Jim, you’re too kind.

[Jim Burroway]“I couldn’t record the segment, but I did get to see it.

Go nuts:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1132321812273913194

—

On an intellectual note,

JB: “I mentioned earlier that I was trying to write my next post on the meaning of the word “change.” Obviously I haven’t finished it yet. And part of the problem is in trying to nail down exactly what people mean when they use that word.”
-
I was just thinking that this applies to many of the ways they (authoritarian types) approach things. They are using their spiritual faith to justify using their best intellectual attributes for the worst purposes.

In this case — and especially — they are taking the need to be infinitely flexible (ie change) as the pain of human life demands, and as a result are using this legitimate survival skill and promoting it as a legitimate way of life. A “lifestyle” of denial and suppression.

“Ex-Gay” is literally the legitimization of a defense mechanism. A perversion of the ability to adapt.

Mike Haley and Mellisa Fryrear’s escape from hell may be worth it to “adapt” to heterosexuality, but that to me is not a “choice” to leave homosexuality, that’s a last resort.

Mike Haley says that “The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality, it’s holiness” (now an ex-gay mantra).

That says to me that to ‘leave homosexuality’ means to leave sexuality altogether. It’s like comparing sexuality with sunshine to distract from the fact that it’s not a comparison. Thus guaranteeing that true love is NOT expected to be part of the equation in life (without actually saying so).

The change in this sense is in thinking that love itself is not necessary. That the desire for happiness is selfish and sinful. And the practice of perpetual denial becomes not only legitimate, but “holy,” and to be revered.

[hypothetical] “Look at him giving up the possibility of ever finding love. See, it IS possible for anyone to decide to never be happy.”
-
And it’s almost as though that’s the same mental functioning that goes on in the minds of even many ‘ex-gay for pay’ ex-gays. I believe in miracles too, but I don’t think they’re so naive as to think they will ever be fully “healed” to full heterosexuality.

It seems to me that the word change means acceptance of the idea of perpetual change. The antithesis of the creatures of habit that we are.

For the ex-gays it’s a continual denial of self, but it’s representative of the whole authoritarian (conservative) movement.

They are using the skill of discipline to not only deny their own unacceptable parts of self, but to continually deny every facet of reality outside themselves that they find unacceptable.

They get an A+ for skill in this department but a -F for their ability to utilize it responsibly.

In the dictionary of the parallel reality that they are attempting to create, words give birth to thoughts, not the other way around.

Change the words and you change the thoughts. Simple and easy. Not thoughtful, but most of all, not fearful.

Remember, authoritarians are children trapped in adult bodies. :-)

Based on my own experiences, I belive that most churches that fund and promote these programs care less about the actual feelings and struggles of the individual and more with the outward appearance.

My church leaders sent me to many therapists and counselors when I discussed my feelings of homosexuality with them. After many attempts at different therapy techniques, and intimacy excercises failed, along with my marriage of twelve years, I finally came out to myself and my family. I had always been active in my church and follwed the teachings, believeing if I was faithful, I would be happy.

My family was accepting of the divorce, although unhappy. and all believed that I would remain in the church and not “live the lifestyle”. To my family and the church, my happiness was less important than the appearance. I know that they will not tell people about why i was divorced, and get upset as I will tell people outright the reasons behind it. To them, homosexuals should jsut remain in the closet with their “shame” or go quietly away.

The Secret Code:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

Ever notice how the mindset at events like Love Won Out, when it comes to the meaning of words and the dogged allegiance to tribal canon in the face of mountains of irrefutable observable fact, resembles the Bush administration? The GOP? Right Wing Talk Radio? I have straight friends who are just completely flummoxed by how brazen the disconnect with reality is getting now among Bush supporters. And I keep telling them that their gay and lesbian neighbors have been seeing this behavior for literally decades now. If the rest of the country had been paying attention to how this element routinely operates, back in the 1970s when Anita Bryant showed them how the Gay Menace was an even more potent vote getter then abortion and race, maybe it wouldn’t have the power it does now. Be nice to think so anyway.

A British reporter, I think it was in the Guardian, wrote that to understand politics in America today look at the republican party in Texas. But to understand the meltdown of the republican party since Nixon, just go visit a Love Won Out conference. Seriously. Mind you, I’m not saying it was homophobia that caused the meltdown. The meltdown happened when tribal loyalty became more important then facts, became the touchstone for what is or is not true, became the standard by which right and wrong are measured. The meaning of the word you’re looking for Jim is actually pretty straightforward. Its: “Shut up and submit to our authority.” All their words have that same meaning.

And that is the contradiction that many Christianists do when they focus on a belief system rather than on the one in whom they say they believe. Jesus is described as the truth, but when one bases the ideas one has above the truth, then what actually happens becomes irrelevant.

You’re right that the ex-gay crowd tends to be slippery about their treatment’s effectiveness and their definition of ‘change.’ However, after reading their essays and Tanya Erzen’s “Straight to Jesus,” I think I have a clear idea of what they’re trying to achieve.

Being ex-gay means a cultural change. It means being a Christian. If you’re one of the ex-gay spokesman like Alan Chambers, it also means a political change — being against hate crimes laws, gay marriage, etc. None of this has anything to do with sexual inclinations, but the underlying hope is that the cultural/political shift will lead to heterosexuality.

That doesn’t make sense, of course. But it makes sense if you understand the heavy expectations that many conservatives place on ‘culture.’ To them life is simply a matter of approaching it with the right philosophy. If I’m a right and proper Christian, then I will never suffer from want. If we raise boys to believe in valor, then our country will always win wars. And if I think and act the way a heterosexual behaves — or the way I think a straight man should behave — then I will become a heterosexual.

I hope that’s clear. I’m understanding what you mean about the difficulties in explaining this.

You might contrast what they say at a conference to parents, etc… against what Dr. Bill Maier, psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family, said in a recent article and also in answer to a blog entry about it on Good As You. It seems there are two faces to what is said. The coded language meant to draw in the ‘faithful’ and then that language when speaking to the ‘secular public/press.’

How could they understand change if their science and logic are both bogus and flawed? Their claims to truth about gays of course don’t make sense or have any basis in reality, so it follows that their theories about change don’t either.

Moreover, if these people REALLY ‘got it’ then they wouldn’t be pursuing their anti-gay agenda in the first place. It makes sense that Love Won Out’s idea about change makes no sense; oppression of gays doesn’t either.