A reader writes:
Your comment seems to miss the point of the story: that for this individual, at any rate, homosexuality seems to be a choice rather than an inalterable trait. And hasn’t that been why the country seems now to be leaning toward the acceptance of gay relationships and marriage: because the point is increasingly accepted that sexual orientation is something that is coded into an individual’s chemistry and not a matter of choice?
If it is a choice, then there is no harm in mandating one’s behavior. If sexuality is unalterably fixed in each person’s makeup, then requiring all to adhere to the behavior preferred by only some of the population, is to deny others an opportunity to share in the benefits of the sanctioned behavior.
Another writes:
I think you're wrong to say that Glatze is making a case FOR gay rights.
While I agree that Glatze's path might well be one made possibly by the struggle for gay acceptance, I consider his belief – that everyone who claims to be gay is misunderstanding their authentic heterosexuality – to be antithetical to what might be THE fundamental principle of gay rights: that gay people are fully human, neither mistakes nor mistaken. I do admire your generous articulation that "gay rights" should be "about enlarging the freedom for everyone not to be gay but to be themselves." Moreover, I embrace your challenge to accept and not dismiss Glatze's affirmation of selfhood. But, based on what he is quoted as saying in this profile, Glatze seems unlikely to extend such generosity to me as a self-affirming gay person.
Agreed. My point is better applied to the ex-gay movement in general rather than to this particular individual. Of course, in my reading of the piece, I became convinced Glatze was obviously gay. No one who wasn't would have this kind of extreme position-shift. It wouldn't matter so much to them.
The Dish 