Can a Homosexual become a Heterosexual?

[MontJ]

I agree, I forgot to tell him about Fitzgibbons, they are having a Courage conference in Chicago and he will be there. Among many people who could help him. Dr. Fitzgibbons also does on line counseling as well.
God bless you.

Thanks to all who gave me some direction. I am taking it slow… as I am having a hard time willing to commit to someone for help now since I’ve been turned away so many times. But I thanks for all the info I really appreciate it. In my case I do think it is fixable… just having a hard time finding someone to commit to me. Thanks for the prayers.

 

[DevotedChild]

Here is what i know and my thoughts…

I know: there are many causes to being homosexual/lesbianism… some people are born that way, some it is a choice, for others it is a psyhilogical and part of the self conscious. an example of this is when one is abused or hurt by the opposite sex, as a self defense mechinism in the brain, it will cause an attraction to the same sex because they feel safer that way…

For some cases it can be changed but not for all cases.

God Bless Everyone

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What are your thoughts?

The only difference between heterosexual and a homosexual is choice of sexual partners. There is no magical force makes anyone have any kind of sex at all. Sex is always a choice. The manner of sex is always a choice. What “turns someone on” is not a rational basis to legitimize disordered behavior. If it were so then that would also legitimize any other disordered behavior such as pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, FLDS plural child marriages, adult on adult incest ala Woody Allen and his daughter. Yet even the homosexual community rejects these as legitimate forms of sexual expression. Even they admit it is true that what “turns one on” does not legitimize disordered behavior…until it comes to their particular brand of disordered behavior. Funny that, eh? So in response the question, yes, as any sexual behavior is always a choice, one is only straight or gay on the basis of that choice. The idea that there are homosexuals and heterosexuals and they are somehow fundamentally different people is a false dichotomy.

 

[antonivs]

If a homosexual can become a heterosexual, then the reverse would also be true. I do not imagine that any amount of training could make me find men sexually attractive. So, I voted no.

 

[Cristiano]

I firmly believe that some homosexuals ( I mean people with SSA) can become heterosexuals. There is anecdotal evidence of it happening, I have also seen the reverse happening. However, I think that it is wrong to make it an universal rule just because some can do it. I think that a lot of factors come into play and I do not believe that we know all of them. Even if we assume that we could know all of them, I am quite sure that we would not have the capability of countering all of them.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The only difference between heterosexual and a homosexual is choice of sexual partners. There is no magical force makes anyone have any kind of sex at all. Sex is always a choice. The manner of sex is always a choice. What “turns someone on” is not a rational basis to legitimize disordered behavior. If it were so then that would also legitimize any other disordered behavior such as pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, FLDS plural child marriages, adult on adult incest ala Woody Allen and his daughter. Yet even the homosexual community rejects these as legitimate forms of sexual expression. Even they admit it is true that what “turns one on” does not legitimize disordered behavior…until it comes to their particular brand of disordered behavior. Funny that, eh? So in response the question, yes, as any sexual behavior is always a choice, one is only straight or gay on the basis of that choice. The idea that there are homosexuals and heterosexuals and they are somehow fundamentally different people is a false dichotomy.

:bighanky:

We need to talk.
Your wording is extremely imprudent, gives people the impression that Catholics hate homosexuals and is dissimilar from what the Church teaches, sodomy is condemned as objectively disordered, but then so is fellatio, masturbation, etc. regardless of whether the participants are the same gender or different genders, heck it’s still sin even if they are married.

In the Catechism, the Church calls the desire to perform homosexual acts, for instance, “objectively disordered” and she describes homosexual sex acts themselves as “intrinsically disordered”. Disorder here does not mean psychological disorder, it is moral disorder. There is no such thing as Catholic reparative therapy because the Church doesn’t actually teach homosexuals are broken. Men aren’t thrown into sin because they are thrown into shocked at the sight of something particularly beautiful, even if it is another man. The judgement comes after, There must be a conscious choice against what is good, true and beautiful.

The Church does teach against homosexual acts, but the Church does not teach against intense friendships between men, nor does she teach against two men living prudently together. She does not teach against mingling estates nor does she condemn leaving your pension to your same sex companion. (St. Augustine was a proponent of intense friendship between men, Blessed Newman lived it, and the latter two were actually supported in a way by Cardinal Levada who has since been promoted to running the CDF.)

Sodomy is condemned as objectively disordered, but then so is fellatio, masturbation, etc. regardless of whether the participants are the same gender or different genders, heck it’s still sin even if they are married.

So, since homosexuals can’t take part in the good holy sex of marriage then what else is there? Christian friendship! If holy sex is the stuff that moves the universe then Christian friendship taps the “love that moves the sun and other stars” to borrow Dante’s beautiful phrase. A friend - properly understood - is a life partner as rich and rewarding as a lover. Indeed if you read Deus Caritas Est (Pope Benedict XVI’s first encyclical) you find that Christian friendship is in fact a manifestation of God’s love. You see the Christian understanding has three words for love borrowed from Greek, eros, ]agape and philia. Eros is the erotic love, whereas agape describes a more mature love, untainted by jealousy, a love that is not even necessarily sexual. Eros can mature into agape, think of a newlywed couple, then think of your grandparents. Can you spot a difference between the love newlyweds have for each other and the love grandparents have for you and probably each other? Philia is the third type, it can be thought of as the love between soldiers, between teammates and between family members.

I hope you can understand.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

:bighanky:

We need to talk.
…

Then you will be able to tell me which statement is a lie.
1. The only difference between heterosexual and a homosexual is choice of sexual partners.
Is this statement wrong? Do you have scientific proof that all the different orientations are physiological? I have never heard that such a thing.
2. There is no magical force makes anyone have any kind of sex at all. Sex is always a choice. The manner of sex is always a choice.
Are these statements wrong? Is there a magical force making people have sex and do it in certain ways that I am not aware of?
3. What “turns someone on” is not a rational basis to legitimize disordered behavior.
Is this one wrong? Does someones turn-ons legitimize their sexual behavior?
4. If it were so then that would also legitimize any other disordered behavior such as pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, FLDS plural child marriages, adult on adult incest ala Woody Allen and his daughter.
Is this wrong? If a persons sexual desire alone legitimizes their sexual activities then why wouldn’t these activities be as legitimate?
**5. Yet even the homosexual community rejects these as legitimate forms of sexual expression. Even they admit it is true that what “turns one on” does not legitimize disordered behavior…until it comes to their particular brand of disordered behavior. Funny that, eh? **
Is this one wrong? Have they now decided to re embrace Nambla? I haven’t noticed any of these other groups being included in their literature. Have I just missed their inclusion?
6. So in response the question, yes, as any sexual behavior is always a choice, one is only straight or gay on the basis of that choice. The idea that there are homosexuals and heterosexuals and they are somehow fundamentally different people is a false dichotomy.
Is my conclusion wrong? If my premises are true, then my conclusion should be according to the basic rules of logic right?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Then you will be able to tell me which statement is a lie.
1. The only difference between heterosexual and a homosexual is choice of sexual partners.
Is this statement wrong? Do you have scientific proof that all the different orientations are physiological? I have never heard that such a thing.
2. There is no magical force makes anyone have any kind of sex at all. Sex is always a choice. The manner of sex is always a choice.
Are these statements wrong? Is there a magical force making people have sex and do it in certain ways that I am not aware of?
3. What “turns someone on” is not a rational basis to legitimize disordered behavior.
Is this one wrong? Does someones turn-ons legitimize their sexual behavior?
4. If it were so then that would also legitimize any other disordered behavior such as pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, FLDS plural child marriages, adult on adult incest ala Woody Allen and his daughter.
Is this wrong? If a persons sexual desire alone legitimizes their sexual activities then why wouldn’t these activities be as legitimate?
**5. Yet even the homosexual community rejects these as legitimate forms of sexual expression. Even they admit it is true that what “turns one on” does not legitimize disordered behavior…until it comes to their particular brand of disordered behavior. Funny that, eh? **
Is this one wrong? Have they now decided to re embrace Nambla? I haven’t noticed any of these other groups being included in their literature. Have I just missed their inclusion?
6. So in response the question, yes, as any sexual behavior is always a choice, one is only straight or gay on the basis of that choice. The idea that there are homosexuals and heterosexuals and they are somehow fundamentally different people is a false dichotomy.
Is my conclusion wrong? If my premises are true, then my conclusion should be according to the basic rules of logic right?

1. There’s more to homosexuality than sex and it is a psychological thing not a physiological thing
2. Obviously people choose to have sex, not contested
3. There’s more to homosexuality than sex, I’m not arguing to legitimize homosexual acts
4. There’s more to homosexuality than sex, in none of those cases is consent possible and they require the person to be profoundly disturbed
5. There’s more to homosexuality than sex, in their attempt for these perverse communities to become mainstream they dropped NAMBLA
6. Obviously actions are choices.

 

[passus]

I voted “no.”

I’m 19. I’m openly gay and I lead a “homosexual lifestyle,” as it’s called around here. For several years I practiced Catholicism devoutly and even very heavily considered a vocation. I’d pray every night and every morning and all day long that I could turn straight and stop thinking about guys and even–having accepted that as I priest I would never marry or have sex–that I could be asexual. Of course none if it worked. I was as indoctrinated and naive as one could possibly be and it still didn’t work. But worst of all was the intense self-hatred and endless frustration and emotional distress I felt.

Having sloughed all that off, I can say that I’ve never been more happy. I began speaking to a psychologist. I’ve dated a couple guys. I didn’t realize until recently, though, the extent of the depression I suffered during my years of confusion and attempted “transition.” (Ugh! I hate that word.) Even though right now my life isn’t exactly a model of Catholic truth, coming to accept that I will never change has put me in a far better place from which to proceed than I ever was in and for guys and girls struggling with homosexuality, I really think that from a psychological perspective, acceptance is the very first place to start.

To those who tout anecdotal stories of men who have switched teams since high school–were gay and now have wives and kids: I hope you realize that gay guys do marry women…especially guys from the generations of older folks who populate the majority of these boards’ demographic. By pressure of their parents and families, and to conform to the demands of what was then a far less gay-friendly society, for advancement of their careers, or even just to fool themselves, gay guys have and do carry on lives with wives and children. And many of them carry on affairs with men, too. This is nothing new.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I voted “no.”

I’m 19. I’m openly gay and I lead a “homosexual lifestyle,” as it’s called around here. For several years I practiced Catholicism devoutly and even very heavily considered a vocation. I’d pray every night and every morning and all day long that I could turn straight and stop thinking about guys and even–having accepted that as I priest I would never marry or have sex–that I could be asexual. Of course none if it worked. I was as indoctrinated and naive as one could possibly be and it still didn’t work. But worst of all was the intense self-hatred and endless frustration and emotional distress I felt.

Having sloughed all that off, I can say that I’ve never been more happy. I began speaking to a psychologist. I’ve dated a couple guys. I didn’t realize until recently, though, the extent of the depression I suffered during my years of confusion and attempted “transition.” (Ugh! I hate that word.) Even though right now my life isn’t exactly a model of Catholic truth, coming to accept that I will never change has put me in a far better place from which to proceed than I ever was in and for guys and girls struggling with homosexuality, I really think that from a psychological perspective, acceptance is the very first place to start.

To those who tout anecdotal stories of men who have switched teams since high school–were gay and now have wives and kids: I hope you realize that gay guys do marry women…especially guys from the generations of older folks who populate the majority of these boards’ demographic. By pressure of their parents and families, and to conform to the demands of what was then a far less gay-friendly society, for advancement of their careers, or even just to fool themselves, gay guys have and do carry on lives with wives and children. And many of them carry on affairs with men, too. This is nothing new.

Homosexual acts is just a label for a bunch of disordered heterosexual things with the difference that the participants are of the same gender.

Remember being homosexual is not actually a sin, but “homosexual acts” are. There are several notable homosexual Catholics who are still unequivocally Catholics, John Heard, Ron Belgau and Eve Tushnet for example.

Notice how in the Bible there are hundreds of admonishments to heterosexuals and only a handful towards homosexuals (which can be summarized as no sex). Just because they are admonished more doesn’t mean God loves them more, it’s just that they require a bit more supervision.

Read these two articles by John Heard, they will help you understand much.

 

[passus]

Homosexual acts is just a label for a bunch of disordered heterosexual things with the difference that the participants are of the same gender.

On a theological level: just above, you quoted where the Catechism teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. So, it’s not that homosexual acts are wrong because heterosexual acts are wrong. That would defy the definition of intrinsic. Homosexual acts are wrong for reasons directly associated with those acts’ homosexuality.

I’m not sure what this proves or disproves, but I never implied that the Church teaches directly against the homosexual condition as separate from the act or that God loves gay people any less.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

On a theological level: just above, you quoted where the Catechism teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. So, it’s not that homosexual acts are wrong because heterosexual acts are wrong. That would defy the definition of intrinsic. Homosexual acts are wrong for reasons directly associated with those acts’ homosexuality.

I’m not sure what this proves or disproves, but I never implied that the Church teaches directly against the homosexual condition as separate from the act or that God loves gay people any less.

Anal sex, oral sex, masturbation, frottage, etc. are intrinsically disorder acts even when done by heterosexuals. Intrinsically disordered means it is always sinful. What exactly is more sinful than moral sin?

I’ve met plenty of Christians who believe that and I’ve met homosexuals who have had it pounded in enough that they believed it too.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1. There’s more to homosexuality than sex

Like what? If one takes sexuality out of the equation, what difference is there between the orientations? It seems like that is all the difference there really is. Can you give me an example of something that makes the various orientations different, other than their sexuality?

and it is a psychological thing not a physiological thing.

Ok.

in none of those cases is consent possible

That isn’t true. Consent is a matter of culture. There are places in the world that all these things are considered either consensual or in the case of zoophilia or necrophilia, no consent is necessary.

and they require the person to be profoundly disturbed

This seems rather odd, why do you think that people of these orientations are profoundly disturbed for their psychology, but people with other orientations are not? I think that these people would sharply disagree with you. You can Google “zoophile rights” To see some very lucid people arguing for tolerance. They would certainly think that your words were intolerant at the very least.

 

[francisca]

All things are possible with God. . Let me repeat that- all things are possible with God

Amen to that.

. I think would do a great disservice when we make flat statements that people who engage in homosexual behavior can never change.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Like what? If one takes sexuality out of the equation, what difference is there between the orientations? It seems like that is all the difference there really is. Can you give me an example of something that makes the various orientations different, other than their sexuality?
Ok.
That isn’t true. Consent is a matter of culture. There are places in the world that all these things are considered either consensual or in the case of zoophilia or necrophilia, no consent is necessary.
This seems rather odd, why do you think that people of these orientations are profoundly disturbed for their psychology, but people with other orientations are not? I think that these people would sharply disagree with you. You can Google “zoophile rights” To see some very lucid people arguing for tolerance. They would certainly think that your words were intolerant at the very least.

There is more to homosexuality than sex because there is more to love than sex.

Those sound like the words of a moral relativist

“male and female He created them”. All human orientation is ultimately human thusly necrophilia and zoophilia do not fit. The whole FLDS is a warping of culture which warps the minds entombed in it. Incest is supposed to be prevented by psychological imprinting which is extremely strong, for them to not latch to each other requires a damaged mind. Paedophiles suffer from impaired interpersonal skills, impaired concept of self and severe cognitive distortions the latter two of which are definitely cofactors with a wide variety of mental illnesses.

 

[laircy]

Haven’t read the whole threa, so I might be reiterating what has already been said.

I think true homosexuals can’t just become heterosexual, taking the word from many that I’ve heard talk about it, and the ones who supposed do probably were bisexual or just confused to begin with. They can practice celibacy, yes. They can try to ignore what they feel, yes. But saying they can suddenly start liking the opposite sex is like saying straight people can force themselves to like the same sex, which… might be possible, but, really…?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is more to homosexuality than sex because there is more to love than sex.

The emotion of Love is common to all human beings. So that is not a difference between the orientations. The only difference between the orientations seems to be a matter of choice of sexual partner.

Those sound like the words of a moral relativist

Pot. Kettle. Black and all that.

“male and female He created them”. All human orientation is ultimately human thusly necrophilia and zoophilia do not fit.

Hmmmmm… from the premise “male and female He created them”, you only draw the conclusion that the phrase that non-human orientations are excluded? Why didn’t you draw the conclusion "all human orientation is ultimately “male and female”? You drew on only the implied property of the premise, male and female refer to “humans”, and ignored the explicit properties of the premise “male and female”. That is missing the forest for the trees. Further, the premise you use has nothing to do with it in our secular society. What possible secular reason is there to exclude necrophiles and zoophiles from equal protection under the law?

The whole FLDS is a** warping** of culture which warps the minds entombed in it.

Sweet, you are managing to dehumanize me and thus reject my position without actually having an argument. Interesting. If you follow the normal pattern of these conversations next you will subtly assert that I have some hidden motivation related to my own sexuality correct? As though there is something wrong with me for not accepting the same things you do? That aside, so what? FLDS are not crazy, they just have a different belief than you. I see no secular reason to exclude plural marriage from equal protection under the law.

Incest is supposed to be prevented by psychological imprinting which is extremely strong, for them to not latch to each other requires a damaged mind.

So you are now admitting that orientation can be the result of mental illness? That said, so what? what secular reason is there to prevent even the mentally ill from any kind of consensual relations they want to have? Further, what if Woody Allen and Soon-Yi are on the board? What if there are zoophiles and necrophiles lurking our board? I am sure there are FLDS types that do. Wouldn’t your words be “extremely imprudent” and give people the impression that Catholics hate these groups as you accused me of doing?

 

[manualman]

I find it amazing how many of these threads reveal people unable to recognize that humanity as a general rule defies general rules!

It is self-evident that there are people out there who have previously believed themselves to be ‘gay’ and later something changed and they went on to live happy, married hetero lives. I know some well. There are others who would desperately love to be rid of their SSA, have tried all sorts of counseling (NARTH, etc) and it just won’t go away.

It defies neat simple labels and boxes. Why is that so weird? I see the whole thing much like alcoholism. There may be some genetic predisposition for some people, some people start to get in trouble and are able to get out, some never manage to overcome it. But people, regardless of their problems retain the diginity of having been made in God’s image and are treasured by Him. Enough of the labeling and one-size-fits-all generalizations. We’re sinners and we’re messy. Will be until we finish up our stay in Purgatory.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The emotion of Love is common to all human beings. So that is not a difference between the orientations. The only difference between the orientations seems to be a matter of choice of sexual partner.
Pot. Kettle. Black and all that.
Hmmmmm… from the premise “male and female He created them”, you only draw the conclusion that the phrase that non-human orientations are excluded? Why didn’t you draw the conclusion "all human orientation is ultimately “male and female”? You drew on only the implied property of the premise, male and female refer to “humans”, and ignored the explicit properties of the premise “male and female”. That is missing the forest for the trees. Further, the premise you use has nothing to do with it in our secular society. What possible secular reason is there to exclude necrophiles and zoophiles from equal protection under the law?
Sweet, you are managing to dehumanize me and thus reject my position without actually having an argument. Interesting. If you follow the normal pattern of these conversations next you will subtly assert that I have some hidden motivation related to my own sexuality correct? As though there is something wrong with me for not accepting the same things you do? That aside, so what? FLDS are not crazy, they just have a different belief than you. I see no secular reason to exclude plural marriage from equal protection under the law.
So you are now admitting that orientation can be the result of mental illness? That said, so what? what secular reason is there to prevent even the mentally ill from any kind of consensual relations they want to have? Further, what if Woody Allen and Soon-Yi are on the board? What if there are zoophiles and necrophiles lurking our board? I am sure there are FLDS types that do. Wouldn’t your words be “extremely imprudent” and give people the impression that Catholics hate these groups as you accused me of doing?

…
Completely went over your head

Okay, if homosexuality is just based on a choice of sexual partners then why do we have the Courage apostolate and why not some sort of outreach for necrophiliacs or paedophiles?

The Church says nothing about orientation, but it does about inclination. orientation≠inclination.

Not all cultures are equal, the FLDS are an example of where delusions are enforced on a culture and change said culture. I suppose in a way it is similar to the dancing boys of Afghanistan. Plural marriage is a legal nightmare and it undermines the cohesion of society. Those aren’t orientations, those are paraphilia!

Research into why people commit sex with the dead (there’s overlap)
68% motivated by a desire for an unresisting and unrejecting partner
21% reunion with a lost partner
15% sexual attraction to dead people
15% desire for comfort or to overcome feelings of isolation
11% desire to remedy low self-esteem by expressing power over a corpse

poor self esteem plus extreme fear of rejection and desire for partner who can’t reject, and/or fear of the dead morphs into philia via reaction formation causes the person to develop a fantasy of sex with a corpse.

Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn aren’t actually related. So it’s not technically incest (hence why the aren’t in jail).

Show me where in the CCC where it says something similar to this for those groups

“2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

 

[estesbob]

I voted “no.”

I’m 19. I’m openly gay and I lead a “homosexual lifestyle,” as it’s called around here. For several years I practiced Catholicism devoutly and even very heavily considered a vocation. I’d pray every night and every morning and all day long that I could turn straight and stop thinking about guys and even–having accepted that as I priest I would never marry or have sex–that I could be asexual. Of course none if it worked. I was as indoctrinated and naive as one could possibly be and it still didn’t work. But worst of all was the intense self-hatred and endless frustration and emotional distress I felt.

Having sloughed all that off, I can say that I’ve never been more happy. I began speaking to a psychologist. I’ve dated a couple guys. I didn’t realize until recently, though, the extent of the depression I suffered during my years of confusion and attempted “transition.” (Ugh! I hate that word.) Even though right now my life isn’t exactly a model of Catholic truth, coming to accept that I will never change has put me in a far better place from which to proceed than I ever was in and for guys and girls struggling with homosexuality, I really think that from a psychological perspective, acceptance is the very first place to start.

To those who tout anecdotal stories of men who have switched teams since high school–were gay and now have wives and kids: I hope you realize that gay guys do marry women…especially guys from the generations of older folks who populate the majority of these boards’ demographic. By pressure of their parents and families, and to conform to the demands of what was then a far less gay-friendly society, for advancement of their careers, or even just to fool themselves, gay guys have and do carry on lives with wives and children. And many of them carry on affairs with men, too. This is nothing new.

You have provided us with anecdotal evidence that in your opinion homosexuals cannot change their behavior. . We have that others provide us with anecdotal evidence that they can. Again. It is a huge disservice to those who suffer from this disorder to tell them there is no hope.