There is a very interesting New York Times article (promoted on Anglican Mainstream) about the once-prominent gay youth activist Michael Glatze who, in July 2007 at the age of 32, suddenly renounced his homosexuality, leaving his boyfriend of 10 years. Glatze now says:
Homosexuality is a cage in which you are trapped in an endless cycle of constantly wanting more — sexually — that you can never actually receive, constantly full of emptiness, trying to justify your twisted actions by politics and ‘feel good’ language.
The organisation Ex-Gay Watch write about the New York Times article in their profile of Michael Glatze, and another article on the same site talks about Glatze as an advocate of bullying ‘as a growing experience’ which discusses Glatze’s extreme – even racist – views. They quote the following from Glatze’s blog, which he subsequently shut down:
Have I mentioned lately how utterly *disgusting* Obama is? And, yes, it’s because he’s black. God, help us all.
This Ex-Gay Watch article, in turn, links to the interview mentioned in the New York Times article which has subsequently been removed from the NARTH website (http://www.narth.com/docs/nicoglatze.html). The interview is between Glatze and Dr Joseph Nicolosi of NARTH, an organisation dedicated to treating people with ‘unwanted same sex attractions’. Luckily, the interview is also available here.
The Nicolosi interview is curious: it is worth reading especially for the way that Nicolosi leads Glatze from one thought to another, prompting him in a pseudo-psychological language. For instance, when discussing meditation, which Glatze’s formerly practiced, Nicolosi says:
Even though you aren’t practicing it much any more, perhaps you internalized the attitude of clearing your mind and consciously moving away from negative thoughts.
To which Glatze replies, ‘Yes, maybe you’re right.’
There is a very curious passage from Glatze which seems to give an interesting – and not very flattering – insight into his character. In this passage, Glatze is talking about how things are for him now, having rejected his homosexuality:
Let’s say I was at a party, and there was this guy sitting there and I noticed that he works out, and I’ve been working out too. Let’s say it was kind of a rowdy party and so I said, “Let’s arm wrestle,” and we did, and I won, and some other people got involved, and there wasn’t anything sexual about it at all. Three or four years ago if we arm-wrestled, I would have thought, “Does that mean something sexual…?” or else “Does this mean I’m jealous of this guy?” Back then, jealousy couldn’t be satisfied by anything other than same-sex activity. I was convinced I could never break down the barriers–the feeling of uncomfortableness I had about a guy like that– without sex. I would think, “This guy’s impossible to know.” His masculinity would have scared or challenged me; actually “scared” is more appropriate. This feeling would stir up these kinds of carnal needs. […] And then I probably would have gotten my mind into the whole desire part–the whole kind of push and pull around the issue of domination.
Right. I think this tells us something of where Michael Glatze is, or was, sexually and emotionally, and it isn’t a picture of perfect, whole, sexuality. For him, sexual desire is intrinsically tied up with the whole ‘push and pull around the issue of domination’. It is perhaps in this context that – according to Dave Rattigan of Ex-Gay Watch – ‘he called homosexuality “neurotic” and “abnormal,” saying it was “lust and pornography wrapped into one.”’
Glatze’s rather dubious attitude to sex could probably apply both to homosexual and heterosexual sex, so it is curious in some ways that he has now become something of a focus of attention for NARTH and Anglican Mainstream, promoters of the Ex-Gay Way. When Glatze talks about heterosexuality it is really homosexuality that he talks about. With heterosexality, he says, ‘there’s nothing wrong with it that you have to compensate for through another man’:
With heterosexuality, you experience your own existence, including your physical existence, with a sense of integrity and liberty. There’s a freedom to be oneself–to be normal, not to have to fight against a deficit that you’re constantly trying to patch up-not to experience these negative emotions that you’re constantly having to make excuses for. You’re inhabiting and owning your own body — your whole wonderful, God-given and God-created human body, and there’s nothing wrong with it that you have to compensate for through another man. But when you’re engaging in same-sex activities, you’re going to have to start to create all kinds of justifications…little stories that you start telling yourself to make it feel right and normal. You share these stories with others to strengthen their foundation, to get group justification for them. That’s the whole process right there that creates gay culture.
Quite apart from the fact that as a born-again, unmarried Christian, Glatze seems to know more about the heterosexual sexual experience than he perhaps should, this gloomy and unenviable painting of gay life is one that seems rather familiar from other accounts of ex-gays. From the perspective of the many years of happiness I have personally experienced as a gay man, it seems very sad, and I rather get the sense that Glatze has never found what he wanted in a relationship, and still hasn’t, and the promise of the perfect heterosexual relationship might be as shallow as the former relationships that didn’t work out for him. Perhaps it has nothing to do with others, or indeed his sexuality – perhaps he is just a very mixed up person. But who am I to suggest this? I don’t know him.
One point I would like to make, though, is this. My experience as a happy gay man perhaps counts for very little in the eyes of somebody like Glatze. He would consider me to be ‘under deception’, as he has put it, though my mind seems clear enough to me. Perhaps in the scheme of things, none of our own personal experiences count for very much in the wider debate. What happened to Michael Glatze is interesting, but it doesn’t win any arguments. Neither will what has happened to me. All our life-stories do is point to the obvious fact that we know so little about what makes us tick, a fact that we would all – on every side of the argument – do well to accept. Only God can see what we really are, and we can’t see what God sees in others. This is why Jesus told us not to judge others – because we simply can’t understand what lies beneath the surface, within another person’s heart. “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Matthew 7:1-2
flockedout
flocked out 
Thanks for this…
I was reminded of the same kind of language and sentiment expressed by ex-members of cults – often blaming ‘brainwashing’ on their conversion (tho’ there is little evidence to support the idea brainwashing works – see http://faithisnotthesameasreligion1.blogspot.com/2011/05/problem-with-cults-and-their-critics.html). The attraction of the ‘Brainwashing’ thesis is that it absolves the cult member of responsibility of their actions – and on leaving the cult, even tho’ they may feel they have failed (remember all that enthusiasm and idealism has come to nothing!), they can then say they were ‘brainwashed’. Likewise it is far easier for parents, friends and wider society to blame the successful recruitment of a cult member on ‘brainwashing’ than to say that s/he preferred the cult to life with his/her family, friends or wider society.
There is something similar going on here. Presuming (as is often the case in Right Wing media reports on the ‘gay community’) that being gay is like being a paid up member of some Fifth Column and that gays have their own network and sing from the same hymn-sheet (or at least the same page of the English Hymnal).
I have had the same tutor as a MA and PhD student/candidate for almost four years now. I have now bridged the gap between student and staff in that I have been doing some teaching and marking this year and so have been involved in the marking admin process; this has meant some of the wall have come down between my tutor and I (tho’ we get on very well anyway). A few weeks ago, in a chance remark on a discussion on ‘gay marriage’ I suddenly realised my tutor was telling me was gay. I don’t have the world’s most reliable gaydar, but you’d have thought after four years I’d have figured out he was gay; but no, because (much to the disappointment of the filthy minded conservative Christians – who seem obsessed with what other people do with their dangly bits) being gay is like having green eyes. Some people have them, so people don’t. It is not a culture – unless you choose it – it is not an ethnicity, it is not an ontologically unique existence. My partner and I can go years and never step foot in a gay bar (when we do it is usually when we’re on holiday); we aren’t particularly interested in ‘gay culture’ and we live in a predominantly white, middle-class, family orientated commuter belt town in Hertfordshire.
As is often the case with those who wittering on about the ‘evils’ of homosexuality I get the feel the person Glatze most fears is himself and to avoid the terrible inner tension this causes, chooses to blame someone or something else.
Lots of people choose to cross themselves off Dorothy’s Christmas card list and just get on with life (Tom Robinson is a good example). Sexuality is fluid for some people. Until I met my partner, all my ‘serious’ relationships have been with women (one nearly resulted in marriage). But as every old sock finds an old shoe, my partner and I met and settled down and I’ve never been happier. Perhaps Glatze was trapped in a cage of his own devising, tho’ as you note, his own personality could have strengthened its bars. The fact he wanted to make a song and dance about being gay and now is equally keen to court attention now that he has moved on to something else perhaps says what is real driving force: self publicity?
P.