Homosexuality and Tolerance

[Amandil]

I don’t think I denied any of what you just wrote. Although I’m somewhat put off to the focus on being attracted to bodies, not persons. This is a theological error.

JPII:

It’s probably better, psychotheologically, to be attracted to *persons *of the same sex than to be attracted to body parts of the opposite sex. But I won’t insist on the point.

And it must be said that the attraction is limited to either philio(brotherly), storge(friendship), or agape(charity/self-sacrificial) forms of love and never *eros/](lust or love of the flesh).

Modern polemic regarding homosexuality is an attempt to fudge these distinctions and muddy the waters by disguising what is obviously eros, which is the lowest form of love, and claiming that it rises to the same level of agape.

That’s why they use the word “love” equivocally and use their confused idea of love to excuse or justify any evil that fits their ends.*

 

[rossum]

It is a strawman because I never said anything about infertile couples.

No, you ignored them. I pointed out the gap in your argument. You said:

Since a male and female CAN generate a child through coitus it necessarily follows that homosexuality is necessarily worse than heterosexuality.

I was discussing the cases that your argument does NOT cover, where a heterosexual couple is infertile. Since the Church allows infertile married couples to have licit intercourse, then it is obvious that fertility is not a requirement for licit intercourse. Hence your argument based on fertility fails.

These couples, and this is the essential point, always remain open to the be getting of children and God’s creative action.

Fertile couples are open. Infertile couples are not open. Infertility is again not a bar. Your attempt at a general argument fails because it is not general.

Homosexual acts by their very nature are closed to God’s creative action.

Acts between infertile couples are also closed to God’s creative action. Again it is obvious that you need to find something other than fertility to support your argument.

rossum

 

[rossum]

There is a difference between a paradox and a contradiction. The statement that “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth” is a contradiction.

A contradiction is self-referent. My sig is not self-referent. My sig is a statement about something. In this case it is a statement about ultimate truth. It is not itself ultimate truth. Since it is not self-referent then it cannot be a contradiction.

To expand my sig a bit: “Any statement that claims to be Ultimate Truth is not Ultimate Truth.” I am making a meta-statement. I am not talking about ultimate truth, but about statements claiming to be ultimate truth.

Consider something simpler, like bread. Bread can assuage hunger. Statements about bread, like “Bread is made from wheat,” do not assuage hunger. A statement about X is not X, it is a statement about X.

The Zen proverb about mistaking the finger pointing to the moon for the moon applies here. My sig is another, more philosophical, way of making the same point.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Well, no, teleology is not specific to “your religion.” It was noticed and acknowledged throughout human history even by pagan religions and has been the predominant principle guiding human thought in almost all cultures.

Buddhism does not have a final cause, in the sense that the Abrahamic religions do. If there is a final cause, then it is each of us, who have shaped the world around us by our previous actions. Actions have consequences, and we are all living with the consequences of our previous actions. Hence the cause of the world we find ourselves in is ourselves.

It has only been in the last 200 years or so

How is this relevant to Buddhism? Buddhism is older than Christianity.

What is it that makes “general rules of law” authoritative or even “right” if there is no ultimate truth?

Actions have consequences. If you do not wish the consequences, then don’t do the actions. Remember that Buddhism has no concept of sin. There are wise action, that lead to good consequences and unwise actions that lead to bad consequences. You are assuming too much of the Abrahamic approach and trying to apply it to Buddhism.

It appears that your argument reduces to “the will of the majority” ought to be imposed merely because it is the will of the majority and not because it has any claim to being right or true.

My apologies for not making my argument clearer. I am not actually putting forward any argument of my own. I am merely pointing out the logical flaws in the arguments presented here. If this were a debate, I would not be proposing a positive argument of my own; I would merely point out the flaws in my opponent’s argument.

rossum

 

[Amandil]

No, you ignored them. I pointed out the gap in your argument. You said:

I was discussing the cases that your argument does NOT cover, where a heterosexual couple is infertile. Since the Church allows infertile married couples to have licit intercourse, then it is obvious that fertility is not a requirement for licit intercourse. Hence your argument based on fertility fails.

Fertile couples are open. Infertile couples are not open. Infertility is again not a bar. Your attempt at a general argument fails because it is not general.

Acts between infertile couples are also closed to God’s creative action. Again it is obvious that you need to find something other than fertility to support your argument.

rossum

Wrong again. You’re misrepresenting the teaching of the Church and committing the naturalistic fallacy of trying to argue more from less. Infertile couples have done nothing to make themselves infertile nor us the conjugal act of a heterosexual married couple in itself do anything that hampers fertility or causes infertility. Their infertility is extrinsic to their conjugal acts.

The diagnosis of their “infertility” does not always negate any possibility of fertility in the future.

Even among post-post-menopausal couples they do not offend natural law because they to nothing to distort the conjugal act.

Homosexual acts by the very fact that they are done shut off the procreative aspect of sex. They are chosen acts which in and of themselves willfully shut off fertility. And its even arguable that they distort the unitive aspect as well because no real union is sought but it is rather the seeking of mere personal sensual pleasure, not personal communion with another person.

In any case you’re conclusions are erroneous.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Homosexual acts by the very fact that they are done shut off the procreative aspect of sex. They are chosen acts which in and of themselves willfully shut off fertility. **And its even arguable that they distort the unitive aspect as well **because no real union is sought but it is rather the seeking of mere personal sensual pleasure, not personal communion with another person.

As a man who is attracted to other men, I would like to comment on this, since I think it is very important.

There is nothing wrong with there being unity between two men, or two women – and it can be a very meaningful and deep unity. God wants that for us. After all, heaven is the eternal unity of persons.

Many homosexual romantic relationships are very good friendships, and very meaningful. Many homosexual couples do things that encourage this type of friendship (philia) and unity. These are generally good things, since they promote the human good of friendship and human love.

One way of explaining the problem with homosexual sex, however, is that sexual actions between homosexuals do not promote this unity of persons. Other actions do, but sex doesn’t. In marriage, it is different. Sexual union within a marriage can (and often does) help unify a couple spiritually. In homosexual love, sexual union stands in the way of two friends’ unity.

Don’t take my word on this. Read Plato and Socrates. Read Aelred of Rilveaux. Read Shakespeare. Read Wilde. There is a whole tradition of literature written by men who desire intimate relationships with other men, and discover that sexual activity stands in the way of such intimacy.

It’s not that homosexual relationships are merely shallow and pleasure-seeking. But the “sex part” of the relationships makes these relationships more shallow, not less so. (And this is also true of heterosexual relationships where sexual satisfaction justifies actions that are focused more on pleasure than intimacy.)

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

And it must be said that the attraction is limited to either philio(brotherly), storge(friendship), or agape(charity/self-sacrificial) forms of love and never eros/](lust or love of the flesh).

Unfortunately, you are confusing eros with epithumia, which makes it difficult to believe that you know what you’re talking about.
Amandil;11803387:

Modern polemic regarding homosexuality is an attempt to fudge these distinctions and muddy the waters by disguising what is obviously eros

, which is the lowest form of love, and claiming that it rises to the same level of agape.

For more on eros, you might wish to read Benedict XVI’s Deus Caritas Est. The pope emeritus makes it clear that eros is a love of the lower for the higher that finds it’s fulfillment in agape. Eros without agape quickly devolves into epithumia, but without eros and a proper understanding of its relationship to agape, our faith can become “detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life.” (Benedict XVI)

When we speak of an aspect of love in derisive, misleading, or inaccurate terms, we reveal that we don’t actually know what we’re talking about–our speech becomes little more than a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

That’s why they use the word “love” equivocally and use their confused idea of love to excuse or justify any evil that fits their ends.

But here we come to the gist of things. This isn’t about love at all: it’s about them and how horrible and wicked they are. Because, in the end, they are probably not even capable of “personal communion with another person,” so completely do they misapprehend love. After all, if they know love at all, they are only capable of knowing it in its “lowest form.”

All is clear now.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Buddhism does not have a final cause, in the sense that the Abrahamic religions do. If there is a final cause, then it is each of us, who have shaped the world around us by our previous actions. Actions have consequences, and we are all living with the consequences of our previous actions. Hence the cause of the world we find ourselves in is ourselves.

How is this relevant to Buddhism? Buddhism is older than Christianity.

Actions have consequences. If you do not wish the consequences, then don’t do the actions. Remember that Buddhism has no concept of sin. There are wise action, that lead to good consequences and unwise actions that lead to bad consequences. You are assuming too much of the Abrahamic approach and trying to apply it to Buddhism.

If Buddhism does subscribe to wise action leading to good consequences in any objective sense, then it, too, has a teleological view of behaviour. In spite of the fact that you deny a “final good” in Buddhism, which is not a necessary aspect of distinctively teleological paradigms, what you have said above does not demonstrate that ‘ends’ in a teleological sense are absent from Buddhism since “good consequences” appear, at least, to be ends.

My point about the last 200 years was that secular humanism and scientism have insisted that objective ends do not exist, except those that human endeavor creates for itself. As far as I understand, imposition of “self” is in itself an “unwise” action in Buddhism, yet ego (willful self) can be the only possible driving force for action absent objectively deteminable ends.

My apologies for not making my argument clearer. I am not actually putting forward any argument of my own. I am merely pointing out the logical flaws in the arguments presented here. If this were a debate, I would not be proposing a positive argument of my own; I would merely point out the flaws in my opponent’s argument.

rossum

Keep being so refined and dignified in your posts and I’ll have no choice but to pay you a due measure of respect

 

[Peter_Plato]

A contradiction is self-referent. My sig is not self-referent. My sig is a statement about something. In this case it is a statement about ultimate truth. It is not itself ultimate truth. Since it is not self-referent then it cannot be a contradiction.

To expand my sig a bit: “Any statement that claims to be Ultimate Truth is not Ultimate Truth.” I am making a meta-statement. I am not talking about ultimate truth, but about statements claiming to be ultimate truth.

rossum

I am not clear that a denial of “Ultimate Truth” does not, itself, rise, at least, to the same level as “Ultimate Truth” merely by making an “ultimate” statement of denial. How would anyone be in a position to claim anything about “Ultimate Truth” without rising to a metaphysically superior position relative to Ultimate Truth, i.e., one even more ULTIMATE than Ultimate Truth?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Grace & Peace!

Unfortunately, you are confusing eros with epithumia, which makes it difficult to believe that you know what you’re talking about.

I’m glad someone else said that, I don’t normally like applying that much burn to someone.

For more on eros, you might wish to read Benedict XVI’s Deus Caritas Est. The pope emeritus makes it clear that eros is a love of the lower for the higher that finds it’s fulfillment in agape. Eros without agape quickly devolves into epithumia, but without eros and a proper understanding of its relationship to agape, our faith can become “detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life.” (Benedict XVI)

When we speak of an aspect of love in derisive, misleading, or inaccurate terms, we reveal that we don’t actually know what we’re talking about–our speech becomes little more than a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

Indeed, one should also see St. John of the Cross’s description of longing for God as eros. Amandil’s view of eros is rather Nietzschean instead of Catholic.

But here we come to the gist of things. This isn’t about love at all: it’s about them and how horrible and wicked they are. Because, in the end, they are probably not even capable of “personal communion with another person,” so completely do they misapprehend love. After all, if they know love at all, they are only capable of knowing it in its “lowest form.”

All is clear now.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I do detest the pervasive othering of LGBT people amongst my fellow Catholics; that attitude is rather unCatholic.

 

[Amandil]

Grace & Peace!

Unfortunately, you are confusing eros with epithumia, which makes it difficult to believe that you know what you’re talking about.

I never claimed to be the Greek scholar you apparently are. So please I beg your forgiveness for my foolish ignorance and bow to your great majesty.

For more on eros, you might wish to read Benedict XVI’s Deus Caritas Est. The pope emeritus makes it clear that eros is a love of the lower for the higher that finds it’s fulfillment in agape. Eros without agape quickly devolves into epithumia, but without eros and a proper understanding of its relationship to agape, our faith can become “detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life.” (Benedict XVI)

Then it also follows that those who don’t understand eros and its proper relationship to agape, their love can also become “detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart” as well.

IOW, the quote makes my point for me.

When we speak of an aspect of love in derisive, misleading, or inaccurate terms, we reveal that we don’t actually know what we’re talking about–our speech becomes little more than a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

The same goes for those who resort to nescience.

But here we come to the gist of things. This isn’t about love at all: it’s about them and how horrible and wicked they are. Because, in the end, they are probably not even capable of “personal communion with another person,” so completely do they misapprehend love. After all, if they know love at all, they are only capable of knowing it in its “lowest form.”

All is clear now.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

What an absurd strawman. Quote me where I explicitly said any of what you’re saying that I said, or retract it.

 

[rossum]

The diagnosis of their “infertility” does not always negate any possibility of fertility in the future.

How is this relevant? Is sin now negated because things might change in future. “I can have sex with a celibate priest because the Church might change its rules for priests in future.” No, I do not think so.

Even among post-post-menopausal couples they do not offend natural law because they to nothing to distort the conjugal act.

Then we are agreed that fertility is not relevant. Infertile couples can have licit sex. Fertility is not a requirement for licit sex.

Homosexual acts by the very fact that they are done shut off the procreative aspect of sex.

As are many licit heterosexual acts which are also shut off from the procreative aspect. Again, fertility is not a requirement.

In any case you’re conclusions are erroneous.

But you can offer no logical support for your stated belief. Fertility is not relevant, and you are trying to base your arguments on fertility.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If Buddhism does subscribe to wise action leading to good consequences in any objective sense, then it, too, has a teleological view of behaviour.

There is teleological (goal-directed) behaviour in Buddhism. Every living thing has a degree of goal-directed behaviour: gods, men, animals. Even plants have it a little, as with sunflowers tracking the sun.

Buddhism does not reify this observed teleological behaviours into a single large overall teleology for the entire universe. All reification is incorrect, and this is just another example of an error of reification.

My point about the last 200 years was that secular humanism and scientism have insisted that objective ends do not exist, except those that human endeavor creates for itself. As far as I understand, imposition of “self” is in itself an “unwise” action in Buddhism, yet ego (willful self) can be the only possible driving force for action absent objectively deteminable ends.

Self is another reification. We are an emergent property of our components. Remove all the separate components and there in no “self” left. A traffic jam is something we can all recognise, yet it has no “self”. Remove all the individual cars and there is no “self-of-traffic-jam” left, just empty road. Put the cars back and the traffic jam reappears.

Keep being so refined and dignified in your posts and I’ll have no choice but to pay you a due measure of respect

“Pay”? Hmmm… That will be 15 quatloos please.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I am not clear that a denial of “Ultimate Truth” does not, itself, rise, at least, to the same level as “Ultimate Truth” merely by making an “ultimate” statement of denial. How would anyone be in a position to claim anything about “Ultimate Truth” without rising to a metaphysically superior position relative to Ultimate Truth, i.e., one even more ULTIMATE than Ultimate Truth?

My criticism is not from above, it is from below. “Ultimate Truth” is a reification, and like all reifications it is not real, being present only in our minds. The water in a mirage is present in our minds, but not in the real world. The same for ultimate truth; it is a reification of ordinary contingent truth.

rossum

 

[Amandil]

How is this relevant? Is sin now negated because things might change in future. “I can have sex with a celibate priest because the Church might change its rules for priests in future.” No, I do not think so.

Strawman.

Then we are agreed that fertility is not relevant. Infertile couples can have licit sex. Fertility is not a requirement for licit sex.

Strawman.

As are many licit heterosexual acts which are also shut off from the procreative aspect. Again, fertility is not a requirement.

Too vague to even be addressed. Also a strawman.

But you can offer no logical support for your stated belief. Fertility is not relevant, and you are trying to base your arguments on fertility.

rossum

Strawman.

You can keep trying to misrepresent my arguments and the Church’s teaching all you want, it still doesn’t make what you’re trying to assert true.

 

[Peter_Plato]

My criticism is not from above, it is from below. “Ultimate Truth” is a reification, and like all reifications it is not real, being present only in our minds. The water in a mirage is present in our minds, but not in the real world. The same for ultimate truth; it is a reification of ordinary contingent truth.

rossum

There seems a whole lot of presuming going on here regarding the reality that is in “the real world” and “in our minds.”

At a very basic level the only “reality” that each of us does actually apprehend is the reality that each of our minds has construed about the “real world,” some of which has apparent corroboration in the “real world” based upon reliable, more or less, correspondence with predictability.

Unfortunately, your logic fails because even if “Ultimate Truth” in its reified version exists “in our minds,” you cannot make an ultimate determination that it does not exist in reality without undertaking an exhaustive survey of all that is in reality to determine definitively that “Ultimate Truth” is NOT found there.

Your unfounded premise is that if something exists “in our minds” it is precluded, by that fact, from existing in reality. Just because some things, like mirages, exist in our minds but not in reality, does not demonstrate that all things that exist in minds only exist there. This is clearly false.

The reason we ‘know’ mirages exist only in minds is because we have an independent explanation for their not existing outside our minds. You haven’t done so in order to conclude “Ultimate Truth” does not exist independently of minds that conceive of it AND you cannot merely conclude it doesn’t exist BECAUSE of its conceptual genesis. You haven’t provided any good reasons to think it doesn’t exist “in reality” except to point to the fact that it exists in minds.

It seems to me, by the way, that mirages do not originate in the mind, but are, rather, false interpretations of heat waves that make them appear to be water. It would seem there is something “in reality” that corresponds to the mirage even though it is falsely apprehended by the mind due to the current physiological states of the desert nomad. However, “Ultimate Truth” is a concept that even clear and competent metaphysicians and philosophers can provide good reasons for thinking such could be true. Reasons that are far superior to your mere insistence that existence in the mind precludes existence in reality, which, ultimately, is what your argument amounts to.