Gay to Straight?

[CarlaOLS]

From Spitzer’s study:
*
I certainly shared this viewpoint, so how did Bob Spitzer, who played a central role in eliminating homosexuality as a mental disorder from DSM-II in 1973, come to have doubts about this consensus?

The answer is that at the 1999 APA annual meeting in Washington I talked to several
people who were picketing the meeting and claiming that, contrary to a recent APA position statement, change of sexual orientation was possible and should not be discouraged and that they, personally had changed from homosexual to heterosexual.
I started to wonder, could it be that some homosexuals could actually change their
sexual orientation? After much thought, and realizing that previous studies claiming
that such change was possible had all kinds of methodological flaws, I concluded
that my curiosity would only be satisfied if I conducted a study of my own.

…

When we attempted to recruit possible subjects we merely asked for individuals who
had sustained some change in homosexual orientation for at least five years. However, the actual entry criteria were more restrictive.** To be accepted into the study it was necessary for the subject in the interview to report: Predominantly homosexual attraction**…
We use the phrase “change effort” rather than therapy, since some of the changes involved
specific efforts, such as involvement in a mentoring relationship with a heterosexual,
that the subjects usually did not regard as therapy. The individual had to have the goal of functioning heterosexually.*

I’ll end with the same quote of an ex-gay in the study who said,

“I have no problem accepting that most gays have no interest in changing. I wish
they could also acknowledge that I have a right to change, and that I have.”

The study is fascinating, not full of bisexuals as Emperor would believe and screams for more study. But the active gay community work night and day to shut that down. So sad.

 

[Musician]

Evidently some people on this thread choose to ignore real-life stories. I was a lesbian until I decided I wanted a normal lifestyle. Yes, I said NORMAL. I wanted a family and a husband and I did not want to be different from everyone else. So I left that lifestyle and I left a woman I really loved.
I have never, for one minute, regretted my decision. Thank God I did. My gay friends have had unbelievably destructive, promiscuous lifestyles in the time I have built a solid family: been married to the same man for nearly 25 years, raised four beautiful children. I wouldn’t change a thing, except how long it took me realize that I couldn’t be happy in the lesbian lifestyle.
Sexual orientation is not carved in stone, I don’t care what some of you say. People who are addicted to porn can change. People who are promiscuous can change. And I am living proof that gay people can change.
As I said in my original post, one needs to share his/her struggles with his/her spouse in order to be accountable. Also it greatly helps to have a Christian counselor and to go to confession regularly.
I have slipped and fallen, but I pick myself back up, go to confession, go to my counselor, and find solace in the arms of my loving husband.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The study is fascinating, not full of bisexuals…

Since you’re in the business of quote mining I’m sure you’ll appreciate this little gem from the study:

“We suspect that all or essentially all were also bisexual when they entered therapy”

I’ve already pointed out the methodological flaws.

 

[CarlaOLS]

Since you’re in the business of quote mining I’m sure you’ll appreciate this little gem from the study:

“We suspect that all or essentially all were also bisexual when they entered therapy”

I’ve already pointed out the methodological flaws.

AND you Emperor my agnostic friend without faith, are apparently in the business of lies and misinformation.
The above quote, nor even the word “bisexual” are not found anywhere in the original copy of the Spitzer study titled:

New Study on
Sexual Reorientation
Therapies
Robert L. Spitzer, M.D.

Ahem, your agenda is showing. One has to wonder why you lurk on a Catholic Forum.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

mking - This is a common misconception at least among a few posters here. It falls short of the truth in several key areas.

Sexual orientation is not inborn. The reason it is not sinful is because the person did not consciously choose or cause it. Since it is the result of intertwined factors such as, environment, family/peer relationships, and often a more sensitive personality prone to certain gender issues and since any number of these factors begin in childhood, the resulting attraction (really a symptom of deeper unresolved problems) is by no means under the control of the person, nor is the person able to control the feelings. Although they are able to control and responsible for their actions and fantasies. (The feelings can be controlled after the individual understands where they come from and what they mean for him.)

So you see if you understand the deep emotional/environmental causes, and you can see that over time with the right support, prayers and a determination to truly work at addressing weaknesses and needs etc., **then change is not only an option it is the healthiest path spiritually, emotionally and physically. **

Developing heterosexual attraction IS NOT AND SHOULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED THE GOA. But the fact is for many, as these issues are unravelled and dealt with, and same-sex emotional needs fulfilled in healthy platonic relationships, heterosexual maturity, which was arrested in its development, begins once again to mature.

Do you see why then that those like Jack, who want to change those feelings rather than entertain them by acting out, are actually seeking the path to wholeness?

Catholic church teaching does not say definitively whether sexuality is inborn or not for good reason-we don’t know. She has left the option open because science continues to study the issue and may very well prove someday that our sexuality is hard wired from the day sperm meets egg.

Since I’ve been reading here, I’ve seen more than one post from a gay person who suggests that Catholic teaching and what Catholics actually say and believe about gay people are very different things. I have come to believe that they are right about that. Catholic teaching says homosexual acts are sinful, and that the orientation is not-but some Catholic people clearly feel that the orientation itself is sinful or they would not be encouraging their brothers and sisters to “change”.

 

[CarlaOLS]

mking -
The very word orientation is misleading. And the Catholic Medical Association explains:

*1) NOT BORN THAT WAY

A number of researchers have sought to find a biological cause for same-sexual attraction. The media have promoted the idea that a “gay gene” has already been discovered (Burr 1996[3]), but in spite of several attempts, none of the much publicized studies (Hamer 1993[4]; LeVay 1991[5]) has been scientifically replicated. (Gadd 1998) A number of authors have carefully reviewed these studies and found that not only do the studies not prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction; the reports do not even contain such claims. (Byne 1963[6]; Crewdson 1995[7]; Goldberg1992; Horgan 1995[8]; McGuire 1995[9]; Porter 1996; Rice 1999[10])

If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, then one would expect identical twins to be identical in their sexual attractions. There are, however, numerous reports of identical twins who are not identical in their sexual attractions. (Bailey 1991[11]; Eckert 1986; Friedman 1976; Green 1974; Heston 1968; McConaghy 1980; Rainer 1960; Zuger 1976) Case histories frequently reveal environmental factors which account for the development of different sexual attraction patterns in genetically identical children, supporting the theory that same-sex attraction is a product of the interplay of a variety of environmental factors. (Parker 1964[12])

There are, however, ongoing attempts to convince the public that same-sex attraction is genetically based. (Marmor 1975[13]) Such attempts may be politically motivated because people are more likely to respond positively to demands for changes in laws and religious teaching when they believe sexual attraction to be genetically determined and unchangeable. (Ernulf 1989[14]; Piskur 1992[15]) Others have sought to prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction so that they could appeal to the courts for rights based on the “immutability”. (Green 1988[16])

Catholics believe that sexuality was designed by God as a sign of the love of Christ, the bridegroom, for his Bride, the Church, and therefore sexual activity is appropriate only in marriage. Catholic teaching holds that: “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.E(CCC, n.2360) Healthy psycho-sexual development leads naturally to attraction in persons of each sex for the other sex. Trauma, erroneous education, and sin can cause a deviation from this pattern. Persons should not be identified with their emotional or developmental conflicts as though this were the essence of their identity. In the debate between essentialism and social constructionism, the believer in natural law would hold that human beings have an essential nature – either male or female – and that sinful inclinations (such as the desire to engage in homosexual acts) are constructed and can, therefore, be deconstructed.

It is, therefore, probably wise to avoid wherever possible using the words “homosexual” and “heterosexual” as nouns since such usage implies a fixed state and an equivalence between the natural state of man and woman as created by God and persons experiencing same sex attractions or behaviors. *

mking wrote…“some Catholic people clearly feel that the orientation itself is sinful or they would not be encouraging their brothers and sisters to “change”.”

Once again mking, charity and concern are the best reasons for encouraging our brothers and sisiters in Christ to change or ratehr to heal the wounds of their past, to identify and fill in legitimate ways their emotional needs.

IT"S NOT ABOUT BEING JUDGEMENTAL and it doesn’t even have to be about being sinful, IT IS ABOUT BECOMING WHOLE, HEALED AND FULFILLED.

Even statistics bear out the unhealthy, depressed and destructive nature of the gay lifestyle. Their life-expectancy is lower than for alcoholics, their rates of depression, drug abuse, and suicide higher than other segments of society. That is because it is a symptom of psychological misfunction, not a natural orientation, like preferring seafood to meat.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I thank you for presenting that document. It has helped me to form a more factual opinion of the Catholic Church and her teachings on sexuality.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The above quote, nor even the word “bisexual” are not found anywhere in the original copy of the Spitzer study titled…

You should read the study and take a look at how many of the subjects were attracted to and had sexual relations with women prior to the “therapy”. You are correct that this does not appear in the study, I thought it did, but Spitzer discusses this in his paper on the study entitled “200 Subjects Who Claim to Have Changed Their Sexual Orientation from Homosexual to Heterosexual.” By the way, have you read anything Spitzer said about this study?

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Jack, I am happy to see that you are giving this attraction you have a great deal of
thought and hopefully, prayer.
Sometime ago I read something written by Father Benedict Groeschel on the subject of
same sex attraction. However, try as I may, I cannot find it. I’ve done a search but
the results that come up do not seem to be the exact document. There are some good
articles mentioned when I google “Father Groeschel on SSA”. I especially liked the
gentleness shown by Father in the writings. You might want to look them up.

 

[BobObob]

By the way, have you read anything Spitzer said about this study?

Here is a small part of what he said about his study and the conclusions he drew from it:

video.yahoo.com/watch/206187/901910

 

[Timbothefiveth]

I’m not advocating ignoring sin, but coming to a better understanding of what sin is by being more aware of virtue (good fruit)–that is, by understanding what is and what is not sin.

Now who better understands what is and what isn’t sin, the apostles, or you? If your test really was how you determined what is and isn’t sin, why would they write all that stuff in the bible?

Regarding some of us dealing with more temptations than others–I fear that you have mistaken a healthy desire for intimate companionship for temptation.

It works both ways, regardless of whether you’re gay or straight. The desire for intimacy will tempt you to sin.

If there is evidence that shacking up, as you call it, has led to human flourishing, then I would question its designation as sin.

The bible says it’s a sin. Are you saying that if it’s lead to human flourishing even once it’s not a sin?

This convinces me that you don’t know what is being talked about. Can you honestly suggest that you have contributed to someone’s human flourishing by intimidating them?

No, however, providing such a servic would surely help the economy

Romans 1:27, New American standard bible : and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

The Bible prohibits many things–eating shellfish, for instance. The question is: what does experience show that leads to human flourishing?

No it’s not the question. In the bible it says that law about shellfish no longer applies. Romans clearly states that unles they are abstinent, gay relationships are wrong.

Moreover, in what way is morality dependent on economy? And where did I suggest such a thing?

Isn’t a good economy flourishing?

The mindset that would see what is good for the economy as what is good for morality is confusing terms. Moral good and economic good are not the same.

I thought you said morality was based on human flourishing.

The keynote to all of this (and what you’re missing, for whatever reason, in all of this) is relationship–what fosters and what destroys relationships that bear good fruit

. Well, working as a thug-for-hire would surely create stable economic conditions which encourage good relationships.

You will find that homosexuality is not mentioned once in the Bible. Not once

. Are you telling a lie or have you not read it?
Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

(I don’t think it’s actually condemming being gay, it’s condemming gay acts)

You cannot, from there, assume that loving homosexual relationships are a bad idea.

Read the above verse and then leviticus 18:22
'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Once again, not condemming being gay, condemming gay acts)

is clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve even lied b saying it is not at all mentioned in the bible.

I’m a gay man–in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship with a good Christian man for the last 11 years. If you mean to imply that this relationship, through which I have experienced the love, forgiveness, grace and mercy of God, is an evil thing, I would ask how dare you call such goodness and such love evil. How dare you.

I’m not saying the relationship is bad. However, the bible is clear about “indecent acts”.

But, again, it is clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about

. You have declared that the bible doesn;t know what it’s talking about and then outright lied about it. How is it that I don’t know what I’m talking about and you do?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Here is a small part of what he said about his study and the conclusions he drew from it:

video.yahoo.com/watch/206187/901910

And here are a few other things he’s said about it:

“I’m not saying that this can be easily done, or that most homosexuals who want to change can make this kind of change. I suspect it’s quite unusual.”

“I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.”

“It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian right…What they don’t mention is that change is pretty rare.”

Additionally, as I’ve already pointed out, the Spitzer study does not prove that such change is even possible because it did not prove that any change had occurred.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

some Catholic people clearly feel that the orientation itself is sinful or they would not be encouraging their brothers and sisters to “change”.

He wants to change so I think we should support him. I don’t think it’s the orientation itself that’s sinful.

However, commiting, as St. Paul called them, “indecent acts”, is sinful, whether you’re gay or straight.

And finally, the gay lifestyle can be very destructive. The gay relative I have is the heaviest drinker I’ve ever seen, he’s not leading a very fulfilling life. I think it was the CDC that says those living that lifestyle, even if they are just straight people experimenting, have much higher rates of meth use. I don’t think it’s good to encourage people in to that life when you could encourage them in to a much healthier and much happier one.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

He wants to change so I think we should support him. I don’t think it’s the orientation itself that’s sinful.

However, commiting, as St. Paul called them, “indecent acts”, is sinful, whether you’re gay or straight.

And finally, the gay lifestyle can be very destructive. The gay relative I have is the heaviest drinker I’ve ever seen, he’s not leading a very fulfilling life. I think it was the CDC that says those living that lifestyle, even if they are just straight people experimenting, have much higher rates of meth use. I don’t think it’s good to encourage people in to that life when you could encourage them in to a much healthier and much happier one.

The “straight” lifestyle can be very destructive too-or are there no meth users or heavy drinkers that aren’t gay?

Since the population of the planet is predominately straight, I think it’s a fairly safe assumption that there are a larger percentage of straight folks living unhealthy and unhappy lives then gay people.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=237

The “straight” lifestyle can be very destructive too-or are there no meth users or heavy drinkers that aren’t gay?

Yes, a certain straight lifestyle can indeed be very destructive, even if Emorer Napolean says otherwise. (That’s what I meant by shacking up)

Since the population of the planet is predominately straight, I think it’s a fairly safe assumption that there are a larger percentage of straight folks living unhealthy and unhappy lives then gay people.

“more” is not the same as “a larger percentage”. Most people living unhappy live probably are straight, however, adopting the gay lifestyle, from what I’ve seen, often leads to an unhappy life.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=237

Yes, a certain straight lifestyle can indeed be very destructive, even if Emorer Napolean says otherwise. (That’s what I meant by shacking up)

“more” is not the same as “a larger percentage”. Most people living unhappy live probably are straight, however, adopting the gay lifestyle, from what I’ve seen, often leads to an unhappy life.

But that evidence is just as unscientific as my saying that all the gay people I know live very “normal” lives-go to work, pay taxes, take vacations…if you didn’t “know”, you wouldn’t know that they were any different from “straight people”. It all depends on the people you’ve met and if they’ve let you in on their sexual orientation or not. I would bet a decent amount of cash that there are a lot of people who have no idea my friends are gay. They don’t wear signs and they aren’t living with partners. They are active in their churches, volunteer and work decent jobs and as they say “we blend”.

As far as the more-I was thinking this way. If gay people are less than 10% of the total population, which seems to be the agreed upon figure-then the number of them living unhealthy or unhappy lifestyles would naturally be smaller than the number of heterosexuals doing the same, since 90% of the population is heterosexual.

 

[turtle18]

I can’t believe the number of posters on this, a Catholic forum, who are encouraging you to embrace homosexuality. Don’t trust some of this advice on this forum. TRUST JESUS–He is your Lord & always do what is pleasing to Him. If you fall, go to Confession. But don’t ever try to deliberately live this lifestyle.

For those who say you are living a lie by marrying a woman, it is better to be married to a female. It is not a “lie.”–the true lie is living a way God never intended for you and fooling yourself into thinking it is okay. Look at the story of Sodom & Gomorahh–Lot offers his daugthers to the gay men when they come searching for the angels; hoping this will stop them from homosexual acts.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I can’t believe the number of posters on this, a Catholic forum, who are encouraging you to embrace homosexuality. Don’t trust some of this advice on this forum. TRUST JESUS–He is your Lord & always do what is pleasing to Him. If you fall, go to Confession. But don’t ever try to deliberately live this lifestyle.

For those who say you are living a lie by marrying a woman, it is better to be married to a female. It is not a “lie.”–the true lie is living a way God never intended for you and fooling yourself into thinking it is okay. Look at the story of Sodom & Gomorahh–Lot offers his daugthers to the gay men when they come searching for the angels; hoping this will stop them from homosexual acts.

Would you want to marry someone who was not attracted to you? How fair would that be to that spouse? That woman would never receive the love that God intended for her to have in her marriage, and it would be very sad for her.

As for the Sodom and Gommorah, it’s followed by a lovely little account of how Lot’s daughter’s got him drunk and slept with him so they could bear sons. If you’re going to accept that homosexuality is NOT ok because of that account, then I guess you’re going to have accept that incest is ok because of the one that follows. No cities smited over the incest, nor condemnations issued.

Literal interpretation can get you into trouble, especially in the OT.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Now who better understands what is and what isn’t sin, the apostles, or you? If your test really was how you determined what is and isn’t sin, why would they write all that stuff in the bible?

Oh Timbo. What you seem to suggest is that the Bible and Tradition are little more than a list of thou shalt nots–all you have to do to live a good life is memorize them. Are you that against the formation of conscience that rote and staid repetition of a moral dictum should take precedence over a personal struggle to understand and/or article virtue?

Are you saying, in other words, that what is sinful is sinful because God doesn’t want us to do it and will punish us for it? Or is something sinful because it is bad for us, and God, in his mercy, proscribes it because it is bad? Is it possible for us to know that something is bad for us without God having to tell us? And conversely, is it possible for us to know that something is good for us without God having to tell us?

The morality you are describing is a spreadsheet morality. The legalistic, mechanical morality of a bureaucrat or statistician. It is a morality which, at best, is often merely inapplicable to lived experience because it cannot comprehend it or respond to it. At worst, it is just another idol.

It works both ways, regardless of whether you’re gay or straight. The desire for intimacy will tempt you to sin.

Perhaps we’re understanding intimacy in two different ways. Perhaps not. Is it your suggestion that intimacy is not a good thing to desire? Or that, the desire for intimacy being an occasion of sin, we should not desire intimacy?

The bible says it’s a sin. Are you saying that if it’s lead to human flourishing even once it’s not a sin?

I’m saying that, in that instance, I would question whether or not it is sin.

We could get into what the Bible says about fornication, with reference to how the rabbis interpreted the Torah and translated it into the Septuagint. We could discuss the mis-translations of the word “porneia” and its cultural associations with transactional or commercial sex on the one hand and sex which goes against Torah on the other. Either way, we’d discover that fornication, understood as pre-marital sex, was a late-comer to the interpretive table and is not beyond re-evaluation. But that’s a whole different topic.

No, however, providing such a servic would surely help the economy

The porn industry creates lots of revenue and, in the world of media often spurs the latest innovations in home entertainment. It’s still not a particularly moral industry. Again, moral good and economic good are not the same thing.

Romans 1:27, New American standard bible : and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

I urge you to study the context of Romans and its relationship to Leviticus. You may be surprised!

No it’s not the question. In the bible it says that law about shellfish no longer applies. Romans clearly states that unles they are abstinent, gay relationships are wrong.

Point out, please, in what you quoted above, or even in its proper context in the epistle, a reference to gay relationships as we understand them today.

We have a general reference to men committing indecent acts with each other.

Okay…

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

Isn’t a good economy flourishing? I thought you said morality was based on human flourishing.

I see you skipped the part of my post in which I attempted to explain what flourishing meant–dealing in part with a greater capacity to give and receive love.

Again, you have a habit of confusing a material good with a moral good. Perhaps this is why many of my points regarding morality and human flourishing do not compute or fit into your spreadsheet analysis of human behavior and morality.

Someone who writes quite well on the difference is Simone Weil, whose analysis of evil (which owes a lot to the prophet Amos’ understanding of evil as a social disease) includes a critique of our tendency to equate good and evil, or to define what is good according to our grasp of what is evil: the idea, in other words, that evil and good are opposites. So we come up with the idea that theft is bad, so private property is good–and we are missing entirely that private property (how we conceive of it, how we use it, what it means) could easily be a form of theft. But good and evil, real moral good and real moral evil are not opposites–they are not points on a moral continuum. Good is of an order beyond evil.

Again, economic good and moral good are not equal goods. An economic or material good may not have anything to do with human flourishing, or may be only tengentially related to it. It is not a good in itself. A moral good has everything to do with human flourishing.

Timbo, the concept is not that difficult.

Are you telling a lie or have you not read it?
Romans 1:26-27
…
leviticus 18:22

If it were not such a sad thing to behold, I would commend you on your eisegetical prowess, your ability to read into scripture what you expect to find in it. I would commend to you, however, the practice of textual analysis which would take into consideration context. I’ll leave it at that.

No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve even lied b saying it is not at all mentioned in the bible.

Me: No you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You: No no no. YOU don’t know what you’re talking about.
Me: No, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
You: Yeah but no you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

(yawn)

Let’s just say that it’s clear we have different interpretations of scripture and different understandings of what its call to wholeness looks like. Because my understanding is different than yours, I’m articulating a lie? Well. If you insist.

You have declared that the bible doesn;t know what it’s talking about and then outright lied about it.

Nowhere did I declare that the Bible doesn’t know what its talking about. Perhaps you could point out where I did?

And could you explain just how I’m lying? I don’t believe I’m lying…

Well. I’m glad you know my intentions better than I do! That’s quite a psychic feat!

How is it that I don’t know what I’m talking about and you do?

Because in this matter I’m speaking from experience, not from some legalistic moral theory I picked up from a book because it was easier to memorize some moral dictum than learn how to recognize the good. Because my experience shows that what you take for granted as a general image of what it means to be gay–this “lifestyle” of hedonism, drug addiction, depression, debauchery and dissolute living–is not a requisite or de facto part of every gay person’s experience, nor is it a function of merely being gay, much as you would seem to argue to the contrary. Because this image that you’ve constructed of what it is to be gay, is merely a titillating horror story that legalistic and petty, sentimental religionists like to tell each other because it projects the brokenness of sin that we all share onto a very specific and visible group that they can say they have nothing to do with.

Because if I am to be condemned by God, it will not be because I love my partner. And I know this. For a fact.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!