How Do "Former" Homsexuals Identify Themselves?

[Scout]

There are many people who come out of the homosexual lifestyle and enter, or re-enter, the Catholic faith.

I’m curious to know what these people consider themselves. “Former” homosexuals, someone who was just “confused” before entering (or re-entering) the Church, “non-practicing”? And is it important how they are identified?

For anyone here with this past lifestyle, your (name removed by moderator)ut is very important. However, if there are others here on the forum who have some knowledge of this, or even just an opinion, your (name removed by moderator)ut would also be appreciated.

This question may seem a bit ambiguous, and if it is, I sincerely apologize. It’s something I’m curious about, but I’m not sure I’ve expressed myself correctly. If not, please tell me how I can be more clear.

Thanks for everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

Scout :tiphat:

 

[LCMS_No_More]

There are many people who come out of the homosexual lifestyle and enter, or re-enter, the Catholic faith.

I’m curious to know what these people consider themselves. “Former” homosexuals, someone who was just “confused” before entering (or re-entering) the Church, “non-practicing”? And is it important how they are identified?

For anyone here with this past lifestyle, your (name removed by moderator)ut is very important. However, if there are others here on the forum who have some knowledge of this, or even just an opinion, your (name removed by moderator)ut would also be appreciated.

This question may seem a bit ambiguous, and if it is, I sincerely apologize. It’s something I’m curious about, but I’m not sure I’ve expressed myself correctly. If not, please tell me how I can be more clear.

Thanks for everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

Scout :tiphat:

Just a little correction…there is no such thing as “a homosexual.” The word “homosexual” is an adjective (describing a noun). There are homosexual persons (person being the noun and homosexual describing the person).

Anyway, grammer lesson over.

A person who has come out of the “gay” lifestyle and is trying to live a chaste life according to their Catholic faith could be said to be a single layman living chastely. Same-sex attracted is the best descriptor, but it only describes one aspect of the person (much like the word homosexual does).

 

[Scout]

I am not asking about just single people who are now living chaste lives, but also those who are married or in a relationship. Also, not just homosexual “persons”, but lesbians and bisexuals.

Scout :tiphat:

 

[Mirdath]

Just a little correction…there is no such thing as “a homosexual.” The word “homosexual” is an adjective (describing a noun). There are homosexual persons (person being the noun and homosexual describing the person).

Same like there’s technically no such thing as ‘a male’ or ‘a female’. The only languages in which things don’t shift are those which aren’t spoken any more

Anyway, grammer lesson over.

‘Grammar’. Spelling lesson over (I kid, I kid)

From what I’ve seen, most Catholics who are attracted to the same sex but refrain from acting on it don’t particularly like being pigeonholed. They’re just Catholic. How often do you think of yourself as a ‘heterosexual Catholic’?

The ‘ex-gay’ thing is more a Protestant idea.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I am not asking about just single people who are now living chaste lives, but also those who are married or in a relationship. Also, not just homosexual “persons”, but lesbians and bisexuals.

Scout :tiphat:

In that case, they’re just a person living a chaste life according to the teachings of the Church. Remember, chastity merely means ordering one’s sexuality to their state in life. For the single, it means no sex. For the married it means sexual fidelity to one’s spouse and openness to life during sex.

 

[RWMorris]

I describe myself as “married”. I left the gay lifestyle long ago to marry my husband and to have children who could have a normal life with both father and mother.
Believe it or not, homosexuals can be changed if they are willing, as I was, to change. Is it easy? NO…but it is possible. I’ll never stop being grateful to God for giving me the chance, and I’ll always be thankful to my husband for his understanding.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Same like there’s technically no such thing as ‘a male’ or ‘a female’. The only languages in which things don’t shift are those which aren’t spoken any more

‘Grammar’. Spelling lesson over (I kid, I kid)

Touché!

From what I’ve seen, most Catholics who are attracted to the same sex but refrain from acting on it don’t particularly like being pigeonholed. They’re just Catholic. How often do you think of yourself as a ‘heterosexual Catholic’?

The ‘ex-gay’ thing is more a Protestant idea.

Agreed.

 

[Scout]

Would it be appropriate, or even wise, for someone who used to live the lifestyle of a homosexual or bisexual, to consider themselves “non-practicing”? That is, they acknowledge that they have the attraction, but also acknowledge that they don’t act on that attraction?

Scout :tiphat:

 

[Mirdath]

I’m not going to pass judgment on ‘appropriate’ or ‘wise’ – that’s up to the individual. I would say it’s entirely unnecessary, though. Again, if you’re not married, would you describe yourself as a ‘non-practicing heterosexual Catholic’?

 

[Scout]

I’m not going to pass judgment on ‘appropriate’ or ‘wise’ – that’s up to the individual. I would say it’s entirely unnecessary, though. Again, if you’re not married, would you describe yourself as a ‘non-practicing heterosexual Catholic’?

I understand what you’re saying, but perhaps it gives the person comfort to acknowledge where they’ve come from? Or perhaps they don’t have a problem with being attracted to the same sex (or both sexes, depending on the case), but they choose to obey the teachings of the Church and not act on those attractions? I’m not saying they have to wear a t-shirt or shout it from a loud speaker, but sometimes the past comes up in conversations and sometimes people want to know what you consider “yourself” now.

Scout :tiphat:

 

[Mirdath]

I understand what you’re saying, but perhaps it gives the person comfort to acknowledge where they’ve come from? Or perhaps they don’t have a problem with being attracted to the same sex (or both sexes, depending on the case), but they choose to obey the teachings of the Church and not act on those attractions? I’m not saying they have to wear a t-shirt or shout it from a loud speaker, but sometimes the past comes up in conversations and sometimes people want to know what you consider “yourself” now.

Sure, it could – I simply haven’t seen many Catholics choosing to identify themselves as such. If it comes up in conversation, they may or may not talk about it, just like RWMorris did above, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they consider themselves members of a ‘special group’.

Since the Church doesn’t teach that the attraction is in and of itself sinful, it’s just not such a big deal for most Catholics who may possess it but submit to the teachings of their faith in regard to the action.

 

[teme]

Lots of interesting conversation about the language, but here’s a different thought. Engaging in homosexuality is sinful; someone who has homosexual interest is suffering a temptation and trial. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God; homosexuality is a sin which society-at-large hopes we will embrace and champion. Labels historically have done nothing to advance society, yet removing labels does (think Civil Rights Movement). Thankfully, our identity is not, and should not, be directly tied to our sinfullness, but rather to our dignity as a creation of God.

Why are you seeking a label for a past sinful act (or lifestyle)? As Christians and Catholics, once we repent and confess our sins, they are wiped clean. It seems contrary to Christianity to label someone for their past. I do not consider myself an “ex-premaritalsexual”, although it was a past sin and temptation of mine. I repented, confessed, and did not return to the sin.Why would you seek a label for past sinfullness or current struggle.

 

[Scout]

Why would you seek a label for past sinfullness or current struggle.

I’m not seeking a label for past sinfulness, but I see nothing wrong with labeling a current struggle. For example, many people with a mental disorder (such as depression, bipolar, and others)do admit that they have it. People with diabetes, cancer, and other physical ailments also admit they have it.They don’t wear t-shirts announcing the fact, but it’s not like hide it. I think that sometimes puting a name to something helps you deal with it.

Also, it brings up the thought, can someone be a “former” homosexual person, or it is like being an alcoholic-once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic-you’re just a “recovering” alcoholic?

Scout :tiphat:

 

[teme]

I’m not seeking a label for past sinfulness, but I see nothing wrong with labeling a current struggle. For example, many people with a mental disorder (such as depression, bipolar, and others)do admit that they have it. People with diabetes, cancer, and other physical ailments also admit they have it.They don’t wear t-shirts announcing the fact, but it’s not like hide it. I think that sometimes puting a name to something helps you deal with it.

Also, it brings up the thought, can someone be a “former” homosexual person, or it is like being an alcoholic-once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic-you’re just a “recovering” alcoholic?

Scout :tiphat:

You make a great point about these diseases. However, your list diseases is different from a list of sins. Our culture has apparently done a very good job at convincing us that homosexuality is a disease, rather than a sin. I think that is where the crux of the matter is. By thinking homosexuality is closer to alcoholism than adultery, we’re buying into the cultural lies of Satan.

Now, I fully understand that homosexual interest is not always a choice, but rather is probably rooted in both physiology and psychology. However, it is not something that cannot be controlled. We are called by God to rise above the flesh and live according to the Gospel.

 

[Scout]

You make a great point about these diseases. However, your list diseases is different from a list of sins. Our culture has apparently done a very good job at convincing us that homosexuality is a disease, rather than a sin. I think that is where the crux of the matter is. By thinking homosexuality is closer to alcoholism than adultery, we’re buying into the cultural lies of Satan.

Now, I fully understand that homosexual interest is not always a choice, but rather is probably rooted in both physiology and psychology. However, it is not something that cannot be controlled. We are called by God to rise above the flesh and live according to the Gospel.

Well, if a person is a “recovering” homosexual, than the analogy between a “recovering” homsexual and a “recovering” alcoholic would be appropriate. The struggle isn’t the sin, but the acting on it. If we say that, for an alcoholic, drinking alcohol would be a sin, but being an alcholic is not, then we can say that being attracted to the same sex (or both sexes) is not a sin, but acting on that attracton is.

I also think that most of the media/society these days aren’t interested in convincing people that homosexuality is any kind of disease at all, but rather a perfectly “normal” alternative lifestyle.
Scout :tiphat:

 

[goofyjim]

I consider the behavior a choice but the orientation not so. I do have a girlfriend presently who understands my situation. But on a scale of 1 to 10 I will always find myself a 5 in my sexuality drifting to the homosexual side. I just choose to behave heterosexually but nothing will change the attractions deep inside. So I do not call myself a former homosexual person but an ongoing homosexual person who abides by the teaching of the Church.

 

[Scout]

I consider the behavior a choice but the orientation not so. I do have a girlfriend presently who understands my situation. But on a scale of 1 to 10 I will always find myself a 5 in my sexuality drifting to the homosexual side. I just choose to behave heterosexually but nothing will change the attractions deep inside. So I do not call myself a former homosexual person but an ongoing homosexual person who abides by the teaching of the Church.

This makes sense. I completely understand what you’re saying.
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Scout :tiphat:

 

[manualman]

The question is too braod and assumes a uniformity that is unreasonable. It is like asking if people from a Polish background vote Dem or Repub?

I have a relative who once considered himself ‘gay.’ He’s been married for 14 years now and his 5th kid is on the way. If you were to ask HIM, he’d simply tell you that he’s a person, one that made a lot of mistakes in his past, like all the rest of us. But that past is behind him and he resolved the issues that once made him think he was ‘homosexual.’

Goofyjim, on the other hand, has a VERY different experience. He still FEELS the same sex attractions and believes they are inherent to him.

I just don’t think you can generalize.

 

[rlg94086]

From what I’ve seen, most Catholics who are attracted to the same sex but refrain from acting on it don’t particularly like being pigeonholed. They’re just Catholic. How often do you think of yourself as a ‘heterosexual Catholic’?

Exactly! The only way I would know that a single person has same sex attraction would be if they told me. I don’t see a reason they would, unless we were having a discussion about homosexuality. Even then, I wouldn’t expect them to have a label for themselves…and I wouldn’t feel a need to label them.

 

[rlg94086]

Lots of interesting conversation about the language, but here’s a different thought. Engaging in homosexuality is sinful; someone who has homosexual interest is suffering a temptation and trial. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God; homosexuality is a sin which society-at-large hopes we will embrace and champion. Labels historically have done nothing to advance society, yet removing labels does (think Civil Rights Movement). Thankfully, our identity is not, and should not, be directly tied to our sinfullness, but rather to our dignity as a creation of God.

Why are you seeking a label for a past sinful act (or lifestyle)? As Christians and Catholics, once we repent and confess our sins, they are wiped clean. It seems contrary to Christianity to label someone for their past. I do not consider myself an “ex-premaritalsexual”, although it was a past sin and temptation of mine. I repented, confessed, and did not return to the sin.Why would you seek a label for past sinfullness or current struggle.

I agree.

Best regards,
Robert
Ex-Artificial Birth Control Using, Ex-Atheist, Ex-Protestant, Married Heterosexual Catholic (I’m sure I left some out, but the rest won’t fit on my business card )