Genuine affective complementarity between same-genders

[DexUK]

I am interested in this as a discussion point to see how other people view and understand the concept of ‘love’ between persons.

The Church teaches that homosexual physical acts (rather than the condition of simply being the possessor of homosexual desires) do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.

I quite understand and accept that there isn’t any sexual complementarity in homosexual acts because (without being too graphic about it) two same-gender bodies are not compatible with each other in the same way that a male and a female body are compatible with each other by virtue of the specific purposes of the parts of the body used in the acts. And it goes without saying that I understand and accept that because of this the acts are wrong and disordered.

However… and this is where the question arises…

Is it possible or feasible that two same gender persons can have genuine affective complementarity?

In asking that question, it’ll help for me to define how I understand affective complementarity. I take it to mean the selfless desire which a person may have for the emotional and spiritual good of another person (not necessarily exclusively in a religious sense of course, since spiritual can refer to the psychological well-being as well) and the matching desire of that other person for the first.

Is it therefore reasonable to suggest that a person may experience a true and genuine love for - and from - someone of the same gender? If they can do such a thing, it also reasonable to suggest that a person experiencing such love can do so in a chaste way?

If one doesn’t believe that a true and genuine affective love is possible between homosexual persons, does that then presuppose that ‘Love’ between persons is a heterosexual-only concept? In other words, can ‘love’ between persons only exist where there is emotional AND sexual complementarity? Is the sexual component intrinsically and invariably linked to the affective component?

I think it’s a fascinating question as I’m forever intrigued by us humans’ capacities to experience things, and quite often surprised by the answers when I’ve examined things deeply… Over to you guys.

 

[bmullins]

Wouldn’t what you are suggesting simply be best friends? I love my best friend Michael. I’d do anything for him. He’s been my friend for nearly 30 years. I’ve known him almost as long as I’ve known my parents and brother. It’s a different kind of love than I have for my wife, but it’s still love. I still worry about him and his soul. I worry about his life. He is one of my best friends.

 

[Khalid]

In the sense of “bromance” or best friends of the same sex, yes, but it’s not the same (and can not be the same) as the kind of affection that is present in proper marital relationships, as it can only have one facet of the many facets of affection/“love” (in the broadest sense of the word).

It is an affective complementarity that is different from or an imperfect instance of the affective complementarity of the ideal of matrimony.

And, to be blunt, gays aren’t known for their steady, life-long, platonic same-sex best-friends type relationships characterized by level-headedness and fidelity, but many consecutive (and sometimes concurrent) sequential stormy and passionate relationships characterized by “I’d do anything for X” at one moment and “I’d do anything to hurt X” the next.

 

[martininthefiel]

I think you are confusing love and lust. I can love someone without being sexually attracted to them. That love can include a physical dimension, as well as a spiritual one–hugs, etc.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Yeah, it’s called “friendship.”

 

[DexUK]

Is it therefore possible - notwithstanding the danger of causing scandal - for two persons of the same gender to be in a committed but utterly chaste relationship with each other?

If the relationship was and remained chaste, would it even matter what sexual preferences each party had?

(Now obviously ‘best friends’ are in a form of relationship with each other, but one doesn’t usually see such a thing in ‘exclusive’ terms, which is what I’m referring to here.)

Even if you are taking scandal into consideration, if two heterosexual persons were to share an abode together - separate bedrooms, naturally, and as many do for all sorts of reasons - what objective difference would there be to two homosexual persons doing exactly the same thing? (Again, with no shared bedrooms, etc)

 

[Khalid]

In my opinion (I do not know the Church’s), yes, it is acceptable (but a near occasion to sin, and may be a cause for scandal).

 

[Garyjohn2]

Is it therefore possible - notwithstanding the danger of causing scandal - for two persons of the same gender to be in a committed but utterly chaste relationship with each other?

If the relationship was and remained chaste, would it even matter what sexual preferences each party had?

(Now obviously ‘best friends’ are in a form of relationship with each other, but one doesn’t usually see such a thing in ‘exclusive’ terms, which is what I’m referring to here.)

Even if you are taking scandal into consideration, if two heterosexual persons were to share an abode together - separate bedrooms, naturally, and as many do for all sorts of reasons - what objective difference would there be to two homosexual persons doing exactly the same thing? (Again, with no shared bedrooms, etc)

Yes, it’s called “room-mates.”
Roommates can be very close friends, and love each other. They can even be brothers. There is no scandal there. They can even be “exclusive” in that they don’t want to share the house with anyone else. However, if they were “exclusive” in terms of not wanting to be friends with anyone else…that would be kind of strange and anti-social.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I am interested in this as a discussion point to see how other people view and understand the concept of ‘love’ between persons.

The Church teaches that homosexual physical acts (rather than the condition of simply being the possessor of homosexual desires) do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.

I quite understand and accept that there isn’t any sexual complementarity in homosexual acts because (without being too graphic about it) two same-gender bodies are not compatible with each other in the same way that a male and a female body are compatible with each other by virtue of the specific purposes of the parts of the body used in the acts. And it goes without saying that I understand and accept that because of this the acts are wrong and disordered.

However… and this is where the question arises…

Is it possible or feasible that two same gender persons can have genuine affective complementarity?

In asking that question, it’ll help for me to define how I understand affective complementarity. I take it to mean the selfless desire which a person may have for the emotional and spiritual good of another person (not necessarily exclusively in a religious sense of course, since spiritual can refer to the psychological well-being as well) and the matching desire of that other person for the first.

Is it therefore reasonable to suggest that a person may experience a true and genuine love for - and from - someone of the same gender? If they can do such a thing, it also reasonable to suggest that a person experiencing such love can do so in a chaste way?

If one doesn’t believe that a true and genuine affective love is possible between homosexual persons, does that then presuppose that ‘Love’ between persons is a heterosexual-only concept? In other words, can ‘love’ between persons only exist where there is emotional AND sexual complementarity? Is the sexual component intrinsically and invariably linked to the affective component?

I think it’s a fascinating question as I’m forever intrigued by us humans’ capacities to experience things, and quite often surprised by the answers when I’ve examined things deeply… Over to you guys.

From a historical theological the answer is yes. Three hundred years ago people wouldn’t understand why you were asking this question because the concept of homosexuality hadn’t been invented yet. You have to distinguish between the loves, furthermore yes you can strip Venus from Eros.

Wouldn’t what you are suggesting simply be best friends? I love my best friend Michael. I’d do anything for him. He’s been my friend for nearly 30 years. I’ve known him almost as long as I’ve known my parents and brother. It’s a different kind of love than I have for my wife, but it’s still love. I still worry about him and his soul. I worry about his life. He is one of my best friends.

It’s a heck of a lot deeper

Is it therefore possible - notwithstanding the danger of causing scandal - for two persons of the same gender to be in a committed but utterly chaste relationship with each other?

If the relationship was and remained chaste, would it even matter what sexual preferences each party had?

(Now obviously ‘best friends’ are in a form of relationship with each other, but one doesn’t usually see such a thing in ‘exclusive’ terms, which is what I’m referring to here.)

Even if you are taking scandal into consideration, if two heterosexual persons were to share an abode together - separate bedrooms, naturally, and as many do for all sorts of reasons - what objective difference would there be to two homosexual persons doing exactly the same thing? (Again, with no shared bedrooms, etc)

Possible and the “orientation” is irrelevant, the acts are what is wrong

 

[JimG]

Yeah, it’s called “friendship.”

Of course. There might be “affective complementarity” between any two people. There might be love between any two people: mother/son, mother/daughter, father/son, father/daughter, brothers/sisters, friends, whatever. You can and should love a lot of people. You can even love your enemies.

But none of that of course, is sufficient for marriage. That requires sexual complementarity.

 

[bmullins]

It’s a heck of a lot deeper

I can love my friend as deeply as I can love anyone else, but if I give him the affection due only to my wife (and in the ways due only between married folk) then I’ve done something contrary to God’s word. If you have a relationship with someone of the same sex that goes deeper than best friends (I can’t imagine that sort of relationship? I’d do anything for my best friends, including die for them.) then either I have a different idea of what a best friend is, or there is a boundary that is being crossed.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

If the word hell needs to be involved then I see no point in it. Love has nothing to do with hell or hell’s deepness. I can love my friend as deeply as I can love anyone else, but if I give him the affection due only to my wife (and in the ways due only between married folk) then I’ve done something contrary to God’s word. If you have a relationship with someone of the same sex that goes deeper than best friends (I can’t imagine that sort of relationship? I’d do anything for my best friends, including die for them.) then either I have a different idea of what a best friend is, or there is a boundary that is being crossed.

hell≠Hell

It’s too hard to explain over the internet as it gets really heavily into theology especially the Middle Ages

 

[Dale_M]

Is it possible or feasible that two same gender persons can have genuine affective complementarity?

If I understand Church teaching, men and women have equal but complementary natures. This goes beyond physical differences and includes their soul. And, of course, body and soul are united as one: “compenetrating” (to use Pope Benedict’s term) each other. Women can not become priests, not simply because their bodies are different from men, but because their souls are different. Women have a different nature from men, equal but complementary.

This is important to Pope Benedict’s thinking, and I think gets to the question you ask. The complementarity of men and women is not just physical, but spiritual as well. And humans are only complete in that union of male and female.

Quoting from Pope Benedict’s encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love)

1. The first novelty of biblical faith consists, as we have seen, in its image of God. The second, essentially connected to this, is found in the image of man. The biblical account of creation speaks of the solitude of Adam, the first man, and God’s decision to give him a helper. Of all other creatures, not one is capable of being the helper that man needs, even though he has assigned a name to all the wild beasts and birds and thus made them fully a part of his life.

Pope Benedict then contrasts the biblical account with similar pagan ideas, and continues

While the biblical narrative does not speak of punishment, the idea is certainly present that man is somehow incomplete, driven by nature to seek in another the part that can make him whole, the idea that only in communion with the opposite sex can he become “complete”. The biblical account thus concludes with a prophecy about Adam: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Two aspects of this are important. First, eros is somehow rooted in man’s very nature; Adam is a seeker, who “abandons his mother and father” in order to find woman; only together do the two represent complete humanity and become “one flesh”. The second aspect is equally important. From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose. Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God’s way of loving becomes the measure of human love. This close connection between eros and marriage in the Bible has practically no equivalent in extra-biblical literature.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

If I understand Church teaching, men and women have equal but complementary natures. This goes beyond physical differences and includes their soul. And, of course, body and soul are united as one: “compenetrating” (to use Pope Benedict’s term) each other. Women can not become priests, not simply because their bodies are different from men, but because their souls are different. Women have a different nature from men, equal but complementary.

This is important to Pope Benedict’s thinking, and I think gets to the question you ask. The complementarity of men and women is not just physical, but spiritual as well. And humans are only complete in that union of male and female.

Quoting from Pope Benedict’s encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love)

Pope Benedict then contrasts the biblical account with similar pagan ideas, and continues

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

Marriage is for life, friendship* is forever

*old school variety

 

[TarkanAttila]

Is it therefore possible - notwithstanding the danger of causing scandal - for two persons of the same gender to be in a committed but utterly chaste relationship with each other?

Certainly. Brothers and brothers and sisters and sisters do this all the time. Friends do this all the time. Especially women, it would seem. JD and Chris Turk…

If the relationship was and remained chaste, would it even matter what sexual preferences each party had?

(Now obviously ‘best friends’ are in a form of relationship with each other, but one doesn’t usually see such a thing in ‘exclusive’ terms, which is what I’m referring to here.)

If they can keep it that way - chaste and close-knit (I would not say “exlcusive”, as there is nothing to exclude since they cannot share sexual relations). That said, this is an age where sexuality is increasingly becoming an obsession in the public eye. The media makes it seem like if you aren’t having sex with somebody (perhaps even someone you have strong feelings for), then you’re a loser.

In a more chaste age, the sexual orientation of two men might not matter all that much. But this day and age… it might be best for two gay men who have a great agape for each other to each other to STAY AWAY from each other lest it degenerate into an illicit eros.

Even if you are taking scandal into consideration, if two heterosexual persons were to share an abode together - separate bedrooms, naturally, and as many do for all sorts of reasons - what objective difference would there be to two homosexual persons doing exactly the same thing? (Again, with no shared bedrooms, etc)

Not much. The only sexual sins two people can commit together are either fornication or adultery. (Sodomy is a type of these.) It doesn’t matter if they are straight or not.

But we’ve got to remember: sex is not a commodity. It’s not an urge to be satisfied like hunger, thirst, or sleep. It’s a responsibility to oneself, one’s family, one’s country, and one’s world, to raise children, and raise them well.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Is it possible or feasible that two same gender persons can have genuine affective complementarity?

It’s immaterial, as most successful heterosexual pairings have genuine affective complementarity, but they have much more than that – something more elemental than the affect, which is one aspect of our psyche: Heterosexuals uniquely have full psychological complementarity which by definition is impossible between persons of the same gender.

The male brain is different from the female brain, qualitatively and categorically. That is despite the reality that the manifestation of maleness has a spectrum, as does the valid manifestation of femaleness.

Basic biology is radical and transcends word games.

 

[DexUK]

It’s immaterial, as most successful heterosexual pairings have genuine affective complementarity, but they have much more than that – something more elemental than the affect, which is one aspect of our psyche: Heterosexuals uniquely have full psychological complementarity which by definition is impossible between persons of the same gender.

The male brain is different from the female brain, qualitatively and categorically. That is despite the reality that the manifestation of maleness has a spectrum, as does the valid manifestation of femaleness.

Basic biology is radical and transcends word games.

So what you’re saying then is that it would hold true to say that homosexual affective complementarity, if allowed to subsist in a sexually chaste relationship between two persons of the same gender and the same sexual orientation, would be wrong because it would, or rather should, be impossible in a heterosexual person?

Remembering that affective complementarity in heterosexual persons accompanies the sexual element but isn’t an intrinsic part of it, why then can’t a homosexual person experience the same thing by virtue of the way his or her brain is ‘wired’? Surely your actual psychological complementarity is a function of the person you are, which includes your orientation?