Michael Glatze marries

Timothy Kincaid

December 2nd, 2013

On October 26th, ex-gay writer Michael Glatze and his lovely wife Rebekah were married under the canopy of trees in a riverside park. The bride wore a gown and veil; the groom wore khakis.

I am of two minds in writing this. One the one hand, Michael Glatze has presented himself as being on “the other side” of homosexuality and as having been “healed”. His marriage is very likely going to be used by him as an evidence of his testimony. Commenting is fair game.

On the other hand, Glatze’s history of religious confusion and his bizarre racist and sexist writing suggest that he may well be suffering from mental health issues. Discussing his marriage feels a bit cruel.

I don’t know anything about his new wife Rebekah, but I wish them both much wedded bliss. I hope Glatze finds true happiness in his marriage.

However, Glatze’s writing in May of this year suggest that Michael Glatze is not fully reconciled with his chosen sexual identity and that Rebekah may find her new life trying. Glatze’s hypothesis is that homosexuality is a perversion of the spiritual union that should be between man and God. (WND)

Thus, since God is male and His creation – man – is male, the appropriate relationship (under the Headship of Christ) is to be satisfied in spiritual union with God. That is why Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6, says we have “become one spirit” with God. And, it is also why Paul describes, in Romans 1, the pattern of degradation that takes place when men turn from God. Ultimately, it results in homosexuality, because the man – seeking for a spiritual fellowship with God – positions himself either as a “god” for another man, or in the position of worshiping another man as “god.”

And with God as Glatze’s spiritual male lover, there may not be much room for Rebekah. And, to the extent there is, it will not be an equal union.

Men lead society, and women follow. What men elect to do will have an effect on the responses of women. That, also, is the natural order of things…

This simply does not have the hallmark of something that will end well.

Nathaniel

December 2nd, 2013

I am reminded of a Christian-based religious group I read about that required their followers, when having sex, to imagine their partner being Jesus (i.e. sex was supposed to be a route of communion with God). But to keep Jesus from being gay, male followers were instructed to imagine themselves as female (though I am not sure how the mechanics would have worked out, since the male follower would have presumably been in congress with a woman as he was imagining himself as a woman with Jesus). Glatze’s approach also seems to be descended from the same tired old assumptions conflating gender identity and sexual orientation. It would seem he found his ‘marriage’ (he might not have used that word, but it seems to sum up his quote) to God insufficient and is either trying to find satisfaction with a woman, needs a beard to distract his supports a bit longer, or both.

Robert

December 2nd, 2013

First of all, Michael explained in the comments section to an article on his “racist” comment on his blog that it was a joke, but just about every article that mentions him still make that outdated accusation of racism.
Secondly, an extremely common interpretation of the scriptures on marriage, and one that I wholeheartedly agree with, is that the relationship between a husband and wife is meant as an analog to the relationship between God and the church. This is where Michael is coming from, and it’s a normal and reasonable viewpoint; it is completely unnecessary and absurd to draw comparisons to cultistic fringe practices, as in Nathaniel’s comment. Putting our relationship with God as the Bride of Christ (i.e. the Church) before all other relationships is at the very core of Christianity; to say that this is a danger to his marriage shows that you have not thoroughly studied Christianity.
And finally, in spite of popular opinion that the biblical gender roles are “sexist,” there is nothing unequal about men taking on a societal role as leaders. The Bible very clearly states, “wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord;” a lot of people want to stop reading right there, but if you actually keep reading, it also says “husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved you and gave his life for you.” Being in a submissive position does not make you below someone else, nor does being in an authoritative position put you above anyone. If not only the wife fills her role to submit to her husband, the husband fills his biblical role to love and care for his wife, then the two are in equal positions.
The evidence for his “mental health issues” is just not there. His “racist” comment was sarcasm, his “sexist” comment was not sexism, but rather another point of view that is quite rational when coming from the starting point of biblical scriptures. And are you really going to use religious confusion that not only ended almost seven years ago, but happened while he was under massive pressure from what he thought was a life-threatening health condition, as evidence that he currently has mental health issues?

Priya Lynn

December 2nd, 2013

Robert, only a racist makes a “joke” like that and there is nothing rational about the bible’s position on the proper relationship between men and women.

Richard Rush

December 2nd, 2013

Perhaps Rebekah is a deeply religious virgin, and fell for Michael because he was the first man she ever met who was very happy to respect her wish to remain a virgin until marriage. It’s no wonder Michael appears so detached and unenthused in the wedding pictures, as I suspect he was dreading the moment of truth to come that night:

https://plus.google.com/photos/110820597783674777652/albums/5950010314935082817

Robert

December 2nd, 2013

Priya, the comment “and yes, it’s because he’s black” was intended to make fun of people who assume everyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist. You can claim that only a racist would do that, but just nothing to back that up. And as for the Bible’s position on gender roles, we could sit here and argue about this all day without accomplishing anything. I did not expect my comment to change anyone’s opinion on the subject, I only meant it to show that people who believe in gender roles are not just bigoted sexists who believe things without thinking them through, but that we may have valid reasons to believe what we believe. Even if Christianity is just a false religion invented by men, if someone really believes that the Bible is infallible, then from that starting point, it would only be logical for him to believe that the biblical gender roles must be true. And as I’ve demonstrated in my other comment, one can argue the case that they are ultimately equal and harmless, when properly implemented on both ends. Again, I’m not trying to convince you of anything, I just want to show that people who believe in gender roles are not just uneducated bigots, but many of us do have logical reasons for our beliefs.

Priya Lynn

December 2nd, 2013

Robert, its not logical to believe the bible is infallible or even remotely true. The bible is bigotted and sexist and if you follow that you are bigotted and sexist too.

Only a racist would be so unconcerned about race issues as to think that is something that is okay to joke about Only a racist wouldn’t care about portraying themselves as a racist. Only a racist would think anyone assumes all disagreement with Obama is due to racism.

You can claim Glatze isn’t a racist but there’s just nothing to back that up.

Robert

December 2nd, 2013

Well, if you’re going to resort to insults and mockery rather than actually backing up your point of view with logic, or even just agreeing to disagree, then I have nothing more to say to you.

BJohnM

December 2nd, 2013

Robert, the Bible also supports slavery, even in the New Testament, with Jesus advising slaves to obey their masters. So, by your logic, of following these Biblical exhortations literally, you would also believe that slavery is acceptable, even in today’s world. Is that so, or do you, as so many supposed-Christians, just pick and choose the verses that help you create the world you want?

Seriously, which is it?

Priya Lynn

December 2nd, 2013

What I said was perfectly logical Robert, there is nothing illogical about pointing out someone is a sexist or racist when it is the truth.

It was you who was being illogical with your “if you believe the bible is infallible”. If your “logic” starts with an illogical presumption nothing that follows can be logical – you haven’t thought things through.

Timothy Kincaid

December 2nd, 2013

Robert,

Unlike many Christians, Glatze’s relationship with God does not fit the ‘bride of Christ’ analogy. His has a distinctly sexual component:

since God is male and His creation – man – is male, the appropriate relationship … is to be satisfied in spiritual union with God

Few Christians of my acquaintance see the maleness of God and the maleness of His creation as being the basis for their relationship with the divine.

And twist it as you like, there is something extremely sexist in seeing God’s creation as being male. I don’t know Glatze’s theology behind that one (perhaps Eve was made from Adam’s rib therefore only male humans are God’s creation?) but it’s not – to my knowledge – mainstream. It has the rather icky feeling that Glatze doesn’t consider women to be fully human.

Taking it in combination with his comments about relationship with God and you have all the ingredients for some weird sex cult in which followers come to know God through sex with the leader.

Lord_Byron

December 3rd, 2013

@Robert

” Putting our relationship with God as the Bride of Christ (i.e. the Church) before all other relationships is at the very core of Christianity”

Sorry, but to the average person that is insane. Are you really going to claim that your religion is more important to you than your friends, family et cetra?

“And finally, in spite of popular opinion that the biblical gender roles are “sexist,” there is nothing unequal about men taking on a societal role as leaders. ”

Actually yes, it is sexist to demand women be subservient to men. It doesn’t matter if you argue that men are subservient to your god because you are still saying that women belong below you in the hierarchy. Are you really going to argue that a view that says women should shut up, not be teachers, and should raise the children is not sexist?

Men and women are equal and thankfully we are loosening what used to be the rigid definitions of what it meant to be husband and wife. Just to add, this is something that is not likely to go back to the old days since more women are graduating from college compared to men and are starting to earn more.

StraightGrandmother

December 3rd, 2013

When the Bible says women must submit to their husbands that really means yield to their husbands, meaning- men get the final say in everything.

That the husband is to treat his wife as the dear little woman makes no difference in the power structure, and that is what yield is, it means you are less powerful than the other person. A husband is to benevolently hear his wife out, but then HE makes the decisions. Not Equality, but Male Superiority, no mater how much he loves her, he still reigns as boss.

Hue-Man

December 3rd, 2013

“This simply does not have the hallmark of something that will end well.”

He wouldn’t be the first man who just “closed his eyes and thought of England”; why, the “little lady” may even be elected to Congress!

Understanding relationships is hard enough viewed from the inside and near impossible viewed from the outside. (This is another forgotten message from the AIDS massacre – two years after celebrating the (hetero) marriage of college friends, the husband was dead from AIDS.)

Richard Rush

December 3rd, 2013

All of this discussion about Glatze’s kinky theology has me wondering if he fantasizes about God while he masturbates.

Ben in Oakland

December 3rd, 2013

Robert, you don’t believe the bible is infallible yourself. If you’re goingto say that it is and you do, everything else you say is suspect.

There are, I believe, TWO deuteronomical commands to slay all of the unbelievers in your midst.

Slay ’em or don’t slay ’em. which is it.

homer

December 3rd, 2013

I just feel sorry for this woman and wonder whether she is destroying her life by marrying this creep.

Michael

December 3rd, 2013

Hi there! This is Michael Glatze ([redacted])… I just wanted to say to anyone who might be interested that you are *more than invited* to contact me and ask me directly about anything, whether it is things that I have written in the past, my life decisions, or anything along those lines. I am – despite some attempts to paint me otherwise – a human being, with an actual heart, body, mind, and soul… and, I’ve noticed that some of the people taking my recent wedding and posting “stories” about it have taken to some very hurtful things to say about me and about Rebekah. Thanks … Michael

Ryan

December 3rd, 2013

@Robert,
So your belief is that wives submitting to their husbands, “as to the lord” and husbands loving their wives “just as Christ loved you”, does not inherently mean that men are superior to women, according to the Bible?
If so, then wouldn’t that mean we’re also equal to God? If man must submit to God just as women must submit to man, and women and men are equal, then that also means man and God are equal.
And yet…I’ve never heard any religious person anywhere say that man and God are equals.
Seems to me the Bible is crystal clear. God is superior to Man. And Man is superior to women.
How is that not the very definition of sexism?

Ryan

December 3rd, 2013

@Mr. Glatze,

We gay people are also human beings with actual heart, minds, bodies and souls. If some people are being mean to you on the internet, perhaps you should peruse some past statements you’ve made about gay people. This is your bed. You can only lie in it now.

Nathaniel

December 4th, 2013

Have not studied Christianity? HAVE NOT STUDIED CHRISTIANITY???? Robert, I have a very thorough versing in Christianity, having been raised by a Christian minister, and continuing to this day to be committed to the messages of love and sacrifice Jesus taught. But if believing I am unschooled in your sacred texts helps you dismiss any points I may have made, then feel free to continue to do so.

I don’t have much to say on your statements about the sexism of traditional marriage roles. What can be said has been said, though I do agree with your point that the Biblical verses in question are rarely taken to their fullest extent, often ignoring the command of self-sacrificing love the husband is commanded to share with his wife. However, I think this is a problem suffered equally by both those who call it sexist and those who say it is God’s ideal for marriage – not even the latter teach anything close to what Paul was clearly suggesting.

However, your reading of God’s relationship with the individual believer is frighteningly flawed. As Timothy pointed out, the bride is the CHURCH, not the individual believer. To suggest a pseudo-sexual relationship between God and individual believers carries this analogy way too far. Indeed, the Church is also called the body of Christ on earth, with individuals as its members, so God’s relationship with any one member is incomplete outside of the Church, very much unlike a husband-wife relationship. And just to prove that any analogy can go to far, if the Church is both the body and bride of Christ, is Jesus really into self love? The extremes taken by the likes of Glatze could just as easily support such a ridiculous theological argument, a ridiculousness my original cultist comparison tried to highlight.

Michael

December 4th, 2013

Nathaniel, ‘Just thought I’d take a moment to respond to your comments. You are incorrect in the Bible’s addressing of God and man, and the relationship between the two. If you were to go back and re-read 1 Corinthians 6 and 7, you would find that the basis for healthy sexuality is the fact that God and man have been made “one spirit.”

It is because of that “one spirit” relationship that any desire for a sexuality outside of God’s boundaries (i.e., marriage) is a direct affront upon the relationship between man and God.

That is not only biblical, but actual truth. If you have any particular doubts about whether-or-not that is the truth, try it out… pray to God, and ask Him to show you the truth.

That is the only way people can have certitude. Thanks! :) – Michael

Ben in Oakland

December 4th, 2013

What f we pray to god, and he gives us a different answer?

Priya Lynn

December 4th, 2013

Michael, god told me any consenting relationship between two adults that does not hurt others is acceptable to him.

Michael

December 4th, 2013

Priya, do you know why I don’t believe you? Here’s why: God never “tells someone” something that is contrary to what He has already written in the Bible. That would make Him out to be a liar. :)

M

Timothy Kincaid

December 4th, 2013

Much of the Bible is comprised of two things: God changing his mind, and new revelation.

So unless you want to chop out (for example) God sparing Ninevah or Peter’s vision of the sheet, your “can’t contradict the bible” theology doesn’t fly.

Paul speaks about the milk of the Word – the simplistic understanding of those who can’t understand concepts and, like infants, only follow rules – and the meat of the Word – the more complex concepts in which love, justice, mercy, and fairness demand a difficult and well thought out approach to situations as they arise.

I pray some day you’ll advance beyond the “but the rule in the Bible says” simple and childish milk and learn to address issues which take greater mental and spiritual digestion.

Michael

December 4th, 2013

Timothy,

That is a cute put-down, but an ineffective one.

Michael

Lord_Byron

December 5th, 2013

Or Michael it just means that your religious text which you think is god-inspired was instead written by a bunch of bronze age men who thought that religion was the best way to control the people. As for contradictions let’s look at genesis which was supposedly told to moses by god.

“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image…. So God created man in his own image.”

vs

“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”

I also find it funny how so many people can claim to know exactly what their god is thinking. As Susan B. Anthony wrote,
“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” Your picture of god is probably not that complete since you seem to want to ignore the parts where said being clearly contradicts itself.

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

vs

“I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me”

katz

December 5th, 2013

OK, Michael, I have a question for you: If gay men come from a misinterpreted relationship to God, where do lesbians come from? What are women’s relationships with God supposed to look like? If women in their femaleness are supposed to have a relationship with God in his supposed maleness, and if gay relationships are a corruption of the man-God relationship, wouldn’t that make straight relationships a corruption of the woman-God relationship? Or is God female to women? Or do women not have relationships with God?

Your interpretive framework doesn’t seem to account for the existence of women at all.

DN

December 5th, 2013

Religion: people arguing over what they think a made-up god says. So pointless.

Priya Lynn

December 5th, 2013

Michael said “God never “tells someone” something that is contrary to what He has already written in the Bible. That would make Him out to be a liar.:.

The bible says god is just and loving. If your god punishes people for the harmless act of being in a same sex relationship then he is neither just nor loving. You’re making god out to be a liar, not me.

Ben in Oakland

December 5th, 2013

You mean like when Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the law would change until all was fulfilled? Is that why we don’t eat bacon sandwiches to this day?

I just finished reading some 40 odd pages of text, the purpose of which was to explain why Jesus, who said he would return before his generation had passed– truly, I say unto you, etc.– had not returned. Some writers claimed he had returned. Some said that “this generation” had to be understood in other terms. some said any time now. The only thing that they all agreed on was that the clear message of the bible was anything but clear, and to be teased into a clarity very much as though to say that either god couldn’t communicate, or his followers couldn’t understand.

As always, Mr. Glatze, believe whatever you like. But please, leave the rest of us the hell alone. And if you really don’t want your “marriage” and your “private life” and your wife’s “private life” publicized and discussed…see, other people can use “scare quotes”, too…

Perhaps you should consider not publicizing and discussing them?

Michael

December 5th, 2013

Katz, thanks for your question:

The article that contained the discussion about biblical manhood and the relationship between man and God was only focusing on men – not women. You will find, in Romans 1:18-27, a breakdown of how relationships between men and women fall apart after a person turns from God. That includes men and women.

To answer your question directly, women are created to have a relationship with a man. And, the order of biblical headship is that a woman submits to a man, while the man submits to God. This connects all three in a submissive relationship which benefits all three. This is not – obviously – a life-style choice that everybody opts for, these days. But, it is not at all an unhealthy one for men or for women. In fact, women are safest if they are with a Godly man who can meet their needs, spiritually.

But, what happens is, when men turn from God, women need protection – because their men have become unsafe. Thus, they turn to each other (lesbianism), and do the best they can at trying to “become men.”

Women are entirely equal to men, in every way, and before God. Women are quite incredible, really. It is a shame more men do not treat them so.

Michael

December 5th, 2013

Ben, I didn’t “publicize” my marriage. I posted some photographs on my own personal Google account for friends and family. It was Wayne Besen, and others, who made it a “news story.” I am only responding to that with a shout-out to people like yourself saying, hey… if you really want to talk to this guy, Michael Glatze, or know what he’s up to… talk to him directly.

Ben In Oakland

December 5th, 2013

Sorry. won’t wash. You posted things publicly on the internet.

“But, what happens is, when men turn from God, women need protection – because their men have become unsafe. Thus, they turn to each other (lesbianism), and do the best they can at trying to “become men.”

Aside from complete nonsense, it sort of brings up the question about why men turn to each other?

Priya Lynn

December 5th, 2013

Michael said “You will find, in Romans 1:18-27, a breakdown of how relationships between men and women fall apart after a person turns from God. That includes men and women…In fact, women are safest if they are with a Godly man who can meet their needs, spiritually.”.

If that’s true then atheist couples should have a much higher incidence of divorce and domestic violence than christian couples. In fact the opposite is true, Christian couples have a higher divorce rate than atheist couples and domestic violence is a serious problem in devout christian marriages:

http://divorceattorneys.wordpress.com/tag/divorce-statistics-christians/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/1007/biblical_battered_wife_syndrome%3A_christian_women_and_domestic_violence

Michael said ” the order of biblical headship is that a woman submits to a man, while the man submits to God. This connects all three in a submissive relationship which benefits all three…Women are entirely equal to men, in every way, and before God.”.

If a woman is submissive to a man then she is no more his equal than a circle is a square, period. By your faulty logic that a woman who is submissive to a man is his equal it means man is god’s equal but you wouldn’t agree with that so logically you can’t say men and women are equals in your “biblical” relationship

Michael said “what happens is, when men turn from God, women need protection – because their men have become unsafe. Thus, they turn to each other (lesbianism), and do the best they can at trying to “become men.”.

Utter nonsense. Women turn to each other because they are both attracted to each other and not men – they have no need of or desire for men. Men’s actions (or inactions) don’t make women lesbians, biology does.

Michael the bible says god is just and loving. If your god punishes people for the harmless act of being in a same sex relationship then he is neither just nor loving. You can’t have it both ways – does your god oppose innocent same sex relationships or is he just and loving?

Nathaniel

December 5th, 2013

Michael,
You won’t see your own circular arguments or fallacies, and that’s fine. Lots of good people have commented on here in ways that do a good job of pointing out your failed logic. Timothy, as always, has a particularly good point that you have simply waved away as if he were merely trying to insult you. Ultimately, it won’t do me any good to try to argue with you on Biblical matters, since you believe you are infinitely more intimate with them anybody else, and this belief keeps you from thinking you could ever be just the tiniest bit wrong.

I will only add this: I am tired of Christianists like yourself assuming that any Jesus-follower claiming to be LGBT or ally is either Biblically ignorant or Spiritually deficient (even the atheist and agnostic commentators here have shown more than a passing familiarity with the Bible). I did not wake up one day and decide to be gay to spite people like yourself. I’m not rebelling against my family, nor am I rejecting God’s guidance. After years of struggling to understand my romantic/sexual attractions, and dark lonely nights of prayer and study, I came to believe God loves me as I am and wants me to celebrate my entire being. I’m sorry this isn’t the conclusion you think I should have come to, but I did not pray for God to help me please you, my conservative family, or myself; I prayed for guidance that I might please God, and this is where God has led me. So please stop insulting my God-given epiphany by assuming I haven’t done as much studying and praying as you have. I don’t mind debating theology, but such assumptions cross the line from legitimate debate to ad hominem attacks, suggesting an insecurity in your own conclusions.

Timothy Kincaid

December 5th, 2013

Michael,

your theological understanding of the role of men and women (the man having a relationship with God and the woman following the man’s direction) certainly is not missing from Scripture. Abraham and Sarah model that dynamic, with Sarah worshiping Abraham’s God.

Indeed, that was the structure for pretty much all of the late bronze age Middle East, whether Abrahamic in religion or worshipers of Baal or Ashur or Ilu.

Ironically, the clearest and most indicative scriptural reference is a classic example of the exception defining the norm. When Naomi found herself without a man to define her, she subjugated herself to her mother-in-law Ruth, declaring, “your people will be my people and your god will be my god.”

However, by the time of Christ, the theological model of God-man-woman was significantly lessened to the point where much New Testament writing points to God-woman relationships absent any man in between. It is fairly clear that the Early Church included – and, indeed may have consisted primarily of – women who were not subjecting themselves to their husband’s religious direction.

Michael, it is very tempting to see the bible as a homogenous text written by one author, God, and providing guidance to a static audience revealing God unchanging rules. Life is very easy when someone else gives you a list that has always remained the same and says “do this, don’t do that”

But this is simply not how the bible was written nor what it says. Those who insist on a literalist, static, non-flexible theology will find themselves with a code that has meaning only in context of a long-dead culture based on a feudal system of overlords, kings, personal agriculture, and mysticism.

If you want a God that is relevant in your life – I mean really relevant in your real life, not in your imagined late bronze age structured life – it might help to see God as bigger than historic constraints.

If you insist on holding literally to “God is the same yesterday, today, and forever”, then your god hasn’t got much practical application for a people who are not.

Richard Rush

December 5th, 2013

I agree with DN.

katz

December 5th, 2013

Michael, thanks for the reply. I’m still curious about women’s relationship to God. Can women have a direct relationship with God, or do they only relate to God through men?

Michael

December 5th, 2013

everybody!! a lot of your questions are sincere… but, a lot of them are not. A lot – in fact, most – are nothing more than attempts to throw me down. Well, just so you know.. that is not very helpful, or nice.

I know you may be mad that I don’t agree with homosexuality – which is the only reason you’re so angry at me – but, that’s not an excuse to abandon kindness, or reason.

Priya Lynn

December 5th, 2013

Michael, you abandoned kindness and reason first by condemning innocent same sex relationships. It’s you that’s in the wrong, not us and the worst part is you’re not willing to entertain reason in this discussion.

katz

December 5th, 2013

Michael, I’m sorry you feel that way, but I promise I am asking honest questions just because I would like to hear your opinions.

Nathaniel

December 6th, 2013

Michael,
What PL said, plus your dismissal of any reasonable points with ad hominem attacks. That is not truthful, helpful or nice, either. Most of us could care less about your feelings on human sexuality. However, you have used those feelings to support inequality in a secular government and to demean any that disagree with you. You don’t just disagree with us, you have actively worked to hurt us, and in the name of a God many of us feel you misrepresent, so I am sure you can understand why we would all be a little upset.

ZRAinSWVA

December 6th, 2013

Michael, what Nathanial and PL and Timothy Kincaid said.

I am reminded of what a woman was recently quoted as saying from her death bed, “All the religions in the world cannot be right, but they could all be wrong.”

I hope for your sake, and your wife’s, that you are sincere and successful in your love and relationship with her. I also hope that down the road you don’t suddenly realize that you’ve been deceiving yourself and her for many years. I don’t think your God would be terribly happy with you…

Timothy Kincaid

December 6th, 2013

Michael,

I know you may be mad that I don’t agree with homosexuality – which is the only reason you’re so angry at me

That isn’t true, Michael, and I think you probably know it.

My father “doesn’t agree with homosexuality” and while I wish that he would do more thorough research into the language, context, culture and overall scriptural themes and come to a more mature understanding, I also know that he’s a conservative Pentecostal preacher in his 80’s and that isn’t likely. But I’m not “mad at him”.

Because, unlike you, my father does not take it upon himself to write fantastical declarations about “why” gay men are attracted to each other or take active efforts to deny legal and civil equality to gay people. Long ago my father made the wise decision to keep his sermons about the lives of his parishioners and not about the voting booth or the culture.

We don’t care what you believe, Michael. Truly, we don’t. But we do care what you say and do in the public realm.

Because you have decided that it is your business to seek to harm our legal rights and to defame us amongst your associates, we take steps to expose the fallacy of your arguments and the Christian immaturity of your theology.

It isn’t about you. It’s about the efforts you make to hurt us.

Yes, I know that you tell yourself that you aren’t hurting anyone but are bringing the gospel of Christ to a hurting people. That is simply something you tell yourself. What you are doing is attempting to hurt my rights.

While I don’t have any animosity towards you and wish you well in your personal life, I will protect myself and my people.

Ben In Oakland

December 6th, 2013

Bravo, timothy!

I’d like to add something.

Mr. Glatze, we’re not hurting. You’re hurting. But you need to believe that we are so that your hurt has meaning.

I would also like to add this. By my count, I have asked a variation of the following question 154 times in various places on the internet, and 150 times I have not received any answer. The four times I have received an answer, it was so full of equivocation that they might as well not have bothered.

“Will you swear on the sacred Blood of Jesus, or whatever it is that you hold most sacred and inviolable, that you are now 100% heterosexual without a homosexual thought or desire?”

Would you care to be number 1, number 5, or number 151?

Richard Rush

December 6th, 2013

Michael, I’ve been struggling with trying to think of something nice to say about you, and I finally succeeded: I think you are quite a handsome guy. Seriously.

Michael

December 6th, 2013

Ben, yes. I do. 100%.

Richard, wow what a nice thing to say. Thank you. :)

– Michael…

and, to the rest of you.. (i.e., Mr. Kinkaid…) no… I don’t “spew hate.” I share the truth about homosexuality, for those who are interested in hearing it… from my own personal experience. There is nothing wrong with doing that. :)

M

cowboy

December 6th, 2013

And to augment Ben’s question: And if so, do you think you were ever a homosexual?

katz

December 7th, 2013

Michael: I just want you to share your truth with me, but you don’t seem to want to :( Did I say something that you didn’t like?

Ben in Oakland

December 7th, 2013

Ok. You’re the first person to say so. Only you know ifyou’re telling the truth. I hope for your sake its true.

katz

December 7th, 2013

As a token of my goodwill, here is a present.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-configure-privacy-settings-for-your-photos-.html

Rick

December 7th, 2013

@Michael

If you’re now “100%” heterosexual, why don’t you prove it? There are clinical tests that measure sexual arousal. If you’re completely sure about your change in orientation, you wouldn’t lose anything, and you would prove us wrong once and for all.

Priya Lynn

December 7th, 2013

Michael said “I share the truth about homosexuality, for those who are interested in hearing it… from my own personal experience. There is nothing wrong with doing that.”.

You are saying gayness is a wrongdoing – that is a lie and it is wrong for you to keep attempting to spread it.

Richard Rush

December 7th, 2013

Michael said “I share the truth about homosexuality, . . .”

That is a thoroughly unsubstantiated assertion. You are only sharing your opinion.

Contrary to a common belief, latching onto religion doesn’t mean you have privileged access to truth, it just means you are delusional. If religion were really the source of truth, the vast majority of successful scientists would be deeply religious instead of atheistic. (that’s my opinion)

Timothy Kincaid

December 7th, 2013

Michael,

Please set aside the temptation to plug your ears by misreading what is written.

No one here said that you “spew hate”. I said you seek to harm our legal rights and to defame us amongst your associates. That does not speak to your motivations but, I believe, is objectively factual.

As for your own attractions, like Ben I’ll make no effort to argue or deny something that only you can know. And, as always, I wish you personal happiness.

You say that you are only sharing the truth about homosexuality from your experience. However, you exceed your authority.

You may share your truth about your life, but you err in that you extrapolate your own personal motivations, choices, behaviors, and emotions to all other gay people.

It’s not particularly intellectually honest, and it’s unfair in its application. You tell the world “this is my story, believe it” while simultaneously saying that those with whom you disagree are not to be believed when they share their story. As a Christian, you know the scriptural prohibition of this behavior.

Your story is not universal.

I can accept that you may no longer have same-sex attractions, if you say so.

However, I can also assure you that my own same-sex attractions are innate and have no basis whatsoever in any rejection of my relationship with God (which is quite healthy, thank you).

But rather than play the “no, I’m right” game, let me introduce a third party, someone perhaps more acceptable as an example.

Alan Chambers is a devout follower of Christ. He is married to Leslie and he loves her deeply and is attracted to her.

He also acknowledges that his orientation – his innate instinctual subconscious attractions – is homosexual. He has no interest in pursuing such attractions because he believes them to be contrary to his faith and cuz (duh!) he already has the person he loves.

(Incidentally, Alan noted that virtually no one he has met – and Alan was the president of Exodus – shares your experience of converting from gay to 100% heterosexuality. So your testimony is so unique that it can be extrapolated to nearly no one.)

Your explanation of the nature of homosexuality does not explain people like Alan who are firm in their relationship with God (and I will not honor any suggestions otherwise). It contradicts not only his story but that of many others.

So I would advise you, Michael, that when you speak “the truth about homosexuality … from your own personal experience”, that you limit your “truth” to the truth of your life. That is the subject about which you have knowledge and from which you can speak.

You can say, if you wish, that you tried to replace God with a man and that you worshiped that man instead. That is something only you can know.

But you lack any basis to speak about homosexuality in general. That you chose to worship a man is not indicative of anyone else and whom they may or may not worship.

Please pay heed to my counsel, it impacts your soul. It is a grievous sin to insist that the witness you bear is truthful, when you have no way of knowing whether you come speaking truth or speaking falsehood (and I assure you it most definitely is falsehood).

You lack authority to speak about the nature of homosexuality. You have not gained the education, put in the time in research, weighed with objectivity, or consulted the research. Though you may be given a platform to speak by those who seek not knowledge but confirmation of presumptions, if you fail to note your limitations, you dishonor that trust.

When you present your views to an audience eager to hear your words and you bring testimony, God listens. And, unlike the readers at WND, God isn’t looking to have you denounce homosexuality, he’s looking to hear you bring honest testimony.

So be cautious. Because while homosexuality did not make the Top Ten list of forbidden things, bearing false witness did.

Ben In Oakland

December 7th, 2013

Bravo again, Timothy.

Michael

December 7th, 2013

So, Timothy… you are asking me to not declare general, or universal, truth – but, it’s OK for you to do it!?

Michael

December 7th, 2013

Just because YOU think something is not true – (and, can “assure” me of it) – doesn’t make it *empirically* true.

Do cars drive on roads? Yes. They do.
Can I say that? Yes. I can.

Is homosexuality a sin? Yes. It is.
Can I say that? Yes. I can.

Is it a direct distortion of the relationship between man and God? Yes. It is. Can I say that? Yes. I can.

Truth is not relative, my friend… :)

Priya Lynn

December 7th, 2013

Great comment Timothy.

Priya Lynn

December 7th, 2013

Michael, you can call gayness a sin (whatever that means) but you cannot call it a wrongdoing as it harms no one.

Millions of self-accepting gays and lesbians have no problem with their relationship with god.

You’ve been given numerous examples of the contradictions and mistakes in the bible.

A loving and just god is not compatable with the condmenation of gayness.

Michael

December 7th, 2013

the problem with a lot of people, these days, is that perspectives trump reality. You guys are all finding ways in which you share your perspectives. But, there actually *is* an intrinsic reality. Whether you believe that or not… it, actually, *is* the case.

I would just like to say that getting yourself *inside* reality (as opposed to avoiding it by sharing viewpoints with like-minded individuals) would be the best way to achieve happiness in your lives.

We both know we’ll never see “eye-to-eye” on who holds the truth, here. Our job, as human beings, is to achieve harmony and peace through an attempt to love one another. You men are doing part of that job – the other part of your time, with me, is spent attempting to discount me, as a person.

Priya Lynn

December 7th, 2013

Michael, we know there is an intrinsic morality and I know from my attempts to discuss this with you in email, you are hiding from that reality. I refuted every argument you brought up and you failed to address the majority of the points I brought up with you and hid from most of my questions. When you did respond to my questions I showed you where your responses fell short and you then fell silent again.

I discount you as a person because you seek to harm innocent LGBT people. You are in the wrong and it is right to rebuke you. If you truly loved gay and lesbian people you would give honest consideration to the things I discussed with you, in particular the parts you refused to address.

Priya Lynn

December 7th, 2013

The first sentence in my previous comment should have said “We know there is an intrinsic reality…”.

Timothy Kincaid

December 7th, 2013

Michael,

So, Timothy… you are asking me to not declare general, or universal, truth – but, it’s OK for you to do it!?

Do what?

Michael

December 7th, 2013

(just so everybody knows, the truth is that Priya tried to force me to agree with him, ignored my answers, and then – when I said, “why don’t we just talk about this over the phone?”, and gave him my phone number – he said it would be worthless.)

Michael

December 7th, 2013

— the reason I am even posting on this is because I do feel that in an open communication-based country, the truth does have an opportunity of winning out.

I am aware that many of you are hard-nosed toward a particular perspective. That may be comfortable for you. And, again, I don’t expect you to *WANT* to see me as a legitimate human being, with a legitimate heart, and legitimate viewpoints. And, that is fine.

So, I will – again – return back to the Word of God. It is in the Bible where the truth is found. “Although they know in their hearts that God’s judgment is upon them for these things, they not only do them themselves, but heartily approves of everybody else who does them.” (Romans 1)

M

Michael

December 7th, 2013

I don’t have time to write more here… but, lest anyone accuse me of “running away” (which you’ll do anyway, as Priya has – mindlessly – done)… I want to reiterate: [redacted] is my e-mail address. Contact me if there is something HONEST that you would like to talk with me about. I will do my best to respond honestly, and in a God-honoring manner. God bless you folks, and I will be praying for all of you. – Michael

Timothy Kincaid

December 7th, 2013

Michael,

Let me address your assertions of universal truth:

“Do cars drive on roads?” This is a question that can be addressed as you and I and the readers all know what roads are, what cars are, and have shared experiences which allow the observation to hold up to observation.

“Is homosexuality as sin?” This is a more difficult question as the terms under use are not being used in the same way.

By “homosexuality”, do you mean the experience of being same-sex attracted? If so, then the majority of Christendom disagrees with you. The Roman Catholic Church and, I believe, the Anglican Communion, are in agreement that the condition of being homosexual in orientation is not a sin.

And then there’s the word “sin”. I don’t know what meaning you use. The writers of scripture used the word as comparable to “error” or “less than perfect”. This could range from intentional infliction of pain or murder down to forgetting to wish someone well on their birthday, what we might call an oopsie.

“Can you say that homosexuality is a sin?” Well, no. You clearly lack the knowledge or underpinnings to discuss complex theological matters. I do not believe (though I may be mistaken) that you do not have a strong familiarity with ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic nor are you a scholar of ancient cultures or linguistic styling. And because your postulations are in direct opposition to those people who actually are conversant with these areas, you have not “studied to show yourself approved” and thus you cannot make such a claim.

“Is it a direct distortion of the relationship between man and God?” As I demonstrated above, it certainly is not for many many people.

“Can I say that?” Only if you wish to sin against God and man and break God’s commandment not to bear false witness.

Timothy Kincaid

December 7th, 2013

Michael,

I do not want to monopolize your life. But in closing, let us leave you with a few thoughts:

* I wish you happiness.

* I, like others here, are not trying to discount you as a person. We have no objection to you as a person.

* We only object to your efforts to harm our rights.

* When you “turn to the bible” but do not actually seek to know the culture, audience, and context of the bible, you aren’t actually turning to scripture. Rather you are turning to your own desire to find confirmation. If you wish to know the bible, you must study not only the words written in English but the meaning they held 2,000-4,000 years ago and how that compares with today’s reality.

* Writing off those who disagree with you through the misapplication of scripture is only a technique to hide from truth and honest counsel. It’s not me you are trying to convince, it’s yourself.

I hope you are happy. I hope you continue in happiness.

But I also hope you find the maturity to accept that you do not hold greater wisdom nor more sincere devotion than others and that your epiphanies are, well, yours and yours alone.

Priya Lynn

December 7th, 2013

Michael said “(just so everybody knows, the truth is that Priya tried to force me to agree with him, ignored my answers, and then – when I said, “why don’t we just talk about this over the phone?”, and gave him my phone number – he said it would be worthless.)”.

First, I am a woman, not a man.

Of course it is absurd to suggest anyone can attempt to force another to agree with them. Michael felt this way because he sensed the irrefutable logic of what I was saying and refused to respond to most of my points and questions.

I took note of the answers Michael did give and responded to each of them in turn and it was he who then refused to address those responses.

I have all the emails we exchanged and if anyone would like to see who’s telling the truth I can provide them to you on request. Email me at priya dot lynn at sasktel dot com

Michael was evasive in our emails, wasn’t forthcomming in most instances and made claims that he couldn’t substantiate with or without the bible. He behaved this way because deep down inside he sensed I was right and he was fearful of losing his belief in the rightfulness of his attacks on the rights of gays and lesbians.

Priya Lynn

December 7th, 2013

I also told Michael that seeing as he wasn’t forthcoming and responsive in his emails it would be pointless to discuss this on the phone as it would just be more of the same without a record of what he said so I could double check it for contradictions and errors.

Timothy Kincaid

December 7th, 2013

TO ALL:

We strongly advise that you not have private email conversations with anti-gay activists. There are several reasons for this:

1. Off-site conversations remove the discussion from public view and accountability. Things can be said that may be objectively untrue and without the scrutiny of readers, it may go unchallenged.

2. When a conversation is presumed not to be seen by others, civility often goes out the window.

3. Many many times I’ve seen anti-gay activists make accusations, refer to “an email from a homosexual militant activist”, or quote someone out of context. Non-public discourse makes that possible and removes the ability of others to correct or counter such efforts.

So, for those reasons, I’ve redacted Michael Glatze’s email address from his comments.

(Priya Lynn, this is not a criticism or rebuke.)

Priya Lynn

December 7th, 2013

The reason I emailed Michael was because he didn’t respond to this comment of mine I made earlier in this thread which I felt was central to the position he was taking. He sent a response to that comment but didn’t address most of the points I raised in it instead choosing to change the subject.

Richard Rush

December 7th, 2013

Michael, I suspect that uncertainty, gray areas, or having to think or say “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure” cause you an unbearable level of anxiety. Religion can be a remedy for that condition. Latching onto religion can instantly confer an illusion of certainty, absolute truth, superiority, and authority ~ and it all comes without having to waste time and energy engaging in the tedious work of becoming genuinely educated and actually thinking through life’s important issues. And of course, it also comes with an established support group of people who adore and love each other primarily because they help to reinforce each other’s mutual beliefs ~ which is essential because there is no empirical evidence to support those beliefs.

For many people, religion brings the peace and contentment of never having to think or say, “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure.”

Timothy Kincaid

December 7th, 2013

Yes, no doubt for many people religion brings the peace of certainty.

For others, it is a deep and meaningful relationship with God.

Regan DuCasse

December 7th, 2013

MICHAEL GLATZE:
I’m going to try to weigh in here, and I’m speaking as a black, heterosexual woman who is older than you are and experienced certain things I doubt you ever have.

Perhaps there are elder gay men and lesbians you’ve never met that I have who have an even longer history and perspective to learn from when being gay was actionable by invasion of private homes, institutionalization and incarceration.
I was raised Episcopalian and also with the native American spirituality of both sides of my family.
I was taught to be fearless, and in the changing times of my youth, black women can never afford to be stupid.

You’ve now claimed conversion.
But all you did was READ A BOOK, maybe just some of it. Maybe all of it.
But it’s a book that really has much that does not apply now.
The only things that do, that give the light of truth, is HOW YOU TREAT ANOTHER PERSON.
And the results.
You shouldn’t have needed a book to tell you what to do and how to do it.

I’ve related to the experiences of my transgender and gay friends here BECAUSE I am a black woman.
I would never say I know what it’s like to be gay. But I understand what it’s like to have less value for the wrong reasons.
We’re all a misunderstood, misrepresented and isolated minority.
But some of us have braved more, done more that’s grown our character.
There’s no book that will do that either.

You have it in you or you don’t.
Betraying a minority of people who have already been dealt a BRUTAL legacy, won’t wash you clean.
You’ve allowed the Bible to declare that people who are gay remain with less value in the eyes of God.
We’ve heard it all before. It’s been said over and over again.
Nothing is new, or surprising about that.
But that’s just another way to try to use something amorphous and convince yourself now that YOU are a better person because you’ve had this conversion.
You’re not.
You’re worse, actually. Because of the stakes involving gay and transgender people and their lives in the modern society we all are living in.
You should know better, but what I’ve learned about those who insist they’ve converted, they are exceptional in their self centered attitudes too.

You know that homosexuality is universal to ALL human life and history. Without exception anywhere.
Your religion is not.
Your religion made a crime out of it, where it never was before.
But religion has done that if someone wanted to take any DISTINCTION someone had and hurt them with it.
Deeds matter more than anything you SAY.
And what you’ve DONE is nothing to be proud of or anything a person should aspire to.

Priya Lynn

December 7th, 2013

Richard, I could see what you’re saying in my discussion with Michael. While he made a token gesture of responding to my points and questions it was clear he didn’t want to think about it in any detail and all and his automatic response was to withdraw and change the subject.

katz

December 7th, 2013

Michael, I gave you a present and everything, but you still haven’t answered me! I really want to hear your opinions so I don’t know why you don’t want to talk to me. Don’t you think of me as a real thinking, feeling human being?

Sam

December 8th, 2013

Michael wrote an article for WND claiming he’s been receiving death threats from “angry homosexuals.” I asked him to provide a single example of such threats and he said he didn’t have to prove anything.

Sam

December 8th, 2013

Here is it:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/to-hateful-gays-please-respect-my-choices/

Jonah

December 8th, 2013

Michael Glatze, I don’t know if you’re still reading these comments, but I dare you to answer this:

Where in the Bible does it specifically say that homosexuals can become completely and permanently heterosexual without ever having same-sex feelings again?

Show. me. such. a. verse.

There is none. No such thing is mentioned in the Bible.

You are not a real Christian; you are a cultist spreading a false gospel.

Paul

December 13th, 2013

What I find problematic is that in this and many other claims of conversion we have a man abandoning his partner as if they never shared a connection. The God I know wouldn’t support tearing apart a loving relationship like that. Any couple that stays together for 10 years becomes closely bonded regardless of whether they actually got married.

I am marrying a man (I am a bisexual man) one week from today and I will be doing do in the sight of God with the blessing of a minister. Despite some Christian denominations suggesting that God condemns all same sex relationships, I am involved with a church that blesses same sex unions.

While any person turning to God is a good thing, just as I brought my fiance back to God at a time when he wasn’t attending church, I wish more gay men who turned to God could do so in a way that doesn’t cause them to turn their back on the relationships they formed.

Jan

September 13th, 2017

It seems to me that Michael Glatze underwent an experience that required him to believe in an afterlife that was a tangible reality he could “earn,” not a birthright of being human. His study of the Bible moved him deeply and led him to believe that the possibility of going to Heaven when he died and being reunited with his loved ones was a viable prospect. He was eager to ensure that this could happen and eager to live his life according to whatever rules the Bible prescribed regarding this goal. He was always a very goal oriented person, from what I have understand, and people do go through religious conversions in their lives that change their outlook on life entirely. Fortunately, in the United States of American we have freedom of religion and Glatze may only express his religious beliefs, he may not force them on others. Those who depended on him in the past must free themselves of their reliance on his point of view and stand on their own, allowing him to move forward on his new path. We can easily judge his path as he judges the paths of others. Do we really want to judge anyone? In general, it is safe to assume that in any large group of people, heterosexual or LGBT, there are people who are “hiding” who are either conscious of their true identity or unconscious about it. It works both ways and is a possibility always in both groups. Glatze strikes me as an unconscious heterosexual who latched onto the appealing aspects of being gay at a young age for whatever reason and had many good experiences by adopting that identity and being part of that group. Gradually, his “hidden” identity, a closeted heterosexual, began to reveal itself to him and he went through a very arduous journey to claiming what he considers his true identity. If we are capable of imagining a gay man pretending to himself he is straight when among a group of straight people and awakening to his true identity as heterosexual we can imagine the reverse.

Jan

September 13th, 2017

(Amended)It seems to me that Michael Glatze underwent an experience that required him to believe in an afterlife that was a tangible reality he could “earn,” not a birthright of being human. His study of the Bible moved him deeply and led him to believe that the possibility of going to Heaven when he died and being reunited with his loved ones was a viable prospect. He was eager to ensure that this could happen and eager to live his life according to whatever rules the Bible prescribed regarding this goal. He was always a very goal oriented person, from what I have understood, and people do go through religious conversions in their lives and change their outlook on life entirely. Fortunately, in the United States of American we have freedom of religion. Glatze may only express his religious beliefs, he may not force them on others. Those who depended on him in the past must free themselves of their reliance on his point of view and stand on their own, allowing him to move forward on his new path. We can easily judge his path as he judges the paths of others. Do we really want to judge anyone? In general, it is safe to assume that in any large group of people, heterosexual or LGBT, there are people who are “hiding” who are either conscious or unconscious of their true nature. This works both ways and is always a possibility in any group. Glatze may have been an unconscious heterosexual who latched onto the appealing aspects of being gay at a young age for whatever reason and had many good experiences as part of that group. Gradually, his “hidden” identity, as an unconscious heterosexual, began to reveal itself to him and he went through a very arduous journey to awaken to his true identity. If we are capable of imagining a gay man pretending to himself he is straight when among a group of straight people, then awakening to his true identity as a gay man, surely we can imagine the reverse.

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)
(Required, never shared)

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

 

Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.