5 posts tagged “homosexual”
Sorry for my absence in posting lately. I've been rather busy with school and whatnot. Not to mention that the ex-gays have been quiet as of late, giving me little fodder to work with. Although, there is the creepiest picture of Randy Thomas ever here. Very scary, that. What a creep-o.
To celebrate the rather good news that evangelical pastor Ted Haggard is, in fact, a big ol' 'mo in hiding, I offer the following video of Richard Dawkins interviewing him. People like Haggard provide us with amazing evidence of god's purported power to "change people." Or, at the very least, with amazing evidence of the power of self-delusion.
I've spent a lot of energy lately ripping into Randy Thomas, which is unfair, I suppose--unfair to the other ex-gays on Vox who need a ripping-into!
Take Mike Ensley, for example. (Why do these people use their full names on the Internet?? Haven't they been watching NBC catch predators????) Mike tells us in this post that he is upset because people have been "misrepresenting" Exodus. We're sorry about that, Mike, really. But nevermind, that isn't really the focus of the article.
The main thrust (sorry, couldn't help myself) of the post is that Mike believes gays exist:
I think these words [gay and homosexual] are largely understood in our culture to mean more than just a person’s attractions. The popular idea of what it is to be gay is not only to be attracted to the same sex, but to be made and meant for homosexual relationships, to be destined to find happiness and true love only there. It’s more than how you feel or what you do; it’s who you are. If that is what our society means when using this word, then no, I don’t believe anyone is truly gay.
Except, of course, that's what (almost) everyone outside of Exodus means when they say gay, including at least 99.8% of gay people, is exactly what Mike has just described he does not believe. Thanks for, uh, being totally clear there.
He goes on to state:
Other than the experience of these feelings [gay feelings], there is nothing else about those of us with SSA (biology, etc.) that would distinguish us from the rest of humanity. We aren’t a separate creature....
Mike is apparently trying to make my life easy, and has conveniently included the word "biology" in this sentence. Let's look at biology, shall we? There's one study here that straight and gay men's brains respond differently when exposed to testosterone (that's a male sex hormone, for those of you un-science types out there). Fortunately, the authors of this write up also addressed biology by name:
Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation..., who was not part of the research team, said the findings clearly show a biological involvement in sexual orientation.
Or how about this study which describes a correlation between which X chromosome a woman's body has deactivated and how many gay sons she has? Or this one, where the change in a single gene is enough to make a female fruit fly court other females with the courtship ritual most often performed by males? Or what about this one, which showed systematic differences in brain structure in sheep that mate with their own sex? And then there's this one (slightly more technical, sorry), where men and women, gay and straight are shown to rate the attractiveness of faces similarly, but there are stark differences in the processing of value judgments of the faces based on orientation (i.e., male faces are given special recognition by straight women and gay men--maybe this explains why I have so much trouble remembering women's faces!). On the right-hand side of that page you'll notice 10 links to other articles about gays and biology not detailed here.
My current favorite, however, is this one. Scientists exposed folks to a nudie picture of either a male or a female which was obscured by random noise, and then displayed a second image (a pattern). Subjects were asked to determine the orientation (clockwise or counterclockwise, not gay or straight) of the pattern. Scores were higher when the pattern appeared in the same location on the screen as the erotic image had, which is essentially what the researchers had predicted--that although the image was not consciously registering, the brain still perceived it. What they had not anticipated, however, was that gay men did far better when the image was of a nude male, and straight men far better when the image was a nude female.
And so once again we've run headlong into the problem with ex-gay arguments: they just don't make a damned bit of sense, and apparently have no basis in reality whatsoever.
Update!
Maureen, in a comment on Mike's post, says what has to be one of the truest and most hilarious things ever said by their ilk: "I'm as bewildered by SSA as I am as to how the picture gets from Hollywood to my TV screen. Even pictures don't help." I guess Maureen doesn't know the power of gay pornography (note: link does not go to porn).
This short post by Randy Thomas is surely the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my life. Mind you, he didn't say it, but that anyone would participate in such a thing--or repeat such nonsense on their blog--blows my mind. Who are these people?? Anti-discrimination laws violate their freedom of religion???
How high are you right now that you actually think that's true??
This is so typical of Christians seeming to think they can do whatever the hell they want because they are Christian, and no one else can do a fucking thing that they disagree with because it is "a sin." Get off your fucking high horse, already! Your ability to believe in things that are not true doesn't give you the right to tell me what to do.
Yeesh.
Hysterical Update!
Go read comment number 10 on that post. Go do it now.
Update the second!
G-A-Y takes a shot at the same event here.
Good-As-You today posted a rather long, detailed rebuttal of ""ex"-gay" Stephen Bennett's claim in the wake of Foleygate that childhood abuse (whether homosexual or heterosexual) makes people gay. The best part about the rebuttal? It details the scientific studies (read: study) that claim abuse gives you gay cooties. You can read the whole rebuttal here; it's a bit long, but worth it.
Damn I love me some anti-ex-gay science!
I am still confused about how ex-gays seem to know exactly why they are gay. "I was abused and look! I'm gay!" or "I had a terrible relationship with my father and OOPS! I'm gay!" It seems to have never occurred to them that they might be a survivor of child abuse AND gay, or have a deadbeat dad AND be gay. The two are not causally correlated (as G-A-Y points out).
These ""ex"-gays" are more than ready to claim others are being "offensive" when we point out the fallacy of their arguments and beliefs, but they don't seem to have considered that gay men and lesbians everywhere are assuredly quite offended at the idea that they must have been abused or had a shitty relationship with the 'rents.
I count myself in this group. No abuse, lucky enough to have a great relationship with my still-married parents. Take that, family-values tools: you can't even claim a broken home for my queeritude!
