Ex-Homosexuality?

[Elizabeth502]

If you apply that logic to the real world, that would mean you had a right to enter my conversation while I was in a crowded place.

This has already been addressed. The public forum is not the place to have a restricted conversation. Others do get to weigh in here on a public conversation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You know LemonAndLime I was going to ask you to be the 1st honorary member of my special CAF troll police…now I’m having second thoughts

I’m bowing out of this but wish to congratulate michelleds for turning her life around and thank God for the grace he gave her (and still does) to do so. FWIW you have my admiration.

No need to “bow out” unless you have decided you have not more to add.
I also admire michelleds very much for her witness, her courage, her honesty, and her refusal to join the PC crowd. But then, she knows that already.

And I do not see you as “argumentative and accusatory.”

 

[michelleds]

man, go drive to the farm and look what happens while you’re gone!

although I think this dead horse has done been beat, for clarification sake…LemonLime, I merely meant that since your posts were made thinking that i was male with attraction to men, and that you said “you aren’t cured”, that you might have something different to say, some different questions or points. if not, that’s fine. i was just trying to engage after a mistake.

I appreciate the kudos, folks, I just pass it on to God who rightly deserves it. (shouldn’t there be a smiley like a little f-ball touchdown dude giving it up to God?)

 

[Elizabeth502]

I appreciate the kudos, folks, I just pass it on to God who rightly deserves it. (shouldn’t there be a smiley like a little f-ball touchdown dude giving it up to God?)

You’re right! True for all of us.

 

[chrysostim83]

JHow wrote a very interesting post above that sheds a lot of light on how people convince themselves that it’s possible to go from gay to straight. Maybe that’s why it doesn’t make much sense to me. I hope no one minds if I dissect it a little bit.

Or, if I was tempted to commit homosexual acts, but I never did…and I never told anyone about my temptation, how would you know, and how could you ever classify me as homosexual?

Depending on the person, it could be as easy as pie. Suppose you knew someone who dressed a certain way, listened to certain music, watched certain shows, spoke in a certain way, kept certain friends, and so forth. Just imagine all of the innocent stereotypes rolled into one. Now, if this person had never married, and you asked why, would you really be surprised if the truthful answer involved SSA even though, let’s say, the person had never acted on his or her same sex attractions?

Or, if I did act on it in my youth, but then put it aside for the rest of my life, what proof would there be that I didn’t really change?

There would be proof you had changed, since it is certainly a “change” to go from acting on one’s inclinations to not acting on them. But such a change is compatible with remaining a homosexual, as you can easily see if you tweak the example above a little.

I ask this because I think it is very difficult to try and assess some inner attraction or preference - but a behavior or act can be measured.

This gets to the heart of the matter. Just because something is difficult to assess doesn’t mean it can’t be meaningfully discussed or that there can’t be genuine, albeit imperfect, knowledge about it. For instance, some people who believe they are tolerant and good natured are in fact demanding and irascible, and this can be determined just by interacting with them long enough. But even if such a person got to know herself a little better and perfectly controlled her character flaws, the tolerance and good nature you would see from the outside would not be a reflection of inner peace but of an uphill battle against what came naturally. For many purposes, it would still be worthwhile to call that person demanding and irascible, since that is the description that best captures where she is coming from.

Similarly, the main use of knowing if someone is gay even if he or she does not act on the inclinations that go along with that, is that it gives a better representation how things stand for him or her.

The claim of eternal SSA is certainly used as leverage in policy debates - and also as a stick to distract or silence opponents (vice how often the “latent homosexual” card gets played). I also think it underestimates the power of human will, to say nothing of God’s grace.

It’s just science. We know gay men and women can control their sexual behaviors. We also know they can change their sexual orientation identity, so that instead of thinking of themselves as gay, they think of themselves as heterosexual-but-attracted-to-members-of-the-same-and-not-the-opposite-sex. But so far there’s no clear or compelling evidence that people can change their sexual orientation (i.e., the pattern of their predominant attractions) through deliberate efforts.

 

[michelleds]

Dude, you clearly grew up watching that bendy-pretzel guy on saturday morning cartoons!!

 

[chrysostim83]

OK, I’ll bite. How is it clear?

 

[JHow]

… Suppose you knew someone who dressed a certain way, listened to certain music, watched certain shows, spoke in a certain way, kept certain friends, and so forth. Just imagine all of the innocent stereotypes rolled into one. Now, if this person had never married, and you asked why, would you really be surprised if the truthful answer involved SSA even though, let’s say, the person had never acted on his or her same sex attractions?

But most of these stereotypes can’t really stand up as hard evidence of SSA. They are mostly evidence of a culture, which is to learned patterns of behavior. Dress, music, shows, manner of speech, are all in this category. Of all the things you mention, keeping certain friends (who you hang around with), would be the best evidence of no change in orientation, but even then, we can’t assume a changed person would necessarily reject all former associates, friends, contacts?

… This gets to the heart of the matter. Just because something is difficult to assess doesn’t mean it can’t be meaningfully discussed or that there can’t be genuine, albeit imperfect, knowledge about it.

If one wants to be able make the statement that “people with SSA can never change” then you need to be able to accurately measure and demonstrate that there exist no cases where this has occurred.

… For instance, some people who believe they are tolerant and good natured are in fact demanding and irascible, and this can be determined just by interacting with them long enough. But even if such a person got to know herself a little better and perfectly controlled her character flaws, the tolerance and good nature you would see from the outside would not be a reflection of inner peace but of an uphill battle against what came naturally. For many purposes, it would still be worthwhile to call that person demanding and irascible, since that is the description that best captures where she is coming from.

This analogy moves SSA a good distance away from the “protected class” status it enjoys in policy debates. If some people are internally disposed to SSA in the same way that others are internally disposed to irascibility, then no one should be offended if the church says “mind your attraction”, in the same way (figuratively) it says “mind your temper!”

…It’s just science. We know gay men and women can control their sexual behaviors. We also know they can change their sexual orientation identity, so that instead of thinking of themselves as gay, they think of themselves as heterosexual-but-attracted-to-members-of-the-same-and-not-the-opposite-sex. But so far there’s no clear or compelling evidence that people can change their sexual orientation (i.e., the pattern of their predominant attractions) through deliberate efforts.

It is not science to define orientation as an internal, immutable characterstic, independent of behavior, and then challenge others to prove that it can change. You need compelling evidence that orientation never changes.

 

[Elizabeth502]

so far there’s no clear or compelling evidence that people can change their sexual orientation (i.e., the pattern of their predominant attractions) through deliberate efforts.

There is no clear or compelling evidence that any of us (including you) have any idea how others feel on the inside, how they perceive and experience their own sexuality, outside of their ability to recognize that and articulate that. We have only the “evidence” of their self-knowledge. The editing of others, to contradict that in order to preserve some political or personal agenda by the editor, is not “compelling.”

 

[meltzerboy]

It isn’t. the population of homosexual ppl in NYC and San Francisco is far higher than it is in most other parts of the US. That whole 10% statistic is a myth perpetuated by the gay agenda folks.

See, banap.net/spip.php?article79

the actual amicus brief is found at supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-102/02-102.mer.ami.hrc.pdf the referenced study is in footnote 42

I think the population of homosexuals is higher in large cities than in other parts of the US for a few reasons. One is the greater number of (diverse) people living in cities. But even controlling for that, people from smaller towns move to urban communities where homosexuality is more tolerated and also where their anonymity can be maintained. I don’t think it’s the liberal climate of the cities that causes people to become homosexual; rather, it’s that climate which enables them to live in relative peace and security and, if they wish, express themselves more openly without so much fear of being discriminated against or murdered.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t think it’s the liberal climate of the cities that causes people to become homosexual.

Where did michelle say that it’s the liberal climate of the cities that “causes” people to become homosexual?

 

[JHow]

I think the population of homosexuals is higher in large cities than in other parts of the US for a few reasons. One is the greater number of (diverse) people living in cities. But even controlling for that, people from smaller towns move to urban communities where homosexuality is more tolerated and also where their anonymity can be maintained. I don’t think it’s the liberal climate of the cities that causes people to become homosexual; rather, it’s that climate which enables them to live in relative peace and security and, if they wish, express themselves more openly without so much fear of being discriminated against or murdered.

I would agree with you that cities attract homosexuals, which may cause them to be disproportionately represented in large cities, however, I think a little bit of New York bias against small towns is showing in your analysis of “fear of being discriminated against or being murdered”. Many small towns would pride themselves on being “gay-friendly”. You can probably find New York area examples, but if you consider small towns like Carmel or Ojai, CA, or getting larger, Palm Springs.

I think it boils down to social class of the residents, not size of the city, or the anonymity.

 

[meltzerboy]

I would agree with you that cities attract homosexuals, which may cause them to be disproportionately represented in large cities, however, I think a little bit of New York bias against small towns is showing in your analysis of “fear of being discriminated against or being murdered”. Many small towns would pride themselves on being “gay-friendly”. You can probably find New York area examples, but if you consider small towns like Carmel or Ojai, CA, or getting larger, Palm Springs.

I think it boils down to social class of the residents, not size of the city, or the anonymity.

I’m talking about gay people who move from small towns to large cities. The small towns they move from are often not “gay-friendly.” Certainly, you’re correct: not every small town is anti-gay.

 

[chrysostim83]

Hi JHow,

I think there may be some misunderstanding between us. The main point of my reply was not that gay men and lesbian women can’t “change,” but that one particular way of looking at sexual orientation is inadequate.

Specifically, in your first post you wrote:

If both my grandfathers died of alcoholism. . . and I like liquor, and I know that I have a weakness for it, but still I don’t drink, how useful would it be to call me an alcoholic?

Or, if I was tempted to commit homosexual acts, but I never did…and I never told anyone about my temptation, how would you know, and how could you ever classify me as homosexual?

This sounds like, “Just as someone isn’t an alcoholic if he doesn’t give in to his inclinations to drink, nobody is homosexual unless he gives in to his inclinations to same sex sexual behaviors.” In effect, sexual orientation has been reduced to behavior. Now, there’s nothing in your post that could justify such a reduction, and my example with the stereotypes was an attempt to show that sexual orientation involves much more than mere inclinations toward particular acts. Moreover, while of course it’s true that the stereotypes are not entirely conclusive, they do have some worth as inductive evidence, and that is enough for knowledge (if it weren’t, there could be no such thing as science). Thus, it is indeed quite possible to know that someone is gay even if he or she does not act on the inclination to engage is same sex sexual behaviors.

Beyond the stereotypes, I tried to reinforce this conclusion with the example of irascibility. The point, which you seem to concede, is that even if someone has his or her inclination toward anger well under control, the inclination is still there and it makes good sense to say he or she is still irascible.

About gay men and lesbian women changing, I had two things to say. First, that changing one’s behavior is significant and worthwhile, but it doesn’t qualify as changing one’s orientation. Why this is so is clear, since sexual orientation involves a lot more than mere behavior or inclinations toward it. Secondly, I did not say that changing one’s orientation is impossible: my belief is that there is no clear or compelling evidence that such a change can be brought about deliberately. To establish that I don’t have to go through and refute every case of putative change in sexual orientation. All I have to do is go through and find a devastating flaw in every study of techniques for this kind of change. Better yet, I can refer you to the exhaustive review undertaken by the APA.

 

[meltzerboy]

Where did michelle say that it’s the liberal climate of the cities that “causes” people to become homosexual?

She didn’t. I just added that as part of the nature-nurture controversy and the cause-effect relationship concerning homosexuality.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I did not say that changing one’s orientation is impossible: my belief is that there is no clear or compelling evidence that such a change can be brought about deliberately.

And those who have changed, have a different “belief.” You have no authority to question their own “beliefs,” let alone knowledge, about themselves. Ultimately, sexuality is subjective. That’s one aspect of its complexity.

 

[JHow]

…This sounds like, “Just as someone isn’t an alcoholic if he doesn’t give in to his inclinations to drink, nobody is homosexual unless he gives in to his inclinations to same sex sexual behaviors.” In effect, sexual orientation has been reduced to behavior…Thus, it is indeed quite possible to know that someone is gay even if he or she does not act on the inclination to engage is same sex sexual behaviors.

I’m not saying I think orientation is the same as behavior. I’m suggesting that it is not very actionable. From a practical standpoint, orientation absent behavior doesn’t provide IMO a lot of useful information. Suppose you identified people with an inner disposition to overspend money while I keep records of people who acquire sub-prime loans. Now there’s likely a good deal of overlap in the your group and my group, but my group is the one you will be able to identify in the market place when you need customers for your new payday-loan company (or your spend-a-holic-therapy practice).

… tried to reinforce this conclusion with the example of irascibility. The point, which you seem to concede, is that even if someone has his or her inclination toward anger well under control, the inclination is still there and it makes good sense to say he or she is still irascible.

I’m not seeming to concede this point, I actually agree with you here. The irascible label fits. But it doesn’t mean the the irascible inclination is necessarily unchangeable, and there is still the problem of Shto delat’ (What is to be done?)

…About gay men and lesbian women changing, I had two things to say. First, that changing one’s behavior is significant and worthwhile, but it doesn’t qualify as changing one’s orientation. Why this is so is clear, since sexual orientation involves a lot more than mere behavior or inclinations toward it.

I find it difficult to believe that whatever measures you devise for measuring orientation are going to be truly independent of behaviors.

…Secondly, I did not say that changing one’s orientation is impossible…

Okay, but many do make that argument - often equating orientation to something like skin color.

…my belief is that there is no clear or compelling evidence that such a change can be brought about deliberately. To establish that I don’t have to go through and refute every case of putative change in sexual orientation. All I have to do is go through and find a devastating flaw in every study of techniques for this kind of change. Better yet, I can refer you to the exhaustive review undertaken by the APA.

Good point. I have no brief on whether anyone can bring about deliberate change in orientation. I suspect it is unlikely in many if not most people. But unlikely is not the same as never did or never will.

 

[michelleds]

Originally Posted by chrysostim83
I did not say that changing one’s orientation is impossible: my belief is that there is no clear or compelling evidence that such a change can be brought about deliberately.

Elizabeth said: And those who have changed, have a different “belief.” You have no authority to question their own “beliefs,” let alone knowledge, about themselves. Ultimately, sexuality is subjective. That’s one aspect of its complexity.

Chrysostim83, there are any number of people, on this forum and off, who have changed their orientation, myself included. Now, if what you are saying is that ppl are unlikely to change their orientation without God’s help and grace, then I agree with you.

but I think that your analogy of once an angry person, always an angry person, regardless of behavior is not only offensive to everyone in the world who has ever fought to gain virtue and holiness, it’s also one of the most pessimistic things I’ve read on here. you’re saying that criminals who find God and convert to Christianity are still criminals? that confession and reconciliation are meaningless? that when we say “but only say the word and I shall be healed” is meaningless?

 

[chrysostim83]

From a practical standpoint, orientation absent behavior doesn’t provide IMO a lot of useful information.

That could be. However, I get the impression from most people that not knowing someone’s sexual orientation implies a certain degree of superficiality in whatever friendship that might exist between you.

Chrysostim83, there are any number of people, on this forum and off, who have changed their orientation, myself included.

Although skeptical, I do actually try to give the benefit of the doubt to those who claim to have experienced change in their sexual orientation. What I do doubt is that the changes they claim to have experienced came about by any effort on their part. Psychologists have had more than a century to study this question, but instead of seeing any validation for the sort of methods for changing that a layman would come up with, we see large reviews from the APA and individual researchers that point out the fatal shortcomings in virtually every study that has ever been done to test the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts.

but I think that your analogy of once an angry person, always an angry person, regardless of behavior is not only offensive to everyone. . .

A mere typo. What I should have said is that a person is irascible as long as the inclination persists, regardless of how sedate or well-behaved he or she may appear. Does that seem reasonable? After all, alcoholics still consider themselves alcoholic as long as they experience their temptations.

 

[Emil]

I do not label myself homosexual, but a man who has a homosexual inclination. I signed on tonight because I had a very sexual dream about a man and was highly disturbed by it and what I wanted to do in that dream. I thank God these type of occurences are not frequent, nor are temptations which I overcome by praying for the object of my would-be lust. We have to realize that if we act out our temptations, we are endangering someone else’s soul, someone whose body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Looking at it that way makes it easier to turn away from evil.

After much prayer, I left the homosexual lifestyle behind and returned to the Church eleven years ago. I live a chaste life and am prayerful aside from reading theology and apologetics. So, yes, the lifestyle can be left behind and I’m sure many do so; however, the label has to go, too.

God bless,
Emil