Can a Homosexual become a Heterosexual?

[warpspeedpetey]

… Like warpspeedpetey, they suppose it’s enough if a definition succeeds in dividing the sheep from the goats…

This has nothing to do with anything I said.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

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.

So logic, but science isn’t allowed? They did brain scans, this isn’t some psychology shenanigans it’s tangible facts.
physically heterosexuals and homosexuals are different (brain proportions), psychologically they are different (thinking patterns), theologically they are different (purpose in life*),

There are at least two types of homosexuals, those who are born that way and those who have been changed that way (neuroplasticity).

*How to find and embrace God is somewhat different, many heterosexuals find this through marriage, but that’s not exactly an option for homosexuals. Unlike heterosexuals there is sacred friendship (see the Church fathers especially Augustine)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So logic, but science isn’t allowed?

Are you now claiming that science has revealed a quality that is the “something more” to being gay than sex in your claim? Since you didn’t mention it immediately, I don’t suppose so.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Are you now claiming that science has revealed a quality that is the “something more” to being gay than sex in your claim? Since you didn’t mention it immediately, I don’t suppose so.

“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.”
A tangible difference between gay men and straight men.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

I would still maintain that charity demands that the possibility be admitted. Maybe they can’t prove to your satisfaction that there is anything to being gay other than sex, but surely you can’t prove that there isn’t. That science doesn’t exist, either!

Having said that, a person with sexual inclinations that have no legitimate expression in a marital relationship has no legitimate way to express them and has to bear the cross of having sexual inclinations that cannot be expressed in a sexual way. As difficult as that is, homosexuals are not alone in that moral boat. Does that mean they have to slink around in shame? No. Wouldn’t you think that the homosexual man has no more to be ashamed of than an impotent man has to be ashamed of being ineligible for marriage because he’s impotent or an abandoned spouse would have to be ashamed because she is lonely but cannot remarry? I would hope so.

For that matter, why are you so intent to prove that there is nothing to being gay except the sexual side? What is that to you? Are you afraid that there is something to being a gay person that aren’t a cross or aren’t disordered? Are you afraid that God gave them not just a cross, but a particular gift, as well? Are you afraid that there may indeed be something about being gay that a gay person might even be proud of? In that case, remember that every person has reason to rejoice in what God made them. A gay person has no more nor less reason to be pleased with their peculiar combination of gifts and trials than anyone else. Besides, we all know what the Lord thinks of those who pray, “Thank you, Lord, that I am not like this sinner.”

Where there is no sin, there is no fault, and there ought to be no shame. Even where there is sin, what God wants is not shame, but repentance and obedience. Shame is from the devil. You don’t have to fear admitting that God gives both gifts and crosses to homosexuals. You won’t have failed in your defense of moral law. Allow them to tell you that more than their sexual desires differentiate them from heterosexuals. They may not be able to prove it, but it is no offense against the truth to say it could be just as they say.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.”

I did get the wrong impression. Yes, I think it would be more prudent if those who do not marry don’t look for friendship just among those that they’d marry if they could, but can’t. I just say this from experience of married women and married men who aren’t married to each other. It’s not entirely forbidden, necessarily, but there absolutely need to be careful boundaries if chastity is going to be protected in the context of that kind of a friendship.

I totally agree that it is charitable to assume that “whenever God closes a door, he opens a window.” Even among people who seem typical in every way, if they lose one faculty, they must turn even more to the gifts they have that remain after their loss. It is not at all uncommon for this “turning” to be incredibly fruitful. So yes, I think the assumption ought to be that those with this deep-seated temptation or that might well be fruitful in ways that others rarely are, particularly if they are encouraged to see themselves as having the same dignity as those with less obvious trials. That is in keeping with wider experience, after all. There is no reason to make out homosexuality to be some totally different thing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

"The …

So you are not claiming that science has found this quality that is “something more” to being gay than sex?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

"The Swedish study…

So you are not claiming that science has discovered this quality that is “something more” to being gay than sex?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I would still maintain that charity demands that the possibility be admitted.

If not charity, then rationalism. of course its possible, but no one has been able to demonstrate it. It seems not to exist, contrary to the claim.

 

[EasterJoy]

If not charity, then rationalism. of course its possible, but no one has been able to demonstrate it. It seems not to exist, contrary to the claim.

That is a horse of a different color. If all you’re saying is, “It could exist, but I haven’t seen evidence to prove it”, then I think that’s your perogative. I can see where the research is compelling, but not that it is definitive. You might very much want to see the opposite result, and just not be able to say that you believe it exists. That’s an issue of intellectual conscience, not one of morality.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That is a horse of a different color. If all you’re saying is, “It could exist, but I haven’t seen evidence to prove it”, then I think that’s your perogative. I can see where the research is compelling, but not that it is definitive. You might very much want to see the opposite result, and just not be able to say that you believe it exists. That’s an issue of intellectual conscience, not one of morality.

This still doesn’t have anything to do with what we are discussing.

 

[EasterJoy]

This still doesn’t have anything to do with what we are discussing.

Well, it kind of does…or, if not, I would argue that your discussion doesn’t affect what is and isn’t moral for gays.

There is this discussion going on about whether or not gays are different with regards to anything except wanting to have sex with other people. You’re objecting to the premise that gays are in fact different with regards to anything save their sexual orientation. You are saying that they aren’t. If I’m following the argument correctly, you’re saying that they want friendship and so does everyone else, so what?

I would argue that the crux of the matter does not hang on whether or not you’re right about that. You could be right, you could be wrong: it just doesn’t matter.

A heterosexual relationship has many aspects to it that are not, strictly speaking, sexual. A man and his wife have a relationship that has more to it than producing children. If a man and a woman want to marry, however, their desire for all of those other things and the degree to which they might benefit from all those other things is superceded by the necessity to meet the basic requirements of marriage on the day that they embark on marriage.

Let us say that a heterosexual couple falls in love. They are soul mates, and they bring out the best in each other in every respect. They are free to marry each other, they are all ready to marry, and then the man suffers a tragic accident that renders him impotent. Even though every aspect of their relationship is still in place, every need the same, in fact perhaps the man feels he needs the companionship of this woman forever and would love to adopt children with her, this couple cannot validly marry. Had the accident happened after the exchange of vows, the duty of the vows would endure, but a marriage cannot be made when the reason for marriage cannot possibly be realized from the first. This is the situation of a pair of homosexuals who want to be “life partners”.

It is pointless to argue whether or not there are many other great and even unique aspects in their relationship. As long as they avoid giving scandal and the near occasion of sin, they can *have *their great relationship. It wouldn’t be immoral for them to do so. Since they do not meet the necessary conditions to have a legitimate sexual relationship, however, they cannot marry, their relationship must not be allowed to have a genital aspect, and they cannot have a living arrangement in which a genital relationship might fairly be assumed to be going on.

It is the re-making of the meaning of marriage to exclude the basic necessities that is the problem here, not the question of the nature and worth of the homosexual person. Once the basic meaning of marriage is muddied, once the necessary is deemed unnecessary and the unitive aspect of human sexuality is divorced from the procreative, then the truth is lost and marriage is lost. The reason marriage is heterosexual by definition is thrown out. Marriage then becomes only a matter of mutual support, mutual enjoyment of each other’s bodies, and mutual action for the good of society and there is no intellectual argument that will keep homosexuals from claiming that, whether they are different than heterosexuals in other respects or not.

(I know some people will argue against homosexual unions based on health issues having to do with the complementarity of bodies, but once the marital act is purported to be about whatever pleases and unifies a couple and not about what serves the most foundational reality of the marital act, then that argument is on very thin ground, even if it does have substance, and surely we know that.)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Well, it kind of does…or, if not, I would argue that your discussion doesn’t affect what is and isn’t moral for gays.

There is this discussion going on about whether or not gays are different with regards to anything except wanting to have sex with other people. You’re objecting to the premise that gays are in fact different with regards to anything save their sexual orientation. You are saying that they aren’t. If I’m following the argument correctly, you’re saying that they want friendship and so does everyone else, so what?

I would argue that the crux of the matter does not hang on whether or not you’re right about that. You could be right, you could be wrong: it just doesn’t matter.

A heterosexual relationship has many aspects to it that are not, strictly speaking, sexual. A man and his wife have a relationship that has more to it than producing children. If a man and a woman want to marry, however, their desire for all of those other things and the degree to which they might benefit from all those other things is superceded by the necessity to meet the basic requirements of marriage on the day that they embark on marriage.

Let us say that a heterosexual couple falls in love. They are soul mates, and they bring out the best in each other in every respect. They are free to marry each other, they are all ready to marry, and then the man suffers a tragic accident that renders him impotent. Even though every aspect of their relationship is still in place, every need the same, in fact perhaps the man feels he needs the companionship of this woman forever and would love to adopt children with her, this couple cannot validly marry. Had the accident happened after the exchange of vows, the duty of the vows would endure, but a marriage cannot be made when the reason for marriage cannot possibly be realized from the first. This is the situation of a pair of homosexuals who want to be “life partners”.

It is pointless to argue whether or not there are many other great and even unique aspects in their relationship. As long as they avoid giving scandal and the near occasion of sin, they can *have *their great relationship. It wouldn’t be immoral for them to do so. Since they do not meet the necessary conditions to have a legitimate sexual relationship, however, they cannot marry, their relationship must not be allowed to have a genital aspect, and they cannot have a living arrangement in which a genital relationship might fairly be assumed to be going on.

It is the re-making of the meaning of marriage to exclude the basic necessities that is the problem here, not the question of the nature and worth of the homosexual person. Once the basic meaning of marriage is muddied, once the necessary is deemed unnecessary and the unitive aspect of human sexuality is divorced from the procreative, then the truth is lost and marriage is lost. The reason marriage is heterosexual by definition is thrown out. Marriage then becomes only a matter of mutual support, mutual enjoyment of each other’s bodies, and mutual action for the good of society and there is no intellectual argument that will keep homosexuals from claiming that, whether they are different than heterosexuals in other respects or not.

(I know some people will argue against homosexual unions based on health issues having to do with the complementarity of bodies, but once the marital act is purported to be about whatever pleases and unifies a couple and not about what serves the most foundational reality of the marital act, then that argument is on very thin ground, even if it does have substance, and surely we know that.)

What do you mean by “might be fairly assumed”? Nowadays two guys living in the same house is regarded as suspicious, especially if no one else lives there. OTOH back in the day sworn brothers (and sisters) sleeping in the same bed wasn’t regarded with suspicion. We definitely do know that this sworn siblinghood was more than just good friends. Marriage does need to return to being about children. That said there are ways to legally recognize relationships that aren’t necessarily sexual.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… If I’m following the argument correctly, …

You aren’t. The claim is that there is something more to being gay than sex. I am asking for such a quality to be demonstrated. No more, no less. Yet no one can do so, they dance around the issue thinking that my uncomfortable question will go away, but it won’t. The truth seems to be that no such quality exists.

 

[havana1]

I voted no. I don’t believe there’s such a thing as “ex-gay” - it’s my opinion they’re simply straight guys who were never gay to begin with.

Honest question: Where are all the WIVES of all these “ex-gay” men who are now happily married? Where are their testimonies? I am sincerely wondering if they had any doubt whatsoever before saying “I Do” to someone who might “still be gay.” And, what did their friends and families think about them marrying someone who might “still be gay”?

 

[John_of_Woking]

With God nothing is impossible. CelIbacy or marriage to a member of the opposite sex is a real and attainable vocation whatever ones sexual attraction. Just find out God’s will and co-operate with His grace. His yoke is easy.

 

[havana1]

With God nothing is impossible. CelIbacy or marriage to a member of the opposite sex is a real and attainable vocation whatever ones sexual attraction. Just find out God’s will and co-operate with His grace. His yoke is easy.

Where all the stories and testimonies from the wives who married these “ex-gay” men? She has to say yes before they can get married, and most Catholic dioceses have a requisite waiting period. Why are all the “ex-gay” testimonies from the men themselves but never from the women who are the wives and mothers in these families? Where are their stories? The only stories I hear from the wives of “ex-gay” husbands is how crushed and devastated they are that he couldn’t “change” - and how the marriage ended in divorce because he was “still gay.” Give me more stories from the women who are happily married to “ex-gay” men, and I’ll be a little more inclined to possibly believe this whole “ex-gay” thing.

 

[StevenFrancis]

With God nothing is impossible. CelIbacy or marriage to a member of the opposite sex is a real and attainable vocation whatever ones sexual attraction. Just find out God’s will and co-operate with His grace. His yoke is easy.

Beautiful post

 

[EasterJoy]

You aren’t. The claim is that there is something more to being gay than sex. I am asking for such a quality to be demonstrated. No more, no less. Yet no one can do so, they dance around the issue thinking that my uncomfortable question will go away, but it won’t. The truth seems to be that no such quality exists.

No one can demonstrate such a quality with evidence that meets your satisfaction. OK, fine, but that is not the same as saying that no such quality exists or that nothing has been demonstrated. I think you could go to a doctor and get pain relievers with less evidence for your pain than the evidence that exists that there is nothing more to being gay than sex. The difference is that the doctor allows evidence for your pain that could be argued away by someone who didn’t want to believe it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No one can demonstrate such a quality with evidence that meets your satisfaction.

It is not my personal satisfaction that must be met, but that of the argument. Either there is a quality that is not sexual in nature or shared by the other orientations, or there is not. Anything extraneous to the demonstration of such a quality doesn’t satisfy the argument.