Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

My Thoughts on the Conversion of a Previous Gay Activist

Timothy Kincaid

July 3rd, 2007

Michael Glatze was quite young when he became involved in gay activism and the gay community. And the gay world applauded him. He wrote for XY and then became the executive editor for GYA. He spoke on panels and received awards. He was a roll model and a young hero.

But time went on and his 20’s ended. And something changed. Michael began to see his life as empty and meaningless and, not unlike many before him, he looked for what set him apart from others whom he thought had better lives. Michael decided that it was because he was gay, and so he discovered himself “leading a movement of sin and corruption” and came out “from under the influence of the homosexual mindset”.

And today, Michael has done that which others who suddenly find a religious conversion have done. He wrote an article decrying the evils of homosexuality.

In looking at Michael’s column, printed in WorldNetDaily, some observations came to mind:

First, Michael has adopted the peculiar language of anti-gay activists. Although he lived for many years as gay, he cannot now use the word without quotes and instead must use “homosexual” instead. Other examples – of which there are many – include “the grip of homosexuality”, “the homosexual agenda”, and our old favorite “the Truth”. This article is not written to be understood by Michael’s previous audience, nor by the secular public. It is a “testimony” written in Christianese for a purpose.

Michael also hints at the “causes” that are favorites of the ex-gay and anti-gay movement: weakness, a missing father.  He even tries for Sickness! and Disease! – though the most he can come up with is intestinal cramps and an upset stomach.

Second, Michael provided some clues as to what his future plans are:

Homosexuality allows us to avoid digging deeper, through superficiality and lust-inspired attractions – at least, as long as it remains “accepted” by law. As a result, countless miss out on their truest self, their God-given Christ-self.

Poland, a country all-too familiar with the destruction of its people by outside influences, is bravely attempting to stop the European Union from indoctrinating its children with homosexual propaganda.

I think we can safely assume that Glatze will soon become the public face of some political anti-gay action.

I do not know Michael Glatze and perhaps it is unfair to speculate about the motivations for his conversion. Nonetheless, I think I have a guess as to why some, if perhaps not Glatze, find themselves leaving gay activism for anti-gay activism. It is because activism on its own is not fulfilling. And when you face a disappointment – or when you are no longer getting the attention that you once had – bitterness and anger can set in. 

Many of us have been fortunate to have been able to craft a life that involves many different components – professionalism, activism, spirituality, friendships, and much more. When we face a disappointment in one area, there are other things for us to do. But unfortunately, I have seen those who build their life around just one aspect, be it work or religion or politics, and when things sour – as they always will – there was no balance to give their life meaning.

And I think too often activists make this mistake. They have no life outside their insular world. There is no religion or faith to give perspective. There is no non-activist friend network, or family backup or other forms of getting away and seeing your life from the outside. And when a blow comes along that shakes your perspectives, there’s no one to turn to who isn’t part of the problem – so instead they turn to that which gives substance and validation to their bitterness and anger.

I don’t know if that is what happened to Michael Glatze. But I do know that we’ve seen conversions like his before. We’ve seen those who quite publicly “left the homosexual lifestyle” to step up anti-gay efforts… only to later quietly recant their anti-gay media blitz.

I wish Michael Glazte much happiness. If his conversion gives him meaning, then I am happy for him. But from what I’ve seen before, I fear he’s abandoned one cause for another. And when this new cause disappoints, I hope he will be able to reconsider his focus and his base and find a way to give his life a breadth of experience and meaning and find pillars that can hold him when he sees his new friends for what they are.



Lynn David
July 4th, 2007 | LINK

It appears to me that Glatze is still “performing” as he put it. I can’t imagine such hate, it’s like the form of Christianity which bit him was a rabid dog.

Now… not to call any sect that but I think I have found that Glatze was baptized recently in Halifax into the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints – the Mormons. I found this blog entry where it appears Michael Glatze was baptized last April 28th in Halifax, Nova Scotia –

Then on Saturday was relaxing and fun. the morning/afternoon relaxed, then we went to the church at 4 for the baptism of Michael Glatze. He is very cool, he seems so excited to have found the gospel, it is very inspiring. Then we had a ward activity full of food, games and socializing.

The only denomination which I know of which is segregated into wards, is the Mormons. What do you get if you search World Net Daily for the word Mormon? WND is not to commendatory of the religion, so I guess as long as it’s anti-gay they’ll take anyone’s story. Where’er Mormons are, the WND hates gays more.

July 4th, 2007 | LINK

Some of the most anti-Semitic trash I have ever read has come from individuals who said they were Jewish. “ExJews” contributed to the claims that Jews drink the blood of Christian babies. One Jewish author I read went on and on about the Jewish/Communist plot to enslave America and how this “Jewish/Communist” conspiracy defeated the last best hope for the West: Hitler.

The individual who is filled with self-hate is not a new nor is it exclusively gay.

July 4th, 2007 | LINK


A couple of points about your post. You call Glatze’s language ‘peculiar’, but this seems to be a matter of opinion. ‘Gay’ is not the technically correct term for homosexual, so there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be placed in inverted commas.

And on the matter of causes, how do you know that having a missing father isn’t part of the reason why some people are gay?

July 5th, 2007 | LINK

Perhaps gay activists are leaving and going to anti-gay groups because of the money. It is an established fact that homophobia raises millions more than gay activism. Sometimes oppressed people get put in diabolical situations in order to survive, and maybe, just maybe, Glatze needed the money?

July 5th, 2007 | LINK

Quo wrote:

“And on the matter of causes, how do you know that having a missing father isn’t part of the reason why some people are gay?”

How indeed? Come to that, how do you know that having a missing father (or mother) isn’t part of the reason why some people are straight?

The answer in either case is: “Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur” – what is asserted without proof can be just as freely denied.

July 5th, 2007 | LINK


Bell and Weinberg’s well known study Sexual Preference, published back in the early 1980s, found that gay men are somewhat more likely to have the sort of family background they are stereotypically supposed to have.

They waffled on whether this meant that sexual orientation was influenced by environmental factors or not, managing to imply that there was no environmental influence, even though they admitted at one point that they had not proven that this was the case.

Also, perhaps I am biased, but I had a very distant and uninvolved father and an emotionally smothering and seductive mother, and I certainly think that had something to do with my becoming gay. Not that it was the only factor; child abuse, my physical weakness and poor health, and individual choice all played their part. My experience was certainly not the same as Michael Glatze’s, but it was close enough for me to understand where he is coming from. Sorry to be so un-PC about it.

Michael Glatze
July 6th, 2007 | LINK

To My Friends Who Are Trapped In Homosexuality
By Michael Glatze

Dear friend,

Thank you for your kind comments and keen observations regarding my story and my revelation about no longer being homosexual and now being heterosexual. I thank you for the time that you have spent in considering this issue, deeply, and with great passion. God loves you.

God is right there, within you, whether you like to see Him or not. Can you humble yourself to Him? It’s a really nice feeling. I know that, in some small way, you want to. We all do. We don’t like being separated from our Father; it makes us sad and lonely, forcing us to be angry, to act out, to get vulgar… well, I won’t go on; many of you have already demonstrated, on your blog comments, exactly what I’m talking about. ☺

God love you, Yes! He does! And, He wants you to be free from homosexuality. God made us men and women. Think about that; you could – really – be a man or a woman! Not a strange creature… but, real! That’s awesome… ☺

Change is very difficult and takes a lot of inner strength. Do you have that strength? I promise you that the Gay Identity does not exist, that it is a fabrication of mankind (look it up, if you don’t believe me), and that you are not “trapped” in same-sex-orientation. To believe that you are Gay is to be stupid. I’m sorry, if that sounds cruel; it’s not cruel. To believe that you are a false identity, created by man, unnaturally, to participate in social engineering, is to be stupid.

It’s not the acts, as much as it is the Identity. No one ever told you that, before, because they wanted to feed you with the lie that homosexuality is a set thing. Any intelligent “homosexual” knows there’s no fixed Gay Identity. If you don’t believe me, ask the theorists or “intellectuals.” ☺

Gay Identity has been packaged and fed to you, and – if you believe yourself to be “Gay” – you have eaten it, preventing you from further growth and understanding of your true and real self.

Coming out from under this packaged lie requires strong self-confidence and will and desire to know the Truth. Yes, Truth is capitalized. It is that way for a reason. There is only one Truth.

That one Truth is the fact that you are beautiful, perfect, and glorious, in the image of He who created you… God. There is only one God. I know it may be hard for you to get your head around the paradoxical nature of God… but, He is everywhere “out there” and – at the same time – right inside your soul. He sees and knows you. He loves you. ☺

He wants you to be free of homosexuality. I promise you that. He’s rooting for you; He knows you can do it. Remember, He loves you! He’s not judging you – those angry voices in your mind, planted there by Satan, might scream and judge and ridicule – but, no; He’s not judging you. He has patience. He’ll give you strength. All you have to do is pray to Him.

Prayer and love – True Love, my dear friends – requires total humility. Can you do that?

I know, in my heart, that all homosexuals desire to be free.

It is a new world, one in which the lie will not stand much longer. The tide is turning. Be not afraid! It’s a good change! Jesus will come. ☺ And, when that day happens, will you be – truly – yourself!? Or, will you be a demon, trapped in a fabrication not your own, lusting and hating and destroying your soul to hell? Consider this one last thing: all the love you may believe you feel for yourself or for someone else, while trapped in the homosexual mindset, is a grain of sand on the beach of the love that you could feel. Healing is possible. When you choose to go there, you know who to call on for help. His name is Jesus Christ.

Michael Glatze

July 7th, 2007 | LINK


I still have Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith’s “Sexual Preference” in my bookcase, but it seems to be a different version from yours.

Bell et al.’s conclusions are too complicated to summarize adequately in a blog, but I would draw attention to the following in their Chapter 17 (The Development of Sexual Preference):

“[C]ontrary to widely accepted psychodynamic theories that have generally considered homosexuality to be the outcome of certain types of parental relationships and traits, we find the role of parents in the development of their sons’ sexual orientation to be grossly exaggerated. Our path analyses clearly show the inadequacy, for example, of the traditional psychoanalytic model that attributes homosexuality in males to dominant mothers and weak, inadequate fathers.”

[They then review other popular theories of the “cause(s)” of homosexuality.]

“Our analyses lead us to believe that such notions should be rejected, or at least held highly suspect, until further research can provide more definitive answers.”

They did note that such familial patterns seemed more likely to appear in the histories of those in the “Homosexuals in Therapy” category, but that

“Cold or Detached-Hostile Fathers cannot be regarded as important in the development of male homosexuality in general, since their alleged influence does not even appear among those who had never sought therapy or counselling.”

One can speculate endlessly about the implication of these findings, but they seem to me to be perfectly consistent with the view that such familial patterns cause difficulty in accepting one’s homosexual orientation rather than causing the orientation itself.

I would think that very few people have had “perfect” childhoods, and that most have had childhood traumas of various kinds and of differing degrees of seriousness. A heterosexual man who complains of difficulties over his sexuality may be told that these traumas are responsible for his difficulties, but it is never assumed that they caused his heterosexuality. I see no logical reason why a different argument should be applied in the case of homosexuality.

Of course, the absent/cold/detached/hostile-father theory can’t actually be disproved, but that is one of the typical characteristics of unscientific theories: they’re impossible, or nearly impossible, to disprove – especially when X is said to cause Y only “in some cases”, without any indication of what it is that makes those particular cases different from others. An astrologer, for instance, might produce an astrological explanation for my being gay. I wouldn’t believe it, but I wouldn’t be able to disprove it. I might find a guy who had an identical astrological chart to mine but who was 100% straight. But I would then, no doubt, be told that such an astrological configuration could cause homosexuality “in some cases”.

You could put the argument somewhat as follows:

“My car got nicked last month because I’m a Gemini.”

“What a load of cobblers! Plenty of people got their cars stolen last month who weren’t Gemini’s, and plenty of Gemini’s didn’t get their cars stolen!”

“Yes, I dare say, but how can you prove that being a Gemini doesn’t cause you to get your car stolen in some cases?”

That’s why I say, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Just for the record, my father was absent during most of the early childhood of my two elder brothers, owing to World War II, and they’re both straight. He was present throughout my childhood and adolescence, and he was never distant, uninvolved, detached, hostile, rejecting etc. – and I’m gay.

July 7th, 2007 | LINK


What I wrote about Bell and Weinberg is perfectly accurate and in fact nothing in your post contradicts it. So it is difficult for me to understand why you say you must have a different edition.

The underlying but never spelled out assumption in that study is simply that close mothers and distant fathers cannot do anything to encourage the development of homosexuality because not everyone exposed to that sort of environment becomes homosexual and some people become homosexual even though they were raised in other circumstances.

This is fallacious reasoning. The only thing that such facts show is that this family environment does not cause homosexuality all by itself. It does not show that it does not cause homosexuality in combination with other factors. The other factors might be biological predisposition, random chance, or even, for the sake of argument, individual choice. Bell and Weinberg don’t properly consider this.

July 8th, 2007 | LINK


You can go on listing hypothetical causes for ever.

How about other possible causes that Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith didn’t properly consider? Astrological charts? Experiences in a previous incarnation? Possession by spirits of the other gender? For all we know, these MIGHT – perhaps in combination with other circumstances – be factors in the development of a homosexual orientation. How can you prove that no-one is gay for any of these reasons?

But such “explanations” remain simply unscientific hypotheses, and no-one should waste a moment on trying to disprove them, since the burden of proof is on those who propound them. The same goes for those who continue to maintain that parental behaviour and familial patterns are the/a cause of homosexuality.

July 10th, 2007 | LINK

Michael Glatze,

Please define “Gay Identity” and why do you capitalize it?

As to your comment “… a false identity, created by man, unnaturally…”, homosexuality (homosexual acts at least) is seen in nature in countless animal species; I am not saying they do or do not have a loving bond, but, I know gays and lesbians can have a loving bond.

Which leads me to another question: “True Love (capitalization is yours)” refers to God’s love for us or the love between a man and a woman? If you are refering to God’s love then a straight couple’s love for each other could not compare to God’s love any more than the love between a gay couple.

Thank you very much for your responses to the comments area.


July 11th, 2007 | LINK

Also, in regards to Michael Glatze’s calling homosexuality “gross”: Some people would call childbirth gross, while others think it is beautiful.

Opinion is not fact.


July 12th, 2007 | LINK


Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. It is difficult not to be struck by Glatze’s “peculiar language”. Particularly galling, then, is his claim: “which is not to sound as though my discovery was based on dogma, because decidedly it was not. I came to the conclusions on my own. It became clear to me, as I really thought about it — and really prayed about it — that homosexuality prevents us from finding our true self within.”

Perhaps we’re meant to believe that, while Glatze was sitting alone in a room, thinking and praying, God placed these words directly in his head, as he has placed the same words in the heads of others.

But I suspect that’s not really the truth (or even the Truth, if he prefers). I rather suspect he is repeating a message that has been — how did he put it again? — packaged and fed to him.

So, there’s the first little crack in his new-found truth. I hope he keeps thinking about it. I doubt it will take another 16 years to change his mind again.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.