DISQUS

I object to you labeling me "activist" because it always seems to be an insult when you use it. I do not stigmatize you. I call you on your dishonesty. It is not honest to refer to yourself as "ex-gay" or "former homosexual" when you are still attracted and lust after men. Straight men don't do that. Gays or "secular" bisexuals do that.
As to deingrating your beliefs... NO. I have NO objection to your faith. I am a born-again Christian and love Jesus as you do. I object to EXODUS's involvement in politics. Wendy Gritter, your own keynote speaker, seems to have the same objection. I criticize EXODUS for blaming "drop-outs" for not "changing" -- even though neither you nor Alan seem to be capable or willing to define what you mean by "change". You accuse us (ex-ex-gays) of not having enough faith, not trying hard enough, not believing hard enough -- and then you take no responsibility for the harm such a message does to many people.
Fascinated by you? Hardly. Angry? Yes. Disappointed and frustrated with your continuining dishonesty? Yes. Obsessed? Only with telling the truth. If that makes me an activist, so be it.

Randy: I am not an "activist", but I can assure you that I do not find you "fascinating". Don't flatter yourself. You commented earlier that "satan would love nothing other than to discourage and insult me." Kinda grandiose, dontcha think? I am sure Satan has better things to do.

I object to you labeling me "activist" because it always seems to be an insult when you use it. I do not stigmatize you. I call you on your dishonesty. It is not honest to refer to yourself as "ex-gay" or "former homosexual" when you are still attracted and lust after men. Straight men don't do that. Gays or "secular" bisexuals do that.

As to deingrating your beliefs... NO. I have NO objection to your faith. I am a born-again Christian and love Jesus as you do. I object to EXODUS's involvement in politics. Wendy Gritter, your own keynote speaker, seems to have the same objection. I criticize EXODUS for blaming "drop-outs" for not "changing" -- even though neither you nor Alan seem to be capable or willing to define what you mean by "change". You accuse us (ex-ex-gays) of not having enough faith, not trying hard enough, not believing hard enough -- and then you take no responsibility for the harm such a message does to many people.

Fascinated by you? Hardly. Angry? Yes. Disappointed and frustrated with your continuining dishonesty? Yes. Obsessed? Only with telling the truth. If that makes me an activist, so be it.

Randy: I am not an "activist", but I can assure you that I do not find you "fascinating". Don't flatter yourself. You commented earlier that "satan would love nothing other than to discourage and insult me." Kinda grandiose, dontcha think? I am sure Satan has better things to do.

Unlike you, it seems like Alan may have seen BrokeBack Mountain.
"Brokeback Mountain is a story of unbridled obsession and painful oppressionâ€"emotions that I and thousands of others who have left homosexuality are well familiar with,”
Maybe you could ask him about both movies. And by the way, Brokeback was not about "unbridled obession". It was about falling in love with someone at a time and in a place that could get you killed if anyone found out. These places still exist.
When you think of it, both films could be used to make EXODUS's point -- that giving in to SSA is painful, destructive and can lead to death-- here and hereafter. Heck, both films could be training films for EXODUS's negative message about being gay.

It also dealth with the theme of a person struggling with SSA. Both movies "Brokeback" and "Notes" portrayed the "gay lifestyle" as sometihng miserable and lonely. You would have thought that EXODUS would have supported both films since they certainly did not glorify being gay. I was just wondering if you make it policy to not see films with gay themes.

Isn't gluttony a sin?

Unlike you, it seems like Alan may have seen BrokeBack Mountain.

"Brokeback Mountain is a story of unbridled obsession and painful oppression—emotions that I and thousands of others who have left homosexuality are well familiar with,”

Maybe you could ask him about both movies. And by the way, Brokeback was not about "unbridled obession". It was about falling in love with someone at a time and in a place that could get you killed if anyone found out. These places still exist.

When you think of it, both films could be used to make EXODUS's point -- that giving in to SSA is painful, destructive and can lead to death-- here and hereafter. Heck, both films could be training films for EXODUS's negative message about being gay.

It also dealth with the theme of a person struggling with SSA. Both movies "Brokeback" and "Notes" portrayed the "gay lifestyle" as sometihng miserable and lonely. You would have thought that EXODUS would have supported both films since they certainly did not glorify being gay. I was just wondering if you make it policy to not see films with gay themes.

Isn't gluttony a sin?

Just curious. Did you happen to see "Notes on a Scandal"?

Just curious. Did you happen to see "Notes on a Scandal"?

It's obvious you did not see the film. It was not, as you assert, a "one-sided, progay viewpoint of closeted homosexuality." It was a story about a man who had "unwanted SSA" -- at at time and a place when you could be murdered if other people even suspected it. Sadly, such places still exist, even in our time.

Randy, why the sudden defensiveness? I have made no personal comments about you or offered one-sided opinions on being closeted. I said I identified with the film -- particularly the Ledger character's inner struggle and the murder of his friend -- since my friend was also mudered for being gay. You don't have to be a "gay activist" (which I am NOT) or pro-gay to apprecaie the story of love and loss -- just human.
I have made no comments about you. You and I have not corresponded before now. I do not know what you believe -- except to assume that you believe that homosexual behavior is always sinful and that "change" is possible -- although apparently very hard to define.
I have simply asked you a question about why you didn't see the film and why you use words the way you do. I thought I WAS on the topic of this thread (the death of Keith Ledger) -- you mentioned you didn't see the movie and I simply asked why.

Just curious. You said: "I never saw Brokeback Mountain, I never saw it because I don’t really want to." Why not? Why would you deliberately avoid the film? Ledger did a spectacular job of portraying a man struggling with his gay feelings. The film certainly did not glorify being gay.
The cinematograpy and direction were beautiful. The supporting cast did great jobs. It made my heart ache. I could identify with Ledger's character -- married, closeted and eventually losing someone he loved -- murdered by anti-gay hatred and violence. You really owe it to yourself to see it.

It's obvious you did not see the film. It was not, as you assert, a "one-sided, progay viewpoint of closeted homosexuality." It was a story about a man who had "unwanted SSA" -- at at time and a place when you could be murdered if other people even suspected it. Sadly, such places still exist, even in our time.

Randy, why the sudden defensiveness? I have made no personal comments about you or offered one-sided opinions on being closeted. I said I identified with the film -- particularly the Ledger character's inner struggle and the murder of his friend -- since my friend was also mudered for being gay. You don't have to be a "gay activist" (which I am NOT) or pro-gay to apprecaie the story of love and loss -- just human.

I have made no comments about you. You and I have not corresponded before now. I do not know what you believe -- except to assume that you believe that homosexual behavior is always sinful and that "change" is possible -- although apparently very hard to define.

I have simply asked you a question about why you didn't see the film and why you use words the way you do. I thought I WAS on the topic of this thread (the death of Keith Ledger) -- you mentioned you didn't see the movie and I simply asked why.

Just curious. You said: "I never saw Brokeback Mountain, I never saw it because I don’t really want to." Why not? Why would you deliberately avoid the film? Ledger did a spectacular job of portraying a man struggling with his gay feelings. The film certainly did not glorify being gay.

The cinematograpy and direction were beautiful. The supporting cast did great jobs. It made my heart ache. I could identify with Ledger's character -- married, closeted and eventually losing someone he loved -- murdered by anti-gay hatred and violence. You really owe it to yourself to see it.

I will look for the post. It's really a pretty simple thing: As most people understand it:
"Homosexual" or "gay" refer to a person who is not attracted to the opposite sex, but only to their own sex. Yes, I know that some people adopt it as an "identity" and insist they were "born that way" and cannot "change". But I am only speaking of the ATTRACTIONS, whether "wanted" or "unwanted". In 54 years of living, my attractions have always been EXCLUSIVELY towards males. Therefore, I am gay or homosexual.
"Straight" of "heterosexual" would refer to a person whose attractions were exclusively towardsd the opposite sex -- like my parents.
"Bisexual" would refer to a person with BOTH attractions -- even though those attractions may be more strongly "oriented" towards males or females. I have met very few bisexuals whoare "50 -50". You admit sexual, romantic, lustful attractions towards BOTH sexes. In this regard, you and I are very different. I have never lusted towards women. It seems to me that that's what BISEXUAL men do.

I will look for the post. It's really a pretty simple thing: As most people understand it:

"Homosexual" or "gay" refer to a person who is not attracted to the opposite sex, but only to their own sex. Yes, I know that some people adopt it as an "identity" and insist they were "born that way" and cannot "change". But I am only speaking of the ATTRACTIONS, whether "wanted" or "unwanted". In 54 years of living, my attractions have always been EXCLUSIVELY towards males. Therefore, I am gay or homosexual.

"Straight" of "heterosexual" would refer to a person whose attractions were exclusively towardsd the opposite sex -- like my parents.

"Bisexual" would refer to a person with BOTH attractions -- even though those attractions may be more strongly "oriented" towards males or females. I have met very few bisexuals whoare "50 -50". You admit sexual, romantic, lustful attractions towards BOTH sexes. In this regard, you and I are very different. I have never lusted towards women. It seems to me that that's what BISEXUAL men do.

Randy, thanks for responding to my question. I know it may be somewhat off-topic of this thread, but I appreciate your willingness to talk with me. You replied:
"Yes I am attracted sexually and romantically towards the opposite sex. Very strongly in fact. Where it is in line with the Creator’s intent I have enjoyed developing relationships and dating women over the years. Where it crosses over into lust… "
Since you openly acknowledge that you are now romantically and sexually attracted to both mena and women -- even to the point of "lusting" after both sexes, wouldn't that mean that you are now bisexual in orientation? Have you always been attracted to both sexes or is attraction to women something new?
By "orientation", I only mean the DIRECTION of the attractions you experience. You seem to acknowledge that the "direction" is not exlcusively heterosexual or homosexual. And, I am not suggesting that "orientation" is a fixed state or identity. To me, "orientation" only means "direction" -- as in "the house is oriented in a North-South direction".
In my own case, I never developed attractions to the opposite sex, so my sexual orientation (the prevailing direction of my attractions) is now and has always been exclusively towards men -- even when I was celibate, mariied heterosexually, "ex-gay" or "former homosexual". I am talking here only of attractions, not behavior. Do you agree that (at least in the sense that most people understand "orientation)that your attractions to both sexes would meet the standard definition of bisexual?

Randy, thanks for responding to my question. I know it may be somewhat off-topic of this thread, but I appreciate your willingness to talk with me. You replied:

"Yes I am attracted sexually and romantically towards the opposite sex. Very strongly in fact. Where it is in line with the Creator’s intent I have enjoyed developing relationships and dating women over the years. Where it crosses over into lust… "

Since you openly acknowledge that you are now romantically and sexually attracted to both mena and women -- even to the point of "lusting" after both sexes, wouldn't that mean that you are now bisexual in orientation? Have you always been attracted to both sexes or is attraction to women something new?

By "orientation", I only mean the DIRECTION of the attractions you experience. You seem to acknowledge that the "direction" is not exlcusively heterosexual or homosexual. And, I am not suggesting that "orientation" is a fixed state or identity. To me, "orientation" only means "direction" -- as in "the house is oriented in a North-South direction".

In my own case, I never developed attractions to the opposite sex, so my sexual orientation (the prevailing direction of my attractions) is now and has always been exclusively towards men -- even when I was celibate, mariied heterosexually, "ex-gay" or "former homosexual". I am talking here only of attractions, not behavior. Do you agree that (at least in the sense that most people understand "orientation)that your attractions to both sexes would meet the standard definition of bisexual?

Randy: Are you now attracted sexually and romantically towards the opposite sex -- or do you only have these "temptations" towards men?

Randy: Are you now attracted sexually and romantically towards the opposite sex -- or do you only have these "temptations" towards men?