Pomo:Yeah, I’m also interested in how this all plays out. I am hopeful it could work out for the good, at least in some circles.

Anonymous: (regular Anonymous, not grantdale) I see infidelity as an issue separate from “meaningful but complicated heterosexuality,” so I disagree. Although I think the label is a little silly for something that looks more to me like bisexuality, I don’t think in itself it would hurt marriages or relationships, as long as the couple is able to talk frankly about the “complicated” part.

Karen K: You raise a lot of interesting issues, both here and in your blog post. I’m actually working on a “real” post about J+Y, so I’ll respond to more of your thoughts there because it fits better. Also, I’ve got another post bouncing around my head about applying “rights” rhetoric to the pursuit of change / therapy. I’m not sure how I feel about it.

Karen Booth:

I haven’t really gotten to look at the detailed results yet, so I can’t comment there.

While I am in full agreement with you about the importance (to the Christian life in general) of submission to the will of God and a right understanding of God’s grace, I’m honestly doubtful that there is a simple explanation for who “succeeds” and who doesn’t….

…and I’ve got a bit more to say about this, but unfortunately I have to run. Sorry to stop in the middle, but hopefully I’ll get a chance to finish up with this and other replies tomorrow.

p.s. Hi Grantdale and thanks for your kind words! We’re doing all right here–hope all is well with you guys too!

Although yes, before people pounce, I know it was intended as a way of differentiating between those AlwaysStraights(TM) who have never questioned their attraction. But really, who among us doesn’t have some kind of variation, interesting stories, and components that are in some way “out of the norm”?

I suppose I am really most concerned about 1) taking studies and using them to demonstrate what someone should do. I’ve heard that there’s some kind of fallacy with ought and is… ; and similarly, 2) groups purportedly focusing on discipleship tossing their hats into the political ring.

Studies like this one–which I’ve not read, just looked at the reviews of–are useful in mapping the cartography of human sexuality, if you will. But beyond that, I’m not sure that we are really entitled to just help ourselves to policy and ethical maxims. Especially because we are dealing with a slice of a slice of “highly motivated” individuals. We should be sure our culture has room for these persons, as much as the next individual or group, but not at the expense of others.

My university does myriad research and treatment on bulimia, sex addiction, you name it. In dealing with such issues, virtually everything is reasonable to consider provided that the patient knowingly consents. For example, in bulimia, it appears that the gag reflex required for food regurgitation can be throttled back by certain types of vagus nerve stimulation, both electrical and chemical. If I dealt with satyriasis, constantly behaving improperly toward every female I encountered in my quest to gain sexual satisfaction, virtually any therapy to which I cnsented would be acceptable.

But if someone suggests that a potential definition of “success” might be, for an evangelical Christian dealing with unwanted (for theological reasons) but compulsive SSA, learning to be happy and fulfilled in a celibate life, the world goes crazy.

Why is this that much different from an alcoholic successfully abstaining from drinking?

However change might be defined – it does occur. And for most it looks different from one person to the next. Also, this study was ONLY two years. Follow up studies on those who have attempted suicide have been conducted over 30 years to see if the therapuetic treatment was working. (Let’s keep that in mind when dealing with such life issues) This study did show two things that those in the gay community say is impossible.

We know you don’t like being challenged, having set yourself up as an utterly unqualified homosexuality expert, but we’re not on Earth to please you. Perhaps the real problem is that your ambitions do not match with our assessment of your ability. And we told you. Tough, and, well, whatever.

Look, you were wrong here. That is why we commented. You used pejorative language, and displayed that very typical and unsubtle way that you set about on people. Passive-bullying, I think that’s how we’d creatively phrase it.

(It’s not a terrible thing to simply say “I was wrong, didn’t mean that, sorry”. I was raised thinking that sort of personal honesty was a Christian virtue. Shows how much I must be out of touch.)

You know Karen, we really have taken our time to read DM’s (good) writing from when she first started. Quietly. Without much other than a rare question from time to time. DM, as I think we’ve told her before, reminds us very much of one of our dearest and longest friends. (Yeah DM, scary — two of you on Earth!)

DM’s never bothered us, nor should she. Why would she? She thinks she’s just blathering on about herself, but she does in fact offer us something we think is valuable to observe.

You, on the other hand…

We really do object to an always-heterosexual woman who has taken on a mission to screw down on people and shame them into trying to change their sexuality (a labour in vain, for good reason). Someone who’ll spout any unprovoked silliness at her first opportunity, and then do a Clinton “depends on what is is” to crab step herself away from accountability.

You don’t know any ex-ex-gays Karen, except in passing. You couldn’t possibly talk the way you do if you did, and you wouldn’t keep using shame to try coerce people into conformity. You’re a social warrior, not a minister. And you really are full of yourself.

At this point, I think the two/three of us have spoiled DM’s nice blog more than sufficiently.

Until next time, and please say a warm hello to Warren from us.

ps: our condolences on the Thomas Project. Apparently “people don’t change, they just accessorise”. Except for a few weirdos like DM