoid me. No...no tats, no leather...just biker boots and a stretchy band for my hair. This conservative, old, mom and wife is a biker chic ::run::
And the other thing: ya just can't argue someone into the kingdom. No way, no how. I'm not making light of apologetics and exegetical study...I'm just sayin' it's not my job to convince anyone of scriptural truth. It's God's. Maybe that sounds naive...I'm frequently accused of naivete. Still, for me, it all comes down to this: I'm a sinner saved by grace. I can't defend biblical Truth. I don't need to...He does that. Sigh. And I really don't want people looking at me and judging Christianity by my example. I'm flawed and imperfect...a constant work in progress. Anything good, it's all Him. I try to stay out of His way, and let Him be seen and working in my life. And still...at church I'm drawn to others like me who do not fit into pre-designated boxes. I'm certain I have boxes ... I try let Him live outside them.
Oh no...I've gone and gotten serious. Sigh. I don't do serious well. Perhaps I made some sense...perhaps not.
Oh...my point: I'm called to love others. Love them, not judge them. I'm not going to argue point of law, scriptural foundations, etc. I'm gonna bring you supper. Send you books. Mail you cards. Be glad to see you. And I'm going to tell you about the freedom being His child brought me.
Truly...ditzy and easily distracted here. Hope you can read between the lines and see what my heart is trying to say.
Also, the history of post-gay goes further back and in different directions than your explanation. As I told you, I have been meditating on this off and on since I first heard the word in 1998 in a secular sense (Collard of Out magazine was hyping it) and especially over the past two years with regard to our journey and the cultural/church implications.
I would love for you to write a book from your vantage point but post-gay (in my view) is much much larger than describing our particular kind of journey. I don't think any of us should think about seeking first dibs on a book about it ... just write it with proper citation. All three of us and a bunch of secular people could write about it and it would still be worth exploring further.
To be clear, I could care less who wrote a book on the subject first. I would rejoice in all efforts to expand this paradigm further.
Now, about you relating to the term post-gay ... I totally think that is appropriate. Are you shocked?
The first I heard of the word Post-gay was through some friends at Bridges Across The Divide back in 1998. They sent around this quote:
"Post-gay isn't 'ungay,"' explains James Collard, Out's editor in chief. "It's about taking a critical look at gay life and no longer thinking solely in terms of struggle. It's going to a gay bar and wishing there were girls there to talk to."
—"New Way of Being," The New York Times, June 21, 1998
So in a sense the word was really coined within the gay identified activist community and it would make more than sense to me that anyone who doesn't identify with gay culture is "post-gay" whether they believe like I do or are living with your frame of reference. That's why I really love the term on a Christian and Secular level. It's an indication, a paradigm, of a way of thinking ... not merely a label.
Now the quote above and your story are SO far from how I relate to the term. The quote and you still hold on to a homosexual identity (to some degree) whereas I see it as something I deal/dealt with but not a part of "who" I am.
I think the above quote turns back on itself saying that post-gay is still a homosexual identity. That doesn't seem very post to gay :). So, I think Peter and I take it eve further. Even so ... outside of the gay paradigm a post-gay paradigm can go in all kinds of directions and not be contradictory at that basic starting point of a person not needing to identify as gay or with gay culture simply because they had or have same sex attractions.
Maybe I should ask four questions in a row before taking a breath. :)
And ... they aren't my dogs ... dudette. We all got dogs in the battle and it could be argued on who is forcing the issue and carrying it too far. But you should know, I try to tone down the barking and combat the biting where it is inappropriate.
Do you? Remember I don't read some of the blogs I think you do so I haven't seen any comments you might be making there.
I LOVE that you are on a commenting roll. Thank you.
And upload a picture :)
Just sayin ' :)
I'm kinda lovin' bein' a biker chick...challenges me to re-examine some of the boxes I try to toss folks in sometimes. I'm tryin' to toss off my blinders over here!
Love the dialogue I find here...open and loving ... even when some commenters appear to have an agenda (no, I don't mean Rose!).
That said, there are those called to a more vocal and, to me, confrontational, style of witness. God gifts us all in this area in different ways. I can confront and challenge when He leads...because He leads. As a Christian of many years, many struggles, many knee callouses . . . Bible-thumpers and button-holers preaching at me make me cringe and squirm.
Just sayin' that's me, and how God made me for use in His kingdom . . . a little softer, perhaps. A little sillier, definitely.
Oh, I know. It's just really really hard for me not to see all of this through that lense, because (obviously) it means a lot to me. And I only meant for you to call off the dogs tongue-in-cheek. You're a lot less pugnacious than many others who share many of your opinions, which is probably why I keep/reading and commenting here. I guess my point is, you can't argue for a post-gay existence for either YOU or ME while you still support parcelling out special favors on the basis of *whether ot not you're gay*.
Don't you think it's a bit inconsistent to say "I don't like to be labelled and people shouldn't label me" and then support public policy that is EXPLICITLY ase on labelling people? Seriously, how do you recocile this in your mind? That's not post-gay, that's pro-label!
And, I do try to tone down the rhetoric at other blogs, actually. Even in regards to you, as a matter of fact!
You're making this about me and the application of my beliefs. I can present my post-gay opinions because they are broader than your trying to push a public policy litmus test on them. Which is what people do to folks like me to stigmatize every single one of our efforts. Plus, it would seem you have bought into the lie that public policy is all I do or a large part of what I do. It is a minuscule part of what I, or Exodus. do.
Yes, but that's playing games a bit, because we all know what the public policy is written for in the cases that I think we're both talking about: what rights gays may and may not participate in. The language is weak, but the intention is clear, no?
>Plus, it would seem you have bought into the lie that public policy is all I do or a large part of what I do
No, it's just the only part of what you *do* that really has a bearing on my life, though. Ministering to people with unwanted SSA is certainly a more important part of your life, I appreciate that. In fact, I find it utterly fascinating - more so, really, than your stands on public policy (which you share with thousands of conservatives nationwide, whose blogs I don't ever read). So I suppose the reason I am commenting is that we've got into an area where I have an opinion, as opposed to your, erm, post-gay/ex-gay/side B/strugglers' ministry/pick-the-label-of-your-choice, where I just read and learn and think.
So please don't interpret my contribution to these comments threads as a suggestion that this is what you're all about. I know it's not, and it's rather narcissitic of me to turn this thread into a public policy debate. I started off by asking more about your ex-gay/post-gay journey, and then got off track... Mea culpa.