Can a Homosexual become a Heterosexual?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually the heart of the matter is a deep discussion on the nature and meaning of love.
That is exactly what it isn’t. Love is experienced by all orientations. That is not something more to being gay than sex. That is the common condition of all humanity. If there is a sexual component, then it refutes your claim, if there isn’t than it is the common “love” that everyone experiences and still fails to advance the claim that there is something more to being gay than sex.
 
That is exactly what it isn’t. Love is experienced by all orientations. That is not something more to being gay than sex. That is the common condition of all humanity. If there is a sexual component, then it refutes your claim, if there isn’t than it is the common “love” that everyone experiences and still fails to advance the claim that there is something more to being gay than sex.
You just simplified love to the point where it is meaningless and worthless

Do you want to get a cup of coffee? We could just relate to each other. Maybe you’d feel better if we held hands and hugged? Sometimes everyone just needs a hug.
:hug1:
 
There are people born with same sex attraction, they ultimately choose to act on it or not.
That is a gross oversimplification, firstly babies are not born with a sexual orientation, it develops from early childhood through to puberty and can be affected by a myriad of social, psychological and environmental factors.

Identical twin studies have conclusively shown that same sex attraction is not solely genetic though it may well be influenced by genetic factors (otherwise you would always have identical twins who are either gay or straight and never one of each - this is not the case).
 
Rational examination of a claim is reductionist by nature. How you come to the less than subtle Freudian assertion is more a matter of projection than any ideation gone awry on my behalf.
As I pointed out, regardless of their sexual nature, or non-sexual nature, neither interpretation advance the claim. If they are sexual then it refutes the claim and if they are not then they are the same friendships that everyone else experiences. Unless of course one is claiming that homosexuals experience an emotion that none of the other orientations can. Though that claim would be the proverbial jump from the pan to the fire. A cure worse than the medicine, so to speak
We are equivocating the word “reduction”. I use it to mean a simplification of terms, statements and other propositions, you seem to be using it in some psychological capacity. From that you are drawing implications that I have not and have no intention of drawing myself. For me, this is a rational issue and nothing else.
I fear your selective citations of my last post rather demonstrate my point. Though lest there be any misunderstanding, I hope you do not see my Freudian assertion as merely less than subtle when in fact I meant it to be very clear and direct. Whether you are aware of it or not, your view of human relationships is very clearly Freudian in that it puts primacy on the sexual instinct and appears to presume that any deep human emotion must be grounded in sexual desire. Freud himself would have agreed with you that this is a very rational approach. Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but if so it would be helpful to have an explanation of just what you mean by love and/ or friendship. Friendship itself admits of so many degrees that we can hardly speak of “the same friendships that everyone else experiences.” Who exactly do you mean by “everyone else”?
 
That is a gross oversimplification, firstly babies are not born with a sexual orientation, it develops from early childhood through to puberty and can be affected by a myriad of social, psychological and environmental factors.

Identical twin studies have conclusively shown that same sex attraction is not solely genetic though it may well be influenced by genetic factors (otherwise you would always have identical twins who are either gay or straight and never one of each - this is not the case).
I never said it was genetic :confused: it could easily be womb environoment
 
I fear your selective citations of my last post rather demonstrate my point.
How so, specifically? What part of that action demonstrates your point?
…I hope you do not see my Freudian assertion as merely less than subtle when in fact I meant it to be very clear and direct.
If you had meant it to be direct you would have just said, “I don’t like what you are saying, but I cannot disprove it therefore I will intimate that your position is the result of psychological condition X”. That would have been clear and direct.
Whether you are aware of it or not,
As I am not, and you cannot derive the following from any statement I have made, it is clearly a projection.
your view of human relationships is very clearly Freudian …
As I have not made any statements to that effect, nor can you possibly construe them as such given the statements I have made here, I invite you to use my statements and demonstrate your point. If you can.
what you mean by love and/ or friendship.
You will have to ask other people what they mean, I have not asserted any of these qualities, I have only pointed out that their various interpretations either directly refute the claim or they fail to advance it.
…Who exactly do you mean by “everyone else”?
All the other orientations. If you have been following the conversation you wouldn’t have to ask.
 
If you interpret it as sexual in nature then it refutes your claim, if you do not interpret it as sexual in nature it does not advance your claim because all orientations can experience love.
Wow, that’s an extremely limited view of love.
 
Wow, that’s an extremely limited view of love.
It’s not a view on “love” at all, it is an exposition of the various results that have developed from your interpretations of it. I am not interested in talking about my personal opinion. Only yours, and only insofar as they support or refute your claim. Do you have any other qualities to assert as the “something” more to being gay than sex?
 
It’s not a view on “love” at all, it is an exposition of the various results that have developed from your interpretations of it. I am not interested in talking about my personal opinion. Only yours, and only insofar as they support or refute your claim. Do you have any other qualities to assert as the “something” more to being gay than sex?
If the concept “b” heavily involves the concept “a” and you have a crippled understanding of “a” I’m not sure what I can explain to you. You seriously need to read the first part of Deus Caritas Est.
 
If the concept “b” heavily involves the concept “a”
As I have demonstrated, no matter which way** you** interpret the claim you make concerning an emotion, it either direct refutes your claim, or it fails to advance it. Notice the key word is you?
and you have a crippled understanding of “a”
I have never given you a statement of my understanding of “A” from which to derive this proposition…
I’m not sure what I can explain to you.
Previously you have claimed several different qualities were the one you refer to, changing your story at each refutation. Then you claimed it was indescribable, then you claimed you had a condition which made it impossible for you to type this previously described yet now indescribable quality, but you could speak it. Given the solution to that problem, you can now describe it by typing but…:rolleyes:

The fact is that you cannot describe a quality that doesn’t exist. There is no quality to being gay that is about more than just sex, as you had previously claimed.
 
How so, specifically? What part of that action demonstrates your point?
If you had meant it to be direct you would have just said, “I don’t like what you are saying, but I cannot disprove it therefore I will intimate that your position is the result of psychological condition X”. That would have been clear and direct.
As I am not, and you cannot derive the following from any statement I have made, it is clearly a projection.
As I have not made any statements to that effect, nor can you possibly construe them as such given the statements I have made here, I invite you to use my statements and demonstrate your point. If you can.You will have to ask other people what they mean, I have not asserted any of these qualities, I have only pointed out that their various interpretations either directly refute the claim or they fail to advance it.
All the other orientations. If you have been following the conversation you wouldn’t have to ask.
It is tiresome and not productive to go through disagreements line by line, but just a clarification: I never suggested that your position is the result of a psychological condition. Your method of approach is Freudian, that’s all I am saying. As to whether or not there is some special quality to being of any sexual orientation I have no idea, but it is reductionist to assume that all human relationships are either sexual in origin or based upon 'the same friendships" as everyone else. Friendship itself admits of many different degrees That said, I readily agree that human beings, apart from the psychopathic, share the same range of emotions generally, but these can manifest themselves in greatly different degrees in given individuals. Cultural differences must be factored in as well.
 
…but it is reductionist to assume that all human relationships are either sexual in origin or based upon 'the same friendships" as everyone else.
The claim is that “there is something more to being gay than sex”. So this quality that is “something more” cannot be sexual in nature and cannot be something that the other orientations share. There are no assumptions about human relationships, there was a claim made concerning them that is obviously false upon the slightest rational examination. Apart from sexuality, there is no difference between homosexuals and any other orientation. The claim made says that there is a difference apart from sexuality and I would like to see it. Yet for days everyone has done everything but admit the obvious.
Friendship itself admits of many different degrees
Why do you think that has anything to do with it? If it is sexual in nature it refutes the claim, if it is not, than it is just friendship, and all people share that. The degree or “intensity” has no bearing on the claim. A blue, no matter how intensely blue it may be, is always blue and never red. Basic law of logic there, A=A.
 
Apart from sexuality, there is no difference between homosexuals and any other orientation. The claim made says that there is a difference apart from sexuality and I would like to see it.
Not so fast.

Until recently, the state of the question was in the realm of conjecture and your stance might have been plausible. Recently, the physical studies having been showing clear indications that the facts are otherwise. Therefore, in all charity, we ought to assume that there is at least a real possibility that there is a clear difference between homosexuals and other orientations with regards to parts of the body not directly involved in sexual expression or reproduction. We don’t have to be convinced by the data, but we ought to at least be open ot the possibility that objective differences exist and that those who believe this are not being lead by anything other than the known facts.

From What the Gay Brain Looks Like (Time Science)

"What makes people gay? Biologists may never get a complete answer to that question, but researchers in Sweden have found one more sign that the answer lies in the structure of the brain.

"Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.

"Just what these brain differences mean is still not clear… "

"The Swedish study, however, is the first to find differences in parts of the brain not normally involved in reproduction — the denser network of nerve connections, for example, was found in the amygdala, known as the emotional center of the brain. “The big question has always been, if the brains of gay men are different, or feminized, as earlier research suggests,” says Dr. Eric Vilain, professor of human genetics at University of California Los Angeles, “then is it just limited to sexual preference or are there other regions that are gender atypical in gay males? For the first time, in this study it looks like there are regions of the brain not directly involved in sexuality that seem to be feminized in gay males.”…

Read more: time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html#ixzz1VW2TJ51V

Mind you, this does not mean that every male who has seen fit to engage in homosexual acts has the sort of brain referred to in the study. It is certainly possible for a heterosexual man or woman to choose to engage in homosexual acts or homosexual romantic relationships, and even to choose them at the expense of heterosexual relationships. This would seem to have been very likely in cultures such as in ancient Greece, for instance.

IOW, some people who have self-identified as gays may indeed be heterosexuals who could have acted out as homosexuals for reasons not rooted in their personal biological make-up. A day may come when the difference will be visible to science.
 
Let’s accept the logic though. In my last post, I did bring out the sort of quality you’re looking for. To be gay is to be such that it is good for one to seek chastely in another of the same sex the same deep and exclusive sort of friendship and companionship that most people find through marriage to another person of the opposite sex. (For a typical gay person, the fact that this is what is good for him or her is revealed through, but does not in fact depend on, the pattern of his or her sexual attractions.)

In any case, my last post also put on trial the propriety of defining the homosexual condition in terms of sex. Let me recall the argument here: (1) a proper definition must show not only what a thing is but also what it is for [that’s just common sense and Aristotle]; (2) the definition of the homosexual condition in terms of sex does not show what the homosexual condition is for; (3) therefore, it is not a proper definition. I’m still curious to see if you can refute (2).
The Church would say that to be gay is to be such that due to a deep-seated sexual attraction to one’s own sex only, it is not realistic for one to seek a heterosexual relationship, and therefore not realistic to pursue marriage. For this reason, there is not a realistic and moral avenue by which such a person might meet his or her needs for human love and companionship within a genital relationship. No marriage possibe, ergo no legitimate genital relationship possible, period.

This person has to meet his or her human companionship needs in the same way as a heterosexual person who cannot meet the conditions for a valid marriage with the person they would otherwise desire to marry, such as the person who is impotent or who shares a blood relationship with their desired partner or who is very much attracted to one person but remains in a valid marriage with another person who has chosen to sin deeply against the marriage, and so on: that is, the person must live without engaging in genital acts with the person they would have liked to have married, and live within appropriate friendships and family bonds that do not pose a near occasion of sin.

That doesn’t mean that there might not be many many things that come with being homosexual, very positive things and things that might well differ from one homosexual person to another, in addition to the factors that make a valid marriage impossible. It only means that this is a person whose sexual attractions will not be for people with whom a valid marriage is possible. While the Church fully accepts that this can pose a very difficult trial, that does not leave the Church free to re-define marriage or the moral boundaries of human sexuality in the vain hopes of easing that difficulty. When seeking a moral end, the means do matter very much. Gay marriage is not the means by which the difficulties of being homosexual can be morally addressed.
 
Not so fast…
I am only interested in the claim made. “there is more to being gay than sex”. The demonstration of this quality that is “something more” to being gay than sex, or the admission that no such quality actually exists are the only statements germane to the issue. The science surrounding the issue is methodologically and ethically flawed and has been for years.
 
Hey why don’t we change the name of this thread. This thread is about if homosexuals can become Heterosexuals. If you want to talk about a whole new subject let’s change the thread because I don’t think we are talking about this anymore.
Just a thought.
 
Hi EasterJoy,

Legitimate points. In my definition of being gay I was taking it for granted that genital relationships outside of marriage are verboten. Indeed, the word ‘chastely’ is a crucial and deliberate part of the definition I gave: “To be gay is to be such that it is good for one to seek chastely in another of the same sex the same deep and exclusive sort of friendship and companionship that most people find through marriage to another person of the opposite sex.”

This definition probably has some faults, the chief of which might be all-to-easily giving the false impression of condoning same sex sexual behaviors in some circumstances. Its main virtue, though, is bringing forward a theory about the ultimate purpose of the homosexual condition. If you consider it carefully, the definition contains implicitly a way of life which involves chastity, self-control, openness to others, friendship–in short, a way of life centered around pleasing God and serving neighbor.

It would be neat to see other definitions of homosexuality that attempt to bring out its purpose. Sadly, most people don’t see the need for such definitions. Like warpspeedpetey, they suppose it’s enough if a definition succeeds in dividing the sheep from the goats. But the problem is, if what we say about homosexuality doesn’t show what it is for, then it is hard to avoid trivializing gay people by defining them in terms of sex and then going on from there to turn the teachings of the Church into a resounding “No.” No acts, no relationships, no marriage, no rights, no vocations, no respect, no life. By contrast, a definition that gives a purpose avoids this danger altogether, since it says, “Here is what your condition is for. Now go live in such a way that that purpose can be fully realized.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top