For those who believe homosexuals can change their orientation....

[ilovegod42]

I ****ING HATE YOU ALL.
I hope the gates of Hell are open for you close-minded ****ers when you die a painful death.
Why do they need to change their orientation? One in five homosexuals commit suicide because of RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.
That makes you MURDERERS.
Which means you broke the COMMANDMENTS.
You’re all going to Hell.
Have fun. I’ll be sitting in Heaven handing out gay rights pamphlets.

 

[Debora123]

I think “ex-gay” only means that one used to consider onesself homosexual, and now one does not.

Right, so if one does not consider themselves homosexual anymore, then they are obviously not attracted to members of the same sex anymore, and have switched over to being attracted to members of the opposite sex.

By definition, homosexual does not mean “someone who lives in a gay lifestyle,” “someone who has relations with members of the same sex,” “someone who has had x number of boyfriends/girlfriends.”

By definition, homosexual simply means “someone who is attracted to members of the same sex.”

So yeah, if someone no longer considers themselves a homosexual, then they are by definition, no longer attracted to members of the opposite sex.

…Which is precisely what I said.

 

[michelleds]

Right, so if one does not consider themselves homosexual anymore, then they are obviously not attracted to members of the same sex anymore, and have switched over to being attracted to members of the opposite sex.

By definition, homosexual does not mean “someone who lives in a gay lifestyle,” “someone who has relations with members of the same sex,” “someone who has had x number of boyfriends/girlfriends.”

By definition, homosexual simply means “someone who is attracted to members of the same sex.”

So yeah, if someone no longer considers themselves a homosexual, then they are by definition, no longer attracted to members of the opposite sex.

…Which is precisely what I said.

Debora, while your statements have a certain logic to them, I think it does not follow the real world usage of language. In my 24 years living as a part of the gay community, I never met anyone who identified as gay or homosexual without meaning that they were sexually active or actively seeking to be so. if someone says they are gay or homosexual, they mean that they have sex with people of the same gender. someone might say that they thought they were gay, and that would mean (maybe) that they had not (yet) had sex with someone of the same gender, but that’s it.

so yes, the word ex-gay does mean something. with all due respect, perhaps someone who has claimed above to never ever be attracted to another woman wouldn’t actually have a full understanding of what gay, homosexual and ex-gay mean to people who actually are.

 

[havana1]

Debora, while your statements have a certain logic to them, I think it does not follow the real world usage of language. In my 24 years living as a part of the gay community, I never met anyone who identified as gay or homosexual without meaning that they were sexually active or actively seeking to be so. if someone says they are gay or homosexual, they mean that they have sex with people of the same gender. someone might say that they thought they were gay, and that would mean (maybe) that they had not (yet) had sex with someone of the same gender, but that’s it.

so yes, the word ex-gay does mean something. with all due respect, perhaps someone who has claimed above to never ever be attracted to another woman wouldn’t actually have a full understanding of what gay, homosexual and ex-gay mean to people who actually are.

Did I read that correctly? “Someone might say that they thought they were gay, and that would mean (maybe) that they had not (yet) had sex with someone of the same gender, but that’s it.” Does this mean that you concede some “ex-gays” were “never gay to begin with,” since that’s exactly what “thought they were gay” means? With all due respect, there are some things I need to see more of to alleviate my skepticism: outspoken “ex-gays” among them. Why don’t you go public with your story and get an agent and snag a speakers bureau job with Catholic Answers? I see all this “ex-gay” talk on Catholic Answers message boards, but I never hear Patrick Coffin interviewing any of you guys and gals on Catholic Answers Live - why not? The whole SSA/“ex-gay” thing really needs a PR makeover.

 

[michelleds]

Did I read that correctly? “Someone might say that they thought they were gay, and that would mean (maybe) that they had not (yet) had sex with someone of the same gender, but that’s it.” Does this mean that you concede some “ex-gays” were “never gay to begin with,” since that’s exactly what “thought they were gay” means? With all due respect, there are some things I need to see more of to alleviate my skepticism: outspoken “ex-gays” among them. Why don’t you go public with your story and get an agent and snag a speakers bureau job with Catholic Answers? I see all this “ex-gay” talk on Catholic Answers message boards, but I never hear Patrick Coffin interviewing any of you guys and gals on Catholic Answers Live - why not? The whole SSA/“ex-gay” thing really needs a PR makeover.

So interesting you should mention the Speaker’s Bureau. From a recent personal email to me from Tim Staples:

At Catholic Answers, I always ask perspective Speaker’s Bureau members and/or apologists to submit samples of writing and/or speaking so we can evaluate them. And remember this as well: I get lots of submissions, but very few actually make it to the Bureau. That’s just the nature of the beast. Don’t take it personally if your articles or various submissions are not received at first. Just keep plugging away and listen to the Lord. He knows exactly what he wants of you and for you. Just enjoy the journey. God is good and he wants the very best for you.

what I meant in the part you bolded is this: Back in the day, I would be talking to someone and that person would say, “you know, I think I might be gay.” That is, in my experience, a sort of unconscious code phrase that means that person wants support and guidance for the decision they are trying to make. I don’t know if you’ve noticed the couple of times that someone has come onto CAF and in making a post says something like that. I have been quick to jump in, to tell them to stop right there. they are teetering on a precipice and if they say that phrase to an active gay person, the gay person will say, “well hot dog, that’s totally awesome and let me take you to the bar/bed and get you introduced”.

as to the term “ex-gay”, I don’t understand your issue with it. is it offensive to you? if so, why? you think it’s a lie, but I notice that you have not addressed any of my prior posts where I asked questions and quoted the Bible regarding this issue. you just keep hammering away.

 

[Debora123]

Debora, while your statements have a certain logic to them, I think it does not follow the real world usage of language. In my 24 years living as a part of the gay community, I never met anyone who identified as gay or homosexual without meaning that they were sexually active or actively seeking to be so. if someone says they are gay or homosexual, they mean that they have sex with people of the same gender. someone might say that they thought they were gay, and that would mean (maybe) that they had not (yet) had sex with someone of the same gender, but that’s it.

so yes, the word ex-gay does mean something. with all due respect, perhaps someone who has claimed above to never ever be attracted to another woman wouldn’t actually have a full understanding of what gay, homosexual and ex-gay mean to people who actually are.

I’ve met a number of devout Catholics who identify themselves as homosexual (attracted to the same sex) while still living a celibate lifestyle as a devout Catholic. Much the same way I would still be a heterosexual, regardless of whether or not I had chosen to be celibate for life. Much the same way priests and nuns are NOT asexual, regardless of the fact that they choose celibacy for life.

I guess some people could “change” the definition of homosexual to mean someone who actually practices. But that is not the true definition of the word, and so that is not what I am going by. Regardless of whether some people use the term incorrectly or not, it does have a specific meaning.

 

[havana1]

I’ve met a number of devout Catholics who identify themselves as homosexual (attracted to the same sex) while still living a celibate lifestyle as a devout Catholic. Much the same way I would still be a heterosexual, regardless of whether or not I had chosen to be celibate for life. Much the same way priests and nuns are NOT asexual, regardless of the fact that they choose celibacy for life.

I guess some people could “change” the definition of homosexual to mean someone who actually practices. But that is not the true definition of the word, and so that is not what I am going by. Regardless of whether some people use the term incorrectly or not, it does have a specific meaning.

Yes- thank you- getting to the crux of the matter- when someone defines “homosexuality” or SSA or whatever as only pertaining to behaviors, then yes, of course it’s easy to be “ex-gay” since the homosexual person is not engaged in those behaviors. However, I have yet to see any real testimony from ex-homosexuals who are now “ex-gay” - I see anonymous, un-dated testimony from web sites, but alas, no WIVES, no HUSBANDS, no AUTHORS OR/AND SPEAKERS speaking to Patrick Coffin on Catholic Answers Live about how their wife’s an ex-lesbian or how their husband is an ex-homosexual. Where are they? Until which time we can see more evidence - any evidence - of “ex-gay,” I don’t find the term offensive or objectionable. I simply find the notion irrational and at odds with the reason that differentiates Catholic Christians from our (often) less-educated Evangelical Christian brethren.

 

[michelleds]

I simply find the notion irrational and at odds with the reason that differentiates Catholic Christians from our (often) less-educated Evangelical Christian brethren.

maybe it’s too late in the work day, but I don’t get what you’re saying here. please elaborate

 

[havana1]

as to the term “ex-gay”, I don’t understand your issue with it. is it offensive to you? if so, why? you think it’s a lie, but I notice that you have not addressed any of my prior posts where I asked questions and quoted the Bible regarding this issue. you just keep hammering away.

No, I don’t firm the term “ex-gay” to be offensive. I do, however, think it’s an un-scientific and irrational concept with very little (if any) evidence to support it. If I keep “hammering away,” it’s because I want to hear these “ex-gays” on the Catholic Answers Live radio show and on EWTN shows - places that one would reasonably expect to see notions like this to be validated. As of yet, I haven’t seen any “ex-gays” profiled on Catholic Answers Live, EWTN, Ave Maria Radio, et cetera. They just aren’t there. I think if someone’s convinced enough that something is true (like “ex-gay”), they wouldn’t let one person (like me) get in the way of their own “hammering away” to let people know there is evidence you can be ex-gay. I’m still waiting.

 

[havana1]

maybe it’s too late in the work day, but I don’t get what you’re saying here. please elaborate

Catholic Christians champion science. That’s why we have the Vatican Observatory and our high schools are called “college prep.” When Catholic Christians jump on the “ex-gay” bandwagon with ostensibly ‘junk’ science and expect to be taken seriously…well, I’m sorry, but that’s not the way it works. None of the Catholic media (whether print media like “First Things” or TV networks like EWTN), let alone the Magisterium, has ever validated the notion of “ex-gay.” It just hasn’t happened.

 

[michelleds]

Catholic Christians champion science. That’s why we have the Vatican Observatory and our high schools are called “college prep.” When Catholic Christians jump on the “ex-gay” bandwagon with ostensibly ‘junk’ science and expect to be taken seriously…well, I’m sorry, but that’s not the way it works. None of the Catholic media (whether print media like “First Things” or TV networks like EWTN), let alone the Magisterium, has ever validated the notion of “ex-gay.” It just hasn’t happened.

I think that you are confusing ex-gay being a scientific term and ex-gay being a term of self-identification. For those of us who were actively engaged in homosexual activities (see how bulky that language is?) and are now in full compliance with the teachings of the Catholic Church AND are willingly putting ourselves out there as voices in the debate, making ourselves available as examples or models or testimony or whatever…what word would you have us use? not ex-gay or former gay? straight doesn’t really work, does it?

see, for various ideas on this:

Melinda Selmys–see her own website at www.sexualauthenticity.com
the book Beyond Gay
Eve Tushnet

 

[EasterJoy]

Let’s just say that some people have had the experience of having a fluid sense of their orientation. They marry, split up, get a homosexual friend and get into a live-in relationship with them, split up again, and the next time around look for someone of the opposite sex.

If you asked them during the time they were living with the person of the same sex, they might tell you that the problem with their heterosexual marriage had been that they had not “really” been heterosexual. Only then when the same-sex relationship breaks up, they find they aren’t “really” homosexual, after all.

I don’t consider that being “ex-gay”, but I don’t think I’d have standing to say that to the person who’d spent a few years in a monogamous homosexual relationship and having no interest in the opposite sex. So who knows…maybe some people have an orientation that is never bisexual, but is subject to change depending upon their internal expectation of an “ideal mate.”

People are complicated. When it comes to sexuality, probably anything is possible with someone out there, even if it is rare. I think it is wrong to say that there is no such thing as an “ex-gay”, meaning someone who has only had an attraction for their own gender getting to a point in adulthood where they actually develop an attraction for the opposite sex. I also think it is entirely unrealistic to believe that there is some means by which everyone with an attraction to their own sex can change that orientation. That a change in orientation can sometimes happen hardly means that the change is merely a matter of willing it.

 

[havana1]

see her own website at www.sexualauthenticity.com
the book Beyond Gay
Eve Tushnet

The web site is unavailable:
ERROR: Sorry, the website sexualauthenticity.com cannot be found.

Who, exactly, is putting himself or herself out there vis a vis “ex-gay”? I have asked repeatedly, including again now, for the husbands and wives of the ex-lesbians and ex-homosexuals to speak up and let their voices be heard. Where are they? I ask repeatedly why we’re not hearing from them on EWTN or on Ave Maria Radio or on Catholic Answers Live? Where are they?

 

[Catholic80]

I think we need to clarify “gay celibate Catholics” versus, “celibate Catholics who suffer from same-sex attraction.”

A person can have same sex attraction and not consider themselves “gay” or homosexual.

I think the difference lies between the tendency (same sex attraction) and the lifestyle (homosexuality)

That said, a person can be tempted to sin (any sin) an abstain from that sin. If a person is experiencing same sex attraction and abstains from it, they are suffering from a huge temptation, but are not indulging in the sin. It’s not their fault they are tempted. It’s actually a testament to their courage to endure the suffering of temptation and not indulge. To label them would be a sin on another person’s part. For example, I wouldn’t call someone tempted to steal, but who never stole, a thief or robber. And I wouldn’t call someone tempted cheat on his wife and adulterer. So why would I call someone with a temptation for same-sex attraction a homosexual.

 

[RobbyS]

Catholic Christians champion science. That’s why we have the Vatican Observatory and our high schools are called “college prep.” When Catholic Christians jump on the “ex-gay” bandwagon with ostensibly ‘junk’ science and expect to be taken seriously…well, I’m sorry, but that’s not the way it works. None of the Catholic media (whether print media like “First Things” or TV networks like EWTN), let alone the Magisterium, has ever validated the notion of “ex-gay.” It just hasn’t happened.

Jung had a comment about homosexuality. He noted that it is basically an urban phenomenon, and is the result of the confusion of sexual roles in any urban environment. The flourishing of the homosexual life-style comes in the wake of the deep disconnect between sex and child-bearing. Not a new idea, but a true one, one that needs to be repeated. If sex is not for procreation, then what is it for? It is a weird kind of naturalism that contends that nature is all there is, but that nature is to be despised.

 

[michelleds]

The web site is unavailable:
ERROR: Sorry, the website sexualauthenticity.com cannot be found.:

sorry, i typed that wrong. sexualauthenticity.blogspot.com/

Who, exactly, is putting himself or herself out there vis a vis “ex-gay”? I have asked repeatedly, including again now, for the husbands and wives of the ex-lesbians and ex-homosexuals to speak up and let their voices be heard. Where are they? I ask repeatedly why we’re not hearing from them on EWTN or on Ave Maria Radio or on Catholic Answers Live? Where are they?

you are not listening to me. did you read anything that I posted above? can you answer any of my questions? I’ve quoted relevant parts of my own posts below but specifically, please tell me what word/label you want people to use.

For those of us who were actively engaged in homosexual activities (see how bulky that language is?) and are now in full compliance with the teachings of the Catholic Church AND are willingly putting ourselves out there as voices in the debate, making ourselves available as examples or models or testimony or whatever…what word would you have us use? not ex-gay or former gay? straight doesn’t really work, does it?

Then I suppose that Lot’s wife was still a believer in spite of her appearance of being a block of salt?

Is Paul still a persecutor of Christians? I believe they said something like “can a leopard change his spots?” regarding Paul’s conversion.

Is Peter a Christ-denier?

what about Ez 36:25-27?

do you deny that God could heal or change someone’s desires? do you deny that someone could bring themselves --thru prayer and Sacrements–into alignment with God’s will?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I love it when straight people come onto message boards to “correct” those with SSA about their terminology, their experience, their reality. Cute.

 

[EasterJoy]

I love it when straight people come onto message boards to “correct” those with SSA about their terminology, their experience, their reality. Cute.

You know that these other posters to this very Catholic forum do not suffer from SSA attraction themselves…how? Because they talk about homosexuals in the third person?

You may be right, but consider that you may also be a bit naive. You may be vastly underestimating the number of poeple posting here who really do have their own dog in this fight (or fear that they do). After all, one of the main selling points of the internet is the amount of privacy it allows one to maintain.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You know that these other posters to this very Catholic forum do not suffer from SSA attraction themselves…how? Because they talk about homosexuals in the third person?

EJ, I’m talking about the many posters on this and other message boards who have identified themselves as permanently heterosexual (and often married) individuals. No, they’re not latent/closet gays.

I’m distinguishing these from the ones michelle correctly describes, and many of us on CAF have also interacted with, who may be temporarily questioning their sexuality and do come on here to post.

You may be right, but consider that you may also be a bit naive.

Not.

 

[EasterJoy]

EJ, I’m talking about the many posters on this and other message boards who have identified themselves as permanently heterosexual (and often married) individuals. No, they’re not latent/closet gays.

I’m distinguishing these from the ones michelle correctly describes, and many of us on CAF have also interacted with, who may be temporarily questioning their sexuality and do come on here to post.


Not.

If you say so. For the record, though, parenthood is not proof of typical sexuality.

I know at least one married father of children who decided after 20 years that he needed to be in a dress and be addressed as “she” in order to happily continue his high school teaching job. He is undergoing hormone therapy and at last report hoped to have the outward indications of his gender surgically altered. You know there are others who are not transexual or transvestite, but who are homosexual, but they get married and have kids, anyway, because they decide they want to or think they’re supposed to. Some of them do not go through a midlife crisis, abandon their marriages, and find a same-sex partner. Some stick it out for life. It is amazing what you can accomplish, when you put your mind to it.

And no, I’m not saying that changing who you are attracted to is one of those things that you can automatically do by “putting your mind to it”. I’m saying that the history of arranged marriage, if nothing else, proves that when the social mileu is right, marriage, procreation and mutual personal attraction do not have to go together.

Yes, a lot of the people posting here are heterosexuals. I fail to see how it is that they have no stake in deciding the terminology describing homosexuality. It is not as if homosexuals can expect to have the floor to themselves when the subject is homosexuality, any more than the parents have found it remotely possible to command the floor with regards to childrearing, but whatever.

I just think it is a good idea to remember that there is no physical test that can prove sexual orientation one way or the other. As long as that is true, then sexual orientation will be like pain: self-report will be very hard to prove or disprove, and that inability to provide independent confirmation will mean that all self-reports will be more or less subject to suspicion. It can’t be helped.