Can a Homosexual become a Heterosexual?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In other words you cannot make your argument without violating the law of identity. That is not a function of me or my thought processes it’s a function of logic. They are different things and your attempt to conflate them violates the basic rules of logic.
If two guys who are only attracted to males are romantically in love with each other, are French kissing, sleeping in the same bed, cuddling are just friends because they won’t engage in sex with each other than the distinction is utterly worthless
I don’t think so.
I am right handed. If someone convinced me that only left handed people get into Heaven, then I could, with practice, training and prayer, become as dextrous with my left hand as with my right, and from then on, only use my left hand as the dominant hand.
But I would still be right handed.
That’s a very similar analogy to gays who fake being straight
Let’s be a little more charitable. You don’t have disordered desires only, but a mixture of disordered and ordered desires. Imagine that you cannot even make yourself the least bit interested in being legitimately married to just one single Dallas Cowboy cheerleader, in fact the whole group of them make you yawn (except perhaps to be impressed by whoever designed their outfits), and instead have you eyes for the Dallas Cowboys running back. Wanna tell your football-fan buddies how your desires differ from theirs? Wanna trade your so-called “suffering” for that? I somehow doubt it.
Well if the cheerleading was actually done well then I might also be impressed in addition to if their outfits were done well. There are plenty of gays with no fashion sense, also some are the very opposite of effeminate such as bears.
 
If two guys who are only attracted to males are romantically in love with each other, are French kissing, sleeping in the same bed, cuddling are just friends because they won’t engage in sex with each other than the distinction is utterly worthless
What you are describing is engaging in disordered sexual activities. :rolleyes:
 
Excuse me? Exactly how is it uncharitable to state ones opinion? You may not agree with it but it is hardly uncharitable.

I have heard that very same claim by homosexuals who have fathered children. Obviously, the existence of such a state is highly dubious.

Stereotyping people isn’t helpful.
If you’ve read the forum rules, you know that it is quite possible to state one’s opinion in a manner that is uncharitable. You were saying that you knew for a fact that someone else’s trials were in no way different nor more difficult than your own. Apply the golden rule and think about that.

If you think homosexuality is a made-up construct because some homosexuals have managed to father children, let’s just say you are in the vast minority.

As to stereotyping homosexuals with regards to how they would find Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders interesting, my intent was only to think of some way a man with no sexual interest in that group and who could not personally get to know any of the women personally might find it interesting to just look at them. I did not intend to imply that a heterosexual man might not wonder who did their outfits, but that technical details of that nature probably wouldn’t be the first thing that caught his interest. My apologies if anyone was offended.
 
…You were saying that you knew for a fact that someone else’s trials were in no way different nor more difficult than your own…
No such statement was made. I understand you may not like my opinion but that is no basis say that I am being uncharitable.
 
I’m not sure whether they can or can’t. I’m guessing some can, and other can’t. It’s already an age old battle, and one that is still being studied by different groups with different objectives. Two basic camps. Environmental or Genetic. My guess is this issue will never be fully resolved because you will always find some supportable truth in both camps when all is said and done.

The thing is, where homosexuality comes from or whether it can be “cured” has no bearing on its immorality. The acting out of homosexual acts was, is, and will always be immoral. If it makes anybody feel any better, (and it shouldn’t ), the acting out of heterosexual acts was, is, and will always be immoral as well.

Sex is moral and ordered between a man and a woman who are married to each other. There are no other instances where sexual acts are moral. It’s the simplest, and hardest truth in all of God’s universe. And it’s extraordinarily well documented for Christians, Jews and Muslims. Nary an inch of wiggle room. We should appreciate the struggle that each person goes through in this regard, and the heft of this cross. It is a sacrafice of temporal pleasure for all who believe and attempt to abide by God’s laws of sexual morality.

The good news is, that with prayer, and abandonment of your burdens to Christ it gets much much better, and easier to bear all the time. It really does. In fact, the weight can actually be lifted from you with continued prayerful obedience. I’ve experienced that weight shift with my own individual morality problems. Jesus Christ is real, and his yoke is light, (once accepted).

May God bless us all in our journey towards “being perfect, as our Father in Heaven is perfect”, even though we know “this is impossible for men”. Nothing is impossible for God. We know that too. This is the essence of hope.

Peace,

Steven
 
This is a wonderful story of Father Harvey, who died last year at 91 and the process of him becoming a saint is already started. God rest his soul.:signofcross:

Monday, February 12, 2007
Fr. John Harvey: A Model for Modern Apostles - AMEN!
He is a priest, short, quite bald, and elderly. He is a recognized international scholar with a score of high level books and author of innumerable articles in professional journals. He laughs at good jokes and enjoys a steaming dish of tasty pasta. He likes people, is heavy with compassion and is non-judgmental. He has spent his life helping others and enlightening young minds in college classrooms. He likes to pray and believes in a loving God. He is a fervent loyalist to the Catholic Church and fearlessly defends the Magisterium against the attacks of modern secularism and hedonism. He believes in honest disagreement and never takes what Media call the “cheap shot.”

Prima facie, on the face of it, one would surmise that this priest, Father John Harvey, Oblate of St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of Moral Theology and trained counselor in the world of psychology, would be universally appreciated and even acclaimed. (With essential differences noted) one might make similar observations about Jesus Who was goodness itself and Who should have been welcomed and loved without condition. Obviously, the Lord was treated brutally, viciously and was hardly welcomed with open arms.

Father Harvey has been called a “bastard” by a fellow priest who suffers from SSA[1] and who almost violently disagrees with the Church’s teaching on the problem of homosexuality. Recently, at a parish where Fr. Harvey preaches on Sundays, a Politically Correct Catholic couple informed Father after Mass that they would never attend this Church as long as he was there. They informed him that they were ashamed of him even though they deeply appreciated the members of his Order who were more modern and “with it.” Typically, Father offered them his priestly blessing as they huffed away in deep indignation.

Many Catholic priests and a few Bishops have attempted to “blackball” him and possibly to silence his powerful Traditional Catholic message. He has been widely insulted and demeaned even though Pope John Paul II personally encouraged and approved his ministry and even though Cardinal Trujillo, of the Vatican Family Life office, officially praised his work. Further, Cardinal John O’Connor publicly announced that Courage, (the movement which Father Harvey, in fact, founded) was the only Official Ministry to SSA persons in the Archdiocese of New York. And, in fact, his movement, Courage, is now International with chapters in Australia, Poland, Ireland, England, Mexico, Central and South America, Africa, Singapore, New Zealand, in addition to the many ones in the United States. There are constant petitions from all over the world for assistance in starting the Courage units. The Movement, founded only in 1980, has helped literally hundreds of good men and women recover from the insanity and drabness of the homosexual lifestyle.

In the light of the above, the casual observer obviously would legitimately ask “why?” Why would such a good and well intentioned priest who literally defends his Church’s teaching against any attacker or attack be so maligned and disliked? Why should he be so victimized for the good he has done over the years? It is interesting that he is attacked personally more than the Catholic teaching he upholds! One wonders is the venom selective, sensing that he is the easier target—with the hope that destroying him might mean destroying the Teaching?

The Catholic Church in obedience to the Will of the Master teaches that human sexuality is reserved exclusively for men and women who are married. Any usage of the sexual faculty outside marriage is inherently wrong and contrary to the Plan of God. The Church teaches that containment of the powerful sexual drive is mandatory and possible (with the help of God’s Grace). Cardinal George of Chicago in an address to a group of homosexual activists insisted that any one who disbelieves in the possibility of chastity, in effect, does not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. As one might expect, at the conclusion of his address he got perfunctory applause, at best. This is not what the gay population wants to hear.

The control of libidinous desires is seen, in Catholic circles, as chastity and God’s Will, a requirement for every one, married and unmarried. The chaste married person rightfully has a full, passionate and healthy sex life with the spouse but only with the spouse. The chaste, unmarried person (technically celibate, temporary or permanent) refrains from sexual activity until marriage.

Catholicism sees chastity as freedom for the growth of oneself as a person. It is not perceived as repression or corrosion of a person. Contrary wise, the result of chastity is the integration of energies which might otherwise swing off into wild and toxic tangents. Chastity as taught by the Catholic Church (and clearly then by Courage) brings an inner peace and sense of inner cleanliness which allows the person to understand and practice the meaning of real love. This interiority is constantly reported by members of Courage who in their various pasts[2] had been enveloped in the homosexual “Lifestyle”. In effect, chastity is totally in one’s self interest, not the opposite.
continued;
 
continued, on Father Harvey

Interestingly, this very interiority ultimately swings outward to the “other” who is beheld rather than possessed. It is Catholic belief that persons are loved and beheld by God with an implacable love—as His own adopted children. No human being can be legitimately possessed or owned… That belongs only to God. This makes for the fundamental factor in identity. Creature of God. The Wall Street Journal published a signal article entitled Morality and Homosexuality written by an Ecumenical Symposium (Feb. 24, 1994) which articulated the bottom line. It is degrading to be exclusively defined in sexual terms. “Man” is far more than gonads and sexual urges. It is a non-equation to say “I am homosexual” since the person is far more than his sexual dimension, as important as it is.

The Catholic Church likewise teaches that a tendency to unnatural and unrestrained sex does not constitute the whole of the person. It is a tendency which is surely within the person but it is only a tendency. This is also Fr. Harvey’s concept of Same Sex Attraction (SSA). It is far more accurate and respectful than the Gay “lens” term which consumes the whole of the person reducing him to the level of drives and desires. Chastity also believes that one can not only survive living chastely, but one is thereby freed for the glory of true love of God and human beings. It is one of the basic pillars of Courage that liberation from the homosexual trap includes friendship of the type described by C.S. Lewis in his book Four Loves. Not only is chaste friendship possible but it is basically necessary. All human beings yearn for and require intimacy. To love and to be loved is healthy, normal and blessed. Yet, these goals are to be pursued appropriately—God’s way. Unhappily, such yearnings are capable of enormous distortion and subtle deception.

For example the term “relationship” in gay circles, when stripped of festoonery, clearly means sexual involvement. According to the testimonies of Courage members liberated from the trap of same sex behavior, it also has a given. Namely, Gay couples are implicitly allowed to “fool around” sexually with others. Sexual exclusivity is not a basic requirement of gay coupling. Only emotional fidelity is a must for SSA unions. Heartache, suffering, loss of self esteem and a multitude of human unhappinesses follow such naiveté.

When Fr. Harvey, with a background of extensive experience and knowledge, works and prays to bring people to human happiness, eternal salvation and the pleasure of God, he is maltreated as described above. Is it because people simply do not believe in God’s grace, that chastity is not possible? Is it that, as I have heard from activist homosexuals that Courage people are either lying or sick when they reveal their chastity? Is the vicious attack coming from uninformed persons? Or persons with false tolerance and misplaced compassion? Or from persons with secret, sexual “skeletons” in their own closets? Is Fr. Harvey’s stance (i.e. the Catholic Church) a rebuke to others? Does he make some one feel guilty? One cannot know the motivational dynamics demeaning a holy old priest whose personal motivation is to do God’s Holy Will. However, what we do know is the teaching the Master, Jesus.

When they revile you and treat you unrighteously, when they say all manner of evil things about you, when they mistreat you because of My Name’s sake, then blessed are you. You shall have the Kingdom of heaven. Those of us who know Fr. John Harvey personally can only say Amen!!!

[1] SSA is shorthand for Same Sex Attraction and is considered to be more respectful than the pejorative “homosexual” or the activist “Gay” word. Gay usually means political and pervasive and includes the whole of the personality. SSA does not.

[2]Courage members include physicians, lawyers, psychotherapists, teachers, street prostitutes, retailers, audio experts, investment bankers, doormen , office workers, men, women, young, old,.,._
 
sen·su·al
/ˈsenSHo͞oəl/
Adjective: Of or arousing gratification of the senses and physical, esp. sexual, pleasure
Okay, and? I wasn’t talking about sexual gratification, good food can be sensual. “esp.” by it’s very nature means it isn’t always what follows.

Obviously people trying to persecute Fr. Harvey is a sign of contradiction
 
Okay, and? I wasn’t talking about sexual gratification…
Then they cannot be homosexuals they are just friends. The argument you are trying to make violates the basic laws of logic. The law of identity states that A=A. A thing is what it is. No matter how much you try to conflate friendship with homosexuality, they are two different concepts. If there is a sexual component to their relationship then members of the same gender are committing disordered acts. If there is not a sexual component then they are just friends.
 
Then they cannot be homosexuals they are just friends. The argument you are trying to make violates the basic laws of logic. The law of identity states that A=A. A thing is what it is. No matter how much you try to conflate friendship with homosexuality, they are two different concepts. If there is a sexual component to their relationship then members of the same gender are committing disordered acts. If there is not a sexual component then they are just friends.
You come to a technically valid conclusion, but it has no value because it doesn’t recognize the complexity inherent in the human mind
 
You come to a technically valid conclusion, but it has no value because it doesn’t recognize the complexity inherent in the human mind
I would say that truth is valuable in and of itself. I would also point out that the complexity of the human mind doesn’t change the rules of logic. The argument violates the law of identity and is therefore necessarily false, as are all arguments that do so must be. In what part of life do we find genuine benefit to holding a false belief?
 
I would say that truth is valuable in and of itself. I would also point out that the complexity of the human mind doesn’t change the rules of logic. The argument violates the law of identity and is therefore necessarily false, as are all arguments that do so must be. In what part of life do we find genuine benefit to holding a false belief?
Psychology is a soft science.
 
Let’s be a little more charitable. You don’t have disordered desires only, but a mixture of disordered and ordered desires. Imagine that you cannot even make yourself the least bit interested in being legitimately married to just one single Dallas Cowboy cheerleader, in fact the whole group of them make you yawn (except perhaps to be impressed by whoever designed their outfits), and instead have you eyes for the Dallas Cowboys running back. Wanna tell your football-fan buddies how your desires differ from theirs? Wanna trade your so-called “suffering” for that? I somehow doubt it.
This isn’t the point of suffering because your desiring sex with women you can’t have, I agree here with Easter Joy, it’s not being charitable I question it’s being honest. He is right you don’t have disordered desires but a mixture of disordered and ordered desires. My point was that the suffering took place before the SSA, that caused it. It is not a preference to the disordered desired, it’s the actually feelings of not desiring the normal ordered desired that men were intended for and for men who have this and don’t want it, it is more of a cross over all in their life. If you were really being honest the thought of wanted the same sex would gross out many men, but the thought of wanting to have sex with the appropriate sex we were created for wouldn’t be gross and unnatural.

Now when most men get married those sexual desires for other women are calmed by the women they married. There is actually a chemical associated with this when a man is stable with a women to have more responsibility and then when having children become more in tune with the way they were meant for. Having a man marry another man doesn’t calm them down, because they are with the same sex and they are not complimentary. That is not a cross for a man to want a women, even if they desire a women they cannot have, they can know that they are still in line with what God intended for them to be attracted to. Now if they are oversexed that’s another problem, but couple that with same sex attraction, would be much more dangerous and not in line with what God intended them to be. I was saying over all with the suffering **that brought them to the SSA **and the life to fight it and live chaste, was worse than a man who was suffering with the normal attraction, but needs to come in line with chastity. At least you know your attracted to the right sex. If you were in a locker room with a bunch of men, what conversation would give the most harassment the desire for women or men? Even people who pretend to think equality for homosexuals, deep down inside find it disgusting. Come on let’s me honest. I am not going to boo hoo over you wanting to have the fantasy of some cheerleaders to the same as wanting the fantasy over football players. There are two problems there, one that is normal and immoral, and one that is abnormal and immoral. Which would be worse for someone if they didn’t want to be attracted to the same sex? Does anybody get my point?
 
Math and logic don’t apply very well in psychology because there aren’t many hard lines in it.
Maybe you don’t understand. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. By demonstrating that the argument contradicts the rules of correct reasoning, I am demonstrating that it is false. It wouldn’t matter if the subject were geography, mathematics, cosmetology, golf or fishing. Logic applies to all reasoning by definition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top