My Two Cents (01/11) - Sexuality

• Ex-Gay Goes Ex-Ex - One of the main subjects of the Ex-Gay DVD I Do Exist has presumably returned to the gay life, providing more evidence that the reversibility of homosexuality may be a fundamentalist's pipe dream.  The publisher, Christian gay-recovery therapist Dr. Throckmorton has announced he is retiring the DVD in February.
• Bisexual Marriage - In a thought-provoking article, progressive site Talk to Action discusses a new anti-gay marriage approach from the right - saying that if you want to push for equal marriage rights for gays, you should for bi-sexuals also.  But this might force you to support triangle marriages (three people). 

My comments on these two articles are as follows:

• Ex-Ex-Gay: Recidivism (is that the right word, or is that just applied to criminal behavior?  What is the recovery term for this?)  is a persistent issue with gay "recovery" therapy.  People do all they can to become non-gay, find out it is difficult if not impossible, and decide to stay homosexual.  This can only mean one of three things:
  • You can't change sexual preference because it is hard wired
  • It is difficult to change sexual preference because it is rooted in deep psychological issues, and like other recovery programs, you can expect only limited success
  • The therapy that we are using today is still missing essential components, like medication or better therapy methods
• Bisexual Marriage:  This argument is interesting because it provides a seque to group marriage and polygamy.  Is this the slippery slope that conservatives have warned about?  It looks like it.

Comments

[Sam]

Bisexual marriage? What? What is bisexual marriage other than a fundamental misunderstanding of bisexuals? Far more likely to exist is the bisexual married couple who fools around from within the bonds of marriage. The man with another man, the woman with another woman, whatever.

[seeker]

Maybe a better question would be, should we expect bisexuals to be faithful in marriage?

[MF]

You should read Dr. Throckmorton's blog to get your information not an atheists blog.

[seeker]

Thanks MF (unfortunate initials ;). Please don't chide me for reading the "blogs of the enemy" - I try to read what they say directly rather than relying on other Christians.

I have subscribed to Throck's blog, thanks. I note that he addresses the retiring of the DVD, which he says is for financial reasons. On the reversion of the DVD's participant, he says:

I was aware of the statement and have it posted to the FAQs on this page. It will soon be a part of the I Do Exist website. Noe says on his site that he does not regret what he said and he still believes in change. I don’t see what Noe wrote as being a reason to retire the video.

[MF]

Didn't mean to chide, sorry.

[Sam]

If two responsible adults don't want to be monogamous in their marriage, what business is it of yours?

[seeker]

None unless their children are abused or injured as part of their marriage or breakup.

[Sam]

Maybe I should try that again. If two married adults don't want to be monogamous in thier relationship, what business is it of yours? I didn't say anything about children, child abuse, or injury. And just out of curiosity, as you assuming that two people can't agree to NOT be monogamous?

[seeker]

And just out of curiosity, as you assuming that two people can't agree to NOT be monogamous?

Nah, I'm just saying that I think that, though people should in general to as they please (as long as they are not directly harming others), we should limit what the state sanctions to things that lead to health and security - and for children, that means hetero monagamy that lasts a lifetime.

We should view that as the gold standard, and not undermine it by giving the official ok to anti-biological, anti-social, unfaithful or promiscuous relationship models.

The whole point of this article was to push the liberal logic for gay-marriage towards its breaking point by asking "if you are ok with gay marriage, are you also going to fight for trilateral (?) marriages so that bisexuals who fall in love with two people don't have to deny themselves?"

As pointed out, this is really confusing bisexuality with group marriage. Probably the "best" a bisexual could aim for is marrying one or the other sex, and then being "unfaithful" to meet their other sex needs.

I think the argument presented here is a bit specious, but it is interesting because (a) anti gay-marriage proponents are using it, and (b) it asks the question of, if you are bisexual, do you need to have sex with both sexes on a regular basis, and if so, how would that change your view or design for marriage?

[Louis]

Getting back to the "ex-gay" controversy:
Do we have ex-straight therapies?

[seeker]

Do we have ex-straight therapies?

Only if leaving the straight life involves getting healthy.

[Louis]

From my observation of the straight lifestyle, I'd have to say that it is full of pathologies.

[seeker]

Relationships are full of pathologies, but they don't have anything to do with being heterosexual, but in being sinful and immature. These same pathologies show up in gay relationships too, not because people are gay, but because they are human.

However, I would argue, of course, that homosexuality is a pathology all it's own, while hetero is obviously natural and healthy. Of course.