Randy, since this is a newspaper, I assume that the above is your memory of what was said and that it hasn't appeared in any media yet. The reason I bring it up is that her use of the word "alleged" was actually redundant since she started out by saying "You say that you...had this alleged...shift..." She may be nice, but I'm glad you called her on the word so that she's careful when she goes to actually piece it together or has a good editor. She may even include your exchange in her article.
Will you post the article when it comes out, or link us to something? Thanks.
Randy
· 2 years ago
Cool. Yes, if it is online I will "probably" post it (if I remember.)
Cindy Lawson
· 2 years ago
"...if someone told her that he was gay, you wouldn't state that they are "allegedly" gay. You would think that if they say that about themselves, they would know."
This point startled me for a couple of reasons: 1). It was so obvious; and 2). I realized that I myself had thought nothing of her use of "allegedly" other than acceptance and even expectation that a reporter would use it in such an interview.
Well thought reply, Randy.
Randy
· 2 years ago
Thank you Cindy. It's good to see you :).
The story behind this story just got really ... bad. We are investigating. I thought the interview went well ... and it did but what she did with some of my other friends was unscrupulous.
More later I am sure.
michaelinnorfolk
· 2 years ago
Randy,
I can understand your WANTING your sexual orientation to have changed. However, I know full well the power of denial, especially when it comes to not wanting to be gay. You see, I was in the closet for 37 years, got married, had children and tried all kinds of self-delusion to avoid admitting the truth. I feel sorry that you cannot accept that maybe, just maybe GOD made you gay. On my blog http://michael-in-norfolk.blogspot.com/ I am recounting my story so that others do not make the same mistakes, particularly the (in retrospect) selfish mistake of getting married in order to be "straight," "normal, or whatever you may label it.
... ::: edited :::
jayhawk2007
· 2 years ago
Randy,
A few things:
1) I wonder what you have to say to gay Christians who have given up the lifestyle and tried to changed but have not been able to, despite decades of trying? I'm sure you would agree it is more important to be Holy than to be straight, or even try to change your orientation, right? I'm guessing this is true because there are millions of straight people who are anything but Holy.
2) I would never try and suggest you don't have honest attractions to women, but I recently asked Dr. Throckmorton how many gay men who have claimed to have changed their orientation might have been bisexual and he said probably most - which I thought was interesting. He did make a distinction between being gay and being bisexual though.
3) Gay men have been getting married and having kids for decades - this statement isn't a challenge it is just something that happens. I wonder though how we could ever verify the claims of someone who claims they have changed? And I wonder about the those who, in the past, claim to have changed completely, then been found having relations with people of the same sex.
I know that's alot of ground to cover, and I apologize for all the questions. These are just things that I have thought about over the past few years.
Take care
Jonathan
· 2 years ago
Hi Randy!
David ... over at ... has a very interesting article regarding this particular post. In it he talks a bit about your feelings re the reporters use of the word "alleged" in response to your assertion as to your orientation and your use of the word "identified" when you talk about gay people. It's a very interesting point and I would be very interesting in hearing your thoughts on what he wrote. I can understand that it might be uncomfortable for you but I think it might be very informative to many of us to hear your response.
Thanks and blessings to you!
j.
Randy
· 2 years ago
1). Holiness isn't subject to sexual identity and stewardship, it's the other way around. Holiness is the goal regardless of sexual orientation or temptation. At the same time the question that then must be asked of the professing believer is...are you claiming something to be in line with holiness that isn't? is what your doing facilitating holiness in your life? That's rhetorical for each believer to decide between themselves and God.
2. I was completely 100% gay. Today I am not. I am not in denial and I didn't start from some unknown "bi-sexual" launching point. My identity, my attractions, romantic pursuits and goals in life are completely different than they were 15 years ago.
3. You easily say they are "gay" as a matter of fact, I say they had same sex attractions but didn't adopt a gay-centric worldview or buy into gay fundamentalism. Or they chose to pursue the woman they truly loved, the love of their life, and wanted to keep their commitments to them in spite of temptation or struggle. Some have left their wives and family in pursuit of what they have determined for themselves to be who they truly are...but your generalization doesn't match the many men, and women, I know who have had same sex attraction and are happily married today.
Here's the deal. I was gay and now I am not. I was not bisexual, I did change. It is biased to impose someone elses interpretation of my life on my life. It is wrong for some to infer that if it didn't occur for some (for whatever reason) that it probably didn't occur for me. People go back to homosexual relationship for a wide variety of reasons I am sure. I don't relate to them because like thousands of others, even though the invitation exists, I haven't gone back and make no plans to do so.
My testimony is as valid as the next person. Most accept others word for whether they would describe themselves as "gay" or "straight" and yet for some reason my "alleged" life is something I have to prove. The point I am making is, someone else's bias or experience does not determine my reality. My life isn't driven by being "gay" or even the "gay" community. I don't have to prove my assertions I just have to live them.
By God's grace I will.
Randy
· 2 years ago
Hey J. I don't read that blog and won't. I also don't want any "reverse" publicity for that blog that is why I edited your comment ever so slightly.
I get plenty of constructive criticism and I don't find that blog to be constructive at all. There was a time when I would listen to them but they crossed the line a few years ago.
I refer to gay identified because that is how that person would identify. I don't say they allege that they are gay.
My guess is David is spinning a nuance into something that is simply straightforward. Which is par for the course for that blog.
jayhawk2007
· 2 years ago
Randy,
I'm not trying to negate your experience. There are, however, people who claimed they were 100% gay, who found out later through therapy or life experience that they were truly bisexual, as is most of society. That's all
Take care
jayhawk2007
· 2 years ago
The other point I was trying to make is that Dr. Throckmorton's experience has been that most gay men who seek change, even those who claim to be mostly gay, are really bisexual - and I think he's probably right.
In the same vein, there are many so-called straight men who are really bisexual as well - I witnessed this during my time living the gay lifestyle. There are thousands of married men who secretly have relations with other men.
Thanks
jayhawk2007
· 2 years ago
One last post - In all fairness, Randy, there are many, many gay people who don't define themselves by their sexuality. They live very normal and often quiet lives. It is society, and often religion, that makes a big deal out of being gay.
Jonathan
· 2 years ago
Thanks for your reply Randy!
I guess I understand what you are saying. But, don't you think that a gay person, when reading or hearing you say "gay identified" might draw the conclusion that you are in some way suggesting that if they didn't "identify" as gay, then they wouldn't be gay. And, if they drew that conclusion, wouldn't that run awfully close to being "alleged?" Seems to be a fine line.
Here's what I mean. I am a Christian, or as you would say, Christian "identified." I certainly don't go around saying I'm Christian identified. I don't know...seems an awful much like semantics. And semantics can screw with a person's head. LOL.
j.
Randy
· 2 years ago
J., remember who I work with... a lot of people who have had or have same sex attraction who would never identify as gay and don't have too. I think being "gay" is more about a fundamental world and relational view than sexual orientation. For my life, homosexual is the sexual orientation...being gay because of that is a worldview. If you claim to be gay I take it as a fact that you have adopted a relational and world view in line with that label unless you say otherwise. That's how identity works...it communicates a lot, that's why we all have a primary identity with secondary attributes. If someone tells me they have same sex attraction, I don't assume they are gay because again, identity isn't (or shouldn't be) fixed on a person's sexual orientation.
When I say gay identified I am making a distinction that not everyone who has same sex attraction identifies as gay.
All Comments
Will you post the article when it comes out, or link us to something? Thanks.
This point startled me for a couple of reasons: 1). It was so obvious; and 2). I realized that I myself had thought nothing of her use of "allegedly" other than acceptance and even expectation that a reporter would use it in such an interview.
Well thought reply, Randy.
The story behind this story just got really ... bad. We are investigating. I thought the interview went well ... and it did but what she did with some of my other friends was unscrupulous.
More later I am sure.
I can understand your WANTING your sexual orientation to have changed. However, I know full well the power of denial, especially when it comes to not wanting to be gay. You see, I was in the closet for 37 years, got married, had children and tried all kinds of self-delusion to avoid admitting the truth. I feel sorry that you cannot accept that maybe, just maybe GOD made you gay. On my blog http://michael-in-norfolk.blogspot.com/ I am recounting my story so that others do not make the same mistakes, particularly the (in retrospect) selfish mistake of getting married in order to be "straight," "normal, or whatever you may label it.
... ::: edited :::
A few things:
1) I wonder what you have to say to gay Christians who have given up the lifestyle and tried to changed but have not been able to, despite decades of trying? I'm sure you would agree it is more important to be Holy than to be straight, or even try to change your orientation, right? I'm guessing this is true because there are millions of straight people who are anything but Holy.
2) I would never try and suggest you don't have honest attractions to women, but I recently asked Dr. Throckmorton how many gay men who have claimed to have changed their orientation might have been bisexual and he said probably most - which I thought was interesting. He did make a distinction between being gay and being bisexual though.
3) Gay men have been getting married and having kids for decades - this statement isn't a challenge it is just something that happens. I wonder though how we could ever verify the claims of someone who claims they have changed? And I wonder about the those who, in the past, claim to have changed completely, then been found having relations with people of the same sex.
I know that's alot of ground to cover, and I apologize for all the questions. These are just things that I have thought about over the past few years.
Take care
David ... over at ... has a very interesting article regarding this particular post. In it he talks a bit about your feelings re the reporters use of the word "alleged" in response to your assertion as to your orientation and your use of the word "identified" when you talk about gay people. It's a very interesting point and I would be very interesting in hearing your thoughts on what he wrote. I can understand that it might be uncomfortable for you but I think it might be very informative to many of us to hear your response.
Thanks and blessings to you!
j.
2. I was completely 100% gay. Today I am not. I am not in denial and I didn't start from some unknown "bi-sexual" launching point. My identity, my attractions, romantic pursuits and goals in life are completely different than they were 15 years ago.
3. You easily say they are "gay" as a matter of fact, I say they had same sex attractions but didn't adopt a gay-centric worldview or buy into gay fundamentalism. Or they chose to pursue the woman they truly loved, the love of their life, and wanted to keep their commitments to them in spite of temptation or struggle. Some have left their wives and family in pursuit of what they have determined for themselves to be who they truly are...but your generalization doesn't match the many men, and women, I know who have had same sex attraction and are happily married today.
Here's the deal. I was gay and now I am not. I was not bisexual, I did change. It is biased to impose someone elses interpretation of my life on my life. It is wrong for some to infer that if it didn't occur for some (for whatever reason) that it probably didn't occur for me. People go back to homosexual relationship for a wide variety of reasons I am sure. I don't relate to them because like thousands of others, even though the invitation exists, I haven't gone back and make no plans to do so.
My testimony is as valid as the next person. Most accept others word for whether they would describe themselves as "gay" or "straight" and yet for some reason my "alleged" life is something I have to prove. The point I am making is, someone else's bias or experience does not determine my reality. My life isn't driven by being "gay" or even the "gay" community. I don't have to prove my assertions I just have to live them.
By God's grace I will.
I get plenty of constructive criticism and I don't find that blog to be constructive at all. There was a time when I would listen to them but they crossed the line a few years ago.
I refer to gay identified because that is how that person would identify. I don't say they allege that they are gay.
My guess is David is spinning a nuance into something that is simply straightforward. Which is par for the course for that blog.
I'm not trying to negate your experience. There are, however, people who claimed they were 100% gay, who found out later through therapy or life experience that they were truly bisexual, as is most of society. That's all
Take care
In the same vein, there are many so-called straight men who are really bisexual as well - I witnessed this during my time living the gay lifestyle. There are thousands of married men who secretly have relations with other men.
Thanks
I guess I understand what you are saying. But, don't you think that a gay person, when reading or hearing you say "gay identified" might draw the conclusion that you are in some way suggesting that if they didn't "identify" as gay, then they wouldn't be gay. And, if they drew that conclusion, wouldn't that run awfully close to being "alleged?" Seems to be a fine line.
Here's what I mean. I am a Christian, or as you would say, Christian "identified." I certainly don't go around saying I'm Christian identified. I don't know...seems an awful much like semantics. And semantics can screw with a person's head. LOL.
j.
When I say gay identified I am making a distinction that not everyone who has same sex attraction identifies as gay.