You're Only Gay if I Say You're Gay
"Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight. If they don't think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one?"
- Dan Savage, editor of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly, in Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Ex-Gay Cowboys, an op-ed piece in todays NYTimes.
My answer Dan, is yes, if he's anything like some of the grace-filled, loving ex-gays I've met. And no I wouldn't Dan, if the man she was marrying was one of the rabid right posers.
His little essay has some funny bits to it, and I enjoyed it. But overall it saddens me. Because I see Savage doing exactly what he laments society has done to gays for centuries. He uses a favorite tactic of Dick Cheney and the rabid right attack dogs. If you don't like something or someone, redefine them! You see Savage has an implied definition of gay that has no room for those men who claim to have once been gay and now claim to be straight. He doesn't make the explicit argument in this piece that such a change is impossible. He just makes statements like the one above whose logic is based upon such a supposition.
And so, his essay brought me back to a time when I was an embedded observer of the gay wars. At YDS I was very privileged to be a part of many conversations with folks from both the LBGT activist groups and folks who were a part of "ex-gay" ministries. When I was talking with folks in one camp without the other side present we could talk about what it was to be gay, what life was for gay men in our society, hopes and dreams, hurts and fears. But put the two together and the possibility of any kind of open communication just evaporated. LBGT folks could never accept the self-definition of the ex-gays. So they redefined them as gay pretending to be straight - and in a way that was even worse than being re-closeted; or they insisted they never were gay, no matter what they said.
What was extremely sad was that in private conversations both the gays and the ex-gays spoke of the same things, shared so much with each other, and longed for an openness in talking about homosexuality. But in public it couldn't happen. The ex-gays very existence was a challenge to a central tenet of the LBGT activists: homosexuality is an innate trait. So the ex-gays had to be redefined as something other than gay, even though the freedom to define ones-self was a major plank in the LBGT agenda.
So I read Savage's op-ed piece. And my heart ached for all the pain that will be felt as it's read. And gay men and ex-gay men will both be feeling it. From the same sentences, but for different reasons.
- Dan Savage, editor of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly, in Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Ex-Gay Cowboys, an op-ed piece in todays NYTimes.
My answer Dan, is yes, if he's anything like some of the grace-filled, loving ex-gays I've met. And no I wouldn't Dan, if the man she was marrying was one of the rabid right posers.
His little essay has some funny bits to it, and I enjoyed it. But overall it saddens me. Because I see Savage doing exactly what he laments society has done to gays for centuries. He uses a favorite tactic of Dick Cheney and the rabid right attack dogs. If you don't like something or someone, redefine them! You see Savage has an implied definition of gay that has no room for those men who claim to have once been gay and now claim to be straight. He doesn't make the explicit argument in this piece that such a change is impossible. He just makes statements like the one above whose logic is based upon such a supposition.
And so, his essay brought me back to a time when I was an embedded observer of the gay wars. At YDS I was very privileged to be a part of many conversations with folks from both the LBGT activist groups and folks who were a part of "ex-gay" ministries. When I was talking with folks in one camp without the other side present we could talk about what it was to be gay, what life was for gay men in our society, hopes and dreams, hurts and fears. But put the two together and the possibility of any kind of open communication just evaporated. LBGT folks could never accept the self-definition of the ex-gays. So they redefined them as gay pretending to be straight - and in a way that was even worse than being re-closeted; or they insisted they never were gay, no matter what they said.
What was extremely sad was that in private conversations both the gays and the ex-gays spoke of the same things, shared so much with each other, and longed for an openness in talking about homosexuality. But in public it couldn't happen. The ex-gays very existence was a challenge to a central tenet of the LBGT activists: homosexuality is an innate trait. So the ex-gays had to be redefined as something other than gay, even though the freedom to define ones-self was a major plank in the LBGT agenda.
So I read Savage's op-ed piece. And my heart ached for all the pain that will be felt as it's read. And gay men and ex-gay men will both be feeling it. From the same sentences, but for different reasons.
posted by Wake of the Flood at 6:47 AM
5 Comments:
What an excellent commentary, wake. I, too, am saddened by the rigidity demonstrated by the extremists on either side of this issue. Why is it that every issue in our society today gets boiled down to "with us or you are the enemy"? I imagine it is easier to motivate people to action (and give money) when they feel threatened in some way.
One of the finest "marriages" I ever observed is between my two friends, John and David. David has lived the straight life and is the father of two beautiful daughters. The respect, thoughtfulness and consideration John and David have for each other is an example I aspire to.
For Mr. Savage, the direction David went would be considered a triumph of "enlightened" thinking since it involves a man who believed himself straight now coming "out."
His (gay) side's refusal to believe that people can move in the other direction as well is unsettling, as you mention.
I think we need less condemnation from everyone and little more focus on the two greatest commamdments (from Matthew 22)
37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.
I missed the part about only loving neighbors that are just like you.
I can't even pretend to state without hesitation that I know homosexuality to be innate or chosen--I don't think anyone can. My personal belief is that sexuality is an inborn trait, but I really can't base that on anything other than my feelings on the subject. In a world where gay men and women are treated so horribly, denied so many rights, I can't imagine why anyone would choose to be so reviled.
I do take issue with ex-gay ministries, not because I am convinced that sexuality is innate, but because I question their motives as a movement. Let's assume that it is entirely possible for a person that once identified as gay to change their orientation and be straight. The question I have is not can they, but why should they? So if the ex-gay leaders of this movement have successfully changed their orientation and are happy being straight, then I'm not going to go so far as to call them traitors or liars. I am, however, going to ask why their version of happiness should be the model that all gay men and women follow. Just because something can happen, doesn't mean it always should.
Heavy stuff there. I have read Dan Savage back when I lived in Seattle. He can be quite crude, but when he's funny, he's really funny.
I find it interesting that in the only TV show I watch regularly, there is a character who is an "ex-gay." He chose to become straight and is currently married with a son in the show. It's interesting to follow his character.
The war within himself is well-done by the actor who plays the character. It's one of the better written TV shows I've ever seen.
Oh, The Shield, in case you were wondering what I was talking about.
Well put, annamaria.
I doubt anyone who "was gay" can go straight. I don't think it matters. To preach going straight is to imply gay was wrong.
All the world's religions are so judgemental. Fuck them all. Oops.
It's all about trying to sell 6-10 newspapers in the age where newspaper circulations are all but vanished.
Wait a few years & there will be no more opt ed pages and we will all be slaves to Herr Von Bush. You do know he's going to decree that a state of war unlike any in America's history exists so he has to suspend the term limitation statutes, right?
Post a Comment
<< Home