Can a Homosexual become a Heterosexual?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
warpspeedpetey said:
I thought that was problem with handwriting, not typing…in fact, isn’t learning to type part of the therapy for the condition? If so, maybe you could just work your way through it for the practice? Either way, an easy solution to the problem is speech recognition software. e-speaking.com/ and you can find more by Googling the term “Free speech recognition software”. If for some reason it is inconvenient, you may record yourself describing this indescribably quality that you cannot type but can speak, and have someone transpose it for you. If you happen to be in the middle of nowhere by yourself you could record and post it on Youtube, Flicker, Twitter, or any other site that accept uploads, for us to transcribe for you. If you cannot record it because you are using a pre-2000 computer without a built in microphone/webcam, you can buy one online very cheaply, or borrow a cell phone/webcam/microphone from someone else. If you can do none of these things, then I can only believe that the truth is there is nothing more to being gay than sex.
Click to expand...
I said we, I’m very much a conversationalist.

I’ve already tried to describe it, but every time it has gone over your head whether that’s due to you just not getting it or just me describing it badly (or a combination of course). Since there

What is it that allowed nonsexual same sex relationships to flourish in the middle ages? What was the attraction that held such indissoluble bonds together? What pulled them together into a spiritual bond that transcends death? There must be some nonsinful connection there because such relationships were blessed by the Church
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
…I’ve already tried to describe it, but every time it has gone over your head whether that’s due to you just not getting it or just me describing it badly (or a combination of course).
Click to expand...
Your previous attempts to describe such a quality have invariably been sexual in nature or a quality that all orientations share. It hasn’t gone over my head, I have been pointing out that you have not described such a quality as you have claimed exists.
…nonsexual same sex relationships…
Click to expand...
The normative word for what you describe is “friendship”. All orientations share this quality, that is not something more to being gay than just sex, as you have claimed.
 
Warpspeed,

I took some time off to think about what it means to say that being gay is just about sex as opposed to saying it’s really about something else.

First, it seems like your position isn’t so much wrong as incomplete. That is, it seems to be correct to say that those who are gay are as a matter of fact sexually attracted to members of the same sex (of course, due allowance needs to be made for individual exceptions or even mistakes). But that definition, even though it manages to pick out the class of gay people from the class of non-gay people, does not explain gayness in a moral theologically helpful way.

To see what I mean, consider the problem of defining humans. Aristotle teaches that man is a rational animal, but he also considers and rejects the definition of man as a featherless biped. Both descriptions manage to pick out the class of men from the class of non-human animals. But as Aristotle insists, we do not know what something is until we know what it is for, and it is on precisely this point that the second description of man fails. For what could being a featherless biped teach us about how to live? The description, so far as morality is concerned, goes nowhere and does nothing. By contrast, the first definition has definite moral consequences–for instance, it is wrong for a man to behave irrationally.

So, if I were to attempt to explain it, the rejection of the definition of being gay as “all about sex” is not a matter the description’s failing to identify the right people; it’s a matter of the description’s not being able to answer the question, “What is the homosexual condition for?” Again, by contrast, the definition of being gay that I would urge (see my first post to you on this thread) does explain what being gay is for: it says that the attractions that go along with it, even though they appear to be for sex, are really extreme and disordered desires for a friendship with another person of the same sex which runs as deep as the friendship between a husband and wife.

It would be extremely interesting if you could answer the question about the purpose of the homosexual condition using your purely sexual definition.
 
James1215 said:
Another equally valuable question would be:

Can a bisexual person emphasise opposite sex attraction and minimise same sex attraction?
Click to expand...
Actually I know someone this happened with…she was totally down the middle, a bisexual. She decided that in order to follow God and be in a church sanctioned relationship she would seek out a male. She hasn’t met anyone yet so she’s living a chaste life and growing closer to the Lord. I think that it’s very possible in a case like hers.

Now I know someone who is homosexual and he says he’s always been that way and cannot change. He can still be chaste and be in the church and he pretty much is chaste. He doesn’t live the “cruising” lifestyle and understands the church’s position on this.

Now to answer the question, I imagine anything is possible but I wouldn’t count on it for everyone. I know some who tried to ‘change’ and ended up having affairs in their marriages. I have heard of others who are very successful. I pray for homosexual persons that they find the love and mercy of God and whatever God’s will is for them they seek to do it. No different than what I pray for everyone else.

Lorrie
 
Jayne_L said:
First up, I admit I haven’t read the whole thread. I’m going to tell my tale, and leave it at that.

I changed.

I was raised in a strict pentecostal household where being gay… well, it’s about the worse thing one could be. My teenage years weren’t fun - because being gay, for me anyway, wasn’t a choice. I was attracted to women from the moment I hit puberty.

I didn’t decide to change either. I was “saved” (pentecostal sense) when I was 18 and that’s when things really got tough. Raised as I was, I knew that homosexuality was a sin. I knew it would send me to hell (I don’t believe that now - it’s a lot more complicated). It tore me up. I wanted to follow God, but I was so conflicted because the idea of being alone my entire life was unbearable. I became depressed, which is something I struggled with for years.

To cut a long story short, one day I gave God an ultimatium. Either change me, or I’m quitting. I’m walking away from him. I just couldn’t handle what I was going through anymore. One way or another it had to stop.

God blessed me. I don’t suffer anymore. I wouldn’t describe myself as heterosexual, but I’m not homosexual either. From that moment, it stopped. I was changed by the grace of God.

I know there are many who have prayed without ceasing for the gift I have been given - I don’t know why I was given it, and not them. I don’t think they’re just not praying hard enough… maybe they’re just stronger than me and God knows they can handle it. I pray for them. That God gives them the strength they need and that they receive the reward of heaven.

I don’t believe in therapy. I don’t believe sexuality is a choice. But I do believe in grace - and it impacts each of us in different ways. For some that means they change - for others it means the strength to carry the cross.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing. All things are indeed possible for God!
 
chrysostim83 said:
…moral theologically helpful way…
Click to expand...
The claim is that there is more to being gay than sex. Therefore there must be a quality which is not sexual in nature and not shared by other orientations. If that quality is sexual in nature, it obviously refutes the claim. If that quality is shared by all the other orientations, then it cannot be a quality that is solely gay, it is simply a quality shared by every one. If no one can elucidate such a quality as the claim implies, then it seems the truth is that there is no more to being gay than sex… I am only interested in the logic of the claims made. I am not making moral or theological statements, or attempting to make categorical offsets by class. Nor am I particularly interested in them. I am looking for a rational proof of a claim and that is it. Nothing less will do and nothing more is relevant.
 
yes, it is a matter of willpower to resist the urge. I have seen it happen with a friend.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
The claim is that there is more to being gay than sex. Therefore there must be a quality which is not sexual in nature and not shared by other orientations.
Click to expand...
Not sure if the logic is correct here. There is more to being a man than biological sex, but it is seriously doubtful that anyone could name a non-sexual property that successful distinguished all men from every woman.

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).
 
No, I said,
chrysostim83 said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Not the same thing.

It’s as if I said “Australia is distinguished by the color of its swans,” and you then quoted me as saying, “Australia is distinguished by… its swans,” and then went on to claim that what I “said” couldn’t be true because lots of other places have swans too.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
The claim is that there is more to being gay than sex. Therefore there must be a quality which is not sexual in nature and not shared by other orientations. If that quality is sexual in nature, it obviously refutes the claim. If that quality is shared by all the other orientations, then it cannot be a quality that is solely gay, it is simply a quality shared by every one. If no one can elucidate such a quality as the claim implies, then it seems the truth is that there is no more to being gay than sex… I am only interested in the logic of the claims made. I am not making moral or theological statements, or attempting to make categorical offsets by class. Nor am I particularly interested in them. I am looking for a rational proof of a claim and that is it. Nothing less will do and nothing more is relevant.
Click to expand...

I’ve been wanting to talk about it on a theological level.
warpspeedpetey said:
Everyone wants to have friends. That isn’t a quality to being gay that is more than sex.
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard of romantic friendship?
it is friendship, but it is also more than friendship
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/twitch.gif
I’ve been wanting to talk about it on a theological level.
Click to expand...
Your claim “There is more to being gay than sex” is not a theological claim.
Have you ever heard of romantic friendship?
it is friendship, but it is also more than friendship
Click to expand...
No, never heard of such a thing. My understanding of romance involves sexual attraction. If that is the case here then it does not advance your claim that there is more to being gay than sex. If the understanding of romance does involve sexual attraction, then it is merely friendship and that is a quality that all the orientations share.
 
Somewhat. But the point was serious and it forces you into a dilemma. If you can tell me what was wrong with post #248, then you’ll be arguing against you said in post #245.
 
chrysostim83 said:
Somewhat…
Click to expand...
Why? I see no reason to be upset that a reduction in terms made it clear that you were claiming the quality is friendship. What’s the point in denying it? Dakota just made the same claim. To the rest of the post, reread post #242
 
This is an interesting discussion. For what it is worth, my own guess is that someone who is exclusively samesex attracted will probably never be able to feel a sexual attraction to the opposite sex. At the same time, I would say that anyone, heterosexual or homosexual can, by God’s grace lead a life of chastity. God never demands of us more than His grace can resolve if we truly seek it. At the same time this does not mean converting one sexual attraction into another; but rather the transcending of sexual desire.

To Warpspeedpetey: Your views do seem to be alarmingly reductionist to an almost Freudian degree. Do you really believe that what we call romantic feelings are completely based upon sexual instinct? Please think about it, such a reduction of human feeling implies an almost animalistic conception of humanity, which surely is created in the Imago Dei, and therefore capable of much more. I have known happily married couples who, for various reasons, had no “sex life” but were clearly two hearts beating as one. We are in any case, ultimately ordered to a supernatural reality in which there will be no sex at all.

To Dakota Roberts: Thanks for the fascinating post of Alan Gray’s work. I do think though that it is a mistake to suggest a different “quality” between the heterosexual and the homosexual. Human nature itself is quite broad enough to include many different qualities inherent in all individuals to different degrees.
 
Hadrianus said:
…To Warpspeedpetey: Your views do seem to be alarmingly reductionist to an almost Freudian degree.
Click to expand...
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.
Do you really believe that what we call romantic feelings are completely based upon sexual instinct?
Click to expand...
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
Please think about it, such a reduction…
Click to expand...
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.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
Your claim “There is more to being gay than sex” is not a theological claim.

No, never heard of such a thing. My understanding of romance involves sexual attraction. If that is the case here then it does not advance your claim that there is more to being gay than sex. If the understanding of romance does involve sexual attraction, then it is merely friendship and that is a quality that all the orientations share.
Click to expand...
Actually the heart of the matter is a deep discussion on the nature and meaning of love. According to the Pope even eros can be nonsexual.

If love between a man and a woman is not different from love between a man and a man or a woman and a woman other than sex than why did the Church bless the hetero relationship to be joined of flesh and to last until death whereas the homo relationship to be joined of spirit and to last eternity.

PS the author’s name was Alan Bray, his book contained far more information than that article, the book was much more facts heavy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top