This is Why I'm in Favor of "Coming Out"
#1


Yeah, more gay talk. Sorry. But I just came across this article that's from 2012, but new to me. It's from Salon, that hideously liberal rag I check out regularly to "keep my enemies closer." 

The article lays out one of the reasons why I am very much in favor of homosexuals who so desire to be out coming out and being honest about who they are and what their struggles might be. In a sane, Christian, loving world, there'd be no reason for the now-outed Jonathan to have felt pressure to hide himself away, and, so, there'd have been no reason for the person who outed him to have done so. In a loving, Christian world, Jonathan could've come out and said he's homosexual, or struggling with homosexual desires, or whatever the case may be, and would be loved and accepted as a person with a disorder that is not a sin itself, and would be helped to avoid situations that'd ease any acting on homosexual desires. And if he were to slip up and stumble, he'd repent and go to Confession, and anyone who knew about it would keep it to themselves as they would, or should, with any other gossip, or any other sin they might know of someone committing. Or if he weren't repentant, if he were an atheist homosexual, say, he'd still be loved and prayed for and treated with human dignity.

But as the story developed in this case, we have a person with a disorder who loves Jesus, who -- like anyone who spreads the Gospel -- fought to spread the Gospel in spite of any personal sins and failings, who felt the need to hide who he was (most probably out of fear of not being loved and accepted if he were to not hide away), and who could've so easily been unwarrantedly shamed into disappearing forever. IOW, Christ could've lost a soldier because of what this writer did, and also because of the way some unthinking, uncharitable Christians might respond to the news -- the gossip -- that the evangelist in question has (or had) homosexual desires. Christ could have lost a soldier.

Praise God that this Jonathan person is made of stronger stuff and is still evangelizing. But it could've so easily gone another way, and that possibility just re-confirms for me what I've said before here about the goodness of "coming out" -- for those who feel the desire or need to (e.g., in order to feel "fully present," to live with integrity, to just not have to hide, to be able to go through life knowing you can't be blackmailed over such knowledge, to not have to explain to others why you don't date women (or men, for lesbians), to be "out" for others -- for ex., in order to offer oneself to others with that problem as "a counselor-who-can-relate" and, with grace, a role model for overcoming and abiding, etc. -- a hundred reasons).

As an aside: I think outing someone else is almost always, if not always, a completely hideous thing to do. And I most definitely do not think that anyone "owes" anyone else (well, strangers, anyway) any information about their sexuality or their sex lives. I think people should be able to be as private or as open -- up to the point of bad taste, immorality, prurience, etc. -- as they feel the need to be.



Sunday, Aug 12, 2012 12:00 PM -0400
Why I outed a Christian star
I've been called a bully for exposing gay evangelical Jonathan Merritt. Even I secretly wonder: Was I right?

Azariah Southworth


Ever since I outed an up-and-coming evangelical leader named Jonathan Merritt on my blog on July 23, one sentence has been running through my mind: I might have destroyed his life.

It’s not all the angry emails that made me doubt myself – although some have been wildly disapproving. One, from a longtime supporter, said, “Your actions are arrogant, insensitive, and nothing more. There is nothing brave, honorable or noble about what you’ve done. I am parting ways from you ashamed of you and what you have become.” Others called me a self-promoter and a bully. But their criticism is not what bothers me. As RuPaul once said, “What people say about me behind my back is none of my business.”

Vox Wrote:
I am SO stealing that RuPaul line!

No, what bothers me, what overwhelms me with guilt, is the concern for what I’ve done to a person I care about. But then I think of how hypocrisy must be exposed. And I think of this: The truth sets you free.

Vox Wrote:See?  That, right there, is yet another reason for Christian homosexuals to come out. Not doing so wrongly but frequently gets you the label of "hypocrite." The world sees "hypocrisy" in what we Christians call "sin" or "failing to live up to one's own standards." I mean, it's easy to not be a "hypocrite" in that sense if you have no standards.

Me, I see "hypocrisy" not in screwing up once in a while, but in judging others -- especially judging others harshly (or at least more harshly) than you judge yourself -- for things you, yourself, do, even if the things in question are against your own moral standards.

In 2009, I emailed Jonathan Merritt to simply say I found his Op-Ed in USA Today  to be interesting. He is a Christian whose writing on religious and environmental issues has been featured in two books and a variety of publications, from the Atlantic to the Washington Post. Along with frequent appearances on “The O’Reilly Factor,” “Fox & Friends” and “CNN News,” Merritt has become a star among young people of faith. Oh, and his dad is the former president of the world’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention.

Jonathan and I exchanged a few emails, and a year later, in April 2010, we exchanged phone numbers. One night, we started text messaging one another. At this point, I perceived Jonathan to be a heterosexual male. Male he was, but not heterosexual. Jonathan’s text messages became flirtatious, and I became confused.

“Are you flirting with me?” I finally asked him. He admitted he was. And from there, the text messages became very explicit. It was only a matter of days before we met in person. Jonathan was going to be in Chicago at a conference, and he insisted that I be there. Not for the conference but for him.

I knew what it was to be a Christian in the closet. From 2006-2008, I was the host of a syndicated Christian TV show averaging 200,000 viewers a week. That ended after I watched a documentary titled “For the Bible Tells Me So,” a 2007 documentary that explains how the Bible has been wrongly interpreted to condemn LGBT people and same-sex relationships. That movie was the first gay-affirming message I actually listened to and understood, and it helped me unlearn decades of bad theology and scriptural misinterpretations.

Vox Wrote:
Sola Scriptura strikes again. Yay.

I came out in 2008, and at the time I met with Jonathan, I was beginning a national speaking tour with a famous Christian singer, Ray Boltz. Ray had come out six months after me, and we decided to travel together sharing our stories. After our first show in Alabama, I drove to Chicago to meet Jonathan in the lobby of the downtown W Hotel. He had bright blue eyes and boy-next-door good looks. I was smitten. He seemed a little paranoid, though, and it wasn’t hard to figure out why. The hotel was filled with evangelicals in town for the Q Conference, which is like the young evangelical leaders’ version of a TED conference.

Jonathan and I left the hotel and took a taxi to a bar. After a few drinks we took another taxi to another bar. The alcohol was kicking in, and Jonathan’s inhibitions were coming down. In the second taxi, he began to unzip my hoodie after he realized I didn’t have a shirt on underneath. I was shocked by how forward he was — especially with the taxi driver in the car. After the second bar, Jonathan wanted to go to a grocery store for a bottle of wine. He’d had a lot to drink, but he didn’t forget to tell the cashier “no receipt.” As the title of his first book declared, he was “Green Like God.”

We made our way to my car, parked in an open and now empty parking lot. In the back seat of my stylish Oldsmobile Intrigue, Jonathan started chugging the bottle of Riesling and passed it off to me. I’m not one to chug wine, so I sipped. We were alone in the parking lot, surrounded by the skyscrapers.

I kept declining his advances. “I don’t want you to do something that will cause you to live a dishonest life,” I said. After all, my speaking tour was titled “Living True.” But Jonathan insisted it was fine. And I wanted him just as bad.

By the end of the night my lips were raw and chapped from his unshaven face. I felt a little dirty and used, but more than anything I felt bad for him. I knew the guilt that would ensue for him. I’ve been there. It’s so freeing when you connect with another gay person before you’re “out” but when it’s over, you reenter that world of secrets and lies. You’re surrounded once more by the immense social pressure to look and act a certain way within your faith community. Being gay makes you feel so alone. It makes you feel like you don’t belong, like you’ll never escape the torment and spiritual violence imposed on you by bad and broken theology.

Vox Wrote:The theology is fine. It's the lack of true compassion, an unwillingness to at least really try to understand, and just a lack of charity on the part of some that are problematic.

I dropped Jonathan off a block away from his hotel at 4 in the morning. He gave me a kiss goodbye and got out of the car. As I drove the three hours back home, watching the sun rise in the east, I ran the night around in my mind. Will I get to see him again? Would he ever come out for me? What if I met his family – what would they make of me? I wasn’t head over heels for him, but I was crushed out, and I couldn’t help imagining a future together, even if part of me knew it was impossible. The sexting and Skype sessions continued for a few more months. Turns out, he did want to see me again. We made plans for another meeting in October 2010 in Atlanta.

But that meeting never took place. My speaking engagement was canceled, and we stopped communicating other than sending the casual “Happy Holiday” text message.

Outing Jonathan was not an easy decision. I mulled it over for more than a year and discussed it with friends. Those conversations always ended in, “Yeah, it’s probably not a good idea.” So, what changed my mind?

I was tired of the lies. I was tired of hearing Jonathan say that being gay is not “God’s best.” Meanwhile he enjoys the company of men. Jonathan’s approach to LGBT people and issues may be less extreme than that of the late Jerry Falwell, but in the end the results and message are the same: Your sexual orientation is a sin and you need to change with God’s help. It’s all lies — and the conversation not only needs to change but the leaders as well.

Vox Wrote:This is just so --- screwed up. This Jonathan person didn't hate on homosexuals. He apparently simply believes what the Bible teaches about homosexual sex. He probably didn't say that a homosexual "sexual orientation is a sin" either. This man was outed simply because he is a Christian.  And as far as the writer knows, that incident they allegedly had together was the only time Jonathan had done something like that. Or the first time he'd done something like that in years, and he hasn't since. Or -- who knows? Whatever the case, he was outed because he is a Christian.

I’m tired of my humanity as a gay man being invalidated by hypocritical leaders like Jonathan, who then expect my support in return.

But I do feel conflict. I do feel a sense of guilt. And that’s because I do have one regret, which is not discussing it with Jonathan first. That was wrong of me. If I had to do this all over again, I would have contacted him first and then decided how to handle the situation from there based on his reaction. (Merritt has admitted in an interview that “we had physical contact that went beyond the bounds of friendship.”)

Outing a person is complex. There is no blanket formula for how and when and why to do it. I don’t think it’s right in every situation. If someone is in the closet and they’re not making an effort to demonize LGBT people, then I say, leave them alone. But if someone is using a public platform to discuss these issues, and doing that while hiding behind a false identity that ultimately destroys the foundation of the arguments they’re making, then, yes, a full disclosure of that person’s false identity is in order. Go to that person and let them know your intentions. If they refuse to come forward with the truth, then publicly call out their hypocrisy.

Vox Wrote:"False identity," "hypocrisy," the idea that anything they say can be disregarded because that "false identity" "ultimately destroys the foundation of the arguments they're making" (somehow, mysteriously, unless ad hominems are no longer non-fallacious) -- that's how people think. If I were a homosexual (and praise God I'm not; I've got enough problems), I think I'd be out and loud about it -- and would defend the Gospel even more loudly. That is powerful witness; hiding and risking being outed would, I'd guess, make spreading the Gospel that much more difficult, and would be frightening, to be blunt about it. To be a "public Christian" while some people know you're homosexual-and-hiding would have to feel like being at the mercy of someone else's sense of virtue and honor, or even another's ability to hold his liquor. I just couldn't let myself be in that position. I couldn't bear it.

I am not asking people to “declare a side in this culture war” as the New York Times suggested in its interview with me. I am asking for our leaders to be honest and transparent. I know we are human. I know we all make mistakes, and there will always be hypocrites. But what is done in the dark can be brought into the light. So lead with integrity. Those are the kinds of leaders we need.

I may continue to be haunted by what I’ve done, but in my heart, I know the truth. Do I think I destroyed Jonathan’s life? I do not. I gave him the opportunity to live life at his best.

Vox Wrote:
You did not "give him the opportunity"; he already had that. What you did was to take away the opportunity for him to come out himself -- loud and, yes, even "proud" in the sense of not being ashamed for having a disorder, with dignity. You took that away from him and humiliated him instead. You call him a "hypocrite" for failing to live up to his own -- Christ's! -- standards. For sinning. He did not judge you. But you judged him. If there's any hypocrisy in this story, it's all yours.

Reply
#2
(11-17-2014, 12:38 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I am very much in favor of homosexuals who so desire to be out coming out and being honest about who they are and what their struggles might be.

I agree. We're all God's children.

"Outing" is uncharitable.

I like some of the worldly-wise but polite/genteel old-school approach Anglo-Catholics used to have, minus the immorality such as the backbiting and the actual sodomy. Polite society used to not talk about the problem (since the '70s we've been conditioned/desensitized, from talking about it to make fun of it to acceptance), but people with it should be honest with themselves and to the few others for whom it matters, such as a father confessor and, if married, the husband or wife. Historically lots of homosexuals have conformed, being married and even becoming parents.

I like the honesty of a Mormon man who recently shared his story: he's always been honest with himself, his parents, his wife, and his religious leaders about his problem (and his parents and his religious community accept him), but yes, he married and I think is a father. Rather than living only for himself (gay culture including some high church is narcissistic), he lives his life for the good of his wife, whom I presume he loves as a friend, his children, and society. Obviously, the strain of being married and a parent isn't for everyone with this problem.

And Fr. John Jay Hughes, a once-celebrity convert from being an Episcopal priest. In his autobio he's honest about being bisexual but it almost never comes up (why would it?) and he never attacks the teaching of the church.

I have a gay Catholic friend who doesn't confuse his likes with the sacrament of matrimony and doesn't want society to either.

Think of the witness an "openly gay" bishop or priest like Fr. Hughes can give: "I'm gay too. I know how you feel. But I'm chaste and would defend the church's teaching with my life."
Reply
#3
(11-17-2014, 04:15 AM)youngfogey Wrote:
(11-17-2014, 12:38 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I am very much in favor of homosexuals who so desire to be out coming out and being honest about who they are and what their struggles might be.

I agree. We're all God's children.

"Outing" is uncharitable.

I like some of the worldly-wise but polite/genteel old-school approach Anglo-Catholics used to have, minus the immorality such as the backbiting and the actual sodomy. Polite society used to not talk about the problem (since the '70s we've been conditioned/desensitized, from talking about it to make fun of it to acceptance), but people with it should be honest with themselves and to the few others for whom it matters, such as a father confessor and, if married, the husband or wife.

Man, that poor guy was outed by someone else, which is one of the many reasons why I think homosexuals should come out in general, not just to Mom and Dad, of their own accord if they have any desire to or need to, or if there's any chance of someone else outing them. I think it's especially important for gay Christians to come out. End any possibility of that bogus charge of "hypocrite". Just nip it and kill it and preach the Gospel as an out, Jesus-loving, hopefully chaste or truly striving to be, homosexual man. And for their part, fellow Christians should accept, love, trust in the grace they profess to believe in, not pry, develop empathy, use language carefully when talking about homosexuality, and just get real.

I think "polite society" and I don't get along, really. Back in the day, "polite society" was too sexually repressive (though it's too far the other way now). And today, "polite society" is all political correctness, and is sterile and boring and anti-tobacco and Puritanesque in a different way. Yawn.


(11-17-2014, 04:15 AM)youngfogey Wrote: Historically lots of homosexuals have conformed, being married and even becoming parents.

That might work if the guy is bi or if he can muddle through the marital act AND his wife is low-libido. But if she's a high-libido woman, being married to a man who isn't sexually attracted to her would be a Hell. I mean, imagine being a man and being married to a lesbian who is not sexually turned-on by you, but is wanting to "do the right thing" by getting married and having kids (not that getting married and having kids is "the right thing" for everyone, mind you). Just making the point that women shouldn't be used as "beards," that women have needs of their own and shouldn't be used as tools in men's sexual psychodrama, KWIM? But if a man's straight up about it all and she's low-libido or otherwise cool with it, then power to them.

(11-17-2014, 04:15 AM)youngfogey Wrote: I like the honesty of a Mormon man who recently shared his story: he's always been honest with himself, his parents, his wife, and his religious leaders about his problem (and his parents and his religious community accept him), but yes, he married and I think is a father. Rather than living only for himself (gay culture including some high church is narcissistic), he lives his life for the good of his wife, whom I presume he loves as a friend, his children, and society. Obviously, the strain of being married and a parent isn't for everyone with this problem.

For sure. And neither would being married to such a person be for everyone.

(11-17-2014, 04:15 AM)youngfogey Wrote: And Fr. John Jay Hughes, a once-celebrity convert from being an Episcopal priest. In his autobio he's honest about being bisexual but it almost never comes up (why would it?) and he never attacks the teaching of the church.

I have a gay Catholic friend who doesn't confuse his likes with the sacrament of matrimony and doesn't want society to either.

Think of the witness an "openly gay" bishop or priest like Fr. Hughes can give: "I'm gay too. I know how you feel. But I'm chaste and would defend the church's teaching with my life."

People who haven't conquered their homosexual inclinations aren't supposed to get ordained. I'm sure some have slipped through who've done fine, but I see the wisdom of not ordaining men who haven't conquered homosexuality and come to fully identify with the masculine. Priests are our Fathers, after all...
Reply
#4
This is a very long post, Vox, and I haven't read it all, but I just want to say two things off the bat. I am no longer in favour of coming-out, and here's why:

1. Man is fickle; namely and most especially, the cultural attitudes he builds are fickle. The West today may have become momentarily "tolerant" of outed homosexuals, but it is not necessarily going to last. We live in a tremendously decadent, easy society where even the "poor" have TVs and cell phones. No one has any need to fight for a conviction. If this outlook changes or our society changes, gays may become scapegoats - as many minorities have been in the past. I'd rather keep my disordered attractions secret, in case a resurgence of "intolerance" becomes reality. I do not intend to suffer or even die for something that isn't Christ.

2. Human sexuality is incredibly labile. I've learned this by being around masculine men. When my inward-focus is challenged, I almost automatically become "more straight". I cannot explain this very well. All I know is that we are not homosexual or heterosexual, but we are human. What we make our sexual identity at age 20 may be radically different at age 40. People will only remember the fact that we "came out" at 20, however, and will associate that with us for the rest of our/their lives. If we slowly transition to heterosexuality, they will think we are trying to hide our "true selves", when, in fact, we are becoming more our true selves.

I will read the rest of your no-doubt excellent post presently.

BTW I believe "outing" another person is evil.
Reply
#5
First of all, I don't think outing is uncharitable, I think it is gravely uncharitable.

I am not in favour of coming out except to the closest most trusted friends, priests, family etc.. If that.

What if a young person has transitory homosexual inclinations which he/she later successfully overcomes? If they had come out they will already have put themselves in a box. Once you come out, you can't un-come out. What if that Catholic later wants to enter into a[n opposite sex] marriage, or has a vocation? Their previous coming-out would affect that. Wouldn't it? Especially if the whole parish knows. I for one would not want people knowing this about me.  What if there is a girl at my parish I want to peruse, do you seriously think her traditionalist family would feel slightly uncomfortable me going out with her? But if they didn't know...

It's all about keeping your options open.

In principle, being honest about this problem without fear of judgement or misunderstanding is great, the ideal. But that's the thing, there is simply is too much misunderstanding/judgement in the trad community to make this feasible.

Reply
#6
(11-17-2014, 09:28 AM)Heorot Wrote: Human sexuality is incredibly labile. I've learned this by being around masculine men. When my inward-focus is challenged, I almost automatically become "more straight". I cannot explain this very well. All I know is that we are not homosexual or heterosexual, but we are human. What we make our sexual identity at age 20 may be radically different at age 40. People will only remember the fact that we "came out" at 20, however, and will associate that with us for the rest of our/their lives. If we slowly transition to heterosexuality, they will think we are trying to hide our "true selves", when, in fact, we are becoming more our true selves.


BTW I believe "outing" another person is evil.

yes and yes
Reply
#7
(11-17-2014, 09:28 AM)Heorot Wrote: This is a very long post, Vox, and I haven't read it all, but I just want to say two things off the bat. I am no longer in favour of coming-out, and here's why:

1. Man is fickle; namely and most especially, the cultural attitudes he builds are fickle. The West today may have become momentarily "tolerant" of outed homosexuals, but it is not necessarily going to last. We live in a tremendously decadent, easy society where even the "poor" have TVs and cell phones. No one has any need to fight for a conviction. If this outlook changes or our society changes, gays may become scapegoats - as many minorities have been in the past. I'd rather keep my disordered attractions secret, in case a resurgence of "intolerance" becomes reality. I do not intend to suffer or even die for something that isn't Christ.

2. Human sexuality is incredibly labile. I've learned this by being around masculine men. When my inward-focus is challenged, I almost automatically become "more straight". I cannot explain this very well. All I know is that we are not homosexual or heterosexual, but we are human. What we make our sexual identity at age 20 may be radically different at age 40. People will only remember the fact that we "came out" at 20, however, and will associate that with us for the rest of our/their lives. If we slowly transition to heterosexuality, they will think we are trying to hide our "true selves", when, in fact, we are becoming more our true selves.

I will read the rest of your no-doubt excellent post presently.

BTW I believe "outing" another person is evil.

I reckon it's so that people could turn nasty and scapegoat homosexuals. I don't think someone should come out if it'd endanger them, that's for sure.  But the fact that sexuality can be labile is just that -- a fact that people should become more familiar with. People can have been homosexual, and then no longer be homosexual. In that case, all they'd have to say is "I'm straight now" or whatever. 

I do think, though, that coming out shouldn't typically be done in the teenage years, especially now that there are activist groups who'd likely love to see their numbers grow. The teenage years are times of trying on hats; boxing oneself in too soon is likely not a good idea  at all.

Reply
#8
(11-17-2014, 09:48 AM)Miles Immaculatae Wrote: First of all, I don't think outing is uncharitable, I think it is gravely uncharitable.

I am not in favour of coming out except to the closest most trusted friends, priests, family etc.. If that.

What if a young person has transitory homosexual inclinations which he/she later successfully overcomes? If they had come out they will already have put themselves in a box. Once you come out, you can't un-come out.

Sure you can.


(11-17-2014, 09:48 AM)Miles Immaculatae Wrote: What if that Catholic later wants to enter into a[n opposite sex] marriage, or has a vocation? Their previous coming-out would affect that. Wouldn't it? Especially if the whole parish knows. I for one would not want people knowing this about me.  What if there is a girl at my parish I want to peruse, do you seriously think her traditionalist family would feel slightly uncomfortable me going out with her? But if they didn't know...

It shouldn't affect it if the person in question has overcome homosexuality. But your point about the parish knowing goes along with the original post:  people GET outed if they don't out themselves. If it were me, I'd much rather be in control of the situation rather than having people out there with what they think are "the goods" on me.

And like I said, some folks wouldn't want anyone knowing that sort of thing about them. That's fine and good. I said that people should come out if they feel a need to. Some folks don't. But for those who don't, if they'd ever had any homosexual  experience, there's at least one person out there who can blackmail them and out them and attempt to humiliate them. That's what happened to the guy in the original post.

As to the hypothetical traditionalist family: if it were and my kid, I'd want to know if the person had been gay or if he is bi now or if he's just not into girls. I wouldn't want my daughter in a sexless marriage unless she were asexual/low libido. And if she were asexual/low libido, and he had been gay or, in any case, is committed to chastity and I believed him, why would I stand in the way of such a union if they were both Catholic and loved each other and had their heads on straight? At the very least, one'd hope that the girl in question would be informed about what the deal is. It'd really suck to be married to a guy who's homosexual but doesn't tell you, and then to have him get outed by some guy he used to know.

(11-17-2014, 09:48 AM)Miles Immaculatae Wrote: It's all about keeping your options open.

In principle, being honest about this problem without fear of judgement or misunderstanding is great, the ideal. But that's the thing, there is simply is too much misunderstanding/judgement in the trad community to make this feasible.

Your options won't be open if some guy like the writer of the original article is in your life and knows something about you. And the trad community needs to get really real about homosexuality. And fast. How too many people deal with it all isn't Christian. The more people don't talk about this, don't defend homosexuals qua homosexuals (i.e., as people not necessarily acting on the disorder, but who merely have the disorder), the worse things will be for the trad "movement." I predict a huge boost in the number of homosexuals in the next 25 years or so. These people will need Christ, not to be swept under the rug (or into closets). Soon, almost everyone will have a homosexual relative out to the level of 1st cousin. If certain Christians don't get real and get charitable about this, people will turn away with contempt.
Reply
#9
The world is full of big mouth reporters.  >:( It's nobody's dang business! I think that in general, this principle holds true with all disorders including drug, alcohol or pornography addictions, issues with greed, etc, etc.... but people shouldn't have to confess their disordered tendencies publicly for fear of detraction.

If a person wants to "come out" about their proclivity to a certain weakness, then that's different and they should.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#10
(11-17-2014, 09:28 AM)Heorot Wrote: This is a very long post, Vox, and I haven't read it all, but I just want to say two things off the bat. I am no longer in favour of coming-out, and here's why:

1. Man is fickle; namely and most especially, the cultural attitudes he builds are fickle. The West today may have become momentarily "tolerant" of outed homosexuals, but it is not necessarily going to last. We live in a tremendously decadent, easy society where even the "poor" have TVs and cell phones. No one has any need to fight for a conviction. If this outlook changes or our society changes, gays may become scapegoats - as many minorities have been in the past. I'd rather keep my disordered attractions secret, in case a resurgence of "intolerance" becomes reality. I do not intend to suffer or even die for something that isn't Christ.

2. Human sexuality is incredibly labile. I've learned this by being around masculine men. When my inward-focus is challenged, I almost automatically become "more straight". I cannot explain this very well. All I know is that we are not homosexual or heterosexual, but we are human. What we make our sexual identity at age 20 may be radically different at age 40. People will only remember the fact that we "came out" at 20, however, and will associate that with us for the rest of our/their lives. If we slowly transition to heterosexuality, they will think we are trying to hide our "true selves", when, in fact, we are becoming more our true selves.

I will read the rest of your no-doubt excellent post presently.

BTW I believe "outing" another person is evil.

1. Yes; "gay rights" are a luxury a prosperous society can literally afford. Plunge us into a deep economic depression or other societal collapse (colloquially known in survivalism as a SHTF or TEOTWAWKIT, the end of the world as we know it, scenario) and watch the "tolerance" evaporate and the nasty, hard reality of fallen human nature, including scapegoating, begin.

2. Truer of girls, long fetishized in certain porn (no, I'm not a consumer). Girls are slightly more flexible about this than boys, having crushes on their female friends and experimenting. Most grow out of it. Some call this LUG, "lesbian until graduation." As one gay activist said, common-sensically, most end up in conventional marriages so spare us the big coming-out speech. But now that society glorifies "Teh Gay," many such girls, actually normal, show off by saying they're bisexual and maybe experimenting when they normally wouldn't. A gay man in academia once told me the story of a woman grad student who was married and faithful but actually bi, but never said so because 1) it never came up, 2) it was nobody's business, 3) she loved her husband so she didn't want to cheat, and 4) of all the young girls saying they were bi because it's fashionable.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)