Although mostly accurate, I thought the article was disappointing.
Willamette Week, which has a reputation of digging-up dirt on people
and groups, was surprisingly soft in its analysis of PF's claims.
It also seemed to downplay the fact that PF is a fundamentalist-
leaning Christian ministry and did not demand that PF prove its
claims about change.

I was also really surprised that WW only briefly mentioned John and
Anne Paulk and failed to mention their connection to PF or John's
infamous 2000 incident in which he was caught cruising a DC gay
bar.  John and Anne were both leaders at PF when I was there, so the
seem fair subjects to include about PF.  On exgaywatch.com, John
Paulk (or someone claiming to be him) admitted that he referred WW
to PF -- which makes it really strange that WW failed to mention his
connection.

It seems to be difficult for reporters to find former PF or ex-gay
participants willing to publically talk about their experience.  Our
local gay paper, Just Out, interviewed me about a year ago about
PF.  They told me that they had two other ex-ex-gays lined-up.  So,
I was really surprised when I was the only person in the article.

I curious about your perspective.  Do you think many former ex-gay
participants are hesitant to speak-out because they're embarrassed
about trying to "change"?  Or could it be that some former ex-gays
still feel guilty about 'failing' to change?

Norm!


--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, Kurt G <koenbear@y...> wrote:
> Hey Norm!
>
> Glad to meet you!
>
> Did you happen to read the article in the Willamette
> Week a week or two ago?  They did an article on the
> ex-gay movement and Portland Fellowship in particular.
>  A friend gave my name to the reporter and I talked to
> him for about an hour and a half but they didn't quote
> me or use my story because they were looking for
> people with experience with the local group.  It is an
> interesting article and certainly not unfair to either
> side.
>
> You can read it online here:
>
> http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5343
>
> Glad to see another Portlander online!
> Kurt
> --- Norm <nojam75@y...> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kurt and everyone! Thanks for joining our group
> > and sharing your
> > stories.  Wow, Kurt, what a lousy day to pick to
> > move cross
> > country.
> >
> > I'm a rare native Portlander and, similar to you, I
> > "came out" at a
> > college ministry about nine years ago when I was 19.
> >  I participated
> > in the local ex-gay group, The Portland Fellowship,
> > for almost two
> > years (I also earned an "ex-gay diploma").  However,
> > I realized that
> > I was worse off than I when I started and decided to
> > re-think the ex-
> > gay and fundamentalist Christian ideas.  Also
> > similar to your
> > journey, I started a Yahoo! group, this one, to
> > hopefully share
> > experiences with other former ex-gay participants.
> >
> > I haven't participated in this group lately, but I
> > am glad that
> > nyguy has continued the group.
> >
> > Norm! aka nojam75
> >
> > --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt"
> > <koenbear@y...> wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > >     I just joined the group and thought I would
> > put out a quick
> > > introduction.
> > >
> > > My name is Kurt and I live with my partner in
> > Portland, OR.  I am
> > > now 33 but was a part of the ex-gay movement for
> > about 10 years.
> > I
> > > came out at 18, but quickly went back in the
> > closet at 19 when I
> > had
> > > a conversion experience and started going to a
> > conservative
> > > Christian church.  My involvement in a local
> > ex-gay ministry in
> > the
> > > San Jose, CA area started at about the same time.
> > I spent 2 years
> > > in that program and even got a diploma showing
> > that I had
> > graduated.
> > >
> > > A few years later, in my mid-20's, I went back to
> > school in
> > > Minnesota to study for the ministry in the
> > Wisconsin Evangelical
> > > Lutheran Synod.  In school, I was told not to tell
> > people even
> > that
> > > I "had been" gay, so I was completely closeted,
> > both as gay and ex-
> > > gay.  Wanting someone to talk to I created a Yahoo
> > group called
> > 611
> > > (from 1 Corinthians 6:11).  That list was grew to
> > about 100 people
> > > and was around for a few years.
> > >
> > > In my ministry life, I had been assigned as a
> > minister in San
> > > Antonio, TX.  While I was there, I was told that I
> > was being
> > > considered for a ministry position at a small
> > congregation in
> > > Brazil.  The catch: they don't normally send
> > single guys on
> > foreign
> > > missions.  So, thinking it was what God wanted for
> > my life, I got
> > > married, was assigned to Brazil and moved there in
> > November.
> > >
> > > Brazil is where the shit hit the fan.  Our
> > marriage did not go
> > > well.  On a trip back to the U.S. issues about my
> > sexuality came
> > > out.  Long story short:  I was told that I wasn't
> > fit for ministry
> > > because I might molest a teenager (never mind that
> > I had no
> > history
> > > of that or anything that might indicate I would).
> > >
> > > On September 10th of 2001 I left my wife, my
> > career, and my
> > church.
> > > I stayed overnight in a motel in San Antonio, TX
> > intending to fly
> > to
> > > Portland, OR the next day.  That never happened
> > because of the
> > > terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
> >  Instead I
> > drove
> > > the 2,4000 miles and attmepted to start my life
> > over.
> > >
> > > The good news is that there is a happy ending:  I
> > met my partner 2
> > > weeks after I got here.  That was 3 years ago.  We
> > just bought a
> > > home together.  I am back in school pursuing a
> > Masters of
> > Divinity,
> > > and I am a candidate for ordination in the United
> > Church of Christ.
> > >
> > > Sorry for the long post.  I just wanted to make a
> > quick
> > introduction
> > > and let y'all know that I'm here.
> > >
> > > You can read about stuff I write about here:
> > > http://outsidethebox.blogs.com
> > >
> > > Any Livejournal users out there?
> > >
> > > Blessings!
> > > Kurt
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

A number of recent posts reveals that a sizable number of people are
grappling with the dilemma: How to decide when it is "right"
or "proper" for a relationship to become physical (i.e. sexual).
It's an important question and clearly not limited to Christians who
are of same-sex orientation.

The issues we face today are wide-ranging.  So, while the Bible, the
Word of God, has always seemed clear enough about some issues of
sexual morality, when we are confronted with the complex situations
people find themselves in today, we have to look deeply at the Word
of God for wisdom to know how to handle some burning contemporary
issues in the most appropriate way.  Needless to say, this has
raised some difficult questions.

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has
no sexual ethic per se. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, the
Bible exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed
drastically over the thousand-year span of biblical history. Mores
are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the
practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it
allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is
constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are
dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.

The very notion of a "sex ethic" reflects the materialism and
splitness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our
identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest
of life.

NO SEX ACT IS "ETHICAL" IN AND OF ITSELF, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE
REST OF A PERSON'S LIFE, THE PATTERNS OF THE CULTURE, THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES FACED, AND THE WILL OF GOD.

What we have are simply sexual mores, which change, sometimes with
startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. Just within one
lifetime we have witnessed the shift from the ideal of preserving
one's virginity until marriage, to couples living together for
several years before getting married. The response of many
Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.

Our moral task, rather, is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever
sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture.  We might address
younger people, for example, not with laws and commandments whose
violation is a sin, but rather with the sad experiences of the many
who found too much early sexual intimacy overwhelming, and who react
by voluntary celibacy and even the refusal to date.  We can offer
reasons, not empty and unenforceable orders.  We can challenge both
gay and straight people to question their behaviors in the light of
love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and
genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society
as a whole.

CHRISTIAN MORALITY, AFTER ALL, IS NOT AN IRON CHASTITY BELT FOR
REPRESSING URGES, BUT A WAY OF EXPRESSING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR
RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.

It is the attempt to discover a manner of living that is consistent
with who God created us to be. For those of same-sex orientation,
being moral means rejecting sexual mores that violate their own
integrity and that of others, and attempting to discover what it
would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus.

-Alex

A thoughtful and insightful response as always Alex.

thanks

Anthony
Moderator and author of:
'A Life of Unlearning -Coming Out of the Church - One Man's Struggle'
To download Chapter 1 'The Confession' FREE click here
<http://www.anthonyvennbrown.com/book.html> .
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Exex-gay
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Exex-gay/>
My sexual orientation is not a sickness to be healed or a sin to be
forgiven. My sexual orientation is a gift from my Creator to be accepted,
celebrated, and lived with integrity.

-----Original Message-----
From: nyguy_1225 [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, 14 August 2004 23:36
To: exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Spam:[ExExGayMinistry] Divided Hearts?

A number of recent posts reveals that a sizable number of people are
grappling with the dilemma: How to decide when it is "right"
or "proper" for a relationship to become physical (i.e. sexual).
It's an important question and clearly not limited to Christians who
are of same-sex orientation.

The issues we face today are wide-ranging.  So, while the Bible, the
Word of God, has always seemed clear enough about some issues of
sexual morality, when we are confronted with the complex situations
people find themselves in today, we have to look deeply at the Word
of God for wisdom to know how to handle some burning contemporary
issues in the most appropriate way.  Needless to say, this has
raised some difficult questions.

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has
no sexual ethic per se. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, the
Bible exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed
drastically over the thousand-year span of biblical history. Mores
are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the
practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it
allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is
constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are
dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.

The very notion of a "sex ethic" reflects the materialism and
splitness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our
identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest
of life.

NO SEX ACT IS "ETHICAL" IN AND OF ITSELF, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE
REST OF A PERSON'S LIFE, THE PATTERNS OF THE CULTURE, THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES FACED, AND THE WILL OF GOD.

What we have are simply sexual mores, which change, sometimes with
startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. Just within one
lifetime we have witnessed the shift from the ideal of preserving
one's virginity until marriage, to couples living together for
several years before getting married. The response of many
Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.

Our moral task, rather, is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever
sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture.  We might address
younger people, for example, not with laws and commandments whose
violation is a sin, but rather with the sad experiences of the many
who found too much early sexual intimacy overwhelming, and who react
by voluntary celibacy and even the refusal to date.  We can offer
reasons, not empty and unenforceable orders.  We can challenge both
gay and straight people to question their behaviors in the light of
love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and
genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society
as a whole.

CHRISTIAN MORALITY, AFTER ALL, IS NOT AN IRON CHASTITY BELT FOR
REPRESSING URGES, BUT A WAY OF EXPRESSING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR
RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.

It is the attempt to discover a manner of living that is consistent
with who God created us to be. For those of same-sex orientation,
being moral means rejecting sexual mores that violate their own
integrity and that of others, and attempting to discover what it
would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus.

-Alex






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129bk3833/M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705074683:HM/EXP=1092577059/A=2164331/R=0/SIG=11eaelai9/*http://www.
netflix.com/Default?mqso=60183351>


   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links
*         To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exexgayministry/

*         To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

*         Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

HI Norm

An ex gay Diploma eh? Now that would be worth hanging on your wall ;-) Hehe.

I guess you received it after finishing a particular program not for proving
your had turned heterosexual.

About the tone of our group……….I think our group reflects, inquiry,
positivity, love, resolution etc.

This is very different to the couple of ex gay groups I joined to see what
was going on. The tone was very sad. I really felt for the guys but couldn’t
of course post. Almost all of them were talking about their daily struggles,
asking for constant prayer to overcome temptation, and minor
victories…..like holding a girls hand. If it was so sad it would be
pathetic.

Anthony
Moderator and author of:
'A Life of Unlearning -Coming Out of the Church - One Man's Struggle'
To download Chapter 1 'The Confession' FREE click here
<http://www.anthonyvennbrown.com/book.html> .
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Exex-gay
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Exex-gay/>
My sexual orientation is not a sickness to be healed or a sin to be
forgiven. My sexual orientation is a gift from my Creator to be accepted,
celebrated, and lived with integrity.

-----Original Message-----
From: Norm [mailto:nojam75@...]
Sent: Friday, 13 August 2004 14:32
To: exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ExExGayMinistry] Re: Greetings!

Hi Kurt and everyone! Thanks for joining our group and sharing your
stories.  Wow, Kurt, what a lousy day to pick to move cross
country.

I'm a rare native Portlander and, similar to you, I "came out" at a
college ministry about nine years ago when I was 19.  I participated
in the local ex-gay group, The Portland Fellowship, for almost two
years (I also earned an "ex-gay diploma").  However, I realized that
I was worse off than I when I started and decided to re-think the ex-
gay and fundamentalist Christian ideas.  Also similar to your
journey, I started a Yahoo! group, this one, to hopefully share
experiences with other former ex-gay participants.

I haven't participated in this group lately, but I am glad that
nyguy has continued the group.

Norm! aka nojam75

--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt" <koenbear@y...> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>     I just joined the group and thought I would put out a quick
> introduction.
>
> My name is Kurt and I live with my partner in Portland, OR.  I am
> now 33 but was a part of the ex-gay movement for about 10 years.
I
> came out at 18, but quickly went back in the closet at 19 when I
had
> a conversion experience and started going to a conservative
> Christian church.  My involvement in a local ex-gay ministry in
the
> San Jose, CA area started at about the same time.  I spent 2 years
> in that program and even got a diploma showing that I had
graduated.
>
> A few years later, in my mid-20's, I went back to school in
> Minnesota to study for the ministry in the Wisconsin Evangelical
> Lutheran Synod.  In school, I was told not to tell people even
that
> I "had been" gay, so I was completely closeted, both as gay and ex-
> gay.  Wanting someone to talk to I created a Yahoo group called
611
> (from 1 Corinthians 6:11).  That list was grew to about 100 people
> and was around for a few years.
>
> In my ministry life, I had been assigned as a minister in San
> Antonio, TX.  While I was there, I was told that I was being
> considered for a ministry position at a small congregation in
> Brazil.  The catch: they don't normally send single guys on
foreign
> missions.  So, thinking it was what God wanted for my life, I got
> married, was assigned to Brazil and moved there in November.
>
> Brazil is where the shit hit the fan.  Our marriage did not go
> well.  On a trip back to the U.S. issues about my sexuality came
> out.  Long story short:  I was told that I wasn't fit for ministry
> because I might molest a teenager (never mind that I had no
history
> of that or anything that might indicate I would).
>
> On September 10th of 2001 I left my wife, my career, and my
church.
> I stayed overnight in a motel in San Antonio, TX intending to fly
to
> Portland, OR the next day.  That never happened because of the
> terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.  Instead I
drove
> the 2,4000 miles and attmepted to start my life over.
>
> The good news is that there is a happy ending:  I met my partner 2
> weeks after I got here.  That was 3 years ago.  We just bought a
> home together.  I am back in school pursuing a Masters of
Divinity,
> and I am a candidate for ordination in the United Church of Christ.
>
> Sorry for the long post.  I just wanted to make a quick
introduction
> and let y'all know that I'm here.
>
> You can read about stuff I write about here:
> http://outsidethebox.blogs.com
>
> Any Livejournal users out there?
>
> Blessings!
> Kurt




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129cm3b7k/M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705074683:HM/EXP=1092457954/A=2164330/R=0/SIG=11eamf8g4/*http://www.
netflix.com/Default?mqso=60183350>


   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links
*         To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exexgayministry/

*         To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

*         Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A GROWING ACCEPTANCE OF GAY PEOPLE MAY BE CONTRIBUTING TO THE
DECLINE IN TEENAGE SUICIDES – ONCE QUITE HIGH AMONG GAY YOUTH.  Says
Dr. Charles Wibbelsman, chief of the Teenage Clinic of Kaiser
Permanente and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics'
committee on adolescents: "We've saved a lot more people's lives
[since homosexuality's been] much more out."

The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage by Erwin W. Lutzer (Moody
Publishers, 2004, 115 pp.)  "Love Supreme: Gay nuptials and the
making of modern marriage" by Adam Haslett, The New Yorker, May 31,
2004.

A review by Dr. Ralph Blair

Angry traditionalists in Massachusetts launched an effort to stop
what they said was a fatal blow to marriage, the family and
childrearing -- "wrong in theory and bad in practice."   They warned
of increased divorce and polygamy.  That was in 1915 – a campaign
against extending the right to vote to women.  These same dire
warnings were raised against interracial marriage.  And Bible verses
were abused in both issues.

Again, as Lutzer's publisher warns, there's "a battle raging for
marriage [and] the implications for society are profound."  It's
said that this fight for "traditional marriage [is] the single
greatest threat to religious freedom today."   One blurb claims that
Lutzer "avoids emotional, reactionary solutions" but goes on, rather
breathlessly, to assert that, "if not corrected – [marriage for same-
sex couples] will cause our nation to implode."   Lutzer, we're
told, "sorts truth from spin."   Of course, this is a book of spin.
To pretend it's not is, itself, spin.

Lutzer's misreading of the Bible takes too much for granted and
neglects too much.  He speaks only of "marriage as we know it" and
then assumes that "the Bible condemns homosexuality," meaning, of
course, homosexuality as we know it.  That's anachronistic.  He says
he tries to be "loving," to all, including "communities
of ... `gender orientation,'" – a designation that is both a
mislabeling and a dismissing and illustrates his ignorance and
disdain.  He mistakenly thinks that homosexuality is the result of
molestation and that it is but "compulsively acting out."  He says
that "several years ago" he spoke at an "ex-gay" conference.  If
that was "several years ago," he should know that, by now, most of
those who heard him have "fallen" out of the movement and are still
as gay as ever.  In fact, his wishful thinking – that homosexuals
can change – isn't what's in the fine print of the "ex-gay" movement
these days.  He pushes the Religious Right's figure of 2 percent for
the population at issue and yet insists that if some of them get
legally married it will be disastrous for everybody else.  He pushes
the false assertion that the American Psychiatric Association's
declassification of homosexuality was due to disruptive radical
activists.  Actually, it was a scientific decision.  Had the DSM not
dropped it as a mental disorder, homosexuality would have been the
only entry not meeting the DSM's two-pronged scientific criterion.

Lutzer decries the "push to `reinvent' the family" but fails to note
that Jesus reinvented the family, placing the family of faith over
the blood relations Lutzer pushes.  He warns that if marriage for
gay couples is permitted, "who is to say that it must be limited to
two people?"  He mocks: "Why not one man with two wives?" – as with
Abraham, Sarah and Hagar?

It's ironic that Moody Publishers is this Moody Church pastor's
publisher, for D. L. Moody used to warn that Christians make a big
mistake when they take wrong positions on social issues and thus
turn people off to the gospel.  In his day, Moody stood up for a
fellow evangelical's stance for evolution over against the majority
who raged against it.  These days, gay people cannot hear the Good
News above the din against their having the right to marry – a right
Lutzer reserves for people resembling himself and his wife.  He does
admit that "we have failed to properly represent Christ and the
gospel in the wider world, including the gay world."  He knows
that "for reasons, some of which may be of our own making, [gay
people] have turned a deaf ear to the church."  That's because the
Lutzers in the churches have turned a deaf ear to them.

In regards to "the truth" and "the traditional view of marriage,"
Haslett's New Yorker essay gives some helpful historical
perspective.  He doesn't go back as far as the Bible days – and
neither, of course, does Lutzer.  The common traditions of Bible
days include parental selection of the spouses for children,
polygamous marriages, the duty of a man to have sex with the widows
of all his brothers who die without having fathered a child, and so
on.  But Fundamentalists today reject these biblical traditions for
marriage and family.

Haslett takes note of the long tradition of families marrying other
families through arranged marriages of political alliance and
economic advantage rather than romance.  He sees the Protestant
Reformation's idea of "companionate marriage" as a significant
turning from this as well as from Catholicism's "ideal of chastity,
which considered earthly marriage a more or less unfortunate
necessity meant to accommodate human weakness."  In pointing out the
Puritan Milton's advocacy of divorce, he does not mention Luther's
advice to Henry VIII – that, rather than divorce, the king should do
as the biblical patriarchs and take an additional wife.

Haslett notes the fact that Catholicism, even in Luther's day, "had
no requirement that a priest be present at the wedding ceremony;
vows spoken in private were sufficient to create a binding
marriage."  He points out that the tradition of banns arose because
of the need to determine if the prospective bride and groom might
already be committed elsewhere.  He mentions the long struggle with
miscegenation laws and the expansion of the marriage franchise to
the poor, the sterile and slaves.

With some exaggeration, Hazlett writes: "Not until the confessional
diaries and novels of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries started to influence bourgeois notions of what Jane Austen
called `connubial felicity' did romance begin its steady ascent to
the marital realm."  He adds: "Today, needless to say, the most
respectable reason you can give for getting married is that you have
fallen in love."  Alluding to "the decline of the patriarchal legal
structure and the rise of the goal of self-fulfillment," Haslett
says: "Gay marriage is unsettling, to many, not because it departs
from modern meanings of matrimony but because it embodies them."

The value of this essay lies in Haslett's examples of the diversity
of "traditional marriage" and in his calling for historical
perspective.  Given the evolution in what has passed
for "traditional marriage," Haslett says we've arrived at a juncture
that "is a historically peculiar state of affairs, one that would be
alien to our ancestors and to most traditional cultures today.  And
it makes the push for gay marriage inevitable."

Great news……..nyguy…….do you remember where you got this from.

thanks

Anthony
Moderator and author of:
'A Life of Unlearning -Coming Out of the Church - One Man's Struggle'
To download Chapter 1 'The Confession' FREE click here
<http://www.anthonyvennbrown.com/book.html> .
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Exex-gay
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Exex-gay/>
My sexual orientation is not a sickness to be healed or a sin to be
forgiven. My sexual orientation is a gift from my Creator to be accepted,
celebrated, and lived with integrity.

-----Original Message-----
From: nyguy_1225 [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2004 22:46
To: exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Spam Message:[ExExGayMinistry] Heading in the Right Direction

A GROWING ACCEPTANCE OF GAY PEOPLE MAY BE CONTRIBUTING TO THE
DECLINE IN TEENAGE SUICIDES – ONCE QUITE HIGH AMONG GAY YOUTH.  Says
Dr. Charles Wibbelsman, chief of the Teenage Clinic of Kaiser
Permanente and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics'
committee on adolescents: "We've saved a lot more people's lives
[since homosexuality's been] much more out."






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129gd75s1/M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705074683:HM/EXP=1092833156/A=2164330/R=0/SIG=11eamf8g4/*http://www.
netflix.com/Default?mqso=60183350>


   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links
*         To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exexgayministry/

*         To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

*         Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes, it is encouraging news, isn't it?  I saw the statement in the
current Evangelicals Concerned, Inc. newsletter.  However, since the
AP picked up the quote, if you do a search on the Internet you'll
find links to literally dozens of publications in which it
appeared.  Three of which include the following:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040611/news_1n11suicide.htm
l
San Diego Union Tribune

http://www.preventsuicidenow.com/youth-suicide-rate-declining
Prevent Suicide Now

http://www.freep.com/news/childrenfirst/teen11_20040611.htm
Detroit Free Press

-Alex


--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony Venn-Brown"
<avb@m...> wrote:
> Great news……..nyguy…….do you remember where you got this from.
>
> thanks
>
> Anthony

Thanks Alex

Anthony
Moderator and author of:
'A Life of Unlearning -Coming Out of the Church - One Man's Struggle'
To download Chapter 1 'The Confession' FREE click here
<http://www.anthonyvennbrown.com/book.html> .
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Exex-gay
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Exex-gay/>
My sexual orientation is not a sickness to be healed or a sin to be
forgiven. My sexual orientation is a gift from my Creator to be accepted,
celebrated, and lived with integrity.

-----Original Message-----
From: nyguy_1225 [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 August 2004 02:57
To: exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Spam Message:Re: Spam Message:[ExExGayMinistry] Heading in the
Right Direction

Yes, it is encouraging news, isn't it?  I saw the statement in the
current Evangelicals Concerned, Inc. newsletter.  However, since the
AP picked up the quote, if you do a search on the Internet you'll
find links to literally dozens of publications in which it
appeared.  Three of which include the following:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040611/news_1n11suicide.htm
l
San Diego Union Tribune

http://www.preventsuicidenow.com/youth-suicide-rate-declining
Prevent Suicide Now

http://www.freep.com/news/childrenfirst/teen11_20040611.htm
Detroit Free Press

-Alex


--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony Venn-Brown"
<avb@m...> wrote:
> Great news……..nyguy…….do you remember where you got this from.
>
> thanks
>
> Anthony





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1292tn086/M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705074683:HM/EXP=1092848209/A=2164330/R=0/SIG=11eamf8g4/*http://www.
netflix.com/Default?mqso=60183350>


   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links
*         To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exexgayministry/

*         To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

*         Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Last week, the leader of the ex-gay ministry I attended invited me
for coffee to share my thoughts on why I felt ex-gay ministries were
harmful.  I appreciated the opportunity to provide my feedback and
was surprised he sought me out.  He thought it was unusual for a
former participant to speak-out against the ministry and wanted to
know why I felt the need to do so.

I told him that after almost two years in the ex-gay ministry, I
left the group because I did not feel it helped me.  Although I felt
that I had honestly committed myself to the group, I did not
experience any type of change.  In fact, I felt worse than when I
first entered and that it took me years to rebuild myself after
leaving.

His response was that my experience was unusual since the ministry
has helped "thousands" of people.  [~50 ppl/yr x 16 yrs = ~800
ppl???]  He admitted that their ministry is not perfect and
personally apologized for any bad counseling he gave me.  He assured
me the ministry has changed in the seven years since I left and he
has learned through training to be more empathetic.

Our discussion lasted two hours and often became circular.  He
repeatedly emphasized that his ministry was about God and that
changing sexual orientation was not the primary focus - just a side-
effect.  I responded that desperate people who are struggling to
come out and/or reconciling their faith are attracted to the
ministry's message of change.  He said his ministry is very careful
to tell people that their ministry does not promise changing sexual
orientation and there is little he can do if participants choose to
maintain expectations of change.  I replied that the ministry,
although technically accepts abstinence, marriage is usually seen as
success.  He admitted that marriage is celebrated, but that
unmarried people need to learn to be content.  [Admittedly, this
response stumped me.  However, I'm skeptical that very many ex-gay
participants expect to not change their orientation and become life-
long celibates.]

I shared my frustration about the ministry's confusing dual approach
of faith and psychology.  He admitted that, as a faith-based group,
he only accepts psychological counseling theories that do not
conflict with the Bible.  I reminded him that previously he told me
that his ex-gay ministry is not intended to be a church.  If
participants understand their ministry is not a church, should they
not expect some type of effective change through their program.  He
said that "there is no program".  Like a church, he explained his
ministry was faith-based and does not offer a final outcome.

I explained that my main motivation for speaking-out about my
experience is to offer an alternative perspective that I wished I
had when I first participated in his ministry.  He seemed to
somewhat understand this and admitted his ministry is not for
everyone.  I was surprised when he said he refers gays who are
undecided about rejecting their sexual orientation to gay-positive
organizations.  He wished the referrals were mutual and that gay-
positive organizations referred people with unwanted same-sex
attractions to his ministry.  I reasoned that because his ministry
is based on a specific theological perspective, gay-positive
organizations are probably uncomfortable determining who is
theologically compatible.  However, he was adamant that his ministry
welcomes anyone with unwanted same-sex attractions.  I reminded him
that earlier he explained that his ministry is based on a specific
faith and not outcome-orientated.  He insisted that people of other
faiths are welcome although relatively few attend.  I asked him why
would people of other faiths come to his fundamentalist-leaning
Christian ministry.  He again explained that his ministry was for
everyone with unwanted same-sex attractions who seek God's plan.  I
asked him if the ministry was about religious recruitment.  He
affirmed people of other faiths are welcome to attend and credited
the ministry for bringing others to the faith.

As we wrapped-up our discussion, I explained that we each have a
bias perspective.  As an ex-gay leader, he is more likely to hear
from people who are grateful for the ministry.  Whereas as an "ex-ex-
gay", I'm more likely to hear of gays who have left the ministry.
Although he maintained most people have been helped by the ministry,
he admitted some decided that it was simply easier to live gay even
though they believe it to be morally wrong.  I asked him why doesn't
the ministry track and follow-up with former participants.  He again
emphasized that their ministry is not outcome-based and that such
surveys are typically used to prove success.  I asked, if not to
claim success rates, then why not obtain feedback to improve the
program.  He admitted that they do surveys at the end of the group,
but do not have resources to track and follow-up with former
participants.  He also explained that it is an unfair expectation
since churches are not expected track their former members.

We discussed other topics as well, such as my current beliefs and
his beliefs.  Overall, I appreciated the opportunity to provide my
feedback and hope that we both listened to each other.

Norm!

Hey Norm: It sounds you like you had opportunity to by and large
have a mutually respectful exchange with the former leader of
your "ex-gay" group.  I must say, however, what I found most
inconceivable is that he thought it was unusual for a former
participant to speak-out against the ministry.  Truly, if the "ex-
gay" movement has had to battle anything over its quarter-century-
plus history it's the multitude of defections and the continually
growing number former "ex-gay" participants and former "ex-gay"
leaders who now look at these ministries as ineffective and not
biblically-sound at one end of the spectrum and down right dangerous
and destructive at the other.  It would seem that one would have to
be living under a rock, or be in severe denial, to not be aware that
this has been and continues to be one of the biggest problems for
the movement.

-Alex



--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "Norm" <nojam75@y...> wrote:
> Last week, the leader of the ex-gay ministry I attended invited me
> for coffee to share my thoughts on why I felt ex-gay ministries
were
> harmful.  I appreciated the opportunity to provide my feedback and
> was surprised he sought me out.  He thought it was unusual for a
> former participant to speak-out against the ministry and wanted to
> know why I felt the need to do so.
>
> I told him that after almost two years in the ex-gay ministry, I
> left the group because I did not feel it helped me.  Although I
felt
> that I had honestly committed myself to the group, I did not
> experience any type of change.  In fact, I felt worse than when I
> first entered and that it took me years to rebuild myself after
> leaving.
>
> His response was that my experience was unusual since the ministry
> has helped "thousands" of people.  [~50 ppl/yr x 16 yrs = ~800
> ppl???]  He admitted that their ministry is not perfect and
> personally apologized for any bad counseling he gave me.  He
assured
> me the ministry has changed in the seven years since I left and he
> has learned through training to be more empathetic.
>
> Our discussion lasted two hours and often became circular.  He
> repeatedly emphasized that his ministry was about God and that
> changing sexual orientation was not the primary focus - just a
side-
> effect.  I responded that desperate people who are struggling to
> come out and/or reconciling their faith are attracted to the
> ministry's message of change.  He said his ministry is very
careful
> to tell people that their ministry does not promise changing
sexual
> orientation and there is little he can do if participants choose
to
> maintain expectations of change.  I replied that the ministry,
> although technically accepts abstinence, marriage is usually seen
as
> success.  He admitted that marriage is celebrated, but that
> unmarried people need to learn to be content.  [Admittedly, this
> response stumped me.  However, I'm skeptical that very many ex-gay
> participants expect to not change their orientation and become
life-
> long celibates.]
>
> I shared my frustration about the ministry's confusing dual
approach
> of faith and psychology.  He admitted that, as a faith-based
group,
> he only accepts psychological counseling theories that do not
> conflict with the Bible.  I reminded him that previously he told
me
> that his ex-gay ministry is not intended to be a church.  If
> participants understand their ministry is not a church, should
they
> not expect some type of effective change through their program.
He
> said that "there is no program".  Like a church, he explained his
> ministry was faith-based and does not offer a final outcome.
>
> I explained that my main motivation for speaking-out about my
> experience is to offer an alternative perspective that I wished I
> had when I first participated in his ministry.  He seemed to
> somewhat understand this and admitted his ministry is not for
> everyone.  I was surprised when he said he refers gays who are
> undecided about rejecting their sexual orientation to gay-positive
> organizations.  He wished the referrals were mutual and that gay-
> positive organizations referred people with unwanted same-sex
> attractions to his ministry.  I reasoned that because his ministry
> is based on a specific theological perspective, gay-positive
> organizations are probably uncomfortable determining who is
> theologically compatible.  However, he was adamant that his
ministry
> welcomes anyone with unwanted same-sex attractions.  I reminded
him
> that earlier he explained that his ministry is based on a specific
> faith and not outcome-orientated.  He insisted that people of
other
> faiths are welcome although relatively few attend.  I asked him
why
> would people of other faiths come to his fundamentalist-leaning
> Christian ministry.  He again explained that his ministry was for
> everyone with unwanted same-sex attractions who seek God's plan.
I
> asked him if the ministry was about religious recruitment.  He
> affirmed people of other faiths are welcome to attend and credited
> the ministry for bringing others to the faith.
>
> As we wrapped-up our discussion, I explained that we each have a
> bias perspective.  As an ex-gay leader, he is more likely to hear
> from people who are grateful for the ministry.  Whereas as an "ex-
ex-
> gay", I'm more likely to hear of gays who have left the ministry.
> Although he maintained most people have been helped by the
ministry,
> he admitted some decided that it was simply easier to live gay
even
> though they believe it to be morally wrong.  I asked him why
doesn't
> the ministry track and follow-up with former participants.  He
again
> emphasized that their ministry is not outcome-based and that such
> surveys are typically used to prove success.  I asked, if not to
> claim success rates, then why not obtain feedback to improve the
> program.  He admitted that they do surveys at the end of the
group,
> but do not have resources to track and follow-up with former
> participants.  He also explained that it is an unfair expectation
> since churches are not expected track their former members.
>
> We discussed other topics as well, such as my current beliefs and
> his beliefs.  Overall, I appreciated the opportunity to provide my
> feedback and hope that we both listened to each other.
>
> Norm!

Kirk Talley has come out of semi-seclusion with a newsletter dated today. He
says he's resuming concerts and continuing "counseling." He never says the
words "sexual," "homosexual," "gay" or "ex-gay" in the newsletter, but he
thanks a list of people including those who happen to be his ex-gay
counselors.

I'm reluctant to reprint the newsletter in this yahoogroup or at XGW because
of this statement by Talley:

<<  I stopped doing newsletters for a while simply because of the responses
I and the restoration team was getting when something was mailed out.  It
became way too much to emotionally handle.  Someone on the Krew list was
forwarding everything sent out to every website, newsgroup, message board
that had anything to do with the issue.  Therefore I was getting hundreds of
emails daily from people that thought they knew exactly what I needed to
hear, many had never heard of me nor had they heard of my music.  Even
members of the team was getting harassing phone calls questioning their
credentials and their involvement in the team.  So finally I just decided
that enough was enough and I put a stop to any newsletters.  >>

This has me wondering, What is an appropriate and sensitive means of
reporting on Talley without causing him to be buried in mail from people
trying to steer him one way or another?  To what extent does coverage "out"
someone, and has Talley done anything antigay that would justify being outed
involuntarily on an ongoing basis?

Subscriptions to his newsletter are available here:
http://www.kirk-talley.com/newsletter.htm

--
Mike Airhart
Exgaywatch.com

I have noticed at least two commentaries that have mentioned Exodus
as an option for Gov. James McGreevey.  It seems Exodus has achieved
some recognition, but probably not in the way it wants.  Both
commentaries mentioned Exodus negatively and as not a viable
option.

In an August 15 commentary, Steve Lopez mentioned that McGreevey
doesn't have to be gay if he doesn't want to be and that Exodus
could help him out.  Lopez is also trying to find out if Exodus can
get him to stop thinking he is Hispanic.
(http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4926895.html)

Also, in a commentary by Leonard Pitts Jr. published in Saturday's
edition of The Oregonian, Pitts mentions Exodus as one of two
alternative options to the governor accepting his sexual
orientation.  (I have not been able to find a link for this
commentary on-line.)  Pitts mentions Exodus as a way for McGreevey
to cease being homosexual.  However, Pitts also recognizes that
homosexuality is not a disease and cannot be cured.  He also
mentions Gary Cooper and Michael Busse as Exodus founders who fell
in love with each other.  Pitts provided lying as the McGreevey
second alternative option.

Apparently, Exodus' ad campaign is paying-off -- sort of.

Norm!

Sadly, the "restoration team" that surrounds him keeps him separate,
isolated and protected from opportunities to be exposed to
Christians who could help him with the integration of his faith and
his sexuality.  As you may have already surmised, the restoration
team is rabidly antigay, as are most of those in his inner circle.
Not that they're necessarily "bad" people, but they feel they must
above all, and at all costs, protect him and defend against any
distortion or misrepresentation of what they believe to be the clear
teachings of Scripture.  To add insult to injury, those who buy his
tapes, attend his concerts and generally support his ministry all
come from the same place.  So he's really between a rock and hard
place.  Not a good place to be.  And it's not easy to do soul-
searching when you have to live in a fish bowl.  I really do feel
for the guy.

-Alex

--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "Ex-Gay Watch" <editor@e...>
wrote:
> Kirk Talley has come out of semi-seclusion with a newsletter dated
today. He
> says he's resuming concerts and continuing "counseling." He never
says the
> words "sexual," "homosexual," "gay" or "ex-gay" in the newsletter,
but he
> thanks a list of people including those who happen to be his ex-gay
> counselors.
>
> I'm reluctant to reprint the newsletter in this yahoogroup or at
XGW because
> of this statement by Talley:
>
> <<  I stopped doing newsletters for a while simply because of the
responses
> I and the restoration team was getting when something was mailed
out.  It
> became way too much to emotionally handle.  Someone on the Krew
list was
> forwarding everything sent out to every website, newsgroup,
message board
> that had anything to do with the issue.  Therefore I was getting
hundreds of
> emails daily from people that thought they knew exactly what I
needed to
> hear, many had never heard of me nor had they heard of my music.
Even
> members of the team was getting harassing phone calls questioning
their
> credentials and their involvement in the team.  So finally I just
decided
> that enough was enough and I put a stop to any newsletters.  >>
>
> This has me wondering, What is an appropriate and sensitive means
of
> reporting on Talley without causing him to be buried in mail from
people
> trying to steer him one way or another?  To what extent does
coverage "out"
> someone, and has Talley done anything antigay that would justify
being outed
> involuntarily on an ongoing basis?
>
> Subscriptions to his newsletter are available here:
> http://www.kirk-talley.com/newsletter.htm
>
> --
> Mike Airhart
> Exgaywatch.com

Hi Alex!

Actually, I met the current leader of the "ex-gay" group I formerly
participated in.

I was surprised that he felt that most people were helped by the
ministry.  When I first joined the ex-gay group, it's founder even
acknowledged about half of the program participants drop-out.  So
there seems to be some type of rationalization involved in his
assessment.

I will admit, though, that there are not very many outspoken "ex-ex-
gays".  There are probably several reasons for this.  First, most of
the former ex-gay participants I know are embarrassed to admit they
went through a program to change (including myself).  There is also
may be feelings of guilt related to changing one's Christian beliefs
and/or "failing" the ex-gay program.  (Not to mention guilt related
to someone leaving their straight marriage)  I also think there is a
respect to allow "ex-gay" believers to live in peace.

Norm!

--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, nyguy_1225 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> Hey Norm: It sounds you like you had opportunity to by and large
> have a mutually respectful exchange with the former leader of
> your "ex-gay" group.  I must say, however, what I found most
> inconceivable is that he thought it was unusual for a former
> participant to speak-out against the ministry.  Truly, if the "ex-
> gay" movement has had to battle anything over its quarter-century-
> plus history it's the multitude of defections and the continually
> growing number former "ex-gay" participants and former "ex-gay"
> leaders who now look at these ministries as ineffective and not
> biblically-sound at one end of the spectrum and down right
dangerous
> and destructive at the other.  It would seem that one would have
to
> be living under a rock, or be in severe denial, to not be aware
that
> this has been and continues to be one of the biggest problems for
> the movement.
>
> -Alex

er, I wonder if that juice he peddles turned him gay.
/s

I'm sorry. I know he is going through a tough time and I really
don't know anything about the guy.  But have you seen his cheesy
Tahitian Noni Juice product tie-in?  (It's the juice with the half-
naked guy on the bottle.)  Apparently, it's a mircle fruit juice
that "has been used world-wide, to: Sooth stomach ulcers, help to
alleviate discomfort from PMS, menstrual cramps, chronic fatigue
syndrome, AIDS, skin disorders, senility, indigestion, asthma,
depression, diabetes, enlarged prostate, strokes, etc."
(http://www.revitalizeyourlife.com/benefit.html)

Maybe he can add homosexuality to the list once he's "cured".

:-) Norm!

<< There also may be feelings of guilt related to changing one's
Christian beliefs and/or "failing" the ex-gay program.>>

That would be quite sad.  For me the crux of the matter is not that
I changed my Christian beliefs; my Christian beliefs are every bit
as in tact as they have ever been -- perhaps stronger than ever.
Rather, I came to realize that the "ex-gay" position or theology
that they claim is so "Christian" was in reality not biblically-
sound at all.  The Christian walk is about learning theology as we
go.  And when we discover something that we were taught is not
really true -- a phenomenon that every Christian must deal with at
some point in his or her walk -- we must be willing to let it go!

-Alex


--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "Norm" <nojam75@y...> wrote:
> Hi Alex!
>
> Actually, I met the current leader of the "ex-gay" group I
formerly
> participated in.
>
> I was surprised that he felt that most people were helped by the
> ministry.  When I first joined the ex-gay group, it's founder even
> acknowledged about half of the program participants drop-out.  So
> there seems to be some type of rationalization involved in his
> assessment.
>
> I will admit, though, that there are not very many outspoken "ex-
ex-
> gays".  There are probably several reasons for this.  First, most
of
> the former ex-gay participants I know are embarrassed to admit
they
> went through a program to change (including myself).  There is
also
> may be feelings of guilt related to changing one's Christian
beliefs
> and/or "failing" the ex-gay program.  (Not to mention guilt
related
> to someone leaving their straight marriage)  I also think there is
a
> respect to allow "ex-gay" believers to live in peace.
>
> Norm!
>
> --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, nyguy_1225 <no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
> > Hey Norm: It sounds you like you had opportunity to by and large
> > have a mutually respectful exchange with the former leader of
> > your "ex-gay" group.  I must say, however, what I found most
> > inconceivable is that he thought it was unusual for a former
> > participant to speak-out against the ministry.  Truly, if
the "ex-
> > gay" movement has had to battle anything over its quarter-
century-
> > plus history it's the multitude of defections and the
continually
> > growing number former "ex-gay" participants and former "ex-gay"
> > leaders who now look at these ministries as ineffective and not
> > biblically-sound at one end of the spectrum and down right
> dangerous
> > and destructive at the other.  It would seem that one would have
> to
> > be living under a rock, or be in severe denial, to not be aware
> that
> > this has been and continues to be one of the biggest problems
for
> > the movement.
> >
> > -Alex

To his credit, he has never claimed to be "cured of homosexuality"
yet -- though I dare say I'm sure nothing would make
his "restoration team" happier than to shout that from the
mountaintops.  With regard to the Noni Juice: Noni Juice happens to
be a very popular item in the natural foods and natural products
circuit these days.  Just like St John's Wort was all the rage a
couple of years ago, and vitamin E before that, Noni Juice is
enjoying its time in the sun now.  Everybody and their Aunt Tillie
is buying, selling and/or using the stuff and claiming it's good for
whatever ails you.

Unlike most of us who did not lose our jobs or income while we were
trying to process the matter of our sexuality, his income stopped
cold -- no concerts, no CDs, no sales, no income.  It's kind of the
like the McGreevey situation in that the guy now has every (in this
case, Christian) eye on him.  It's not a very pleasant situation to
be in when you're trying to come to terms with your homosexuality.
Remember what McGreevey said?  "Throughout my life, I have grappled
with my own identity, who I am. As a young child, I often felt
ambivalent about myself, in fact, confused.  By virtue of my
traditions, and my community, I worked hard to ensure that I was
accepted as part of the traditional family of America."  How much
more difficult this must be for someone like Tally, who is the apple
of middle America's Christian eye?

-Alex

--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "Norm" <nojam75@y...> wrote:
> er, I wonder if that juice he peddles turned him gay.
> /s
>
> I'm sorry. I know he is going through a tough time and I really
> don't know anything about the guy.  But have you seen his cheesy
> Tahitian Noni Juice product tie-in?  (It's the juice with the half-
> naked guy on the bottle.)  Apparently, it's a mircle fruit juice
> that "has been used world-wide, to: Sooth stomach ulcers, help to
> alleviate discomfort from PMS, menstrual cramps, chronic fatigue
> syndrome, AIDS, skin disorders, senility, indigestion, asthma,
> depression, diabetes, enlarged prostate, strokes, etc."
> (http://www.revitalizeyourlife.com/benefit.html)
>
> Maybe he can add homosexuality to the list once he's "cured".
>
> :-) Norm!

I find it fascinating that the matter of gay people and their
partnerships is so at the forefront of the deciding issues for this
coming election.  No matter who you intend to vote for, this clearly
illustrates just how far we've come!  The following is from today's
New York Times...

-Alex


CHENEY'S GAY MARRIAGE COMMENTS DRAW FIRE

Tue Aug 24, 7:12 PM ET
By TODD DVORAK, Associated Press Writer

DAVENPORT, Iowa - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites),
whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, drew criticism from both
proponents and foes of gay marriage Tuesday after he distanced
himself from President Bush (news - web sites)'s call for a
constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke
supportively about gay relationships, saying "freedom means freedom
for everyone," when asked about his stand on gay marriage.

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is
very familiar with," Cheney told an audience that included his
daughter. "With the respect to the question of relationships, my
general view is freedom means freedom for everyone ... People ought
to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

"The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind
of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by
government? Historically, that's been a relationship that has been
handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental
decision of what constitutes a marriage," he said.

Bush backs a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, a
move Cheney says was prompted by various judicial rulings, including
the action in Massachusetts that made gay marriage legal.

"I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were
beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved,"
Cheney said. "The courts were making the judgment for the entire
country."

Addressing Bush's position on the amendment, Cheney said, "at this
point, save my own preference, as I have stated, but the president
makes policy for the administration. He's made it clear that he
does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue."

Those comments drew criticism from the conservative Family Research
Council, with President Tony Perkins saying, "I find it hard to
believe the vice president would stray from the administration's
position on defense policy or tax policy. For many pro-family
voters, protecting traditional marriage ranks ahead of the economy
and job creation as a campaign issue."

Perkins added that if Cheney sees a problem with activist
judges, "then how can he not endorse the same solution the president
and his pro-family allies have proposed? We urge Vice President
Cheney to support President Bush and a constitutional amendment on
marriage."

Steven Fisher, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and
lesbian advocacy group, said Cheney's remarks show a stark
difference with Bush's efforts "to put discrimination in the
Constitution."

President Bush is feeling the heat. The administration has been
using gay Americans to drive a wedge into the electorate. There are
millions of American families who have gay family members and
friends, who are offended by the president's use of discrimination,"
Fisher said.

Last month, Lynne Cheney said states should have the final say over
the legal status of personal relationships, a comment that came just
days before the Senate failed to back the ban.

Cheney said the amendment did not have the votes to pass, but he
also said the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which President
Clinton (news - web sites) signed into law in 1996, may be enough.

"Most states have addressed this and there is on the books the
federal statute, the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, and to
date, it has not been successfully challenged in the courts and may
be sufficient to resolve the issue,"
the vice president said.

The Cheneys have two daughters, both of whom are working on the
campaign. Mary Cheney is director of vice presidential operations
for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. She held a public role as
her father's assistant in the 2000 campaign and helped the GOP
recruit gay voters during the
2002 midterm elections.

During the 2000 campaign, vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney
took the position that states should decide legal issues about
personal relationships and that people should be free to enter
relationships of their choosing.

Sens. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts and John
Edwards (news - web sites) of North Carolina, oppose the amendment.
The Democratic candidates also oppose gay marriage, but defend a gay
couple's rights to the same legal protections as those conferred in
marriage.

-Alex

The religious right's outcry against Dick Cheney is loud and clear:
get back in-line!  When asked about his thoughts on gay marriage, he
side-stepped the issue and instead deferred to state's rights.
Apparently, the reality of the anti-gay marriage amendment may hit
too close to home for Cheney.

Self-proclaimed "family values" advocates don't know how to respond
to a father defending his daughter's right to have the freedom to
pursue her own relationships.  For years, conservatives claimed that
they do not hate gays and in fact respect GLBTs' right to live
freely.  The vice president actually proclaimed this freedom in
light of the gay marriage debate.  The religious right reactionary
rage seems to indicate that maybe they are not so respectful.

The religious right is worried that his comments were calculated by
the Bush/Cheney campaign as a swing to the left(?!?).  I would call
it an unintentional alteration from hatred to reluctant respect.  I
doubt Cheney's wishy-washy comments about gay marriage have inspired
anyone.

I never thought I would find myself defending Cheney, but below is
the excerpt of his comments from the V.P.'s website.  Unfortunately,
either he stopped speaking at "...my own pre" or the transcript was
cut-off.

Norm!

"Q We have a battle here on this land, as well. And I would like to
know, sir, from your heart -- I don't want to know what your
advisors say, or even what your top advisor thinks -- but I need to
know what do you think about homosexual marriages.

"THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the question has come up obviously in the
past with respect to the question of gay marriage. Lynne and I have
a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar
with. We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of
them. They're both fine young women. They do a superb job, frankly,
of supporting us. And we are blessed with both our daughters.

"With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is
that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to
free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they
want to. The question that comes up with respect to the issue of
marriage is what kind of official sanction, or approval is going to
be granted by government, if you will, to particular relationships.
Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by
the states. The states have made that basic fundamental decision in
terms of defining what constitutes a marriage. I made clear four
years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had
with Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a
matter for the states to decide, that that's how it ought to best be
handled.

"The President has, as result of the decisions that have been made
in Massachusetts this year by judges, felt that he wanted to support
the constitutional amendment to define -- at the federal level to
define what constitutes marriage, that I think his perception was
that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change -- without
allowing the people to be involved, without their being part of the
political process -- that the courts, in that particular case, the
state court in Massachusetts, were making the judgment or the
decision for the entire country. And he disagreed with that. So
where we're at, at this point is he has come out in support of a
federal constitutional amendment. And I don't think -- well, so far
it hasn't had the votes to pass. Most states have addressed this.
There is on the books the federal statute Defense of Marriage Act
passed in 1996. And to date it has not been successfully challenged
in the courts, and that may be sufficient to resolve the issue. But
at this point, say, my own pre

"More questions, yes."

--From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040824-
4.html

It just goes to show that when the issue affects someone one loves,
one thinks with not just one's mind but with one's heart too. That
way of thinking involves the whole person and is always the wisest.

-Alex


--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "Norm" <nojam75@y...> wrote:
> The religious right's outcry against Dick Cheney is loud and
clear:
> get back in-line!  When asked about his thoughts on gay marriage,
he
> side-stepped the issue and instead deferred to state's rights.
> Apparently, the reality of the anti-gay marriage amendment may hit
> too close to home for Cheney.
>
> Self-proclaimed "family values" advocates don't know how to
respond
> to a father defending his daughter's right to have the freedom to
> pursue her own relationships.  For years, conservatives claimed
that
> they do not hate gays and in fact respect GLBTs' right to live
> freely.  The vice president actually proclaimed this freedom in
> light of the gay marriage debate.  The religious right reactionary
> rage seems to indicate that maybe they are not so respectful.
>
> The religious right is worried that his comments were calculated
by
> the Bush/Cheney campaign as a swing to the left(?!?).  I would
call
> it an unintentional alteration from hatred to reluctant respect.
I
> doubt Cheney's wishy-washy comments about gay marriage have
inspired
> anyone.
>
> I never thought I would find myself defending Cheney, but below is
> the excerpt of his comments from the V.P.'s website.
Unfortunately,
> either he stopped speaking at "...my own pre" or the transcript
was
> cut-off.
>
> Norm!
>
> "Q We have a battle here on this land, as well. And I would like
to
> know, sir, from your heart -- I don't want to know what your
> advisors say, or even what your top advisor thinks -- but I need
to
> know what do you think about homosexual marriages.
>
> "THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the question has come up obviously in
the
> past with respect to the question of gay marriage. Lynne and I
have
> a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar
> with. We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of
> them. They're both fine young women. They do a superb job,
frankly,
> of supporting us. And we are blessed with both our daughters.
>
> "With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is
> that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able
to
> free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship
they
> want to. The question that comes up with respect to the issue of
> marriage is what kind of official sanction, or approval is going
to
> be granted by government, if you will, to particular
relationships.
> Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by
> the states. The states have made that basic fundamental decision
in
> terms of defining what constitutes a marriage. I made clear four
> years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had
> with Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a
> matter for the states to decide, that that's how it ought to best
be
> handled.
>
> "The President has, as result of the decisions that have been made
> in Massachusetts this year by judges, felt that he wanted to
support
> the constitutional amendment to define -- at the federal level to
> define what constitutes marriage, that I think his perception was
> that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change -- without
> allowing the people to be involved, without their being part of
the
> political process -- that the courts, in that particular case, the
> state court in Massachusetts, were making the judgment or the
> decision for the entire country. And he disagreed with that. So
> where we're at, at this point is he has come out in support of a
> federal constitutional amendment. And I don't think -- well, so
far
> it hasn't had the votes to pass. Most states have addressed this.
> There is on the books the federal statute Defense of Marriage Act
> passed in 1996. And to date it has not been successfully
challenged
> in the courts, and that may be sufficient to resolve the issue.
But
> at this point, say, my own pre
>
> "More questions, yes."
>
> --From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040824-
> 4.html

Interesting article.  Question is:  Is the ex-gay movement goal
actually translates to getting people back into the closet and
enhancing the dissociation defence mechanism?

Alan

http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/spew4th.pl?
ascribeid=20040827.094013&time=10%2018%20PDT&year=2004&public=1

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

Fri Aug 27 10:18:12 2004 Pacific Time

       The Psychology of the Closet: Governor McGreevey's New
Clothes -- by Jack Drescher, M.D.
        NEW YORK, Aug. 27 (AScribe Newswire) -- Following is an
editorial by Jack Drescher, M.D., Training and Supervising Analyst
at the William Alanson White Institute in New York. A gender and
sexuality expert, he serves as Chairman of the Committee on Gay,
Lesbian, and Bisexual Concerns of the American Psychiatric
Association. He is the author of Psychoanalytic Therapy and the Gay
Man (1998).

        ---

        When New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey declared "I am a gay
American," a shock wave rippled across the nation. After all, a 47-
year-old man married to his second wife, with a child from each
marriage, is not most people's idea of being gay.

        By "coming out of the closet," which in gay culture means
admitting his homosexuality to himself and disclosing it to others,
McGreevey was forever changing his public persona and his own self-
image as well. While some may regard the Governor's secrecy about
his homosexuality as a simple matter of deception, being "in the
closet" is psychologically complex.

        Many gay men and lesbians spend long periods of their lives
unable to acknowledge their homosexuality, either to themselves or
to others. Most children who grow up to be gay routinely pretend to
be heterosexual. Why? Beginning in childhood and throughout
adolescence, even suspicion of being gay can lead to teasing,
ridicule, family censure and even violence. Consequently, many young
gay people come to regard their homosexuality as an unpleasant fact
they would rather not know about themselves, let alone admit to
others. The psychological means by which they avoid thinking about
their sexual orientation is called dissociation.

        Dissociation, of course, is not limited to gay men and
lesbians. Most people are capable of pushing unwanted knowledge
about themselves out of mind. Given some of the consequences of
being openly gay, however -- estrangement from family, loss of
employment, loss of home, loss of child custody, loss of
opportunity, loss of status and even blackmail -- dissociation may
seem a viable option for survival. Indeed, some closeted gay people
marry and, on the surface at least, live their lives as if they were
typical heterosexuals. While some do not act on their homosexual
feelings, others enter into secret sexual lives that may involve one-
time trysts, sporadic affairs, or even, in extreme cases, living
full-fledged second lives. In fact, through dissociation, people can
live double lives for months or years and never admit they're doing
so, not even to themselves.

        Psychological efforts to solve one problem, however,
inevitably create others. It is painful to continuously hide
significant aspects of the self, or to try to keep different aspects
of the self separate from one another. Constant hiding takes its
toll, particularly since the mental effort needed to maintain a
double life often leads to errors in judgment that can further add
to one's stress. Maintaining a heterosexual identity while engaging
in secret homosexual activity may lead a closeted individual into a
life characterized by lies and subterfuge.

        Those who find this psychological split untenable may "come
out of the closet" as either gay or lesbian. Coming out involves
articulating the feelings and ideas that previously had no
acceptable form of open expression. But calling oneself "gay"
or "lesbian" involves more than simply revealing oneself to others;
it is also an effort to reach some measure of self-acceptance by
acknowledging previously unacceptable homosexual feelings or desires
as part of one's self.

        Coming out is fraught with danger because of the social
stigma attached to homosexuality and anti-homosexual attitudes in
the culture. For example, under the federal government's
current "don't ask, don't tell" policy, coming out while in military
service can lead to discharge. By the same token, gay people are
often denied child custody. Given such difficulties, it seems a
wonder that anyone comes out at all.

        Why do gay people come out? Those who come out of their own
accord describe the experience positively, as "a switch being turned
on," "coming home" or "discovering who I really am." For others,
whose admission of homosexuality is precipitated by an act of
malice, it can be devastating. In cases of "outing," a hidden
homosexual identity is exposed by those seeking revenge, political
advantage or financial gain.

        Based on news reports of Governor McGreevey's situation, the
threat of being outed in a sexual harassment lawsuit led to his
decision to come on his own. Whether he has made the best choice for
himself, his family and his constituents is still an open question.
In any case, his coming out has not ended with the public revelation
that he is gay. Still ahead lies the challenging psychological task
of integrating his previously dissociated homosexual identity into a
new public persona.

        NOTE TO EDITORS: This op-ed is available for free and
immediate use. If used please contact Holly Peppe at
white@... or 917-494-9694.

        ---

        The William Alanson White Institute is an internationally
renowned, nonprofit psychoanalytic and psychotherapy center that
provides clinical services, advanced professional training, and
outreach programs to New York City and surrounding communities. For
more information, see www.wawhite.org.

alankhoo92002: "Question is:  Is the ex-gay movement goal actually
translates to getting people back into the closet and enhancing the
dissociation defence mechanism?"

I relate the article's definition of disassociation,
the "psychological means by which they avoid thinking about their
sexual orientation", to my 'ex-gay' experience.   There are two ways
ex-gay programs can encourage disassociation.  First, they
negatively stigmatize anything related to homosexuality or anything
related to sex outside of hetero-marriage.  I would even consider
this literal homoPHOBIA -- fear or negative reaction to anything
remotely gay-orientated.

The second way, is by creating two identities "old self" / "new
self".  Since most 'ex-gay' groups are associated with Christianity,
the born-again analogy is used in the ex-gay program.  So, when
an 'ex-gay' experiences same-sex attractions, its not because those
attractions are innate to themselves.  Rather, SSA are just remnants
of their old sinful selves and old patterns.

Of course, ex-gay promoters would probably argue that they are not
encouraging disassociation because honest accountability is usually
a major part of ex-gay programs.  Technically, 'ex-gay' participants
who openly confess their 'struggle' are not in the closet.  However,
I doubt few 'ex-gay's ever change to the point that they no longer
experience SSA.  Nor do I think it would be ideal if 'ex-gay'
participants remained in accountability groups for the reminder of
their lives -- like some AA'ers.  Rather, there is an unspoken
pressure for 'ex-gay' participants to eventually 'graduate' and move-
on which may involve disassociating SSA.

Thank you for forwarding the article.  I had not made the
disassociation connection with ex-gay treatment before.

Norm!

--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "alankhoo92002"
<alankhoo92002@y...> wrote:
> Interesting article.  Question is:  Is the ex-gay movement goal
> actually translates to getting people back into the closet and
> enhancing the dissociation defence mechanism?
>
> Alan
>
> http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/spew4th.pl?
> ascribeid=20040827.094013&time=10%2018%20PDT&year=2004&public=1
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------
>
> Fri Aug 27 10:18:12 2004 Pacific Time
>
>       The Psychology of the Closet: Governor McGreevey's New
> Clothes -- by Jack Drescher, M.D.
>        NEW YORK, Aug. 27 (AScribe Newswire) -- Following is an
> editorial by Jack Drescher, M.D., Training and Supervising Analyst
> at the William Alanson White Institute in New York. A gender and
> sexuality expert, he serves as Chairman of the Committee on Gay,
> Lesbian, and Bisexual Concerns of the American Psychiatric
> Association. He is the author of Psychoanalytic Therapy and the
Gay
> Man (1998).
>
>        ---
>
>        When New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey declared "I am a gay
> American," a shock wave rippled across the nation. After all, a 47-
> year-old man married to his second wife, with a child from each
> marriage, is not most people's idea of being gay.
>
>        By "coming out of the closet," which in gay culture means
> admitting his homosexuality to himself and disclosing it to
others,
> McGreevey was forever changing his public persona and his own self-
> image as well. While some may regard the Governor's secrecy about
> his homosexuality as a simple matter of deception, being "in the
> closet" is psychologically complex.
>
>        Many gay men and lesbians spend long periods of their lives
> unable to acknowledge their homosexuality, either to themselves or
> to others. Most children who grow up to be gay routinely pretend
to
> be heterosexual. Why? Beginning in childhood and throughout
> adolescence, even suspicion of being gay can lead to teasing,
> ridicule, family censure and even violence. Consequently, many
young
> gay people come to regard their homosexuality as an unpleasant
fact
> they would rather not know about themselves, let alone admit to
> others. The psychological means by which they avoid thinking about
> their sexual orientation is called dissociation.
>
>        Dissociation, of course, is not limited to gay men and
> lesbians. Most people are capable of pushing unwanted knowledge
> about themselves out of mind. Given some of the consequences of
> being openly gay, however -- estrangement from family, loss of
> employment, loss of home, loss of child custody, loss of
> opportunity, loss of status and even blackmail -- dissociation may
> seem a viable option for survival. Indeed, some closeted gay
people
> marry and, on the surface at least, live their lives as if they
were
> typical heterosexuals. While some do not act on their homosexual
> feelings, others enter into secret sexual lives that may involve
one-
> time trysts, sporadic affairs, or even, in extreme cases, living
> full-fledged second lives. In fact, through dissociation, people
can
> live double lives for months or years and never admit they're
doing
> so, not even to themselves.
>
>        Psychological efforts to solve one problem, however,
> inevitably create others. It is painful to continuously hide
> significant aspects of the self, or to try to keep different
aspects
> of the self separate from one another. Constant hiding takes its
> toll, particularly since the mental effort needed to maintain a
> double life often leads to errors in judgment that can further add
> to one's stress. Maintaining a heterosexual identity while
engaging
> in secret homosexual activity may lead a closeted individual into
a
> life characterized by lies and subterfuge.
>
>        Those who find this psychological split untenable may "come
> out of the closet" as either gay or lesbian. Coming out involves
> articulating the feelings and ideas that previously had no
> acceptable form of open expression. But calling oneself "gay"
> or "lesbian" involves more than simply revealing oneself to
others;
> it is also an effort to reach some measure of self-acceptance by
> acknowledging previously unacceptable homosexual feelings or
desires
> as part of one's self.
>
>        Coming out is fraught with danger because of the social
> stigma attached to homosexuality and anti-homosexual attitudes in
> the culture. For example, under the federal government's
> current "don't ask, don't tell" policy, coming out while in
military
> service can lead to discharge. By the same token, gay people are
> often denied child custody. Given such difficulties, it seems a
> wonder that anyone comes out at all.
>
>        Why do gay people come out? Those who come out of their own
> accord describe the experience positively, as "a switch being
turned
> on," "coming home" or "discovering who I really am." For others,
> whose admission of homosexuality is precipitated by an act of
> malice, it can be devastating. In cases of "outing," a hidden
> homosexual identity is exposed by those seeking revenge, political
> advantage or financial gain.
>
>        Based on news reports of Governor McGreevey's situation,
the
> threat of being outed in a sexual harassment lawsuit led to his
> decision to come on his own. Whether he has made the best choice
for
> himself, his family and his constituents is still an open
question.
> In any case, his coming out has not ended with the public
revelation
> that he is gay. Still ahead lies the challenging psychological
task
> of integrating his previously dissociated homosexual identity into
a
> new public persona.
>
>        NOTE TO EDITORS: This op-ed is available for free and
> immediate use. If used please contact Holly Peppe at
> white@p... or 917-494-9694.
>
>        ---
>
>        The William Alanson White Institute is an internationally
> renowned, nonprofit psychoanalytic and psychotherapy center that
> provides clinical services, advanced professional training, and
> outreach programs to New York City and surrounding communities.
For
> more information, see www.wawhite.org.

Great editorial!  He brought up some very insightful points and it
was quite well-written to boot.  Thanks for sharing it.  I'm afraid
the goal of the ex-gay movement sadly does translate into getting
people back into the closet and enhancing the dissociation defense
mechanism.  But that's because ex-gay doctrine is founded on the
presumption that homosexuality in any way, shape or form is
incompatible with Christianity.  And therefore, they believe that
gay people need to be "liberated" from their sexual orientation as
they would if they were, for example, alcoholics.

I've always found it laughable that supporters of "ex-gay" doctrine
often compare sexuality with a chemical addiction.  Such comparisons
and analogies are as weak, if not weaker, than their biblical
exegesis.  Ask an alcoholic how natural it was to drink in the first
place.  Was he an alcoholic before he took a drink?  Did he sit
around and say, "I knew I was different.  When I was 8-years old, I
would have feelings of affection for that vodka bottle!"  Sexuality
and a chemical addiction are not related in any way.

Alcoholism is a psychological addiction. It's impossible to have a
fulfilling relationship with a bottle of whiskey.  If gay
relationships were like that, none would work.  In fact, they work
just as often as heterosexual relationships do (with the divorce
rate at 50%, both in and outside of the Church).  So, either
heterosexuality is like alcoholism too, or the analogy is false.
Moreover, alcoholism has a pathology and prognoses. Homosexuality
has none.  Alcoholism is an acquired behavior. People enter into it
to escape something unbearable, and then it becomes habitual. People
don't enter into homosexual emotions. They either have them or they
don't.  Comparing homosexuality to an addiction is the central
medical argument used by ex-gay ministries.  But as you can see, it
fails completely.

With regard to the ex-gay claim that homosexuality in any form is
incompatible with Christianity, I'm also amazed how many are quick
use the Sodom and Gomorrah account (Genesis 19) to support their
theology.  Those of us who have been around the church for some time
are usually well aware of the relevant biblical passages that deal
with same-sex sexual relationships.

Of those few passages, I generally exclude from this list Genesis
19, the account of Sodom and Gomorrah because even the most right-
wing of interpreters (who think this story is about homosexuality)
can only suggest that the crime which provoked God's judgment was
that of gang rape. I have no desire to defend rape of any kind, but
to suggest that all expressions of erotic intimacy between same-sex
couples are tantamount to rape would be an equally grievous assault
on the truth. In fact, the prophet Ezekiel explains the reason for
God's wrath against Sodom and Gomorrah:

`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters
were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor
and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.
Therefore I did away with them as you have seen' [Ezekiel 16:49-
50].

Here we have the Bible interpreting the Bible.  You can't get better
exegesis than that!!!

Once again, thanks for sharing the insightful article.

-Alex


--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "alankhoo92002"
<alankhoo92002@y...> wrote:
> Interesting article.  Question is:  Is the ex-gay movement goal
> actually translates to getting people back into the closet and
> enhancing the dissociation defence mechanism?
>
> Alan
>
> http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/spew4th.pl?
> ascribeid=20040827.094013&time=10%2018%20PDT&year=2004&public=1
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------
>
> Fri Aug 27 10:18:12 2004 Pacific Time
>
>       The Psychology of the Closet: Governor McGreevey's New
> Clothes -- by Jack Drescher, M.D.
>        NEW YORK, Aug. 27 (AScribe Newswire) -- Following is an
> editorial by Jack Drescher, M.D., Training and Supervising Analyst
> at the William Alanson White Institute in New York. A gender and
> sexuality expert, he serves as Chairman of the Committee on Gay,
> Lesbian, and Bisexual Concerns of the American Psychiatric
> Association. He is the author of Psychoanalytic Therapy and the
Gay
> Man (1998).
>
>        ---
>
>        When New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey declared "I am a gay
> American," a shock wave rippled across the nation. After all, a 47-
> year-old man married to his second wife, with a child from each
> marriage, is not most people's idea of being gay.
>
>        By "coming out of the closet," which in gay culture means
> admitting his homosexuality to himself and disclosing it to
others,
> McGreevey was forever changing his public persona and his own self-
> image as well. While some may regard the Governor's secrecy about
> his homosexuality as a simple matter of deception, being "in the
> closet" is psychologically complex.
>
>        Many gay men and lesbians spend long periods of their lives
> unable to acknowledge their homosexuality, either to themselves or
> to others. Most children who grow up to be gay routinely pretend
to
> be heterosexual. Why? Beginning in childhood and throughout
> adolescence, even suspicion of being gay can lead to teasing,
> ridicule, family censure and even violence. Consequently, many
young
> gay people come to regard their homosexuality as an unpleasant
fact
> they would rather not know about themselves, let alone admit to
> others. The psychological means by which they avoid thinking about
> their sexual orientation is called dissociation.
>
>        Dissociation, of course, is not limited to gay men and
> lesbians. Most people are capable of pushing unwanted knowledge
> about themselves out of mind. Given some of the consequences of
> being openly gay, however -- estrangement from family, loss of
> employment, loss of home, loss of child custody, loss of
> opportunity, loss of status and even blackmail -- dissociation may
> seem a viable option for survival. Indeed, some closeted gay
people
> marry and, on the surface at least, live their lives as if they
were
> typical heterosexuals. While some do not act on their homosexual
> feelings, others enter into secret sexual lives that may involve
one-
> time trysts, sporadic affairs, or even, in extreme cases, living
> full-fledged second lives. In fact, through dissociation, people
can
> live double lives for months or years and never admit they're
doing
> so, not even to themselves.
>
>        Psychological efforts to solve one problem, however,
> inevitably create others. It is painful to continuously hide
> significant aspects of the self, or to try to keep different
aspects
> of the self separate from one another. Constant hiding takes its
> toll, particularly since the mental effort needed to maintain a
> double life often leads to errors in judgment that can further add
> to one's stress. Maintaining a heterosexual identity while
engaging
> in secret homosexual activity may lead a closeted individual into
a
> life characterized by lies and subterfuge.
>
>        Those who find this psychological split untenable may "come
> out of the closet" as either gay or lesbian. Coming out involves
> articulating the feelings and ideas that previously had no
> acceptable form of open expression. But calling oneself "gay"
> or "lesbian" involves more than simply revealing oneself to
others;
> it is also an effort to reach some measure of self-acceptance by
> acknowledging previously unacceptable homosexual feelings or
desires
> as part of one's self.
>
>        Coming out is fraught with danger because of the social
> stigma attached to homosexuality and anti-homosexual attitudes in
> the culture. For example, under the federal government's
> current "don't ask, don't tell" policy, coming out while in
military
> service can lead to discharge. By the same token, gay people are
> often denied child custody. Given such difficulties, it seems a
> wonder that anyone comes out at all.
>
>        Why do gay people come out? Those who come out of their own
> accord describe the experience positively, as "a switch being
turned
> on," "coming home" or "discovering who I really am." For others,
> whose admission of homosexuality is precipitated by an act of
> malice, it can be devastating. In cases of "outing," a hidden
> homosexual identity is exposed by those seeking revenge, political
> advantage or financial gain.
>
>        Based on news reports of Governor McGreevey's situation,
the
> threat of being outed in a sexual harassment lawsuit led to his
> decision to come on his own. Whether he has made the best choice
for
> himself, his family and his constituents is still an open
question.
> In any case, his coming out has not ended with the public
revelation
> that he is gay. Still ahead lies the challenging psychological
task
> of integrating his previously dissociated homosexual identity into
a
> new public persona.
>
>        NOTE TO EDITORS: This op-ed is available for free and
> immediate use. If used please contact Holly Peppe at
> white@p... or 917-494-9694.
>
>        ---
>
>        The William Alanson White Institute is an internationally
> renowned, nonprofit psychoanalytic and psychotherapy center that
> provides clinical services, advanced professional training, and
> outreach programs to New York City and surrounding communities.
For
> more information, see www.wawhite.org.

As you probably have heard by now, another hetero-married politician
has announced his political retirement after allegations of not
being so heterosexual.  Ultra-conservative, anti-gay, Republican US
Representative Ed Schrock from Virgina has not denied leaving
explicit messages on a gay sex phone service.  [The transcript of
the message that is supposedly him is sad, but hilarious:
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=275]

Of course, there is still time for Rep. Schrock to publically
address these allegations.  But so far, this [alleged] gay sex
political scandal is much different from the "I'm a Gay American"
announcement NJ Gov. McGreevey made.  Although I don't think it has
been any easier for Gov. McGreevey, I wonder if Rep. Schrock will
feel more pressure to seek treatment for his "condition".  It should
be interesting if the religious right will react in the same way
they reacted to Gov. McGreevey's proud proclamation now that one
of "their own" has been caught on the "other team".

Norm!

Wow!!!  You can color me crazy but I think what's been going on
these days is really getting big.  First McGreevey, and now
Schrock.  Then we have gay marriage as one of the key issues in the
coming election.  And in the midst of this, some of evangelical
Christianity's more revered and respected scholars and theologians
continue to come forward to say the Church has done some serious
injustices with our traditional interpretations of those few
passages that have been used to support antigay theology -- and at
the same time, just about every mainline Christian denomination is
rethinking and debating the gay issue to the point where some have
proposed splits in their denominations.   Although the schisms are
far from imminent or sure, and I, for one, would hate to see the
splits occur, the proposals are an indication of just how far
thinking has come and where its moving on the gay issue.

But as Solomon said, there's nothing new under the sun; we've seen
this in church history many times before.  For example, after 18
centuries of Christian history that found traditional biblical
support for slavery, a man who knew what is was to have his
heart "strangely warmed" by unheard-of interpretations of Scripture,
fought with his dying strength for a reinterpretation of Scripture
in obedience to the love commandment.  The very last letter that
John Wesley ever wrote was to urge William Wilberforce to, "Go in
the name of God and in the power of his might till even American
slavery, the vilest that ever saw the sun, shall vanish before it."
And over a half century later, American Methodists split their
church, north and south, because many Methodists were still using
Bible verses to defend a system of slavery that Wesley had
called "that execrable villainy which is the scandal of religion."
I think we have a parallel situation today in the use of the verses
some still utilize to continue the oppression to gay people.

-Alex


--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "Norm" <nojam75@y...> wrote:
> As you probably have heard by now, another hetero-married
politician
> has announced his political retirement after allegations of not
> being so heterosexual.  Ultra-conservative, anti-gay, Republican
US
> Representative Ed Schrock from Virgina has not denied leaving
> explicit messages on a gay sex phone service.  [The transcript of
> the message that is supposedly him is sad, but hilarious:
> http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=275]
>
> Of course, there is still time for Rep. Schrock to publically
> address these allegations.  But so far, this [alleged] gay sex
> political scandal is much different from the "I'm a Gay American"
> announcement NJ Gov. McGreevey made.  Although I don't think it
has
> been any easier for Gov. McGreevey, I wonder if Rep. Schrock will
> feel more pressure to seek treatment for his "condition".  It
should
> be interesting if the religious right will react in the same way
> they reacted to Gov. McGreevey's proud proclamation now that one
> of "their own" has been caught on the "other team".
>
> Norm!

You're right, Alex, gay politics is at the forefront of American
politics.

According to the Chicago Tribune, on Monday night the Illinois
Republican candidate for the US Senate, Alan "controversial" Keyes,
declared homosexuality to be "selfish hedonism".  The Sirius OutQ
radio host then asked if Vice President Cheney's daughter, Mary
Cheney, is a "selfish hedonist".  He replied, "Of course she is.
That goes by definition. Of course she is."

[I'm speechless]

So, one would think that a candidate's negative characterization of
an entire class of people would prompt a loud rebuke from his party:

"It was inappropriate" -- Steve Schmidt, Bush/Cheney campaign
spokesman

"I don't think that's appropriate, but it's not the first
inappropriate remark Mr. Keyes has made. He made a remark the other
day that people who perform abortions are the same as terrorists.
That's a very unique take on that issue and one that's very seldom
espoused." -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

"The ticket is Republican. I am the Republican chairman. He is on
the ticket. We will support the ticket." -- Judy Baar Topinka
Illinois Republican Party Chairwoman

[I'm even more speechless]

So, Mr. Schmidt, Ms. Topinka, and Sen. McCain don't necessarily
disagree with Keyes.  They just find his comments to be
inappropriate (i.e. improper, unsuitable).  I understand that
Topinka is in a tough position in that she is practically 'married'
to Keyes, but, according to the article, McCain already denounced
Keyes' candidacy as a lost cause.  And yet, the never soft-spoken
McCain can only bring himself to describe Keyes' views as unique.
It would seem that Republicans see no problem in attacking gays as
part of their campaign strategy -- let alone upset the Religious
Right.

I find this very disturbing.  Well, I would find it very
disturbing.  Fortunately, I'm too self-centered and find it too
unpleasant to ponder.

Norm!

[See: "Keyes defends comments about Cheney's gay daughter", by
Jennifer Skalka and Ofelia Casillas, 08/31/04, Chicago Tribune,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-
040831illinois,1,6577738.story?coll=chi-news-hed]

Keyes said: "The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If
we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are
saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal
excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish
hedonism."

If Keyes is correct that any marriage excluding the possibility of
procreation is based on selfish hedonism, then it would follow that
all heterosexual couples in which one or both partners are infertile
should also be prohibited from marrying.  For they, like Mary
Cheney, would simply be selfish hedonists.

I dare say Keyes' sentiment appears to be in direct opposition to
God's.  Undoubtedly the male and female sex organs are designed to
complement one another and are necessary to produce babies.  But
sexuality means much more than reproduction.  This insight seems to
be confirmed by the complementary account of creation provided in
Genesis.  For God, we are told, was strangely sympathetic to the
loneliness of Adam, observing that within the universe he had so
conspicuously pronounced "good" there was, nevertheless, a
significant omission. "It was not good for the man to be alone"
(Genesis 2:18).  In other words, a primary creation purpose of sex
is inter-personal intimacy, not just procreation.  Sex as a profound
expression of love and mutuality is something most of us accept
gratefully as a good part of God's good world; it is a marvel and a
mystery and a grace that babies can come from ecstasy, but the
ecstasy does not require babies to justify it.

-Alex



--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "Norm" <nojam75@y...> wrote:
> You're right, Alex, gay politics is at the forefront of American
> politics.
>
> According to the Chicago Tribune, on Monday night the Illinois
> Republican candidate for the US Senate, Alan "controversial"
Keyes,
> declared homosexuality to be "selfish hedonism".  The Sirius OutQ
> radio host then asked if Vice President Cheney's daughter, Mary
> Cheney, is a "selfish hedonist".  He replied, "Of course she is.
> That goes by definition. Of course she is."
>
> [I'm speechless]
>
> So, one would think that a candidate's negative characterization
of
> an entire class of people would prompt a loud rebuke from his
party:
>
> "It was inappropriate" -- Steve Schmidt, Bush/Cheney campaign
> spokesman
>
> "I don't think that's appropriate, but it's not the first
> inappropriate remark Mr. Keyes has made. He made a remark the
other
> day that people who perform abortions are the same as terrorists.
> That's a very unique take on that issue and one that's very seldom
> espoused." -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
>
> "The ticket is Republican. I am the Republican chairman. He is on
> the ticket. We will support the ticket." -- Judy Baar Topinka
> Illinois Republican Party Chairwoman
>
> [I'm even more speechless]
>
> So, Mr. Schmidt, Ms. Topinka, and Sen. McCain don't necessarily
> disagree with Keyes.  They just find his comments to be
> inappropriate (i.e. improper, unsuitable).  I understand that
> Topinka is in a tough position in that she is
practically 'married'
> to Keyes, but, according to the article, McCain already denounced
> Keyes' candidacy as a lost cause.  And yet, the never soft-spoken
> McCain can only bring himself to describe Keyes' views as unique.
> It would seem that Republicans see no problem in attacking gays as
> part of their campaign strategy -- let alone upset the Religious
> Right.
>
> I find this very disturbing.  Well, I would find it very
> disturbing.  Fortunately, I'm too self-centered and find it too
> unpleasant to ponder.
>
> Norm!
>
> [See: "Keyes defends comments about Cheney's gay daughter", by
> Jennifer Skalka and Ofelia Casillas, 08/31/04, Chicago Tribune,
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-
> 040831illinois,1,6577738.story?coll=chi-news-hed]

In a message dated 9/1/04 5:34:56 AM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:


> Keyes said: "The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If
> we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are
> saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal
> excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish
> hedonism." 
>

From the Orthodox Christian viewpoint, the purpose of marriage is for the man
and woman to work out their salvation and sanctification TOGETHER--as a
COUPLE, and not as individuals.

This being so, what is to stop this purpose from being executed by a same-sex
couple?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would take this even a step further. We now know that at least
1.7% of the population is "Intersexed." There is no way to tell what
sex they are!!  They have parts of both sex organs, to one degree or
another. Men with male parts have XY Chromosomes (or an extra X
Chrom.). There is every combination under the sun. THERE IS NO WAY
TO TELL WHAT SEX THEY ARE!!! (at least by any test). How do their
gentials fit together? How many millions of people does it take to
show the basis of sexuality is more complicated than male and
female? (God made them male AND female!)

Until I hear from the religious right their answer to this...their
voice rings hollow.

bob, M.Div.

(see Sexing the Body-Gender Politics and the Construction of
Sexuality by Anne Fausto-Sterling and her 68 pages of Bibliography!!)



--- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, nyguy_1225 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> Keyes said: "The essence of ... family life remains procreation.
If
> we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are
> saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in
principal
> excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish
> hedonism."
>
> If Keyes is correct that any marriage excluding the possibility of
> procreation is based on selfish hedonism, then it would follow
that
> all heterosexual couples in which one or both partners are
infertile
> should also be prohibited from marrying.  For they, like Mary
> Cheney, would simply be selfish hedonists.
>
> I dare say Keyes' sentiment appears to be in direct opposition to
> God's.  Undoubtedly the male and female sex organs are designed to
> complement one another and are necessary to produce babies.  But
> sexuality means much more than reproduction.  This insight seems
to
> be confirmed by the complementary account of creation provided in
> Genesis.  For God, we are told, was strangely sympathetic to the
> loneliness of Adam, observing that within the universe he had so
> conspicuously pronounced "good" there was, nevertheless, a
> significant omission. "It was not good for the man to be alone"
> (Genesis 2:18).  In other words, a primary creation purpose of sex
> is inter-personal intimacy, not just procreation.  Sex as a
profound
> expression of love and mutuality is something most of us accept
> gratefully as a good part of God's good world; it is a marvel and
a
> mystery and a grace that babies can come from ecstasy, but the
> ecstasy does not require babies to justify it.
>
> -Alex
>
>
>
> --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, "Norm" <nojam75@y...>
wrote:
> > You're right, Alex, gay politics is at the forefront of American
> > politics.
> >
> > According to the Chicago Tribune, on Monday night the Illinois
> > Republican candidate for the US Senate, Alan "controversial"
> Keyes,
> > declared homosexuality to be "selfish hedonism".  The Sirius
OutQ
> > radio host then asked if Vice President Cheney's daughter, Mary
> > Cheney, is a "selfish hedonist".  He replied, "Of course she is.
> > That goes by definition. Of course she is."
> >
> > [I'm speechless]
> >
> > So, one would think that a candidate's negative characterization
> of
> > an entire class of people would prompt a loud rebuke from his
> party:
> >
> > "It was inappropriate" -- Steve Schmidt, Bush/Cheney campaign
> > spokesman
> >
> > "I don't think that's appropriate, but it's not the first
> > inappropriate remark Mr. Keyes has made. He made a remark the
> other
> > day that people who perform abortions are the same as
terrorists.
> > That's a very unique take on that issue and one that's very
seldom
> > espoused." -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
> >
> > "The ticket is Republican. I am the Republican chairman. He is
on
> > the ticket. We will support the ticket." -- Judy Baar Topinka
> > Illinois Republican Party Chairwoman
> >
> > [I'm even more speechless]
> >
> > So, Mr. Schmidt, Ms. Topinka, and Sen. McCain don't necessarily
> > disagree with Keyes.  They just find his comments to be
> > inappropriate (i.e. improper, unsuitable).  I understand that
> > Topinka is in a tough position in that she is
> practically 'married'
> > to Keyes, but, according to the article, McCain already
denounced
> > Keyes' candidacy as a lost cause.  And yet, the never soft-
spoken
> > McCain can only bring himself to describe Keyes' views as
unique.
> > It would seem that Republicans see no problem in attacking gays
as
> > part of their campaign strategy -- let alone upset the Religious
> > Right.
> >
> > I find this very disturbing.  Well, I would find it very
> > disturbing.  Fortunately, I'm too self-centered and find it too
> > unpleasant to ponder.
> >
> > Norm!
> >
> > [See: "Keyes defends comments about Cheney's gay daughter", by
> > Jennifer Skalka and Ofelia Casillas, 08/31/04, Chicago Tribune,
> > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-
> > 040831illinois,1,6577738.story?coll=chi-news-hed]