Gay 'Conversion' Therapy

[Joe_73]

This is a question for straight guys really. If they ever have “mancrushes” sometimes. probably. but just to different degrees, different nuances, and in different situations. I also think that boys have them, but they tend to grow out of them.

there is some confusion in the word “same sex attraction”, it makes it more confusing. which is why I like to be specific and say “homosexual attractions”.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I wouldn’t attribute it to one orginazation, but pressure from very demanding gay activists who have spread all over the place. but whatever the cause the majority are convinced that all conversion or reparatitve therapy is scientifically bogus and dangerous.

If Joe1 is referring to the group I think he is the group renounced their past actions, said reparative therapy did not cure anything and actually harmed those exposed to it.

 

[theCardinalbird]

So are you saying that reparative therapy helps reduce Homosexual attraction? Do you think it could also reduce the heartaches of wanting a man? (Not expecting it too)

 

[CatholicSpirit]

Dude, that was really “open” of you to admit ssa. I would be bugging out, just logging into sites with that stuff is a horror like, what if they sell your information to a hate group.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is a question for straight guys really. If they ever have “mancrushes” sometimes. probably. but just to different degrees, different nuances, and in different situations. I also think that boys have them, but they tend to grow out of them.

there is some confusion in the word “same sex attraction”, it makes it more confusing. which is why I like to be specific and say “homosexual attractions”.

For me, this goes back to that other thread, the one I started with the thesis that “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality” are not real ways of experiencing the world, and that “homosexuals” are not another type of person. I would just say that some men find in themselves a romantic longing for men (and some women for women), and that longing “isn’t going anywhere”, and big whoop. The attractions are, as I said above, distinctive. But they are just a part of the human experience for some people.

So when you ask if “straight guys” have mancrushes, I sort of see that as asking whether men who don’t have man crushes have man crushes? Because for me, there is no essence of straightness or gayness. There are only people who have romantic/sexual attractions, and any of these romantic/sexual attractions that are directed at the same sex “aren’t going anywhere” – at least not in the direction of flourishing.

And this is why I find it hard to see SSA as an acquired childhood condition with a set of formulas for resolving it. No one talks about the desire to steal that way, or the desire to lie, or the desire to set fire to buildings. Sure, there are psychological reasons for these desires getting stronger or weaker, but there is no formula, and there is no study of it. I’m guessing Nicolosi has some amount of agreement with what I’m saying, but sometimes his explanations come across as saying, “This is what happened to all SSA guys, and I have a reliable way to resolve it.” I’d love that to be true, but I’m not convinced.

 

[Joe_73]

heres the problem, the words heterosexual and homosexual are about sexual attractions. the word romantic, I still find ambiguous because I think of it means affection, closesness, or emotional attraction, not really sure. but it often implies sex. the official definition of mancrush is that it is platonic.

so who is to say “straight men”, who have had no sexual attractions to men, without excluding the possibility of an early phase, do not ever have these non sexual , but affectionate attractions to other mien.

Now this isn’t exactly that, but when a father has a son, their seems to be a quite a bit of affection between him and his father, which between two men, would be considered unacceptable. It seems not unreasonable to conclude that this kind of affection, while not as extreme, could be somewhat normal for men.

And there are a couple variations of attraction. There’s shame based attraction, which is surely almost exclusive to homosexualy orientied people, and is usually sexual, and then there’s just a needs for affection and bonding.

so in the movies we have"buddy films". and then we have superhero movies, which idolize strength and heroism(and focuses on men). These movies are quite popular. It’s hard to say if this is a unhealthy shift of culture or just normal. but I would say for the most part, affection and attraction to the same sex are not objectively disordered whereas sexual attraction is.

I’m going out now, but I should be back in the evening.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Gosh, I’m busy right now, but I really have a ton to say in response to this.

Remind me if I forget!

 

[Catholicwife32]

The difference is no one is saying fornication and adultery are good.

Modern society wants to change a sinful lifestyle into good.

The far left actually does. There’s a lot of talk about open relationships or being only semi-monogamous. The idea is that any sort of sexual repression (defined as attempting to restrain yourself) is seen as leading to greater forms of sexual deviance (hense they will blame celibacy on child molestation in the Church) and shame which they see as harmful to a person’s self esteem. They reduce all sexual morality to consent.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Define “LGBT community.” People on these forums throw this term around, and I think they often have a very narrow understanding of that term – often one portrayed in scandalous pride events, for example.

We need to stay away from this conversation about “gay conversion therapy.” Most legitimate LGBT ministries in the church, even Courage, stay away from that. It does not work. And you’re right that we shouldn’t suggest conversion therapy to LGBT persons, because that’ll move them away from the faith. However, I think most people see this as a given in the Catholic Church. The Church doesn’t promote this form of “therapy,” regardless, there is much more to be done to make the greater church a welcoming place for gay persons.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The idea of blessing same-sex unions in the Church does not have to be based on the sexual unions as such. It’s a recognition that this is a modern reality, that people really are homosexual, and being homosexual does not diminish the human desire for love, companionship, and even intimacy. The Church could and should do what it HAS ALWAYS DONE: Recognize and uphold the GOOD, even if not approving of everything. This is how the CATHOLIC CHURCH has ALWAYS worked: from Pagan practices being “baptized” as authentically Christian ones, to looking for the good outside of the Church, to maintaining what is true and beautiful regardless of being “Catholic” or not, to the pastoral approach of the Church (accompanying individuals, etc.)

It’s beyond ridiculous to simply look at a dedicated gay couple and shun them as “sinful,” when the reality is, all relationships of any sort HAVE A MIXTURE OF GOOD AND BAD. We must find the good in LGBT committed relationships, and accompany people to the fullness of the faith.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The fact is, if homosexual unions are looked at as a form of friendship (and not marriage per se), then the Church should (potentially) have no problem with blessing such unions. The Christian world of the past used to value friendship much, much more — to the extent that some Catholic traditions had blessings for friendships. I believe there is an Eastern (Orthodox?) church today that still performs blessings for two “sisters” friends or two “brothers” (friends).

People on these threads often miss the greater context. It’s not just about sex: LGBT hear from the church that gay unions are evil, and therefore LGBT persons think they have to be lonely. But it doesn’t have to be this way: What if a gay person fell in love? What’s wrong with mutual concern, self-sacrifice, accompaniment, friendship, companionship, and even holding hands? All of those are goods that the church should be able to distinguish from gay sex.

For some men and women, whose closest relationships do not follow their churches’ model for marriage, celibate partnership offers a solution. Most celibate partnerships I know of are between two men or two women who share financial and familial obligations, support each other emotionally and view one another as family. All the people I know in this way of life identify as part of the L.G.B.T. community, and several—though definitely not all—of the partnerships started as a sexually active gay relationship. Written by Eve Tushnet, a celibate gay Catholic

 

[NuclearReceptor]

The idea of blessing same-sex unions in the Church does not have to be based on the sexual unions as such. It’s a recognition that this is a modern reality, that people really are homosexual, and being homosexual does not diminish the human desire for love, companionship, and even intimacy.

If there is no celibacy or intent to practice celibacy in this same-sex union/friendship/companionship/whatever you want to call it, then the Church cannot bless this partnership.

Why would active homosexuals want the blessing of the Church if they have no intention of abiding by the teachings of the Church?

The Church cannot change absolute moral law because of “modern reality”.

Should adulterers be encouraged because they really love each other?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Why would active homosexuals want the blessing of the Church if they have no intention of abiding by the teachings of the Church?

Because maybe they desire a faith life in the Catholic Church? Just because they want to believe and grow in the faith does not mean they have everything figured out.

I strongly doubt that most Catholics accept every Catholic teaching, or understand all of the faith, or go by all the rules. Including sexual morality. This is not to justify immorality, but maybe we focus a little much on homosexuality, no? When many gay people simply want to be able to share a life of committed companionship, and some in the church are narrowly focused on sex, things seem out of place and missing the bigger picture…

Why would a straight couple want to be Catholic if they disagree with the church’s teaching on contraception or themselves contracept? (I wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of marriages blessed by the church involve couples who contracept – or at least don’t go by all the church’s sexual ideals, all the time).

 

[NuclearReceptor]

If birds poop in a bowl of punch, would you still drink it? It’s only a few ounces of bird droppings compared to a giant bowl. Let’s not miss the big picture of a cold, refreshing beverage.

Same-sex behavior is a grave sin and cannot be condoned by the Church.

To not admonish such behavior but actively condone it is harmful to the homosexuals themselves and scandalous to the faithful.

The contracepting couple are not asking to bless contraception in their marriage or get approval. If they practice it, it is between them (and priest/spiritual advisor) and God. It is their private business and how God decides to judge on the matter is not open to public.

The hypothetical same-sex couple (who do not intend to practice celibacy) are asking to publicly bless a union that is against God’s law and order.

No one has it figured out. But the Church cannot condone grave sin. That would go against the mission of the Church to point souls to God.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The contracepting couple are not asking to bless contraception in their marriage or get approval. If they practice it, it is between them (and priest/spiritual advisor) and God. It is their private business and how God decides to judge on the matter is not open to public.

Bingo. And this is precisely the reason why gay couples who do NOT intend to marry and do not share about their sexual practices (or lack thereof) with strangers should be fully welcomed in the church, in my humble opinion. If these people do not ask for approval and do not in fact indicate their sex lives in any way except describing themselves as “gay” – which is a description of a temptation/inclination, not a sin – then I don’t see any reason for us to presume anything more about them than we do about the married couple who has no children despite 20 years of being married. Surely we have just as much evidence of mortal sin in both cases.

We should treat both cases similarly.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

heres the problem, the words heterosexual and homosexual are about sexual attractions. the word romantic, I still find ambiguous … so who is to say “straight men”, who have had no sexual attractions to men, without excluding the possibility of an early phase, do not ever have these non sexual , but affectionate attractions to other mien.

I certainly think that every healthy man is attracted to other men in a variety of healthy ways. This can include, indeed, the desire to spend lots of time together and to be physically close (especially common in other cultures or in other time periods, e.g. Abe Lincoln and Joshua Speed). Those attractions aren’t attractions toward sin. However, when I look at a cute guy and I want to forget about my wife and my family for a week or two, and spend time in sunny Acapulco gazing into his lovely eyes and sipping Margaritas, sorry, I don’t count this as a desire to avoid sin – even if I don’t have any intention whatsoever to have sex with the guy. I think this appears to me especially sinful since I’m married, but please note: if it isn’t wrong for a single guy, then it isn’t wrong for me, either. I go in the other direction and determine that, since it’s wrong for me, it’s wrong for a single guy.

But where is the wrongness? It’s not in the sex, cause there is no sex. The wrongness is because there is no special need of one man for one particular other man. The problem is exclusivity, fundamentally. If my romantic desires weren’t about exclusivity, I don’t see them as counting as “romantic”. And the desire for exclusivity – the “specialness” of the relationship and the internal focus of the relationship – is not something that men were designed to feel for each other. It is a type of temptation we experience.

I would say that, in this culture, men and women who experience that sort of temptation would often say that they are gay or same-sex attracted. Since I don’t think there is any essence to “SSA”, all I’m going from is that. I think they would still understand themselves to be gay or SSA, even if their sexual temptations were greatly reduced, unless these romantic temptations were reduced as well.

Now this isn’t exactly that, but when a father has a son, their seems to be a quite a bit of affection between him and his father, which between two men, would be considered unacceptable.

I can’t explain this well, but in the father/son relationship, it’s appropriate for this love to be internally focused. It’s an exception to the general rule – and some boys who never get this affection are starved for it, into adulthood. In adult male relationships, however, the love between men is distorted by being internally focused. Affection is totally fine, but the affection is not jealous, and does not have the whole constellation of emotions surrounding it that make us tempted to call it “romantic”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Please note: I think that those kind of feelings are normal in relationships involving guys with SSA! I don’t think they are sinful feelings. I’m just saying that they are not the ideal emotions we could be feeling, in our relationships.

I’m hoping I’m managing to distinguish two kinds of nonsexual attraction to the same sex, and why I think one kind is healthy and the other is unhealthy.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Sorry if I am asking this again but is it possible to minimize same sex attraction (like the feelings) through reparative therapy?

 

[Joe_73]

I think so, but as you can tell on this thread, there are many opinions. Its fiercely debated. Actually, not so much on this thread. I’ve been looking at another thing at the same time.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sorry if I am asking this again but is it possible to minimize same sex attraction (like the feelings) through reparative therapy?

Errrr … I don’t know how to answer this question, Joe. I’m sorry if I’ve been spouting off, above, as if I knew. I will say that, as you age, I think you will either learn ways of experiencing the attraction less intensely OR ways of finding the attractions you do feel less distressing. Considering that you experience scrupulosity, I would recommend focusing on the latter thing first: finding the attractions you do feel less distressing. This isn’t “making a compromise with sin”. It’s being realistic about your own experience of life. Once you feel less awful about yourself, you will be better positioned to make decisions about the next step, and whether it involves seeking some sort of resolution to the attractions themselves.

My Catholic counselor thinks that trying to remove these attractions in me is useless. She thinks I need to focus on making good and loving decisions with respect to the people in my life.