"homosexuality" Is it solely about pleasure and always egocentric in nature?

Apologetics Moral Theology
#1

This came up on another thread however I think it will receive more attention here.

I’m going to quote from PJPII book on Love and Responsibility where all of Catholic ethics can be summed up in a person can never be an object of use.

Pg 64
“Catholic moral teaching is first and last an ethical problem. Utilitarian thinking here remains true to its premis: what matters is maximize the pleasure which sex affords in such large measure in the form of the libido. Whereas Catholic ethics protest in the name of its own, personalize tic premises: no one must take the ‘calculus of pleasure,’ as his sole guide where a relationship with another personis concerned-a person can never be an object of use. That is the nub of the conflict.”

Granted this chapter has to do with the sexual urge primarily with the opposite sex. If Catholic ethics can be summed up that a person can not be an object of use. Then it must hold that homosexuality being an ethical problem to Catholicism it must be true that it is egocentric in nature.

How do we prove this?

I took a stab at it and here is what I said.

Without the possibility of generating life in the conjugal act you don’t have anything to stop the act from becoming egocentric. What does a contraceptive or homosexual couple have to keep the act from turning into *using another from acheiving their own purpose?

The two may care about and wish each other well; but what unites them is primarily pleasure.
What happens the moment they cease to match and be of advantage to one another? Nothing at all love wil be no more.*
Since this kind of relationship is still dependent on what I get out of others, it prevents me from truly being in communion with them and being committed to them as a person. A person in their fullest sense. Their relationship will be based on a mutual use rather than on a committed love or true communion of persons all due to the fact that there is nothing there to keep the act from being limited to themselves and their own gratification.

Do you have anything to add?

Also I would like to hear opposing views.

#2

No relationship needs sex as long as you do not want children. All love a homosexual can give can also be given in platonic friendships.

#3

Without the possibility of generating life in the conjugal act you don’t have anything to stop the act from becoming egocentric. What does a contraceptive or homosexual couple have to keep the act from turning into *using another from acheiving their own purpose?

This would also disqualify infertile individuals from engaging in sex because it is egocentric.

#4

Maybe so but not all love given in aarriage can be given in a homosexual relationship. Man and woman can give there selves in totality homosexuality can not.

An infertile hetero marriage at the very least models or symbolizes the procreative marriage even if it’s impossible for that couple. That’s still a very powerful symbol for humanity. Moreover, moreover, infertile couples presumably enter marriage wishing they can procreate (and are therefore open to the creation of life). Perhaps praying for a miracle. In these cases, man and woman have entered marriage with the approach that it is a life creating institution, and perhaps with sadness discovered that they can’t take part in that. But they have at least approached marriage with the frame of mind that it is not simply an Ultimate Romantic Commitment.

#5

Each is concerned about their gratification but at the same time consents to serve someone else’s egoism, because this provides an opportunity for such gratification for themselves. And only as so long as it does.

St Josemaria Escrivia once said
“When you have sought the company of sensual satisfaction, what loneliness afterward.”

I can’t help but think how many people feel lonely after getting what they wanted from the conjugal act. Unfortunately many woman fell this way or have at least expeienced it.

We need an anchor to keep the act from drifting into mutual masturbation. With being open to the possibility of new life “an other” you seise making it about you.

What does a contraceptive or homosexual have in the act of intercourse to kelp this from happening?

#6

What about long married couples when the wife is well past child-bearing age?

#7

That is not relevant to your criterion for egocentrism, which was as follows:

Without the possibility of generating life in the conjugal act you don’t have anything to stop the act from becoming egocentric. What does a contraceptive or homosexual couple have to keep the act from turning into *using another from acheiving their own purpose?

The fact that generating life is not possible is what matters according to what you said. Your own reasoning would reduce any sex that is incapable of producing offspring is egocentric in nature.

Moreover, moreover, infertile couples presumably enter marriage wishing they can procreate (and are therefore open to the creation of life). Perhaps praying for a miracle. In these cases, man and woman have entered marriage with the approach that it is a life creating institution, and perhaps with sadness discovered that they can’t take part in that. But they have at least approached marriage with the frame of mind that it is not simply an Ultimate Romantic Commitment.

Again, I refer you back to your own criterion, to which this is totally irrelevant.

#8

Gb I believe this to be a legit question. I believe the risk of becoming egocentric is higher. For instance my wife right now is pregnant. (I have thought of your response) It’s just as easy for our conjugal act to fall into an egocentric act. How do I prevent this? IDK! But I do know I have to be careful. And in telling my wife this she tells me I need to listen to my own advice. :slight_smile: But its very much true. My wife has felt used because I can just use her with no consequences.

The best way to answer is I think one can accept this time as a gift rather than one who contracepts or is homosexual whom are grasping at infertility. In this case I believe it can’t help but be egocentric.

Maybe someone else can help because you asked a good question.

#9

Absolutely not. Again they are not grasping infertility in order to gain pleasure whenever they see fit. Not seeking to gratify on another for the purpose of their own gratification. They are open prayerfully to new life. To another person how is that going to be centered on ones self when in the very act your open to another?

#10

First, they certainly could be.

Second, we are speaking about infertile people. They are incapable of reproducing. Consider, for example, a male who has had a vasectomy.

You can say they are open to life, but that is not actually possible because life is not possible.

The only possible way around this is to acknowledge the possibility of miraculous conception, and also that this conception is something that God would only grant to heterosexual couples because lesbian couples could be hoping for miraculous conception as well.

In summary, using the criterion for egocentrism you mentioned would eliminate all sexual intercourse among infertile heterosexual couples unless you simultaneously acknowledge the possibility of truly miraculous conception that in some cases involves no male chromosomes whatsoever.

#11

Well your right they most certainly can. Just as I could with my wife being pregnant.

There are cases where people have miracululasly concieved after a vasectomy .
I would say they too have a huge I hurtle to overcome egotism. Can it be done is the question and if it can be done could it be done in homosexual activity?

#12

I have been thinking about this and so I think culpability still plays a big role. I’m willing to consent that it’s possible but very hard to avoid using another individual when having a vasectomy or many even homosexuals. There may be those who truly want to give them selves in totality but for a homosexual and contraceptive couple it’s impossible. So I think this is where culpability comes in. Not all homosexual or contraceptive couples intend on using another and honestly seek to be a proper union. However it’s still impossible. Like a child whom has done something wrong but is not yet culpable. I’m sure many homesxuals fit into this catigory. But far to easy to become utilitarian in nature.

#13

In a marriage between two individuals, isn’t the committment they give to each other the tie that binds. The gift is to always be there for that person 'til death does part? To help each other attain heaven.

Wouldn’t this be the same whether or not they could bear children.

Some couples want children, some know they should not be parents, some choose to adopt, some desperately want children but cannot conceive and some that conceive probably shouldn’t have.

Isn’t it their commitment to each other that is pleasing to God and good for society?

#14

I’m sorry, but these threads always seem to end up so uncharitable and crass.

Is it really impossible for you guys to believe that some homosexuals really DO have feelins for each other that they would define as love? That they ARE in a relationship for more than just sex? Yes we, as Catholics, know the true desires of the heart and the choice of love and connection, but I don’t think that’s any right for us to be continually claiming that all homosexual behavior is egotistical. We al know homosexuality is wrong for a multitude of reasons, but that doesn’t mean they’re depraved individuals who only care about their carnal pleasures.

#15

If homosexuality was solely about pleasure and always egocentric in nature you wouldn’t have people desperately trying to make the attractions go away.

#16

No the Catholic Church defines marriage as one that is open to life.

I do think many are in it for more than just carnal pleasure. However what about the sexual act itself?

Idk why would they? Could it be because they realize it’s a disorder? A disorder that’s egocentric?

#17

Speaking from personal experience; none of that is true for the entire homosexual community just as it is not true for the entire heterosexual community. There are certainly relationships based on little more than sex on both sides but there are also those that are based on love.

#19

I will grant you that Emperor

I actually do have an openly gay brother who is never in a long lasting relationship. However I do also have a straight brother whom can never keep a long term relationship. I have had close gay coworkers. I don’t know any that have been in long term relationships but that’s not to say there is not.

Pleasure dosnt primarily have to be about sex. They may have a sincere goodwill of another it may resemble a complete surrender of themselves but it’s still difficult to name it a betrothed love as the pope would claim. I would also say the sexual act would always be about giving and receiving pleasure. It can never be a total self surrender when it’s intentionally sterile.

#21

I disagree. Gay couples, even those in long committed relationships have all the protections and liberties in the U.S. and Western countries. Besides if this study by gay researchers Blakes Spears and Lanz Lowen is any indication, gay couples prefer non-monogamous relationships. The study was featured in NYT article Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret.

According to Dan Savage, the gay sex advice columnist based in Seattle, who is ‘married’ to his male partner, also known for It Gets Better project, an archive of hopeful videos aimed at troubled gay youth:
The discourse on monogamy and about sexuality is generally dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy.

As for your previous quote

In the experience of the OP and many other members in this forum, including me who has a close openly gay family member, gay relationships are not foreign to us. Not at all. In fact, there are a number of members, former gay and lesbians, who left the hedonistic life and give witness in this very forum.

Importantly, gay ‘marriage’ legitimises open indoctrination of children in schools and parental modelling in homes via adoption or surrogacy methods that homosexual relations are no different than heterosexual relations. Normalisation of what is not normal. With the law being instructive, gay ‘marriage’ would further bolster challenges to the first amendment rights of those across different faiths that are against homosexuality. Already, with same sex ‘marriages’ in certain states, and same sex civil unions and domestic partnerships in others, such speech has started to be regarded as hate speech.

All these are not in the direction of the societal common good.
,

#22

Seeking only pleasure from the sexual act is not a concept foreign outside of homosexual unions. I think that topic would deserve its own thread where it’s expanded to include ALL couples who fall under this, and not an unjust blame on soley homosexuals