Ex-Homosexuality?

[GraceDK]

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

Emil, you are cool !
By the way… you are not the only one with those irritating dreams. I have them too sometimes, and I am a single lady with no immediate prospects of getting married, so all I can do is work on the virtue of chastity, directing my sexuality at loving whole people, and not lusting. I work on purity of my heart and eyes, that means, no bad movies, images, music or books. And it really does get easier and easier.

Did you ever read the work of Joseph Nicolosi: “Shame and Attachment Loss”. This is the most scolarly serious work of psychology I have ever read about same sex attraction.

 

[michelleds]

Even the Saints, or at least some of them, had those dreams. Some were even tormented by waking images and visions. and I know I certainly have them–and they range from garden variety to downright disturbing. I agree that they are temptations and attempts at oppression. I too fight them off with prayer and God’s grace.

I have found that reading about the Saints, even short biographies found on the web, has been invaluable to me. Seeing how these “mere humans” sought holiness in their own lives has been powerful.

 

[Elizabeth502]

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.

True. (When it comes to anger) However, what good psychotherapy will do is to uncover the root of the anger. Sometimes a propensity to anger is derived from poor parental modeling (an automatic habit); at other times (often) it is an indication of something to be angry about! Most often (according to psychotherapits) anger is a reaction (a compensation) to sadness or disappointment. So whether the phrase used is “being irascible” or being angry, anger usually has an originating cause. (Rather than people merely being “born angry,” or “always having been angry.”) The native temperament may be to be “triggered,” to be reactive, with anger only one of many emotions that are readily apparent.

As to alcoholics (and drug addicts), I have spoken to such people, and read testimonies of others, that say that “I have finally gotten to the point at which I now am no longer drawn to this.” So yes, it is very possible.

What has been uncovered in long-term non-specific psychotherapy with those who have no memory of when their homosexual orientation began (which is not true, btw, for everyone who is SSA as an adult), is, sometimes, disappointments with primary familial relationships in early childhood, and discussing those problems has then led to a deconstructing of their sexual orientation. I am not universalizing this, just pointing out that it does exist.

 

[chrysostim83]

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this particular issue. It seems unlikely that talking out bad childhood relationships would do much to change sexual orientation given that it has been known since the early 80’s that such relationships do not cause a homosexual orientation.

Again, my suggestion is not that change is impossible, only that there’s no overwhelming evidence that it is possible to choose to exchange one sexual orientation for another. To clarify this a little bit, I’ll briefly enumerate what appear to be the most common outcomes that people tend to describe as change in this context. (Unfortunately, I’m only going off impressions from what I’ve read about this sort of thing, so I won’t be able to provide specific sources for this).

1. 
   *]You can leave the so-called gay lifestyle behind (and even get rid of, if you have it, a readiness to engage in same sex sexual behaviors), but hold onto a gay identity and orientation.
   *]You can leave the gay lifestyle behind, and alter your sexual orientation identity (i.e., learn to think of yourself as a heterosexual who has a homosexual problem) while leaving the orientation as is.
   *]You can do everything in case (2), and get married. If you’re lucky, after a few years, you’ll experience some ambiguous feelings toward your spouse which could be construed as attraction. Even in this scenario, however, this attraction will feel wildly different from your other sexual attractions which will still be predominantly for other members of the same sex.
   
   I don’t want to belittle the changes that all three of these paths represent, but none of them amount to a change in orientation.

 

[michelleds]

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this particular issue. It seems unlikely that talking out bad childhood relationships would do much to change sexual orientation given that it has been known since the early 80’s that such relationships do not cause a homosexual orientation.

Again, my suggestion is not that change is impossible, only that there’s no overwhelming evidence that it is possible to choose to exchange one sexual orientation for another. To clarify this a little bit, I’ll briefly enumerate what appear to be the most common outcomes that people tend to describe as change in this context. (Unfortunately, I’m only going off impressions from what I’ve read about this sort of thing, so I won’t be able to provide specific sources for this).

1. 
   *]You can leave the so-called gay lifestyle behind (and even get rid of, if you have it, a readiness to engage in same sex sexual behaviors), but hold onto a gay identity and orientation.
   *]You can leave the gay lifestyle behind, and alter your sexual orientation identity (i.e., learn to think of yourself as a heterosexual who has a homosexual problem) while leaving the orientation as is.
   *]You can do everything in case (2), and get married. If you’re lucky, after a few years, you’ll experience some ambiguous feelings toward your spouse which could be construed as attraction. Even in this scenario, however, this attraction will feel wildly different from your other sexual attractions which will still be predominantly for other members of the same sex.
   
   I don’t want to belittle the changes that all three of these paths represent, but none of them amount to a change in orientation.

1. 
   This is not only a list admittedly based on your “impressions”, which don’t even rise to the albeit low standard of anecdotal evidence, but it is horribly incomplete and biased.
   
   You, sir, are wrong and wrong-thinking and I wish that you would stop trying to lead people into despair and error.

 

[chrysostim83]

I should have pointed out that the paths I described apply more to men than women. Indeed, many women do actually experience change in their sexual orientation (for reasons, however, that remain unclear).

Despair was a very interesting word to use in this context. Is it really true that just having this orientation is so hateful that one ought to despair if it cannot be altered?

 

[michelleds]

I should have pointed out that the paths I described apply more to men than women. Indeed, many women do actually experience change in their sexual orientation (for reasons, however, that remain unclear).

Despair was a very interesting word to use in this context. Is it really true that just having this orientation is so hateful that one ought to despair if it cannot be altered?

see, there’s that bendy thing again. You started out with no change, no one can change. once angry, always angry. now you’ve worked your way down to men: men can’t change. women, they change all the time. don’t know why. seriously, have you actually thought thru any of this or are you just flying by the seat of your pants?

I used despair very deliberately. Your posts are (unintentionally?) cause for despair if they were believed. A gay man comes on here looking for hope and finds your posts that say it’s all a wash, can’t change, nothing to be done. So much for hope.

once more, God calls us ALL to be holy.

Saul changed to Paul
Peter denied Christ and then became St. Peter
That Gestapo guy in the 1960’s who hunted, persecuted and murdered Christians in Russia, changed into a Christian.
etc etc etc

The Grace of God is greater than all of your sociology, psychology, liberal theology, and physiology and whatever else.

 

[chrysostim83]

How can you write that I started out with a strict no-change position when again and again I have distinguished my view from that? Although it’s in poor taste to quote oneself, I have to wonder why I bothered to write any of the following:

. . . it is certainly a “change” to go from acting on one’s inclinations to not acting on them. . . .

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.

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. . … 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.

What I do doubt is that the changes they claim to have experienced came about by any effort on their part.

Again, my suggestion is not that change is impossible, only that there’s no overwhelming evidence that it is possible to choose to exchange one sexual orientation for another. . …

I don’t want to belittle the changes that all three of these paths represent, but none of them amount to a change in orientation.

If you reread the posts carefully, and make allowances for some sloppiness on my part (it’s not like I’m writing a dissertation here!), you’ll see that my position throughout has been not that people can’t change their behavior or identity, not that sexual orientation never changes, but that there is no evidence that it is possible to change one’s sexual orientation through deliberate efforts.

About the anger thing, I backed off the comment because it was the easiest way to keep the thread moving. If you refer again to my exact words, you’ll see that I wrote

. . .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.

As you can see, the antecedent in the conditional refers to the person’s inclination toward anger, so what follows in the consequent was said under the assumption that the person still has such an inclination. In particular, it is a mistake to read this statement as implying that a person with an inclination toward anger will always have it. In any case, I had no intention of implying such a thing, and the main point I was getting at is if a condition is defined by having an inclination, then necessarily one will have the condition as long as the inclination persists.

About the men vs. women thing, I don’t know how I came momentarily to forget Lisa Diamond’s work on sexual fluidity in women. Again, I’m not writing a dissertation here.

Finally, it appears you haven’t answered my last question. Is it really true that being in a condition such that one’s sexual attractions are predominantly toward members of the same sex is so unspeakably terrible that it would be appropriate to despair if it turned out the condition was permanent?