• Great article, Eliel! I’d been wondering about the invisible bisexual elephant in the room for a while with these ex-gay stories. Even if they were openly bi, bisexuals should be able to freely choose who they love & marry and not artificially restrict themselves to an “appropriate” gender. And most definitely monosexual gays & lesbians should not be marrying heterosexuals! People who only accept me as bi because my partner is male do not truly accept me!

  • Pjs8200

    As a bisexual male, I’ve been making these same statements for years. In the discussions of “ex-gay” the word, bisexual is conveniently absent. Why? Simply for the fact that it would totally destroy any valid argument against same sex marriages. My two best friends are male, and are married, but only one is gay, the other bi. Where he to be in a relationship with a female, no one would think twice. Although his partners gender would change, HIS orientation would not, and he would still be bisexual. These RWNJ’s have this ridiculous notion that sexuality is static and never changes. That may be the case for some, but even if so, I’m sure that’s based more on religious dogma than reality. Truth is, so many people deny their own sexuality because that’s what they’ve been indoctrinated to do since they were little kids in church and Sunday school.

  • Great post, Eliel. Using our unique stories as the bar to which others should live up to is wrong. Condemning others who do not live up to our standards is not the way to go. Thanks for highlighting your story and for making such a cogent argument for bisexuality and helping people understand it as a reality for many.

  • Jerry Reiter

    Excellent post and about time it was printed here. Religion News Service reaches many conservative Christians who are fair-minded about issues. This is a great place to post the missing B in LGBT. And the statement about being happy with one’s own choice not justifying the denial of other people’s civil rights is a case of knocking the ball out of the park. Bravo!

  • Jerry Reiter

    Yes, this article is still necessary There is a small, but intensely committed part of conservative Christianity still going around claiming “being gay is a choice” in spite of what every medical association said, in spite of the fact the long-time ex-gay leaders admitted nobody changed from homosexual to heterosexual, and this faction is funding and promoting the anti-gay agenda around the globe.

  • James Carr

    You have no proof that Christians largely believe gays choose their attraction, after all they are most likely the parents of them. It is true that gays choose to accept and act on their sexuality, and in there lies the rift with historical religious beliefs. Religion recommends the state of celibacy, as it does of the unmarried heterosexuals. Balking at the very idea of celibacy in a world of sex worship is unthinkable, if not suicidal, to society today. But that is no basis to demand religion change its theology.

  • Jerry Reiter

    James Carr: You first change what I said and then argue with yourself. You address things I did not even bring up, such as theological change. But if you think theology does not change, you are out of touch. What planet did you grow up on? You seem to have pulled your ideas from Uranus.

  • Jerry Reiter

    Since every medical association agrees sexual orientation is not a choice, since all but the most intentionally obtuse people now understand nobody can choose to change his/her sexual orientation, the people claimed it was a choice for decades switch the pitch. They cruelly and cavalierly demand life-long celibacy for an entire group of people. Retaining the same smug, self-righteousness they’ve had since the Pharisee days, religious know-it-all’s pontificate on the people they know the least about.
    The first step for people addicted to religious abuse is to admit they have a problem. Then the healing can begin. If you want to see who has the problem, stop focusing on that finger you are pointing at others and see how many of your own fingers are pointing back at you.

  • Jerry Reiter

    A great article explaining the dangers of demanding celibacy for all people God created LGBT:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kimberlyknight/2015/01/why-this-christian-will-never-celebrate-gay-celibacy/

  • James Carr

    Ignoring your prepubescent planet joke, what did I change. You argue that Christians go around believing gays choose their sexual attraction, and I say they don’t. Since you include religion as a “factor”, the comment begs to be addressed from a religious perspective, ergo the” change in theology comment.”
    Sure, the theology of some religions changes with the whims of society, but any concrete theology remains intact for its content comes from God.

  • James Carr

    Yeah, I’ll read that.

  • James Carr

    No one is forcing you to stop your personal dilly-dallying with whoever, whenever. Just don’t call it virtuous or right in the eyes of God. Ridiculing religions and their universal denunciation of homosexual acts is a fruitless pursuit, you will never win.
    Religious people have no more problems than you do. They are certain of their beliefs and happy, just as you are certain that they are all fools. You call their beliefs “abuse”, which is really an over-the-top statement. Ignore them and just go on with your virtuous activity.

  • Jerry Reiter

    When you were born, interracial marriage was a sin as well as a crime. Now it’s not. Theology changes. Bible verses and claims of “God on our side” were the weapons of the opponents of every civil rights advance since the abolition of slavery. You refuse to understand, but your grandchildren’s generation shall surely see your views on gays and marriage equality the way most of us see our grandparents’ generation’s views on race and interracial marriage.
    Go back and read my original post. You will see I never claimed all Christians are anti-gay. That is the opposite of my view. Most Christians welcome LGBT people into their lives and churches as God created them, not as you think they “should” be.

  • Jerry Reiter

    Theology always changes over time. Sins that were once sins disappear to be replaced by new ones. For example, interracial marriage was a sin. Now it’s not. Racism is now a sin, but it didn’t used to be.
    Opponents of every civil rights advance since the abolition of slavery claimed God on their side. You likely won’t get it, but your grandchildren’s generation shall surely see your views on gays and marriage equality the way most of us see our grandparents’ generation’s views on race and interracial marriage.

  • Jerry Reiter

    When you claim that other people’s marriages are not approved by God you are putting yourself on God’s throne of judgment. When you claim other people’s marriages are simply dilly-dallying, you are dehumanizing people who deserve the same respect and dignity you do.

  • Pingback: You Didn’t Hear it from Us 25/04/15 | Biscuit()

  • James Carr

    If I sin, I deserve no dignity. If I am aware of others sin and say nothing, I deserve no dignity. If I accept something as true that is not, I deserve no dignity.
    I am not judging, I am acting on what I see as truth. A fat person is not thin, a tall person is not short, and two men exchanging wedding vows is not marriage.

  • Jerry Reiter

    You changed the teaching of Christ from “Love your neighbor as yourself” to “Treat everyone, including yourself, as unworthy of basic human dignity and respect.”

  • Jerry Reiter

    In my church we have two warm, wonderful women who’ve loved the Lord and one another for 60 years. They are a great couple, and they did a great job raising their children and spoiling their grandchildren. For you to judge their marriage and their love as nothing is your loss. They are doing great with the Lord and with life. They are walking examples of Christ’s ways.

  • Jerry Reiter

    James, I can just picture you walking around your church, calling out what you see as everyone else’s defects. “Hey lady, you’re fat.” I had to tell you that. God would punish me if I didn’t speak up and tell you that gluttony is a sin, ya’ big cow.” And then moving on to the handicapped children, reading aloud the scripture verse Leviticus 21:18-21, “No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. “

  • Jerry Reiter

    “We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about — our very skin. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given. I could not have fought against the discrimination of apartheid and not also fight against the discrimination that homosexuals endure, even in our churches and faith groups.
    I am proud that in South Africa, when we won the chance to build our own new constitution, the human rights of all have been explicitly enshrined in our laws. My hope is that one day this will be the case all over the world, and that all will have equal rights…. Opposing apartheid was a matter of justice. Opposing discrimination against women is a matter of justice. Opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a matter of justice. It is also a matter of love. Every human being is precious. We are all a part of God’s family-

  • Jerry Reiter

    from Bishop Desmond Tutu, adding, “churches say the expression of love in a heterosexual monogamous relationship includes the physical — the touching, embracing, kissing, the genital act; the totality of our love makes each of us grow to become increasingly God-like and compassionate. If this is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reasons have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual?
    The Jesus I worship is not likely to collaborate with those who vilify and persecute an already oppressed minority. I myself could not have opposed the injustice of penalizing people for something about which they could do nothing — their race — and then have kept quiet as women were being penalized for something they could do nothing about — their gender; hence my support for the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate.
    Equally, I cannot keep quiet while people are being penalized for something about which they can do nothing — their sexuality.”

  • Doc Anthony

    The **formerly** lesbian wife of New York City’s current mayor, refuses to allow anyone, pro-gay or otherwise, to call her a bisexual. She’s right.

    If a person does NOT call himself or herself a bisexual, what gives gay activisits the right to arbitrarily assign that label on them? Gay activists need to apologize for that mess and quit.

    But gay activists won’t do so, for they have no incentive to do so.

    So a valuable gift of resistance that Christians can offer to all ex-gays and ex-lesbians and all ex-LGBT, is simply to speak up and fight back against the denigration of their personal life stories through the gay activists’ deliberate misuse of that one label.

    We’ve got to take a stand, we’ve got to support ex-gays and ex-LGBT against the haters. It’s the Christian thing to do.

  • Doc Anthony

    “God created LGBT”? Bible doesn’t say that at all. Totally not.

  • James Carr

    They are a mockery of God’s Creation. Sweet and adorable as these grannies may be, they advertise a sin as a righteous alternative. They should care what God asks of them, and never assume that He is pleased with their choice. He told the adulterous woman to “go and sin no more”, not to “carry on, because it works for you.””

  • Jerry Reiter

    Mrs. DiBlasio said she could fall in love with a man or a woman. That is the very definition of bisexual. She makes the distinction she is only involved with her husband, but she does not claim other people can change their sexual orientation and she supports LGBT civil rights. Every medical assn. has explained for decades sexual orientation is not a choice.
    It seems like religious conservatives owe a HUGE apology to LGBT people for claiming sexual orientation is a choice when it is clearly not. Some women do experience fluidity, but it’s not like they wake up one day and say, “I will be straight from now on.”
    And as Alan Chambers (above) former long-time leader of Exodus International, the largest ex-gay ministry of all time, said, “99.9% of Christians seeking a change of sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual did not experience it.”

  • Jerry Reiter

    It’s no sin to be gay. It’s a gift from God. God loves His rainbow children.

  • James Carr

    No sin to be gay, but sinful to indulge in its practice. A diabetic, born that way, is told to avoid many things the non-diabetic enjoy. The diabetic can ignore these warnings and eat til they lose consciousness……. its their choice. Should diabetics now lobby for the world to eat as they do, or should they insist that they be called nondiabetic too? Hmmmmmm.

  • James Carr

    Don’t hold your breath on that apology thing.

  • Jerry Reiter

    Your example of diabetics shows us two things:
    First, you believe a person’s sexual orientation is a sickness, but that is not true. Check with any medical association.
    Second, if we stick with your analogy, the current bans on marriage equality are like bans on the unique food diabetics need.
    Your argument is set up in a way that would be true if gay marriage was going to be the replacement for marriage for everyone. But that is not the case.
    And, finally, the Christian church as a whole is very divided on this issue. Your opinion is now in the minority of Christians in the US. And even among those who share your theological views, they admit that the conservative church has done a terrible job of loving LGBT people. Here is the story of a major evangelical conference this weekend which touched on both our views respectfully.. http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2015/04/24/christian-sexuality-debate-boston-mirrors-national-conversation/

  • Jerry Reiter

    We got an official apology from the long-time leader of Exodus International, the worldwide umbrella network for most ex-gay ministries. Alan Chambers (commenting above) delivered the apology in person on a TV show in which I took part.
    And if you check out this weekend’s major evangelical Christian conference, you might be a bit surprised that even those who share your views believe the church could do much better in its treatment of LGBT people. http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2015/04/24/christian-sexuality-debate-boston-mirrors-national-conversation/

  • James Carr

    Any Christian Church that accepts gay marriage is no longer Christian. There can be no other opinion because homosexual acts are listed continually as immoral abominations. Church leaders of any stripe cannot excise parts of Scripture to accommodate society’s demand, for then they are true heretics.
    Accepting gays as children of God is one thing, to embrace their acts against God is quite another.

  • Tomas

    “If individuals who are attracted to the same-sex and are also able to have romantic and sexual relationships with someone of another gender, they are, by definition, bisexual. These few self-proclaimed success stories then are not of gay men (who are innately, exclusively attracted to persons of the same-sex) but of men who have, and always been, bisexual”

    “It’s important to allow each individual to decide with whom they want to spend the rest of their life.”

    Perfectly stated and should encourage men and women to be themselves and conduct their life accordingly rather than follow a culture. Great article, well done.

  • Jerry Reiter

    The real sin is fracturing the Body of Christ every time a new social issue or civil rights issue is debated. The debate over sexual orientation is a valid one. I posted info for you to read, but you refuse to read anything that might challenge your assumptions even in the most gentle of ways. You have elevated anti-gay prejudice to be the core of your belief system, but that is not the core of Christianity. You are the epitome’ of a bigot, someone who would destroy the Body of Christ to allow you to not love people you hate.

  • James Carr

    You are the bigot for assuming I have read nothing as far as a Christian argument for gay orientation. I can’t recall the numerous articles pro and con I have read over the years.
    Yet, it still all comes down to “love the sinner, hate the sin” as the only step Christianity can embrace. I am totally
    against the conceit of a gay marriage,
    but do understand the gay yearning for
    such a sanction from the world. It
    accords them a place equal to all other
    marriages, no difference at all.

    This, of course, is a lie they tell even themselves, and their vigilante tactics to force everyone to agree or die has been largely successful. Forcing the State to redefine marriage for the first time in history is one thing, but to harass the churches to conform also is sheer madness.
    Being gay is only part of a person’s totality of being. He is a child of God, who must look to God and his fellow man for answers, comfort, and love. He can’t ask God to bless a union that He never…

  • Jerry Reiter

    James, you disabled comments below, so I write this out of sequence here. Your views are not based in reality, nor are they based in Christ. You are not just opposed to marriage equality. You can’t grasp the concept that people are people, and love is love. You dehumanize and demonize an entire group of people you don’t know. And you blame it on Christ. Homophobia is your sickness. Education is the cure. Stop reading hate literature and check out medical science and the great amounts of new Christian literature that explains all of this so well. You choose to be ignorant and vicious. You can do better. You help nobody. You harm many. Stop. Father forgive him for he knows not what he does.

  • James Carr

    Jerry, if the truth harms people, what value is truth? Christian is not an adjective. It does not mean being kind and embracing of all and everything to maintain peace. It is a noun, a follower of Christ, Who certainly knew where to draw the line between good and evil.
    Modern writings and scientific studies add or subtract nothing to the laws of God, for His laws were written with the future in mind. So brand me as you wish, I am not you, nor do I agree with your approach.

  • Jerry Reiter

    If you want to claim to be a follower of Christ, you must do as He did. During His life, Jesus Christ never spoke a single word against gays or marriage equality. Very simple, but your anti-medical scientific assumptions cause only needless pain, suffering and death. Your rejection of medical science regarding LGBT issues is like the sects who reject blood transfusions due to bible verses, or those who told me my epileptic son should never take meds, but only go for demon deliverance because thousands of years ago when the bible was written, nobody knew what epilepsy was, and they assumed it was demonic possession when someone went into a seizure.
    You are not just disagreeing on an issue, either. You are turning your human prejudices into the cornerstone of your kind of Christianity, which has nothing to do with Christ.

  • Jerry Reiter

    The bible was written thousands of years before we humans recognized God so loved homosexuality that God created some of it in over 1,600 species. The bible may not have had a term for sexual orientation, but the entire Creation shows God loves diversity.
    Jesus affirmed the love of a same-sex couple in the Gospel of Matthew.. http://www.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/would-jesus-discriminate/454-jesus-affirmed-a-gay-couple-matthew-85-13.html

  • Jerry Reiter

    Every time you see a rainbow, that’s God blessing another same-sex wedding. Feel the love.

  • Alex

    I am against same-sex marriage, but not for the religious right’s reasons, marriage in itself when it comes to special privileges not afforded to unmarried folks besides mutual contracts regarding responsibilities and rights towards each other is discriminatory.

    Historically, marriage was a “Gendered institution”, females did not have many rights, and men for instance had no right to their wives social security benefits until about 40 years ago. To this day, the SS system while gender neutral still retains that “stay at home spouse” bias.

    During the civil rights era, rights became available regardless of gender, if gays and lesbians could marry in the 1960s, would gay men collect ss after their spouse died? Gays and lesbians cannot procreate, now marriage is not about procreation but historically marriage afforded protection from prosecution for “cohabitating or sex outside marriage”. Thus marriage was views as a “license to be legitimate in the eyes of the state”.

  • Alex

    Is it then fair to deny a person pell grants because they are married or unmarried, if my daughter who’s very independent applies for fafsa as “unmarried under 24”, she may not qualify for aid.

    Should singles subsidize via the tax code and social security couple who marry?
    Should people be forced to testify against their mothers,fathers,siblings,etc but not their legal spouse?

    Thus who advocate marriage in general are often guilty of discrimination, would it be okay to fire someone because they are married or unmarried, if not then why would it be okay to discriminate when it comes to taxes,financial aid, criminal law,access to credit, housing, health insurance,etc.

    The solution of course may not require the state to get out of marriage, rather marriage could simply be independent contracts between two parties as to say what happens after death. We for instance have prenup agreements and no fault divorce, should we ban or limit that and would that affect desire to marry?

  • Alex

    Inter racial relations are different but when Loving V. Virginia was around a marriage license was a “legitimate license to marry and procreate in the eyes of the state”.

    Until Lawrence v. texas and other court cases prior to that throughtout the later 20th century, the right to privacy in terms of sex,contraception,etc was not recognized.

    When Loving v. Virginia was decided, men could not get SS benefits if their wives died on behalf of them. So if SSM was legalize what would happen two 2 gay men and women back then?

    The question is what is the “right to marry”? Is it a right to freely create contracts with your partner, or simply “A right to special status created by the state”, “is there a right to ss benefits,taxes,etc”, what happens if we abolish those things and make divorce difficult and ban pre-nups?

    Getting the government involved in defining what a marriage is not optimal for society, unless government is limited to simply enforcing mutual contracts…

  • Pingback: On Homophobia, My Life, and Blogging | Polynous()

  • Pingback: Alan Chambers: “Same-sex relationships can be holy” - Faithfully LGBT()

  • Pingback: On My Struggle With Destructive Theology | Jarell()